SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The New York Times reports that President Obama met yesterday with the nation’s top tech executives and company officials on a host of cybersecurity issues and the threats posed by increasingly sophisticated hackers amid a deepening estrangement between Silicon Valley and the government. “What has struck me is the enormous degree of hostility between Silicon Valley and the government,” says Herb Lin. “The relationship has been poisoned, and it’s not going to recover anytime soon.”
American firms are increasingly concerned about international competitiveness, and that means making a very public show of their efforts to defeat American intelligence-gathering by installing newer, harder-to-break encryption systems and demonstrating their distance from the United States government. “In some cases that is driving them to resistance to Washington,” says Obama’s cybersecurity coordinator, Michael Daniel. “But it’s not that simple. In other cases, with what’s going on in China,” where Beijing is insisting that companies turn over the software that is their lifeblood, “they are very interested in getting Washington’s help.”
Silicon Valley execs have also been fuming quietly over the government’s use of zero-day flaws. “The government is realizing they can’t just blow into town and let bygones be bygones,” says Eric Grosse, Google’s vice president of security and privacy. “Our business depends on trust. If you lose it, it takes years to regain.”
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday February 15 2015, @09:00AM
Norton v. Shelby County seems to be one of the only two court cases you are aware of. May I recommend Joe's Garage and Law School, where they will at least teach you to better hide your lack of legal knowledge?
And I agree with your general point. Needs more cowbell.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday February 15 2015, @09:12AM
The Marbury and Norton cases are merely two among a larger number of cases where US courts have acknowledged the principle that an unconstitutional law is invalid upon its inception. They also happen to be the simplest of the cases I've heard about. For those like myself, unburdened with an abundance of brains, it's helpful to be clear and direct; both cited cases are about as straightforward as can be expected from legal minds in high office.
(Score: 1) by mathinker on Monday February 16 2015, @10:14PM
I had always thought that "The parties are advised to chill" [wikipedia.org] was pretty straightforward. A pity it wasn't the whole opinion rather than just its last sentence....