Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the surprise-surprise dept.

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.”

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Monday February 16 2015, @03:10AM

    by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Monday February 16 2015, @03:10AM (#145452) Journal

    If you sit down and read the Norton vs Shelby County [findlaw.com] case, it is made clear that the judges were stating that the unConstitutional law in question never was law. It wasn't valid law for the duration spanning its passage and the first (or final) court appeal and then afterwards was suddenly made illegal and void by the decision of the court. The court's core argument was that the offices established by the unConstitutional law in question never had legal force of law. The court wasn't taking action to cause a law to be rendered illegal, but merely made an observation of a pre-existing fact.

    Here's another paragraph from the case to support my point:

    it is contended that if the act creating the board was void, and the commissioners were not officers de jure, they were nevertheless officers de facto, and that the acts of the board as a de facto court are binding upon the county. This contention is met by the fact that there can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office to fill . As the act attempting to create the office of commissioner never became a law, the office never came into existence. Some persons pretended that they held the office, but the law never recognized their pretensions

  • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday February 17 2015, @12:32PM

    by cafebabe (894) on Tuesday February 17 2015, @12:32PM (#146077) Journal

    While it is reasonable for someone to be righted for illegal seizure or illegal imprisonment, an unconstitutional law which creates office is more contentious because it creates a situation where a person may be retrospectively found to be impersonating a public official and/or embezzling public funds. I suppose anyone taking office should do due diligence and read the law. However, the burden is quite high if an individual and the Supreme Court have differing interpretation.

    --
    1702845791×2