Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yahoo CEO Says It Would Be Treason To Decline To Cooperate With the NSA

Posted by samzenpus on from the tell-us-everything dept.

McGruber writes "During Wednesday's TechCrunch Disrupt conference, Marissa Meyer was asked what would happen if Yahoo simply declined to cooperate with the NSA. She replied 'Releasing classified information is treason. It generally lands you incarcerated.' Meyer also revealed that the 2007 lawsuit against the Patriot Act had been filed by Yahoo: 'I'm proud to be part of an organization that from the very beginning in 2007, with the NSA and FISA and PRISM, has been skeptical and has scrutinized those requests. In 2007 Yahoo filed a lawsuit against the new Patriot Act, parts of PRISM and FISA, we were the key plaintiff. A lot of people have wondered about that case and who it was. It was us ... we lost. The thing is, we lost and if you don't comply it's treason.'"

13 of 524 comments (clear)

  1. Treason.. or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Patriotism?

    1. Re:Treason.. or... by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Either way it's a crap excuse.

      Treason is the act of sabotage, destruction, sedition, and suchlike. Refusing a search w/o a *proper* warrant is not treason. Secret court generated 'warrants' do not count as being proper by any stretch of common law.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Treason.. or... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We will always be at war with Terror, citizen.

    3. Re:Treason.. or... by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem here is that she may be totally right, under the interpretation of secret courts whose rulings we don't know. If she has been told in a secret court ruling that failure to comply with these requests constitutes treason (no matter how indefensible that ruling may be), then she is correct in asserting that such is the case. What is even worse is that she could not even tell us if that was the case.

      Secret courts and secret laws are an existential threat to democratic society: they remove the oversight of the populace in regulating the judicial process, and inevitably lead to abuse. A law you must obey but cannot be told the expectations of can be nothing but a tool of tyranny.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    4. Re:Treason.. or... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're talking about the federal government here. It no longer has to abide by this "Constitution you speak of, and if you invoke it in a court case, the feds can declare your argument "frivolous" and ignore it.

    5. Re:Treason.. or... by Swampash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Oer the laaaaaand of the sheep, and the hooooooome of the whipped"

    6. Re:Treason.. or... by foniksonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She has a duty to the shareholders of Yahoo to do what is best for them.

      Right now at this time it appears that the best interests are served by complying.

      If you want corporations to fight, buy shares - get a group together to buy more shares, buy up all of the companies that run the infrastructure of the country, then use them to fight a proxy war with the current federal government.

      Vote with your wallets. Vote with organization. Just hope that the new masters (whomever ends up with controlling interest) are better than what we have now.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    7. Re:Treason.. or... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She has a duty to the shareholders of Yahoo to do what is best for them.

      And as an American, she also has a duty to her nation and her fellow citizens.
      A nation founded on ideals expressed in its written Constitution, over which the NSA secret courts trample.
      Her association with a corporation does not excuse her from that responsibility.

      Nobody should ever be excused of working against the citizenry of this country simply because the profits of a corporation and its select shareholders were at risk.

      Now, in this particular case, Ms Mayer seems to indicate that she is opposed to the orders and - through her organization - has fought these orders in court. Unfortunately, the courts ruled against her and Yahoo decided to obey the court orders. And despite her poor choice of words regarding the reasoning for her actions following the court's decision (e.g., "treason"), I'd even be willing to believe that she - and Yahoo - will continue to "fight the good fight", for whatever reason. So it seems that this is not just a case of protecting Yahoo shareholders and that's a good thing..

      But the idea that the sole responsibility CEOs have is to their corporate masters needs to die.

    8. Re:Treason.. or... by kermidge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Secret courts and secret laws are an existential threat to democratic society...."

      By which I take it to mean that since we do have secret laws and secret courts then we do not have a democratic society, only some of its superficial trappings.

  2. I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hereby, as a prior serviceman who swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, pledge my rifle if Mr. Zuckerberg or Ms. Mayer, CEOs of Facebook and Yahoo respectively, come out with the truth of the extent of violation by the government against the privacy of the citizens of the United States of America. And herby pledge my rifle to the their defense, the defense of the Constitution and freedom of speech if either is arrested, charged and sentenced for treason in regards to the matter of the NSA's unconstitutional espionage on U.S. citizens. This is a reminder that the government is to serve the People, not the other way around.

    ***

    U.S. CONSTITUTION : AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION : ARTICLE IV
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Government agencies not specifically sent this message that reading this, please

  3. Define Treason by gishzida · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's like asking "what do you mean by sex?" and yet... how is what Snowden did treason? All he has done is reveal the fact that the three branches of our government have basically said "we have the right to spy on you be cause we say so. and if you reveal the fact that we are violating your rights under the constitution they pull the magic "States Secrets" bunny out of the hat that waves its magic wand and gags those that would speak because it is treason... Um... How's that again? Where does it say that "State Secrets" trumps the constitution?

  4. Really.... by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it was more so, that "Hey, we will arrest you. Crash your company. And or replace you. And we'll use illicit means to make it happen. Hell, we might just bump you off if you don't comply. Either way your company will comply, whether its you or the next guy."

  5. Re:No, it wouldn't be treason by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and according the constitution they shouldn't be doing blanket spying in the first place, so what exactly is your point?

    they'll call it treason if they want to. they can call it aiding the (potential, mind you) enemy if they want to. and they includes the court they choose and their actions are backed up by the united states military so what exactly would you do? the only option is to close up shop or give in.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.