Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo CEO Says It Would Be Treason To Decline To Cooperate With the NSA
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.'"
Patriotism?
She's fired.
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
If a government agency violates the law and demands that you allow them to, it is not treason to hold them accountable. We shall see this play out.
This spin on this article is amazing. What happens if you decline cooperation is classified information. That doesn't mean that declining to cooperate leads to a treason charge, just that whatever happens if you decline, is classified information. Releasing classified information is a treason charge, but that's a separate issue altogether.
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?
She's not saying that it's treasonous not to cooperate, but rather lamenting the fact that they're being forced to comply.
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."
But it's NOT treason for the NSA to share their (illegally obtained?) information with other countries.
Right, because there's no N, S, or A in treason. Oh, wait....
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance
the historical events that served as the basis for the fourth amendment
and exactly the type of abuse the NSA is perpetrating on the american people
what we are talking about with the NSA program is a thorough, gross violation of and clear, undeniable contradiction to a founding principle of this country
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The only entity who's defintion of Treason matters here is the USDOJ. When they jail you, you can scream "this is unjust! what I did isn't really treason!" all you like, but you're still in jail for treason.
Giving aid to the enemy would be considered treason, and what she says at the end of the article is "if you don't comply it's treason." If the target of the inquiry is considered an enemy, as they may in a terrorist investigation, it seems to me not handing over the requested information could be seen as treason. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was spelled out in the court case she's referring to. There's really nothing outrageous about the headline, the real problem is the ease with which agencies can force a company to hand over the information. Personally, I don't take issue with them considering it treason if they're requesting information on a dangerous enemy, I just think it's bull that they can use this on just about anyone with no real oversight, in a manner thought unconstitutional by the court in charge of it.
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.