... you challenge it, pulling out from campaign contributions, and making noise in the press. Microsoft (and Google, and Yahoo, and and and) have billions of dollars they could use to resist pretty much any law they wanted to.
Every day we complain that modern democracies are captive to moneyed commercial interests, and now we should believe that actually, they're completely powerless, oppressed by Big Bad Government? I don't think so.
Except that you can't make noise in the press because doing so could get you arrested for leaking classified information. You can't ignore it, either, because that could also get you arrested. So what do you do? You follow it, probably.
Granted, Microsoft et. al could attempt to lobby politicians to get these sorts of laws reversed, but that's not the position I was arguing against. Specifically, the GP said, "Do you think the government would jail someone of Steve Ballmer's stature if he talked openly about what the government has asked of Microsoft." That's an argument that Ballmer clearly could've talked about these programs because they wouldn't arrest him, but that assumes two things: a) Ballmer knew about this, and b) Ballmer was willing to take the risk that he wouldn't go to prison if he talking about that. Neither of those are a given.
Talking about lobbying is attacking an argument I didn't make, but I'll address it anyway.
From the standpoint of the big companies, lobbying only makes sense before the law is passed if you have no interest in following it. Alternatively, you follow it while lobbying to get it changed. You now have companies attempting to get the government to allow them to talk more openly about what they do with regards to PRISM and so forth. To put it in perspective, if SOPA had've passed, do you think Google et. al would've just ignored it?
Except that you can't make noise in the press because doing so could get you arrested for leaking classified information. You can't ignore it, either, because that could also get you arrested. So what do you do? You follow it, probably.
The standard some have applied to Snowden should also apply to corporate executives: companies should oppose the orders publicly, and "face the music." Ballmer might be arrested, or his family harassed, but he would go from dancing developer monkey to public hero overnight.
You're making the assumption that Ballmer even knew about this, which isn't immediately clear. Someone at Microsoft certainly did, but so did people working within the government. You know, people working for US citizens, ultimately, if you still believe in the whole "government for the people, by the people" thing. So far, only Snowden leaked any of this stuff. I think it's unfair to lay the blame at Ballmer's feet in particular, considering both of those things.
Oh, they all have their fair share of guilt, of course. What I'm saying is that there are citizens and there are citizens. Billionaires like Ballmer, Ellison or Gates, and the corporations they run are, de facto, less amenable to legislative pressure, if anything because they have armies of lawyers ready to blow holes in every book thrown at them. At any point in time, they could have resisted this overreach in many, many ways, and they didn't, so they're as guilty as the power-crazy civil servants and lawmakers who started the whole thing.
... you challenge it, pulling out from campaign contributions, and making noise in the press. Microsoft (and Google, and Yahoo, and and and) have billions of dollars they could use to resist pretty much any law they wanted to.
Every day we complain that modern democracies are captive to moneyed commercial interests, and now we should believe that actually, they're completely powerless, oppressed by Big Bad Government? I don't think so.