Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the tell-us-everything dept.

Yahoo! 524

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.'"

cancel ×

524 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Treason.. or... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835595)

Patriotism?

Re:Treason.. or... (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year ago | (#44835623)

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.

Re:Treason.. or... (4, Insightful)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year ago | (#44835675)

Don't we have to have a declared war to actually have a true charge of treason?

Re:Treason.. or... (5, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | about a year ago | (#44835753)

We will always be at war with Terror, citizen.

Re:Treason.. or... (4, Interesting)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about a year ago | (#44835929)

Yet no American has been convicted of Treason since the 50s.

Re:Treason.. or... (2)

SnarfQuest (469614) | about a year ago | (#44835981)

Didn't Obama declare the war on terror as being over?

Re:Treason.. or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44836089)

May be. Finally we (USG) found a war that is going to last forever and it is war with citizens! Heee Haaa!

Re:Treason.. or... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44836091)

ITM fellow shitizen.

Re:Treason.. or... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835845)

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Re:Treason.. or... (-1, Flamebait)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#44835867)

Don't we have to have a declared war to actually have a true charge of treason?

No.

But if this Meyer woman thinks that failure to disclose confidential information to the NSA constitutes treason, then she's a dumbass bimbo who doesn't know the meaning of the word, of which every definition implies an action counter to the interests of the state. Failure to take some action might be an offence of another kind, but it cannot be treason.

Re:Treason.. or... (5, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | about a year ago | (#44835921)

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.

Re:Treason.. or... (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#44836101)

Failure to take some action might be an offence of another kind, but it cannot be treason.

You say it's a non-act. I say it's an active act of non-compliance. Are you willing to bet your life on the government using your definition and not mine?

Re:Treason.. or... (3, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44835913)

Don't we have to have a declared war to actually have a true charge of treason?

Google is your friend [cornell.edu] (but they're scared shitless of the government, too, just like this lady is)

Article III Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Re:Treason.. or... (5, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#44835693)

Treason is the act of sabotage, destruction, sedition, and suchlike.

No, it's not.

From the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

This is not to suggest that sabotage, destruction, sedition and suchlike might not be crimes. But they're NOT treason in and of themselves.

Much as some people (both in and out of government) might like to convince you they are.

Re:Treason.. or... (3, Insightful)

Kaenneth (82978) | about a year ago | (#44835727)

I'm sure 'Aid and Comfort' can be stretched at least as far as 'interstate commerce' or 'general welfare'

Re:Treason.. or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835829)

Except that there is no common law precedent for doing so (AFAIK), and to make that stretch would be to take a huge gamble as to what happens under appeal.

Re:Treason.. or... (5, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44835931)

Except that there is no common law precedent for doing so (AFAIK), and to make that stretch would be to take a huge gamble as to what happens under appeal.

Luckily, you don't have to worry about common law precedent and appeals so much in trials held in a secret court.

Aid and Comfort is often referred to as "harboring a fugitive" -- which, if Yahoo Mail has evidence of where someone is hiding or what they are up to, and Yahoo has the means to ferret that out, but doesn't provide the information to the government when they ask for it with a warrant, could be considered treason. From there to providing any information to the government because they've requested it, and being in contempt of a secret court if you refuse to do so or talk about it, is the slippery slope we've slid down.

Re:Treason.. or... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835957)

That "bimbo" as you put it with whatever infinite wisdom and technical expertise and responsibility you think you have, was talking pragmatically about the consequences Yahoo faces from the government's perspective. She wasn't speaking philosophically or even metaphorically. She probably knows just a little more about the issue than you do being that her company did fight it and lost. She probably is aware of what threats the NSA has made to Yahoo. So how about you give her some slack, or just show a bit of respect since it's not your neck that's on the line, and so far you haven't done much to fight the NSA either.

Re:Treason.. or... (2, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44835837)

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.

Warrants are pretty much always requested in a confidential setting. Experience has shown that when you call ahead to tell people you're getting a search warrant, or their friends tell them, evidence tends to disappear. The only thing that is different here is that the recipients of the warrant can't tell people they received it. Since they aren't the suspects, letting them inform other people that there is an investigation going on about them would interfere with what is a highly sensitive investigation. So you don't really have that right. The warrants are apparently legal and proper. Congress passed the laws authorizing them, and the courts have allowed them.

Since these warrants tend to be used for national security investigations, such as into spying and terrorism, how to you think that telling people they are being investigated isn't a bad thing?

Re:Treason.. or... (0)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#44835895)

Experience has shown that when you call ahead to tell people you're getting a search warrant, or their friends tell them, evidence tends to disappear.

ORLY? Is this your personal experience? are you a cop? i doubt it, but you talk like you have some direct insight here. protip: stick to making grandiose claims about things you know first hand.

Re:Treason.. or... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44835943)

The US law is clear 'pretty much always requested" does not work well in any domestic US legal setting. The defendants legal team (security cleared) still gets to see evidence. They still get to ask questions. Lawyers in the US dont like terms like "apparently legal and proper"
"Congress passed the laws authorizing" does not undo, loop around, remove or weaken any constitutional rights.

Re:Treason.. or... (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44836055)

Being a defendant means an arrest has taken place, charges have been filed, and things are heading to court. Yes, at that point the defendant's legal team can oppose motions, etc. But while the investigation prior to arrest is going on, there is no defendant, or legal team, to oppose the warrant.

Re:Treason.. or... (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44835965)

Since these warrants tend to be used for national security investigations, such as into spying and terrorism, how to you think that telling people they are being investigated isn't a bad thing?

Maybe they should skip the warrants and courts and everything, and just go to notifying people they are being investigated. If the evidence disappears, that means it can't be used. Plot foiled.

That's just one way off the top of my head that it isn't a bad thing. I'm sure there are others.

Re:Treason.. or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835851)

I wonder if she was told that it would be treason by someone in law enforcement (they are allowed to lie, after all). Perhaps, as so many other citizens would, she believed what she was told. That's unfortunate for someone in her position, but sadly quite normal.

Besides, the way the words "traitor", "treason", "un-American" and "terrorist" are thrown around, their actual meanings are diluted in common speech by all that hyperbole.

Re:Treason.. or... (2)

bitt3n (941736) | about a year ago | (#44835855)

Indeed, it's exceedingly difficult to get convicted of treason in the US. The list of people who have been could fit on a postcard [wikipedia.org] and mostly involves things like defecting to the Waffen SS during WWII and similar wartime indiscretions.

Re:Treason.. or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835863)

A secret court is treason in itself towards any country they exist and obviously its own citizens.

Re:Treason.. or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835905)

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.

Somebody has been living under a rock since 2001. Ever heard of the Patriot act?

Re:Treason.. or... (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44836017)

Wait, look at what she's saying closely; I think she's saying that "we tried to take a stand against the Gov's bs, but in the end we crumbled." I think she's simply stating the nature of the situation; if you go against them, its treason. I don't think she's nessessarily a Patriot Act booster. But then I could simply be dazzled by a hot CEO.

Re:Treason.. or... (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year ago | (#44836079)

There are also procedures for marking stuff as classified, and you can't just stamp it on anything that's embarrassing. (There are tables, there's no reason to post them here.)

If you do, that's a violation of the same act that she's talking about.

Well... (4, Funny)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44835599)

She's fired.

Way to stand up for our rights... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835605)

...by letting them watch our data anyway.

sensational (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835607)

The quote I read was that "she feared she would be jailed for treason."

That's a nice Slashdot Twist on the quote to make the headline.

Summary Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835613)

Marissa seems to be saying only that it would be treason to talk about what would happen.

No, it wouldn't be treason (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#44835617)

Article 3, Section 3, US Constitution.

Learn it, love it, live it.

Doesn't this guy have a metric f*ckton of lawyers to explain these little legal niceties to him???

Re:No, it wouldn't be treason (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835659)

Um, her...

Re:No, it wouldn't be treason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835699)

Doesn't this guy have a metric f*ckton of lawyers to explain these little legal niceties to him???

She's a gal, not a guy. Otherwise, good point.

Re:No, it wouldn't be treason (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#44835735)

Ok, this WOMAN/GAL/GIRL/LADY (pick one) - I was trying to avoid use of the first two words that came to mind when I was writing the post, which were "idiot" and "moron"....

Re:No, it wouldn't be treason (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44835777)

Here's a link [cornell.edu] to a very credible source. They taught us this in middle school. In fact, there's a state-mandated constitution test in Illinois, don't know about elsewhere.

This "guy's" name's Marissa Meyer. She's a woman. And she's a tool.

Re:No, it wouldn't be treason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44836065)

Doesn't this guy have a metric f*ckton of lawyers to explain these little legal niceties to him???

She's a draft exempt clitoris, genetically programmed to get on her knees and become a base-camp whore when life gets hard

I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... (5, Insightful)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year ago | (#44835619)

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

Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835747)

Shove your rifle in your fat ass, loser. Nobody cares about your rifle

Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835785)

Pipe down, adults are talking.

Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... (2, Insightful)

Grog6 (85859) | about a year ago | (#44836097)

He's one of the paid trolls, likely by the nsa.

Nice, that.

Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#44835749)

The problem there is that the courts are typically deferential to the other branches on issues of national security. Basically they're afraid that if they say no and something happens that they'll be responsible.

The only reason why the high court started saying no to Bush was that Bush started acting like the court didn't have authority over anything he was doing. Had he kept his ego in check, the SCrOTUmS decisions would likely have continued in his favor.

Ultimately, as long as the SCrOTUmS don't feel like doing their job of ruling on the constitutionality of things, then there's very little shy of some form of rebellion that's going to change it.

Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835751)

I don't have a gun, nor will I ever. But I have a middle finger, and pledge it's extension to the same as the above.

Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835833)

Thanks.

Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44835953)

There is a legal proverb that states, "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." Have you put yourself on that path? Do you understand the domains criminal law, national security law, and Constitutional law, and their interplay? I see you quote only one amendment, but say nothing about an entire relevant article of the Constitution, nor about relevant court cases that are precedent for the law when it is an issue in the courts. You are on dangerous ground, my friend, dangerous ground. Think carefully before proceeding.

Surveillance Court Upholds Bush on Warrantless Wiretapping [nationalreview.com]

The New York Times reports that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review — the specialized federal appeals court created by the 1978 FISA statute to rule on questions involving national security surveillance — has reaffirmed that the President of the United States has inherent constitutional authority to monitor international communications without court permission. ...

President Bush’s Terrorist Surveillance Program — carried out by the NSA without court oversight, just as wartime presidents have always conducted national security surveillance without court oversight — always stood on strong authority, including a 2002 ruling from the same Foreign Intelligence Court of Review.

I see you did leave an out though, since the charge almost certainly won't be "treason."

Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... (4, Funny)

CODiNE (27417) | about a year ago | (#44836003)

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

Damn they got him before he could even finish his post!

Re:I hearby pledged my oath and rifle... (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44836015)

You pledge your rifle to their defense -- will that hold if you discover what else they've been up to? You are, after all, giving them a similar deal to what the US government gave AT&T (who, by the way, use Yahoo Mail for their mail service).

I think you may want to be a bit more specific in how you're defending them.

The heart of this issue (4, Informative)

Herman Wiliker (2846615) | about a year ago | (#44835621)

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.

so betray your users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835627)

They had a choice to betray their government or their users[its citizens].

They chose poorly.

Really.... (5, Insightful)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year ago | (#44835685)

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."

How misleading. (4, Interesting)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about a year ago | (#44835631)

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.

You guys are hooped. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835633)

So it's treason NOT to co-operate with the NSA.

But it's NOT treason for the NSA to share their (illegally obtained?) information with other countries.

I guess the question now is... What are you all going to do about it? They made the rules of the game, so playing by the rules isn't going to get you anywhere anymore.

Re:You guys are hooped. (4, Funny)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about a year ago | (#44835713)

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....

Meyer is completely wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835635)

A government that is willingly violating the Constitutional rights of citizens is committing treason.

Companies and their executives who facilitate such violations are traitors as well.

Once you bend to pressure . . . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835643)

you set precedence. Big Business cooperation with the government is what got us here in the first place.

For this reason, we no longer trust either of you.

Define Treason (5, Insightful)

gishzida (591028) | about a year ago | (#44835645)

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?

Re:Define Treason (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#44836025)

We don't have to "define treason". The Constitution does that quite nicely in Article 3, Section 3.

misleading headline is misleading (4, Insightful)

iveygman (1303733) | about a year ago | (#44835649)

She's not saying that it's treasonous not to cooperate, but rather lamenting the fact that they're being forced to comply.

Re:misleading headline is misleading (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year ago | (#44835695)

Uh, she said she could wind up going to jail for treason.

Re:misleading headline is misleading (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835799)

just got home and don't have the energy to RTFA, but the last sentence clearly states that the court ruling in her suit identified a 'lack of cooperation' as 'treason'

misleading headline was meant to be misleading: she calls betraying the constitution by revealing private documents w/o a warrant treason, but she'll be charged with treason if she doesn't

Re:misleading headline is misleading (0)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44835861)

No, she's just too selfish and cowardly to do the right thing. It's clear if you read the article. They sued for the right to speak and lost, if they blabbed they'd go to prison.

Say What? - (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835665)

It's treason to not comply with an activity that has repeatedly been found illegal?

This is insanity. There are apparently two Americas struggling for power with one another, and only one of them even entertains the idea that it is a constitutional republic. That America is losing badly.

Dang, ... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year ago | (#44835707)

You just made me realize that we're on Team Oracle's yacht and losing badly. Penalized -2 to begin with, and now one race to 6.

damned if you do damned if you dont (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835667)

Because its treason against the people if you comply willy nilly

Re:damned if you do damned if you dont (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year ago | (#44835715)

Except the people aren't going to arrest you, or send Mr. Smith to run your car off the road in a freak accident.

Re:damned if you do damned if you dont (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835879)

true, but there's no compelling evidence that the people will stand with you in court if you are arrested (assuming the court proceedings are held publicly) or help you when they see Mr Smith closing in

we've gotten kinda soft lately

What does it mean by "treason" ? (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year ago | (#44835689)

'Releasing classified information is treason.'

Here's the definition of the word "TREASON", courtesy of Google:

  • 1. The crime of betraying one's country

    2. The action of betraying someone or something

I sincerely hope that Ms. Meyer isn't stupid.

I sincerely hope that Yahoo has hired a CEO who ought to be able to discern the difference between a country and a government

In fact, treason has been committed, by the current government of the United States, against the very country of the United States of America

Anyone who chose to side with the treacherous regime that is lording over the citizens of the United States of America could be, in future, charged with treason

Re:What does it mean by "treason" ? (4, Insightful)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about a year ago | (#44835787)

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.

Re:What does it mean by "treason" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44836001)

I sincerely hope that Ms. Meyer isn't stupid.

That's the option that paints her in the best light possible. The others are "coward" or "fascist".

Re:What does it mean by "treason" ? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44836013)

In fact, treason has been committed, by the current government of the United States, against the very country of the United States of America

Anyone who chose to side with the treacherous regime that is lording over the citizens of the United States of America could be, in future, charged with treason

Well, you get right on forming that new government and let us know when its ready to take charge.

Or is this what you're talking about? Sovereign Citizens: Radicals Exercising 'God-Given Rights' or Fueling Domestic Terrorism? [go.com]

READ the Constitution Marissa (3, Informative)

Specter (11099) | about a year ago | (#44835723)

No, Marissa, it is not treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

That's treason. Releasing classified information isn't treason per se unless it meets one of the Constitutional criteria laid out above.

Re:READ the Constitution Marissa (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835865)

Lawyers and politicians love to twist things around though. Some would argue that anything you do that is not 100% in support of our government is giving the enemy aid and comfort. For example, criticizing Obama could be comfort to the enemy. The meaning behind the words are not sufficiently precise.

Re:READ the Constitution Marissa (3, Interesting)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year ago | (#44835945)

So protecting foreign combatants by intentionally masking their communications and refusing to assist the federal government in their apprehension is NOT giving them aid and/or comfort.

I'm curious...if it were drug runners laundering money through a major US bank, would you consider that assisting them in such a way that would be against the RICO act?

(note: I'm not siding with the government, or against those who would give the NSA the middle finger - let them do their own legwork, but I'm curious where you draw the line, and how straight that line is)

Re:READ the Constitution Marissa (1)

kylemonger (686302) | about a year ago | (#44836053)

It doesn't matter what treason is. The point is that she of the 1% isn't going to rot in Federal prison or in exile for the likes of you, me, the Fourth Amendment, or anything else that might make our socks roll up and down. That there is even one Edward Snowden in this fetid, materialistic country is a miracle that has restored some of my hope for the future.

Actually, complying is treason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835725)

Can we start a list of these people so we know who to dump in the mass grave when the revolution comes and we restore the rule of law?

She also wants her cake (0)

future assassin (639396) | about a year ago | (#44835745)

cake and eat it in a free country. Shes don't give a flying fuck, she has a corporate jet to escape America. America you gonna get what you deserve for not standing up. Bunch of pussies.

"We were only following orders" (0)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year ago | (#44835761)

Yet another lame excuse that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There are way too many cowards and boot-lickers in this country and not enough people willing to stand up for what this country was supposed to be about, not what it's being made into.

a historical note: (5, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year ago | (#44835763)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance [wikipedia.org]

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

Re:a historical note: (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44836075)

Thanks for that insight into US history and UK law.

Treason is in the Constitution (2)

mbone (558574) | about a year ago | (#44835765)

It is the only crime defined there :

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Don't see anything there about not cooperating with the authorities.

Re:Treason is in the Constitution (3, Insightful)

organgtool (966989) | about a year ago | (#44835917)

That's the beauty of a war on ideology: anyone who opposes your ideological values can be branded a traitor.

Re:Treason is in the Constitution (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44835983)

Remember, US is in (cyber) war against all the world (except Israel, as least it seems so for the information given to them), and probably other english speaking countries, despite that the attacked countries realize the situation or not. Helping other countries to realize that they are being unilaterally attacked by US count on their books as treason.

I just hope that the other countries realize what is the actual situation, and stop giving US in a silver plate the bullets to get shot by them.

Re:Treason is in the Constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44836039)

Treason isn't only defined in the Constitution. And in any case, it's plainly written in your quotation; the language having been expanded to mean that virtually anything can be considered aid and comfort. That's the problem. We've allowed these definitions to become vague. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian; it's all the same.

More like corporate suicide (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835771)

More like corporate suicide!

Re:More like corporate suicide (1)

djupedal (584558) | about a year ago | (#44835925)

More like corporate suicide!

Right - she said what the govt. lawyers told her. She didn't say what her personal feelings are, which is only fair from a corporate mouthpiece.

Yahoo has a great approach to this... (1)

bitt3n (941736) | about a year ago | (#44835775)

rather than treasonously reporting government info requests, every time they receive such a request they will make their logo slightly blander. by this time next year, it'll look just like helvetica

YAHOO == NAZIS ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835779)

Arbeit macht Frei !!

Valley Girl in Yahoo claims CREDIT for being a Nazi !!

Perhaps (1)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about a year ago | (#44835781)

Mass civil disobedience (followed by public outrage hopefully) could be the answer, even in this case?
Am i simply being delusional if i hope corporations could do that?

Four legs bad, two legs good (2, Insightful)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about a year ago | (#44835803)

We're approaching the end game of fascism in America. The country has had a good run but alas humans can't stop being humans and so this country will crumble under its weight like all countries before it.

Re:Four legs bad, two legs good (2)

wrackspurt (3028771) | about a year ago | (#44836057)

I've been trying for some time to come up with reasons to disagree with what you've posted. I readily admit I'm not doing all that well. I've one hypothesis and that is that democratic states with all the freedoms such states entail will generally win out over less democratic states because freedom of speech and assembly among other fundamental rights inherently provide efficiencies that less democratic states lack. This idea doesn't necessarily apply to special cases like China today which is playing catchup by stealing our methods, or, even necessarily to contemporary Russia which is selling off it's natural resources without provisions for the future. It does hold over the long run, but then as Keynes pointed out, over the long run we're all dead.

Another Violator of the Constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835815)

Normally, corporations cannot violate people's civil rights. However, when they do so at the direction of the US government, then they can. Marissa Mayer is complicit in the violation of the civil rights of millions of Americans.

can we call what Yahoo did to Flickr "treason"? (1, Offtopic)

themushroom (197365) | about a year ago | (#44835817)

Because someone needs to be swinging from a yard arm or given a blindfold and a cig for how badly Marissa boned Flickr.

No Such Agency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44835831)

Well, since it doesn't exist, why should we bend towards it?

Corporations are people? (1)

Patent Lover (779809) | about a year ago | (#44835973)

So what happens if a corporation commits treason? Methinks, like murder, nothing.

Why not just move?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44836007)

Why not move all of Yahoo (and their servers) from the U.S. to Europe or any other country where the U.S. has no say at all?

It could set a major precedent whereby tech companies who provide services such as Yahoo (i.e. Google, etc.) move out of the U.S. permanently. Services they've always provided would still be available to the U.S. of course but the NSA nor any other agency would be able to pressure Yahoo to give them anything as they would no longer be within their jurisdiction.

I'm extremely curious if this would be feasible thing to do for big companies like Yahoo and Google just to uproot and leave America.

Beware of patriots like Mayer (0)

RandCraw (1047302) | about a year ago | (#44836029)

Treason is a rare and essentially non-legal label, normally used only by political blowhards like Senator Joseph McCarthy. And now Melissa Mayer.

I suspect Mayer is trying to make Yahoo look good after they sniveled, cowered, and cringed their way into the NSA's good graces by handing over every imaginable user confidence. While joyously waving the flag, of course.

It's OK though. 'Cause she's a PATRIOT.

Its fun to read comments on this kind of topics (1)

davmoo (63521) | about a year ago | (#44836033)

I hear a lot of tough talk in here. And in theory, I agree with a some of it. But in reality, I have to wonder how many of you would continue that tough talk if it were YOU being questioned or served with a secret warrant by the NSA or any other federal three-letter organization. I'd be willing to bet money that 90 percent of you would wilt like a daisy dropped in Death Valley.

No Treason by Lysander Spooner Part 2, section 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44836071)

The Constitution says:

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

This is the only definition of treason given by the Constitution, and it is to be interpreted, like all other criminal laws, in the sense most favorable to liberty and justice. Consequently the treason here spoken of, must be held to be treason in fact, and not merely something that may have been falsely called by that name.

To determine, then, what is treason in fact, we are not to look to the codes of Kings, and Czars, and Kaisers, who maintain their power by force and fraud; who contemptuously call mankind their "subjects;" who claim to have a special license from heaven to rule on earth; who teach that it is a religious duty of mankind to obey them; who bribe a servile and corrupt priest-hood to impress these ideas upon the ignorant and superstitious; who spurn the idea that their authority is derived from, or dependent at all upon, the consent of their people; and who attempt to defame, by the false epithet of traitors, all who assert their own rights, and the rights of their fellow men, against such usurpations.

Instead of regarding this false and calumnious meaning of the word treason, we are to look at its true and legitimate meaning in our mother tongue; at its use in common life; and at what would necessarily be its true meaning in any other contracts, or articles [*8] of association, which men might voluntarily enter into with each other.

The true and legitimate meaning of the word treason, then, necessarily implies treachery, deceit, breach of faith. Without these, there can be no treason. A traitor is a betrayer --- one who practices injury, while professing friendship. Benedict Arnold was a traitor, solely because, while professing friendship for the American cause, he attempted to injure it. An open enemy, however criminal in other respects, is no traitor.

Neither does a man, who has once been my friend, become a traitor by becoming an enemy, if before doing me an injury, he gives me fair warning that he has become an enemy; and if he makes no unfair use of any advantage which my confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in his power.

For example, our fathers --- even if we were to admit them to have been wrong in other respects --- certainly were not traitors in fact, after the fourth of July, 1776; since on that day they gave notice to the King of Great Britain that they repudiated his authority, and should wage war against him. And they made no unfair use of any advantages which his confidence had previously placed in their power.

It cannot be denied that, in the late war, the Southern people proved themselves to be open and avowed enemies, and not treacherous friends. It cannot be denied that they gave us fair warning that they would no longer be our political associates, but would, if need were, fight for a separation. It cannot be alleged that they made any unfair use of advantages which our confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in their power. Therefore they were not traitors in fact: and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution.

Furthermore, men are not traitors in fact, who take up arms against the government, without having disavowed allegiance to it, provided they do it, either to resist the usurpations of the government, or to resist what they sincerely believe to be such usurpations. [*9]

It is a maxim of law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent. And this maxim is as applicable to treason as to any other crime. For example, our fathers were not traitors in fact, for resisting the British Crown, before the fourth of July, 1776 --- that is, before they had thrown off allegiance to him --- provided they honestly believed that they were simply defending their rights against his usurpations. Even if they were mistaken in their law, that mistake, if an innocent one, could not make them traitors in fact.

For the same reason, the Southern people, if they sincerely believed --- as it has been extensively, if not generally, conceded, at the North, that they did --- in the so-called constitutional theory of "State Rights," did not become traitors in fact, by acting upon it; and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>