That's why the analogy is not interesting; the use of "mafia" is silly because it implies there's some criminal element to Google's intensions. For example, here's the opening line of that Wikipedia page:

> A protection racket is a scheme whereby a criminal group provides protection to businesses through violence outside the sanction of the law.

The only word this has in common with what Google is doing is "protection". The analogy captures nothing useful that "hiring a security guard" doesn't. But it also captures a whole universe of other implications that are entirely unwarranted and laughably unfair. It's a terrible analogy.

"You're just like a mafia don in that you also drive a car."

I should disclaim that I don't think the offering is above suspicion and criticism, just that the comparison to a protection racket is absurd.

>I’m not sure I can say this more clearly: we’re not in cahoots with the NSA and there’s is no government program that Google participates in that allows the kind of access that the media originally reported. Note that I say "originally" because you'll see that many of those original sources corrected their articles after it became clear that the PRISM slides were not accurate. Now, what does happen is that we get specific requests from the government for user data. We review each of those requests and push back when the request is overly broad or doesn't follow the correct process. There is no free-for-all, no direct access, no indirect access, no back door, no drop box.

We’re not in the business of lying and we’re absolutely telling the truth about all of this. Our business depends on the trust of our users. And I’m an executive officer of a large publicly traded company, so lying to the public wouldn’t be the greatest career move.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/googl... http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html

I don't have the legal expertise to say whether one would be forced to lie about it, and the legislation doesn't explicitly use the word lie. However, according to someone who received one and received legal advice: "Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL [...] When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie." [3]

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2709 [2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-recor... [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03...

Here in fact, it says they verified he's the person through publicly available court documents, which must mean it's likely docketed in a normal federal court somewhere (the article pre-dates the FISC publishing their docket)

Second, there are two issues I do not expect he necessarily received reasonably reliable legal advice. The people who participate in these cases are often not specialists, and often not highly knowledgable about the area (especially at this stage of the game, when things get to SCOTUS or something they generally are willing to engage more competent people). They are just passionate.

Past that, he was not quoted, he wrote the piece. You assume the piece is, for example, not using hyperbole. It does not say the government, or anyone else, has actually made these threats. It does not say what legal viewpoint they take that makes them believe this (and again, given the only gag orders to be challenged have all been struck down, it seems a bit out there ...). There are no details or anything else to support or verify the legal reasoning or implications for what he says.

This is an opinion piece, meant to support his case. Reading it as an accurate view of the state of the law is, well, probably not a great idea (I certainly agree that reading it for the chilling effects part, fine. But to take everything he says as if his lawyer said that was the way it had to be, is a bit far)

It's the equivelant of the the Streetview car capturing 'public property', if you want 'privacy', put up a big fence and don't broadcast your SSID.

As for the NSA issue, I'm not going to defend google too much there, but you've seen what happens to providers who didn't comply... I would put that down to more a 'The US govt is pretty hostile to privacy' more than "Google is evil".

On the scale of 'evil shit' happening in the world. Google collecting my Wifi network name ranks about similarly to 'J-Walking'...

As opposed to the multiple vehement denials of that "fact" from Google's executive officers (see David Drummond's interview in The Guardian, for example)

Can you think of one thing Google could do for you to think that they are not evil?

[1] http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/13/new-google-stoc...

Snowden/Guardian: NSA is doing X Govt/NSA: We are not doing X Snowden/Guardian: Here are some slide/proof Govt/NSA: Ok we are doing X, but it's for your own good.

Rinse and repeat each fortnight.

So each denial means less and less, and tips believability towards Snowden even where the proof is inconclusive in some cases.

The Guardian and every other major news outlet seemed to think his evidence was compelling.

When referring to "content," (TV, movies, music) it is common for people on HN and Reddit to refer to digital information as something that should be freely exchanged, that ownership is a meaningless concept in a world where creating a copy of something is essentially free. It is common for those who seek to lock down or restrict access to digital information in the form of entertainment media to be referred to as "dinosaurs" who are desperately clinging to an outdated business model and refusing to move into the modern age of free and ubiquitous data sharing.

Then, of course, there is the idea that online privacy is a fundamental right, and that guarding our personal information from both nation-states and corporate interests is of the utmost importance. In this context, those who seek free access to digital information are cast as villains and reviled for using modern technology in a way that doesn't fit with our classical understanding of privacy rights.

I understand that there are multiple people on HN and Reddit and they don't think as one, but I think it's fair to say that both of these opinions fall on the same side of the political spectrum.

I wonder if there's a contradiction here? There's clearly a difference between downloading Game of Thrones episodes and reading everyone's e-mail. But is it a qualitative difference or a quantitative one?