|Business Tech Energy Health Finance Economy|
Apple & Obama Admin, Balancing Big Tech & Big Gov
Source: Zoolander (2001)
MARCH 16, 2016
In the classic comedy Zoolander main characters Hansel and Derek Zoolander are tasked with stoppping evil-doers, who use supermodels as pawns in a political scheme to alter the balance of power. In one scene Hansel and Zoolander sneak into an office to obtain information about the international plot secreted in an unassuming Apple iMac.
The only problem is Zoolander and Hansel have no clue how to turn the computer on. Zoolander tries pushing the Apple logo on the back of the iMac, Hansel tries tapping the iMac with the keyboard, the same way people jostle vending machines when soda or candy is stuck.
Hansel is told the secret files are inside the iMac. However he thinks they are like tangible valuables in a safe. So he tries throwing the iMac to the ground, thinking the files will spill out when the computer's casing is broken.
To put it lightly neither Zoolander or Hansel are what you might call computer experts.
Commentary on Subject of Competition
Zoolander is a sort of commentary on the nature of competition:
Zoolander takes serious issues and applies a light heart. The movie is also, coincidentally, adumbrative of the current debacle between President Obama's administration and Apple Inc. (AAPL).
Big Government has very serious real life global issues to contend with. This is the epicenter of the current legal difference with Apple over iPhone security. Now Big Gov seeks to compel Apple to design a "backdoor" to the iPhone, and Apple is expressing that should not be done.
Common sense does not just side with Big Gov or with Apple, though. Common sense sides with both Big Gov and Big Tech, regarding legitimate Big Gov requests and legitimate concerns expressed by tech companies like Apple. This does not mean that a backdoor should be created, if it could then be used by anyone and that is a very strong reaction from the Big Tech designers who built modern technology from the ground up, to the Big Gov representatives who are demanding their own special backdoor.
It's like no matter how Big Tech tries to explain it though, Big Gov appears not to be able to make sense of that fact. The special backdoor that Big Gov wants could then be used by anyone, against everyone.
The ideal solution for both Big Tech and Big Gov is to consider ways to forge peace, when possible, globally. That conform to both of their independent operational parameters. Because as Big Tech has also pointed out a special backdoor is not necessary for Big Gov to be able to accomplish almost anything they wish. However, Big Gov does not want to leave any stone unturned, and Obama admin representatives are expressing that the backdoor they want could help ensure the ability to do that.
What compounds the problem faced by both Big Tech and Big Gov is that some other groups are under the impression peace is not in their best interests, due to circumstance and conflicts. Even though the current administration appears to have made significant efforts to encourage peace. No matter how little sense it makes for fighting to take place, by both or all sides, it is perhaps almost inevitable: Almost being the operative word, because the reality is there is always a chance for peaceful resolutions to conflicts, and that chance is what the future depends on.
Weighing Constitutionality Of Big Tech Device Access: iPhone or FBIphone?
The basis for sparring between the Obama administration and Big Tech can be distilled down to the reality of: Systems designed to take advantage of people.
The federal government wants to access locked iPhones, particularly of perpetrators of acts of war, however Big Tech has responded that encryption is necessary because if a "master key" or "backdoor" is created, then anyone could use that backdoor. Additionally Big Tech companies have expressed concerns over: Eavesdropping for no apparent reason, in the name of national security, some likely legitimate while some perhaps speculative and further: Some possibly completely illegitimate.
So, the difference of opinions between the Obama administration and Big Tech is clearly complicated and revolves around interpretations of rights, and both: Valid representations by the Obama administration and potential, perceived misrepresentations by the government. In addition to possible actual misrepresentations.
For instance if there were an actual dangerous plot that could be foiled, where harm or death could be prevented that would seem to qualify as a valid representation. On the other hand if the federal government's strategy is closer to profiling or mass surveillance of everyone, some argue that could be unconstitutional.
The government argues, accurately, that in real incidences of national security they both should not need to and can not prove their reasons, if certain material is classified. Though this depends on a level of trust that the Constitution is being interpreted accurately, and there is reason to believe that it is. The situation is muddled however by the multitude of seeming overreactions by states and counties towards "the people" as if national security depended on it.
It seems that the authors of the original U.S. Charters of Freedom had actual peace in mind, knowing first hand the ravages of war and reasons for war. Thus they used phrases like "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare." While imperfect and potentially discriminatory to begin with, those charters were capable of being used intrinsically to create more balanced freedom. They are also one reason why United States has had the ability to create some global prosperity with technological advancement, that when working well allows for peace, further advancements, and for instance medical breakthroughs that allow people everywhere in the world to live longer, and for diseases that cause suffering to be healed, curatively.
However those breakthroughs do not happen easily. With the advancements made by Big Tech they are now possible when just a few years ago they were not. Unfortunately while Big Tech can be used for good it could also be used for negative agendas, as Zoolander illustrates.
Big Tech Has Reason to Invoke Constitution in Reaction to Precedence of Big Gov Playing "Blame Game" in Aftermath of Screwups. However, Big Gov Mistakes Do Not Negate Importance Of Big Tech Using Some Common Sense Within Parameters Of Constitution
One recent opinion piece published by Washington Post illustrates the reality of incidents where people are seemingly treated with overly heavy hands. To summarize, the linked Washington Post opinion piece:
A recent documentary Peace Officer (2015) shows video of people in their own homes, as SWAT teams break in and immediately shoot a man standing defensively, as if thinking his home was being burgularized. The documentary explains in some instances the SWAT teams are at the incorrect home altogether.
While often incidents where something went wrong make the news, there are of course many times when county, state and federal governments routinely fight crime, which is dangerous; that may go uncredited. While some room for mistakes is perhaps necessary there are some long-term sequences of mistake, after mistake, which are excused again and again, to the point further mistakes are simply inevitable, due to disregard for logic.
In one instance during a SWAT raid, reportedly at the incorrect home in an apartment building, which was being filmed by a reality TV show, a Detroit SWAT team broke into someone's home and immediately fired. Striking a sleeping 7 year old girl on her grandmother's couch, killing her. The news reported the same team who discharged their weapon had been reprimanded previously for allegedly pointing a weapon at a baby in a crib, against department policy.
So, the reality is the reluctance to take more action in response to policy violations, in some instances builds to worse results. While, overall there are many brave professionals who actually want to protect their communities, in the aforementioned incident the city proceeded to tirelessly defend employees who claimed when they broke open the family's door the 7 year old's grandmother assaulted them causing them to fire, aimlessly, striking the girl.
While the girl's family claimed what happened was the door was broken open and the SWAT team immediately began firing. Only later to find out, reportedly, they were at the wrong home and the person they were looking for was on a different floor of the apartment complex. The person the SWAT team wanted was then detained without incident.
National security was not on the line that night in Detroit, a major fugitive was not suspected of being in that apartment complex; however the city of Detroit proceeded to act like there was some sort of justification when common sense seems to indicate otherwise. That is an important reason for Big Tech and Big Government, to every once and a while consider the Constitution and the rights that are sometimes completely dismissed as part of what can only be described post hence as "blame games" when definitively, too often, in similar incidents: That did not seem right or lawful.
Consider that just a few months ago during a very unusual traffic stop, in Louisiana, a 6 year old was shot and killed. First responders said the driver had his hands up. Incidents such as those could be scientifically prevented with proper training and rooting out of unprofessional employees, however some towns, counties and states appear not to care to.
Big Tech does seem to have good reason to express concern. Not with, perhaps, the top levels of government that do work to try to make the entire world a better place. With whatever mechanism is in place that allows for complete failures on the ground level. Not only with failure after failure in towns and cities across America that accept what can only be described as absolute corruption as an excuse for local government. With the fact that even after complete failures, some towns and cities go into "hide and seek" mode, defending failures that likely could have been prevented.
For instance the video of the 12 year old from Cleveland, Ohio who was shot in mere seconds, for playing with a toy. Or the multiple incidents of unarmmed people, pinned down, rendered 100% harmless, by multiple police officers, hands bound, then shot by potentially dishonorable people. Who apparently got jobs as authority figures, then appear to misuse that power, with an expectation of being defended by towns and cities that wish to protect their own wallets from liability.
When the fact is proper training could scientifically separate qualified people from unqualified people, periodically, before mistakes are made. Except for the fact some towns and cities appear disinterested in qualified people, when they are busy giving jobs to family and friends, and engaging in practices known to be unconstitutional, to try to bring in more revenue, which basically: Disappears.
This is one issue Big Tech appears to use as reason for concern. Realizing that of course there are numerous genuine, good, and honorable people. Still there are nearly daily examples of United States counties appearing to be completely dissimissive of the Constitution, instead choosing to work on their own revenue collection over greatly inflated instances of infractions, in some cases literally over: Alleged jaywalking.
Big Tech has reason to defend constitutional principles to try to prevent technology from becoming a "business platform" for Big Gov to collect fees for what amounts to jaywalking. The fact is: Even if a system is less effective, if it is more profitable, some groups will use the less effective strategy, even if it seems to be, or is unconstitutional.
Even when resulting lawsuits conclude with multi-million dollar settlements, that wipeout great amounts of wealth generated by unconstitutional revenue strategies. Because towns and counties either issue debt to pay those legal settlements, or possibly have insurance, or can increase the volume of their unconstitutional strategies to compensate.
When on the other side of the coin towns, counties and states that operate more intelligently, and constitutionally frequently make more money. Because it is common for successful, wealthy residents to give back to their communities, many times fold. When instead large percentages of citizens are deprived of opportunity, for years over what amounts to hyped up parking tickets, there is less likelihood for citizens to prosper or care to give back if they do.
The difference between successful strategy versus unsuccessful strategy is basically like golf. If one tries too hard they will not succeed, if they let the golf club do the work, a quality swing is actually easy.
Big Tech & Big Gov Derive From Constitution
The reason the arguing between the Obama administration and Big Tech is important to investors and the economy is because both sides actually seem to be fighting for the same thing: Global prosperity. However, Big Tech's defense for wanting strong encryption is important, and so is the Obama administration's reason for wanting the ability to "solve" major conflicts, before they manifest.
Big Tech's concern about perceived preoccupation with heavy handed, potentially unconstitutional Big Gov actions, seems valid. The federal government, states and counties also have reason to set and enforce constitutional parameters to "keep the peace."
Big Gov has authority that "the people" do not. Thus the common expression: A higher standard should be expected. Especially when statistics clearly show "seemingly random" people often are minority groups, based on qualities like poverty, ethnicity, race, and religion. Basically all of the protected classes of the Civil Rights Act and then some.
Big Tech is synonymous with value to varying degrees, and quite simply it is a strong attribute to see Apple express the need for importance of respecting the vast majority of consumers' privacy. Though the knowledeable investor likely realizes since the nature of the foundation of technology is often "open source" what little privacy is afforded amounts to about a grain of salt. In deed it appears that Big Government is demanding that grain of salt. When in an effort to publicly explain themselves Big Tech has stated they oblige every constitutional request they are able to.
So, hopefully (though perhaps unrealistically) the argument can ease into more of an intelligent conversation that can resolve the legitimate concerns of both Big Government and Big Tech. While the reality in the most iron fisted, discriminatory towns and counties in America is, way down at the bottom of the totem pole the rights of "the people" might factor in as well.
If no one ever argued with every whim of Big Gov, America would perhaps be nothing more than exactly the state that the authors of the Charters of Freedom were trying to do away with. However, if Big Gov yielded to every single argument that used the Constitution as a defense, when the reality falls outside the parameters of Constitutional law, then again America would perhaps be nothing more than exactly the state that the authors of the Charters of Freedom were trying to do away with. When the reality is that the authors of those charters did try to envision a future, where the utmost potential of human intelligence could be realized.
The Minuet Between Big Tech & Big Gov
If someone signs on for a legitimate job, then presumably they understand what the job entails. Furthermore they can read reviews to decide whether, based on other opinions the job is right for them. Many do not have the luxury of picking and choosing. However, in some places people are not allowed to have freedom, or for one reason or another they are at the whim of some type of "leader" without much of a choice.
In order to fully understand the larger picture sometimes governments try to connect dots. While some work is vital, some is not; however, in order to dismiss irrelevant dots the government may need to peer. Then the issue arises of government corruption, whereby non-vital infractions are inflated to build revenue, in the name of national security. Therein is one concern, perhaps for Big Tech companies.
It would be like law enforcement tasked with stopping actual vandalism, deciding to instead round up jaywalkers all day long, to make money. Because sitting around waiting for vandals is boring and people cross the street all the time so why not jump on them, beat them, ticket them, jail them, put them on probation for years, and if they can't pay fees, jail them again, and create an endless cycle, over: Jaywalking.
That might seem good for one counties' bottom line, issuing tickets for jaywalking, however it might not be so good for the marketplace that became known as the jaywalking trap. People now avoid that marketplace and shop elsewhere if they are treated like they have no rights for walking across the street. Rather than some intelligent person noticing where people frequently cross, adding signs and painting a crosswalk there.
The same goes for several problems in society that can be solved, however states and government are seemingly too busy cashing in. Then, of course there are more severe problems that can not be solved, or can not be solved nearly as easily.
The reality is that no matter how complex a master key is, it would be possible for third parties to synthesize. Unless the unlocking mechanism has the artificial conscious ability to determine authorized access versus unauthorized access.
Though, whether human or artificial, a quote-unquote good conscious would possibly find the reasons for conflict problematic. Thus the importance of working preventatively when possible and also the importance for both Big Gov and Big Tech to stand up for the Constitution on a large scale in America, and be respectful of other countries and cultures. Particularly given the fact technology that is now taken for granted is the result of work of people from all over the world, not just one town, city, state or nation.
Is iPhone Privacy A Constitutional Right?
One question that has long been subject to debate is whether "freedom of speech" entitles people: To have privacy. Some argue both sides of this point, and some Big Tech believe in one side, while others believe in the contrary.
While there is a strong argument that freedom of speech does protect speech intended to be private in many instances, there is also a strong argument, perhaps obvious argument freedom of speech does not entitle people to be able to coordinate harm. Quite simply, one reason is because that infringes on the freedom of others.
In a sense freedom, according to some logic, is not like a game of capture the flag. Though people try to, technically individuals or groups can not use the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to deprive rights from others by saying: "We're using our free speech to say you can't speak freely. Sorry we beat you to it."
Of course the government has the right to exact punishments for crimes, though some argue A. Government should set a higher standard for itself, and B. the government is not entitled to discriminate.
People are routinely punished in America and are stripped of their freedom for a variety of reasons. Obviously some instances are legitimate, however the news reports frequently not only are some instances illegitimate, some are downright egregious abuses. Surprisingly in America the news reports that not only do such abuses take place, those counties or cities basically maintain the expectation that no matter how badly they blatantly violate constitutional rights, even the thought of a legal consequence is unjust. Perhaps due to the sentiment that the government was: Just doing their jobs.
It should be obvious that one example, or even many examples of presumed mistakes still of course do not negate the importance of the balance between Big Tech and Big Gov. Especially on matters that are actually important. The fact is those often referenced Charters of Freedom were designed with actual diplomacy in mind, not to give any one side a "free pass" to act like they are supernatural.
Unlike the movie Zoolander the issues confronted by "the people" foremost, then Big Tech, and then Big Gov (the reverse order that some may see the totem pole) are not comedy. Though some are able to see the silver linings in the mundane, there are of course some issues without silver linings, only the necessity to resolve the causes of those issues.
Those issues are not easy to solve, however they are the most important, to try to allow for everyone, from all cultures to have opportunity to be free, and not experience discrimination based on any quality. Because by doing that the roots of problems that manifest into wasteful fighting could possibly be prevented before they begin.
Big Tech & Big Gov Can and Do Represent Prosperity
Back in time, and throughout time, unfortunately some people got it into their minds war was the only way. Leaders sent others to fight for them, and literally sent families to fight each other.
Still today the same transpires and it is an unfortunate reality. Beyond that reality is the fact that even though technically large governments are wealthy, and can generate wealth, they also can generate enormous debt, which is not all bad. However, in some instances governments use people, effectively as their own credit cards.
Even, and perhaps especially poorer people who are sometimes treated miserably and then used as a reason to receive federal monies, derived from taxes and the issuance of debt. Big Gov may honestly say something to the effect: "Go out and get all those people driving their cars too fast." The counties respond: "Oh, yeah, we can do that, if you give us money." Then the reality is counties jump on people and hurt them, for things like not using their turn signal. In a way whereby the trampling of any semblance of "rights" is commonplace.
Additionally a more detailed understanding of the human condition has a part to play in the overall problem of conflict prevention, whether by two individuals who are fighting or two groups fighting, regardless of affiliation. For instance certain medical conditions (like diabetes) can potentially cause mood disorders, for instance certain noises can potentially cause hyperacusis (sensitivity to certain sounds.)
Arguing Should Ease Into Intelligent Conversation
Additional top tech companies have also voiced their opinions, mostly favorable of Apple's stance, including Facebook (FB), Twitter (TWTR) and Microsoft (MSFT). While explaining they already oblige approved government requests for data, to the extent possible.
One court ruled in Apple's favor, in a different case involving a locked iPhone, while another court ruled in favor of President Obama's administration. President Obama recently chimed in, however Apple raised an important technical point that the government appears to wish to bypass.
Or consider a group that tries to exploit their own customers. An example of this could be a law firm that instead of representing their clients decides they want to try to take advantage of their clients. While some law firms would not do this, there are others that would in one half second if it meant they might make a few more dollars.
Take for instance one Washington D.C. / Indiana based law firm, Ice Miller. Ice Miller was founded by some strong, professional lawyers; however, it was seemingly taken over by some corrupt people. What Ice Miller does is builds up pseudo-trust with clients, then appears to turn on their clients in a very corrupt manner, by working behind clients' backs, and across from them to take advantage of their own clients. According to some client complaints Ice Miller mistreats and abuses their own clients, apparently to try to take as much money and power from their own clients as they can.
If Ice Miller thought they could listen in on, and watch their customers on their iPhones all day, every day, to try to take more from their clients, they and other corrupt businesses might, and certainly many businesses would try to if they thought they could make more. When a corrupt business, like Ice Miller acts like they would pawn their own clients for a few dollars, regardless of the law.
The point that the government presents is sensible, and so is the point presented by the Big Tech companies. However, compromise may not be as simple as either side wishes. Because where there is hierarchy there will always be competition, and there is no system where there is no hierarchy of some sort.
Apple and Big Tech in general are strong examples of the result of competition. The Big Tech companies worked hard, they advanced technology, and continue to advance technology, and to a certain extent they had to face strong arm tactics from both within and outside, and the pieces landed where they did, to form the current constellation of Big Tech.
To an extent something similar happened in Big Government too, however on top of the basic revenue system, a "complimentary" revenue system was created -- whereby citizens pay taxes, and encounter legitimate government regulation (use a valid parking ticket as an example of legitimate) then there is what appears to be a massive less-than-legitimate add-on where for instance a state decides to exploit preventable incidents.
Therein is one factor of the Obama administration versus Big Tech clash over backdoors. What's the next step? Using an iPhone while not-white? Literally going with some United States counties' actions currently, what could be done is anyone, at anytime could be visited by the government in their homes and told they're being detained because, using their iPhone camera the county or state saw that they possibly rolled through a stop sign a few days ago or a few months ago, so the state requires a few hundred dollars and if they can not pay they must go to jail for months, and go on probation for years and pay monthly. Oh and statistically it turns out that counties happen to use the backdoor to focus on the groups they really don't like. This should obviously not negate the importance of what the top levels of Big Gov wish for, which does not have to do with the realities in some counties, however it is reason for Big Tech to try and work on strategies that satisfy their consumers, and legitimate Big Gov necessities, it seems.
The Denotation Of Constitution & Bill of Rights Is Key
Ironically, it was President Obama who very early on in his administration overruled the requests made by his own administration to be able to have his own Blackberry phone. While currently the Obama administration is going to great lengths to arm wrestle Big Tech, undeniably with some legitimate points.
It appears the Obama administration has pointed to what Apple has done to conform with other nation's standards and stated Big Tech has made backdoors for China. While Apple has countered that is not accurate, though possibly some concessions may have been made; the point is that the United States is not another nation. Furthermore if Apple did not make the type of master key, for other countries, that the Obama administration wants, then it is misleading to say that the company did.
The concern raised by top tech companies is whether it is constitutional for the government or a contractor to decide for companies' tech devices to be used to provide for 24 hour surveillance in order to potentially follow large groups of companies' customers, in order to scan for infractions of law.
When in reality there are Americans who are swept into state revenue machines for years, imprisoned, forced to pay money to for-profit probation companies or go back to prison, their families pulled apart, over the smallest of infractions like: Driving while suspended or jaywalking. Even though incidents are recorded on video by counties, there are blatant violations of citizens' constitutional rights, for a mass incarceration machine, over actions that do not even qualify as lowest level misdemeanors. While this may bring in some money for states it actually reduces not just business for all companies, it weakens the overall economy, when in general offenses that do not even rise to misdemeanor, are preventable; yet instead inflated and exaggerated to fund counties.
Often the counties would never, ever hand their videos over, even to citizens' own defense attornies, let alone the news. The reality is in some towns local authorities body slam 84 year old WWII veterans, breaking their neck over tow truck disputes, or throw down 28 year old wounded veterans over parking space disputes. Though, according to Big Tech, one of the concerns with the current Obama administration's request is that it enables Big Gov to use iPhone cameras to watch customers 24 hours a day, when the simple fact is that while a major part of Big Gov may adhere to constitutional principles, there are continuous ground level examples of disregard and so balance lacks while in many places it does not, when constitutional principles are personified. Obviously the dynamics are complicated, however arguably no more complex than they were when Charters of Freedom like the Constitution were envisioned.
So, Big Tech does perhaps have reason to ask about the constitutionality of the Obama administration's request for a master key to consumer devices. Additionally, Big Gov does have the right to use every tool in their tool box to provide for the common defense, however this does not negate a responsibility to hold itself to some standard whereby "the people" are defended from government misconduct, also. This seems to be part of the core of the volley between Big Gov and Big Tech.
The reality is there are numerous wise, benevolent businesses and politicians. Who actually wish to live up to the standards of the Constitution and wish to try to continually raise quality of life and prevent hurtful acts internationally.
The bottom line is there are heroic people all over the world, there are heroic people in both Big Tech and Big Gov. Unfortunately everyday heroes are undermined when people waste time fighting, whether they are in government or whether they are the constituency, ie: "the people."
Obviously various nations have different charters, though the common denominator is hierarchy. Remember the golf analogy though, the harder someone tries to pound a golf ball, the more likely they are to hit poorly.
If the club is used almost effortlessly, with the correct body posture, the golf ball can soar into the air, because the club does the work. Similarly nations that turn their populations into slaves will never have the wealth, power and ability to solve the worst problems they have. As nations centered on basic rights and freedoms.
Great businesses and great advancements that could have been realized, were not and are not, in both America and elsewhere, when "leaders" are so insecure that they treat the majority of their population poorly. In America some counties' rate of incarceration over the lowest level offenses amount to between 75% to up to 100% or more of their entire population each decade. The number can rise above 100% of the population when people passing through are swept up in revenue systems that appear to take advantage of people, over the most minimal of actions, that are time and again inflated or exaggerated, so counties can try to rake in more money.
While counties in America that focus on more important and more intelligent strategies rake in far more money. Time and again the actual good places, in not just America, all over the world receive mega donations, tens of millions or 100+ million dollars from people who rose to the top, thanks to the simple fact they were not literally or metaphorically turned into slaves for jaywalking one unfateful day.
Big Tech seems to have an obligation to stand up for constitutional rights whether from competing nations or from the United States. Big Tech also seems to have an obligation to fulfill legitimate orders, and Big Gov also seems to have an obligation to Big Tech, to be respectful and strive to be the leaders envisioned by the authors of the Charters of Freedom. Also to use those Charters of Freedom to advance the equations set in motion by their authors and provide for more freedom, when possible, and eliminate the prejudices that are mere side effects of the human condition that existed in the 1770s and still exist today,
Some look at Big Tech or Big Gov and presume that it took human superpowers, when for the most part what great institutions required across the world, throughout history was merely free will. The problems that "the people" wish to solve are tough, however sometimes there are very simple solutions.
It appears to be a mistake for Big Tech to effectively be nationalized, with demands for source code, that in unintelligent hands can lead to the exact opposite of what Big Gov hopes for, as expressed by the Obama administration, the capability to "solve" the equation that causes wasteful fighting.
The bottom line is that the Obama administration has expressed that they have the best interests in mind. While President Obama is considered a great leader by some, there are some who criticize the Obama administration over every step they take. As with any leader there are both good moves and weak moves made by Big Gov. In this particular revolution between Big Tech and Big Gov both sides are using the Constitution and Bill of Rights and saying: "Look here, this gives us power to do this how we wish." Both sides can be right. Both sides seem to also be saying "look here we want this our way because of 'the people.'" Again both sides may be right. Though Big Tech does seem to have the right to express that Big Gov should maintain constitutional principles in general, particularly when some levels of Big Gov's precedent has shown disregard (even and especially if that disregard is completely contrary to the expressed intent of previous and current Big Gov administrations at the top levels. Yet expressed intent on subjects like constitutional rights are completely disregarded on local levels.)
So it seems important for common sense to be resolved between Big Tech and Big Gov in this particular equation, to be respectful of Big Gov, Big Tech and "the people" internationally, and within the parameters of the Constitution, in America. That, common sense, seems to be the answer to the equation and it might not be as simple as either side wishes, however, hopefully intelligent conversation can result in not one side or the other being satisfied, but the destiny of prosperity (defined by both constitutional principles and respect for international society) that good people all over the world had hope for, for the future, for their descendants.
Disclaimer: This article is not a recommendation to buy or sell. Please consult a qualified financial adviser to determine proper allocations, if any to investments.