> Google certainly had an obligation to honor existing PittPatt agreements after the acquisition
[citation needed] one has to be privy to such contracts to make these conjectures, also they're software might have been of the "off the shelf" variety.
> One of the few points of leverage I can see is publicly making it clear when companies work with the NSA, and avoid them when possible. I would include companies that acquire companies that work with the NSA.
That's fine, but you should get the facts straight before lobbing accusations, as for 'companies that acquire companies' point, I don't subscribe to any guilt by association sort of animosity, this doesn't seem fair and lots of things are more connected than you think.
My main objection is that the NYT should have used "... now owned by Google" instead of "owned by Google" in their piece.
[citation needed] one has to be privy to such contracts to make these conjectures, also they're software might have been of the "off the shelf" variety.
> One of the few points of leverage I can see is publicly making it clear when companies work with the NSA, and avoid them when possible. I would include companies that acquire companies that work with the NSA.
That's fine, but you should get the facts straight before lobbing accusations, as for 'companies that acquire companies' point, I don't subscribe to any guilt by association sort of animosity, this doesn't seem fair and lots of things are more connected than you think.
My main objection is that the NYT should have used "... now owned by Google" instead of "owned by Google" in their piece.