So, you'd feel more comfortable if the company threw in some rhetoric about morals and freedom that are, as assertions, impossible to verify, but would make people feel more warm and fuzzy?
So, basically, what politicians put into their speeches?
Read over your statement again. There's very little of substance in there. For example, what does "this" in "We would never do 'this'" mean? And I'm not being pedantic, because exact language is important here. The question is, what could a non-PRISM-supporting Google say that would differ from what we see in the OP?
And this: It goes against everything we personally believe in and stand for.
OK...let's assume "It" has been properly defined. This hyperbole would be a lie, because....everything? Again, impossible.
"Even if we were legally required to cooperate, we would resist and suffer incarceration if necessary."
OK...cooperate in what? The statement you've proposed leaves room for other kinds of cooperation, if not technically the kind being alleged right now. So this statement doesn't resolve anything.
"We believe in freedom more strongly than we fear the consequences of not cooperating with an oppressive government"
OK, same objections as before. But -- and again, I'm referring to an alternate reality in which Google is standing up against the NSA and PRISM, which may or may not be the reality we are actually living -- if Page is telling the truth about knowing what PRISM stands for before yesterday, then the statement you've proposed is impossible for him to assert, because we still don't know everything about PRISM...and so how would Page know if PRISM is the act of an oppressive government? He literally would not know because PRISM was unknown to him until yesterday.
And if you're saying, well, he should just know, because obviously Google is taking part in the program...well, that's begging the question.
And if you're saying, well, he should just be able to make that statement because any reasonable person, upon reading the reports yesterday, would conclude that PRISM is the act of an oppressive government. OK, that's fine, but that's still not really an assertion of fact, it's just rhetoric.
> "So, you'd feel more comfortable if the company threw in some rhetoric about morals and freedom that are, as assertions, impossible to verify, but would make people feel more warm and fuzzy?"
If Google was actually taking a moral/ethical stance that being an accessory to unconstitutional warrantless searches is something that they find to be morally wrong, yes, I would be more comfortable. My reading of this was Larry saying, "I enjoy being a billionaire and will say whatever it takes to continue being one."
What does any of that have to do with your original assertion that it was a carefully worded non-denial denial? Your point now seems to be "I don't like Google, and this doesn't convince me otherwise." That's fine, but hardly relevant.
Maybe you and many others would be better off by paying attention to actions vs words, and notice which company was the first to push back on the government to provide transparency to national security letters when everyone else bowed down before the government. Being skeptical and not falling for feel good platitudes could help all of us.
> So, you'd feel more comfortable if the company threw in some rhetoric about morals and freedom that are, as assertions, impossible to verify, but would make people feel more warm and fuzzy?
But when their impossible-to-verify assertion is that they've done nothing wrong, you'll accept that just fine?
No. I'm not saying that Page's assertion is true, but I am saying that it is a concrete assertion.
There's a difference between these two things:
1. Issuing a vague non-denial so that when the truth is revealed, you can claim that you didn't technically lie ("Hey, I never said I didn't molested him, I just said I never slept with him")
2. Issuing a denial that is proven later to be false.
I'm not arguing with the GP that Page is telling the truth, but that, as much as we can tell, Page has issued a statement that can satisfiably be shown to be true or false.
So, basically, what politicians put into their speeches?
Read over your statement again. There's very little of substance in there. For example, what does "this" in "We would never do 'this'" mean? And I'm not being pedantic, because exact language is important here. The question is, what could a non-PRISM-supporting Google say that would differ from what we see in the OP?
And this: It goes against everything we personally believe in and stand for.
OK...let's assume "It" has been properly defined. This hyperbole would be a lie, because....everything? Again, impossible.
"Even if we were legally required to cooperate, we would resist and suffer incarceration if necessary."
OK...cooperate in what? The statement you've proposed leaves room for other kinds of cooperation, if not technically the kind being alleged right now. So this statement doesn't resolve anything.
"We believe in freedom more strongly than we fear the consequences of not cooperating with an oppressive government"
OK, same objections as before. But -- and again, I'm referring to an alternate reality in which Google is standing up against the NSA and PRISM, which may or may not be the reality we are actually living -- if Page is telling the truth about knowing what PRISM stands for before yesterday, then the statement you've proposed is impossible for him to assert, because we still don't know everything about PRISM...and so how would Page know if PRISM is the act of an oppressive government? He literally would not know because PRISM was unknown to him until yesterday.
And if you're saying, well, he should just know, because obviously Google is taking part in the program...well, that's begging the question.
And if you're saying, well, he should just be able to make that statement because any reasonable person, upon reading the reports yesterday, would conclude that PRISM is the act of an oppressive government. OK, that's fine, but that's still not really an assertion of fact, it's just rhetoric.