When a company does what's asked of it by a government and people are upset with the company something's seriously wrong. A company's main priority is typically to make money within the bounds of the law. A government's should be to improve the quality of life and uphold the moral values of its citizens.
I have a feeling had Apple been first on board rather than last the journalist would argue that Microsoft were evil for not complying with a government request and that Apple clearly had the vision to help the nation's security, but maybe that's just me?
Be that as it may, I cannot change your government. I can, however, stop relying on any of the companies who are complicit in spying on me.
The problem here is the divide between national government and international corporations, where the corporations' actions influence far more people than the direct actions of the national government.
I cannot exert any influence over a government that isn't mine, but I can decide which companies I support and entrust with my data and business. Your dichotomy of government vs company is therefore not correct. I can (and should) be upset about both.
Hopefully in your thinking there's some limits to what the company would do when asked of it by the gov't. For me it would be anything obviously against the spirit of the Constitution.
Agreed. My argument was that the government asking the company to do something immoral would be more of a concern to me than the company doing it, since the government is supposed to hold a position of trust with its society whilst the company is generally assumed to represent its owners and/or investors interests.
I have a feeling had Apple been first on board rather than last the journalist would argue that Microsoft were evil for not complying with a government request and that Apple clearly had the vision to help the nation's security, but maybe that's just me?