6 ms·

I guess they are finally catching up to the U.S. Edit: pre-preemptively editing because the original, though I believe correct, was too glib and snarky. Three

I guess they are finally catching up to the U.S. Edit: pre-preemptively editing because the original, though I believe correct, was too glib and snarky. Three Letter Agencies in the U.S. have long had commercial "partnerships"[0] with private companies including internet and telecom companies. As has come to light in the past couple years, these partnerships were not "just" about securing national interests and infrastructure. [0]https://www.nsa.gov/business/programs/ncsc.shtml https://www.nsa.gov/business/programs/ncsc.shtml

zekevermillion 11y ago
The difference is one of degree only. Sometimes differences of degree can be big enough that they are effectively differences in type (e.g., jumping off a stool vs. jumping off a building; popping one pill vs taking the whole bottle). In this case, I wonder if there is anything fundamentally different about the US or US people that would resist a deployment of the security state to the degree that China has deployed. Or, given similar large-scale social unrest, would we also go along with the program? Is there an equilibrium here with J. Edgar Hoover on one end, and Thomas Jefferson on the other? Or, are we sliding down a one-way slope toward a totalitarian state?
- caskance 11y ago
  You are missing the point. As far as digital surveillance goes, the US already does much more than China.
  - zekevermillion 11y ago
    I would say that we do less, but we do it much more effectively. But then, I only know what I read in the news, so to speak.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- iamthepieman 11y ago
  > I wonder if there is anything fundamentally different about the US or US people I don't think there's anything fundamentally different about the citizens of the respective countries. Both are loath to give up comfort and the status quo to challenge their governments surveillance states in meaningful ways. The big difference as I see it is that the staus-quo, at least on the surface, is vastly different in the two countries so the governments go about their efforts in appropriately different ways.
  - chatmasta 11y ago
    There's nothing fundamentally different between Chinese and American citizens? Are you joking? The cultures are entirely different, and that includes the perspective of the people towards the government. You can find many sources to support the claim that in general, the Chinese people trust the Chinese government more than the American people trust the American government. In China, the attitude toward the state is akin to the attitude of a child toward a parent. The prevailing wisdom in China is that what's good for the state is good for the people. Obviously that's not the case in America, where polls show record levels of distrust toward the government from its citizens. These political differences stem from fundamental cultural ones, which is why I take issue with your claim that there's nothig fundamentally different about American and Chinese citizens. On the contrary, most differences are fundamental ones.
    - jackpirate 11y ago
      The prevailing wisdom in China is that what's good for the state is good for the people. Obviously that's not the case in America, where polls show record levels of distrust toward the government from its citizens. That's not remotely obvious to me. In my experience, American citizens distrust specific politicians, but they strongly trust the state apparatus. As examples, American citizens gave/give broad support to the NSA, invasions of other countries, and police/soldiers/firefighters/anyone in a uniform.
      - prewett 11y ago
        The American founders did not trust the State, hence the checks and balances and built-in limits to the Sate. There are entire political parties whose aim is to reduce the State to the bare minimum required. To broadly generalize, liberals seem to trust the State to be able to provide equality to people, so they might appear to "trust the State apparatus." Conservatives tend to be patriotic, so they might also appear to "trust the State apparatus." But both those groups are also trying to limit the State, just in different ways. Conservatives try to limit the social creep of the liberals. Liberals try to limit the defense spending. I think you overestimate the "broad support" of the NSA, invasions, and uniformed men. If you've been reading the news it should be apparent that there is a huge lack of trust in the police, for example.
jebblue 11y ago
Did you really equate communist forced police presence with voluntary and beneficial government partnerships with the private sector in the US? The Internet exists because of the US Government (DARPA) and US taxpayer; not under its direct police control.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Collaboration with surveillance authorities in the US is neither voluntary ("national security letter") nor beneficial. The enforcement that goes with the surveillance is much less intrusive, almost invisible, but that doesn't mean we should ignore it.
  - sschueller 11y ago
    There are some financial benefits. [1] [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/government-wiretap_n_3571422.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/government-wiretap_...
- jpollock 11y ago
  How about the requirement that foreign carriers have US citizens in US offices at the point of interconnect with the US. I also believe there are reporting oddities in the role too, but I can't find the reference to it anymore. The result is that same as China, the difference is who's paying the person's salary. Edit [information below]: [1] (13) Carriers shall comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), see 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.20000 et seq. Page 5 of 6 1.20000 et seq. [2] (14) Every carrier must designate an agent for service in the District of Columbia. See 47 U.S.C. § 413, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.47(h), 64.1195. [3] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-348A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-348A1.pd... Not that ominous, just normal legal intercept. The US has had this requirement for a long time.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    Right, Europe is just as bad as China as well.
mc32 11y ago
It's not nearly the same. The main aim of putting police physically on premises is to ensure rapid enforcement of upstream decisions. Something bad, from a ccp pov, being discussed on a forum? Quick, netops, now, cut the cord... now. It's quite different. The CNG are willing to spite their companies to further the party's viability. The party always comes first, not law, not country, its the party and the pla.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  Its more a return to the Commissar system that almost caused Russia to lose WW2
prewett 11y ago
> I guess they are finally catching up to the U.S. It's still too glib and snarky. There's a really big difference between controlling what is said and observing everything that is said. I think the NSA has gone too far, but it's way different from censorship. And even censorship is different than what Communism does, which as far as I can tell from the People's Daily, is that they simply say what they wish were true as if it were true. Apparently they also suppress statements to the contrary. This is very, very different than privacy violations from recording everything.
- vorg 11y ago
  > There's a really big difference between controlling what is said and observing everything that is said The U.S. simply makes a far greater effort to make the movie/TV industry appear fundamentally different to and disconnected from the NSA.
  - prewett 11y ago
    That's just nonsense (and unsubstantiated). Read the People's Daily--they have an English version online--for a while and then read the Washington Post, NY Times, etc. The American media routinely criticize the government: Fox -> Democrats; NY Times -> Republicans. I'd be surprised if you can make it a week reading the People's Daily, it's so full of right thinking that it'll make a NY Times article on Obama look condemning...
    - vorg 11y ago
      > The American media routinely criticize the government That's another difference between the U.S. and China: the U.S. use elected politicians as media decoys in addition to foreign countries a lot more than China, leaving unexamined the real groups that run the countries, which in the U.S. includes the corporations that pay money to advertise on TV or in the news.

zekevermillion 11y ago

The difference is one of degree only. Sometimes differences of degree can be big enough that they are effectively differences in type (e.g., jumping off a stool vs. jumping off a building; popping one pill vs taking the whole bottle). In this case, I wonder if there is anything fundamentally different about the US or US people that would resist a deployment of the security state to the degree that China has deployed. Or, given similar large-scale social unrest, would we also go along with the program? Is there an equilibrium here with J. Edgar Hoover on one end, and Thomas Jefferson on the other? Or, are we sliding down a one-way slope toward a totalitarian state?

caskance 11y ago
You are missing the point. As far as digital surveillance goes, the US already does much more than China.
- zekevermillion 11y ago
  I would say that we do less, but we do it much more effectively. But then, I only know what I read in the news, so to speak.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
iamthepieman 11y ago
> I wonder if there is anything fundamentally different about the US or US people I don't think there's anything fundamentally different about the citizens of the respective countries. Both are loath to give up comfort and the status quo to challenge their governments surveillance states in meaningful ways. The big difference as I see it is that the staus-quo, at least on the surface, is vastly different in the two countries so the governments go about their efforts in appropriately different ways.
- chatmasta 11y ago
  There's nothing fundamentally different between Chinese and American citizens? Are you joking? The cultures are entirely different, and that includes the perspective of the people towards the government. You can find many sources to support the claim that in general, the Chinese people trust the Chinese government more than the American people trust the American government. In China, the attitude toward the state is akin to the attitude of a child toward a parent. The prevailing wisdom in China is that what's good for the state is good for the people. Obviously that's not the case in America, where polls show record levels of distrust toward the government from its citizens. These political differences stem from fundamental cultural ones, which is why I take issue with your claim that there's nothig fundamentally different about American and Chinese citizens. On the contrary, most differences are fundamental ones.
  - jackpirate 11y ago
    The prevailing wisdom in China is that what's good for the state is good for the people. Obviously that's not the case in America, where polls show record levels of distrust toward the government from its citizens. That's not remotely obvious to me. In my experience, American citizens distrust specific politicians, but they strongly trust the state apparatus. As examples, American citizens gave/give broad support to the NSA, invasions of other countries, and police/soldiers/firefighters/anyone in a uniform.
    - prewett 11y ago
      The American founders did not trust the State, hence the checks and balances and built-in limits to the Sate. There are entire political parties whose aim is to reduce the State to the bare minimum required. To broadly generalize, liberals seem to trust the State to be able to provide equality to people, so they might appear to "trust the State apparatus." Conservatives tend to be patriotic, so they might also appear to "trust the State apparatus." But both those groups are also trying to limit the State, just in different ways. Conservatives try to limit the social creep of the liberals. Liberals try to limit the defense spending. I think you overestimate the "broad support" of the NSA, invasions, and uniformed men. If you've been reading the news it should be apparent that there is a huge lack of trust in the police, for example.

jebblue 11y ago

Did you really equate communist forced police presence with voluntary and beneficial government partnerships with the private sector in the US? The Internet exists because of the US Government (DARPA) and US taxpayer; not under its direct police control.

pjc50 11y ago
Collaboration with surveillance authorities in the US is neither voluntary ("national security letter") nor beneficial. The enforcement that goes with the surveillance is much less intrusive, almost invisible, but that doesn't mean we should ignore it.
- sschueller 11y ago
  There are some financial benefits. [1] [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/government-wiretap_n_3571422.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/government-wiretap_...
jpollock 11y ago
How about the requirement that foreign carriers have US citizens in US offices at the point of interconnect with the US. I also believe there are reporting oddities in the role too, but I can't find the reference to it anymore. The result is that same as China, the difference is who's paying the person's salary. Edit [information below]: [1] (13) Carriers shall comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), see 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.20000 et seq. Page 5 of 6 1.20000 et seq. [2] (14) Every carrier must designate an agent for service in the District of Columbia. See 47 U.S.C. § 413, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.47(h), 64.1195. [3] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-348A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-348A1.pd... Not that ominous, just normal legal intercept. The US has had this requirement for a long time.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  Right, Europe is just as bad as China as well.

mc32 11y ago

It's not nearly the same. The main aim of putting police physically on premises is to ensure rapid enforcement of upstream decisions. Something bad, from a ccp pov, being discussed on a forum? Quick, netops, now, cut the cord... now. It's quite different. The CNG are willing to spite their companies to further the party's viability. The party always comes first, not law, not country, its the party and the pla.

spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
Its more a return to the Commissar system that almost caused Russia to lose WW2

prewett 11y ago

> I guess they are finally catching up to the U.S. It's still too glib and snarky. There's a really big difference between controlling what is said and observing everything that is said. I think the NSA has gone too far, but it's way different from censorship. And even censorship is different than what Communism does, which as far as I can tell from the People's Daily, is that they simply say what they wish were true as if it were true. Apparently they also suppress statements to the contrary. This is very, very different than privacy violations from recording everything.

vorg 11y ago
> There's a really big difference between controlling what is said and observing everything that is said The U.S. simply makes a far greater effort to make the movie/TV industry appear fundamentally different to and disconnected from the NSA.
- prewett 11y ago
  That's just nonsense (and unsubstantiated). Read the People's Daily--they have an English version online--for a while and then read the Washington Post, NY Times, etc. The American media routinely criticize the government: Fox -> Democrats; NY Times -> Republicans. I'd be surprised if you can make it a week reading the People's Daily, it's so full of right thinking that it'll make a NY Times article on Obama look condemning...
  - vorg 11y ago
    > The American media routinely criticize the government That's another difference between the U.S. and China: the U.S. use elected politicians as media decoys in addition to foreign countries a lot more than China, leaving unexamined the real groups that run the countries, which in the U.S. includes the corporations that pay money to advertise on TV or in the news.