5 ms·

Today Is the Day We Got Rid of the Surveillance State GDR

82 points by serengeti 11y ago

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Voltaire never made his famous non-statement. It was a paraphrasing of his general philosophy written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in The Friends of Voltaire (1906). I generally do not side with this article's overblown credit towards democracy, and particularly representative democracy. A common crippling meme among democratic societies is to absolve representatives of responsibility and instead keep insisting everything is the fault of citizens for not going to the ballot box, voting incorrectly at the ballot, and to keep trying again and again until they get it "right", even if there are obvious inefficiencies in the democratic process that must be corrected. Where even the most ardent, statistically aware rationalist will succumb to their emotions and begin spouting feel-good drivel about voting. None of this is to be admired. It is to be condemned as insanity and self-hatred.
- paublyrne 11y ago
  There is an electoral poster by the docks in The Secret of Monkey Island. On examination, it reads: Vote No1 Governor Marley. When there's only one candidate, there's only one choice! It think of it every time I fill in a ballot paper.
- mindslight 11y ago
  > A common crippling meme among democratic societies is to absolve representatives of responsibility and instead keep insisting everything is the fault of citizens for not going to the ballot box, voting incorrectly at the ballot, and to keep trying again and again until they get it "right", even if there are obvious inefficiencies in the democratic process that must be corrected. Where even the most ardent, statistically aware rationalist will succumb to their emotions and begin spouting feel-good drivel about voting. None of this is to be admired. It is to be condemned as insanity and self-hatred. Well put. However, democracy is inherently about the masses. I agree with your statement because I often find myself at odds with the masses (or apparently just ahead of them by 15 years, while they play catch up and groupthink transmutes freedom struggles into poor ideas and even oppression), and do not believe that tyranny of the majority is some ideal to strive for. However, there are only two ways mass surveillance is going to stop - through technical means or through political means. I believe the technical means is the only practical avenue (even if there were political will to end the state-sponsored orgs and control the big-name mass surveillance companies, the business will continue behind the scenes). But I won't detract from those attempting to do so through public means. Even if they do not succeed in [ae]ffecting the government, I would be quite happy if when talking to an arbitrary person there was a good chance they shared my values about privacy. That's culture. And to appeal to the masses, you have to fluff their sense of self-importance. So I'll give someone a pass to operate within that framework when they're fighting the good fight - if they were to tell the herd followers that following the herd sucked, they would convince no one of anything. I would love to live in a world where most individuals' primary measure of an idea's validity was not the number of other people who believe it, but I think that's an even loftier goal than ending mass eavesdropping.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    do not believe that tyranny of the majority is some ideal to strive for You know, it's kind of funny that direct democracy is commonly derided as "tyranny of the majority". Is it not the case that all democracy, without separation of powers and a legal civil/common law framework to define boundaries, would be tyranny of the majority? But, those things are not exclusive to any political system in the slightest. In a direct democracy like Switzerland, the cantons operate within limitations set by federal law and any cantonal law which violates boundaries can be struck by the Federal Supreme Court. This is, of course, not to idealize Switzerland. They have many issues, including ongoing mass surveillance through Onyx and files collected by EJPD, they were among the last to grant women suffrage (federally in 1971, but the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden didn't budge until 1991!), they maintained a system of indentured child labor called the Verdingkinder well into the 1970s, the median adult income is lower than in the U.S., etc. But if you really examine it, democracy by its very nature entails, to some extent, a tyranny of the majority. However, directness allows for much more flexible and reactive amendments and proposals. It's not too expedient, but unfortunately we can't rely on philosopher kings.
    - mindslight 11y ago
      I actually did not mean that specifically about representative democracy, but all democracy. I think the democratic ideal is essentially rule by the majority, which someone at odds with would call "tyranny". Representative democracy, foundational laws, independentish courts, all move away from the democratic ideal in their own ways. Each mechanism has its own positive aspects and poor failure modes, like democracy itself. When people say "democratic", they're usually assuming some of these also. With respect to mass surveillance, I don't think representative (vs not) currently has much bearing - I believe that most people are presently not opposed to it, whether by (not understanding the technicals, propaganda, not affecting them, feeling powerless to do anything about it). The prominence of electronic surveillance is quite new (two generations), so widely-held hard-learned moderating laws (eg "Natural Rights") easily remain unapplied. Courts themselves are part of the government doing the surveillance. They inherently consider themselves as having jurisdiction over everything (even though historically so much as been non-legible), so they're predisposed to thinking that gathering additional information cannot hurt. So they're no help either. Which is why I think if mass surveillance is going to be curtailed within the next several generations (eg before societal collapse where expensive lessons get internalized as "sins"), it has to be through technical means. Poor technology design and adoption have gotten us to this point by making it so everybody is doing everything in the clear (TLS encrypting the link to your chosen surveillance broker is not security!). So perhaps with a modicum of people caring about their own privacy, combined with the (seemingly) natural swing of the (de)centralization pendulum, responsibly designed privacy preserving systems can be adopted instead.
- mjklin 11y ago
  "But the people have solved some pretty important problems,” I said. “Have they, in fact? The actual practice in a democracy is to vote, not for a given state of affairs, but for a man who claims to be able to achieve that state. I’m not a historian”—Frazier laughed explosively—“quite the contrary—but I suspect that that’s always what is meant by the rule of the people—rule by a man chosen by the people.” “Isn’t that a possible way out, though?” said Castle. “Suppose we need experts. Why not elect them?” “For a very simple reason. The people are in no position to evaluate experts. And elected experts are never able to act as they think best. They can’t experiment. The amateur doesn’t appreciate the need for experimentation. He wants his expert to know. And he’s utterly incapable of sustaining the period of doubt during which an experiment works itself out. The experts must either disguise their experiments and pretend to know the outcome in advance or stop experimenting altogether and struggle to maintain the status quo.” -- B.F. Skinner, "Walden Two"
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I don't think there's an overblown credit at all. An active democracy can get a lot done. U.S. history class shows us that successes, failures, wars, schemes, rebellions, etc. go way back on all kinds of issues. The U.S. democracy, for day to day issues, was a constant battle between all kinds of stakeholders. I'd argue it's been a plutocracy far as economic system going back around 100 years. Nonetheless, the basic freedoms (esp press/protest/speech) and occasional willingness of the people led to resolving many, many problems over time. Even intelligence community got a nice shake-up back in Church committee days with various FOIA extensions letting us dig lots of dirt on them. I agree that neither direct nor representational democracy solve anything by themselves. The people's ability and willingness to take action (and wisely) is the important part. However, the democratic systems provide extra assurance that this can happen. Speech, press, privacy, etc protections ensure a situation can be assessed, information can get out, people can organize, and so on. A much stronger foundation than the alternatives. Much easier than regimes where they have to sneak around with thumb drives and Tor hoping there's not enough infiltrators to get them all busted. So, democracy is a good foundation to build on what author describes. The other stuff allows arbitrary actions by rulers to counter anything supporting personal empowerment. In a democracy, that might be countered in a new election cycle or court ruling. I prefer a democracy. However, I'd love to live in one where the people put their effort into what mattered and held their government accountable. They stopped doing that in mine quite a while ago. That's why it's screwed up.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Again, speech, press and privacy protections are orthogonal to a democratic process. People forget, but the United States had strict censorship codes for all of the television, film and comic book industries (respectively - Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters, Hays Code and Comics Code Authority) entrenched for decades, by lobbyists and powerful trade associations. Then the Fairness Doctrine for radio broadcasts, without the repeal of which talk radio would have never flourished (I'll admit a mixed blessing, but important for free speech). Our freedom of speech is actually greater now than it ever was, but to little avail.
    - 11y ago
PythonicAlpha 11y ago
The (once) "free world" that boasted to have the Stasi put to an end, are making things much worse now. The Stasi had paper files and maybe kilobytes of data, that had to be processed by hand of some people -- our today's surveillance systems collect megabytes or gigabytes of data of everybody and can process it in milliseconds. We Germans should know, what surveillance is all about and how an oppressive system starts out small but grows bigger and bigger. But with all our luxuries and the distractions we get, we forget, what our fathers had to learn the hard way. We also will have to learn the hard way.
- pvg 11y ago
  The Stasi had a lot more than kilobytes of data. It also managed to be far more effective at oppressing people than institutions we know of with petabytes of data.
  - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
    I said kilobytes per Person (it is clear, when you read in context). One page in a paper file normally has 2-4 kB. Everything starts out small. Some institutions in the "free west" are already quite good in oppressing people. Today, you already must be very carefully which books you read in the public library or buy at Amazon. Because you, yourself don't feel it, does not mean, that it does not exist.
    - pvg 11y ago
      It's very difficult to argue about something that exists but only in the eyes of its proponents. Carl Sagan wrote this up nicely once: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
      - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
        Nice stories will not bring freedom back! (do you also have arguments, instead of ignoring them?) Do you want to say, that Snowden, Manning and other Whistle blowers are not oppressed? Have you no eyes?? I guess not!! (and this is only one small example of oppression, that everybody knows but most just ignore -- to live without disturbance -- very much like the people in former Nazi Germany). To be clear about it: What happened to Manning alone, is a shame to any civilized society -- if he is guilty or not. When the so called "Aluhuttraeger" where saying, that the US where spying on us, 10 or 20 years ago, everybody was laughing. Some of those laughs have already stopped.
calibraxis 11y ago
> We simply can't imagine what it is like to live in an oppressive system without freedom of speech. Nice try. Humanity is not so spectacularly unobservant. Most of us are stuck in an "oppressive system without freedom of speech" half the weekday. (With exceptions, like college.) School where we're constantly told to STFU and move from room to room. Great training for corporations in later life. And the US has the biggest prisons; if you're the wrong color or poor, school trains for that with patdowns and metal detectors. I have to agree with Marc Andreessen who tweeted: "Wouldn't we be shocked and dismayed if the NSA wasn't doing this? What did people think all those billions of dollars of funding were for?" No, sentences like this are common in propaganda. Not to convince you of untruths, but to convince you that everyone else believes these untruths and that you're weird. In this case, it flatters anyone who knows better.
- bmmayer1 11y ago
  Why do you assume freedom of speech exists on college campuses?
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    It may exist to a greater extent on some college campuses than some corporate campuses. At college you can choose to work on whichever topic you'd like and discuss it with whomever you would like. At a corporation, many people are simply told what to do and if they deviate from doing what they were told, are fired and/or treated poorly.
    - blumkvist 11y ago
      Do you really believe this is the same as soviet repression of freedom of speech?
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Sorry, but did I or anyone else here claim to believe that? I was only trying to explain what the original poster might have meant with their parenthetical.
StephenFalken 11y ago
One must acknowledge with cryptography no amount of (state) violence will ever solve a (hard) math problem. -- Jacob Appelbaum
chx 11y ago
I find comparing the current state of affairs compared to the Stasi simply revolting. I have yet to see (surely I am ignorant) anyone actually living through that state the current situation is worse or even equal. I didn't live under the Stasi but I was born and raised behind the Iron Curtain and I had a taste of what's going on. It's the fear and suspicion of the next person. You can easily get used to your phone being bugged (ours were and we knew, that's a story for another time) but say you are in a band. Perhaps the drummer writes a report every time over a beer you make a critique of the system. You have no way of knowing. It's hard to describe the feeling and the result on the whole society. At least the current mass surveillance is only technology and not humans.
- joesmo 11y ago
  No one's claiming the current situation is equal or worse, just that it's heading in the same direction. And that, is hard to deny. I have heard many people who lived under communism say that, including myself.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    Exactly. Aside from my larger post, I'll add that I hear it from people that moved away from China, Cuba, etc. A recent one was a Cuban guy I know whose family immigrated here to get away from propaganda, abusive state, etc. I asked him what they thought and he said his mother totally agreed U.S. was transforming into something similar. He said she calls him up every so often after seeing something on the news, freaking out. She commonly says (paraphrased), "They were promoting (police state-style stuff here) on the news. They said it's for (benefit here). That's what Castro said! They did the same thing in Cuba! It's happening all over again!" My friend just nods his head and calms her down as he knows it's true. They figure they still have it better in a hybrid, quasi-police state rather than a full one. Russians and Chinese usually just tell me of the media and surveillance actions that it's the same crap as they saw/heard over there. It's just way safer here as enforcement is weaker, our protections are stronger, and private parties are more independent. So, they all encourage us to keep it that way and push back against the advances. Sounds good to me. :)
- 11y ago

82 points by serengeti 11y ago

Voltaire never made his famous non-statement. It was a paraphrasing of his general philosophy written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in The Friends of Voltaire (1906). I generally do not side with this article's overblown credit towards democracy, and particularly representative democracy. A common crippling meme among democratic societies is to absolve representatives of responsibility and instead keep insisting everything is the fault of citizens for not going to the ballot box, voting incorrectly at the ballot, and to keep trying again and again until they get it "right", even if there are obvious inefficiencies in the democratic process that must be corrected. Where even the most ardent, statistically aware rationalist will succumb to their emotions and begin spouting feel-good drivel about voting. None of this is to be admired. It is to be condemned as insanity and self-hatred.

paublyrne 11y ago
There is an electoral poster by the docks in The Secret of Monkey Island. On examination, it reads: Vote No1 Governor Marley. When there's only one candidate, there's only one choice! It think of it every time I fill in a ballot paper.
mindslight 11y ago
> A common crippling meme among democratic societies is to absolve representatives of responsibility and instead keep insisting everything is the fault of citizens for not going to the ballot box, voting incorrectly at the ballot, and to keep trying again and again until they get it "right", even if there are obvious inefficiencies in the democratic process that must be corrected. Where even the most ardent, statistically aware rationalist will succumb to their emotions and begin spouting feel-good drivel about voting. None of this is to be admired. It is to be condemned as insanity and self-hatred. Well put. However, democracy is inherently about the masses. I agree with your statement because I often find myself at odds with the masses (or apparently just ahead of them by 15 years, while they play catch up and groupthink transmutes freedom struggles into poor ideas and even oppression), and do not believe that tyranny of the majority is some ideal to strive for. However, there are only two ways mass surveillance is going to stop - through technical means or through political means. I believe the technical means is the only practical avenue (even if there were political will to end the state-sponsored orgs and control the big-name mass surveillance companies, the business will continue behind the scenes). But I won't detract from those attempting to do so through public means. Even if they do not succeed in [ae]ffecting the government, I would be quite happy if when talking to an arbitrary person there was a good chance they shared my values about privacy. That's culture. And to appeal to the masses, you have to fluff their sense of self-importance. So I'll give someone a pass to operate within that framework when they're fighting the good fight - if they were to tell the herd followers that following the herd sucked, they would convince no one of anything. I would love to live in a world where most individuals' primary measure of an idea's validity was not the number of other people who believe it, but I think that's an even loftier goal than ending mass eavesdropping.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  do not believe that tyranny of the majority is some ideal to strive for You know, it's kind of funny that direct democracy is commonly derided as "tyranny of the majority". Is it not the case that all democracy, without separation of powers and a legal civil/common law framework to define boundaries, would be tyranny of the majority? But, those things are not exclusive to any political system in the slightest. In a direct democracy like Switzerland, the cantons operate within limitations set by federal law and any cantonal law which violates boundaries can be struck by the Federal Supreme Court. This is, of course, not to idealize Switzerland. They have many issues, including ongoing mass surveillance through Onyx and files collected by EJPD, they were among the last to grant women suffrage (federally in 1971, but the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden didn't budge until 1991!), they maintained a system of indentured child labor called the Verdingkinder well into the 1970s, the median adult income is lower than in the U.S., etc. But if you really examine it, democracy by its very nature entails, to some extent, a tyranny of the majority. However, directness allows for much more flexible and reactive amendments and proposals. It's not too expedient, but unfortunately we can't rely on philosopher kings.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    I actually did not mean that specifically about representative democracy, but all democracy. I think the democratic ideal is essentially rule by the majority, which someone at odds with would call "tyranny". Representative democracy, foundational laws, independentish courts, all move away from the democratic ideal in their own ways. Each mechanism has its own positive aspects and poor failure modes, like democracy itself. When people say "democratic", they're usually assuming some of these also. With respect to mass surveillance, I don't think representative (vs not) currently has much bearing - I believe that most people are presently not opposed to it, whether by (not understanding the technicals, propaganda, not affecting them, feeling powerless to do anything about it). The prominence of electronic surveillance is quite new (two generations), so widely-held hard-learned moderating laws (eg "Natural Rights") easily remain unapplied. Courts themselves are part of the government doing the surveillance. They inherently consider themselves as having jurisdiction over everything (even though historically so much as been non-legible), so they're predisposed to thinking that gathering additional information cannot hurt. So they're no help either. Which is why I think if mass surveillance is going to be curtailed within the next several generations (eg before societal collapse where expensive lessons get internalized as "sins"), it has to be through technical means. Poor technology design and adoption have gotten us to this point by making it so everybody is doing everything in the clear (TLS encrypting the link to your chosen surveillance broker is not security!). So perhaps with a modicum of people caring about their own privacy, combined with the (seemingly) natural swing of the (de)centralization pendulum, responsibly designed privacy preserving systems can be adopted instead.
mjklin 11y ago
"But the people have solved some pretty important problems,” I said. “Have they, in fact? The actual practice in a democracy is to vote, not for a given state of affairs, but for a man who claims to be able to achieve that state. I’m not a historian”—Frazier laughed explosively—“quite the contrary—but I suspect that that’s always what is meant by the rule of the people—rule by a man chosen by the people.” “Isn’t that a possible way out, though?” said Castle. “Suppose we need experts. Why not elect them?” “For a very simple reason. The people are in no position to evaluate experts. And elected experts are never able to act as they think best. They can’t experiment. The amateur doesn’t appreciate the need for experimentation. He wants his expert to know. And he’s utterly incapable of sustaining the period of doubt during which an experiment works itself out. The experts must either disguise their experiments and pretend to know the outcome in advance or stop experimenting altogether and struggle to maintain the status quo.” -- B.F. Skinner, "Walden Two"
nickpsecurity 11y ago
I don't think there's an overblown credit at all. An active democracy can get a lot done. U.S. history class shows us that successes, failures, wars, schemes, rebellions, etc. go way back on all kinds of issues. The U.S. democracy, for day to day issues, was a constant battle between all kinds of stakeholders. I'd argue it's been a plutocracy far as economic system going back around 100 years. Nonetheless, the basic freedoms (esp press/protest/speech) and occasional willingness of the people led to resolving many, many problems over time. Even intelligence community got a nice shake-up back in Church committee days with various FOIA extensions letting us dig lots of dirt on them. I agree that neither direct nor representational democracy solve anything by themselves. The people's ability and willingness to take action (and wisely) is the important part. However, the democratic systems provide extra assurance that this can happen. Speech, press, privacy, etc protections ensure a situation can be assessed, information can get out, people can organize, and so on. A much stronger foundation than the alternatives. Much easier than regimes where they have to sneak around with thumb drives and Tor hoping there's not enough infiltrators to get them all busted. So, democracy is a good foundation to build on what author describes. The other stuff allows arbitrary actions by rulers to counter anything supporting personal empowerment. In a democracy, that might be countered in a new election cycle or court ruling. I prefer a democracy. However, I'd love to live in one where the people put their effort into what mattered and held their government accountable. They stopped doing that in mine quite a while ago. That's why it's screwed up.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Again, speech, press and privacy protections are orthogonal to a democratic process. People forget, but the United States had strict censorship codes for all of the television, film and comic book industries (respectively - Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters, Hays Code and Comics Code Authority) entrenched for decades, by lobbyists and powerful trade associations. Then the Fairness Doctrine for radio broadcasts, without the repeal of which talk radio would have never flourished (I'll admit a mixed blessing, but important for free speech). Our freedom of speech is actually greater now than it ever was, but to little avail.
  - 11y ago

PythonicAlpha 11y ago

The (once) "free world" that boasted to have the Stasi put to an end, are making things much worse now. The Stasi had paper files and maybe kilobytes of data, that had to be processed by hand of some people -- our today's surveillance systems collect megabytes or gigabytes of data of everybody and can process it in milliseconds. We Germans should know, what surveillance is all about and how an oppressive system starts out small but grows bigger and bigger. But with all our luxuries and the distractions we get, we forget, what our fathers had to learn the hard way. We also will have to learn the hard way.

pvg 11y ago
The Stasi had a lot more than kilobytes of data. It also managed to be far more effective at oppressing people than institutions we know of with petabytes of data.
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  I said kilobytes per Person (it is clear, when you read in context). One page in a paper file normally has 2-4 kB. Everything starts out small. Some institutions in the "free west" are already quite good in oppressing people. Today, you already must be very carefully which books you read in the public library or buy at Amazon. Because you, yourself don't feel it, does not mean, that it does not exist.
  - pvg 11y ago
    It's very difficult to argue about something that exists but only in the eyes of its proponents. Carl Sagan wrote this up nicely once: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
    - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
      Nice stories will not bring freedom back! (do you also have arguments, instead of ignoring them?) Do you want to say, that Snowden, Manning and other Whistle blowers are not oppressed? Have you no eyes?? I guess not!! (and this is only one small example of oppression, that everybody knows but most just ignore -- to live without disturbance -- very much like the people in former Nazi Germany). To be clear about it: What happened to Manning alone, is a shame to any civilized society -- if he is guilty or not. When the so called "Aluhuttraeger" where saying, that the US where spying on us, 10 or 20 years ago, everybody was laughing. Some of those laughs have already stopped.

calibraxis 11y ago

> We simply can't imagine what it is like to live in an oppressive system without freedom of speech. Nice try. Humanity is not so spectacularly unobservant. Most of us are stuck in an "oppressive system without freedom of speech" half the weekday. (With exceptions, like college.) School where we're constantly told to STFU and move from room to room. Great training for corporations in later life. And the US has the biggest prisons; if you're the wrong color or poor, school trains for that with patdowns and metal detectors. I have to agree with Marc Andreessen who tweeted: "Wouldn't we be shocked and dismayed if the NSA wasn't doing this? What did people think all those billions of dollars of funding were for?" No, sentences like this are common in propaganda. Not to convince you of untruths, but to convince you that everyone else believes these untruths and that you're weird. In this case, it flatters anyone who knows better.

bmmayer1 11y ago
Why do you assume freedom of speech exists on college campuses?
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  It may exist to a greater extent on some college campuses than some corporate campuses. At college you can choose to work on whichever topic you'd like and discuss it with whomever you would like. At a corporation, many people are simply told what to do and if they deviate from doing what they were told, are fired and/or treated poorly.
  - blumkvist 11y ago
    Do you really believe this is the same as soviet repression of freedom of speech?
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Sorry, but did I or anyone else here claim to believe that? I was only trying to explain what the original poster might have meant with their parenthetical.

StephenFalken 11y ago

One must acknowledge with cryptography no amount of (state) violence will ever solve a (hard) math problem. -- Jacob Appelbaum

chx 11y ago

I find comparing the current state of affairs compared to the Stasi simply revolting. I have yet to see (surely I am ignorant) anyone actually living through that state the current situation is worse or even equal. I didn't live under the Stasi but I was born and raised behind the Iron Curtain and I had a taste of what's going on. It's the fear and suspicion of the next person. You can easily get used to your phone being bugged (ours were and we knew, that's a story for another time) but say you are in a band. Perhaps the drummer writes a report every time over a beer you make a critique of the system. You have no way of knowing. It's hard to describe the feeling and the result on the whole society. At least the current mass surveillance is only technology and not humans.

joesmo 11y ago
No one's claiming the current situation is equal or worse, just that it's heading in the same direction. And that, is hard to deny. I have heard many people who lived under communism say that, including myself.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Exactly. Aside from my larger post, I'll add that I hear it from people that moved away from China, Cuba, etc. A recent one was a Cuban guy I know whose family immigrated here to get away from propaganda, abusive state, etc. I asked him what they thought and he said his mother totally agreed U.S. was transforming into something similar. He said she calls him up every so often after seeing something on the news, freaking out. She commonly says (paraphrased), "They were promoting (police state-style stuff here) on the news. They said it's for (benefit here). That's what Castro said! They did the same thing in Cuba! It's happening all over again!" My friend just nods his head and calms her down as he knows it's true. They figure they still have it better in a hybrid, quasi-police state rather than a full one. Russians and Chinese usually just tell me of the media and surveillance actions that it's the same crap as they saw/heard over there. It's just way safer here as enforcement is weaker, our protections are stronger, and private parties are more independent. So, they all encourage us to keep it that way and push back against the advances. Sounds good to me. :)
11y ago