4 ms·

I understand your point -- though if you read the article, the conclusion is as much about the similarities between China's domestic surveillance policy and the

I understand your point -- though if you read the article, the conclusion is as much about the similarities between China's domestic surveillance policy and the new backdoor proposals of the US and UK, a point that really does not fit into the State department's model of the world. My point is that it doesn't matter what the reasons are for censorship or surveillance, if you actually want to implement your repressive solution successfully, you will end up walking down an increasingly authoritarian path. Every country has some clear reason for introducing their own "control rods", whether it's Islamic separatists in Xinjiang or immigrants or the communist menace or economic instability. The reasons are always different, but the consequences are often the same.

rubberstamp 11y ago
Surveillance is not a solution. I would say surveillance isn't needed if the root cause of that problem is actually solved. Take for example, country A goes to war with country B or destabilizes it. Now people in country B will want to take revenge. Individuals will want to take matters into their own hands for the injustice done to them(making them so called terrorists -there is also religious terrorism which I believe is all for silly reasons). And because people in country B are also humans, many many fellow humans in country A will also sympathize with their sufferings and would want to correct their own country. Some of them may turn to become "terrorists". Now the root cause for creating terrorism was country A itself. There is also the problem with media. Giving religious terrorists the attention they crave is the last thing we should do. That only gives them a sense of satisfaction.