2 ms·

This is just ahistorical politics and jingoism under pretense of some greater cause. When China was making its great leap forward entire groups of minorities we

by throw2016 8y ago

This is just ahistorical politics and jingoism under pretense of some greater cause. When China was making its great leap forward entire groups of minorities were segregated in the US and were fighting for their basic rights and continue to face discrimination. If you have a problem with surveillance you should have an even bigger problem with 'democracies' neck deep in surveillance and arbitrary 'secret courts', 'secret orders' and 'secret processes'. Yet there is near zero mainstream dissent and protest and Assange and Snowden continue to be stranded, surely if people care so much about human rights there would be much more robust activism and genuine efforts to get these individuals back, roll back surveillance and hold people accountable? If you want to talk about human rights you better have an explanation for the devastation of entire countries and millions of lives in the middle east starting from Iraq to Libya to Syria on entirely made up premises. And the incessant meddling in South America and other regions of the world. China has nothing compared to the scale of destruction and human misery caused in just these two regions. No country has its hands clean. What is the problem with China developing under their own system? Democracy did not magically form here and in Europe, it took hundreds of years of struggle and its naive to think China and others will make this transition in decades. They are not threatening anyone, at this very moment the US is threatening Iran and meddling with coup plotters in Venezuela, actions that could potentially led to the loss of millions of lives, destabilize these countries and devastate entire regions. This kind of brazen hypocrisy cannot stand in informed discussion.

mhneu 8y ago
No. I too once thought that NSA and other Western intelligence agencies were doing things we should avoid. But then I learned the difference between democratic and autocratic regimes' use of data collection. In a word: rule of law. There are teams of judges that review surveillance applications. There are strong rules and laws to prevent misuse of data - NSA employees have been disciplined for violating the rules and reading data they are not supposed to. And in the West we vote for the leadership that supervises this effort - and the leadership changes. (we've had some election problems, yes - in part due to autocrats intervening in the West lately, but democracies are working to improve) It's not about people, it's about laws. Autocratic countries don't have the same controls. Also, in the influence campaigns autocracies have been running in the West, there's a ton of effort put into whataboutism - 'democracies do it too'. Be careful.
- pas 8y ago
  Both is probably true, the NSA/gov overreach is bad, but the NSA/US has a significantly better civil oversight of intelligence services.
  - ionised 8y ago
    An oversight that rubber stamps 99% of surveillance requests from the NSA and allows it to use information sharing agreements with its allies to skirt around rules preventing surveillance of its own citizens. That is not oversight to me.
    - mhneu 8y ago
      That is a false talking point. The approval rate of FISA warrants does not reflect the strength of oversight. Be careful. There is a lot of disinformation out there designed to discredit democracies. Discussion of why this is false: https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-really-a-rubber-stamp/ https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-inte... The win rate is misleading for a simple reason: The requests the FISC receives are not a random or representative sample of all cases in which the executive branch believes it would benefit from a warrant. The number and type of government requests are responsive to the level of oversight the court exercises—just as a plaintiff’s decision to litigate is responsive to changes in the law. Because it is costly to make an ex parte application (in time, resources, and reputation) and because the executive has long-running knowledge of how the FISC treats applications, there is little reason to expect agencies to submit losing requests. And while the rarity of ex parte proceedings might make this outcome seem unprecedented or extraordinary, other ex parte proceedings—like those for Title III wiretaps and delayed-notice warrants—display equally lopsided results: the government “wins” almost 100% of the time.
apostacy 8y ago
> This is just ahistorical politics and jingoism under pretense of some greater cause. When China was making its great leap forward entire groups of minorities were segregated in the US and were fighting for their basic rights and continue to face discrimination. The United States learned its lesson to an extent, and our voters and leaders grappled with a moral question of how to live harmoniously in our difference. We certainly haven't solved that problem, but we have made progress, and we are trying. This is FAR better than China. China does not care whether they are evil, and feel no shame for oppressing their minorities. The very fact that in the west we have these discussions, and Chinese do not, is an indicator of the robustness of our culture. China is actually stepping up their apartheid, using the latest technology we sold them to treat their minorities like livestock, forcing them to endure dehumanizing treatment in their own homeland. Your post is filled with exaggeration and lies. Yes, western countries make terrible mistakes, but then our citizens have protests and vote our leaders out. China does not.

mhneu 8y ago

No. I too once thought that NSA and other Western intelligence agencies were doing things we should avoid. But then I learned the difference between democratic and autocratic regimes' use of data collection. In a word: rule of law. There are teams of judges that review surveillance applications. There are strong rules and laws to prevent misuse of data - NSA employees have been disciplined for violating the rules and reading data they are not supposed to. And in the West we vote for the leadership that supervises this effort - and the leadership changes. (we've had some election problems, yes - in part due to autocrats intervening in the West lately, but democracies are working to improve) It's not about people, it's about laws. Autocratic countries don't have the same controls. Also, in the influence campaigns autocracies have been running in the West, there's a ton of effort put into whataboutism - 'democracies do it too'. Be careful.

pas 8y ago
Both is probably true, the NSA/gov overreach is bad, but the NSA/US has a significantly better civil oversight of intelligence services.
- ionised 8y ago
  An oversight that rubber stamps 99% of surveillance requests from the NSA and allows it to use information sharing agreements with its allies to skirt around rules preventing surveillance of its own citizens. That is not oversight to me.
  - mhneu 8y ago
    That is a false talking point. The approval rate of FISA warrants does not reflect the strength of oversight. Be careful. There is a lot of disinformation out there designed to discredit democracies. Discussion of why this is false: https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-really-a-rubber-stamp/ https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-inte... The win rate is misleading for a simple reason: The requests the FISC receives are not a random or representative sample of all cases in which the executive branch believes it would benefit from a warrant. The number and type of government requests are responsive to the level of oversight the court exercises—just as a plaintiff’s decision to litigate is responsive to changes in the law. Because it is costly to make an ex parte application (in time, resources, and reputation) and because the executive has long-running knowledge of how the FISC treats applications, there is little reason to expect agencies to submit losing requests. And while the rarity of ex parte proceedings might make this outcome seem unprecedented or extraordinary, other ex parte proceedings—like those for Title III wiretaps and delayed-notice warrants—display equally lopsided results: the government “wins” almost 100% of the time.

apostacy 8y ago

> This is just ahistorical politics and jingoism under pretense of some greater cause. When China was making its great leap forward entire groups of minorities were segregated in the US and were fighting for their basic rights and continue to face discrimination. The United States learned its lesson to an extent, and our voters and leaders grappled with a moral question of how to live harmoniously in our difference. We certainly haven't solved that problem, but we have made progress, and we are trying. This is FAR better than China. China does not care whether they are evil, and feel no shame for oppressing their minorities. The very fact that in the west we have these discussions, and Chinese do not, is an indicator of the robustness of our culture. China is actually stepping up their apartheid, using the latest technology we sold them to treat their minorities like livestock, forcing them to endure dehumanizing treatment in their own homeland. Your post is filled with exaggeration and lies. Yes, western countries make terrible mistakes, but then our citizens have protests and vote our leaders out. China does not.