5 ms·

Funny how this works. There exist a whole range of actions for which I'd much more be willing to be spied upon by an openly hostile foreign power rather than my

Funny how this works. There exist a whole range of actions for which I'd much more be willing to be spied upon by an openly hostile foreign power rather than my, ever so slightly friendlier, own government.

bad_user 8y ago
That’s very shortsighted. First of all the spying that your own government does has to be lawful, whereas in the eyes of a foreign government you have no rights. Also in your own country you have legal ways to fight the spying conducted by your government, whereas you can do absolutely nothing to a foreign government. I’m an EU citizen and this is precisely why I got mad about the Snowden revelations. Because under US legislation as a non-US citizen I have no rights above whatever the trade agreements between the US and the EU are saying. And once that data gets collected, it will get abused sooner or later. And let me tell you, being born in an ex-communist state from the Warsaw Pact, the thought that another communist state is watching me is freaking me out ;-)
- blotter_paper 8y ago
  >That’s very shortsighted. First of all the spying that your own government does has to be lawful, whereas in the eyes of a foreign government you have no rights. Do you think the Snowden leaks showed clear violations of the 4th amendment to the US constitution? If so, this whole argument is null and void. Believing that a surveillance state will follow it's own laws is just plain silly, that's not how the world works.
  - bad_user 8y ago
    >> "Do you think the Snowden leaks showed clear violations of the 4th amendment" Yes, they showed a clear violation. >> "If so, this whole argument is null and void. Believing that a surveillance state will follow it's own laws is just plain silly." Sorry, but your conclusion does not follow. Yes, I do believe that in a country with the rule of law my rights are reasonably well protected. Yes, some state agencies can break that law, that's why you've got the checks and balances system. Countries like China fall short in all departments. And the Snowden leaks couldn't have happened in China, so presenting it as proof that Western countries are as bad is what's silly. >> "that's not how the world works" Compared with most people here, I was actually born under a communist regime that took surveillance and suppression of speech to a whole new level (that 1984 novel was actually more realistic than what happened under the Iron Curtain), so I probably know how the world works better than you ;-)
    - blotter_paper 8y ago
      >Yes, some state agencies can break that law, that's why you've got the checks and balances system. Nobody served time for breaking the rules. They act like they're obeying their interpretation of the rules now, but since we know they lied for years and nobody was punished it would be silly to believe them. Do you think the checks and balances of the US system did their job in this case? >Countries like China fall short in all departments. I'll agree that they censor more. I'm not convinced that their checks and balances against illegal surveillance are better, since I see no believable evidence of US checks and balances working in this department. >And the Snowden leaks couldn't have happened in China, Snowden flew to China before letting the leaks drop. Could a Chinese national not leave the country and drop a leak? Why is this impossible? I'll buy that news coverage would be more censored, but that isn't your claim. >so presenting it as proof that Western countries are as bad is what's silly. This doesn't follow regardless, if it did then any leak of any abuses whatsoever couldn't be used as proof simply because it was allowed to be published. Is this the only metric we judge governments by? >so I probably know how the world works better than you ;-) Relatively novel experiences can be useful, but it would be foolish to mistake them for wisdom.

bad_user 8y ago

That’s very shortsighted. First of all the spying that your own government does has to be lawful, whereas in the eyes of a foreign government you have no rights. Also in your own country you have legal ways to fight the spying conducted by your government, whereas you can do absolutely nothing to a foreign government. I’m an EU citizen and this is precisely why I got mad about the Snowden revelations. Because under US legislation as a non-US citizen I have no rights above whatever the trade agreements between the US and the EU are saying. And once that data gets collected, it will get abused sooner or later. And let me tell you, being born in an ex-communist state from the Warsaw Pact, the thought that another communist state is watching me is freaking me out ;-)

blotter_paper 8y ago
>That’s very shortsighted. First of all the spying that your own government does has to be lawful, whereas in the eyes of a foreign government you have no rights. Do you think the Snowden leaks showed clear violations of the 4th amendment to the US constitution? If so, this whole argument is null and void. Believing that a surveillance state will follow it's own laws is just plain silly, that's not how the world works.
- bad_user 8y ago
  >> "Do you think the Snowden leaks showed clear violations of the 4th amendment" Yes, they showed a clear violation. >> "If so, this whole argument is null and void. Believing that a surveillance state will follow it's own laws is just plain silly." Sorry, but your conclusion does not follow. Yes, I do believe that in a country with the rule of law my rights are reasonably well protected. Yes, some state agencies can break that law, that's why you've got the checks and balances system. Countries like China fall short in all departments. And the Snowden leaks couldn't have happened in China, so presenting it as proof that Western countries are as bad is what's silly. >> "that's not how the world works" Compared with most people here, I was actually born under a communist regime that took surveillance and suppression of speech to a whole new level (that 1984 novel was actually more realistic than what happened under the Iron Curtain), so I probably know how the world works better than you ;-)
  - blotter_paper 8y ago
    >Yes, some state agencies can break that law, that's why you've got the checks and balances system. Nobody served time for breaking the rules. They act like they're obeying their interpretation of the rules now, but since we know they lied for years and nobody was punished it would be silly to believe them. Do you think the checks and balances of the US system did their job in this case? >Countries like China fall short in all departments. I'll agree that they censor more. I'm not convinced that their checks and balances against illegal surveillance are better, since I see no believable evidence of US checks and balances working in this department. >And the Snowden leaks couldn't have happened in China, Snowden flew to China before letting the leaks drop. Could a Chinese national not leave the country and drop a leak? Why is this impossible? I'll buy that news coverage would be more censored, but that isn't your claim. >so presenting it as proof that Western countries are as bad is what's silly. This doesn't follow regardless, if it did then any leak of any abuses whatsoever couldn't be used as proof simply because it was allowed to be published. Is this the only metric we judge governments by? >so I probably know how the world works better than you ;-) Relatively novel experiences can be useful, but it would be foolish to mistake them for wisdom.