4 ms·

I expect my government to spy on foreign citizens and governments. If they do something truly terrible like kill civilians or disrupt the natural society of a

I expect my government to spy on foreign citizens and governments. If they do something truly terrible like kill civilians or disrupt the natural society of a country I'd have to take a hard look. Google is a private firm and subject to market forces like boycotts over military contracting. It's because governments and Google are two very different things.

avs733 7y ago
And you also rely on them for information as to who is truly terrible.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  "And you also rely on them for information as to who is truly terrible." No, not at all. Thankfully we have many people in press, innumerable sources of information, and a lot of public discourse on these things. Unlike in some regions, where journalists are murdered, sometimes by the state.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > No, not at all. Thankfully we have many people in press, innumerable sources of information, and a lot of public discourse on these things. That sure helped in Iraq's case. It's not like the press just repeated what the government told it.
  - escanda 7y ago
    You guessed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Couso https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Couso
    - sonnyblarney 7y ago
      If this is your 'evidence' - then you've basically made my argument for me. A journalist who died in a combat zone, in what was by general consensus an accident - is in fact evidence that the US does have a fairly free and open press. The US gains little from independent journalists in a war zone, the Russians would have dropped a bomb on the building and never said sorry - or dropped a bomb on the next building to force them out. There are more press outlets in the US, of more variety (i.e. pro-gov, anti-gov, pro-civil liberties) than any state in the world. Though the US gov. does work with major outlets in time of war, that's clearly not the case otherwise. Most major press outlets are attacking the Executive wing on a daily basis. I don't need to visit CNN today to know that they are trying to call out Trump on something or the other. Contrast that with Canada or UK wherein the primary broadcasters are state-owned. Though at 'arms length' and nominally 'independent' - they nevertheless represent the interests of the state. Contrast again with Russia - where outlets are either directly owned/run by, or directly controlled by the state, and if they're not - they'r coerced. Journalists who exposes corruption in the Russian state or in business are routinely murdered, threatened, locked up arbitrarily. You can read about Russian media here [1] But the broader issue is - what kind of anger must people have to defy reality in such a manner as your comment has indicated? Nobody could seriously make the claim that America doesn't have a fairly open press by any reasonable international standard. There are 500 channels blabbing all day about everything. There are protests everywhere. There are leaks, Twitter wars, everyone has an opinion. There was reporting literally today about possible ill behaviour by the NSA. Contrast this with the death of journos in Russia who speak out. Contrast this with the total absence of free information in China, not just by journalists, but by citizens - wherein any hint of public discussion about certain subjects is met with the full violence of the state. None of this is contentious, it's well known and objective. And so how do intelligent people come to upside down conclusions? That's the interest part in this. FYI here is the press freedom index whereby you can see exactly which countries have specifically what kinds of problems with regards to press freedoms. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
  - 2_listerine_pls 7y ago
    The worst kind of idiot
    - dang 7y ago
      Personal attacks, flamebait, unsubstantive comments will get you banned on HN. Can you please not do those? We're hoping for a site that's a bit better than internet default. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
RomanBob 7y ago
Somehow you are okay with a group of people doing bad things as long as they call themselves 'government' but you are not okay when a group doesn't get to call themselves so. What a weird moral position to take.
raxxorrax 7y ago
Really? Because your government treats an attack on digital infrastructure as an act of war. So why do you war so much yourself?
- golergka 7y ago
  Because any sane person accepts the fact that some games are zero-sum or close to it, and in these games, his interests (and, by proxy, interests of his country) are more important to them. You want your country to spy on others and at the same time stop others from spying on you.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    But in consequence you accept that the US committed an act of war against Russia and the Netherlands? I would be more careful with that and if I were a citizen I would request someone in charge to take immediate consequences because the cost/benefit-calculation turns against you if it becomes public. Zero-sum game, non? Luckily passive aggressiveness isn't an act of war at least.
    - C1sc0cat 7y ago
      Remind me again when the CIA used Chemical Weapons (a war crime -Skripal Style ) on Russian and Dutch soil
      - raxxorrax 7y ago
        That is not a validly deducted argument and not the topic. There is a lot of info about crimes comitted by the CIA, but this isn't about any naughtyness competition.
        golergka 7y ago
        > this isn't about any naughtyness competition But it absolutely is. Whataboutism is an illogical thing if you're judging actions of some actor on some abstract moral scale, this is true. But that's not the conversation here here, as we're talking not about ethic, but about public perception and rationality of offensive actions. And in this game, the context of actions of adversaries matters a great deal: if your opponents do something much worse, smaller on your behalf are expected to draw much less scrutiny and therefore, become much "cheaper".
pjc50 7y ago
> If they do something truly terrible like kill civilians or disrupt the natural society of a country I'd have to take a hard look. I can't tell whether the "they" in this sentence is referring to your government or the foreign one.
billfruit 7y ago
From an employees perspective I do not think federal government is much different from any other large employer.
- stronglikedan 7y ago
  With the notable exception that it's usually a pretty cush gig.

avs733 7y ago

And you also rely on them for information as to who is truly terrible.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
"And you also rely on them for information as to who is truly terrible." No, not at all. Thankfully we have many people in press, innumerable sources of information, and a lot of public discourse on these things. Unlike in some regions, where journalists are murdered, sometimes by the state.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > No, not at all. Thankfully we have many people in press, innumerable sources of information, and a lot of public discourse on these things. That sure helped in Iraq's case. It's not like the press just repeated what the government told it.
- escanda 7y ago
  You guessed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Couso https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Couso
  - sonnyblarney 7y ago
    If this is your 'evidence' - then you've basically made my argument for me. A journalist who died in a combat zone, in what was by general consensus an accident - is in fact evidence that the US does have a fairly free and open press. The US gains little from independent journalists in a war zone, the Russians would have dropped a bomb on the building and never said sorry - or dropped a bomb on the next building to force them out. There are more press outlets in the US, of more variety (i.e. pro-gov, anti-gov, pro-civil liberties) than any state in the world. Though the US gov. does work with major outlets in time of war, that's clearly not the case otherwise. Most major press outlets are attacking the Executive wing on a daily basis. I don't need to visit CNN today to know that they are trying to call out Trump on something or the other. Contrast that with Canada or UK wherein the primary broadcasters are state-owned. Though at 'arms length' and nominally 'independent' - they nevertheless represent the interests of the state. Contrast again with Russia - where outlets are either directly owned/run by, or directly controlled by the state, and if they're not - they'r coerced. Journalists who exposes corruption in the Russian state or in business are routinely murdered, threatened, locked up arbitrarily. You can read about Russian media here [1] But the broader issue is - what kind of anger must people have to defy reality in such a manner as your comment has indicated? Nobody could seriously make the claim that America doesn't have a fairly open press by any reasonable international standard. There are 500 channels blabbing all day about everything. There are protests everywhere. There are leaks, Twitter wars, everyone has an opinion. There was reporting literally today about possible ill behaviour by the NSA. Contrast this with the death of journos in Russia who speak out. Contrast this with the total absence of free information in China, not just by journalists, but by citizens - wherein any hint of public discussion about certain subjects is met with the full violence of the state. None of this is contentious, it's well known and objective. And so how do intelligent people come to upside down conclusions? That's the interest part in this. FYI here is the press freedom index whereby you can see exactly which countries have specifically what kinds of problems with regards to press freedoms. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
- 2_listerine_pls 7y ago
  The worst kind of idiot
  - dang 7y ago
    Personal attacks, flamebait, unsubstantive comments will get you banned on HN. Can you please not do those? We're hoping for a site that's a bit better than internet default. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

RomanBob 7y ago

Somehow you are okay with a group of people doing bad things as long as they call themselves 'government' but you are not okay when a group doesn't get to call themselves so. What a weird moral position to take.

raxxorrax 7y ago

Really? Because your government treats an attack on digital infrastructure as an act of war. So why do you war so much yourself?

golergka 7y ago
Because any sane person accepts the fact that some games are zero-sum or close to it, and in these games, his interests (and, by proxy, interests of his country) are more important to them. You want your country to spy on others and at the same time stop others from spying on you.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  But in consequence you accept that the US committed an act of war against Russia and the Netherlands? I would be more careful with that and if I were a citizen I would request someone in charge to take immediate consequences because the cost/benefit-calculation turns against you if it becomes public. Zero-sum game, non? Luckily passive aggressiveness isn't an act of war at least.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    Remind me again when the CIA used Chemical Weapons (a war crime -Skripal Style ) on Russian and Dutch soil
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      That is not a validly deducted argument and not the topic. There is a lot of info about crimes comitted by the CIA, but this isn't about any naughtyness competition.
      - golergka 7y ago
        > this isn't about any naughtyness competition But it absolutely is. Whataboutism is an illogical thing if you're judging actions of some actor on some abstract moral scale, this is true. But that's not the conversation here here, as we're talking not about ethic, but about public perception and rationality of offensive actions. And in this game, the context of actions of adversaries matters a great deal: if your opponents do something much worse, smaller on your behalf are expected to draw much less scrutiny and therefore, become much "cheaper".

pjc50 7y ago

> If they do something truly terrible like kill civilians or disrupt the natural society of a country I'd have to take a hard look. I can't tell whether the "they" in this sentence is referring to your government or the foreign one.

billfruit 7y ago

From an employees perspective I do not think federal government is much different from any other large employer.

stronglikedan 7y ago
With the notable exception that it's usually a pretty cush gig.