4 ms·

> I don't think China is any more evil than the US. So if I'm okay with using infrastructure from AT&T and its Room 641A, Verizon and its Quantico circuit, and

by koolba 7y ago

> I don't think China is any more evil than the US. So if I'm okay with using infrastructure from AT&T and its Room 641A, Verizon and its Quantico circuit, and the various PRISM companies, I have no logical reason to object to infrastructure that may be similarly compromised by the Chinese government. One big problem is that there is no recourse against China. Unless you have some long term plans of joining their politburo and making changes 25 years from now, there's no way to way to apply direct pressure for change. Say what you want about the USA's intelligence organizations but at the end of the day there's a path for change. We elect a new top of the house every four years and all our intelligence agencies (are supposed to...) report to our civilian leaders. China's is a black box that's only getting darker over time.

monocasa 7y ago
What path? The NSA was found to be breaking the constitution, and as far as we know hasn't stopped.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > What path? Through legislation and free deliberation. > The NSA was found to be breaking the constitution No, it hasn’t. Many believe it is, but the courts have so far upheld the NSA’s activities. The American public’s views on the topic are mixed [1]. The fight is in convincing the public this is an issue. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americans-think-about-nsa-surveillance-national-security-and-privacy/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americ...
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-says-nsa-program-appears-violate-constitution-flna2D11751613 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-says-nsa-... https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjolt/vol11/iss1/8/ https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjolt/vol11/iss1/8/ The evidence suggests that blanket surveillance is a thing, and that's it very clearly unconstitutional. Of course in this situation it's always possible to appeal to "national security" but that's an unconvincing legitimisation unless it can be proved that national security has been enhanced to an extent that warrants the suspension of constitutional protections. So far as I know this has never even been tried in court, never mind proven.
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      It's shown up in court, but defendants have had a tough time showing legal standing [1]. Keep in mind that the state secrets privilege [2] is judicially mediated. Given the lack of demonstrable, specific harm, the matter is--rightly, in my opinion--deferred to the political branches as a political question (as opposed to a legal one). That said, let's keep in mind context. Here we have a government program which we're able to freely debate. If enough of us prioritized its removal, it would be outlawed. That functions as a fundamental check totally lacking in China, moreso now that Xi is a dictator. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_v._NSA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_v._NSA [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege
      - monocasa 7y ago
        > Given the lack of demonstrable, specific harm, the matter is--rightly, in my opinion--deferred to the political branches as a political question (as opposed to a legal one). I'm not sure how it can be relegated completely to political representatives, given that the secreacy means that the check on representative desicions (an informed populace voting for their representatives) isn't present. > That said, let's keep in mind context. Here we have a government program which we're able to freely debate. If enough of us prioritized its removal, it would be outlawed. You can freely debate specific policies in China, and broadly unpopular policies in China are suspended. That can't be said for the US, where whether a law is passed has more to do with whether the ruling class supports it, rather than it's broad popularity. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi... > That functions as a fundamental check totally lacking in China, moreso now that Xi is a dictator. The whole 'Xi is a dictator' thing is severely overblown in Western media. Oh no, he has the same term limits as Angela Merkel now. Literally a dictator. PS: linking to the states secrets wikipage to increase your number of citations is lol inducing.
        lclarkmichalek 7y ago
        You understand that Angela Merkel is subject to free and fair elections, which Xi is not, right?
  - monocasa 7y ago
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-says-nsa-program-appears-violate-constitution-flna2D11751613 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-says-nsa-...
StreamBright 7y ago
What pressure was put on the NSA and what is the outcome[1]? Let's include all the FVEY[2] countires. Look at Australia's encryption laws[3]. It is actually better to live in China than in AUstralia from this point of view. I do not think that you can use the argument that we can apply political pressure to intelligence agencies or governments and have a better outcome. At least this is not the reality in many cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/australia/encryption-bill-nauru.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/australia/encryptio...
xtracto 7y ago
> Say what you want about the USA's intelligence organizations but at the end of the day there's a path for change. Not for the majority of people in the world. Why should I care more about China than about the USA as someone who uses technology from both countries?

by koolba 7y ago

monocasa 7y ago

What path? The NSA was found to be breaking the constitution, and as far as we know hasn't stopped.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> What path? Through legislation and free deliberation. > The NSA was found to be breaking the constitution No, it hasn’t. Many believe it is, but the courts have so far upheld the NSA’s activities. The American public’s views on the topic are mixed [1]. The fight is in convincing the public this is an issue. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americans-think-about-nsa-surveillance-national-security-and-privacy/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americ...
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-says-nsa-program-appears-violate-constitution-flna2D11751613 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-says-nsa-... https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjolt/vol11/iss1/8/ https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjolt/vol11/iss1/8/ The evidence suggests that blanket surveillance is a thing, and that's it very clearly unconstitutional. Of course in this situation it's always possible to appeal to "national security" but that's an unconvincing legitimisation unless it can be proved that national security has been enhanced to an extent that warrants the suspension of constitutional protections. So far as I know this has never even been tried in court, never mind proven.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    It's shown up in court, but defendants have had a tough time showing legal standing [1]. Keep in mind that the state secrets privilege [2] is judicially mediated. Given the lack of demonstrable, specific harm, the matter is--rightly, in my opinion--deferred to the political branches as a political question (as opposed to a legal one). That said, let's keep in mind context. Here we have a government program which we're able to freely debate. If enough of us prioritized its removal, it would be outlawed. That functions as a fundamental check totally lacking in China, moreso now that Xi is a dictator. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_v._NSA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_v._NSA [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege
    - monocasa 7y ago
      > Given the lack of demonstrable, specific harm, the matter is--rightly, in my opinion--deferred to the political branches as a political question (as opposed to a legal one). I'm not sure how it can be relegated completely to political representatives, given that the secreacy means that the check on representative desicions (an informed populace voting for their representatives) isn't present. > That said, let's keep in mind context. Here we have a government program which we're able to freely debate. If enough of us prioritized its removal, it would be outlawed. You can freely debate specific policies in China, and broadly unpopular policies in China are suspended. That can't be said for the US, where whether a law is passed has more to do with whether the ruling class supports it, rather than it's broad popularity. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi... > That functions as a fundamental check totally lacking in China, moreso now that Xi is a dictator. The whole 'Xi is a dictator' thing is severely overblown in Western media. Oh no, he has the same term limits as Angela Merkel now. Literally a dictator. PS: linking to the states secrets wikipage to increase your number of citations is lol inducing.
      - lclarkmichalek 7y ago
        You understand that Angela Merkel is subject to free and fair elections, which Xi is not, right?
- monocasa 7y ago
  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-says-nsa-program-appears-violate-constitution-flna2D11751613 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-says-nsa-...

StreamBright 7y ago

What pressure was put on the NSA and what is the outcome[1]? Let's include all the FVEY[2] countires. Look at Australia's encryption laws[3]. It is actually better to live in China than in AUstralia from this point of view. I do not think that you can use the argument that we can apply political pressure to intelligence agencies or governments and have a better outcome. At least this is not the reality in many cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/australia/encryption-bill-nauru.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/australia/encryptio...

xtracto 7y ago

> Say what you want about the USA's intelligence organizations but at the end of the day there's a path for change. Not for the majority of people in the world. Why should I care more about China than about the USA as someone who uses technology from both countries?