3 ms·
We tend to like surveillance as long as it's in our favor and interest. Aren't we? But the moment you hear some surveillance or espionage from another country,
by stunt 6y ago
We tend to like surveillance as long as it's in our favor and interest. Aren't we?
But the moment you hear some surveillance or espionage from another country, then it's time to bash them hard and feel bad about them.
But, I'm afraid we don't have a choice because we are living in a zero-sum game.
And the irony is that the more we play non-cooperative, the more reasons we give to each other to play non-cooperative.
- fit2rule 6y agoI don't believe anybody's surveillance is good. This is the opposite of free and open society, and is a creeping tyranny. I discourage any such devotion in my peers - its all too easy to just submit to the overwhelming might of the wests' military industrial complex. I guess the best thing to do is to continue to fight covert manipulation at all costs, using any means necessary beyond violence. This seems to not be so much of a zero-sum game as capitulation.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> I don't believe anybody's surveillance is good So America shouldn’t have tried to crack the Enigma? Or keep an eye on Soviet missiles? All surveillance is bad is a fairly-extreme stance.
- ginko 6y agoIt was the Poles and British that cracked the Enigma.
- JumpCrisscross 6y agoTrue, but American forces later manufactured and utilized their findings. That was quite certainly surveillance. And, by my book, it was quite certainly good.
- pjc50 6y agoWartime surveillance is necessary. Peacetime surveillance is bad. The problem is getting to "peacetime".
- fit2rule 6y agoExactly. If we spent half as much making peace as we do funding war and terror, we'd all be multilingual and a lot more tolerant of cultures not our own...
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> The problem is getting to "peacetime". Or defining it. Nobody declares wars anymore. And a large part of intelligence is oriented towards preventing wars through deterrence.