4 ms·

This is why the free press and personal liberty are vital components of most western civilisations: they act as a release valve for the sort of behaviours you t

This is why the free press and personal liberty are vital components of most western civilisations: they act as a release valve for the sort of behaviours you talk about. What you are broadly driving at is the necessity for many areas of intelligence gathering and espionage to be invisible to the public eye. There is necessarily a strong tradition of civilian oversight of intelligence agencies in nearly every democracy. For example, in the UK, domestic intelligence is overseen by the Home Secretary, the Intelligence and Security Parliamentary Committee, and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Needless to say, a free press, whistleblowers, and civilian oversight do not exist in China.

simion314 6y ago
I agree, and I am not trying to say West and China are the same - the point I am struggling to make is that we might not have it as good as we think and there are many things hidden from us. How many time we see old documents released where US or other government was doing crazy shit - I mean is insanity to think that for some reason they stopped doing same level of insane stuff. I seen a video a few months back about US military considering internet as a new area of war and considering how to engage in such war , it is clear that not only China is trying to push their propaganda but the others are doing a similar thing (again I am not trying to say is the exact same thing just trying to prevent everyone focusing too muc in one direction and not noticing what is happening behind their backs at home)
- georgespencer 6y ago
  I think I understand what you mean now - thanks for taking the time to explain it. I understand your position to be that in the US (I'll use the US as an example but it's broadly interchangeable with any western democracy), privacy violations and acts of espionage which are directionally similar to those occurring in China do take place, and whilst you acknowledge that they are not as bad, you draw equivalence between the surreptitiousness of both. I think the point is a meaningful one. Much of the content of the PRISM presentations was worrying because it made very clear the extent to which the US government has expanded its intelligence-gathering in the last few decades. Introducing a point like this into a discussion focusing on China might seem like 'whatabouttery' to many people ("X is bad, but what about Y?"). On paper, NSA and CIA overreaching could have similar consequences (or even look identical) to Chinese state sponsored espionage, but provided there are avenues for whistleblowers and a free press, the two are not equatable. > the point I am struggling to make Your English is very good, and I enjoyed talking to you.

simion314 6y ago

I agree, and I am not trying to say West and China are the same - the point I am struggling to make is that we might not have it as good as we think and there are many things hidden from us. How many time we see old documents released where US or other government was doing crazy shit - I mean is insanity to think that for some reason they stopped doing same level of insane stuff. I seen a video a few months back about US military considering internet as a new area of war and considering how to engage in such war , it is clear that not only China is trying to push their propaganda but the others are doing a similar thing (again I am not trying to say is the exact same thing just trying to prevent everyone focusing too muc in one direction and not noticing what is happening behind their backs at home)

georgespencer 6y ago
I think I understand what you mean now - thanks for taking the time to explain it. I understand your position to be that in the US (I'll use the US as an example but it's broadly interchangeable with any western democracy), privacy violations and acts of espionage which are directionally similar to those occurring in China do take place, and whilst you acknowledge that they are not as bad, you draw equivalence between the surreptitiousness of both. I think the point is a meaningful one. Much of the content of the PRISM presentations was worrying because it made very clear the extent to which the US government has expanded its intelligence-gathering in the last few decades. Introducing a point like this into a discussion focusing on China might seem like 'whatabouttery' to many people ("X is bad, but what about Y?"). On paper, NSA and CIA overreaching could have similar consequences (or even look identical) to Chinese state sponsored espionage, but provided there are avenues for whistleblowers and a free press, the two are not equatable. > the point I am struggling to make Your English is very good, and I enjoyed talking to you.