5 ms·

Snowden is "Exhibit A" for how the US is hypocritical about opposition to surveillance states. Any time the US wants to try to shame Russia at the UN Security

Snowden is "Exhibit A" for how the US is hypocritical about opposition to surveillance states. Any time the US wants to try to shame Russia at the UN Security Council, Putin can just put a picture of their newest Moscovite up on the projector.

vinay427 6y ago
Not to defend the intelligence apparatus in the US (and several other Western countries) but hypocrisy would imply the US is actually acting on its intelligence to target or influence its own people along a similar vein as many authoritarian countries with policies widely criticized in the US. I think that's a very low bar, and we should be able to criticize the US system even though it doesn't have these widespread far-reaching powers, i.e. without resorting to hyperbole.
- anonAndOn 6y ago
  I'm not sure if you consider a Predator drone monitoring protests[0] as influential but, surely, you must admit camo-clad officers in unmarked vans abducting specific protestors[1] as worthy of a legitimate concern. [0]https://twitter.com/jason_paladino/status/1266399916978507779 https://twitter.com/jason_paladino/status/126639991697850777... [1]https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-us...
  - vinay427 6y ago
    Yes, absolutely. I think this is despicable and should not be tolerated. However, it's the scale and widespread nature that differs. Most Americans will never be confronted with or even know people who have been confronted with this sort of abuse of authority. Unfortunately, this is not the case in many countries, and this difference should not be dissolved to make a point. I think the US should be able to do better, although not because it's inherently better in some way (what country is?).
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  I can't agree. They all take an oath to protect the basic premises of the US Constitution and yet here we have direct evidence that they don't care about amendments like the 4th or 1st, two very critical ones. I think it should be obvious and not hyperbole. The only agency I can see having any excuse at all to do such things is the CIA when it's operating outside of US borders. All the other agencies are basically writing their oath on a piece of toilet paper, using it for it's primary purpose, and then flushing it down the drain.

vinay427 6y ago

Not to defend the intelligence apparatus in the US (and several other Western countries) but hypocrisy would imply the US is actually acting on its intelligence to target or influence its own people along a similar vein as many authoritarian countries with policies widely criticized in the US. I think that's a very low bar, and we should be able to criticize the US system even though it doesn't have these widespread far-reaching powers, i.e. without resorting to hyperbole.

anonAndOn 6y ago
I'm not sure if you consider a Predator drone monitoring protests[0] as influential but, surely, you must admit camo-clad officers in unmarked vans abducting specific protestors[1] as worthy of a legitimate concern. [0]https://twitter.com/jason_paladino/status/1266399916978507779 https://twitter.com/jason_paladino/status/126639991697850777... [1]https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-us...
- vinay427 6y ago
  Yes, absolutely. I think this is despicable and should not be tolerated. However, it's the scale and widespread nature that differs. Most Americans will never be confronted with or even know people who have been confronted with this sort of abuse of authority. Unfortunately, this is not the case in many countries, and this difference should not be dissolved to make a point. I think the US should be able to do better, although not because it's inherently better in some way (what country is?).
stjohnswarts 6y ago
I can't agree. They all take an oath to protect the basic premises of the US Constitution and yet here we have direct evidence that they don't care about amendments like the 4th or 1st, two very critical ones. I think it should be obvious and not hyperbole. The only agency I can see having any excuse at all to do such things is the CIA when it's operating outside of US borders. All the other agencies are basically writing their oath on a piece of toilet paper, using it for it's primary purpose, and then flushing it down the drain.