2 ms·

Yes, especially how do you differentiate? Also who says a lawfully elected representative government might not: - act unlawfully, to undermine democracy to ma

Yes, especially how do you differentiate? Also who says a lawfully elected representative government might not: - act unlawfully, to undermine democracy to make sure they will stay in power. - act unlawfully for other reasons, there are many such examples in history - the CCP is also a lawfully elected representative government, because they make the laws so that they are. So you probably mean not "lawfully" but something like "properly"? Also I for example would say a lawfully/properly elected representative government requires that all people can vote and there is real choice about who to vote for. Guess which country has neither? (USA,it removes voting rights from citizens under certain situations and as a winner-takes-all de-facto 2 party system has no real, i.e. no democratic choice when voting. And that is ignoring the fact that the citizens votes can be overuled by a small group of propel, even if they normally don't do so).

buran77 6y ago
Any perspective is usually purely idealistic and strongly influenced by the environment you were educated in. We tend to consider the theoretical aspects of democracy as the golden standard but ignore the practicalities of the implementation. So as we take the idealistic approach, any hacking campaign lead by Western intelligence agencies or any initiative to weaken encryption are for most people "pure" in intentions, they're anti-terrorism, they're fighting pedophiles. But any enemy doing the same, China, Russia, NK, Iran, etc. are engaging in terrorism, authoritarianism. It's always very black and white because that's how people are educated. The absolutely overwhelming majority of people are able to go about their lives every day never questioning how they can hold such dissonant opinions in their head simply because they were told "it's ok when we do it, it's bad when they do it". And as you can see even the "democratic" approach has a chilling effect. The suggestion most people take away from a cursory parsing of the title or article is that Google acted irresponsibly. Imagine the day this point of view becomes prevalent fueled by the typical political campaign populism. Imagine people and companies being put off from touching the topic out of fear that they're branded irresponsible and unwittingly hindering anti-terrorism efforts because they're disclosing problems of general interest.

buran77 6y ago

Any perspective is usually purely idealistic and strongly influenced by the environment you were educated in. We tend to consider the theoretical aspects of democracy as the golden standard but ignore the practicalities of the implementation. So as we take the idealistic approach, any hacking campaign lead by Western intelligence agencies or any initiative to weaken encryption are for most people "pure" in intentions, they're anti-terrorism, they're fighting pedophiles. But any enemy doing the same, China, Russia, NK, Iran, etc. are engaging in terrorism, authoritarianism. It's always very black and white because that's how people are educated. The absolutely overwhelming majority of people are able to go about their lives every day never questioning how they can hold such dissonant opinions in their head simply because they were told "it's ok when we do it, it's bad when they do it". And as you can see even the "democratic" approach has a chilling effect. The suggestion most people take away from a cursory parsing of the title or article is that Google acted irresponsibly. Imagine the day this point of view becomes prevalent fueled by the typical political campaign populism. Imagine people and companies being put off from touching the topic out of fear that they're branded irresponsible and unwittingly hindering anti-terrorism efforts because they're disclosing problems of general interest.