4 ms·
The key difference of course is that they are not a government. If you knew the slightest about Assange you would realize that he has always been a campion of
by burgerbrain 15y ago
The key difference of course is that they are not a government. If you knew the slightest about Assange you would realize that he has always been a campion of individual privacy, while he at the same Itime attacks the privacy of nations and nation sized organizations.
It takes some seriously warped logic to see hypocrisy in this, but hell, americas seem to think corporations are people, so I guess I shouldn't be that suprised.
- loup-vaillant 15y agoYou seem to think the term "privacy" (i) can be applied to large organizations such as governments, and (ii) it bears a significant resemblance with an individual's privacy. I can understand (i) (though I would prefer the word "secrecy"), but you really really need to explain (ii). By the way, even if (ii) is correct, it makes little matter, because of the power balance. As Chomsky often points out, when the powerful obtain information about the powerless, they gain even more power over them than the powerless would have gained over the powerful from similar information. Which means that a more "open" society, with less privacy for individuals and less secrecy from trusts and governments, will inevitably tip the power balance even further. It is just unreasonable to treat state (and corporate) secrecy and individual privacy the same way. Assange may be a hypocrite, but on this particular issue, he's clean.
- adbge 15y agoDid you mean to reply to someone else? You two are mostly in agreement.
- loup-vaillant 15y agoOops. Sorry. My mistake. I didn't read correctly, and put a negation where there wasn't.
- burgerbrain 15y agoNo worries!