6 ms·

rasterizer is correct. I think people are misguided in believing that there are viable alternatives. The reason this is such a big deal is that the US (on paper

rasterizer is correct. I think people are misguided in believing that there are viable alternatives. The reason this is such a big deal is that the US (on paper anyway) is built on a tenet of civil liberties which is/was unique. Obviously, reality is entirely different but my point is that, in other countries/localities, these so-called fundamental freedoms either do not exist or are diminished. In most of the western world, governments have significant leeway into the private lives of their citizens in the areas covered by PRISM. I think we can be reasonably certain that programs like this already exist, or are identical, in almost any country with the technical capacity to provide similar services to the US.

workhere-io 13y ago
> The reason this is such a big deal is that the US (on paper anyway) is built on a tenet of civil liberties which is/was unique. The US didn't invent most of those liberties. Your assumption that those liberties are not part of the law in other countries is wildly incorrect. The assumption that most other western countries have as extensive intelligence gathering as the US needs proof. I'm aware that Sweden and the UK are quite big on data gathering, but there are hundreds of other countries in the world.
- mitchty 13y ago
  How praytell, do you prove a secret agencies existence?
  - workhere-io 13y ago
    You can't, but rumors can give you a hint. There were rumors for years and years about extensive NSA intelligence gathering (see e.g. this: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/ http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articl...). I haven't heard the same amount of massive rumors regarding any of the EU intelligence agencies.
- purephase 13y ago
  My point is that the number of countries with the capacity/capability to provide the level of service that the US provides is quite small. Of those, I imagine most if not all of them have similar data gathering practices that extends to their own citizenry, so non-citizens are not even an issue. Let's look at the list of countries (order is random): 1. EU (probably only France, UK, Germany, possibly the Netherlands) 2. Israel 3. Canada, solely by proximity to the US 4. Japan 5. China 6. Brazil 7. Russia 8. Australia, that's a big maybe though 9. India 10. Iran 11. South Korea 12. Singapore 13. South Africa 14. Scandinavia (Finland, Denmark, Sweden) These are the countries that likely have the technological advancement required to even offer cloud-based services of the scale and capability offered by US based organizations. This is also assuming that significant parts of their overall connectivity does not route through US controlled territories or demarcation (which likely rules out any south-east asian country like South Korea, Singapore, also Canada and Australia). Of those remaining on the list, very few of them have even have civil liberties legislation codified. A rough guess might be: 1. EU 2. Israel 3. Japan 4. Brazil 5. Scandinavia 6. South Africa? Israel we could likely rule-out. Not exactly the most trustworthy government, and the close ties with the US likely means that they either participate in or benefit directly from PRISM. As a collective whole, the scandinavian countries likely could offer the level of cloud-based services provided but not individually. So, in no particular order: 1. France 2. UK 3. Germany 4. Japan 5. Brazil
  - timw6n 13y ago
    All the Scandinavian countries you list are actually EU members — a better term for your first group would be Western Europe. But, really, I'm not sure how much confidence you could have in any of those countries: The UK's GCHQ was very heavily involved in Prism themselves, much to our national shame, for instance.
    - mercurial 13y ago
      Looks like Sweden has even more intrusive snooping than PRISM, if you can believe that. I'd look toward Iceland, personally.
kawera 13y ago
True but the problem is that FISAA and similar acts threat non-americans basically as non-humans, devoid of rights. There is a difference.

workhere-io 13y ago

> The reason this is such a big deal is that the US (on paper anyway) is built on a tenet of civil liberties which is/was unique. The US didn't invent most of those liberties. Your assumption that those liberties are not part of the law in other countries is wildly incorrect. The assumption that most other western countries have as extensive intelligence gathering as the US needs proof. I'm aware that Sweden and the UK are quite big on data gathering, but there are hundreds of other countries in the world.

mitchty 13y ago
How praytell, do you prove a secret agencies existence?
- workhere-io 13y ago
  You can't, but rumors can give you a hint. There were rumors for years and years about extensive NSA intelligence gathering (see e.g. this: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/ http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articl...). I haven't heard the same amount of massive rumors regarding any of the EU intelligence agencies.
purephase 13y ago
My point is that the number of countries with the capacity/capability to provide the level of service that the US provides is quite small. Of those, I imagine most if not all of them have similar data gathering practices that extends to their own citizenry, so non-citizens are not even an issue. Let's look at the list of countries (order is random): 1. EU (probably only France, UK, Germany, possibly the Netherlands) 2. Israel 3. Canada, solely by proximity to the US 4. Japan 5. China 6. Brazil 7. Russia 8. Australia, that's a big maybe though 9. India 10. Iran 11. South Korea 12. Singapore 13. South Africa 14. Scandinavia (Finland, Denmark, Sweden) These are the countries that likely have the technological advancement required to even offer cloud-based services of the scale and capability offered by US based organizations. This is also assuming that significant parts of their overall connectivity does not route through US controlled territories or demarcation (which likely rules out any south-east asian country like South Korea, Singapore, also Canada and Australia). Of those remaining on the list, very few of them have even have civil liberties legislation codified. A rough guess might be: 1. EU 2. Israel 3. Japan 4. Brazil 5. Scandinavia 6. South Africa? Israel we could likely rule-out. Not exactly the most trustworthy government, and the close ties with the US likely means that they either participate in or benefit directly from PRISM. As a collective whole, the scandinavian countries likely could offer the level of cloud-based services provided but not individually. So, in no particular order: 1. France 2. UK 3. Germany 4. Japan 5. Brazil
- timw6n 13y ago
  All the Scandinavian countries you list are actually EU members — a better term for your first group would be Western Europe. But, really, I'm not sure how much confidence you could have in any of those countries: The UK's GCHQ was very heavily involved in Prism themselves, much to our national shame, for instance.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    Looks like Sweden has even more intrusive snooping than PRISM, if you can believe that. I'd look toward Iceland, personally.

kawera 13y ago

True but the problem is that FISAA and similar acts threat non-americans basically as non-humans, devoid of rights. There is a difference.