5 ms·

Ecuador Using Copyright To Try To Take Down Leaked Docs About Its Surveillance

75 points by Libertatea 13y ago

gasull 13y ago
FTA: > Are there any places left on earth that actually do respect basic civil liberties? I would really like to know the answer.
- fein 13y ago
  Switzerland is the closest thing I can think of, and even that country has some of the same surveillance/privacy issues that spawned most of the current discussions. I don't know if we qualify CCTV as a violation of a civil liberty period, or only if abused.
  - Daishiman 13y ago
    If you consider the amount of negative foreign influence that some Swiss corporations have across the globe for their, this statement might not that accurate (I'm thinking Glencore and others)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- drcube 13y ago
  You and I are just afraid to face obvious and true answer, which is "no".
  - mc32 13y ago
    There are places which might not respect civil liberties but which do not surveil (by the state) the population: third world. Is there a place where both are true? I don't think there is a place where there is 100% of both (respect for civil liberties and do not do any surveillance) and also not sure a place free of surveillance would by any better in practice, except in theory (to confuse a Yogiism). As many things, it's a balance which needs to be struck and it remains to be seen where that will be or if it's pendulum-like.
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    The problem here is that we inevitably start moving the goal-posts every time we try to nail down the scope of what constitutes a basic human right. Do you want freedom of speech and the press? Many nations can offer that. Do you want the power to piss off prominent and powerful government agencies without serious repercussions? You'd have to move somewhere without prominent and powerful government agencies, because we've yet to figure out a way to effectively limit their power.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      And let's face it, you have more power to do that in the U.S. today than pretty much anywhere in the world. Listen to the kinds of things people say about Obama, his mother, etc. How many places could you get away with that?
- maratd 13y ago
  Since you said places and not nations, well, you do have some options. 1. Antarctica. South Pole. Parts of Siberia and Alaska. Essentially where it's too much trouble to reach you. 2. On a boat. If you got enough money, go cruising for the rest of your life. 3. International Space Station. 4. Jungle. Desert. Mountains. 5. A key rule to remember is that the nail which sticks out is going to get hammered in. Don't stick out and you'll find you have all of the civil liberties you lost. Be smart about it and you can live in the middle of Washington DC and be freer than any man who has ever lived. The notion that somebody has to give you that freedom is bullshit. You have to fight for it. And you have to do it intelligently, but not sticking out. Get my drift?
  - kryptiskt 13y ago
    > 3. International Space Station. That has about as good privacy as a goldfish bowl, if the bowl is hooked up for intensive medical monitoring of its inhabitants.
    - dnautics 13y ago
      moreover, technically, it's not "on earth"
ashray 13y ago
I find it interesting that the entire debate has shifted from US surveillance to be about what is happening to Snowden and whether he is/isn't a traitor and now even about Ecuador and how they do/don't protect their citizens. Personally, as a non-US citizen outside the US, I feel incredibly uncomfortable that the US govt spies on me and everything I do online as much as it can. As far as I know, Ecuador or any other government doesn't yet exercise such monitoring, I'm pretty sure they don't poke into my facebook messages or worse, can look at my Gmail hosted emails. I know that the big deal is that US citizens got spied on [because that's illegal .. apparently], but to me, it's equally bad that innocent civilians around the world have their data up for grabs. You never know when and where and how this kind of stuff can be used against you. I don't like the fact that the US can make laws within their borders and get access to my data (which may even practically be hosted outside their borders). So where it's convenient, i.e. US citizens cannot be spied on, the concept of a nation state is invoked, but then non-US citizens basically have no right to privacy, not even the ones their governments give them, because the US can look at anything. Not cool. Why don't we look at it from the perspective that the US government can pretty much see what any online Ecuadorean is up to. That's a big enough offense in itself, Ecuador is just working on of buying some surveillance stuff, the US has already been doing this for years. Smells like a smear campaign. Again, I just find it interesting how quickly this became about Snowden this and Ecuador that, etc. rather than the central debate which is on my mind "What about my data ?!!" The US government can obviously spend a lot of marketing $$$ and basically keep repeating "Snowden = Traitor" until everyone believes it and don't even remember why. It's almost like 1984 ... I'm scared.
- maratd 13y ago
  > So where it's convenient, i.e. US citizens cannot be spied on, the concept of a nation state is invoked, but then non-US citizens basically have no right to privacy, not even the ones their governments give them, because the US can look at anything. Not cool. Look, when a dog bites the hand of its owner and then bites the neighbor, the greater outrage is that it bit the hand that feeds it. You're not looking at this from an objective perspective, because you're the neighbor and well, understandably pissed. Now me? I would put down the dog. But that's just me and it's probably not going to happen.

75 points by Libertatea 13y ago

FTA: > Are there any places left on earth that actually do respect basic civil liberties? I would really like to know the answer.

fein 13y ago
Switzerland is the closest thing I can think of, and even that country has some of the same surveillance/privacy issues that spawned most of the current discussions. I don't know if we qualify CCTV as a violation of a civil liberty period, or only if abused.
- Daishiman 13y ago
  If you consider the amount of negative foreign influence that some Swiss corporations have across the globe for their, this statement might not that accurate (I'm thinking Glencore and others)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
drcube 13y ago
You and I are just afraid to face obvious and true answer, which is "no".
- mc32 13y ago
  There are places which might not respect civil liberties but which do not surveil (by the state) the population: third world. Is there a place where both are true? I don't think there is a place where there is 100% of both (respect for civil liberties and do not do any surveillance) and also not sure a place free of surveillance would by any better in practice, except in theory (to confuse a Yogiism). As many things, it's a balance which needs to be struck and it remains to be seen where that will be or if it's pendulum-like.
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  The problem here is that we inevitably start moving the goal-posts every time we try to nail down the scope of what constitutes a basic human right. Do you want freedom of speech and the press? Many nations can offer that. Do you want the power to piss off prominent and powerful government agencies without serious repercussions? You'd have to move somewhere without prominent and powerful government agencies, because we've yet to figure out a way to effectively limit their power.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    And let's face it, you have more power to do that in the U.S. today than pretty much anywhere in the world. Listen to the kinds of things people say about Obama, his mother, etc. How many places could you get away with that?
maratd 13y ago
Since you said places and not nations, well, you do have some options. 1. Antarctica. South Pole. Parts of Siberia and Alaska. Essentially where it's too much trouble to reach you. 2. On a boat. If you got enough money, go cruising for the rest of your life. 3. International Space Station. 4. Jungle. Desert. Mountains. 5. A key rule to remember is that the nail which sticks out is going to get hammered in. Don't stick out and you'll find you have all of the civil liberties you lost. Be smart about it and you can live in the middle of Washington DC and be freer than any man who has ever lived. The notion that somebody has to give you that freedom is bullshit. You have to fight for it. And you have to do it intelligently, but not sticking out. Get my drift?
- kryptiskt 13y ago
  > 3. International Space Station. That has about as good privacy as a goldfish bowl, if the bowl is hooked up for intensive medical monitoring of its inhabitants.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    moreover, technically, it's not "on earth"

ashray 13y ago

I find it interesting that the entire debate has shifted from US surveillance to be about what is happening to Snowden and whether he is/isn't a traitor and now even about Ecuador and how they do/don't protect their citizens. Personally, as a non-US citizen outside the US, I feel incredibly uncomfortable that the US govt spies on me and everything I do online as much as it can. As far as I know, Ecuador or any other government doesn't yet exercise such monitoring, I'm pretty sure they don't poke into my facebook messages or worse, can look at my Gmail hosted emails. I know that the big deal is that US citizens got spied on [because that's illegal .. apparently], but to me, it's equally bad that innocent civilians around the world have their data up for grabs. You never know when and where and how this kind of stuff can be used against you. I don't like the fact that the US can make laws within their borders and get access to my data (which may even practically be hosted outside their borders). So where it's convenient, i.e. US citizens cannot be spied on, the concept of a nation state is invoked, but then non-US citizens basically have no right to privacy, not even the ones their governments give them, because the US can look at anything. Not cool. Why don't we look at it from the perspective that the US government can pretty much see what any online Ecuadorean is up to. That's a big enough offense in itself, Ecuador is just working on of buying some surveillance stuff, the US has already been doing this for years. Smells like a smear campaign. Again, I just find it interesting how quickly this became about Snowden this and Ecuador that, etc. rather than the central debate which is on my mind "What about my data ?!!" The US government can obviously spend a lot of marketing $$$ and basically keep repeating "Snowden = Traitor" until everyone believes it and don't even remember why. It's almost like 1984 ... I'm scared.

maratd 13y ago
> So where it's convenient, i.e. US citizens cannot be spied on, the concept of a nation state is invoked, but then non-US citizens basically have no right to privacy, not even the ones their governments give them, because the US can look at anything. Not cool. Look, when a dog bites the hand of its owner and then bites the neighbor, the greater outrage is that it bit the hand that feeds it. You're not looking at this from an objective perspective, because you're the neighbor and well, understandably pissed. Now me? I would put down the dog. But that's just me and it's probably not going to happen.