3 ms·
Actually, two things are new: 1) The ability to store/process data on the scale to monitor an entire population. 2) The US government's assertion that it ha
by jbooth 13y ago
Actually, two things are new:
1) The ability to store/process data on the scale to monitor an entire population.
2) The US government's assertion that it has the right to do this. It's not new under the sun, but it's new in the US.
- spangled 13y agoThe US government's assertion that it has the right to do this. What are you referring to, exactly? I thought the scandal was the dubious distinctions being made to specifically avoid "monitoring an entire population", and the lack of oversight to prove it.
- protomyth 13y agoSadly, point 2 is really not new in the US. The amount of data might be but some pretty ugly examples can be found in every decade of the 1900s (maybe not so much in the first two but the 30's were fun).
- jbooth 13y agoSure, we've got the j. edgar hoover era and everything going along with that, but that's a case of individualized, nominally illegal wiretapping. Now we're talking about broad-based wiretapping with entire buildings dedicated to it, operating practically in the open compared to the cloak-and-dagger stuff of yore.
- protomyth 13y agoI would say the 1930's under FDR were worse than what Hoover did. Even with the limited technology they did a pretty good job of oppression.