5 ms·

If our "democracies" were sane, we'd cancel or at least boycott these games. And there lies the problem now: Since the US together with the EU have become too

If our "democracies" were sane, we'd cancel or at least boycott these games. And there lies the problem now: Since the US together with the EU have become too corrupt, there is no one left to guard the moral high ground. The conclusion would be that this misery is now the new standard - unless we begin to act.

generj 13y ago
I don't know - our escalating tensions with Russia - not to mention our recent diplomatic defeat with Syria (causing Russia to come out smelling like roses) - might cause the US to abortively try some limited action. Of course, Putin will rightfully call us out on our hypocrisy, and that will be that. Ultimately the IOCC should do a better job of picking host countries in the first place, but they are more hopelessly corrupt than almost any other organization in the world.
- tomjen3 13y ago
  Actually I don't see how Russia won that one. As far as I am concerned, the weapons would still have been there if the US hadn't threatened war.
  - generj 13y ago
    It's a matter of international and domestic perception, not actual reality. Internationally Putin is seen as having struck a blow against American imperialism. It's clear Obama wasn't anticipating Russia to helpfully offer a way out of his "red line".
    - afterburner 13y ago
      But they did, and it's what Obama and the American people wanted (stay out of Syria, nullify their chemical weapons), so how is that a diplomatic defeat when the US President and people get exactly what they wanted? And simultaneously with Iran warming relations with the US even. Perhaps you were hoping for the US to totally and completely control the entire process, and be able to take all credit? Seems a little greedy in the context of a diplomatic negotiation.
znowi 13y ago
I may be missing something, but why would one boycott the Sochi Olympics?
- frank_boyd 13y ago
  Mass surveillance destroys democracies - it's just a matter of time. It is not part of the mission of the Olympic Games to destroy democracies.
  - camus 13y ago
    Nazi germany got the Olympic Games , definetly not their concern.
    - archangel_one 13y ago
      Actually, not really. Germany was awarded the '36 Games in 1931 which is before the Nazis came to power. And even in '36 it wouldn't have been so obvious exactly how bad the Nazis were going to turn out to be. Much easier to say in hindsight.
  - rimantas 13y ago
    So, having in mind NSA spying programme what should we also boycott?
    - frank_boyd 13y ago
      http://prism-break.org/ http://prism-break.org/
      - vmiroshnikov 13y ago
        OSS as a remedy? Won't help. https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/kroll/software-transparency-debian-openssl-bug/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/kroll/software-transparen...
kushti 13y ago
It would be pretty cynical to boycot Olympic games, not US government as world's biggest voyeur
- Zigurd 13y ago
  It's completely different when Putin does it. Right?
  - rtpg 13y ago
    As little faith I have in the FISC to hit back as much as it should, I still trust it more than Putin's kangaroo courts. So no, it's not the same. Rule of law is still a thing that exists, and courts play a part of it.
rainsford 13y ago
I hate to phrase it this way, but the moral high ground would seem to be a relative place. The revelation that everyone spies doesn't necessarily mean that everyone spies in the same way or for the same reason. The motivation in particular seems important when talking about the moral high ground. While I'm sure there is overlap between spying motivations of China, Russia and western democracies (most large countries have similar interests in what other large countries are doing), there are also reasons China and Russia spy that are not shared by the US or the EU. There is little to suggest that the US or EU are using spying to suppress political dissent, for example. And the differences in the laws governing spying in the US and Russia seem unlikely to be "subtle" ones, the claim made in the article aside.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Oh, please. The US has a well documented history of spying on and infiltrating political organizations domestically and internationally ranging back to the labor movement of the mid 1800's (at least) and up to modern day, as well as suppressing dissent with methods ranging from assassinations and economic destabilization to assisting coups d'etat and invasions. Why should we believe that has stopped? I don't know about the extent of spying to deal with political dissent in the EU, but I know quite a few people who were subjected to rather intense illegal surveillance in Norway, that was often clearly intended to intimidate (when top level people in the security services start conversations with you on the street about the argument you had with your wife, in your living room, the other night, it is pretty clear what the purpose is). When this monitoring was rolled up, it eventually was revealed that the leader of the parliamentary commission investigating the illegal surveillance had been put under illegal surveillance while he was investigating the illegal surveillance... Given that this level of surveillance was happening in Norway relatively recently, I find it highly improbably that there's no extensive politically motivated spying in other European countries too, to this day, whether legal or illegal. There is difference - sure. It is not politically acceptable to be seen to interfere with political parties at home in Europe or the US, so there may be less blatant interference these days, other than with fringe groups that are easier to find ways to label that makes them tolerable targets.
  - 13y ago
malandrew 13y ago
I would love it if the Olympic team issued a statement like so: "Upon hearing of the Orwellian-like surveillance at the Olympic games in Russia, the US team has decided to boycott the games. However, we are not boycotting the games because of Russia's surveillance plans, but because several major world governments now consider ubiquitous surveillance acceptable in free and open societies, with out own government, the US government, leading the way. We will cease our boycott when the US government sets a moral and ethical example for the Russian government to cease its plans by canceling its dragnet surveillance programs of both US citizens and our brothers and sisters from around the world. We are asking our brothers and sisters in competition from Russia, China, England and any other country guilty of mass surveillance to join us in this effort. If this demonstration ends any significance of the Olympic games this year and into the indefinite future it will have been because our collective governments no longer should good faith towards the people of this World, and we will no longer see a reason to continue to compete atheletically on their behalf."
- ktd 13y ago
  To be honest if you think there is any chance at all that this would happen you are completely disconnected from reality. The average person doesn't care about NSA surveillance-- just as the average person didn't care about Lincoln arresting newspaper editors and suspending habeas corpus, FDR putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, J. Edgar Hoover sending agents to spy on and harass suspected communists (or just people he didn't like), George W. Bush locking up terrorists in Guantanamo, etc. When you get right down to it, historical precedent strongly indicates that the average person does not care whether the government actually respects the law in its pursuit of national security.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    Never said it would actually happen. Just said I would love it if it did.

generj 13y ago

I don't know - our escalating tensions with Russia - not to mention our recent diplomatic defeat with Syria (causing Russia to come out smelling like roses) - might cause the US to abortively try some limited action. Of course, Putin will rightfully call us out on our hypocrisy, and that will be that. Ultimately the IOCC should do a better job of picking host countries in the first place, but they are more hopelessly corrupt than almost any other organization in the world.

tomjen3 13y ago
Actually I don't see how Russia won that one. As far as I am concerned, the weapons would still have been there if the US hadn't threatened war.
- generj 13y ago
  It's a matter of international and domestic perception, not actual reality. Internationally Putin is seen as having struck a blow against American imperialism. It's clear Obama wasn't anticipating Russia to helpfully offer a way out of his "red line".
  - afterburner 13y ago
    But they did, and it's what Obama and the American people wanted (stay out of Syria, nullify their chemical weapons), so how is that a diplomatic defeat when the US President and people get exactly what they wanted? And simultaneously with Iran warming relations with the US even. Perhaps you were hoping for the US to totally and completely control the entire process, and be able to take all credit? Seems a little greedy in the context of a diplomatic negotiation.

znowi 13y ago

I may be missing something, but why would one boycott the Sochi Olympics?

frank_boyd 13y ago
Mass surveillance destroys democracies - it's just a matter of time. It is not part of the mission of the Olympic Games to destroy democracies.
- camus 13y ago
  Nazi germany got the Olympic Games , definetly not their concern.
  - archangel_one 13y ago
    Actually, not really. Germany was awarded the '36 Games in 1931 which is before the Nazis came to power. And even in '36 it wouldn't have been so obvious exactly how bad the Nazis were going to turn out to be. Much easier to say in hindsight.
- rimantas 13y ago
  So, having in mind NSA spying programme what should we also boycott?
  - frank_boyd 13y ago
    http://prism-break.org/ http://prism-break.org/
    - vmiroshnikov 13y ago
      OSS as a remedy? Won't help. https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/kroll/software-transparency-debian-openssl-bug/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/kroll/software-transparen...

kushti 13y ago

It would be pretty cynical to boycot Olympic games, not US government as world's biggest voyeur

Zigurd 13y ago
It's completely different when Putin does it. Right?
- rtpg 13y ago
  As little faith I have in the FISC to hit back as much as it should, I still trust it more than Putin's kangaroo courts. So no, it's not the same. Rule of law is still a thing that exists, and courts play a part of it.

rainsford 13y ago

I hate to phrase it this way, but the moral high ground would seem to be a relative place. The revelation that everyone spies doesn't necessarily mean that everyone spies in the same way or for the same reason. The motivation in particular seems important when talking about the moral high ground. While I'm sure there is overlap between spying motivations of China, Russia and western democracies (most large countries have similar interests in what other large countries are doing), there are also reasons China and Russia spy that are not shared by the US or the EU. There is little to suggest that the US or EU are using spying to suppress political dissent, for example. And the differences in the laws governing spying in the US and Russia seem unlikely to be "subtle" ones, the claim made in the article aside.

vidarh 13y ago
Oh, please. The US has a well documented history of spying on and infiltrating political organizations domestically and internationally ranging back to the labor movement of the mid 1800's (at least) and up to modern day, as well as suppressing dissent with methods ranging from assassinations and economic destabilization to assisting coups d'etat and invasions. Why should we believe that has stopped? I don't know about the extent of spying to deal with political dissent in the EU, but I know quite a few people who were subjected to rather intense illegal surveillance in Norway, that was often clearly intended to intimidate (when top level people in the security services start conversations with you on the street about the argument you had with your wife, in your living room, the other night, it is pretty clear what the purpose is). When this monitoring was rolled up, it eventually was revealed that the leader of the parliamentary commission investigating the illegal surveillance had been put under illegal surveillance while he was investigating the illegal surveillance... Given that this level of surveillance was happening in Norway relatively recently, I find it highly improbably that there's no extensive politically motivated spying in other European countries too, to this day, whether legal or illegal. There is difference - sure. It is not politically acceptable to be seen to interfere with political parties at home in Europe or the US, so there may be less blatant interference these days, other than with fringe groups that are easier to find ways to label that makes them tolerable targets.
- 13y ago

malandrew 13y ago

I would love it if the Olympic team issued a statement like so: "Upon hearing of the Orwellian-like surveillance at the Olympic games in Russia, the US team has decided to boycott the games. However, we are not boycotting the games because of Russia's surveillance plans, but because several major world governments now consider ubiquitous surveillance acceptable in free and open societies, with out own government, the US government, leading the way. We will cease our boycott when the US government sets a moral and ethical example for the Russian government to cease its plans by canceling its dragnet surveillance programs of both US citizens and our brothers and sisters from around the world. We are asking our brothers and sisters in competition from Russia, China, England and any other country guilty of mass surveillance to join us in this effort. If this demonstration ends any significance of the Olympic games this year and into the indefinite future it will have been because our collective governments no longer should good faith towards the people of this World, and we will no longer see a reason to continue to compete atheletically on their behalf."

ktd 13y ago
To be honest if you think there is any chance at all that this would happen you are completely disconnected from reality. The average person doesn't care about NSA surveillance-- just as the average person didn't care about Lincoln arresting newspaper editors and suspending habeas corpus, FDR putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, J. Edgar Hoover sending agents to spy on and harass suspected communists (or just people he didn't like), George W. Bush locking up terrorists in Guantanamo, etc. When you get right down to it, historical precedent strongly indicates that the average person does not care whether the government actually respects the law in its pursuit of national security.
- malandrew 13y ago
  Never said it would actually happen. Just said I would love it if it did.