4 ms·

You may be thinking "who cares I don't live in Mexico" but here is a relevant poem by Martin Niemöller. "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not spea

by lalos 12y ago

You may be thinking "who cares I don't live in Mexico" but here is a relevant poem by Martin Niemöller. "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me." This is relevant since citizens from all over the world must be involved with laws that affect the internet and if we don't care about other countries it may cause a domino effect until it reaches yours. We are all citizens of the Internet.

harshreality 12y ago
Except that, and all similar statements, are pretty much talking about a slippery slope within a single body politic. Because I'm not out protesting against North Korea's or China's policies, I'm contributing to the decay of civil liberties and internet freedom in the United States? I don't think so. Mexico is not a China or a North Korea, but there's political separation between any countries that can't be ignored. I don't mind too much if EFF gives some support to Mexican organizations opposing this, but I think the main effort against it should originate from Mexico. Nothing makes conservative Americans more upset than hearing Central or South American leaders lecture the United States on policy. We should be cautious about lecturing or trying to influence other countries. Saving people from themselves is a noble goal, but it has a low success rate, is highly stressful and is not for everyone. Political corruption and dissociation between the wishes of the people and the actions of government is a problem in most representative democracies, and I don't mean to trivialize that. It's also seems plausible to me that Central and South American governments might pursue these sorts of policies partly as an evolution of surveillance against gang and drug crime, and therefore partly at the behest of certain U.S. political interests. Which would mean it's quite a political tangle. Is Mexico's internet policy more significant than China's to the internet as a whole? Will lawmakers or courts of the U.S. or Europe look to Mexico to decide how to proceed on issues of civil liberties on the internet? In other words, is this the best place for freedom-minded technologists to put what little political muscle they have to work?
- chaostheory 12y ago
  > Except that, and all similar statements, are pretty much talking about a slippery slope within a single body politic. Is it? Can it not ever apply beyond that? Did the poet make it clear that it only applies to a single body politic? > Nothing makes conservative Americans more upset than hearing Central or South American leaders lecture the United States on policy. Is it that important when it upsets some people? Besides some of their lectures are valid especially the ones concerning narcotics legalization. > We should be cautious about lecturing or trying to influence other countries. Looking at your previous example, I feel that you're confusing a non-profit organization with the US government. > Saving people from themselves is a noble goal, but it has a low success rate, is highly stressful and is not for everyone. Are you saying that the EFF should just give up and quit because the challenge / problem is too difficult? > Is Mexico's internet policy more significant than China's to the internet as a whole? Does this really matter? A victory is still a victory no matter how small. I also doubt that the EFF is expending as much resources for this as they would for a SOPA or TPP. Using this logic should people stop fighting for civil liberties in small towns since they're not as big or important as big metros?
  - harshreality 12y ago
    > Is it? Can it not ever apply beyond that? Did the poet make it clear that it only applies to a single body politic? It can be, of course, but there are political realities when trying to influence public policy in another country. > Looking at your previous example, I feel that you're confusing a non-profit organization with the US government. Unlike governments, non-profits have no political pull in foreign countries other than to get citizens of those countries motivated to organize their own political blocs. Which the EFF should try to do, to a point. But U.S. citizens getting involved is, quite frankly, political interference. We can write all the rhetoric we want on the internet about how logging internet traffic is stupid, and how Mexico shouldn't do it (of course that's true), but is it going to change policymakers' minds in Mexico? I very much doubt it. And internet-using freedom-loving Mexicans willing to get politically involved probably don't need the U.S. based EFF to tell them about political machinations within Mexico. The U.S. government could use some of its muscle and convince the Mexican government to shelve this proposal, but how well would that go over, when the NSA is selectively logging anything it wants anywhere in the world (anywhere that it can get at and tap)?

by lalos 12y ago

harshreality 12y ago

Except that, and all similar statements, are pretty much talking about a slippery slope within a single body politic. Because I'm not out protesting against North Korea's or China's policies, I'm contributing to the decay of civil liberties and internet freedom in the United States? I don't think so. Mexico is not a China or a North Korea, but there's political separation between any countries that can't be ignored. I don't mind too much if EFF gives some support to Mexican organizations opposing this, but I think the main effort against it should originate from Mexico. Nothing makes conservative Americans more upset than hearing Central or South American leaders lecture the United States on policy. We should be cautious about lecturing or trying to influence other countries. Saving people from themselves is a noble goal, but it has a low success rate, is highly stressful and is not for everyone. Political corruption and dissociation between the wishes of the people and the actions of government is a problem in most representative democracies, and I don't mean to trivialize that. It's also seems plausible to me that Central and South American governments might pursue these sorts of policies partly as an evolution of surveillance against gang and drug crime, and therefore partly at the behest of certain U.S. political interests. Which would mean it's quite a political tangle. Is Mexico's internet policy more significant than China's to the internet as a whole? Will lawmakers or courts of the U.S. or Europe look to Mexico to decide how to proceed on issues of civil liberties on the internet? In other words, is this the best place for freedom-minded technologists to put what little political muscle they have to work?

chaostheory 12y ago
> Except that, and all similar statements, are pretty much talking about a slippery slope within a single body politic. Is it? Can it not ever apply beyond that? Did the poet make it clear that it only applies to a single body politic? > Nothing makes conservative Americans more upset than hearing Central or South American leaders lecture the United States on policy. Is it that important when it upsets some people? Besides some of their lectures are valid especially the ones concerning narcotics legalization. > We should be cautious about lecturing or trying to influence other countries. Looking at your previous example, I feel that you're confusing a non-profit organization with the US government. > Saving people from themselves is a noble goal, but it has a low success rate, is highly stressful and is not for everyone. Are you saying that the EFF should just give up and quit because the challenge / problem is too difficult? > Is Mexico's internet policy more significant than China's to the internet as a whole? Does this really matter? A victory is still a victory no matter how small. I also doubt that the EFF is expending as much resources for this as they would for a SOPA or TPP. Using this logic should people stop fighting for civil liberties in small towns since they're not as big or important as big metros?
- harshreality 12y ago
  > Is it? Can it not ever apply beyond that? Did the poet make it clear that it only applies to a single body politic? It can be, of course, but there are political realities when trying to influence public policy in another country. > Looking at your previous example, I feel that you're confusing a non-profit organization with the US government. Unlike governments, non-profits have no political pull in foreign countries other than to get citizens of those countries motivated to organize their own political blocs. Which the EFF should try to do, to a point. But U.S. citizens getting involved is, quite frankly, political interference. We can write all the rhetoric we want on the internet about how logging internet traffic is stupid, and how Mexico shouldn't do it (of course that's true), but is it going to change policymakers' minds in Mexico? I very much doubt it. And internet-using freedom-loving Mexicans willing to get politically involved probably don't need the U.S. based EFF to tell them about political machinations within Mexico. The U.S. government could use some of its muscle and convince the Mexican government to shelve this proposal, but how well would that go over, when the NSA is selectively logging anything it wants anywhere in the world (anywhere that it can get at and tap)?