3 ms·

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 No

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)?
  - chaostheory 12y ago
    > It can be, of course, but there are political realities when trying to influence public policy in another country. Yes, but what does that have to do with constricting the meaning of the poem? > 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. The EFF is all about raising awareness. How does this hurt anyone? Why is it stupid to help raise awareness of an issue in another country?
    - harshreality 12y ago
      To rephrase: Acting on the spirit of the poem, and other similar philosophy, without taking heed of certain caveats I elaborated upon, is political foolishness, and perhaps the primary reason enlightened liberals have a lot of trouble getting things done in the world. > Why is it stupid to help raise awareness... Take a look at the only place I used the word "stupid". Hint: it has nothing to do with the EFF. I'm attempting to inject some balance, and some political reality, into what I think is head-in-the-clouds liberalism. I don't know that the EFF is doing anything that hurts people right now; this was but one press release on their website. But anyone, like the poster who started this subthread, who tries to make Mexico's issues the world's issues, has to contend with allocation of limited organization resources (opportunity costs). If organizations in the rest of the world put resources into interfering in Mexico's primarily internal policies, and get nothing out of it, when they could have been fighting policies that more directly affect those organizations' members, is that not harm?

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)?
- chaostheory 12y ago
  > It can be, of course, but there are political realities when trying to influence public policy in another country. Yes, but what does that have to do with constricting the meaning of the poem? > 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. The EFF is all about raising awareness. How does this hurt anyone? Why is it stupid to help raise awareness of an issue in another country?
  - harshreality 12y ago
    To rephrase: Acting on the spirit of the poem, and other similar philosophy, without taking heed of certain caveats I elaborated upon, is political foolishness, and perhaps the primary reason enlightened liberals have a lot of trouble getting things done in the world. > Why is it stupid to help raise awareness... Take a look at the only place I used the word "stupid". Hint: it has nothing to do with the EFF. I'm attempting to inject some balance, and some political reality, into what I think is head-in-the-clouds liberalism. I don't know that the EFF is doing anything that hurts people right now; this was but one press release on their website. But anyone, like the poster who started this subthread, who tries to make Mexico's issues the world's issues, has to contend with allocation of limited organization resources (opportunity costs). If organizations in the rest of the world put resources into interfering in Mexico's primarily internal policies, and get nothing out of it, when they could have been fighting policies that more directly affect those organizations' members, is that not harm?