4 ms·
When its done in 3rd world countries, western countries stating this is against privacy and violating human rights. But when western countries do it, its to pr
by Oras 12y ago
When its done in 3rd world countries, western countries stating this is against privacy and violating human rights. But when western countries do it, its to protect national security!
Btw I'm not against it, I'm against the way of dealing with it.
- spacefight 12y agoCare to explain why you're not against it? I haven't found a single reason, which justifies to tap on a full comms link of a whole network. Not a single one.
- pageld 12y agoSafety is the only reason I ever get from anyone. "I have nothing to hide and if it finds terrorists, then I'm all for it" is an actual quote. I don't agree with that statement, but it's obviously out there.
- spacefight 12y agoYeah right, a totally wrong illusion of safety.
- pavanred 12y agoIn that case, won't wearing an anklet keep one even safer?
- Oras 12y agoThis statement is true mate .. believe it or not
- arzugula 12y agoThe fact that what you are doing today has been deemed acceptable to the overseers is no guarantee that it will be tomorrow.
- Oras 12y agoIf you lived in a country struggling from terrorism and corruption you'll understand my reasons. I don't mind losing my privacy for sake of safety of people.
- tomp 12y agoNeither did the Germans living under the Stasi. /s
- spacefight 12y agoI mind losing my privacy for the sake of issues affecting a tiny fraction of the population. I also wouldn't mind seeing some stats, that surveillance is an effective tool against the threats you listed.
- Oras 12y agoI see your point and totally agree with it
- bodski 12y ago"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
- russgray 12y agoI always disagreed with that quote, and hate it when people roll it out like it's some sort of irreproachable truth.
- mpyne 12y agoDoesn't help that it's completely out of context as well, IIRC. But even in this quote the weasel word "essential" is included in the term "essential Liberty". So what is absolutely essential? Could there be legitimate disagreements on that?
- GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago
- pavanred 12y agoIsn't this a slippery slope? The general consensus is changing slowly and everyone slowly is starting to accept and tolerate privacy invasions? Isn't that the same with other human rights too?
- schoen 12y agoI do think there is a massive double standard (which you can see from western media discussions of government surveillance in non-western countries, especially before a year ago). Government surveillance outside of the west is easily seen as repressive, invasive, and a sign of the lack of respect of states for human dignity. The U.S. State Department even funds efforts to help people elsewhere evade monitoring by their own governments. They have a new round of funding proposals open right now. (By the way, I don't mean to criticize these efforts; I think they're completely appropriate and beneficial, and I think they've funded some good work, from what I regard as benign motives. It's just funny to think about the way that different parts of the government think about communications surveillance when they're putting a different lens on it.) I've been to events where people confronted western government representatives about this issue, and they usually talked about the importance of being a liberal democracy, which, to put a pejorative cast on it, immunizes you from criticism for doing the same things that you criticize other states for.