3 ms·

Just because some countries have it more wrong doesn't mean criticisms of US policy are invalid, it's really a silly argument.

bsaul 12y ago
Yes it absolutely does. Qualifying the US as a "surveillance state" ( and not as something-that-could-one-day-become-as-such-if-people-don't-pay-attention) , means you think you have no freedom of speech ( at least on the internet). This is outrageous, not only compared to countries were you can actually be arrested for a tweet, but also because it means you actually have no clue as to what kind of country you live in. As a young french adult, i tried to protest once against a government law i found revolting, by sitting peacefuly and quietly in front of the Elysee ( the white house equivalent) with a sign. I immediatly got arrested, my ID card was taken for a check, and i was told to move on. I said i found it surprising they did that, and the french policemen told me "well, you've seen people doing that on TV but this isn't the US here". And yet, i am very able to make the difference between france and china, where people would face actual prison for that. Because i have a god damn sense of proportion. There isn't an absolutely "free" country. A nation means laws and regulations, it is a compromise. You compromise a little bit on your personnal freedom for the sake of general interest. It's a complex matter, not a binary switch. So all qualification of a country has to be done in comparison with other countries, facing the same kind of threat, and see how they deal with the situation. If you find a western country that doesn't "spy" the net, just tell me. They do it for child porn, drug traffic, and terrorisms. And to me that's absolutely great, as long as it remains for those purposes.
- iamwithnail 12y ago
  Freedom of speech and surveillance are very different things. The crucial part of surveillance is that you're being monitored on what you say, fairly routinely. Whether or not the authorities take exception to what you say/who you speak to in private communications is another matter, which qualifies only the nature of the surveillance society, not whether it exists.

bsaul 12y ago

Yes it absolutely does. Qualifying the US as a "surveillance state" ( and not as something-that-could-one-day-become-as-such-if-people-don't-pay-attention) , means you think you have no freedom of speech ( at least on the internet). This is outrageous, not only compared to countries were you can actually be arrested for a tweet, but also because it means you actually have no clue as to what kind of country you live in. As a young french adult, i tried to protest once against a government law i found revolting, by sitting peacefuly and quietly in front of the Elysee ( the white house equivalent) with a sign. I immediatly got arrested, my ID card was taken for a check, and i was told to move on. I said i found it surprising they did that, and the french policemen told me "well, you've seen people doing that on TV but this isn't the US here". And yet, i am very able to make the difference between france and china, where people would face actual prison for that. Because i have a god damn sense of proportion. There isn't an absolutely "free" country. A nation means laws and regulations, it is a compromise. You compromise a little bit on your personnal freedom for the sake of general interest. It's a complex matter, not a binary switch. So all qualification of a country has to be done in comparison with other countries, facing the same kind of threat, and see how they deal with the situation. If you find a western country that doesn't "spy" the net, just tell me. They do it for child porn, drug traffic, and terrorisms. And to me that's absolutely great, as long as it remains for those purposes.

iamwithnail 12y ago
Freedom of speech and surveillance are very different things. The crucial part of surveillance is that you're being monitored on what you say, fairly routinely. Whether or not the authorities take exception to what you say/who you speak to in private communications is another matter, which qualifies only the nature of the surveillance society, not whether it exists.