3 ms·
Im with you in spirit, but the US partly gets away with all this because other countries not only support them, but aid them. Prime sorry example, UK and GCHQ.
by alan_cx 12y ago
Im with you in spirit, but the US partly gets away with all this because other countries not only support them, but aid them. Prime sorry example, UK and GCHQ. Cant help thinking that if a lot of US allies simply said no, something might change. If the international community stood up to the US Gov, Americans themselves might then ask more question about the internal working.
Sadly here in the UK, Im vaguely sure we out do the US in terms of privacy invasion. So, I'll have a Coke and a smile and......
- schoen 12y agoRoss Anderson has an interesting recent paper on network effects in surveillance partnerships. http://weis2014.econinfosec.org/papers/Anderson-WEIS2014.pdf http://weis2014.econinfosec.org/papers/Anderson-WEIS2014.pdf "My first big point is that all the three factors which lead to monopoly—network effects, low marginal costs and technical lock-in—are present and growing in the national-intelligence nexus itself. The Snowden papers show that neutrals like Sweden and India are heavily involved in information sharing with the NSA, even though they have tried for years to pretend otherwise." "[P]layers in an intelligence network may come to see their relationship with the other agencies as their key asset [...]" Lots of other interesting things there.