> The argument in this comment is nonsensical. If I were to summarize higherpurpose's thesis for him I would write: Western governments once known for their c

> The argument in this comment is nonsensical. If I were to summarize higherpurpose's thesis for him I would write: Western governments once known for their commitments to freedom and civil liberties are now losing their ability to rightfully claim these good reputations. There are a number of current real world issues today, some mentioned in the article and others closely related, facing modern individual expression where the commitments that once gave these Western governments their good names are in fact being actively curtailed. We've seen a simultaneous rise in budding forms of both surveillance and censorship as well as a rise in the militarization of police and invasive executive and judicial techniques. Perhaps because Western countries share historical roots and political goals these changes have been so correlated in them - we've seen a lot of anecdotal evidence of this, some hard evidence in the form of reports from oversight committees and more hard evidence from leaked documents/cables and have good reasons to logically conclude that so partnering would be efficient and desirable to the agencies in question (motive, opportunity and evidence). I'm also starting to become aware not only of programs that watch societies but also ones that have degrees of success in manipulating them in targeted ways at scale. I am struck by how the nature of programs that seek active manipulation of political expression and emotion conflict with the commitments to individual liberty that I was raised to believe is the justification of the state. > The UK's civil rights scheme is significantly different from that of the US. He doesn't assume or state that. He merely states that both were examples of modern states that enshrine some sort of civil liberty. It does not matter whether the scheme is different or similar. > The US and the UK do not in fact introduce surveillance bills in any kind of synchrony I believe he's talking about the "UKUSA Agreement". At this level (the UKUSA agreement dates back now 70 years) synchronicity is not a discussion of days or weeks but of years. > The US funded Tor, and continues to fund the security of Tor and tools like it (that might be news to you; take my word for it, though: it's an overt, deliberate, and important program). I don't think this covers his point - he was using Tor as an example of a subject of internationally harmonized political media coverage. > And appeals to "that's how they do it in the UK" or "that's how they do it in the US" are more likely to alienate voters than to garner support. I'm not sure how to understand this comment or how it fits the discussion? You seem to be making a meta point about the strategic political value of invoking certain topics? Wouldn't engineering a comment to exclude these divorce it more from 'truth-finding' and more toward overt political maneuvering? Should we read your comments with the understanding you comb prose for how appeals will affect voters? > But, good job for working SOPA into it! IMO SOPA is on topic as per the summary at the top.