5 ms·

I am a Wikipedian, a contributor of free content to Wikipedia. (I contribute in Chinese, in German, and in some other languages too.) I read the Wikimedia Found

I am a Wikipedian, a contributor of free content to Wikipedia. (I contribute in Chinese, in German, and in some other languages too.) I read the Wikimedia Foundation blog kindly submitted here by an early Wikipedian and read all the comments here posted before mine before writing this reply. In the last two weeks, I've renewed acquaintance with quite a few local Wikipedians at two Wikipedia Edit-a-Thons that occurred in my town. I see the Wikimedia Foundation has a rationale for its suit based partly on United States law. It writes, "Our aim in filing this suit is to end this mass surveillance program in order to protect the rights of our users around the world." Because I edit Wikipedia in languages other than English, crucially including Chinese, I am painfully aware that there are a lot of restrictions of the rights of users of Wikipedia all over the world, evidently some of them not within the reach of the United States legal system. There seems to be no prospect, for example, of the Wikimedia Foundation suing the Russian or Chinese central governments (not even to mention north Korea's regime or the ISIS self-styled regime) to protect the rights of users of Wikipedia. That's too bad. If the NSA surveillance programs ceased later today, there would still be a lot of places around the world where Wikipedia would be inaccessible or Wikipedia users would be harassed by agents of other governments.

jsnathan 12y ago
Precedent is a powerful thing. I wouldn't give up hope yet, for the anti-surveillance movement.
chopin 12y ago
In German law, there is the principle of "Es gibt keine Gleichheit im Unrecht" which means that it is not admissable to break the law if some other person does it. The land of the free should be ashamed of its mass surveillance no matter what. Even if Russia and China and whatnot continue to do it. And, the USA has much more grip on critical internet infrastructure. Therefore it makes a difference if they care.
joelhaus 12y ago
Well put. Another comment ITT[0] also pointed out the global surveillance arms race and the futility of pressuring the US to unilaterally disarm. This is particularly true in light of the many legitimate global threats to freedom mentioned in your comment. Knowing how unpopular this opinion is here, I still feel the need to share... Lawsuits like these strike me as either incredibly naive or a cynical public relations stunt. I don't enjoy my donations supporting either kind of effort and unfortunately, will likely cease future contributions. The NSA does not surveil domestic communications without a court ordered warrant and I have heard no arguments to convince me that this is not a legitimate use of authority. If there was a single change to the NSA that I could advocate, it would be stronger and harsher mandatory minimums for anyone found in violation of the existing prohibitions on domestic surveillance. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9177073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9177073
- alextgordon 12y ago
  > The NSA does not surveil domestic communications without a court ordered warrant and I have heard no arguments to convince me that this is not a legitimate use of authority. Oh what faith you have... <snowden> How are things over there? <poitras> I'm at the Guardian. They’re publishing TEMPORA today. They are very nervous about an injunction. <snowden> The NSA love that program. <poitras> Why? <snowden> Because they aren't allowed to do it in the US. The UK lets us query it all day long.

jsnathan 12y ago

Precedent is a powerful thing. I wouldn't give up hope yet, for the anti-surveillance movement.

chopin 12y ago

In German law, there is the principle of "Es gibt keine Gleichheit im Unrecht" which means that it is not admissable to break the law if some other person does it. The land of the free should be ashamed of its mass surveillance no matter what. Even if Russia and China and whatnot continue to do it. And, the USA has much more grip on critical internet infrastructure. Therefore it makes a difference if they care.

joelhaus 12y ago

Well put. Another comment ITT[0] also pointed out the global surveillance arms race and the futility of pressuring the US to unilaterally disarm. This is particularly true in light of the many legitimate global threats to freedom mentioned in your comment. Knowing how unpopular this opinion is here, I still feel the need to share... Lawsuits like these strike me as either incredibly naive or a cynical public relations stunt. I don't enjoy my donations supporting either kind of effort and unfortunately, will likely cease future contributions. The NSA does not surveil domestic communications without a court ordered warrant and I have heard no arguments to convince me that this is not a legitimate use of authority. If there was a single change to the NSA that I could advocate, it would be stronger and harsher mandatory minimums for anyone found in violation of the existing prohibitions on domestic surveillance. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9177073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9177073

alextgordon 12y ago
> The NSA does not surveil domestic communications without a court ordered warrant and I have heard no arguments to convince me that this is not a legitimate use of authority. Oh what faith you have... <snowden> How are things over there? <poitras> I'm at the Guardian. They’re publishing TEMPORA today. They are very nervous about an injunction. <snowden> The NSA love that program. <poitras> Why? <snowden> Because they aren't allowed to do it in the US. The UK lets us query it all day long.