Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both you and the article miss a basic point, which is that the preservation of government, for its own sake, is in the interest of both the people who compose the government, and also of the people. This is particularly true in democratic countries, where the government is the vehicle for the popular will. The fall of a democratic government almost always leads to tyranny, because very few revolutionaries go to the t…
There's a lot of truth in what you write - but ... there is a legitimate concern that even in a "democratic society" the "security" apparatus can be used to maintain the party in power. think about watergate - it was a spying scandal, back when you had to physically collect the information. knowing what the opposition is thinking or doing is valuable information. discrediting critics and supporters of your opponent i…
The Transparent Chinese
41–50 of 58 posts
Re: The Transparent Chinese
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, hope the NYT don't mind. I can't be bothered with proxies and VPN's - whenever I find a free one that works, the party doesn't last long, so I don't bother much anymore.
Why not setup your own? Dedicated servers are super affordable nowadays (if you are on HN, anyway).
Re: The Transparent Chinese
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Between people who fight for expensive and inconvenient procedures in the name of a particular existential threat, but when pressed admit that the methods are not at all effective for that purpose - an enormous difference between those people and people who have a different motive than they claim to have? A minuscule difference. If you support A to do B, but admit that A doesn't do B, then I assume that you support A…
The main difference is what they believe they're doing. I seriously doubt that most or many people at the NSA think they're in the line of "suppression of dissent". Even though people doing the wrong things for the right reasons can cause a great deal of harm and should be stopped, it's still less of a threat than people doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons. For example, I doubt anyone from the NSA would show…
Re: The Transparent Chinese
#44>>The Edward J. Snowden affair finally raised a chilling question for the whole world: How much privacy do citizens have to give up for the sake of public security? For us Chinese, this question is slightly different: How much privacy do we have to give up for the sake of the government’s security? The thing that most westerns still don't realize is that the reasons we are giving up privacy actually are the same. Our…
If you don't believe the United States is actually using its intelligence for fighting terrorism then you're just as delusional as the people you refer to. Of course the government abuses and misuses its power on its own people - but the evidence is clear that the government is fighting terrorism. Many of the leaks, going all the way back to wikileaks, confirm this - not to mention the body bags.
> not to mention the body bags.
Unless you have a specific set of bodybags in mind, I would actually say, the way civilians get attacked with drones (including a second strike to hit first responders, yay), and also going to war with Iraq for exactly zero good reasons, including niceties such as Abu Ghraib, would make it obvious that "the government" is fighting for terrorism, that is, the creation of more terrorists, while ignoring warnings from both experts in the field as well as random strangers who happen to be able to add 2 and 2.
Of course they wouldn't want to actually get overtaken by terrorism, but at the same time, NO terrorism would be nearly as useless. All of this is huuuge business, taken in total. All the gadgets and wars, all the dead people ("even Americans") and all the people being spied on ("even Americans"), may not do anything to prevent terrorism, but they represent a real cashflow, that's one big, fat fact. They also do provide a justification for total surveillance and the militarization of pretty much everything. That doesn't mean it's all made up and just a scam; terrorists are real, and they're not all "created by being mean to people", sometimes people are terrorists because they're dicks. But that doesn't mean that a.) other parties can't find ways to profit off all that, and b.) they can't find ways to fuel the fire, either on purpose or by being so stupid and full of it, that there isn't a meaningful difference between that actual malice, and the question becomes moot.
Why is terrorism objectionable? Because it destroys lives, and the lives of all those who live in fear. Not "because it's terrorism", but because of those and related things. So something done "in reaction" to that, and to "fight" it, especially when it is zero effective in actually fighting it, that does those same things, is a sibling of terrorism, not its counterpart. Which is unrelated to the question at hand but I wanted to point it out anyway. That you and I are not activists that "goes to sleep each night worried they might wake up with a gun in their mouth" (to paraphrase Appelbaum), or kids in Elsewhereistan whose grandmother was killed in a random drone attack and who can't enjoy a sunny day without fear ever since, or any day for that matter, makes it easy to underappreciate how real and fucked up this is. The terrorism it "fights" does not cause as much pain to the American people as the actions of the military-industrial complex causes others, and, as sick and sad as it is to say that, it's a thousand times cheaper.
You know how some people don't light fireworks on NYE because they realized that's just blowing money and dirt into the air for no reason? Now consider all those drones and carriers and rockets, consider the data centers, consider the TSA, and stop pissing the future of your children away. Even if you can't be arsed to feel empathy for others, consider the damage it does to you.
Re: The Transparent Chinese
#45Frankly I don't mind surveillance and spying when used for preventing terrorism or act of violence the same way as I don't mind when at international airports most of the time I find myself directed to the double security checks. But when its so apparent that the data is being used to target citizens in general and not fight crime it appalling! How do citizens stop a government from exploitation and damage?
Re: The Transparent Chinese
#46>>The Edward J. Snowden affair finally raised a chilling question for the whole world: How much privacy do citizens have to give up for the sake of public security? For us Chinese, this question is slightly different: How much privacy do we have to give up for the sake of the government’s security? The thing that most westerns still don't realize is that the reasons we are giving up privacy actually are the same. Our…
Both you and the article miss a basic point, which is that the preservation of government, for its own sake, is in the interest of both the people who compose the government, and also of the people. This is particularly true in democratic countries, where the government is the vehicle for the popular will. The fall of a democratic government almost always leads to tyranny, because very few revolutionaries go to the t…
raymer sez: "The only thing worse than a bad government is no government."
Counterexample: North Korea. The various governments of the French Revolution. There are plenty more.
The nation-state is a relatively new concept in social history. National governments are neither necessary nor a proven good thing.
Re: The Transparent Chinese
#47Political and social fixity (to use an obnoxious historian term) has been one of the overriding goals of the dominant Chinese polity since before the Great Wall was built. It's something that Westerners have a lot of trouble understanding -- Communism might be a fairly recent addition to China, but the value the Chinese place on stability is a tradition that dates so far back we have trouble measuring its age.
Re: The Transparent Chinese
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both you and the article miss a basic point, which is that the preservation of government, for its own sake, is in the interest of both the people who compose the government, and also of the people. This is particularly true in democratic countries, where the government is the vehicle for the popular will. The fall of a democratic government almost always leads to tyranny, because very few revolutionaries go to the t…
You would justify one true tyranny (ubiquitous surveillance) in order to prevent another, hypothetical, theoretical, unsubstantiated "tyranny" based on a few examples from the dustbin of history (and just so you don't mistake me, I intend that metaphor as "history is a useless dustbin with no predictive value")? raymer sez: "The only thing worse than a bad government is no government." Counterexample: North Korea. Th…
The nation-state is relatively new as the dominant high-level model of government, and as a named concept, sure; but government isn't new, and the issue wasn't nation-states but government (and, heck, many modern governments only conform very loosely to the idea of a nation-state.)
> National governments are neither necessary nor a proven good thing.
Prior to the dominance nation-state, governments, with many of the same institutional forms found in nation states, had existed for quite some time. The only unique thing about national governments or nation-states is the alignment of the boundaries of the government's jurisdiction (the domain of the state) with scope of a shared national identity (the domain of the nation).
Re: The Transparent Chinese
#49Re: The Transparent Chinese
#50For almost a decade, “weiwen,” or “maintaining social stability,” has been the government’s public mantra[...]“Stability” has been deemed more important than education, health care and even national defense. Political and social fixity (to use an obnoxious historian term) has been one of the overriding goals of the dominant Chinese polity since before the Great Wall was built. It's something that Westerners have a lo…
> For us Chinese, this question is slightly different: How much privacy do we have to give up for the sake of the government’s security?