61–70 of 70 posts
I laugh at the blatant double standards held by the U.S. government here. They want to do exactly the same thing in the U.S. with all companies, yet they criticize China for wanting to do the same thing there? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want China to drop that policy, then you have to be willing to drop that policy too.
I laugh at the blatant double standards held by the U.S. government here. They want to do exactly the same thing in the U.S. with all companies, yet they criticize China for wanting to do the same thing there? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want China to drop that policy, then you have to be willing to drop that policy too.
"requires companies to also keep servers and user data within China, supply law enforcement authorities with communications records and censor terrorism-related Internet content."
Last I checked, the U.S. does not require companies to keep servers and user data within the U.S. or censor terrorism-related content.
I laugh at the blatant double standards held by the U.S. government here. They want to do exactly the same thing in the U.S. with all companies, yet they criticize China for wanting to do the same thing there? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want China to drop that policy, then you have to be willing to drop that policy too.
China wants to go further than the U.S. From the article: "requires companies to also keep servers and user data within China, supply law enforcement authorities with communications records and censor terrorism-related Internet content." Last I checked, the U.S. does not require companies to keep servers and user data within the U.S. or censor terrorism-related content.
Of course, as people are becoming wise to these tactics, they're doing what they did with their money back in the day - sent it somewhere neutral that has strong privacy laws. Outside the jurisdiction of countries that will spy on them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll bite. Yes, in terms of foreign policy, I think that W and especially Obama have been profoundly, historically, difficult-to-believe bad. I'm not trying to downplay Iran-Contra, Gulf of Tonkin / Vietnam, etc., but the last two administrations have taken what was unduly hostile (and expensive) logistical capability around the world and turned it into Empire. The needs, wants, representative processes, laws, and so…
The last two presidents will always be the worst ones then? There was a lot of shady stuff going on during W2 that makes today's situation look like child's play. The last 8 years have been relatively quiet compared to the 00s or 90s or 80s. Historically speaking, I bet 20 years from now most of Obama's interventions are mere footnotes, like Reagan's mostly are.
I laugh at the blatant double standards held by the U.S. government here. They want to do exactly the same thing in the U.S. with all companies, yet they criticize China for wanting to do the same thing there? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want China to drop that policy, then you have to be willing to drop that policy too.
The basic US premise is that we are the good side so the same rule for all does not apply to us. Only police can have weapons not everyone.
If you want to live in harmony with the world around you, you have to work to live in harmony with the world around you... with all the world's leaders one team, working together for the good of the world. You can't have one in there telling everyone else how they're going to act and then acting completely contrary to that themselves. That's not how things work.
Have these people not seen Star Wars? That's what happens when you try and control everyone. The U.S. is The Empire trying to enforce their will on the universe... and the terrorists, as clumsy and abhorrent as they are, are playing the role of the Jedi - except they're playing without honour or any form of human decency it seems.
That's what happens when you enforce your policies on other nations who have their own internal problems to worry about without you bitching about what they are or aren't doing for you.
If the U.S. wants to stop being at war with terrorists, how about find a way to give the terrorists an appropriate voice at the table. What is it they want? Why do they want it? What are they hoping to solve by getting it? How can the U.S. help them find a morally decent solution to their problems? Maybe then instead of constantly making enemies, they can make some friends. Friends are what you need when times are tough... and given U.S. unemployment, poverty and levels of incarceration just now, I'd say times are pretty tough. They could do with making some friends instead of just working to be part of the popular crowd [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes]. It's about time to drop being the school yard bully throwing their weight around and expecting everyone to bend to their will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll bite. Yes, in terms of foreign policy, I think that W and especially Obama have been profoundly, historically, difficult-to-believe bad. I'm not trying to downplay Iran-Contra, Gulf of Tonkin / Vietnam, etc., but the last two administrations have taken what was unduly hostile (and expensive) logistical capability around the world and turned it into Empire. The needs, wants, representative processes, laws, and so…
Serious question - do you think it has anything to do with both of these being 'internet age' Presidents? I mean, prior to 2001 the web wasn't what it is today - but now news/information/opinion/whistleblowing/whatever spreads quickly and easily and reaches pretty much everyone. Could it not just be that it's harder to be clandestine and easier to speak out / monitor everything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last two presidents will always be the worst ones then? There was a lot of shady stuff going on during W2 that makes today's situation look like child's play. The last 8 years have been relatively quiet compared to the 00s or 90s or 80s. Historically speaking, I bet 20 years from now most of Obama's interventions are mere footnotes, like Reagan's mostly are.
It's hard to top putting hundreds of thousands of citizens in camps and stealing all their property. And that's just if we limit it to the 20th century to present.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll bite. Yes, in terms of foreign policy, I think that W and especially Obama have been profoundly, historically, difficult-to-believe bad. I'm not trying to downplay Iran-Contra, Gulf of Tonkin / Vietnam, etc., but the last two administrations have taken what was unduly hostile (and expensive) logistical capability around the world and turned it into Empire. The needs, wants, representative processes, laws, and so…
Seven undeclared wars during Obama's presidency. Is it these? Afganistan, Iraq, ISIL, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen. I seem to be missing one. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Un...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Chinese government never never really care about counter terrorism, all they care about is keeping their power. To keep their power they need to control their people's mind, to control people's mind they need to control the internet. That's it. It's not about privacy, it's about free speech. Please do not confuse this with the debate (about privacy) happening in the western countries.
The debate about online privacy vs. the government in the West is largely about free speech vs. governments exercising total control to maintain power, so I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make. I'm not saying that there isn't a very large difference in the current state of China vs. the West in this area, but the subject is the same.
In the West there is at least still a debate between privacy (potential impact to free speech) and safety against terrorism.
Wait, wasn't it his own government which decided to spy on their own people ? Didn't he force his own country's companies to spy on his own people? I used to like obama a lot. Used to...