[Kalium]

> The US, UK, Russia, 5 Eyes countries, China, the EU; everyone has a stance on whether they're safe or not.

It might just be me, but I think it's reasonably clear that some of these places have mature legal frameworks where the rule of law exists (US, UK, EU) and some generally do not (Russia, China, Venezuela). But perhaps I'm mistaken and simply do not understand what a mature legal system is.

[jmichaelhudson]

>mature legal frameworks where the rule of law exists (US-

whaaaaaa

How is 'recording everything, decrypting everything, targeting persons of interest without warrant or record, extensive networks of informants and agents in all branches of politics, art, and business while bombing people based on their cell phone ping location globally without oversight or any attempt at legal justification'

The United States is 0 privacy, 0 honesty about the actual laws in place, 'fusion centers' completely removing any sane separation of national and regional power or separation of police from military, and 50 TLA's arguing over how best to harass political activists or run criminal gangs themselves. And an entire other spy agency of a different country on the other side of the world allowed to do basically whatever they want in our borders and harvest every ounce of the data of our lives.

That's not a 'mature framework', that is reverting 'civilization' to before the magna carta, much less the geneva conventions.

And since in no case where it was revealed how the government is breaking its own laws and using technology to make an illegal monstrosity out of the internet has the government ever meaningfully been held to account of actually changed, behold what rules you.

Stop pretending something is worth your trust just because there are flags and rotundas and people in suits on the news 24 hours a day and a cultish military junta hasn't completely taken completely over yet, visibly. edit: ...in the united states.

[Kalium]

I knew this kind of objection was coming. It was very predictable. Your objection to the massive infringement of basic human rights is morally and ethically completely and absolutely correct in every single possible way.

It's also, for the moment and strictly for the purposes of this particular conversation at hand, irrelevant.

Though I understand if some might choose to believe otherwise for political reasons. The discussion at hand is about overarching legal systems, their general reliability, and how much bearing laws have on what actually happens.

Similarly, one could probably point at some by-the-book handling of a parking ticket in China as proof that it is a nation with rule of law. It would be similarly possessed of opportunity to come into greater alignment with relevance.

[jmichaelhudson]

I knew someone was going to say I was off topic, what a coincicence.

If human rights are not relevant to the article and thread, then the article and thread are for robots and someone should clearly post that.

If the article does not discuss rights, which to me appear to have completely disappeared and any semblence of them we only have is due to a lot of this generation of TLA officeres not being total monsters

Now we just have to hope Kushner doesn't use his global admin rights to do anything mean. /s

That is the state of the internet, this silent well-born manchild who has chummed with madmen since he was a child has clearance and hooks into everything the nsa scoops up, which is nearly the entire internet, and the entire pollyanna internet.

Is that in TFA?

Then why are they writing about 1995?