[bad_user]

> This is another regime looking to suppress dissent, just like China has been doing all along.

No government can act without the acceptance of a majority of the citizens. China's firewall can only exist because the Chinese people are accepting it in the name of protecting children or other such bullshit - brits should watch out, as their personal liberties have been eroded in the name of safety for too long. And if you live in the US, I suppose you're familiar with the Patriot Act ;-)

No, governments don't do this unless a majority approves - that they approve for the wrong reasons, that's another story entirely. But as I kept saying ever since Snowden's leaks happened - the US government fucked things up, they won't even admit to how badly they fucked up and this will have deep repercussions internationally regarding the future of the Internet. A lot of international (mostly US) companies will get hurt by this, because (1) they didn't have a saying in the matter, yet the public views them as being guilty nonetheless and (2) because of balkanization.

And the US can't point fingers and say "look who's talking", as that won't achieve anything. Say that to the Russian public who approves this. The US, as the stewart of the Internet, should have been careful to not fuck things up so badly in the first place. And after Snowden's leaks I would have liked to see some apologies, some heads falling - but ALAS, no, nothing of the sort - only a direct confirmation that they don't care about the rights of foreign individuals and as a non-US citizen, how do you think that makes me feel?

[ryanpardieck]

I think you're conflating "not actively overthrowing their government in violent revolution" with majority acceptance.

That governments are inevitably an extension of their citizens' will is a thing that sounds nice to believe, but isn't necessarily true. It's easy to imagine situations where a small minority gains forceful control of a majority. Whether that is the case for any one nation is a much trickier question, but it certainly can happen.

[VMG]

> No government can act without the acceptance of a majority of the citizens.

This is not a contradiction to the original statement. Even if the majority wants to suppress minority dissent (or do worse things to minorities), it's not the right thing to do.

[menato]

> Even if the majority wants to suppress minority dissent (or do worse things to minorities), it's not the right thing to do.

Let me follow your definition, say, in the case of Ancient Rome. There is a minority of masters and a majority of slaves. Minority of masters has a dissent (from the slave's point of view, of course) that slaves should stay slaves. So, according to you, it is wrong for them to fight for their freedom, right?

[VMG]

No, I should have worded it more carefully: Majority opinion isn't necessarily ethical, though it can be. They're independent concepts.

[menato]

This statement makes sense for some specific ethic systems.

For instance, in almost all modern states there are ideas, which are shared by some majorities and considered unethical in Christian ethic system.

But bad_user seems to imply ethic system which is based on the aggregate citizens vision. With such ethic system opinions of majorities are ethical by tautology.

[walshemj]

um no the Chinese army's main role is supressing internal dissent.

[pjc50]

Acquiescence is not acceptance.

[bad_user]

Well, I have lived 7 years as a child under dictatorship and we've executed our dictator without a fair trial, on Christmas Day. Saddam Hussein in particular became extra paranoid after watching this particular execution on TV.

I do know a thing or two about the difference - and one has to understand the mentality of people living under a certain political system - the system only survives when there's enough acceptance, from a majority no less and acceptance happens because that's what people grow up with. That's why under stalinism at least there was so much emphasis on propaganda.

[happyscrappy]

I guess you haven't heard: "The Five Eyes are cooperating with various 3rd Party countries in at least two groups: The "Nine Eyes", consisting of the Five Eyes plus Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Norway. The "Fourteen Eyes", consisting of the same countries as the Nine Eyes plus Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Sweden.[41] The actual name of this group is SIGINT Seniors Europe (SSEUR) and its purpose is coordinating the exchange of military signals intelligence among its members.[42]

Germany is reportedly interested in moving closer to the inner circle: an internal GCHQ document from 2009 said that the “Germans were a little grumpy at not being invited to join the 9-Eyes group." Germany may even wish to join Five Eyes.[43] Referring to Five Eyes, French President François Hollande has said that his country is "not within that framework and we don't intend to join."[44] According to a former top U.S. official, "Germany joining would be a possibility, but not France – France itself spies on the US far too aggressively for that."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Eyes#Future_enlargemen...

[bad_user]

But of course. I wasn't denying anything of the sort.

But you see - it's one thing for my country to do it, because if I suffer from it, I have legal ways to fight it. It's another thing entirely for a foreign government with so much power to do it, let alone a government that directly controls and that can subdue the biggest companies that operate on the Internet. Depending on the country, the NSA doesn't have enough jurisdiction or power to subdue a foreign company, regardless of any treaties, therefore depending on the country, I can trust a more local company more than I can trust a US company - since a US company can be quietly subdued to whatever the NSA wants without recourse or without me finding out about it.

And I do realize that if I'm targeted directly, then short of keeping myself offline, there's no way to protect my data. But my biggest fear is that my personal data will end up being processed in bulk by incompetents. My personal ID ended up in a local newspaper by mistake because of incompetents running our governmental institutions (even though that's illegal). I've got important data that I care about - while at the same time I've got nothing to hide - but do I want my personal data, like pictures, love or angry letters, source code of personal projects and so on and so forth to end up being processed by incompetents? Hell no. And if it does happen, I want to be able to strike back.

With the US government doing it, I have no recourse, no path I could take - since I'm not a US citizen and I don't have money for the fees practiced by US lawyers anyway, while at the same time, my voice is not heard because I'm a foreigner. Heck, I don't even have a right to vote, if that counted for something. Can you see my problem here?

That's why I'm of the opinion that the US government should try really hard to fix what they broke, since we all have enjoyed the freedoms provided by the global Internet and it would be a pity if balkanization happens because some idiots thought it would be cool to process the emails of individuals without warrants and in bulk.

[happyscrappy]

>But you see - it's one thing for my country to do it, because if I suffer from it, I have legal ways to fight it

Your country is giving the data to the US, without disclosure. Good luck fighting it.