[thaumasiotes]

Well, it's hard to make the comparison "the US today is even worse than the USSR today". But it's pretty easy to make a comparison between the US today and the USSR in 1985.

If the USSR was bad, and we're worse, who cares if the hypothetical USSR of today would be even worse than we are today? It's still easy to see that we're (1) worse than something that was (2) awful. The reason for our surpassing awfulness being new technological developments isn't relevant to the idea that we've gone bad.

(Obviously, the USSR of then was much worse than the US of today along a whole host of vastly-more-important dimensions. I'm not talking about that.)

[rl3]

Worse than something that was, but only in a technological sense.

Surveillance today is more invasive, and pervasive. This is a direct result of technological advancement. So, unless you're talking strictly in those terms, then how the underlying surveillance capability is used must be taken into account.

For example, the United States probably has the most advanced surveillance capability of any nation on Earth. Certainly, this capability has the potential for abuse. In fact, I'm sure it is abused, and that's bad. However, the underlying use is more or less in line with other Western governments.

Contrast this with say, any hardcore authoritarian regime today using comparable technology, and it's a completely different magnitude of bad.

So, I wouldn't say the U.S. is worse than the former Soviet Union in terms of surveillance, at least not in any moral sense.

[coldtea]

>For example, the United States probably has the most advanced surveillance capability of any nation on Earth. Certainly, this capability has the potential for abuse.

Why, does it have any other potential?

>However, the underlying use is more or less in line with other Western governments.

Nothing of the above is comforting.

>Contrast this with say, any hardcore authoritarian regime today using comparable technology, and it's a completely different magnitude of bad.

I dunno, at least most "authoritarian regimes" only mess with their residents. Whereas the US messes with its residents (somewhat for some groups, full on assault if you are black, see for e.g. incarceration rates), with 4-5 countries directly (invasion, etc), with 10-20 countries indirectly (threats, special "deals" from friendly lackeys put in power, etc), and all the world diplomatically.

[rl3]

> Why, does it have any other potential?

Saving the civilized world from the clutches of terrorism, lining pockets, maintaining a global hegemony.

The last item isn't necessarily a bad thing, depending on your point of view.

> I dunno, at least most "authoritarian regimes" only mess with their residents. Whereas the US messes with its residents ...

Fortunately, the U.S. has not yet made a habit of disappearing human rights activists and dissidents on a whim.

[coldtea]

>Fortunately, the U.S. has not yet made a habit of disappearing human rights activists and dissidents on a whim.

You'd be surprised. For one, of course the US (plus local lackeys) do that all the time in foreign countries.

But there are people like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rub%C3%A9n_Salazar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Zeta_Acosta

Others, OTOH, are merely discredited, with some higher up pushing to get them fired, etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb