[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Whilst it might (just) be acceptable to spy on your citizens to prevent terrorist attacks on your citizens, would it then be acceptable if the government in question were able to define what terrorism is (for example, attempting to overthrow a dictatorship)? Then there is also the issue of commercial confidentiality: are we really saying that we do not believe that US security services would not pass on to US companies information which would prevent effective competition by non-US companies in global markets. (for example, if Rolls-Royce aerospace made a dramatic improvement in jet engine design or materials which would effectively put GE and Pratt & Whitney aircraft engine divisions out of business, and the NSA became aware of it, would they pass it on to US companies?) Phil On 28/07/13 13:16, Martijn Grooten wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2013, Philip Hudson wrote: >> http://m.guardiannews.com/technology/2013/jul/28/edward-snowden-death-of-internet >> > > Good piece - and good to see someone point out that all the human > interest stuff on Snowden distracts from the real story. > > But the author does seem a bit naive when he suggests that pre-Snowden > we didn't know what was going on. Snowden revealed the scale of the > project, as well as some operational details, but it was not a secret > that the NSA had the ability to read your emails, and could do so > without you being notified. > > It also has a bit of an anti-US sentiment, which I don't think is > helpful in making the case that surveillance is bad in itself. (If you > don't like a certain country, it's obvious that you don't want their > secret service spying on you. > > Martijn. > > -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq