Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 98186" data-source="post: 1024358">I&#039;m not doing anything with the information. I simply asked a question, and the person replied and answered what they meant.It also does not change the fact that cybercriminals are an exponentially greater threat by orders of magnitude to the typical digital citizen than any &quot;surveillance&quot; of those citizens by their home government, at least in the &quot;western world,&quot; which was my point. That statement in no way diminishes or takes away from what you are saying.Snowden is a criminal, but at the same time his intentions were good. As a result, governments (not just the US) that were watching learned lessons in the process, subsequently applying those lessons in ways to create state surveillance that cannot be challenged on the basis of its &quot;legality&quot; or &quot;social acceptability.&quot;Is mass state surveillance really a problem or is most of the hubub about the &quot;potential for abuse?&quot; In western nations there is little chance that state surveillance will be used to oppress its own citizens. Most of the outcry is by people irked that their data is collected and might be queried. If a person living in a western nation cares about what happens in Angola or Iran, well I suppose they can get caught up in it, but what happens - privacy or human rights violations - in those places has nothing to do with what happens on their home turf.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 98186, post: 1024358"] I'm not doing anything with the information. I simply asked a question, and the person replied and answered what they meant. It also does not change the fact that cybercriminals are an exponentially greater threat by orders of magnitude to the typical digital citizen than any "surveillance" of those citizens by their home government, at least in the "western world," which was my point. That statement in no way diminishes or takes away from what you are saying. Snowden is a criminal, but at the same time his intentions were good. As a result, governments (not just the US) that were watching learned lessons in the process, subsequently applying those lessons in ways to create state surveillance that cannot be challenged on the basis of its "legality" or "social acceptability." Is mass state surveillance really a problem or is most of the hubub about the "potential for abuse?" In western nations there is little chance that state surveillance will be used to oppress its own citizens. Most of the outcry is by people irked that their data is collected and might be queried. If a person living in a western nation cares about what happens in Angola or Iran, well I suppose they can get caught up in it, but what happens - privacy or human rights violations - in those places has nothing to do with what happens on their home turf. [/QUOTE]

Verification