Hacker News Reader

Comment by oscargrouch | Hacker News Reader

It was not just embassies.. it was the president, ministers, comercial companies, and thousands of civilians..

Also, privacy IS a fundamental human right

You may dont feel it now, since your government doesnt make any movement against you, or your freedom.. and maybe its not that bad, right now.. but you ever wander.. if a hitler-like figure get elected to president of US, do you think anyone would be safe?

Imagine if you tell a joke about your government, and policeman jump right at your door to put you in jail for that, without a fair trial..

We never now... so in any case.. no government should try to achieve this kind of power..

And worse yeat, if you think they do it with the money you pay them in taxes..

so you pay, to empower them to crush you whatever they want..

Democratic governments are not so strong as one might think.. there are sereval politician in anyone country just waiting to something like that to happen.. think about that

View on HN

I am not sure where you are getting your information. Where did you hear that the NSA was spying on commercial companies? I am just arguing based on the linked article. It only mentions one company, Petrobas, which is the state-owned oil company (a minority share is public). The president, ministers, embassies, Petrobas---these are all parts of the government. Spying on other governments is why we have spies. Can you tell me that Brazil is willing to stop spying on foreign governments? (Do you really believe that?)

Furthermore, I am not sure that spying on commercial companies is wrong. If information learned is redistributed to American companies, then that seems wrong to me. (Because it would invite retaliation, introduce unfair competition, etc.) But if the information is kept within the US government, then what exactly is wrong about that? Are you arguing that privacy is a fundamental right for corporations, too?

Hitler, etc.: This is all a strawman. I am only talking about spying on Brazil. But I'm sure it will get you upvotes, so feel free to bring up Mussolini, too.

> "Furthermore, I am not sure that spying on commercial companies is wrong. If information learned is redistributed to American companies, then that seems wrong to me."

Thats was exacly my the point; Once the information was collected, we never know exactly in what hands (harmless or not) they will pass by.. not now, and not in the future.. it gets out of control.. (chinese hackers might breach security somewhere and enter the party.. and on.. and on..)

We dont know all of this.. what we know its that, its too much dangerous that all that data be flying around.. it doesnt matter if its about you, me, the president of whatever.. it has unpredictable results.. (and probably none of the good ones)

(My point by using the Hitler example, was to point out an archetipical example of any one with dictatorship intentions, that might surprisingly subvert the democratic system and do whatever he likes with the country.. its just easy to think about him first, as such an example.. sorry about that)

> "Thats was exacly my the point; Once the information was collected, we never know exactly in what hands (harmless or not) they will pass by.. not now, and not in the future.. it gets out of control.. (chinese hackers might breach security somewhere and enter the party.. and on.. and on..)"

We might not know exactly where the information goes, but we have a very good idea about it. And if Chinese hackers break into the NSA data centers and discover secrets about Petrobas oil, that's the least of our problems! I'm not sure what you are worried about exactly. Are you opposed to spying on any other states, or are you just opposed to spying on state-owned oil companies, or what?

I understand your concerns about surveilling citizens, but that is very different from spying on governments and companies. Good information, earned from spying, can prevent horrible misunderstandings and wars between countries, save people's lives, etc.

I realise this is a bit trolly - but:

> .... privacy IS a fundamental human right

"Rights" are not universal. Individual rights are not universal. It feels a bit like exporting a Western style thinking on the world and saying everyone should agree with it.

> It feels a bit like exporting a Western style thinking on the world and saying everyone should agree with it

You are completely right, it should not "export" and force this kind of values all over the world

But at least we got two countries that agree with this values, so they might speak about those values as equally shared and agreed by both parties, as written in their own democratic constitutions of rights

So it might be at least universal between them :)

[edit: deleted the last line as irrelevant]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com