• InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      8 months ago

      The context is a chef’s kiss.

      The US isn’t just reauthorizing its surveillance laws - it’s vastly expanding them | Caitlin Vogus | The Guardian

      The US House of Representatives agreed to reauthorize a controversial spying law known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act last Friday without any meaningful reforms, dashing hopes that Congress might finally put a stop to intelligence agencies’ warrantless surveillance of Americans’ emails, text messages and phone calls.

      The vote not only reauthorized the act, though; it also vastly expanded the surveillance law enforcement can conduct. In a move that Senator Ron Wyden condemned as “terrifying”, the House also doubled down on a surveillance authority that has been used against American protesters, journalists and political donors in a chilling assault on free speech.

    • knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      8 months ago

      They care about surveillance alright. They just need to be the ones surveilling and reality inventing.

      • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m wondering is if the driving interest is to ensure American companies own most of the social media that Americans use because they don’t want to lose the means to surveil large portions of the population. They very much act like there’s a threat to state power, and this is the only angle that makes sense.

        The alternative is that the state is now dominated by racist boomers that actually believe the red scare propaganda their predecessors made up.

        • knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          There are two requirements the US ruling class has for internet connected tech: surveillance opportunities and content distribution and censorship capabilities.

          That’s why we saw the fuss about Huawei five years ago, and that’s why there’s been a fuss about TikTok over the last five years as well. Huawei isn’t a US military or intelligence adjacent or contracted company, so the NSA and Co can’t roll in and mandate backdoors into Huawei’s networking products. The TikTok available in the imperial core, while already being somewhat controlled by the US military-intelligence apparatus already, still doesn’t allow for enough surveillance and equally importantly doesn’t allow for enough content control. The US ruling class knows it’s losing the narrative war, and is trying everything it can to reign that in.

          What politicians actually believe doesn’t really matter. Some have bathed in the kool-aid, others know it’s just theater. What really matters is what the capitalists believe, and they are pretty clear on what they have to do to maintain power.

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          The alternative is that the state is now dominated by racist boomers that actually believe the red scare propaganda their predecessors made up.

          Phyrric victory hours.

    • Pentacat [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      8 months ago

      Nobody has ever explained to me why any person in the US should care about a government with no jurisdiction over them might conduct surveillance on them. The government that worries me is the one that has power over me. Maybe I’m stupid, though.

      • anarchoilluminati [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        8 months ago

        One reason could be because that other government may not be bound to rules regarding surveillance on people who are not citizens of their country, thus can’t be held accountable, and then that government could share that information with anyone they want including that government where the person is a citizen.

        But then I’m just describing Five Eyes and US surveillance again anyway.