Item — HN Reader

Where is the NYT article about the US' dystopian dreams?

The NYT writes plenty of articles about US surveillance gone-too-far. Even a naive query like this: https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=surveillance turns up plenty of exposure on the issue.

At least in the USA, citizens can openly criticize and publish their government's corruption and failings and concerns about the surveillance state and abuses of power. Americans can do this without fear of unjust incarceration or worse. And the USA maintains, with all its flaws, a democratic process which requires its politicians to answer to the public and risk not being (re)elected.

China doesn't have (and never really had?) these features. I think this is important. I write this as a non-American and one who often criticizes American policy.

2 comments

>At least in the USA, citizens can openly criticize and publish their government's corruption and failings and concerns about the surveillance state and abuses of power. Americans can do this without fear of unjust incarceration or worse.

Snowden, Manning?

Snowden has certainly paid a price for his leaks. However, the Washington Post, New York Times, and others were not punished for re-publishing or discussing the content of these leaks. Historically, American papers have successfully defended their right to do so in court (the Pentagon Papers, Watergate). Leakers also do often maintain anonymity, obtain legal protection, or receive pardons when their leaks appear to serve the public interest (Daniel Ellsberg, Deep Throat, Manning). The situation in China for newspapers, journalists, and sources is far worse.

Manning, by the way, leaked an enormous unredacted cache of documents pertaining to active, ongoing military operations. This leak very likely resulted in the deaths of anti-Taliban and anti-Islamist informants and cooperators. Not all leaks are good at all times for all people, and some confidentiality rules exist for good reason.

> China doesn't have (and never really had?) these features

It used to, sort of. An immortal Party ruled over the state. Now it's devolved into a dictatorship, with the predictable pitfalls thereof.

> Now it's devolved into a dictatorship

It's never been otherwise. It's returned to a hard dictatorship from a soft dictatorship, and appears to be shifting from authoritarian to totalitarian. I'm not sure if Mao's rule is properly termed 'totalitarian'.