In Britain, allegedly, no one cares that the state is collecting vast data on all of us. In the US things are clearly very different.
Is the best we can do really to download countless programs merely to slow down those spying on us? This is not only wrong on principle. It's also a lot of effort. People can't be bothered.
Mass surveillance has to end, on June 7th we're having a day of action to consider how we can make that happen. Let's face it, the government has no intention of rolling back surveillance unless the public make them.
What is being done around the world to mark the first anniversary of the Snowden leak.
Governments may use increasingly complex and sophisticated tools for censoring unhelpful information but the end result is always the same, despite the claims of toadying journalists.
The justifications for indiscriminant mass surveillance are becoming increasingly absurd. False calls to patriotism and unwavering professionalism are entirely at odds with known reality - let's recall some facts.
The UK government has decided that journalism can be classed and pursued as "terrorism" in the courts. This is outrageous and dangerous in the extreme; it is incompatible with basic democracy.
State interception of postal correspondence marks the first major privacy scandal of modernity. The real question, then as now, is how the public reacts - it is this that will determine the future of state surveillance. And the signs don't look promising.
We should not underestate the seriousness of the government's attacks on those seeking to expose its surveillance secrets. At stake is not only what the state is entitled to do to the public, but what journalists are entitled to do to expose it and perform the vital role of public watchdog.
The level of surveillance across the US and the UK should not come as a shock to their citizens. To what extent is the nature of these actions rooted in history? Would even the most benevolent of governments be able to stop the constant monitoring of its citizens?
In America, candidacy is reserved only for those who can afford it, betraying the essential democratic concept of choice. How has Edward Snowden's choice to sacrifice himself for his fellow citizens allowed an alternative to this narrow form of democracy?
