Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Thursday, August 1, 2013 6:32 pm

Why do I oppose a surveillance state? Must be the money.

Because arguing constitutional principles, righteous as they are, is getting us nowhere, we’ll have to argue financial principles. But maybe this argument will succeed where others have failed. James Fallows, prompted by an essay by John Naughton in the Guardian, explains:

In short: because of what the U.S. government assumed it could do with information it had the technological ability to intercept, American companies and American interests are sure to suffer in their efforts to shape and benefit from the Internet’s continued growth.

  • American companies, because no foreigners will believe these firms can guarantee security from U.S. government surveillance;
  • American interests, because the United States has gravely compromised its plausibility as world-wide administrator of the Internet’s standards and advocate for its open, above-politics goals.

Why were U.S. authorities in a position to get at so much of the world’s digital data in the first place? Because so many of the world’s customers have trusted* U.S.-based firms like Google, Yahoo, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, etc with their data; and because so many of the world’s nations have tolerated an info-infrastructure in which an outsized share of data flows at some point through U.S. systems. Those are the conditions of trust and toleration that likely will change.

The problem for the companies, it’s worth emphasizing, is not that they were so unduly eager to cooperate with U.S. government surveillance. Many seem to have done what they could to resist. The problem is what the U.S. government — first under Bush and Cheney, now under Obama and Biden — asked them to do. As long as they operate in U.S. territory and under U.S. laws, companies like Google or Facebook had no choice but to comply. But people around the world who have a choice about where to store their data, may understandably choose to avoid leaving it with companies subject to the way America now defines its security interests.

Other countries will refuse to do business with U.S. tech firms for the same reason they would if the U.S. were mixing corrosive chemicals in with its exported petroleum products: The product is tainted and will damage whoever/whatever uses it.

Advertisements

Sunday, May 2, 2010 10:37 pm

Some GOOD news in the climate-change arena

Amazon deforestation is DOWN 51%:

Amazon deforestation dropped 51 percent from August 2009 to February 2010 when compared to the same period from 2008 to 2009, according to figures released this week by Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE). Much of the progress is due to Brazil’s newly established Green Arch, Legal Land Program. See how the program is working and if it can be replicated in other parts of the world.

Ten months ago Brazil began implementing its Green Arch, Legal Land program and this year deforestation in the Amazon has dropped by 51 percent. According to INPE, of the 43 municipalities with the highest Amazon deforestation rates, 12 saw their rates decline more than 80 percent in the period between August 2008 and February 2009, and another 18 experienced rate drops between 54 percent and 80 percent. Only one municipality showed an increase at 34 percent. The goal of the program is to reduce deforestation by 80 percent by 2020. As Jaymi recently wrote, the decreases are also due to increased policing. The Brazilian Minister of the Environment, Carlos Minc claims that over the last year the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources “seized 62 boats, 237 trucks, and 44 tractors, and the federal police initiated 650 probes and arrested 298 people.”

In other words, lawyers, guns and money. Hey, whatever works.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: