There is a significant difference in the degree of invasion between controlling the software users can run on their personal devices, and passively tapping the communication links between them. For NK, the former is backed up by direct laws mandating such direct control, while the latter is mainly made effective by users not doing the work to use privacy preserving protocols.
While we most certainly should condemn NSA's actions and work for our own society to become freer, we must not equate the two lest we end up forgetting which direction is up - just like many have done with regards to Russia's war on Ukraine.
In the west, Apple and Google do the former... Sure, you can run your own software, but in practice, who does? Probably the same sort of people who are jailbreaking their North-Korean phones.
You see, another interpretation is that beating our chest about other peoples moral failing is inherently a narcissistic display since it cannot lead to any changes other than making us more apathetic and powerless.
You can see the same dynamic in work every year in our elaborate performance over the Tiananmen square massacre and the simultaneous complete lack of interest in the Gwangju massacre.
No, once again there is a distinction. Apple, Google, et al control the software running on users' devices through network effects and apathy, rather than by legal fiat. When trying to change the state of affairs, details do matter. Just equating it all adds to the feeling of helplessness. I agree about the general phenomenon of performative concern, and perhaps that is what discussing North Korea's digital restrictions management ultimately is for most. But still proper criticism of that phenomenon is not to equate it with domestic issues that we can actually effect change on.
Yeah, so the question is not whether north korean surveillance is bad,we agree on that. The question is what meaningful difference is there in the surveillance? The fact that the surveillance is legislated and lawfully conducted seems to be a rather technical distinction vs the situation corporations are simply unregulated and, by default, permitted to own any data they collect, even without consent.
The only material difference seems to be that, in North Korea, the state is (feels) so insecure that it has to monitor what people say. Wheras in the US, they don't care what people say because there's nothing they can do to challenge corporate power anyway.
>For NK, the former is backed up by direct laws mandating such direct control, while the latter is mainly made effective by users not doing the work to use privacy preserving protocols.
What Ennesay does is either illegal or secretly justified (take your pick), and they lie to the rest of government and the public about what they do.
At least NK is open and expliciedit: to the downvoters, trust this is not me saying we need to be like NK. It’s me pointing out a flaw of the US government
Disagreed, the secrecy is a symptom of desire to avoid public retaliation because they know it will affect those who sponsor such programs.
This highlights there is need to continue to expose such systems via strong journalism + protections of freedom of speech (as written in the 1st amendment).
Saying "at least NK is open and explicit" is because the government fears nothing with absolute control, and as the grandparent comment says - we cannot forget this key difference.
While we most certainly should condemn NSA's actions and work for our own society to become freer, we must not equate the two lest we end up forgetting which direction is up - just like many have done with regards to Russia's war on Ukraine.