http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2013/06/edward-snowden-and-hong-kong#comments
at_PL3 hours 52 mins ago
Funny thing - the privacy of correspondence used to be one of the basis of democratic rule. Precisely to let people organize itself against the current government. Soviets checked every single mail sent between its citizens. All communism countries done that. Democracies supposed to value privacy as one of the constitutional rights of the person. The thing that something is technically feasible means it is right. Or legal. Nazis murdered people totally legal as well.
[隐私是民主的基石，共党国家都窥视隐私。遵循法律？ 纳粹杀人也完全是遵守了他们的法律。]
king of batsJun 25th, 13:01
If they really want him, they'll get him. Nowhere's really safe from the American military industrial complex. If they can't get him in jail, they'll arrange an accident or perhaps even a disappearance.
They certainly know how. They've been training tinpot dictators in the art for the past 50 years.
[要想搞到他，就一定能。 在美国的军力下，没有安全的地方。 他们可以把他送进监狱，制造交通事故，或使他人间蒸发]
economiser1167Jun 25th, 05:27
Its given to everyone in this life to not just eat their words but to gobble them down. Couple of years ago, I told a Chinese friend when the policeman at the center of the Bo Xili affair sought refuge in the US embassy, "see, they go to the US embassy" and then Chen, the blind activist fled to the US embassy and said," see they never go to the Russian embassy and a human rights activist would never seek asylum in China, would they?".
Being Chinese, she just looked at me inscrutably, as they do. How did she know?
Anyway, there is no privacy. That was my assumption quite a while ago. So, what we knew was confirmed. And every government is at it and knew of it. Thats why they have to act outraged.
China - a safe harbour for refugees from state repression and state surveillance.
If it happens again,thats it, I'm giving up political commenting altogether.
[当王立军和陈瞎子到美国寻求避难时，我曾经对人家讲： 看看人家从来不会到俄国、或中国寻求避难。 我错了，中国才是受国家迫害和监听的人的安全港。]
]
