Hacker News Reader

Comment by chc | Hacker News Reader

You don't explain how it actually affects your business. As far as I can tell from reading the piece, the government hasn't actually done anything at all to you. You just point out (correctly) that international calls may be monitored, and then express your outrage over this. Although I agree with the sentiment, this is almost pure politics with a strained business hook. It's not really relevant to Hacker News and I don't see how it could accomplish anything beyond inciting political debate.

View on HN

It's not just that international calls may be monitored. It's the fact that international calls to (and other business dealings with) certain places or groups of people are significantly more likely to be monitored, and this creates an incentive to avoid contact with those groups, assuming one wishes to avoid government surveillance. And what matters more is really the perception that dealing with these groups will attract government attention, even if it's not actually true.

Racism may not be the right term, but the point is that the possibility of government spying incentivizes businesses to share in that government's (perceived) prejudices.

He concludes his post with a remark about how he will think twice about doing business with people in other countries.

Someone that lives in another country isn't necessarily of a different race. If races were defined by country, then you couldn't call discrimination (by Americans of European descent) against African Americans racism as they would be both of the same 'race.'

From the post, it doesn't sound like it stopped him from doing business this time, so that just seems like a very forced segue into the political rant.

And even if he did, that would just be his personal choice, not something the government is actually doing to his business. As I said, it's a tenuous connection. I personally agree with his politics, but until the government actually does something to interfere with his business, I don't see how it's strongly related.

I also don't see how it's making him racist.

I think the word he meant to use was "xenophobe"

I think a better word would be "prejudiced", although in his case what he describes would not be a "judgment" of inherent value but more a "judgment" of a heightened likelihood of undesired side-effects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com