Europeans point of view:
Am I the only one who feels that the US is taking over the Internet and all of our privacy with it?
Basically, I think most civilized people have been operating on the premise that democratic western states are behaving in a vaguely civilized way towards people in other such states. But it's clear that America at least is behaving like the purest sociopath, where "friends" just means "easier to manipulate". They are breaking the unspoken international social contract, and it is going to have worse repercussions than they yet understand.
The American government, you mean.
I don't understand the "viable alternative" arguement. You are saying "I won't vote for who I really want to vote, because they'll never win, because everyone else won't vote for them" <--- Is that what you mean? That seems self defeating.
...
With preferential voting (or similar), you actually have the realistic probability of more than one party being in power. Here in Australia, the current government is formed from one major party, one minor party, and a couple of independents. It's not just 'mathematically possible', but a plausible outcome. That can't really happen with FPTP voting. Well, it can happen, but it's an oddity - see the current situation in the UK with the lib dems.
"I won't vote for who I really want to vote, because they'll never win, because everyone else won't vote for them"
The problem here is that by voting for someone whom you slightly prefer, you split the vote in a FPTP system, making them both lose out to the third person you didn't want in. If 60% of the population want a left-wing candidate, and they're split evenly-ish, they'll still lose out to the single right-wing candidate who only has 40%. It sounds self-defeating on paper, but in real terms it's more like self-preservation.
The other problem with systems that settle to two-party systems is that swing voters hold a disproportionate amount of power... which is ironic, given that the swing voters are usually not as politically interested as bloc supporters.
>>> that swing voters hold a disproportionate amount of power
How is it a bad thing? You say people that actually look at the issues at hand and not just mindlessly pull the lever for "our guy" whoever he is hold "disproportionate amount of power". I say they should hold 100% of the power - or 100% of the voters should be like this. The fact that they aren't is exactly the problem!
>>> given that the swing voters are usually not as politically interested as bloc supporters.
"Politically interested" can mean different thing. If bloc voters' only interest is getting "their guy" in power, and keep him there whatever happens, I don't have any sympathy for such kind of political interest. And if you want to see how well it works for those bloc voters, see how well it worked for voters in Detroit or Chicago, who are constantly voting in crooks and mob men.
No, America has strong American roots. Democracies and Republics both corrupt themselves over time.
America is unlike any other nation on earth, it's a hybrid, a democratic republic.
Considering that the United States is in a state of enduring war, and considering that all of the effort to monitor the internet comes from a desire to strengthen national security (which is a vital concern), it makes sense for the United States to behave this way.
After all, what is war other than purely sociopathic behavior? The monitoring of the internet is just an extension of these behaviors which manifest themselves during wartime.
If you'll let it off the leash entirely in "wartime", well, then the leash was never there.
The use of nuclear bombs signaled the end of world war two. Maybe the Obama administration is hopeful that surveillance of all communication is the final step towards a resolution of this war. That's not legitimate in my eyes, but oh well (i certainly don't know the solution). On top of everything else that has happened, zero expectation of privacy seems to be the equivalent of the nuclear option at this point.
However, the Commission (the executive branch, and especially the Trade Commisioner, Karel De Gucht) has been pushing hard for ACTA, going as far as lying, several times, to the Parliament. When the Parliament rejected ACTA, De Gucht said he would look for other means to bypass the decision.
The target demographics for prepaid is mostly kids and teens, poor people, and people concerned about their privacy, split between sensitized geeks, unfaithful lovers and criminals.
For the first two demographics cheap monthly plans are now emerging (in France, Free offers two hours of talk and infinite SMS for 2€ per month and unlimited talk, SMS and 3GB of data for 20€ per month).
It sucks for the last three.
On a slightly related topic, in demonstrations, people caught without a cell phone during an ID check often end up arrested for "administrative reasons".
So the likely reason for this is so that they can get an accounting of who was there, right? Where are you referring to?
It is definitely taken as suspicious.
Source: an alter-globalist activist acquaintance who demonstrates (peacefully) every other day.
Neither do most UK dwellers.
Except when it suits them, off course.
but yes.