Because non-Americans still have to worry about being abducted off the street and tortured by American agents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_El-Masri

It's a valid issue, in that it's vile the way the US Government sometimes behaves, but that is not a realistic concern for 99.999999% of the world population.

I think it's a valid concern for more than 70 people.

This is meaningless as you don't know whether you're one of those 70 people until you have a black bag over your head.

And sure, today's bogeyman is terrorism. What will tomorrow's bogeyman be? During any time of social upheaval you can expect those in power to attempt to maintain their power. We are fast approaching obsolescence of a vast majority of human labor. What social ideas will spring out of that and how will the powers that be respond to a threat to their power? We've sat watch as the ultimate system of control was created around us; it's only a matter of time before it is unleashed on us completely.

Shouldn't that be 7000 people?

No

EDIT: Apparently factually correct statements are worth downvotes.

Yes, you're right. I made the schoolboy mistake of confusing 0.000001 and 0.000001%

If you're worried about that, there's this much more dangerous thing called lightning that is going to freaking terrify you.

In the USSR and DDR there lived millions of people.

Not everyone was abducted, the numbers are in the thousands.

People fear lightening. We must not fear our government. Fear of the people who are supposed to represent you is not quite democracy.

That is the point of oppression. To instill fear, not bu actually abducting and torturing half the population, just many enough to get the message across.

Obey, citizen.

People should fear neither lightning (it's spelled without an e, by the way) nor the US government. At least if they are not involved nor plausibly confused for being involved with inciting terrorism. At least, if they want their fear to be a tool of survival rather than just an irrational impulse. They should fear car crashes and things like that.

The US does not abduct people to get a message across, as much as you may want to believe that there is some equivalence between what our government is doing and what the government of the USSR did. Now, I'm not claiming that these abductions were right, but it's laughable to try to equate them.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Khalid al-Masri had better feared the US government, and probably now does. So should everyone who's a muslim or brown, apparently, as the CIA reserves the right to abduct and torture people.

Yes, being abducted and tortured by the CIA is relatively speaking rarer than a car accident, but it's something entirely out of your control, and something completely avoidable.

I'm saying exactly what you think I'm saying. Even if you're in the unfortunate minority that the US chooses to be biased against, you're thousands of times more likely to be hurt in a car accident than to be abducted. That doesn't excuse the CIA's behavior, but it does inform what a rational brown, Muslim person should spend his or her time fearing. (Hint: Other things being equal, not US surveillance of their innocuous internet traffic.)

I didnt equate them. See you in 10 years from now, then Ill equate them.

For now, I was just making the observation that you dont need to activley supress millions of people to have a dictatorship - it is the fear that is keeping the milllions down and in line.

Examples are made of a few, and that process has already started with the Manning and Snowden treatments.

Not to mention the many that are left in a black bag in a bathtub by the CIA/MI6.

Because they are now vulnerable to blackmail from US agencies which can force them to work as their spies.

"Hello, This is NSA. Will you please provide us name of all your team members, your sponsors, and do a few work for us? Otherwise we have a log file that your government will love to see."

Now you're just making shit up.

Citation provided: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/repug...

You may want to care about US agencies because: - you or your family members may want to travel to the USA or one of its allies. - the USA may trade your information with other states, including your own country - you may want to protect your own country from USA's spying

They're watching anyway. Your traffic doesn't need to go through he US to be captured and analyzed by them.

The only way for the NSA to never be able to analyze your internet traffic is to never, and I do mean very literally never, use the internet.

Don't know about you, but I'm in Australia - which is under the USA's "five eyes" program. I think it's very much my concern.

Shouldn't you be protesting the fact that your government signed a data sharing deal or are they totally helpless?

They're helpless, squabbling over the terms "boat people" and "illegals" to refer to unannounced immigrants. Actually trying to get something sensible out of our government is pointless.

I don't think you care a lot, but I bet your friend, that is allowing you to use his network, loves your bomb search results on his IP.

Ever heard of drones? I remember numbers that indicated for a country that there was 1 strike every 3rd day, on average. It was either Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Should one live in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, UK, France, Sweden, Italy, Germany or in one of many other countries with a recent record of bowing to pressure from US agencies (often in spite of local laws and/or over trivial matters like copyright), then one should care indeed.

Because those agencies may eventually leak out that information. If their never delete stuff, everything they have will eventually be published in zeta-byte level leak.