I'm guessing since they built a national data hoovering apparatus that can already surveil the entire world, they want all their surveillance technology (including Google and Facebook) to remain under national control.
Right. They're certainly not going to ban Google and Facebook from operating abroad, as a naive reading might suggest. The rules look so vague to me that it looks like just another way to justify the ruling US prez banning whatever he dislikes on a whim.
If I want to order from a webshop that relies on googleapis.com or uses recaptcha, how much choice do I realistically have? How aware of webbugs (Facebook and Twitter logo's, for example) do you think the average Internet user is?
You have plenty of choice. Your choice might have consequences but you still have the choice. Most users are fully aware of how tracked the free internet is.
That reminds me of some earlier definitions of rape where the victim is required to have fought against the rapist. Otherwise, they had “chosen” to yield to the perpetrator.
No, it's not. That doesn't follow ANY definition of surveillance. Just because you replied to my comment and gave me your username doesn't mean I'm performing surveillance against you. That's silly and that is exactly how ur definition would work.
