
Vietnam's Draconian Cybersecurity Bill Comes Into Effect - rbanffy
https://www.securityweek.com/vietnams-draconian-cybersecurity-bill-comes-effect
======
revskill
I'm a Vietnamese. All Vietnamese love freedom, free voice, and a flat world.
But we were and are still suffering from the Monopoly Power from the Communist
Party. We know only we could save ourselves from it, but it's hard. They hold
the soldiers to conquer our people from any "attack". We need you. Please
help. Save us.

------
jMyles
I don't know why revskill's comment below is dead. I don't know if it's
authentic or not.

Prior to being killed, it read:

> I'm a Vietnamese. All Vietnamese love freedom, free voice, and a flat world.
> But we were and are still suffering from the Monopoly Power from the
> Communist Party. We know only we could save ourselves from it, but it's
> hard. They hold the soldiers to conquer our people from any "attack". We
> need you. Please help. Save us.

I think the seed for discussion here is this: do national laws in various
places in the world represent a call to action for us? What can we really do
in 2019 to grant full, solid access to people in Vietnam (and North Korea, and
everywhere)?

~~~
rococode
This is a really interesting point to think about. I've considered this
before: if there were some world superpower with an unstoppable military and a
"good" political system, would it be right or wrong for them to take over the
world and enforce their (good) policies world-wide?

Obviously, there would be a lot of war to be waged, even if they're all fairly
short. But assuming the superpower is truly benevolent towards its people,
would it be a morally correct move to look at the long-term and choose to
"save" people from countries with less rights, rather than leave them to
suffer an indeterminately longer amount of time? So far I'm not sure that
either point of view on this is particularly convincing.

~~~
viciousvoxel
The problem of objective vs. subjective morality aside, one problem with
allowing even a "benevolent" superpower to take over the world, is that
there's an underlying assumption that it will _always_ be benevolent. We can
almost certainly say that at some point, that will not be the case. I think a
union/federation of powers will always be safer and more practical than a
monolithic power, if not as immediately world-changing.

