Stasi's Zersetzung: "The Stasi perfected the technique of psychological harassment of perceived enemies known as Zersetzung. ... This often included psychological attacks such as breaking into homes and messing with the contents – moving furniture, altering the timing of an alarm, removing pictures from walls or replacing one variety of tea with another" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi#Zersetzung

It's just history repeating itself.

For some background as to why people like Appelbaum or Poitras might be so paranoid, here he is describing the harassment he has suffered at the hands of US border agents in the past (because of being involved in the Tor project):

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/we_do_not_live_in_a http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/17/long_before_helping_ex...

This sort of impunity to harass civilians who have not committed any crime is something you'd expect in a police state, not a functioning democracy. Sadly it seems the UK and US have now joined the ranks of countries who employ this sort of harassment routinely at the border.

Having lived in the US, and then having encountered 'servants' in other countries, a striking difference is the respect for the person when they are not 'on duty'. In the US, when I go to a restaurant, I am being 'served', but after the waiter gets off work he's a full and equal neighbor of mine under both law and custom. A lifetime servant is conditioned to be deferential, in every part of their life, not just while working. Or said another way, they are always 'working' - oftentimes from birth until death. There is a stark difference in hiring a cook to come over and cook - and when he's not cooking for you be able to have his own family, hobbies, political motivations and all the rest of his life - and having a cook who 'serves' you - full stop. There is a fundamental difference between these perspectives. I believe this is why the idea of a 'servant' is so distasteful to an American. Though again, it took meeting and interacting with true 'servants' (outside the US) to even become aware of the distinction.

Instead of being happy, I'm rather horrified to learn that this hasn't been supported until now.

"While you're at it, Google, stop providing the property tax base for our city, and start having your employees drive individual automobiles to work every day."

Google: consider Chicago. We'd be happy to have you. Also our food is better, we have all four seasons, and most of your employees wouldn't even need a special bus to commute, because our public transportation actually works. But you can still run your busses out to Plainfield and Elgin (the approximately equivalent commute from SF to MTV). We'll find the busses charming, not inflammatory.

I am of course dignifying what has happened here. Really, this is just a bunch of people thrilled to have an excuse to fuck up a bus.

> Last week, I watched with bewilderment as India’s most vociferous talk show host, Arnab Goswami, repeatedly asked his guests if they expected an Indian diplomat who is paid $4,180 a month to pay her domestic servant $4,500 a month. Meanwhile an American guest, Lisa Curtis, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, tried to make a point: “If somebody cannot afford to have domestic help, then they don’t have domestic help.”

I had a few Indian friends in college who all lamented the lack of servants in their American day-to-day. One woman I knew recalled having 6 or 7 servants, but described herself as coming from just a normal, slightly-upper-middle class family.

It really stuck with me over the years. Growing up in the U.S., servants have a kind of old-world upper-class, if not crusty and exploitive, vibe.

Yet I've found myself over the years, as free-time disappeared into work and salaries increased, hiring a maid to come in once a month to clean house and a gardener to mow my lawn and tidy my plants once every couple of weeks. I've hired tutors and other private instructors, a fixit guy who comes and does other maintenance on my home every once in a while and so on. My wife and I have toyed with having a cook come in once a week and prepare a bunch of meals.

I'm sure if pressed I could come up with a half dozen other people I've hired on for their physical labor at one time or another. If needed, I'm sure most of them would become "live in servants" for the right price and accommodations.

It's also not uncommon in my area for families to hire Au Pairs which is really just a fancy way of saying live-in Nanny/house maid, which is a servant's title. They're given fairly little pay, maybe $1200/mo and room and board in exchange for child care and some house chores/personal assistant work. In other areas dedicated personal assistants are quite common. And I've seen people setup "internships" for their personal businesses which are so tied to their personal lives that the work is usually just personal assisting for intern pay.

Yet in the U.S. we've allergic to calling these people "servants" because it seems menial and disparaging I guess.

I'm curious though, where does the concept of "servant" actually end? Is my mechanic a servant? Or is he not because I go to his place for him to do the work instead of having him come to mine?