it's almost absurd that the american "law enforcement community" is trying in an extremely woolly and total way to make sure it has a way in for surveillance of internet communications (and presumably a way to intervene in or stop them) while another part of the gov is extolling total internet freedom and its role in various uprisings. we trust our government and regard it as completely different than authoritarian regimes. well, it is, in some respects, but putting it mildly that huge powers it amasses have been and can be abused, even unto tyranny. 

in his book republicanism: a theory of freedom and government, which i regard as one of the most important works of political philosophy of the last, say, twenty years, philip pettit defines 'liberty' in terms of 'non-domination.' it's not that they do interrupt your voluntary action all the time; it's that they can. in this sense, none of us are free. and uncritically handing more powers to the american state increases this domination. indeed, we are something like completely dominated already: if they come for you, resistance is ridiculous; the american state bestrides the globe with a total annihilating power. that they sometimes limit its use, especially with regard to their own citizens - that i can say whatever i want on this blog, for example - is good. but it doesn't decrease the total dominating power that they wield over me. i exercise my freedoms completely at the sufferance of the authorities. as pettit argues, that is among other things humiliating.

but to the extent that state (or for that matter corporate) actors cannot control these means of communication, to that extent they constitute a zone of non-domination. and you see the kinds of possibilities that this opens up.