Sorry, this was several weeks ago, and I don't remember the URL I visited.
You make much of the "voluntary" nature of this arrangement, but you're using the word in a very narrow, technical sense. People enslaved by this company weren't literally marched into bondage at gunpoint, true. But the global nature of the workforce and their willingness to put up with degrading treatment at low pay makes it abundantly clear that they've been forced into it by desparate circumstances. They'd work elsewhere if they had a choice; and doesn't the lack of alternatives make a mockery of your assertion that it's "voluntary"?
It's the same kind of "choice" that people face when they're laid off from a decent job that can support them and their families in middle class style. They may have a "choice" of many fine employment opportunities in the fast-food and landscaping and home maintenance industries, but the foreclosure of better options is a very real narrowing of economic freedom.
"Whose 'Freedom' is it, anyway?" asked George Lakoff, and he clearly nailed it when he said that Conservatives have such a narrow and constipated view of freedom that it means essentially the opposite of freedom.
Your comments about surveillance societies and the attempt to blame them on Liberal values is a bit of a hoot, coming from a member of a political party that's based its success in recent years entirely on fearmongering to scare people into giving up their freedom in exchange for assurances of security and safety. You say you see governments setting up cameras and invading the privacy of their citizens in various ways, but you're oddly reluctant to go the full distance and mention just which governments are doing that. The first culprit to come to everybody's mind is your beloved George W. Bush, followed closely by Bush poodle Tony Blair's England. Bush soulmate Vladimir Putin belongs in the same authoritarian rogue's gallery. Which societies that we'd consider Liberal are engaging in this fundamentally authoritarian practice?
Get back to me when the law requires all computers to have these Big Brother devices in it.
Remember the Clipper chip? We barely dodged that bullet, and you can be sure that today George Bush would ram it through by any means foul and illegal. (It tells you something about the power of the NSA's codebreaking computers today that they haven't bothered with the Clipper approach even though there'd be less resistance today from a terrorized populace. Every wondered at how easily we intercept "chatter" on supposedly encrypted digital cellphones? Remember talk about how a quantum computer can "slice through encryption like a hot knife through butter"? Want to speculate who owns the first operational quantum computers?) Consider yourself gotten back to.
An aside--completely unrelated of course--how do you feel about the government being the central repository of all of our medical records?
You're such a Chicken Little--Every threat is equally apocalyptic and absolute. I'm not comfortable with most forms of collection and collation of personal information. How do you feel knowing that the databases held by private businesses such as banks, credit bureaus, credit card companies, movie rental companies, bookstores, advertisers, and just about everyone else, collectively document every tiny little detail of your life? How do you feel when we periodically discover yet another attempt by the Bush Administration to unify all those private databases into one vast digital synopticon?