That's exactly the point: $1.7 billion dollars goes a lot further in India than in the US.
Moreover, Microsoft is spending $1.7 billion actual US dollars -- not $1.7 billion dollars at Indian purchasing power parity. If you want to compare the purchasing power parity numbers, you should first change the $1.7 billion actual dollars into PPP dollars. Then it's about $8.5 billion as measured by PPP.
From Wikipedia:
"The economy of India is the fourth-largest in the world as measured by purchasing power parity (PPP), with a GDP of US $3.36 trillion. When measured in USD exchange-rate terms, it is the tenth largest in the world, with a GDP of US $691.87 billion (2004)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India
The $3.3 trillion figure sounded wrong to me, as that would put the per capita income here around $3000 -- I've been in India for the past 6 months, and it certainly seems lower than that. So the real figure is around $600 US per capita.
Believe me, the influx of money from the technology industry has had a major effect in India. New building are going up in droves, land prices are skyrocketing, people are moving from villages into the cities. $1.7 billion is no drop in the bucket here.
A while ago I read a report by the BC government, "Privacy and the USA Patriot Act". It's interesting to me how differently Canada seems to think about these things compared to the US.
Here are a few excerpts.
Privacy and the USA Patriot Act - Implications for British Columbia Public Sector Outsourcing
The essence of liberty in a democratic society is the right of individuals to autonomy--to be free from state interference. The right to privacy has several components, including the right (with only limited and clearly justified exceptions) to control access to and the use of information about individuals. Although privacy is essential to individual autonomy, it is not just an individual right. A sphere of privacy enables us to fulfill our roles as community members and is ultimately essential to the health of our democracy. [...]
More broadly, excessive surveillance in the name of national security and public safety can threaten the freedoms on which every successful democracy depends. Awareness of widespread surveillance makes people nervous about speaking their minds, engaging in political activities, or doing anything that might arouse ill-founded or vague suspicion. Excessive surveillance herds people toward conformity and discourages the diversity of ideas and beliefs that are indispensable to the flourishing of our communities. [...]
Due in part to its cultural and constitutional history, the US has followed a different route from Canada and Europe in the privacy field. No independent body was established to enforce the US federal Privacy Act and few US states have enacted laws regulating government use of personal information. Regarding commercial activities, the US has opted for sector-specific laws with an emphasis on self-regulation or enforcement by private litigation, rather than through independent oversight. There is ongoing tension between the US and Europe regarding the adequacy of US privacy laws. Canada's privacy laws are much more in tune with Europe's. [...]
The balance between privacy and Canada's security and law enforcement interests is dynamic. In the ongoing quest for the right balance, it is vital that the broadening of the state's ability to take steps to satisfy our legitimate security needs does not blur into activities that are in reality the ordinary enforcement of laws. The need to deal with the threat of terrorism may appear much more immediate and easier to understand than the need to maintain the basic civil rights to which we have become accustomed. However, our measures for dealing with terrorism must be carefully guided to address real threats, instead of our fears, to ensure that we do not unnecessarily lose the safeguards of our liberties in law or in practice. [...]
We cannot ignore the fact that US courts have upheld subpoenas ordering corporations to disclose records located outside the US, even where a foreign law prohibits the disclosure. [...]
We do not exclude the possibility that policy or procedural safeguards exist in respect of FISA applications for disclosure of records located outside the US. In the absence of evidence of such safeguards, however, it is prudent to assume that US authorities are unfettered in their ability to seek such an order, that they may do so in circumstances that are not consistent with Canadian law and policy, and that the FIS Court might issue a FISA order for records located in Canada. [...]
Recommendation 4 All public bodies should ensure that they commit, for the duration of all relevant contracts, the financial and other resources necessary to actively and diligently monitor contract performance, punish any breaches, and detect and defend against actual or potential disclosure of personal information to a foreign court or other foreign authority. [...]
Recommendation 10 The government of British Columbia should: (a) undertake a comprehensive and independent audit of data mining efforts by all public bodies; (b) use the a
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly the point: $1.7 billion dollars goes a lot further in India than in the US.
Moreover, Microsoft is spending $1.7 billion actual US dollars -- not $1.7 billion dollars at Indian purchasing power parity. If you want to compare the purchasing power parity numbers, you should first change the $1.7 billion actual dollars into PPP dollars. Then it's about $8.5 billion as measured by PPP.
From Wikipedia:
"The economy of India is the fourth-largest in the world as measured by purchasing power parity (PPP), with a GDP of US $3.36 trillion. When measured in USD exchange-rate terms, it is the tenth largest in the world, with a GDP of US $691.87 billion (2004)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India
The $3.3 trillion figure sounded wrong to me, as that would put the per capita income here around $3000 -- I've been in India for the past 6 months, and it certainly seems lower than that. So the real figure is around $600 US per capita.
Believe me, the influx of money from the technology industry has had a major effect in India. New building are going up in droves, land prices are skyrocketing, people are moving from villages into the cities. $1.7 billion is no drop in the bucket here.
A while ago I read a report by the BC government, "Privacy and the USA Patriot Act". It's interesting to me how differently Canada seems to think about these things compared to the US.
Here are a few excerpts.
Privacy and the USA Patriot Act - Implications for British Columbia Public Sector Outsourcing
The essence of liberty in a democratic society is the right of individuals to autonomy--to be free from state interference. The right to privacy has several components, including the right (with only limited and clearly justified exceptions) to control access to and the use of information about individuals. Although
privacy is essential to individual autonomy, it is not just an individual right. A sphere of privacy enables us to fulfill our roles as community members and is
ultimately essential to the health of our democracy.
[...]
More broadly, excessive surveillance in the name of national security and public safety can threaten the freedoms on which every successful democracy depends. Awareness of widespread surveillance makes people nervous about speaking their minds, engaging in political activities, or doing anything that might arouse ill-founded or vague suspicion. Excessive surveillance herds people toward conformity and discourages the diversity of ideas and beliefs that are indispensable to the flourishing of our communities.
[...]
Due in part to its cultural and constitutional history, the US has followed a different route from Canada and Europe in the privacy field. No independent body was established to enforce the US federal Privacy Act and few US states have enacted laws regulating government use of personal information. Regarding commercial activities, the US has opted for sector-specific laws with an emphasis on self-regulation or enforcement by private litigation, rather than through independent oversight. There is ongoing tension between the US and Europe regarding the adequacy of US privacy laws. Canada's privacy laws are much more in tune with Europe's.
[...]
The balance between privacy and Canada's security and law enforcement interests is dynamic. In the ongoing quest for the right balance, it is vital that the broadening of the state's ability to take steps to satisfy our legitimate security needs does not blur into activities that are in reality the ordinary enforcement of laws. The need to deal with the threat of terrorism may appear much more immediate and easier to understand than the need to maintain the basic civil rights to which we have become accustomed. However, our measures for dealing with terrorism must be carefully guided to address real threats, instead of our fears, to ensure that we do not unnecessarily lose the safeguards of our liberties in law or in practice.
[...]
We cannot ignore the fact that US courts have upheld subpoenas ordering corporations to disclose records located outside the US, even where a foreign law prohibits the disclosure.
[...]
We do not exclude the possibility that policy or procedural safeguards exist in respect of FISA applications for disclosure of records located outside the US. In the absence of evidence of such safeguards, however, it is prudent to assume that US authorities are unfettered in their ability to seek such an order, that they may do so in circumstances that are not consistent with Canadian law and policy, and that the FIS Court might issue a FISA order for records located in Canada.
[...]
Recommendation 4
All public bodies should ensure that they commit, for the duration of all relevant contracts, the financial and other resources necessary to actively and diligently monitor contract performance, punish any breaches, and detect and defend against actual or potential disclosure of personal information to a foreign court
or other foreign authority.
[...]
Recommendation 10
The government of British Columbia should:
(a) undertake a comprehensive and independent audit of data mining efforts by all public bodies;
(b) use the a