Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Worth Reading: Trevor Pott's editorial on NSA PRISM and its real ramifications

<< < (14/58) > >>

mouser:
This would be a good time to recommend a great movie about life in a surveillance state:

"The Lives of Others"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/

CWuestefeld:
Even in my own peer groups I've noticed a much greater reluctance to engage in certain wordplay and widespread self-censoring of certain words or phrases precisely because there's concern about something said being taken out of context.
-40hz (June 13, 2013, 08:31 AM)
--- End quote ---

Yes, but this isn't usually regarding subversive speech, but misunderstandings about "slurs". For example, a coworker recently told me that one of her first memories of me was when I was discussing something in a meeting and used the word "niggardly".

In airports, though, the need to self-censor seems to be quite extreme. When going through the security check in particular, I've been conditioned to believe that I'd better keep my mouth shut, as any possible misinterpretation of my words will be used against me.

However if there truly are no supporters of that side (which I highly suspect - But have been wrong before) of the discussion ... Then A. we have in a microcosmic fashion proved my theory, and B. afforded some breathing room for the threads safety here.
-Stoic Joker (June 13, 2013, 06:52 AM)
--- End quote ---

Unfortunately, I have some evidence refuting your theory. It appears that public opinion overall is much less clear than within this community.

More than half of Americans approve of a former intelligence contractor’s decision to leak classified details of sprawling government surveillance programs, according to the results of a new TIME poll.

Fifty-four percent of respondents said the leaker, Edward Snowden, 29, did a “good thing” in releasing information about the government programs, which collect phone, email, and Internet search records in an effort, officials say, to prevent terrorist attacks. Just 30 percent disagreed.

But an almost identical number of Americans —  53 percent —  still said he should be prosecuted for the leak, compared to 28% who said he should not. Americans aged 18 to 34 break from older generations in showing far more support for Snowden’s actions. Just 41 percent of that cohort say he should face charges, while 43 percent say he should not. Just 19 percent of that age group say the leak was a “bad thing.”

Overall, Americans are sharply divided over the government’s use of surveillance programs to prevent terrorist attacks, according to the results of the poll. Forty-eight percent of Americans approve of the surveillance programs, while 44 percent disapprove, a statistical tie given the poll’s four-point margin of error.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/13/new-time-poll-support-for-the-leaker-and-his-prosecution/#ixzz2W6bGw8xe

--- End quote ---

40hz:
Yes, but this isn't usually regarding subversive speech,
-CWuestefeld (June 13, 2013, 09:12 AM)
--- End quote ---

I'm not talking about subversive anything. I'm talking about even joking references to hacking, weapon or military terminology. Or references to Wikileaks, Anonymous, torrents and filesharing, etc. It's getting to be like Fight Club where the first rule is: You don't talk about Fight Club.

Some of the companies I deal with are now doing keyword scanning of email. And not because they're siding with any government sponsored initiative. It's because they're worried about THEIR legal exposure if "certain words" show up or are shown originating from their network.

I've also done a presentation recently where I said that a certain approach to fixing a server issue was "more in that nature of a hack" than a real fix - and was immediately interrupted and told in no uncertain terms "We don't ever use a term like 'hack' in this company."

And while participating in a career day with high school students just a few weeks ago, I was not allowed to answer the question when a student asked: "What exactly is 'peer-to-peer' anyway?" The faculty host said that it was "not an acceptable topic for a question" and immediately took another question from the group.

So I think - at least from what I'm seeing - that more and more people are becoming progressively more paranoid about what they're saying about a lot of things.

Which never used to be the case. At least not in the America I grew up in.

And I don't think such low-key paranoia is entirely unjustified either. Especially when you consider some kid's rap lyrics wound up getting him arrested and held without bond for making a "terrorist threat."

Or did until it went before a grand jury. That charge was so ridiculous that even a grand jury had to call BS and refuse to indict since the case was such an obvious attempt at grandstanding by an opportunistic police chief.

 8)

CWuestefeld:
I don't like it any more than you do. But I do understand why people are being more guarded in their speech.

Today, much of our speech is instantly accessible from anywhere on the planet. And the artifacts of the speech are permanent.

Back when we were kids, it was virtually impossible for somebody to say something that could be heard outside his immediate vicinity. Some national newspapers (NYTimes), or regional TV and radio, had broad audiences, but they weren't broadcasting our speech. Today, I have trivial access to a multitude of channels for disbursing my thoughts globally, and indeed, much of my communications are through these channels.

And if I slip up and say something bone-headed, the evidence is there for everyone to see. Back in the day, speech evaporated into the air. But today there's a permanent record.

So it used to be safe to assume that there would be no repercussions. But today, the way we communicate has created ample means for those in opposition to hear what we say, and it's easier for them to find as well.

40hz:
@CU Yeah. I don't really see any way to put that genie back in the bottle. Even the police are getting to be afraid of video cameras and audio recordings. So much so that they'll routinely break the law trying to prevent people from recording them. And, many times, it's with good reason too.

But even if they shut down PRISM tomorrow (which they won't) you can never be sure something like that will ever be completely gone. Because experience teaches us it won't be.

Like in the Bourne movie when they said "We'll just wrap it up, hang it around Landry's neck, and restart someplace else."
 :tellme:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page