3 ms·

This is what they call the global chilling effect. In this particular case this harms the knowledge people have about the Snowden case and why he currently is n

by slasaus 11y ago

This is what they call the global chilling effect. In this particular case this harms the knowledge people have about the Snowden case and why he currently is not returning to the USA.

krapp 11y ago
Except the chilling effect in this case is being caused by people afraid of the NSA, not necessarily the NSA itself. Do you really believe your life and freedom are in greater danger from visiting edwardsnowden.com, but not from, say, hanging out on Hacker News? Or following Edward Snowden's twitter account along with a million other people and counting? Or visiting any site hosting any story related to Edward Snowden? Edward Snowden has done an interview with John Oliver, which presumably means everyone visiting any site hosting that interview is also on a permanent NSA watchlist. He was on the cover of Time Magazine, so all Time subscribers are also on a permanent NSA watchlist. Yet despite apparently almost everyone everywhere being under constant surveillance by the NSA at this point, there appears to be no global chilling effect, apart from that caused by people warning about a global chilling effect. Don't let your need for bias confirmation and your desire to play the victim-protagonist in a dystopian narrative cause you to act with more caution than necessary.
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  That's not how the chilling effect works, actually it's against the actual definition of the chilling effect. Lets back up and use an analogy. Domestic abuse (aptly put I'd say). A man beats his wife, but only occasionally and when he has been drinking. He drinks in private though, so the wife has no way of knowing when he will become combative. The wife then begins to have a pervasive, long lasting fear over time that greatly affects the way she speaks and how she does things. You are basically saying that it's the wife who creates the fear, not the abuser, and not only that, but you are saying the wife isn't in any more danger from washing the dishes than she is from talking to the husband about drinking, which I think is obviously false. You then proceed to make some very strange logical leaps: " Edward Snowden has done an interview with John Oliver, which presumably means everyone visiting any site hosting that interview is also on a permanent NSA watchlist." No I don't think anyone has said that but you. An attempt at a straw man perhaps? "Yet despite apparently almost everyone everywhere being under constant surveillance by the NSA at this point, there appears to be no global chilling effect" You have provided no evidence to back up this claim, while there is plenty of evidence to support otherwise. For example, a recent high profile suit against the US by Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, and others. "Don't let ... [this] cause you to act with more caution than necessary." I would agree with this, as FDR said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". That doesn't remove the fact that the chilling effect is real, is growing, and still affects people though, so stop pretending otherwise.
  - krapp 11y ago
    >No I don't think anyone has said that but you. The implication that I intended, is that if merely visiting that site is going to place you on a watchlist, other, similarly casual interactions with information about Edward Snowden would probably do the same. It's absurd to consider that a danger worth mentioning given the amount of coverage Snowden has gotten, and the information that's freely available everywhere about him and his disclosures. We're discussing this topic on a site where actual hackers and security professionals, US government employees and millionaire Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs with legitimate political and financial influence hang out. Yet no one seems afraid to talk about Edward Snowden, government surveillance or whatever they like here. Surely, if the chilling effect were that pervasive, it would show up here? If visiting edwardsnowden.com puts you on a list, you're probably already on a list. >You have provided no evidence to back up this claim, while there is plenty of evidence to support otherwise Yes I have. Edward Snowden's presence in various forms of modern major media, to the point of doing an interview with a comedy show, is evidence that people aren't afraid of discussing him, and that the US media isn't afraid to cover him. He has a public twitter account which is being followed by a million people, which is evidence that people at large aren't afraid of that association, nor do they appear to be afraid of "consequences" from the government for doing so. >That doesn't remove the fact that the chilling effect is real, is growing, and still affects people though, so stop pretending otherwise. I'm not pretending. I honestly don't see the evidence of widespread fear about discussing Edward Snowden.
    - slasaus 11y ago
      > I honestly don't see the evidence of widespread fear about discussing Edward Snowden. It's not about Edward Snowden, it's about being more careful about discussing or retrieving information about any controversial topic because people now know, thanks to Snowden, that at least the NSA and GCHQ are watching you. Curiosity and learning about things can be greatly hindered by prying eyes.
      - krapp 11y ago
        It's difficult to believe that kind of fear is widespread given the degree to which Edward Snowden and the issue of government surveillance in general have seeped into popular culture and started to become mainstream. Discussing him and discussing what he revealed go hand in hand. If people aren't afraid to follow his twitter account why would they be afraid to Google him or watch interviews or visit a website supporting him?

by slasaus 11y ago

This is what they call the global chilling effect. In this particular case this harms the knowledge people have about the Snowden case and why he currently is not returning to the USA.

krapp 11y ago

Except the chilling effect in this case is being caused by people afraid of the NSA, not necessarily the NSA itself. Do you really believe your life and freedom are in greater danger from visiting edwardsnowden.com, but not from, say, hanging out on Hacker News? Or following Edward Snowden's twitter account along with a million other people and counting? Or visiting any site hosting any story related to Edward Snowden? Edward Snowden has done an interview with John Oliver, which presumably means everyone visiting any site hosting that interview is also on a permanent NSA watchlist. He was on the cover of Time Magazine, so all Time subscribers are also on a permanent NSA watchlist. Yet despite apparently almost everyone everywhere being under constant surveillance by the NSA at this point, there appears to be no global chilling effect, apart from that caused by people warning about a global chilling effect. Don't let your need for bias confirmation and your desire to play the victim-protagonist in a dystopian narrative cause you to act with more caution than necessary.

arca_vorago 11y ago
That's not how the chilling effect works, actually it's against the actual definition of the chilling effect. Lets back up and use an analogy. Domestic abuse (aptly put I'd say). A man beats his wife, but only occasionally and when he has been drinking. He drinks in private though, so the wife has no way of knowing when he will become combative. The wife then begins to have a pervasive, long lasting fear over time that greatly affects the way she speaks and how she does things. You are basically saying that it's the wife who creates the fear, not the abuser, and not only that, but you are saying the wife isn't in any more danger from washing the dishes than she is from talking to the husband about drinking, which I think is obviously false. You then proceed to make some very strange logical leaps: " Edward Snowden has done an interview with John Oliver, which presumably means everyone visiting any site hosting that interview is also on a permanent NSA watchlist." No I don't think anyone has said that but you. An attempt at a straw man perhaps? "Yet despite apparently almost everyone everywhere being under constant surveillance by the NSA at this point, there appears to be no global chilling effect" You have provided no evidence to back up this claim, while there is plenty of evidence to support otherwise. For example, a recent high profile suit against the US by Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, and others. "Don't let ... [this] cause you to act with more caution than necessary." I would agree with this, as FDR said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". That doesn't remove the fact that the chilling effect is real, is growing, and still affects people though, so stop pretending otherwise.
- krapp 11y ago
  >No I don't think anyone has said that but you. The implication that I intended, is that if merely visiting that site is going to place you on a watchlist, other, similarly casual interactions with information about Edward Snowden would probably do the same. It's absurd to consider that a danger worth mentioning given the amount of coverage Snowden has gotten, and the information that's freely available everywhere about him and his disclosures. We're discussing this topic on a site where actual hackers and security professionals, US government employees and millionaire Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs with legitimate political and financial influence hang out. Yet no one seems afraid to talk about Edward Snowden, government surveillance or whatever they like here. Surely, if the chilling effect were that pervasive, it would show up here? If visiting edwardsnowden.com puts you on a list, you're probably already on a list. >You have provided no evidence to back up this claim, while there is plenty of evidence to support otherwise Yes I have. Edward Snowden's presence in various forms of modern major media, to the point of doing an interview with a comedy show, is evidence that people aren't afraid of discussing him, and that the US media isn't afraid to cover him. He has a public twitter account which is being followed by a million people, which is evidence that people at large aren't afraid of that association, nor do they appear to be afraid of "consequences" from the government for doing so. >That doesn't remove the fact that the chilling effect is real, is growing, and still affects people though, so stop pretending otherwise. I'm not pretending. I honestly don't see the evidence of widespread fear about discussing Edward Snowden.
  - slasaus 11y ago
    > I honestly don't see the evidence of widespread fear about discussing Edward Snowden. It's not about Edward Snowden, it's about being more careful about discussing or retrieving information about any controversial topic because people now know, thanks to Snowden, that at least the NSA and GCHQ are watching you. Curiosity and learning about things can be greatly hindered by prying eyes.
    - krapp 11y ago
      It's difficult to believe that kind of fear is widespread given the degree to which Edward Snowden and the issue of government surveillance in general have seeped into popular culture and started to become mainstream. Discussing him and discussing what he revealed go hand in hand. If people aren't afraid to follow his twitter account why would they be afraid to Google him or watch interviews or visit a website supporting him?