3 ms·
This article equates censorship to surveillance. I don't want to say one is worse than the other, but it's kind of apples and oranges, and makes her argument a
by newhouseb 17y ago
This article equates censorship to surveillance. I don't want to say one is worse than the other, but it's kind of apples and oranges, and makes her argument about the US irrelevant - not to mention that she either wasn't aware or was ignoring the fact that GOOG is leaving because partly it is sick of being the target of gov't intel efforts.
- thwarted 17y agoCensorship isn't possible without surveillance, at the very least someone caring enough to act to censor when they observe something, and the only reason for surveillance is to control actions, which is censorship. Of course, these can be used for "good", surveillance like security cameras that document who approaches your house, and censorship like parents controlling what their kids watch on television, but I'm not so sure that you can have one without the other. If there is no censorship, there is no reason to survey, if there is no surveillance, attempts at censorship will be ineffective.
- newhouseb 17y agoI see at more as akin to > Asking for permission versus > Asking for forgiveness rather than permission With censorship you are prevented from obtaining information, with surveillance you (might) be punished for obtaining information afterwards. If the only reason for surveillance is to control actions (which is censorship), then do you define all law enforcement as censorship? We're kind of digressing, but my point was that it's ridiculous to assert that surveillance of US international calls is worse than not allowing your entire country to surf wikipedia...