5 ms·
Censorship 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 su
by thwarted 17y ago
Censorship 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...