4 ms·

Yes, I see the connection, but I have difficulty seeing how politicians think that even with such measures, they can actually control discourse (apart from goin

by xaa 9y ago

Yes, I see the connection, but I have difficulty seeing how politicians think that even with such measures, they can actually control discourse (apart from going full China on the matter). I have always found it interesting that the great dystopian fiction is always set in the UK: 1984, V for Vendetta, etc. And yet, UK politicians regularly make statements about surveillance that would immediately invoke those associations in the US, but UK residents, seen from the outside at least, don't bat an eye. In the US, we have a great deal of surveillance as well, but the government at least feels the need to hide it rather than flaunt it. In other words, perhaps those authors also recognized this autocratic tendency (assuming it exists).

bostik 9y ago
I don't think there's anything new about it. The concept and legal framework for D-Notice (essentially: "soft" media gag order)[0] is more than 100 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice
- xaa 9y ago
  I consider the occasional need of the government to tell the media "you can't publish this for national security reasons" to be in a different category. This has legitimate use-cases, and with proper oversight can be done correctly. Surely we would not have wanted the media to publish about the Manhattan Project or Ultra during WWII. The US has NSLs which seem much the same thing. Specific, targeted actions like this are a far cry from dragnet responses like the snooper's charter or calls for banning encryption (at least any kind that can't be decrypted by the government). The danger of dragnets is that they pick up incidental thought-crime. It's why warrants exist. Although certainly a case could be made that the media is in a better position than the government to decide what should be made public.
kwhitefoot 9y ago
> apart from going full China on the matter I think that there is a substantial minority of both politicians and public who would have no problem with that at all. just read the Daily Mail comments on such stories; they are full of 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear'.

by xaa 9y ago

bostik 9y ago

I don't think there's anything new about it. The concept and legal framework for D-Notice (essentially: "soft" media gag order)[0] is more than 100 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice

xaa 9y ago
I consider the occasional need of the government to tell the media "you can't publish this for national security reasons" to be in a different category. This has legitimate use-cases, and with proper oversight can be done correctly. Surely we would not have wanted the media to publish about the Manhattan Project or Ultra during WWII. The US has NSLs which seem much the same thing. Specific, targeted actions like this are a far cry from dragnet responses like the snooper's charter or calls for banning encryption (at least any kind that can't be decrypted by the government). The danger of dragnets is that they pick up incidental thought-crime. It's why warrants exist. Although certainly a case could be made that the media is in a better position than the government to decide what should be made public.

kwhitefoot 9y ago

> apart from going full China on the matter I think that there is a substantial minority of both politicians and public who would have no problem with that at all. just read the Daily Mail comments on such stories; they are full of 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear'.