7 ms·

I consider it a failure of journalism editing. Pamela (the author of groklaw) earnestly believed that her communications were being monitored and read by Americ

I consider it a failure of journalism editing. Pamela (the author of groklaw) earnestly believed that her communications were being monitored and read by American intelligence services, which was a rational conclusion to draw from the prevailing news stories in The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. She was so disillusioned with the perceived trampling of 4th amendment rights that she stopped posting to her blog and moved her email to Lavabit. Such was the breathless nature of the reporting, that the editors and ombudsmen didn't consider that the reporting drew conclusions and made unfounded allegations based off of slide decks. Other countries' government secrets being taken through computers == "they monitor everything." Now with the benefit of the Shadow Brokers leaks, we see that the NSA is severely constrained by manpower, processes, and software bugs. It's practically a joke compared to its perceived might in 2013. I hope that she returns to writing, but I understand if she still feels privacy concerns with the internet.

jacquesm 9y ago
> It's practically a joke compared to its perceived might in 2013. But it's a lot worse than we thought before Snowden. And with stuff like this erring on the side of caution seems like a pretty good idea.
- linkregister 9y ago
  I whole heartedly disagree. Erring on the side of caution got us the TSA, DHS, the War on Drugs, the Iraq invasion, and justifies the continued operations in Afghanistan. Erring on the side of caution is a rational individual strategy in many cases, but it has disastrous collective implications. In a sense, if the editors of those publications had erred on the side of caution, then they could have reduced the drag on commerce and free expression that exaggerated claims yielded.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > I whole heartedly disagree. Erring on the side of caution got us the TSA, DHS, the War on Drugs, the Iraq invasion, and justifies the continued operations in Afghanistan. That's nothing to do with the subject, which is an individual no longer comfortable with their online communications. Dragging all this other stuff in has no bearing on that. Besides the fact that quite a few of those entries have absolutely nothing to do with 'erring on the side of caution'.
    - linkregister 9y ago
      I wouldn't have brought them up if they weren't examples: TSA: making searches mandatory just in case there's a hijacker DHS: vastly expanding federal police powers just in case there's a terrorist in the country War on Drugs: fund expensive and invasive federal and state police operations just in case someone overdoses Iraq invasion: invade Iraq just in case there are weapons of mass destruction Afghanistan occupation: stay there just in case the Taliban permits Wahhabi radicals to use the country as a home base for planning and training. Okay, in this instance, it's "avoid doing stuff online just in case newspapers are right that my government is surveilling my actions." In this case, it's a radical life change that has little upside. She did not abandon her blog on a whim; she hated that she felt she was forced to do so. But the risk was overblown: when the police kick down the door of Pamela Jones, I assure you they already have me and perhaps you (in the Netherlands) in prison as well.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        TSA: Feel good security theater, practically quite useless. DHS: Powergrab using terrorism as an excuse War on Drugs: Paraphrased slightly: War on colored people, way to keep the prisons filled. Iraq Invasion: Pretext to use large amounts of toys so MIC profits, nobody actually believed Iraq had WMDs. Afghanistan Occupation: Belated attempt to go after Osama Bin Laden who actually was holed up in Pakistan.
        linkregister 9y ago
        I'm in full agreement with all those except for Afghanstan, you might want to re-check the time line. I'm just saying that "erring on the side of caution" was how all these bad decisions were pitched to the public, and they agreed to it.

jacquesm 9y ago

> It's practically a joke compared to its perceived might in 2013. But it's a lot worse than we thought before Snowden. And with stuff like this erring on the side of caution seems like a pretty good idea.

linkregister 9y ago
I whole heartedly disagree. Erring on the side of caution got us the TSA, DHS, the War on Drugs, the Iraq invasion, and justifies the continued operations in Afghanistan. Erring on the side of caution is a rational individual strategy in many cases, but it has disastrous collective implications. In a sense, if the editors of those publications had erred on the side of caution, then they could have reduced the drag on commerce and free expression that exaggerated claims yielded.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > I whole heartedly disagree. Erring on the side of caution got us the TSA, DHS, the War on Drugs, the Iraq invasion, and justifies the continued operations in Afghanistan. That's nothing to do with the subject, which is an individual no longer comfortable with their online communications. Dragging all this other stuff in has no bearing on that. Besides the fact that quite a few of those entries have absolutely nothing to do with 'erring on the side of caution'.
  - linkregister 9y ago
    I wouldn't have brought them up if they weren't examples: TSA: making searches mandatory just in case there's a hijacker DHS: vastly expanding federal police powers just in case there's a terrorist in the country War on Drugs: fund expensive and invasive federal and state police operations just in case someone overdoses Iraq invasion: invade Iraq just in case there are weapons of mass destruction Afghanistan occupation: stay there just in case the Taliban permits Wahhabi radicals to use the country as a home base for planning and training. Okay, in this instance, it's "avoid doing stuff online just in case newspapers are right that my government is surveilling my actions." In this case, it's a radical life change that has little upside. She did not abandon her blog on a whim; she hated that she felt she was forced to do so. But the risk was overblown: when the police kick down the door of Pamela Jones, I assure you they already have me and perhaps you (in the Netherlands) in prison as well.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      TSA: Feel good security theater, practically quite useless. DHS: Powergrab using terrorism as an excuse War on Drugs: Paraphrased slightly: War on colored people, way to keep the prisons filled. Iraq Invasion: Pretext to use large amounts of toys so MIC profits, nobody actually believed Iraq had WMDs. Afghanistan Occupation: Belated attempt to go after Osama Bin Laden who actually was holed up in Pakistan.
      - linkregister 9y ago
        I'm in full agreement with all those except for Afghanstan, you might want to re-check the time line. I'm just saying that "erring on the side of caution" was how all these bad decisions were pitched to the public, and they agreed to it.