4 ms·

>But no, we didn't actually know that until Snowden told us, and it was not (and still is not) actually common knowledge that digital communications are not gen

>But no, we didn't actually know that until Snowden told us, and it was not (and still is not) actually common knowledge that digital communications are not generally private. This is simply, demonstrably false. Snowden's a bad example of what you're talking about. In fact, it's a good example of the opposite: people who didn't bother to pay attention to widely-available information suddenly acting like what they've just learned is completely new. It wasn't just a "relatively small and knowledgeable contingent" that knew about the government's mass surveillance program. The New York Times broke the story on the Bush Administration surveillance program in 2005 (which forced Bush and Gonzales to publicly acknowledge the program's existence for the first time that December), and it and many other publications followed up on those stories for years. It was a major, widely-reported topic of discussion all throughout Bush's second term, with the discussion following the predictable party lines. Snowden may have given us more detail about what was going on, but the public was already well aware of the government mass surveillance program long before he blew the whistle.

rusk 8y ago
For me the real shock of Snowden's revelations was just how poorly run these programmes were. Lax security, no oversight. Pretty much carte blanche for all involved because ... hur durr ... national security. James Bond gets to do whatever he wants because he's "one guy" doing blackops on a fairly exceptional basis. When you've a whole swarm of James Bond wannabes you need to reel em in and have oversight.
mindslight 8y ago
> Snowden's a bad example of what you're talking about Actually, I think Snowden is a great example. Because apart from being in line with first principles (what would the NSA be doing if they weren't tapping communications cables?), the public was repeatedly exposed to the idea before Snowden. But yet they refused to listen until the topic happened to be presented in a way that caught on, which really illustrates the social-proof-power that mass media holds. And given this power, especially in a democracy, mass media can't help but be captured by entrenched interests.

rusk 8y ago

For me the real shock of Snowden's revelations was just how poorly run these programmes were. Lax security, no oversight. Pretty much carte blanche for all involved because ... hur durr ... national security. James Bond gets to do whatever he wants because he's "one guy" doing blackops on a fairly exceptional basis. When you've a whole swarm of James Bond wannabes you need to reel em in and have oversight.

mindslight 8y ago

> Snowden's a bad example of what you're talking about Actually, I think Snowden is a great example. Because apart from being in line with first principles (what would the NSA be doing if they weren't tapping communications cables?), the public was repeatedly exposed to the idea before Snowden. But yet they refused to listen until the topic happened to be presented in a way that caught on, which really illustrates the social-proof-power that mass media holds. And given this power, especially in a democracy, mass media can't help but be captured by entrenched interests.