9 ms·

> Before Snowden, if you spoke about these issues, you were dismissed as paranoid. I’ve been telling people for years, but nobody listened. Now everyone knows

> Before Snowden, if you spoke about these issues, you were dismissed as paranoid. I’ve been telling people for years, but nobody listened. Now everyone knows it’s true, but still nobody seems to care…

stiray 7y ago
Description of my life. I was telling people for years what is going on, not from position of daydreaming, but what I would be able to pull off. I got back everything from tin foil hat to "I have nothing to hide". Snowden changed that and I am gratefull to him for exactly that... And for one more sentance, that is a work of pure genius: “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” <3 And how the world is changing, from GDPR to California privacy law... I would just love to shake hand to this guy.
- Darkstryder 7y ago
  > “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” I find this sentence interesting because it is very specific to the American public. I am European and personally I care a lot more about privacy than free speech, and America's obsession with free speech boggles my mind. It might have to do with the last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result. We might have dialed it back a bit after that. But what do I know ? There seems to be some a profound divide between America and Europe on this front and I haven't quite put my finger on why yet.
  - stiray 7y ago
    I am European too. But without the freedom of speech, we wouldnt be discussing this. They are both liberties and we need them both. There is no "I care more about X". We need them both as fundamental human rights.
    - Darkstryder 7y ago
      Of course. But free speech is not absolute, even in USA (libel laws and all that). What I find interesting is how the threshold between the freedom of speech and the freedom of others people is set differently between US and most of Europe. For instance you can be convicted for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred in a lot of European countries [1] while to the best of my knowledge this kind of speech is protected in the US. Personally I am very happy with how the free speech threshold is set in France or Germany but I have no doubt it is a cultural thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial...
      - homonculus1 7y ago
        Who defines incitement? Who defines ethnic or racial hatred? Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute?
        Darkstryder 7y ago
        Every country's law is a bit different in that regard, but mostly : exactly like how the United States Supreme Court defines obscenity [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
        lostjohnny 7y ago
        > Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute? Why did you post it? Because you know it's controversial and would create engagement. If the nazi salute wasn't controversial (and rightfully considered hate crime) you would have ignored it. BTW the first amendment does not condone hate speech. Because even USA understands that there is a limit on everything.
        jigglesniggle 7y ago
        The original statement by a justice implying restriction on freedom of expression was later recanted (note it was not directly a precedent setting ruling either). There are people in the US that see any restriction, even for hate speech or incitement of violence, as against the first amendment. You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare.
  - YinglingLight 7y ago
    You're afraid of free speech? Manipulation occurs no matter how open or free communication is. Discourse and skepticism are the only weapons we have against Manipulation, and those exist via free speech.
  - inimino 7y ago
    America was settled largely by people fleeing religious persecution in Europe. > It might have to do with the last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result. Um, I'm not sure what they put in your history books over there, but I'm certain that's not an accurate characterization of how that happened.
  - jigglesniggle 7y ago
    Blaming WWII on free speech is like blaming 9/11 on planes. If Europeans are too weak for freedom that is their perogative, though I do not understand it.
    - lostjohnny 7y ago
      > If Europeans are too weak for freedom that is their perogative We can legally drink before the age of 21 because we are able to control ourselves. We can have sex between 14 and 16 years, because we are able to control ourselves. We don't shoot other people in school when we are upset, because we are able to control ourselves. Tell me more about your strength... https://i.imgur.com/pmQWG4F.jpg https://i.imgur.com/pmQWG4F.jpg
      - jigglesniggle 7y ago
        Each of those minor freedoms pales in comparison to the freedom to speak your mind or resist tyranny. What I have seen of European society, Europeans are content to have a boot on their throat and make some token effort to appear free.
        inimino 7y ago
        I vouched for these comments because, while perhaps nearer to one extreme, I believe this perspective deserves to be heard. Also: > And an orator said, Speak to us of Freedom. And he answered: At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom, Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them. Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff. And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfilment. You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief, But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound. And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour? In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle the eyes. And what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free? If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead. You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them. And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed. For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their own pride? And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed upon you. And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared. Verily all things move within your being in constant half embrace, the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished, the pursued and that which you would escape. These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that cling. And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers becomes a shadow to another light. And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself the fetter of a greater freedom.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Free speech is not responsible for WWII at all?! You forget that Hitler's ideas were popular at the time - that's why he was elected. Slowly but surely it was the free speech of Jews, their very ability to combat the incoming tyranny before it was to late, was clamped down on. As such, censorship was quite popular. Free speech levels the playing field between government and people.
    - lostjohnny 7y ago
      I think he intended that unadulterated free speech is not necessarily the most important of the rights. I think freedom of the press and freedom of association come before that. In fact the first thing Mussolini did when he won the election (not without the help of violence, verbal but more importantly physical, like Hitler also did after him) was to abolish the free press and make all the other parties illegal.
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        1) Freedom of the press is a subset of freedom of speech. 2) Verbal 'violence' is a fallacy. It doesn't exist.
        crankylinuxuser 7y ago
        Your legal name is: $name Your Address is: $address Your phone is: #ph You work at: $employer You did X abhorrent thing (fakes picture or video with deepfakes). It would be a shame if something happened to you. ------------------------------- That right there is indeed verbal violence, AND a call to arms to enact violence against you.
        whateversclever 7y ago
        That right there is not an example of violence, despite any assertions to the contrary. There is a clear distinction between statements and actions.
  - sampo 7y ago
    > last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result We also needed Americans to save us Europeans from those other Europeans.
    - shadowprofile77 7y ago
      > last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result Aside from being really smug about Europe's supposed superiority today, this comment is just factually misleading. For one thing, it wasn't "unadulterated free speech" that got Hitler into a position of dictatorial power, it was backroom politics, legal manipulation, and finally laws and a German constitution that were extremely pliant towards misuse and reinterpretation for the sake of dictatorship, with all kinds of clauses in favor of martial law, censorship and so forth that the Nazis used to powerful effect once Hitler was appointed chancellor. Had they been dealing with something more absolutist about freedoms like the U.S constitution, his road to dictatorship would have been much more difficult, chancellor or no. You actually have the whole thing about the value of rigidly preserved freedoms exactly backwards in your claim about Hitler and free speech. In other words: Hitler's rabidly racist speeches never once won him a single electoral victory in Germany (and this even at a time when anti-semitism and racism were much more popular). The much greater damage was done by a weak constitution ridden with clauses against individual freedom, which couldn't effectively stop Hitler from becoming a dictator once he got the chancellors office.
      - sampo 7y ago
        > You actually have the whole thing about the value of rigidly preserved freedoms exactly backwards in your claim about Hitler and free speech. Not my claim, it was the GP's claim and I was also disagreeing with it.
        shadowprofile77 7y ago
        I saw that and sorry. I couldn't find his original claim again and just replied to you. Cheers
  - jknoepfler 7y ago
    There is absolutely no divide. The concept of a right to (almost) unrestricted freedom to criticize the government comes straight out of Western European legal norms that were in fashion around the founding of the United States, and have continued to remain in fashion since. No Western-style democracy observes a right to absolutely unrestricted freedom of speech, because it conflicts in obvious ways with other rights. We cannot, for example, incite people to a riot, or yell fire in a crowded theater, or go on the radio and accuse our boss of murdering children. The restrictions against Holocaust denial in Germany (for example) aren't different in kind. Europeans enjoy broad freedom to publish whatever they want about their government, critical or otherwise. This is in stark contrast with China, Russia, most countries under some form of religious rule, and most dictatorships, where criticizing the government will get you tortured to death or sent to a labor camp at worst, and severely fined and blacklisted from government service at best. The "median Western European" may have a more nuanced view on the right to free speech than the median citizen of the United States, but I'd attribute that to a superior education system and decades of trying to undo structural economic injustice rather than a cultural divide (which is complete nonsense, honestly).
    - whateversclever 7y ago
      Anyone absolutely can "Yell fire in a theater" in the US, this canard has an interesting history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... You can also go on the radio and accuse your boss of whatever you like in the US as well. You might get sued by your boss in civil court, but the police will not come after you. You can also deny the Holocaust, that the earth is round, that people have landed on the moon, or anything else. An unfortunate side effect of freedom is that other people will be allowed to say things that you dislike.
      - jknoepfler 7y ago
        The distinction between civil and criminal law isn't terribly relevant here. You can be found liable in civil court for all of the things listed in the first two paragraphs.
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  I was actually more positive than reality, for a better "quip" - I still had a discussion where the other person pushed the "I have nothing to hide" angle as recently as last month ! And that persons' grandparents died in Auschwitz... (Thankfully, this seems to be much more rare in the "tech" circles ?)
  - BuildTheRobots 7y ago
    The "I've got nothing to hide" angle terrifies me. As one obvious example, LGBT Russians had absolutely nothing to hide, right up until the moment it was outlawed, again. Then suddenly it was extremely easy to identify and persecute. In a world where we hold people like Willem Arondeus, Sophie Scholl or anyone else involved in hiding or exfiltrating Jews during WW2 a hero, it baffles me that the idea of "nothing to hide" even exists. The fact we've made a modern kinder-transport or even a resistance nearly technologically impossible honestly stops me sleeping.
nine_k 7y ago
Certain Richard M Stallman faced a similar problem when he talked about DRMed content a decade ago.
- 693471 7y ago
  Even a broken clock is correct twice a day
- lixtra 7y ago
  More like two decades ago. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  Oh, yeah, that too - for me, after Snowden, Stallman went from "crank"-ey to "prophet"-ey ! (Well, and GAFAM's behavior in the recent years certainly didn't help either...) P.S.: Got Stallman to sign my The Snowden Files book after he introduced his speech with asking the public to give "three cheers for Snowden"...
appleshore 7y ago
If I asked 10 people around me, who is Edward Snowden, maybe one would know. When the story broke, I never heard anyone in real life bring it up. I know young wealthy people who don’t know who Elon Musk is. People’s attention is highly fragmented.
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  It's not about the guy's name, what's important is how people's perceptions have changed (which I would generalise as from scornful dismissal to resigned acceptance)
atoav 7y ago
Isn’t it a bit like global warming? If people feel the issue is so much bigger than them they will just resign and give up. Unless you communicate why we need to do sth anyways and what small managable steps can be taken it is hard to tackle this alone, even if you are an informed person with the motivation and the breathing space to do so. So unless the felt pain and the impeding doom doesn’t exceed the threshold of “oh shit this isn’t fine, what was I thinking!” people will just call the whole thing off as unmanagable and move ahead.
PopeDotNinja 7y ago
I wouldn't say I don't care. I would say I permanently trust government less, as I do feel mostly powerless to make them less nosey. If I have an opportunity to vote against mass surveillance, I will do that for sure.
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  Under what circumstances can you imagine being given a vote on mass surveillance?
  - PopeDotNinja 7y ago
    Not many.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    In The Netherlands, we had a non-binding referendum on this [1] (complete with misinformation, or downright propaganda, on TV). The vote against had a minor but significant win on the for. Result? 1) The law got active a few months later 2) A few minor changes were applied 3) The right for a non-binding referendum got removed from The Netherlands, citing we should either have a binding referendum or none at all. [1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_op_de_inlichtingen-_en_veiligheidsdiensten_2017 https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_op_de_inlichtingen-_en_vei... (article also available in German and Chinese)
    - cookie_monsta 7y ago
      Interesting, but I guess that considering that the govt. announced their intention to pass the law regardless of the result of the referendum my question should have been "under what circumstances can you imagine being given a _meaningful_ vote on mass surveillance?"
      - Fnoord 7y ago
        You can't. A democracy, and a binding referendum, stands on the shoulder of the public being informed and interested about matters. The public does not know enough about the topic. They can't, because the enemy listens as well in this global world. Hence, the proponents can pull FUD and appeal to authority at will. I'm a proponent of binding referendum, but I don't see how it would solve the problem in this case.
throwaway_law 7y ago
>Now everyone knows it’s true, but still nobody seems to care… That just about sums up every bad act. Lots of people were aware of all the bank fraud and toxic loans leading to the 2008 real estate bubble, no one cared leading up to it, and no one cares now. The Googles/Facebooks/amazons are collecting and doing unsavory things with your data, whether you ever used their services or not (shadow accounts), no one seems to care. Governmental spying on citizens? Hell the Government had a program which included secret kill lists, flew military bombers into foreign countries to drop bombs and kill a citizen. Even when the US failed to kill the citizen and the family sued, their case was dismissed as the courts denied any right to know who was on the list, how they got on the list, and even denied acknowledging the list existed...yet no one cared. Imagine a foreign country flying military missions in the US and dropping bombs on a foreigner in the US, based on the foreign governments secret kill lists. It's pure insanity.
- hokumguru 7y ago
  Source on this?
  - NegativeLatency 7y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-i... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    National Bird [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bird_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bird_(film)
- harryf 7y ago
  Well it might have contributed to GDPR, which is a step in the right direction.
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  Well, it's pretty much a situation of war. And an unconventional war against terrorists. (Also, not unprecedented - the Russians have been doing something very similar in a few high-profile UK cases...) Of course, the main issue is that those "surgical" drone strikes still seem to have backfired strategically - I wonder what is the state of these "who are we going to kill today" reunions under Trump ? And of course in the background there's the whole Middle Eastern situation where the USA (and previously the British Empire) have only been making things worse for a century or so... but the control over those oil fields is just too important for them to let go !
chiefalchemist 7y ago
> "Now everyone knows it’s true, but still nobody seems to care… " In general, the mainstream media didn't make much of it. At the time they hadn't yet tied outrage to revenue/profits. If Snowden were to happen today the coverage and reaction would be much different. But alas, it's too late. The public has it in their minds it was a non-issue. That seems unlikely to change any time soon.
wefarrell 7y ago
Information sharing is like entropy - it will only increase over time. We're moving towards a future where privacy is becoming an archaic concept.
nickpsecurity 7y ago
Yeah, he's wrong that the most paranoid weren't assuming how bad it was. If anything, Enemy of the State had general public worried with Echelon revelations and technical details of Puzzle Palace making me certain they were doing mass surveillance and hacking. At least within a few years of 9/11 and Patriot Act. They'd do whatever they (a) could and (b) had to do for their mission. Far as weakening, we were noting they did a lot of things that were public knowledge that indicated they prioritized shoddy products and surveillance over security. I had an essay listing most of them. I might dig it up and submit it Thursday if anyone is interested.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  I remember people in infosec and *NIX communities being paranoid about the NSA back in the early '00s. Americans who were not trusting their own government. I myself only heard about the CIA and FBI. I familiarized myself with the concept of NSA and shrugged it off. "Never hear anything about those. Probably a very small organization..." In hindsight, I was right, but I didn't get with the program after 9/11 (see the accounts of William Binney [1] and Edward Snowden's recently Permanent Record). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(intelligence_official) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(intelligence_o...

stiray 7y ago

Description of my life. I was telling people for years what is going on, not from position of daydreaming, but what I would be able to pull off. I got back everything from tin foil hat to "I have nothing to hide". Snowden changed that and I am gratefull to him for exactly that... And for one more sentance, that is a work of pure genius: “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” <3 And how the world is changing, from GDPR to California privacy law... I would just love to shake hand to this guy.

Darkstryder 7y ago
> “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” I find this sentence interesting because it is very specific to the American public. I am European and personally I care a lot more about privacy than free speech, and America's obsession with free speech boggles my mind. It might have to do with the last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result. We might have dialed it back a bit after that. But what do I know ? There seems to be some a profound divide between America and Europe on this front and I haven't quite put my finger on why yet.
- stiray 7y ago
  I am European too. But without the freedom of speech, we wouldnt be discussing this. They are both liberties and we need them both. There is no "I care more about X". We need them both as fundamental human rights.
  - Darkstryder 7y ago
    Of course. But free speech is not absolute, even in USA (libel laws and all that). What I find interesting is how the threshold between the freedom of speech and the freedom of others people is set differently between US and most of Europe. For instance you can be convicted for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred in a lot of European countries [1] while to the best of my knowledge this kind of speech is protected in the US. Personally I am very happy with how the free speech threshold is set in France or Germany but I have no doubt it is a cultural thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial...
    - homonculus1 7y ago
      Who defines incitement? Who defines ethnic or racial hatred? Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute?
      - Darkstryder 7y ago
        Every country's law is a bit different in that regard, but mostly : exactly like how the United States Supreme Court defines obscenity [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
      - lostjohnny 7y ago
        > Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute? Why did you post it? Because you know it's controversial and would create engagement. If the nazi salute wasn't controversial (and rightfully considered hate crime) you would have ignored it. BTW the first amendment does not condone hate speech. Because even USA understands that there is a limit on everything.
        jigglesniggle 7y ago
        The original statement by a justice implying restriction on freedom of expression was later recanted (note it was not directly a precedent setting ruling either). There are people in the US that see any restriction, even for hate speech or incitement of violence, as against the first amendment. You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare.
- YinglingLight 7y ago
  You're afraid of free speech? Manipulation occurs no matter how open or free communication is. Discourse and skepticism are the only weapons we have against Manipulation, and those exist via free speech.
- inimino 7y ago
  America was settled largely by people fleeing religious persecution in Europe. > It might have to do with the last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result. Um, I'm not sure what they put in your history books over there, but I'm certain that's not an accurate characterization of how that happened.
- jigglesniggle 7y ago
  Blaming WWII on free speech is like blaming 9/11 on planes. If Europeans are too weak for freedom that is their perogative, though I do not understand it.
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    > If Europeans are too weak for freedom that is their perogative We can legally drink before the age of 21 because we are able to control ourselves. We can have sex between 14 and 16 years, because we are able to control ourselves. We don't shoot other people in school when we are upset, because we are able to control ourselves. Tell me more about your strength... https://i.imgur.com/pmQWG4F.jpg https://i.imgur.com/pmQWG4F.jpg
    - jigglesniggle 7y ago
      Each of those minor freedoms pales in comparison to the freedom to speak your mind or resist tyranny. What I have seen of European society, Europeans are content to have a boot on their throat and make some token effort to appear free.
      - inimino 7y ago
        I vouched for these comments because, while perhaps nearer to one extreme, I believe this perspective deserves to be heard. Also: > And an orator said, Speak to us of Freedom. And he answered: At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom, Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them. Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff. And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfilment. You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief, But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound. And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour? In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle the eyes. And what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free? If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead. You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them. And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed. For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their own pride? And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed upon you. And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared. Verily all things move within your being in constant half embrace, the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished, the pursued and that which you would escape. These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that cling. And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers becomes a shadow to another light. And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself the fetter of a greater freedom.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Free speech is not responsible for WWII at all?! You forget that Hitler's ideas were popular at the time - that's why he was elected. Slowly but surely it was the free speech of Jews, their very ability to combat the incoming tyranny before it was to late, was clamped down on. As such, censorship was quite popular. Free speech levels the playing field between government and people.
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    I think he intended that unadulterated free speech is not necessarily the most important of the rights. I think freedom of the press and freedom of association come before that. In fact the first thing Mussolini did when he won the election (not without the help of violence, verbal but more importantly physical, like Hitler also did after him) was to abolish the free press and make all the other parties illegal.
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      1) Freedom of the press is a subset of freedom of speech. 2) Verbal 'violence' is a fallacy. It doesn't exist.
      - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
        Your legal name is: $name Your Address is: $address Your phone is: #ph You work at: $employer You did X abhorrent thing (fakes picture or video with deepfakes). It would be a shame if something happened to you. ------------------------------- That right there is indeed verbal violence, AND a call to arms to enact violence against you.
        whateversclever 7y ago
        That right there is not an example of violence, despite any assertions to the contrary. There is a clear distinction between statements and actions.
- sampo 7y ago
  > last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result We also needed Americans to save us Europeans from those other Europeans.
  - shadowprofile77 7y ago
    > last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result Aside from being really smug about Europe's supposed superiority today, this comment is just factually misleading. For one thing, it wasn't "unadulterated free speech" that got Hitler into a position of dictatorial power, it was backroom politics, legal manipulation, and finally laws and a German constitution that were extremely pliant towards misuse and reinterpretation for the sake of dictatorship, with all kinds of clauses in favor of martial law, censorship and so forth that the Nazis used to powerful effect once Hitler was appointed chancellor. Had they been dealing with something more absolutist about freedoms like the U.S constitution, his road to dictatorship would have been much more difficult, chancellor or no. You actually have the whole thing about the value of rigidly preserved freedoms exactly backwards in your claim about Hitler and free speech. In other words: Hitler's rabidly racist speeches never once won him a single electoral victory in Germany (and this even at a time when anti-semitism and racism were much more popular). The much greater damage was done by a weak constitution ridden with clauses against individual freedom, which couldn't effectively stop Hitler from becoming a dictator once he got the chancellors office.
    - sampo 7y ago
      > You actually have the whole thing about the value of rigidly preserved freedoms exactly backwards in your claim about Hitler and free speech. Not my claim, it was the GP's claim and I was also disagreeing with it.
      - shadowprofile77 7y ago
        I saw that and sorry. I couldn't find his original claim again and just replied to you. Cheers
- jknoepfler 7y ago
  There is absolutely no divide. The concept of a right to (almost) unrestricted freedom to criticize the government comes straight out of Western European legal norms that were in fashion around the founding of the United States, and have continued to remain in fashion since. No Western-style democracy observes a right to absolutely unrestricted freedom of speech, because it conflicts in obvious ways with other rights. We cannot, for example, incite people to a riot, or yell fire in a crowded theater, or go on the radio and accuse our boss of murdering children. The restrictions against Holocaust denial in Germany (for example) aren't different in kind. Europeans enjoy broad freedom to publish whatever they want about their government, critical or otherwise. This is in stark contrast with China, Russia, most countries under some form of religious rule, and most dictatorships, where criticizing the government will get you tortured to death or sent to a labor camp at worst, and severely fined and blacklisted from government service at best. The "median Western European" may have a more nuanced view on the right to free speech than the median citizen of the United States, but I'd attribute that to a superior education system and decades of trying to undo structural economic injustice rather than a cultural divide (which is complete nonsense, honestly).
  - whateversclever 7y ago
    Anyone absolutely can "Yell fire in a theater" in the US, this canard has an interesting history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... You can also go on the radio and accuse your boss of whatever you like in the US as well. You might get sued by your boss in civil court, but the police will not come after you. You can also deny the Holocaust, that the earth is round, that people have landed on the moon, or anything else. An unfortunate side effect of freedom is that other people will be allowed to say things that you dislike.
    - jknoepfler 7y ago
      The distinction between civil and criminal law isn't terribly relevant here. You can be found liable in civil court for all of the things listed in the first two paragraphs.
BlueTemplar 7y ago
I was actually more positive than reality, for a better "quip" - I still had a discussion where the other person pushed the "I have nothing to hide" angle as recently as last month ! And that persons' grandparents died in Auschwitz... (Thankfully, this seems to be much more rare in the "tech" circles ?)
- BuildTheRobots 7y ago
  The "I've got nothing to hide" angle terrifies me. As one obvious example, LGBT Russians had absolutely nothing to hide, right up until the moment it was outlawed, again. Then suddenly it was extremely easy to identify and persecute. In a world where we hold people like Willem Arondeus, Sophie Scholl or anyone else involved in hiding or exfiltrating Jews during WW2 a hero, it baffles me that the idea of "nothing to hide" even exists. The fact we've made a modern kinder-transport or even a resistance nearly technologically impossible honestly stops me sleeping.

nine_k 7y ago

Certain Richard M Stallman faced a similar problem when he talked about DRMed content a decade ago.

693471 7y ago
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day
lixtra 7y ago
More like two decades ago. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
BlueTemplar 7y ago
Oh, yeah, that too - for me, after Snowden, Stallman went from "crank"-ey to "prophet"-ey ! (Well, and GAFAM's behavior in the recent years certainly didn't help either...) P.S.: Got Stallman to sign my The Snowden Files book after he introduced his speech with asking the public to give "three cheers for Snowden"...

appleshore 7y ago

If I asked 10 people around me, who is Edward Snowden, maybe one would know. When the story broke, I never heard anyone in real life bring it up. I know young wealthy people who don’t know who Elon Musk is. People’s attention is highly fragmented.

cookie_monsta 7y ago
It's not about the guy's name, what's important is how people's perceptions have changed (which I would generalise as from scornful dismissal to resigned acceptance)

atoav 7y ago

Isn’t it a bit like global warming? If people feel the issue is so much bigger than them they will just resign and give up. Unless you communicate why we need to do sth anyways and what small managable steps can be taken it is hard to tackle this alone, even if you are an informed person with the motivation and the breathing space to do so. So unless the felt pain and the impeding doom doesn’t exceed the threshold of “oh shit this isn’t fine, what was I thinking!” people will just call the whole thing off as unmanagable and move ahead.

PopeDotNinja 7y ago

I wouldn't say I don't care. I would say I permanently trust government less, as I do feel mostly powerless to make them less nosey. If I have an opportunity to vote against mass surveillance, I will do that for sure.

cookie_monsta 7y ago
Under what circumstances can you imagine being given a vote on mass surveillance?
- PopeDotNinja 7y ago
  Not many.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  In The Netherlands, we had a non-binding referendum on this [1] (complete with misinformation, or downright propaganda, on TV). The vote against had a minor but significant win on the for. Result? 1) The law got active a few months later 2) A few minor changes were applied 3) The right for a non-binding referendum got removed from The Netherlands, citing we should either have a binding referendum or none at all. [1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_op_de_inlichtingen-_en_veiligheidsdiensten_2017 https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_op_de_inlichtingen-_en_vei... (article also available in German and Chinese)
  - cookie_monsta 7y ago
    Interesting, but I guess that considering that the govt. announced their intention to pass the law regardless of the result of the referendum my question should have been "under what circumstances can you imagine being given a _meaningful_ vote on mass surveillance?"
    - Fnoord 7y ago
      You can't. A democracy, and a binding referendum, stands on the shoulder of the public being informed and interested about matters. The public does not know enough about the topic. They can't, because the enemy listens as well in this global world. Hence, the proponents can pull FUD and appeal to authority at will. I'm a proponent of binding referendum, but I don't see how it would solve the problem in this case.

throwaway_law 7y ago

>Now everyone knows it’s true, but still nobody seems to care… That just about sums up every bad act. Lots of people were aware of all the bank fraud and toxic loans leading to the 2008 real estate bubble, no one cared leading up to it, and no one cares now. The Googles/Facebooks/amazons are collecting and doing unsavory things with your data, whether you ever used their services or not (shadow accounts), no one seems to care. Governmental spying on citizens? Hell the Government had a program which included secret kill lists, flew military bombers into foreign countries to drop bombs and kill a citizen. Even when the US failed to kill the citizen and the family sued, their case was dismissed as the courts denied any right to know who was on the list, how they got on the list, and even denied acknowledging the list existed...yet no one cared. Imagine a foreign country flying military missions in the US and dropping bombs on a foreigner in the US, based on the foreign governments secret kill lists. It's pure insanity.

hokumguru 7y ago
Source on this?
- NegativeLatency 7y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-i... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
- Fnoord 7y ago
  National Bird [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bird_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bird_(film)
harryf 7y ago
Well it might have contributed to GDPR, which is a step in the right direction.
BlueTemplar 7y ago
Well, it's pretty much a situation of war. And an unconventional war against terrorists. (Also, not unprecedented - the Russians have been doing something very similar in a few high-profile UK cases...) Of course, the main issue is that those "surgical" drone strikes still seem to have backfired strategically - I wonder what is the state of these "who are we going to kill today" reunions under Trump ? And of course in the background there's the whole Middle Eastern situation where the USA (and previously the British Empire) have only been making things worse for a century or so... but the control over those oil fields is just too important for them to let go !

chiefalchemist 7y ago

> "Now everyone knows it’s true, but still nobody seems to care… " In general, the mainstream media didn't make much of it. At the time they hadn't yet tied outrage to revenue/profits. If Snowden were to happen today the coverage and reaction would be much different. But alas, it's too late. The public has it in their minds it was a non-issue. That seems unlikely to change any time soon.

wefarrell 7y ago

Information sharing is like entropy - it will only increase over time. We're moving towards a future where privacy is becoming an archaic concept.

nickpsecurity 7y ago

Yeah, he's wrong that the most paranoid weren't assuming how bad it was. If anything, Enemy of the State had general public worried with Echelon revelations and technical details of Puzzle Palace making me certain they were doing mass surveillance and hacking. At least within a few years of 9/11 and Patriot Act. They'd do whatever they (a) could and (b) had to do for their mission. Far as weakening, we were noting they did a lot of things that were public knowledge that indicated they prioritized shoddy products and surveillance over security. I had an essay listing most of them. I might dig it up and submit it Thursday if anyone is interested.

Fnoord 7y ago
I remember people in infosec and *NIX communities being paranoid about the NSA back in the early '00s. Americans who were not trusting their own government. I myself only heard about the CIA and FBI. I familiarized myself with the concept of NSA and shrugged it off. "Never hear anything about those. Probably a very small organization..." In hindsight, I was right, but I didn't get with the program after 9/11 (see the accounts of William Binney [1] and Edward Snowden's recently Permanent Record). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(intelligence_official) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(intelligence_o...