4 ms·
So, I was one of the people who read a lot about purported state surveillance before Snowden, and was still "shocked" by what he revealed. It's simple really: w
by thaumaturgy 7y ago
So, I was one of the people who read a lot about purported state surveillance before Snowden, and was still "shocked" by what he revealed. It's simple really: while Slashdot commenters et al had been murmuring about Echelon and the NSA for years already, there was no evidence, and therefore no way to sort out the fantasy from the reality.
The shocking part was (a) that the reality turned out to be even more pervasive than the fantasy in some respects; (b) that the details had remained a secret for so long (which is a surprising counterpoint to the whole "governments aren't good at keeping secrets" thing); (c) that it was leaked at all given the first two points; and (d) that any backlash against it all was so milquetoast.
All of this shifted some pretty fundamental stuff in my worldview and the way I regard conspiracy theories. I'm still skeptical of them, by default, but now only because I think that's a necessary blockade against insanity, not because widespread government secret-keeping is implausible.
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago> It's simple really: while Slashdot commenters et al had been murmuring about Echelon and the NSA for years already, there was no evidence. Does the European Parliament's 2000 ECHELON report not count? I would say that there was plenty of evidence around, but the attacks of September 11 simply obscured the prior debates about telecommunications privacy in press coverage.