3 ms·
I often jokingly tell a specific friend that I'll murder him (he says the same to me)... it wouldn't be clear if you read the e-mail correspondences that we're
by clicks 13y ago
I often jokingly tell a specific friend that I'll murder him (he says the same to me)... it wouldn't be clear if you read the e-mail correspondences that we're joking. It would be clear if you saw us in real life joking, laughing... but you don't have that context, you don't know the history of my relationship with him, we're both practitioners of an absurdist brand of humour (think adultswim's Tim&Eric humour). Compound all of this with the fact that I'm brown (Asian descendant) and that a running brand of jokes is about terrorism ('yeah so we have AQ training camps in our basement') -- and, I'm sure we're setting off a good amount of triggers.
Here is what is unnerving to me: considering the high-capacity storage capabilities of these three-letter agencies, it's highly likely that a lot of our data has already been copied... it's little use disabling our fb/goog accounts, it's little use deleting everything en masse now.
Anyway, my takeaway from all of this is that 1) I have to stop making these jokes, even in private conversations, and 2) communicate more clearly in my e-mails, so that if it's being read by someone with no context, it does not invoke any suspicions to wrongdoing of any sort. I am extremely annoyed that I have to start doing this, but I will.
- tokenizer 13y agoThe first step has been taken: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/07/2120141/why-the-nsas-secret-online-surveillance-should-scare-you/ http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/07/2120141/why-the-... Quote: "A citizenry that’s constantly on guard for secret, unaccountable surveillance is one that’s constantly being remade along the lines the state would prefer. Foucault illustrated this point by reference to a hypothetical prison called the Panopticon. Designed by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, the Panopticon is a prison where all cells can be seen from a central tower shielded such that the guards can see out but the prisoners can’t see in. The prisoners in the Panopticon could thus never know whether they were being surveilled, meaning that they have to, if they want to avoid running the risk of severe punishment, assume that they were being watched at all times. Thus, the Panopticon functioned as an effective tool of social control even when it wasn’t being staffed by a single guard."
- jebblue 13y ago>> The prisoners in the Panopticon could thus never know whether they were being surveilled, meaning that they have to, if they want to avoid running the risk of severe punishment, assume that they were being watched at all times. That's what it feels like to me working in open cube areas.
- sethammons 13y agolol. For _years_, a friend and I who do the exact same thing (but escalate it to full ridiculousness), end with a proviso along the lines of "to anyone reading this, the above is in jest and in no way represents real intentions." We mostly put that in jest. Now the proviso seems less jestful.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- rdtsc 13y agoThis has happened. I have a friend who has been visited at work and at home by the FBI for making a joke.