5 ms·

Same here, this is weird. I live in a country where free speech is given but I still censorship myself when talking about the US online.

by chli 13y ago

mark_integerdsv 13y ago
Yep. South African here.
- _djo_ 13y ago
  You arguably have more to fear from your own government, which has far greater capability to (legally) spy on your electronic communications in real-time. Both the NCC and the Interception Centres set up under RICA have virtually unlimited power and access, in fact every service provider is required by law to install the equivalent of Verizon's Room 641A which feeds data real-time directly to an Interception Centre.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - instakill 13y ago
    AFAIK there are no physical RICA interception centres up and running yet.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - _djo_ 13y ago
      I'm hearing conflicting reports. I know Laurie Fialkov of CyberSmart has stated that there aren't any up and running and no live interception happening, but I've heard elsewhere that at least one large one exists. I'd be interested in hearing the responses to the same question posed to Telkom, Vodacom, MTN & Cell C, who would be the first to be approached for live streaming. We do know that the OIC carried out 3 million interceptions between 2006 and 2010 and the implication has been that at least some were live. The biggest problem at the moment though is the NCC, which the Matthews Commission found regularly conducted warrantless bulk interceptions and environmental scanning. Unfortunately the Matthews Commission's recommendations went nowhere and from what I'm hearing the NCC has even fewer internal controls on what it monitors within our borders. I just wish South Africans would have as much outrage about what happens locally as they do for what the NSA does.
jiggy2011 13y ago
This might be paranoia , there are plenty of controversial anti-US things all over the internet and AFAIK the writers have not been rounded up and arrested.
- mark_integerdsv 13y ago
  Yet.
- grey-area 13y ago
  At present people are harassed or turned away at the border for their published views, that policy could get worse in time, and information online lives forever (esp. if it is intercepted and stored). So it might be prudent to limit your statements online, or just accept you're not going to visit the US any more. Laura Poitras for example is routinely questioned for hours on entering or leaving the US, just because she made a film about Iraq. She is no danger to the US, she is not a terrorist or associated with them any more than another journalist, and yet she is harassed for her views, even before she interviewed Snowden. I believe Jacob Appelbaum is another example. She's quite high profile, but I personally know of at least one other case of someone being detained every time they crossed the border - an ordinary apolitical person living in the US, stopped every time for hours simply because of where they were born or their name, they were never sure which. It was so frequent that they gave up living/working there.
  - eshvk 13y ago
    > At present people are harassed or turned away at the border for their published views, that policy could get worse in time, and information online lives forever (esp. if it is intercepted and stored). So it might be prudent to limit your statements online, or just accept you're not going to visit the US any more. There is a distinction here to make though; I don't think it is inherently wrong to refuse entry to the U.S./question any person who is not an American. It is not clear why that should be the case ever. (I say this as a person who found the visa system to enter the U.S. profoundly annoying.) On the other hand, refusal of entry to American citizens is a whole different issue.

Same here, this is weird. I live in a country where free speech is given but I still censorship myself when talking about the US online.

by chli 13y ago

Same here, this is weird. I live in a country where free speech is given but I still censorship myself when talking about the US online.

mark_integerdsv 13y ago

Yep. South African here.

_djo_ 13y ago
You arguably have more to fear from your own government, which has far greater capability to (legally) spy on your electronic communications in real-time. Both the NCC and the Interception Centres set up under RICA have virtually unlimited power and access, in fact every service provider is required by law to install the equivalent of Verizon's Room 641A which feeds data real-time directly to an Interception Centre.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- instakill 13y ago
  AFAIK there are no physical RICA interception centres up and running yet.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - _djo_ 13y ago
    I'm hearing conflicting reports. I know Laurie Fialkov of CyberSmart has stated that there aren't any up and running and no live interception happening, but I've heard elsewhere that at least one large one exists. I'd be interested in hearing the responses to the same question posed to Telkom, Vodacom, MTN & Cell C, who would be the first to be approached for live streaming. We do know that the OIC carried out 3 million interceptions between 2006 and 2010 and the implication has been that at least some were live. The biggest problem at the moment though is the NCC, which the Matthews Commission found regularly conducted warrantless bulk interceptions and environmental scanning. Unfortunately the Matthews Commission's recommendations went nowhere and from what I'm hearing the NCC has even fewer internal controls on what it monitors within our borders. I just wish South Africans would have as much outrage about what happens locally as they do for what the NSA does.

jiggy2011 13y ago

This might be paranoia , there are plenty of controversial anti-US things all over the internet and AFAIK the writers have not been rounded up and arrested.

mark_integerdsv 13y ago
Yet.
grey-area 13y ago
At present people are harassed or turned away at the border for their published views, that policy could get worse in time, and information online lives forever (esp. if it is intercepted and stored). So it might be prudent to limit your statements online, or just accept you're not going to visit the US any more. Laura Poitras for example is routinely questioned for hours on entering or leaving the US, just because she made a film about Iraq. She is no danger to the US, she is not a terrorist or associated with them any more than another journalist, and yet she is harassed for her views, even before she interviewed Snowden. I believe Jacob Appelbaum is another example. She's quite high profile, but I personally know of at least one other case of someone being detained every time they crossed the border - an ordinary apolitical person living in the US, stopped every time for hours simply because of where they were born or their name, they were never sure which. It was so frequent that they gave up living/working there.
- eshvk 13y ago
  > At present people are harassed or turned away at the border for their published views, that policy could get worse in time, and information online lives forever (esp. if it is intercepted and stored). So it might be prudent to limit your statements online, or just accept you're not going to visit the US any more. There is a distinction here to make though; I don't think it is inherently wrong to refuse entry to the U.S./question any person who is not an American. It is not clear why that should be the case ever. (I say this as a person who found the visa system to enter the U.S. profoundly annoying.) On the other hand, refusal of entry to American citizens is a whole different issue.