I'm not sure what to think about this. Never mind that there are many ways to establish private communication, such as encrypted email, which, even if stored,

I'm not sure what to think about this. Never mind that there are many ways to establish private communication, such as encrypted email, which, even if stored, is unlikely to be decryptable in five years or twenty: Groklaw is a site whose purpose for existence is to post long public essays and then have public discussions about them in the comments; I don't remember it ever dealing with confidential information or sources, since it mainly covers public court battles, so I find it hard to see how even a total lack of privacy for all communications would be a rational concern for such a site. On the other hand, a large part of the argument surveillance is fundamentally emotional. There are only a few emails I've ever received that could possibly used against me by anyone, and even those aren't really a big deal, yet I would still feel vaguely violated if I knew anyone was reading my email; and some of the things I've felt guiltiest about in my life were (small) violations of other people's privacy, even though they did not harm them in any way. So I cannot disregard PJ's claim that the existence of surveillance makes it impossible for her to feel comfortable publishing, though I do find it hard to give it too much weight.