3 ms·

> For a completely average US citizen, I don't think NSA spying has a practical impact today, at least directly -- it's almost all future risk. While I think

> For a completely average US citizen, I don't think NSA spying has a practical impact today, at least directly -- it's almost all future risk. While I think it's true. The keyword is direct. Though it should be mentioned that indirect impact is measurable, now. > 1 in 6 writers has avoided writing or speaking on a topic they thought would subject them to surveillance. Another 1 in 6 has seriously considered doing so. Source: http://www.pen.org/chilling-effects http://www.pen.org/chilling-effects

sroerick 12y ago
It depends. Do you believe that NSA is stifling citizen activism? If that's the case, than NSA spying affects a large portion of Americans. If that's the case, that would put a dampening effect on democracy, which theoretically affects everyone in the entire system, immediately.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  > Do you believe that NSA is stifling citizen activism? Let's say you were preparing an Occupy 2.0 movement. Do you think the government would bring the NSA to bear on you? Do you think you might get "stifled?"
  - sroerick 12y ago
    > Let's say you were preparing an Occupy 2.0 movement. Do you think the government would bring the NSA to bear on you? Do you think you might get "stifled?" Perhaps it's just the nature of activist groups, but I've been reaching out to various groups of protesters and activists since the Restore the Fourth protests last year. Anecdotally, I have yet to contact a single group that doesn't believe that they have experienced government surveillance, infiltration, or subversion. Now, perhaps this is due to the closeted nature of activist groups and the paranoia can go hand in hand with activism, so take it for what it is. There's reports of JP Morgan offices inside the NYPD surveillance complex. The NATO 3 case is an indication to me that this type of activity (Surveillance, infiltration, disruption) may be widespread. Certainly, it seems to coincide with the attitude and perspectives that led to COINTELPRO and other Hoover-esque tactics such as blackmailing Martin Luther King. This is all to say nothing of the Arab Spring, and the subsequent development of practices and technologies that have "stifled" activism on social media. The other thing to take into consideration is that protests and activism in the US may play into the narrative put out by Russia or other foreign national interests, in the same way that the United States covers Pussy Riot or stories of unrest in Ukraine. I tend to think in the coming months, you'll hear more about this topic. We'll see, though.
dfc 12y ago
I have seen this survey before and I have to say I am a little suspicious of how they came up with this pullquote. I do not understand how the 11% who responded "have seriously considered" is presented as "1 in 6 have seriously considered." This is from Question 12.a in the survey.[^1] 12 Over the past year or two, have YOU done or seriously considered doing any of the following because you thought your communications might be monitored in some way by the government? 12.a Avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic %% | Response ------------------------------------------ 16 | Yes, have done 11 | Have seriously considered 70 | No, have not 3 | Not sure/Not applicable ---+-------------------------------------- 27 | NET Yes/Have seriously considered 73 | NET No/Not sure "Have seriously considered" is not even "1 in 6 respondents excluding the respondents that answered 'Yes, have done so.'" I hope I am missing something obvious but as far as I currently understand the survey/math this quote is fucking shameful. Getting popular support for privacy protections is not going to happen by giving up the moral high ground. It is hard enough to fight against the "weak on security issues" label, it is going to be next to impossible to overcome "weak on security AND cannot be trusted to tell the truth." [^1]: Page 24 http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Chilling%20Effects_PEN%20American.pdf http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Chilling%20Effects_PE...
- tbrake 12y ago
  > "Have seriously considered" is not even "1 in 6 respondents excluding the respondents that answered 'Yes, have done so.'" Interesting. Yes, correctly excluding those 16, 11/84 isn't even close to 1/6. Incorrectly dividing by the NO answers (11/73) is. I'm inclined to believe whoever came up with the quote made that mistake.

sroerick 12y ago

It depends. Do you believe that NSA is stifling citizen activism? If that's the case, than NSA spying affects a large portion of Americans. If that's the case, that would put a dampening effect on democracy, which theoretically affects everyone in the entire system, immediately.

Zigurd 12y ago
> Do you believe that NSA is stifling citizen activism? Let's say you were preparing an Occupy 2.0 movement. Do you think the government would bring the NSA to bear on you? Do you think you might get "stifled?"
- sroerick 12y ago
  > Let's say you were preparing an Occupy 2.0 movement. Do you think the government would bring the NSA to bear on you? Do you think you might get "stifled?" Perhaps it's just the nature of activist groups, but I've been reaching out to various groups of protesters and activists since the Restore the Fourth protests last year. Anecdotally, I have yet to contact a single group that doesn't believe that they have experienced government surveillance, infiltration, or subversion. Now, perhaps this is due to the closeted nature of activist groups and the paranoia can go hand in hand with activism, so take it for what it is. There's reports of JP Morgan offices inside the NYPD surveillance complex. The NATO 3 case is an indication to me that this type of activity (Surveillance, infiltration, disruption) may be widespread. Certainly, it seems to coincide with the attitude and perspectives that led to COINTELPRO and other Hoover-esque tactics such as blackmailing Martin Luther King. This is all to say nothing of the Arab Spring, and the subsequent development of practices and technologies that have "stifled" activism on social media. The other thing to take into consideration is that protests and activism in the US may play into the narrative put out by Russia or other foreign national interests, in the same way that the United States covers Pussy Riot or stories of unrest in Ukraine. I tend to think in the coming months, you'll hear more about this topic. We'll see, though.

dfc 12y ago

I have seen this survey before and I have to say I am a little suspicious of how they came up with this pullquote. I do not understand how the 11% who responded "have seriously considered" is presented as "1 in 6 have seriously considered." This is from Question 12.a in the survey.[^1] 12 Over the past year or two, have YOU done or seriously considered doing any of the following because you thought your communications might be monitored in some way by the government? 12.a Avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic %% | Response ------------------------------------------ 16 | Yes, have done 11 | Have seriously considered 70 | No, have not 3 | Not sure/Not applicable ---+-------------------------------------- 27 | NET Yes/Have seriously considered 73 | NET No/Not sure "Have seriously considered" is not even "1 in 6 respondents excluding the respondents that answered 'Yes, have done so.'" I hope I am missing something obvious but as far as I currently understand the survey/math this quote is fucking shameful. Getting popular support for privacy protections is not going to happen by giving up the moral high ground. It is hard enough to fight against the "weak on security issues" label, it is going to be next to impossible to overcome "weak on security AND cannot be trusted to tell the truth." [^1]: Page 24 http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Chilling%20Effects_PEN%20American.pdf http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Chilling%20Effects_PE...

tbrake 12y ago
> "Have seriously considered" is not even "1 in 6 respondents excluding the respondents that answered 'Yes, have done so.'" Interesting. Yes, correctly excluding those 16, 11/84 isn't even close to 1/6. Incorrectly dividing by the NO answers (11/73) is. I'm inclined to believe whoever came up with the quote made that mistake.