5 ms·

Actually no. The US and most of Europe is NOT in a situation 1000 times worse than George Orwell ever imagined. Freedom of speech is at an unprecedented high. T

Actually no. The US and most of Europe is NOT in a situation 1000 times worse than George Orwell ever imagined. Freedom of speech is at an unprecedented high. The government still doesn't care what you think or say individually, with very minor exceptions. Invasion of privacy has to be fought. But let's not kid ourselves into believing we're not incredibly privileged with the free society we live in.

junto 12y ago
The problem is that when you log everyone's darkest secrets the potential for abuse is infinite. It may not happen today, or next week, but if you think today's politicians are bad then wait till you see what is coming round the corner. FYI you don't know who or what is coming next. That's why I can say 1000 times worse. It could also be a million times worse. The data is sitting there, waiting for the biggest bunch of assholes to cone along and abuse it. P.s. I can't reply to rev_bird below, but Amen to that. Spot on analysis.
- rev_bird 12y ago
  > The problem is that when you log everyone's darkest secrets the potential for abuse is infinite. The pervasive surveillance state presents a monstrous potential for the suppression of people who aim to challenge the status quo, which seems like as fundamental a threat to free speech as there can be. I love that we have so many First Amendment protections today, but if there are billions of dollars going to programs that continuously flout the Fourth Amendment, it's not a huge stretch to say the other ones aren't up for grabs.
- candu 12y ago
  You can both be right. It is true that this apparatus presents an unparalleled opportunity for the suppression of free speech. It is also true that, compared to Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Crusades-era Europe, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, etc. we are nowhere near the historical maximum of such suppression... ...which makes it all the more important that we quash said opportunity now.
  - sroerick 12y ago
    I think that this is the correct response. It's also worth noting, though, that the current situation has the potential to be more global and pervasive than all of those more localized historical examples. I seem to recall an intelligence agency official or general saying something to the effect of "America will be remembered for it's networks the way that Rome is remembered for its roads." I can't seem to find the quote right now, but I think it's illustrative of the bounds and limits of our present apparatus.
- delucain 12y ago
  I agree. What they're currently doing with the data doesn't even approach the totalitarian system from 1984, but the amount of data they are collecting on us (and the amount of data there is to collect) is magnitudes greater than Orwell could have predicted. Basically, the framework is there. All it will take is one overzealous nationalist, one religious extremist, or one extremely greedy, immoral, charismatic corporate puppet and their resources for evil are bigger than at any other time in history. Look at how well Hitler tracked Jews with basic 1940's punch card technology. Imagine if he had had access to the NSA databases of today. I apologize for going all Godwin's Law here, but it seems relevant. What truly amazes me is how complacent we are about it as a society. 1984 was obviously popular for a reason, but when the set up for that book is staring us in the face, we don't even seem to blink. Maybe we'll be different when (not if) the abuses of this kind of power start happening...
  - adventured 12y ago
    It doesn't even take those examples. Several more Obama type presidents, with a willing Congress, a few more security events / tragedies, an ever more invasive homeland security and police system - would do the trick. We'd be deep into a real police state.
    - yutah 12y ago
      two more Obama type president might be enough
- adwf 12y ago
  Exactly right, it's the potential abuse in the future that's scary. In 30 years time I see it playing out something like this: Potential Politician: "I want to run on a platform of reform, government transparency and freedom of speech" NSA: "We have these emails you sent to a friend in London when you were a student 20 years ago, where you intimated how you slept with another woman than your girlfriend, now your wife..." PP: "I resign to spend more time with my family" All it takes is for one bad apple to come along and really screw things over for everyone. Almost everyone has something that could be used against them in the court of public opinion. Mass surveillance just primes the pump for abusive individuals to blackmail the world. Do you want your government run by elected individuals or the unelected intelligence agents who are blackmailing them? PS: Pre-snowden, I'd have said this is crazy conspiracy theory talk. Nowadays, I dunno...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  The very essence of free speech is that somebody will hear it. Otherwise you'd call it free monologue. To my knowledge there is not single shred of evidence that the NSA used their surveillance to suppress free speech... I would go one step further and proclaim that modern information technology has not only magnified our ability to speak freely, it has also enabled us to have a better picture of local, national and international politics than ever before. This means that freedom, even and especially in the democratic western countries, is actually climbing. The NSA surveillance, even with substantial "there's got to be more" factor, does not even begin to threaten that freedom.
iconjack 12y ago
Free speech is at an all-time high in the sense that you can call the president an a-hole and not worry about going to jail. It's not the curb on this kind of speech that will make it 1000x worse than Orwell. Technology allows surreptitious monitoring and undetectable influence on your actions. Imagine if you had secret and unfettered access to your friends' email, texts, and phone calls. Further imagine that you can spoof sending emails and texts. You see that Alice is interested in Joe and you don't want them to get together. Don't you think you could sabotage this from ever happening without either of them knowing? I do. The government (or corporation) could effectively hellban you. They could drive you around by remote control and you wouldn't even know it. Surveillance is Orwellian. Secret surveillance is 10x Orwellian. Stealth surveillance plus subtle control is game over.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  "They" could. If there weren't laws against that kind of thing. If that doesn't work, believe me there are larger temptations for anyone in power...
wcummings 12y ago
You don't have to control thought, only public opinion.
Estragon 12y ago
Yes, 1984 was much worse. I can only think of one thought crime in the US. No one is being imprisoned for keeping a diary. Still, ubiquitous surveillance may afford far more concentration of power than Orwell imagined. You couldn't get anywhere in DC without J. Edgar Hoover's blessing, and his surveillance capabilities were orders of magnitude weaker than what the NSA has today.
orbifold 12y ago
Actually the situation is fairly close to what Aldous Huxley had envisioned. The majority of the population is apolitical, docile and distracted.

junto 12y ago

The problem is that when you log everyone's darkest secrets the potential for abuse is infinite. It may not happen today, or next week, but if you think today's politicians are bad then wait till you see what is coming round the corner. FYI you don't know who or what is coming next. That's why I can say 1000 times worse. It could also be a million times worse. The data is sitting there, waiting for the biggest bunch of assholes to cone along and abuse it. P.s. I can't reply to rev_bird below, but Amen to that. Spot on analysis.

rev_bird 12y ago
> The problem is that when you log everyone's darkest secrets the potential for abuse is infinite. The pervasive surveillance state presents a monstrous potential for the suppression of people who aim to challenge the status quo, which seems like as fundamental a threat to free speech as there can be. I love that we have so many First Amendment protections today, but if there are billions of dollars going to programs that continuously flout the Fourth Amendment, it's not a huge stretch to say the other ones aren't up for grabs.
candu 12y ago
You can both be right. It is true that this apparatus presents an unparalleled opportunity for the suppression of free speech. It is also true that, compared to Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Crusades-era Europe, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, etc. we are nowhere near the historical maximum of such suppression... ...which makes it all the more important that we quash said opportunity now.
- sroerick 12y ago
  I think that this is the correct response. It's also worth noting, though, that the current situation has the potential to be more global and pervasive than all of those more localized historical examples. I seem to recall an intelligence agency official or general saying something to the effect of "America will be remembered for it's networks the way that Rome is remembered for its roads." I can't seem to find the quote right now, but I think it's illustrative of the bounds and limits of our present apparatus.
delucain 12y ago
I agree. What they're currently doing with the data doesn't even approach the totalitarian system from 1984, but the amount of data they are collecting on us (and the amount of data there is to collect) is magnitudes greater than Orwell could have predicted. Basically, the framework is there. All it will take is one overzealous nationalist, one religious extremist, or one extremely greedy, immoral, charismatic corporate puppet and their resources for evil are bigger than at any other time in history. Look at how well Hitler tracked Jews with basic 1940's punch card technology. Imagine if he had had access to the NSA databases of today. I apologize for going all Godwin's Law here, but it seems relevant. What truly amazes me is how complacent we are about it as a society. 1984 was obviously popular for a reason, but when the set up for that book is staring us in the face, we don't even seem to blink. Maybe we'll be different when (not if) the abuses of this kind of power start happening...
- adventured 12y ago
  It doesn't even take those examples. Several more Obama type presidents, with a willing Congress, a few more security events / tragedies, an ever more invasive homeland security and police system - would do the trick. We'd be deep into a real police state.
  - yutah 12y ago
    two more Obama type president might be enough
adwf 12y ago
Exactly right, it's the potential abuse in the future that's scary. In 30 years time I see it playing out something like this: Potential Politician: "I want to run on a platform of reform, government transparency and freedom of speech" NSA: "We have these emails you sent to a friend in London when you were a student 20 years ago, where you intimated how you slept with another woman than your girlfriend, now your wife..." PP: "I resign to spend more time with my family" All it takes is for one bad apple to come along and really screw things over for everyone. Almost everyone has something that could be used against them in the court of public opinion. Mass surveillance just primes the pump for abusive individuals to blackmail the world. Do you want your government run by elected individuals or the unelected intelligence agents who are blackmailing them? PS: Pre-snowden, I'd have said this is crazy conspiracy theory talk. Nowadays, I dunno...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
bayesianhorse 12y ago
The very essence of free speech is that somebody will hear it. Otherwise you'd call it free monologue. To my knowledge there is not single shred of evidence that the NSA used their surveillance to suppress free speech... I would go one step further and proclaim that modern information technology has not only magnified our ability to speak freely, it has also enabled us to have a better picture of local, national and international politics than ever before. This means that freedom, even and especially in the democratic western countries, is actually climbing. The NSA surveillance, even with substantial "there's got to be more" factor, does not even begin to threaten that freedom.

iconjack 12y ago

Free speech is at an all-time high in the sense that you can call the president an a-hole and not worry about going to jail. It's not the curb on this kind of speech that will make it 1000x worse than Orwell. Technology allows surreptitious monitoring and undetectable influence on your actions. Imagine if you had secret and unfettered access to your friends' email, texts, and phone calls. Further imagine that you can spoof sending emails and texts. You see that Alice is interested in Joe and you don't want them to get together. Don't you think you could sabotage this from ever happening without either of them knowing? I do. The government (or corporation) could effectively hellban you. They could drive you around by remote control and you wouldn't even know it. Surveillance is Orwellian. Secret surveillance is 10x Orwellian. Stealth surveillance plus subtle control is game over.

bayesianhorse 12y ago
"They" could. If there weren't laws against that kind of thing. If that doesn't work, believe me there are larger temptations for anyone in power...

wcummings 12y ago

You don't have to control thought, only public opinion.

Estragon 12y ago

Yes, 1984 was much worse. I can only think of one thought crime in the US. No one is being imprisoned for keeping a diary. Still, ubiquitous surveillance may afford far more concentration of power than Orwell imagined. You couldn't get anywhere in DC without J. Edgar Hoover's blessing, and his surveillance capabilities were orders of magnitude weaker than what the NSA has today.

orbifold 12y ago

Actually the situation is fairly close to what Aldous Huxley had envisioned. The majority of the population is apolitical, docile and distracted.