9 ms·

Chilling effect has been achieved, all according to plan. To reiterate, the design of surveillance is population control,no more or less; terrorism is merely a

Chilling effect has been achieved, all according to plan. To reiterate, the design of surveillance is population control,no more or less; terrorism is merely an excuse for technological implementation that was desired since time immemorial by the powers that be. Now, onto the implications that the NY Times was too friendly to state: 1. People are self-censoring dissenting views in regular conversation outside of people they trust 2. People are self-censoring dissenting views in written communication 3. People are self-censoring their own minds as a result of #1 and #2 Therefore, 4. Dissenting communications and dissenting thoughts are reduced in frequency, leading to a snowball effect as ideas are more and more suppressed In terms of the scope, while the poll was only of writers, it seems as though the majority of writers consider themselves to be victims here. I think it's safe to say that the implications I listed are also applicable to other segments of the population-- most importantly, the segments of the population that are the usual hotbeds of dissent, because they are more likely to be paying attention to advances in government power which would create a chilling effect. The chilling effect produced by the endless rounds of disclosure of government abuse of surveillance is probably not going to go away anytime soon. Unfortunately, self-censorship is one more nail in the moribund democracy here in the US. Keep in mind that even if a person does not self censor, the mainstream media (which should now be understood as including major internet news hubs such as reddit) will likely prevent off-narrative news from spreading. So, what's the solution? I don't know. Still waiting on a hot new SV startup to "disrupt" the surveillance state.

happyscrappy 12y ago
>To reiterate, the design of surveillance is population control,no more or less; The biggest myth perpetrated by the US government is that they are in control of the country. That illusion must be protected at all costs. The government nibbles around the edges and catches a few criminals(<20%) but by and large the country is relatively safe internally not because of the police but because most citizens are good people.
- bdamm 12y ago
  That, and there is comparatively little resource scarcity. The government could easily steer the country into the economic ground, resulting in widespread suffering and eventual complete social breakdown.
- branchless 12y ago
  Great post. Every morning the establishment get up and hope that today is not the day we all step over the line together. It's policing by consent. Any time we've had enough that's it. We have to keep believing that otherwise we are enslaved.
- rayiner 12y ago
  So are those countries that are lawless and violent that way because the citizens are just bad people? People aren't particularly good. Scourges like say bribery or spousal abuse are rife in much of the world, and commonplace among the populace. In places where they have been nearly eliminated, government has played an enormous role. Not because they catch all the bad guys, but because imposing and enforcing law creates social norms that affect the behavior of ordinary people. Someone in Pakistan isn't more likely to beat his wife than someone in the U.S. because he doesn't understand it's bad or because he isn't worried about getting caught. It's because the relative certainty of enforcement in the U.S. undergirds and sustains a social norm that makes wife beaters into pariahs.[1] Moreover, murderers and the like aren't the biggest threat to society. What matters are organized groups exercising violence. A small armed group can terrorize a large population, as is demonstrated time and again in places like Pakistan or Iraq. To suppress such groups the government not only has to catch them, but make the retaliation so swift and inevitable that only the irrational would try to bypass the ordinary social and legal structures with force. And the government is very effective at doing this. [1] This is, incidentally, why there are special laws against e.g. hate crimes, even though assault is already illegal. The generic social norm against assault isn't strong enough to protect a targeted group, and a new law can create a more powerful social norm to compensate. This phenomenon is also evident in the discrimination context. People didn't just become better and less racist in the last 50 years of their own accord. Laws like the Civil Rights Act catalyzed the change by imposing new social norms. When discriminating in the workplace became illegal, people who discriminated became "bad people" which forced changes in behavior that have little to do with what percentage of people were caught.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    >So are those countries that are lawless and violent that way because the citizens are just bad people? I imagine they look out for people of their own tribe, but that kind of tribalism does not exist in the US. The point I rebutted was about population control. A good example is the federal governments inability to stop the legalization of pot. They absolutely oppose it but can do fuck all.
    - 12y ago
- rmxt 12y ago
  Just because the government as a whole can't build bridges or a health care web portal or do whatever else would demonstrate the sort of control you are implying, doesn't mean that specific actors within the triumvirate of the executive branch, legislative branch and media don't very much control the acceptable window of social and political discourse. That sort of control is no illusion. Also, I think that what the sibling comment says about resource scarcity is certainly a more reasonable justification for why there is relatively little internal strife in the US compared to other countries. What makes "citizens" or all American residents any better people than the residents of any other country?
pdabbadabba 12y ago
I agree with much of this. We should note, however, that the writers surveyed were all affiliated with the group doing the surveying, PEN, which is a writers' group devoted to the defense of free expression. These respondents can probably be expected to over-report the chilling effect, somewhat. Again, though: none of this is to say that we should not be very concerned about state surveillance. We should be.
golemotron 12y ago
The sad thing is that you don't have to have real surveillance to do this. All you need is the belief that the surveillance is going on. It would be a great plot for a movie: Snowden et al, were given fake information to lead the world to believe it was being surveilled, eliminating a lot of bad behavior.
- danepowell 12y ago
  Except it doesn't it really eliminate bad behavior- it just stifles innovation and civil liberty.
  - golemotron 12y ago
    I'm sure it eliminates some bad behavior too. Just not bad behavior from the very determined.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      In general, no. When you start assuming everyone is a bad guy you end up with everyone from journalists to drug dealers to captains of industry trying to make sure their own secrets are safe from the surveillance machine. The surveillance people have a saying. To find a needle in a haystack first you need a haystack. But you don't want a bleeding haystack, you just want the needle -- and now you've put a haystack on top of it. Now all the good guys are developing and using anti-surveillance methods. The bad guys were already assuming they were under surveillance. They aren't being deterred by surveillance of everybody else, they're just getting access to new tools developed by the good guys, and are aided by the fact that anti-surveillance methods are no longer suspicious.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  > It would be a great plot for a movie: Snowden et al, were given fake information to lead the world to believe it was being surveilled, eliminating a lot of bad behavior. Potentially saving the government a lot of money in the process. Money, which in the movie of course went to private hands of evil politicians and businessmen instead of being saved. As the plot develops, the protagonist slowly uncovers the evidence of that widespread conspiracy and in the climax (after enough scenery porn and helicopter chases to justify the budget for 3D version) heroicly exposes corrupt actors for what they are to the entire world. Cue in happy ending and closing credits, as behind them the whole world tears itself apart in a yet another case of Hollywood not thinking through the morality and consequences of protagonist's actions. I'd definitely go see that movie.
kiba 12y ago
To reiterate, the design of surveillance is population control,no more or less; terrorism is merely an excuse for technological implementation that was desired since time immemorial by the powers that be. Counter-terrorism is a real motivation, but unfortunately the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  Certainly, some people help the surveilance because they want to fight terrorism. But the people that designed it would have designed something that actually helps fighting terrorism if that was the goal.
dharmach 12y ago
No one likes surveillance but can anyone provide a better/cheaper option to prevent large scale crime like terrorist attack?
- foobarqux 12y ago
  It's a myth that the primary purpose of surveillance is to prevent terrorism. The purpose of surveillance is to get advantage.
- programmarchy 12y ago
  Stopping invading and occupying foreign countries would be a good start.
- sebii 12y ago
  Not killing innocent people around the world?
- BorgHunter 12y ago
  It's folly to assume that "terrorism" is some really concrete class of crime that can be easily prevented using known methods, and I'd further argue that the efficacy of surveillance to this end is unknown, but I'd venture to say it's pretty insignificant. Knowing this, a better way of phrasing the same question is: What tradeoffs are we willing to make to reduce the risk of terrorism, and where is the right balance? I would argue that, since the risk of terrorism is so low, the tradeoffs we're currently making are grossly out of proportion. If we want to prevent deaths in aggregate, we should be pouring government money into fighting disease and starvation in poorer countries. Much better ROI there. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/the_comparative.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/the_comparati...
  - rhino369 12y ago
    Fighting terrorism isn't just about preventing X number of deaths. The 9-11 attacks were profoundly disruptive in economic and social costs. Just in direct costs like buildings being knocked over, air travel being stopped, being not being able to get to work, was 200 billion dollars. That's a little less than the GDP of Finland wiped out in one attack. That is not to mention the cost of fighting the war on terrorism. All in it probably cost 5 Trillion. You could say, hey, we didn't need to fight the war on terrorism. But the attacks were world changing events for the US. They caused fear, anger, confusion, and a need for revenge. Whether it is rational or not, nobody is going to work in a skyscraper if every 20 months one gets knocked over. Just look at Israel and Palestine for what happens to cultures who expect terrorism (on both sides). It is caustic to a free society. It is hard to tell how low the risk of terrorism is in a vacuum. There are certainly enough suicide bomb volunteers and other jihadists. Crossing the US border is pretty easy. Some amount of intelligence is needed to make sure nobody is plotting something big.
wahsd 12y ago
The problem is that today's jello-spined journalists give too many shits about surveillance. Sure, every single journalist should take massive precautions to encrypt every single thing and source, no matter how banal; but once the proper precautions have been taken they should go on balls to the wall attack. Shame, de-obfuscate, highlight, an expose the hell out of government and business. There should be zero mercy! If journalists should fear anything, it is that some other warrior-journalist will slay a corrupt government agent or business crook and gain all the praise. Dear journalists, it's time to drive the rats out of America. It is your responsibility as the fourth branch of government to open the curtains, let in the burning sunlight, and exterminate the vampire roaches. Show no mercy, and provide no harbor. Your job is only done when you die exhausted from seeking out the source of the constant stink of corruption. Make people understand complex matters of corruption, do your jobs, do what you wanted to be.
- foobarqux 12y ago
  A journalist's career depends on not doing that which is why you don't see very much serious criticism from journalists.
- uptown 12y ago
  Michael Hastings tried that. His car crashed then exploded - possibly in that order depending on who you ask, or what theory you believe.
  - jra_samba 12y ago
    As did Gary Webb. Remember what was done to him..
    - ajmurmann 12y ago
      Wow, according to Wikipedia he died of suicide by two to the head. And here I thought stories of suicide via two self-inflicted head shots was a myth restricted to conspiracy theorists.
stcredzero 12y ago
1. People are self-censoring dissenting views in regular conversation outside of people they trust 2. People are self-censoring dissenting views in written communication 3. People are self-censoring their own minds as a result of #1 and #2 4. Dissenting communications and dissenting thoughts are reduced in frequency, leading to a snowball effect as ideas are more and more suppressed It's not just the government that is producing these effects. The "mainstreamed" culture of the present day Internet is distinctly anti-intellectual and produces precisely these effects. "Slacktivists" of all political leanings engage in programs of intimidation to silence those they disagree with, which is entirely antithetical to having a pluralistic society. I just had a "discussion" with someone who was incapable of distinguishing the meaning of "lies" and "lying" in the context of deliberately falsifying or omitting facts versus someone having an ideology one disagrees with. Yet this person regards themselves as a "thinker" and "intellectual." This sort of person seems to comprise the majority of people in the Bay Area. I used to be able to hang out with nerds and I could reasonably assume that no one around would be so scientifically illiterate as to believe that a person thrown out an airlock would freeze solid in two seconds flat. Everyone would know what "frequency response" was and be able to apply the concept. Now, a lot of "nerds" will just pattern match that as an "audio-woo" word and shut their brains off, yet you can ask them about the Fourier Transforms they studied as an undergrad. It's like we're the version of Brasil Richard Feynman visited. <http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education> http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education> Most importantly, I could hang out with "nerds" and assume that the vast majority of those around actually knew how to think and apply logic and actually discuss things with people they didn't agree with. Somehow, we've arrived at a state where most people tell themselves they're thinking, but they're actually just parrotting their friends after crudely pattern-matching the conversation. How can I tell? Because it's now very difficult to agree (yes, agree) ideologically with someone but point out they've arrived at their conclusions erroneously. Almost no one actually listens to and really examines facts and logic. They just determine if it vaguely sounds "truthy" in a way that aligns with their politics. (Worse still, lots of self-identifying "nerds" will use the above process in discussions involving physics!)
- gmarx 12y ago
  Love this post but I do not understand your example about frequency response. Are you an audiophile whose friends refuse to believe that one amplifier can sound better than another? or are you a guy whose friends mistakenly believe one amplifier can sound better than another? Or something else?

happyscrappy 12y ago

>To reiterate, the design of surveillance is population control,no more or less; The biggest myth perpetrated by the US government is that they are in control of the country. That illusion must be protected at all costs. The government nibbles around the edges and catches a few criminals(<20%) but by and large the country is relatively safe internally not because of the police but because most citizens are good people.

bdamm 12y ago
That, and there is comparatively little resource scarcity. The government could easily steer the country into the economic ground, resulting in widespread suffering and eventual complete social breakdown.
branchless 12y ago
Great post. Every morning the establishment get up and hope that today is not the day we all step over the line together. It's policing by consent. Any time we've had enough that's it. We have to keep believing that otherwise we are enslaved.
rayiner 12y ago
So are those countries that are lawless and violent that way because the citizens are just bad people? People aren't particularly good. Scourges like say bribery or spousal abuse are rife in much of the world, and commonplace among the populace. In places where they have been nearly eliminated, government has played an enormous role. Not because they catch all the bad guys, but because imposing and enforcing law creates social norms that affect the behavior of ordinary people. Someone in Pakistan isn't more likely to beat his wife than someone in the U.S. because he doesn't understand it's bad or because he isn't worried about getting caught. It's because the relative certainty of enforcement in the U.S. undergirds and sustains a social norm that makes wife beaters into pariahs.[1] Moreover, murderers and the like aren't the biggest threat to society. What matters are organized groups exercising violence. A small armed group can terrorize a large population, as is demonstrated time and again in places like Pakistan or Iraq. To suppress such groups the government not only has to catch them, but make the retaliation so swift and inevitable that only the irrational would try to bypass the ordinary social and legal structures with force. And the government is very effective at doing this. [1] This is, incidentally, why there are special laws against e.g. hate crimes, even though assault is already illegal. The generic social norm against assault isn't strong enough to protect a targeted group, and a new law can create a more powerful social norm to compensate. This phenomenon is also evident in the discrimination context. People didn't just become better and less racist in the last 50 years of their own accord. Laws like the Civil Rights Act catalyzed the change by imposing new social norms. When discriminating in the workplace became illegal, people who discriminated became "bad people" which forced changes in behavior that have little to do with what percentage of people were caught.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  >So are those countries that are lawless and violent that way because the citizens are just bad people? I imagine they look out for people of their own tribe, but that kind of tribalism does not exist in the US. The point I rebutted was about population control. A good example is the federal governments inability to stop the legalization of pot. They absolutely oppose it but can do fuck all.
  - 12y ago
rmxt 12y ago
Just because the government as a whole can't build bridges or a health care web portal or do whatever else would demonstrate the sort of control you are implying, doesn't mean that specific actors within the triumvirate of the executive branch, legislative branch and media don't very much control the acceptable window of social and political discourse. That sort of control is no illusion. Also, I think that what the sibling comment says about resource scarcity is certainly a more reasonable justification for why there is relatively little internal strife in the US compared to other countries. What makes "citizens" or all American residents any better people than the residents of any other country?

pdabbadabba 12y ago

I agree with much of this. We should note, however, that the writers surveyed were all affiliated with the group doing the surveying, PEN, which is a writers' group devoted to the defense of free expression. These respondents can probably be expected to over-report the chilling effect, somewhat. Again, though: none of this is to say that we should not be very concerned about state surveillance. We should be.

golemotron 12y ago

The sad thing is that you don't have to have real surveillance to do this. All you need is the belief that the surveillance is going on. It would be a great plot for a movie: Snowden et al, were given fake information to lead the world to believe it was being surveilled, eliminating a lot of bad behavior.

danepowell 12y ago
Except it doesn't it really eliminate bad behavior- it just stifles innovation and civil liberty.
- golemotron 12y ago
  I'm sure it eliminates some bad behavior too. Just not bad behavior from the very determined.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    In general, no. When you start assuming everyone is a bad guy you end up with everyone from journalists to drug dealers to captains of industry trying to make sure their own secrets are safe from the surveillance machine. The surveillance people have a saying. To find a needle in a haystack first you need a haystack. But you don't want a bleeding haystack, you just want the needle -- and now you've put a haystack on top of it. Now all the good guys are developing and using anti-surveillance methods. The bad guys were already assuming they were under surveillance. They aren't being deterred by surveillance of everybody else, they're just getting access to new tools developed by the good guys, and are aided by the fact that anti-surveillance methods are no longer suspicious.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
> It would be a great plot for a movie: Snowden et al, were given fake information to lead the world to believe it was being surveilled, eliminating a lot of bad behavior. Potentially saving the government a lot of money in the process. Money, which in the movie of course went to private hands of evil politicians and businessmen instead of being saved. As the plot develops, the protagonist slowly uncovers the evidence of that widespread conspiracy and in the climax (after enough scenery porn and helicopter chases to justify the budget for 3D version) heroicly exposes corrupt actors for what they are to the entire world. Cue in happy ending and closing credits, as behind them the whole world tears itself apart in a yet another case of Hollywood not thinking through the morality and consequences of protagonist's actions. I'd definitely go see that movie.

kiba 12y ago

To reiterate, the design of surveillance is population control,no more or less; terrorism is merely an excuse for technological implementation that was desired since time immemorial by the powers that be. Counter-terrorism is a real motivation, but unfortunately the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

marcosdumay 12y ago
Certainly, some people help the surveilance because they want to fight terrorism. But the people that designed it would have designed something that actually helps fighting terrorism if that was the goal.

dharmach 12y ago

No one likes surveillance but can anyone provide a better/cheaper option to prevent large scale crime like terrorist attack?

foobarqux 12y ago
It's a myth that the primary purpose of surveillance is to prevent terrorism. The purpose of surveillance is to get advantage.
programmarchy 12y ago
Stopping invading and occupying foreign countries would be a good start.
sebii 12y ago
Not killing innocent people around the world?
BorgHunter 12y ago
It's folly to assume that "terrorism" is some really concrete class of crime that can be easily prevented using known methods, and I'd further argue that the efficacy of surveillance to this end is unknown, but I'd venture to say it's pretty insignificant. Knowing this, a better way of phrasing the same question is: What tradeoffs are we willing to make to reduce the risk of terrorism, and where is the right balance? I would argue that, since the risk of terrorism is so low, the tradeoffs we're currently making are grossly out of proportion. If we want to prevent deaths in aggregate, we should be pouring government money into fighting disease and starvation in poorer countries. Much better ROI there. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/the_comparative.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/the_comparati...
- rhino369 12y ago
  Fighting terrorism isn't just about preventing X number of deaths. The 9-11 attacks were profoundly disruptive in economic and social costs. Just in direct costs like buildings being knocked over, air travel being stopped, being not being able to get to work, was 200 billion dollars. That's a little less than the GDP of Finland wiped out in one attack. That is not to mention the cost of fighting the war on terrorism. All in it probably cost 5 Trillion. You could say, hey, we didn't need to fight the war on terrorism. But the attacks were world changing events for the US. They caused fear, anger, confusion, and a need for revenge. Whether it is rational or not, nobody is going to work in a skyscraper if every 20 months one gets knocked over. Just look at Israel and Palestine for what happens to cultures who expect terrorism (on both sides). It is caustic to a free society. It is hard to tell how low the risk of terrorism is in a vacuum. There are certainly enough suicide bomb volunteers and other jihadists. Crossing the US border is pretty easy. Some amount of intelligence is needed to make sure nobody is plotting something big.

wahsd 12y ago

The problem is that today's jello-spined journalists give too many shits about surveillance. Sure, every single journalist should take massive precautions to encrypt every single thing and source, no matter how banal; but once the proper precautions have been taken they should go on balls to the wall attack. Shame, de-obfuscate, highlight, an expose the hell out of government and business. There should be zero mercy! If journalists should fear anything, it is that some other warrior-journalist will slay a corrupt government agent or business crook and gain all the praise. Dear journalists, it's time to drive the rats out of America. It is your responsibility as the fourth branch of government to open the curtains, let in the burning sunlight, and exterminate the vampire roaches. Show no mercy, and provide no harbor. Your job is only done when you die exhausted from seeking out the source of the constant stink of corruption. Make people understand complex matters of corruption, do your jobs, do what you wanted to be.

foobarqux 12y ago
A journalist's career depends on not doing that which is why you don't see very much serious criticism from journalists.
uptown 12y ago
Michael Hastings tried that. His car crashed then exploded - possibly in that order depending on who you ask, or what theory you believe.
- jra_samba 12y ago
  As did Gary Webb. Remember what was done to him..
  - ajmurmann 12y ago
    Wow, according to Wikipedia he died of suicide by two to the head. And here I thought stories of suicide via two self-inflicted head shots was a myth restricted to conspiracy theorists.

stcredzero 12y ago

1. People are self-censoring dissenting views in regular conversation outside of people they trust 2. People are self-censoring dissenting views in written communication 3. People are self-censoring their own minds as a result of #1 and #2 4. Dissenting communications and dissenting thoughts are reduced in frequency, leading to a snowball effect as ideas are more and more suppressed It's not just the government that is producing these effects. The "mainstreamed" culture of the present day Internet is distinctly anti-intellectual and produces precisely these effects. "Slacktivists" of all political leanings engage in programs of intimidation to silence those they disagree with, which is entirely antithetical to having a pluralistic society. I just had a "discussion" with someone who was incapable of distinguishing the meaning of "lies" and "lying" in the context of deliberately falsifying or omitting facts versus someone having an ideology one disagrees with. Yet this person regards themselves as a "thinker" and "intellectual." This sort of person seems to comprise the majority of people in the Bay Area. I used to be able to hang out with nerds and I could reasonably assume that no one around would be so scientifically illiterate as to believe that a person thrown out an airlock would freeze solid in two seconds flat. Everyone would know what "frequency response" was and be able to apply the concept. Now, a lot of "nerds" will just pattern match that as an "audio-woo" word and shut their brains off, yet you can ask them about the Fourier Transforms they studied as an undergrad. It's like we're the version of Brasil Richard Feynman visited. <http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education> http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education> Most importantly, I could hang out with "nerds" and assume that the vast majority of those around actually knew how to think and apply logic and actually discuss things with people they didn't agree with. Somehow, we've arrived at a state where most people tell themselves they're thinking, but they're actually just parrotting their friends after crudely pattern-matching the conversation. How can I tell? Because it's now very difficult to agree (yes, agree) ideologically with someone but point out they've arrived at their conclusions erroneously. Almost no one actually listens to and really examines facts and logic. They just determine if it vaguely sounds "truthy" in a way that aligns with their politics. (Worse still, lots of self-identifying "nerds" will use the above process in discussions involving physics!)

gmarx 12y ago
Love this post but I do not understand your example about frequency response. Are you an audiophile whose friends refuse to believe that one amplifier can sound better than another? or are you a guy whose friends mistakenly believe one amplifier can sound better than another? Or something else?