3 ms·

Surveillance != censorship, particularly when the surveillance is supposed to be a secret. You can argue that it prompts people to self-censor, or that it actua

Surveillance != censorship, particularly when the surveillance is supposed to be a secret. You can argue that it prompts people to self-censor, or that it actually isn't supposed to be secret, but you can't argue that Room 641A is evidence of censorship. Better examples would be the DMCA, the FBI's seizure of child porn-related domains, the seizure of Silk Road, etc. Those things are actually censorship. Having CC processors cut off Wikileaks was also slightly indirect censorship but still pretty much censorship. We already do these things, and under the 1st amendment, there are very few things that don't fit under "lawful content" so I doubt this would change much.

shmerl 12y ago
> Surveillance != censorship They are close kin. Censorship uses surveillance to find what to censor. That's why it's not accidental that DRM cartels are so into police state mentality. These issues essentially converge. > particularly when the surveillance is supposed to be a secret. What difference does it make if it's a secret or not if it's there? Both are a problem when they are massive. Secret surveillance is even worse, since it makes people think that there is no problem with it. Compare it to obtrusive and non obtrusive DRM. People are easily annoyed by the former, but often are often OK with the later because they don't feel discomfort. So the second is actually much worse.
hackuser 12y ago
> Surveillance != censorship I disagree. People under surveillance self-censor. A recent study showed journalists censoring themselves in response to surveillance (i.e., their communications). Another showed that people's searches on search engines (or maybe just Google) changed after revelations of government surveillance. It's not an accident. It's a well-known phenomenon and a method of intimidation. (Sorry I don't have time to look up the details of those studies.)
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
>Surveillance != censorship Only if we ignore the chilling effect that surveillance has on the First Amendment.

shmerl 12y ago

> Surveillance != censorship They are close kin. Censorship uses surveillance to find what to censor. That's why it's not accidental that DRM cartels are so into police state mentality. These issues essentially converge. > particularly when the surveillance is supposed to be a secret. What difference does it make if it's a secret or not if it's there? Both are a problem when they are massive. Secret surveillance is even worse, since it makes people think that there is no problem with it. Compare it to obtrusive and non obtrusive DRM. People are easily annoyed by the former, but often are often OK with the later because they don't feel discomfort. So the second is actually much worse.

hackuser 12y ago

> Surveillance != censorship I disagree. People under surveillance self-censor. A recent study showed journalists censoring themselves in response to surveillance (i.e., their communications). Another showed that people's searches on search engines (or maybe just Google) changed after revelations of government surveillance. It's not an accident. It's a well-known phenomenon and a method of intimidation. (Sorry I don't have time to look up the details of those studies.)

Lawtonfogle 12y ago

>Surveillance != censorship Only if we ignore the chilling effect that surveillance has on the First Amendment.