8 ms·

Surveillance forces journalists to think and act like spies

151 points by winst0n 11y ago

higherpurpose 11y ago
The Sun announced it has implemented SecureDrop as well yesterday, along with a strong message against mass surveillance: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6429126/The-Sun-Whistleblower-Charter.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6429126/The-Sun-Wh...
- tomtoise 11y ago
  So much hyperbole. Really can't stand the Sun. Bit ironic too that this was one of the papers caught up in the phone hacking scandal and they are now preaching about security.
- lackingcaffeine 11y ago
  Pretty ironic considering how anti-Snowden and anti-Guardian the Sun was over the leaks i.e. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/suncolumnists/louisemensch/5138296/Sun-on-Sunday-Columnist-Louise-Mensch-gives-her-view-on-weeks-news.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/suncolumnists/louisemen... Surprisingly there was a complete volte-face when it emerged GCHQ were spying on journalists too, perhaps "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" isn't as convincing when you're the one being targeted.
teddyh 11y ago
Well, let’s see where the incentives take us. Journalists want to report on interesting things which people want to read about or watch. Reporting on things by secret informants and sources is a bit harder, but usually worth is because it gives a better story. But informants who have to be kept secret from the government is another matter – it’s nigh-impossible, even for an expert, to keep such things secret from the NSA and all its collaborators (knowing and unknowing). So these stories are much harder to do, but the story itself is not that much more interesting than other possible stories which does not have the same level of government interest. For this reason, the journalists are incentivized to avoid stories which attract the government’s interest. As the government’s interest grows to encompass all things, the journalist is therefore pressed to nevertheless report on stories within the government’s scope of interest, even though the risk is high for failure. The obvious solution for the government is to provide juicy stories for journalists to report on which are not in the government interest – the more frivolous, the better. And thus we can explain today’s media landscape.
- themartorana 11y ago
  Nicely said.
- mhuffman 11y ago
  Using your theory as a lens to observe current events in Baltimore (Ferguson, etc.), where the media is really responsible for fanning the flames of outrage to riot proportions -- it seems that the government is either ineffective at this refocusing of media and not really an issue, or so diabolically effective that we should all be shitting our pants.
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    > or so diabolically effective that we should all be shitting our pants. Buncha rioters looting cities. Nothing better to prove your "tough on crime" attitude or to activate military powers... (yes, I know, calling in the National Guard is commonplace in the US, but virtually unthinkable in Germany)
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Someone from the Maryland National Guard was in front of cameras this morning emphasizing that their presence was not under a declaration of martial law (which is a perhaps pedantic interpretation of "activate military powers", but there you go). The situation in Baltimore (a city of 600,000, a metro of several million) looks to me like it is limited to at most a few thousand people. The idea that the media fanned these people into action is silly. They see large crowds of people (that are not rioting or looting) engaging with the police and see it as an opportunity to do whatever they want while hiding in those crowds. The most common type of small riots in the US are sports related, those riots are certainly not the result of the media fanning flames, they are a result of small numbers of people feeling like they can hide in a crowd.
    - dangerlibrary 11y ago
      Baltimore is a city that has extreme poverty, very poor social services, and a tax structure (city/county border) that prevents regional economic growth from benefiting the poorest residents. As a result, there are a lot of opportunistic criminals. The protests just tied up enough of the police force to create an opportunity.
personlurking 11y ago
An 'interesting' thing might happen in the future if this forces people to censor themselves. In Iran, for example (according to part of a documentary I saw), journalists and writers have to be creative in order to say what they want w/o actually saying what they want (ie, they let their audience read between the lines). While far from ideal, constraints can breed creativity.
- bediger4000 11y ago
  While far from ideal, constraints can breed creativity. Hey, that's right! If the FBI gives you a National Security Letter, make National Security Lemonade! I think that habitual hinting (which is what "let their audience read between the lines" ultimately comes down to) would lead to destruction of communication. Everybody ends up spending a lot of time on deciding which alternative meaning is merited, which words are code words, and communication ultimately becomes impossible. Take a look at http://www.kcna.kp/kcna.user.home.retrieveHomeInfoList.kcmsf http://www.kcna.kp/kcna.user.home.retrieveHomeInfoList.kcmsf for an example.
  - personlurking 11y ago
    I'm the last person to be for surveilance/censorship but in such a situation as I described one would have to become creative or leave the country. That's all I'm saying.
    - Spoom 11y ago
      You wouldn't be allowed to leave the country if you had been issued an NSL. You think they wouldn't put you on a list?
- creshal 11y ago
  > While far from ideal, constraints can breed creativity. Just look at Biedermeier, Nazi or Soviet era art to get a comparison what wide-spread censorship and surveillance can do to a society. What's that? You don't remember any because it's either boring as fuck or blatant propaganda? Oh, hm. Well. (Okay, it's not that bad in reality. But periods of mass surveillance usually weren't golden ages of creativity, to put it mildly.)
csandreasen 11y ago
I'm curious if the author actually reached out to ask the opinion of the people he cites, or just pick and chose quotes to support his premise. The author cited the Grugq twice in the article; the Grugq's response to the article was "They always acted like spies, sans security."[1] [1] https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/592884129441677312 https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/592884129441677312
tempodox 11y ago
I would put that title even more pointed: Surveillance makes us all criminals before the fact. We're being made suspects 24/7, from birth to death. It's only a question of time until avoiding surveillance will be a criminal act in itself.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  When they try to make encryption illegal, as ridiculous as it sounds, this is their intent. They don't want us to be outside of their sight.
- mykhamill 11y ago
  Reminds me of this game. http://nothing-to-hide-demo.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html http://nothing-to-hide-demo.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html
- jamiesonbecker 11y ago
  > It's only a question of time until avoiding surveillance will be a criminal act in itself. Too late.
crusso 11y ago
What does it say about the balance of power in a society where the media is completely unable to fend off relentless attacks on its sovereignty? This is a very slippery slope that we're on.
- mooreds 11y ago
  The media don't have "sovereignty". What they do is provide information to the public so that the public can exercise sovereignty. There's a reason that freedom of the press is part of the first amendment (in the USA). Worrying, indeed. Support your local ACLU and EFF, etc.
  - thatcat 11y ago
    "Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism" - oscar wilde It lost it's sovereignty when the gov stopped communicating directly with the people and started using the media as a mouth piece. This connected the two, giving more editorial influence to the gov due to its control over who could have access to source material.
- MrZongle2 11y ago
  ...where the media is completely unable to fend off relentless attacks on its sovereignty? And in many cases, unwilling to do so. God forbid they lose the opportunity to attend the White House Correspondent's Dinner or be prevented from conducting a fluff interview of a person in power. How many times in the past year have you had to go to non-American press services to read about something going on in this country? Much of the Fourth Estate in the U.S. has rolled over and ceded any 'sovereignty' or moral authority. They have brought this upon themselves, by failing to call it out again and again and again.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Balgair 11y ago
https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate

151 points by winst0n 11y ago

The Sun announced it has implemented SecureDrop as well yesterday, along with a strong message against mass surveillance: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6429126/The-Sun-Whistleblower-Charter.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6429126/The-Sun-Wh...

tomtoise 11y ago
So much hyperbole. Really can't stand the Sun. Bit ironic too that this was one of the papers caught up in the phone hacking scandal and they are now preaching about security.
lackingcaffeine 11y ago
Pretty ironic considering how anti-Snowden and anti-Guardian the Sun was over the leaks i.e. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/suncolumnists/louisemensch/5138296/Sun-on-Sunday-Columnist-Louise-Mensch-gives-her-view-on-weeks-news.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/suncolumnists/louisemen... Surprisingly there was a complete volte-face when it emerged GCHQ were spying on journalists too, perhaps "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" isn't as convincing when you're the one being targeted.

teddyh 11y ago

Well, let’s see where the incentives take us. Journalists want to report on interesting things which people want to read about or watch. Reporting on things by secret informants and sources is a bit harder, but usually worth is because it gives a better story. But informants who have to be kept secret from the government is another matter – it’s nigh-impossible, even for an expert, to keep such things secret from the NSA and all its collaborators (knowing and unknowing). So these stories are much harder to do, but the story itself is not that much more interesting than other possible stories which does not have the same level of government interest. For this reason, the journalists are incentivized to avoid stories which attract the government’s interest. As the government’s interest grows to encompass all things, the journalist is therefore pressed to nevertheless report on stories within the government’s scope of interest, even though the risk is high for failure. The obvious solution for the government is to provide juicy stories for journalists to report on which are not in the government interest – the more frivolous, the better. And thus we can explain today’s media landscape.

themartorana 11y ago
Nicely said.
mhuffman 11y ago
Using your theory as a lens to observe current events in Baltimore (Ferguson, etc.), where the media is really responsible for fanning the flames of outrage to riot proportions -- it seems that the government is either ineffective at this refocusing of media and not really an issue, or so diabolically effective that we should all be shitting our pants.
- mschuster91 11y ago
  > or so diabolically effective that we should all be shitting our pants. Buncha rioters looting cities. Nothing better to prove your "tough on crime" attitude or to activate military powers... (yes, I know, calling in the National Guard is commonplace in the US, but virtually unthinkable in Germany)
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Someone from the Maryland National Guard was in front of cameras this morning emphasizing that their presence was not under a declaration of martial law (which is a perhaps pedantic interpretation of "activate military powers", but there you go). The situation in Baltimore (a city of 600,000, a metro of several million) looks to me like it is limited to at most a few thousand people. The idea that the media fanned these people into action is silly. They see large crowds of people (that are not rioting or looting) engaging with the police and see it as an opportunity to do whatever they want while hiding in those crowds. The most common type of small riots in the US are sports related, those riots are certainly not the result of the media fanning flames, they are a result of small numbers of people feeling like they can hide in a crowd.
  - dangerlibrary 11y ago
    Baltimore is a city that has extreme poverty, very poor social services, and a tax structure (city/county border) that prevents regional economic growth from benefiting the poorest residents. As a result, there are a lot of opportunistic criminals. The protests just tied up enough of the police force to create an opportunity.

personlurking 11y ago

An 'interesting' thing might happen in the future if this forces people to censor themselves. In Iran, for example (according to part of a documentary I saw), journalists and writers have to be creative in order to say what they want w/o actually saying what they want (ie, they let their audience read between the lines). While far from ideal, constraints can breed creativity.

bediger4000 11y ago
While far from ideal, constraints can breed creativity. Hey, that's right! If the FBI gives you a National Security Letter, make National Security Lemonade! I think that habitual hinting (which is what "let their audience read between the lines" ultimately comes down to) would lead to destruction of communication. Everybody ends up spending a lot of time on deciding which alternative meaning is merited, which words are code words, and communication ultimately becomes impossible. Take a look at http://www.kcna.kp/kcna.user.home.retrieveHomeInfoList.kcmsf http://www.kcna.kp/kcna.user.home.retrieveHomeInfoList.kcmsf for an example.
- personlurking 11y ago
  I'm the last person to be for surveilance/censorship but in such a situation as I described one would have to become creative or leave the country. That's all I'm saying.
  - Spoom 11y ago
    You wouldn't be allowed to leave the country if you had been issued an NSL. You think they wouldn't put you on a list?
creshal 11y ago
> While far from ideal, constraints can breed creativity. Just look at Biedermeier, Nazi or Soviet era art to get a comparison what wide-spread censorship and surveillance can do to a society. What's that? You don't remember any because it's either boring as fuck or blatant propaganda? Oh, hm. Well. (Okay, it's not that bad in reality. But periods of mass surveillance usually weren't golden ages of creativity, to put it mildly.)

csandreasen 11y ago

I'm curious if the author actually reached out to ask the opinion of the people he cites, or just pick and chose quotes to support his premise. The author cited the Grugq twice in the article; the Grugq's response to the article was "They always acted like spies, sans security."[1] [1] https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/592884129441677312 https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/592884129441677312

tempodox 11y ago

I would put that title even more pointed: Surveillance makes us all criminals before the fact. We're being made suspects 24/7, from birth to death. It's only a question of time until avoiding surveillance will be a criminal act in itself.

cryoshon 11y ago
When they try to make encryption illegal, as ridiculous as it sounds, this is their intent. They don't want us to be outside of their sight.
mykhamill 11y ago
Reminds me of this game. http://nothing-to-hide-demo.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html http://nothing-to-hide-demo.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html
jamiesonbecker 11y ago
> It's only a question of time until avoiding surveillance will be a criminal act in itself. Too late.

crusso 11y ago

What does it say about the balance of power in a society where the media is completely unable to fend off relentless attacks on its sovereignty? This is a very slippery slope that we're on.

mooreds 11y ago
The media don't have "sovereignty". What they do is provide information to the public so that the public can exercise sovereignty. There's a reason that freedom of the press is part of the first amendment (in the USA). Worrying, indeed. Support your local ACLU and EFF, etc.
- thatcat 11y ago
  "Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism" - oscar wilde It lost it's sovereignty when the gov stopped communicating directly with the people and started using the media as a mouth piece. This connected the two, giving more editorial influence to the gov due to its control over who could have access to source material.
MrZongle2 11y ago
...where the media is completely unable to fend off relentless attacks on its sovereignty? And in many cases, unwilling to do so. God forbid they lose the opportunity to attend the White House Correspondent's Dinner or be prevented from conducting a fluff interview of a person in power. How many times in the past year have you had to go to non-American press services to read about something going on in this country? Much of the Fourth Estate in the U.S. has rolled over and ceded any 'sovereignty' or moral authority. They have brought this upon themselves, by failing to call it out again and again and again.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Balgair 11y ago

https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate