Slashdot Mirror
Domain: pen.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to pen.org.
Comments · 7
-
Re:So this is what they use donations for
I suspect that the Wikipedia group think suppresses more contributions than any real or imagined fear of the NSA.
That's a pretty good argument. Nearly one in four writers admit they are self-censoring due to surveillance, and that doesn't even include the number of readers who are afraid to research certain topics. Is your neighbor running his fan all night because he accidentally burnt an apple pie, because it was poker night and his friends brought cigars, or is the place about to burn down because he's cooking hash oil or meth? What would it smell like if he were doing either of the latter? Fucked if I know, I'm damned if I'm going to look those options up!
-
The actual report
Here's the actual report in case anyone is interested.
-
Link to the thing, not the post about the thing!
nearly one in four has self-censored for fear of government surveillance
That's not exactly what the report said, and I'm just skimming the thing here.
http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Chilling%20Effects_PEN%20American.pdf28% have curtailed or avoided social media activities, and another 12% have seriously considered doing so;
24% have deliberately avoided certain topics in phone or email conversations, and another 9% have seriously considered it;
16% have avoided writing or speaking about a particular topic, and another 11% have seriously considered it;
16% have refrained from conducting Internet searches or visiting websites on topics that may be considered controversial or suspicious, and another 12% have seriously considered it;
13% have taken extra steps to disguise or cover their digital footprints, and another 11% have seriously considered it;
3% have declined opportunities to meet (in person, or electronically) people who might be deemed security threats by the government, and another 4% have seriously considered it.Boiled down: about one-third of the American press are chickens, about two-thirds are not.
. -
Re:TerrorismThese aren't necessarily limited to "terrorism". It seems that these signs could be used in preparing for any number of crimes and perhaps even some legitimate activities (if you were a private investigator for example, there may be others...).
Why is it that nowadays any significantly high profile criminal activity has been reclassified as terrorism? I thought that terrorist acts were supposed to invoke terror in the pursuit of some political end by blowing up/killing buildings/planes/hostages, the idea being that a population would be in so much fear (terror) that they would pressure their government to give in to the demands of the terrorists.
The answer is that there are probably too few of the above classification of terrorists to actually have a war against (as in the war on terror) here in the United States. Those in control need to expand the definition of terror so as to actually have something to have war against. Why have a war on terror at all? Many people are willing to cede their liberty and freedom to catch terrorists of the ilk that perpetrated 9/11 (a la the war on terror) and the government is using that sentiment with regards to the newly reclassified definition of terrorist (pretty much anyone they don't like that they are willing to label as terrorist...protesters, constitutionalists, libertarians etc etc etc. See Missouri's MIAC report which associated supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr, three presidential candidates all espousing constitutional government)being associated with terrorists. The Bush administration (and now Obama administration) has taken full advantage of the flexibility of the term "terrorist" to assault personal freedoms on an unprecedented scale.
If you see the scales of freedom tipping in the wrong direction, get involved. There are left and right leaning organizations that are trying to restore our freedom:
American Freedom Campaign
The Pen
DownsizeDc.org
The Campaign for Liberty
Restore the Republic
Young Americans for Liberty -
You are wrong, and didn't even bother to look.
Simple google search: iranian nobel ban.
Even covered by the neocon press. Second hit is an article referencing the Wall Street Journal talking about her suit against the Justice department for banning her book. Her book being banned is just one of many types of things banned from print in America.
While she might obtain an exception due to her stature, he, correctly, stands on principle against this sort of American censorship.
-
Simple Google search:
Simple google search: iranian nobel ban.
Even covered by the neocon press. Second hit is an article referencing the Wall Street Journal talking about her suit against the Justice department for banning her book. Her book being banned is just one of many types of things banned from print in America.
While she might obtain an exception due to her stature, he, correctly, stands on principle against this sort of American censorship.
-
Bad Side of Privacy LawsGovernment data privacy laws are a mixed bag at best.
Not only is it hard to figure out what privacy means in a way that enhances your
privacy without ripping off mine,
but there's an inherent contradiction between the agencies in government who might benefit from
providing protection laws and most other agencies who are doing data collection,
which will resist any regulation that interferes with them requiring businesses and individuals
to use Social Security Numbers, Taxpayer ID numbers, and other centralized identifiers and databases that
the agencies need or want. The economics of computers and communication (cheap and getting massively
cheaper all the time) make private data correlation valuable and easy already, and with mandatory
use of common database keys (SSNs are great, but even telephone numbers or name+address work surprisingly well),
there's minimal incentive for businesses to structure their databases in ways that are hard to correlate.
European data privacy laws don't just control big annoying corporations in ways that
don't affect you - they also let governments into everybody's computers,
including yours and including corporations that have records on you.
In some countries, they make it illegal to keep databases of any kind of personal information online
unless you register them with the government.
-
Have you registered your online address book with them? -
Or the email from your girlfriend with her phone number? -
Or the mailing list for your anti-nuclear group -
or your church -
or your football team -
or your anarchist literature-and-beer-drinking society?
There's a good article on
Swedish network regulations
- the early ones banned computer conferencing systems,
because they were on computers, and might have discussions including the names of
participants, or their religious or political views, etc.
They've calmed down a bit, but not enough.
In some countries, including Sweden and the US, it's safer if you're a journalist,
because there are press freedom laws protecting the privacy of journalists' work.
Of course, in Cyberspace, everybody can be a journalist.
You've probably got Journalistic Works In Progress, which have special legal protection, on your home computer, haven't you?
......... No? Well, then go write some!
However, it's not safe
to be a journalist everywhere.
On the bright side, if European Data Protection Laws don't let you keep personal records, your anonymous remailer really can't go keeping logs, can it?
(Most of this rant is on my web pages.)
David Brin has written a lot of stuff about privacy, particularly
The Transparent Society, about how the economics of surveillance, cheap cameras, and databases are unstoppable, so give up and focus on the important issue, which is making sure the public can watch the government so it behaves itself. I don't agree with it all, but he makes a lot of good points.
-