Slashdot Mirror
Mass Surveillance Silences Minority Opinions: Study
Reader sittingnut writes: According to a study by Elizabeth Stoycheff from Wayne State University -- which was also referred to in the Washington Post, "knowing one is subject to surveillance and accepting such surveillance as necessary, act as moderating agents in the relationship between one's perceived climate of opinion and willingness to voice opinions online." In other words, knowledge of government surveillance causes people to self-censor their dissenting opinions online. This study adds to the well-researched phenomenon known as "spiral of silence", of people suppressing unpopular opinions to fit in by explicitly examining how government surveillance affects self-censorship. Participants who claimed they don't break any laws and don't have anything to hide and tended to support mass surveillance as necessary for national security, were the most likely to silence their minority opinions.
Should have seen this coming :-)
The people who claim that they have nothing to hide apparently have more to hide.
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson's first inaugural address.
The other part is corporate data retention and data mining.
Years ago, when young Google was still seen as a genuinely benevolent company and "social media" didn't exist, I was interviewed by a newspaper regarding a hot and highly publicized issue involving hacking and the newly-voted DMCA that I got involved in. I wasn't careful about what I said to that newspaper, and it got republished on the internet.
Soon after, I realized Google never forgot anything: for the following 10 years, each time I'd go to a job interview, that episode of my life - and the unfortunate statements I gave to the newspaper - would come up in the conversation. For a good 10 years, I had to explain myself, and explain that no, I wasn't a dangerous hacker, what really happened, and that, yes, I can be trusted with company secrets.
I quickly realized I had to shut my trap and hide my identity as much as I could online, if didn't want whatever I did or said to bite my ass in the future ever again.
Now, years later, Google has finally forgotten about me. If you know my name and you look it up, you can still find references to what happened 16 years ago. But thankfully, with the advent of social media and people who bear the same name as mine, it's buried in pages after pages of mindless drivel. So you have to know what you look for to find out what I said back then.
The lesson here is: Google turned me into a very paranoid person online, not government surveillance. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the government isn't the real threat here: it's rogue corporations who operate in the data mining sphere. At least the government is openly nefarious, and somewhat accountable. Google & Co aren't: they pose as friendly innovators, when in fact they're just out to make a buck on your back, regardless of how much they can ruin your life.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
But the trends online are all moving in the opposite direction, to making people attach their real names to comments - the sole purpose for which is to make retribution possible.
Bzzzzt! Nice try but wrong.
Good, honest people have plenty to hide:
Their social security number
Their credit card numbers
The PIN to their bank account
Just because you're honest, doesn't mean you should be OPEN, because giving away your personal information that *should* be hidden is what gives nefarious people access to good people's money.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
In a recent job interview my employer conducted, the lack of online activity was considered a red flag for the interviewee. We did not hire him for a few reasons and that was, in fact, one of the reasons. Of course, we did not tell him that nor even imply it.