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.
So far mass surveillance had zero impact on silencing Anonymous Cowards.
The mass crushes beneath it everything that is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated...
Published in 1929
then it's cool for someone to videotape you naked and having sex? If you have nothing to hide why any concern about that?
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.
"Squelching discussion" and surveillance are two different things. Surveillance is not always used for squelching discussion.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Rather obviously, surveillance by the NSA, GCHQ and others does not serve to make anybody more secure, as it is now exceptionally obvious it does not help against terrorism or the other "Horsemen of the Infocalypse" at all. So why do it? Sure, one aspect will be the fundamental desire of any bureaucracy to increase its size and to absorb (i.e. waste) as many resources as possible. Look at the TSA for a text-book example of that happening. But that is not enough to explain what is going on.
I have by now come to the conclusion that these people have either completely lost their minds (unlikely) or that they know exactly what they want (likely) and that is the chilling effects that general surveillance causes: They want "troublemakers" to keep silent and self-censor and to not rock the boat. They want to be sure they have some dirt on anybody that may ever come into political power so they can prevent that if they do not like the ideas of that person. Unlike the publicly stated motivations for universal surveillance, _these_ goals are rational (if utterly despicable and evil) and achievable.
It used to be an all-seeing all knowing-god that served this function. People would "confess their sins" (i.e. do self-surveillance and report to their case-officer on themselves) and would be told what was acceptable to think and what was not. Now, even most religious people do not fall for that anymore and so a cabal of power-mongers has decided to implement a technical solution that replaces said god with technology. The mechanisms are a bit different, people now pay for being being spied and provide the hardware (e.g. cellphones) instead of doing it themselves manually. The direct feedback from the confessor has been replaced by general guidelines. The news are showing "bad people" being sent to prison and hint they are being tortured there, not so different from what the inquisition did, just adjusted to the information-age. And so on.
Universal surveillance is a direct, targeted and determined attack on free society. There really is no different purpose it could serve. Sure, it is carried out and furthered by a lot of "useful idiots" that do not understand what the actual goals are and why it is being done (and I expect quite a few of those would still go along if they knew), but those in control will know. It will be how we, as a still mostly free society, deal with this challenge that will determine how history remembers us.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
In a Perfect World, whenever anyone uttered the sickening phrase "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide", they would forcibly stripped of all their clothing and stuffed inside a glass cube on the public commons until they honestly realized the errors in their 'thinking'.
A free society is impossible without true privacy.
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
If I was paranoid I probably wouldn't let everyone know my email address, for starters. Being paranoid also implies that what I said would be speculation, which it is not if you check out the links. People who are truly paranoid post as AC.
-SR
Just because the US government is really good at squelching discussion of how they have treated people with minority views doesn't mean it didn't happen. For example socialists, communists, homosexuals, native Americans, Japanese during WWII, Germans during WWI and WWII, and blacks during the civil rights movements.
There are university courses devoted to bemoaning each of those categories in seperate classes. The exact opposite of "squelching".
What part of
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
...does our current group of "leaders" not get? Once upon a time, we the people considered that right to be so important that we made it a foundation of our system of law and government. That it has now been eroded that certain groups are silenced by fear is cause for deep, deep shame for us as a society.
The thing is, it doesn't really matter who they are unless some form of direct, personal retaliation is your goal. If they're being an anonymous asshole, they're still being an asshole, and internet-rhetoric-wise, you should treat them as one either way.
The down side of "real names" is multifold: People who are stalked. People who are refugees. People who have been unfairly placed in some category by a malfunctioning justice system. People who wish to stay clear of former lovers, spouses, parents, etc.
When you say "you must use your real name", these are people you are straight-up muzzling or placing in danger. And the benefit you get? At best, a toning down of rhetoric. Which does more good? Seeing to it that vulnerable people are less subject to actual threat, or our precious sensibilities being (slightly, sometimes) free of some level of assholery?
I know where I stand; and it isn't with the "real name" authoritarians.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.