
Writers Say They Feel Censored by Surveillance - forgotAgain
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/05/arts/writers-say-they-feel-censored-by-surveillance.html?_r=0
======
cryoshon
Chilling effect has been achieved, all according to plan.

To reiterate, the design of surveillance is population control,no more or
less; terrorism is merely an excuse for technological implementation that was
desired since time immemorial by the powers that be.

Now, onto the implications that the NY Times was too friendly to state:

1\. People are self-censoring dissenting views in regular conversation outside
of people they trust

2\. People are self-censoring dissenting views in written communication

3\. People are self-censoring their own minds as a result of #1 and #2

Therefore,

4\. Dissenting communications and dissenting thoughts are reduced in
frequency, leading to a snowball effect as ideas are more and more suppressed

In terms of the scope, while the poll was only of writers, it seems as though
the majority of writers consider themselves to be victims here.

I think it's safe to say that the implications I listed are also applicable to
other segments of the population-- most importantly, the segments of the
population that are the usual hotbeds of dissent, because they are more likely
to be paying attention to advances in government power which would create a
chilling effect.

The chilling effect produced by the endless rounds of disclosure of government
abuse of surveillance is probably not going to go away anytime soon.
Unfortunately, self-censorship is one more nail in the moribund democracy here
in the US. Keep in mind that even if a person does not self censor, the
mainstream media (which should now be understood as including major internet
news hubs such as reddit) will likely prevent off-narrative news from
spreading.

So, what's the solution? I don't know. Still waiting on a hot new SV startup
to "disrupt" the surveillance state.

~~~
dharmach
No one likes surveillance but can anyone provide a better/cheaper option to
prevent large scale crime like terrorist attack?

~~~
TeMPOraL
Apart the excellent points of cost-effectiveness and the USGOV being the
biggest organized terrorist group in the world[0] made by other posters, I'd
add one more thing.

We have to ask ourselves - what is the goal of terrorism? It's to force your
target to do something you want (a political action) or totally waste
resources. Civilian deaths are just collateral damage, means to an end. The
9/11 attacks scared the entire west to the point of insanity, made it waste
money on wars and turn themselves into police states. If the terrorists' goal
was to damage "our freedom", they most certainly succeeded - thanks to what
can be only described as a severe immune overreaction on a societal level.

The right way to deal with such terrorist attacks is to mostly ignore them,
and don't get yourself scared. As a terrorist, you have no reason to fly stuff
into buildings if you know it won't buy you anything.

[0] - I can now forget my visa.

~~~
happyscrappy
>As a terrorist, you have no reason to fly stuff into buildings if you know it
won't buy you anything.

All that it has bought them is death. Their goal was to take down the US and
it tremendously backfired, but we kind of squandered that goodwill. If they
want to make money they kidnap Europeans who they know will pay the ransom.

~~~
TeMPOraL
US apparently seems to be taking itself donw just fine.

> _If they want to make money they kidnap Europeans who they know will pay the
> ransom._

That's not terrorism, that's garden variety kidnapping for ransom.

------
graeme
I lived in Cuba for a while, as an intern at an NGO. I was surprised to see
how free spoken the people were.

Over time I learned how the system worked. In every neighborhood there was a
CDR, committee for the defence of the revolution. Members of the CDR
surveilled. Generally, people knew when you went out, who you had over, some
things you said.

You couldn't know when someone would know. Some topics were taboo, others were
more risky. But the biggest factor was whether you were likely to cause a
fuss. People who weren't important were allowed to blow off steam. But they
were watched. And the day they rose to become a threat, the system had been on
them for some time.

So you thought long and hard before doing something that would actually
threaten the system, outside the bounds of what was tolerated.

Ending with a system that looked free, and many even described as free.
Because in a lot of important senses, it was. But in very specific, important
senses, it was not.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
I'm not sure why the left and the libertarian right are such advocates of
Cuba. Its a hellish system there where basic human rights are trampled with
impunity. Sadly, whenever this is brought up, I get the usual whataboutism's
about the US.

~~~
Someone1234
You're conflating "advocates for Cuba" with those simply against the pointless
embargo. There's a huge difference, but if the US wants to continue the
embargo at least be consistent about it, hit China, Haiti, Yemen, India, and
so on. Heck just hit all of the "Unfree" in the freedom index[0], that would
at least be a little consistent.

Cuba definitely has a lot of problems. But so do many of the US's major
trading partners, I mean want to talk about Saudi Arabia, Israel, and China..?

[0]
[http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking](http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking)

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>I mean want to talk about Saudi Arabia, Israel, and China..?

Notice my comment about meaningless whataboutism's. The reality is that what's
happening in Israel does not affect what's happening in the hellish political
climate of Cuba.

~~~
Someone1234
Notice my comment about you conflating people talking about the embargo
specifically, rather than about Cuba's internal politics.

------
alan_cx
Just writers?

I'd suggest that many people putting their thoughts and opinions in any sort
of permanent, record-able, store-able, searchable medium are self censoring to
some degree, or at least considering it. In the last few years, I'm saying
less and less, let alone writing it down. Im conscious that, for example,
anything I write on the internet could be used against me in the future, in
ways I cant know about now. Anything I say on the phone is vulnerable too. Its
bad enough worrying about the present, but who knows what attitudes will be in
the future.

~~~
codyb
Yea I've definitely thought about it before tweeting, even before favoriting
things (which, I don't believe at least, on twitter, anyone should be able to
see) but I'm just not certain about anything anymore.

With the recent battles with the NYPD here in NYC, I've often found myself on
both sides (although certainly more generally identifying with the more open
minded (and occasionally less vehement) protestors (although I think it's a
societal issue (poverty begets poverty, most people in poverty minorities,
people in poverty more likely to commit crime, especially in our materialistic
society, most people in bad crime ridden neighborhoods with low social
mobility and extremely expensive education are minorities --> thus minorities
are bad) as opposed to just random system wide racism that sprang up
institutionally through out the country) but despite that, and despite my
utmost respect for many members of the NYPD and all of the pleasant
interactions I've had with them (generally asking for directions), I'm still a
little concerned when I tweet with their hashtag or even their full acronym.

I know I'm probably not their biggest suspect, but still... That's a weird
feeling.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I'm pretty sure you've missed a close-paren there ;).

I don't want to be picky, it's just that the multiple-nesting structure of
your comment makes it insanely hard to parse correctly. Would you please mind
reformatting it?

From my current attempt at parsing it, what I understood is basically "I
respect NYPD and have mostly pleasant experience with them, and yet still I'm
very conscious of what I tweet if the message has their hashtag/name in it".
Is that correct?

------
vkb
Speaking as a writer and blogger, I can say that this has absolutely been the
case for me over the past year. Whereas before I used to blog about anything
that came to mind (that wouldn't negatively impact my employment), I now weigh
each blog post, Facebook post, tweet ,and non-OTR encrypted GChat (for friends
who are too lazy/clueless to install OTR) carefully, employing an amount of
self-censorship that I never would have thought possible before. I am even now
different over text messages. I've lost my writing voice.

I was afraid to write even this post [1], which sounds ludicrous, but it's
amazing how much hearing the revelations impacted me.

The irony of this situation is that, even before the Snowden leaks, I had been
(and am) working on a novel about 1936 in the Soviet Union, the year before
the largest of the Great Purges, and had been struggling to get a handle on
how people felt about information censorship and how people found out that
their government was not what it seemed.

[1] [http://blog.vickiboykis.com/2013/06/being-
american/](http://blog.vickiboykis.com/2013/06/being-american/)

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Just out of curiosity, what exactly are you afraid of? Not meaning to belittle
your concerns; I just wonder what topics are now taboo, e.g. discussion about
hijacking planes or how to build bombs perhaps, that might flag you in some
keyword search and trigger a visit from the FBI?

~~~
vkb
That's the thing...I [we] don't know what keywords trigger deeper searches, or
how exactly our browsing/typing history is tied together in which database. If
I type 'Bin Laden' in a chat, does it flag me somewhere? Or is it filtered out
as useless?

If I write, 'I had a blast at a party last night' (a really simplistic
example, but you get the point) or 'Check out this story about this guy who
wanted to kill Obama..he was crazy!',does that do anything, or are those
keywords ignored?

What's considered a false positive, and what's a true positive? The algorithms
do the filtering, but the humans write the algorithms. What's the error rate?

I think I am most afraid of what I don't know about how this works.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
OK, so suppose you are flagged. It could happen; it might have already
happened. What's next: you'll end up on a no-fly list? You'll be arrested?

~~~
vkb
Yes. Or, again, I don't know. That's the terrifying part. But given that we
know the surveillance machine is much deeper than we anticipated, I can't come
up with a worst case scenario anymore, which is what scares me the most.

~~~
beeworker
Worst case scenario: you die, or you die after lots of torture. Why not look
at the most probable case, which is nothing happens? There's a quote from
Richard Stallman that applies here: "They seem to have learned the habit of
cowering before authority even when not actually threatened. How very nice for
authority. I decided not to learn this particular lesson."

Personally, I fear writing certain things with a username that's easily
associated to my real name _by the public at large_ , not the government with
their clever tools. That's because I know the real and not-so-improbable
consequences of doing so[0]: losing my job and getting blacklisted from the
entire industry I've spent most my life trying to improve in and contribute
to. It can be economic death. The threat of the mob is much realer to me than
the threat of the government.

[0] [https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-
bad...](https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-
pressured-and-purged/)

------
CapitalistCartr
Freedom of speech isn't fought at Michelangelo's David; it's fought at Larry
Flynt's Hustler. Freedom of speech without the concomitant rights to privacy
in one's person and papers, and the right to free association with others,
privately or publicly, is severely hobbled. The War on Some Terrors has set
back free society more than anything else since "The Red Scare".

------
chaostheory
Why does this matter? Because it doesn't just extend to writers. It extends to
engineers, scientists, programmers, architects; basically anyone who makes
things.

Having to worry about whether or not what you say, write, or think is illegal
has a cost to creativity, since it will inevitably affect behavior like
sharing ideas. imo this is one major reason that western nations produce more
innovation than places like China. It's what gives the West an edge. If this
trend continues over the long haul, western governments may finally achieve
killing the goose that lays golden eggs; eventually we may just end up being
on par with places like China minus the industrial output.

~~~
flueedo
I think 'illegal' isn't the best word here. In the US and the other 'five
eyes' nations, it seems to me, agencies have a much broader scope than that.
Things you say aren't strictly illegal (after all there's the first amendment,
and similar laws in the other countries), but they are classed as threatening
in other ways. Also, anything we say might not get us in trouble today, but
since it's hard to predict what the future holds -- laws may become harsher
for example --, it might indeed get us in trouble two or even five years from
now, (possibly after it no longer represents our current opinions even) since
it's all recorded.

About China I agree, and think they and other similar nations stayed
competitive because they have where to 'borrow' innovation from (i.e. the
freer nations). If we ever get to a place where the whole world is
totalitarian/authoritarian this will stifle innovation everywhere.

~~~
chaostheory
Ok we can call it 'thought crimes' instead of illegal, but the overall effect
still won't change.

------
sandworm
I don't see the clear link. A writer expects that his writing will be viewed
by countless others. For instance I have no fear of the NSA reading this
message. Surveillance or not, this is a public forum. They don't need taps.

Are they afraid that by writing that they will become the subject of increased
surveillance? That could/would happen as easily 30 years ago as today.

At least today we have tools to fight back. The mathematics of encryption are
on the side of the individual. Open source software, Tor, PGP ... today anyone
with a netbook can play in the big leagues of secrecy. Journalists should
probably feel safer than they did back when the only thing protecting their
documents was a metal key to a leather briefcase, when the only thing stopping
them from reading their mail was the glue.

~~~
talmand
The fear isn't of being read, the fear is of the backlash of what was written.
The fear is that free expression is no longer free but subject to strange,
vague rules that change all the time. Such as supporting something today and
then years from now it's out of vogue so that previous statements, collected
and tagged all those years ago, will be held against you. Either socially, or
in some cases criminally.

And it isn't just the government that's been doing this. Many of us now live
in a world where your opinion can have heavy consequences outside the scope of
the context of the opinion. I would say that if you have an opinion on
anything that you share publicly, prepare to have your apology ready to go to
appease the offended masses that will not hesitate to make an example of you.

Keep in mind that some people see this as a good thing, until it happens to
them.

~~~
sandworm
But these are writers speaking as writers, not members of the general public.
Their criticisms of state-backed surveillance should therefore be different
than the generalized chilling of expression felt by the public at large.
Writers have always known their words are inspected. The public, those who
previously did not expect their communications to be monitored, they have far
more to fear from electronic surveillance.

The OP, and several commentators here, also conflate fear of surveillance with
fear of the burgeoning police state. They are different concepts. A police
state can/will attack a journalist without any surveillance beyond a police
officer reading a newspaper.

~~~
talmand
Not that I'm disputing anything you're saying, but I am going by what the
article stated that some of these writers claimed is their reasoning behind
worrying over the surveillance. I just happen to agree with much of it.

What you say about the two different concepts is true, but they also go hand-
in-hand in most cases. I see nothing wrong with any of the statements from the
article or this thread.

------
slg
I don't want to diminish this problem, but I am not a fan of the way some of
these survey questions were framed. It lumps people have taken actions in with
people who have _considered_ taking that action. It is a real "Have you ever
tried sugar or PCP?" type situation. There is a big difference between a third
of writers thinking about whether they should change what they write about and
a third of writers actually following through with it.

------
rbrogan
"Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal
palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be
goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.
Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world." \--
Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

People have to (be able to) say what they think or there will not be much
thinking going on at all.

~~~
chaostheory
... and when there's not much free thinking, there's not much innovation
that's going to happen either.

------
blisterpeanuts
I just read the actual report:
[http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Chilling_01-...](http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Chilling_01-05-15_FINAL.pdf)

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the big deal here. There's surveillance in the U.S.
and U.K., true, and it has to stop or be severely curtailed, but these
countries are a far cry from a place like China, where people actually are
arrested for violating strict censorship laws.

The NSA's mass surveillance has been brought to light by a former contractor;
the secret is blown, the cat's out of the bag, and Humpty Dumpty fell off the
wall already.

Americans have a newfound, healthy distrust of the federal government. There
are lawsuits pending. Tech companies are already creating work-arounds, for
example Apple's announcement of encryption for their users' devices that even
they can't break.

I suspect that in the near future, the major email providers will offer end-
to-end encryption for all their users with no possibility of back doors. The
NSA technicians will lose the ability to casually type in a name like "Bill
Clinton" and read his email at their leisure (as happened with that analyst
who got fired).

As for self-censorship, can anyone document how widespread that actually is?
Today we are witnessing the most diverse array of opinions disseminated to
billions of readers that has ever occurred in the history of the human race.
These writers in this PEN survey sound timid and fearful to me. I wonder what
they would say, had they had a chance to compare the current situation with
that of eastern Europe and Russia during the Soviet period, or the military
dictatorships of Latin America, where outspoken writers were rounded up and
tortured.

I'm not trying to belittle the surveillance problem that we have; I'm
adamantly against it and it does indeed threaten our long term freedom. I'm
voting against anyone who supports NSA surveillance. Unfortunately, it's going
to take some time for the import of this situation to sink in to the dim
consciousness of the American voter. I wish that the writers surveyed by PEN
would lead the charge to raise people's awareness of the situation by writing
bold essays and opinion pieces to state their views, rather than "self-
censoring" as they apparently are doing in order to avoid what they imagine to
be retribution or harassment from nefarious government entities.

~~~
xnull1guest
However the censorship laws in China only apply to messages that try to gather
people for public group actions. Messages critical of the government and vocal
of discontent are entirely allowed and not subject to censorship. Even group
forming messages that support the government are censored. See this study done
at Harvard for details:
[http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf](http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf)

With regards to the freedom to protest, the US government has its own
mechanisms to unfurl public group action.

Apple still cooperates with law enforcement and can give access to almost all
data which you might 'infer' from reports are protected. Please find details
from Apple's report here:
[https://ssl.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_2...](https://ssl.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_2014.pdf)

Also remember the removal of Apple's Warranty Canary. It's also interesting to
note that were Secure Enclave manufacturers compromised or to collaborate with
law enforcement (giving access to UUIDs mapped to each device) the whole
scheme is caput.

I am wondering if you can provide a quick primer on who you've not voted for
and will not be voting for that supports surveillance.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Thanks for an interesting post. Ted Cruz of Texas is one of the few prominent
Republicans who opposes NSA surveillance; Marco Rubio of Florida supports it.
The Democrats of the Senate recently voted for Obama's reforms of the NSA
surveillance, and the Republicans mostly opposed it and blocked passage.

I believe, however, that some of the more libertarian minded Republicans like
Rand Paul voted against the bill not because they support the NSA, but because
they felt the bill didn't go far enough to rein it in and would have created a
false calm.

[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/18/key-gop-
senators-...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/18/key-gop-senators-
oppose-nsa-phone-records-measure/)

It's perplexing and frustrating to me, as a fiscal conservative who normally
prefers the Republicans (albeit opposed to many of their social policies). I
stopped subscribing to the conservative publications Commentary and WSJ
because of their pro-NSA stance.

~~~
xnull2guest
Thank you for replying with your list. I lean away from Cruz myself (not
offering a strong enough dissent, a la Rand) but I did find it pleasant to see
his SD-226 questioning of the Review Panel. I would note that I also am
frustrated in my attempts to find a party and candidates I feel represent me.

I wanted to reply to

> I suspect that in the near future, the major email providers will offer end-
> to-end encryption for all their users with no possibility of back doors. The
> NSA technicians will lose the ability to casually type in a name like "Bill
> Clinton" and read his email at their leisure (as happened with that analyst
> who got fired).

First I was wondering if you had a reference for the analyst that got fired. I
hadn't heard that particular instance of (attempted?) abuse.

Second I wanted to update the document regarding Apple. Here is their Legal
Process Guidelines: [http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-
guideline...](http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-guidelines-
us.pdf)

Third I wanted to share that encrypted communications will not prevent
disclosure of customer records pursuant of 18 U.S.C. § 2703(f) (A governmental
entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication
service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication) and a
constellation of other laws that require providers of communication, even when
encryption is provided by them, to disclose those communications upon request:
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703)

You will see a strong history of this with encryption laws with
telecommunications providers and the Clinton Administration first attempt at
using key escrow rather than regulatory measures (and in fact we have seen
that telephony data is easy for the government to request).

------
ThomPete
It's interesting.

As a Dane writing in Danish media I would never ever feel like my civil rights
where in any real danger.

In the US a country which I love dearly there are subjects I don't dare
writing about.

Not sure whether thats a nationality thing or if it runs deeper.

~~~
orthecreedence
Curious, what topics don't you dare write about?

~~~
ThomPete
Drugs, Terrorism, Patriotism, Whistleblowers, Feminism.

------
theorique
Writers, as always, are free to think and write anything that does not
threaten State security. As good citizens, we know that they would not want to
jeopardize the security of the State, and therefore, we assume that they will
keep tabs on the things they write. Only if they write subversive or other
undesirable content will they be observed. And only repeat offenders will be
brought in for questioning and re-education.

Of course we are free. What a stupid question.

