This is what they call the global chilling effect. In this particular case this harms the knowledge people have about the Snowden case and why he currently is not returning to the USA.
Except the chilling effect in this case is being caused by people afraid of the NSA, not necessarily the NSA itself.
Do you really believe your life and freedom are in greater danger from visiting edwardsnowden.com, but not from, say, hanging out on Hacker News? Or following Edward Snowden's twitter account along with a million other people and counting? Or visiting any site hosting any story related to Edward Snowden? Edward Snowden has done an interview with John Oliver, which presumably means everyone visiting any site hosting that interview is also on a permanent NSA watchlist. He was on the cover of Time Magazine, so all Time subscribers are also on a permanent NSA watchlist.
Yet despite apparently almost everyone everywhere being under constant surveillance by the NSA at this point, there appears to be no global chilling effect, apart from that caused by people warning about a global chilling effect.
Don't let your need for bias confirmation and your desire to play the victim-protagonist in a dystopian narrative cause you to act with more caution than necessary.
That's not how the chilling effect works, actually it's against the actual definition of the chilling effect.
Lets back up and use an analogy. Domestic abuse (aptly put I'd say). A man beats his wife, but only occasionally and when he has been drinking. He drinks in private though, so the wife has no way of knowing when he will become combative. The wife then begins to have a pervasive, long lasting fear over time that greatly affects the way she speaks and how she does things.
You are basically saying that it's the wife who creates the fear, not the abuser, and not only that, but you are saying the wife isn't in any more danger from washing the dishes than she is from talking to the husband about drinking, which I think is obviously false.
You then proceed to make some very strange logical leaps:
" Edward Snowden has done an interview with John Oliver, which presumably means everyone visiting any site hosting that interview is also on a permanent NSA watchlist."
No I don't think anyone has said that but you. An attempt at a straw man perhaps?
"Yet despite apparently almost everyone everywhere being under constant surveillance by the NSA at this point, there appears to be no global chilling effect"
You have provided no evidence to back up this claim, while there is plenty of evidence to support otherwise. For example, a recent high profile suit against the US by Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, and others.
"Don't let ... [this] cause you to act with more caution than necessary."
I would agree with this, as FDR said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". That doesn't remove the fact that the chilling effect is real, is growing, and still affects people though, so stop pretending otherwise.
The implication that I intended, is that if merely visiting that site is going to place you on a watchlist, other, similarly casual interactions with information about Edward Snowden would probably do the same. It's absurd to consider that a danger worth mentioning given the amount of coverage Snowden has gotten, and the information that's freely available everywhere about him and his disclosures.
We're discussing this topic on a site where actual hackers and security professionals, US government employees and millionaire Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs with legitimate political and financial influence hang out. Yet no one seems afraid to talk about Edward Snowden, government surveillance or whatever they like here. Surely, if the chilling effect were that pervasive, it would show up here? If visiting edwardsnowden.com puts you on a list, you're probably already on a list.
>You have provided no evidence to back up this claim, while there is plenty of evidence to support otherwise
Yes I have. Edward Snowden's presence in various forms of modern major media, to the point of doing an interview with a comedy show, is evidence that people aren't afraid of discussing him, and that the US media isn't afraid to cover him. He has a public twitter account which is being followed by a million people, which is evidence that people at large aren't afraid of that association, nor do they appear to be afraid of "consequences" from the government for doing so.
>That doesn't remove the fact that the chilling effect is real, is growing, and still affects people though, so stop pretending otherwise.
I'm not pretending. I honestly don't see the evidence of widespread fear about discussing Edward Snowden.
> I honestly don't see the evidence of widespread fear about discussing Edward Snowden.
It's not about Edward Snowden, it's about being more careful about discussing or retrieving information about any controversial topic because people now know, thanks to Snowden, that at least the NSA and GCHQ are watching you.
Curiosity and learning about things can be greatly hindered by prying eyes.
It's difficult to believe that kind of fear is widespread given the degree to which Edward Snowden and the issue of government surveillance in general have seeped into popular culture and started to become mainstream. Discussing him and discussing what he revealed go hand in hand. If people aren't afraid to follow his twitter account why would they be afraid to Google him or watch interviews or visit a website supporting him?
I wholeheartedly agree with you and since coming to States in 2001 so many things changed that me and my family do not pursue US citizenship anymore (eventual benefits do not overweight all that comes in with "responsibilities" -- permanent residence 10 year card seem to be sufficient). Have you visit Europe lately? most EU countries lack police state. You won't get shoot for running cops over there - in fact, majority of cops don't have guns and somehow we don't get too many shooting on both sides either. Since most GMO is still banned, quality of food is like day and night. Spend week in Western Europe you will get your stomach fixed, no digestion problems, no sleep problems, clear mind, more energy, literally overnight. There is so many things right now broken with States and the rest of the world doesn't wait. Meanwhile European Union is doing many good things locally and people feel good changes (altho like any other country/entity it has its negative sides as well, of course)
As of parent comment, we are not being monitored but recorded and there is big difference. As Obama said "nobody is listening to your phone conversations". Obviously it is impossible for any number of government employees to listen to 300MM people's daily conversations. It was about seizure/recording of said materials that's what is a Constitutional no-no.
You know what's awful? Living in a country where political opponents are murdered, not just spied upon. Or else they are prosecuted for crimes they couldn't have possibly committed. Where there are actual enforced Internet blacklists which can contain anything from political blogs to github.com. Who could possibly support this? Oh right, Snowden does. The fact that he lives in this country, in a penthouse apartment and buddy-buddy with Putin, while Russian whistleblowers like him (e.g. Navalny) are constantly persecuted, and people are actually praising this guy is what's actually depressing.
It would be if I weren't talking about my own country. I'm saying 'our guys are worse than your guys and Snowden is actively aiding and abetting our guys'.
Do you think he ended up here purely by random chance? I find that laughable. He clearly intentionally seeked Russia for asylum, knowing that Putin won't give him to US. Do you think he's an idiot? He had to know perfectly well what the deal is. And nobody's keeping him here, I'd surely like him to go away and stop being Putin's PR boy. But he won't, and we all know the answer why.
<< And nobody's keeping him here, I'd surely like him to go away and stop being Putin's PR boy. But he won't, and we all know the answer why.
Everybody but you, since you seem to think it's for a reason other than fear for his life. Do you think the powers-that-be in the US are joking when they say that they're going to execute him?
"Living in a country where political opponents are murdered, not just spied upon. Or else they are prosecuted for crimes they couldn't have possibly committed."
Your unstated presumption is that this doesn't happen here, and I think that's a presumption that up for debate. Not only that, but the surveillance engine is generally the precursor to any such more overt totalitarianism (as warned of by Thomas Drake, speaking of prosecuted for crimes not actually committed by the way).
Programmers and sysadmins are prime targets not only for the NSA but for non-US governments as well, and frankly, any organization that can benefit from infiltrating a corporate network.
Last Friday it became public knowledge that every visitor of any domain will be tracked by GCHQ for at least 30 days and up to 6 months depending on the website/person. Indexed by "which websites a person visits" and "which people visit a certain website".
For those wondering who runs this site / if it's endorsed at all by snowden himself (can't find anything stating such a thing outright yet) - from the bottom of the faq (https://edwardsnowden.com/frequently-asked-questions/):
###
Who runs this website?
The site is commissioned by the trustees of Courage to provide information on the threats Edward Snowden faces, how he is being protected, and what you can do to support him.
###
What is The Courage Foundation (formerly the Journalistic Source Protection Defence Fund) and who runs it?
Courage is a trust, audited by accountants Derek Rothera & Company in the UK, for the purpose of providing legal defence and campaign aid to journalistic sources. It is overseen by an unrenumerated committee of trustees. Edward Snowden is its first recipient. The terms of the fund and its trustees can be obtained from Derek Rothera & Company.
Laura Poitras: "I asked to interview him on camera. His first response was no, he didn’t want the story to be about him."
Now he's got twitter and edwardsnowden.com?
Personally, I give him the benefit of the doubt in all cases. I think there was a lot more that he could have leaked and didn't, because he believes in the value of the NSA. I think he was careful to only leak things that dealt with mass surveillance of American citizens. I think he gave up a lot of comfort to try to inspire a society that he knew in the back of his mind probably wouldn't care. I think he loves his country. Most of all, I think he's probably further on the side of national security in the privacy vs security debate than people would probably think.
But other people aren't like me. I really hope Snowden is able to bring the conversation in the right direction, because this debate about what our government should be doing is far from settled and there's a lot riding on his demeanor. There's a lot riding on whether average Joe sees Snowden as profiting from his whistleblowing or giving up his comfortable life.
Snowden making funny tweets is extremely high risk.
A little less snarky way of putting that might be to say that does not help the US's image. If he were to mysteriously die of a heart attack, everyone who thinks positively of Snowden is going to immediately blame the US for shenanigans.
Let's not lower the discussion down to the level of insults. Bitcoin has both virtues and flaws, but to say it is a ponzi scheme is factually incorrect.
The Bitcoin blockchain is the largest immutable data store ever built. If you want to question its trustworthiness, then do it with a logical argument instead of a biased opinion based on its current monetary value. Immutable data stores will soon be required by just about everything you use that is connected to the Internet, mostly for reasons that have nothing to do with value.
Like it or not, we better get used to the idea of blockchains in our lives.
Looks like Snowden is stepping up his PR game. I think this is good. The disclosures have dropped off until recently, so we need to refocus on keeping the pressure on the government, and Snowden is a convenient figurehead for this purpose.
Mr. Snowden is going to have to wait for a change of government in the U.S. before he can return. The Obama Administration, as well as several senior Republicans, have all called for his arrest and punishment.
Hillary Clinton is hostile to Snowden as well. Her administration, were she to be elected, would doubtless continue to pursue his extradition. Trump wants him executed, and even Rand Paul wants him thrown in jail ("same jail cell with Clapper").
I'm very sympathetic to Edward Snowden's cause, and I hope that he stays away from countries that might extradite him until such time as he's granted a pardon.
He's more welcoming, but he too believes Snowden is a criminal; he wants lenient charging and sentencing for him (a "plea deal" of some sort, is how he put it).
I'd rather vote for a candidate who offers a slap on the wrist to appease mob justice then others who are spewing rhetoric about life in prison or execution.
By law, Snowden IS a criminal irrespective of whether his actions are moral or not (as I am not American, I don't take a stand on that and I don't care).
Only saying that "he broke the law, hence he is a criminal", is almost meaningless. Its like, the sun rises in the east. Everyone knows he broke the law, and its not part of the debate at all.
The question is... knowing all that we now know, should we treat him like a criminal?
Many people broke the law and became criminals, in order to do what was right.
Gandhi became a criminal by refusing to pay tax on salt.
Americans became criminals by refusing to play ball with 'taxation without representation'.. (or the boston tea party).
Rosa parks became a criminal when she refused to sit in the back of the bus.
In taliban's view, Malala became a criminal when she decided to go to school.
Breaking the law is not always bad... sometimes, it is essential to break the law, in order to do the right thing.
I find it difficult to believe that you really don't care, don't have an opinion or have no moral stand on this issue. It reminds me of this famous line...
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Mass surveillance and punishing whistleblowers are not just American evils. They are the evils of the powerful, who are everywhere around the world.
"In my view," Sanders continued, "the interests of justice would be best served if our government granted him some form of clemency or a plea agreement that would spare him a long prison sentence or permanent exile from the country whose freedoms he cared enough about to risk his own freedom."
"Love him or hate him, we all owe Snowden our thanks for forcing upon the nation an important debate. But the debate shouldn't be about him. It should be about the gnawing questions his actions raised from the shadows.
In the end, fear and politics likely will prevail, as it has in America's past. Washington elites will close ranks to protect the Surveillance State, to trample out transparency and to mislead the public. Maybe we can talk first?"
EDIT: nicklaf mentions below that this was actually written by Ron Fournier, not Sen. Sanders, although I believe that if its considered "Must Read" by Sen. Sanders, its congruant with his position on the topic.
Just to be clear, that article was posted on the Senator's website as "must read" material, but was not written by Bernie Sanders himself. The article was written by Ron Fournier, and published in the National Journal.
I wouldn't completely rule out a lame-duck deal in the final days of the Obama administration, after the election, in which Snowden agrees to some kind of trial/punishment, but is protected from the worst the espionage-statutes could throw at him. (Or, in the final lame-duck days of a future administration.) This could take the form of a pardon from some alleged offense, but not others.
"But I've sort of tongue-in-cheek said that if I had the choice, I'd put Clapper and Snowden in the same jail cell for about the same period of time. That's not a serious question, but I think it'd be an interesting debate they might have about liberty versus security."
"Snowden has said he would have tried official channels to reveal this to someone officially, but that the whistleblower statute doesn't apply to contractors. So I [Rand Paul] actually have an amendment that would try to make that so. So if you're a contractor doing business with an intelligence agency and you find that they're breaking the law—and interestingly, the courts have now said the NSA is breaking the law. "
- https://reason.com/reasontv/2015/06/04/rand-paul-on-edward-s...
Maybe... Sadly? Not really, he dig his own hole, look into Jesse Benton and how he stole tons of cash from donors, also pretty much accepted bribes from Mitt Romney people, I'm so fed up with Ron Paul because of that.
Ron Paul to me, looked more like an act than a serious politician after what happened during the last election.
I understand what you are saying. He is not perfect by any means. I never liked the nepotism surrounding him. And yes running for president was probably a business decision for him.
But if by some crazy miracle he got in, I don't doubt he would be way more constitutional than anyone else, but definitely not perfect.
Seems to me this rings clear that the government you've elected and any government you could get elected wouldn't represent the views of its electorate.
The issue here is not the President--at least not directly.
The issue is the Espionage act of 1917 [0]. The law explicitly takes all options off the table. At best, unless the law us amended, Snowden could be pardoned by the President after being found guilty.
I'm not sure if those documents were previously disclosed or what, but the ones that I just mentioned relate to an internally targeted NSA propaganda campaign designed to keep their analysts complacent. It's pretty obvious if you read the documents.
I find it interesting that the US government goes after a person that exposed inside government law breakers but they let Hillary run for president by lying to the public and government. Something is just not right!
The site is unclear about what they're asking donations for. To keep Snowden alive? Cost of a trial? If so, which? Towards a campaign lobbying for a pardoning of Snowden?
reply