Chilling effect has been achieved, all according to plan.<p>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.<p>Now, onto the implications that the NY Times was too friendly to state:<p>1. People are self-censoring dissenting views in regular conversation outside of people they trust<p>2. People are self-censoring dissenting views in written communication<p>3. People are self-censoring their own minds as a result of #1 and #2<p>Therefore,<p>4. Dissenting communications and dissenting thoughts are reduced in frequency, leading to a snowball effect as ideas are more and more suppressed<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>So, what's the solution? I don't know. Still waiting on a hot new SV startup to "disrupt" the surveillance state.
I lived in Cuba for a while, as an intern at an NGO. I was surprised to see how free spoken the people were.<p>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.<p>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.<p>So you thought long and hard before doing something that would actually threaten the system, outside the bounds of what was tolerated.<p>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.
Just writers?<p>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.
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.<p>I was afraid to write even this post [1], which sounds ludicrous, but it's amazing how much hearing the revelations impacted me.<p>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.<p>[1] <a href="http://blog.vickiboykis.com/2013/06/being-american/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.vickiboykis.com/2013/06/being-american/</a>
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".
Why does this matter? Because it doesn't just extend to writers. It extends to engineers, scientists, programmers, architects; basically anyone who makes things.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
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 <i>considered</i> 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.
"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<p>People have to (be able to) say what they think or there will not be much thinking going on at all.
I just read the actual report: <a href="http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Chilling_01-05-15_FINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Chilling_01-...</a><p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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).<p>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.<p>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.
It's interesting.<p>As a Dane writing in Danish media I would never ever feel like my civil rights where in any real danger.<p>In the US a country which I love dearly there are subjects I don't dare writing about.<p>Not sure whether thats a nationality thing or if it runs deeper.
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.<p>Of course we are free. What a stupid question.