thenewgreen, this is a beautiful comment on privacy you might be interested in ;) Edit: Oops, you quoted and already posted the same thing :)Ultimately the reason privacy is so vital is it’s the realm in which we can do all the things that are valuable as human beings. It’s the place that uniquely enables us to explore limits, to test boundaries, to engage in novel and creative ways of thinking and being. Only if we feel free of the kind of judgmental eyes of others are we able to try different things out, to experiment, to evolve, to free ourselves of mores that are imposed on us or conventional orthodoxies about how we’re supposed to behave and think. And that, ultimately, is what is most valuable about being human: to be able to create new ways of thinking and being.
Things I would like hubski's thoughts on: How? Taken in conjunction with the below snippet his statement is really interesting and powerful. Is this inevitable? Is he being dramatic? Might surveillance equally be said to foment rebellion and mistrust of authority?The promise of the Internet has always been that it was gonna be this unprecedentedly potent instrument of liberation and democratization. That it would empower people to band together to work against oppression. That it would let you explore things and meet people who you wouldn’t otherwise get to know in completely free and unconstrained ways. And what has happened instead is that we face the threat that it’s the exact opposite—that instead the Internet could become the most potent and odious tool of human control and oppression in human history.
Surveillance breeds conformity.
I think it's a terrific point, and one that I've been reading about a lot lately, in particular some interaction between sousveillance (the many watching the few) and self-surveillance in the private realm, not necessarily in the context of any dictated authoritarian measures. In particular, the thought that bothers me is (not in all cases of course) that social media and this pseudo-egalitarianism of internet presence puts us in both perspectives: the one doing the sous-veillance (ourselves viewing the celebrities, micro- and otherwise), as well as the self-surveillance that, in conjunction with the idea that nowadays the self and our actions have been commodified, lead to the idea that to have value you have to be worth being sous-veilled(?). This isn't incredibly new, knowing that our morals and behavior and tastes can be co-opted from other sources, but maybe just how ubiquitous it is and easily accessible, added to the idea that we are the same as those we sous-veill (just making up words all over the place) can be a homogenizing factor that we interact with internally and display for those also doing the sous-veilling. Promise I'm not stalking you flagamuffin :) Also, I think that the concept of sous-veillance of the ones doing the surveillance is the idea that is vetted a lot by technologists as the prescription for surveillance, but to be effective it may have to be constant, just like any reputable surveillance system.
Ultimately the reason privacy is so vital is it’s the realm in which we can do all the things that are valuable as human beings. It’s the place that uniquely enables us to explore limits, to test boundaries, to engage in novel and creative ways of thinking and being. Only if we feel free of the kind of judgmental eyes of others are we able to try different things out, to experiment, to evolve, to free ourselves of mores that are imposed on us or conventional orthodoxies about how we’re supposed to behave and think. And that, ultimately, is what is most valuable about being human: to be able to create new ways of thinking and being.
This is true and it's also an argument for a surveillance free state that I've not heard before. Surveillance does stifle creativity and breed conformity. I was a bit put-off by his statement that he releases information to society when he feels it's "ready for it."
Dumping a bunch of documents at once has proven not to be very useful. If they don't get dribbled out as stories one at a time they just get ignored.I was a bit put-off by his statement that he releases information to society when he feels it's "ready for it."
But Greenwald carefully timed, well marketed, and over-hyped releases are equally as obnoxious. Of course they are going to become the base of NewCo so I don't blame him from a business perspective, but as the leaks get less and less significant the process of hype, announcement and discussion is going to get really tedious.
I think that's a bit cycnical. He was carefully vetting and staggering the releases well before he decided to jump ship for the very reasons mentioned already. I'd argue they are no less significant. Not even the slightest bit. Furthermore, I'd say that any hype that he engages in is desperately needed to even keep these revelations on the radar. Not sure what country you are in, but the last few rounds of revelations have been focused on the NSA's efforts in a variety of other countries. This necessarily makes a bit less of a splash here, and could be construed as less relevant (though I respectfully disagree there), but I assure you, in those countries where the news broke there was thunderous outrage, and continues to be. Bottom line for me is that if he read each new announcement in the middle of a three-ring circus, if it wasn't translating to legislative and sentimental change, then he wasn't hyping it enough. Edit: A less cynical read on Greenwald's motivations for starting a new company can be divined from the article as well, straight from the mouth of the horse:But Greenwald carefully timed, well marketed, and over-hyped releases are equally as obnoxious. Of course they are going to become the base of NewCo so I don't blame him from a business perspective,
but as the leaks get less and less significant the process of hype, announcement and discussion is going to get really tedious.
If you work for MSNBC or for CNN or whatever, you’re basically nothing more than an employee of a large corporation, and in order to thrive in large corporations, the attitude you need is somebody who gives power what it wants rather than looking to subvert it or to be antiauthoritarian. Antiauthoritarians don’t succeed in large corporations. They get expelled by them.
I appreciate that he is vetting and staggering releases, but I'd disagree, they are getting incredibly insignificant. I always get a bad reaction when I dismiss the snowden leaks, and confirmation of domestic spying is certainly important, but the things about spying on other countries, I mean that the FUCK did people expect, its their job.