On 2013-06-12, at 7:58 AM, c b wrote:
> CB: I don't mean to be self-centered and not concerned about other
> people, but I don't do anything ,nor think anything, and therefore
> don't write anything on the inter-net that would cause the NSA, FBI,
> CIA, local police, Baywatch, any cops to do anything to me. The Cold
> War is over.
>
> I've always assumed super-cops could read what I write on the internet
> from the beginning.
Assuming they're even much interested in reading what we write at present. I don't doubt our emails, telephone calls, and other communications are buried deep in government data banks, but I wouldn't expect them to be subject to much more than a cursory review by internal security analysts, prompted by key word searches - if at all. And if that's true of the material produced online by political people like ourselves, it's all the more so in relation to the torrent of mass communication captured by the NSA's servers.
As I suggested on another list, surveillance only becomes a major issue when a sizeable part of the working class is in motion, when workers engage in militant activity through their unions, political parties, and other mass organizations. That's when they feel personally vulnerable and concerned for their organizations. Today, however, most workers are apolitical and, while they have a conditioned suspicion of Big Government, they're more concerned with private spam and online hacking of their credit cards than with state snooping, where they haven't experienced any practical consequences nor are likely to know anyone who has. If anything, they're more apt to buy official reassurances that the state is better prepared to prevent terrorist attacks then it was on 9/11.
All of which is not to say, as I argued with Wojtek yesterday, that we shouldn't be joining in demands for greater transparency and limits on the NSA and other forms of state surveillance in defence of our democratic rights and institutions. All the more so if I'm wrong and this issue really does have legs.