[tommycollison]

We feel this because we think that surveillance leads you to self-censor.

In “The Chilling Effects of Surveillance," a study done by Stanford University psychologists Gregory White and Philip Zimbardo, participants were placed under varying levels of surveillance as they were asked their opinions on the severity of marijuana penalties. Those who were under surveillance (told that their answers would be shared with the police for training purposes) were more likely to denounce pot use.

This happens with writers too: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/01/how_surveilla...

[geographomics]

I don't think you've made a strong case for mass surveillance having a significant effect of self-censorship.

The study you cited [1] is an interesting read, but its applicability to mass surveillance is questionable. Being informed that your opinions on a specific topic - of which you are acutely aware are being immediately recorded - will definitely be reported to the police, is not the same as the more vague notion of some unknown entity recording and possibly analysing your everyday words. There may be a perceptual difference between personal surveillance and mass surveillance, which is not addressed in that study. As an analogy, consider the ubiquitous, largely unnoticed CCTV coverage in urban areas, versus the acutely uncomfortable feeling of being followed down the street - the two perceptions are quite different.

That survey of writers linked by Schneier [2] describes its limitations - namely, that it is not really representative of all writers, only those that self-selected (from an email sent to them on the topic of government surveillance) to answer the survey, and that the sample sizes are relatively small. Also, the writers surveyed are all affiliated with the organisation conducting the survey, an advocacy group for freedom of expression. This may well bias the results towards that group rather than writers in general. Indeed, the report authors explicitly state: "the findings cannot be generalized to represent all writers in any given region or level of freedom."

Another point specific to students is that, if they choose to pursue an academic career, it necessitates publishing research to a wide audience (wider than their professional colleagues, at least). Surveillance involves the intrusion of privacy, but publication is essentially the opposite of privacy, so how can it be negatively affected by surveillance, and mass surveillance in particular?

[1] http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDo...

[2] http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Chilling_01-...