[Wikimedia-l] WMF response to PRISM?

[David Cuenca]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:

> I made some concrete suggestions on that talk page which would
> acknowledge the support so far for taking a stand, while making it
> clear that our interest is in a global effort to keep the web open,
> not something limited to any one nation.


Sj, thank you very much for supporting taking a stand. I would like however
to expand the concept of "keep the web open". The reason is that even if
the web is open, the users accessing it still might face consequences.
Surveillance doesn't attack to the freedom of speach, it attacks to the
freedom of thought.

PRISM is not dangerous for the impediments for accessing the information,
but for the consequences that users might face for accessing it. Could
someone be tagged as "potential criminal" and tracked just because as kid
had fascination with nuclear explosions and edited the article "dirty
bombs"? Would the fear of being profiled cause that someone refrains of
creating an article or even avoid accessing that information? A free open
web means nothing if the user is being monitored.

One might argue that "only certain articles might trigger that kind of
flagging", but is that not the same argument for censorship? Where does it
start and where does it end? As far as we know, PRISM had no limits.

I support taking a stand even if the impact is limited. When it is so dark
every little light helps!

Micru