I'm surprised Wikipedia isn't participating in at least putting a call to action to call your representatives like they did with SOPA last time. I'm not surprised Google isn't doing it, because I expected as much from them this time around, but I'm disappointed. It seems they only participate in these actions when there's immediate gain for them (like not passing SOPA, or ITU's "sender pays" policy). I just hope they realize that we might not be "available" to help them next time they need the public's support for something.
I'm not. If you go the the site (CallForFreedom.org) that is the rallying point you get:
"America has violated its founding principles. The Constitution says government can't spy on us-- not without suspicion. But now, thousands of government employees at the NSA and other agencies track our phones and read our emails. The government is dangerously trespassing on our rights. How can free speech, free association, or a free press survive when everyone is always being watched, even in their most private moments?"
Wikipedia etc. would probably only get behind something that was not limited to providing a benefit to US citizens alone. SOPA mattered to Wikipedia because it would have affected their ability to provide the service they provide globally.
Wikipedia has to pass a fine line of trying not to involve itself in politics, unless it's a clear threat to it's ability to it's job, and it's not clear that surveillance (even on such a broad scale) prevents it building an encyclopaedia.
Wikipedia could argue that people will self-censor themselves and thus avoid looking up information on Wikipedia related to illnesses, sexual topics and so on. Its the same argument libraries has when claiming peoples library card history is protected.
Comments
I'm surprised Wikipedia isn't participating in at least putting a call to action to call your representatives like they did with SOPA last time. I'm not surprised Google isn't doing it, because I expected as much from them this time around, but I'm disappointed. It seems they only participate in these actions when there's immediate gain for them (like not passing SOPA, or ITU's "sender pays" policy). I just hope they realize that we might not be "available" to help them next time they need the public's support for something.
I'm not. If you go the the site (CallForFreedom.org) that is the rallying point you get:
"America has violated its founding principles. The Constitution says government can't spy on us-- not without suspicion. But now, thousands of government employees at the NSA and other agencies track our phones and read our emails. The government is dangerously trespassing on our rights. How can free speech, free association, or a free press survive when everyone is always being watched, even in their most private moments?"
Wikipedia etc. would probably only get behind something that was not limited to providing a benefit to US citizens alone. SOPA mattered to Wikipedia because it would have affected their ability to provide the service they provide globally.
Wikipedia has to pass a fine line of trying not to involve itself in politics, unless it's a clear threat to it's ability to it's job, and it's not clear that surveillance (even on such a broad scale) prevents it building an encyclopaedia.
Wikipedia could argue that people will self-censor themselves and thus avoid looking up information on Wikipedia related to illnesses, sexual topics and so on. Its the same argument libraries has when claiming peoples library card history is protected.
And whappens when those who used to write the articles for anything start censoring themselves too.
The surveillance state has struck them with fear.