> I whole heartedly disagree. Erring on the side of caution got us the TSA, DHS, the War on Drugs, the Iraq invasion, and justifies the continued operations in Afghanistan.
That's nothing to do with the subject, which is an individual no longer comfortable with their online communications. Dragging all this other stuff in has no bearing on that.
Besides the fact that quite a few of those entries have absolutely nothing to do with 'erring on the side of caution'.
I wouldn't have brought them up if they weren't examples:
TSA: making searches mandatory just in case there's a hijacker
DHS: vastly expanding federal police powers just in case there's a terrorist in the country
War on Drugs: fund expensive and invasive federal and state police operations just in case someone overdoses
Iraq invasion: invade Iraq just in case there are weapons of mass destruction
Afghanistan occupation: stay there just in case the Taliban permits Wahhabi radicals to use the country as a home base for planning and training.
Okay, in this instance, it's "avoid doing stuff online just in case newspapers are right that my government is surveilling my actions." In this case, it's a radical life change that has little upside. She did not abandon her blog on a whim; she hated that she felt she was forced to do so.
But the risk was overblown: when the police kick down the door of Pamela Jones, I assure you they already have me and perhaps you (in the Netherlands) in prison as well.
That's nothing to do with the subject, which is an individual no longer comfortable with their online communications. Dragging all this other stuff in has no bearing on that.
Besides the fact that quite a few of those entries have absolutely nothing to do with 'erring on the side of caution'.