The Buffalo Attack Is a Reminder That Mass Surveillance Doesn’t Protect Us
jacobinmag.com
jacobinmag.com
It's a big blackmail operation. To maintain power in an economic system where people can make something of themselves on their own, you need to know a lot about them throughout their lives. Having power in a system where people can't do that is great, but it doesn't give you a good economic engine to manipulate. So they just prepare to control you if you ever make it, for everyone, and let us all do our thing. No matter who makes it in life, they've got them by the balls.
They also blackmail each other for their own personal interest.
The whole intelligence apparatus is J Edgar Hoover's FBI on alien steroids, a big machine designed to preserve power for the people operating it.
Also where is the border between "good for my country" and ethical behavior? Is what is best for USA industry best for USA diplomacy? Is what is best for the USA destabilizing the rest of the world? Where is the oversight when it is decided that blackmailing a foreign leader is good for a USA industry versus destabilizing that country which may have global repercussions? Do they use computer models that tie together world stability, economics, trade relationships, military objectives, and world peace? Somehow I doubt it, it seems more likely to be "my gut tells me to...". For one thing nobody really knows how to accurately model things like economics, wars, stability, etc., because human decisions are often not predictable, self interested, or rational.
It also seems likely, given the secrecy, that there are ways to abuse the system. One Senator tasking the NSA to collect intelligence on the foreign family of another Senator would be flagged, but the NSA could be tasked to collect intelligence on a related interest of a Senator, and then the information leaked or otherwise misused. It's difficult to tell what the checks and balances are here, and many of these people are lawyers, used to convoluted arguments and justifications. The citizens have little transparency into this whole system except for whistleblowers.
Jobs are what is used to keep the populace in line. When the crowd gets rowdy take their jobs away and they'll start falling in line. This might be the idea behind increasing interest rates, to cause a recession, which takes away jobs, which tames the crowd. It might not work this time if covid deaths and long covid and opioid deaths have made the worker shortage too severe giving people more power.
Big business also has it's own intelligence systems, quite extensive ones. What they gather and what they do with it is not widely discussed. We occasionally see business leaders embarrassed by revelations, but it's not always clear where the revelations came from or if someone covertly played a role in exposing them. When you are a multinational company you are probably not always limited by USA laws. It seems likely that sexual blackmail is widely used.
The problem is that for the amount of suffering and woe that was wrought, there's not a satisfactory justice to be had. The enemy is a sick child - it's not like we can blame the Taliban and go unleash some holy fury. So our rage is collectively turned against each other - the news exploded with "he said she said" type stories about people politically grandstanding over this latest attack. It's exactly the opposite of what a healthy community should do.
Sounds like an excuse for further expansion of the system. "all businesses must scan and report content and etc..." (see Apple's recent cp scan controversy). They are more likely to double down on it than admit they were wrong.
I'm skeptical the system was made to protect the common gentry anyways. Besides, relying on surveillance to stop these sorts of things sounds like Bad Engineering -- it is certainly not the most cost effective solution if privacy is of any value.
The targeting of black activists is nothing new. The US law enforcement and intelligence services have been doing that forever, before computers even.
This seems to presuppose that stopping the attacks are the purpose of the mass surveillance, and its failure to do this proves that mass surveillance is ineffective and therefore harmless. But one could equally well conclude that the people in charge of mass surveillance aren't trying to stop attacks, and that is not what it is for. This is more scary, not less.