It feels like I am the only sane person trapped in an insane asylum sometimes, but there are glimmers of hope. Recently, the wider public seems to have finally become aware of how pervasive the corporate and government surveillance systems in the United States have become.
On Web2 social media, Flock Safety in particular, and its competitors to a lesser degree, have come under fire as people realize how these cameras are popping up everywhere with little to no public input. Police departments and corporate news are scurrying to explain how these tools are necessary for our safety even as evidence of abuse comes to light. False positives and bad databases have led to police arresting innocent people. Dirty cops are tracking romantic partners, ex-partners, and enemies. Government is poised to use this to target political dissidents, assuming that is not happening already.
There is broad grassroots opposition, and as a result, some cities are ending their contracts with these service providers, but it does not guarantee they will not simply move everything in-house, or just quietly switch to a different provider.
There is an old adage that we have no expectation of privacy when we are in public, but that does not mean governments can therefore legitimately monitor us 24/7. Nonetheless, this issue has been a growing concern for security and privacy advocates for decades now as governments and corporations, often in concert, continually push the boundaries of decorum.
These allegedly benign "license plate readers" are cropping up in parks, alongside nature trails, and in pedestrian-only locations. They often include facial recognition, gait analysis, and other algorithms to monitor everyone at all times, and are not always isolated security systems with limited local data storage. Sweeping data collection has repeatedly been denounced in American courts, but the problem persists.
The justification is always "safety," but historically, governments are the most dangerous entities on the planet. While I will always advocate for laissez-faire free markets, I must also point out that corporations are often far from benevolent as well. Here in the United States, we supposedly have legal protection from governments at all levels. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads,
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
State constitutions typically have very similar, if not identical, provisions as well. However, the politicians and their enforcers in the police and judicial system have carved out special exceptions for "emergencies," and argued that outsourcing what government is forbidden to do directly through corporate third parties is somehow justifiable. A recent Supreme Court decision confronted some of these issues, but the slow and uncertain nature of court remedy means trespasses can go on for years unabated.
I already know other countries, most notably the United Kingdom, have been even more expensively surveilled for ages. "But it helps us catch criminals," the police say. Perhaps, but at what cost? The Panopticon is a prison, not a paradise. There has been little study into the effects of pervasive surveillance on human psychology, but studies indicate surveillance may hamper worker productivity, and "cancel culture" combined with algorithmic moderation has absolutely warped Web2 social media to the point that merely discussing guns, violence, suicide, and the history of World War II can be censored without appeal, leading to euphemistic language as people try to avoid the robotic content police with terms like "pew-pews," "unalived," and "that failed Austrian painter"; asterisks and 1337speak to substitute letters in words; or bleeped words in audio. This is not protecting bad actors, it is actively stifling needed public discourse.
If you and I cross paths in public, I may notice what you are wearing, or I may overhear a conversation. That is what is meant by "no expectation of privacy." However, if I then follow you, record everything I can about you, save that data, and sell it, I am no longer a benign observer. I am a stalker. That is wrong, whether "legal" or not. How much more is it wrong when governments and corporations hoover up data, store it in perpetuity, and exchange it by secret means?
Governments are not magically superior to mundane human standards of morality, no matter how much our political class may claim otherwise. The same principles must apply to you and me and to the government. Governments are not a source of rights and privilege. They are fundamentally usurpers, even in our "democratic" societies with pretenses of delegated authority to representatives with limited power.
Governments are trying to limit internet access, usually under the guise of "protecting the children," and sometimes with a dash of "anti-terrorism," but the result I foresee is digital ID to monitor everything we do. These A.I. systems and data centers are not just for generating slop and dubiously-implemented worker productivity. I strongly suspect this will also become a shadow version of the Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center under nominally private control, since those of us in the know were concerned about that official facility when it was first proposed.
Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) proposals are still floating around, promising to weld the security of blockchains to the virtues (ha!) of governmental legitimacy (ha ha!). For those accustomed to mobile banking apps and credit cards, the transition would be seamless, but such direct control over everyone's personal finances is rife with opportunities for abuse.
The European Union has mandated driver-facing cameras in all cars manufactured from this month on, and cars are already fitted with a suite of sensors and cameras connected to a cellular modem, which could be used for anything from reporting you to your insurance company to unauthorized access for police use to even deciding whether you are allowed to use your car today.
Some US states have passed laws requiring every computer, application, and operating system to have access to your age and identity. Politicians almost invariably have the delusion that whatever they demand is moral, right, and feasible. This isn't security, this is invasive control. People are fighting this in the courts now, but that is no guarantee freedom will prevail against the nanny state.
Bringing this up online invariably results in accusations of hypocrisy. "Everything you do online is tracked anyway. Your smartphone has GPS location data at all times and listens to everything you say. Every purchase you make is tracked by retailers, banks, credit card companies, and probably the government."
True enough. I am not saying that does not happen. In fact, I see this as an opportunity for a reality check and a sober assessment of who we allow to access our data. We should act with purpose instead of just accepting what we are handed. Flock is perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back, and this is our chance to address even more issues as well.
Use private browsing online and disable cookies wherever possible. Turn off voice activation on your phone. Ditch Alexa faster than a two-timing girlfriend. We do not need "smart" appliances with everything connected to Wi-fi.
Budget with cash. This helps you manage your money instead of relying on an abstract digital ledger, and divorces your purchases from your data to at least some degree.
Be aware of surveillance systems in public and start asking questions. Ask businesses, City Hall, and even your neighbors with doorbell cameras and security systems whether they are sharing data, knowingly or unknowingly, with other parties. Sometimes cameras are just part of automated traffic signal systems, for example, but sometimes not.
This should go without saying, but obviously start getting rid of online subscriptions and other services which promise to "personalize" anything. Beware of "helpful" browser extensions. "Cloud computing" just means "someone else's computer," and there is never any guarantee their security measures will not fail. The less data you release, the less there is to lose in the next data breach, too.
Build alternatives. HIVE is an upgrade to Web2 social media just waiting for the public to see the need. Barter, silver bullion, and crypto are all possible alternatives to legacy financial systems and the CBDC threat. Start dipping your toes into open-source software on Windows and Mac even if you are not ready to leap into Linux and mesh networks.
Freedom is not easy, but remaining idle while tyrants concentrate power is unacceptable. Undermine and circumvent wherever possible, and build alternatives before it becomes too late. I am also not not telling you to take a Sawzall or angle grinder to your nearest Flock camera pole.
Image source: Wikimedia (CC0 1.0), edited in GIMP. This was inspired by a number of articles, podcasts, videos, and social media posts. I recommend Foucault, Panopticism and the Carceral Society; the Rise of the Surveillance State by Antony Sammeroff.
If you're not on Hive yet, I invite you to join through InLeo or PeakD. If you use either of my referral links, I'll even try to delegate some Hive Power to help you get started.
