You’d Better Watch Out: The Surveillance State Is Making a List, And You’re On It

originally posted by: mortex
our world, is becoming technologically enriched
We are all part of it
This isn't some deep dark conspiracy theory

Technology is hardly the problem.
We're discussing invasive information mining.

The government has no business in spying
on personal party affiliations, independent
media reporters, personal spiritual beliefs,
thought control,
Self-Determination is the key.
. . . and a basic human right.


_______________________

originally posted by: Maxmars
What these add up to is a world in which, on any given day, the average person is now monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways by both government and corporate eyes and ears.
Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother.

Why would the Government need to do this to the average person? Do you think the government gives a damn that I watch YouTube videos or write short sci-fi stories for fun?

Corporations might - just to sell me something. When a friend of mine was in a cover band called 'Soccer Mom' and I did a Google search for their webpage, I started getting ads for minivans like crazy. The people that want to sell me something were definitely watching - but not with malicious intent.

So, Big Seller/Marketer was watching. Welcome to Capitalism.

I don't care if the Government watches my every move. To what purpose would they need to do that, anyway? To catch me watching YouTube videos and writing short sci-fi stories? It doesn't matter if the Government spends their time focusing on me - other than it wastes Tax money and makes them bark up the wrong tree.

Take a good look at Hanlon's razor:

Hanlon's razor is an adage or rule of thumb that states "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

They don't need to be the Government or a Corporation.

You're completely excluding the Criminal Element in your deduction.

Stalking/CyberStalking and Identity Theft are more likely reasons for someone to be maliciously watching you.

originally posted by: CryHavoc
Why would the Government need to do this
to the average person?

The deep state is self serving.
The tptb don't care about you or joe.
Sad it is,
that some are naive,
just are not up to speed on this.
Personally I find it abhorrent when
power and money suffocates
self determination of others,
stripping the fate of our future lives.
It's obvious,
deep state cares only about
keeping in power.
By keeping tabs, demographics,
data mining on the sheep,
enables them to stay in power
101 obvious for those in the know.


_________________

a reply to: CryHavoc

I shared that video because I found it interesting that they were able to take a cold case file, and was able to connect DNA to the father, and mother of the child, though neither the mother or father were in the police database.

I found it a bit spooky that they were able to track telephone data to pin her location for where she had travel, down to place and minutes. And they were able to track her browsing data. All of these after 4.5 years.

As I said, if she had been a celebrity, I would not have been surprised. But she wasn't. She was a complete unknown. Until they needed her to be a known.

originally posted by: mortex
It's actually all with your consent.

But is it really? Do you believe that every user's participation in any online activity should require understanding (sometimes extensive) legal literature and with an eye towards "not simply communicating" with other people?

I can understand what you are saying, and I cannot argue that you are incorrect, however I am not prepared to simply acquiesce to the litigious because it indemnifies providers from responsibility when exploiting users' information outside the context of their discourses and contributions. Is that really "ok?" Is it really "as it should be?" Is it reasonable that anyone wishing to avail themselves of a service, or product must also be willing to acquiesce to exploitation? In my opinion it is not.

Government laws regarding data retention, are public knowledge. They tell you when they are considering those laws, they tell you when they are in parliament being discussed, and you're told when they are passed into law.

I am afraid that we cannot relate to one another in this regard. In my country, at least, the government has become an adjunct of commerce, and the regulations "passed" are never simple and undiluted, often overly burdened with reams of pages of 'extra' politically "compromised" concessions which are not germane to the intent or title of the bill or law. Nothing is ever at it is publicized, and a bill without "legislative minutia" and unrelated concessions never gets passed.

The fine print tells you everything you need to know.

No. No it doesn't. It tells you everything the contracting party wants you to know, nothing more.

You can all keep thinking this is some marxist leftist conspiracy to enslave you.
Others can think it's a right wing nazi conspiracy to do the same. Whatever.
The truth of the matter is, this is technological evolution.

Technological evolution? As described and channeled by lawyers perhaps, although I have great reservations about applying "evolution" to the term.

This isn't some deep dark conspiracy theory that's been festering away in the shadows that you've just stumbled across.

I never said it was. Just because the source article makes use of emotional parsing (and all the other things that engender "news" consumption) doesn't speak to the topic itself. Simply because I find it worthy of exploration doesn't mean I am subject to "how" you characterize it any more than how the author characterizes it means you have to accept it that way.

As to how and when "I" stumbled across it, is that relevant to the topic itself? I'm not selling anything here. I am not trying to "convince" anyone of anything, and frankly, your reaction does me a disservice when you impugn my intent without even asking.

It's not even a conspiracy, theory or otherwise.

Of course it is; maybe not to you, and I can respect that, but in my opinion, there is more than just an element of conspiracy here, and that is not up to you to definitively dismiss in a single sentence. I agree with the author at least in the sense that the proliferation of surveillance activity is alarming.

Any good IT student of the 1990's and early 2000's, maybe even earlier, should have been aware of the technological advancements and evolutions that were coming.

It's the 'natural' progression of our technology.

There is nothing "natural" about technology - that is my view. Technology doesn't evolve, we do. Never having had the ability to consider myself an IT student (good or otherwise,) doesn't negate the perception.

"Conspiracy theories" like this stuff are born out of fear of the unknown. Your reality is changing, and you don't understand it, causing fear, which leads people to jump to conclusions and come up with theories of doom and gloom.

I do not require "fear" (of the unknown or known) to perceive the potential for conspiracy. I have jumped to no conclusions, only the potential for disingenuous words concealing intent that doesn't conform with enhancing the human condition, as opposed to "conditions" for a subset of humans who can easily exploit the state of affairs to their own benefit.

Thanks for responding, I found this exercise very worthwhile.

originally posted by: CryHavoc

Why would the Government need to do this to the average person? Do you think the government gives a damn that I watch YouTube videos or write short sci-fi stories for fun?

You re adopting a perspective here, one that presumes the "government" is a person. It is not. If the government were a "person" we could enter into a dialogue with it, and perhaps come to an understanding of affairs. We cannot. The government is a system, populated with certain people. Those people have sublimated themselves to an agenda. It is the agenda that forms the problem we are trying to address when observing the intense and often undisclosed activities they undertake.

Corporations might - just to sell me something. When a friend of mine was in a cover band called 'Soccer Mom' and I did a Google search for their webpage, I started getting ads for minivans like crazy. The people that want to sell me something were definitely watching - but not with malicious intent.

So, Big Seller/Marketer was watching. Welcome to Capitalism.

I propose that your approach to this potential reality is conditioned. But if you are willing to be exploited, that's ok. I am not. I feel that there is a limit to what I will accept as a consumer, in the name of commercial gain for others.

I don't care if the Government watches my every move...

That's fine. You don't have to care. I never proposed that you have to. My "moves" however are mine to use, not theirs. I do object to my tax dollars being a "blank check" to fund these activities.

Hanlon's razor is an adage or rule of thumb that states "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

In contrast to Hanlon, I prefer reserve my own judgment about what represent an adequate explanation.

They don't need to be the Government or a Corporation.

You're completely excluding the Criminal Element in your deduction.

On the contrary, my concern is that it cannot be reasonable assumed that Government/Corporate activities in the regard aren't "criminal" considering the fact that there is no accountability or disclosure about how the information is used, to what end, to what effect, to whom it is being distributed, and under what conditions.

Stalking/CyberStalking and Identity Theft are more likely reasons for someone to be maliciously watching you.

Yes, I have heard that before... but you know, the ideas always come on the heels of trying to sell me a service to "protect" me. I know those dangers are real... but why is it that the criminals have access to the information in the first place?

If a government is spying on your political beliefs, how does that affect your ability of self determination?

Does the authorities knowing your political beliefs, affect your ability to have your own political beliefs?


Every time you post online, you are revealing things, you are giving insight into your self, your thought process, your character etc.

originally posted by: ToneDeaf

originally posted by: mortex
our world, is becoming technologically enriched
We are all part of it
This isn't some deep dark conspiracy theory

Technology is hardly the problem.
We're discussing invasive information mining.

The government has no business in spying
on personal party affiliations, independent
media reporters, personal spiritual beliefs,
thought control,
Self-Determination is the key.
. . . and a basic human right.


_______________________

a reply to: Maxmars

I believe that there are two genders.

I believe the democrats rigged the 2020 election.

I am a veteran.

I believe in the Constitution, free expression and the right to bear arms.


Yeah, I'm on a #ing list.

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: Maxmars
What these add up to is a world in which, on any given day, the average person is now monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways by both government and corporate eyes and ears.
Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother.

Why would the Government need to do this to the average person? Do you think the government gives a damn that I watch YouTube videos or write short sci-fi stories for fun?

Corporations might - just to sell me something. When a friend of mine was in a cover band called 'Soccer Mom' and I did a Google search for their webpage, I started getting ads for minivans like crazy. The people that want to sell me something were definitely watching - but not with malicious intent.

So, Big Seller/Marketer was watching. Welcome to Capitalism.

I don't care if the Government watches my every move. To what purpose would they need to do that, anyway? To catch me watching YouTube videos and writing short sci-fi stories? It doesn't matter if the Government spends their time focusing on me - other than it wastes Tax money and makes them bark up the wrong tree.

Take a good look at Hanlon's razor:

Hanlon's razor is an adage or rule of thumb that states "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

They don't need to be the Government or a Corporation.

You're completely excluding the Criminal Element in your deduction.

Stalking/CyberStalking and Identity Theft are more likely reasons for someone to be maliciously watching you.

The argument of “ I have nothing to hide so I don’t care if the government is watching me” is said by so many people I meet. My response to that argument is:

If you have nothing to hide then why don’t you leave all your blinds open in your house when you are changing and leave your garage door open and doors unlocked 24/7? You should also demand no security or passwords on your bank account because you have nothing to hide right?

a reply to: Maxmars

you mean THE BOOK OF LIFE?