> The new balloons promise a cheap surveillance platform that could follow multiple cars and boats for extended periods. And because winds often travel in different directions at different altitudes, the balloons can usually hover over a given area simply by ascending or descending. Stepping back from the details of this story reveals a striking pattern that most public discussions on mass surveillance miss entirely.…
Just imagine the East German STASI with todays technology.
Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US
231–240 of 315 posts
Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
If America went to shit enough that people needed to take up arms to protect themselves against the government, around half of the people with guns would be on the side of the government. It would not be a battle of the people vs the state, it would be half of the people against the other half, but with only one side getting military backing (unless the miltary itself also split).
I think there's reasonable reason to believe that if things got to that point that the military would be likely to have split allegiance.
A confounding factor is that both the US and UK militaries have been fighting extended insurrection 'policing' actions for much of the last two decades, so you have an army that is used to been an occupying force.
All that said a smart military commander would never use local troops in their own backyard anyway.
Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are (rare) cases in which armed resistance does not result in convictions, and/or in which prosecution of government agents is at least initiated, and civil redress made. The Ruby Ridge incident comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge As does the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_Nati...
The only way a protest with guns is different from a normal protest is if you're willing to use those guns. And using them usually doesn't end well for protesters more than anyone.
Mind, I don't generally disagree with your premise, and I'm not a guns advocate. There do exist (as is typically the case) counterexamples to the general rule.
Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US
#234> The new balloons promise a cheap surveillance platform that could follow multiple cars and boats for extended periods. And because winds often travel in different directions at different altitudes, the balloons can usually hover over a given area simply by ascending or descending. Stepping back from the details of this story reveals a striking pattern that most public discussions on mass surveillance miss entirely.…
I think it is good for people to be interested in and discussing the nature of oppression and its consequences. As I see it, oppression is incremental, with people as a group generally responding fairly predictably as it increases. I think this is biologically rooted, stemming from fundamental drives toward autonomy. Any time autonomy is violated, regardless of intent, it is a small bit of harm. Sometimes, that harm is justified. If you pull someone out of the way of a speeding car, you have saved their life by violating their autonomy, but the tiny harm still exists and has consequences. These harms accumulate (though I am sure it is a complicated process where the harms are alleviated by other acts of autonomy, so not purely inevitably accumulative).
Just looking at history and at various situations in which oppression occurs (workplaces, prisons, schools, etc, not just nations) it seems to me there are broad patterns. When peoples autonomy is heavily infringed, they concentrate more on the forms of autonomy which are more difficult or impossible for whatever authority is in play to prevent. They express themselves through their dress, through body modification (piercings, tattoos, branding, scarification, etc), through their language with development of new slang or codes, and can even engage in self-harm (cutting, anorexic starvation, bulimia, binge drinking or eating, harmful drug abuse, etc) to exemplify that they still control something.
If the untouchable authority continues to increase the control it exerts, the people begin seeking to establish an alternative sense of a power hierarchy they can influence. They engage in interpersonal conflict, seeking to establish that they are stronger, better, more well-liked, more pious, more loyal, etc, than those around them.
As the oppression increases, those power hierarchies become more formalized and gangs (or cliques, brotherhoods, clubs, etc) form, with members adopting the gangs norms and moral codes as the authority they respect and are loyal to. They cling to their tribal identity, and see the actions of the group as expressions of their own desires, increasing their sense of autonomy.
As it gets more oppressive, the gangs begin to vie for turf or control or influence. Gang wars emerge. These aren't always literal guns-in-the-street or shivs-in-the-exercise-yard wars and can be done through proxy competitions of all sorts. Anything which the participants mutually agree to can be an analog, but in situations with such a high degree of oppression, violence is often the only thing left. A couple warring prison gangs can't really organize peaceful means of establishing dominance as no one has enough autonomy to do so and the overarching authority has a vested interest in not acknowledging the gangs as legitimate organizations.
In the final stage, the gangs dissolve/join and emerge as an army. They rise and destroy the oppressive authority through the only means the authority has made possible - brute violence. Democracy was revolutionary in its provision of a peaceful means of destroying the controlling authority through electing those who can change things. Every oppressive state that I am aware of has gone through these different phases. There has never been a happy, prosperous police state and I don't think that is a matter of just not getting it right. I think the basic human drive to autonomy would make such a state unlivable even if run by infinitely beneficent people and with every restriction being made in the honest best interests of those being controlled.
The 'inefficiencies' in law enforcement where not everyone is surveilled at all times, which enables some laws to be broken, is not a flaw. It's a feature of the system. And a valuable one. Every ratchet click towards catching every single infraction squeezes people tighter. We've seen in schools what happens when you load the place with cameras, have cops roaming the halls arresting kids for insubordination, requiring ID badges be carried at all times, restricting dress, speech, affectionate contact, etc. Some people will snap and be made to feel so desperate that they are willing to die just to do some damage. What happens when that sort of infrastructure comes to every workplace and every public place including the sidewalk?
Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
The novelty here is a further reduction in cost by mounting it on balloons, but gorgon stare platforms for total surveillance have been rolled out in cities in the U.S. for several years now with plane-mounted camera arrays. Baltimore’s PD deployed it in secret in 2016 with money from a private donor without even informing the mayor. The cost is rapidly falling to the point of inevitability for government actors and…
> Criminals could observe people and car movements in entire neighborhoods to better target burglaries and carjackings. The genie is pretty much out of the bottle. It can't be understated how much impact this, and drones, will have on home invasion crimes. And they will have surveillance ops on standby to help them successfully navigate out of police chases when the need arises.
Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only way a protest with guns is different from a normal protest is if you're willing to use those guns. And using them usually doesn't end well for protesters more than anyone.
See the Black Panthers in the 1960s. Mind, I don't generally disagree with your premise, and I'm not a guns advocate. There do exist (as is typically the case) counterexamples to the general rule.
Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
> government, law enforcement The thing is when it gets cheap enough, other players start enter the game too. Companies. Criminal gangs. Or even private individuals. A situation of "if surveillance is outlawed, only outlaws will have surveillance" should be taken into account.
>The thing is when it gets cheap enough, other players start enter the game too. Companies. Criminal gangs. >Or even private individuals. This last is the worthwhile part. The problem isn't surveillance, it's disproportional surveillance. That is, people in power can only control the public while they retain a monopoly on power. Since bulk surveillance is coming, the best outcome is equal surveillance and equal acces…
Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why many Americans won’t give their guns away. Imagine (not saying it would be a good outcome), but what Hong Kong would be like right now if all citizens hard arms? Well maybe the whole thing wouldn’t have even started. But wow, it would be a very different scene. Instead it’s more a case of if the military wants to walk in and shutdown the place, it’s going to be a lot easier. Not entirely a gun rights advo…
> but what Hong Kong would be like right now if all citizens hard arms? The chinese are slowly removing democratic institutions away from the people. The people are rising up to protect them without guns. Democratic norms are slowly being eroded from the US as well. Extreme gerrymandering, electoral college / popular vote, overt foreign interference, requested foreign interference, voting irregularities, voter purges…
Good point, but you are lumping all gun owners into one mindset.
I could definitely see that happening, but it would not be all gun owners, just a percentage. And of the many gun owners I know, the percentage that would support any government and impose anything on others would be really low.
Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US
#239Is anyone else extremely bothered by the false equivalence of narcotics trafficking and the need for homeland security? This blurring of the lines between a multi-billion dollar _business_ (probably around 1% of the world's GDP) that in fact relies on the success of the state, and purported threats to the state itself strikes me as extremely dangerous. I'm contrasting this to American intelligence involvement in cent…
Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK has put millions of its citizens in prison because of their religion?
The article is about surveillance, the STASI were known for their insane levels of surveillance. The last time I checked there was a huge number of security cameras in the UK, maybe more than any other country. Also the UK has put people in prison for the nebulous crime of "hate speech". There are seven hate speech convictions per day, though I suspect most of these are fines and a criminal record. So the UK is going…
Its probably best to view everything in life as being used for good and bad, ying and yan, light and dark etc etc, plus if any of you ever had to sit a Brick test which is a measure of creativity, you will know so many things can be used for different applications. Take Wifi, who knew this existed? https://news.mit.edu/2013/new-system-uses-low-power-wi-fi-si... Another way wifi can be used is by taking a laptop, seeing what wifi signals it picks up and then getting various wifi enabled devices to report tiny signal strength anomalies to work out who is walking in front of one signal, absorbing some of it, like someone walking in front of a light transmitting morse code. Most people will also be familiar with military contracts and secrecy that the likes of Lockheed Martin, Boeing and others will have with the US Govt, you don't get to find out the secret contracts the tech companies have with the military, except perhaps the Intel Management Engine switch. These tech company's wont be in a position to comment on said contracts and so you just wont get to find out what the true capabilities are, although to maintain a charade of a being in a "free" country, you do get to find out about the court orders that obtain data from the tech company's cloud services and other device metrics which can be used as public knowledge.
Bottom line is, don't trust no one, because just like you cant predict when you will next lose your temper, you cant predict when someone you trust will do something to warrant losing that trust, so its safer to not trust anyone.