Digital IDs and how they will be used to control us
- Thread starter mef
- 40 comments
- 3,179 views
- 7,601
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
In general yes, though at the same time I don't think people are at the point where they have no breathing room to allow for external concerns. For some people, there may not be a lot of room to spare admittedly, but I think it's there.
Spreading awareness of the data problem and its consequences can help.
It certainly helps the people that would abuse, but I wouldn't say they have the complete power to shut out opposition, at least not yet.
- 17,099
- United Kingdom
- 13,861
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Appropriate laws, regulations and regulatory bodies can make it cheaper and easier to seek compensation for wrongdoing. It doesn't stop companies from abusing your data if they want to, but it can make the potential costs for them getting caught doing so much higher.
Hopefully high enough that doing so would not be a viable business model, because we all know of companies who consider breaking the law and paying fines to simply be the cost of doing business.
How many hours of free time would the average person need, and what level of income is required to be "comfortable"? My completely subjective opinion says you need to own your own home before 30 and have enough of an income as a father to support a family of 2 including decent education. I'd also argue you need a minimum of 2-3 hours a day of free time. This isn't possible with a regular 9-5 and long commute time to/from work. I'd say most people around the world are trapped, sadly.
I'm not suggesting we should stop.
Not sure what complete power means but you'd be surprised how quickly people fall in line when they see a group of "martyrs" after a failed attempt to organize. Even when spontaneous anger shoots up, the end results isn't always favorable. Has there been real progress on policing in America after George Floyd's protests? If anything the "defund the police" slogan was so counter-intuitive it seemingly divided America even more. "De-militarize police" would've been a better substitute but that's a separate discussion.
The international playbook has not changed.
Step 1: Mass survailance (or other means) to seek out any attempt at organizing
Step 2: Infiltrate the group
Step 3: Take out the group's leader by blackmail, publishing the material, or luring them into "the big club"
Step 4: If step 3 fails, insert violent actors into public rallies or protests
Step 5: Discredit the group in the bought media and label them violent rioters
From there, the moral authority is lost in the eyes of neutrals, and supporters will feel demoralized. It's too easy to control opposition.
In case anyone asks how this is related to digital ID's, it's just a consolidation of psychometrics and a shaprening of social engineering tools which can be used for the above.
I think you know the answer to all those questions. Do you mind skipping that part and getting to what you'd like to say?
- 17,099
- United Kingdom
Your opening response was to a comment about corporations profiting from data, that's a very different thing to what you could be referring to in the context of my country or Joey's, and that is a different thing again to what it could mean in your country, hence my request for clarification.
You're aware that the likes of the FBI purchase data from those corporations, right? If they can't "legally" use things they've obtained from mass surveillance, buying them is one of the many ways they do parallel construction to lock you up. That's assuming they/d ever need to use anything in a court of law. The line between corporations and governments are just as thin in your countries as they are in mine. It doesn't matter which of the two we're talking about.
- 17,099
- United Kingdom
That doesn't really clarify.
You're suggesting the following scenario... Law Enforcement obtains data on you by purchasing it from a corporation, this data is then used to (wrongfully, I assume?) imprison you - with an implication this would be done without going through a court. Is this a correct summation of your concern?
No. Imprisonment or assassination are typically last resorts and it rarely gets there. With the information they obtain, they can (and do) infiltrate any group you're part of (or leading), manipulate you, blackmail, or entrap you. None of these require going through the justice system.
Governments, including yours, have already been doing throughout their existence and as I said, digital data and ID expands their capability and makes it easier.
- 7,601
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
There is no solid answer. Anything involved a wide range of people will always vary. From my own experience though, I don't think people are so tied up with their lives so as to be unable to stand up for themselves.
Individuals of various types can be pointed out like Greta Thunberg or Xu Xiaodong, or you could look at wider scale movements like the George Floyd protests.
I did not mean to imply that. Aware is a big factor in people's ability to respond to something, and I was merely pointing that out.
I was using that in reply to "ability to squash any attempt to organize". I think to squash any opposition would take quite a bit of power. A lot can be done with personal information, but I don't think we're yet to the point where rogue corporations own people.
Well Derek Chauvin was convicted for one thing. The nature of the situation surrounding George Floyd's murder means that effects may continue for many years. Looking back into US history, you would rarely find things changing overnight. Modern racial relations still trace roots back to pre Civil War slavery. At the same time, things are a lot better than they were before or contemporary to the Civil War.
Who is using this playbook? How often do you think this is happening, and can you point to where?
- 17,099
- United Kingdom
So.. for 'them' to use your 'data' in the fashion you're afraid of, the following has to be the case: You're high profile enough for them to care, and you're high profile enough for other people to care. You have to have something that isn't illegal going on (because then you'd just be prosecuted) that you don't want anyone to know, which there are electronic records to prove. You have to value that aspect of your privacy above whatever cause makes you important enough to target, and it would also have to be bad enough that it would override whatever your cause was in the eyes of people that likely already support that cause.
Alongside that, it requires shadowy, nefarious behaviour by those designated, notionally, to uphold the law, that could be assumed will generally act legally, though perhaps not ethically or morally. In spite of this, corporations that you are most likely using voluntarily are a problem because they may pass your 'data' to the government... and this all happens while the digital surveillance may also, probably more often, be used to track down and prosecute actual criminals, or prevent actual crimes.
Now, I'd agree such behaviour could be fairly deplorable, though with two main observations. Firstly, though deplorable, the behaviour is not the default outcome of digital surveillance, but more the effect of allowing deplorable people to use it (in the same way that 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'). Secondly, this scenario doesn't apply to a lot of people - as a tactic it may be difficult to effectively deploy, and may not even be reliable as the population can't be assumed to react in a predictable fashion, or even at all.
What may or may not be much easier to deploy, depending on a countries governmental structure (i.e. where a person lives), is simply passing political isolation laws that severely limit freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly with a view to stifling opposition to the government, and since these things become enshrined in law they affect EVERYONE and ANYONE (that is actually subject to the law) - this can be done in plain sight, it doesn't require clandestine actions by nefarious actors... in an autocratic regime it just gets passed in to law. Opposition is made illegal, simple as that - no international playbook required.
... I'm obviously referring to Bahrain here, but with Bills in the UK being introduced such as the Public Order Act, and the Police, Crime and Sentencing Act I'm not going to pretend we're immune from this attempted erosion of our basic rights either.
That's not to say that we shouldn't be mindful of our digital footprint. Whilst the first paragraph applies only to those it applies to, actual criminals who will use anything, anytime they can, against anyone, anywhere, would also like to get your data - they will take your money if they can, and they will assume your identity if they can. Also, the media should be considered - they don't have the direct power of the judiciary, nor the legislature, but them having your data could result in some of the things you suggest, i.e. manipulation (although again, that's subject to you being guilty enough of anything in the eyes of enough people for anyone to care)...
So yes, definitely be careful with your data, just don't assume that it does anything to protect your rights or freedoms because if your government is nefarious enough to manipulate or blackmail you, they're probably able to just take those rights and freedoms away anyway, with or without your actual data.
Alongside that, it requires shadowy, nefarious behaviour by those designated, notionally, to uphold the law, that could be assumed will generally act legally, though perhaps not ethically or morally. In spite of this, corporations that you are most likely using voluntarily are a problem because they may pass your 'data' to the government... and this all happens while the digital surveillance may also, probably more often, be used to track down and prosecute actual criminals, or prevent actual crimes.
Now, I'd agree such behaviour could be fairly deplorable, though with two main observations. Firstly, though deplorable, the behaviour is not the default outcome of digital surveillance, but more the effect of allowing deplorable people to use it (in the same way that 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'). Secondly, this scenario doesn't apply to a lot of people - as a tactic it may be difficult to effectively deploy, and may not even be reliable as the population can't be assumed to react in a predictable fashion, or even at all.
What may or may not be much easier to deploy, depending on a countries governmental structure (i.e. where a person lives), is simply passing political isolation laws that severely limit freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly with a view to stifling opposition to the government, and since these things become enshrined in law they affect EVERYONE and ANYONE (that is actually subject to the law) - this can be done in plain sight, it doesn't require clandestine actions by nefarious actors... in an autocratic regime it just gets passed in to law. Opposition is made illegal, simple as that - no international playbook required.
... I'm obviously referring to Bahrain here, but with Bills in the UK being introduced such as the Public Order Act, and the Police, Crime and Sentencing Act I'm not going to pretend we're immune from this attempted erosion of our basic rights either.
That's not to say that we shouldn't be mindful of our digital footprint. Whilst the first paragraph applies only to those it applies to, actual criminals who will use anything, anytime they can, against anyone, anywhere, would also like to get your data - they will take your money if they can, and they will assume your identity if they can. Also, the media should be considered - they don't have the direct power of the judiciary, nor the legislature, but them having your data could result in some of the things you suggest, i.e. manipulation (although again, that's subject to you being guilty enough of anything in the eyes of enough people for anyone to care)...
So yes, definitely be careful with your data, just don't assume that it does anything to protect your rights or freedoms because if your government is nefarious enough to manipulate or blackmail you, they're probably able to just take those rights and freedoms away anyway, with or without your actual data.
Similar threads
