a few observations related to the video presentation:
   1) often hear issues about legitimacy of mass surveillance in relation
   to 'targeted surveillance' as delineator, whereby legitimate targeting
   is afforded to actual threats to the state and its required security
   measures that likely involves way more in the realm of reasoning and
   undocumented information than people are aware of, to determine whether
   or not a threat exists and if such measures are necessary in terms of
   state security.
   thus, surveilling of individuals who are problematic (either as actual
   foes - aka terrorists, dangerous criminals, spies - or those
   wrongly-categorized though falling into this same catch-all category)
   yet where oversight or high fidelity review may not exist and thus
   reasoning may be weak for who is targeted along with those who are
   legitimate threats.
   meaning: in the talk the group or category of 'Muslims' were mentioned
   as surveillance targets, though perhaps not all of these, yet in
   relation to profiling, it would suggest mass surveillance could exist
   in certain communities moreso than in others. in that the individual
   scales into a group target, the weighting of probability perhaps moving
   higher in certain demographic characteristics shared as part of a
   threat model outline. so too, activists against business interests and
   so on, depending upon how privatized the surveillance model is, what it
   is being used for, how it is leveraged for political agendas, etc.
   and so oftentimes in the mainstream viewpoint it tends to be that the
   targets that tend towards some fraction of 1% of the population are
   likely legitimate targets (say, 0.00001%) so that, as an example, a US
   population of 314 million people has around 3,139 actual threats that
   would justify surveillance measures in terms of their violent
   activities that threaten to undermine the state or pursue terrorist
   actions against the population (unless false flag engineered, etc).
   and here is my contention with this view, and how a category such as
   'ethnicity' or 'religion' may indicate there are other potential
   dynamics that legitimate mass surveillance, and so it may be a fallacy
   to uphold this perspective, that only some fraction of 1% are
   justifiable for targeted surveillance and not dragnets over the entire
   population-- because, what if instead the threat involves an invading
   force, an occupation, where the opponent tends towards 30% to more than
   50% or more, so that it could be 150 million people and those they are
   related to that require tracking and further analysis. and that this is
   the more likely threat model, in certain scenarios, depending on how it
   is calculated. and could also exist as a paradox, where 'both sides'
   use the same or similar surveillance to track opponents, though with
   different ends such that the NSA is not a monolithic ideological
   organization and could be involved in a deception campaign whereby
   there is a 'sandbox' for a pretend-NSA operating as if the NSA, inside
   the larger organization and this is the context for issues of who is
   surveilled, how surveillance is occurring, state- and world-level honey
   traps, bear traps, monster traps, and so on.
   in plain sight i think there are conditions of a civil war at world
   scale and this is the threat model, and there is rotten surveillance
   that is driven by the corrupt state, and a surrogate or pretend-NSA at
   the helm, itself corrupted yet also contained, and then another threat
   model that is monitoring all of this activity via surveillance at the
   scale of 50% or greater of the population, in great and intricate
   detail, that remains legitimate. and so, a vast forward strategy yet
   that is invisible, and a smaller corrupt forward strategy that will be
   made visible in its corruption. (set(subset)) dynamics.
   in that this complex approach maps to military strategy of the early
   into late 20th century, including the aftermath of WWII and politics of
   Vietnam war in cultural terms extended into the present, and in terms
   of {superset}, millennia of strategic planning likewise, setting up a
   false order in order to take it down in an open-source context of
   Armageddon.
   2) it seems bizarre that NSA activities are confined to computer
   technology and there is yet no mention of behavioral dimensions to
   hacking, including neurological attacks using em tools and weaponry. in
   that psychologists, neurologists, psychiatrists and others vital
   information to hacking people who are targeted, to program or force
   into disrepair. for instance, certain chemicals can enter into the body
   via food supply and then be triggered via signals and electromagnetic
   fields, activating them via remote switch. chemicals in food supply
   then like junk dna that allows such custom targeting at a distance, say
   via hostile management of infrastructure, beyond normal rules,
   boundaries. the realm of mindwarfare and psychological war, information
   operations at the covert level _must be tied to this same NSA
   infrastructure manipulation if existing and attacking populations, yet
   why is it disregarded as part of this context, why is the very direct
   connection between EM tech and EM human physiology disregarded a priori
   as an attack vector and not dealt with in the human rights context it
   should exist within by default, if made readily aware that such
   dynamics are inherent- not anomaly - to this aggressive surveillance,
   goals of behavior modification, etc.
   3) this leads to the issue of how this technology is fielded. if it
   exists, the quickest and most distribributed, efficient route for an
   eight-mile distant attack would be the cellular tower infrastructure
   that already exists. that would turn it from a manual operation with
   field agents on site or locally, to an issue of remote administration
   of these tools and their automation, such that any person (tending
   towards 50% of population model, say) could be attacked, and that it is
   not a tiny fraction and instead every single device that could be
   scaled to the highest threat model as need be, and thus whatever tools
   exist to do this would need to exist in a context of mass surveillance,
   not individual cases that are few and far between, because if that is
   not the nature of the actual threat, why would tools be restricted in
   their use to a less-than-necessary deployment. and thus automated
   infrastructure deployment seems probable in this regard.
   4) in this way, so too, neurological weaponry and behavior modification
   hacking tools would likely coexist in a similar context if deployed and
   in use, much more serious than attacking inert tools and equipment.
   attacking peoples - citizens - nervous systems and minds, driving
   people into ill health or conditions of psychological/physiological
   torture via these same technical means, perhaps a sub-branch of NSA or
   co-use via CIA special programs or other military venture, yet hostile
   to citizenry, operating in a faulty or infallible threat model,
   exploited by onesided politics of hidden  dictatorship and so on. that
   level of realism does not yet exist though certainly some measure of
   these hostile tools exist hidden within the same infrastructure -
   deployed and leveraged by the corrupt overseers, so when will Snowden
   or other documents enter into the neurological and other health aspects
   of hacking, cracking, pwnage, etc. that is, invisible death squads
   sitting like chess pieces on the city grid, awaiting orders to attack
   via next hostile moves, &c.
   ksais   ywios   wpswz