participation in sensor networks

[juan]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 08:08:10 -0500
Steve Kinney <admin at pilobilus.net> wrote:

me : 
> > Oh, and not only they have access to the data, they also have 
> > access to the guns. So the more data they have, the more
> > damage they can cause.
> 

you :
> "The guns" tend to backfire:  Common or garden variety capital
> murders by police officers in the U.S. has re-ignited the Civil
> Rights movement, 


	I don't think so. There may have been some backlash caused by
	'excessive' police brutality, but overall the state's grip keeps
	tightening. And surveillance is a key factor.

	Also, if they kill a bit too many people and that hurts their
	'public relations' efforts, all they have to do is kill a bit
	less people. But it's not like the US state killers are going
	to surrender their guns any time soon.



> 
> The outcome of every revolution I have studied was determined
> before the first shot was fired.  The real damage enabled by mass
> surveillance in State and Corporate hands includes:
> 
> Fine tuning and targeting of propaganda in near realtime to
> achieve maximum influence.

> 
> Early detection and proactive response to disrupt and co-opt
> "trending" populist and radical factions.
> 
> Automated social network mapping and behavior analysis in support
> of political warfare.


	Yes, that's part of the damage. Given those problems (and there
	are more), how can you 'welcome' total surveillance? 



> > Sorry, I'm not buying that. First, the idea that joe-six-pack 
> > is going to have access to the pentagon's satellites is sheer 
> > nonsense. And even if he somehow did he wouldn't have access
> > to the the guns.  So what good would the information be?
> 
> Not so much Joe Six Pack as Jane Citizen Journalist.  Up to a
> point of diminishing returns, every time "the guns" are used
> against her, a dozen more of her appear. 


	One would think that exactly the opposite happens.

	It's basic incentives... If doing X gets people jailed, maimed
	or killed, then people are less likely to do X, not more likely.



> As the point of
> diminishing returns for that function approaches, civil uprisings
> in response to State violence become likely.

	That's nice wishful thinking but it doesn't address the
	original point : why should be mass surveillance be welcomed? 


> 
> >> "Power over others" depends in large part on secrecy,
> > 
> > Power over others depends on guns.
> 
> The most important single item of State propaganda against
> populist and radical politics:  Power over others depends on guns.


	That's a basic fact. It is THE basic fact of 'political
	theory'. I could in turn retort that trying to obscure that
	fact is propaganda...

	Anyway, I should have been more precise. State power
	comes from guns and organization. People who go against the
	state are ultimately facing an efficient organization of
	killers. Victims of the state are outgunned and outnumbered.
	
	It should be obvious that total surveillance on the hands of
	such organization is very problematic.


> 
> Any challenge to State power that depends primarily on armed
> conflict has a single, certain outcome:  Victory for the State.

	That depends on particular circumstances. I wasn't
	primarily advocating armed conflict anyway...


> Again, the outcome of a revolution is determined before the first
> shot is fired.  Building a large base of popular support and a
> network of ideologically committed cadres is the key to success,

	I agree.


> and the principal objective of State political warfare is to
> prevent this from happening.

	Well, yes. And intimidation and outright violence are pretty
	useful tools. It's not just 'propaganda' (although propaganda
	does play an important role)


> 
> Naive wannabe anarchists who want to "go directly to guns, do not
> pass the hat, do not collect 200 supporters" only provide the
> State with a handy means of discrediting its more /effective/
> opponents.

	Like I said I should have mentioned that organization is the
	other source of state power, even more effective than guns if
	you wish. So, in order to counter the state organization some
	sort of coordination is required...



> 
> >> while "powers of self determination" depend largely on free
> >> and open access to information.
> >  Information is required but information alone will get you 
> > nowhere. Or more likely it would get you in jail.
> > 
> > 
> >> In the long run, the secrecy problem will take care of
> >> itself, because the abuses of power it enables have already
> >> killed the State: At least, in the sense that a
> >> trans-national State hard wired for self destruction,
> >> defending that program by any means necessary, is "already
> >> dead."
> > 
> > 
> > Well, the only thing missing to prove that claim
> > is...evidence.
> 
> Evidence means nothing without context; 

	Come on Steve =)

	You seem to believe that the state is done for because of its 
	'internal contradictions' or something like that but the
	evidence shows exactly the opposite. State power keeps growing.
	And the surveillance mechanisms you said you 'welcome' play an
	important role in extending state power, not limiting it.



> information that is not
> actionable is not intelligence.  Step one, know your adversary.
> Who and what IS the State, and why is it so toxic?  Some clues
> from the Harvard National Security Journal here:

	I don't think I need the harvard security' journal to teach
	what the state is, but I'll take a look anyway. Thanks.


	Meanwhile you can provide evidence supporting this claims 

	
	"the abuses of power [surveillance?] enables have already killed
	the State" 

	The state is alive and kicking.


	"a trans-national State hard wired for self destruction,
	defending that program by any means necessary, is "already
	dead."	

	Fact is, the most powerful nation states, 'led' by the american
	nation state can morph into a transnational state. Allegedly
	they already are morphing. And they are not 'self destructing'
	at all. They are increasing their power. 


	Sorry about not sharing your optimism, but the facts don't lend
	themselves to any optimistic twisting.



> 
> National Security and Double Government by Michael J. Glennon
> 
> http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf
> 
> :o)
> 
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW3Cu2AAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LmSAQAK4nS9NJ3k87dH8ODw3eH0O+
> oNxhX6us0RKkq04jo8bn4mi/DzdzPmWYfxsyhJlgx2Gzp8+0/wWL35Qu7Tcj87la
> gfTMwUYIw6an+y1xztn4DhTYRliRybLj6egs9JWLNLm7y3Rp80Z5GmtPhpeiCjwQ
> XGq+qZzepKak9LDGSVogrPDlfKMlH8hvJpccf5TWKoNU+R+RaHLOlS0cmz5grNwd
> JfNv3opRZisueeqme93MlWBS2c4Y9fAT4/U+lZoLt/Ye8R+wTI4RbPxcHVtfFruh
> I9jUrqoZNZ9BQTv6NZDuWU4laMFFXKmXF+nVW+JXx3Y40DXm8qb65bw2lvyLQ3QF
> wD6Ht+TFCWuSYPAO9qsC8LN4APtRKUP7/pkmHSRMtroGLjgUx6xo5/gYSVl6XDwE
> fQG2578tNUsSNRt0skXJysXz/NShc07MAQGR7/+uejvcUPry1CcSsbbpYfSIk7UI
> Xmk6MVLlx6RPUxH1rJNO7PVEf515ro+67xHx2d/Bv/ABFT9cNXZ/c962nglp+T5D
> 6ILcvaJRqVhvgUcAy8psVbawmYWN55DMceM9KOM5eAIEWvW3XHFaj7+uwKBycZT8
> SxImCUW/MSPhugvTbx/SliIKS7hnUG0BpcjwvsRD+5JHF+Tc7JNSH978qXRJzt+0
> z42HWVWYmP/rv4feXy5u
> =MmU2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----