> 19. America created the first global surveillance state, but it will not be the last. Too many have forgotten, or perhaps taken for granted, the revelations of Wikileaks and Snowden. States across the world from China to Russia are creating even more powerful global surveillance systems and propaganda machines. Leveraging private defense contracts in countries across the world, Palantir seeks to make itself the operating system of a cross-border global secret state while it pushes its own farcical version of ethno-nationalism.
If you're honestly thinking the US surveillance state is used to the same extent that those in China and Russia are to act upon enemies of the state at home and abroad, it makes me take you less seriously.
Could it be? Absolutely. Would Alex Karp gladly direct his company to program it even if it imprisoned/killed his own family for the benefit of shareholders? Probably. But when SCOTUS just told the government this week that they need warrants for geofenced surveillance operations, this doesn't point to the existence of a surveillance state like that in those nations. At least, not yet.
How hot does the water need to be before you raise the alarm?
I think there is value in pointing out trend lines and voicing opposition even if there are other countries that have more authoritarian views on speech. This is not a competition, what matters is the experience of the people in the country today not the fact that if they moved to Russia it would be worse. What is important is that the US state has both gained capabilities to act that way, and has shown predilections for it.
Texas just gave a man 30 years for transporting zines because of the politics of those zines. The trend lines are potentially very bad. And it only gets harder to reverse if the concerned people are right; would you just say “I don’t think it can happen here” and have people wait until it does and delay talking about it until we are not allowed?
You have to hold elected and appointed leaders to account.
That means going to a voting site on each and every election day (I don't care if it's for dog catcher and only dog catcher) and voting even if candidates aren't perfect. It means making it clear that the three boxes of liberty will be used by the people to make sure that their rights are protected.
In the US, we still have some ability to do what I mentioned. There just doesn't seem to be any will to do it.
I read point 19 as Palantir’s goal being to import Chinese and Russian style surveillance, and the comment saying effectively “it can’t happen here” and “taking them less seriously” because they are raising alarm. After rereading my comment, I still think it clearly responds to that.
Surveillance networks are commonplace throughout history. Classic examples include Renaissance Italian networks in Europe, Egyptian networks operating in the Levant, Nazi networks in Europe and the UK, and so many more.
Did the US bring technology to the game? Yes. Were they the first global surveillance state, no. Are they the first to bifurcate by legal statute domestic and foreign intelligence? Yes, and with Congressional and Judicial oversight I might add.
If you're honestly thinking the US surveillance state is used to the same extent that those in China and Russia are to act upon enemies of the state at home and abroad, it makes me take you less seriously.
Could it be? Absolutely. Would Alex Karp gladly direct his company to program it even if it imprisoned/killed his own family for the benefit of shareholders? Probably. But when SCOTUS just told the government this week that they need warrants for geofenced surveillance operations, this doesn't point to the existence of a surveillance state like that in those nations. At least, not yet.