On 29 August 2013 08:55, Bernard Robertson-Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
> NSA and GCHQ: the flawed psychology of government mass surveillance > Research shows that indiscriminate monitoring fosters distrust, > conformity and mediocrity > > Hypothesis: Governments know this. > Discuss. > layperson hypothetical: mass surveillance is interesting for commercial reasons and uses. mass surveillance costs and therefore the systems it requires will look for return on investment, that might be in 'security' terms or commercial terms perhaps both? mass surveillance, reframing peaceful protest as illegal, militarising police all position the community as the threat this means that these mechanisms defend other interests if the community is the entity to be defended against then disabling psychology is congruent with control if politicians are framed as external through mass surveillance which outgroup do they represent? perhaps it is useful for communities to feel disenfranchised and that their government is not representing their interests? government is possibly the means to implement the systems the customers of the systems are likely to be external to au jurisdiction mass surveillance is interesting for commercial reasons and uses. finance power water and food security etc designed for community needs would look different to finance power water and food security etc which defend other interests if it is a global shift how do people globally empower systems and processes which represent them? how do you make environmental and social sustainability front of mind for systems which are pressured by the disparate concentrations of wealth and power in our economic systems presumably it has happened before i dont know enough history to imagine how these things play out due to climate change it is important that communities do figure it out because they are geographically located whereas money and power are not profit is unhinged from responsibility especially when government systems cannot speak community truth to commercial power. disparate wealth and poverty increase difficulties and conflict for communities and probably are seen to facilitate profits for some commercial interests if shopping is the means to vote for responsible commercial interests then poverty limits the ability for consumers to make choices for reasons other than price. this also limits the sphere of influence of consumers. capitalist democracies appear to have some structural challenges which will need some grit to resolve imho _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
