This is not what a free society looks like.
This is not what a free society looks like.This is not what a free society looks like.
This is not what a free society looks like.
This is not what a free society looks like.This is not what a free society looks like.
This is not what a free society looks like.
This is not what a free society looks like.This is not what a free society looks like.
@astrotwilight: If you have nothing to hide then why are you scared, are you a drug dealer?
Yes, absolutely. And a thief. And a homeless person. And a sex worker. And a graffit artist. And an undocumented person. And a person having sex. And a person carrying illegal medication. And, if I’m brave enough, maybe even someone who would break the law not just for my own needs but to change this rotten world where people suffer and starve and are imprisoned and enslaved and deported and murdered in the name of ‘the law’.
How does anyone look at the sentence “Are you sure we’re not watching you” and not feel immediately threatened by that, to the point of DEFENDING it
That’s a good point but also all of those things that @queeranarchism is “doing” should be stopped so…
No they should not.
Sex workers work because just like everyone else they need money to live and criminalizing them hurts their ability to live. Shoplifters steal because capitalism has stolen everything from them. Sex is wonderful and drugs can bring a wide range of positive experiences and policing them is primarily about controlling populations. Graffitti is art that reclaims space taken by advertisers. Illegal medication saves lives. Homeless people and undocumented people can only prevent being policed for existing by DYING.
The ‘crimes’ don’t need to stop. Laws need to stop. Capitalism and state violence needs to stop so that people can live happy safe lives without being criminalized.
The law is not necessarily just. It is made to adress the visible symptoms as perceived by those in charge, and only rarely will changes be made that actually address the cause of said visible symptoms. In addition, those in charge will strive for more power, and more importantly will use the law to protect their power.
The justice system is filled with humans, corruptible humans with failings, agendas, prejudices and so on. All of these things are acted upon daily, from the shootings and incarceration of marginalised groups, to theft (civil forfeiture) and planting of illegal contraband, just to name a few. It is naive to think that the surveillance won’t be abused.
The reach of the surveillance will be expanded past its original limits, and I say this because it has happened before, probably in every single case. For example, it only took a few years for Sweden to take the surveillance that was so dearly promised that “it will only ever be used to catch terrorists” (and never gave any provable results, just the claim that it stopped two terrorists, but with no court cases to confirm those claims) and turn it towards hunting pirates.
It’s almost so cliché that I feel bad bringing it up again, but should those in charge want to, they can label a person or a group an enemy of the state, have them murdered and cover up the reason why. This happened countless times through history, and those who did it couldn’t have dreamt of a better tool than modern surveillance.
But the real point is that it doesn’t even have to get to that point. It is already an attack on our human right to privacy. It shapes the way we act in ways we are not aware of. I could dig up some studies on the subject if it’s desired, but they shouldn’t be particularly hard to find so for now I’ll just leave with an opinion piece on the subject: https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201409/all-eyes-you
Yes! The state uses some very obvious tricks to normalize new methods of surveillannce and violence:
– Claim to use it against a threat that raises a strong reaction of fear and disgust in the eyes of the public, like terrorists, child pornographers etc. Once the use has been normalized quietly expand it to a broader category like ‘terrorism and radicalisation’ (radicalisation means anyone with a political opinion we don’t like) and ‘child pornography, trafficking and sex offences’ (trafficking can be used to surveil anyone helping refugees, sex offences can be used to surveil sex workers, etc).
– At times, new legislation is also introduced against group that don’t seem like a big tjhreat but that you think will not include you, like ‘public gathering’ bans against sports riots that later end up being used to suppress protestors.
– Improve new technology by testing it on groups that are largely ignored by the public. How would you feel it if your face was in a database somewhere and CCTV cameras constantly scanned for your face and mapped your actions? Well, facial recognition through CCTV is already being used to enforce area bans against homeless people and street-based sex workers.
– Prioritize meta-data gathering over content gathering. (For those who don’t know these terms: If you send your friend a text that reads ‘what’s up?’ the content is ‘what’s-up?’ while the meta-data is: message send by phonenumber 0679234876 to 0623071682 at 6.23pm using Whatsapp while on Starbucks wifi in Hamburg). While most people are worried about the surveillance state literally reading our messages, our meta data reveals when we’re awake and when we sleep, who our friends and extended network are, when we’re travelling and where, who is in our proximity, etc etc. This often provides far more information and is much easier to gather under current legislation.
– Introduce new surveillance in the immediate aftermath of a catastrophic event or when a safety related topic is trending in political debates. Surveillance claims to provide safety, but of course it doesn’t.
& more…
QueerAnarchism 