6 ms·

As a citizen, I am not okay with this degree of intra-sovereign surveillance. If I am to live in, pay taxes, and otherwise contribute to a society, I want to b

As a citizen, I am not okay with this degree of intra-sovereign surveillance. If I am to live in, pay taxes, and otherwise contribute to a society, I want to be free of surveillance and subterfuge within that society - my states laws, designed to protect me from thugs and mafia (a very real threat), should not be thwarted by military industrial mafia hell-bent on exerting control over sovereign states, in spite of my desires as a citizen. The trouble is, I see no way forward for citizens of the 5-eyes states to address this issue, other than either a) revolution to uncover and dissolve the control networks that have been covertly put in place, or b) sedition - leaving the state, and not contributing (taxes) to its continued economic development. As we have seen with Wikileaks and Julian Assange, its not enough to just reveal the covert secrets that underpin this inner state-within-a-state - there have to be actual repercussions for those involved, and this isn't happening at any rate near well enough for my needs. So, it appears that sedition is the only option - and indeed, that is what I have done: I no longer participate in the economies of any of the 5-eyes states, directly, and I"m about to give up my citizenship in my birth nation over the issue. But we know this isn't a solution. Do we have to start a brain-drain revolution which moves the economic power of an intelligent class from state to state? Or, do we just let mother nature do its thing, and 'hope' that things will 'change' in the 5-eyes super-state somehow? Too many people I trust and respect in the crypto-anarchist sphere are responding to this appeal with "well, covid-19 will sort it out" for my liking .. but what other options are there, really? Journalism is utterly dead and decrepit in the West, this is not an avenue. Violent revolution makes no sense whatsoever. So, brain-drain it is ...

stunt 6y ago
We tend to like surveillance as long as it's in our favor and interest. Aren't we? But the moment you hear some surveillance or espionage from another country, then it's time to bash them hard and feel bad about them. But, I'm afraid we don't have a choice because we are living in a zero-sum game. And the irony is that the more we play non-cooperative, the more reasons we give to each other to play non-cooperative.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  I don't believe anybody's surveillance is good. This is the opposite of free and open society, and is a creeping tyranny. I discourage any such devotion in my peers - its all too easy to just submit to the overwhelming might of the wests' military industrial complex. I guess the best thing to do is to continue to fight covert manipulation at all costs, using any means necessary beyond violence. This seems to not be so much of a zero-sum game as capitulation.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > I don't believe anybody's surveillance is good So America shouldn’t have tried to crack the Enigma? Or keep an eye on Soviet missiles? All surveillance is bad is a fairly-extreme stance.
    - ginko 6y ago
      It was the Poles and British that cracked the Enigma.
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        True, but American forces later manufactured and utilized their findings. That was quite certainly surveillance. And, by my book, it was quite certainly good.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      Wartime surveillance is necessary. Peacetime surveillance is bad. The problem is getting to "peacetime".
      - fit2rule 6y ago
        Exactly. If we spent half as much making peace as we do funding war and terror, we'd all be multilingual and a lot more tolerant of cultures not our own...
      - 6y ago
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
I don't follow. The article is about one state spying on the internal communications of another state, while they were at war.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  The subtext is one state using another states spying activities in order to gain an advantage in its own war against a third state, and is presented in a way that seems designed to popularise the idea of surveillance economies exchanging with one another, without civilian oversight. I don't think this is a good thing. We have seen that the USA has, essentially, co=opted the intelligence-gathering communities of the peer states in its coalition - and only seems to be 'acceptable' because its being done by 'our side'. But I think the state issue is such a large problem that such circumstances can only lead to further catastrophes in the future, when these extra-sovereign entities, not bounded by any local state laws, decide that they need to justify their continued existence by exerting that covert power in order to create conditions conducive to the prosperity of the secret apparatus, itself. Are Australians okay with not being spied on by their own intelligence agencies, while being spied on by the CIA, which then shares that information with Australian spy agencies as an extra-sovereign economic exchange? Perhaps they are - but I hope this is not the case elsewhere in the 5-eyes world. What it indicates to me is that we civilians will always have to work hard to get ahead of the military sovereign and lessen the dependencies they put in place to continually justify their existence - i.e. we need to make peace faster than they can make war. Would that we had another Lennon around to assist that process...
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > The subtext is one state using another states spying activities in order to gain an advantage in its own war against a third state Do you understand what an 'ally' is? They're allies. Helping each other is what allies do. You make it sound like it's some bizarre underhand agreement. They're just allies. I'm sure the UK would return the favour to the Dutch if Aruba were invaded (don't actually know about their defence agreements but you get the idea.) > without civilian oversight This article is about civilian agencies, and discusses civilian politicians talking about them. Talking about civilian oversight doesn't make any sense here. What were you trying to mean? > Would that we had another Lennon around to assist that process... The pop singer?
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
The trouble is, I see no way forward for citizens of the 5-eyes states to address this issue The Dutch aren't part of 5-eyes.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  The Dutch are a part of 9-eyes, which indeed reports to the 5-eyes coalition. They are, therefore, a second-rate member of this extra-sovereign entity.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > this extra-sovereign entity You're dramatizing an intelligence-sharing agreement. Something allies have always done. The entities, the spy agencies, are decidedly of sovereign creation.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      I have absolutely zero democratic involvement in the USA's intelligence apparatus, although I am liable to be a subject of its attention. This violates my participation in my own country's sovereign legislation designed to protect my rights - therefore, it is no longer substantively valid.

stunt 6y ago

We tend to like surveillance as long as it's in our favor and interest. Aren't we? But the moment you hear some surveillance or espionage from another country, then it's time to bash them hard and feel bad about them. But, I'm afraid we don't have a choice because we are living in a zero-sum game. And the irony is that the more we play non-cooperative, the more reasons we give to each other to play non-cooperative.

fit2rule 6y ago
I don't believe anybody's surveillance is good. This is the opposite of free and open society, and is a creeping tyranny. I discourage any such devotion in my peers - its all too easy to just submit to the overwhelming might of the wests' military industrial complex. I guess the best thing to do is to continue to fight covert manipulation at all costs, using any means necessary beyond violence. This seems to not be so much of a zero-sum game as capitulation.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > I don't believe anybody's surveillance is good So America shouldn’t have tried to crack the Enigma? Or keep an eye on Soviet missiles? All surveillance is bad is a fairly-extreme stance.
  - ginko 6y ago
    It was the Poles and British that cracked the Enigma.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      True, but American forces later manufactured and utilized their findings. That was quite certainly surveillance. And, by my book, it was quite certainly good.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Wartime surveillance is necessary. Peacetime surveillance is bad. The problem is getting to "peacetime".
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      Exactly. If we spent half as much making peace as we do funding war and terror, we'd all be multilingual and a lot more tolerant of cultures not our own...
    - 6y ago

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

I don't follow. The article is about one state spying on the internal communications of another state, while they were at war.

fit2rule 6y ago
The subtext is one state using another states spying activities in order to gain an advantage in its own war against a third state, and is presented in a way that seems designed to popularise the idea of surveillance economies exchanging with one another, without civilian oversight. I don't think this is a good thing. We have seen that the USA has, essentially, co=opted the intelligence-gathering communities of the peer states in its coalition - and only seems to be 'acceptable' because its being done by 'our side'. But I think the state issue is such a large problem that such circumstances can only lead to further catastrophes in the future, when these extra-sovereign entities, not bounded by any local state laws, decide that they need to justify their continued existence by exerting that covert power in order to create conditions conducive to the prosperity of the secret apparatus, itself. Are Australians okay with not being spied on by their own intelligence agencies, while being spied on by the CIA, which then shares that information with Australian spy agencies as an extra-sovereign economic exchange? Perhaps they are - but I hope this is not the case elsewhere in the 5-eyes world. What it indicates to me is that we civilians will always have to work hard to get ahead of the military sovereign and lessen the dependencies they put in place to continually justify their existence - i.e. we need to make peace faster than they can make war. Would that we had another Lennon around to assist that process...
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > The subtext is one state using another states spying activities in order to gain an advantage in its own war against a third state Do you understand what an 'ally' is? They're allies. Helping each other is what allies do. You make it sound like it's some bizarre underhand agreement. They're just allies. I'm sure the UK would return the favour to the Dutch if Aruba were invaded (don't actually know about their defence agreements but you get the idea.) > without civilian oversight This article is about civilian agencies, and discusses civilian politicians talking about them. Talking about civilian oversight doesn't make any sense here. What were you trying to mean? > Would that we had another Lennon around to assist that process... The pop singer?

tonyedgecombe 6y ago

The trouble is, I see no way forward for citizens of the 5-eyes states to address this issue The Dutch aren't part of 5-eyes.

fit2rule 6y ago
The Dutch are a part of 9-eyes, which indeed reports to the 5-eyes coalition. They are, therefore, a second-rate member of this extra-sovereign entity.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > this extra-sovereign entity You're dramatizing an intelligence-sharing agreement. Something allies have always done. The entities, the spy agencies, are decidedly of sovereign creation.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    I have absolutely zero democratic involvement in the USA's intelligence apparatus, although I am liable to be a subject of its attention. This violates my participation in my own country's sovereign legislation designed to protect my rights - therefore, it is no longer substantively valid.