The following requires no commentary from me:
Thursday, June 19, 2014
UPDATED: They'll Be Watching You
Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you.
-The Police - Every Breath You Take
Recent revelations, some of which I have written about, should make us all acutely aware that in the surveillance state, which now describes much of the world, our privacy is more a cherished illusion than it is a reality. Not only has the Canadian federal government been enjoying easy access to our digital information but also, as we recently learned, it has sent out a directive to all federal departments to report any demonstrations, however big or small, to the Government Operations Centre. Chillingly, a leaked email said, "We will compile this information and make this information available to our partners..."
But it turns out that the above only shows the tip of a very large iceberg.
Yesterday, The Mound of Sound sent me this link from The Guardian. Entitled Pentagon preparing for mass civil breakdown, the piece should give all of us, no matter where we live, profound pause:
A US Department of Defense (DoD) research programme is funding universities to model the dynamics, risks and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest across the world, under the supervision of various US military agencies. The multi-million dollar programme is designed to develop immediate and long-term "warfighter-relevant insights" for senior officials and decision makers in "the defense policy community," and to inform policy implemented by "combatant commands."
Launched in 2008 – the year of the global banking crisis (emphasis added) – the DoD 'Minerva Research Initiative' partners with universities "to improve DoD's basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the US."
The above would seem to provide an ominous clue as to its larger purpose. The fact that the Minerva Project was launched the same year as the banking crisis, a crisis that led to deep and extensive civil unrest, suggests that its purpose is control and containment and, by extension, maintenance of the status quo. Back to that in a moment.
Wide-scale surveillance is a given in this quest for 'understanding':
Twitter posts and conversations will be examined "to identify individuals mobilised in a social contagion and when they become mobilised."
Basic tenets of democracy appear to be of no concern to The Pentagon. Indeed, protests to bring about political and economic change are viewed as palpable threats:
Another project awarded this year to the University of Washington "seeks to uncover the conditions under which political movements aimed at large-scale political and economic change originate," along with their "characteristics and consequences." The project, managed by the US Army Research Office, focuses on "large-scale movements involving more than 1,000 participants in enduring activity," and will cover 58 countries in total.
The narrow perspective of the military, which sees all disruptive activity as a threat to the status quo, is confirmed by Prof David Price, a cultural anthropologist at St Martin's University in Washington DC. who previously exposed some truths about the Pentagon's Human Terrain Systems (HTS) programme, whose scenarios
"adapted COIN [counterinsurgency] for Afghanistan/Iraq" to domestic situations "in the USA where the local population was seen from the military perspective as threatening the established balance of power and influence, and challenging law and order."
One war-game, said Price, involved environmental activists protesting pollution from a coal-fired plant near Missouri, some of whom were members of the well-known environmental NGO Sierra Club.
Such war-games are consistent with a raft of Pentagon planning documents which suggest that National Security Agency (NSA) mass surveillance is partially motivated to prepare for the destabilising impact of coming environmental, energy and economic shocks.
To say that this entire mentality is a deep affront to basic tenets of democracy is to state the obvious. To think that this is only a theoretical construct is to be unspeakably naive. Although examples of state repression as a response to protest and unrest abound, one need only remember what happened when the Occupy Movement hit its stride. Closer to home, of course, was the June 2010 G20 Summit debacle in Toronto. Or take a look at how Brazil is currently dealing with protests during the World Cup.
And things will not be getting any better. Climate change, probably our greatest threat, will spark more and more unrest, as will the Harper government's sanctioning of the Northern Gateway Project.
From all of this, one thing is abundantly clear. Rather than constructively responding to citizen concerns, the state will do everything in its power to protect the interests of those who really matter to it. Hint: it isn't us.
And finally, this warning from Dwight Eisenhower, spoken over 50 years ago as he prepared to depart from the U.S. presidency, seems eerily prescient:
Thanks to Anon, who provided the link to the following video, which significantly updates things:
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you.
-The Police - Every Breath You Take
Recent revelations, some of which I have written about, should make us all acutely aware that in the surveillance state, which now describes much of the world, our privacy is more a cherished illusion than it is a reality. Not only has the Canadian federal government been enjoying easy access to our digital information but also, as we recently learned, it has sent out a directive to all federal departments to report any demonstrations, however big or small, to the Government Operations Centre. Chillingly, a leaked email said, "We will compile this information and make this information available to our partners..."
But it turns out that the above only shows the tip of a very large iceberg.
Yesterday, The Mound of Sound sent me this link from The Guardian. Entitled Pentagon preparing for mass civil breakdown, the piece should give all of us, no matter where we live, profound pause:
A US Department of Defense (DoD) research programme is funding universities to model the dynamics, risks and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest across the world, under the supervision of various US military agencies. The multi-million dollar programme is designed to develop immediate and long-term "warfighter-relevant insights" for senior officials and decision makers in "the defense policy community," and to inform policy implemented by "combatant commands."
Launched in 2008 – the year of the global banking crisis (emphasis added) – the DoD 'Minerva Research Initiative' partners with universities "to improve DoD's basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the US."
The above would seem to provide an ominous clue as to its larger purpose. The fact that the Minerva Project was launched the same year as the banking crisis, a crisis that led to deep and extensive civil unrest, suggests that its purpose is control and containment and, by extension, maintenance of the status quo. Back to that in a moment.
Wide-scale surveillance is a given in this quest for 'understanding':
Twitter posts and conversations will be examined "to identify individuals mobilised in a social contagion and when they become mobilised."
Basic tenets of democracy appear to be of no concern to The Pentagon. Indeed, protests to bring about political and economic change are viewed as palpable threats:
Another project awarded this year to the University of Washington "seeks to uncover the conditions under which political movements aimed at large-scale political and economic change originate," along with their "characteristics and consequences." The project, managed by the US Army Research Office, focuses on "large-scale movements involving more than 1,000 participants in enduring activity," and will cover 58 countries in total.
The narrow perspective of the military, which sees all disruptive activity as a threat to the status quo, is confirmed by Prof David Price, a cultural anthropologist at St Martin's University in Washington DC. who previously exposed some truths about the Pentagon's Human Terrain Systems (HTS) programme, whose scenarios
"adapted COIN [counterinsurgency] for Afghanistan/Iraq" to domestic situations "in the USA where the local population was seen from the military perspective as threatening the established balance of power and influence, and challenging law and order."
One war-game, said Price, involved environmental activists protesting pollution from a coal-fired plant near Missouri, some of whom were members of the well-known environmental NGO Sierra Club.
Such war-games are consistent with a raft of Pentagon planning documents which suggest that National Security Agency (NSA) mass surveillance is partially motivated to prepare for the destabilising impact of coming environmental, energy and economic shocks.
To say that this entire mentality is a deep affront to basic tenets of democracy is to state the obvious. To think that this is only a theoretical construct is to be unspeakably naive. Although examples of state repression as a response to protest and unrest abound, one need only remember what happened when the Occupy Movement hit its stride. Closer to home, of course, was the June 2010 G20 Summit debacle in Toronto. Or take a look at how Brazil is currently dealing with protests during the World Cup.
And things will not be getting any better. Climate change, probably our greatest threat, will spark more and more unrest, as will the Harper government's sanctioning of the Northern Gateway Project.
From all of this, one thing is abundantly clear. Rather than constructively responding to citizen concerns, the state will do everything in its power to protect the interests of those who really matter to it. Hint: it isn't us.
And finally, this warning from Dwight Eisenhower, spoken over 50 years ago as he prepared to depart from the U.S. presidency, seems eerily prescient:
Thanks to Anon, who provided the link to the following video, which significantly updates things:
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Thomas Walkom Misses The Mark
One of the reasons I subscribe to The Toronto Star is the quality of its columnists. Tim Harper, Martin Regg Cohn, Thomas Walkom, Heather Mallick, etc. rarely disappoint. However, no one is perfect, and today's column by Walkom is not up to his usual critical standards.
Entitled Conservatives’ downfall could be Stephen Harper’s dismissive tone, the piece seems to suggest that if Harper were nicer, people wouldn't perceive his government in nearly as bad a light as they do:
When the obituary is finally written on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government, it is the tone that will stand out.
Most of his actions will not. With some notable exceptions (such as gutting environmental regulations), they have not been extreme.
As illustration of the regime's mean-spirited nature, he cites the increasingly antagonistic and divisive tone of Immigration Minister Chris Alexander, (a once well-regarded foreign diplomat whose moral decline since joining the cabinet has been precipitous, egregious and Dorian-Gray like). Responding to criticism of his bill that would give the government the power to strip citizenship away from native-born Canadians who hold dual citizenship, Alexander called into question former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, who, he said, had eliminated treason as grounds for citizenship revocation “at a time when the Liberal Party was playing footsie with Moscow.”
To be sure, the tone of the regime has been relentlessly harsh toward all who question or oppose its policies. It is on daily display during Question Period, where civility and respect were long ago replaced by sneering derision, not only for opposition members, but also for the institution of Parliament and its officers. Well-documented in the blogosphere, such debasement, I have opined in the past, has been intentional so as to discourage an already discouraged electorate from political participation.
Voter alienation is one of the highest costs we are paying with this cabal, but of course, it has wrought much destruction in so many other areas as well.
A very brief overview will amply underscore some of the things Walkom has blithely overlooked:
- a war on science, resulting in the muzzling of scientists and dismantling of world-class research
- an antipathy toward climate change mitigation. As we saw last weak, Harper and Australia's Tony Abbott are true soul mates in this domain.
- the starving of the beast. Every measure to reduce federal revenues, be they through direct cutting of taxes, expansion of Tax-Free Savings Accounts, income-splitting, etc. is consistent with the conservatism espoused by Harperites. The less money there is, the less 'social engineering', as they would call it, the federal government can do. This kind of economic Darwinism, of course, ignores the needs of the many while rewarding and encouraging the indulges of the few.
- harsh mandatory sentencing in a time of declining crime rates.
- the loss of Canada's international recognition as an honest broker. The government's unflinching support of Israel in all matters, and its increasing contempt for bodies like the U.N., betray long-standing traditions that served us and the world so well.
- contempt for privacy. Only now are we waking up to the realization of widespread domestic surveillance sanctioned by the regime, including warrantless requests for information from our ISPs.
Obviously, I have touched on but a few of shortcomings of the current regime. To be fair to Walkom, no one column could be expected to address them. But suggesting the main problem for the government is one of tone does seem to woefully underestimate the damage done by this hateful regime.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Who Is Invading Your Privacy?
Like many bloggers, I 'enjoy' frequent visits to this blog from the federal government. While I have no idea whether a profile of me exists within the dark bowels of the Harper regime, in my more grandiose moments I like to think that my ruminations are a source of some digestive distress for the federal government.
For those concerned about the Harperites' propensity for domestic surveillance, a new tool has been developed that allows you to very quickly generate a letter to the privacy ombudsman for your ISP.
The new tool, developed by some of the country’s top privacy experts, makes it easier for Canadians to force their provider to disclose their practices.
“What we’re trying to do as researchers is identify what kind of data telecommunications companies in Canada collect, obtain and process, and disclose to third parties,” said Dr. Christopher Parsons, a fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs’ Citizen Lab.
“But we also wanted to make it easier for Canadians individually to engage in the same sort of action.”
Here is the link that will take you to the site, hosted by openmedia.ca. I used it this morning to generate a letter that I then sent off by email. My service provider is now required by law to provide a response within 30 days.
I shall keep you posted of any developments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)