THE CON: Professional Surveillance Often Wears a Pro-Privacy Mask

Why Mass surveillance and Privacy Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) are some of the most anti-privacy people you will ever meet in your life.

How is it that all of these writers, information security and risk experts, and data science researchers can come by all of this knowledge about ‘the end of privacy’ and mass surveillance and not be against it?

That’s simple. They are absolutely obsessed with demolishing privacy. They hop on the most totalitarian objects of their affection whether it’s mobile surveillance, identity surveillance or mass surveillance adoption in public process.

They are absolutely in awe of the destructive power of mass surveillance. They will describe it in deeply aware detail. You think they are doing you a favor. They did. They’re just using their other hand to demand its use and contract incorporation of the tech in your neighborhood. They use their expertise to stab you with absolute precision, right in the back, between the shoulder blades to make sure they get your privacy aorta severed.

They truly hate you for your freedom from their prying eyes. In order to better understand this contemptuous animal you will need some basic thumb rules.

What they do for a living.

They are University academics, usually in pocket with strongly leftist validated academic circles. They go to their sing alongs, their eateries and their small conferences as a favor to one another.

They are reporters, writers and publishers of online publications for global publications. They are on-call for any number of research projects due to their leftist alum circles. Online pubs typically now derive their income from consumer surveillance. So it’s a match from the start.

They work in tech, for any variety of large technological corporations ininformation security, human resources and compliance arms of the company. They are executing bug bounties, information security compliance fixes and legal compliance at human resources.

They work inside the government. They usually work for foreign policy agencies that include three-letters for the federal government. If they don’t qualify for that, they work in a Congressional office or they work in local government. They’ll choose to work in an agency like emergency management, police and fire to justify the totalitarian adoption of mass surveillance tech.

The aim is to reach and a manage a mass surveillance intelligence cache and to possess means to extort and control virtually anyone with remote surveillance technology.

Other things they do.

They learn how to hack and surveill civilians as a power trip to ingratiate themselves to editors and publications, who don’t really care how they got the information, just that they have concrete proof to expose anyone. The publications themselves often will use branded market intelligence tools and legal discovery teams to pull down deeply sourced stories cheaply. This rivals funding an investigative journalism team, which today more strongly resembles a private intelligence operation of ex-DNI employees with similar aptitudes and skillsets.

They barter and trade surveillance trophies with mass media and social media. They hack people who rival their interests, namely, privacy and civil liberty lawyers, human rights activists and popular voices in favor of privacy. They have small online parties, similar to hackers, where they show people’s naked information to one another. Most of them are lonely, twisted, voyeuristic creeps content with their dualities and perversions. It seems no one holds them accountable because they own the tools of extortion. Owned people of means make use of them instead. Other owned targets just get to live with the sting, because they cannot prove out their underminers.

If this is you, don’t get demoralized. Sec up and find the fix for your information gap problems. Don’t let them win.

They choose surveillance targets ‘to own’ in group stalking campaigns and APT attacks. This ranges from academic competitive harassment to news competition rivals seeking to discredit their perceived enemies. One does not have to know they are a target, but that’s no fun. They eventually let them know they are under surveillance by a whole range of people, usually leftists from Information Studies colleges. They do things like haunt online bins for reputation failure on the dark web versus cruise around farmers markets during the day. They intend to show their notes to other disgusting characters in their circles of privatized surveillance. The target knows some of the people who have had access to their personal information, but they do not know all of them, when and to what they have access to. Why is that?

Anti-surveillance advocates don’t have the same habits that anti-privacy personae have.

How genuine anti-surveillance advocates are different than them.

They don’t spend a lot of time with hackers, refining the hack craft. They may have an overview of who people with datalust addictions are and what they do, but they have non-related habits. They do not possess the generalized smugness, anger and the dying soul (visible from the eyes) that comes with a gluttonous appetite for clandestine information. They will know some people in the field for reference, but they don’t spend their weekends with them playing Mean-Girl games. They may get an invite from them, but they always have other plans - even if it’s just cleaning the washer gutters and filing receipts for itemized deductions.

They have a spirit of protection towards the general welfare. They don’t cut corners on legal conformance because they believe complying with existing privacy laws and government boundaries protects people from harm. They aren’t going to prey on people who need legal protections. They certainly won’t extol and worship the meanness of mass surveillance tech on the page and then demand from their local neocon/neoliberal that this needs immediate funding and proliferation. That doesn’t happen with these folks, because they are anti-surveillance.

They fight their opponents above board. They don’t get close, threaten their families. They don’t set reputation traps. They write the letters, go to the information sessions to object to budget policy for mass surveillance. They use the audit train to smash the opposition.

They do keep tabs. They know exactly how much rope to give their opponents to hang themselves. Then they win.

When they win, surveillance contracts go away. Then there is a blank spot in the dirt of Satan’s court where a cauldron and fire used to be. That’s what creates the great cycle and game of imitation between bonafide privacy and security advocacy and the mass surveillance architects undermining your freedom.

They smile and pronounce just like a privacy advocate. The frown and are in awe of the means of privacy betrayal the same as the anti-surveillance advocate. They are just frowning for different reasons.