[LINK] The flawed psychology of government mass surveillance

[Janet Hawtin]

On 29 August 2013 08:55, Bernard Robertson-Dunn <brd at iimetro.com.au> 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