PDA

View Full Version : New Blood



Kevyne-Shandris
25th Jul 2008, 14:55
Okay, since the hardpan is cracking...went scoping. Since the DX universe is about conspiracies checked out Rense.com (where else to get a daily dose of the unknown??).

Up on top today is this article...

http://rinf.com/alt-news/surveillance-big-brother/secret-bluetooth-surveillance-study/4164/

This is a flashback for me of July, 2001. That summer there was a heated debate about cameras in public places to monitor the coming and going of people. The public really disliked it at the time and called it unconstitutional.

Then 9/11 came, and flipped all that rhetoric upside down. It was almost like all that was debated just 2 months before vanished. Now this same "general public" wanted more "security".

Unwarranted wiretaps. Expanded FISA provisions and court powers. Holding prisoners without access to attorneys, indefinitely. You're regarded a terrorist first, innocent later (forgetting that you're presumed innocent, until a jury of your peers says otherwise). Even your library checkout history could be checked by law enforcement.

People went along with it, as it brought them a feeling of "security".

Almost 7 years later, with al Qaeta basically in shambles; Iraq a ghost of it's former self; Afghanistan still not recovered from the Taliban; Iran more powerful than ever; Pakistan assassination and abuses internally and externally into Afghanistan -- we still learn the "State", wants to monitor citizens. Quietly this time, not even under the banner of terrorism. Yet it's still being monitored in secret.

Then we hear out of the blue yesterday (of all places on Fox News, the corporate protector #1), that we should start turning off our cellphones due to a "cancer" risk (hmmmm, industry has been denying it for years, and all of the sudden we get a cancer advisory stamp of approval......).

Now my questions are:

1. WHO would benefit the most from such data snooping? Government or corporations?

2. The State would have a reason to counter terrorism, but would the corporations want to also have access to that data, even revivals' trade secrets (it's all out in the open to grab)?

3. And if #2 is true, who is snowing who? Is the State trying to control the corporations?

4. How would the corporations retaliate? Will they create their own UNATCO style organization to keep even the government at bay? Just imagine how much data is emitted via these corporations out in the open, ready for anyone to cherry pick even. The State gets it, and they know the "crown jewels". At this state of the DX3 drought, ooooh, this would be soooo tasty!!

5. Did the Guardian blow the whistle on something deeper? Like by turning the phones off, and staying off folks won't start snooping on the whole wavelength issue (finding the signature of who and when you're monitored), long enough for whoever to mothball the snooping for awhile?

In the DX universe this is status quo, will DX3 expand on this theme -- of who's watching who?

Chemix
25th Jul 2008, 16:17
The government is controlled by lobbyists from corporations, so by government control, the corporations benefit.

Kevyne-Shandris
25th Jul 2008, 16:23
The government is controlled by lobbyists from corporations, so by government control, the corporations benefit.

What about a rogue government though? How will corporate control a government that turns on them? Or a government that learns to fear them?

Already there's enough rancor to curtail lobbies. Will that mean the corporations will backlash (like pulling PAC monies)? Or form their own UNATCO/Blackwater type organization?

Everyone wants the data, yet the government and corporations needs to control access to it (knowledge is power). But if the ying and yang is unbalanced, what happens next? The anarchy both fear?

jcp28
25th Jul 2008, 17:25
There is certainly potential for corporations to use but without adequate knowledge of which ones use it, I can't really say. Really, businesses often try to get over on one another so I'm not surprised.

The state had more potential, but like Chemix says, many businesses have enough influence so that whatever surveillance is done, it won't happen to them.

Kevyne-Shandris
25th Jul 2008, 17:45
There is certainly potential for corporations to use but without adequate knowledge of which ones use it, I can't really say. Really, businesses often try to get over on one another so I'm not surprised.

The state had more potential, but like Chemix says, many businesses have enough influence so that whatever surveillance is done, it won't happen to them.

How can the State trade power like that though? They also crave the same influence and power. It's a ying and yang relationship. If one loses their balance, they are rolled over.

The State can't afford to lose their power (as we see them flex their muscle every blue moon to regain it). They seem to trump in the end, too.

What a parasitic relationship.

jcp28
25th Jul 2008, 18:18
^
I'm just looking at the situation as it is now. The American political system is such that certain things have to be run through special intrest groups before they can be approved. And as corporations have the most money, they also tend to have the most influence.

It just seems to me right now that most of our so-called "public servants" are nothing more than just a bunch of bickering officials who care more about staying in power than fixing the problems in our country, whether such probelms be immigration or social security. Special interests aren't entirely to blame for these problems, but they do kind of limit debate.

To answer your initial question, I think that a UNATCO/Blackwater type force could only be formed if corporations/military contractors/ what have you felt threatened by the actions the government was taking. The only reason they can feel threatened then is if the government decides that something that they are doing is subversive to their policies somehow, and try to stop it. Surveillance of what you describe just doesn't quite have that sort of impact as it's not really a super-destructive act that fits within the context of how our government works.

Kevyne-Shandris
25th Jul 2008, 18:37
I differ about the UNATCO/Blackwater scenerio. Blackwater is a private merc "army" that corps use to protect their own and their property, that the State department even employed to protect their own.

That's a huge blur of the State and Corporate line.

Like with UNATCO, they also had carte blanche rule (untouchable really, which caused a rankle with other merc organizations due to their status). Only when that incident happened in Iraq, did accountability come, and they're still off the hook, as they were "working for the government".

Corp merc army offering protection to State officials.

That's stuff right out of the DX universe, hands down!

iWait
25th Jul 2008, 18:57
It's nothing new really, governments have been using mercenaries for a long time. Two examples I can think of are the Civil War and the Crusades.

Kevyne-Shandris
25th Jul 2008, 19:07
It's nothing new really, governments have been using mercenaries for a long time. Two examples I can think of are the Civil War and the Crusades.

Yet not corporate merc armies.

Those were individual mercs that were hired and formed merc armies afterwards. When their term was finished, they disbanded and went where ever.

This is a business, and these merc's don't disband, and have immunity of laws everyone else has to obey, at times (and not bound by the Geneva Convention, so can skirt those rules, too). They're not civilians, but they're not soldiers, either.

Dirty, dirty, dirty business.

iWait
25th Jul 2008, 19:11
Really? Oh, I thought they were considered armed combatants by the UN.

Chemix
26th Jul 2008, 01:28
The thing is, being a politician requires money to sling mud at your opponent, and make appearances and trips and such, and that money usually comes from lobbyists. Once corporations help get someone into office, that person becomes like an unofficial employee; they do something that benefits the company through congress, the company pays them back. Alternatively, one can swap between public and corporate office, leaving and coming back as terms run out and elections begin.

Kevyne-Shandris
26th Jul 2008, 07:19
The thing is, being a politician requires money to sling mud at your opponent, and make appearances and trips and such, and that money usually comes from lobbyists. Once corporations help get someone into office, that person becomes like an unofficial employee; they do something that benefits the company through congress, the company pays them back. Alternatively, one can swap between public and corporate office, leaving and coming back as terms run out and elections begin.

How far will it go? Considering if a politician gets pissed by a corporation, or is bribed to go after a rival?

They sell themselves to the highest bidder, which means a rival corp can turn them.

Which still leaves us with the data access issue: who needs that data of people going from point A to point B? I can see the government wanting to see if it can pick up terrorists in the crowd (or use face recognition software). But in that article it doesn't seem to be a government enterprise.

What do you think about these universities turning into like corporations? Since some are almost like them, especially harboring patents and building huge research centers (Cambridge comes to mind, here). Could that be why the secrecy involved? They also have 100s of millions of dollars worth of endowments (and pay almost no taxes, just look at Yale's history).

jcp28
26th Jul 2008, 16:59
What do you think about these universities turning into like corporations? Since some are almost like them, especially harboring patents and building huge research centers (Cambridge comes to mind, here). Could that be why the secrecy involved? They also have 100s of millions of dollars worth of endowments (and pay almost no taxes, just look at Yale's history).

I don't think there's soem huge conspiracy behind the secrecy, but it might make an interesting setting in a DX-type game. They probably just want to protect their interests, like all the other corporations.

Chemix
26th Jul 2008, 17:46
How far will it go? Considering if a politician gets pissed by a corporation, or is bribed to go after a rival?

They sell themselves to the highest bidder, which means a rival corp can turn them.

Which still leaves us with the data access issue: who needs that data of people going from point A to point B? I can see the government wanting to see if it can pick up terrorists in the crowd (or use face recognition software). But in that article it doesn't seem to be a government enterprise.

What do you think about these universities turning into like corporations? Since some are almost like them, especially harboring patents and building huge research centers (Cambridge comes to mind, here). Could that be why the secrecy involved? They also have 100s of millions of dollars worth of endowments (and pay almost no taxes, just look at Yale's history).

The bills don't strictly favor any large company over any other large company, politicians like to keep every option available that's worthwhile, which cuts out the little guys and stomps them into the mud.

I'll give an example: in the 1850s, before the civil war, the North controlled congress, and the northern congressmen were backed by industries in the north. Those industries wanted the fertile lands of the south, so congress imposed export terrifs (fees/taxes) on Southern farm crops, which made all but the largest farms unable to turn enough profit to pay the rising taxes on their land, so they turned to the banks for loans hoping that the terrifs would be removed in a year or so, they weren't removed. The banks foreclosed on the farms and put the land up for sale, and who was looking to buy? Northern industry. This was one of, if not the heaviest, straw on the South's back towards the civil war. Ending slavery would hurt the big farms, and that was the last straw. Big and small southerner alike went to war. As a note: I think slavery is barbaric, cruel and evil, I'm just stating what I was taught and went on to research about why the civil war happened.

As for surveillance, it's not only useful for catching terrorists, but for catching inventors and idealists among other things. With the Military Commissions Act, anyone in the US can be held without fair trial (there's a military tribunal with no defensive evidence), and imprisoned, if not tortured, with no Geneva conventions rights. Also it allows for further control as one can monitor society more closely, see the reaction to adds and suggestion, etc. etc.

Kevyne-Shandris
26th Jul 2008, 18:13
Ending slavery didn't occur until 1863 (and only by a decree), 2 years into the War between the States (Northerners like to call it the Civil War). Too many believed the war was over slavery, when it was not. It was partly due to the tariffs, but also due to State rights (too many forget the Young-Webster debates, which set the motion of the whole State rights agenda. With the VP of that day, John C. Calhoun being a fervant supporter, so much to fall in disfavor with President Jackson [who threatened to send federal troops into South Carolina then]). For over 20 years Southerners remembered those debates -- and to this day.

The tariffs were the match, States rights the gas.

In this day and age I doubt the government let alone corporations would prefer to have some inventor arrested (monitored, but not arrested). That's lost revenue.

It's all sick to know that a few can control not only the population, the very knowledge that is needed to get free of both the government and corporations grip. No one in 1970 would've predicted what the PC would've done to the world in 1985. Same will be said with the next great invention. Corps survive, but Xerox and IBM are a shell of what they could've been.

Chemix
26th Jul 2008, 19:40
Ending slavery didn't occur until 1863 (and only by a decree), 2 years into the War between the States (Northerners like to call it the Civil War). Too many believed the war was over slavery, when it was not. It was partly due to the tariffs, but also due to State rights (too many forget the Young-Webster debates, which set the motion of the whole State rights agenda. With the VP of that day, John C. Calhoun being a fervant supporter, so much to fall in disfavor with President Jackson [who threatened to send federal troops into South Carolina then]). For over 20 years Southerners remembered those debates -- and to this day.

The tariffs were the match, States rights the gas.

In this day and age I doubt the government let alone corporations would prefer to have some inventor arrested (monitored, but not arrested). That's lost revenue.

It's all sick to know that a few can control not only the population, the very knowledge that is needed to get free of both the government and corporations grip. No one in 1970 would've predicted what the PC would've done to the world in 1985. Same will be said with the next great invention. Corps survive, but Xerox and IBM are a shell of what they could've been.

Say an inventor comes up with an alternative to... say, oil, do you really think the oil companies would like that? With them safely locked up and quiet, there is no threat, but you're right, it is sick, it's the realization of the panopticon (wiki it, neat stuff), and the furthering of the real Deus Ex Machina.