The unwarranted surveillance policies that get enshrined into law and all the illegal snooping by the gov seems to trace to anti-terror legislation and anti-terror backroom initiatives. I have to wonder, is this all attributed to Israel? If the US and other Israel allies had quit supporting Israel during their oppression of Palestinians, would there be a notable terror threat that could then be the cause for action (for unwarranted snooping) under the anti-terror façade? Would bankers had been converted into police had it not been for Israel’s oppression of Palestine?

Is this why we will lose cash in the future?

Have any privacy orgs calculated how many terror incidents stem from a consequence of supporting Israel? This could even count the white supremacist nutters who attack mosques in retaliation.

What would be a more effective anti-terror policy?:

  • Snoop on everyone in every possible way. Wiretaps, forced banking, making bankers into cops, video surveillance everywhere with facial recognition… etc.

or

  • Stop supporting Israel.
  • soloActivist@links.hackliberty.orgOP
    11·
    16 days ago

    There are many stakeholders with much to gain from the mass collection of data

    Right but they need our permission because they want to hold on to power. This is what Snowden covers when he talks about cover for action w.r.t. surveillance programs. They need the anti-terror excuse. They rely on it. Where does that excuse come from? This article covers it well.

    It’s not that long of a read. But I thought this was a gem worth quoting here:

    One of the senators, Russ Feingold, said during the debate preceding the vote on this law [US Patriot Act]:

    “There’s no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where the police were allowed to search your home at any time and for any reason, if we lived in a country where the government had the right to open your mail, listen to your phone conversations or intercept your e-mail communications… the government would probably discover and arrest more terrorists, or would-be terrorists, than in the past. But it would not be a country we would want to live in.”

    He was not listened to by his colleagues, and was the only senator not to vote for the PATRIOT Act

    I should also mention he was a democrat (not relevant to the point, but noteworthy nonetheless).

    This is not to dismiss what you’ve said. But the “unthinking masses uncritically accepting the convenience” will be under the influence of the idea that anti-terror justifies it. A forced-banking policy will acquire the 55-65% you mention under that premise. The convenience of electronic payment is just the lubrication that will demotivate resistance. In fact I suspect we already have a majority believing the anti-terror narrative both as justification and the effectiveness of it.