User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive

Police Hacker DivisionWe know that politicians maintain their jobs based on the principle of control. It is control that enables them to gather sufficient votes to remain in power. However, once they are in power they immediately disconnect all their actions from any real constituent wish. We have explained this at length in our article Politicians And Bureaucrats Job Security Through Misery and several others. But then, eventually, they need to return back to the issue of control as soon as the next election looms. And how do they choose to exercise control? Anyway they can. Control is to politicians as communist declarations of countries were to the USSR: radish communism (red in the outside and white in the inside). As long as they get control tools in place, they don't care who uses them first and for what purpose. All that matters is that they are in place.

When it comes to control, politicians always want to increase it even if there currently isn't a direct and concrete use available for it right away. Why would they do so? Because they understand that the concept of control is only as good as the tools that there are in place. Politician's goal is not to create a new form of control and use it right away. This would backfire in the next election. No. Their purpose is to continually place more and more tools in place that can be deployed for their own purposes at a later time. The implementation of said tools is always a controversial event because it must wade through the muddy political waters that, once in a very wile, prove to be too much to cross. In some rare occasions, politicians go too far and people cannot swallow all the manure that they are shoveling, and this presents a present and immediate danger… to their jobs.

And so politicians have learned to split control in three easy steps:

  1. Insert control tools in place
  2. Wait
  3. Use control tools

This is possible because people's memory is very short indeed. This is by nature. We are differential machines that are more suitable at detecting immediate changes than long term trends. By splitting one from the other, politicians effectively de-couple a tool from its intent… and then they can use it at will.

One such event was described a few days back by the  newspaper The National Post - Canada in its article "Cyberbullying law would let police remotely hack into computers, mobile devices, or cars".

The summary is simple: the current ultra-right Canadian government wants to increase its control over the population. In order to do so, they created a "cyberbully" law that will allow the police to do two things with little or no oversight:

  1. Hack into any person's computing device and snoop at will
  2. Have warrantless taps on all their electronic communications

Of course, the "cyberbully" law is nothing but a Trojan law, chock-full of control elements that go far beyond anything that could be considered even remotely reasonable in terms of "combatting" the "threat" of "cyberbullies". Remember, there is another agenda at play here: the placement of control tools in operational conditions.

Why would the government do so? Simple. Who controls the police? The government. What will the police do when confronted with gray (dubiously legal) requests from the government? Side with the government. Why would the police do so? Because the government in on the hook for those orders (they are simply following orders and so their collective asses are covered) and in ultimately analysis because the government pays their salaries. Remember: the police, anywhere in the world, is always pro-ruling party (regardless of the ruling party). Ask yourself this question: when was the last time that a police force, anywhere in the world, refused to follow the orders of a government? Any government. Answer: never! Even the military have a better track record of opposing tyranny as an institution! … albeit they are also guilty of impressive massacres and cruelty. But at least in some occasions, the military refused to become tools of oppression; the police never!

However in the big scheme of things, what this new-and-improved "cyberbully" law brings to the table is quite mild considering what other countries are already doing. Examples. In Russia the FSB routinely intercepts all in-country Internet communications. In almost all EU countries, all Internet communications are archived for future possible use. In the US the NSA is massively tapping into people devices and communication channels and so forth. And so why bother? Why making a fuzz about it?

Simple. Politicians are getting bolder because people are getting stupider and more inert by the second. Of course, this is to be expected. The world-wide economy is tanking and with it more pressing needs (such are food and shelter) are in everybody's minds. And so politicians are now pushing into open laws what was previously only possible by covert government organizations.

You see, dear citizen, we need to know everything there is to know about you because we care and we will protect you against those evil, evil communists and their evil empire… oh…wait… the USSR is gone…errr… no, what we meant to say is that we will protect you against all those evil, evil All-Qaeda terrorists who under the leadership of Osama Bin… oh… wait.. Bin Laden is dead… never mind…errr… we will protect you against… cyberbullies… yeah… that's the ticket… sure. But if that does not work, we will protect you against those evil, evil music downloaders / pedophiles / organized crime members / terrorists / school evaders / inside traders that so threaten your way of life… yeah… that sounds more plausible…

The truth is that all laws are Trojan laws, they must be treated as unexploded ordinance and the only valid question is: what is the payload? In this case, the payload is yet another layer of control tools. More un-supervised, un-controlled, un-monitored powers to the police which will eventually be used by the government. When the laws are on their side, the solution is not more regulations, more laws, more oversight; the solution is no government at all.

But then again, this is entirely your choice. Make it a good one.

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.

English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedinMixxRSS FeedPinterest
Pin It