for whatever it's worth, the technology is typically worse than claimed and the people using it are generally incompetent.
as a software engineer, I'm very afraid of technology NOT working, but for any claims that require technology to work as intended, I'll believe it when I see it.
there isn't a platform on earth that's capable of processing exobytes of unstructured, mostly encrypted data.
you'll notice that in the vast majority of fugutive cases this year (of which there have been several high profile ones), the state was able to use technology to a scary degree to assist the investigation and subsequent piecing together of information, but they still relied on a tip line and tips from human beings.
also, unlike the DHS, which is filled with "true believers" and hard-core reactionaries, the NSA is mostly a bunch of apathetic nerds.
all of that said, it is still a cause for concern. but I actually also do think it gets talked about a lot.
I'm just idly thinking:
But I am wondering how functional security monitoring of the state actually is. Sure there is advanced tech and all, but with hundreds of millions of people- that's a lot to keep track of. Even with advanced tech, like you said, that's a lot of data.
In addition, the state has been doing a good job of hollowing itself out to private firms. How well are these firms communicating with one another? Can the people running these firms be trusted to follow through on their investigations? How many of these contracts are favors to the friends of politicians?
for whatever it's worth, the technology is typically worse than claimed and the people using it are generally incompetent.
as a software engineer, I'm very afraid of technology NOT working, but for any claims that require technology to work as intended, I'll believe it when I see it.
there isn't a platform on earth that's capable of processing exobytes of unstructured, mostly encrypted data.
you'll notice that in the vast majority of fugutive cases this year (of which there have been several high profile ones), the state was able to use technology to a scary degree to assist the investigation and subsequent piecing together of information, but they still relied on a tip line and tips from human beings.
also, unlike the DHS, which is filled with "true believers" and hard-core reactionaries, the NSA is mostly a bunch of apathetic nerds.
all of that said, it is still a cause for concern. but I actually also do think it gets talked about a lot.
I'm just idly thinking: But I am wondering how functional security monitoring of the state actually is. Sure there is advanced tech and all, but with hundreds of millions of people- that's a lot to keep track of. Even with advanced tech, like you said, that's a lot of data.
In addition, the state has been doing a good job of hollowing itself out to private firms. How well are these firms communicating with one another? Can the people running these firms be trusted to follow through on their investigations? How many of these contracts are favors to the friends of politicians?
Well, if we want to look at real-world cases, the feds didn't seem to have much trouble assassinating BLM leaders.
that wasn't because of tech though. the feds have been assassinating people since the three letter agencies were first formed.
I always thought that was more likely local shithead cops with the tacit approval of the feds