Taking the chance to vent just a bit. These are the sort of things I have been telling people about but have been derided as paranoid and a conspiracy theorist. The Samsung TV was a great example of this, which I called would be more than just samsung sending voice data. Also, so many people have loved to respond to people talking about this with some variation of, "but you're not important, why would they bug you". It really makes me wonder how often those responses were sock puppets attempting to control and derail the narrative, but criticisms like that are so trite eand easily debated.
I have spent a lot of time since the Iraq war (USMC), trying to understand how we got entangled in such a fucking mess, and have continually come to the conclusion that the deep state, of which the CIA is a major part, has actively been working against what I consider the true interests of the United States.
While I agree we need an international intelligence collection unit, let's not forget that originally the CIA's mandate was just to almagamate intelligence from military intelligence units, not to go do shadow operations all over the globe. Truman even wrote an article about how that was not his intention after the JFK assassination, but the article only ran once and Dulles personally flew out to talk to him about a retraction. Ok, though, perhaps that ship has sailed, and ops are a permanent part of collection.
My issue then, is with the disparity between operational intention and what I consider true national interests. I understand a certain amount of realpolitik pragmatism is necessary in the function of nation states and diplomatic international affairs, but I think it has become realpolitik run amok with no anchor on core principles, creating blowback after blowback, to the point that such blowback no longer just seems like incompetence and seems like intentional malice.
Never forget where the CIA came from. It was formed as the OSS by Wall Street Bankers/Lawyers with help from the much older MI6! Those foundations have largely been maintained through their selection process (Yale skull and bones/wolf/scroll and key heavy) The main connection I have eeked out that I don't think most understand though is the relationship between the Wall Street group and The City of London/Vatican/Swiss Banking groups and their many associated secret society groups and orders of knighthood.
In the end, I have postulated that the corruption of the country has been top down, and deliberate. The CIA is a key node point in this corruption, and I question their loyalty to the constitution. Compartmentalization has been used and abused to the point that the mostly good worker bees doing the intel work don't understand the bigger picture plays at work here, and I think it is telling that the decryption passphrase was JFK talking about scattering them to a thousand winds.
There is plenty of evidence that The Company has been operating domestically, unconstitutionally, and against their mandate, for quite some time. I promise you these tools have been used domestically on American whistleblowers, dissidents, and general rabbelrousers considered enemies of the the company. This has been the danger I have been speaking about with the total surveillance state, because now between the company and the agency, all will take is a few turns of some keys and the totalitarian dystopia is fulling engaged, and if you think this was ever about national security I have a bridge to sell you in the pacific. Of course there will be those who claim releases like this are a detriment to national security, and what I claim is the fact that these tools have been used domestically for the purposes of the deep state is the real threat to national security. The agency and the company should be working to help us secure our systems, not NSL gagging tech companies to insert backdoors or give the source so they can do their own 0days, so don't fall for the inevitable cries of but this hurts us and is legitimate. I mean there is evidence they were even corrupting NIST committees! This kind of bullshit is not about national security. I can't believe how easily people accept unconstitutional moves as long as some offical or other claims national security (usually with no evidence). This is about the deep state maintaining power.
For us, the hackers and geeks of the world, they left us alone for a bit, after they lost the 90's cryptowars. It's back on though. This is the danger of tivoization, of proprietary licenses, of closed source code (including BSD licenses that allow such actions). We need to open source everything, start encrypting everything, and making it easier for the layman to use the tools.
Stop using windows and osx, even for gaming. Stop installing windows at your business. Start using HIDS like OSSEC. Start checking your logs. Start checking your checksums. Start hardening your systems and your kernel (grsec). Stop using stock android, and don't use IOS. Desoder microphones on systems. Build faraday cages. Get an SDR and do bug sweeps.
When the surveillance engine is turned on, FOSS hackers will be the only ones free.
This phrase is currently being spread by right-wing conspiracy sites and was under the radar of most people until very recently. In other words, it seems very much that you, as an otherwise reasonable person, are being manipulated by people whose main interest is clickbait (for money) and/or some political agenda that has nothing to do with news.
I've seen this detachment from reality increase more and more due to the Internet and the way some people acquire their information from their select peer groups, and it's a sad thing to watch.
Don't take me wrong, I'm not saying that there is no corruption or no potential for domestic surveillance abuse in the US, but by using such phrases you seem to be parroting merely what others feed to you. It works the same way as viral marketing works so please don't fall for it!
Just a side note, I agree with some of the other things you write.
I have been aware of and researching the deep state long before Trump was even dipping his hand in the political arena, so please don't try to associate the very useful term with right-wing conspiracy sites, clickbait, or political agenda. I resent your condesending and patronising attitude and your misappropriation and misattribution of my sources of knowledge, of which you know nothing.
As a matter of fact the term, as far as I know, originates with one of the best authors on the subject, Peter Dale Scott.
> The main connection I have eeked out that I don't think most understand though is the relationship between the Wall Street group and The City of London/Vatican/Swiss Banking groups and their many associated secret society groups and orders of knighthood.
This is where you started to lose me. If you've eeked this out, surely you have something you can include to convince us?
> I think it is telling that the decryption passphrase was JFK talking about scattering them to a thousand winds.
I'm not sure what this is referring to. Can you elaborate?
> Stop using windows and osx, even for gaming. Stop installing windows at your business. Start using HIDS like OSSEC. Start checking your logs. Start checking your checksums. Start hardening your systems and your kernel (grsec). Stop using stock android, and don't use IOS. Desoder microphones on systems. Build faraday cages.
That will protect you in your home and on your personal devices (to a degree), but it doesn't protect you in public. Anonymity and privacy are an artifact of our congregating in large enough groups that it's not possible to know all those you see in a day, but the vast majority of our history was spent with no anonymity and little to no privacy. I'm convinced our return to a lack of anonymity and privacy is a return to the norm. That doesn't mean I support it or think it's necessarily better, but information wants to be free and humans like to know things, even if that happens to be what you had for breakfast today. Fighting naturally incentivized systems rarely ends well.
The vast majority of our history was spent with substantial limits on the ability to collect, distribute, and access information on any one individual, let alone cross-compile information from multiple sources or for multiple individuals.
I don't think the scale matters for the past. You spent the majority of your time with other people in your tribe or village, and they knew everything about you, and you knew everything about all of them. New information could be distributed to 90% of the people within minutes. You could physically ask most the people any questions you wanted about someone else with just a little more time than that.
The current scale just makes this true again.
Again, I don't think that makes it good, but I do think it's important to note.
It's all a matter what you consider "the world". If you were born into and died in a small group of people and had little to no interaction with outsiders, your "world" is that group. In that respect, anyone in the "world" can easily know just about anything about you just by asking, because there's almost always someone around you, and people like to share information (gossip).
> and the data are vastly more detailed
How so? Because they can determine everything down to what food I like and dislike? I know that about most my coworkers. I think you are treating information you leak through normal interaction with people differently than what is gathered about you online, when really they are no different.
> Impunity of the observer is far greater.
In the end it's all about enforcing compliance with some group norm and governmental dictate. That's no different in the small group either. The group is the government, and you can take measures to hide your behavior, which in both systems might actually draw attention to yourself, or you can attempt to fit within the group norms, whether that group is the literal or figurative world.
A sweet deal has existed for a couple millennia if you've been in a large enough group to benefit from anonymity and the increased privacy that imparts.
In the world you're talking of, the surveillance happened in person, within a village, with approximately one book per million inhabitants[1], with a typical travel and data transmission speed of roughly 3 mph, a peak of perhaps three times that, exceedingly low literacy (~5% in villages, perhaps 25% in towns[1]), and very low data transmission rates: verbal recitation. Though perhaps with a fairly fast interactive natural-language query system (e.g., interrogation).
It was possible to escape that domain by travel, either temporarily or permanently, as little as 10-20 miles might suffice.[2] As late as the 19th century in the United States, it was possible for a well-connected and politically connected man to lead a double life.[3]
As to the detail of the data, your question begs credulity in light of what I've stated above. The rates of data accumulation today simply surpass all of recorded history. Something like 90% of all recorded data come from within the past decade. As of 2007, 94% of all information were in digital form.[4]
You assert, without proof or evidence, that there is no difference between digital information stored across servers, and the disaggregated wetware knowledge of your immediate associates. I pose as counterexamples Uber's Greyball program, which in realtime tied multidimensional characteristics of a user's Uber account, available hardware information, and social networking profiles, amongst other signifiers, to determine who was or wasn't a possible government employee, and to literally change their perception of reality as a consequence.[5] Thirty years ago, your magazine subscriptions might have been shared amongst marketing organisations, sixty years ago, state intelligence services might have had access to them. Today, your Kindle reader tracks what passages you've read within books, and every website, and its third-party scripts and cookie shares, track precisely what you've read online.[6][7]
That is straight up the definition of "Orwellian"[8]
Size, scale, and rate, matter. As a noted expert in the field observed, "quantity has a quality all its own".[9] Even gradual changes lead to phase shifts past a transition point, some sudden, some not. A small group of observers -- the few hundred of a mediaeval village -- is well within the Dunbar's limits of our brains,[10] and is subject to direct observation to boot. It has little capacity to keep a permanent record of its information, or even, particularly, to correlate observations from different observers. It cannot spread that information throughout all of humanity (some seven billion three hundred million souls, presently), nor can it act from out of the blue based on that information. It is a petty oppression, not a grand one.
Today's digital information attacks are difficult, often impossible, to precisely attribute.[11] Those who build information systems do no, will not, and ultimately in all likelihood can not protect them from attacks or subversion.[12] Data is described, by seasoned experts in the field, as a toxic asset.[13] It persists, can be used for fraud, blackmail, character assassination, to micromanage individuals lives (a supreme denial of liberty), and more.
Your arguments, or should I say assertions, are supremely unconvincing.
________________________________
Notes:
1. Buringh, Eltjo; van Zanden, Jan Luiten: "Charting the “Rise of the West”: Manuscripts and Printed Books in Europe, A Long-Term Perspective from the Sixth through Eighteenth Centuries", The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 69, No. 2 (2009)
2. Though, yes, there were strong limitations on such travel, see the Vagrancy and Poor laws of England, as examples, which applied to labourers. Nonetheless, a skilled craftsman, scribe, or professional could and many did, travel throughout Europe, particularly when the political heat got too great at home.
3. Geologist Clarence King, whose professional colleagues had no knowledge of his marriage, and his black wife, who thought he was a Pullman Porter, comes to mind.
> It was possible to escape that domain by travel, either temporarily or permanently, as little as 10-20 miles might suffice.[2] As late as the 19th century in the United States, it was possible for a well-connected and politically connected man to lead a double life.[3]
Yes, but I would argue if you go farther back, to the era I'm talking about, there would rarely be any other group close enough to make this feasible. When it takes days to reach the next group of people, if you even know where they are, it's a bit harder to pull this off. At the same time, if you're traveling back and forth between locations commonly, I imagine others would too, and information would eventually get out.
I'm referring to pre-history, you keep bring up examples form a few hundred years ago. I would argue there' a fundamental difference in how societies functioned in pre-history, where we have tribal groups, and the historical record, which is largely after people have started congregating into larger societies. You are bounding your examples with "as late as the 19th century", when really that's the wrong end of the temporal spectrum to be talking about. That statement implies that it was always possible prior to that. Do you believe that it makes sense in the context I'm referring to?
> You assert, without proof or evidence, that there is no difference between digital information stored across servers, and the disaggregated wetware knowledge of your immediate associates. I pose as counterexamples Uber's Greyball program, which in realtime tied multidimensional characteristics of a user's Uber account, available hardware information, and social networking profiles, amongst other signifiers, to determine who was or wasn't a possible government employee, and to literally change their perception of reality as a consequence.
As opposed to me using my information about my coworkers habits, statements, attire, friends and living situation to determine whether they are Democrats or Republicans, or dog people or cat people? If they asked me a question I could misrepresent reality based on assumptions about them just as well. (also, let's not go overboard by stating they changed perceptions. I'm sure they ended up doing that in some cases, but they misrepresented reality, and only through the specific aspects of reality you asked them about).
> Thirty years ago, your magazine subscriptions might have been shared amongst marketing organisations, sixty years ago, state intelligence services might have had access to them.
And 5000 years ago, everyone you had contact with already knew that information.
> Today, your Kindle reader tracks what passages you've read within books, and every website, and its third-party scripts and cookie shares, track precisely what you've read online.
Sure, if you opt in to using a device that gathers all that information. If I decided to broadcast what passages and pages I found interesting to those around me while reading a paperback, they would know a lot about what I found interesting as well. I'm not sure any equivalent action in ancient history where the nature of collecting or utilizing some resource isn't fairly obvious to those around you (unless you choose to hide it, which you can also do today).
> Size, scale, and rate, matter.
Yes, but in this case they are all relative. I content they were for the most part absolute in ancient history for intents and purposes, and they are becoming absolute again.
As a thought experiment, let's assume we're 50 years in the future, and information awareness is absolute. Humans have started colonizing Mars, and there is thus a communication delay between 22 seconds and 3 minutes depending planetary location. Transmission channels will be somewhat limited. Will each know everything about a person on Mars? Will Mars know everything about a person on Earth? Now assume some sort of colony or station in the Alpha Centauri system, with a 4.3 light year delay. How much knowledge will be shared about individuals across what communication channels exist? I think this is in some small way emulating the separation we had in our early history, and in your local area, there will be full information gathering, but that information will not necessarily be shared remotely, as the value is too low compared to the cost.
There's what's known about you, and then there's who knows it. I simple think that in the ancient past what was known was close to everything (but there was less to know), and who knew it was everyone you knew about (for the most part). I think that's becoming true again. Scale and size do matter, I just think in both cases it's everyone and anything (for values of those that make sense).
Today's world can focus the energies of vastly more respurces, and people, than any one village or tribe. And no, fundamentally, scale is not relative. That's what scalee effects mean.
A member of Daesh, or the Russian dissident press, or Free Tibet activists, can find the resources of a nation-state or global alliance turned against the, without warning. Enemy counts are far greater. Attacks are at little or no risk.
Again: "Today the observer can be anywhere on Earth, and the data are vastly more detailed. Impunity of the observer is far greater."
I don't believe we're going to reach agreement, and we're both repeating our earlier points, which is my stop rule.
> I don't believe we're going to reach agreement, and we're both repeating our earlier points, which is my stop rule.
Fair enough, and I agree. So you don't go away empty handed, I'll note that some of your counter examples have merit and are illustrative of a valid counterargument, I just don't think they go var enough to explain away my point of view.
Also, thanks for the conversation. I've expressed this concept a few times before, but I believe this is the first substantive conversation it has generated, and it was useful in exploring it in more detail. I only wish I had more time to devote towards making my responses more coherent and substantive, but I've been pressed for time lately. (Which is not to imply that the only reason you weren't convinced is because I didn't try hard enough. I'm fully willing to concede I may be wrong.)
"surely you have something you can include to convince us?"
Perhaps, but it's not an easy subject to breach at all, but I appreciate your honest question and will attempt a terse summary. During both my time in the military as a pawn, and during my time as a civilian trying to understand the deep state, I have continually come across two fundamental issues regardless of particular area of research:
Bankers touch everything. At first I was just trying to chase the terrorist finance networks up the chain. Thinking it probably mostly ended at some Saudi, Jordanian, UAE banks. Not true, but the problem is that post 9/11 so much of the finance network stuff was taken out of the public view, scrubbed and redacted, or otherwise hushed up. I thought this was for operational reasons, to not give up the game to the ones we were after, but after 3,5,10+ years of no real attacks on the finance network, I'm increasingly convinced they are being protected, not investigated. Now, at this level of course the main argument tends to be similar to the reasonsing used in the 2008 bailout, some variation of "but if we start prosecuting bankers, the banking system might collapse and the economy would tank and..." you get the idea. I don't buy that excuse. Anyway, the real point is that most of the reading I have done on the upper-level banking system indicates they have become supranational, interconnected systems in ways most people can barely understand. This paper is a key reading on this point: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.5728.pdf As for citing sources on the relationship between Wall Street and City of London/Vatican, it gets much more tricky. This is the sort of stuff that I imagine would take a palantir type 6 degrees social graph to really unconver in a concrete way, so for now I have to admit it's mostly inductive instead of deductive reasoning. Many context clues from many books in aggregate have helped me form this opinion.
Now, on to the even more slippery subject of secret societies and orders of knighthood. The bottom line is that I don't think anyone can claim to have a holistic grasp on geopolitics/economics/strategy and at the same time ignore the many secret societies associated, for reasons that seem obvious with a little thought. I mean, if you wanted to run a subversive intelligence network, isn't the compartmentalized nature of a secret society simply a mirror of the kind of compartmentalization an intelligence agency would use? (perhaps the agency is the mirror of the society, but I digress). It's just structually set up to allow for infiltration and subversion. Now, that's not to say that is what every society is used for, or that every member is used for. On the contrary, with the rings within rings structure, the vast majority of secret society members tend to have no clue whatsoever of what is happening at the upper level. (Very much like I claim of the CIA). They are useful bodies for cover. One very particular example of this would be P2 or Propaganda Due lodge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due
For more a more scholarly type of look into this type of thing, the best author I could recommend would be Carroll Quigley. A professor of history at Georgetown, and cited by Bill Clinton as his mentor, he wrote extensively about the British round table groups influence being used as a rings within rings structure for the purposes of the British empire (later renamed the commonwealth for pr purposes). In large part, the origins of this structure was put in place by Cecil Rhodes, who got the inspiration from reading the documents of the actual Bavarian Illuminati of the late 1700's. It was always one point of contention between Quigley and what he called the plagarists (such as the John Birch society), that Rhodes was simply inspired by the rings within rings structure that Adam Weishaupt wrote about, and that there was no evidence for a connection between the ancient secret societies, and "the illuminati" and the Rhodes society group(s). (A common misconception among the lazy conspiracy theorist, even though I have found plenty of evidence that (free)masonry does get it's roots from Egyptian societies of builders, it's is often publicly disputed as otherwise.)
As for the orders of knighthood, there are some very interesting connections between certain orders and certain types of military and clandenstine operations. For example, I have found an inordinate amount of (military) operator types and those associated have membership in the Knights of Malta, and other similar groups. Associations vary though, from more than just The Vatican, they include factions in the UK/EU royal houses and aristocracies. They are often at odds as well, the other common misconception of lazy conspiracy theorists is that there is a single monolithic group. Many factions exist whose interests sometimes align, and sometimes don't. There are power plays in this region most of the world never hears about. For example, recently: https://cruxnow.com/analysis/2017/01/29/popes-takeover-knigh...
Anyway, to summarize, these are difficult subjects that are complex, full of nuance, and often lengthy, and as such don't lend themselves well to such short-term outlets like a hn comment, but that's an introduction that might help steer your own research if you are genuinely curious.
"I'm not sure what this is referring to. Can you elaborate?"
This reffering to some things JFK said after the bay of pigs fiasco, talking about making a mistake by keeping Allen Dulles (who was conviently put in charge of the commision to investigate the assassination!), and talking about how he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds."
"Truman’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson wrote in his 1969 memoirs that upon the CIA’s creation he “had the gravest forebodings about this organization and warned the president that as set up neither he, the National Security Council, nor anyone else would be in a position to know what it was doing or to control it.”" https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/in-1974-call-to-abolish-...
"That will protect you in your home and on your personal devices (to a degree), but it doesn't protect you in public."
I think that's a start. I'm aware that with technological progress public privacy is waning and will continue to do so, but we should at least remember the rights of privacy (including right to not be subject to search without warrant or probable cause) on our property, even if that property is digital. Capitulations about how privacy is already dead lack the nuance needed to really address the problems. We could just as easily setup attack resistent OS's and platforms as allow MS to monopolize the market.
"the vast majority of our history was spent with no anonymity and little to no privacy"
I would like to see what makes you think this is true. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of history was rife full of anonymity and privacy. Now, perhaps in a small village everyone in the village, or everyone in the family, knew what you were doing, but there is a big difference between immediate friends and family having first-hand knowledge of your goings and doings and them having knowledge of your goings and doings and storing them on insecure devices which the government can search surreptetiously at will and at a mass scale heretofore unimagined by all but the most forward looking thinkers such as Orwell and Huxley.
That's a lot to digest, but I'm still not really sure the probability I should assign to these assertions. That doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means that it's one thing to hear a narrative that makes sense, and another to actually have enough knowledge to know how accurate and encompassing that narrative is, and I don't have that knowledge.
> Now, perhaps in a small village everyone in the village, or everyone in the family, knew what you were doing, but there is a big difference between immediate friends and family having first-hand knowledge of your goings and doings and them having knowledge of your goings and doings and storing them on insecure devices which the government can search surreptetiously at will and at a mass scale heretofore unimagined by all but the most forward looking thinkers such as Orwell and Huxley.
For all intents and purposes, if you are born into a small tribe or village and die in that same village and have little or no interaction with outsiders, that village is your world. Everyone in the group knows almost everything about you, and you about them. There is no need for vast apparatus, because the scale is small enough to easily fit within a single person't head, and what's more it's in everyone's head, so is repentantly distributed. Some very personal information is known to a select few close individuals, but for the most part there's few secrets, and when secrets are discovered the likely spread very quickly. The group is the government, so the government does know everything, and if you exhibit unsanctioned behavior you will hear about it, and if it's bad enough you'll face ostracism or worse. The world (group) knows your secrets, and you know the world's (group's) secrets, and the world (group) will enforce their conception of what is correct behavior. Seems pretty close to where I see the future heading.
I have spent a lot of time since the Iraq war (USMC), trying to understand how we got entangled in such a fucking mess, and have continually come to the conclusion that the deep state, of which the CIA is a major part, has actively been working against what I consider the true interests of the United States.
While I agree we need an international intelligence collection unit, let's not forget that originally the CIA's mandate was just to almagamate intelligence from military intelligence units, not to go do shadow operations all over the globe. Truman even wrote an article about how that was not his intention after the JFK assassination, but the article only ran once and Dulles personally flew out to talk to him about a retraction. Ok, though, perhaps that ship has sailed, and ops are a permanent part of collection.
My issue then, is with the disparity between operational intention and what I consider true national interests. I understand a certain amount of realpolitik pragmatism is necessary in the function of nation states and diplomatic international affairs, but I think it has become realpolitik run amok with no anchor on core principles, creating blowback after blowback, to the point that such blowback no longer just seems like incompetence and seems like intentional malice.
Never forget where the CIA came from. It was formed as the OSS by Wall Street Bankers/Lawyers with help from the much older MI6! Those foundations have largely been maintained through their selection process (Yale skull and bones/wolf/scroll and key heavy) The main connection I have eeked out that I don't think most understand though is the relationship between the Wall Street group and The City of London/Vatican/Swiss Banking groups and their many associated secret society groups and orders of knighthood.
In the end, I have postulated that the corruption of the country has been top down, and deliberate. The CIA is a key node point in this corruption, and I question their loyalty to the constitution. Compartmentalization has been used and abused to the point that the mostly good worker bees doing the intel work don't understand the bigger picture plays at work here, and I think it is telling that the decryption passphrase was JFK talking about scattering them to a thousand winds.
There is plenty of evidence that The Company has been operating domestically, unconstitutionally, and against their mandate, for quite some time. I promise you these tools have been used domestically on American whistleblowers, dissidents, and general rabbelrousers considered enemies of the the company. This has been the danger I have been speaking about with the total surveillance state, because now between the company and the agency, all will take is a few turns of some keys and the totalitarian dystopia is fulling engaged, and if you think this was ever about national security I have a bridge to sell you in the pacific. Of course there will be those who claim releases like this are a detriment to national security, and what I claim is the fact that these tools have been used domestically for the purposes of the deep state is the real threat to national security. The agency and the company should be working to help us secure our systems, not NSL gagging tech companies to insert backdoors or give the source so they can do their own 0days, so don't fall for the inevitable cries of but this hurts us and is legitimate. I mean there is evidence they were even corrupting NIST committees! This kind of bullshit is not about national security. I can't believe how easily people accept unconstitutional moves as long as some offical or other claims national security (usually with no evidence). This is about the deep state maintaining power.
For us, the hackers and geeks of the world, they left us alone for a bit, after they lost the 90's cryptowars. It's back on though. This is the danger of tivoization, of proprietary licenses, of closed source code (including BSD licenses that allow such actions). We need to open source everything, start encrypting everything, and making it easier for the layman to use the tools.
Stop using windows and osx, even for gaming. Stop installing windows at your business. Start using HIDS like OSSEC. Start checking your logs. Start checking your checksums. Start hardening your systems and your kernel (grsec). Stop using stock android, and don't use IOS. Desoder microphones on systems. Build faraday cages. Get an SDR and do bug sweeps.
When the surveillance engine is turned on, FOSS hackers will be the only ones free.