Technology- vs. Human-based Surveillance

[tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)]

At 4:35 AM 7/8/96, Deranged Mutant wrote:

>Who needs high-tech for a surveillance state? I remember several
>years back a Soviet-history class that put a lot of emphasis on the
>Czar's totalitarian regime, much of which was already in place when
>the Bolshviks took power (and one of the reasons they held it).
...

A human-based surveillance state is very expensive, even by the standards
of modern America and its bloated government. The recent example of the
DDR's "Staasi" provides an example. Hard to hide the extent of the
surveillance when so many people are involved.

Better, think the Thought Police, to use technology to do the intercepts
and pre-screening of the take.

Also, the right technology (right for them, not us) makes widespread
tapping possible, where human-based systems are not. (As but one example,
hard to get human spies into companies on short notice to monitor a
target.) In short, technology-based surveillance is "scalable" in a way
that human-based surveillance is not.

--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."