After being lashed by its own employees for selling facial recognition software to law enforcement, Technocrat Jeff Bezos doubled-down on his efforts to penetrate all levels of government, the FBI being the latest win.
Total Surveillance Society
Chinese Technocrats are experiencing isolation as Huawei is falling out of favor in the West due to its surveillance connections to the Chinese government. This will press China closer to military warfare.
Amazon has exhibited patterns of Orwellian control with its own employees as well as the general public. The question is, is Jeff Bezos off the rails with Technocracy and the “science of social engineering” that requires tracking of everything in the known environment?
Swift apparently didn’t break any laws, but her actions should concern her concert-attending fans who were all scanned without their knowledge. What else is Swift using her private biometric database for?
Facebook is entering the predictive analysis field by figuring out where you will go next or where you will be at a certain time of day. This data is deemed necessary for social engineering ala Technocracy.
By Conversus own admission, its system is wrong 14% of the time, i.e., it only tells the truth about 86% of the time and after that, it lies. Yes, the lie detector lies when it mis-judges you, and it can negatively change the course of your life.
Governments are cracking down on cyber-security and privacy by demanding access to all electronic devices at will. There is no clear definition of who is a “suspected” terrorist or criminal.
The NGA answers to the Office of Director of National Intelligence and is charged with tracking everything that moves on planet earth. It is the ultimate in total surveillance in order to ‘master the human domain’.
Herein lies the problem: Surveillance produces a tsunami of data that cannot be analyzed fast enough without a) supercomputers and b) Artificial Intelligence. Technocrats are in their element.
The suggestion is that a national database of everyone’s DNA would be easier to regulate and hence, would ultimately lead to greater privacy. Who would be the ‘regulator’? The government, of course. What could go wrong with that?