Why are you hiding stuff from the collectivist authoritarians? "Be a good boy and tell Psycho Nanny everything." MATHEW ALDRED JAN 27

"Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I'll find enough to hang him," Cardinal Richelieu This is Orwellian tyrant talk Besides the hypocrisy of the power elites being anything but transparent themselves, we must resist the digital panopticon for many reasons. Not least because it is simply not true that “if you have nothing to hide you should not be afraid”. As I have reported previously, even the UK Government’s own “Surveillance Commissioner” admits this: Of the many arguments deployed in the defence of surveillance technology there is one that doesn’t just miss the point: it misses all of them. Beguilingly simple, the expression “if you’ve done nothing wrong you’ve nothing to worry about” is, of course, not the answer to legitimate public concern over surveillance; it’s not even an answer. There are many reasons why - the absence of logical merit, ethical legitimacy and legal validity being but three. Yet the argument still seems to find support in repetition. A tragic example of the argument’s terrible consequences can be seen in the recent case of the wrongly convicted Post Office workers, some of whom had sadly died before eventually convincing the State that they’d ‘done nothing wrong’. Here then are 5 reasons for abandoning the argument once and for all: 1 Presumption of Guilt. Let’s begin with the need for rebuttal. The argument requires you to prove you’ve done nothing wrong. This reverses our constitutional safeguard of the presumption of innocence until the State has proven guilt to the relevant standard and instead passes the burden of proof to the individual. Moreover, it puts the individual in the notoriously difficult position of having to prove a negative (e.g. “I’m not dishonest”). 2 (a) Database infallibility (computer says “wrong”). Dependence on a database entry means that, if the computer says you’ve done something wrong, you’ve ‘done something wrong’. If that computer is looking for indicia of criminality, the irresistible inference is that you’re a criminal. If you’re already trying to prove a negative (see Reason 1) your burden becomes exponentially harder when you have to disprove the entries on someone else’s ‘infallible’ database in order to do it. 2 (b) Database fallibility (computer is wrong). Sometimes however it’s the computer that has ‘done something wrong’. Anyone with a satnav knows this. As others have pointed out, people judged by algorithms often have to meet a standard far higher than the algorithm was itself. Confusing precision with reliability, this scenario means you must go beyond disproving an entry on someone else’s trusted database and must now discredit their system. 3 Accept or admit. The argument imposes a false dichotomy then assumes the answer, excluding anything in between. It assumes benignity in all State intrusion. However, if it’s been determined that you’ve ‘done something wrong’ in a criminal prosecution, your best tactical option at trial (even as someone who hasn’t) may nevertheless be to plead guilty. Once you do so you have admitted culpability and vindicated the argument, adding insult to ignominy. 4 Appeal to innocence. Opposing the argument is seen as self-incriminating: by resisting it you supply the corroborative evidence of ‘wrongdoing’ (in the same way as when you request a lawyer right after being told you are entitled to have one). 5 Done nothing wrong? What exactly do we mean by ‘wrong’? Does speeding count? How about ‘pulling a sickie’ or looking for loopholes in the lockdown rules? Criminologists and sociologists know how humanity errs and the “if you’ve done nothing wrong ...” argument doesn’t leave many people to be consoled by innocence. In addition, life experience shows that rules change after technology’s introduced - things that weren’t ‘wrong’ when the systems were approved now are (aka ‘function creep’ which has been shown to increase with synchronisation of State functions and databases). These developments are rarely accompanied by new rights and, if you surrendered your old ones, there aren’t any more. An alternative approach When rebuilding by the light of the embers of World War II, the architects of the society we now enjoy made sure that we can live in a mature and tolerant democracy, free from arbitrary interference from the State. Repeating the “if you’ve done nothing wrong…” mantra means you accept that privacy and freedoms of assembly, speech etc. are enjoyable, not as inalienable rights, but only at the pleasure of the State. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law isn’t it for those intruding on fundamental rights and freedoms to justify their doing so? In times of crisis the need for justification is arguably all the greater, in case we distractedly settle for a permanent lowering of the threshold in the face of temporary emergency. Of course, the power elites at the top (connected to the NSA etc.) have a huge dossier on you and me. But that doesn’t mean we just give up. That doesn’t mean we don’t do everything we can to peacefully resist their plans. One day, we may even succeed in enjoying a free and private life. Until that time comes, don’t make it easy for them. And we should celebrate our victories in this fight. For example, some of the next populist/libertarian politicians that are about to take back some control, have promised an end to the programmable-social credit linked-CBDCs. That was to be the cornerstone of the next phase of their digital panopticon. This is a great victory. We just have to keep up our sharing of quality information that exposes their plans, and the people will start making a fuss, and some politicians will listen. We can do this. Upgrade to paid Share Further reading: "So What's Wrong With Digital ID?" MATHEW ALDRED · OCTOBER 9, 2022 "So What's Wrong With Digital ID?" Read full story Big Brother Is Your Friend! MATHEW ALDRED · NOVEMBER 13, 2023 Big Brother Is Your Friend! Read full story Ground-breaking New Study Reveals State Actually Just A Big, Cuddly Mommy Wanting the Best for Us All MATHEW ALDRED · DECEMBER 12, 2023 Ground-breaking New Study Reveals State Actually Just A Big, Cuddly Mommy Wanting the Best for Us All Read full story The Psycho Nanny’s Doctrine: State Expansion and Infantilization MATHEW ALDRED · NOVEMBER 16, 2023 The Psycho Nanny’s Doctrine: State Expansion and Infantilization Originally posted on Build Back Better Build Back Better Mathew Aldred Subscribe Embracing the Elite$, The Great Reset, and The $cience™ © 2024 Colin Bruce Milne 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104