Though I think, especially in the aftermath of America’s latest film critic and the associated retribution even though responsibility was not clear, that it always wise to assume that the world’s security agencies are always ready to pull a wise one on their citizens and propagandise and exploit any crisis or tragedy towards those ends, it is a stance just as specious as having total communication and movement surveillance and stripping naked all vestments of privacy would result in absolute safety and harmony as America and its accomplices wanting to own the all the wires.
I think that the Fugitive has illustrated that they already do—though what they’ve done with their omniscience seems quite pathetic, but of course, we’re not privy to those successes and near-misses. We’re allowed, yes, to continue being unpleasant, insulting, constructive, and indemnifying even if it goes through abstracted censors though not according to the judgments of the newest abstracted
critics. These new censors operate, however, not with the compliance of those shuttle-services, both virtual and physical over great distances and right in our faces, but with legislation that prevents cover and mainstreams all thought. Is that too high a price for security? The mathematics of encryption is invulnerable but not back-doors, graciously held open. The Caliphate apparently has the ability to tear down the posters that the States use advertise at-large (though I never knew who might really befriend these sources except for utilitarian purposes and not regard them with skepticism) but not infiltrate their real and incontrovertible minions and mouth-piece. What do you think? Is anyone taking advantage of the latest, sad headlines and incipient fear?
