Only You: A Call to Ownership
We’ve all seen the news—the headlines about new laws and technologies designed to keep us "safe." But at what cost? A recent documentary, "Singapore: Surveillance State | Life Under CONTROL" (2023), offers a powerful look at what happens when safety is prioritized above all else. The film explores a highly regulated society where pervasive surveillance, strict laws, and harsh punishment define daily life, revealing a stark trade-off between personal freedom and security.
Singapore's Surveillance Model
The documentary highlights a society where technology is used to maintain strict control. AI-guided robot dogs and widespread cameras monitor public spaces, and even minor infractions can lead to harsh penalties. The video notes a citizen expressing deep love for their country despite facing corporal punishment, and also details the "Sing Pass" chip, which collects extensive personal information and makes every resident traceable by the police. This system, while leading to a negligible crime rate, raises profound questions about the price of such security.
A Global Trend
This isn't an isolated case. Around the world, we are seeing similar trends as governments introduce or debate new policies related to internet access, privacy, and security. While often framed as efforts to protect children or combat crime, these actions are sparking significant concerns among privacy advocates and civil liberties groups.
Here is a summary of some of the recent trends and specific examples:
1. Age and Identity Verification to Access the Internet
A growing number of governments are pushing for laws that require websites and online services to verify the age or identity of their users.
- Social Media and Online Content: In the United States, several states, including Texas, Arkansas, and Utah, have passed laws requiring age verification for social media platforms or websites with adult content. These laws often require users to upload a government-issued ID or use a third-party age verification service. These policies have been met with legal challenges, with courts in some cases granting injunctions to block their enforcement. You can read more at "Social media age verification laws in the United States"
- "Age-Appropriate Design Codes": States like California have enacted laws like the "Age-Appropriate Design Code Act" which requires online services likely to be used by children to estimate the age of users and take measures to protect them. This has also been a subject of litigation.
- Global Context: The push for age and identity verification is a global phenomenon. The UK's Online Safety Act includes provisions that require platforms to prevent children from accessing harmful content, which could lead to a de facto requirement for age verification. In other countries, this has been met with public protest, as seen by a spike in VPN downloads in the UK after new age check rules came into effect.
2. Backdoors for Encryption
The debate over "backdoors" in encrypted communications continues to be a major point of contention between governments and tech companies. Governments often argue that they need access to encrypted data to investigate serious crimes and national security threats, while privacy advocates and tech experts warn that creating backdoors would weaken security for everyone and could be exploited by malicious actors, such a Salt Typhoon leveraging legally mandated back doors to attack US Telcoms.
- Legislative Proposals: In the European Union, the "Chat Control" proposal has been a subject of intense debate. This legislation would require service providers to scan users' private messages for illegal content, a process that many argue is a form of client-side scanning and a backdoor to end-to-end encryption.
- National Security Mandates: In the UK, the government has used "technical capability notices" under its Investigatory Powers Act to demand that companies weaken their encryption. This has led to tech companies like Apple pulling certain advanced data protection features from the UK market.
- Global Resistance: A global coalition of civil society organizations, cybersecurity experts, and tech firms has consistently pushed back against these efforts. They argue that there is no way to create a "good guys only" backdoor and that such measures would create systemic vulnerabilities. For example, a coalition has warned Sweden against a proposed surveillance law that would compel providers to weaken encryption.
3. Broader Internet Privacy and Security Actions
Beyond these two specific areas, governments are also taking other actions related to internet privacy and security.
- Data Brokerage and National Security: The U.S. government has issued an executive order and a final rule to prevent the sale of Americans' sensitive personal data to countries of concern. The rule prohibits or restricts certain data transactions with foreign adversaries. The problem is that some nation state actors setup US companies to purchase the information, hiding the true purchaser of the information
- Regulation of Tech Companies: Regulatory bodies like the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have been active in taking legal action against companies that violate consumer privacy rights or fail to maintain adequate data security. This includes cases against companies for collecting children's data without parental consent, misusing health data, or failing to protect location information.
- Cybersecurity Executive Orders: Governments are issuing executive orders to strengthen cybersecurity, focusing on areas like third-party software supply chains, quantum cryptography, and artificial intelligence. However, some of these orders have also been met with debate over their effectiveness and impact on privacy.
The Critical Role of Personal Ownership
We are constantly told that governments and corporations are protecting us. Yet, policies like Agenda 2030 and other global frameworks increasingly introduce intrusive measures that threaten our individual privacy and autonomy. External protections often fail or even backfire, leaving us vulnerable. Relying solely on external safeguards is not enough; it's up to each of us to take responsibility for our own privacy by actively managing what we share and who has access to our data
The Dangers of Centralization
Mass data collection and backdoors don't protect society; they enable discrimination, stifle free speech, and create vulnerabilities for bad actors. The more information that is collected, the more valuable it becomes to criminals.
1. Protecting Against Corporate Misuse and Abuse
Corporations prioritize profit over privacy. They collect vast amounts of our data for targeted advertising, profiling, or resale, often without meaningful consent. We’ve seen how default settings on many platforms force us to share data. This leads to breaches that expose sensitive information like medical records or financial details, which can then be used for identity theft or discrimination. Even with regulations like GDPR or CCPA, companies continue to face massive fines yet still commodify user data, undermining our dignity and enabling manipulation through things like algorithmic biases that affect job opportunities or insurance rates.
External safeguards fall short because corporations lobby to weaken them or exploit loopholes. The Bank Secrecy Act's "Know Your Customer" (KYC) requirements, for instance, are a prime example. Banks comply and use "reputational risk" as a pretext to de-bank customers for perfectly legal but "unpopular" activities, such as buying crypto currencies or supporting certain political causes. This partnership between corporations and governments punishes everyday people while overlooking elite misconduct. Invasive data practices amplify this abuse, turning personal information into a tool for control or profit. Without personal ownership of your information by using tools like VPNs, encrypted browsers, or data-minimizing apps, you risk becoming a perpetual target. Once data is shared, it is nearly impossible to reclaim.
2. Defending Against Bad Actors
Bad actors, from cybercriminals to scammers, adapt much faster than any centralized system can respond. Being honest, government moves slower than molasses in the dead of winter. This makes intrusive policies ineffective and often counterproductive. We’ve seen how criminals use AI-generated deepfakes, synthetic identities, or forged documents to open fraudulent accounts and pivot quickly. This happens despite the trillions of dollars spent on compliance. Similarly, backdoors in encryption, meant to aid law enforcement, only create vulnerabilities that hackers exploit. This weakens security for everyone while criminals simply switch to new tools and techniques.
This pattern extends to broader failures like the War on Drugs and other mass surveillance programs. These efforts generate massive amounts of data but yield few convictions, leaving real crimes like corporate fraud or elite scandals unchecked. Victims who speak out, like whistleblowers exposing data breaches, often face retaliation, including being de-banked or facing legal harassment. Invasive measures do not safeguard society; they invite more abuse by normalizing over-collection, which bad actors then mine for exploits. Taking ownership of your privacy counters this. By using end-to-end encryption, multi-factor authentication, and avoiding unnecessary data sharing, you reduce your attack surface and force bad actors to expend more resources elsewhere.
3. Guarding Against Overbearing Governments
Governments often implement intrusive measures in the name of security or sustainability, which chills our freedoms and enables abuse. Governments continue to do this even when the measures have been proven ineffective. Singpass in Singapore is a good example. This digital ID system, touted for "efficient" services, enables 24/7 tracking via cameras and AI. It fosters a surveillance state where conformity is enforced and privacy is sacrificed for low crime rates.
China takes this further with social credit systems that tie behavior to access. These serve as models for Agenda 2030's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which promote "smart cities" and other digital infrastructures that monitor emissions, health, or resource use. These could easily evolve into mandatory compliance tools, such as programmable Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) or carbon allowances.
These frameworks, like the carceral expansions under the surveillance of the PATRIOT Act, tend to overlook root crimes and expand through what's known as "function creep." This erodes our autonomy without providing proportional benefits. History shows that governments exploit crises—like pandemics for contact tracing—to justify greater control. Agenda 2030's partnerships normalize pervasive oversight. Such invasive tactics don't protect citizens; they create systems ripe for authoritarian overreach, data misuse, and selective enforcement that targets dissenters over actual threats. For example, if you like the current party in charge, you may agree with the approach but what happens when the other party is in charge? Would your agree with their usage an enforcement?
| Threat | Examples | Why External Protections Fail | Personal Actions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corporate Misuse | Data commodification, breaches, algorithmic manipulation | Profit-driven loopholes, weak enforcement | Use ad blockers, privacy-focused browsers and search engines, limit app permissions |
| Bad Actors | Identity theft, scam accounts | Criminals outpace systems, creating vulnerabilities | Encrypt communications, monitor accounts regularly, avoid oversharing online |
| Overbearing Governments | Singpass tracking, Agenda 2030 models, de-banking | Ineffectiveness, function creep, politicization | Adopt decentralized IDs or wallets, use VPNs for anonymity, engage in privacy advocacy |
The Power of Collective Action
It's no longer something that's happening "over there" - it's happening everywhere. This is more than just about personal prudence; it's about safeguarding our autonomy in a digital world. We can amplify our individual actions by pushing for systemic change:
- Advocate for Stronger Laws: Support organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Privacy International (PI), or the Ludlow Institute. Advocate for comprehensive laws, write to legislators, and sign petitions for opt-in data collection.
- Demand Consistent Enforcement: Pressure regulators through campaigns to ensure existing laws are applied consistently and that penalties deter violations.
- Raise Awareness: Educate others on how invasive systems enable abuse, fostering a cultural shift toward a privacy-by-design approach.
Only You
We cannot abdicate ownership of our privacy and autonomy to big tech or big bureaucracy. We cannot fall victim to appeals to our altruism that allow governments to exercise more control over our lives.
Only you can decide what is best for you and yours, not a faceless entity who's never met you. Now is your time to decide the best path forward for you.
Remember, we may not have anything to hide, but everything to protect.
