The Future of Surveillance: 500,000 AI Facial Scans Per Month in China

An abandoned panopticon prison in Cuba (source). Being publicly observed, or the knowledge that they may be being observed at any one time, keeps prisoners under control.

by Thomas Neuburger

All regimes with an overriding need to control their populations — including the U.S. and China — depend on public surveillance as a key element in their control mechanism. "Public surveillance" has two senses, and both of them apply.

"Public surveillance" means surveillance of the public, of course, but it also means publicly-acknowledged surveillance of the public. That is, the observed know they are being observed, or they might be being observed, whether or not they see the observer. The act of acknowledged observing is itself the instrument of control. (The state police, the Stasi, of East Germany accomplished this with an extensive network of citizen-spies. Everyone knew their neighbors were observing them; no one knew when a neighbor would betray them to the state.)

As Ed Walker observed some years ago: "In Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault writes about the way discipline is enforced. He uses the image of the Panopticon, a prison invented by Jeremy Bentham. ... The prison cells are arranged in a circle, and a guard tower stands in the center. Bentham suggested that the guards should be shielded from the view of the prisoners, so they wouldn’t know when they were being observed, but would know that they might be observed at any moment. He also suggested that it didn’t matter who was looking at the prisoners, as long as someone was looking."

I would add that if the observation tower is shielded by a one-way mirror, it doesn't even matter if the tower is populated, so long as prisoners think it could be.

Surveillance of citizens is rampant in China, of course, but also in the West. It's impossible to watch any British mystery or police drama, for example, without some propagandistic reference to evidence from CCTV footage, as though mass surveillance were not only not unusual, but a benefit to society.

And it's hard not to imagine that every word spoken into a U.S. telephone, typed into a U.S. email message, or sent via Skype or any other U.S.-based electronic services is not either observed or collected for later observation by the modern NSA — the eyes and ears of the U.S. security state — whose motto, after all, is "Collect it all."

There's no question that close observation of U.S. citizens is great and that it will increase. The only question is how it will increase and how quickly.

What's the future of U.S. security surveillance? For that, we look to China. Via Paul Mozur writing at SFGate:

One month, 500,000 face scans: How China is using AI to profile a minority

The Chinese government has drawn wide international condemnation for its harsh crackdown on ethnic Muslims in its western region, including holding as many as 1 million of them in detention camps.

Now, documents and interviews show that authorities are also using a vast, secret system of advanced facial recognition technology to track and control the Uighurs, a largely Muslim minority. It is the first known example of a government intentionally using artificial intelligence for racial profiling, experts said.

The facial recognition technology, which is integrated into China’s rapidly expanding networks of surveillance cameras, looks exclusively for Uighurs based on their appearance and keeps records of their comings and goings for search and review. The practice makes China a pioneer in applying next-generation technology to watch its people, potentially ushering in a new era of automated racism.

The technology and its use to keep tabs on China’s 11 million Uighurs were described by five people with direct knowledge of the systems, who requested anonymity because they feared retribution. The New York Times also reviewed databases used by the police, government procurement documents and advertising materials distributed by the companies that make the systems.

Lest you think this is just a story about the use of AI (artificial intelligence) to perpetuate the evils of racial bias, think again.

Close and aggressive policing in the U.S. is not just for black neighborhoods, even though that's where it most often occurs. Here's what happens to white people, for example, when they too cross the line drawn by the state:

Agents of the national security state pepper-spraying the faces of submissive Occupy protesters at UC Davis

As this technology becomes more refined, it can be used to identify anyone anywhere they can be observed, and each observation will then be added to the ever-growing database file kept on that person. To what purpose? Any purpose the U.S. national security state wishes to put it to.

The future of mass surveillance may be in China, but it won't stay there for long.
 

The Debate Over Tactics In the Modern Left: Radical Opposition or Strategic Inclusive Engagement?

World CO2 emissions are growing, not falling. What will the children say? (source)

by Thomas Neuburger

Modern America is a tense place these days. By that I mean, there are a number of tensions in American social and political life that are, this year, coming to a frothy head.

First, consider the tension in center and leftish circles around class war and the 2020 election. Many argue that the right way for to Democrats to win this election is by embracing "identity politics" — that racial justice, justice for women, for gay, lesbian and trans individuals, for indigenous peoples and all other victimized groups must come first, must be placed front and center. And not just for presentation and marketing purposes (though many do argue that vote-getting starts with making the identity case), but because fighting the old white patriarchy is a necessary precursor to fighting the class war — that if the old white patriarchy is in place, the class war can't be won.

Adolph Reed Jr. has written much about this tension on the left (his latest is here), and proponents of the Sanders candidacy stand almost alone in believing the solution lies in winning the class struggle.

So that's one tension. Another is the tension around radical, oppositional action versus a more considered, careful, inclusive approach. Visitors to DWT recently read about Rep. Pramila Jayapal and her "balancing act" — her attempt to keep real progressives, not-so-real progressives and Party leaders all aligned with genuinely progressive legislation like Medicare for All. Time will determine if that strategy succeeds; everyone I know hope it does.

Radical opposition, however, has its proponents, and no subject inspires them more than the coming climate catastrophe, which the world is doing less than nothing to head off (see graph at top).

Will the politics of accommodation work in this sphere, or will radical action be required? Must the current system be broken and rebuilt before a climate solution can be enacted?

As writer David Atkins explains it in the following twitter thread, the choices left to us are really one choice. First, the Right will not let — is not letting — the current system survive in any case; they're breaking norms with everything they touch. Second, the current system cannot provide a climate solution. Thus breaking that system the way the Left wants to break it provides the only hope "for those of us who want to live to 2050."

Radical thoughts for a radical time. Here's that thread. See what you think after you read it.

Short thread here on climate change, the norms of democracy, and the battle between the right, center left and progressive left. Ready? Here goes... /1

The Right has always depended for its success on the implicit or explicit threat that it would be willing to subvert all the norms of democracy to achieve its goals, whether it be "2nd amendment remedies" or the Federalist Society's changing all the rules in the courts.../2

This is how the Right works the refs: they let everyone know that they're willing to pull out ALL the stops if white male patriarchy and racism don't stay centered in society, and if rich people don't get to keep all the loot. /3

The center left has long depended on being the "responsible" party. The cogent ones, the level headed ones. The perpetual Real Mothers in the Justice of Solomon [story] willing to sacrifice almost anything to salvage the system. /4

The problem is that this dynamic between right and center left is codependent and convenient to the status quo. The far right gets to keep the angry old racists happy, the center left keeps the concerned vaguely cosmopolitan educated crowd happy. And the donors always win. /5

The progressive left [is] saying "enough of this game. We, too, are willing to break the norms of American democracy because these issues are life and death emergencies." We're not going to play the responsible straight man to the GOP's destructive clown. /6

Yes, we KNOW the Green New Deal can't pass through the Senate under the current system. We're not stupid. We're [putting] down the marker that if this system won't let the GND pass, we will change the system until it does--eliminate the filibuster, add states, pack courts, etc. /7

So when the center left says "but I can pass this weaker version", the answer is twofold:
1) no, you can't. The GOP is a destructive clown that won't give you the time of day, either. But also,
2) we don't care what you think [you] can pass. We're telling you what we need. /8

And if that means changing the system? So be it. If it means breaking the system? So be it. The norms of 20th century American democracy are worthless compared to the threat of climate change. Also, radical inequality. Also, the declining middle class. /9

The right has been very effective playing this game. They are signaling loud and clear they would rather have a Putin-backed dictatorship under a corrupt idiot than give up old white male privilege or [plutocratic] control. What is the left willing to do? How far will we go? /10

The center left's answer? Nowhere. We'll do whatever we can with the system we have, and whatever happens happens...as long as nobody's stock portfolio takes a hit. That is completely, totally unacceptable to those of us who want to live to 2050. Or have [kids] who do. /11

If the system won't budge with us, we'll budge the system. We are dealing with catastrophic threats, and econ/tech challenges well beyond the capacity of our current politics. Your experience within the system means nothing now. Your commitment to the goal is everything. /12

In short, the current system WILL NOT SURVIVE. The right sees an existential threat from a browning, more progressive population. They cannot afford for democracy to survive, and they will kill it if given half the chance. /13

But the current system also won't let us deal with our environmental, technological and economic challenges in anything like the timeframe we need to solve them. Which means the defenders of that system are just as dangerous in their own way as the right wing is. /14

The future belongs to the side that changes the system to accomplish their goals. Will it be young progressives? Or will it rich old racists? There is no middle ground. There is no responsible defense of the status quo. It's going to be one side or the other. /fin

His conclusion is striking, but not surprising. We've heard it from others as well. As Atkins says:

• The defenders of the present system are as dangerous in their way as the right wing is.
• The future belongs to the side that changes the system to accomplish their goals. 

The terms of this debate apply to a number of policy fields, and we'll be hearing some form of this discussion, of this tension, throughout the 2020 campaign. For example, the Medicare For All debate has already been characterized (accurately in my view) as a battle to replace capitalism (see Ed Walker's "The Green New Deal Challenges the Domination of Capital").

But the argument above applies no more directly than it does in the climate debate, where the clock is running, the end (if it comes) is near and total, and there's no turning back to anything that went before, no matter how much we wish it were not so.