[ta_egdhs]

what I'm saying is we should assume that whatever mass surveillance mechanisms the government is trying to buy, it will eventually buy and whatever legal safeguards there are to protect us will eventually fail.

what I'm calling for is the individual to be "armed" with adversarial patches or whatever other tool it is that confounds facial recognition sytems. the only thing which is long term effective is a population which can and does resist. VPNs, encryption, cryptocurrency, and a bunch of other tech (existing and under research) will be the safeguard when all else fails.

[sysalphUS]

All well and good until you get visited by men with guns for breaking the law.

[ta_egdhs]

if the gov has to physically send someone with guns to someones door to enforce a law, the economic feasibility of enforcing the law has already shifted massively away from the passive data scoop of a mass surveillance system. Why hasnt the gov won the war on drugs by just busting down every door?

[adrianN]

I'm reasonably sure that it's enough to imprison a small number of dissidents to drastically reduce the number of people using surveillance countermeasures. Making examples of dissidents worked reasonably well for all kinds of oppressive governments.

[AstralStorm]

Then you need media and potentially a sizable revolution on your side. Lawyers too.

[wowzap]

Seemed to work out alright for Cliven Bundy.