How terrifying is government mass surveillance?
This is different from tech corpo mass surveillance since the government has the authority to imprison, silence or kill dissidents (while Palantir doesn't have that power since they're a company, not the federal government). Put it this way, Palantir can only spy on people harvesting their data but cannot arrest them since they are not cops nor the FBI, meanwhile the government (via FBI, NSA or CIA) has the leverage to detain people.
Instead of Palantir harvesting people's data, it's the FBI or NSA themselves doing that building a profile based on the people they're "keeping tabs" on, what would it be like if mass surveillance is endorsed by the government rather than tech companies in a dystopia? That data gets shared with state authorities (police or sheriff) in which they one day visit your home just because of the content you posted online.
8 replies
Private surveillance companies like flock and palantir exist to allow the government to spy on everyone but say, "we are not violating people's rights, we just access info from private companies. They are one in the same.
This post reads like astroturfing for big surveillance.
These days, in all seriousness, I'm more afraid of the corpo surveillance. I was there for the PATRIOT ACT, and that "insane" NSA datacenter that everyone freaked out about. Now we have corpos building scale way beyond the NSA.
The government spying also has oddly not had an obvious impact on society in the last 20 years. I think the corpo one will reshape worldwide culture. But yeah, governments will of course take advantage of that cheap surveillance data as well.
Right now anyway, I'm less afraid of imprisonment or violent retaliation than I am of being manipulated or silenced by less forceful means. You can't imprison a majority of the population, but you can control them through ideas and the ability to communicate.
That's the same thing! Or do you honestly believe the US regime would go: "Oh boy, that's a nice pile of data Google/Microsoft/Facebook/Amazon have there. Too bad we can't get our hands on that. Oh welp 🤷"
They subpoena the corp in question and are handed the data.
And with the amount of government-aligned oligarchs at the top of various media houses it'd be endlessly naïve to assume the media they publish wasn't parroting the government narrative. Just take the reporting regarding Israel's atrocities (or lack thereof) for example.
It's all about thought control. As you say, you can't incarcerate an entire population. But you can make them believe they're free.
Why would they subpoena it? Who do you think their customer is already? It's not the people being spied on, I can tell you that.
Uuuh, ever heard of Edward Snowden? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
And this was 13 years ago.
Pick up a history book. The action of secret polices are well-documented. The Stasi, KGB, and so on.
And it's not "one day". Federal agents have visited at least one person's home already because of political posts online: https://www.npr.org/2026/06/26/nx-s1-5871369/new-york-ice-instagram-immigration-dhs-paigelynne-gonyea
For the most part the terror is theoretical. As others have mentioned there is no practical difference between surveillance companies and three letter agencies, there is a revolving door of employees and information between the two and almost no sunlight between them. Having said that the dystopian fears of misuse are well founded, but as of yet mass surveillance has only really been publicly misused on the personal level. Cops and agents using flock to stalk people, local law enforcement using them in oppressive ways, but we haven't yet seen it applied at scale.
Realistically, those tools allow for heavy handed control, but Americans are still Americans, they need to be coaxed into being okay with large groups being rounded up for exercising their right to free speech. That's really where the true danger lies. The Algorithm heavily shapes the opinions of the masses and it is currently and actively being used to do just that. I could write extensively about the how's, why's, and who's but that's way beyond the scope of your question. Suffice it to say the feed controls the shape of the debate so that there are only two sides when in reality there are dozens for each issue. Just ask yourself when was the last time you saw a post suggesting cutting military spending or getting rid of gendered sports in favor of weight and height based groupings?
Knowledge is power. The govt continues to grow more knowledgeable around the world. People don't seem to care. So yeah, we're boned.