I have began to change, or at least think more deeply about survelience
and the role of gov&#x27;t.<p>I still am pretty much the same mind of the author, and blanket survelience is intrusive, ineffective and anti-anerican; both literally and in sentiment.<p>However, and I still not sure what role I trust the gov&#x27;t to play here, the need for defense is pretty strong.<p>Let&#x27;s take this red test for example:<p>While $100k is a lot of money to me, we will assume many people could have access to this amount.<p>There were &gt; 1 million people in times square on NYE.<p>The strike cabanilities of an inclined individual are higher now than ever. This is the negative sode effect of the otherwise positive shift in individual autonomy and lowering of power distance between entrenched heirarchies and individuals.<p>A flock of drones can be purchased and controlled remotely and outfitted with bombs or guns and used to conduct an attack previously reserved for the u.s militaries indiscriminate bombing raids on other countries.<p>Analytical tooling and conputation can be purchased cheaply. Trend analytics, macroshift evaluation and near real time satelite imagery can be had for little money.<p>Biohacking is quite new but even after the overhype of the synthesis of (i think it was) smallpox from discrete labs, this is still semi-possible.<p>So, I don&#x27;t think it is up to the government to fix this, especially with blanket survelience, but we do need to come up with a reasonable way to mitigate threats.<p>5 people and 100k could basically outfit a safehouse, a drone fleet, real time intelligience and a small bio labratory giving those who would not use that amazing luxury for good, the ability to create a high impact negative change event.