Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Upset About Facebook Invading Your Privacy? Be Glad You Don’t Live in China

The dangers of government surveillance.

Upset because Facebook and Google invade your privacy? Be glad you don't live in China.

Facebook and other Western apps are banned there. The government views their openness as a threat. So the Chinese use platforms like WeChat and Alibaba.

Now the Chinese government takes data from those platforms to assign all people who use them a "social credit score."

In other words, the government monitors your web activity and gives you a grade. Your purchases, social interactions, and political activity will determine what privileges you get.

Having a low score—because you smoke, are slow to pay bills, or criticize a government official—could get you barred from flying, using certain hotels, or sending your kids to better schools.

Li Schoolland grew up in China. As a teenager, she survived China's Great Leap Forward, Great Famine, and Cultural Revolution. Her parents were doctors, which meant they, and she, were intellectual enough to be targeted for communist "re-education."

"Mao said we shouldn't learn from books; we should learn from the military, from the farmers, from the workers," she recalls in my online video. "The poorer you were, the better you were. If you're illiterate, you're the best."

"After I came to the United States I thought, oh, no more politics. I'm in the land of the free," she recounts. But after she saw surveillance states developing around the world, she thought, "No, no, no. I have to tell the American people, 'Don't let this happen.'"

I like to think the era of communism is over, the danger past. But in China, "the repression is not over," says Schoolland. "The control of people's mind, people's mouth, people's pen, never stopped."

Today in China, if you email friends about books like George Orwell's Animal Farm or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, your message will be blocked.

Even pictures of Winnie the Pooh were banned because someone said president Xi Jinping resembled the stuffed bear.

And now, another step, one subtler than just banning things: the social credit score.

The government brags the system will "allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step."

That's totalitarianism.

Of course, the U.S. is much freer. People complain because Facebook is irresponsible about sharing our data. But to that I say, so what? I voluntarily give Facebook that information. I'd rather see targeted ads than random ones, and no one forces me to use Facebook.

I worry more about what my government does. Facebook and Google cannot use force. Government can. Governments do.

Already, there are new surveillance programs.

Los Angeles police brag that they now practice "predictive" policing. They pay a company called Palantir to analyze social media, trace people's ties to gang members, and predict the likelihood that someone may commit a crime.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Does China putting such trade restrictions on FB counter Reason's position that the USA has free trade with China?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Reason's position that the USA has free trade with China

    [citation needed] you effing strawman.

    Go on, show one instance of Reason staff saying the US has free trade.

    One measly link, that's all it takes.

  • Shirley Knott||

    The US has free trade with China if it (the US) imposes no tariffs on American citizens' purchase of Chinese goods.
    It's really not a hard concept.

  • Shirley Knott||

    *tariffs or other restrictions

    To elaborate slightly — only the US government can make me more, or less, free. The actions of the Chinese government wrt their citizens may impact me, but not in terms of my legitimate freedoms. Only the American state can do that.

  • ||

    only the US government can make me more, or less, free.

    Wow. Just... wow.

    my legitimate freedoms

    So, in your mind, there are illegitimate freedoms and freedoms that are legitimate but belong to other people? Nevermind, you've twisted your mind into such an obtuse corner, I don't want to know the answer.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Who other than the state can make me more, or less, free?

  • ||

    Who other than the state can make me more, or less, free?

    Private individuals, communes, corporations, families, religious institutions... I really don't have an exhaustive list.

  • BYODB||

    Your logic failure is a baseline misunderstanding of the concept of rights, as you're explicitly making an argument for positive rights here. Look it up.

  • BambiB||

    Stossel's lack of concern regarding Google/Facebook seems naive. How long before they are simply a conduit feeding your information to the government for a fee? How long before they are contracted by the government to compute and deliver your "social score"?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Free trade is only a two way street between trading partners.

    Both China and the USA need zero trade restrictions to qualify for free trade.

  • sarcasmic||

    No, that's fair trade.

    What you promote is our government punishing us for buying products from people who are punished by their governments for buying our stuff.

    "Bad loveconstititon1789, you want to buy something from Mr Chang. His government restricts his freedom, and that isn't fair. So your freedom must be restricted to make it fair."

  • Shirley Knott||

    What sarcastic said.
    China has no plausible ability to limit my freedoms regardless of how it limits its own.
    You keep avoiding this point.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Sorry sarcasmic— missed the auto-correct.

  • ||

    China has no plausible ability to limit my freedoms regardless of how it limits its own.

    Again... just wow.

    You're effectively saying that China can't possibly retaliate against the tariffs. American soy producers will continue to be free to sell their soy on the Chinese market and China can't do dick about it (despite the fact that they're already instructing domestic growers to ramp up production and beginning to offer domestic subsidies).

  • Shirley Knott||

    Which has zero impact on my freedom to buy Chinese goods.
    Reciprocal free trade is going to be better than unilateral free trade but unilateral free trade is the only part 'we' control. And it makes us better off.
    Shooting ourselves in the foot by imposing tariffs on Chinese goods does not make us better off.

    I suppose once upon a time you would have proposed that American women's feet be bound because Chinese women's were and that would be a good way to make them stop.

  • BYODB||

    No plausible way? None whatsoever? A curious claim.

    What if, say, we rely on China to produce a product or host of products to the point that domestic production of said good(s) is no longer economically attractive? And, furthermore, what if they continue that trend until all domestic production of said good(s) is gone?

    What, at that point, stops China from using that monopoly control of particular good(s) to call for a change to U.S. domestic policy to curtail your freedoms via changes to domestic policy?

    Not saying this is a likely outcome, please understand that, but it's one potential way they could limit your freedom. Notably, it was the U.S. plan for emphasizing democracy abroad so it's something that American's should be conversant in. Just switch out the America hegemony for a Chinese hegemony. It's hard to deny they're working on one.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're talking about fair trade, not free trade. Fair, as in what the left whines and cries about.

    "Not fair! Not fair!" The bleating cry of the leftist is also the bleating cry of the protectionist. "Not fair! Not fair! They force their people to pay more for our products and our government doesn't make us pay more for their products! Not fair! They restrict the rights of their people while our government doesn't restrict our rights! Not fair! Our government needs to make us pay more for their stuff and restrict our rights just like they do! Then it will be fair!"

  • Shirley Knott||

    Exactly.
    My freedoms are not under [direct or meaningful, or even realistic] threat by the internal policies of China.
    They are, however, under direct, meaningful, and realistic threat by the internal policies, the actions, of the US government.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're paying more for Chinese good because of Chinese trade restrictions.

  • sarcasmic||

    And here I thought that trade with China wasn't fair because their government subsidizes industries and makes their goods unfairly inexpensive. That's why our government needs to tax people who buy stuff from China. You know, to make it fair.

    You mercantilists just can't make up your minds.

  • ||

    And here I thought that trade with China wasn't fair because their government subsidizes industries and makes their goods unfairly inexpensive.

    So subsidized pricing is the libertarian notion of free trade/markets? A libertarian wouldn't stand for farm subsidies in this country, why are they OK in a *more* communist one? Kinda seems like you're 100% a-OK if the "free" market is wholly owned/run/consumed/swamped with goods produced under a communist dictatorship but if goods largely produced in a democratic republic with even a whiff of authoritarianism find their way in the notion of 'free' in the free market goes right out the window.

  • Shirley Knott||

    How on earth do you get that out of sarcasmic's post?

    And are you seriously arguing that a managed economy can and will outperform one that is more free?

    Wealth is goods, not money.
    If the Chinese government wants to subsidize my purchases at the expense of its own citizens how am I harmed?

  • ||

    And are you seriously arguing that a managed economy can and will outperform one that is more free?

    Are you seriously arguing that four managed Chinamen can't out produce one American even transiently? If free markets are and were so unequivocally dominant, how do command economies even get a toe-hold? Seems like people not giving a shit if they're propping up a communist regime or not is a pretty obvious loophole.

    Wealth is goods, not money.

    OK. Money is fungible and is used to produce and purchase goods. I assume there's a point.

    If the Chinese government wants to subsidize my purchases at the expense of its own citizens how am I harmed?

    If the US government wants to subsidize your steel purchases at the expense of American steel workers how are you harmed? Or is 'free markets' short for 'markets free from Americans (and their government)'?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Subsidizing one industry must use resources that would otherwise go to av different industry.
    I am harmed by the government subsidizing the steel industry by their theft of my resources to supply the subsidies. And by their use of my resources to distort the market.

    Trade is not a zero-sum game.

    And what sarcasmic says.

  • ||

    Trade is not a zero-sum game.

    We aren't talking about trade. We're talking about *free* trade.

  • ||

    Shirley Knott|6.20.18 @ 11:16AM|#

    If the Chinese government wants to subsidize my purchases at the expense of its own citizens how am I harmed?

    Shirley Knott|6.20.18 @ 12:06PM|#

    I am harmed by the government subsidizing the steel industry by their theft of my resources to supply the subsidies. And by their use of my resources to distort the market.

  • sarcasmic||

    So subsidized pricing is the libertarian notion of free trade/markets? A libertarian wouldn't stand for farm subsidies in this country, why are they OK in a *more* communist one?

    I never said it was OK. However it's not my problem. And what could be done about it anyway? Punish Americans who buy the subsidized goods?

    Kinda seems like you're 100% a-OK if the "free" market is wholly owned/run/consumed/swamped with goods produced under a communist dictatorship...

    Again, what do you want to do about it? Punish Americans who buy stuff from communists?

    Seriously.

    What you and others are saying is that because China subsidizes industry, we should pay punitive taxes when buying their stuff. Because China is communist, we should pay punitive taxes when buying their stuff.

    You want to punish Americans for the actions of the Chinese government.

    What did we do?

  • ||

    You want to punish Americans for the actions of the Chinese government.

    What did we do?

    You mean besides arguably buying into slavery and tacitly propping up a communist regime? It's arguable that, at one point, doing business with ZTE could fit within the bounds of Treason.

    I'm not arguing that these specific tariffs are the specific or correct answer but unilateral free trade is a fool's game being played by people who are either naive morons, ideological zealots, or both.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm not arguing that these specific tariffs are the specific or correct answer but unilateral free trade is a fool's game...

    Then you are arguing in favor of tariffs and means of restricting the freedom of Americans to buy and sell freely.

    And I can call you names too. Protectionism is a game played by morons who have no understanding of economics or history, who subscribe to ancient fallacies, and hate liberty.

  • ||

    Protectionism is a game played by morons who have no understanding of economics or history, who subscribe to ancient fallacies, and hate liberty.

    Weird how these ancient fallacies, being inherently anti-liberty and fundamentally uncompetitive at all corners have persisted. It's almost like the notion of protracted absolute and unfettered freedom is a transient illusion that people keep insisting they can instantiate as a means to seize one manner of power or another. I guess it comes down to a question of motives or, if not motives, then actions. Who supports the communist dictatorship and who supports the federated democratic republic.

    There are all kinds of goods and technologies that I and others unable to transfer into or out of the US supposedly at any price since well before the Trump administration. What makes them substantially different or less/more important than steel at a slightly elevated price? Motorola couldn't just hand a bunch of the Iridium satellite technology over to the Chinese without Clinton's approval first. Would you suggest that US businesses be able to sell satellite and weapons technology to the Chinese government without input from the American taxpayer?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Funny how the historical record doesn't bear that out.
    Witness the repeal of the Corn Laws in Great Britain and what that contributed to the great enrichment.

  • ||

    Witness the repeal of the Corn Laws in Great Britain and what that contributed to the great enrichment.

    Who enacted the Corn Laws? How has GB's economic position in the world fared since their repeal?

  • sarcasmic||

    mc, I guess you should go piss on Adam Smith's grave.

  • Shirley Knott||

    A) prove it.
    B) how do American tariffs, which increase the price I pay for Chinese goods, somehow make them cheaper at the same time?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    As they say, plus tell me how it hurts me or the American economy for Chinese taxpayers to make my purchases cheaper so I can use that saved money to buy more stuff and put more Americans to work.

  • ||

    So, what you're saying is it's OK if a communist dictatorship artificially lowers prices, it's still a free market because they're in China; but if a Federated Democratic Republic artificially raises prices the free market is spoiled because they're in America. Sounds exceedingly libertarian to me.

  • sarcasmic||

    it's OK if a communist dictatorship artificially lowers prices

    If they want to subsidize the stuff we buy, how are we harmed?

    it's still a free market...

    It's a free market when we are free to buy and sell stuff without our government interfering. We can't do anything about what other governments do.

    You want our government to interfere in our ability to freely engage in commerce because you don't like what a foreign government is doing.

    Sounds pretty derpy to me.

  • ||

    It's a free market when we are free to buy and sell stuff without our government interfering.

    This would get points docked on an Econ 101 exam at pretty much any school in this country, probably most in the world and probably even many in China.

    Free market - noun - an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses

    Weird how it doesn't mention where the restrictions originate and on who's authority.

    You want our government to interfere in our ability to freely engage in commerce because you don't like what a foreign government is doing.

    I don't buy steel from China. If the US government fucks you over because you do, how am I harmed?

    Again, I'm not saying the tariffs are the right solution to this problem but you can't have it both ways. You can't have no borders and a border with China/The Chinese government at the same time. Either the markets and moral quandaries are global and the money is only kinda-sorta fungible (as China dictates how a good chunk of it will or won't be spent) or the markets and moral quandaries, are domestic and money is still only kinda-sorta fungible. The idea that you can have a global market and 100% fungibility of funds but only local or regional moral issues is itself a (fundamental or global) moral issue.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Which of my rights are violated if China subsidizes some of its industries? And note that it can only be some.
    Which of my rights, as an American citizen, are violated if the US go get ment subsidizes some American industries, and thus harms others?

  • ||

    Which of my rights are violated if China subsidizes some of its industries? And note that it can only be some.

    I thought we were only talking about trade and that it wasn't a zero-sum game?

    Which of my rights, as an American citizen, are violated if the US go get ment subsidizes some American industries, and thus harms others?

    Decent question. Why does the answer change substantially whether the government is here or in China?

  • sarcasmic||

    Why does the answer change substantially whether the government is here or in China?

    Are you serious?

    If the government is here then it is domestic resources being diverted from the market to political cronies. We suffer.

    If the government is in China then it is Chinese resources being diverted to make the stuff we buy cheaper. We benefit.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    oh no. It's too bad China is the only other country in the world.

  • sarcasmic||

    Free trade doesn't depend on reciprocation. Free trade is when a government does not restrict its own people from engaging in trade with whomever they want to trade with. Free trade means you can buy from whomever you want, and sell to whomever you want, without your government intervening. Period. The end.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that free-traders should be subject to the policies they promote by being enslaved, and sold off to the countries who's populations they advocate enriching us with. Tariff free, of course.

  • sarcasmic||

    I have no idea what you just said. Care to translate it into English?

  • Citizen X||

    "I have no idea what free trade is or how to make an argument that isn't utterly disingenuous. Sieg Heil!"

  • gaoxiaen||

    *"whose", to clarify it a little bit.

  • gaoxiaen||

    In English, please. If you'r impatient, start at 1:30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDfZ5HmA6fs

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I have no idea what you just said. Care to translate it into English?

    I'm pretty sure he said "Argle bargle, I'm an idiot, derp derpity der!"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Free trade requires all trading partners to have zero trade restrictions or its not free trade.

  • sarcasmic||

    No. That's fair trade. Free trade means you are free to trade. If others reciprocate then all the better. But free trade means your government doesn't punish you for engaging in trade with others, regardless of if their governments punish them.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    And I'm sure that's the definition of free trade you'll find in every economics textbook in the world. Right? Right?

  • sarcasmic||

    You'll find that definition taught by any professor of the Austrian school of economics.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Austrian, huh? You know who else was Austrian?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Mozart?

  • sarcasmic||

    Here's the thing you don't seem to get.

    Our government doesn't restrict China. The people who are restricted are us. Americans.

    Tariffs are not paid by the Chinese. The people who pay the tariffs are us. Americans.

    When governments engage in trade wars, they are at war with their own people. A trade war is a contest between governments to see which one can best restrict the freedom of their own people to engage in trade.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Sufficiently false, and refuted often enough, to count as blatant dishonesty.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Why do you not address what people say? Why do you continually ignore what people say? You have plenty of comments on free/fair trade to pick and choose from, yet all you do is repeat your mantra instead of responding wo what is said.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Why do you not address what people say? Why do you continually ignore what people say?

    I think it may be another sockpuppet account run by multiple people, similar to Tony. That's why they never address any points anyone has made and instead just keep repeating the same talking points. Because they're working from a script of pre-prepared that they're not allowed to deviate from i nany meaningful way. That's why, like Tony, you can pretty much predict almost word for word what they'll say.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Americans should be free to buy what they want, with no US GOVERNMENT interference. Other countries make their own laws, with which Americans should abide. The US GOVERNMENT makes this scenario much less likely. Though I don't really know how they would figure out the tariff on fentanyl, opium, Manali cream, Cuban cigars and rum, and Russian firearms.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Help me understand this: if I stick my gun in your ribs and ask for your watch, it qualifies as free trade because even if you were coerced into the transaction, it's still free because I wasn't, no?

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah. Because China selling us cheap stuff is the same as armed robbery. You're a genius.

  • damikesc||

    Id ask why free trade hasnt liberalized China. I thought it tended to follow.

  • Shirley Knott||

    How has China not liberalized as it moved, ever so slowly, to free-er trade?

  • BYODB||

    Well, for starters all business and means of production are fully owned by the CCCP which is a communist regime that continues to murder dissidents and threaten neighboring nations with military action.

    I suppose that it's not really our problem that we've given them a great leap forward in technology through our thoroughly compromised trade with their nation. There will be no negative consequences, I'm told, since China will inevitably become a free democratic nation long before they attempt any military expansion using our own technology.

    Nothing like walking a razors edge, I suppose.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Good thing I don't live in China, because my social credit there would be in the negative numbers...and I don't even smoke or pay bills late!

    I openly disdain politicians of every stripe. If any of them happen to look like lovable cartoon characters, it doesn't change my perception of them as power-hungry con artists and slavers.

  • sarcasmic||

    Of course, the U.S. is much freer. People complain because Facebook is irresponsible about sharing our data. But to that I say, so what? I voluntarily give Facebook that information. I'd rather see targeted ads than random ones, and no one forces me to use Facebook.

    *scoff*

    Those targeted ads manipulate people into buying products. They make the corporations rich and the people poor. Corporations get the money and all we get is stuff. Corporations keep their workers in wage-slavery while stealing the fruits of their labor. Corporations are the enemy.

    Government, on the other hand, is us. It says it right there in the Constitution. "We The People." That's us.

    So government by definition can't control us because it is us.

    Stupid libertarians.

  • Citizen X||

    When Tony finally wakes up at 11 or so this morning, he's gonna be so mad that you scooped him.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    LOL

    I routinely ignore those targeted ads and I also skip right past paid search results. The consequences I face? Zero. If I don't want to follow the wishes of corporations, they can't do a damn thing about it.

    Try to ignore the wishes of governments. Just try it—even in the "freest" of countries. See what happens.

    I don't understand why people find the difference hard to grasp.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I don't understand why people find the difference hard to grasp.

    Because they're stupid.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't understand why people find the difference hard to grasp.

    It's because they have an emotional attachment to government.

    Government is the people.

    Government protects us from evil corporations that would kill us with their products to make a profit.

    Government protects the environment from evil corporations that would destroy it to make a profit.

    Government protects the poor from evil corporations that would exploit them to make a profit.

    Government takes those ill-gotten gains from the corporations and gives them to the people who deserve it.

    Government gives us roads and schools. Without government there would be no roads or schools.

    Government gives us rights. Without government the corporations would take our rights away from us and enslave us.

    Government is dreamy.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    They're basically like this.

  • sarcasmic||

    That about sums it up.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Trust score", eh? ***IF*** we had affordable and accurate brain scanners, I would like to see them in common use, for those willing to be scanned! I wouldn't marry anyone, or have them be my shrink or business partner, unless they were scanned and trustworthy! (My sex partners would need to by trystworthy as well as trustworthy, but I digress).

    I would vote for NO politician unless I knew that they were trustworthy, according to the brain scanner!!! I wonder how trustworthy all of our politicians are, and ditto for the Chinese versions of the same... Are ANY of them trustworthy!?!?!

  • Rich||

    Just a matter of time.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    If that technology ever comes into use, I'd bet that you would never vote again. But that presumes it could be used by the public on the political class. No way that would happen. That would be like you trying to eavesdrop on what the intelligence community is doing. It ain't a two-way street. They believe they have a right to know about you, while shielding themselves from any scrutiny.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    But that presumes it could be used by the public on the political class. No way that would happen.

    This. They would exempt themselves while mandating it for everyone else. Actually, they wouldn't "mandate" it and force unwilling people to get a brainscanner implanted in their heads, this is the "land of the free" after all. Instead they would just make it impossible for anyone without one to buy or sell anything or have a job. "Mark of the Beast" stuff if you're a religious type.

  • sarcasmic||

    They didn't ban us from buying and using incandescent light bulbs. They just banned their manufacture and import. We're still free to buy them and use them.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Exactly. They didn't "ban" anything. They didn't curtail anyone's freedom. It's not like they sent the light bulb police door to door to confiscate incandescent bulbs. They just made it impossible for anyone to manufacture or import any by mandating a minimum energy efficiency standard that incandescent bulbs couldn't meet. Then the "free market" responded by no longer producing those kinds of bulbs. /Derp

    Incidentally, this is probably what gun control will ultimately look like. They won't "ban" firearms, they'll just make it impossible to produce or import any new guns or ammunition through onerous regulations. Your 2nd amendment rights won't be violated, you'll still be able to keep any guns and ammo you already have, you just won't be able to buy any more. Well, not legally anyway. At least that will be SCOTUS' opinion in nutshell.

  • BYODB||

    Right on the money CA.

    It's why the hag HRC wanted to hold manufactures liable for the use of their products.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Just as we were free to drink during prohibition.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Now the Chinese government takes data from those platforms to assign all people who use them a "social credit score."

    Hey, I saw that Black Mirror episode.

  • Rich||

    Hey, how about a "street cred score"?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    "After I came to the United States I thought, oh, no more politics. I'm in the land of the free," she recounts.

    Yeah, you wish.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Now the Chinese government takes data from those platforms to assign all people who use them a "social credit score."

    In other words, the government monitors your web activity and gives you a grade. Your purchases, social interactions, and political activity will determine what privileges you get.
    ...
    Los Angeles police brag that they now practice "predictive" policing. They pay a company called Palantir to analyze social media, trace people's ties to gang members, and predict the likelihood that someone may commit a crime.

    I was going to say we shouldn't be giving our government any ideas, but those two things don't sounds all that different. Sure, the LAPD claims they're only trying to "trace people's ties to gang members, and predict the likelihood that someone may commit a crime," but is anyone stupid and naive enough to think they'll stop there?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""They pay a company called Palantir to analyze social media,"'

    Which would require access to the social media data. Facebook says they don't share your data, and says that with a straight face.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    In other words, the government monitors your web activity and gives you a grade. Your purchases, social interactions, and political activity will determine what privileges you get.

    Don't we kind of do that here, but in a more 'free market' way? Send an off-color tweet, the next thing you know, you're ostracized, fired from your job and making groveling apologies to the Twitterati.

  • BILKER||

    The tracking and tracing of US citizens has been in effect since they started installing "traffic control" cameras everywhere. Every phone call has been tracked since "watson come here i need you". Don't even think that internet hasn't been tracking everything posted, spoken or viewed since it was developed. Ever used google earth? pretty good resolution right, sky view at 1500 foot elevation, street view at yards from the subject all are so far away from the views being used by certain viewers that can view your face in real time any where you are even in the mines of moira. People are under surveillance every minute of the day. Geepers they can visually examine a grain of sand on Mars for gods sake, and you think they're not watching you? Here's lookin at'cha kid.
    BTW F*CK DENIRO.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online