User Profile

While I get that there are no wrong questions, I also think focusing too much on the 'why' may not be the most practical approach here.

Theorizing why things happen can give us a sense of progress—like a form of mental multitasking, where we feel as if we’re making strides. But in reality, it becomes a distraction, creating a false sense of achievement even if we haven’t taken concrete steps toward our main goal: subverting state surveillance.

This isn’t to say we shouldn’t discuss the 'why' at all, but setting a time limit on these discussions can help ensure we’re moving from theory to action and focusing on the work that actually drives change.

I think about it in a similar way to threat modelling in security -- while understanding a threat actor’s motivations can be helpful to understanding what they might try and do, asking 'why' they’re motivated doesn’t help us as much as figuring out what threats they pose, how they might achieve that end and how to mitigate the threats they pose.

Similarly, while understanding why state surveillance happens is valuable, it can often be more effective to accept that it happens, understand what the tools, tactics and procedures are used and focus on concrete steps to counteract or disrupt it as activists and radical scholars.

The initial assertion that "Big Brother is everywhere" holds different meanings based on community experiences. For Black, Indigenous, and POC activists, surveillance is often an unavoidable part of life, a mechanism by which the state maintains scrutiny over communities perceived as inherently politicized. These activists recognize that the state's gaze isn't contingent on political activity alone; it extends into everyday existence because their very identities are politicized.

In contrast, I think a lot of white activists, may not have this awareness inherently ingrained. Especially if they are originally from the white middle/upper-middle (speaking in terms of the Australian class system). Their sense of surprise or outrage often arises because, for them, surveillance is seen as an aberration rather than a routine experience. This reaction reveals a gap in understanding the comprehensive reach of state surveillance—a reality that marginalized communities know all too well.

Looking more broadly at "every citizen", I think most accept surveillance as an acceptable state function, often under the assumption that as “good citizens” they are exempt. This trust in state boundaries creates a complacency around privacy, this is most evident with the "nothing to hide" rationale obscuring the potential misuse of online metadata. The broader implications of this data collection—how it might later be used or repurposed—are often overlooked, revealing how trust in state motives can overshadow critical scrutiny of surveillance practices.