6 Mar 2019

India-Pakistan war tensions escalate

Deepal Jayasekera 

War tensions between India and Pakistan continue to escalate, posing the danger of an all-out military conflict involving nuclear weapons.
At least six civilians and two Pakistani soldiers were killed on Friday and Saturday as a result of cross-border shelling from both sides along the Line of Control (LoC), which separates the two parts of Kashmir ruled by India and Pakistan. Indian and Pakistani troops have attacked each other’s military posts and villages.
The Pakistani military said that two of its soldiers were killed by Indian firing over the LoC on Friday. The next day, two civilians were killed and two others injured by the resumption of shelling from the Indian side.
Umar Azam, a Pakistani government official, accused Indian troops of “indiscriminately targeting border villagers” using heavy weaponry along the LoC. Indian police said that Pakistani shelling on Friday killed a mother and two children, and critically wounded the father, in the Poonch region near the LoC.
Thousands of villagers on both sides of the LoC have fled to government-run shelters or relatives’ homes. Denouncing the cross-border fighting between the Pakistani and Indian militaries, a resident from Mendhar in Indian Kashmir told the media: “These battles are being fought on our bodies, in our homes and fields, and we still don’t have anything in our hands.”
The current fighting erupted after 40 Indian soldiers were killed in a suicide attack by Kashmir separatists on February 14. The Indian government immediately seized on the attack, which was carried out by the Pakistani-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), to launch a war-mongering campaign against Pakistan. Islamabad insisted it had no hand in the incident.
Last Tuesday morning Indian war planes launched a bombing raid deep inside Pakistan, the first such attack since the end of the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war. New Delhi claimed the raid destroyed a major JeM camp, killing hundreds of “terrorists.” Islamabad, however, declared that its air force had chased away the Indian planes, which dropped explosives in a forest area, and that there were no casualties.
On Wednesday, Pakistan retaliated sending its warplanes into airspace over the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. In the resulting dogfight the Pakistan air force shot down at least one Indian plane, which fell inside Pakistan territory. The pilot was captured.
On Friday night, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan released the Indian pilot as a “peace gesture” and called for talks with India. The Indian government declared that there would not be any talks with Pakistan until it ended all support for Kashmir separatists. Having dismissed Islamabad’s show of good will, it proceeded to parade the pilot as a national hero.
Indian Air Marshal C. Hari Kumar, who oversaw last Tuesday’s air strike against Pakistan, told the Hindu on Saturday: “Nobody wants war [but] … We cannot tolerate cross border terrorism. The message has to be sent that we cannot lose citizens, in uniform or otherwise. Our IAF [Indian Air Force] has the capability to hit anywhere.”
Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi told the BBC on Saturday that although Islamabad never wanted a crisis it was ready to cooperate with India, but insisted, “We are on high alert.”
The seven-decade geo-political rivalry between India and Pakistan and the conflict over Kashmir is a product of the 1947 communal partition of British India into a Muslim Pakistan and a Hindu-dominated India. Both India and Pakistan claim the whole of Kashmir. The competing claims provoked a conflict shortly after partition that led to a divided state and continuing tensions that have repeatedly flared.
Both ruling elites use national chauvinism as a means of dividing the working class and oppressed masses between and within their countries. India has maintained its rule over Jammu and Kashmir through a brutal military occupation, which has led to the formation of various armed separatist groups.
While suppressing the basic democratic rights of the masses in the part of Kashmir that it rules, Islamabad cynically uses the Indian military repression in Jammu and Kashmir to promote separatism in Indian Kashmir and pursue its own reactionary geo-political interests in the region.
The decades-long rivalry between India and Pakistan, however, is now being intensified and fuelled by global geo-political tensions between the US and China.
Washington’s support for India as a key partner of its military-strategic offensive against China has encouraged New Delhi to adopt a more hawkish posture against Islamabad. India’s air strike inside Pakistan territory was given the green light by Washington, when it said that New Delhi had “the right to self-defence.”
Last Thursday US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters that he had been talking to his Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj, Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, and Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi to “encourage each country not to take any action that would escalate and create increased risk.”
Washington’s claims that it wants to prevent an all-out war between India and Pakistan is not out of concern for the fate of millions of people, the victims of such a military conflict on the subcontinent, but flows from its geo-political and military agenda.
The US values its growing military-strategic partnership with India as a major component of its war drive against China. At the same time, it has enlisted Pakistan to pursue its strategic interests in Afghanistan, particularly to broker a negotiated settlement with the Taliban.
The US is therefore concerned that an open military conflict between India and Pakistan will cut across its geo-strategic interests. Irrespective of its intentions, US aggression in Asia against China have added further fuel to decades-long rivalry between India and Pakistan.

2 Mar 2019

Injini Edtech Incubator for African Education Startups (Fully-funded to South Africa) 2019

Application Deadline: 17th March 2019

To Be Taken At (Country): South Africa


About the Award: Injini is the first EdTech dedicated incubator programme on the African continent. It is the only opportunity for EdTech entrepreneurs based anywhere in Africa to get industry specialist mentoring, support, scale up and funding introductions, and early stage funding.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: The programme is open to anyone from, based in or focused on any African country.
  • Profit businesses, focused on Africa and on as broad a section of the population as possible (especially low income), that address learning from early years to adults using technology.
  • Innovative but effective approaches that can scale quickly.
  • Tested tech because evidence shows it can improve the quality of or extend access to education, not for the sake of using tech.
Number of Awards: 20

Value of Award: 
  • Everyone in the program will be covered for flights to and from Cape Town, for accommodation , and receive a small allowance for extra living costs incurred while in Cape Town.
  •  As part of this revised programme, each start-up will be eligible for a ZAR 100k grant (ca. $7.5k), after which the cohort will compete for follow-on equity investment of up to $75k per startup.
How to Apply: Apply here
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage (see link below) before applying
Visit the Program Webpage for Details 

Global Investigative Journalism Conference (GIJC) 2019 for Journalists in Developing countries (Fully-funded to Hamburg, Germany)

Application Deadline: 5th May 2019

Eligible Countries: Developing countries


To Be Taken At (Country): Johannesburg, South Africa

About the Award: The Global Investigative Journalism Conference (GIJC) is the premier international gathering of investigative and data journalists, held once every two years. This year, the 11th global conference will be held in Hamburg, Germany from September 26 to 29, and is being co-hosted by the Global Investigative Journalism Network, Netzwerk Recherche and Interlink Academy.
With the support of our sponsors, we are offering travel fellowships to both established and young promising journalists in developing and transitioning countries, as well as to members of particular communities. Competition is keen so you need to convince us that you’ll make great use of the training GIJC19 offers.
Winners will be notified via email by June 30, 2019.

Type: Workshop/Conference

Eligibility:
  • Open to full-time print, online, television, video, radio, documentary and multimedia journalists in developing or transitioning countries;
  • Experience in investigative or data journalism a plus;
  • Special categories for journalists from LGBTQ communities, indigenous peoples, citizen investigators, and journalists exiled from their homelands;
  • Sorry, Western journalists based overseas are not eligible.
Number of Awards: over 200

Value of Award:
+ Round-trip airfare to Hamburg, Germany
+ Hotel room for four nights
+ Transport between Hamburg airport and the conference hotel
+ Breakfast and lunch on conference days
+ Award ceremony banquet dinner
+ Conference fee


The fellowship does not include a per diem, visa fees, or transport to and from your home country airport. This is a training conference, and fellows are expected to pay for these costs.
Following the conference, fellows are required to either produce a story directly related to #GIJC19 or give a presentation of the knowledge you have gained at #GIJC19 in your home country to other colleagues or the journalism community at-large.

Duration of Program: September 26 to 29 2019

How to Apply: To apply for a place, fill in the application form in the link below


Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Kistefos Young Talented Leader Scholarships Program 2019/2020 for African and Norwegian Students

Application Deadline: Ongoing

Eligible Countries: Norway, South Africa, Liberia, and Ethiopia. 


To be taken at (country): Norway

About the Award: Over four years, the program will grant a total of 46 scholarships to candidates in Norway, South Africa, Liberia, and Ethiopia.  The Fellowships for Leading Norwegian Talent will include two scholarships for undergraduate studies and 20 scholarships for pre-experience masters and the Fellowships for Leading Africa Talent will include 24 scholarships for pre-experience masters for candidates. 

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Scholarship candidates must demonstrate academic and personal excellence, strong leadership capabilities, an entrepreneurial mindset, and a commitment to impacting their home countries upon graduation.

Number of Awards: 24

Value of Award: All scholarships will cover up to 100% of tuition fees including living expenses and travel arrangements for the master programs.

Duration of Programme: 2 years

How to Apply: 
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage (see link below) before applying
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Alibaba eFounders Fellowship (Class 5) 2019 for African Entrepreneurs

Application Deadline: 17th March 2019

Eligible Countries: African countries


To Be Taken At (Country): Alibaba Xixi Campus – Hangzhou, China

About the Award: The eFounders Fellowship is a two-week course for entrepreneurs in developing countries who are operating open, platform-based businesses in the ecommerce, logistics, big data, and tourism spaces. The program will provide first-hand exposure to and learning about ecommerce innovations from China and around the world that enabled growth and a more inclusive development model for all.
The eFounders Fellowship program provides first-hand exposure to ecommerce and digital innovations, access to business leaders across Alibaba and China, as well as an opportunity to connect with like-minded, leading entrepreneurs in your region. The fellowship is a community of passionate and successful “Champions for the New Economy” looking to inspire and create a more inclusive development model for all.
The eFounders Fellowship program is jointly organized by Alibaba Business School and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), who are implementing the Sustainable Development Goals for 2030.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 
  • You MUST be a founder or co-founder of an officially registered digital venture that has been in operation for at least 2 years.
  • Your venture MUST be headquartered, located in or operates in one of the following countries: Botswana, Cameroon, Chad, Kenya, Rwanda, or Uganda.
  • You MUST provide at least 1 referral in your application (referrals from a partner/organizer/eFounders Fellow are preferred).
  • You MUST provide your official business license when requested during the application process.
  • Entrepreneurs below 40 years old, female entrepreneurs, and target country locals are strongly encouraged to apply.
Selection Criteria: Class 5 welcomes entrepreneurs who are:
  • Authentic, open-minded and altruistic leaders of the ‘new economy’.
  • Building enterprises for long-term success, not for short-term profit.
  • Mission-driven and have a strong sense of purpose, integrity, vision and drive.
  • Willing to learn and share their experiences and ideas.
Number of Awards: There will be 40 places available

Value of Award: 
Covered:
• Hotel accommodation (shared room).
• Daily meal allowance for breakfast (included in the hotel), lunch and dinner.
• Field trip and site visit transportation costs
Not covered (costs you must personally cover):
• Air tickets and transportation/pick-up services to and from Hangzhou, China.
• Single hotel room requests (if you would like to stay in a single room you will be required to cover the full cost yourself).
• Additional food or personal expenses.

Duration of Program: May 11 – 22, 2019


How to Apply: Apply Here


Visit the Program Webpage for Details

SAR Campbell Advanced Seminar 2019 for Women from Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 30th April 2019

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries


Type: Conference

Eligibility: Several of the seminar participants must be women scholars or scholars/practitioners from the developing world since one of the goals of the seminar is to foster professional linkages and the sharing of relevant experiences.  Proposals may address global problems or focus on specific regional questions.  Above all, the participants should be committed to producing practical improvements in the lives of women and workable proposals likely to achieve that end.  Seminars focused on broad policy issues will be judged according to whether practical implementation measures are included in the discussion.
The Women and Development Seminar will consist of 10 scholars — including one or two who serve as chair/s — who meet at SAR’s Santa Fe campus for five days of intense discussion. Participants appraise ongoing research, assess recent innovations in theory and methods, and share data relevant to broad anthropological problems.
Seminar papers are circulated among participants at least one month prior to the seminar and are discussed during the sessions. These discussions are followed by a consideration of crosscutting issues and a synthesis of ideas. Following the seminar, the chair is required to submit a 1,500-word summary for use on the School’s web site and in the annual report. Work that results from the seminar may be considered for submission to SAR Press for publication in its Advanced Seminar Series.

Selection Criteria: Seminars are awarded competitively based on evaluations by a specially convened panel of reviewers who represent a broad spectrum of intellectual expertise.

Applications are evaluated by the following criteria:
  • Proposal Presentation: Proposals should explain the research topic, key questions to be addressed, and methodologies in a clear and organized manner. Competitive proposals are jargon free.
  • Significance of Seminar: Proposals should make a strong case for the intellectual significance of the seminar. How is the research exciting, innovative, and important in a broad anthropological and humanistic perspective?
  • Appropriateness for SAR: The proposed seminar should clearly align with SAR’s Mission.
  • Quality of Research: Research questions and goals should clearly align with the project’s methodologies and stated outcomes. Expected results should be realistic and achievable and the project should be professionally responsible.
  • Timeliness of Seminar: The proposal should make a strong case for why a seminar is necessary to address the topic and why the seminar is needed now.
  • Ability of Organizer(s): The CVs of the organizer(s) should demonstrate proven experience in organizing academic events (e.g., chairing conference panel sessions, co-editing book volumes or special journal issues). Their publication records should be strong relative to their discipline and career stage.
  • Appropriateness of Participant List: The participants’ research expertise and professional experience should clearly align with the seminar’s research topic and key questions to be addressed. Each participant’s anticipated contribution to the seminar should be stated.
Number of Awards: 10

Value of Award:
  • Seminars are held in the School’s comfortable and fully staffed seminar house, which has a meeting room, dining room, kitchen, private bedrooms for participants, and a pleasant courtyard. Every effort is made to create an atmosphere in which participants can meet without interruption or distraction.
  • The School provides round-trip coach airfare, lodging, visa expenses, and all meals for up to ten participants. Travel costs are reimbursed at a rate of $500 per participant for domestic travel. SAR will reimburse travel costs for five international participants at a rate of $1,700 each.
Duration of Programme: TBC

How to Apply: All application materials must be submitted by email to spray@sarsf.org. Only fully completed applications that adhere to SAR’s guidelines and deadlines will be considered. The completed application must be submitted by April 30, 2019.
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage (see link below) before applying
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Swiss Sub-saharan Africa Migration Network 2019 Call for Projects

Application Deadline: 15th April 2019

Eligible Countries: Sub-saharan African countries. Key countries are: Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, and Uganda, as well as Côte d’Ivoire, South Africa, and Tanzania.


About the Award:  The objective of the Swiss Subsaharan Africa Migration (S-SAM) network is to build and strengthen long-term partnerships between migration researchers in Subsaharan Africa and Switzerland.
Within the large field of human migration, we focus on aspects of migration to Europe before migrants reach their destination. This includes the following topics:

– Reasons and motivations to migrate. Here we seek novel research on aspirations and abilities to migrate, on the nature of different ‘pull’ effects and the choice of destination country, or on the role of information in decisions to migrate. Research may focus on questions of preparations, anticipation of problems ‘en route’ and in the country of destination (e.g. discrimination), or on similarities and differences between South-South and South-North migration.

– Student migration. Here we seek novel research on student migration from Subsaharan Africa to Switzerland and Europe, as a specific motivation to migrate.

– Migration and health. Here we seek novel research on the situation ‘en route’ to Europe, how health affects decisions to migrate (or stay put), how the migration experience itself affects the mental and physical health of migrants, or the migration trajectories of health workers.
Methodologically and with regards to academic discipline, S-SAM is open, but innovative and experimental research is encouraged, as is a focus on social mechanisms.

Type: Grants

Eligibility: You are at the transition from PhD to established researcher: either a late PhD (typically last year), or early postdoctoral researcher (typically first or second year). You are embedded in a university in a Subsaharan African country or in Switzerland, and study human migration. You have an excellent track record, an innovative idea, and are interested in academic exchange and working towards a joint project.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: You can apply for a small pilot study, an exchange, or the combination of the two.

Pilot studies: give you the opportunity to carry out your own research with independent funding. We call them ‘pilot studies’ because we want to encourage studies that can eventually expand. The aim of a pilot study should be to obtain sufficient empirical material for a research paper. The indicative budget of a pilot study is CHF 1,000 to 5,000.

Exchanges: For exchanges to Switzerland, the University of Neuchâtel figures as the hub for migration research in Switzerland. You will submit a clear project to be completed during your exchange. The exchange will take place in a bilateral frame between Switzerland and a Subsaharan African country — in either direction. Key countries are: Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, and Uganda, as well as Côte d’Ivoire, South Africa, and Tanzania. Remuneration for travel and living expenses is according to the guidelines by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The combination with other exchanges is not excluded. The indicative budget of an exchange is CHF 5,000 to 10,000. All applicants are encouraged to bring external funding (e.g. matching funds), but this is not a requirement.

How to Apply: Submit your application online as indicated at the end of the call
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage (see link below) before applying

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Poisoning the Public: Toxic Agrochemicals and Regulators’ Collusion with Industry

Colin Todhunter

In January 2019, campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman accusing European regulatory agencies of collusion with the agrochemicals industry. This was in the wake of an important paper by Charles Benbrook on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides that appeared in the journal ‘Environmental Sciences Europe’.
In an unusual step, the editor-in-chief of that journal, Prof Henner Hollert, and his co-author, Prof Thomas Backhaus, issued a strong statement in support of the acceptance of Dr Benbrook’s article for publication. In a commentary published in the same issue of the journal, they write:
“We are convinced that the article provides new insights on why different conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and GBHs [glyphosate-based herbicides] were reached by the US EPA and IARC. It is an important contribution to the discussion on the genotoxicity of GBHs.”
The IARC’s (International Agency for Research on Cancer) evaluation relied heavily on studies capable of shedding light on the distribution of real-world exposures and genotoxicity risk in exposed human populations, while the EPA’s (Environmental Protection Agency) evaluation placed little or no weight on such evidence.
Up to that point, Dr Mason had been writing to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the EU Commission for an 18-month period, challenging them about ECHA’s positive assessment of glyphosate. Many people around the world had struggled to understand how and why the US EPA and the EFSA concluded that glyphosate is not genotoxic (damaging to DNA) or carcinogenic, whereas the World Health Organisation’s cancer agency, the IARC, came to the opposite conclusion.
The IARC stated that the evidence for glyphosate’s genotoxic potential is “strong” and that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. While IARC referenced only peer-reviewed studies and reports available in the public literature, the EPA relied heavily on unpublished regulatory studies commissioned by pesticide manufacturers.
In fact, 95 of the 151 genotoxicity assays cited in the EPA’s evaluation were from industry studies (63%), while IARC cited 100% public literature sources. Another important difference is that the EPA focused its analysis on glyphosate in its pure chemical form, or ‘glyphosate technical’. The problem with that is that almost no one is exposed to glyphosate alone. Applicators and the public are exposed to complete herbicide formulations consisting of glyphosate plus added ingredients (adjuvants). The formulations have repeatedly been shown to be more toxic than glyphosate in isolation.
Rejection of Dr Mason’s complaint
The European Ombudsman has now rejected Rosemary Mason’s complaint who has in turn written a 25-page response documenting the wide-ranging impacts of glyphosate-based Roundup and other agrochemicals on human health and the environment. She also outlines the various levels of duplicity that have allowed many of these chemicals to remain on the commercial market.
Mason is led to conclude that, due to the rejection of her complaint (as with others lodged by her to the Ombudsman), the European Ombudsman Office is also part of the problem and is essentially colluding with European pesticide regulatory authorities. Mason has addressed this concern directly to Emily O’Reilly, who currently holds the post of European Ombudsman:
“In your rejection of all my complaints over the last few years, it is clear that The Ombudsman’s Office is protecting the European pesticides regulatory authorities, who are in turn being controlled by the European Glyphosate Task Force…. You have turned a blind eye to the authorisation of many of the toxic pesticides that are on the market today because industry is being allowed to self-regulate.”
Some of the key points, claims and issues raised in Mason’s new report ‘The European Ombudsman is colluding with the European Pesticide Regulatory Authorities’ include:
*The European pesticide regulatory authorities and the European Ombudsman is colluding with industry, resulting in the poisoning of humans and the environment;
*Cancer Research UK is not addressing the impact of agrochemicals because it is heavily compromised by industry interests and therefore claims, “there is little evidence that pesticides cause cancer”;
*The UK Science Media Centre is an industry lobby organisation, which feeds the wider media and its journalists with misleading and false information about agrochemicals;
*Industry group the European Glyphosate Task Force (GTF) has been instrumental in ensuring the re-licensing of glyphosate in the EU;
*Maladministration and criminal collusion with the agrochemicals industry resulted in the renewal of glyphosate registration in the EU;
*The report touches on the condemnation of the ECHA’s positive classification of glyphosate by the judges of the International Monsanto Tribunal;
*The global insect apocalypse and the impact of intensive agriculture and pesticides is catastrophic;
*Children and adults have diminished mental acuity and exhibit increasing levels of mental health disorders, depression, suicides and anxiety as a result of exposure to agrochemicals;
*Monsanto’s sealed secret studies shows the company knew about impact of its product on cancers and eye damage;
*The report mentions UN expert on Toxins Baskut Tuncak’s call to put children’s health before pesticides;
*Mason outlines the poisoning of British food: breakfast cereals have shockingly high levels of glyphosate;
*She notes that 30,000 doctors and health professionals in Argentina have demanded a ban on glyphosate;
*Brazil’s National Cancer Institute statement that genetically modified crops are causing of massive pesticide use is referred to;
*The independence of regulatory decisions made by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) has been marred by political donations to Labor and the Coalition. In the 2017-18 financial year, Bayer donated $40,600 to Labor and $42,540 to the Coalition, with CropLife donating $34,271 to Labor and $22,300 to the Coalition;
*As a result, APVMA is allowing clothianidin and Roundup to be applied to crops in low lying areas which drains into The Great Barrier Reef;
*In turn, the poisoning of The Great Barrier Reef is taking place due to the impact of herbicides and long-acting insecticides.
There are numerous other important points and issues tackled in the report, which readers are urged to read in full. Mason names key individuals and provides all relevant links to research, reports and papers. You can access the report below. You can also access Dr Mason’s many other documents here.

The Age of Tyrannical Surveillance

John W. Whitehead

“We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about… Your digital identity will live forever… because there’s no delete button.
—Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt
Uncle Sam wants you.
Correction: Big Brother wants you.
To be technically accurate, Big Brother—aided and abetted by his corporate partners in crime—wants your data.
That’s what we have been reduced to in the eyes of the government and Corporate America: data bits and economic units to be bought, bartered and sold to the highest bidder.
Those highest bidders include America’s political class and the politicians aspiring to get elected or re-elected. As the Los Angeles Times reports, “If you have been to a political rally, a town hall, or just fit a demographic a campaign is after, chances are good your movements are being tracked with unnerving accuracy by data vendors on the payroll of campaigns.”
Have you shopped at Whole Foods? Tested out target practice at a gun range? Sipped coffee at Starbucks while surfing the web? Visited an abortion clinic? Watched FOX News or MSNBC? Played Candy Crush on your phone? Walked through a mall? Walked past a government building?
That’s all it takes for your data to be hoovered up, sold and used to target you.
This is the age of surveillance capitalism.
Incredibly, once you’ve been identified and tracked, data brokers can travel back in time, digitally speaking, to discover where you’ve been, who you’ve been with, what you’ve been doing, and what you’ve been reading, viewing, buying, etc.
Once you’ve been identified in this way, you can be tracked endlessly.
“Welcome to the new frontier of campaign tech — a loosely regulated world in which simply downloading a weather app or game, connecting to Wi-Fi at a coffee shop or powering up a home router can allow a data broker to monitor your movements with ease, then compile the location information and sell it to a political candidate who can use it to surround you with messages,” writes journalist Evan Halper.
No one is spared.
In this regard, we are all equals: equally suffering the indignity of having every shred of privacy stripped away and the most intimate details of one’s life turned into fodder for marketers and data profiteers.
This creepy new era of government/corporate spying—in which we’re being listened to, watched, tracked, followed, mapped, bought, sold and targeted—makes the NSA’s surveillance appear almost antiquated in comparison.
What’s worse, this for-profit surveillance capitalism scheme is made possible with our cooperation.
All those disclaimers you scroll though without reading them, the ones written in minute font, only to quickly click on the “Agree” button at the end so you can get to the next step—downloading software, opening up a social media account, adding a new app to your phone or computer—those signify your written consent to having your activities monitored, recorded and shared.
Think about it.
Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to influence and/or control you.
On any given day, the average American going about his daily business will be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways by both government and corporate eyes and ears. A byproduct of this new age in which we live, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency is listening in and tracking your behavior.
With every smartphone we buy, every GPS device we install, every Twitter, Facebook, and Google account we open, every frequent buyer card we use for purchases—whether at the grocer’s, the yogurt shop, the airlines or the department store—and every credit and debit card we use to pay for our transactions, we’re helping Corporate America build a dossier for its government counterparts on who we know, what we think, how we spend our money, and how we spend our time.
The technology has advanced so far that marketers (political campaigns are among the worst offenders) can actually build “digital fences” around your homes, workplaces, friends and family’s homes and other places you visit in order to bombard you with specially crafted messages aimed at achieving a particular outcome.
If anyone else stalked us in this way—tailing us wherever we go, tapping into our calls, reading our correspondence, ferreting out our secrets, profiling and targeting us based on our interests and activities—we’d call the cops.
Unfortunately, the cops (equipped with Stingray devices and other Peeping Tom technologies) are also in on this particular scam.
It’s not just the surveillance and the buying and selling of your data that is worrisome.
The ramifications of a government—any government—having this much unregulated, unaccountable power to target, track, round up and detain its citizens is beyond chilling.
Imagine what a totalitarian regime such as Nazi Germany could have done with this kind of unadulterated power.
Imagine what the next police state to follow in Germany’s footsteps will do with this kind of power. Society is definitely rapidly moving in that direction.
We’ve made it so easy for the government to watch us.
Government eyes see your every move: what you read, how much you spend, where you go, with whom you interact, when you wake up in the morning, what you’re watching on television and reading on the internet.
Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line.
If you’re an activist and you simply like or share this article on Facebook or retweet it on Twitter, you’re most likely flagging yourself as a potential renegade, revolutionary or anti-government extremist—a.k.a. terrorist.
Yet whether or not you like or share this particular article, simply by reading it or any other articles related to government wrongdoing, surveillance, police misconduct or civil liberties is enough to get you categorized as a particular kind of person with particular kinds of interests that reflect a particular kind of mindset that might just lead you to engage in a particular kinds of activities. The corporate state must watch and keep tabs on you if it is to keep you in line.
Chances are, as the Washington Post has reported, you have already been assigned a color-coded threat assessment score—green, yellow or red—so police are forewarned about your potential inclination to be a troublemaker depending on whether you’ve had a career in the military, posted a comment perceived as threatening on Facebook, suffer from a particular medical condition, or know someone who knows someone who might have committed a crime.
In other words, you might already be flagged as potentially anti-government in a government database somewhere—Main Core, for example—that identifies and tracks individuals (so they can be rounded up and detained in times of distress) who aren’t inclined to march in lockstep to the police state’s dictates.
The government has the know-how.
As The Intercept reported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies are increasingly investing in and relying on corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior.
It’s happening already in China.
Millions of Chinese individuals and businesses, blacklisted as “unworthy” based on social media credit scores that grade them based on whether they are “good” citizens, have now been banned from accessing financial markets, buying real estate or travelling by air or train. Among the activities that can get you labeled unworthy are taking reserved seats on trains or causing trouble in hospitals.
Get ready, because all signs point to China serving as the role model for our dystopian future.
When the government sees all and knows all and has an abundance of laws to render even the most seemingly upstanding citizen a criminal and lawbreaker, then the old adage that you’ve got nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide no longer applies.
Apart from the overt dangers posed by a government that feels justified and empowered to spy on its people and use its ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and technology to monitor and control them, there’s also the covert dangers associated with a government empowered to use these same technologies to influence behaviors en masse and control the populace.
In fact, it was President Obama who issued an executive order directing federal agencies to use “behavioral science” methods to minimize bureaucracy and influence the way people respond to government programs.
It’s a short hop, skip and a jump from a behavioral program that tries to influence how people respond to paperwork to a government program that tries to shape the public’s views about other, more consequential matters.
Add pre-crime programs into the mix with government agencies and corporations working in tandem to determine who is a potential danger and spin a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies, and you having the makings for a perfect dystopian nightmare.
This is the kind of oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick.
Remember, even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.
The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.
In the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes.
Surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people—weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands, especially when the government can listen in on your phone calls, monitor your driving habits, track your movements, scrutinize your purchases and peer through the walls of your home—add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence.
This is the creepy, calculating yet diabolical genius of the American police state: the very technology we hailed as revolutionary and liberating has become our prison, jailer, probation officer, Big Brother and Father Knows Best all rolled into one.
It turns out that we are Soylent Green.
The 1973 film of the same name, starring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson, is set in 2022 in an overpopulated, polluted, starving New York City whose inhabitants depend on synthetic foods manufactured by the Soylent Corporation for survival.
Heston plays a policeman investigating a murder, who discovers the grisly truth about the primary ingredient in the wafer, soylent green, which is the principal source of nourishment for a starved population. “It’s people. Soylent Green is made out of people,” declares Heston’s character. “They’re making our food out of people. Next thing they’ll be breeding us like cattle for food.”
Oh, how right he was.
Soylent Green is indeed people or, in our case, Soylent Green is our own personal data, repossessed, repackaged and used by corporations and the government to entrap us.
We, too, are being bred like cattle but not for food.
Rather, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we’re being bred, branded, bought and sold for our data.
As the insidious partnership between the U.S. government and Corporate America grows more invasive and more subtle with every passing day, there’s virtually no way to opt out of these assaults on your digital privacy short of being a modern-day Luddite, completely disconnected from all technology.
Indeed, George Orwell’s description of the world of 1984 is as apt a description of today’s world as I’ve ever seen: “You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”
What we desperately lack and urgently need is an Electronic Bill of Rights that protects “we the people” from predatory surveillance and data-mining business practices.
Without constitutional protections in place to guard against encroachments on our rights in the electronic realm, it won’t be long before we find ourselves, much like Edward G. Robinson’s character in Soylent Green, looking back on the past with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we wanted, buy what we wanted, think what we wanted without those thoughts, words and activities being tracked, processed and stored by corporate giants such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used against us by militarized police with their army of futuristic technologies.