We’re all under surveillance. So what?

Jesse Brown catches up with the PRISM scandal — just as everyone’s moving on

image: obamaischeckingyouremail.tumblr.com

I’ve been covering privacy issues for the past six years, roughly the same time period that saw the largest erosion of personal privacy in human history. Yet of the handful of technology topics I write about, privacy is consistently the least popular with readers.  Unless some federal minister is equating privacy fears with support for child molesters, people just don’t click. But two weeks ago, everyone decided to finally give a damn about privacy. Then, just as suddenly, everyone was over it.

The inciting incident was the news of PRISM, a massive National Security Agency surveillance effort, which was leaked to the press by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Snowden revealed that the U.S. federal government has been bulk-spying in realtime on our e-mail, web searches and other Internet traffic. Subsequent revelations exposed other efforts, such as: MARINA, which collects Internet metadata, NUCLEON, with records phone calls en masse, and MAINWAY, which spies on phone metadata.

There is much debate and murkiness about who the NSA is spying on, to what degree Canada’s CSEC is doing the same, and which Internet and phone companies are complicit. The confusion is intentional and transparency is unlikely. These are spy agencies, after all, and they don’t care what you think of them. More concerned about public outrage is Barack Obama, whose reassurance to Americans that the NSA is not listening to their phone calls without warrants has been exposed in detail as a patent falsehood—the NSA is most certainly doing so to many Americans, and they’re not saying who these targets are. Of course, in the case of non-U.S. citizens like us, all bets are off, and nobody is even bothering to offer us bullshit denials. The only reasonable assumption we can make from all this is that until we learn otherwise, everything from everyone is being spied on, all the time.

Why collect information in such an indiscriminate manner? The answer, it seems, is why not?  No legal barriers prevent the NSA from doing so, following post 9/11 amendments to the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act.  Technological barriers to bulk surveillance have also been removed — our data is almost exclusively digital now, and the cost of storing unfathomable troves of it drops each day.  We know a little about the scale of this. (Via Wired,) the Washington Post reported that in 2010 the NSA intercepted and stored 1.7 billion emails, phone calls and other communications. This figure is already wildly out of date—last week’s coverage in the Guardian had it that in March of this year alone, the NSA collected three billion pieces of intelligence, just counting U.S. communications.

This all leads us to another question: How could they possibly make sense of so much information?

Because of Big Data. Drastic increases in processing power and the development of sophisticated data mining/data crunching techniques magically allow authorities to sift through our stuff with algorithms that can locate that needle in the haystack—a terrorist plot in the making.  It all sounds neat in a Bourne Identity kind of way, but I’ve often wondered just how effective Big Data is, especially in these cases, where the cost of a false positive (erroneously identifying an innocent person as a terrorist) is high, but not nearly as high as the cost of a false negative (erroneously identifying a true terrorist as an innocent).

My curiosity was disturbingly satisfied by this shocking interview with William Binney, a retired NSA analyst who says Big Data is no great shakes.  It seems  the NSA was in fact recording Tamerlan Tsarnev’s phone calls, but the Boston Marathon bomber fell through the cracks—nobody got around to transcribing or analyzing the tape.  According to Binney, Big Data is worse than ineffective — it actually renders the NSA “dysfunctional,” as real leads get lost in oceans of irrelevant snoopage.  This helps the NSA perpetually demand (and receive) ever-increased funding to buy more and more transcribers and analysts, but it does little to keep America safe.

The final question to emerge while I was changing diapers, and the most saddening, is “why should I care?” Having just learned that their own government has secretly and perhaps totally disregarded their right to privacy, many have shrugged, claiming they have nothing to hide.  Some have even suggested we’re all getting our just desserts for participating in social media, as if signing up for a GMail account is somehow a tacit invitation for government spooks to read your letters. Meanwhile, a Pew Center poll revealed that 56 per cent of Americans are okay with the NSA listening to their phone calls in the name of security, and 45 per cent don’t mind if their emails are being read.

Explaining why we all should care — and will care — feels very Grade 8 civics, like explaining why freedom is important or why voting is a good idea.  It’s hard to not sound pedantic and self-righteous when doing so.  Let me stick to practicalities: you should care because the government is always losing data, and eventually they will lose yours. Cory Doctorow provides another good reason to care by illustrating the difference between privacy and secrecy. “I know what you do in the toilet,” he writes, “but that doesn’t mean you don’t want to close the door when you go to the stall.” Here’s another one: You might be the next false positive, your life ruined in an instant because some algorithm flagged you as a terrorist based on a data glitch.

Above all, I care because a perfect record of my whereabouts, Internet searches, emails, and phone calls that I don’t know about and can’t access is of high value to lots of people, but is nothing but a liability to me. Your government, your boss and your would-be identity thief all might desire access to such a database.  It’s hard to think of any application that would be anything but harmful to you.  It’s similar to how lawyers advise clients to never say anything to police until they show up, whether or not the client has done anything wrong.  What you say might be used against you, but it’s sure as hell not going to be used to help you. If you have nothing to hide, you also have nothing gain by being spied on. They’re not looking for people to send money to.

I can go on, but I’m afraid I missed my moment. The public outrage seems to have passed. If the NSA or CSEC have learned anything from this, it might be that they can probably get away with much more than they’re already doing.  The only saving grace here is the Internet itself, the same network that makes such sci-fi level surveillance possible.  It’s also the technology that makes conspiracies untenable.  A program like PRISM requires dozens, if not hundreds, of complicit agents.  Among this crowd, there will, we hope, always be an Edward Snowden or a Bradley Manning, a free-thinking individual whose ethics simply do not allow them to stay silent and complicit, no matter the personal cost. These souls will always be one click away from telling us the truth.

Whatever comes next, we can never say they didn’t warn us.

Follow Jesse on Twitter @JesseBrown

 




Browse

We’re all under surveillance. So what?

  1. I am in early 40s and I can remember as teenager we talked about getting chips implanted in our arms/brains. Few people wanted to be chipped, didn’t think it was good idea. Society stopped talking about the evils of having in chips in our brains now that we all walk around with phones equipped tracking devices in our pockets/purses and in our vehicles.

    Surveillance freaks me out and I am teaching my niece and nephew to be paranoid kooks as well, but overall, people don’t appear to mind being snooped on as long as its not being obviously abused. And this is only North America, humans experience much more regulation and control in other countries than we do here.

  2. Big Data is real and effective, the NSA might be making a mess of their efforts but data collection in private sector is incredible. There was a good article in NY Times last year about Big Data and the advances statisticians are making – if you get the heebie jeebies about privacy, stop using your credit cards.

    NY Times – How Companies Learn Your Secrets:

    About a year after Pole created his pregnancy-prediction model, a man walked into a Target outside Minneapolis and demanded to see the manager. He was clutching coupons that had been sent to his daughter, and he was angry, according to an employee who participated in the conversation.

    “My daughter got this in the mail!” he said. “She’s still in high school, and you’re sending her coupons for baby clothes and cribs? Are you trying to encourage her to get pregnant?”

    The manager didn’t have any idea what the man was talking about. He looked at the mailer. Sure enough, it was addressed to the man’s daughter and contained advertisements for maternity clothing, nursery furniture and pictures of smiling infants. The manager apologized and then called a few days later to apologize again.

    On the phone, though, the father was somewhat abashed. “I had a talk with my daughter,” he said. “It turns out there’s been some activities in my house I haven’t been completely aware of. She’s due in August. I owe you an apology.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  3. snowden should be promoted. crooks he exposed shold be criminally prosecuted.
    its impossible to prevent/stop all bad things from happening. HOW could
    hypocritically spying on everyone prevent crime? DETAILS? EXAMPLES?! even if it could, the risk of people being punished for speech is higher than the chance it would prevent crime. gov spying on everyone could be and has been used to murder(might blame it on defense, suicide, or frame someone), disappear, abuse, arrest, and punish people for speech ,political and reglious beleifs, and association. gov can more easily get away with and conceal crime.
    if gov thought spying on everyone was good for national security, gov wouldnt have a problem with publisizeing everything about gov and being 100%transparent, w/o non-gov even haveing to ask. it doesnt, becaues it just wants to punish speech.

    plans, plots,and funding “terrorist groups” arnt illegal. freedom of speech. first fire gov workers who plan to commit crimes(exspecially murder)agianst innocent people.
    some corrupt gov workers wrongly lable law-abideing average people terrorists based on speech or political/religious beleifs, because corrupt gov is terrified of law-abideing people that want to expose and stop corruption.

    gov who hypocritically searches and seizies w/o reasonable suspcion is a traitor who betrayed their oath to defend the consitution and supreme laws of the land.
    they’re a tratior for betraying the public lieing to them saying they are there for national security when actualy they breach national secuirty, and only secure gov criminals from being prosecuted.

    gov workers who hypcoritically spy on the public at large w/o reasonable suspcion, are the enemy.
    only criminals would say exposeing/leaking evidence of crimes is aiding the enemy because law-abideing people that try to stop crime are a criminal’s enemy.

    gov is subject to transparency laws that non-gov isnt subject to
    its legal to share (gov info that is legally sapose to be published) with the public
    public sector(gov) is sapose to be the public’s employees and be publicly viewable(w some good-reasoned public approved exseptions)
    non-gov is the private sector-
    meaning non-gov has the right to privacy. everyone is the public.

    corrupt gov says: top secret criminal intel gathering programs and gov’s classified crimes if exposed put national security at risk.(actually its the oposite, …its good for national security to expose top secret criminal intel gathering programs. it puts national security at risk for gov to spy on the whole public- it puts criminals at risk of being caught if their crimes are exposed)
    corrupt gov says: its to keep the country safe.(actually its to keep criminals safe from being legally and rightfully fired and charged)
    corrupt gov says: were takeing phone records and spying on non-gov at the same time punishing anyone who spys on us. its well known were only collecting info w the intent to use it agianst people, and there’s a high chance it will be used to punish people for speech and association-because it happened before(like the irs scandal(punitivly taxed for poltical beleifs), and punishments could get much worse inlcudeing murder torture and imprisionment for diagreeing w gov)-no need to worry its for your saftey, your dum enough to beleive that right?
    the only reason to collect info(speech/words) is to use it(in this case to discriminate agianst people based on it)
    when gov collects unnessicary info-people get punished for their speech and association(irs scandal)
    gov isnt more moral than non-gov.

    w/o liberty your not safe. the only point of saftey is to keep your liberty safe and to be safe from haveing your liberty taken away from you. w/o liberty and freedom, whats there to keep safe?nothing.
    when we have the freedom to do what we want with our private property and bodies as long as it doesnt touch or endanger others private property w/o their permisison, our property is safe from being stollen/taxed, controlled, kidnapped, restricted, trapped, physcially abused, or murdered.

    gov’s job isnt to collect unnesicary info or search w/o probable cause
    gov has alot more serious crimes it should be going after(like violent offenders, kidnappers) instead of spying on everyonegov’s job is to protect people’s right to not have their private property searched or seized w/o probable cause.
    immediatly fire gov workers who(or think its ok for gov to:) search or seizure w/o probable cause of crime
    see something say something-report gov’s suspcious activity
    whistle blower law-cant legally get in trouble for reporting crime/gov-misconduct
    whistleblower=someone that reports crime or misconduct.
    its gov’s job to report and try to stop crime/gov-misconduct, and protect everyone=under the law=not letting some get away w the same type of misconduct you dont let others get away with, =no spying on everyone while at the same time disallowing everyone to spy on you
    require gov workers report gov-misconduct and gov’s activity that is suspected to be misconduct or else get fired and owe wage refund. (exsept in cases where your likely to be punished if you reported-however you must still do whatever you can to report in a safe way
    allowing criminals to go unpunished puts everyone at risk.
    require gov workers immediatly investigate reports of gov misconduct and take minor complaints seriously
    put gov under 24-7live public video survailence(exsept w detailed good reason presented to the public to keep certian info secret). reasons for gov secrets shouldnt be secret.
    make gov delete all info it illegally collected, and info collected that isnt freely accessble to the public(ex buying info from bussiness’s), w/o at least reasonaoble suspision of a crime.

    manning should be promoted, the crooks he exposed should be criminally charged
    freeom of speech and freedom of the press=no arresting or fineing people for speech or press.
    ‘causing intelligence to be published’, ‘transmitting defense information’, are covered under freedom of press and speech. speech. you cant legally be criminally charged w endangering, or aiding the enemy, merely for speech or press.
    some corrupt gov workers wrongly lable law-abideing average people terrorists based on speech or political/religious beleifs, because corrupt gov is terrified of law-abideing people that want to expose and stop corruption.
    terrorist=someone someone is terrified(scared)of, doesnt=criminal
    reported nazis called jews a threat to national security.
    immediatly

    fire gov workers who charge people with ‘aiding the enemy’ merely for leaking evidence of gov’s crimes

    just because you are labled an enemy doesnt mean your bad, the good guy’s are the bad guy’s enemy.
    the public and the gov includes criminals/the enemy.in same cases it might be

    legal to search and seize if their is probable cause of crime, and record or share that info
    manning’s search and seizure might be lawful if there was probable cause of a crime or reasonable suspicion. crime includes gov misconduct since gov workers are being paid to do their job, if they dont do their job like their sapose to its fraud/theft.
    manning’s leaked video is
    reasonable suspision of a crime and (according to my knowledge)probable cause. leaked word docs might have included conspriacy or reported misconduct(both should be reported).

    it is good order and disapline to expose gov’s crimes, hideing gov’s crimes is wrong.

    its good to discredit gov members when they commited crimes or arnt doing their job(that is sapose to be protecting people’s rights, not protecting criminals from exposure and proescution)
    its good to expose info of w reasonable suspcion of a crime with reason to beleive such info could be used agianst criminals.
    it is mils job to report and stop crime(includeing crime that occurs within mil). manning should be rewarded for exposeing gov’s crimes or what has reasonable suspision to be potential crimes
    the law is sapose to apply to everyone = that means no special laws that only apply to mil and no one else.

    immediatly fire gov workers who press charges against people who search and seize gov’s property w proable cause of finding evidence of a crime
    corrupt gov is a hypocrite for wanting to spy on non-gov and disallow non-gov to spy on
    require gov workers immediatly investigate reports of gov misconduct and take minor complaints seriously
    put gov under 24-7live public video survailence(exsept w detailed good reason presented to the public to keep certian info secret). reasons for gov secrets shouldnt be secret.
    make gov delete all info it illegally collected, and info collected that isnt freely accessble to the public(ex buying info from bussiness’s), w/o at least reasonaoble suspision of a crime.

    manning should be promoted, the crooks he exposed should be criminally charged
    freeom of speech and freedom of the press=no arresting or fineing people for speech or press.
    ‘causing intelligence to be published’, ‘transmitting defense information’, are covered under freedom of press and speech. speech. you cant legally be criminally charged w endangering, or aiding the enemy, merely for speech or press.
    some corrupt gov workers wrongly lable law-abideing average people terrorists based on speech or political/religious beleifs, because corrupt gov is terrified of law-abideing people that want to expose and stop corruption.
    terrorist=someone someone is terrified(scared)of, doesnt=criminal
    reported nazis called jews a threat to national security.
    immediatly

    fire gov workers who charge people with ‘aiding the enemy’ merely for leaking evidence of gov’s crimes

    just because you are labled an enemy doesnt mean your bad, the good guy’s are the bad guy’s enemy.
    the public and the gov includes criminals/the enemy.in same cases it might be

    legal to search and seize if their is probable cause of crime, and record or share that info
    manning’s search and seizure might be lawful if there was probable cause of a crime or reasonable suspicion. crime includes gov misconduct since gov workers are being paid to do their job, if they dont do their job like their sapose to its fraud/theft.
    manning’s leaked video is
    reasonable suspision of a crime and (according to my knowledge)probable cause. leaked word docs might have included conspriacy or reported misconduct(both should be reported).

    it is good order and disapline to expose gov’s crimes, hideing gov’s crimes is wrong.

    its good to discredit gov members when they commited crimes or arnt doing their job(that is sapose to be protecting people’s rights, not protecting criminals from exposure and proescution)
    its good to expose info of w reasonable suspcion of a crime with reason to beleive such info could be used agianst criminals.
    it is mils job to report and stop crime(includeing crime that occurs within mil). manning should be rewarded for exposeing gov’s crimes or what has reasonable suspision to be potential crimes
    the law is sapose to apply to everyone = that means no special laws that only apply to mil and no one else.

    immediatly fire gov workers who press charges against people who search and seize gov’s property w proable cause of finding evidence of a crime
    corrupt gov is a hypocrite for wanting to spy on non-gov and disallow non-gov to spy on

  4. People do care – we are out here. but I agree – it would appear as if the vast masses are frigging idiots and could care a less. jay leno did a skit tonight about the NSA spying – not only was it not funny – but it completely poked fun of anyone who thought it was a serious issue and had creepy actors planted in audience and a tin hat foil guy to make it look like only crazy people think it’s an issue and the masses were laughing like they all agreed. Another form of group think idiots.

  5. I have sent a note to my senator – I’ve signed online petitions. But what else can we do? What do you want me to do – paint a poster and go stand on the street corner and then really have people call us crazy? It’s an honest question – what can we do – those of us who do care and think this is a big problem – the police state that is surpassing 1984.

  6. The Economist had an article lightly criticizing China on their citizen snooping. Ah….irony.

  7. Before the wall fell, countries in the east tried to reduce society to
    the level of a machine, total control, and no doubt, for every dissident
    who fled to the west there were many who said, ‘everything is fine
    here.’

    I’m sure anytime you mention ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism’ in a poll, the result will be skewed beyond measure. If you asked respondents if it’s okay to track and monitor everything your kids do, and say, the result would be quite different.

    The relatively small amount of data in the cims database was used to possibly influence the results of an election.

  8. We could always start hanging our corrupt politicians in the street.

  9. What I think is absolutely hilarious and hypocritical about the conspiracy theorists and those that worry that the government is violating everyone’s privacy, is that these are individuals who are full on using social media uploading their personal pics inviting people to, look at me look at me, look how wonderful and exciting my life is I have 800 freakin’ friends! My arse. I think my problem with it is that the defiance is coming from protesters of a generation of self entitled narcissistic people who believe they should always have their cake and eat it too. And they’ll never ever get that they are contributing to their own “perceived” personal threat. Give your heads a shake.
    The government doesn’t think you’re that important. Only you do.

    Step away from the keyboard, stop looking in the mirror and go do something truly meaningful that contributes to society without expecting anything in return.

  10. Technology has become more sophisticated and a lot of things can be done with the advancement of technology. Already know, there are positive and negative sides. I think probably the appropriate action to address it is how we are more careful in using the Internet and other electronic media.
    ———————
    Best Maker Fans

  11. I was in the Canadian Military when desktop computers were first introduced . We were warned by back door contacts with CSIS to be carefull what we said on the new email systems ,at work or at home on our own computers as there were already keyword monitoring systems in place . This was the mid 1980,s so the monitoring has always been there . If you really object to this have some fun with it .Use Internet Cafe computers and anonymous email accounts to send highly suspicious emails to to government offices and MP’s . Disinformation is very effective and it degrades the reliability of the entire system .

  12. Everybody should look at the mysterious death of Michael Hastings if you do not think that privacy is important.
    It is very important to know what your government is doing, and as we have seen in the Snowden leaks you can not trust them to tell the truth.

  13. I see 4 main purposes for society. We achieve high Q-of-L. I see this most strongly as curing diseases and increasing longevity. But a lot of what we do is directed towards this. The last two purposes are to try to harness powerful energy sources; whether or not it is safe to attempt or even R+D such. And whether or not to police the universe and the limits of communications and transports for a space civilization. The 2nd purpose is to prevent WMDs and low Q-of-L tyrannies. There are many of these WMDs including AGW. A biggie is AI. AI will try to create WMDs. For this reason it will be necessary to have mild AI algorithms paired with sensors in all our computers and other WMD forms, for the single-purpose of detecting WMDs. Also observing us detecting WMD education. AFAIK, once you learn a WMD engineering field, you get the extra level of surveillence for life. More tricky is preventing robotics from being used to build a WMD. This might involve EMF sensors, motion sensors, surveilling the whole lithosphere; it will be hard to get micro and nanotechnology robotics surveilled but it should be possible.
    I’ve considered this for a magical level of diamond-based sensors available, but it will need to begin now with real scalable sensor R+D and related technologies. I variety of brain sciences and leadership behavioural sciences will be useful to safely wield this. I suggest ignoring murders and stuff with the sensors as a staring point, to avoid tyrannical uses of the sensors and to max the odds of global pan-lithosphere compliance. I suspect some in USA policy circles have come to the same conclusion. Putting things in charge of a non-sentient self-learning AI (which I think is a WMD) is the only other solution I’ve seen posited. Market forces and flat tax rates are suicide.
    But I still want the Q-of-L gains of many AI algorithms. The sensors would only look for evidence of building WMDs, learning WMDs, and other similiarly hideous acts, and they would be everywhere we are, and everywhere our robots are.

  14. So we will WMD-sensor people, robots, communications (as is done), WMD education, and WMD substrates.
    To prevent a tyranny and maximize Q-of-L, it will be necessary to quantify pleasurable states-of-mind so a calculator can tally. It will also be necessary to maintain the ability to react to uncertainties and change and potentialities. Here there will be tradeoffs and synergies; some weed is good for me but too much and I’ll sleep and eat and be moody all day. Police and military actors are Conservatives in the 23rd century (who haven’t tried their century’s crack), but the people studying the Drake Equation and zero point energy may be creative/artistic geniuses. The people with enforcement power (who may have much more Liberal personalities than even the hiipiest hippies today) in the future will have a demonstrated ability to be sane and humane, and have minds with such maturity honed to a science. But the hippies will be physicists, and know how much we are being risk-averse in the name of patiently looking at options. To avoid a tyranny we will need to equate thoughts with real-time mapping in the brain; and evil thoughts result in chain-of-command demotions.

  15. It would be good to determine what behavioural and intellectual characteristics are predictable from real time brain information (brain scans of the future), and what we must rely on using lesser methods like past environment (education), and present environment (non-brain blood sugar levels, hours of sunlight, exposure to sane happy people). Where people are predictably good, they should be empowered. Where there are unpredictabilities, you’d want to rely more on things like 22nd Century Charter Human Rights, perhaps try some riskier physics to invent new technologies…
    Brains that resemble ours have the statistical advantage of historical records since before Moses. But intensity of evil is an issue too. I new drug or brain surgery that works 99.999% of the time to make good leaders, sucks if when it fails it makes a person 1000x more evil than Hitler. It will be tricky to get good observational evidence of other players in the universe and of our physics limits and the risks of such. But over time, we might find it is more conservative to augment, as our observations and modelling grow. Hopefully benevolence can be equated with a brainstate; finding a Mother Theresa or an otherwise utilitarian state of brain can help. If we instead tend to rely on technology, maybe an inventor state of brain will be more useful.

  16. There are methods of inducing loyalty and humanitarian behaviour, I don’t know about develop novel ideas optimally though, that aren’t presently being used. Future technologies I mean. These may be risky, especially the ones that modify behaviour and personally and the ability to control education. And the ability to generate such faculties.
    But on the upside, powerful people, at least in political/military/police/education positions of power, could personlly use these technologies if they are known safe and known not to cause themselves to turn into Hitler. So it is a tradeoff: the technologies will be risky but the reward is more stability and better leadership. My piont is, the technologies might induce verifiable brain characteristics that 2050 MRIs or brain nanotechnologies could pick up. There real question is just who to test? Someone (politically) weak? Someone good? Someone smart? Do we wait for better government first? Do we wait for safer power aggregation schemes? The fall of tyrants recently is trending in that direction.
    Quantifying ideal administrative and education systems, and ideal brain states maybe should precede nootropics R+D.

  17. I hate this homework. All of these different potential future systems and technologies and risks can be thought of as sectors of industry and society. In the same way GDP is modified to reflect a balance sheet or a hippie GDP or a hippie balance sheet, effecting or not effecting these technologies and systems is just math on GDP or quality-of-life or whatever. Some will be too dangerous, some will result in gains and then level off…
    Some of this is already known but is classified. Classifying systems of education helps keep options open. The USA and intelligence alliances know what a tyranny is but don’t really have a good idea how and if to develop future technologies. They aren’t too bullish on market forces (build all) despite the rhetoric, but quite frankly, America isn’t that great when it comes to brainstorming how to do good; is okay to good at fighting evil.
    What I suggest is determining which brain states are correlated with types of education, behavioural traits that are known to be good, and also for high IQ or inventiveness.
    Basically, psychiatry except to look for the best wheat and not just to fix the chaff. The way there are medical databases, there should be brain databases.
    This isn’t primarily to learn who will be a terrorist or tyrant, it is to determine how to make leaders better, with drugs or implants if possible/desirable. Then the sensors will be used by only responsible actors or you strike actors that use sensors with bad brains. Way past my bedtime.

    • Who is the girl in the 1979 video?!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *