Money
There should be money value to losses of privacy. Every time an organized clandestine action is done onto me and that their actions is proven wrong, there should be consequence.

Having suspicion is a right, a duty of these law enforcement folks. But acting on an incorrect suspicion(whether justified or not) should carry consequence. Just as they are rewarded for following a hunch and catching a crook, there must be punishment for following a wrong hunch and negatively impacting a person’s life.

In fact, I feel that even the access and analysis of my private information (email, files, my personal space such as my home, the airspace above my head, signals sent into my person and my possessions) these invasions of privacy must be punished when proven to be wrong.

Each violation must state hypothesis and the condition of test requiring invasion of privacy. If test proves hypothesis wrong then a punishment is assessed. If it is proven right then a reward is given.

Every kilobyte of my email you read, you should be paying me $x. If you retain the data then you will be charged $y/year.

This belittles human privacy rights, but it is one way that we can use to quantify, regulate and monitor the clandestine sector.

What is power? What is privacy?

I am not a very forceful thinker. I find myself thinking of every matter from multiple perspectives. More often than not I argue myself out of my own position.

The organized clandestine activities are organized for a reason. A large enough and powerful enough intelligence has recognized its necessity and has facilitated it’s existence. That originator of this clandestine organization mandates that the clandestine activities be clandestine in all ways I have described in my previous post.

The consequence of this is that the clandestine organization must satisfy a certain level of service. Similar to the concept of an SLA, the clandestine organization must obtain information (in stealth) within a certain time period of it becoming known. When it masquerades, it must succeed in fooling all involved into believing that the party being masqueraded is truly doing it.

This ability is a power. And in effect it is not a power if it cannot be wielded freely. Similar to my right of speech. If I speak, and my voice is interfered with every time, or if my blog is unsearchable by some search engine trick then effectively my right of speech has been impinged upon. Conversely if here is a regulation that restrained the clandestine activity, then it decreases it’s usefulness.

Let me give a simpler example to illustrate. If we are to guarantee the power of these clandestine organizations the ability to masquerade as me typing into my computer, then they can always type into my computer. If the operator (the member of clandestine organization) is have a bad day, if he is having a seizure, if he is unhappy that I oppose the existence of his job, if he made a typo and affect what I type into the computer as I work, then that is allowed.

Because if we regulate these abilities to try to prevent his foul mood or desire to keep his job in affecting my job performance then we have not given these clandestine organizations absolute power, and consequently they cannot function effectively, right? Consequently they are not liable for major failures like 911 right?

If any of the theatrical depiction of clandestine organizations are any where close to reality, it is safe to assume that all of them are insane. They are all paranoid and all able to argue for 100% absolute clandestine power!

Oh, and let me be obnoxious for once, having be target of obnoxious behavior so often… The aurora shooting, why don’t the people watching my screen and analyzing my blog and causing typos in my keyboards and making my mouse fly around weirdly at work and home, why don’t they go and wreck some havoc in an actual bad person’s life? Why don’t you go and prevent a really bad thing from happening? instead of secretly watching my activity?