(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)

Have the authorities ever managed to limit the desire for more control and surveillance? Last feature of such a management mentality, or governmentality, appeared in April when the FBI informed the US Supreme Court that they suspect they could monitor or seize any computer on the planet. They only need the approval of a local judge, even if the action is outside the judge's jurisdiction. Unsurprisingly, the so-called "Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure" can hit around one million users of the "untraceable" browser Tor. Legally, the last shot is broken from being monitored when you look around the internet.

The original liberal distinction between public and private is blurred with this the politics of suspicion that the authorities exercise. With the FBI's new mandate, thousands or millions of computers could be legally crawled in search of scapegoats – which, via "technological devices, hide information".

Is there such a society we want? Do we want to accept that the Norwegian government is following and welcoming such a welcome – something we have seen many signs of, for example, Minister of Foreign Affairs Anundsen's desire for your keyboard to be monitored?

Now the browser does not provide Tor protection either

If the US Congress does not reject this by December 1 this year, this will be the new "legal" practice. But probably the FBI and CIA have been doing this for a while now: the FBI is now accused of recruiting one of the employees behind the Tor project. Matthew J. Edman has for the FBI created the program code that could reveal who were active users of Tor online. The program called Network Investigative Technique (NIT) is a so-called malware used by authorities and intelligence. According to The Hacker News and Geopolitics.co magazine, the FBI is now refusing access to information about what they were doing illegally. Their only defense in the ongoing trial is that they had to conduct large-scale surveillance in order to reveal – such as finding a smaller network that used Tor to display child pornographic material (PlayPen). Well. Such single websites must be despised, but large-scale surveillance destroys the freedom one is supposed to protect.

Historically, criticism of technological development has been an old martial issue for the anarchists – they predicted, among other things, how the state power would acquire new technology to increase its influence. Marxists, for their part, were not so afraid of technology as it promoted industrialism as the intermediary of capitalism. What we also unfortunately see today is that the governing authorities are aided by the media scare propaganda about "terrorists" and, in general, all the wrongs in the world – so that they can exert illiberal control over all the citizens you are actually set to serve.

In this context we can also mention that the FBI has been recruiting for a long time informers from local communities such as religious communities, churches, schools, social workers and health institutions. In the United States, some 2008 years ago (15) some 000 informants on the FBI's payroll were revealed – a doubling since the infamous J. Edgar Hoover operated the FBI a few decades earlier with his COINTELPRO.

The FBI calls this program today the Shared Responsibility Committee (SRC), with a new "contract" that The Intercept magazine has just revealed. The contract contains FBI rules for informants or affiliates. The goal is to get radicalized people to cushion, avoid violence, but also to be looked after by the environment. For a while, this is all well and good, but why on earth should the FBI interfere in schools, health services and religious environments? According to the SRC contract, the persuaded new "committee members" are to be trained at the FBI. The text of the agreement also reserves the right for information provided to the FBI to be used in litigation or disseminated to other country's authorities without the informant's knowledge. The information can be used arbitrarily for arrests. The informant is also required to stand up as a witness.

But why should the social workers of civil society stand up to such a thing? It is already known that FBI agents in civilian suddenly appear smiling at the Muslim meals during Ramadan, where they record everyone around the evening meal. And if you look like a Somali, you are depicted as suspiciously dark-skinned. And not only that: The FBI has developed computer games where children should look for signs of radicalization. For example, the program Worried on the site "Don't be a puppet".

How to stigmatize Arabs and Muslim youths. Those who have seen the documentary (T) error (2015), knows how, through his informant, the FBI took a possible "terrorist" just because of his dissenting opinions. Counterterrorism? The informant is paid up to NOK 800 per case disclosed. American Khalifa al-Akili just wanted to be a Muslim and had done nothing wrong, but is now locked up for a long time to come. (See also
terrordocumentary.org/background for more info.)

One thing is that "potentially violent extremists" can get help, treatment and support for education and housing. The temptation to commit terrorism or enlist as a foreign warrior often stems from perceived exclusion and lack of opportunities among young people. But the FBI methods also spread mistrust with today's enormous security paradigm – and there will not be an increasing consumption of middle-class bourgeoisie and rich people gated communities which is rather protected?

To build community is to come together. Local communities can build trust rather than outsiders. The FBI and others do the opposite by stating only the symptoms. Unfortunately, we can expect more from this future. We haven't forgotten the McCarthy hunt for Communists in the US (the movie T goes now). Rather a German Stasi who had children to report to their parents.

truls lie

Subscription NOK 195 quarter