A Practical Privacy Device
Here is a simple way of ensuring 100% confidentiality in face-to-face dialogue. The process is a bit inconvenient until you get used to writing and reading a conversation. But it does protect the information that is shared between you and the other person you are communicating with. In a small group context the mini-white-board (or PPD) can be handed around and then erased and/or added to by one or more people.

Total Surveillance Is Very Popular
The inaugural TV series of Big Brother involved a group of total strangers living in isolation from the world, in a CBS house in LA. The participants were constantly under surveillance from 28 cameras and 60 microphones. Viewing audiences found the new reality TV fascinating and the ratings of the show soared. Watching everything that their citizens do is also a hugely popular pastime with the covert agencies of national governments. The big difference is that these agencies watch everywhere, on a 24-7 basis, and they store and use the information they gather about you and me, without our knowledge or consent.

Categories of Surveillance
In 1998, The Macmillan Atlas Of The Future predicted the levels of surveillance that would apply throughout the world in 2003. They categorised the levels of citizen watching according to the following scale.

• (Z) "Total Surveillance"
  "Comprehensive, co-ordinated surveillance of lifestyle, movement, friendships, sexual and political activities, religious practices, and other data collected and processed without legal or constitutional protections."
• (Y) "Mass Surveillance"
  "Comprehensive, co-ordinated surveillance with legal and/or constitutional protections."
• (X) "High-Density Surveillance"
  "Selective co-ordinated surveillance of large numbers of people using limited technological infrastructure."
• (W) "Medium Density Surveillance"
  "Medium density surveillance in law enforcement, taxation, government benefits, credit reporting and financial institutions with limited legal and/or constitutional protections."
• (V) "Moderate Surveillance"
  "Moderate surveillance with adequate protections."

If you take a straw poll among the citizens of Western nations, such as the USA, Britain, and Australia (the so-called Coalition of the Willing, in their "War against Terror") you are most likely to find that people believe that they are presently living under conditions of W or V category surveillance. If you try the question on people you know, use the full descriptions rather than the category headings as the basis. You will find that general perceptions of surveillance levels: at work, at home, in the street, at the seaside, and in restaurants, theatres and airline lounges, are quite moderate. The reality is very different.

Predicted Surveillance Outcomes - 2003
Although the predictions of The Macmillan Atlas Of The Future could be expected to have a degree of bias, due to the predominantly Western origins of the sources used, they presented an interesting picture. It is no surprise that the countries that were expected to have category Z levels of surveillance by 2003 include such "evil" places as: China, North Korea, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Nigeria, Angola, Namibia, Mozambique, Uganda, Colombia, Nicaragua, and Cuba.

What will surprise many people is that only three countries in the world, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand, were expected to fit into category V, moderate surveillance, where most citizens in the West think their society would rate.

Countries such as the USA, Britain, Australia, Thailand, Malaysia, South Africa, Portugal, France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Austria, Croatia, and Greenland, were all expected to fit the mass surveillance category. That (Y) level involves comprehensive surveillance of all transactions, communications and movements, with some balance of human rights maintained by the existence of legal or constitutional protections. Mass surveillance means that everything is actually watched or is likely to be watched at the whim of one or more of the covert agencies of government.

In the West, Actual Surveillance Levels Are Higher Than Forecast
As a direct consequence of the 911 event and the subsequent "war on terror", the surveillance levels in many countries have been raised to new heights. At the same time legal and other protections have been removed, in the name of protecting "the public interest." The USA, Britain, and Australia are among the group of countries that have enacted or are proposing to enact new laws that give a wide range of government agencies new rights of surveillance, as well as entry without warrants and detention of suspects without trail or access to lawyers or human rights organisations. There is a growing need for PPDs, and for widespread rebuttal of restrictions of freedom and invasions of privacy in the so-called representative democracies of the West.

In the West, New Technologies Enable Mass Surveillance
Some totalitarian states, such as Cuba, still rely heavily on informers and non-technical methods of surveillance. Other regimes employ a mix of technical and non-technical methods. In the West, less use is made of informers. While various overt police forces continue to maintain liaison with connections in organised crime circles, most government agencies now use a range of new technologies to spy on individuals and all manner of organisations. Despite pretenses of safeguards, such as the process that law enforcement agencies go through to obtain independent judicial approval for telephone intercepts, the fact is that all electronic conversations are recorded, all e-mails are captured, and many of the face-to-face voice communications in everyday life are also recorded and analysed for key words and voice recognition patterns.

Many of the technologies to make this possible have existed publicly for more than three decades, and it should be no surprise to anyone that they are being vigorously applied by covert government agencies. Other technologies are the products of "black budget" development projects and are still secret, although the broad characteristics of some of these have been leaked to the world at large. While their original purpose might have been military, the new technologies developed in secret projects are also available for industrial espionage, and for keeping a detailed watch on the activities of activist organisations, such as Greenpeace and Amnesty International.

Western Agencies Continually Spy On Other Regions Of The World
Citizens and business executives in Asia, Africa, South America, and much of Europe are continually spied on by Western intelligence agencies. This surveillance is not for military of political purposes, although those areas are also covered by other sections. The purpose of surveillance of ordinary citizens and business people is largely for economic advantage. Since the end of the Cold War between the US and the Soviets, the justification for covert agencies continuing to expand their operations had been mainly commercial. Thus, the details of a rival bid for a major construction or telecommunications project in Indonesia or Malaysia might be gathered in the intelligence net spread over the area by the US and Australia. Once they know details of rival bids by local consortiums, or possibly joint ventures between local companies and others from Europe, who are not part of the AMIC (American Military Industrial Complex) or its allies, US or Australian bidders might gain an important advantage. Such advantages can be increased if the intelligence gathered helps those firms being assisted by AMIC to identify points of leverage in the local society. In this context leverage refers to a basis for obtaining compliance. Surveillance might have revealed some sexual or financial improprieties, or a predisposition to corruption and the acceptance of bribes. On the other hand, there might be religious or moral views that can be exploited by, say, smearing the competition's reputation in certain ways.

The Legacy Of J Edgar Hoover
The use of positions of privilege in law enforcement and intelligence services, with unique access to covert surveillance information about the indiscretions of high profile members of society, is now commonplace. One of the most reported and best authenticated cases is that of J. Edgar Hoover, who headed the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for 50 years. Hoover showed how easy it is, for those who hold surveillance technologies and capabilities, to capture a democracy. Once he set the FBI on the path of collecting unauthorised dossiers on elected representatives, judges, coroners, business tycoons, movie stars, and influential people in many other walks of life, the centre of power in the US shifted forever. It moved from the elected and accountable representatives and officials, who are visible and contactable, to unelected, non-accountable entities, who are invisible and anonymous.

Few Modern Governments Pass The Key Tests Of Democracy
Most political theorists concede that present forms of democracy are not true to the original principles established by the ancient Greeks. The Greek's key notion of democracy was that the people were in control. In the 18th century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that sovereignty cannot ever be represented. In his view, elected deputies could never finally decide anything. The ideal society, he argued, is one in which the citizens are directly involved in the creation of the laws that govern them. However, this only happens in tribal societies. In modern federations, citizens elect career politicians to represent their individual interests, then the majority party makes laws and decisions "in the public interest". In a large federation, such as the USA, individual and local interests are typically subsumed by the "national interest". The latter is whatever the Feds, and any unseen forces that have gained sway over them, argue it to be.

Since the people no longer have any way of knowing who is ultimately determining what is "good" for the nation, the system can't be termed a democracy. (In ancient Greek, dëmos means people.) This situation of "non-democracy" applies in all federations and nations where the people are on the outside of the decision making processes, and where there are covert agencies actively spying on them, in the "national interest".

Taking Back Our Privacy of Communication
Anyone can purchase the materials to make a PPD, from most office supplies stores. The mini-white-board is often sold as a "boone board". The covering cloth can be a tea towel, or a cycle bag. The latter has the advantage that once it is stapled to the board it provides a pocket for marker pens and a small bottle of erasing fluid.

If the subject of a PPD conversation is critically confidential, and there is a real possibility of a forensic examination of the surface of the board, possibly leading to the recreation of the writing, the whole thing can easily be burnt, instead of wiped clean with erasing solution. Using thick cardboard with a glossy white surface, instead of a mini-white-board, is more economical in such circumstances.

When used correctly, the simple PPD can defeat even the most modern and secret surveillance technologies possessed by the covert agencies of totalitarian-democracies. Big Brother effectively becomes deaf and blind in respect of our private conversations.

That might not be in the spurious "national interest" argued by doubletalking career politicians, who are also under the scrutiny of Big Brother agencies and their unknown masters. But, the use of PPDs is, most definitely, in the interests of individual freedom, liberty, and personal privacy.

The Bugged Boeing
If the Chinese leadership had only known about the PPD, they might have kept more secrets than they have. In January, 2002, the Chinese reportedly found 27 surveillance bugs in a Boeing 767 that had been fitted out especially for the use of Jiang Zemin and other government officials. Beijing is understood to have concluded that the bugs were planted in San Antonio, Texas, by the CIA, while an elaborate refurbishment was being undertaken. Among the modifications made to the former China United Airlines jet, were a presidential suite with sumptuous leather chairs, a bath, and a 48-inch television screen. The Chinese reportedly found bugs hidden in seats, panelling, a lavatory, and the headboard of the presidential bed. The Third Department of the People's Liberation Army was reported as believing that the devices were of types that are not available commercially, and were likely to be capable of communicating with American military satellites.

Presumably, the Third Department, which itself engages in covert surveillance, is well aware that bugs are normally installed in layers. There is a fairly obvious first layer, that is designed to be found by anyone who looks seriously. Devices buried in the soil of pot plants or fastened onto the undersides of tables, fall into this rudimentary level of concealment.

The second layer is far more difficult to detect. The persons planting the devices will go to such lengths as making exact copies of ceramic vases that are in the area to be bugged, and baking micro-devices into the actual body of the object. The original vase is then swapped with the bugged vase. These carefully hidden bugs can only be detected by sophisticated electronic sweeps, and in some cases even these measures will fail to show a positive result. Presumably, the Third Department has the technology and expertise to find bugs at this second level of concealment.

The third level is designed to be impossible to detect. No one is ever supposed to be able to uncover the devices planted at this level of concealment. The technologies are the product of "black projects" scientific research and development by military contractors and government agencies. The research findings and developmental results of those programs are never released into normal scientific publications and technology journals. But, glimmers of the truth leak out. It is impossible to keep absolutely secret, activities that are conducted on such a large scale in the US, UK and elsewhere.

Smart dust that is composed of nanoscale devices that operate under swarm intelligence, and are capable of relocating themselves in the crannies and crevices of a room, or an aircraft cabin, is considered to be one third level surveillance technology that is already in service. Communication via the magnetic field of the Earth, utilising the suppressed knowledge of Nikola Tesla, at frequencies outside the normal radio spectrum scan for bugs, is likely to be another such technology. The Chinese leadership would be well advised to take along some PPDs when they fly in their very own Airforce One.

PPDs Are For Our Privacy
The antics of the various nation states, and the surveillance strategies they use, are beyond the influence of ordinary citizens in totalitarian-democracies. However, because the surveillance technologies that were originally developed for military and political use exist, they are deployed against you and I. The major focus of covert surveillance has been economic, with a new, secondary, thrust aimed at eventually monitoring all citizens, as distinct from businesses and foreign firms. You and I need to use PPDs widely, in order to establish and defend our right to privacy in our everyday conversations. We should use Freenet for similar reasons, to establish the right of ordinary people, who are not organised criminals or terrorists, to exchange information on the Internet, in an anonymous and private manner.

Think Straight About Surveillance
The mainstream media, and the professional propagandists that now influence and shape every event that is reported by such channels, make it difficult for the ordinary citizen to reason clearly, without being led along carefully contrived lines of argument. Many lines of reasoning given for increased surveillance, and for continual intrusions on individual privacy, end in the exhortation, "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about." For example, one sequence goes like this:

• Criminals do harm to society,
• Criminals use cell phones to talk to each other,
• All cell phones need unique identifying codes, so that law enforcement officers can track criminals by their phones,
• So, your phone has a unique identification code embedded in its SIM card,
• The police (and anyone else) can track your every movement while you have your phone switched on,
• But don't be concerned, "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about."

The other real concern is that criminals and other undesirables, such as sex offenders, might also use the embedded codes in your cell phone, and your computer's processor, to identify and track you or members of your family. Thieves could tell when all the known cell phones have left your home, and kidnappers could know when your fourteen year old daughter has left her Thursday afternoon ballet class, and is walking to the bus stop. The surveillance advocates and their various apologists in the media will say that, "this can't happen, the codes are secure," but you and I shouldn't trust that argument. Criminals have all the common technologies that police and government spies have; guns, bugging and de-bugging equipment, contacts in money laundering, contacts in smuggling, knowledge of cryptography, etc. Why should we think that they can't track our cell phones and computer processors? Governments don't look after public property very well. Large police departments routinely lose hundreds of laptop computers each year. Do any of these computers have the access software for tracking cell phones? We simply don't know. The assurances to the contrary often come from people who don't know either.

Don't let officials and propagandists think for you. Think for yourself. Think for your family, think for their security, think for their future, think for their freedom.

Talk Straight About Surveillance
The prevailing debates about surveillance and individual privacy are unidirectional, they all lead towards citizens and away from governments. Nobody ever suggests surveillance of police by citizen groups. Nobody ever argues that, "Since the FBI works for the people, it can have noting to hide from them. Therefore, let us see the files. Give us the computer passwords. Let us into the FBI offices, we own them anyway. Don't we?" If the US was a real democracy, none of these requests would seem strange. But, the fact is that the US is only a pretend democracy, as are its allies; Great Britain, and Australia. So, requests of this nature can be expected to be described by authorities of these elected governments as, "outrageous", "impractical", "dangerous", and of course, "not in the national interest."

It is up to ordinary people to raise the level of debate about the undemocratic surveillance practices of the many faceless and unaccountable agents who make daily intrusions on individual privacy, and about the apologists and propagandists for the War nn Terror who applaud every new attack on human rights and freedoms as "prudent" or "necessary". If there is no discussion of reverse surveillance in the national media, create it on the streets on a citizen to citizen basis. If nobody is talking about the outrageous assaults on privacy and human rights embodied in the new antiterrorist acts forced through US, UK and Australian legislatures, start talking about it to your neighbours and friends. Use PPDs, and if you are apprehended for behaving in a suspicious manner, make sure that the subject of your "disloyal" dialogue comes out in court. There is nothing inherently wrong with arguing for an overview process covering the files of covert agencies, or other government departments for that matter. Such reverse surveillance could be performed by randomly selected citizens audit teams. That idea won't be popular with the Feds, but discussion of the proposal can't easily be prevented in a society that is declared to be democratic. If such discussions are to be outlawed, secretive states can no longer pretend to be democratic, and they must show their true colours to their citizens, and the world.

Stick Together To Oppose Surveillance
As we launch into a new technological age, Communism has largely failed, Socialism is a moribund idea, and Capitalism is on the brink of collapse. There is no need for revolutions or for violent demonstrations and widespread civil disobedience. The present industrial capitalist system will defeat itself, without any help from you and I. But people need to stick together, through the period of turmoil and transformation of economic and political systems that is ahead of our world. Argentina has already experienced a collapse of its banking system, and in these circumstances its people developed an alternative economy, based on barter and trust. It was even possible to buy local airline tickets using the people's currency, rather than the official money that had been rendered worthless by obligations and conditions stemming from interventions by the IMF and World Bank, (both dominated by the AMIC, and its doctrines of scarcity and economic rationalism). The informal system that the people of Argentina fell back on is the oldest and most successful system of human organisation ever developed - Tribalism.

Spasmodic protests and isolated, individual objections, will never halt the spread of surveillance and the removal of basic rights and freedoms in the name of the War on Terror. A sustained, collective objection is required, along with a counter-thrust on the unacceptable levels of state secrecy and the hidden decision processes and agendas operating in federal governments. People need to use PPDs visibly and widely. When the federal control freaks react to this "subversive" behaviour, people need to stick together in a tribal rebuttal of such charges. A nation is either a democratic society in which citizens have natural rights to free speech and discussion, or it isn't. If the latter is true, there needs to be a unanimous, visible, and widely grounded, response against the rise of totalitarianism. PPDs are an ideal means of facilitating such expression.

Be Visible Each 4th of July
Since the US government (but not the US populace) is the leader of the pack when it comes to a "coalition of the willing", bent on ignoring UN processes, and attacking a list of nations said to be in need of "regime change", it is appropriate to make the anniversary of the founding of the US republic a time of visible PPD use. This is the case not only in the US, Britain, and Australia, but in all other countries. Everyone who is concerned about the stated intentions of the coalition to sequentially attack and subdue the regimes of various nations, should participate in the wide and visible use of PPDs on 4 July, each year. This use can emphasise the right of ordinary citizens to free assembly and free speech, as well as the level of concern about the growing abuse of military and economic power by the AMIC.

The aim of such a display of coherence among ordinary people is not to change the attitudes of the Feds. It is intended to show other citizens that more and more people disapprove of 'might is right' policies and the wholesale removal of civil freedoms at home and abroad.

Federal Fascists?
Dictionaries tell us that fascism involves, "Extreme right-wing, nationalist and authoritarian systems of government and social organisation." Almost everyone recognises the past regimes of Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini as totalitarian. However, few citizens of the US, Britain, or Australia, consider that their governments have yet reached such extremes.

Dr Laurence Britt has studied the characteristics of past regimes such as, "Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia." He lists fourteen common themes.

• 1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. (Prominent use of flags and slogans. Pride in the military, and international sports successes.)

• 2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. (The people are persuaded to accept the regime's abuse of its victims. Such as wide and intrusive surveillance, detention without legal access, extreme interrogation methods, the internment and traumatising of children, etc.)

• 3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. (The use of propaganda and disinformation to divert the people's attention from other problems, and to channel fear and frustration in controlled directions. Active opponents of these regimes are inevitably labelled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.)

• 4. Supremacy of the military / Avid militarism. (The military is seen as an expression of nationalism, and is used to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the state, and those who control it.)

• 5. Rampant Sexism (The political elite and the national culture are male-dominated. Abortion and homosexuality are suppressed. The state is represented as the guardian of moral values. Sexual smears are propagated against opponents of both genders. There is a phobia surrounding alleged sexual abuse or misconduct, in both the media and the courts.)

• 6. Controlled Mass Media. (The media is either directly controlled by the state, or it is regulated and indirectly controlled by media magnates who are politically attuned with the regime. In the present day, the media includes the Internet, and censorship and controls also apply there.)

• 7. Obsession with national security. (A national security apparatus is in place, and operating in secret and beyond any constraints from those outside the regime. The actions of the national security apparatus are justified under the headings of "national security" and "national interest." Questioning its activities is portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.)

• 8. Religion and state are tied together. (The regimes attach themselves to the predominant religion and portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's behaviour is incompatible with the precepts of the religion are swept under the rug. A perception is manufactured, that opposing the state is tantamount to an attack on the predominant religion.)

• 9. Corporate power is protected. (The personal lives of ordinary citizens, and the operations of small businesses, are under strict control. But, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom is not compromised. Corporate excesses and abuses of market power are common. The economic elite are pampered by the regime to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.)

• 10. Labour power is suppressed or eliminated. (Since organised labour is seen as the one power centre that could challenge the political power of the regime and its corporate allies, it is inevitably crushed or made powerless.)

• 11. Suppression of intellectuals and the arts. (Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them are anathema to the regime. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent are strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. Art and literature must serve the "national interest" or they have no right to exist.)

• 12. Obsession with crime and punishment. (There is a substantial system of criminal justice, with huge prison populations. The presence of a national police force with almost unchecked power leads to rampant abuses. Normal and political crimes are often merged into trumped-up criminal charges against opponents of the regime. Fear of rising crime levels in the society is exploited as an excuse for more police power.)

• 13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. (Those in business circles and close to the power elite often use their position to enrich themselves. Government watchdogs crack down on small operators but ignore corporate mismanagement and corruption until it is too late. Ordinary investors often lose money due to insider manipulation and fraud. The corporate executives who pilfer the financial system, or plunder natural resources without proper justification or safeguards on sustainability, make significant corporate donations to the regime, and help to keep it in power. Government tender processes, particularly in defence and technology, are biased towards favoured contractors, and public money is wasted.)

• 14. Fraudlent elections. (Plebiscites and public opinion polls are usually bogus. When elections with candidates are held they are perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods include maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and use of a judiciary beholden to the regime.)

Author's Note. The above list is based on that of Laurence Britt. The headings are almost verbatim, however the bracketed descriptions are not necessarily the same as the original text. In parts, Britt's language is quite sophisticated and could be off-putting for the average person who reads it. I, and other commentators, have chosen to make some of the descriptions simpler. You can check the original wording by searching under "Britt", "fascism", and "fourteen", on the WWW. As a matter of policy, this site does not provide links beyond Freenet, where Big Brother can readily monitor your activities and identify your computer and its geographic location. If you are using the MS Windows operating system and a processor manufactured by the AMIC, there is no chance of remaining unobserved on the WWW. Despite the claims of the various anonymous browsing technologies on offer, the privacy level you can achieve on the WWW is nil. As in zero, none at all!

Rate The Regimes
There's a lot of talk of the need for regime change in countries where "the bad guys" are in control. But the Feds never talk about any need for it at home. Anyone can use Britt's list of fascist characteristics to assess how far along the scale of totalitarianism the national government of their country has come. A table in which Britt's 14 characteristics are rated on a 1 to 5 scale, such as the following, can make for interesting discussions with your PPD using friends.

The rating is made for each characteristic. How far towards fascism do we think that the present regime is in terms of, say, "Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism"? How far for "Disdain for the importance of human rights"? Etc.

• 1. Fully Democratic. The ideal model, but rarely seen in practice. On the characteristic in question, the people are in control and have the final say on matters pertaining to it. If we could find such a state, we could feel free and secure there.

• 2. Liberal Democratic. While the people are not in control, the authorities are respectful of their rights and follow ethical and generally accountable polices and practices in the area concerned. We could feel comfortable, and listened to, in this situation, and we would probably be happy to reside there, and raise a family.

• 3. Transitional, In Flux. The situation is clearly changing in the area being rated. It might be improving and becoming more democratic, or it might show signs of a slide towards authoritarianism and repression of basic freedoms. It is time to consider options. Should we stay, and join, or should we leave. There is still time for either course of action.

• 4. Proto Fascist. The signs of an irreversible slide into fascism are clear in the characteristic rated, and many others. Unless we act now and choose to leave and live outside the regime, it will soon be too late.

• 5. Fully Fascist. In terms of the characteristic rated the regime is clearly behaving in fascist terms. Many of the other characteristics are also well into the zone of totalitarianism and repression of the majority by an elite minority. If we haven't left yet we are now unable to do so, our freedom is lost, and we are enslaved. But, rest assured good citizens, it's all in "the national interest."

Fascism Comes Quickly
History shows us that the decline into fascism is always rapid. At one point in time things are not too bad, within months, or at the most a year or two, everything has changed. Consideration of the list and ratings above is not an idle exercise. It might make a big difference to the survival of yourself and your loved ones. Hitler seized power from a minority position in government in 1933. He was not elected by a majority of the German people. On 30 January, a mysterious fire burnt down the Reichstag, the German Parliament. The very next day, Hitler acted to deny all guarantees of personal liberty, freedom of speech and the right of assembly. An only moderately intelligent Dutch communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, was immediately depicted and tried as the perpetrator of a terrorist plot to destabilise the nation, but there were other victims and scapegoats. Communists, Jews, trade unionists, homosexuals, and other innocents, were made the "enemies" of the German state. One thing led to another, and in due course, 55 million people died in World War II. Today, there is a widespread belief that the Nazis themselves burnt the Reichstag. But no one is left alive to explain what really happened.

February, 1933, was the right time to have left Nazi Germany, with or without personal possessions and funds. For many Germans there was a life and death decision to be made that year, and many got it wrong. They stayed, and they paid the ultimate price.

Leaving, In 2003, Need Not Mean Travelling Abroad
Albert Einstein fled his native Germany soon after the Nazis seized power. He was Jewish, and he also knew too much about physics and an awesome new power that could be harnessed to make weapons of mass destruction. So Einstein travelled to the US, where he imparted his knowledge to the AMIC.

However, the events in Nazi Germany took place in different times. Today, there is no need for citizens to physically leave the land of their birth, simply because a totalitarian, fascist regime, makes a grab for power there. Secession is now a more practical option than it has been at any time in the past. At first, this is an improbable notion to most people. How could it be easy to opt out of a fascist state, when the regime controls everything? The answer lies in the breakdown in the power of traditional control mechanisms, due to a growing abundance of information, scientific knowledge, new technologies and new ideas. Such unprecedented abundance has the capacity to dissolve the long standing power of scarcity. Growing abundance provides the forces to render both capitalism and fascism impotent. Not in 20 years time, not in 10 years time, but in the period between now and 2010.

A Borderless, Near Costless, World
Since this freesite is primarily about surveillance, it is not the place to elaborate on the nature of abundance and how it is already starting to change the socio-political landscape. Another freesite, 2nd Renaissance, provides this content. However, the point about the breakdown of traditional sources of power and control is particularly relevant here. It underpins the vital concept of a viable secession option for citizens of countries that are suffering totalitarian rule by non-representative elites. Ground breaking new science, driven by rapidly escalating computational power, and new technologies, result in escalating flows of information. Once these flows of information become ubiquitous and intelligent, the world will become truly borderless. In a world without effective borders it becomes impossible to capture and dominate a geographic territory. Nation states and federations become things of the past, and a new level of civilization will emerge.

Once new science and technology raise the abundance of energy and physical resources, as is already happening, the cost of information, and all other goods and services will inevitably fall. The whole capitalist precept, and the precepts of communism and socialism as well, is founded on scarcity. No scarcity, no control through the ownership and manipulation of financial systems and economic rationalism. Arctic regions have an abundance of ice, so you can't sell ice to the Eskimos there. No markets can exist for commodities or services that are abundant, and so nearly costless that in makes no sense to trade them. People who enjoy an abundance of particular goods and services can elect to give their surplus to other people, perhaps in the Third World. But they can't expect to sell them if they have little or no cost, and there are other sources available.

Weapons Of Mass Secession
The forces of fascism and totalitarianism rely on military might, on the "shock and awe" of cluster bombs raining down on hapless women and children, and on the threat of appalling weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear missiles. The forces of freedom rely on far more devastating tools - truth and new ideas. These weapons of mass secession (WMS) are deployed through anonymous information channels, such as Freenet. Information and new ideas can also be spread and discussed effectively using PPDs. Three of the most potent new ideas are (a) abundance, (b) reverse surveillance, and (c) new tribal societies. We only discuss the second of these ideas here. The 2nd Renaissance freesite has more details on the other ideas.

Argue For Reverse Surveillance - It IS Democratic!
Code breaking, and subsequent surveillance of military communications transmitted by the German and Japanese forces, played a major part in the victory of the British and US forces in World War II. As a consequence, the old allies continue to maintain major systems of surveillance, under the UKUSA agreement. To this day, the US National Security Agency (NSA) is the largest employer of mathematicians and cryptographers on the planet. But their surveillance now intrudes on the private lives, commercial confidences, and intellectual property rights of all citizens. Not only those people living within the territories of countries that are signatories to UKUSA are affected. The secret SIGINT community spies on all or humanity, on a 24/7 basis. It is possible to argue that this constant, all pervading surveillance is in the "national interest" of the British or US governments and their "owners", (but not the interests of ordinary citizens). However, nobody can soundly argue that such spying is in the wider interests of humanity. When the surveillance systems of UKUSA are used to steal knowledge, dominate trade, create artificial scarcity, and maintain poverty and economic control, they serve to refute the notion that the governments that deploy them are either free or democratic.

Reverse surveillance, on the other hand, is inherently democratic. The whole basis of democracy is that elected representatives act for their constituents, and that they run accountable and transparent administrations. There is nothing in the democratic contract that permits covert surveillance of citizens by government agencies, nor is there any understanding that it is acceptable for "our" governments to bug "their" technological developments and steal or suppress what they choose, to keep scarcity and poverty going in the world. All such surveillance activities are out of step with democracy, and it is entirely legitimate for citizens of any nominally democratic state to insist of their right of inspection and elimination of surveillance systems. All agencies of government, both overt and covert, come under this remit of citizens in a free society.

Getting A Divorce From Federalism
It takes two to tango. In the event that either party to an agreement, such as the basis of a system of representative democracy, breaks both its spirit and its principles, the relationship can be legitimately severed. This need not involve a revolution or an overthrow of the current power elites. It is simply a matter of separation. Of going off in different directions, and to different futures. Neither party has the legal right to prevent the other from separating from the agreement. Constitutional lawyers or not, once the fundamental basis of the agreement has been destroyed by criminal acts, the whole deal can be called off. The days when the church could enforce matrimonial relationships for life, have long gone. Similarly, the power of constitutions to enforce the permanency of government / citizen relationships, is passing into history. In the event that a Federal government develops into the ultimate organised crime, the citizens of that decayed democracy have an inalienable right to secede from that federation.

Negotiating The Separation
The following mock dialogue illustrates the arguments involved in a region, state, or city within a federation opting to secede from the relationship, on the grounds of undemocratic processes and deep criminality in the administration having invalidated the basis of an existing constitutional agreement.

• Feds: "There are no abuses or power or examples of unlawful surveillance. So no grounds for secession exist. The constitution stands."
• Secessionists: "Well we'll just form some citizens audit teams to have a look through the files then. If there's nothing to hide, there's nothing to worry about."
• Feds: "There has already been a through judicial review of all surveillance activities. They all passed the independent investigation. You will just have to trust the findings."
• Secessionists: "Well, we are not about to do any such thing. The surveillance covers the judiciary as well as the rest of us. The J Edgar Hoover principle applies here. Once the alphabet agencies spy on the judiciary illegally, their independence cannot be relied on anymore. That's a major downside of total surveillance systems."
• Feds: "But, we cannot agree to reverse surveillance by citizens audit teams. Such a process could enable terrorists to know what information we have on them. Surely, after the cowardly attacks of 911, you must realise what a terrible and ever-present threat terrorism is to the safety of all citizens, and our democratic way of life."
• Secessionists: "If citizens are chosen at random the possibility of terrorists being part of the reverse surveillance teams should be minimal. Nor do we feel that our way of life is so democratic anymore. If we can't examine all the files and computer backups of all government agencies, we must withdraw from what is a failed social contract between you and your agencies, as elected representatives or paid public employees, and we the citizens of this nation and the ultimate customers of the federal government."
• Feds: "But the terrorists are coming, they are coming soon. We have uncorroborated knowledge of planned attacks on our cities, our water supplies, our environment and the economy. Of course we can't be more specific about the risks, but they are considered to be extreme. Believe us, we know."
• Secessionists: "Well, we need to know the specifics too, and if we can't know then we will simply go, and leave you to it. As for damage to the environment and the economy, we think the AMIC is already doing as much damage as the terrorists might."
• Feds: "But you don't understand the awful danger. Al-Qaeda is coming, Jemaah Islamiah is coming, Godzilla is coming, Noddy and Big Ears are coming,...."
• Secessionists: "Yes, you've told us all that. Now we are telling you, we are going. We will no longer form part of the Federation."
• Feds: "But we won't permit you to go. You will not be allowed out through any ports. You simply cannot go, there is a huge national debt to be paid off. You and your children have to stay and work hard to restore the national prosperity lost as a result of 911."
• Secessionists: "Let's get one thing clear. Do we work for you or do you work for us?"
• Feds: "You work to make your own living within the nation. We represent you under the terms of the constitution, and we have the legal right to take action to safeguard the national economy and the safety of the population at large. Our primary role is to administer the Federation in the national interest."
• Secessionists: "So we can't sack you, and we can't leave?"
• Feds: "Oh you can sack us alright. You get the chance to do so every election. We live in a democracy you know."
• Secessionists: "What alternatives do we have in terms of parties, then? How many political parties are there with the resources to win government in this country?"
• Feds: "Two."
• Secessionists: "That doesn't seem like enough choice, particularly when the policies of the parties are almost identical."
• Feds: "Oh, let me assure you, two parties are quite sufficient. The policies of either party in government are very similar because the problems and solutions are similar."
• Secessionists: "Where do the funds to run the election campaigns of the two parties come from?
• Feds: "Of course you know that, businesses donate to the cause. It takes a lot of money to run for office."
• Secessionists: "But the corporations who make donations expect something in return don't they? Is that in our interests?"
• Feds: "Most business donors give funds to both parties. There are very transparent processes to ensure that no deals are done contingent on donations. Funding the parties just helps the firms to put their particular cases to government."
• Secessionists: "It's just as well there aren't six or eight political parties isn't it? Funding them all could be very expensive for corporations that wish to be heard."
• Feds: "As we said, two viable parties is enough for any democracy. Running for office is very expensive."
• Secessionists: "What about the non-elected officials in government, how can we sack them if we don't think they are acting in our interests?"
• Feds: "Only the elected government can sack public officers. They have their rights you know."
• Secessionists: "Quite. But we claim the right to audit what these people are doing, for ourselves, because we also have rights. We insist on auditing the secret police files that are being built up by undemocratic surveillance activities."
• Feds: "There are no secret police, absolutely none. This is a democracy you know."
• Secessionists: "But there are known to be government agents and police operating undercover, without badges or identification of any kind, and without their addresses appearing on any electoral rolls. They are secret police by our reckoning."
• Feds: "I'm sorry but we can't discuss matters of national security. You will have to take it up with your political representative."
• Secessionists: "We could try, but he's under the same surveillance as the rest of us."
• Feds: "We can neither confirm or deny that government agents operate undercover. But there are adequate safeguards in place to ensure that human rights are always preserved, according to international conventions that the government is party to. This remains the case, even while homeland security is now widely threatened by terrorists who want to destroy our way of life and our prosperous economy."
• Secessionists: "About the economy then, where do the corporations that fund both the political parties come from?
• Feds: "Oh, all over really."
• Secessionists: "Like where?"
• Feds: "Places like Japan, Switzerland, the USA, Britain, Germany, France, .. As we said, all over the world."
• Secessionists: "It seems to us that there is no point in having a national government in a globalised world. The fact that global corporations are now influencing federal government policy, making and dictating wage levels and terms of trade, makes a nonsense of the notion of a national legislature existing to manage and protect the national economy. We consider that our interests can be better served by going it alone, as a knowledge and talent centre, formed within a city state. That way we can be more flexible and responsive to opportunities and threats in the global market."
• Feds: "You can't do that. You can't leave the Federation. There is a binding constitution in place. This is a democracy, governed by the rule of law, and we have expert legal opinion that no citizens can secede from this nation. If you try to leave the country you will be prevented. By the exercise of due force if necessary."
• Secessionists: "We aren't planning on leaving the geography, we were born here and this land is ours. We simply intend to server our connection with the existing state, because it continues to operate on principles established when the founding fathers of democracy rode horses. Nobody could possibly have foreseen the technological changes that are now transforming the world. We are leaving the Federation and its criminal, anti-democratic surveillance systems, and setting up our own society, for life in the 21st century.
• Feds: "We WARN YOU, you can't do that, We have the RULE of LAW on our side, and the legislation can be further strengthened if necessary."
• Secessionists: "We will not respect or be bound by unjust laws. Henry Thoreau correctly argued that, "It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right." There are laws that deserve to be respected by the people and there are laws that do not. The Nuremberg Laws of 1935, that legalised discrimination against Jews and led to Hitler's Final Solution, are an example of laws that did not deserve to be respected by citizens of the state that passed them."
• Feds: "But they were Nazis."
• Secessionists: "So what are you?"
• Feds: "We're Fascists."
• Secessionists: "Good day to you."

THINK! CONVERSE! ACT IN OUR INTERESTS!
In times of such unprecedented change, it is not wise to leave analysis and action up to elected representatives and vested interests that seek to manipulate political decisions for their own advantage. Now is the time to collectively think through what is happening, and determine strategies to safeguard our interests, instead of the now mythical "national interest". Discuss these issues with your colleagues. But use a PPD to do so, surveillance is already far higher than you can imagine.