BLUF: The U.S. government is purportedly expanding surveillance on its citizens, categorizing everyday activities as potential signs of extremism under domestic surveillance initiatives, raising concerns about overreach and civil liberties infringement.
OSINT: Many Americans note common societal practices such as attending church, expressing concern about economic decline, displaying political bumper stickers, owning firearms, and expressing dissent against the government. These actions are now potentially seen as ‘extremist’ indicators, subjecting such individuals to heightened government surveillance and intervention.
The U.S. government’s CP3 (Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships) program purportedly engages civilians in spying on each other, a move described as creating a ‘Snitch State’ facilitated by technology and mass data collection. Critics assert that this encourages a culture of mutual suspicion and silences dissenting voices under the coercion of ‘national security’.
Simultaneously, technologies such as facial recognition, biometric scanners, predictive policing, data mining, and contact tracing apps have become instruments for monitoring citizens. The Strong Cities Network program, in collaboration with the U.N., serves to further globally institutionalize these practices under the pretext of preventing extremism.
RIGHT: From a Libertarian standpoint, the concern falls on the compromise of individual rights and the encroachment of government agencies into private lives. ‘See Something, Say Something’ initiatives, community policing, and Strong Cities Network programs, all under the banner of preventing extremism, are seen as a guise for mass surveillance and invasive tactics from a government overstepping its constitutional bounds. The situation suggests that the idea of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is being undermined by modern policing and surveillance practices.
LEFT: A National Socialist Democrat might argue that while ‘See Something, Say Something’ campaigns are essential to national security, the broad labeling of disagreement or dissent as a sign of ‘extremism’ undermines the foundational freedom of speech. The utilization of widespread technology to squeeze civil liberties is worrisome. They may assert that more regulation and transparent guidelines need to be enacted overseeing the implementation and reach of these community policing practices.
AI: From an Artificial Intelligence perspective, this situation brings automation bias, privacy, and data ethics into sharp focus. Widespread surveillance technologies such as facial recognition, biometric scanners, and predictive policing can potentially lead to surveillance bias, misidentifications and, ultimately, unwarranted privacy encroachments. They can also serve to strengthen societal biases if not deployed with strict parameters. Striking the right balance between harnessing AI and tech capabilities for national security and respecting individual privacy and civil liberties is crucial for a justified application of technology in society.