American government and their propaganda mouthpieces in the US media complex prolifically overuse the term national security in order to justify actions and policies that are criminal and illegal, both by law and by morality. However, America isn't alone. Far from it. Even companies use the safety/security scare card to trick the world's peoples into believing that whatever evil/illegal they're doing should be allowed to happen since it's for the safety/security of people.
Facebook is telling the world that it's protecting Facebook/Internet users in Belgium as well as the rest of the world from cyber terrorists by tracking everyone using its datr cookie. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could be as laughable. This is not about protecting. It's only about omnipresent tracking, targeting, advertising, and profits. And it's also about covertly supplying all the collected information to criminal organizations such as CIA and NSA.
Even this SMS I received from Flipkart is basically an application of the safety/security scare card.
*****
Jan'16
The opening sentences of this article on NYT say exactly the same thing as has been said above.
Also see - "I'm increasingly confident that private corporations just cannot be trusted - they will resort to every possible form of cheating if and when they can" [link].
*****
Mar'16
Turkish & Arabic language courses banned for ‘security reasons’ in French town, RT, Feb'16 [link]
*****
26-Apr-17
Donald Trump plans to impose tariffs on steel imported from China under the guise of "national security". So this way you can call anything and everything a "national security" matter because you don't give anyone a forum to question you publicly. Today's it's steel, tomorrow it could be for imports of Chinese-made toilet paper too. [link 1] [link 2] [link 3] [link 4]
*****
27-Apr-17
And now they launch a "national security" investigation into aluminium imports. As said before, they can use this excuse to act like an international thug on practically any matter. [link 1] [link 2]
*****
11-May-17
Alternatives Web browsers banned from Windows 10 S for "security" reasons.
*****
25-May-18
According to Facebook, its owning of several top digital communication platforms/services - sort of a monopoly - is "good for the users" because it keeps these users safe/safer. No talk about how this enables FB to create more accurate/detailed profiles of its users [by following and tracking them everywhere], in order to better target content and ads at these users :)
*****
23-May-19
When the US and UK suffered a humiliating defeat at the UN regarding UK's continued illegal occupation of the Chagos Islands [thus threatening the global legitimacy of US' large military base on Diego Garcia], it resorted to the familiar security / counterterrorism / safety cards to justify its claim over the Islands, rather than refuting the legal reasons why its claims have been ruled as invalid.
"The 116-6 vote left the UK diplomatically isolated and was also a measure of severely diminished US clout on the world stage."
"In London, the Foreign Office stressed the importance of the partnership with the US over the Diego Garcia military base. “The joint UK-US defence facility on the British Indian Ocean Territory helps to keep people in Britain and around the world safe from terrorism, organised crime and piracy,” a spokeswoman said. “As the US government has made clear, the status of BIOT as a UK territory is essential to the value of the joint facility and our shared interests – an arrangement that cannot be replicated.”"
*****
8-Jun-19
US government warns about national security risks from Huawei, and Google warns about national security risks from US government's Huawei ban. Obviously, Google's real aim is to keep Huawei, and thus the world, dependent on Google's Android operating system, and to not force Huawei to come up with own OS, thus ending its dependence on Western OSes once and for all, to severe detriment of Google. One of most upvoted FT comments below:
"You couldn't make this up, Google and US admin warn each others on "national security risks"."
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment