The ethics of

On the website of Drone Surveillance Info (DSI) we discuss three types of ethics that can motivate militant activists to attack Big Tech, in order to stop mass surveillance. It’s crucial however to always remember that DSI only supports the first of these three types of ethics presented below, even when not denying that the other two can lead to effective action justified from a cold and purely utilitarian perspective that DSI will not endorse.

1) ethically good nonviolent sabotage

2) the necessary evil of the just war doctrine

3) the psychopathic effectiveness of the MAD doctrine

Firstly, before discussing 1) – 3) let’s present the reasons why DSI will claim that all three types of ethics are “on the table”, whether we want it or not. To understand why read:

MIT physicist Max Tegmark and other AI researchers estimate that there is approximately somewhere between 20% and 50% chance that AI or other Big Tech innovations will kill all of humanity the next hundred years. For more on this read “The Precipice”, by Toby Ord at Oxford University, or just watch this:

Humans will destroy ourselves in 100 years with 50% probability | Max Tegmark and Lex Fridman

Big neural networks are terrifying | Max Tegmark and Lex Fridman

1) DSI will only actively support that which is morally good. A “necessary evil” or a “lesser evil” can logically and per definition never be good. That is why we only support nonviolent sabotage, if no lawful action has a realistic chance of success. If a nonviolent sabotage operation involves a lot of risky brinkmanship we’ll only support it after a successful operation is over and no human beings have been physically harmed.

2) the necessary evil of the just war doctrine is the ethics which motivated Churchill to fight the Nazis during WW2. It also motivated the Americans to tactically cooperate with the mafia when retaking Sicily and Italy from the fascists. For an overview see:

Collaborations between the United States government and Italian Mafia

If a non-corporate private military company (PMC) uses VBIEDs, mortars, RPGs and M2 .50 cals when attacking a corporate PMC guarding a high-value server park central to maintaining the power of a Big Tech company like Amazon, then no matter the outcome we at DSI will never claim it was morally good. We’ll just file it under the category of “necessary evil” or “lesser evil”. If the operation succeeds, we’ll not actively support it, but simply note that it wasn’t morally wrong from the perspective of the core principles in the just war doctrine as it was applied at the beginning of WW2 for instance. In the West today we have more surveillance than in Nazi Germany, so the core principles in the doctrine of just war are applicable right now when dealing with Big Tech.

3) the psychopathic effectiveness of the MAD doctrine is the “ethics” which NATO is based on today. The theory of mutually assured destruction claims that it’s “justified” or “necessary” to be willing to start WW3 to deter and prevent that the West develops into a surveillance state like Stasi Germany during the Cold War. But today we have internal enemies in the West who have created a neoliberal surveillance system in America and Europe that Stasi could only dream of, according to ex-Stasi chief Wolfgang Schmidt.

Critics will argue that the MAD doctrine during the Cold War was meant to primarily deter the spread of Communist concentration camps. But this only proves that this doctrine is applicable to Western Big Tech companies that have been evil enough to cooperate with CCP in a state that has concentration camps in Xinjiang under Fusion AI surveillance.

In the age of hybrid and shadow wars, cf Unrestricted Warfare by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, one should view the surveillance capitalism of Big Tech as a clear sign that corporations like Amazon are enemies of constitutional democracies, enemies of Western nation states.

Here is a leftwing perspective on surveillance, from a Harvard professor, but the main content is also relevant from a rightwing viewpoint, (if you ignore her anti-Trumpism):

The Coup We Are Not Talking About

“We can have democracy, or we can have a surveillance society, but we cannot have both.”

DSI predicts that if militant activists ever attack Big Tech it will be according to the ethics of 2) or 3). The latter will lead to fighting similar to warfare based on the moral insanity that constitutes the MAD doctrine of NATO. In other words, when or if the West starts to fall apart and/or become even more tyrannical one can expect that cartels, terrorists and SF soldiers from rogue states may attack Western Big Tech regardless of how many civilians are killed in the process. If it somehow succeeds in liberating humanity from the tyranny of Big Tech surveillance, DSI will nevertheless have only one comment to this brutal way of fighting: moral insanity.

The never-changing ethical principle of DSI will always be that one should use the least risky tactic and the least violent method when fighting oppression. Nonviolent deactivation or nonviolent sabotage of Big Tech infrastructure are still effective alternatives to the brutal methods discussed above. That’s why DSI will not escalate beyond nonviolent strategies.

Finally, the mores and customs of cultural conservatism are not universally valid but from the viewpoint of cultural conservatism it’s clearly justified, from this perspective, to literally declare war on the globalist power of libertine and woke Big Tech. DSI will nevertheless only actively support nonviolent strategies.

For more information about the ethics of DSI read through this article here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s