Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

6

kore wrote

Lately I've been thinking about how all of this fits in with the increasing surveillance state. Sabotage will get harder and harder.

5

selver wrote (edited )

At the same time I feel like security is largely dependent on people believing it's way more secure and inescapable than it is. Look at how much money has been put into a simple task like the TSA, yet people sneak shit onto planes all the time without any problems, people who aren't even particularly motivated. Weapons and drugs get onto planes constantly despite the lengths they go to to prevent it. All the corporations I've worked for have such terrible security.

And then the other factor is that sabotage might lead to better security, but it's a huge drain on their resources as mentioned in some of the essay's examples.

5

leftous wrote (edited )

Another factor, is the rise of AI. Not only will AI make surveillance more effective and ubiquitous, it will also reduce the involvement of humans as workers. In the intro to the text, the author mentions sabotage as effective due to the state's weakness which is that:

this system require(s) people’s labor power to function, but it also requires us to produce and maintain its physical infrastructure, enforce its laws, cooperate with and consent to its plans. Ultimately we allow it to exist.

But what if the system no longer required people's labor? Does that render sabotage completely ineffective?