Big Brother: Military, Civilian Surveillance, and Speech Regulation

Originally published at:

In a move that underscores the administration’s focus on national defense, the White House has proposed a budget of $895 billion for the Pentagon and nuclear weapons work at the Department of Energy for Fiscal Year 2025. This figure, only marginally lower than the previous year’s proposal, marks a continuation of the trend of increasing defense spending, a practice that has drawn criticism for overshadowing urgent issues such as climate change, disease epidemics, and economic inequality. Critics argue that the budget reflects an unrealistic and militaristic national defense strategy, prioritizing global dominance and the deterrence of aggression over diplomatic relations and the well-being of citizens. This strategy has led to a cycle of overspending, driven by the interests of major military contractors and a lack of rigorous scrutiny by Congress, resulting in financial waste and the advancement of untested weapons programs.

Meanwhile, the debate over state mass surveillance has been reignited by the deployment of AI-integrated cameras by Flock Safety in California, funded in part by federal infrastructure legislation. These cameras, which can be accessed by law enforcement agencies, have raised concerns about privacy and the potential for abuse. Critics argue that such surveillance systems, under the guise of public safety, could be used to monitor and control the population, citing the slippery slope from pandemic lockdown enforcement to broader authoritarian practices. The ACLU has voiced opposition, highlighting the risks to civil liberties and the potential for these technologies to be used in ways that infringe on individual rights.

Across the Atlantic, Poland’s introduction of a new “hate speech” law has sparked a contentious debate about the balance between protecting individuals from discrimination and preserving free speech. The law, which extends hate speech definitions to include sexual orientation and gender identity among other characteristics, has been criticized for its potential to criminalize conservative and religious viewpoints, particularly those of the Catholic Church. This development reflects a broader global conversation about the limits of speech in the digital age and the role of government in regulating content to prevent harm while ensuring the rights of all citizens are protected.


Spending Unlimited: The Pentagon’s Budget Follies Come at a High Price

One thing is all too obvious: a trillion-dollar budget for the Pentagon alone is right around the corner, at the expense of urgently needed action to address climate change, epidemics of disease, economic inequality, and other issues that threaten our lives and safety at least as much as, if not more than, traditional military challenges.

Source | Submitted by Barbara

The Dangers of AI Mass Surveillance: Flock Cameras and the Erosion of Privacy

The danger of AI mass surveillance being used as a traffic citation machine and revenue generator for cities that are broke is one concern.

Source | Submitted by AaronMcKeon

Poland’s New Government Implements Controversial “Hate Speech” Law

“The introduction of the proposed solutions will ensure enhanced and full criminal law protection against the use of violence or unlawful threats, incitement to hatred, insults and violations of bodily integrity due to the disability, age, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of the injured party,” reads the draft.

Source | Submitted by AaronMcKeon


Not to mention crumbling institutions (our 3 Branch Gov’t in particular) & infrastructure. A true national defense plan would prioritize health, education, and a robust infrastructure to facilitate rapid deployment & resilience. Our NDAA provides none of these, the complete opposite actually - it truly epitomizes waste, fraud, & abuse, amongst pretty much everything else coming out of D.C