Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: 9thLife
Is this the sort of place where people discuss strategies for confusing/defeating the surveillance state, or is that another group?

Assuming your question is serious/legit, I think the basic concepts divide between the strategic and tactical. Your area of inquiry has some overlap but most probably approach it as a tactical diversion rather than basic strategy.

If you have any military experience or have read serious military history, you'll know that the use of smoke to cover maneuver is a tactical approach to a strategic goal. Eventually the smoke will disperse but not before you've gained an advantage. The same applies to using chaff or interfering signals in order to mask an aircraft from radar observation. At a certain point, the opposing force will achieve "burn through" with superior radar power. This applies to surveillance because you're too small to generally notice except in a superficial way. However, "they" have the power to achieve "burn through" at their whim and your previous tactics will have no effect.

22 posted on 04/18/2015 4:20:04 AM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: T-Bird45
Well, that's about the most concise and intelligent angle I've heard -- the only angle, actually, because most people don't even get the question.

It also confirms my instincts, which are to generate noise, noise, noise. They're instincts, because there's no reason for me to know that other than it's a sort of common sense.

Anyway, that's a boost to my idea, so thx.

23 posted on 04/18/2015 4:24:46 AM PDT by 9thLife ("Life is a military endeavor..." -- Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson