A police state in a digital age is vulnerable to self-implosion and the structural integrity being compromised by independents.
As the level of possible control increases, motive rises.
And as the fundamental architecture to actually implement law increases (digitally,) the ease at which an independent may infiltrate/control any node
in the system goes up.
I'm dumbing this all down, but I'm fairly certain that building some monster of a computer system is like building a 6-flags for hackers/other people
which I will leave up to your imagination (think Kahn from star trek.)
*imagine, if you will, a group of 5 180-200 IQ individuals who are ideologically motivated, poor, and cannot be bought. That'd be utter chaos on a
global scale. Just one of those people, assuming the gain control of such TOOLS (which is what we're talking about here,) would be a major issue.
Sure, the rich elite control the system, but as the population increases, the chances of having a high-level IQ ideologically motivated poor-person
rises. So in my thought experiment, the rich build a system of control, which the "cell" allows to be built up, and then takes control of it and uses
it as a force-multiplier. Such an event would be extremely short, this wouldn't take months or years. And I'm not talking about Anon or the freemasons
or illuminati or whatever you want to imagine taking control, as they are the "rich elite" by and large. blahblahblahblah.
The rich/powerful by definition can be bought and often have infighting and factions.
In short, there are major reasons to keep the status quo as is. This kind of event would make whistleblowers look like a joke... it'd make ddos
attacks look like a joke. It'd make the LIBOR scandal look minor.
edit on 1111112222 by teachtaire because: (no reason given)
edit on 1111112222 by teachtaire because: (no reason
edit on 30-6-2013 by teachtaire because: (no reason given)