Securitization

Securitization

Notes

Pattern 1*every tech legislation is framed around terrorism, and that allows for lots of repression and data retention. Measures are used agains regular mainstream crimes.

Pattern 2 *The state would not share algorithms because it will create a cyber security breach, even though it’s about decision making and power.

Pattern 3 *Use of AI for education so there is conflict between using AI to the anxiety with the harm it can create. AI can be biased and have bad consequences to the people it suppose to help.

The state will use the red tape to keep evidence as long as possible, when they get it.

How the general population feel about the securitisation of the state? We know that usually people support it because they think it make them feel safe.

Who feel safe and not safe and why?

It might be that the broader work on the state monitoring is not always helping or prevent anything. The communities that would need more measures to feel safe are usually more policed. Who is unsafe and more oppressed.

Even progressive governments is pushing to more surveillance and policing of the state. The AI act in the EU parliament make real time biometrics surveillance tricky. This is formulated in a vague way so EU states can move around it.

Grants also put non profit in danger because they allow governments to inquire more if its the grants come from national or foreign governments.

Are we doing survelliance and harming our rights to combat terroris that might happen.

Too much data on security is also counter productive to the work on security and send them on a goose chase.

The narrative of data securtiy and ethics is sometimes used by civil servants as an excuse for not allowing access for data that is actual crucial for non profits.

Sometimes work on security on groups is used to collect more data rather than make a "Collection with thought"

Data Commons is Google's platform to NGO to make sense of it, it is useful but we don't get organisations that have useful data to put it for trust.

How do we tell narratives about the balancing act of sharing data that is crucial to collcecing less data to keep people privacy and rights.

• Community care vs survelliance
• Collect less vs. access to data to services that can help the public

How do we talk about it?

• It depand on who do you want to communicate it to.
• The change in consuming media make people to want to hear personal stories.
• How that affect the organisations
• Maybe one way of doing this is to target the audience of the judical branch and communicate to the the dangers of technology as they suppose to be the guards of society form the legislative branch.

Policy makers can AI social problems that we face. Keep to mistify technology.