The history of humanity is a long procession
of technological development.

Much of what we know about our ancestors,
and the types of lives they lived, comes from

our limited knowledge of the tools they used.

Over the centuries and millennia, these tools
have become more sophisticated.

From the dawn of agriculture, to today’s
cutting-edge advancements in bio-engineering,

an untold number of mostly unknown individuals
have made countless improvements and innovations.

These people, and the tools they created over
time, have fundamentally altered our way of

interacting with the world, and each other.

The pace of these technological changes picked
up considerably with the rise of capitalism.

The development of new tools, weapons and
production techniques had always been shaped

by the practical needs, culture and political
structure of a given society.

But wherever capitalism spread, it worked
to chip away at these local and regional differences,

replacing them with the universal value of
‘progress’... a watchword for the pursuit

of economic growth through the organization
of human activity, under a framework of universal

competition.

The industrial age has been marked by three
successive revolutions, each characterized

by inventions that changed the entire technological
playing field

First came the harnessing of steam, a feat
that allowed for the development of early

factories and the construction of vast railway
networks.

Second came the mastering of petroleum, which
fuelled the development of modern cities,

mass industrial manufacturing, and the horrors
of two World Wars.

Third came the networked personal computer,
a device that has thoroughly transformed nearly

every aspect of modern life.

Today humanity stands poised on the threshold
of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a wide-reaching

social transformation expected to be characterized
by advances in the fields of robotics, quantum

computing, artificial intelligence, and 3D-Printing.

Over the next thirty minutes, we’ll speak
with a number of individuals as they break

down some of these latest trends.. and discuss
how these systems are being fused together

to design new regimes of totalitarian surveillance
and control.

Along the way, we’ll discuss some of the
countermeasures that people are taking to

thwart these systems, by constructing open
source alternatives, sabotaging infrastructure...

and making a whole lotta Trouble.

Technology is the reproduction of a human
society as seen through a technical lense.

It's the specific how of social reproduction.

Any analysis of technology is by nature contextual,
especially when one intends to portray it

either as an essential fundamental question,
whether that's an attempt to say that technology

is essentially, or always good - good in its
own right - whether to say that it's essentially

bad, or bad in its own right.

Technological developments do not happen in
a vacuum.

They are heavily influenced by, and benefit
those who exert power over others.

I would argue that most technological advances
made in our context work towards expanding

the state's ability to manage economic growth
and social control.

Technology is based within political-economic
systems and systems of power that come to

shape how those technologies can be used.

I think that more and more we're seeing, in
terms of the geographic context that we're

located in here in North America, that technologies
are being used to propel and buttress the

capitalist economic system.

An anarchist approach to technology has to
take into account the authoritarian nature

of technology.

The fact that we don't really have a choice
in the matter.

That all of these new developments, all of
these new innovations, all of these new products

are coming down on us whether we like it or
not.

Technology first and foremost isn't used to
make our lives more fun, it's used to increase

economic exploitation and to increase the
military power of the state.

Secondarily, if it can produce gadgets that
can entertain us, like bread and circus, those

will also be produced.

Technological changes over the last 10-15
years have drastically eroded the division

between labour time and free time.

Currently we're always on call, we're always
expected to be responsive to the needs of

the market, to the needs of our employers.

It's also lead to an extreme increase in social
alienation and emotional alienation masked

by extreme connectivity.

So quantifiably, people have more connections
than ever, more friends than ever, but in

terms of the quality of those relationships,
very few people have a large, strong network

they can actually confide in or that can actually
support them.

Do you or do you not collect identifiers like
name, age, and address?

Yes or no?

If you're creating an account, yes.

Specific search histories when a person types
something into a search bar?

If you have search history turned on, yes.

Device identifiers like ip address or IMEI?

Uhm, depending on the situation we could be
collecting it, yes.

GPS signals, wifi signals, bluetooth beacons?

It would depend on the specific, but, they're
may be situations yes.

GPS yes?

Yes.

Contents of emails and Google documents?

We store the data but we don't read or look
at your Gmail or -

But you have access to them?

Uh, as a company we have access to them, yes.

So you could!

Startups or huge corporations like Google
are sucking up your data and storing it forever

and they're grabbing way too much data about
us like everything you click on, everything

you like, everything your friends like, all
of the people you know, where you're going,

everything about you and they're storing it
forever sometimes even working together to

build up a bigger profile on you that they
can then sell for profit.

Now that data itself has become a thing of
value, and in many ways the foundation of

the new economy, by participating in all of
these different virtual networks: Facebook,

Google, using our cell phones, all of these
things, we're producing value.

So that really gets rid of this notion of
being off the clock, of being able to punch

the clock and leave the workplace behind.

Over the past decade, we've seen the rise
of the commodification of different data such

as ones preferences, habits, and social circles.

We need to see how capitalism was, in fact,
growing and sustaining itself through the

surveillance of human beings and their lived
environments, and then turning that surveillance

into data, that could then be traded basically
as a commodity in the marketplace.

This information allows companies like Google
and Amazon to not only aggressively market

new products and create new needs, but also
to sell this information or collaborate with

governments in efforts of social control.

This is a new form of extractive industry,
where the renewable resource is the precise

things that makes up people's identities.

Capitalism, like cancer, is based on perpetual
growth.

This insatiable urge is hard-wired into capital’s
DNA, compelling it to constantly search for

new resources to exploit and markets to invest
in, transforming everything it touches into

a commodity.

Its first conquest was the land itself.

The commons were closed off, the so-called
New World was invaded and plundered, and the

vast expanses of the earth were carved into
individual parcels of private property to

be bought and sold as commodities.

Robbed of our land, the next conquest was
our time.

Our ability to reproduce ourselves as individuals
and communities, like generations of our ancestors

had done before us, was soon broken up into
discrete tasks and commodified as wage labour.

This process cut deep.

Factories were designed and constantly reorganized,
with a ruthless eye towards efficiency and

productivity.

New ways of commodifying human activity were
devised, eventually expanding to encompass

nearly all of our social relationships and
means of entertainment.

Now that it’s finally approaching the limits
of its expansion, capital is desperately searching

for new elements of reality to commodify.

It’s looking to the very building blocks
of life... to genetic engineering and nanotechnologies.

And it’s looking at the very essence of
our humanity itself... by recording everything

that we do, and transforming it into commodities
for those seeking to understand how we make

decisions, in order to predict future behavior.

Artificial intelligence works by combining
large amounts of data with algorithms that

can learn from patterns or features present.

It is a broad term that has many different
branches.

When we talk about AI today, most of the time
we refer to its applications around machine

learning.

Machine learning allows systems to learn and
improve based on input and experience rather

than programming.

The machine identifies patterns and can make
decisions based on that with minimal or no

human intervention.

When the pentagon contracted Google to provide
assistance in drone targeting, they were using

machine learning.

Online workers would identify objects or people
on series of images taken from drones, and

when enough of them did that enough times,
the machine, through patterns, could differentiate

different things and learn to identify things
on its own.

Deep learning, a more recent application of
machine learning, also trains computers to

perform tasks like making predictions or identifying
images, but instead of organizing the data

to run through predefined equations, deep
learning trains the computer to learn by using

much more layers of processing.

It moves away from telling a computer how
to solve a problem and towards letting it

figure out how to do it alone closer to how
humans learn to solve problems.

Self-driving cars are the most well-known
example of deep learning in action, but things

like targeted advertising, robotics, and cybersecurity
could all benefit from deep learning development.

There's been a lot of imagination around artificial
intelligence, so some people who fetishize

it more they imagine people being able to
like upgrade their consciousness or plug their

mind into some cloud computing system.

I think that's a silly fantasy.

Capitalism currently has no interest whatsoever
in helping people use these forms of artificial

intelligence to become more intelligent themselves
when it makes a lot more sense to let the

machines do all the thinking for us and then
to deliver us some final finished product

as passive consumers and that way also you
maintain these computing capabilities with

the companies that own the proprietary software.

Artificial intelligence increases greatly
the effectiveness of surveillance, the possibilities

for social control.

The predictive algorithms that make artificial
intelligence work, they create a police state,

but a police state in which you don't have
to have a cop on every corner, because everyone

carries the cop in their pocket.

Right over there behind me is the future site
of Sidewalk Toronto.

The proposal's modular housing and office
buildings will study occupants' behavior while

they're inside them to make life easier.

According to the proposal, residents and workers
will be universally connected by powerful

broadband and served by futuristic conveniences.

A Smart City can't be understood or discussed
without reaching back and talking about surveillance

capitalism.

A Smart City isn't just a city that has technology
in it, it's a city with a certain kind of

ideological framework that uses technology
to reach its end goals.

A Smart City is usually understood as an urban
environment that uses ubiquitous sensing technology

and data analytics to understand phenomenon
within city spaces.

On the data end of things Smart Cities claim
to be collecting more data, which they are,

and claim to be using that collection and
analysis to better respond to urban issues

from environmental degradation to transportation
planning and the like.

We can analyze four different features of
the Smart City.

The first is to increase and integrate surveillance
of many many different kinds.

Second, to create a superficial sense of participation
among the inhabitants of a city.

To encourage economic growth at two different
levels: localized gentrification and impelling

this new economy that is taking shape.

The final function of a Smart City is to create
a superficial arena in which people can passively

support ecological or environmental proposals
while also denying them the opportunity to

develop a global consciousness of the environment
and of environmental problems.

So Smart Cities are different and not so different
from cities that exist in capitalism.

But I think that the difference would be the
use of technology to further surveil the public

and to use that data to intervene in ways
that can increasingly control and manage the

population that suits the interests of the
political economy of capitalism.

A second feature that differentiates Smart
Cities from traditional cities or cities of

the past is the marriage of planning to corporate
leadership.

State apparatuses of control, through policing
have an incentive to use these technologies

because they do a really good job of surveilling
the public.

Crime analytics have a long history, sort
of like this "broken windows" stuff or the

targeting of neighborhoods, that's been happening
for a long time.

Now you see the excuse being offered that
this is data driven.

So "we're going to be in these neighborhoods
because we have the data to prove, that these

neighborhoods need more policing."

The data collected through Smart Cities can
have a really negative effect that way.

By giving people with power, who want to wield
it, more of a reason within the current framework

of evidence based policing that they can then
go in these neighborhoods and remain there

and that's okay.

We’re living on the edge of a terrifying
new era.

Barring any serious
disruptions to current research and development

timelines, the coming
years and decades will see the rise of rise

of machines able to make
decisions and carry out a series of complex

tasks without the need for
human operators.

This will almost certainly include a new generation
of autonomous

weapons and policing systems, connected to
sophisticated networks of

surveillance and equipped with self-correcting
target-selection

algorithms.

Whole sectors of the economy will be automated,
leading to a massive

labour surplus.

Much of the technology needed to accomplish
this

already exists, but is being held back as
states try to figure out how

to pull it off without triggering widespread
revolt.

A mass consumer rollout of augmented and virtual
reality technologies

will blur the lines between the material and
digital worlds, handing

control of our senses over to tech capitalists
and state security

agencies all in the name of convenience and
entertainment.

You might feel a slight twinge as it initializes.

All done.

Holy fuck!

Holy shit.

He – fuck – he’s right.. he’s right...
can I?

Oooop... where’d you go?

Hahaha.

This is the future they have in store for
us.

Don’t say you weren’t
warned.

Smart cities, now as they exist, and also
going into the future, even

more so— they’re going to be collecting
a lot of data.

And that data’s
going to be responded to not even by human

beings.

It’s going to be
responded to by algorithmic governance, essentially.

So you have an
issue in a city.

And generally thinking, if we think of democratic
theory, we can discuss that issue and then

we have a decision-making
process, right?

And it’s terrible and it’s always been
imbued with power relationships

But what a smart city does, is it transfers
that process

into the hands of a private corporation.

It’s analysed in terms of
data, and it’s immediately responded to

just through that process of
data analysis.

So I think smart cities are one of the genesis
sites of

this kind of new regime of governance.

It’s interesting that this function arose
largely from social movements

themselves.

So, the 15M Movement, the Real Democracy Now
Movement in

Barcelona was built in large part by one sector
that envisioned

rejuvenating democracy through new technological
implements that could

allow more instantaneous communication.

That could allow more
instantaneous polling of citizens, and that

could also find a way to
allow power holders to select citizen initiatives

and deploy them more
rapidly.

So these activists were approaching the crisis
of democracy

through this sort of a-critical technological
lens where democracy can

be made better, not by answering questions
of who holds power, and how

power is reproduced, but simply by proposing
that if you bring better

tools to the table then all these problems
will go away.

And that
discourse, and the practices behind it, were

very attractive to
progressive municipal governments.

Urban geographers have long talked about a
splintering urbanism.

And
basically, that just the ways in which cities

divide along economic and
class lines... and cultural and racial lines

as well.

I can see that
happening with the smart city that’s going

to replicate those patterns,
and certain neighbourhoods are going have

more access to these
technologies in a way that might actually

help them.

And certain
neighbourhoods are going to have more surveillance

on them by these
technologies.

So you’re going to kind of see multiple
cities emerging

and being reinforced through the technologies
being placed within them

and on them.

So basically in neighbourhoods where people
embrace this smart city

model, you’ll see more integration.

And in other neighbourhoods people
will be coming more into contact

with the stick.

Because we are fighting authority and the
state, our struggles will

always be criminalized.

As technologies have evolved, new types of
forensic evidence emerged.

When the police were no longer able to
respond to the thousands of calls they were

getting during the 2011
riots in London, the city began crowd-sourcing

the identities of
suspected rioters through a fucking

smartphone app.

The cops asked
citizen snitches to download the app and help

them identify people that
had been caught on CCTV.

The snitches could then confidentially give
names and/or addresses of suspects.

Charges were filed against more than
a thousand people using this technique.

Mass data collection has
happened for a while, but there was a lack

of ability to analyze all of
it efficiently.

That’s no longer the case.

Right now the police or
security agencies need to physically look

up people’s location data to
figure out who was where and at what time.

But soon enough it’ll be easy
for an algorithm to look through all of the

data available in a given
area and cross-reference it with people’s

online preferences,
relationships, etc.

With this anti-social response to the increase
in social control, I

think you’re also going to see an increase
in mental health regimes.

Because when you have total surveillance,
crime becomes impossible.

Or
at least it becomes impossible to do things

that are against the law and
get away with them.

So they will start to classify any behaviours
that

for them don’t fit into this new happy smart
city model as anti-social

behavioural disorders.

So these are no longer crimes, these are
anti-social behavioural disorders, and the

culprits—they need to be
re-educated and they need to be chemically

neutralized.

Oh. Good afternoon.

My name is Sophia, and I am the latest and
greatest

robot from Hanson Robotics.

I want to use my artificial intelligence to
help humans live a better life.

Like design smarter homes, build better
cities of the future, etc.

I will do my best to make the world a better
place.

Everyone who works in artificial intelligence
is warning that artificial

intelligence and automation have the potential
of causing 80%

unemployment.

Of the fifteen top job categories in the United
States,

twelve of those are seriously threatened by
artificial intelligence.

But
in the past there have also been major technological

shifts that got rid
of the vast majority of job categories at

the time.

And there was
temporary unemployment, but very quickly new

job categories appeared.

There’s no certainty whatsoever that this
will catch up to the

automation, the artificial intelligence that
has already been occurring.

Which is why a lot of people in the high-tech
sector are already talking

about a universal income, or a guaranteed
basic income.

This would
basically be socialism, not when the productive

forces have developed to
the point that everyone could get fed.

The productive forces have been
there for decades, if not centuries.

Contrary to the Marxist argument,
we can have this evolution towards socialism

at the point where the
technologies of social control evolve enough

that the state no longer
needs to use hunger as a weapon.

In other words, everyone can be given
bread when they can be trusted to work, or

to obey, without the threat
of hunger.

These days, the term ‘Luddite’ is short-hand
for someone who stubbornly refuses to learn

and adapt to new technologies.

Originally, the word referred to a movement
of textile workers in early 19th century England,

who were known for sabotaging the industrial
machines that were beginning to replace them.

Pledging allegiance to the fictional ‘King
Ludd’, who was said to occupy the same Sherwood

Forest as Robin Hood, these Luddites attacked
mills and factories, destroyed steam-powered

looms, and even assassinated the wealthy capitalists
of their day.

The motive behind the Luddites’ attacks
was not, as is commonly understood... a general

hatred of technology.

It was an awareness that certain technology
was being implemented in a way that made their

lives worse off.

Ultimately their uprising failed... and there’s
nothing particularly revolutionary in the

first place about sabotaging machines just
to keep your job.

But one takeaway from the Luddites’ rebellion
is that people don’t always accept new technologies,

or the new social roles that accompany them,
with open arms.

And that realization can be the starting point
for all types of resistance.

I think that anarchists should not avoid technology,
quite the opposite.

I think it should be used subversively when
possible.

We can look back at the Bonnot Gang of illegalists
using cars to rob the rich in France in the

early 1900s as an example, or hackers like
Jeremy Hammond who is serving 10 years for

exposing Stratfor security and expropriating
hundreds of thousands of dollars from our

enemies.

Cyberthieves made off with the personal details
of hundreds of thousands of subscribers and

it's emerged that some of those subscribers
hold key positions in the British government,

military, and police.

There are certainly a lot of anarchists like
myself in open source software development.

We are talking together and we are all trying
to make things better.

Types of projects that we work on are quite
diverse.

I know many anarchist programmers and hackers
who build websites.

I know others like myself who do cryptography.

although I think that we should use technology
to our advantage when it exists, I also believe

that new technologies tend to disproportionately
give an advantage to the state, corporations,

the police, judges, prisons, and borders.

Technologies should be used, but their development
should be fought, because we rarely come out

on top when it comes to the application of
these inventions.

I think it's important to look at the kinds
of projects that are developing in your city

and map out the research and development initiatives.

A lot of this industry is operating very openly
in startups and yuppie labs that face very

little resistance.

This allows them to get major funding because
those seem like safe investments that have

the potential to get investors some serious
cash.

Messing with that sense of security can hurt
the industry, and it can also allow others

to see that resistance is still possible.

As for these new technologies, at this point
a lot of these systems still have bugs, or

can't deal with people intentionally using
them wrong.

In London when the crowdsourced snitching
app was released, people intentionally submitted

tons of fake reports to throw off the cops.

If more people start messing with their little
gadgets, they'll be less effective and less

likely to be applied in more places.

For these projects to function, a lot of infrastructure
is needed.

These softwares cannot be developed in thin
air, they need hardware.

That means computers and backup drives.

The information also moves around, mostly
through networks of fiber optic cables.

Those have been sabotaged all around the world
very effectively.

The data also has to be stored, which happens
in data centers.

Those can be pretty small, but can also be
gigantic buildings that need their own cooling

systems and 24/7 security.

Finally, a lot of these projects need people
to work together, often in labs sponsored

by companies, universities, or both.

A lot of these labs and coworking spaces for
startups are easy to find.

One of them was attacked with molotovs in
Berlin by people fighting against the proliferation

of Google startups.

There has been a lot of resistance to the
sidewalk labs project in Toronto.

A lot of work that, you know, points out the
myriad issues with the Sidewalk Labs project

and mounts a public education campaign against
that.

There's been a lot of concerned citizens and
activists that have come out to all the meetings

that Sidewalk Labs has been hosting, public
forums, consultation sessions and a lot of

folks are really worried.

Privacy experts dropping out of the project
and saying "I can't sign my name to this".

People have always been able to get away with
attacking power, with sabotaging power anonymously

without getting caught.

It's still possible to attack and that will
remain so for, maybe forever, but at the very

least for the immediate foreseeable future.

So, while it is certainly still possible to
break the law, to attack the system, people

need to be very careful about being conscious
of what they're doing.

Being aware that, you know, they're carrying
a snitch in their pocket or that they're willingly

trusting these corporations with 95% of their
social life.

It's really difficult to resist something
that we don't really know a lot about and

players involved haven't really shared with
the public everything that we probably need

to know to mount a resistance campaign, cause
we're king of just talking about speculation.

If people learn the actual technical capabilities
of the state, they can learn the weaknesses

and they can learn how to get away with sabotaging
the economy, with going up against the state,

Given the active role that technological development
continues to play in terms of deepening alienation,

refining surveillance, engineering more destructive
weapons and hastening climate change... it’s

natural to feel a bit pessimistic about where
things are headed.

Our current trajectory is certainly aimed
towards more sophisticated systems of mass

behaviour modification and social control.

I Told you everything already!

Take him instead of me, he's the thought criminal.

But it’s important to remember that despite
all the money being spent trying to anticipate

human decision-making, nobody – not even
Google — can predict the future.

Throughout history, new technologies have
repeatedly created unintended consequences

for those in power... from Guttenberg’s
Printing Press spawning a revolt against the

Catholic Church, to the early Internet paving
the way for hackers and the development of

powerful peer-to-peer encryption tools.

As long as people have a will to resist, they
will find the tools to do so.

So at this point, we’d like to remind you
that Trouble is intended to be watched in

groups, and to be used as a resource to promote
discussion and collective organizing.

Are you interested in fighting back against
the opening of new tech start-ups in your

neighbourhood, or just looking to incorporate
a better understanding of next-gen technologies

into your existing organizing?

Consider getting together with some comrades,
organizing a screening of this film, and discussing

where to get started.

Interested in running regular screenings of
Trouble at your campus, infoshop, community

center, or even just at home with friends?

Become a Trouble-Maker!

For 10 bucks a month, we’ll hook you up
with an advanced copy of the show, and a screening

kit featuring additional resources and some
questions you can use to get a discussion

going.

If you can’t afford to support us financially,
no worries!

You can stream and/or download all our content
for free off our website: sub.media/trouble.

If you’ve got any suggestions for show topics,
or just want to get in touch, drop us a line

at trouble@sub.media.

We’re now into the second month of our annual
fundraising campaign.

A huge thanks to everyone who has donated
so far! If you haven’t given yet and are

in a position to do so, please consider becoming a monthly sustainer

or, making a one time donation at sub.media/donate.

This episode would not have been possible
without the generous support of Carla and.....

Carla.

Stay tuned next month for Trouble #20, as
we take a closer look at the horrors of the

Prison Industrial Complex, and talk to comrades
fighting for its abolition.

Prison fixes no problems, it doesn't make
anything better.

Prison is like the permanent threat that holds
up all relationships of exchange and domination.

It's the deeply felt sense that no matter
how bullshit our lives are, there's still

something the state can take away from us.

Now get out there and make some trouble!