Covert operations under total surveillance

Osama bin Laden used nothing higher-tech than pencil, paper and couriers. Charles Stross suggested that when the NSA is on your case you're back to mediaeval tradecraft, Bruce Schneier frequently points out that against your kid sister almost any security will work, while against a first-world state adversary .. well, you're in trouble.

The main bottleneck facing the modern security state - despite ubiquitous CCTV, backdoor-enhanced routers and traitorous apps - is the shortage of smart oversight. Covert data enters as a firehose but actionable intelligence is vanishingly rare. The more extensive the surveillance, the worse it gets.

You read stuff like:

"You know there are bugs in here, and cameras?"

"Don't worry, they don't have enough staff. They've got AIs doing video review and keyword-tagging .. but if we keep it normal and general, most likely we're OK."

It's an arms race, but it's not linear. Each technology hits a ceiling and while the ongoing deployment of surveillance has a way to go, analysis at scale is much closer to topping out.

A covert agency knows that the best way to thwart security is to operate an innocuous cover-activity with maximal congruence to the mission. How many reporters were spies? How many bird watchers were terrain-mapping?

When activities look legitimate and only intentions might arouse suspicion, the analysing AIs flounder. But what you might call 'action steganography' has a short shelf-life. It gets burned. All reporters are soon viewed with suspicion; bird watchers near sensitive installations find themselves hauled in. Continuing success favours those with imagination and/or the use of activities which are widely popular.

I wonder sometimes at this new fashion for zooming around the countryside on high-tech human-powered machines, festooned with complex multi-function electronic devices.

I really don't recall cycling being that much fun.