5/21/2026 at 7:41:55 PM
My thoughts as someone who doesn't know much about these types of things:1. Terry Albury calling this list the "Panopticon" could have merit since he's a former FBI agent. However, I'd have to research more into him to figure out how credible he is, and why he is framing it like this.
2. Amazon and Facebook being in the title is most likely clickbait. They're literally only mentioned once in the article and the rest of it has nothing to do with them.
3. It's concerning that the National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) can potentially cause this network to be used to label protestors as "far-left domestic terrorists", however, that is more of an issue with the NSPM than this network. Understanding the NSPM and the effects of it is probably worthwhile.
4. The article mentions that there's no oversight program for Seattle Shield. Is that a problem? Is it typical to have oversight for a program like this, or necessary? What would the program be like?
Overall, the article feels sort of sensationalized. It frames Seattle Shield as suspicious and questionable due to its secrecy and the fact that it performs surveillance. However, there aren't any strong facts or evidence of this program being abused in some Big Brother-type way. Terry Albury framing it in this manner might be the most credible point against it, but I would have to look into that to determine how credible it is.
by baddash
5/21/2026 at 7:50:41 PM
It's like you never heard of Snowden.You don't need to try to force yourself to believe it not being that bad because it has been worse for like 20 years already.
by lstodd
5/21/2026 at 7:48:30 PM
I don't want any secretive surveillance, I don't care if you can prove whether its malicious or not.by dakolli
5/21/2026 at 7:51:33 PM
ok. I don't know who you are and I don't really care what your surveillance preferences are.by baddash