I wouldn't dig too deep into M. K. Bharadkumar's views. He was part of the Indian Attaché to the Soviet Union and later Russia and Uzbekistan, and worked closely with both them when supporting the Northern Alliance during the Afghan Civil War in the 90s [0][1]
He leans pro-Russia and anti-American.
Clearly, since India had warm relations with USSR and it was an important diplomatic portfolio and the diplomats top caliber. That simply means he was one of their top diplomats.
> He leans pro-Russia and anti-American
Good for him. It’s a free world and he’s entitled to his views and preferences. Regardless, he is intelligent, highly experienced, and provides a fresh (“oh no”) perspective on these matters.
It's a massive violation of an individual's freedoms, but not everything has to be about privacy all the time. Your car deciding it doesn't want to drive because its sensors decided you steer too funnily impairs your freedom of movement, the privacy aspect is minor in comparison in my opinion.
I'm also not too happy about the prospect of cars, which have been proven to be hackable remotely, having yet another point where an evildoer may insert motor control inhibitions. Perhaps a shitty car will let the media console inject false data about driving behaviour to trigger the system, or perhaps a particularly bad car will allow the kill switch signal to be injected directly. Either way, if I were a highway robber it worse, I'd start investigating the wireless stacks of cars common in rural areas.
With how much data car manufacturers are already sucking out of you as a driver (https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/article...), this kill switch is such a minor thing to add to the list.
[A surveillance and hierarchical control] architecture that is no longer built simply to be seen (as with the ostentation of palaces), or to observe the external space (cf, the geometry of fortresses), but to permit an internal, articulated and detailed control - to render visible those who are inside it;
in more general terms, an architecture that would operate to transform individuals:
- to act on those it shelters,
- to provide a hold on their conduct,
- to carry the effects of power right to them,
- to make it possible to know them, to alter them.
Stones can make people docile and knowable. The old simple schemaof confinement and enclosure - thick walls, a heavy gate that prevents entering or leaving- began to be replaced by the calculation of openings, of filled and empty spaces, passages and transparencies.
Foucault has written tomes on this topic — the transformation of the ‘architectures of surveillance and control’ and its internalization as a means of unconscious self-policing. He didn’t live to see the internet and the pervasively present microphones and cameras and “surveillance capitalism”, but he did write the book on it.
—
See also (for a contemporary consideration of Foucault’s “Panopticon”):
Foucault, Power and the Modern Panopticon, Connor Sheridan , 2016 (thesis)
https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...