Impacts of Surveillance “Statecraft” in the Lakes Region — “Takings” of Personal Data
A hidden and emerging covert “Garrison State” (Howard Lasswell, 1941) “Panopticon” (Jeremy Bentham, 16th Century) is emerging into public view — Creating and Profiting from the covert “taking” and selling of personal data. Rights of Privacy are unknowingly usurped and abridged by unseen public-private partnerships selling personal data of Americans without their knowledge and consent.
Introduction | 1600’s Roots of 24/7 “Panopticon” Surveillance in America. The concept is far from a new method of control:
Topics addressed in this new blog post include:
— the Surveillance state of human beings and their data;
— the fundamental Right of Privacy at home, in private affairs and to data;
— the long history of Surveillance since the 1600’s (Panopticon); the privatization and militarization of the Garrison state in America;
— the privatization of created and natural disaster relief and rebuilding infrastructure;
— soft power Statecraft management and funding of the foregoing; and
— violations of the Right to Privacy “Article 2-a” of the New Hampshire Constitution
Some may feel initially that the topic title may not be relevant to the Lakes Region community. Before making a snap decision about that, consider the importance of the recent Master Plan kickoff meeting which took place on October 6, 2025 — and which promises to provide a 15-20 year land use plan for Laconia. As well, Laconia is currently considering “social districts” reported from news outlets recently. Often such plans in other communities and districts have included camera and other surveillance installations such as streetlight and road way “furniture” such as sensors and cameras embedded in street lights.
This blog post addresses the 400 year history of surveillance systems of human beings, their underlying premises and justifications, and the meteoric growth today throughout America.
Surveillance and data collection is now a massive industry; and it represents a potentially new revenue center for collection and sale of private data by both businesses, and municipalities.
While keeping an open mind, it is not unreasonable to assume “surveillance” will be one of many topics for regional and local municipal districts’ planning discussions, whether public or not. Certainly public safety is always a high priority in such master plan discussions; which has in other communities tended to be emphasized unfairly over related and important questions —such as — who profits? and how is the fundamental Right of Privacy honored as well as ownership of private data?
Let’s Start with Current Smartphone Capabilities and Bluetooth Data Transmissions
Several Typical Reactions and Opinions of Americans to Covert Surveillance include:
— Nothing to hide — so why should I — OR YOU — be concerned?
— They cannot do that … or can THEY?
— THEY need probable cause and a search warrant to surveil me and to take my personal picture, record my voice, scrape my device (phone, laptop) data — RIGHT?
— They already have my information and data, so what’s the problem with them having more?
— “Publicly” operated traffic and street cameras (on light poles or in the lighting fixture itself) recording visual and audio for traffic, pedestrian facial recognition (with lip reading capacities) on:
• sidewalks,
• parking lots,
• hospitals,
• parks,
• libraries,
• public and private buildings,
• events,
• rallies,
• protests,
Local Surveillance in Laconia
NONE of these RFPs and BIDS below (and there are more) includes what has been placed on towers, billboards, utility poles, and street light poles on easements owned now by “privatized” utility companies.
The Internet of Bodies (IOB) — One Main Market for Our Highly Personal Information, Surveilled, Gathered, Sold and Re-Sold by Public and Private Parties — Absent Consent
The author of this blog post researched the Internet of Things (IOT), the Internet of Bodies (IoB), and the Wide Area Body Network (WBAN). The project took over 2 years and it compiled over 300 pages of information resulting in a report for private discussion only.
This is not science fiction. The Internet of Bodies IOB is very real and operating all around us in the Lakes Region. WEF advocate Harrai “asserts” and Musk “acknowledges” in 2021 that this is the moment when personal privacy ended. Did you — the reader consent?
The systems are designed to make us programmed livestock without free choice — without moral agency. THAT’S THE DECEPTION. That’s the lie!
I produced this video a year of so ago in 2024 dealing with existing DNA programming technologies and more.
“Change the Thoughts | Social Media Videos Reel | Demystifying Natural Sciences for Laypeople”
The Law Enforcement Approach
For law enforcement — shared (footage and data scraping phones, laptops, cars) “for profit revenue” with third party corporations is a currently active public-private marketplace with extraordinary profit potentials;
The Real Threat of DNA Gathering. IDENTITY THEFT, IDENTITY COUNTERFEITING, IDENTITY SALE AND MALWARE OF SYNTHETIC CODES into humans
Is Surveillance and DNA gathering, and Hacking of DNA personal information on public and private data bases really a threat locally and nationally? The Short answer is YES!
A Long History of Surveillance and Motives in America
SOURCE: “In a striking new warning from cybersecurity and biotechnology experts, researchers have revealed that DNA hacking may soon become the next frontier in cyber warfare. A new study published in IEEE Access has identified critical security gaps in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies that could expose highly personal genetic information to cyberattacks, espionage, and even biological sabotage.
According to the researchers, the surge in genomic data collection has outpaced the development of security frameworks to protect it. The result? Our most personal data—our DNA—is increasingly at risk of cyber exploitation.
“Genomic data is one of the most personal forms of data we have. If compromised, the consequences go far beyond a typical data breach,” co-author and microbiologist at the Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women’s University, Dr Mahreen-Ul-Hassan, said in a statement. “If compromised, the consequences go far beyond a typical data breach.” NGS has revolutionized healthcare and biomedical research by enabling the rapid, cost-effective sequencing of DNA and RNA. Millions of people worldwide have used it for ancestry testing, disease diagnosis, cancer screening, and personalized medicine.
However, as the technology has accelerated scientific discovery and offered life-changing health insights, it has also opened Pandora’s box of cyber-biosecurity risks. This newly published study is one of the first to present a step-by-step threat analysis of the entire sequencing pipeline—from raw data generation and sample preparation to cloud-based analysis and data interpretation—exposing a range of novel vulnerabilities unique to the NGS process.
Study authors, including researchers from the UK, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, describe a landscape in which genomic data, unlike any other digital record, is both permanent and deeply personal. A stolen credit card can be replaced, they note. However, if your information is compromised by DNA hacking, there’s no taking it back. Once it’s out, it’s out forever.
One of the study’s most alarming revelations is the possibility of DNA hacking, where DNA itself is used as a vehicle to carry malicious code. In an earlier proof-of-concept experiment, scientists demonstrated that it is theoretically possible to encode malware into synthetic DNA. When sequenced, the biological sample could produce digital output that exploits vulnerabilities in bioinformatics software, ultimately allowing an attacker to gain unauthorized access to the sequencing computer.
This type of DNA hacking is not just conceptual. A research team at the University of Washington successfully demonstrated it, making it the first instance of DNA being used to breach a computer system. The implications are profound: a malicious DNA strand could disrupt a lab’s sequencing run or compromise a hospital’s genomic database.
Another vulnerability lies in the re-identification of supposedly anonymous genomic data. Even when names are removed, researchers have shown that DNA samples—especially those containing short tandem repeats, or STRs—can be cross-referenced with public genetic genealogy databases to infer surnames and other identifying information.
When combined with publicly available demographic data like age and zip code, this can lead to successful re-identification of individuals. In one case, between 84% and 97% of participants in the Personal Genome Project were re-identified using this method. This kind of breach doesn’t just violate privacy—it has real-world consequences, including risks of blackmail, discrimination, and medical fraud.
The study also explores how emerging technologies, especially artificial intelligence, may inadvertently accelerate these risks. With AI capable of bridging complex gaps in knowledge, adversarial actors could use AI tools to generate attack strategies that exploit specific vulnerabilities in bioinformatics pipelines.
The authors express concern that AI could be used to generate malicious code, manipulate DNA synthesis orders, or design custom malware that targets the computational tools responsible for analyzing genomic data.
The research references real-world case studies that underscore the urgency of these risks. Recent cyberattacks on healthcare and pharmaceutical companies have demonstrated the potential for devastating breaches.
For instance, in 2024, Octapharma Plasma in the U.S. suffered a ransomware attack that compromised sensitive personal information. Similarly, Japanese pharmaceutical firm Eisai faced massive logistical and production delays after a cyberattack disrupted their systems.
Although these attacks did not directly involve sequencing data or DNA hacking, they highlight how vulnerable biotech and healthcare infrastructures remain to digital exploitation. As sequencing becomes more integrated with clinical practice and public health infrastructure, it is only a matter of time before NGS platforms become a direct target.
One of the study’s most significant contributions is the introduction of a new cyber-biosecurity taxonomy designed explicitly for next-generation sequencing. Unlike conventional cybersecurity models, which focus on network vulnerabilities and software flaws, this new framework extends into the biological domain. It identifies specific threat vectors at every stage of the NGS workflow.
These include synthetic DNA-based malware attacks, sample multiplexing exploitation, adversarial manipulation of sequencing workflows, and inference attacks that exploit genomic linkage disequilibrium to predict health conditions from partial DNA sequences.
The authors explain that each phase of the NGS workflow presents its own unique set of vulnerabilities. In the initial stages, where DNA is extracted from samples such as blood or tissue, threats like re-identification attacks and physical theft of biological material can occur.
Even manual handling procedures are not immune. If an insider tampers with or substitutes a sample during extraction, it could corrupt the entire sequencing process and lead to dangerous or misleading conclusions in clinical or forensic contexts.
The study outlines several cyber risks during the library preparation stage, where DNA fragments are processed and tagged for sequencing. Automated liquid handling robots and barcode tracking systems used in high-throughput labs often rely on connected software platforms.
If these are compromised—whether through malware, ransomware, or a supply chain attack—the integrity of genetic data can be irreparably damaged. The study also describes multiplexed DNA injection attacks, where a malicious DNA sample introduced into a pooled batch can manipulate sequencing outcomes or cause misattribution of genetic material across different samples.”
36 page Article — DNA THEFT: RECOGNIZING THE CRIME OF NONCONSENSUAL GENETIC COLLECTION AND TESTING, by ELIZABETH E. JOH∗
SOURCE: Boston University Law Review Article “The fact that you leave genetic information behind on discarded tissues, used coffee cups, and smoked cigarettes everywhere you go is generally of little consequence. Trouble arises, however, when third parties retrieve this detritus of everyday life for the genetic information you have left behind. These third parties may be the police, and the regulation over their ability to collect this evidence is unclear.
The police are not the only people who are interested in your genetic information. Curious fans, nosy third parties, and blackmailers may also hope to gain information from the DNA of both public and private figures, and collecting and analyzing this genetic information without consent is startlingly easy to do. Committing DNA theft is as simple as sending in a used tissue to a company contacted over the internet and waiting for an analysis by email. A quick online search reveals many companies that offer “secret” or “discreet” DNA testing.
The rapid proliferation of companies offering direct-to- consumer genetic testing at ever lower prices means that both the technology and incentives to commit DNA theft exist.
Yet in nearly every American jurisdiction, DNA theft is not a crime. Rather, the nonconsensual collection and analysis of another person’s DNA is virtually unconstrained by law. This Article explains how DNA theft poses a serious threat to genetic privacy and why it merits consideration as a distinct criminal offense.
INTRODUCTION
The fact that you leave genetic information behind on discarded tissues, used coffee cups, and smoked cigarettes everywhere you go is generally of little consequence. Trouble arises, however, when third parties retrieve this detritus of everyday life for the genetic information you have left behind. These third parties may be the police, and the regulation over their ability to collect this evidence is unclear.1
The police are not the only ones who are interested in other people’s genetic information. Consider:
The political party that is interested in discovering and publicizing any predispositions to disease that might render a presidential candidate of the opposing party unsuitable for office.2
An historian who wishes to put to rest rumors about those who claim to be the illegitimate descendants of a former president but refuse to submit to genetic testing.3
A professional sports team that wants to analyze the genetic information of a prospective player, despite his protests, to screen for risks of fatal health conditions before offering him a multi-million dollar contract.4
An individual’s personal enemy who would be thrilled to analyze the genetic information of his target and post information on the internet about the target’s likelihood of becoming an alcoholic, a criminal, or obese.5
A wealthy grandparent who suspects that a grandchild is not genetically related to her and plans to disinherit him if that is the case.6
A person involved in a romantic relationship who wants to find out whether his partner carries the gene for male pattern baldness or persistent miscarriage.7
A couple who would like to know if their prospective adoptive child has any potential health issues before they make a final decision.8
Fans who would pay a high price to buy the genetic information of their favorite celebrity.9
If any of these curious people want to act, they can. A quick search of the internet unearths many companies that offer “secret” or “discreet” DNA testing.10 An undercover investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2010 reported that representatives of two of the fifteen companies it targeted specifically suggested the use of surreptitious and nonconsensual genetic testing.11 The proliferation of direct-to-consumer DNA tests that are increasingly inexpensive and readily accessible means that these third parties may attempt to collect and analyze anyone’s DNA without consent.12 Companies like 23andMe, Navigenics, and deCODEme promise to identify predispositions to various diseases and health conditions.13 A saliva DNA collection kit bought at your local Walgreens for less than three hundred dollars might be just around the corner.14
What is more, in most American jurisdictions, the nonconsensual collection of human tissue for the purposes of analyzing DNA, or “DNA theft” as I will call it, is not a crime (or even a civil violation for that matter). While a number of states and the federal government ban the disclosure of genetic testing
What’s Actually at Stake Motivating the Rapidly Expanding Surveillance by Public-Private Partnerships?
In one word it’s “BioPiracy” described below
Let’s begin with several current 2025 international reports on copyright legislation in Denmark.
VIDEO LINK TO FIRST THUMBNAIL BELOW.
ARTICLE LINK TO SECOND GRAPHIC BELOW
ARTICLE LINK TO THIRD GRAPHIC BELOW REPORTED BY NORTH CAROLINA LAW FIRM: TED LAW
SOURCE: “In a world increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence and generative AI, the misuse of AI-generated content has become a pressing global concern. Denmark has made history by passing a copyright bill of Denmark that grants citizens full ownership rights over their personal likenesses , including their face, voice, and body. This new copyright framework addresses threats posed by deepfake technology, synthetic media, and digital imitations, while reinforcing digital rights and digital identity protection in the age of AI Deepfakes.
The legislation empowers individuals to submit a takedown request or takedown notices against unauthorized uses of their digital representation, pursue civil enforcement and infringement proceedings, and hold digital platforms and online platforms accountable. It’s a major step toward safeguarding likeness rights and personality rights, especially as Denmark prepares to assume the EU presidency , a moment that could influence EU copyright law and future AI regulation across the European Union.
The Rise of Deepfake Laws in the Age of Generative AI
Deepfake creators have leveraged neural network and artificial neural network models to create convincing deepfake video clips, face swaps, and manipulated image content. These computer-generated images can impersonate a performing artist, political leader, or public figure to spread fake news, launch deepfake scandals, or run scam campaigns.
Cases have ranged from deepfake scam phone calls using cloned voices to political content fabrications aimed at eroding public trust. The problem has escalated beyond digital self reputation damage , it now poses serious risks to biometric security, biometric features theft, and even identity theft.
Denmark’s Legal Solution and Platform Responsibility
The new copyright protection measures are groundbreaking. By recognizing human authorship over one’s digital replica, Denmark affirms that digital assets like a person’s likeness are protected under intellectual property law.
The law mandates platform responsibility by requiring online platforms and digital platforms to respond swiftly to takedown request submissions. Failure to comply could result in severe fines, infringement proceedings, and civil enforcement.
It also introduces a legal pathway for content removal and monetary remedies for reputation damage caused by unauthorized synthetic media and AI-generated deepfakes.
Implications for the European Commission and Beyond
As Denmark takes the lead ahead of its EU Council presidency, this legislation could guide the European Commission toward a unified AI governance and privacy laws framework. Such integration could strengthen international cooperation to address cross-border deepfake laws enforcement.
The law complements measures like the Digital Services Act, UK GDPR, and even EU Trade Marks protections, reinforcing the message that digital rights are a fundamental part of modern governance.
Technology at the Heart of AI Regulation
To enforce these protections, Denmark is expected to work with Legal Tech innovators and AI content labels to detect AI-generated content. This may include deep learning detection systems, digital copy machine watermarking, and collaboration with the influencer marketing industry to ensure that branded content and brand ambassadors use authorized likenesses only.
Even pop culture references, like Star Wars characters portrayed by the 501st Legion Ireland Garrison, have been involved in debates about digital representation rights, showing how far-reaching the issue is , from a performing artist to an AI character in a gaming environment.
Risks of Unchecked Synthetic Media
Without robust safeguards, synthetic media can be exploited in scam campaigns targeting the cryptocurrency community or manipulated to defame brand ambassadors. Gambling Commission investigations have shown how manipulated promotional materials can mislead consumers.
Even celebrities like Anil Kapoor have taken legal action to protect their personality rights, highlighting that the problem spans industries and borders.
Enforcement Challenges and International Cooperation
While the law is ambitious, its success depends on international cooperation. Many deepfake technology operators are outside Denmark’s jurisdiction. Collaborative efforts with entities like the US Senate, Unified Patent Court, and UPC Arbitration Centre may be essential.
Key obstacles include:
Tracking deepfake creators across multiple jurisdictions.
Distinguishing human authorship from machine-generated work.
Preventing misuse of AI character or digital self likeness for malicious purposes.
Protecting the Digital Self in the Era of AI Governance
This copyright law reinforces the principle that in the world of AI-generated deepfakes, each person owns their own digital self. From influencer marketing industry disputes to protecting performing artist rights, the shift is toward greater personal control over digital assets.
It also signals to deepfake creators that misusing personal likenesses without consent can lead to severe fines and infringement proceedings under evolving privacy laws and AI governance regulations.
Conclusion
Denmark’s proactive approach could become the gold standard for deepfake laws in the European Union. By integrating strong copyright protection, platform responsibility, and digital identity protection measures, it addresses the risks posed by AI-generated deepfakes and strengthens public trust in the digital age.
If widely adopted, this model could harmonize AI regulation across borders, empowering individuals and deterring misuse of digital representation.
About Ted Law
Ted Law Firm , closely follows developments in copyright law, privacy laws, and AI regulation that affect individuals worldwide. We serve families across Aiken, Anderson, Charleston, Columbia, Greenville, Myrtle Beach, North Augusta and Orangeburg. By understanding changes in legislation like Denmark’s copyright bill of Denmark, the firm ensures its community remains informed and prepared for the challenges posed by AI-generated deepfakes and synthetic media. Contact us today for a free consultation. For more information and a A DEEPER DIVE
So Now Let’s Turn to the “Real Motives” for Surveillance Collection and Sale of Personal Data — There’s a Long History to This — One Which is not Generally Know by the Public.
This topic of the covert theft (BioPiracy) through surveillance of human data face, body, voice, DNA sequences and pathway processes; is now a massive and highly profitable market. Some refer to it as a “Wild West” environment which is currently unregulated in America — and IF regulated at all, those public-private partnerships “so regulated” are stakeholders in the profits bonanza.
In 2024, I wrote and published a 32 page article (separate blog) on this subject by itself entitled:
“ENVIRONMENTAL AND EPIGENETIC IMPACTS | “BIOPIRACY” AND PATENTS ON: “INDIVIDUAL HUMAN” GENOMES, MICROBIOME ORGANISMS’ GENOMES | PLANT GENOMES | ANIMAL GENOMES | AS OF 1994-2024 AND “GENE DRIVES” by Jeffrey Thayer (September 2024).”
The actual blog post is recommended (with helpful videos) here at this LINK:
These are not mere theoretical questions and are continuing to be litigated today in a variety of settings revealed in this article:
How recent court cases are testing the limits of N.H.'s constitutional right to privacy — which includes face, voice, body, and genetic information covertly gathered, used and sold.
“Four years ago, New Hampshire voters overwhelmingly approved a new amendment to the state's constitution enshrining a “right to live free from government intrusion in private or personal information. … Staters revealed:
“What counts is personal information is a very large universe,” he said. “Is what Internet sites you go to personal information?… Is what books you take out of the library personal information? … SB418 is facing two separate lawsuits, each citing the state’s new privacy amendment as part of their arguments for why it should be overturned.” SOURCE See also: “Ballot Question 2: Should 'Right to Live Free' Language Be Added to the N.H. Constitution?”
“The second ballot question addresses the individual right to privacy from the state in reference to personal information and data. …
This amendment would add language to the New Hampshire Constitution stating that "an individual's right to live free from government intrusion in private or personal information is natural essential and inherent." So what does that mean? …
Do we know what is considered information then under this? Are we talking about DNA, and passwords, and online data and that kind of thing? What are we talking about here?
Well that's what will be worked out. That will be worked out on a case by case basis, because as you pointed out, the language is abstract and one can envision all sorts of emerging disagreements about the meaning of this language in different contexts. …”
Some of many other cases winding their way through various courts include:
A federal lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice against the Virginia city of Norfolk, challenging the city’s widespread deployment of Flock Safety Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) cameras.
The lawsuit argues that the city’s installation of more than 170 cameras on public roads constitutes an unconstitutional, warrantless surveillance program that monitors every motorist, raising questions about digital privacy and government overreach.
Flock Safety’s Different Approach to ALPR Technology
Flock Safety, the company whose ALPR systems are central to this lawsuit, differs from traditional ALPR providers in several ways. Traditional ALPR systems are generally focused on reading license plates using infrared cameras and feeding this information into central databases.
Flock Safety’s technology goes further, capturing additional details such as vehicle make, model, color, and other distinguishing characteristics like bumper stickers. This comprehensive approach allows law enforcement to track and identify vehicles more effectively, even when plates are obscured or altered .
However, this detailed data collection raises concerns about prolonged monitoring and data retention. The lawsuit claims that these cameras, which are designed to retain data for extended periods, allow law enforcement to effectively track the movements and activities of residents without individualized suspicion. Plaintiffs argue that this aggregated data creates a detailed historical record of every vehicle, infringing on privacy rights.
… Tracking and Historical Data Logging:
Flock’s systems collect and retain a rich dataset that could be used to trace a vehicle’s history over time. Such detailed records raise legal questions about whether long-term surveillance without a warrant constitutes a violation of Fourth Amendment protections, especially when public movements are aggregated and analyzed to reveal patterns and connections . SOURCE See further: National Law Review “Hidden Camera Lawsuits” by: Lawrence J. Buckfire of Buckfire Law Tuesday, April 11, 2023
“Slater Slater Schulman LLP Files Lawsuits on Behalf of Over 400 Victims of Hidden Camera Surveillance at Northwell Health Facilities” NEWS PROVIDED BY Slater Slater Schulman LLP Sep 25, 2025, 11:03 “Employee Used False Smoke Detectors to Record Patients and Visitors in Bathrooms and Changing Rooms for Nearly Two Years.
SOURCE: NEW YORK, Sept. 25, 2025/PRNewswire/ -- Northwell Health and its affiliated entities are being named in multiple civil complaints alleging negligence that enabled the secret recording of over 400 patients and visitors, including children, while they were undressed in bathrooms and changing rooms at two Long Island medical facilities. As alleged in the complaints, the healthcare system failed to detect and prevent unlawful surveillance that continued for nearly two years, despite numerous warning signs that should have alerted management to suspicious activity. The lawsuits were filed in Nassau County Supreme Court by attorneys at Slater Slater Schulman LLP, a leading, full-service law firm with decades of experience representing survivors of traumatic and catastrophic events.
According to the complaint, from early August 2022 through late April 2024, Sanjai Syamaprasad was a licensed sleep technician employed by Northwell Health. According to the facts in his separate felony criminal case in NassauCourt Supreme Court, Syamaprasad installed hidden video cameras inside false smoke detectors throughout staff and patient bathrooms and changing rooms at the Northwell Health Sleep Disorders Center and STARS Rehabilitation in Great Neck, during which time thousands of patients, including children, were recorded without their knowledge or consent while in states of undress.
In July, Syamaprasad pleaded guilty to five counts of Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree and two counts of Tampering with Physical Evidence. He is expected to be sentenced to five years probation as part of a pre-negotiated plea.
"The mediocre sentence in this criminal case doesn't even amount to a wrist slap – it's a complete miscarriage of justice," said Adam Slater, Founding and Managing Partner of Slater Slater Schulman LLP. "The only way that the victims of Northwell Health Sleep Disorders Center will ever receive true justice is through the civil courts. While Northwell's carelessness represents an egregious breach of patient privacy and trust, Slater Slater Schulman LLP has a very strong track record of achieving results for patients who have been harmed by medical institutions."
In December 2021, Slater Slater Schulman LLP was the first law firm to reach an agreement with Columbia University and NewYork-Presbyterian on behalf of patients of convicted gynecologist Robert Hadden. This advocacy resulted in the creation of a $71.5 million compensation fund for 79 Slater Slater Schulman clients. As stated in the complaints filed by Slater Slater Schulman in Nassau County Supreme Court, despite discovering the unlawful surveillance in April 2024, Northwell Health waited more than a year before notifying potential victims, only sending notification letters in late May 2025. This delay prevented victims from taking timely action and caused additional emotional distress when they learned of the violations.
The lawsuits, filed in Nassau County Supreme Court, allege multiple counts of negligence against Northwell Health entities, including negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision of Syamaprasad. The complaints assert that Northwell Health failed to maintain adequate security measures, conduct proper background checks, and implement policies to prevent such conduct despite having statutory duties under HIPAA and other regulations to protect patient privacy and confidentiality. …”
See also: NSA Surveillance and Section 702 of FISA: 2024 in Review, DEEPLINKS BLOG , BY MATTHEW GUARIGLIA, DECEMBER 28, 2024
Surveillance is Not a New Program. It dates back to the 16th Century and Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon.
The Emergence of the “all seeing eye” and the Panopticon Surveillance
Is the Opticon the original Blueprint for “15 Minute” Cities?
Just the last four slides above are revealing. Bentham’s Opticon vision was not limited to just prisons. His “syndics” were offered as a method to surveil the general public on everyday streets. Some readers may recognize this in all the recent concerns being identified with various presentations of “15 Minute Cities”.
The author Foucault describes the Panopticon in his famous work Discipline and Punish (1975). While the Panopticon is a model for a prison designed by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, Foucault sees it as much more than that. For Foucault the Panopticon is an architectural figure -- a kind of metaphor -- for modern power relations in general.
As Foucault describes it, in the modern world, power circulates around us through systems of surveillance and self-discipline. We are constantly being watched, measured, and evaluated, and even when we are not, we feel as if we are, and so we conduct ourselves and discipline ourselves into behaving in particular ways. This is how modern power dynamics work and they can be effectively illuminated by Bentham's Panopticon design. For more on the ROOTS panopticon greatest good collectivism Bentham. monograph quotes LINK:
A follow-up to this blog post is in research concerning the “Shock Doctrine” — its history and its connections to data gathering and surveillance for profit amid “disasters”. To read ahead so to speak, please watch this 2009 documentary video featuring journalist Naomi Klein:
FOR MORE INFORMATION on TEAM CONNECTED’s outreach mission and other blog posts please visit HERE.
