From Surveillance to Sovereignty: Rebooting Freedom [EIMF.011]
From Surveillance to Sovereignty: Rebooting Freedom [EIMF.011]
An Oral Account of Technological Freedom
Dear Readers,
As you delve into this transcribed oral interview, I'd like to acknowledge the inspiration that guided the narrative style: World War Z by Max Brooks, one of my favorite literary works. Brooks' approach to chronicling a fictional global crisis through a series of intimate interviews struck a chord with me. I still remember the first time I opened the book. He pieced together a vast, intricate tapestry from individual threads allowing for a depth and breadth that was both poignant and enlightening. Reading the book is a treat but the audiobook was ahead of its time. I find myself listening to it regularly. I freaking love this book.
In this work, I sought to employ a similar style to capture the essence of the digital freedom movement. While the two tales – one of a zombie apocalypse and the other of a surveillance state – might seem worlds apart, they converge on themes of resilience, adaptation, and the human spirit's unyielding drive to survive against overwhelming odds.
While World War Z showcased humanity's struggle against an external, relentless threat, this narrative grapples with an internal, intangible adversary: the loss of personal freedom in the digital age. The medium and context might differ, but the power of individual stories to reflect collective triumphs and trials remains consistent. In the future, we must utilize technology to make society better for everyone. Not to exploit humans in the name of profits, stifle innovation, or silence those we disagree with.
I invite you to view this work not just as a chronicle of events that could happen in our future, but as a testament to the enduring spirit of individuals who dared to dream, fight, and reclaim their digital destiny. Humans are decentralized. Our technology should be as well.
With gratitude,
Call Me Amicus
Having been on both sides of the digital divide, from the surveillance-heavy tactics of the FBI to the grassroots world of digital freedom advocacy, I understood the value of stories like Morgan Hawke's. The opportunity to have him interviewed in his bunker, that secretive hub of revolutionary innovation, was a narrative gold mine. My own transformation from a field officer to an advocate for digital rights often raised eyebrows and questions, but it was pioneers like Hawke who opened my eyes to the larger picture. With Morgan Hawke's story, I saw an opportunity for an essential chapter in a book I had intended to write — a guide and a reflection on the digital age and its evolution. I conducted the interview within the confines of his bunker, that crucible of innovation and rebellion. However, as I listened to his words, the raw emotion, the unbridled passion, and the sheer weight of his experiences, I realized that my book would only dilute its potency. This narrative, this legacy of the digital freedom movement, deserved to be heard straight from the source, unfiltered and undiluted. And so, I present to you, the transcript of my conversation with Morgan Hawke, in all its authentic resonance.
Morgan Hawke's origins trace back to the dense heart of Silicon Valley, once the epicenter of technological innovation in pre-digital freedom times. During the Digital Freedom Uprising, Hawke emerged as a figure when he co-founded the decentralized communication platform, "LibertyChat.” By 21 he was considered one of the “generals” of the movement and thus self-exiled to Reno for his own protection. Hawke's home was a discreet, off-grid bunker in Reno Nevada, fully encrypted and insulated from external intrusions. Our interview unfolds in "The Safe Core," a digital sanctum within the bunker, powered by its personal nuclear reactor. Despite the world having moved forward into the age of digital freedom, Hawke has chosen to remain in this bunker and communicate in person with only “trusted peoples” (his words, not mine). This is likely due to the assassination attempts that have left him with two gunshot wounds and a severe limp.
Tell me about the time leading up to the counter-surveillance revolution, Mr. Hawke.
It was a strange era. On one hand, you had incredible technological advancements that promised a bright, interconnected future. On the other, you felt like there was always someone watching over your shoulder. Every transaction, every call, every keystroke—it was all being logged, tagged, and analyzed. The internet felt bland. Bland and mean. In an attempt to cater to everyone, nothing stuck out. No room for new ideas. No opportunities except monetizing clicks for whatever weight loss shot or ancient mushroom that was being grifted to uninformed audiences.
And what did you do?
I—We fought back with technology itself. I remember joining this underground network of coders and engineers, all of us with a shared vision: using tech as a tool for freedom, not control. We believed in the power of decentralization. It was a very grassroots internet.
Can you elaborate on the technology you and your group developed?
Certainly. We focused on two main areas: communication and transactions. For communication, we wanted a platform that was encrypted, decentralized, and virtually impossible to surveil. This was tricky as governments around the world, including our own came up with novel ways to block it. As with everything, it’s easier to break something than invent something. But this was the birth of LibertyChat.
And for transactions, we championed cryptocurrencies that went beyond even Bitcoin. These were fully anonymous, leaving no trace whatsoever besides a ledger to ensure the finite supply was being accounted for.
You brought up the United States trying to block it. How else did the government react?
As expected. There was a backlash. They labeled us "digital terrorists" and tried to shut us down. Raids, arrests, you name it. You know, terrorists are known for trying to make people’s lives better. But the beauty of decentralization is that there's no central point of failure. For every one of us they targeted, ten more would pop up, and our tech spread like wildfire. Eventually, they did figure out a way to tax transactions which is admittedly clunky. However, we don’t want to see the government collapse. Only respect the citizens and their rights. At least in this way, we got rid of the predator behavior of our government and their paper money.
In what ways do governments abuse paper money? Paper money has been used by governments since early China.
The lies that are taxes and paper money are good ones. Everyone believes that the government wants them to “do better” so they can take a larger share of their money via taxes. Moving up tax brackets. So the government is seen as a sort of parasite in which the host needs to survive or thrive in order for the government parasite to survive and thrive. That goes off the rails when the government is able to print money. They no longer need you to do what they want. They print the amounts they need, call it debt and you the citizen get to live with the repercussions. Less buying power, stagnant wages, and well… feeling poor.
You’re right though, we do get to thank ancient China for the invention of paper money. The Song Dynasty specifically. They invented many modern inventions we use today: porcelain, tea, and the compass, just to name a few. This was a prosperous time. Older generations complained that women didn’t know how to cook because they ate out all the time. But where they messed up was inventing printing blocks for their money. Originally they gave out paper money for the silver coins that were stored in warehouses. However, an enterprising leader figured out you could just print the receipts and get all the benefits of silver coins without having them…in the short term.
In came new social programs that were financed with fake money. It became illegal to not accept the fake money. As tax revenues declined, higher taxes were pushed on markets along with increased regulations. Coal production and iron fell. Eventually, farms were given to morons who didn’t know how to farm and people starved. Hyperinflation took off until the Mongols wrecked shop and introduced silver.
The key here is to have money tied to a real asset. Gold, Silver, Bitcoin, our Freedom currencies. It keeps greedy people honest. They need the hosts to prosper for them to prosper.
Thank you for the history lesson. I still find myself weary of LibertyChat and these cryptocurrencies at first. Were people not afraid to use these technologies?
Initially, yes. The self-censoring on communications had gotten extreme. It’s like those old Soviet videos where people smiled and clapped despite knowing the leader was lying. They didn’t want to be the first ones to stop clapping though. But as surveillance grew more invasive, people began seeing the value in what we offered. Peer-to-peer transactions have become the norm in many places. Even farmers in remote villages would trade using our anonymous cryptocurrencies. It wasn't just about evading government eyes; it was about reclaiming a sense of autonomy, of control over one's own life. Stability. People could plan, budget, and save. While their grocery bills increased with dollars, they stayed the same in our coins. Adoption took off so fast that governments couldn’t ban them and had to adapt to take their cut.
It sounds like a real revolution.
In many ways, it was. But remember, our goal wasn't to topple governments or create anarchy. We wanted to balance the scales, to remind those in power that technology should serve the many, not the few. You know, go back to the protection of rights. Encouraging prosperity. Maybe bring back the idea of the American dream.
There were rumors, Mr. Hawke, quite persistent ones, that the very government agencies trying to suppress your technologies were secretly using them for their covert operations. Can you speak to that?
(chuckles) Oh, the irony. Yes, those rumors weren't entirely unfounded. It became something of an open secret within our circles. While they publicly condemned and hunted us, some factions within the government found our tech too alluring to resist. Especially those who do secret squirrel activities. You know provocateurs, regime chain spies, and those taking bribes. So all of them, I guess.
So, they used "LibertyChat"?
Precisely. We had multiple indications that it was being used for what many believe were false flag operations. I mean, if you want to plan something in absolute secrecy, why not use the best tools available?
How did you feel about that?
It was a double-edged sword. On one hand, it was validation. It meant our technology was as good, if not better than anything they had. But morally? Knowing our tools, designed for freedom and privacy, were being used for deception and possibly harm? It weighed on us.
Did you try to stop them?
We debated that a lot. It spawned numerous forks of LibertyChat. GlowyChat was my favorite. It was designed for governments that dumped all the logs on the servers when someone hit the API with a GET FOIA. I still can’t believe real government agencies took the troll and used it.
On a serious note, some wanted to introduce backdoors just for those instances, to expose the government's hypocrisy. But ultimately, we decided against compromising our tech. It would have betrayed our core principle: unyielding privacy for all users, no exceptions.
So the government's covert use of your tech went unchecked?
Not entirely. We couldn't control their use, but we could expose it. We set up honeypots, false information trails, and digital breadcrumbs. Over time, investigative journalists and whistleblowers started connecting the dots. The very tech they tried to crush became instrumental in revealing their deceptions. Especially once we had icons of our tech on a smartphone used by POTUS.
It must've been a significant blow to their credibility.
It was, for some agencies. But remember, governments aren't monoliths. While some factions used and abused our tech, others were genuinely against it, not out of malice but out of a misguided sense of protection. It was a complex era, and even now, the full truth of all that transpired isn't entirely known. We have some agencies that believe the only way for us to feel safe is to give up our freedoms. Feeling safe and being safe are two different things though. I tend to err on the side of the latter.
Moving forward from that era, it seems the ideals you and your group championed started influencing larger technological ecosystems. Tell me about these "Freedom Zones."
Ah, the Freedom Zones. They're a testament to what can happen when an idea's time has come. After the government's double standards were exposed, there was a significant shift in public sentiment. People began demanding more from their tech providers, merchants, and governments. It was glorious.
And the industry responded?
Not just responded. They evolved. Start-ups began cropping up, building upon our foundational ideas but taking them much further. Instead of just apps or services, they started creating entire digital ecosystems where the user was sovereign. It felt like the 50’s and 60’s again. Innovation flooded the market, not just smartphone apps that steal your information and share it with marketers while making children depressed. Or search engines that hide truths from you in the name of government requests to curb misinformation.
How were they different from the mainstream tech ecosystems of the time?
In traditional ecosystems, users were products. Their data was harvested, sold, and used to sell them things. In Freedom Zones, the dynamics were flipped. Users were treated as customers, not products. They owned their data, controlled who accessed it, and were part of a genuine value exchange. If any data was used, it was anonymized, aggregated, and with explicit user consent. Furthermore, the services paid the users for their data.
Other ecosystems worked off a model in which users paid for the services they used. You know, traditional capitalism. You pay for what you use. This is real rocket science here. But in all seriousness, the simplicity is what made it thrive.
It sounds utopian.
In many ways, it was. But it wasn't without challenges. Transitioning to such models wasn't easy from a business standpoint. But those that did found a fiercely loyal customer base. The public was tired of all the games. Being lied to. No one trusted the government or more importantly, their ability to do something that benefits people who have to live with their terrible decisions.
And these ecosystems proliferated?
Immensely. From social networks to shopping platforms, Freedom Zones became the gold standard. Entire smart cities started adopting their principles. It was a renaissance of technological liberty. People have begun seeing a different way. A way in which they could stand on their own two feet with dignity. So much so that people demanded to be paid by their employers or take in sales only from Freedom Coins.
Do you think this model is sustainable in the long run?
Sustainability hinges on respect. As long as these ecosystems respect user agency and remain transparent, they'll thrive. The moment they betray trust, they'll crumble. But that's the beauty of it—power, for once, is truly in the hands of the people.
One significant outcome of this shift towards technological freedom was the dissolution of the partnership between the tech giants and the government. Can you shed some light on how that came to be?
Absolutely. That "unholy union," as it's often referred to, wasn’t sustainable. You see, the relationship between tech giants and the government during the surveillance era was symbiotic. The government got access to vast amounts of data, and the corporations received regulatory leniency and lucrative contracts. It was Soviet Era propaganda forced through everyone's smartphones through a curated algorithm, based on your interests that also aligned with the government’s interest. This isn’t Freedom. Freedom takes courage to possibly be offended by someone else’s speech and maturity to not take it personally. If it truly is a terrible idea, tell people an alternative.
And the Freedom Zones disrupted this?
More than disrupted – they shattered it. As Freedom Zones gained momentum, they decentralized the digital landscape. The monopolistic hold of the tech giants began to wane. Users flocked to platforms and ecosystems that prioritized their rights over profit or surveillance. On top of that, people went back to their niches. Gone were the days were everyone was funneled to a few sites on the internet only to leave rage-induced at someone who didn’t vote the same way they did. It was all stupid. People spent more time tearing each other down or calling the other side names than being productive. Living their lives.
So the tech giants adapted?
Some tried. But adapting meant overhauling their entire business model, which many were reluctant to do. Those who didn’t adapt found themselves becoming obsolete. The newcomers, built on the principles of user sovereignty, became the new titans. They focused on value-driven services and subscriptions rather than data exploitation.
And the government?
The government found itself in a conundrum. With the tech giants’ influence diminished and a growing demand from the public for digital rights, they couldn't maintain the old status quo. Pressure from the international community, civil rights groups, and their own citizenry forced a re-evaluation. They still hate it. They can’t fully control the narrative. You hear them and their mouthpieces in D.C. complain all the time about the good ole’ days in which there were only three channels and people trusted the institutions.
It's remarkable to think of such a transformation in a relatively short span.
It's a testament to the power of collective will and the right technology. When they align, even the most entrenched systems can be reimagined. Humans are meant to solve problems in groups. When we aren’t arguing about the color of a Politician’s suit or trying to alienate each other for not voting the same way we can get a lot done. Open-source software has changed the world for over 50 years now. We built cities, empires, atomic weapons and went to the moon along with Mars. Humans thrive in solving problems together.
Despite these monumental shifts towards freedom-centric tech, it wasn't universally adopted. There were many who chose the old systems, valuing perceived security over individual sovereignty. What are your thoughts on that?
It was, and remains, one of the most disheartening aspects of the entire movement. Many had become so conditioned, so entwined with the narrative of state-centric security, that they viewed these Freedom Zones with suspicion, even fear. Just like I have said you need to be tolerant of those who don’t vote the same way as you or read the same religious books, we are tolerant of those individuals. When they are ready, we have a home for you.
Why do you think that was?
Decades of conditioning aren't undone overnight. For many, the surveillance state was all they knew. It presented a predictable, if restrictive, environment. They'd been told repeatedly that this surveillance was for their own good, for their safety. The idea of taking responsibility for their own data, their own digital interactions, was daunting for many. The comfort of relying on someone else, in this case, the government, is too tempting. It’s a shame, but they are the minority.
Was it just about the fear of the unknown?
Partly. But there was also a deeper, more insidious factor at play. The narrative had been so effectively constructed that many believed valuing individual digital rights was almost... unpatriotic. They had been made to believe that by seeking privacy, they were somehow against the state or against communal safety. They did use their favorite word: Terrorism, to describe our efforts. Most were capable of seeing through their bullshit though. (mocking) Oh yeah, we want to terrorize you by respecting your privacy and giving you safe effective ways to transact (mocking). Give me a break. Sure our tools could be used for Terrorism. But so were dollars, telephones, internet providers, social media, and vehicles in the past. The Surveillance Era had terrorists as well.
How do you counter such deeply ingrained beliefs?
With patience, education, and empathy. We held workshops, online seminars, and community gatherings. We showcased the benefits and the empowerment that came with digital sovereignty. But we also understood that not everyone would, or could, make the leap. It's a journey, and everyone moves at their own pace.
Do you think there's hope for these individuals to eventually transition?
Always. The younger generations are growing up with a more innate understanding of digital rights. And human rights as well. As they influence their elders and as the benefits of Freedom Zones become more apparent, I believe more and more will come around. But it's essential not to force it, but to allow the realization to come organically.
Any regrets?
Only that we didn't start sooner. Every era has its battles, and ours was for the very soul of the digital age. It's a battle I believe we're still fighting today. I wish I was a younger man. Perhaps I could do more in this battle.
Thank you for your time and for everything you have accomplished in this movement, Mr. Hawke. It’s been a pleasure.
Always happy to share, especially if it keeps the spirit of liberty alive.