Surveillance vs Security: The Rotten Truth About Protection

 

Most 'security' today isn't protection. It's surveillance dressed as safety.

That's not paranoia. That's the reality of the digital world we live in.

The Promise of Security

When we think of "security", we imagine locks on doors, guards at gates, and firewalls keeping hackers out. Security means protection from threats. It means safety, trust, and peace of mind.

But in the digital age, security has been redefined. Instead of being about protecting you, it's increasingly about watching you.

The Shift: From Lock to Lens

Look around:

- Companies say they "monitor your activity" to prevent fraud

- Apps say they "track behavior" to personalize your experience

- Platforms say they "collect data" to make you safer

But here's the rotten twist:

All those "protections" are built on surveillance. Your patterns, preferences, and movements are logged, analyzed, and often sold.

The lock has turned into a lens.

The Illusion of Safety

And it works - because who would argue against safety?

Nobody wants fraud. Nobody wants cyberattacks. Nobody wants to be unsafe.

So we accept the cameras, the monitoring, the endless data collection. We're told it's for our own good.

❌ But here's the truth:

- The data collected for "security" often fuels profit

- The surveillance never really stops at protection

- The more we're watched, the less we own ourselves

The Rotten Incentive

The problem isn't just technical. It's systemic.

Security has become a business model.

Surveillance has become an industry.

Why? Because real security (privacy, trust, ownership of data) doesn't generate revenue. Tracking, profiling, and selling - those do.

As long as surveillance is profitable, "security" will always come with strings attached.

What Real Security Should Mean

Real security isn't about how much data you can collect.

It's about how much trust you can build without crossing the line.

✅ It should mean:

- Your data belongs to you.

- Privacy is sacred.

- Safety doesn't come at the cost of freedom.

Until we reclaim that definition, we'll keep confusing surveillance with security. And we'll keep giving away our freedom for the illusion of safety.

The Question That Matters

The real question isn't: "How secure am I?"

It's: "Who benefits from securing me?"

Because if the answer is surveillance-driven corporations and systems hungry for data, then the world isn't getting safer.

It's just getting more controlled.

Another reminder

 

Vegan Dogs and Cybersecurity: How the World Is Burning While We Bark at the Wrong Fires

 

This week’s headline: “New research shows dogs can be vegan too.”

Meanwhile, ransomware groups are institutionalizing, deepfake phishing is now indistinguishable from reality, and generative AI is becoming the go-to tool for low-cost cyberwarfare.

But sure, let’s talk about tofu for terriers.

This isn’t about dogs. It’s about distraction.

We live in a time where the illusion of progress is sold harder than progress itself. Whether it's carbon offsets for corporate jets, "green" data centers hosted by surveillance giants, or now - climate-conscious kibble for pets - we’re drowning in narratives that keep the spotlight off the real vulnerabilities.

Cybersecurity isn’t just a tech issue anymore. It’s a societal one.

We’re patching CVEs while execs re-use passwords.

We’re selling “zero trust” while trusting third-party vendors with no audits.

We’re pushing AI detection models built on training sets scraped without consent.

And now, we’re saving the planet… by feeding lentils to Labradors.

When the system rots from the inside, security isn't about code - it's about courage.

So here’s a question for my fellow cybersecurity professionals:

🔐 Are you here to secure endpoints?

🧠 Or are you ready to question the endgame?

Because if we don’t challenge the frameworks behind the madness - surveillance capitalism, digital colonialism, corporate theater masked as ESG - we’re not protecting users. We’re just optimizing exploitation.

Meanwhile, the machine gets leaner. Smarter. Hungrier.

And yes, even the dogs are going vegan.

Jiuzhang 3.0 is not a cryptographic threat. But the next generation of universal fault-tolerant machines will be!

 

Recently, China made waves with its photonic quantum computer, Jiuzhang 3.0, solving Gaussian boson sampling problems 10 billion times faster than classical supercomputers.

✅ Yes, it's a leap in quantum speed.
❌ No, it cannot break encryption - yet.

Jiuzhang isn’t a universal quantum computer.

❌ It can’t run Shor’s algorithm.
❌ It has no error-corrected qubits, no gates, and no fault tolerance.

But the writing is on the wall.

🧠 What would it take to break RSA-2048?

- 4,000 logical qubits
- Millions of physical qubits (with error correction)
- A week of compute time, maybe less

And it’s no longer theoretical - it’s on the roadmap

⚠️ The risk isn’t Jiuzhang. It’s complacency.

Most organizations are still relying on RSA and ECC, while quantum research accelerates at a pace few outside the field are tracking.

Harvest-now-decrypt-later isn’t a theory anymore.

Data stolen today could be decrypted in the next decade - or sooner.

🛡️ The move to post-quantum cryptography isn’t optional.

It’s the bare minimum for long-term security.

If you’re not planning for a post-quantum world, someone else is - and it won’t be for your benefit.

Also visit: https://quangntenemy.substack.com/p/jiuzhang-30-is-not-a-cryptographic

This Is Just a Test Post. DO NOT READ

 

Maybe Some Elite Players Will Understand the Meaning

Sometimes, the most significant messages hide behind the simplest words.

This post? Just a test. Or so it seems.

Most will scroll past without a second thought. But a few—those with sharp eyes and sharper instincts—might catch the deeper layer. It’s not obvious. It’s not loud. But it’s there.

And here’s the kicker:
If this lands the way it’s meant to, it could cost Facebook millions.

No clickbait. No exaggeration. Just quiet potential in plain sight.

Maybe nothing happens. Or maybe, everything shifts.

That part? Depends on who’s watching.

You know who you are.

DO NOT CLICK HERE => REALLY DANGEROUS LINK THAT SHOULD NOT BE CLICKED