Global geopolitics

A look at how automated surveillance and data-driven control have advanced since Edward Snowden 2019 interview.

Edward Snowden said in 2019 that governments and companies were building the basic machinery for a social credit environment, even if nobody wanted to call it that. He described a system where normal digital traces become tools for sorting people into categories of permission and restriction. He warned that travel, employment, payments, and even associations could be quietly shaped by unseen rules that judge a person’s behavior. He said the system would not appear all at once, because it would be built piece by piece through ordinary data collection that felt harmless at the time. He said the danger came from the scale, the automation, and the fact that people would not notice the change until it was already rooted in daily life.

Since that interview, the world has moved further down the path he outlined, because more decisions are now made by systems that learn from vast pools of personal data. Many institutions now rely on risk scores, trust ratings, predictive profiles, and automated identity checks that narrow a person’s choices without clear explanation. These systems are not presented as political tools, yet they can shape civic life by limiting access to basic services. They grow stronger because companies gather location data, purchase histories, device identifiers, biometric markers, and communication patterns at a scale far beyond what most people understand. This growth has created an environment where a person’s digital record can matter more than their actual conduct, because automated filters act far earlier than any human review.

Snowden said the threat came from the merging interests of governments and corporations, and that pattern has become more visible. Governments press companies for data access, and companies rely on government-defined compliance rules that turn private platforms into soft extensions of public power. Many countries now maintain broad surveillance authorities that allow agencies to collect data streams from carriers and cloud providers. Companies gather the same data for advertising or fraud prevention, and these collections feed machine learning models that assign behavioral meaning to every action. The boundary between commercial profiling and state monitoring has thinned, because both sectors use the same data sources, the same analytics, and the same assumptions about risk.

Travel systems now use automated checks that flag people without explaining the cause, which reflects Snowden’s warning that restrictions would feel silent and opaque. Airlines, border agencies, and payment processors rely on risk models that can prevent a transaction or a boarding pass without telling the traveler what triggered the decision. Many people experience this as a temporary glitch, yet the pattern shows how automated judgment controls movement. These decisions do not need human oversight because the system treats probability as proof, and people often have no channel to challenge the result. The more data these systems gather, the more confident they become, even when they make errors that affect ordinary lives.

Employment screening has also shifted toward automated scoring, which mirrors Snowden’s concern about job eligibility being shaped by data trails. Employers use tools that analyze social media behavior, financial risk markers, and even predictive traits extracted from public records. These systems claim to improve efficiency, but they also import hidden biases from the data that trains them. A person can be filtered out before anyone reads their application, and the system leaves no trace that a judgment occurred. This creates a silent sorting mechanism that mirrors a social credit structure without using the name.

Payments have become more vulnerable to automated restrictions, because financial companies now use behavioral scoring to decide which transactions to trust. People can be locked out of accounts for patterns that trigger automatic suspicion, and the appeal process is often slow or nonexistent. These restrictions may not be political, yet the effect is similar because the system sets limits on participation in the economic sphere. Snowden warned that losing access to basic functions like travel or payments would become normal, and the evidence shows that these restrictions now appear as routine security measures rather than extraordinary actions.

The growth of biometric identification has deepened the concerns he raised. Facial recognition networks expanded across cities, airports, and commercial sites, creating a vast pipeline of real-time identity data. These systems match faces against watchlists, marketing profiles, and verification databases, and they continue operating even when people do not consent. The data used to train these systems often comes from scraped images or leaked records, which shows how little control individuals have over their digital identity. This matches Snowden’s warning that companies and governments would treat people as datasets rather than citizens with agency.

Snowden said the real danger was the loss of power that comes from constant monitoring, and that description fits the current environment. People live inside systems that judge their behavior based on metrics they cannot see, and these judgments shape opportunities in quiet ways. The infrastructure he warned about did not arrive as a single program, because it arrived as thousands of separate tools that merged into a shared ecosystem. The scale of monitoring has grown, the automation has intensified, and the consequences have become more direct. The change has been steady rather than dramatic, which makes it difficult for people to see how far things have moved since 2019.

We are facing a silent world war three. This is a covert war on humanity. Critics say the most troubling part of this shift is the quiet way it advances, because the methods are gradual enough that people accept each step as harmless. They argue that the push toward global governance frameworks, digital identification systems, and behavior-linked access controls resembles a slow move toward a unified regulatory structure that limits personal autonomy. They point out that these policies are often sold through simple slogans like “If you are innocent, then you have nothing to hide,” which frame surveillance as protection rather than control. They also note that the broader policy language around international development goals includes ideas about reduced personal ownership, which fuels public suspicion about long-term intentions. They argue that countries such as Australia have become early testing grounds for strict digital measures, pointing to the proposed under-sixteen social media ban as a step toward mandatory digital identification for everyday online activity. They draw comparisons to the early phases of China’s system, where child-protection rules eventually fed into broader identity requirements that became the base layer of a social credit structure.

If you want a suggestion, it is this: people should pay close attention to how their data moves, because the systems built on top of that data are gaining long-term influence over basic rights and daily life.

Authored By: Global GeoPolitics

If you believe journalism should serve the public, not the powerful, and you’re in a position to help, becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER truly makes a difference. Alternatively you can support by way of a cup of coffee:

buymeacoffee.com/ggtv

https://ko-fi.com/globalgeopolitics