"Under Watch"
With biometric surveillance booming, is personal freedom in the West quietly disappearing?
Facial recognition technology was only seen in action films and airport security systems a few years ago. By 2025, you can find it in your neighborhood grocery store, on your corner, and even at work. Western democracies have long defended freedom and privacy, but a new age of surveillance, driven by AI, biometrics, and predictive analytics, has begun.
Furthermore, you no longer have to be concerned about China.
You live in your own city.
🔍 1. The Normalization of Surveillance
According to a recent report from the Digital Freedom Index 2025, 71% of UK citizens and over 62% of Americans are tracked weekly by facial recognition technology, frequently without their knowledge.
In the name of:
- Safety of the public
- Preventing retail losses
- Business productivity
- Control of the border
Technology that once sounded Orwellian has been adopted in the West.
🏙️ 2. Smart Cities or Silent Control?
Governments from London to Los Angeles are implementing smart city initiatives that include:
- Street cameras that scan faces
- AI-driven tracking of license plates
- Crowd analytics emotion detection
- Predicting behavior in public transportation hubs
Critics contend that these innovations violate constitutional rights, profile minorities, and silence protests, despite their claims to lower crime.
"China used to make us laugh. Our streets now have the same vibe.
— unidentified Reddit user, July 2025, NYC
🧬 3. Biometrics Beyond Borders
It goes beyond your face. Many businesses and governments are harvesting in 2025:
- Airport security uses iris scans.
- Police departments' recognition of gaits
- Call center voiceprints
- Using DNA in predictive health algorithms
Ten years ago, most governments could not have imagined the amount of biometric data that is now held by Amazon, Google, and private security companies.
⚖️ 4. The Legal Loophole Game
Law is far behind technology. Facial recognition is still not covered by federal law in the United States. There is a regulatory gap this year as the EU's AI Act goes into effect in 2026.
In the interim:
- Ring cameras are used by police departments without a warrant.
- Facial tracking is used by schools to track attendance.
- Insurance companies keep an eye on your driving and mobility patterns.
Some refer to it as innovation. Some refer to it as digital coercion.
📉 5. Privacy as a Luxury
People in more affluent ZIP codes can afford:
- Devices that respect privacy
- Encrypted phones and secure VPNs
- Legal assistance regarding digital overreach
However, surveillance is unavoidable for vulnerable communities and working-class families. Your child's classroom, your job interview, and your commute are all monitored.
It appears that freedom has become pay-to-protect.
🧠 6. Resistance and Rebellion
Not everyone, though, complies.
- Gen Z is becoming more and more digitally minimalist.
- Protests for privacy rights have broken out in Berlin and San Francisco.
- Wearables with AI jamming and "unrecognizable face paint" are starting to make a fashion statement.
- Open-source detection blockers are being developed by ethical hackers.
People are slowly waking up.
📌 Final Thoughts
We believed that our societies were the most free in human history. However, it's possible that we have unknowingly sacrificed liberty for convenience in the era of silent scans and invisible algorithms.
In the West, surveillance has evolved beyond science fiction. It's the infrastructure.
"Are you being watched?" is no longer the question.
It's: Now that you know, what are you going to do?
"In the race for innovation, we must not sacrifice our most basic human right—privacy."
Thank You
About the Creator
Tousif Arafat
Professional writer focused on impactful storytelling, personal growth, and creative insight. Dedicated to crafting meaningful content. Contact: [email protected] — Tousif Arafat
Keep reading
More stories from Tousif Arafat and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
France Steps Back as G7 Summit Is Rescheduled to Avoid Clash With White House UFC Event
In an unexpected twist that has raised eyebrows across diplomatic circles, France has agreed to step back from its preferred scheduling as the G7 summit was moved to avoid a direct clash with a White House–hosted UFC event. The decision, while seemingly procedural, has sparked wider debate about political priorities, international symbolism, and how global diplomacy increasingly competes with high-profile domestic events for attention. The Group of Seven (G7) — comprising the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, and Japan — is traditionally a stage for coordinated responses to the world’s most pressing challenges. From wars and climate change to economic instability and technological regulation, the summit is meant to project unity and seriousness. That is why the rescheduling, reportedly prompted by a clash with a major UFC event linked to the White House calendar, has drawn both criticism and bemusement. How a Scheduling Conflict Became a Diplomatic Issue According to diplomatic sources, France had initially proposed dates for the upcoming G7 meeting that aligned with its broader foreign policy agenda. However, those dates conflicted with a high-profile UFC event scheduled to take place with strong White House backing. Rather than competing for political attention — particularly from U.S. leadership — negotiations led to a decision to move the summit. France, as a key diplomatic player within the G7, ultimately agreed to “tap out,” a phrase borrowed from mixed martial arts that has been widely used by commentators to describe the outcome. While the term adds humor to the situation, the underlying implications are far more serious. At its core, the episode highlights how domestic political events in powerful countries can influence international diplomacy, sometimes in unexpected ways. The White House, Spectacle, and Soft Power The involvement of a UFC event — a sporting spectacle with massive popular appeal — points to a broader trend in modern politics: the blending of entertainment, image-making, and governance. Sporting events have long been used as tools of soft power, from Olympic Games to World Cups. However, the idea that a global diplomatic summit would be rescheduled to avoid clashing with a combat sports event hosted around the White House is a striking illustration of changing priorities. For U.S. officials, the UFC event reportedly carried significant domestic political value, attracting media attention, high-profile guests, and a large public audience. In an era where optics and engagement matter as much as policy substance, the White House appeared unwilling to divide focus. This placed allies like France in a difficult position. Insisting on original dates risked reduced U.S. engagement at the summit — something no G7 country wants, given Washington’s central role in global decision-making. France’s Calculated Compromise France’s decision to accept the rescheduling reflects diplomatic pragmatism rather than weakness. French officials are well aware that the effectiveness of a G7 summit depends heavily on full participation and attention from all members, particularly the United States. By stepping aside on scheduling, France avoided a potential scenario where the summit would be overshadowed, poorly attended, or perceived as secondary. Still, critics argue that the move sets an uncomfortable precedent, suggesting that entertainment-driven political events can take priority over multilateral diplomacy. Supporters of France’s decision counter that diplomacy is about choosing battles wisely. Preserving unity and ensuring productive discussions, they argue, matters more than symbolic rigidity over dates. Reactions From Other G7 Members Other G7 nations have reacted cautiously, with most avoiding public criticism. Privately, however, diplomats have expressed concern that the episode reflects a deeper imbalance in how global governance is conducted. Some European officials worry that repeated concessions could weaken the perceived seriousness of forums like the G7. If summits are seen as flexible around domestic political calendars — particularly those tied to spectacle — their authority may gradually erode. At the same time, countries such as Japan and Canada are said to have supported the compromise, emphasizing the importance of maintaining smooth relations and ensuring the summit remains effective rather than symbolic. What This Says About Global Leadership Today Beyond the immediate scheduling issue, the incident offers insight into the evolving nature of global leadership. Politics today operates in a crowded attention economy, where leaders juggle international crises, domestic pressures, and media-driven events simultaneously. The clash between a G7 summit and a UFC event may seem trivial on the surface, but it reflects how political capital is increasingly tied to visibility and public engagement. Leaders must balance governing with maintaining relevance in a fast-moving media landscape. For traditional diplomatic powers like France, this shift can be frustrating. European diplomacy often emphasizes process, continuity, and institutional strength — values that can clash with more performative political styles. Critics Warn of Slippery Slope Critics argue that accommodating such conflicts risks normalizing the sidelining of diplomacy. Today it may be a UFC event; tomorrow it could be an election rally, a media appearance, or another high-profile spectacle. They warn that global challenges — from ongoing conflicts to climate emergencies — demand sustained, focused leadership. Anything that dilutes the importance of forums designed to address these issues could have long-term consequences. Some commentators have also pointed out the irony of world leaders struggling to align schedules at a time when global cooperation is more urgently needed than ever. Conclusion: Symbolism Matters France’s decision to step back as the G7 summit was moved to avoid clashing with a White House UFC event is more than a quirky headline. It is a reflection of the changing dynamics of power, attention, and symbolism in international politics. While the rescheduling may ensure better participation and smoother logistics, it also raises uncomfortable questions about what global leaders prioritize — and how diplomacy competes with spectacle in the modern age. As the G7 eventually convenes, the real test will not be the date on the calendar, but whether leaders can rise above distractions and deliver meaningful action. Still, the episode will linger as a reminder that in today’s world, even the most serious global gatherings are not immune to the pull of entertainment and domestic politics.
By Muhammad Hassan3 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.