I feel quite ashamed to admit this now, but when I was much younger and had less scruples, I had a consulting role with an elite private school in a well to do suburb of Melbourne in Australia that had chronic problems with students accessing material that violated the school's internet usage policy.

They had experimented with many, many blacklists and blocking solutions before, but with little success. The problem was that the kids were smart enough to know that they could just keep trying random sites until they got through the simplistic measures that flat blocklists were taking, and it was just a matter of time before they'd finally find something that wasn't in a list and get through.

I came up with the bright idea of turning the blocking off, and turning the blocklist into a honeypot regex matcher in the squid logs and deep packet inspection on accessed urls. Now any attempts to circumvent the rules would invisibly tripwire a sysadmin or staff member to take administrative and or disciplinary action on the students.

I'm told they had no more violations after that, I have my doubts mind you, but not about whether it was a more effective form of control. It forced them to self censor so big brother didn't have to do it for them, I think that's the real goal of pervasive permanent surveillance, even if you're not being watched, you can't be certain, so you'd best watch yourself.

It's all rotten to the core.

I honestly think the method for defeating fascism, the blue meanies, is sustained whimsy and fantasy.

Block their rigid methodologies with simply enjoying life and giving them the middle finger as they sit in dark rooms poring over the details of our lives.

Cave dwelling sickos.

It depends on how numerous the threat is. Silently disappearing is useful for a small highly organized enemy, but for preventing large scale unorganized rioting, restricting the information flow is probably better.