The Latest Threats

     Avast, ye deck rats! The landlubbers be expectin’ a column, even an’ it be Talk Like A Pirate Day! Arr! Well, shiver me timbers, I’ll just have a peek into the “Future Columns” chest for some grub to serve up with yer rum. Now let’s see… ah, here we have it:

1984 playbook everywhere.🇨🇳

Last year 188,760 court records mentioned exit bans.

In 2016 that number was 89.

And now there’s a new law that says if the state thinks you might “endanger” tech or industrial security, they can stop you from leaving the country.

This applies to… pic.twitter.com/ViF0YXU3eG

— Haretina (@HaretinaK) September 17, 2026

     We hear a fair amount about “threats to national security,” these days. “National security” has been used to justify quite a lot of intrusions on Americans’ rights. But as I’ve said before, no one is willing to define it, nor to specify what might threaten it.

     Undefined rationales for suspending or dismissing individuals’ rights bother me a bit. What about you, Gentle Reader? I know, I know: don’t flog a dead horse. But it gets so much more interesting when governments do such things on the basis of one’s trade.

     Haretina Kukuri has brought her usual penetration to this latest outcropping of “threats to our security:”

     1984 playbook everywhere.
     Last year 188,760 court records mentioned exit bans.
     In 2016 that number was 89.
     And now there’s a new law that says if the state thinks you might “endanger” tech or industrial security, they can stop you from leaving the country.
     This applies to everyone by the way… engineers, researchers, and anyone with useful knowledge.
     Soft power stopped working so citizens were packing up and leaving.
     But the system did what systems do when they are authoritarian … it locked the doors.
     Your skills don’t belong to you first.
     They belong to the Party.
     Want to leave?
     Prove you’re not a risk.
     When a government starts treating talent like a national security asset you know what you are dealing with…
     But there is a problem…
     We’re watching the same logic show up in Europe…
     First they normalize tracking everything and sell it to you as security…
     Then movement stops being a right and starts becoming a privilege you have to keep earning!!
     China went straight to the hard version and said if the state thinks your knowledge or skills might be useful elsewhere, they can just stop you leaving.
     But China is ruled by a communist party, so why is Europe trying to promote similar rules?
     For me the direction of travel is obvious.
     More digital IDs.
     More real-time monitoring.
     More rules about who can board a plane when the system flags you.
     More politicians talking about “managing” mobility instead of protecting it.
     The pattern is always the same.
     It starts with a reasonable-sounding reason and it ends with the state deciding your ability to leave is conditional.
     People keep acting surprised when free movement gets treated like a temporary privilege.
     But it shouldn’t be because once a government gets used to controlling information and behavior at scale, controlling physical exit is the next logical step.

     In summary: “The needs of the State come first, comrade.” Today we hear it in every language spoken in the First World. The dirty stew of surveillance, unhallowed investigations, warrantless searches, and now exit bans, all of them founded on threats to undefined conditions, has reached its boiling point.

     Don’t kid yourself, matey. Haretina’s main concern is for Europe, but there’s no reason it couldn’t happen in America. Why shouldn’t “national security” include the forcible retention of “vital” skills and talents? The defense industry, in particular, hungers for them. And what would America be without its trillion-dollar defense industry?

     I shan’t dwell on this at length. Let it suffice to say that it’s vile, the most anti-freedom development since World War II. But let’s take a moment to ponder the second-order effects.

     If Country X makes emigration conditional upon government permission, what effect will that have on persons who might be contemplating moving to X? If X has become, in a charming recent phrase, an open-air prison, will the talented of other nations consider X a desirable place to tote their skills? Doesn’t it seem like Communist East Germany’s border guards might be in prospect? You know, the guys who were ordered to shoot persons attempting to escape as “an act of mercy?”

     Now consider persons already immured in Country X. When they see that freedom of movement has been abolished for certain skill categories, will they seek to acquire those skills? Won’t their interest in them take a hit? As for X’s employers who need those skills, what will happen to their businesses? Wouldn’t you expect applications for employment to decrease?

     Given the above, the next step would be for X’s government to legislate about salaries and working conditions for persons in those categories. Such legislation seldom favors the individuals’ interests.

     Ubiquitous surveillance technology could compound the damage still further. Schoolchildren detected to possess aptitudes that bear on those valuable skills might be “preselected” for involuntary training for the desired occupations. Don’t laugh it aside: it happened in the Soviet Union.

     In view of all that, is it really such a burden to spend just one day of the year talking like a pirate? Yes, yes: I know it’s not related. But think about it, ye scurvy knaves!