Comments on: Total Surveillance

By: W. Smith

W. Smith — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:42:37 +0000

Thankfully, there seems to be a growing consensus in Britain that the creeping surveillance infrastructure is now being used to criminalise the whole population. Everyone is viewed with suspicion until they can prove their innocence, and because there are so many laws governing not only our public, but also private behaviour, the majority of us have done something that’s against the law, therefore making everyone guilty of something.

This makes the argument that some people are still spouting, ‘If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’, a complete farce. The choices we have over how to behave are becoming increasingly controlled by the state, and where a behaviour would have previously been considered a misdemeanour and dealt with by other members of society in an informal way, we are now encouraged to leave socially unacceptable behaviour to be dealt with by the law.

I think the reason we have allowed the police so much power to shape our society is because the visible surveillance seems innocuous enough, for example the CCTV cameras are made to look like lampposts and hidden in the forest of road furniture we have, but the fact that these ‘lampposts’ have huge spikes guarding the cameras from the very people they’re supposed to be ‘protecting’, speaks volumes.

We don’t like to think of the potential this invasive sinister technology would have were an extremist political party to come to power. I love my country, and I’m not moving abroad to leave it to be run into the ground by these control freaks, but I’m genuinely frightened for the type of world my children will be forced to live in where thoughtcrime is a reality, and where they would fear voicing their opinions even in private. I haven’t yet seen a comprehensive answer to rolling back the extent of state monitoring, but left any longer and it will be too late.

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:17:33 +0000

Jorvik,
And you don’t think that a camera on every street corner SHOULD have been enough to keep that lady safe? I think the large majority of applications for such draconian surveillance technology is to control and fine the populace. It is a great revenue generator and it keeps people uncomfortable in public. However, the real causes of what the UK deems “anti-social” behavior have nothing to do with a LACK of cameras and police, and more to do with the anonymous, cut-throat, competitive, impoverished, and culture-stripping state of society.

If you want to play a statistics game about safety, then sure! We could turn the entire planet into an absolute totalitarian police state, and so long as the government itself didn’t commit acts of violence/crime (which it surely would), then statistically we’d be safer than ever. But is that really what we want if we consider ourselves free, independent, civil HUMAN beings? Where/when exactly do we draw the line? And do we really want to sacrifice a free and mostly safe life for a 100% safe yet externally controlled/monitored/micro-managed one? The decreased quality/free-choice of the latter life would surely make most people unhappy with it. Things are bad enough as they are without an increase in big brother’s watch.

Life is never without risk, that is the consequence of simply being ALIVE. The safest societies are the freest, most holistically balanced/organized, and those that provide humble necessities/belonging/community/purpose to all members. And until we can achieve a decent semblance of such a society, we should largely ignore the temptation for police/war gadgetry and systems of mass control.

By: Angela

Angela — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:00:05 +0000

To be perfectly frank, as a friend of Claudia Lawrence, right now I wish they had more of the cameras and had had one more trained on the pavement right in front of her door. Then maybe she’d be safe at home now. Would I sacrifice the comfort of my privacy for this? Hell yes.

That’s your right. What troubles me is your willingness to sacrifice the comfort of my privacy for this.

By: Jorvik

Jorvik — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:32:12 +0000

I recognise the validity of your argument and the sinister implications of surveillance and certainly have no wish to give up my right to privacy. However, I don’t believe it ranks higher than saving lives. Maybe reflect for a moment on which one you’d prefer if it were one of your loved ones missing.

By: RK

RK — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:29:30 +0000

I lived in the UK for 3 years recently and asked several colleagues and people at customer sites about this surveillance rubbish. They always looked at me as if I was yet another stupid American asking one more dumb question.

The sheep simply doesn’t care [true in the US as well].

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:31:10 +0000

It’s truly sad that most of the populaces of both the UK and, my country, the US go along so willingly with such big brother practices. People really do see a protective big brother in their government, even when big brother bullies more than he protects. To treat the populace as suspect and as a threat is an insult to just about everything that we can or have fought for. And it’s tragic/comical that Americans who claim to support small government are most likely to support the police state.

You Britons could probably supply all your energy needs if you could just harness the energy generated by Eric Blair (Orwell) spinning furiously in his grave…

By: rawshark

rawshark — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:04:29 +0000

The comic V for Vendetta is set in a future London of 1997 that’s filled with surveillance cameras. It was written in ’82.
Of course if you’re not doing anything wrong…….you don’t mind having your privacy invaded.

By: Tony J

Tony J — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:44:12 +0000

Your point about the massive expansion of State surveillance in Britain is perfectly valid, and in answer to your question most Britons don’t really seem to care, because they can’t envisage how a) it’s a problem for them, or b) that there’s anything they can do about it, since the only viable electoral option to centre-right New Labour for the past decade has been a vote for the hard-right Conservatives, who aren’t exactly likely to rein in the excesses

But the example you choose of people sabotaging cameras on Putney bridge is a tad flawed. There’s a lot of opposition to – speed – cameras, not because of the threat to civil liberties, but because there’s a substantial chunk of th country who – spurred on by the Top Gear car-fetishism of the right-wing media think it’s simply outrageous that they’re not allowed to drive over the legal speed limit without risking being – shock, horror – punished for it. They’re all – excellent – drivers, don’t you know.

It’s pretty pathetic, really. Know what happened in France when they tried out speed cameras? The French, rather than bleating about it, just decided as a nation to squirt expandable putty into the body of every speed camera they drove past.

The project was quickly discontinued.