Big Brother Is Watching

[R. Richard]

I don't think that the government [British or otherwise] has the right to spy on citizens because those citizens might be committing a crime. HOWEVER, I think the basic idea has merit!

Guy is walking down the street: "What have we here, you fat asshole? You look like you are smuggling something in that beer belly. Have you no pride in your appearance?"

Woman is walking down the street: "What have we here? Have you ever considered cosmetic surgery? We are talking a major case of eye pollution!"

Kid is walking down the street: "Look truant, we have to tell you to go to school since you damn sure can't read. If you are not back in school in one hour, we will send a squad out to beat the crap out of you. We will track you to your home! Ve haf' vays of finding out!"

Comment?

Big Brother is shouting at you

Big Brother is not only watching you - now he's barking orders too. Britain's first 'talking' CCTV cameras have arrived, publicly berating bad behaviour and shaming offenders into acting more responsibly.

The system allows control room operators who spot any anti-social acts - from dropping litter to late-night brawls - to send out a verbal warning: 'We are watching you'.

Middlesbrough has fitted loudspeakers on seven of its 158 cameras in an experiment already being hailed as a success. Jack Bonner, who manages the system, said: 'It is one hell of a deterrent. It's one thing to know that there are CCTV cameras about, but it's quite another when they loudly point out what you have just done wrong.

'Most people are so ashamed and embarrassed at being caught they quickly slink off without further trouble.

'There was one incident when two men started fighting outside a nightclub. One of the control room operators warned them over the loudspeakers and they looked up, startled, stopped fighting and scarpered in opposite directions.

'This isn't about keeping tabs on people, it's about making the streets safer for the law-abiding majority and helping to change the attitudes of those who cause trouble. It challenges unacceptable behaviour and makes people think twice.'

 

[cantdog]

The panopticon is always about control.

 

[R. Richard]

The panopticon is always about control.

Of course. However, in the current situation, the people should be aware that they are being watched.

 

[Oblimo]

If they can get a clip of members of the House of Commons stomping their feet and yelling "Shame, shame!" it just might work.

 

[impressive]

HALT! Those shoes don't match those pants. (Where will it end?)

 

[R. Richard]

HALT! Those shoes don't match those pants. (Where will it end?)

With the creation of the OFFICIAL Fashion Police!

 

[gauchecritic]

Woman is walking down the street: "What have we here? Have you ever considered cosmetic surgery? We are talking a major case of eye pollution!"

Deep southern drawl: What we have here is a failure to absolve ourselves of casual parochialism and general conformity to the fashionista.

 

[CharleyH]

I don't think that the government [British or otherwise] has the right to spy on citizens because those citizens might be committing a crime.

Is it not already a crime to spy on someone? Why aren't governments locked up like other predators that they put away? Just a question.

 

[R. Richard]

Is it not already a crime to spy on someone? Why aren't governments locked up like other predators that they put away? Just a question.

When somebody else does it, it is spying. When the government does it, it is paternalistic monitoring.

 

[angelicminx]

I don't know about y'all, but this scares the ever loving hell out of me. We as a society are SUPPORTING governmental control in the guise of protection from the bad apples. Do y'all realize that this is only a small ripple of the ocean of control coming our way, (and that's already here)?!

I for one am TERRIFIED!

 

[R. Richard]

I don't know about y'all, but this scares the ever loving hell out of me. We as a society are SUPPORTING governmental control in the guise of protection from the bad apples. Do y'all realize that this is only a small ripple of the ocean of control coming our way, (and that's already here)?!

I for one am TERRIFIED!

Oh, I don't know if it is all that bad. Think if it this way, if you are English and want to flip off the government, it is now as close as your local street corner in London.

 

[shereads]

The technology exists to make privacy obsolete. The sad thing is, its most effective when we volunteer to participate by using products that make life more convenient. Credit cards, WIFI, Bluetooth...Easy to eavesdrop, vulnerable to identity theft; an open book about ourselves that we each self-publish, hoping strangers won't care enough to look.

The day of the satellite trackable electronic identity card is just around the corner. It won't be forced on us. In fact, we'll line up to pay for it - provided it's presented as a consumer convenience before it becomes a government requirement.

 

[R. Richard]

The technology exists to make privacy obsolete. The sad thing is, its most effective when we volunteer to participate by using products that make life more convenient. Credit cards, WIFI, Bluetooth...Easy to eavesdrop, vulnerable to identity theft; an open book about ourselves that we each self-publish, hoping strangers won't care enough to look.

The day of the satellite trackable electronic identity card is just around the corner. It won't be forced on us. In fact, we'll line up to pay for it - provided it's presented as a consumer convenience before it becomes a government requirement.

Yes, the technology currently exists to make privacy obsolete. The government can trace the activities of most citizens. If a citizen uses the 'Net, uses credit card(s), has a bank account, then that citizen is traceable. So what?

The government currently doesn't have the resources to trace even a small percentage of their citizens. However, they do trace the activities of some of their citizens [and even non-citizens.] If you are planning to release poison gas in the NYC subway system, [there is such a group,] the odds are very high that the US government is tracing your movements. If you order your take out pizza with extra anchovies, chances are the government never knows, even if you pay with a credit card.

The real fear should be that the government DOESN'T track the illegal immigrant who has no visible source of income and is studying aircraft flight techniques for large aircraft in an aviation school and knife attack techniques in a religious center.

JMNTHO.

 

[TheEarl]

I'm generally of the opinion that hte government has to be trusted. You can't hamstring law and order by withholding information from them because you fear the government might misuse it.

In a public place, people can generally see you. I have no issues with cameras that do not violate the privacy of a person's home. In fact, I'm in favour of more CCTV in public places. If you've been mugged, assaulted or raped, then I'm very certain you'd be glad of a camera that showed your assailant and his manoeuvres.

The Earl

 

[Lauren Hynde]

This is a non-issue. CCTV cameras in public areas are regulated and only allowed when there are no privacy issues. There is no record-keeping, only live-surveillance. It's the same thing as having a policeman watching the street-corner, except this policeman can watch many street-corners at once instead of just the one and call for back-up if any situation arises when police intervention would be necessary. If a shout is enough for the situation to resolve itself without calling the SWAT, shout away.

 

[TheEarl]

This is a non-issue. CCTV cameras in public areas are regulated and only allowed when there are no privacy issues. There is no record-keeping, only live-surveillance. It's the same thing as having a policeman watching the street-corner, except this policeman can watch many street-corners at once instead of just the one and call for back-up if any situation arises when police intervention would be necessary. If a shout is enough for the situation to resolve itself without calling the SWAT, shout away.

Hurrah!

I always worry about politics when things get simplified down. Any issue of cameras or security is devolved into 'Big Brother', any person holding a right-wing viewpoint is a 'facist', any issue involving an opinion on immigration is 'racism'. Seems a little easier to have ready-made opinions that fit all situations.

The Earl

 

[R. Richard]

Hurrah!

I always worry about politics when things get simplified down. Any issue of cameras or security is devolved into 'Big Brother', any person holding a right-wing viewpoint is a 'facist', any issue involving an opinion on immigration is 'racism'. Seems a little easier to have ready-made opinions that fit all situations.

The Earl

What, you want people to actually think? What a radical viewpoint!

The problem with thinking about political issues is that a person might find that they are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

JMNTHO.

 

[shereads]

If you are planning to release poison gas in the NYC subway system, [there is such a group,] the odds are very high that the US government is tracing your movements. If you order your take out pizza with extra anchovies, chances are the government never knows, even if you pay with a credit card.

What if I place a cell phone order to a fast-food chain called Subway and their dessert special is Death By Chocolate?

 

[R. Richard]

What if I place a cell phone order to a fast-food chain called Subway and their dessert special is Death By Chocolate?

Well, of course, the US government allows for special exceptions! However, only items that are endorsed by the US Congress.

 

[shereads]

The argument that 9/11 might have been prevented if there had been more flexibility in the way the hijackers were identified and monitored is as bogus as the one that connected Iraq with 9/11. The information that was needed to stop the hijackers was in the hands of people at both the FBI and CIA, legally obtained. They screwed up.

Giving those same screw-ups the power to violate my privacy doesn't make me safer. It just means I'm doubly screwed.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I recently read a report about a CCTV camera tape being used in England to secure the first rape conviction ever in which the victim was never identified. It was impressive stuff, and a wonderful use of the technology. Now, with speakers available to startle the woman's attacker, they might actually be able to stop the rape in process. That's one hell of a benefit to weigh against the privacy issues.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

The government currently doesn't have the resources to trace even a small percentage of their citizens. However, they do trace the activities of some of their citizens [and even non-citizens.] If you are planning to release poison gas in the NYC subway system, [there is such a group,] the odds are very high that the US government is tracing your movements. If you order your take out pizza with extra anchovies, chances are the government never knows, even if you pay with a credit card.

There is that. Give the government enough information, and they'll spend the rest of their lives trying to sort it all and get something useful out of it. Perhaps the answer is to inundate them with details. It seems to be working in most areas of political discourse - i.e., shout a stream of mostly erroneous facts quickly and loudly enough, and no one has the time to sort them all out individually. Why not make that work against the government as well as for them?

Shanglan

 

[R. Richard]

Privacy is a wonderful thing. However, there are disadvantages to privacy.

In the area where I live a criminal broke into a home and savaged his ex-wife and his children. The level of injury was so bad that the police set up road blocks and eventually caught the guy. In the process of stopping cars, the police made several drunk driving arrests. The steets were made safer for law abiding citizens at the cost of a certain amount of privacy.

There needs to be a balance.

 

[shereads]

Privacy is a wonderful thing. However, there are disadvantages to privacy.

There are disadvantages to democracy, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. I'm not crazy about that last one, but if offered an overturn of the 2nd Amendment in exchange for giving up the First Amendment, I'd accept the risk of being shot.

History is chock-full of governments that did a more thorough job of keeping their citizens safe - safe from everything except their own governments. Military dictatorships and police states have a build-in advantage over democracies when it comes to controlling crime and preventing the threat of violence that goes hand in hand with the right to protest.

I prefer the risk of crime and even terrorism to living under a government that promises safety with conditions. In the worst case, you end up on the wrong side of Augusto Pinochet and disappear. Best case - for all the people who've defended the Patriot Act by claiming they have nothing to hide - is that their beliefs and values will always be the ones that are safe from scrutiny.

(FYI, John Ashcroft considered Greenpeace a terrorist organization. Richard Nixon and J.Edgar Hoover would probably have had their own loose definitions of terrorism. If the precedent that denies due process to 'terror suspects' had been set before their time, Nixon could simply have 'disappeared' the people on his Enemies List.)


GWB keeps saying that his first responsibility is to keep us safe. He might want to go back and read the presidential oath of office, in which he swore to preserve and protect the Constitution.

The oath was written that way for a reason: totalitarianism is the safest form of government for the largest number of citizens. A chief executive who thinks his first duty is to keep most of us safe would find the Constitution a hindrance; imposing totalitarianism would be a duty and an obligation, and freedom be damned.


"He who would sacrifice essential liberty in exchange for safety deserves neither liberty or safety."

~ Benjamin Franklin

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think one of the difficulties with privacy as a right - other than the fact that it was never expressly granted in our constitution here in the United States - is that it's impossible to establish as an absolute. Every person in our country surrenders elements of his or her privacy every day and nearly every hour in the conduct of his or her normal business. We move about outside where others can see us, we transact business that indicates something about our tastes, interests, and income level, we have conversations that reveal some personal elements of our lives.

Because it's not possible for privacy to exist as an absolute right, because in fact we willingly violate our own privacy dozens of times per day, I'm not sure that it's possible to ask that the government have an absolute respect for that right either. Privacy seems to me to be one of those fugitive concepts that's difficult to pin down to start with, let alone enforce. Where does my right to privacy end? Is it defined by my intent, my actions, my location, or my expectations? I've heard arguments based on all of those ideas, and none of them agree with each other. Do I have a right to privacy as long as I am not harming anyone, or as long as I'm in my own house, or as long as the person seeking information about me isn't invited to take it? No matter how I answer that, there are going to be cases where it feels unfair to have someone poking about in my business - and there are going to be other cases in which I'd want the government empowered to act against dangerous people.

Hmmm. I think that's the thing with privacy. Unlike most other rights, sometimes the only way to know if you've got a really good reason to violate it is to get the information you'll only have if you do. I'm happy for the government to execute a warrant on relatively minor grounds if it nets them a pedophile, but I'm not delighted at the idea of them tossing and searching my own home when I know I'm innocent. But the only way they might be able to tell if the invasion of privacy is justified or not is to carry it out. We can't expect them to guess right 100% of the time.

Shanglan