Leading surveillance societies

[Banquo's Ghost]

Both the mother of democracy and the land of the free have excelled themselves this year in the drive to remove citizen's privacy. Only China narrowly trumps them, but they rest in esteemed company - Russia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand.

It's great to be a citizen of a free democracy. And as a bonus, all those youngsters who say their life goal is to be on TV - well, smile, you are!

You wait till Brown makes and then loses the nation's biometric ID database. Then the Chinese had better watch out!

[FactionHeir]

Interesting find.
Looks like Slovenia is the only country where privacy is now more tightly guarded.
All others stayed the same or became more surveillance focussed.

I guess the main Western powers aren't as pure compared to the Mid-East and Asian ones as the media portrays.

[Fragony]

Privacy is an illusion in the digital era, it's just too easy.

[LittleGrizzly]

I always thought UK was way ahead of other western countrys in thier surveillance, I find this slow journey into a cctv nation worrying i live in a fairly sparesly populated area of the UK and i still see lots of camera's. My local town (just one street with shops) is end to end filled with camera's, the local bus stop so im pobably spotted quite a few times a day as it is, this is without taking into account various other surveillance, the local council has vans with cameras on top driving around the local area.

I don't think the UK has any hope of this changing any time soon with labour trying to be the tough men and conservatives trying to be tougher

[Rodion Romanovich]

Surveillance is the opposite of democracy

[Fragony]

Surveillance is the opposite of democracy

May want to get rid of that sig if you really think so. It's sadly something that is needed in a multicultural society.

[FactionHeir]

May want to get rid of that sig if you really think so. It's sadly something that is needed in a multicultural society.

Why, do you think it would not be needed if there was only one culture in your society?

[Bijo]

HAH!

[Fragony]

Why, do you think it would not be needed if there was only one culture in your society?

You kidding me? Maybe because we all have the same thing in mind? The world we want to live in? The one we cultivated? The tolerant one? It is not multiculture it is western culture and even islam has a place there if it plays by our rules. Western culture/heritage is our common dominator, only a fool would deny that.

[Lord Winter]

You kidding me? Maybe because we all have the same thing in mind? The world we want to live in? The one we cultivated? The tolerant one? It is not multiculture it is western culture and even islam has a place there if it plays by our rules. Western culture/heritage is our common dominator, only a fool would deny that.

So we should moniter everyone with different ideas on government?

[Fragony]

So we should moniter everyone with different ideas on government?

Everybody who is hostile towards it's most fundamental mechanics, yes. The rest carry go on being harmless and annoying. Personaly I say drag them in an alley for the neckshot-award but monitoring will do. Every system needs to be protected from it's flaws when dealing with things bigger then it's comfortable realm. The system can only be used against you when you let others use it in ways it wasn't designed for.

[Lord Winter]

So would that include the socilist who dissagrees with the capatilistic system? The protester who is rallying for any counsitutional addmendment? Perhasp everyone whoes mulim? Since remember every muslium in the middle east is out to get us? For that matter why not just remove all the doves and people who dissagree with anything thats not the BEST for the country, Imagine how well our free socicity would run then? [/SARCASM]

Any system that is built among fear will be complelty abused in times of crisis or with a tyrant who can manipulate the people by the most powerful and dangourous motivatier in humanity.

[Fragony]

So would that include the socilist who dissagrees with the capatilistic system? The protester who is rallying for any counsitutional addmendment?

That is using the system, that is their constitutional right, and we need that for ballance sake. As long as they want to use the tools given, no problem. Muslims, not sure. I wish they had a voice instead of people talking for them, would have no problem with that. But peaceloving muslims are absolutily terrified and with good reason, no protection from us against radical elements, quite the contrary.

[FactionHeir]

So say in another country if the government mistreats the kind of people it does not like (because they do not agree with the government), it is prudent to survey those who do not agree and uphold the government/culture?

Or are you saying every place should be a free westernized democracy?

[Fragony]

Or are you saying every place should be a free westernized democracy?

Biggest mistake of our time that it should, no I don't. But it is what naturally evolved here, and I am kinda reluctant to dress it up with the fashion of the day, it's ours. Others can visit and enjoy it but no more then that.

[CountArach]

Woo! My country gets a systematic failure!

[Rodion Romanovich]

May want to get rid of that sig if you really think so. It's sadly something that is needed in a multicultural society.

Would you care to explain what on earth you mean with this?

[Tribesman]

Its wierd , whydon't you brits execise your rights , every licensed camera operator that films you has under law to provide you with footage of yourself on film ..but only yourself as footage of others is an invasion of their privacy so every copy must be pixelated or somethingto remove all other images leaving only your own ....screw the bar stewards inthe pocket , request a video in compliance with the law from every operator in every location you ever visit .
Hit the buggers in the pocket if you don't like it , its the only way to make them stop ...........also start all your phone calls(especially on mobiles) with the word semtex to really screw up GCHQ

[AntiochusIII]

You know, Tribesman, what you say has merit. From now on any phone call received by yours truly will be answered with, "Hello, this is Al-Qaeda's headquarter speaking" in perfect Californian English.

[Tribesman]

You know, Tribesman, what you say has merit.

I cannot take the merit , both are part of an old but still ongoing campaign by Mark Thomas .
The irony is that special branch have given me far less hastle in the years since I started using keywords in my phone calls than beforehand .

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
According to the map, I'd better study harder on my Greek.
.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I cannot take the merit , both are part of an old but still ongoing campaign by Mark Thomas .
The irony is that special branch have given me far less hastle in the years since I started using keywords in my phone calls than beforehand .

Al-Qaeda bomb TNT C4 nuke Al-Qaeda booom

Maybe this would be a nice signature

[Rodion Romanovich]

Its wierd , whydon't you brits execise your rights , every licensed camera operator that films you has under law to provide you with footage of yourself on film ..but only yourself as footage of others is an invasion of their privacy so every copy must be pixelated or somethingto remove all other images leaving only your own ....screw the bar stewards inthe pocket , request a video in compliance with the law from every operator in every location you ever visit .
Hit the buggers in the pocket if you don't like it , its the only way to make them stop ...........also start all your phone calls(especially on mobiles) with the word semtex to really screw up GCHQ

Great suggestion. Does this right exist in all EU countries?

Another thing we could require is that the homes of all politicians in support of surveillance should be monitored with web cams and free for everyone to watch. After all, the greatest threat to the nation always comes neither from foreign attacks or the average people, but from the actions corruption, treachery, treason and incompentece of our own politicians. So if we monitor some small-time crime in metro stations and restaurants, we should definitely monitor these dangerous places as well!

[Husar]

When you say we, you make it sound as if the people could actually decide that.

[Fragony]

Would you care to explain what on earth you mean with this?

No surveillance would be abandoning all hope, we need it, as I said we are now a multicultural society. Sad but true.

[Rodion Romanovich]

No surveillance would be abandoning all hope, we need it, as I said we are now a multicultural society. Sad but true.

Ok that explains the comment on the signature. But:
- What type of surveillance do we need, in your opinion?
- What does multiculturalism have to do with surveillance, in your opinion?
- And what do you mean by that we live in a multicultural society? Many would say that we live in a uni-cultural society, where the only allowed culture is a mix of some previously existing cultures. True multiculturalism is when several cultures exist.

[Rodion Romanovich]

When you say we, you make it sound as if the people could actually decide that.

We can theoretically decide it, in case a politician with that as part of his party program wins the election. Though in practise we can't, since starting new parties or getting funding for campaigning or being able to afford investing enough time in politics requires you to be rich and/or already have parents and/or influential friends within politics to successfully take part in politics. So no, we have no ability to decide that, except by revolt. My guess is that people won't revolt over a minor to medium nuisance and torture such as surviellance, but that they will as usual in history wait until the leaders start getting paranoid enough to order murders in large enough quantities to make the thus arising inexplicable "disappearances" become noticeable. The sad thing is that we all know that surveillance always eventually deteriorates in the latter, given enough time. The question is only how long. 20 years? 50 years? 100 years?

For now, demonstrations and sabotage of the system by methods such as those mentioned by Tribesman are the only ways to express your disgust, but they will ultimately achieve little or nothing, unless the whims of the politicians happen to be in support of abolishing this tool of despotism. However, the risk is greater that the politicians will respond by passing laws against sabotaging the efficiency of surveillance systems, and start persecuting all who loudly oppose it with some invented legitimacy. If that happens, violence remains as the only possible way to enforce the safety, justice and freedom of the people. Let us hope the politicians understand the danger of building out the surveillance systems and removing more and more legal restrictions without adding suitable new restrictions to guarantee the safety of the citizen. For instance, if you allow surveillance against people who aren't found guilty of crime, then you have removed all restrictions against monitoring every innocent citizen who holds opinions contrary to the leaders. Then you can find out when a man is 15-20 years old if there's a risk he will try to start a dangerous competing political party, and find sensitive and embarrassing information to discredit such a man. That is by definition to remove democracy, since democracy requires that the people's may be expressed in an uncensored form. It doesn't matter if you censor by discrediting, or by stopping books/other productions. In both cases the people's opinion is silenced and repressed. If the people thus has no right or capability to express their opinion and have thus lost their democratic rights, then the legal clauses in the constitution that says military coup or revolt are illegal become invalid, and a revolt becomes completely legal and necessary. That is how dangerous blindly increasing surveillance is: you force a situation in which either revolt or tyranny will occur. Both cases will cause bloodshed. Can we make the politicians realize this? Or will they keep thinking that they can do whatever they want, whether illegal by the constitutional law or not, just because they won an election? Are they more interested in the illusion of holding power (for all power is an illusion), than about the best for both themselves and those they have temporarily received a legal right to repress or help according to their whims?

Surveillance also spreads a fear similar to the censorship mentioned above. Who dares to take part in demonstrations against surveillance when those are videotaped, and all who take part in the demonstrations may be subject to monitoring? When nobody knows just how far the surveillance systems have been built out yet. Is there or isn't there a risk that someone demonstrating against surveillance today will have reprisals for it in 10 years? Losing his job, being discredited publically, or maybe even murdered, if it would go that far? Fear is a form of censorship just as efficient and anti-democratic as prohibition or stopping of the printers.

Do the leaders realize that whatever problem they try to solve by surveillance, they create 10 new, much worse problems by introducing it?

[Husar]

I don't think surveillance has to lead to oppression, that depends on what you do with the data you collect. Of course that's a bit idealistic but to some degree politicians are humans as well and they too were born and raised with the ideas of freedom etc.

Concerning revolts, those can also be peaceful for example if the whole nation would refuse to work, however, our society is so dependant on money and especially those who could afford it are so eager to get more money, that many would not join in I think and some would not be allowed to do so by their superiors.
A bloody revolt is usually possible but if both sides engage in full bloodshed in a country where the military has WMDs(more or less) and the people have lots of kitchen knives, one can only hope that the soldiers are more loyal to their families than to their politicians and generals.

Elections are problematic because even with 20 parties there may be none that promises to do what the people want and even those who do may not actually do it once elected, you already outlined the problems with starting a new party.

[HoreTore]

I don't think surveillance has to lead to oppression, that depends on what you do with the data you collect. Of course that's a bit idealistic but to some degree politicians are humans as well and they too were born and raised with the ideas of freedom etc.

Remember that the guy watching you through the camera isn't a guy named "Government". It's a regular human being, but you don't know who it is. It could be a friend, but it could just as easily be an enemy... One who could easily use innocent stuff you're doing to break up your relationship, get you fired, etc...

Until humans stop being corrupt, surveillance just isn't an option.

[Geoffrey S]

Was in London for new year and was amazed at the sheer mass of security cameras everywhere.