Leading surveillance societies

[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 .

[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.

[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.

[Husar]

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...

Rather unlikely, paying someone to watch hundreds of tapes only to find me farting in a bar and then show it to my potential girlfriend is rather uneconomic and the girlfriend leaving me for that....anyway, I don't see the problem with our current ID cards, I keep mine to myself unless someone needs to see it and it's sort of a proof that I am who I am, live where I live etc., making it electronic and readable from a distance however sounds scary and I don't like that a bit.