Slashdot Mirror
The Road to Big Brother
brothke writes "In The Road to Big Brother: One Man's Struggle Against the Surveillance Society, Ross Clark journals his struggles to avoid the myriad CCTV cameras in his native England. That's difficult given the millions of cameras in public locations there. Before going forward, the use of the term 'Big Brother' in both the title and throughout the book is erroneous. Big Brother has its roots in George Orwell's novel 1984 and refers to an omnipresent, seemingly benevolent figure representing the oppressive control over individual lives exerted by an authoritarian government. The term has been misappropriated to describe everything from legitimate crime-fighting, to surveillance cameras, to corporate e-mail and network usage monitoring. Localities that deploy CCTV cameras in public thoroughfares in the hope of combating crime are in no way indicative of the oppressive control of Orwell's Big Brother. Should we be concerned that such a scenario play itself out in Ross Clark's UK or in the US? Likely no, as US government agencies are widely decentralized and isolated. Just getting the networks within a single federal agency unified is a daunting task; getting all of the agencies to have a single unified data sharing mechanism is a pipe-dream. Look at it this way: the US Department of Defense has more networks than some countries have computers." Read below for the rest of Ben's review.
The Road to Big Brother: One Man's Struggle Against the Surveillance Society
author
Ross Clark
pages
200
publisher
Encounter Books
rating
Powerful topic, but poor delivery and answers.
reviewer
Ben Rothke
ISBN
978-1594032486
summary
One man's account of how to dodge Britain's million of CCTV cameras and other forms of surveillance
The Road to Big Brother details Clark's attempt to be invisible to the millions of CCTV cameras in Britain, and details other types of national & agency databases and how they can be misused. Clark notes astutely that while much data is being gathered, often the most important clues are missed, and a lack of proportion often is the result.
Some of the books observations are flawed. In chapter two, Clark writes that VeriChip markets its RFID chips with the aim of speeding the passage of authorized people through security checks. But its Verimed chip is made for patient identification and emergency patient management in hospitals. In Chapter 11, Clark comments that Facebook is essentially a forum for drunken college students who cannot conceive that any harm could come from disporting themselves in semi-naked poses for everyone to see. There is no indication that the comment was meant to be humorous, and there are many legitimate sober uses for Facebook.
Perhaps the worst distortion of the Big Brother hysteria, of which the book provides no source, is the claim that the CIA and FBI appears to know what airline meals a person chooses when they cross the Atlantic. Terrorists do their best to be stealthy, and will likely opt to bring their own special meal, rather than stand out and request a special one. It is not clear what the CIA and FBI hope to gain with such data.
The book documents numerous CCTV failures, from Brighton, England to Baltimore, Maryland. Chapter 3 has a 2005 quote from the Maryland Attorney General stating that CCTV's had yet to solve a single crime. The book also repeats the problem of fuzzy CCTV images and highlights other technology failures as far back as 1998. Surveillance technology has significantly advanced in the last 3 years, let alone decade. Focusing on failures from a decade ago is in no way indicative of the state of the art, nor does it do anything to solve the problem Clark addresses.
In the last 60 days alone, CCTV has been used to identify the alleged Craigslist Killer and shooter at Wesleyan University. While Clark may not realize it, CCTV and other related technologies has indeed revolutionized law enforcement. The underlying problem is that Britain's millions of cameras were deployed in the hope that they could magically solve crime. Cameras alone achieve nothing; but CCTV combined with trained humans and other crime prevention and detection methods are a powerful set of tools that many police departments are embracing.
The book notes that two CCTV schemes were sold to UK police in 2001 with the premise that they would eliminate crime and increase the number of visitors by 225,000 a year. Any police department that would believe such a marketing claim, without pilot testing and proof of concept should themselves be arrested for ineptitude.
The book would be better off quoting this year's CCTV successes, rather than those of obsolete equipment. As to the fuzzy image problem; newer, more powerful and often inexpensive cameras easily and quickly solves that predicament.
All is not lost on the book. Chapter 8 — Me and My ID, in which Clark documents how ineffective national identification cards are. National ID cards are all the rage and are being deployed in the hope that they will reduce terrorism, illegal immigration and other of society's ills. Clark notes that even if national ID cards were able to identify everyone correctly, and that is a huge assumption, it is still not clear what they would achieve. National ID's have been touted to reduce insurance fraud, but medical insurance fraud is often executed not by false identification, rather by patients lying about their circumstances.
The book touches upon, but does not really answer, nor go into enough details on why people allow such pervasive use of electronic surveillance technologies to seamlessly enter society. Be it CCTV cameras that film public parks or attempt to catch speeding drivers; many are deployed with little to no protestations.
While Big Brother achieved oppressive control over individuals, the real danger of surveillance systems is that they can easily be misused. Rather than achieving their crime fighting goals, they will mislead police with myriad false positives. Part of Clark's frustration is likely that the UK Police believe in some sort of CCTV Kool-Aid that their collogues in the US have not consumed. Why that is so prevalent in the UK is something that Clark doesn't address.
The Road to Big Brother: One Man's Struggle Against the Surveillance Society should have been a book that details the problems with a surveillance society, but often reads like it emanates from the ministry of misinformation.
Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.
You can purchase The Road to Big Brother: One Man's Struggle Against the Surveillance Society from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Some of the books observations are flawed. In chapter two, Clark writes that VeriChip markets its RFID chips with the aim of speeding the passage of authorized people through security checks. But its Verimed chip is made for patient identification and emergency patient management in hospitals. In Chapter 11, Clark comments that Facebook is essentially a forum for drunken college students who cannot conceive that any harm could come from disporting themselves in semi-naked poses for everyone to see. There is no indication that the comment was meant to be humorous, and there are many legitimate sober uses for Facebook.
Perhaps the worst distortion of the Big Brother hysteria, of which the book provides no source, is the claim that the CIA and FBI appears to know what airline meals a person chooses when they cross the Atlantic. Terrorists do their best to be stealthy, and will likely opt to bring their own special meal, rather than stand out and request a special one. It is not clear what the CIA and FBI hope to gain with such data.
The book documents numerous CCTV failures, from Brighton, England to Baltimore, Maryland. Chapter 3 has a 2005 quote from the Maryland Attorney General stating that CCTV's had yet to solve a single crime. The book also repeats the problem of fuzzy CCTV images and highlights other technology failures as far back as 1998. Surveillance technology has significantly advanced in the last 3 years, let alone decade. Focusing on failures from a decade ago is in no way indicative of the state of the art, nor does it do anything to solve the problem Clark addresses.
In the last 60 days alone, CCTV has been used to identify the alleged Craigslist Killer and shooter at Wesleyan University. While Clark may not realize it, CCTV and other related technologies has indeed revolutionized law enforcement. The underlying problem is that Britain's millions of cameras were deployed in the hope that they could magically solve crime. Cameras alone achieve nothing; but CCTV combined with trained humans and other crime prevention and detection methods are a powerful set of tools that many police departments are embracing.
The book notes that two CCTV schemes were sold to UK police in 2001 with the premise that they would eliminate crime and increase the number of visitors by 225,000 a year. Any police department that would believe such a marketing claim, without pilot testing and proof of concept should themselves be arrested for ineptitude.
The book would be better off quoting this year's CCTV successes, rather than those of obsolete equipment. As to the fuzzy image problem; newer, more powerful and often inexpensive cameras easily and quickly solves that predicament.
All is not lost on the book. Chapter 8 — Me and My ID, in which Clark documents how ineffective national identification cards are. National ID cards are all the rage and are being deployed in the hope that they will reduce terrorism, illegal immigration and other of society's ills. Clark notes that even if national ID cards were able to identify everyone correctly, and that is a huge assumption, it is still not clear what they would achieve. National ID's have been touted to reduce insurance fraud, but medical insurance fraud is often executed not by false identification, rather by patients lying about their circumstances.
The book touches upon, but does not really answer, nor go into enough details on why people allow such pervasive use of electronic surveillance technologies to seamlessly enter society. Be it CCTV cameras that film public parks or attempt to catch speeding drivers; many are deployed with little to no protestations.
While Big Brother achieved oppressive control over individuals, the real danger of surveillance systems is that they can easily be misused. Rather than achieving their crime fighting goals, they will mislead police with myriad false positives. Part of Clark's frustration is likely that the UK Police believe in some sort of CCTV Kool-Aid that their collogues in the US have not consumed. Why that is so prevalent in the UK is something that Clark doesn't address.
The Road to Big Brother: One Man's Struggle Against the Surveillance Society should have been a book that details the problems with a surveillance society, but often reads like it emanates from the ministry of misinformation.
Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.
You can purchase The Road to Big Brother: One Man's Struggle Against the Surveillance Society from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
From an article in the San Diego Reader:
Last week in a Spring Valley business park, a tower nearly 100 feet tall sprang up seemingly overnight...I approached three men, dressed as though they might be engineers, who were standing in the parking lot outside NSM Surveillance on Via Orange Way. When I asked them what the tower was for, one of them responded with the joke, "We can't tell you. We'd have to kill you."...By Wednesday afternoon the tower had disappeared.
Though that particular product was probably just a communications tower, the article describes how easy it is to set up an Orwellian society, especially with a systems integrator such as NSM Surveillance.
was this review written by a cop?
Even worse than Big Brother would be what is described in the summary: A set of decentralized agencies full of politics/bureaucracy that have rules with little or no unification and no compassion or human oversight. Suddenly, instead of a force seeking only power there is a "force" that is simply a mass of rules and surveillance with the illusion of trying to control when in fact it only creates massive inconvenience for people ala Brazil.
Basically: Given the choice I would almost rather be imprisoned/watched by an entity with an agenda rather than a decentralized, inept morass of bureaucracy. I fear that is what we are moving toward, however. See Red Light Cameras as an example.
-
Some book reviewer really woke up on the "sniveling apologist bootlicker for incipient fascism" side of the bed this morning.
That figure was made up by a lazy tabloid hack writing for the Daily Telegraph, who counted the number of CCTV cameras in about a quarter mile of the main street of a particularly unpleasant part of London, and then multiplied by the total distance of roads in the UK.
It's not even believably wrong - it's so mind-buggeringly flawed that it defies human comprehension as to how anyone could possibly think it's even nearly right. If that figure was correct then you would pass a CCTV camera every 20 metres on every road in the UK. My driveway alone would have three or four cameras on it.
I really wish people would stop spouting such patent nonsense.
Perhaps the reviewer may also wish to check out the Home Office Research Study 292, 'Assessing the impact of CCTV cameras' (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf) before attempting to explain how useful they are to us, and maybe also have a read of Database State (http://www.jrrt.org.uk/uploads/Database State.pdf) to check the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust's report. Then there's the recent House Of Lords publication Surveillance, Citizens And The State (http://publications.parliament.uk).
Actually, I am not so sure of the real value of these cameras. I mean, yes, in many circumstances they are helpful, but in all?
Sure the craigslist killer may have been harder to catch, but men like him have been caught without any use of CCTV cameras before. Had he not been caught yet, some more lives may be lost or damaged, However, we are talking about overall policy of society... a single incident of a single "bad guy" does not a case for public policy make.
With the advent of a DHS, with the successes, its not hard to see how creeping centralization can happen. I know that some police departments are often given direct access to private security cameras in many buildings, and particularly of the outward facing cameras that overlook city squares etc.
It may be hard to centralize them now, but technology only makes it easier.
Then look at the CORI system here in MA. A recent study found many accesses that were probably unauthorized. As far as they can tell, a significant portion of local police will think nothing of using the system to look up famous people's information. Of course, thats only been identified by looking for searches on famous names. An ex-girlfriend, Wife's new boyfriend, etc, there is no telling.
Tehcnology gives new abilities. However, when you build infrastructure that has the potential for abuse, you have to build in proper checks and balances, or trust not just its designers, but the operators of the system, now...and into the future.
the new Big brother will not run on a platform. He is quite happy to "creep on in" on the backs of otherwise good intentions. Like the recent no fly list issue. A plane that merely flew threw US airspace was detained and a reporter questioned... because someone put him on the secret no fly list, and somehow the US government got ahold of the passenger manifest. Was he put on the list as a mistake? Or was he put on because someone didn't like what he had to say and wanted to harass him? Where are the checks and balances?
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Unless you have some better plan for CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN than a ubiquitous surveillance system running SCORPION STARE, we're all going to have to live with these sorts of inconveniences. Being spied on is nowhere near as bad as the alternative.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
it's obvious this isn't a review, but a rebuttal from someone holding a different view.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I don't think the author of this entry is entitled to define exactly when and how the 'Big Brother' example/metaphor can be applied in language.
Yes, the Big Brother in Orwell's 1984 has specific definitions, but in reference/example/metaphor, people apply abstractions and generalizations that are not necessarily definitive of the original context. In such context, only elements or small aspects of the original concept may apply and it is usually up to the reader to bridge the relationship through active thought.
Samzenpus (the Big Brother in this case) is trying to tell us all how to live!
What? More networks than countries have computers? Do you mean network interfaces or local networks or intranets, what??!! That is a stretch. Facts and strong arguments make a point, not buzzwords and fancy sentences thrown about.
Work on it a bit more.
I believe the reviewer defines Big Brother too narrowly from Orwell's work. The oppressive dictatorial Big Brother is the ultimate icon or archetype of this concept. The more disturbing reality that people are reacting to is the inevitable buildup of the infrastructure of Big Brother. If anyone, acting as a smaller "big brother," say someone in law enforcement or some intelligence agency, decides to snoop on you ... perhaps as a result of one of the myriad false positives that this infrastructure produces ... the effect at the personal level is very similar to the dictatorial Big Brother that is spying on everybody. In the U.S. this gets uncomfortably close to violating the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
the use of the term 'Big Brother' in both the title and throughout the book is erroneous. Big Brother has its roots in George Orwell's novel 1984 and refers to an omnipresent, seemingly benevolent figure representing the oppressive control over individual lives exerted by an authoritarian government. The term has been misappropriated to describe everything from legitimate crime-fighting, to surveillance cameras, to corporate e-mail and network usage monitoring. Localities that deploy CCTV cameras in public thoroughfares in the hope of combating crime are in no way indicative of the oppressive control of Orwell's Big Brother.
WTF? Since when does a book review need a disclaimer? This alone indicates how paranoid people are about "Big Brother". I guess the submitter will be spending a little time at the Ministry of Love.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
slashdot frequently decries mass hysteria, yet fears of television cameras to capture speeders is apparently the gateway to the downfall of western civilization and liberal/libertarian ideals. gee, maybe its just to catch speeders?
i try to find the reason for this peculiar slashdot hysteria, and i really can't find the reason why a bunch of otherwise intelligent people go so bonkers over transit cameras. maybe it is just that some people here take the symbolism of 1984 as if it were divine infallible revelation. that the book is just a halfbaked work of fiction, whose implications have absolutely nothing to do with the reality we find ourselves in today, is apparently besides the point
for example: little brother. orwell never considered this. the idea being, anyone with a cell phone camera has the same surveillance technology as the state and can use that against the state in collusion with other individuals, a la rodney king. the implications of this technological balance between the individual and the state, even though rodney king happened almost twenty years ago, is apparently completely beyond some of you great minds to even consider. no: transit cameras are an unstoppable identity destroying force, a slippery slope into totalitarian fascism, and we have no defense against it. huh? how about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant
is this the future as presaged by orwell? you can't consider that REAL LIFE example? no: orwell's FICTION laid it all out, and it is unquestionable divine revelation? are you paranoid schizophrenics?
its as if slashdot takes orwell as some sort of infallible prophet, and no one actually applies any mental effort to analyze what he actually writes, to come to conclusion: gee, nice science fiction story, absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR CURRENT REALITY. EVER
some of you would laugh at superstitious illiterate 3rd world rural people who might believe, for example, that giving them the evil eye would give them cancer, or that taking their picture steals a bit of their soul
this is exactly how i think of some of you. so many of you take with unthinking devotion the idea that speeding cameras are equivalent to a slippery slope to totalitarian fascism. its absolutely hilarious, the panty twisting stupidity of this notion. really
frankly, i find no difference between some of your thinking on george orwell's cheesy fiction and the thinking religious fundamentalists and their sacred texts
enjoy geroge orwell, please. i especially liked "animal farm". but some of you really have to update some of your frankly ridiculous blind assumptions on camera technology and western civilization. you are quite the laughing stock the way some of you get worked up into a tizzy over what is frankly, not the slightest big deal
you may now mod me troll and continue your groupthink whineathon about how speeding camaras are fascism
airheaded twits
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Saying that the cameras aren't anything to do with Big Brother is like saying "This isn't really a handgun, handguns are tools used by murderers and I'm not one so this isn't a handgun". It's possible for a society to have benevolent pervasive camera presence, and I'd still call that Big Brother. It's a dangerous tool that, much like a chainsaw, can be very useful and beneficial to a society. But always remember it's dangerous! You can't just say "Look at the good uses of this tool, now stop criticizing it".
Surveillance cameras all around are set by your father government, company, city, etc. But a peer of you, a brother, hacks all those devices with common and not so safe access methods, and becomes a (somewhat dangerous) big brother.
At least is what Hollywood want you to believe, anyone that could be qualified as hacker there can control all surveillance cameras around you.
Okay, so the reviewer has only now figured out the same thing that the entire population of London has known for years. What does this have to do with the book?
I know I'm going to voice an unpopular opinion, but these are public places, you have no expectation of privacy. How is this different from having a police office standing there? I know, the evil government will track you, so they know everything you do, right? Guess what, your not that important. The government doesn't care that you stood in line for 3 hours for Star Trek.
Agent: "Sir, I have an idea"
Boss: "What's that Jenkins?"
Agent: "Lets do a big budget reality TV show called Big Brother, that way the term Big Brother is further misunderstood by the general public and they'll stop calling us that"
Boss: "That's brilliant Jenkins!"
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
It is more likely than you think.
When government keeps getting bigger and bigger, it starts to behave and act more like Big Brother than our founding fathers.
The government that governs least, governs best. Whomever said that be it John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, or Napoleon.
It seems at least in fiction, there is a way to fight the UKian Big Brother but I wouldn't advise it to UKians, least if they don't want to get arrested. :)
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
...but anyone who writes: "Localities that deploy CCTV cameras in public thoroughfares in the hope of combating crime are in no way indicative of the oppressive control of Orwell's Big Brother. Should we be concerned that such a scenario play itself out in Ross Clark's UK or in the US? Likely no, as US government agencies are widely decentralized and isolated."
is obviously rising the Disorient Express.
It has, perhaps, been some time since the reviewer read Nineteen Eighty-Four. In my mind, and that of many others, the salient feature of Big Brother was that he was watching you. Everywhere. The telescreen panel in your apartment is two-way. You have no privacy. Citizens of Oceania fear that some innocent action could be misconstrued resulting in a one-way trip to the Ministry of Love for a bit of Q&A with the Thought Police. Whether Big Brother actually existed was immaterial. Someone was watching you; always. To use Big Brother as a metaphor for omnipresent surveillance is both appropriate and suitably cautionary.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
"Before going forward, the use of the term 'Big Brother' in both the title and throughout the book is erroneous."
The usage of 'Big Brother' to refer to any sort of general surveillance is not only common, but perfectly valid. It is indeed a reference to 1984, but it primarily references the ever-present posters that remind people 'Big Brother is watching', not the oppressive government itself. If -someone- is watching, that someone is often referred to as Big Brother, because BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING, not necessarily because that someone is part of an authoritarian regime of oppression and misinformation.
"Being spied on is nowhere near as bad as the alternative"
I beg to differ. It is still being spied upon, no matter how you care to justify it.
The only difference between "fighting crime" and "big brother" lies in the eyes of the observer.
"The book touches upon, but does not really answer, nor go into enough details on why people allow such pervasive use of electronic surveillance technologies to seamlessly enter society. Be it CCTV cameras that film public parks or attempt to catch speeding drivers; many are deployed with little to no protestations.
Ahh.. Mabey because we don't get a choice in the matter during the initial planning and establishment stages... And when it is finally FORCED onto a ballot by petition, it is usually overwhelmingly AGAINST having them. Case in point was Stubinville, OH (USA):
"That's right, local officials were forced to put the issue up to a vote of the general population and the people said they didn't want them. By a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent, residents of Steubenville, Ohio, voted down the "automated traffic sensor program."" ( http://www.examiner.com/a-399687~Steve_Eldridge__Ohio_voters_reject_red_light_cameras.html )
They bring the cameras in saying it is safety, when really it is revenue generation. They seem to actually CAUSE safty issues as I've seen a red-light camera that resulted in a rear-end collision when someone suddenly stopped on YELLOW because they were afraid of the camera. What they REALLY need to do is legthen the RED light before the next goes green... That way all vehicles have exited the intersection if they actually were "in the yellow". Instead, we get shortened lights to catch cars and increase fines... (I'm missing my reference here, but google it, you'll find it... I know it was a big deal out there once..)
How many folks get cameras and have no say??? Anyone, Anyone? Bueller?
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
Starting with a specious criticism concerning the "erroneous" use of the term Big Brother, this review wanders through to the useless conclusion that this book should have been about something other than what it was about. What the review thinks that the book should have been about is immaterial, and making that point the conclusion of the review just marks it as a bad review.
There may be some accurate and useful criticisms here, but it is impossible to tell. The review is a disorganized mess of anecdotes from the books, which are rebutted with little to support the reviewer's case. What is needed is first to portray a useful summary of the book and its thesis, and then make criticisms based on that. There is no useful exposition of the book's theme, only a laundry list of criticisms that seems more like an extended whine.
To examine one specific criticism, it does not seem reasonable to expect a book to cover events that happen after it is written, let alone those that happen after it is typeset, printed, and bound. By citing only the apprehension of the (alleged) Craigslist killer and the Wesleyan University bookstore killer, the reviewer actually suggests that there are no significant successes for CCTV within the timeframe of the book. Is that the case? The audience is left to guess, because the reviewer does not seem to know.
To sum up, this review is simply a collection of specific points made about the subject book. The reader is left with little idea of the scope of the subject book, its themes, or any thesis that Mr. Clark presents. But it was not for naught; now I know that I should probably avoid Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.
"Localities that deploy CCTV cameras in public thoroughfares in the hope of combating crime are in no way indicative of the oppressive control of Orwell's Big Brother."
Sorry, but that's the biggest load of bull I have read in a long time. I disagree that the term has been "misappropriated". The situation mentioned above is as much of a stepping stone toward "Big Brother" as any warrantless surveillance is. What, does he expect "Big Brotherism" to spring up instantaneously? It could not. It would take a lot of these little, intermediate steps.
If there were millions of cameras, how many analysts would be needed to go through the videos? People have been watching too many movies
Overall, I'd say surveillance cameras are much like guns, only less lethal. Yes, they can be used for bad things. Should we outlaw them? No. Just have a reasonable control over them, alway keeping in mind that they aren't guns, you don't need as much camera control as you need gun control.
People who hate or fear cameras have never lived in a bad neighborhood. I lived in Colombia for a few years when I was a kid. I was mugged in daylight in an upper middle class neighborhood getting home from school when I was nine years old.
Big brother doesn't scare me. I'd rather have the right to walk fearlessly through the streets that my taxes maintain.
"..damning official report which revealed 80 per cent of CCTV footage is of poor quality and that the cameras are mostly used to trap motorists rather than catch criminals."
Jason Liszkiewicz
Executive Director (NYC), Earth Intelligence Network 501(c)3
Public Intelligence in the Public Interest
www.earth-intelligence.net
EIN Twitter Feed
Cyber Scout Hyper Link-Table
Free Collective Intelligence Book
http://re-configure.org
http://smart-city.re-configure.org
is why the feed from these cameras aren't publicly available, and why the cameras aren't installed in the offices of our public officials, police forces, and anyone else doing the public's work. I'd argue there's an even greater need for us to keep an eye on them than there is for them to keep an eye on us.
Install the surveillance cameras for yourselves first, and then we'll gladly allow you to watch us in public. And please don't cite "privacy concerns". We threw those out the window a long time ago.
The crimes of eBay are a disgrace to it's pig latin heritage!
... in a very long time.
Not only are the reviewer's own biases glaringly evident, apparently he seems to believe that ineffective surveillance is equivalent to no surveillance. Nothing could be further from the truth. He also seems to feel that law enforcement agencies would not undertake forms of surveillance that are obviously ineffective; again he would be very sadly mistaken.
The proliferation of government surveillance systems is not amusing. It is disturbing. The fact that persons such as yourself dismiss the potential negative implications of omnipresent authority as paranoia is frightening.
In the novel 1984 Orwell described a government (the Party) that used ubiquitous surveillance as an instrument to consolidate power and oppress the populace. In reality, governments are installing cameras, creating databases and using technology to invade privacy on a massive scale. The correlation is obvious.
Furthermore, even if the cameras are, as you argue, only going to be used for legitimate law enforcement purposes, is that an acceptable practice? Can a society be free when there is 100% enforcement of the laws?
I guess that would depend on the laws, now, wouldn't it? Though, given some of the more insane laws on the books, and the barrage of new ones poured forth that target the "worst" in our societies (think sex offenders and terrorists), I would venture that "perfect" law enforcement is no more a legitimate function of government than maximizing tax revenue.
Also, your argument concerning "Little Brother" is flawed. Rodney King's tormentors were not convicted of any crime. Indeed, episodes of police brutality, wrongful prosecution and judicial misconduct rarely end with the offenders being punished. A citizen with a cell phone tends to be outmatched by the power of the government.
1984 is fiction. But many in power act like it's an instruction manual.
It sounds like its some punk 18 year old with 1 semester of college writing this "review". He knows everything. After all he wrote a thesis about 1984 in the eighth grade. Mrs. Toposi gave him an 'A-' and even wrote "very creative" and underlined it twice.
I honestly don't care about the reviewer's exhaustive opinions on every item discussed. Try telling me what the author is saying instead.
Right-wing control-freak apologies. "Localities that deploy CCTV cameras in public thoroughfares in the hope of combating crime are in no way indicative of the oppressive control of Orwell's Big Brother"
Right. Assertion based on facts not in evidence. Sell it to the f-ing Israelis, Mr. Mossad.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
What kind of "review" do you expect from a Zionist control freak? Let him run a checkpoint in the West Bank, so he can make sure a few brown babies and their grandfathers die, emargoes from access to medicine. Maybe then he'll leave us alone.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Anything the state does is not to your benefit.
Who writes these BOHICA articles? Mind letting ME shove it up your butt while you're are it?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Oh, and there is financial incentive in newly defining large areas of private and civic life as illegal. Your innocence stands in between a billionaire and his next grotesque excess. I suppose you will now be guilty of something.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
True, you can set up a surveillance system capturing every sneeze that's made, as long as it isn't abused you can't call in Big Brother.
But times change, a crisis will happen and looking back at history it doesn't take that much for an extremist to take over. But this time he or she will have all the tools to become Big Brother instantly. Even if the rebels find ways around the systems an oppressive government still has gigantic databases of stored surveillance to look up their possible opponents.
ie, any country where the notion of individual rights are not well-respected
you have not remotely described anything that would happen in new york city or london
furthermore, to suppose that the existence of transit cameras is some sort of unstoppable corrosive battery acid that will subvert 400 years of enlightenment thinking reveals a lack of faith in western liberal thinking on your part, not on the part of western society
the pillars of these western liberal notions and the rights and freedoms they support are not impervious to damage, not in the least. but they are a lot stronger than you suppose, and to destroy them to the extent that you and others suggest would take a lot more concerted effort and a lot more societal changes than some stupid transit cameras
if you do not understand the last two sentences i have just written, you are most definitely a hysterical twit, operating on unfound fear, and not in the least upon reasonable thought
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The term has been misappropriated to describe everything from legitimate crime-fighting, to surveillance cameras, to corporate e-mail and network usage monitoring.
No, the term has been appropriately applied to crime-fighting, surveillance cameras, email, and network monitoring.
I say appropriately because in the novel, BB was a supposedly benevolent entity which is exactly what these things are- supposedly a benevolent use of monitoring.
Dunno about the book reviewed in the article.
-- Lyndon Johnson, former President of the U.S.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Would the people who hate the cameras be willing to pay for all the bobbys to stand in place of the cameras? And so you walk down the street and a peace officer just happens to glance at you. I that such a big deal? The idea that being seen in PUBLIC by a cop behind a camera being a rape of you supposed right to privacy is absurd.
Excellent post. Well written, insightful, and even a bit funny.
Seriously, it's not a review at all--it's an op/ed piece, and a badly written one at that.
How about reviewing the book as given, and leaving your attitude for your OWN book?
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Maybe I'm missing the joke, but seriously? There are hundreds of thousands of mediocre people willing to work a mediocre job. Government pay isn't exactly mediocre anyway, at least not when there is no competitive private sector equivalent. If there is a competitive private sector equivalent, the mediocre still go into government work, because they can't get into the competitive jobs.
Localities that deploy CCTV cameras in public thoroughfares in the hope of combating crime are in no way indicative of the oppressive control of Orwell's Big Brother.
The only difference, really, was in what the localities in question defined as crimes. In Oceana, crimes included thinking the wrong thing. Britain has not quite yet reached that level (however, given that parliament has absolute sovereignty, there's precious little that can prevent it), but the level of surveillance by itself wasn't what made the society oppressive.
I agree that the no-penknives-on-airplanes rule is crazy and I can definitely see where someone that has been around a little longer will notice a lessening of personal liberty. But, there are huge environmental upsides to it:
I'd like zoning laws that would curb people's ability to create 2 acre yards, thereby requiring everyone in the neighborhood to drive a car.
I'd like a hefty tax on gasoline to encourage people to use more efficient transportation.
I like reasonable speeding laws because someone else's high speed scares me and lower speeds are much more efficient.
We really could have used some additional government control of the US financial markets.
Basically, I could understand why a libertarian would not like CCTV but, libertarians are idealistic fools.
I just finished reading Phillip K. Dick's "Man In The High Castle" which takes place in an alternate reality in which the Nazis and the Japanese won World War II. It takes place about 20 years after the war when things have settled down and the colonial empires of the Japanese and Germans are more or less up and running.
Someone asked me if the books was like 1984, Brave New World, or V for Vendetta. I told them that no it really wasn't at all. That's because the idea behind 1984 is that the government lies to the people about its nature and attempts to control people's perceptions about the past, present and future. The Nazis and the Japanese fascists didn't do that AFTER they had taken over (before that they did plenty of lying to gain power). They were sincere and forthright in their belief in their racial superiority and that they were going to take over the world for the greater glory of the Reich, kill everybody they didn't like or they thought was inferior, and they weren't ashamed of it.
I'm VERY glad we live in this world and not the world of "The Man in the High Castle" but it's disturbing how our current leadership is embarrassed about their ambitions. They dare not reveal them to the public and chose to hide them and play along with the democracy myth. It didn't used to be so bad but ever since the whole WMDs in Iraq thing and the torture scandal it's started to get to a point where political dialog has become a theater of the absurd.
Gentleman, I think we have a BLUE PARTRIDGE here.
brothke, I'm watching you, you're out off line! -- B. Brother
Sounds peachy, eh?
Look, you're not cleared for CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN or GAME ANDES REDSHIFT. Please keep your opinions about what is truly important to yourself and leave the decisions on the deployment of MAGINOT BLUE STARS to those that understand the situation.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
I guess that wasn't a surveillance camera behind Winston Smith's mirror in 1984? The reviewer is a twit. And an obvious agent of the forces of Big Brotherism. Under what rock do they find these folks?
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
1 CLS
10 PRINT Mod parent "underrated". This boosts his comment score, but it does not boost/alter his karma.
20 PRINT Mod parent "troll" or "flamebait". This lowers his comment score and also his karma.
30 GOTO 10
'Big Brother' term - Misappropriated? It has had nothing of the kind happen to it. It is completely appropriate to all the described situations. The ability to surveil is a high, high privilege, not a right, and it is certainly one that governments have to earn by crawling over broken glass, not give themselves in great helpings on a whimsy.
It is when the technology is combined with the increasing 'thoughtcrime' laws that the system becomes Orwellian.
As we monitor the data produced by people, we can use the things they said or did to stop crime.
But as we do this more and more, we may be able to guess who is more likely to commit crime based on the things they say.
It is not beyond common sense that this should scare people in lieu of 1984. Think about it, if we can guess who will commit the next crime based on the things they say to a high enough certainty, we might just start arresting people before they commit crime, for the sole thought of committing crime. Thought-crime.
And as our economies fail again and again due to the fact that there's not actually anything supporting it other than peoples opinions of how well it is, we just might form socialist governments in many of the larger countries.
I see 1984 as being possible, more possible today than when it was written.
Has the old saint in his forest not yet heard of it? That God is dead?
God, Dickhead, why do you always gotta act like such a.... dickhead?
To the right of this page, is an ad presented by Google regarding Intelspy.com
Life is not for the lazy.
You're a little naive if you think the military/federal government can't pull together data from all of it's networks for something.
You would truly be scared if you knew what was available via a simple search engine on the JWIC network.
What the TV show probably didn't tell you is that the mugger probably mugged someone else several days later.
With the CPS reluctance to prosecute and the severe reduction in custodial sentences, many people re-offend dozens of times before being put away.
CCTV is not the answer. An enshrined right to personal protection and the means to do so would be a good start, and it needs to be coupled with a justice system that actually puts persistent offenders somewhere where they can't hurt the rest of us.
The book's author is a brave man - the UK authorities are trying to criminalise even critical or questioning attitudes to blanket police surveillance of the population, as seen in the notorious terror hotline posters ('A bomb won't go off here because she reported someone studying the surveillance cameras'). I suspect that the author of that 'review' would agree with New Labour's pro-surveillance position, if he isn't on their payroll already. Police surveillance cameras constitute a blanket false accusation of wrongdoing against anyone who comes within their purview. They should only be used (a) in genuinely dangerous locations like subways [underpasses] and (b) to observe people against whom there is a genuine suspicion. That's a genuine, good faith suspicion not the usual vague handwaving about terrorism/organised crime/insert Daily Mail concern of the week here.
First and foremost, it's great that you read -- and retained -- 1984. That being said, whether you like it or not, "Big Brother" has entered the vernacular as "overly-controlled and/or observed." Things like this happen frequently -- you should probably roll with it. Next, the book is making a general point with anecdotes; without reading it, I can't state whether or not this is being abused -- but the mere fact that anecdotes are being used is not a reason to condemn, which you clearly think it is. I mean, sure, it's great that murders have been solved with CCTV. Terrific, even. But that's kind of the whole *point*: where's the balance between police state and privacy? You seem to fail to grasp that privacy should be considered a basic, fundamental right. Otherwise, it should be all cameras, all the time. Instead, we have to try to find the balance -- and there are no clear lines drawn. Sometimes it's obvious when a line is crossed; the example of the camera in a women's locker room some years ago comes to mind. And sometimes more -- or better-placed -- cameras could be wished for. But to just give in to one side or the other, without consideration for the middle ground, is simply foolish.
Lastly, your editing has improved *dramatically*. Thank you ever so much. A few mistakes were made, but by no means enough to impair the flow of the story. Much appreciated.
Coming from some outsider in the US, telling us UK readers whats REALLY happening in our country, I can only snigger at his lack of grasp. Of course "Big Brother" wants you to think they are not watching you. Perhaps you haven't heard about how CCTV is misused to spy ? Or how anti-terrorism laws are used against non-terrorists because existing laws dont give enough power to snoop ? I'll take this review as seriously as you would my review of American politics.
"The term has been misappropriated to describe everything from legitimate crime-fighting, to surveillance cameras, to corporate e-mail and network usage monitoring." What "legitimate crime-fighting" is rather depends on what you classify as a "crime." Surveillance of whom and for what purpose? We may agree that corporate network usage monitoring of their own corporate email and network is not invasion of privacy, but when the same technology is used by the government to mine for people with subversive attitudes and opinions...
No.
Back here in the US, we're working at it, also (though this administration may change some things). Does anyone want to argue that mandatory drug tests for jobs, and for some, random drug tests (for someone not operating a vehicle) isn't "overly controlled"? How about this decade, when suddenly employers want credit checks, and now more and more want criminal background checks?
Tell me that the companies that own the government aren't the real Big Brother. Put that in the context of the people who've been fired, or refused jobs, based on their social networking or non-business websites. Or in the fears that companies will look at DNA or other medical records to deny jobs or fire someone, to keep their medical costs down.
Go find a large corporation that doesn't do that, is my answer to the libertarian "vote with your feet", *ESP* in the middle of a depression (four or more quarters of shrinking GDP). For that matter, find a middle-sized company that isn't starting this.
The US voted out fascism, but Big Brother is only blunted, not turned back, at least yet.
mark
Blueprint for Global Enslavement
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261
not true.
book says cctv does not work.
reviewer says sure it does, here are 2 examples from the last month.
that makes sense to me.
I'd rather live in crime than the government and police watching my every move in case I twitch to quickly.
I've lived in massively crime ridden areas, and it's no fun... but at least you didn't have 10 cops per person and a camera shoved up your anus.