EU Surveillance Studies Disclosed By Pirate Party

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Surveillance Studies Disclosed By Pirate Party

Posted by timothy on Thursday September 9, 2010 @05:44PM from the vee-simply-vish-ztu-observe-you dept.

Spliffster writes "The German Pirate Party has disclosed some secret documents on how the EU is planning to monitor citizens. The so called INDECT Documents describe how a seamless surveillance could (or should) be implemented across Europe. The use of CCTV cameras, the Internet (social networks), and even the use of UAVs are mentioned as data sources. Two of the nine documents can be downloaded from the German Pirate Party's website (PDFs in English)."

52 of 343 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This is why we vote Pirate by Local+ID10T · 2010-09-09 17:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

No thank you to the surveillance state... we have all seen Metropolis, and as cool as it was, we don't want to live there.

--
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
1. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by Compaqt · 2010-09-09 18:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  US: GPS scanners on cars
  India: Blackberry keys/40-bit encryption
  UAE: Etelisat certificate/man-in-the-middle
  Germany: INDECT
  UK: CCTV/Echelon
  People everywhere are under attack by the armed gangs otherwise known as government. Then we have the gang union (UN)'s telecoms guy saying companies need to work with governments.
  People need to stop fighting each other and unite against their own governments.
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
2. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by Ziekheid · 2010-09-09 19:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  How is INDECT Germany only? Also Echelon is a project from both the UK and the US. Your examples are a bit random dear sir.
3. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by Requiem18th · 2010-09-09 19:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes, it is, you can't even gather people without begging for permission to the government. It only seems like it is not an issue when you are a passive consumer working for the system. Try to even speak your mind against the government outside of a free speech cage in a way that doesn't make you look like a raving lunatic and you'll get the police sent after you.
  http://youtu.be/akwjAjcQnqM
  
  --
  But... the future refused to change.
4. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by Custard+Horse · 2010-09-09 19:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  At least we have diversity in government. When are you English cads going to have a black royal. Our first black members of congress were seated in the 1800's, when are you getting a black Duke?
  That's a little simplistic. The royal family is a 'family' and no control can be exerted over them - they marry whomever they marry. Are you suggesting that the British public somehow force a non-white person into the family?
  Moreover, there is no shortage of cultural diversity in the royal family. The queen is basically German her husband is Greek. Or do you only measure cultural diversity by the colour of somebody's skin? Shame on you.
5. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by Dumnezeu · 2010-09-09 19:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes, he should have included ALL the surveillance methods ever used and ever to be used. Just a few scary samples isn't enough (at least for you...)
  
  --
  Yes, it's sarcasm. Deal with it!
6. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by LingNoi · 2010-09-09 19:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes, it is, you can't even gather people without begging for permission to the government.
  You'd prefer uncontrolled mass riots? Let me give you a clear example of what happens from one I recently experienced first hand in Thailand.
  People gather, everything is good, they're annoying but not causing any trouble. Splinter groups start getting violent and causing trouble. They attack the police and military there to move them out with grenade launchers and ak47s. It turns into a full blown riot with people getting killed and destroying property. Next you know, the whole city center is on fire.
  So cry me a river about your right to form mass uncontrolled protests without police planning and assistance.
7. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by rtb61 · 2010-09-09 20:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Arse about face much. Those riots are the result of a police state and by no stretch of the imagination do peaceful protest create the police state. When the state seeks to monitor all individuals all of the time it does so with the express intent of controlling those individuals all of the time. Express an undesirable opinion and get fired, company won't fire company loses lucrative contracts. Once fired never again gain a one of the few remaining middle class jobs and if that isn't enough all your relatives also lose their opportunities.
  Now add random arrests based upon circumstantial digital evidence where the penalty is the imprisonment awaiting trial and the cost of the trial followed by a whoops and a rinse and repeat for another charge (each time it is repeated under public opinion the more likely you are guilty rather than innocent, now ain't that a kicker).
  A surveillance society from the top down. First the politicians, then the police and then the rich and greedy. If they can tolerate their life under surveillance 24/7 visible by general public and not end up in prison within a couple of years, than we can start talking about the rest of society. First and foremost police officers should be made to wear head mounted cameras whilst on duty and with a strict enforcement policy that they are never to commence arrest operations until the camera has been activated, with greater power comes greater responsibility and greater accountability. If the police refuse why the fuck should we accept it.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
8. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by Luckyo · 2010-09-09 20:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Honestly, this isn't so much "gang known as government" as "gang known as intelligence community". Vast majority, in fact almost entire government is formed of various social workers, bureaucrats and so on. Even most police rarely have access, or even want such networks to exist, as they understand the consequences.
  This is a small minority on top of the government, some intelligence agencies, largely with agreement from corporate heads, as without their support modern western government heads don't even sneeze nowadays.
  And sad reality is, that due to the way our election system was perverted over the course of last century, we no longer choose our candidates. Big parties and corporate heads choose them for us. We just get to vote which of the choices is the better one in our opinion. People who actually want to represent people, rather then obey the system do not get high enough to matter. There are multiple failsafes in the political system to make sure of this.
9. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by cheekyjohnson · 2010-09-09 21:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "You'd prefer uncontrolled mass riots?"
  I'd rather be allowed to protest in an "uncontrolled" group than allow the government to decide what is appropriate for me to protest and abuse its powers in any and every way it can. The constitution mentions *no* exceptions to protests. What good is it if they're just going to ignore the parts that they don't like? Law of the land? Yeah, right. It's sad when violent riots occur, but it's worth it to at least be able to protest in the first place.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
10. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by almitchell · 2010-09-09 21:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I am displeased with my need to respond to you, but here goes: Are you high? Really? Afraid to move back to the US? What kind of habits, lifestyle, and hobbies do you have that would put you in the path of police to get arrested and have all these horrible terrible things happen to you? What kind of social group do you move in to put yourself into the path of police to have your rights so horribly terribly violated? Good god, man, move to Russia if you really want to be afraid of sh*t. Or Belarus. Or Somalia. Or Greece. Or Columbia.
  
  --
  Baseless self confidence kills more people each year than bathtubs.
11. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by Rich0 · 2010-09-09 22:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, the reality is that police do everything he mentioned, but it is only some of the police, and it is relatively infrequent. In the US, you're probably only a little more likely to be abused by a police officer than you are to die in an airplane crash. Generally you have to end up interacting with police for that to happen. Being a criminal of course is the easiest way to end up dealing with the police. However, ticking off a neighbor or an ex-spouse, or just being really unlucky can get you there as well.
  I don't think I'd consider this as a reason to not move to the US, unless you also use airline safety statistics to decide what country to live in.
  However, to outright dismiss his concerns is to take the opposite extreme. We certainly take airline safety seriously, and this is less of a problem than police corruption. Reforms are clearly needed, since nobody should have any reason to fear anything but due processes if they are accused of a crime.
12. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by maxume · 2010-09-09 23:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You just spoke your mind against the government.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
13. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by El+Torico · 2010-09-09 23:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Here's the kicker. Every major city in the US has got just as much CCTV surveillance as London! Yes, you're "spied on" just as much in New York as you are in London, and you've got armed police ready and willing to shoot you, too. It must be awful living in the US, with that constant threat over you all the time.
  Yes, it's so awful that millions of people immigrate here every year.
  
  --
  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
14. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by Bucc5062 · 2010-09-09 23:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think the point you missed was the splinter groups that use a uncontrolled "peaceful" protest to spark conflict. I am all for assembly to protest. In a saner world I even agree to keeping the authority out of it especially if I am protesting against that said authority, peacefully.
  Today it seems that peaceful turns violent because of an agenda on the fringe to provoke attack. Peaceful assembly still has to be lawful aseembly or the point is lost. The King marches, sits down, those worked because when the violence came, it was so out of proportion to the protest it solidified support. Want to make a statement, get 10,000 people to go to Washington and protest with a sit in at the capitol. Make the police drag them away and as one leaves, one enters. There is a point when those in charge will listen much more so then if violence was used. Violent riots are worthless and tend to do more harm than good.
  
  --
  Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
15. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by DrugCheese · 2010-09-09 23:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Reforms are clearly needed, since nobody should have any reason to fear anything but due processes if they are accused of a crime.
  If we're to put cameras up why not equip each police officer with a wireless cam that transmits the signal through their car live over the internet. As soon as they sign in it has to be on until they sign out. They can be logged and archived and would probably do a lot of good in court. You'd also hear a ton of them whine about it cause they'd have to change their behavior.
  
  --
  *DrugCheese rants*
16. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by PopeRatzo · 2010-09-09 23:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  People everywhere are under attack by the armed gangs otherwise known as government.
  You think the governments are doing this for themselves? They are under pressure to keep an "orderly" society for the sake of commerce.
  
  People need to stop fighting each other and unite against their own governments.
  People need to remember that they're governments are just themselves and unite against the real enemy.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
17. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by Speare · 2010-09-09 23:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The police who engage in beatings, theft, coercion, punishment tazering, etc., are bad and deserve to lose their jobs, no doubt about it. There are a lot of cops who say that there are very few "bad cops" but every cop who remains silent to protect such thuggery is a bad cop.
  
  --
  [ .sig file not found ]
18. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by piraat · 2010-09-10 00:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And sometimes it's not even splinter groups, but the police itself! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx53Rg
19. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by delinear · 2010-09-10 00:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not to mention that the law against assembly without permission only punishes law-abiding citizens. If a bunch of people want to gather together to illegally riot, they're not going to be put off by a law telling them they can't do it, since what they're planning is a worse crime anyway, and as we've seen in the past, even when there is permission granted to peacefully protest, this can be hijacked by rioters with an agenda, so the whole reasoning behind the law is flawed. This law is aimed at limiting peaceful protests, not preventing violent ones. There might be some validity to that (for instance, if you know a town centre is going to be gridlocked you might want to arrange traffic police to help, or set up diversions) but really sufficient notice should be the requirement, i.e. we tell the authorities a march is going to happen on this date, and they have the choice to deploy police to help or not but they should not have the right to just outlaw the gathering.
20. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by delinear · 2010-09-10 01:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Maybe I'm failing to see the bigger picture, but how does the question of whether a protest is controlled or uncontrolled have any bearing on whether it is hijacked by a splinter group with an agenda? Here in the UK we can now only have controlled assemblies by law, yet we still have riots, even as recently as last year with the G20 riots (where 350+ people were arrested). Use traffic flow or commerce or politically/religious/ethnic sensitivity or whatever other reason you can think of to justify laws controlling peaceful assembly, but don't use the fear of riots because we are living proof that riots happen regardless. On the other hand, when a million people turn up in the capital to protest an illegal war and the government presses on regardless, you can begin to understand why a frustrated handful of people think violence is the answer - after all, the government is setting the example.
21. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by dkleinsc · 2010-09-10 01:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You'd prefer uncontrolled mass riots? Let me give you a clear example of what happens from one I recently experienced first hand in Thailand.
  Let me give you a clear example of what happens from what a lot of people experienced in Chicago in 1968:
  People gather, everything is good, and they aren't annoying anybody really. The police decide to unlawfully break up the protest. It turns into a full blown police riot.
  Or if that examples goes too far back, you can look at Los Angeles in 2007.
  A fair number of police want protests to get violent, some because beating up protesters makes them feel powerful, some because they disagree with the protesters politically, and some because their bosses fall into one of the first two groups. The real kicker is that a lot of the protesters that get beaten up by cops are frequently charged with assaulting a police officer.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
22. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by carp3_noct3m · 2010-09-10 01:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Just have to point out, that Echelon makes the rest of what you talked about look like a .20 megapixel camera comared to a true HDR videocamera.. It is a AUSCANZUKUS program, but the real genius behind it is the NSA. The echelon program was started in about 71 as best as we can tell, but has evolved into a monster that no one person knows all about (including the oversight committee) and has technology that is years ahead of the rest of the world. One recent comparison on the matter that has stuck in my head, is that at the Spy Museam in DC, there is (not sure if it is still there) a dragonfly fitted with a microphone for spying on people without drawing attention. The catch? It was developed over 26 years ago... just imagine where they are today. It should also be noted that while the NSA gets a lot of attention, the CIA's office of Science and Technology is at about the same level, and they share a lot of projects and information.
  TLDR : Echelon dwarfs just about everything else, and is already implemented....
  
  --
  "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
23. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by mcgrew · 2010-09-10 02:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  True, the government didn't say "kill the hippies", but they did in fact send National Guardsmen armed with automatic rifles to a peaceful protest where none of the protesters were armed. There was no need to say "kill the hippies", it was inevitable. Theose guardsmen were, in fact, part of Ohio's government.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
24. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by delinear · 2010-09-10 02:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They hardly cost the country billions, £37M is barely enough to put together a premier football team these days. In return I like the fact that we don't have a president - the power of the monarchy might only be theoretical these days but it's a reminder that parliament is not meant to be an absolute power, and the royals themselves contribute a lot in terms of bringing tourism (around £500m per year) and business investment to the country. I used to be anti-monarchy, and I'll admit I still like to grumble about them from time to time, and they do seem to enjoy making life difficult for themselves with contoversial public actions, but I've come around to thinking they probably are, on balance, good for the country.
25. Re:This is why we vote Pirate by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 03:00 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Sure hope the first thing someone asks you if you're ever victimized by the police is something other than whether you're high. Using your logic, if the police decide to victimize you, obviously you must be doing something wrong, because the police never make a mistake? Or because the police never victimize "good people" like you?
  You think as white, middle-class, SUV-driving "good person" you won't ever have to worry about that?
  I really wish I could comprehend your logic and how it fits in with the idea of universal liberty. As long as you're able to make choices that allow you to fit in with the system, the system is ok? As long as the system does not come after you personally, the system is ok? I'm really not sure how this is useful for building a free society.
For what purpose? by elucido · 2010-09-09 17:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Surveillance is fine if theres World War 3 or a Cold War, but this level of surveillance to fight crime will make us all into criminals soon enough.
1. Re:For what purpose? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  *facepalm* Why would u go ahead and give them ideas? You think they are above starting a cold war, or even a real one to get their agenda through?
2. Re:For what purpose? by Kitkoan · 2010-09-09 17:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Surveillance is fine if theres... a Cold War
  Thats a slippery slope to tread. When mentioned under the right words, that could be used with concepts of the global power rise of China, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, ect... hell, enough spin and it could be used with consideration of the Taliban. Just need to frame it right to the correct people and suddenly your in a pseudo-Cold War with whom ever you can demonize enough (that is also unable to stand against you too much).
  
  --
  Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
3. Re:For what purpose? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 18:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This happened after Vietnam, and they didn't "fuck you up" then, what makes you think they magically will now?
4. Re:For what purpose? by Kitkoan · 2010-09-09 18:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Business as usual in a big city would meet my description as a "large event" where people at like "hooligans" and can have riots (beyond Soccer games). And as you mentioned, it could be mis-used for anything they want. That much power is ripe for abuse and since it won't be monitored by the public, who can really say/report what it ends up truly being used for?
  
  --
  Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
5. Re:For what purpose? by elucido · 2010-09-09 18:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What I just don't understand is why, if crime rates have been going steadily down for some decades now, do they feel like they need to be more invasive and offensive in their fight against crime
  Because they see it as why settle for a low crime rate when they can (in bad logical theory) turn it into a no crime rate.
  Only the crime rate includes victimless crimes. It's not like you or I decide what is or isn't a crime. It's not like crimes and laws are decided based on reason or logic or game theory, no thats decided based upon the morality of Christian churches and other moralists who think they know whats best for us, and by elites who want to protect their wealth and turf.
6. Re:For what purpose? by chichilalescu · 2010-09-09 19:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  related to your last question. first of all, you get votes for shouting and pointing fingers, not for reasonable arguments.
  second: in the past, the big, easy to get crimes were targeted. as time passes, the crimes that can still be comitted are much "better", and harder to catch, so more and more effort (read as invasive and offensive) is needed. ultimately, the best way to fight crime is to put everyone in solitary confinement :)
  
  --
  new sig
7. Re:For what purpose? by The+Master+Control+P · 2010-09-09 19:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  *cough*War on Some Drugs*cough*War on Terror*cough*War against Iraq*cough*
8. Re:For what purpose? by PatrickThomson · 2010-09-09 20:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What about police guards at G8 protests, certain sporting events? Surely by turning up they are assuming guilt. Never mind that there is a 100% occurrence of violent incidents and they would be derelict in duty by staying home... What about bobbies on the beat in rough neighbourhoods where someone gets stabbed every week? Are they being offensively oppresive? Stop being so asinine.
  
  --
  I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
9. Re:For what purpose? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2010-09-09 21:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What about police guards at G8 protests, certain sporting events? Surely by turning up they are assuming guilt. Never mind that there is a 100% occurrence of violent incidents and they would be derelict in duty by staying home... What about bobbies on the beat in rough neighbourhoods where someone gets stabbed every week? Are they being offensively oppresive? Stop being so asinine.
  Precrime much?
  You've just rationalized any amount of government interference because there is always a chance that something will go wrong.
  And don't even try to backpedal because you just called a man assinine for complaining that under the proposed system "anyone could be a suspect."
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
A blueprint for a bright new future... by Jedi+Alec · 2010-09-09 17:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

I guess we should thank the German pirates for putting it out there so we can have a nice ruckus about it...before we forget about it again in a day or 2.

--

People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Re:Orwell by Kitkoan · 2010-09-09 18:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

People in government do read 1984. They've just confused it from a warning to a guide/how to book.

--
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
Re:We? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 18:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Calm down homey, you are reading way too much into this. You got some rage, find a way to work it out instead of overreacting here.
Everyone should be seen as innocent. by elucido · 2010-09-09 18:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

As far as I'm concerned everyone is innocent until proven guilty. And we have too many crimes, not too many criminals. When you make everything that people like to do or have to do illegal you create excuses for surveillance.
Business bad, gov good? by kwbauer · 2010-09-09 18:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

This story, Germany-To-Grant-Privacy-At-the-Workplace [slashdot.org] was about how great it was that Germany is making great strides towards banning a private business from monitoring the activities of its employees. Now, that same government seems to think that no amount of monitoring those same people is too much, as long as the benevolent government does the monitoring instead of the evil corporation.
Nice progress they are making over there. /sarcasm
Re:We? by norpan · 2010-09-09 19:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Please don't monopolize the use of the word "we" to mean "EVERYONE". "We" could mean "me and my friend". It referers to a group of two or more people of which I am a member.

--
Opinions expressed above are mine, and not my employees'.
Only those... by NewtonsLaw · 2010-09-09 20:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Only those with something to hide have anything to fear...
That's why politicians are more than happy to have webcams in their houses connected directly to the internet for all the world to watch their activities.
Oh... what's that?
They're not happy to have webcams in their houses?
Hmmm... what does that mean I wonder?
1. Re:Only those... by Totenglocke · 2010-09-10 00:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Government buildings are public spaces - yet we're not allowed to place cameras through them to monitor what politicians and government employees are doing.
  
  --
  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Re:wow by VShael · 2010-09-09 20:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

"They may make it easier to catch people afterwards, but they don't actually prevent anything."
Just to emphasise, they may make it easier to catch *people*.
They do nothing to catch corporations obviously, though corporate crime is almost certainly a bigger threat to national security and well-being than any Joe Schmoe on the street.
In addition, by some strange coincidence, any time the police in the UK have been accused of misdeeds, (such as brutalising innocent members of the public) the relevant CCTV cameras have always been found to have been wiped/malfunctioning/looking in the wrong direction.
If street criminals have even 10% of the luck of these accused police officers, then the CCTV system is basically useless and pointless.
We'd be better off relying on members of the public and ubiquitous phone cams. At least *they* have caught the occasional police brutality incident. That makes them superior to the CCTV system in my opinion, and cheaper too.
Re:We? by nashv · 2010-09-09 20:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

We is first-person plural, Einstein. Flaming Fail - no pun intended, but the alliteration was.

--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Re:Orwell by equex · 2010-09-09 21:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

It would not help. I have made several expeditions to the big blue room, and the inhabitants claim that they are willing to sacrifice their privacy for their freedom. Yes, as long as they feel threatened by terrorists and whatnot, they are more than willing to be routinely strip searched for no other reason than 'just to be safe'. They actually feel proud in the fact that they have nothing to hide from their authorities, and will assist them to feel good.

--
Can I light a sig ?
That's not true by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 23:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Look at the Swift issue, USA demanded access to our banking data. EU Commission defined it as a data protection issue and granted USA and EU rights to that data.
So now that data is Europol activity under the EU Commission.
You use the word 'coordinating' to get around the facts here, the EU is expanding into criminal law, and there's no legal basis for it, but it doesn't stop them.
Re:Brave New World by IndustrialComplex · 2010-09-09 23:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

is only a dystopia if you are conventionally religious, or have inflated ideas of the importance of the human race.
Is this another way of saying, "It's only a dystopia if you don't believe the way I do."

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Re:Brave New World by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 23:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

BNW is only a dystopia if you are conventionally religious, or have inflated ideas of the importance of the human race.
Er ... or if you're anything other than an Alpha or Beta. Making some fairly big assumptions about our place in that fictional world order, aren't we? By the same logic slavery is also a terrific civic.
By the way, I take issue with your assumption that "Huxley thought he was describing a dystopia". There are no grounds for that belief. I suspect Huxley was more interested in the complexities of the moral dilemmas involved in the situation than you give him credit for.
Re:Brave New World by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 00:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

... or care about freedom.
Re:Brave New World by dkleinsc · 2010-09-10 01:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

That society, like most societies, is only an improvement if you're on top of the social heap. Similar to how most Ren Faire fans aren't so excited of the prospect of the real life of the average Renaissance person, which was generally a combination of working on a farm, being conscripted into an army, dying of plague (or dysentery or a host of other diseases), and praying to avoid dying of plague. Ditto for Ayn Rand's views - I have yet to meet an Ayn Rand fan who thinks that they're part of the unwashed masses who never accomplish anything important. Similarly, most Trek fans imagine themselves as a bridge officer instead of Second Class Deck Cleaner, and more Star Wars fans imagine themselves as a Jedi of some sort than some no-name moisture farmer.
It's all good fun, but hardly realistic.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/