Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sci-Fi Stories That Predicted the Surveillance State

Posted by Soulskill on from the why-couldn't-they-have-gotten-holodecks-right-instead dept.

Daniel_Stuckey writes "Just to address one thing straight away: one of your favorite science fiction stories dealing, whether directly or indirectly, with surveillance is bound to be left off this list. And 1984's a given, so it's not here. At any rate, the following books deal in their own unique way with surveillance. Some address the surveillance head-on, while others speculate on inter-personal intelligence gathering, or consider the subject in more oblique ways. Still others distill surveillance down to its essence: as just one face of a much larger, all-encompassing system of control, that proceeds from the top of the pyramid down to its base."

12 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing to predict by hessian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All technology is used by those who are in power, or want power.

    That surveillance is one of those powers isn't particularly new. People had networks of spies in ancient times.

    The real question is the people in power. They will have this power, and they will use it; toward what end? And, what is their level of moral rectitude?

    I don't think we can use rules, laws and regulations to keep them in line. They need to be good people.

    --
    Futurist Traditionalism
    1. Re:Nothing to predict by TomR+teh+Pirate · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please. The 2nd Amendment has never, ever done anything to prevent the government from steadily eroding 1st-Amendment, 4th-Amendment, or any-other-Amendment rights. Don't like NSA spying? Where are the 2nd Amendment nuts to put things right? Oh that's right...they're cooped up in fox holes in Idaho, where they've had their asses handed to them on an as-needed basis not by the US Army, but by tiny little SWAT teams. It's a tired trope, and frankly laughable.

    2. Re:Nothing to predict by bdwebb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The idea is that every citizen in the country has a right to bear arms so that, in the event the government decides they want power indefinitely and implements a new governmental structure, there are millions of guns and citizens to prevent them from outright declaring the constitution invalid. The fact that our constitutional rights and amendments have been ERODED over years seems instead of simply stricken from the record to me represents a direct result of the 2nd amendment's existence..otherwise we would never have returned from martial law following any one of the wars that our country has gone through. Until the "Patriot" Act was introduced, the government was essentially unable to find and/or put into law an overarching 'workaround' that allows them to essentially do whatever they want. This is being a bit general but unless you're retarded you know what I'm getting at.

      Maybe instead of the random errant 'nuts' that you describe we should all take a personal responsibility and march on Washington and force our elected officials out of office for not working as agents of the people and therefore violating the entire purpose of their postings. Most of those 'nuts' were sane people driven to paranoia by the things that most of us ignore outright as SOP for the government. Maybe if we were all a little nuttier and didn't have one-dimensional opinions like yours, we wouldn't have things like PRISM and the Patriot Act.

    3. Re:Nothing to predict by lightknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The 2nd Amendment isn't meant, necessarily, for the populace to storm the Senate every single time they pass something that is disagreed with; you do its proponents a dishonour to paint them this way.

      The 2nd Amendment is a poison pill, a reminder in a way, for the day that comes sooner or later, as no government can resist decay, when its own must dismember it, turn the soil, and grow something new. It's there to remind them that what they are doing is the right thing, that they have the complete backing of the original progenitors of this government to slay the Leviathan when it forgets its contract, and believes itself to be God. That's so they do not shed a tear at its funeral, and do not tarry from the work that will need to be done, as quickly or slowly as they prefer, when the time comes. Contrary to the Supreme Court's belief that it is the sole interpreter of the US Constitution, a mistruth that has been propagated for far too long as it is, the power has, and always will, rest with the People. I do, however, find it touching that the US Government would prefer to hold court over whether it is following its own social contract inside one of its own courts....stocked with its own choice of judges.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    4. Re:Nothing to predict by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government still changes by means of election,

      So far as I can see, the election changes very little. Giving people a choice of two figureheads is not democracy.
      Real democracy needs transparency, accountability and rule of law. Whether there is one party, or two slightly different parties, running things is a relatively minor point.

    5. Re:Nothing to predict by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The second amendment has been irrelevant for its intended purpose since at least the civil war. Was it ever allowed that citizens have cannon and Gatling guns?

      The 2nd Amendment is quite clearly intended as a deterrent to an oppressive state, but since that has never realistically been true in the US since maybe the Whiskey Rebellion, or the American Revolution itself... I am all for banning personal firearms.

      What is the point of me having a .30 carbine when the state will come after me with 25mm auto-cannon?

      The only outlet for the US citizen is the horrible, tedious, self-effacing and demoralizing march through protest then the oppressive process of the courts. And it's been that way for more than a century. And if you can win that... you are way more of a goddamn hero than someone who went out with guns ablazin'.

      So all you gun nuts... admit it, you are really just closeted.... whatever it is you fantasize about.

    6. Re:Nothing to predict by C0R1D4N · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Small arms keeping everyone armed is still a good fighting force even without drones and missiles. While the second amendment only applies to personal weapons and not artillery or ordinance the US govt is unlikely to launch cruise missiles into its own infrastructure to put down rebellion. In a true civil war the military itself will divide and both sides will have access to military hardware.

    7. Re:Nothing to predict by xstonedogx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you greatly underestimate how difficult it is to wage war on your own populace. Imagine Iraq, but with everyone armed, your own troops defecting, and every person you kill potentially related in some way to people who are on your side. Oh, and any infrastructure you destroy is your own.

    8. Re: Nothing to predict by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the headline is about sci-fi predictions of the Orwellian state, why not just fill in the rest?
      The Orwellian state seems inevitable.
      Step 2,people get off the planet.
      Step 3, the realize they want to be free and the government comes down on them.
      That's it.
      That's the future.

      The future is a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

      (Sorry, couldn't resist).

      Actually, having re-read 1984 recently, I noticed that Smith's interrogator/torturer/reprogrammer (whose name escapes me) mentioned that the Party was evolving. Which leads to interesting speculations. We have seen in recent history that rarely does an oppressive regime last 3 generations. The founders are ideologically committed to atrocities, but successive generations aren't so heavily invested and tend to want to be seen as "better" than their predecessors. "Better" doesn't always mean fairies and flowers; China's "better" is still authoritarian, just with a looser leash. And new oppressive regimes pop up as fast as old ones fade. But at least there's some hope.

  2. Not 1984 by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The book you want is Huxley's Brave New World. Instead of overlords controlling people through power and domination, people allow themselves to be controlled in exchange for the pleasantries of modern life - sex, entertainment, and other trivialities. As long as they get as much of those as they want, they don't give a damn what else is going on in society or who is controlling it. As the saying goes, you attract more flies with honey...

    1. Re:Not 1984 by jimbrooking · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bread and circuses, the Romans knew, were necessary for a well-ordered society.

  3. In Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Russia's at the same state now, if you criticize Putin you end up in jail on a trumped up charge or commit suicide or end up dead abroad. Words are enough.

    Barrett Brown (who made the mistake of reporting 'anonymous' leaks and upsetting a defense contractor). His charge is grade A fabricated crap.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/21/barrett-brown-persecution-anonymous
    (Wikileaks and Glenn were targetted for smear campaigns.)

    Wanna see a video of undercover cops trying to plant drugs on 'protestors', there's lots and lots of those, DuckDuck for them. Seems to be an easy bust.

    Do people get killed for speech by America? Sure, usually by drone strike, then Fox calls them 'vile propagandists', without seeing the irony.

    Aaron of course was on trumped up charges and killed himself. Guantanamo is force feeding prisoners who just want a trial. Those are genuine suicides/attempts, Putin's tend to be thrown off a building, but nobody is really sure how many.

    It's comforting to believe you have surveillance without the negative effect, but you really don't. Soviet Russia was mostly just people going about their business of beer and circus.