Slashdot Mirror


Sci-Fi Stories That Predicted the Surveillance State

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."

55 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.

    1. Re:Nothing to predict by i.r.id10t · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Again, the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment here in the US.

      If "they" won't be good for the right reasons, then fear is a good motivator.

      That said, how about a more recent book or pair of books? Little Brother and Homeland both by Cory Doctorow @ craphound.com

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    2. Re:Nothing to predict by MrEricSir · · Score: 2

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

      Since you're posting this on the internet, which are you?

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    3. 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.

    4. Re:Nothing to predict by fredprado · · Score: 2

      The only real assurance is not a vague definition of "good people in power". There is no such thing. The only solution that does not end in a police state is demanding transparency and constant inspection of their actions.

    5. Re:Nothing to predict by mirix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I keep hearing this line... but the US govn't has been rotten to the core for ages, and I still see no uprising.

      When is this 'refreshing the tree of liberty' thing going to happen? Never?

      They don't seem to be terribly afraid of your pea-shooters, either... letting people have guns is apparently less of a threat to power than losing votes due to further restricting them. They get to run roughshod over all the other rights, as long as folks are satisfied with having their arms.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    6. Re:Nothing to predict by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Funny

      Where are the mass arrests?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. 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.

    8. Re:Nothing to predict by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      When is this 'refreshing the tree of liberty' thing going to happen? Never? ... letting people have guns is apparently less of a threat to power than losing votes due to further restricting them.

      You basically provide the answer. The government still changes by means of election, and the politicians still are concerned about what the voters will do when they vote. The Republic endures.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. Re:Nothing to predict by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      My kingdom for some mod points for this guy...

    10. Re:Nothing to predict by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      Wrong.

      Might want to research what occurred in Athens, TN in the 1946 "Battle of Athens".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

      Might also want to find out what's happened through history to people who have been disarmed by their governments.

      Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPMqfXIJpNE

      The 2A isn't about civilians going toe-to-toe with a regular army. It's about making it a very costly proposition for enemies of the people of the US both foreign and domestic.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    11. Re:Nothing to predict by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Too many studies have already shown what happens to 'good people' when they acquire power. The only solution is to eliminate the power, which is probably physically impossible, but finding ways of disabling the weaponry would be a good start. So, all that's left is to make the best of it, eh? What good is spending your whole life looking over your shoulder?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. Re:Nothing to predict by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're the one who's being "cute", by assuming that war is a simple question of "who's got the biggest gun".

      You could learn the facts, but you will always actively avoid doing so, because that would require you to reconsider the comforting lie that the world is a simple place that you have all figured out.

      Also, you should be aware that trying to bolster an argument with "haha, you're so funny and cute" is a universally understood signal that you lack confidence in your own position. This is unsurprising since said position is far too childishly simplistic to survive extended contact with reality. You're breaking, and your ineptly affected amusement is the sound of that breakage.

    16. 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.

    17. Re:Nothing to predict by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They don't seem to be terribly afraid of your pea-shooters, either... letting people have guns is apparently less of a threat to power than losing votes due to further restricting them.

      Why would they be afraid of guns, when their side has drones, tanks, ICBMs, sonic weapons (these have already been deployed against peaceful protests), smart bombs, a state-of-the-art spying network, sophisticated propaganda systems, etc?

      Besides, if you really wanted to hurt the people that control this country, you'd:
      A. Organize massive labor strikes. I'm talking "Nobody is working in California this week" kind of massive.
      B. Stop shopping as much as possible.
      The reason is that the money they use to control everything has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is from the pockets of the rest of us.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    18. 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.

    19. Re:Nothing to predict by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      ...fear is a good motivator.

      Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station. ..

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    20. Re:Nothing to predict by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Informative

      The US gov will try to hide form the optics of a "mass arrest".
      Every political leader understands Tiananmen Square, the US had its Bonus Army en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
      The US seems to be going for generational change re the 2nd Amendment- taxation, total registration, education (via youth, movies, tv), criminalization, locked transportation away from any ammo, more police questions in legal open carry states.
      Your 2nd Amendment "should" cover some basic gun rights in your city or State, but jail time and fines might be the everyday reality despite Federal court cases over the years.
      The US gov has learned from the Vietnam protests that "mass arrests" include some very well connected authors, lawyers, wealthy students and press.
      With the risk of HD footage and sound, a good legal team a day in open court is not the the chilling effect it once was.
      The US gov seems to favour infiltration, the mass use of state and federal "Agent provocateur" (infiltrate left and right wing groups and ensure crimes on camera) i.e. group leaders can be arrested just before protests
      The protesters are then offered deals to bring in more quality arrests, after an event to be protested are offered 'fines' vs risking court, turned into tame busy work movements or people are moved around Federal jail system for a few week, months..
      The individual is broken with lack of sleep, food, no contact with their legal team, medication withdrawl, or face a type of "Soviet punitive psychiatry" until their paperwork is found.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MERRIMAC
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_RESISTANCE
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core
      http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/18/patriot_games
      Show the evolution of US thinking on ideas like "mass arrest" - go for the person. Map out then tame, shape any "movement" leaving nothing but informants and tame groups ready to join any real protesters.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    21. Re:Nothing to predict by quenda · · Score: 2

      That accounts for much of President Obama's actions in the war against al Qaida.

      What war against al Qaida? You mean that big recruitment drive for them in Iraq, where Al Qaida did not even exist before the US invasion?
      You mean the lost war against the Taliban, US allies against Russia, who were no threat against the US, and held no grudge until being invaded?

      8000 American troops dead, >600,000 Iraqi excess deaths, and worldwide loss of respect. Beats "negligence or inaction" eh?

    22. Re:Nothing to predict by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Vietnam was a political firestorm, bring in the nukes and suddenly the problem is solved. However, that wasn't allowed for various reasons.

      Chief amongst which was the fact that it would not have worked unless we'd been prepared to reduce the whole country--North AND South--to a puddle of glass. In a situation where there's a Your Zone and a My Zone and they are relatively far apart (e.g. on different continents), it makes sense for me to try to nuke Your Zone, since doing so doesn't have any effect on My Zone. In a guerrilla action with no clear and relatively stable boundaries between Your Zone and My Zone, nukes are not such a bright idea. Unless your idea of winning is simply to wipe out everything.

      We (yes, I'm from the US) lost in Viet-Nam because (a) half or more of the people whose freedom we were supposedly fighting for supported the other side and (b) we were never prepared to occupy the entire country in force and de-Viet-Cong-ify it, My Lai by My Lai, which is what would have been required for us to "win".

      What in the HELL are you talking about? If you're not trolling you've got to be on something.

      Said the pot to the kettle.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    23. Re:Nothing to predict by trawg · · Score: 2

      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.

      Do you need to force them? Every four years there's a great opportunity to really change things, and that's just at a head-of-government level - I don't know anything about how Senators or Congressmen are voted in (I'm Australian), but it seems like the ballot box is a good place to start.

      It seems (from reading /. and other sites) that even seriously committed Democrats aren't happy with how the last "Change" you were promised worked out. The two party option seems to be killing you guys. Get some independents in there.

      To an outsider it just looks like there's no difference at all between the parties, and that everything is set up to try to force people to think "well if I don't vote [Republican|Democrat], then those damn [Democrats|Republicans] will get in!"

    24. Re:Nothing to predict by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The second amendment was because the Founding Fathers feared a standing army.

      That reason is only one of multiple reasons for the 2A. Read some of the letters and other writings of Washington, Jefferson, etc. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and Common Sense.

      "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ⦠from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ⦠the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

      "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside ⦠Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

      "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason - Co-author of the Second Amendment
      during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

      It's impossible to eliminate guns in the US short of turning it into N. Korea.on steroids and locking pretty much everyone up in camps. As long as the US Government has guns and large, ridiculously-porous borders, the criminals will be armed and they will be the only civilians with guns.

      If a civil war broke out in the US, it's guaranteed the military will fracture. Not only is the US military all-volunteer, but much of it is currently made up of National Guard. They ain't all gonna snap a salute and frag grandma and the babies, regardless of being labeled "domestic terrorists/rebels/insurgents", or whatever lame dissociative label the government attaches to them. They're not all dumb enough to believe obvious BS, or to all go along with it.

      More than you think will instead reply to such orders with something like; "I'm sorry Sir, that's an illegal order. Under the UCMJ and standing/general orders, I and those under my command are forced to disobey your illegal order and obligated to immediately inform your superiors in the command chain of the details of this incident." (Not sure of the exact wording and language. Probably varies by the branch of service. Didn't feel like doing the search.)

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    25. 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.

    26. Re:Nothing to predict by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Informative

      To an outsider it just looks like there's no difference at all between the parties, and that everything is set up to try to force people to think "well if I don't vote [Republican|Democrat], then those damn [Democrats|Republicans] will get in!"

      There are many of us on the inside who have the same opinion.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    27. Re:Nothing to predict by Hatta · · Score: 2

      The NYPD arrested 700 protesters for exercising their first amendment rights in Oct 2011.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    28. Re:Nothing to predict by Hatta · · Score: 2

      When was the last time a soldier refused to obey an illegal order, and what happened to him? As far as I'm aware, only one refused to participate in the illegal war in Iraq, and he was court martialed.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    29. Re:Nothing to predict by Whorhay · · Score: 2

      In todays US I doubt such a strategy would work other than to incite riots that'd make the ones in LA look like child's play. In order for that to work you would need a much larger chunk of the population to openly support it than even bothers to vote in elections these days. My own Father refused to carry a firearm in Vietnam as a Medic when people were shooting at him on a regular basis. And even he'd be out in the streets if our legislators passed such a law.

    30. Re:Nothing to predict by Xaedalus · · Score: 3

      I'm retarded. Please explain to me what the workaround is that the Patriot Act allowed. And also, please explain to me why the majority of the American people, liberal and conservative, both approved of the bill, and continue to approve of it. Also, please explain to me why an armed march on Washington will immediately result in better conditions and not drive our country into a chaotic free-fall and civil war--or are we the divine exception to the rule?

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    31. Re:Nothing to predict by dywolf · · Score: 2

      it is a valid point. originally there was a parity of force which no longer exists.

      however, even by the Civil War that parity had begun to erode. yet what did you see, but even people within the military (mainly officers given the setup of the military at the time) choosing sides and bringing their equipment with them.

      and you'd likely see the same thing today if it ever happened again, though probably on an even bigger scale. not many that presently serve in the military would willingly turn their weapons on fellow citizens, and if things ever got that bad that the gov turned on the citizenry, well over half the military would oppose the government, and bring all their toys and expertise with them.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  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.

    2. Re:Not 1984 by newcastlejon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...

      There was much more to it than that. The Savage (whose name escapes me) rejected all those supposedly pleasant things while the citizens, having been conditioned since before they were born, accepted them. Take the epsilons, for example: they weren't afforded much at all in the way of luxury, yet still served the state and might have fought to preserve the status quo if their development hadn't been retarded to the point where they couldn't even grasp the concept.

      When people talk about Ninteen Eighty-Four, they often focus on the telescreen, to the exclusion of the mass surveillance of citizens by their peers. Similarly, with Brave New World the state essentially breeding people to be satisfied with what little they have takes second place to soma and free love that is (perversely) mandatory.

      There was a pause; then the voice began again.
      "Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able "

      The Director pushed back the switch. The voice was silent. Only its thin ghost continued to mutter from beneath the eighty pillows. "They'll have that repeated forty or fifty times more before they wake; then again on Thursday, and again on Saturday. A hundred and twenty times three times a week for thirty months. After which they go on to a more advanced lesson." ... "Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too—all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides—made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!

      As for 1984, literary analysis was never my strong suit, but if asked I'd say that Orwell was afraid that an oppressive state would turn men against their fellows; I can only imagine what he would say about a world where people surrender their privacy willingly.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    3. Re:Not 1984 by FuzzNugget · · Score: 2

      You're half way there: Orwell and Huxley were both right.

      Most of us will gladly sell our privacy for trivialities and convenience, but there exist forces of evil in power as well. Our current surveillance state can only exist because both of these things are true.

  3. A little off beat, but... by msobkow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I always thought Star Trek had a little bit of surveillance society in it, because the computer was always listening for you to say "Computer" and give it a command. Mind you, the Enterprise *was* as close to a military ship as the ST society had in the original series, so I guess it might be understandable.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:A little off beat, but... by safetyinnumbers · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And it would give someone's location whenever asked.

    2. Re:A little off beat, but... by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 2

      Oh, Star Trek does predict humanity's future...but it won't be the Federation.

      We are the NSA. Your biological and technological metadata will be added to our index. Your computers will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
  4. Brazil by Local+ID10T · · Score: 3, Informative

    Terry Gilliam's interpretation of Orwell's 1984: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/

    --
    "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
  5. Blind Faith - Ben Elton by Macgrrl · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ben Elton is perhaps better known in Commonwealth countries as a TV comedian, but he writes a fine line of satire which frequently swerves into the SciFi realm and is almost always a form of social commentary.

    Blind Faith is an interesting posit on where the current obsession with social media, coupled with government surveillance and the slide away from science to religion could do to a slightly futuristic society.

    Well worth a read, and if you enjoy that, you may enjoy some of his older works, such as Stark, This Other Eden, or some of his more recent stuff (there's dozens).

    --
    Sara
    Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  6. The imporant qualifier by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What makes the fictional dystopias featuring surveillance states interesting isn't simply the fact that they conduct surveillance, but rather what they do with the information. In the fictional dystopias is it to engage in various sorts of general repression against the population, sometimes subtly, sometimes in a heavy handed and cruel fashion. How many of them involve actions by the state to genuinely protect the citizenry except in an Orwellian fashion? Moving from fiction to history and current events reveals that the difference between free societies using surveillance to protect themselves is in marked contrast to unfree societies. Nobody went to prison for 10 years at hard labor for simply calling George Bush, "Chimpy McHitler," while he was President, but plenty of people went to the Gulag for 10 years for telling a joke about Stalin, and far from all of the people sent to the Gulag survived. There may need to be refinement and more oversight over the activities of the intelligence services of Western governments, but getting it wrong will ultimately lead to harsh feedback of another sort.

    Too true:(Listen for the joke at 1:40) Reagan tells Soviet jokes

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  7. The computer is your friend... by rsborg · · Score: 2

    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...

    Another good take is the role-playing game Paranoia - which made the surveillance state amusing (and insane) [1]. In addition to big brother, brave new world-ish mandatory uppers and downers combined with a Kafka-like maze of rules that can never all be respected - you are forced to betray, backstab, lie and cheat faster/better than the other players.

    This, along with games like Diplomacy [2], should be mandatory for all 10y+ kids so they can become accustomed to shit that others will pull on them with more real-world painful consequences.

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_(role-playing_game)
    [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  8. Stainless Steel Rat called it frighteningly close by thinktech · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm disappointed that Harry Harrison's "Stainless Steel Rat" is not at the top of this list. Written in 1961, it's entire premise is about a thief that operates in a society with computer surveillance tracking everyones every move. Facial recognition, camera and car tracking, etc, etc. I've re-read this many times and it's almost frightening how close it is to reality. Even to the point of most of the populace being comfortable with the intrusion.

    --
    What's up with this box everyone has to think inside of or outside of? Why does there have to be a box?
  9. the premise is unsubstantiated by Unordained · · Score: 3, Interesting

    all-encompassing system of control, that proceeds from the top of the pyramid down to its base

    I feel this statement unduly absolves us as a society from blame for our own surveillance state -- as if we hadn't clamored for safety, as if we hadn't spouted off about having nothing to hide, as if we hadn't secretly distrusted anyone using encryption, anonymous account, or trying to live "off the grid", as if we hadn't openly derided the boys who cried wolf about the coming panopticon. Do you think something of this magnitude is simply ordered from "the top"? We asked for this. The only thing you can complain about is that the people we elected (and those they appointed or hired) to do our bidding, in an effort to more completely obey us, didn't tell us what they were doing. It's like hiring a hitman and having him tell you it's better that you not know the details of the hit you've paid for.

    I don't think this is a pyramid. This is an hourglass, or a pinched torus -- we all sit on top of the government, down to a single point of control; which then sits on top of an expanding mass of surveillance state that sits in/on/around all of us. Unless of course you buy into the idea that our elections are rigged, that it's all been run by a cabal for decades/centuries/millenia, etc.

    But I think it's much simpler to accept that we did this to ourselves. It doesn't take a roomful of geniuses working secretly, it just takes a nation of average Joe's being themselves. Design by committee, of millions.

  10. Philip K. Dick - A Scanner Darkly by adminstring · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...is another classic that belongs on the list.

    --
    My truck is like a series of tubes.
  11. Player Piano by antifoidulus · · Score: 2

    From a more economics-based standpoint(specifically, what happens when there are no real "jobs" left), I would have to say "Player Piano" by Kurt Vonnegut. Now of course there is the obviously dated references to computers with so many vacuum tubes that they fill a cave, and alas engineers ARENT the richest people on the planet but there is some great social commentary in there re: what to do when technology and society has rendered most people useless.
    In the book, 99% of young men are basically given 2 options: join the army or join a meaningless public works organization....this is eerily similar to today's economy. Having spent time on a military base as a contractor, I can say that most of these guys would have been working at a factory if they had been born 50 years ago, but as most of those jobs have dried up they ended up in the Army. I know people in the US like to go all hero worship on these people, but lets face facts: For most of them, it's their only ticket to anything that even closely resembles a middle class lifestyle. They either aren't cut out for post-secondary education or cannot afford it, and since we don't have any other place for them(much like in the story), we stick them in the army...... The "reeks and wrecks" are the public works people, not quite as big in the US as they are elsewhere(for instance, Japan), but they are still there.

    If you have time, definitely check it out, I've just scratched the surface of how correct Vonnegut was in predicting what happens when people stop being "useful" to society.

  12. Neglected series from the old days by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2

    The Slow Glass stories, by Bob Shaw.

  13. Why exclude 1984? by pz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Given that Orwell got so very much right about the future, why exclude 1984 from the list? Just to make an interesting discussion that would have been largely already well-hashed-out otherwise?

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    1. Re:Why exclude 1984? by grcumb · · Score: 2

      Given that Orwell got so very much right about the future, why exclude 1984 from the list? Just to make an interesting discussion that would have been largely already well-hashed-out otherwise?

      It's just to be fair to the rest of them. There are some artists who simply dominate their genre. A famous singer was once asked who her favourite Jazz vocalist was, and she said, 'You mean, besides Ella Fitzgerald?'

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  14. Much more shocked by barlevg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was much more surprised to read, in an out-of-print '80s novel written by a lesser-known SF author, about drone operators remotely carrying out surgical strikes halfway across the planet, all while being denied any credit or commendation because the traditional military community doesn't consider them "pilots."

  15. 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.

    1. Re:In Russia by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Interesting post. I disagree with a number of your points, but I'll limit myself to a few counterpoints.

      Guantanamo bay has never even held a total of 1,000 people as prisoners. Al Qaida teaches its members to lie and carry on the jihad by any means possible. Gitmo guards often attacked by detainees As to feeding tubes - yes they can be unpleasant, but it's likely the prisoners magnify the difficulties in line with their training.
      Al Qaeda Manual Drives Detainee Behavior at Guantanamo Bay

      WASHINGTON, June 29, 2005 – If you're a Muslim extremist captured while fighting your holy war against "infidels," avoid revealing information at all costs, don't give your real name and claim that you were mistreated or tortured during your detention. . .

      Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't targeted due to making speeches, but due to his active participation as a terrorist recruiter, trainer, and leader: Awlaki's Legacy: A Dozen Terror Plots Linked to Al Qaeda Leader

      Soviets rule was not benign: The Soviet Story

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  16. Re:What isn't predicted by cffrost · · Score: 2

    [...] you sheeple [...]

    [...] I suggest you Google [...]

    "Oops?"

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  17. POWs? by Comboman · · Score: 2

    Under the Law of War, POWs can be held until the end of the conflict, no trials are needed. It is misleading to suggest that there needs to be trials because they are being held as POWs, that isn't true.

    Except that they aren't POWs. That would require that they be treated as per the Geneva convention (which they are not). They have none of the rights of civilian criminals (i.e. habeas corpus) AND none of the rights of military POWs.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.