Slashdot Mirror
The Social Laboratory
An anonymous reader writes: We often worry about technology and unscrupulous intelligence agencies driving us toward a surveillance state. But apparently Singapore already beat us to the punch. "Not only does the government keep a close eye on what its citizens write and say publicly, but it also has the legal authority to monitor all manner of electronic communications, including phone calls, under several domestic security laws aimed at preventing terrorism, prosecuting drug dealing, and blocking the printing of 'undesirable' material." They've used it to do good, like swiftly moving to contain the spread of infectious diseases and to figure out how the public wants policy problems solved. But they've also obliterated privacy and restricted what people can say and do. "Singaporeans speak, often reverently, of the "social contract" between the people and their government. They have consciously chosen to surrender certain civil liberties and individual freedoms in exchange for fundamental guarantees: security, education, affordable housing, health care." The article notes, "It's hard to know whether the low crime rates and adherence to the rule of law are more a result of pervasive surveillance or Singaporeans' unspoken agreement that they mustn't turn on one another, lest the tiny island come apart at the seams."
Thank you for obeying!
aren't social contracts supposed to be voluntary? At least at some level?
I'm pretty sure it's not necessary to surrender fundamental liberties to get those.
But all this proves is that people too easily ignore history. Hundreds of millions of people abused throughout history by corrupt governments, and yet you want to give them the power to monitor people's communications? I'm sure your government, unlike all the other ones that came before it, is full of perfectly innocent little angels that will never abuse their powers or make mistakes. Furthermore, I'm sure your government will *always* be like that. So you can not only trust the people currently in your government, but every single person who will ever work for it. Yeah...
And it's not like privacy is a basic human need or anything.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
But they've also obliterated privacy and restricted what people can say and do. "Singaporeans speak, often reverently, of the "social contract" between the people and their government. They have consciously chosen to surrender certain civil liberties and individual freedoms in exchange for fundamental guarantees: security, education, affordable housing, health care."
I'm not Singaporean but of the Singaporeans I have met, I'm not sure many would agree about it being a choice. Plus the implication that they gained security, education, affordable housing and health care through giving up their freedoms is clearly wrong. Plenty of those countries have all of those things without being ruled by a billionaire dictator and his family.
Disclaimer: I do have business in Singapore and I do spend some time in Singapore every year
As my business is largely in the East Asian region, I do travel from country to country and have a lot of contacts with people of different countries in that region
My exposure to the people from the different countries tells me one thing --- social construct is indeed a very VERY crucial factor in shaping the behavior of the people
In Korea, for example, their rigid society have shaped the Koreans into teams of robots who are more than willing work to death for the Chaebol
While in Japanese the society seems to be acting like a patient with bipolar disorder --- The same school student who does a 90-degree bow to the teachers in school during weekdays often become something totally different during weekends
In China you can sense the rebellious spirit everywhere and in everyone. While the society is still rather conservative the same society accepts homosexuality, even same-sex marriage, with ease
In Singapore, however, due to the "Father Knows Best" government which has taken care of almost everything for its citizens, many Singaporeans (I mean, the home bred Singaporeans, not those imported ones) have turned into something not very different from zombies --- they lack the zeal for doing anything, have no interest in learning nor put any effort in coming out with anything that is creative
I am no social scientist, of course. The above are based on my own observation, and of course, I could be wrong
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
If X can do it, then Y will believe they do/should have the tight to do it.
In this case, the "it" is to file, index and retrieve aspects of your private life.
If a company, without authorization, can do so, then so can a government. If necessary, by outsourcing to said company.
If a government, without authorization, can do so, it is inevitable companies will contend the same.
Since organizations are increasingly interchangeable with governments (similar powers, similar immunities, similar thirst for conquest), this can only get worse.
What we need is a clear set of universal rules that apply to EVERYONE. And, no, I don't mean everyone except Blogger Joe, Multinational Monolith Inc, or the government of the right honourable Sir Twiddlethumbs III. And I believe, absolutely, that well-defined boundaries encapsulating privacy will be a cornerstone of any such rules, even if that smudges some of the paintwork around various definitions of freedom. Freedom is zero-sum, the Tragedy of the Commons is a real issue, and damnit I am NOT a lab rat! Now where's that cheese...
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Hundreds of millions of people abused throughout history by corrupt governments, and yet you want to give them the power to monitor people's communications?
One important factor why Singaporeans agree to give up their own privacy in exchange for "easy life" is the country just north of the Singapore Strait
And another country is the one South of Singapore
Those two countries are the epitome of corruption, cronyism, and racism, and of course, the Singaporean government takes full advantage of what happens up north and down south and warn its citizenry of the danger of turning Singapore into just like them
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
"It's hard to know whether the low crime rates and adherence to the rule of law are more a result of pervasive surveillance or Singaporeans' unspoken agreement that they mustn't turn on one another, lest the tiny island come apart at the seams."
If your every move is being watched by a government that can and will scoop you up and destroy your life for so much as saying something they don't like ('undesirable content' indeed!) then it's completely and totally moot whether or not people 'behave', because you're inhibiting their true nature via threats to their existence. At best you're driving criminal elements of all different stripes deeper underground, not stamping them out. Something as trivial and relatively innocuous as filesharing, or actually speaking your mind (when it's not a 'popular', or perhaps in this context, a 'state approve' viewpoint)? They just learn to hide better. In my opinion, it's about as valid as Victorian morals or the Puritans, who also were just better at hiding their dirty laundry and base desires for sake of appearances. You can't legislate and mandate morality.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Unfortunately, yes.... this is SO true. I blame some of this on the 2 party political system we've got in America. Although yes, you have a number of other party platforms out there that candidates can choose to run on, they're largely irrelevant. Everyone knows that if you want a real chance at getting elected, you have to run as either a Democrat or a Republican. If you join one of those parties but clearly have an agenda that's very far outside the parameters they've set - again, you won't make it very far.
Every so often, an exception happens, but most of the time when you see an independent candidate get elected to some office, it's because it's an uncontested position or the competition is so widely viewed as corrupt and incompetent, they win by virtue of being a different option available on the ticket.
The 2 major parties have no intentions of giving the people too much liberty or personal freedom, and neither one will ever decide that small government is better for the country! Their candidates are too hung up with delusions of making the nation stronger and better through some new/additional government organization, legislation, cabinet or office they can CREATE while in power.
A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship. And the effects on the populace can turn on a dime with a change in administration.
In the US, an argument not made often enough (in my opinion) regarding government surveillance powers is that "this may be good for us now, but it's gonna really suck when the other party gets back in power".
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
'Singaporeans speak, often reverently, of the "social contract" between the people and their government. They have consciously chosen to surrender certain civil liberties and individual freedoms in exchange for fundamental guarantees: security, education, affordable housing, health care.'
No different than here then, except our government is busy selling off what don't belong to them, so as we can buy it back again. Some people seem to have forgotten the fact that governments don't guarantee anything, we hire them and they work for us.
In all my years reading slashdot, I've never seen an article litterally advocating the type of society as found in 1984. No, this is litterally Oligargial Socialism, i.e. facism, stalinism, and maoism(english socialism, neo-bolshievism, and obliteration of self/death worship, respectively).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oligarchical_Collectivism
thats what you have to look forward too. Too hell with these newage facists
The only reason we don't speak of it as such is because it's also a finely-tuned profit-generating machine and the ruling class fawns over it, civil liberties be damned. We'd be all lovey-dovey over China too if they didn't get adversarial with the US every now and then, and it doesn't help that their political party has "communist" in its name and isn't split into red and blue teams.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel