Jump to content

George Orwell was right?


thomas
 Share

Recommended Posts

George Orwell Was Right: Spy Cameras See Britons' Every Move  (clicky link)

 

Please note I'm not posting this as a "my country is bettern'n yours" post.  America has a problem with privacy as well, it's just not gone as far.  Helena Kennedy is only half correct in stating we (Americans) wouldn't stand for it. 

 

The blunt and brutal installment of such devices would meet with no end of public outcry, yes, so as ever a plea to emotion is made by those in charge, insidiously protecting the plan, hiding it behind such unassailable claims as "fighting the war on terror" and "protecting children" so that anyone who opposes it is playing the villain. I find myself witness to its ever growing presence here in the States.  Frankly the idea terrifies me. 

 

And since the article was intended for an American audience widely blind to the issues I won't quote the whole thing here as I'm sure it's nothing new to you, but I would like to ask of you:

 

1) Do you agree or disagree with things like the DNA Database, and speaker-equipped surveillance cameras?

2) How far do you think this will go before anything is done?  Should anything be done?

3) If so what can be done? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Dissagree

2) Not, sure and not sure

3) Dont know

 

Sorry I cant be of more help but Im not sure anything will be done by the people of this country to stop this, people just accept it really.

 

If you are a law abiding subject, then you have nothing to fear being filmed 300 times a day .

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a law abiding subject, then you have nothing to fear being filmed 300 times a day .

To me the whole idea behind non-scientific observation implies gross mistrust.  It's damning and a little frightening to be thought of so little by ones own leaders. 
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm against a lot of the measures, but even so, having read 1984 on numerous occassions, the parallels are at best slight.

 

I don't so much mind CCTV.If it prevents crime, then I don't think there's anything to fear from it. So what if you're seen going in and out of shops, no one's interested unless you're on the rob or something.

 

The DNA issue I think is an aspect of Blair's control freak nature.  I can see advantages, but its also quite sinister.

 

I find ID cards quite worrying and I'm not sure that it can be effective for anything.

 

It wouldn't happen in America you're right, because the state is more interventionist in the UK. This is the  down side, but I still think they're outweighed by the benefits.

 

Just as these may horrify many Americans, the extent of Laissez Faire policies in the US and lack of welfare provision horrify many here.

 

It works both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your views on the privacy side tom, although I stress  I'm not trying to compare or contrast the policies, procedures or governments any two countries approach to anything -- I'm just interested in the view of Britons as it pertains to their own civil liberties, privacy and all rights and privileges pertaining to and thereof. 

 

I only made mention of America because one of your House of Lords members said in the article that "such a thing couldn't/wouldn't happen here." She was only half right and  I was expressing my own view about such matters and how it's happening here. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think thew comparisons are more than slight

 

Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. 

 

You have no way of knowing who is watching you at any instant today.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, we still have civil liberties. Just as in America, or any democracy, you can go anywhere and do anything, provided its legal.

There's no difference there, and on thing such as biometric passports etc, Americans want to introduce this as well.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think thew comparisons are more than slight

 

Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.   

 

You have no way of knowing who is watching you at any instant today.

 

 

To some extent, but not entirely.

 

If I go shopping on Northumberland Street, yes I'm going to be on CCTV. So I am (or at least could be) watched.

Its possible that we're being monitered on here, but then thats true throughout the world, including the US.

But if I'm in my own house, reading or something - if they really wanted to, I suppose its possible, but if anyone is, i feel sorry for them because they have a boring time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

this sort of thing is fine, as has already been reported, stopped someone bieng a twat, and stopped someone being a litter bug (small thing I know, but htis is exactly where the lack of respect problem in this country has come from)

 

in 18 months we will have biometric ID cards and compulsary DNA registration. The debate is over. There is a thread around on here earlier, basically most can see it for exactly what it is, and a minority can't see a problem with it. Moot point, it's already coming (no coincidence that it doesn't even seem like there has been a public debate - more TV hours were devoted to banning fox hunting FFS)

 

this works 2 ways however, under the data protection act iirc, you can request any film of you from any camera

 

having recently been arrested for no good reason and issued with an £80 fine, which will be paid as it's laughable that it would ever be worth my while contesting it, I would have fucking loved the chance to ask for the transripts and video of all coppers involved, and compare it to their notebooks. Funnily enough, I wouldn't mind the cctv with audio of the actions of the bouncers that led up to the incident.

 

much like people have got wise to the benefits of compenation claims over here, people will realise that video (esp with audio) can be used in your defence as well as by government/companies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom I take your point about internal home surveillance but the point I'm making is that Winston does not know whether he is being watched continuously or not - we have the same dilemma today.

 

Domestically we are monitored in subtle ways Orwell could not forsee - our internet useage, your mobile phone tracks your movement, the market analysis of demographics and the soon to be tracking of purchases via RFID is far more intrusive than the Party of 1984 could be in their ways.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the argument goes that "if you do nothing wrong,you've nothing to worry about" then you'll not complain if the camera follows you round your house,or if the police can lookm through your personal effects without any previous suspicion.

 

while we are on this idea aren't a lot of these cameras owned and operated by private concerns,yes i'll bet they'll use them to convict,i wonder if the law says they have to release them to acquit,or how hard is it for the company/authority to lie "camera wasn't working" etc ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Orwell was right...

 

Id cards will be the biggest obstruction to our freedom and indeed our society as human beings. Laissez-faire is a myth

 

How long do you think that from the introduction of this it will ascend from 'you don't have your card','well just pop down with it in the next week'  to 'don't have your card ?, you're nicked until you can prove who you are'. We as a society will suck anything in if it breaches our moral standards for what we think is the common good only later to find out we've been hoodwinked. If it doesn't affect us in our pockets we don't give a shit.

 

These things are going on around us and for the most people seem happy under the analogy that 'if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear' and ' it'll catch all the terrorists'.

 

 

We're all going to hell in a handcart, even the bible has a say on this in revelation 13:16, make of it what you will...................And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number [is] Six hundred threescore [and] six.

 

 

I'm not a god botherer or anything but soon the government will be playing us like the sims.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

if the argument goes that "if you do nothing wrong,you've nothing to worry about" then you'll not complain if the camera follows you round your house,or if the police can lookm through your personal effects without any previous suspicion.

 

while we are on this idea aren't a lot of these cameras owned and operated by private concerns,yes i'll bet they'll use them to convict,i wonder if the law says they have to release them to acquit,or how hard is it for the company/authority to lie "camera wasn't working" etc ?

 

aye, someone who is not  bluelaugh.gif me got done for criminal damage a while back, definitely did it, transpires in the interview there is CCTV showing it, so accepted a caution and that was that. In the friendly chat while waiting to be released afterwards, it emerges that the tape wasn't even in the coppers possession, and they had only viewed the disk while there at the time (something I'm a bit doubtfull of anyway). So in the interim, had I got some crafty advice, should I have later challenged it, they wouldn't have even had the evidence to come to court with!

Link to post
Share on other sites

CCTV is public places is hardly a privacy issue tbh. If Tony Blair feels we need a CCTV camera outside of every Greggs incase Freddy has a night on the shandy again, thats fine by me. I may however get annoyed if he forces me to install one in my shitter incase someone kidnaps me while im taking a bath.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the argument goes that "if you do nothing wrong,you've nothing to worry about" then you'll not complain if the camera follows you round your house,or if the police can lookm through your personal effects without any previous suspicion.

 

while we are on this idea aren't a lot of these cameras owned and operated by private concerns,yes i'll bet they'll use them to convict,i wonder if the law says they have to release them to acquit,or how hard is it for the company/authority to lie "camera wasn't working" etc ?

 

aye, someone who is not  bluelaugh.gif me got done for criminal damage a while back, definitely did it, transpires in the interview there is CCTV showing it, so accepted a caution and that was that. In the friendly chat while waiting to be released afterwards, it emerges that the tape wasn't even in the coppers possession, and they had only viewed the disk while there at the time (something I'm a bit doubtfull of anyway). So in the interim, had I got some crafty advice, should I have later challenged it, they wouldn't have even had the evidence to come to court with!

 

just throwing a bit of a curveball here... but maybe not doing it in the first place is a thought? i know, im craaazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

if the argument goes that "if you do nothing wrong,you've nothing to worry about" then you'll not complain if the camera follows you round your house,or if the police can lookm through your personal effects without any previous suspicion.

 

while we are on this idea aren't a lot of these cameras owned and operated by private concerns,yes i'll bet they'll use them to convict,i wonder if the law says they have to release them to acquit,or how hard is it for the company/authority to lie "camera wasn't working" etc ?

 

aye, someone who is not  bluelaugh.gif me got done for criminal damage a while back, definitely did it, transpires in the interview there is CCTV showing it, so accepted a caution and that was that. In the friendly chat while waiting to be released afterwards, it emerges that the tape wasn't even in the coppers possession, and they had only viewed the disk while there at the time (something I'm a bit doubtfull of anyway). So in the interim, had I got some crafty advice, should I have later challenged it, they wouldn't have even had the evidence to come to court with!

 

just throwing a bit of a curveball here... but maybe not doing it in the first place is a thought? i know, im craaazy.

 

well, not in mitigation of course, but to be honest, I couldn't tell you if I had done it or not I was that drunk. However, when it's put to you that 'it's on CCTV, you're bang to rights', then you don't argue do you? How many people would take that to mean 'we looked at the tape there and handily didnt bother to keep a copy as evidence'

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the argument goes that "if you do nothing wrong,you've nothing to worry about" then you'll not complain if the camera follows you round your house,or if the police can lookm through your personal effects without any previous suspicion.

 

while we are on this idea aren't a lot of these cameras owned and operated by private concerns,yes i'll bet they'll use them to convict,i wonder if the law says they have to release them to acquit,or how hard is it for the company/authority to lie "camera wasn't working" etc ?

 

aye, someone who is not  bluelaugh.gif me got done for criminal damage a while back, definitely did it, transpires in the interview there is CCTV showing it, so accepted a caution and that was that. In the friendly chat while waiting to be released afterwards, it emerges that the tape wasn't even in the coppers possession, and they had only viewed the disk while there at the time (something I'm a bit doubtfull of anyway). So in the interim, had I got some crafty advice, should I have later challenged it, they wouldn't have even had the evidence to come to court with!

 

just throwing a bit of a curveball here... but maybe not doing it in the first place is a thought? i know, im craaazy.

 

well, not in mitigation of course, but to be honest, I couldn't tell you if I had done it or not I was that drunk. However, when it's put to you that 'it's on CCTV, you're bang to rights', then you don't argue do you? How many people would take that to mean 'we looked at the tape there and handily didnt bother to keep a copy as evidence'

were you still pissed when you fessed...bloody sure i'd still be saying prove it....my next away days tale (leicester city)will contain this......when i can be arsed to type more than 100 words.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

if the argument goes that "if you do nothing wrong,you've nothing to worry about" then you'll not complain if the camera follows you round your house,or if the police can lookm through your personal effects without any previous suspicion.

 

while we are on this idea aren't a lot of these cameras owned and operated by private concerns,yes i'll bet they'll use them to convict,i wonder if the law says they have to release them to acquit,or how hard is it for the company/authority to lie "camera wasn't working" etc ?

 

aye, someone who is not  bluelaugh.gif me got done for criminal damage a while back, definitely did it, transpires in the interview there is CCTV showing it, so accepted a caution and that was that. In the friendly chat while waiting to be released afterwards, it emerges that the tape wasn't even in the coppers possession, and they had only viewed the disk while there at the time (something I'm a bit doubtfull of anyway). So in the interim, had I got some crafty advice, should I have later challenged it, they wouldn't have even had the evidence to come to court with!

 

just throwing a bit of a curveball here... but maybe not doing it in the first place is a thought? i know, im craaazy.

 

well, not in mitigation of course, but to be honest, I couldn't tell you if I had done it or not I was that drunk. However, when it's put to you that 'it's on CCTV, you're bang to rights', then you don't argue do you? How many people would take that to mean 'we looked at the tape there and handily didnt bother to keep a copy as evidence'

were you still pissed when you fessed...bloody sure i'd still be saying prove it....my next away days tale (leicester city)will contain this......when i can be arsed to type more than 100 words.

 

aye they were very carefull in ensuring I was compus mente when interviewed, but fucking hell, I would have said I'd fucked the Queen if it had got me out and back to me bed

Link to post
Share on other sites

George Orwell Was Right: Spy Cameras See Britons' Every Move  (clicky link)

 

Please note I'm not posting this as a "my country is bettern'n yours" post.  America has a problem with privacy as well, it's just not gone as far.  Helena Kennedy is only half correct in stating we (Americans) wouldn't stand for it. 

 

The blunt and brutal installment of such devices would meet with no end of public outcry, yes, so as ever a plea to emotion is made by those in charge, insidiously protecting the plan, hiding it behind such unassailable claims as "fighting the war on terror" and "protecting children" so that anyone who opposes it is playing the villain. I find myself witness to its ever growing presence here in the States.  Frankly the idea terrifies me. 

 

And since the article was intended for an American audience widely blind to the issues I won't quote the whole thing here as I'm sure it's nothing new to you, but I would like to ask of you:

 

1) Do you agree or disagree with things like the DNA Database, and speaker-equipped surveillance cameras?

2) How far do you think this will go before anything is done?  Should anything be done?

3) If so what can be done? 

 

 

Agree with it all. These cunts need to be told and kept an eye on tbh.

 

Also, not arsed what a septic tank thinks about my country. Put your own house in order before you have the right to judge mine. At least we know we are being watched.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with it all. These cunts need to be told and kept an eye on tbh.

Also, not arsed what a septic tank thinks about my country. Put your own house in order before you have the right to judge mine. At least we know we are being watched.

Little on the defensive there.  Can you quote my exact words detailing where I judged any country or would you like to retract that last bit? 
Link to post
Share on other sites

You very clearly asked for opinion / comment.

 

1. DNA databank - yes for anyone convicted of a crime requiring a prison sentence. But consider this. What effect would a compulsory DNA data base have on solving crime? If crime is to be brought under control such a data base will be necessary.

    I appreciate the concept of civil liberty but that also extends to not being assaulted/robbed/raped/murdered.  We have the right to expect freedom from such acts.

    There are a lot of DNA defect ilnesses too. Having a data base would allow communication with the afflicted and more rapid treatment. Testing at birth for defects is allready done world wide.

 

2. I was subject to ID cards when I lived in Singapore in the 60's. It was a very convenient form of ID. The only downside is the cost, which should be nil, and the likelyhood of catching dole fraud / illegal immigrants etc.

 

3. CCTV is a remote copper. If crime is so rife that it is used and it reduces crime - great.

 

Debates such as this are vital to ensure surveillance is not abused. Of course there will be occasions where it is but for me the question has always been how to maintain the balance between civil liberty and protection of the populace.

 

None of the above are particularly invasive and are of no concern to those who live within the laws of a society. Winstone was never sure when he was being watched but had a corner he could hide until caught out.

 

There are no real parallels with 1984 unless you substitute the personal betrayal for CCTV.  1984's message relates more to the re writing of history to ensure the state is seen to be infallible and the re writing of history to remove or re classify the exisence or place of the individual - see Goldstein.

 

The truth of 1984 has and is comming to pass world wide on a daily basis - its called PC.

You can't have a gollywog on a jar of jam, we use MS, Madam Chairperson etc.

More seriously christianity is being supressed so as not to offend other religions, children are encouraged to believe taking part is all that matters etc and we legislate for this crap.

Unfortunately we find that some needed changes are abused and what was the perogative of warm fuzzy, leftist polititians has expanded across the political spectrum to ensure votes. Sexual orientation plays a part in politics also under the guse of equal rights even when the rights already exist in law.

This sort of attitude is 1984 social engineering.

Civil liberties are possibly most visible in the USA in the right to bear arms. The constitution gives that right but does not specify how many. However the NRA consistently  says guns don't kill people, people kill people. Of course the Constitution gives the right to citizens so the NRA can hardly argue the case for none citizens. A case for ID? Or would that be un PC

Saddam has had his appeal refused. The West wants him to not be executed. We invaded a sovereign country. Does that give us the right to dictate their legal system, which we helped set up?

 

Personally, while I sympathise with the views of those of you against what you see as intrusion the concepts of 1984 started with the first credit rating and subsequent cross collating of information. We have this in NZ where virtually every govt dept has crossover exchange with other departments. It just means we have to be a little more carefull and if a Govt Dept calls or writes say nothing, sign nothing and learn the phrase talk to my lawyer / accountant.

 

I'm in favour of all three. But I draw the line at such as wire tapping. So far Orwell is proving right, in some ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

George Orwell Was Right: Spy Cameras See Britons' Every Move  (clicky link)

 

Please note I'm not posting this as a "my country is bettern'n yours" post.  America has a problem with privacy as well, it's just not gone as far.  Helena Kennedy is only half correct in stating we (Americans) wouldn't stand for it. 

 

The blunt and brutal installment of such devices would meet with no end of public outcry, yes, so as ever a plea to emotion is made by those in charge, insidiously protecting the plan, hiding it behind such unassailable claims as "fighting the war on terror" and "protecting children" so that anyone who opposes it is playing the villain. I find myself witness to its ever growing presence here in the States.  Frankly the idea terrifies me. 

 

And since the article was intended for an American audience widely blind to the issues I won't quote the whole thing here as I'm sure it's nothing new to you, but I would like to ask of you:

 

1) Do you agree or disagree with things like the DNA Database, and speaker-equipped surveillance cameras?

2) How far do you think this will go before anything is done?  Should anything be done?

3) If so what can be done? 

 

 

What percentage of CCTV is non-private, i.e operated by the government instead of private business?

 

How long are CCTV tapes kept for before being taped over, or do people have a huge warehouse to store footage of every day?

 

The only difference between being watched by CCTV than by a person using his own eyes when you walk past a building is that in the former it is being recorded and can therefore be used for situations where security is breached to find the perpetrator.

 

Is your privacy being invaded when you're in a public place and someone looks at you, or when you're in your home and unknowingly being spied upon by someone? As far as I know, the government hasn't installed CCTV in every home to use to spy on us.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...