Talking cameras
"the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty."
Last year we had security cameras that emit sound at a frequency only heard by the young - so moving them off street corners.
Yesterday we had cameras that tell us off. And today’s news is that we may have to take a lie detester test if we want to collect social benefit.
Penguin Island, (sorry Winston Smith) is uneasy at our seemingly unstoppable lurch towards an Orwellian Oceana.
Being watched and told what to do hits hard at our civil liberties. This notion that it’s permissible because it’s in everyone’s interest, makes it safer etc, is both patronizing and erodes at democracy.
Undemocratic because increasingly we can’t choose to do something, if that something isn't deemed “correct” by a few. This would be ok if the few – our MPs – made decisions for us, but more often than not they are taken for the party.
Could it be, that one day our actions will only be deemed permissible if they support the ruling party’s political doctrine or aren’t political at all?
For example Brian Haw’s peace demonstration on Parliament Square - little more than an eyesore and annoyance to New Labour - resulted in the Government curtailing everybody’s right to demonstrate.
The cordon’ s apologists may say it’s because of the terrorism threat. But this is convenient in itself, as the fear of terrorism can be turned into making us a more compliant electorate, increasingly blinded into support for Blair and New Labour’s decisions.
The cameras are the same. It turns safety - a rights issue - into a government tool. One in which the Government can make our actions more predictable, easier to control, homogenizing us so we are containable.
It is of course important for Government to use carrot and stick to change those habits that harm others, smoking, murder, racism, wasting energy etc. But talking cameras and the rest, take us down the road of “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”. Which is awfully close to saying, “if you’re not with us you’re against us”.
Read what other blogs are saying on the subject
Dizzy Thinks
The Croydonian
8 comments:
interesting points but you make it look like we entering a phase of living in a police state. Isn't everyone just overreacting?
Scary stuff but i want to know what type of voice they're going to speak to us in
I don't think that we are anywhere close to an Orwellian state yet, but we do seem to moving in that direction. So yes a possible overreaction, but it is certainly worth debating.
I believe the cameras will talk to us in the voice of a schoolchild. Unsettling huh?
Your argument misses the point that the power of the people is increasing - via the internet, mobile phones, larger population etc. To maintain the balance of powers between the executive, legislative, judiciary and the people, it is necessary for the others to introduce new technology.
All new technologies must be judged on their individual merits. You sound like you are bundling them all together as bad for society and giving them an easy label.
Leo thank you for your comment. Altough i am not sure that mobiles mean more power to the people, your point is valid. However it is not considered in this post because it has been written to address how those in power tell us they are doing things for our own good but infact they're doing it to further their own political aspirations/party etc.
What political aspirations are furthered by having speakers next to cameras? If your point was about political gain, why did you raise the spectre of 1984? If what they want is more power for government - the thing Orwell tells us to be wary of – then my comment is relevant to your blog. Because it is in all our interests that the government has enough power. Not too much power but enough. Or are you an anarchist?
Thank you again Leo. Penguin Island keeps its political persuasion close to its chest, so won't answer your anarchist accusation.
I spy with my little eye something beginning with E. Don’t avoid the question. How does putting speakers next to cameras ‘hit our civil liberties hard’? Which liberties? How will it ‘erode democracy’? Is it going to be a party member on the other end of the speaker? I thought it would be a police man – independent from government.
Post a Comment