Orwell's Predictions vs. Today's World

Orwell did predict that people would start being watched through Telescreens (the equivalent to a camera and television in one) and that people's rights would be infringed upon. Well actually people basically have no human rights in 1984. Also that people unite together to hate a common enemy (Oceania vs. Eurasia vs. Eastasia). Do you feel that these things happen all to commonly in the world today? For instance, The Partriot Act in the United States that gives the government the right to phone tap without the consent of a warrant, or even surveillance cameras everywhere. Or even the constant hate of a commen enemy such as the extremist Muslim regime. Sorry for only using examples from only the United States, but I'm not an expert on other countries politics. However does anyone feel that Orwell's prediction could come mostly true in the future? To me it seems that he was pretty accurate. Tell me what you think?

Yes I have read it in 1984. But the story goes somewhat differently. The big brother will be watching you everywhere and you are not safe even in your room.

The totalitarian or the communist government he had in mind will be full fledged and there will be no individualism

Yes, I understand that individualism has no place is Oceanian society, but what I wanted to know was your imput on the whole situation in today's world based upon the lessons taught by Orwell. Like for instance, how far can a government go in saying that they are protecting the society while at the same time infringing upon the rights of the individual in a free or Democratic form of society. Do people see similarities in Geroge Orwell's book that happens in everyday life. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kewosoda

Yes, I understand that individualism has no place is Oceanian society, but what I wanted to know was your imput on the whole situation in today's world based upon the lessons taught by Orwell. Like for instance, how far can a government go in saying that they are protecting the society while at the same time infringing upon the rights of the individual in a free or Democratic form of society.

---

As far as their electoral mandate allows. If the electorate wanted 100% surveillance, that's what we'd have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kewosoda

Do people see similarities in Geroge Orwell's book that happens in everyday life. What do you think?

---

Yes, a few. In particular, Google has the ability to largely play Big Brother.

I see what you mean. Google could play the role of big brother due to their large influence on many countries around the world. Such a large infrastructure could support so many cameras as well. I couldn't imagine the type of computers and amount of bandwidth that would be needed to run such a vast amount of cameras. Although we don't have 100% camera coverage like in Oceania, if the electorate granted the right to I assume Google wouldn't pass up the that type of offer with all the money that would flow in to them. That's a good point. Any other thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kewosoda

I see what you mean. Google could play the role of big brother due to their large influence on many countries around the world. Such a large infrastructure could support so many cameras as well. I couldn't imagine the type of computers and amount of bandwidth that would be needed to run such a vast amount of cameras. Although we don't have 100% camera coverage like in Oceania, if the electorate granted the right to I assume Google wouldn't pass up the that type of offer with all the money that would flow in to them. That's a good point. Any other thoughts?

---

I wasn't thinking so much of the CCTV camera as in 1984, but looking at how Google tracks every online move we make. If we add that to GPS cellphone technology, pretty much anyone with a mobile phone and an internet connection doesn't need to be filmed constantly.

In terms of capacity to run cameras, that's no issue at all. Chips are cheap.

The GPS tracking would be a completely nightmarish situation. Not even having the privacy of walking around your own house without someone seeing where you are. Camera's are one thing, but they would be able to follow your normally scheduled day all by simply sitting back at a desk and looking at a monitor. Where there is technology it is bound to be abused. When people lust for that latest cell phone, they may not know what they could actually be getting into. The exact technology that they wanted to make their life more convenient may actually make their life more miserable then it should be. It's good that Orwell was only partly accurate. But for all we know that may go on behind closed doors, but we'll leave that to speculation.

The gps tracking is already possible. If a parent wants to know where there child is (or rather, their child's phone), they can pay to access a program that is already on, it shows them the phone's exact location. Who knows who might be looking at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leogecko

The gps tracking is already possible. If a parent wants to know where there child is (or rather, their child's phone), they can pay to access a program that is already on, it shows them the phone's exact location. Who knows who might be looking at that.

---

This is a valid truth seeing as AT&T and Verizon both offer these services. Although you can pay for these services for personal use many agency's can use them at will as they fall under the Patriot Act. Many police agency's and the FBI can freely use these networks information if a child is lost or a degenerate on the run BUT if you think about it both agency's can easily falsify information, just saying someone is under suspicion can let the government easily watch you without legally infringing on your rights although in many citizens eyes it does.

{edit}And the same thing with cameras.(I think that in London, there is over an million of them) Should there be none? Should be just a few of them? Should there be more?

But I can say, that I feel, that a lot of young people move closer to the Proles way of thinking as described in 1984. The whole advertising system, which follows you everywhere (in the streets, on the radio, in the TV, in newspapers, in your mobile phone, in your post mail, on web pages), and obviously no-one has a problem with it. I was in the cinema 4 days ago, and when there were advertisements I looked on the audience around me, and everyone just stared at the screen, that remind me of the hate weeks session in 1984.

Anyway, very interesting thoughts, looking forward for your responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Fields

I think that one should think in a larger context. For example, there were no information about terrorism in 1984.

---

We're getting dangerously close to politics here, so I'll only note that you missed the point that Winston is every bit as much a "terrorist" as those who wear the label today.

You know the term or terrorism itself isn't new at all, don't you? The term was in heavy use during the French Revolution, and probably pre-dates that.