do you think we are somewhat conditioned from birth to accept state surveillance?
whether it be Santa Claus, or a God that watches your every move, it seems many cultures have this idea ingrained in minds as soon as they can think.
Printable View
do you think we are somewhat conditioned from birth to accept state surveillance?
whether it be Santa Claus, or a God that watches your every move, it seems many cultures have this idea ingrained in minds as soon as they can think.
I think we are conditioned by Orwell to be paranoid that we are living in a surveillance state. The fact that somebody (real or fictitious) is constantly watching you is just too egotistical. If God is real, then God has better things to do than just watch you every moment of the day. Same with governments: this notion that every time you send an email it is being read by some shadowy figure (see current US paranoia) is absurd.
I don't think anybody actually believes the government is specifically watching them (except for Alex Jones), they're more concerned that the government has the power to look at your emails, etc, without you knowing about it. This is more of a concern in the US than in other places I believe, since America is meant to be founded on freedom and the Constitution and all that malarkey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
I agree. And then there is this new BS about the recording of phone conversations. This is old hat. I was an expert in AI and low level communications in the 80's. I took a contract with Bell where my function was to work on a so-called blackbox by means of which Every phone conversation was recorded. Nothing is different today. But if it is a case of national security, the access is very restricted and requires the authorization of several people. No thing has actually changed from what it always was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
Got to agree about the paranoia surrounding recent revelations regarding US and UK security surveillance. Given the millions of email users, it's obvious that any checking will be targeted at suspect individuals. The atrocities committed against innocent civilians by religious and politically motivated fanatics in recent years has made it necessary to spy on those who may be of their number; the alternative being more innocent lives lost to the lunatics. If GCHQ or any similar agency want to read my emails, they are more than welcome even though it would be time wasted in the cause of reading those that might be of genuine interest to the people charged with protecting the general public.
Volya got the jist of what I'm saying.
That implies a few things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
1) that everyone reads Orwell
2) that God has to split mental resources
When the revolution starts I'll be dragged into a van and renditioned along with my radical friends after they develop some algorithm to comb through the internet in search of deviant anti-establishment writings and search histories.
they don't need an algorithm, just Google some choice keywords :P
Whether your government is specifically watching you or not depends upon whether you attract their attention. But it doesn't have to be your own government.
That someone may be interested in what you are doing, for good or bad, is a condition of living within human society.
it wasn't always like that though.
I wouldn't be so sure. Haven't governments always had spies and intelligence services, these current cyber-surveillance methods are merely an extension of that (not to say I'm fine with it though). In a world where vast amounts of information can and are communicated via the internet, it would make sense for the government to monitor it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hypatia_
surveillance did you say? you should come to England and you will see for yourself. We are surveilled 24/7 and publically.
People know they are surveilled. The computer is your biggest spy gadget you will ever come across in your life. Everything you do or say in a computer is know to others. The History bit part of the computer facilitate the surveillee to have a wee look. Nothing goes unnoticed when you are on a computer.
The computer is a gadget which is fitted with a camera recorder sound system and a History recorder. That is your top of the range gadgets for spying. Digital is what makes spying fast and efficient.
On one Apple mac computer box I purchased a while ago there is a little camera fitted at the from of the gadget. It looks like a little blue light. That is a lense camera. Tiny minute lense cameras look a bright light when you turned on and off.
If you are talking about the behind doors surveillance then of course it is a YES. I would call it spying myself. It happens in politics too. Politicians and other significant others are set up by hidden cameras to show them up at their worse and the law lapse it up as if it was a piece of cake in need of sharing.
The bottom line is when the law is in your favour to spy on others using hidden cameras then anything goes. MI5 is a spy agent and I guess the CIA is the same so one must surveille if one is to prove the law and these spy agencies have a point to make and a reason to be.
There are no conspiracies about it what there is a good a reality check on them.
I think we are rapidly approaching a 1984-esque surveillance state. The common person has nothing to fear, but those involved in activism ought to be concerned about all this. The only place they can't get is inside your head. They can gain access to email, can ascertain your search history. Cameras are everywhere. It isn't hard to electronically surveil someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
I don't think so. It is more likely that we are spied on electronically by business wanting to maximise their sales. Business is the digital big brother.
Don't you think governments have enough on tracking and picking up potential terrorists, monitoring the borders etc.
The other thing about surveillance that Orwell did not predict is that common citizens can easily record a state's actions and publicise it easily on the internet. That's why China has tried to control the internet so much. Surveillance is now two way street. That'show the arab spring was able to spread effectively through social networks.
Great point. Social media and blogging has really opened up people's eyes to what is going on in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I'm not saying the country is a surveillance state in that the common man is being spied upon. but what we are dealing with is a slippery slope since the Patriot Act was instituted in 2001.
If you're worried, go analog. Unplug, in other words. Sometimes I think, wouldn't it be nice if the extent of my involvement with the government were - I have my citizenship papers somewhere on a shelf at home? Then I realize, gladly, it is.
I agree with Charles in the sense that paranoia is not justified. I'm not worried because 1) I don't think it is as bad as Darcy does and 2) there are effective counter-measures such as going offline. There will also be other ways to circumvent surveillance - and, as Paul said, it is now a two way street.
The problem comes when people attract the attention of surveillance agencies for completely innocent reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Thorne
The group I'm using as an example is BDSM practitioners, because they use many of the same techniques terrorists and criminal clandestine groups use: covert meetings, code words, diverse people coming together who no visibly logical connection.
Given that we now know the massive surveillance operation has been ongoing for a couple of years, and that in spite of warnings about the Tsarnaev brothers they were still able to set off their bombs, the alleged point of the surveillance becomes somewhat moot.
Clearly, the governments don't think so, because they are intercepting all emails and logging all phone calls. In USA, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
The trouble is that intelligence agencies have foregone keyword searches for algorithms that highlight behaviour which fits into a mould that someone designed.
This isn't entirely correct, because China has shown that it can suppress information and discussion in a very Orwellian fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Also, much of the reason the Arab Spring was allowed to happen was because the particular dictators hadn't kept up with the effects of technology and had not held control of the internet in the way China, North Korea and Iran have.
The thin end of the wedge is already in place with Google now not allowing certain search terms to come up as suggestions, giving results only on exact matches. Another good guide is Bradley Manning - without his heroic actions, the world would still be in the dark about something that had hundreds of witnesses and had been kept quiet.
I think there's a danger in presuming the internet is a complete answer for sharing information.
Yes, Atheist, I would tend to agree with you on most of your points. And you certainly would be a good judge of which regimes come across as more 'Orwellian'.
There's also the problem of people in the civil service selling, or passing on your information, to private companies or even criminals.
But if people are not aware of the security risks associated with particular technologies and social networks, you are freely sharing really personal information with pretty much anyone. It doesn't need to be the state.Hell, even leaving an phone message that you will be away for two weeks grants someone a good timeline to burgle your house in.
To deal with algorithm searching, there are steps individuals can take in their own states or countries that might help. Of course this wont deal with a dedicated investigation or a good hacker that's out to get you though.
I worked for a govt agency which participated in surveillance. Great fun but I rather think the general public is prone to paranoia
I'm not paranoid about those presently in positions of power abusing such tools right now. What I see happening, what I know will happen, is when things get bad all around they will utilize them to neutralize dissent.
well I think you would find the only ones that are paranoid are those who surveille and not the other way around. I nearly took up a post with MI5 and I can tell you paranoia was their drive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
MI5 can hardly be called paranoid: their job is '....protecting the UK citizens and interests, at home and overseas, against threats to national security'. (That's taken from their open website.) The department is answerable to the Home Secretary. You can call them spies, spooks, Grey Men, or whatever you like but the unfortunate fact is that their activities are still necessary if we are to continue to enjoy any measure of peace and security, not to mention the freedom to discuss their existence on open forums like this.
that is very true but there is that element of tense over the top surveillance feeling about them even between themselves is what I am trying to say. I got the feeling that they also watch each other very closely too. I had an MI6 interview and I could hardly move or go anywhere in the building without being followed. I had one person follow me to the smoking room while I took to my cigarette to smoke it. I was hardly going to do anything I was there for the interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasie
have you worked or had anything to do with them?
about discussing them that is the reality of things. you cannot stop people talking about them. they are a job description and people attend them. after that conversations open up to who they are and what they do.
Having worked in BBC propaganda during WWII, Orwell was aware of the extent of government control of the general population and used it as the basis for 1984; the difference being that everyone in the novel knew they were being watched. However, setting aside any specific government, those engaged in covert activity of any kind are bound to attract the attention of the controlling authority. The only kind of society to exist without surveillance in the UK would have Christopher Robin in Downing Street and Little Lord Fauntleroy in the House of Lords.
Reminds me of Foucault's books and the idea that surveillance takes place in the work place, school, etc.
Yes I wasn't clear. China realised, and perhaps has more reason to clamp down on internet freedoms whereas this isn't as pronounced in other countries. I also had in mind how footage of a demo in London, where an innocent newspaper seller was caught up in the crowds and ended up being pushed over and dying of a heart attack, contradicted police accounts of the incident. The simple mass of information that a crowd can generate and distribute in different ways is a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Not always. It can lead to mob violence, terrorist attacks or the gate-crashing of parties, but also to flash-mobs of dance and music, free-sharing of love bytes, media, and wonder. The terrible wonderful world. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Attachment 8805
interesting image
It has always been a good policy to maintain the door open to information as well as disinformation. Paulclem is correct. There is always plenty of time to figure out what's what one way or the other. Isolation yields ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Thorne
Anyone who supports the surveillance state simply lacks imagination and a historical sense. Such people see a clear blue sky above them and cannot imagine a storm materializing on the morrow. Like sheep who accept the fence their overlord farmer built because it keeps out the wolves.
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Is there some overreaction to this new surveillance state considering the limits of its technological reach, intent, and capability? Probably. But that's a bad thing, why?? If history has taught us anything, it's that a little (or more likely, A LOT) "paranoia" of governmental, religious, and aristocratic power is well justified. Nothing scares me more than a sheeple/apathetic public...
better safe than sorry..... unless of course the paranoia starts ruining people's lives more than the govt.Quote:
Originally Posted by hawthorns
To be fair, sheep can't really fight back that well, so it's a good thing they do have that fence or they'd get eaten.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I don't think the essence of the American surveillance scandal was that the American government was doing it, but that it was doing so without civilian oversight by elected officials. Furthermore, if we as a society determine that such surveillance practices are necessary, then their implementation should be debated in public so that there is accountability.
This. We need to know who exactly is going to be making the decisions so there is accountability. right now with the NSA, the president is blaming congress, congress is blaming the president, some people are blaming big business, others are blaming terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
There is clearly a spectrum that we can only have one point on. On one end, there is privacy, on the other, there is security. Regardless of where the point lands, we need to know who is making the decision and why. Right now there's too much clouding.
Did anyone see The Daily Show last night? "I think you're misunderstanding the perceived problem here, Mr. President; no one is saying you broke any laws, we're just saying it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to."
John Oliver killed it too, love that guy.
What a great concept. I wonder how many thousands of people understand at least some aspect of politics because of comedic shows like daily show and colbert, who otherwise wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
That's an interesting question that apparently hasn't been addressed by the posters so far...Quote:
Originally Posted by hypatia_
I don't know whether or not we are conditioned from birth to accept state surveillance. We are biological entities that develop from birth to interact with our environments, and we have been doing that throughout our evolutionary history. During most of this history what you refer to as a "state" did not exist. We existed as small bands of hominids that pursued a hunter-gatherer existence. these bands consisted of small groups of (genetically) closely related individuals, probably much like the bands of apes you can read about in the reports of primate ethnologists like Jane Goodall... These "small societies" seem to have general rules that regulate (and enforce) the "correct" behavior of societal members, and these regulations seem to have some biological basis, in that they tend to improve the evolutionary "fitness" of the social group, ie, its chances for survival (in Darwinian terms). Sometime relatively recently in evolutionary time (e.g. within the past 10-12000K years or so), we began to live in larger more genetically diverse but geographically more stable societies (in villages and eventually cities and "nations") that depended for their prosperity on farming, animal husbandry, and commerce. These developments demanded a different sense of cooperation among societal members to succeed, than was required by the older "familial" and "tribal" societies.
"Cooperation" was certainly required for the older familial bands to succeed. And there had to be a mechanism to assure that, i.e. to reinforce cooperative behavior. One could imagine that very basic biological rules, based on things like genetic kinship calculations, would work to guide individual behavior so as to promote the survival of the kinship group. This seems to be the mechanism that guides the social behavior of apes and other social primates, as well as other social mammals and even social insects...
As to the question about whether or not humans are "conditioned" to accept behavioral surveillance, I think we can say that all animals that interact with their environment develop their behaviors at least in some way based upon the feedback they get from their environments. They may or may not "view" their environment as engaging in "surveillance." All they "know" is that they "behave" in certain ways and they experience certain things (positive or negative consequences), and they come to associate, somehow, their behaviors with these consequences.
In the "primitive" human condition, we could easily understand that members of a familial hunter-gatherer "society" would understand that they were under some sort of behavioral "surveillance" by their "superiors." Even in modern families, children somehow "learn" and "accept" the fact that they are "under the surveillance" of their parents, and it is sort of parental surveillance that establishes their behavior. In that sense parental "surveillance" is what leads to morality (sense of right and wrong behavior) and general rules of conduct. An extension of that, for a more complex society, would be the Ten Commandments brought down from Mt Sinai by Moses.
So the short answer to the OP is that humans do seem to have some sort of "expectation" that their behavior will be subject to some sort of "surveillance" by a "moral authority." For the OT Hebrews the surveillance was provided by God, who also laid down the "rules of conduct." It is entirely another matter to equate modern "State Surveillance" with "Devine Surveillance," or even parental surveillance. To make such an equivalence implies that the "State" is equivalent (morally and/or biologically) to God and/or your parents...Think about it.
It seems likely that
I wasn't implying that state surveillance and divine surveillance were the same, just that they are two of many forms of surveillance that we are subjected to.
I wonder what a person never subjected to any form of surveillance would end up like?