Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Welcome to the Police State: The UK Version
OK, this doesn't involve the police kicking in someone's door. It just involves the fact that the UK has turned into a defacto surveillance society.
In a truly frightening article, the situation around George Orwell's (of 1984 fame) home in London is used as an example of just how prevalent surveillance cameras are in the UK:
According to the latest studies, Britain has a staggering 4.2million CCTV cameras - one for every 14 people in the country - and 20 per cent of cameras globally. It has been calculated that each person is caught on camera an average of 300 times daily.
Use of spy cameras in modern-day Britain is now a chilling mirror image of Orwell's fictional world, created in the post-war Forties in a fourth-floor flat overlooking Canonbury Square in Islington, North London.
On the wall outside his former residence - flat number 27B - where Orwell lived until his death in 1950, an historical plaque commemorates the anti-authoritarian author. And within 200 yards of the flat, there are 32 CCTV cameras, scanning every move.
Before, there used to be a concern that such a system would allow for constant monitoring of individuals by 'watchers' - but that held an inherent limit: the manpower required. But now, the technology has evolved in a different direction, with computers being capable of keeping track of individuals on any networked camera.
So, allow your paranoia to run free for a moment. The UK has slowly walked into this situation, under the ostensible guise of "safety & security". It has been a test ground for the application of the technology. Once it is full established, all the bugs worked out, what would prohibit the introduction of that same technology here (or anywhere) by a wanna-be police state (or theocracy)? We know that whole societies can be induced to allow these kinds of restrictions - plenty of authoritarian countries have existed, not to mention the curtailment of our civil liberties here because of the threat of terrorism. Enhance those restrictions with this kind of techology, and you wouldn't even need a substantial workforce - just the necessary computing power. And computing power is cheap, becoming even cheaper by the day.
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
A new development
The cameras here in Britain can now talk to you. :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6524495.stm
CCTV in the UK has been growing steadily over the past few years. It's pushed by the growing paranoia in this country about 'anti-social behaviour' (lager louts, etc.) less so with terrorism (apart from London that is). I think most people accept it now and are not aware of the camera poles on pretty much every city centre street corner.
Brazil
Kind of gives off a creepy 'V for Vendetta' vibe.
Actually I was reminded more of Brazil:
"Don't suspect a friend: Report him."
And remember...
...confess quickly - you don't want to ruin your credit rating.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
There's a fine line
between being careful and being paranoid. Which side are you on? These things have been around for a while now, they got good pictures of the people who committed the terrorist attacks in London which allowed the government to track down the surviving members of the terrorist group.
That being said, this and 1984 are worlds apart. When you have survailance cameras on the streets you can more easilly catch criminals that would normally evade the law because you have a decent picture of them that the police can then show (that and since the camera is to blame if the criminal belongs to a gang the gang can't take revenge on the people who turned them in). In 1984 the cameras were everwhere, even in people's homes, these are in the streets. It's not like the idea that if you want to do something you don't want others to see you should do it in the privacy of your own home is new. In 1984 someone was legitimately watching, as far as I know these cameras only record the goings on, then if something happens the authorities can go over the recording. Does this have the capability to be abused? Sure, everything does. If the government wanted to they could track every move I make on the internet simply by tracking where my ISP adress goes. They can use openings in Windows to look through my computer at will whenever it connects to the internet (well they could if they wanted to and the government actually let them). For this reason I have a bit of advice: if the government ever mandates free internet for all, be suspicious. You're worried about cameras in public, and while I respect that I feel there's more possibility for abuse with the "camera" sitting right in front of you displaying this page. With Digital cable it will be possible for cable providers to track how many people watch any given program at any time with more accuracy than ever before (how big a jump is it from tracking viewership to tracking viewers of specific programs?). Does that mean that the law stating that the switchover from Analog to Digital cable will be complete in the next year or so (unheard of as it will mean that many people's TVs will instantly become useless) mean that the government is gearing up to track whatever we watch? Don't know, probably if Bush thought he could get away with it he'd try though.
Sorry, but proof please? Yes, I'm sure computers could do this, what I'm not sure of is would it be cheaper than paying a human to do the same thing.
God does not play dice with the universe. - Albert Einstein
But the Dungeon Master does! - me
Wow
Amazing I haven't seen mention of this elsewhere, and for how long? Kind of gives off a creepy "V for Vendetta" vibe.