The Road to Big Brother 212
brothke writes "In The Road to Big Brother: One Man's Struggle Against the Surveillance Society, Ross Clark journals his struggles to avoid the myriad CCTV cameras in his native England. That's difficult given the millions of cameras in public locations there. Before going forward, the use of the term 'Big Brother' in both the title and throughout the book is erroneous. Big Brother has its roots in George Orwell's novel 1984 and refers to an omnipresent, seemingly benevolent figure representing the oppressive control over individual lives exerted by an authoritarian government. The term has been misappropriated to describe everything from legitimate crime-fighting, to surveillance cameras, to corporate e-mail and network usage monitoring. Localities that deploy CCTV cameras in public thoroughfares in the hope of combating crime are in no way indicative of the oppressive control of Orwell's Big Brother. Should we be concerned that such a scenario play itself out in Ross Clark's UK or in the US? Likely no, as US government agencies are widely decentralized and isolated. Just getting the networks within a single federal agency unified is a daunting task; getting all of the agencies to have a single unified data sharing mechanism is a pipe-dream. Look at it this way: the US Department of Defense has more networks than some countries have computers." Read below for the rest of Ben's review.
The Road to Big Brother details Clark's attempt to be invisible to the millions of CCTV cameras in Britain, and details other types of national & agency databases and how they can be misused. Clark notes astutely that while much data is being gathered, often the most important clues are missed, and a lack of proportion often is the result.
| The Road to Big Brother: One Man's Struggle Against the Surveillance Society | |
| author | Ross Clark |
| pages | 200 |
| publisher | Encounter Books |
| rating | Powerful topic, but poor delivery and answers. |
| reviewer | Ben Rothke |
| ISBN | 978-1594032486 |
| summary | One man's account of how to dodge Britain's million of CCTV cameras and other forms of surveillance |
Some of the books observations are flawed. In chapter two, Clark writes that VeriChip markets its RFID chips with the aim of speeding the passage of authorized people through security checks. But its Verimed chip is made for patient identification and emergency patient management in hospitals. In Chapter 11, Clark comments that Facebook is essentially a forum for drunken college students who cannot conceive that any harm could come from disporting themselves in semi-naked poses for everyone to see. There is no indication that the comment was meant to be humorous, and there are many legitimate sober uses for Facebook.
Perhaps the worst distortion of the Big Brother hysteria, of which the book provides no source, is the claim that the CIA and FBI appears to know what airline meals a person chooses when they cross the Atlantic. Terrorists do their best to be stealthy, and will likely opt to bring their own special meal, rather than stand out and request a special one. It is not clear what the CIA and FBI hope to gain with such data.
The book documents numerous CCTV failures, from Brighton, England to Baltimore, Maryland. Chapter 3 has a 2005 quote from the Maryland Attorney General stating that CCTV's had yet to solve a single crime. The book also repeats the problem of fuzzy CCTV images and highlights other technology failures as far back as 1998. Surveillance technology has significantly advanced in the last 3 years, let alone decade. Focusing on failures from a decade ago is in no way indicative of the state of the art, nor does it do anything to solve the problem Clark addresses.
In the last 60 days alone, CCTV has been used to identify the alleged Craigslist Killer and shooter at Wesleyan University. While Clark may not realize it, CCTV and other related technologies has indeed revolutionized law enforcement. The underlying problem is that Britain's millions of cameras were deployed in the hope that they could magically solve crime. Cameras alone achieve nothing; but CCTV combined with trained humans and other crime prevention and detection methods are a powerful set of tools that many police departments are embracing.
The book notes that two CCTV schemes were sold to UK police in 2001 with the premise that they would eliminate crime and increase the number of visitors by 225,000 a year. Any police department that would believe such a marketing claim, without pilot testing and proof of concept should themselves be arrested for ineptitude.
The book would be better off quoting this year's CCTV successes, rather than those of obsolete equipment. As to the fuzzy image problem; newer, more powerful and often inexpensive cameras easily and quickly solves that predicament.
All is not lost on the book. Chapter 8 — Me and My ID, in which Clark documents how ineffective national identification cards are. National ID cards are all the rage and are being deployed in the hope that they will reduce terrorism, illegal immigration and other of society's ills. Clark notes that even if national ID cards were able to identify everyone correctly, and that is a huge assumption, it is still not clear what they would achieve. National ID's have been touted to reduce insurance fraud, but medical insurance fraud is often executed not by false identification, rather by patients lying about their circumstances.
The book touches upon, but does not really answer, nor go into enough details on why people allow such pervasive use of electronic surveillance technologies to seamlessly enter society. Be it CCTV cameras that film public parks or attempt to catch speeding drivers; many are deployed with little to no protestations.
While Big Brother achieved oppressive control over individuals, the real danger of surveillance systems is that they can easily be misused. Rather than achieving their crime fighting goals, they will mislead police with myriad false positives. Part of Clark's frustration is likely that the UK Police believe in some sort of CCTV Kool-Aid that their collogues in the US have not consumed. Why that is so prevalent in the UK is something that Clark doesn't address.
The Road to Big Brother: One Man's Struggle Against the Surveillance Society should have been a book that details the problems with a surveillance society, but often reads like it emanates from the ministry of misinformation.
Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.
You can purchase The Road to Big Brother: One Man's Struggle Against the Surveillance Society from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Keep an "eye" out for these guys: (Score:5, Interesting)
From an article [sandiegoreader.com] in the San Diego Reader:
Last week in a Spring Valley business park, a tower nearly 100 feet tall sprang up seemingly overnight...I approached three men, dressed as though they might be engineers, who were standing in the parking lot outside NSM Surveillance on Via Orange Way. When I asked them what the tower was for, one of them responded with the joke, "We can't tell you. We'd have to kill you."...By Wednesday afternoon the tower had disappeared.
Though that particular product was probably just a communications tower, the article describes how easy it is to set up an Orwellian society, especially with a systems integrator such as NSM Surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, all those links are somewhat "creepy". But even creepier is that someone thinks all of this is a good (great??) idea!
The problem is some lawyer somewhere is suing some city for not having a camera on every corner because some bad thing happened to someone somewhere. They will frame the need in terms like "high crime rate" and such, saying the city should have been monitoring the area with surveillance equipment.
And some other lawyer will be protesting the setup suggested above as an invasion of privacy
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is some lawyer somewhere is suing some city for not having a camera on every corner because some bad thing happened to someone somewhere. They will frame the need in terms like "high crime rate" and such, saying the city should have been monitoring the area with surveillance equipment.
And some other lawyer will be protesting the setup suggested above as an invasion of privacy, big brother etc.
No matter what happens, the lawyers always come out on top. Ain't seeing any layoffs or downsizing in their profession.
Re:Keep an "eye" out for these guys: (Score:5, Insightful)
See everyone thinks that 1984 is about Big Brother, Thought Police, and telescreens. It is not.
Yes, 1984 is about the erosion of self-expression, but those tools are only a means, not the end. The end is the stupification of society through the destruction of language and the altering of history. When you destroy the human faculty of expression through the use of DoubleThink and DoubleSpeak, then you can exercise control of not just the masses, but individuals. Those 'other things' are just a net to cull those who see through the charade.
Look at Big Media. If you're really looking for someone to lynch, it ought to be them. They can feed you bigger lies that stink more than any cockamamie the government can give, if only because we're so willing to feed upon it.
Re: (Score:2)
It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
- George Orwell
This is part of why i'm a "grammar snob". i'm resisting the dumbing down of language and expression itself.
That said....
It amazes me how egocentric and paranoid people are to think that the gov't car
Re:Rothke Writes Another of His (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a look at where CCTV is mostly deployed, e.g. Great Britain, and what you find are left-wing control freaks.
One of the more entertaining features of Slashdot is the self-delusional lefties who blame anything they don't like, even perfectly typical lefty behaviour, on "right wing ..."
It's modern urban liberals that are the first to insist that the government "do something" whenever reality bites. Modern liberal governments are only too happy to oblige. Ubiquitous CCTV is "doing something."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The techniques of the state control are the same. You can argue seating arrangements defined after the French Revolution, all you want to - it is how corpro-statist control maintains and strengthens its grip, while the peons bicker over ideological alignment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are calling the current Labour government liberal?
The UK government is right wing. Their policies are mostly right wing. Remember the upset caused when they announced a higher top rate of tax a couple of weeks back? Anything remotely left wing is a big deal for them.
Mass surveillance is classic right wing conservative policy. Forget civil liberties, freedom and privacy, all they want to do is "crack down" on criminal scum. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Kettle the tree hugging hi
Re: (Score:2)
You are calling the current Labour government liberal?
So? GP is probably from the US. There, they also think that the Democrats are "liberal", "socialist" and "left-wing".
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone has different definitions, I suppose. But I define right/conservative to be for small government and left/liberal to be for big government. I never understand why people associate war with the right. In America anyway, Wilson brought us WWI, FDR brought us WWII, Truman brought us the Korean War, Kennedy and Johnson brought us Vietnam, Nixon ended Vietnam, Clinton brought us Kosovo and bombed numerous other countries. So that leaves the Bushes, who are neocons. And since the founders of the neocon m
Re: (Score:2)
Look at it this way - the right used the fear of terrorism to take away a lot of freedoms in both the UK and the US. The left is broadly pro-freedom.
I think people get confused about the freedom thing because the right is for less regulation and less government, but that's economic freedom rather than civil liberties freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than Big Brother: Big Bureaucracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Even worse than Big Brother would be what is described in the summary: A set of decentralized agencies full of politics/bureaucracy that have rules with little or no unification and no compassion or human oversight. Suddenly, instead of a force seeking only power there is a "force" that is simply a mass of rules and surveillance with the illusion of trying to control when in fact it only creates massive inconvenience for people ala Brazil.
Basically: Given the choice I would almost rather be imprisoned/watched by an entity with an agenda rather than a decentralized, inept morass of bureaucracy. I fear that is what we are moving toward, however. See Red Light Cameras as an example.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Basically: Given the choice I would almost rather be imprisoned/watched by an entity with an agenda rather than a decentralized, inept morass of bureaucracy. I fear that is what we are moving toward, however. See Red Light Cameras as an example.
Hmm... I'm really not sure (I'd prefer neither), but I think Frank Herbert would have chosen the former... do we need a Bureau of Sabotage now? Paging Jorj X. McKie :)
Re:Worse than Big Brother: Big Bureaucracy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"in fact it only creates massive inconvenience for people ala Brazil."
Please specify "Brazil, the movie" or "Terry Gilliam's Brazil". My government certainly inconvenience me, but the overall situation is nowhere near the mess you describe ;-)
Wow. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding. Let's wait 'till they REALLY start oppressing us before we start taking any of it seriously. Obviously he hasn't read 1984... once it's too late, it's too late. 2+2=
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"2+2="
ooh! I know this! 5 5 5 5 5 5 5!!!!!1!!!
Re: (Score:2)
For sufficiently large values of 2, that is correct...
Re: (Score:2)
With new technologies Big Brother becomes more and more feasible. You can be tracked with your cellphone. What happens when you combine security cameras and face recognition? What if banking becomes all digital and your accounts can be switched off? Data mining of your google search terms? Those are real risks, and slowly we could end up in such a world if we don't watch out..
Re: (Score:2)
Reviewer sez...
We're from the Government and we're here to help.
There aren't "millions" of CCTV cameras. (Score:5, Interesting)
That figure was made up by a lazy tabloid hack writing for the Daily Telegraph, who counted the number of CCTV cameras in about a quarter mile of the main street of a particularly unpleasant part of London, and then multiplied by the total distance of roads in the UK.
It's not even believably wrong - it's so mind-buggeringly flawed that it defies human comprehension as to how anyone could possibly think it's even nearly right. If that figure was correct then you would pass a CCTV camera every 20 metres on every road in the UK. My driveway alone would have three or four cameras on it.
I really wish people would stop spouting such patent nonsense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
CCTV cameras are not solely the domain of the government. The term CCTV is just an acronym for Closed-Circuit Television - i.e. practically any connected set of cameras and recording devices. Practically every store will have at least one, any store larger than the average cornershop is going to have many of them. Include ALL of those and I'm sure there are millions of CCTV cameras in the UK.
Logistically impossible (Score:2)
If there were millions of cameras, how many analysts would be needed to go through the videos? People have been watching too many movies [imdb.com]
Overall, I'd say surveillance cameras are much like guns, only less lethal. Yes, they can be used for bad things. Should we outlaw them? No. Just have a reasonable control over them, alway keeping in mind that they aren't guns, you don't need as much camera control as you need gun control.
People who hate or fear cameras have never lived in a bad neighborhood. I lived in Co [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If there were millions of cameras, how many analysts would be needed to go through the videos?
Not as many as you might think. You don't need to analyze every second of every video, just whenever something of interest occurs. And things like facial recognition further reduce that human requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
As it is currently they are fairly benign. The vast majority of CCTV cameras are in places corner shops and supermarkets. These aren't really monitored and the video data isn't accessible from elsewhere. There's no real danger to privacy and certainly people on Slashdot care far more about Britain's CCTV cameras than the British!
However the danger comes when a large enough network of CCTV cameras (e.g. on the underground or in central london) is combined with sufficiently advanced computer vision software.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Almost like "Freedom from Harm"? (Score:2)
Re:Logistically impossible (Score:4, Informative)
>>I was mugged in daylight in an upper middle class neighborhood getting home from school when I was nine years old.
And CCTV isn't going to prevent you from being mugged. It *may* aid in a conviction, but does not stop a bullet, knife, nor a thug who is willing to mug a 9 y/o kid.
It might help catch the thief, which might prevent future crimes. I had the TV on while I was cooking this evening, and there was a program showing police doing their jobs (there are several programmes like this in the UK, they're awful, but hey). A teenager ran to one of the on-duty police saying he'd been mugged, and gave a description. The police radioed that to the CCTV people, who said someone matching the description was a couple of streets away. The teenager and the police drove round, the teenager identified the guy, and he was arrested.
The CCTV certainly helps here, but only when there are police on the streets able to use it.
What the TV show probably didn't tell you... (Score:2)
What the TV show probably didn't tell you is that the mugger probably mugged someone else several days later.
With the CPS reluctance to prosecute and the severe reduction in custodial sentences, many people re-offend dozens of times before being put away.
CCTV is not the answer. An enshrined right to personal protection and the means to do so would be a good start, and it needs to be coupled with a justice system that actually puts persistent offenders somewhere where they can't hurt the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
A 60-80 meter driveway? Fuck.
Re:There aren't "millions" of CCTV cameras. (Score:5, Informative)
Also, this study: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf [homeoffice.gov.uk] from the Home Office says you're full of shit. Page six, last sentence of the first paragraph, four million CCTV cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Give or take a few, yes.
Poor Review - Time to do some research. (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps the reviewer may also wish to check out the Home Office Research Study 292, 'Assessing the impact of CCTV cameras' (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf) before attempting to explain how useful they are to us, and maybe also have a read of Database State (http://www.jrrt.org.uk/uploads/Database State.pdf) to check the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust's report. Then there's the recent House Of Lords publication Surveillance, Citizens And The State (http://publications.parliament.uk).
CCTV cameras scare me a bit (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I am not so sure of the real value of these cameras. I mean, yes, in many circumstances they are helpful, but in all?
Sure the craigslist killer may have been harder to catch, but men like him have been caught without any use of CCTV cameras before. Had he not been caught yet, some more lives may be lost or damaged, However, we are talking about overall policy of society... a single incident of a single "bad guy" does not a case for public policy make.
With the advent of a DHS, with the successes, its not hard to see how creeping centralization can happen. I know that some police departments are often given direct access to private security cameras in many buildings, and particularly of the outward facing cameras that overlook city squares etc.
It may be hard to centralize them now, but technology only makes it easier.
Then look at the CORI system here in MA. A recent study found many accesses that were probably unauthorized. As far as they can tell, a significant portion of local police will think nothing of using the system to look up famous people's information. Of course, thats only been identified by looking for searches on famous names. An ex-girlfriend, Wife's new boyfriend, etc, there is no telling.
Tehcnology gives new abilities. However, when you build infrastructure that has the potential for abuse, you have to build in proper checks and balances, or trust not just its designers, but the operators of the system, now...and into the future.
the new Big brother will not run on a platform. He is quite happy to "creep on in" on the backs of otherwise good intentions. Like the recent no fly list issue. A plane that merely flew threw US airspace was detained and a reporter questioned... because someone put him on the secret no fly list, and somehow the US government got ahold of the passenger manifest. Was he put on the list as a mistake? Or was he put on because someone didn't like what he had to say and wanted to harass him? Where are the checks and balances?
-Steve
Re:CCTV cameras scare me a bit (Score:4, Insightful)
a single incident of a single "bad guy" does not a case for public policy make.
Hello, TheCarp, I'd like to introduce you to the sad state of legislation in the US for the past few decades or so. :(
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A recent study found many accesses that were probably unauthorized. As far as they can tell, a significant portion of local police will think nothing of using the system to look up famous people's information. Of course, that's only been identified by looking for searches on famous names. An ex-girlfriend, Wife's new boyfriend, etc, there is no telling.
-Steve
As someone who had access to lots of confidential information (much like any sysadmin), I can say that the temptation to snoop on public figures and personal relations is indeed great.
For this level of invasion of privacy (cameras are even greater invasions of privacy IMO than financial records), there should be a very good justification, which I think there isn't, else the abuses will easily overwhelm the benefits (perceived or otherwise).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I am not so sure of the real value of these cameras. I mean, yes, in many circumstances they are helpful, but in all?
I'm sure these wanted criminals [winnipegsun.com] will soon be recognized and arrested based on the surveillance camera images...
The basic black hoodie... Thwarting millions of dollars of surveillance technology since forever
Re: (Score:2)
Around here, a single case of a bad guy isn't enough to change public policy.
What does is a single case of a young female attractive Nordic-looking person, who dies or disappears or is really badly hurt by a bad guy. That's enough to get a bad law passed.
Sigh. We've been over this before (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Just from the summary... (Score:2, Insightful)
Use of Example/Metaphor... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think the author of this entry is entitled to define exactly when and how the 'Big Brother' example/metaphor can be applied in language.
Yes, the Big Brother in Orwell's 1984 has specific definitions, but in reference/example/metaphor, people apply abstractions and generalizations that are not necessarily definitive of the original context. In such context, only elements or small aspects of the original concept may apply and it is usually up to the reader to bridge the relationship through active thought.
Samzenpus (the Big Brother in this case) is trying to tell us all how to live!
Big Brother as an archetype (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't get it (Score:2)
the use of the term 'Big Brother' in both the title and throughout the book is erroneous. Big Brother has its roots in George Orwell's novel 1984 and refers to an omnipresent, seemingly benevolent figure representing the oppressive control over individual lives exerted by an authoritarian government. The term has been misappropriated to describe everything from legitimate crime-fighting, to surveillance cameras, to corporate e-mail and network usage monitoring. Localities that deploy CCTV cameras in public
Of course it's still Big Brother! (Score:3, Insightful)
Another big brother definition (Score:2)
At least is what Hollywood want you to believe, anyone that could be qualified as hacker there can control all surveillance cameras around you.
What's the point? (Score:2)
Okay, so the reviewer has only now figured out the same thing that the entire population of London has known for years. What does this have to do with the book?
Sir, I have an idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Boss: "What's that Jenkins?"
Agent: "Lets do a big budget reality TV show called Big Brother, that way the term Big Brother is further misunderstood by the general public and they'll stop calling us that"
Boss: "That's brilliant Jenkins!"
Big Brother In My Government? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is more likely than you think. [deafdc.com]
When government keeps getting bigger and bigger, it starts to behave and act more like Big Brother than our founding fathers.
The government that governs least, governs best. [virginia.edu] Whomever said that be it John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, or Napoleon.
It seems at least in fiction, there is a way to fight the UKian Big Brother [wikipedia.org] but I wouldn't advise it to UKians, least if they don't want to get arrested. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even those in Wales and Scotland?
Objecting To the Use of "Big Brother" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I've had this conversation with a sociologist from an Ivy League school. I had pointed out some similarities between Osama Bin Laden and Emmanuel Goldstein when she said, "Yes, but remember that Orwell was writing an allegory for Stalinism. It doesn't really apply to our situation."
That response, like the reviewer's comment that the book "misappropriates" the image of Big Brother, left me speechless. It wasn't until later that I realized such arguments are like saying, "Jesus was really only talking about f
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the country that has perfected Big Brother techniques to the greatest extent is China. One of the things they've figured out is that you don't have to be harsh all the time. That's crude. You don't have to be looking all the time. That's inefficient.
The key to controlling people is uncertainty. Am I being watched now? Is what I'm doing going to draw attention to myself? That's when people internalize Big Brother. Big Brother needn't be looking, because people do it to themselves.
The imp
I wouldn't say 'erroneous'... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Before going forward, the use of the term 'Big Brother' in both the title and throughout the book is erroneous."
The usage of 'Big Brother' to refer to any sort of general surveillance is not only common, but perfectly valid. It is indeed a reference to 1984, but it primarily references the ever-present posters that remind people 'Big Brother is watching', not the oppressive government itself. If -someone- is watching, that someone is often referred to as Big Brother, because BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING, not necessarily because that someone is part of an authoritarian regime of oppression and misinformation.
Sounds like a biased review... (Score:2)
"The book touches upon, but does not really answer, nor go into enough details on why people allow such pervasive use of electronic surveillance technologies to seamlessly enter society. Be it CCTV cameras that film public parks or attempt to catch speeding drivers; many are deployed with little to no protestations.
Ahh.. Mabey because we don't get a choice in the matter during the initial planning and establishment stages... And when it is finally FORCED onto a ballot by petition, it is usually overwhelmi
Re: (Score:2)
You can read minds?
Who needs CCTV cameras...
Re: (Score:2)
You can read minds?
Who needs CCTV cameras...
But I keep it turned off or else I'd end up a quivering fool because of what I might hear... OR I could use it to get women by getting inside of their heads...
oops.. Forgot I was on Slashdot. Guess I don't have telepathy after all.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the red-light camera didn't result in a rear-end collision. The idiot trying to cross the intersection on a yellow light while there's still a fscking car in front of him that had not entered the intersection caused the accident, period. Even more so if he wasn't keeping enough distance from that car. Don't blame
Huh? (Score:2)
Sorry, but that's the biggest load of bull I have read in a long time. I disagree that the term has been "misappropriated". The situation mentioned above is as much of a stepping stone toward "Big Brother" as any warrantless surveillance is. What, does he expect "Big Brotherism" to spring up instantaneously? It could not. It would take a l
Re: (Score:2)
"Big Brother" in 1984 used television camera surveilance of every citizen, all of the time. (except for a tiny corner of Winston Smith's apartment, which was accidentally out of view). It is perfectly reasonable use of language to apply that metaphor to the CCTV surveillance society.
Re: (Score:2)
What, does he expect "Big Brotherism" to spring up instantaneously? It could not. It would take a lot of these little, intermediate steps.
Indeed, and Orwell describes Big Brother as having come to be in exactly these terms.
You'd hope someone correcting the meaning of "Big Brother" would know this...
The real question... (Score:3, Interesting)
is why the feed from these cameras aren't publicly available, and why the cameras aren't installed in the offices of our public officials, police forces, and anyone else doing the public's work. I'd argue there's an even greater need for us to keep an eye on them than there is for them to keep an eye on us.
Install the surveillance cameras for yourselves first, and then we'll gladly allow you to watch us in public. And please don't cite "privacy concerns". We threw those out the window a long time ago.
This is the worst book review I have read (Score:2)
Not only are the reviewer's own biases glaringly evident, apparently he seems to believe that ineffective surveillance is equivalent to no surveillance. Nothing could be further from the truth. He also seems to feel that law enforcement agencies would not undertake forms of surveillance that are obviously ineffective; again he would be very sadly mistaken.
I give this review zero stars (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, it's not a review at all--it's an op/ed piece, and a badly written one at that.
How about reviewing the book as given, and leaving your attitude for your OWN book?
Re: (Score:2)
+1 from here.
Depends on how you define that... (Score:2)
Localities that deploy CCTV cameras in public thoroughfares in the hope of combating crime are in no way indicative of the oppressive control of Orwell's Big Brother.
The only difference, really, was in what the localities in question defined as crimes. In Oceana, crimes included thinking the wrong thing. Britain has not quite yet reached that level (however, given that parliament has absolute sovereignty, there's precious little that can prevent it), but the level of surveillance by itself wasn't what made the society oppressive.
Re: (Score:2)
In Oceana, crimes included thinking the wrong thing. Britain has not quite yet reached that level (however, given that parliament has absolute sovereignty, there's precious little that can prevent it),
Oh, I'd say it has reached that level all right. It's a country where you can be jailed for things that you see, regardless of intent (e.g. if someone else sends you some child porn in an e-mail and you report it, you will be jailed for having seen it); a country where you can be held in prison indefinitely without trial for refusing to reveal a password that a law enforcement official suspects may be in your head. If you meant that you can't be jailed for political opinions that you never express publicall
Why do fascists have to hide? (Score:2)
I just finished reading Phillip K. Dick's "Man In The High Castle" which takes place in an alternate reality in which the Nazis and the Japanese won World War II. It takes place about 20 years after the war when things have settled down and the colonial empires of the Japanese and Germans are more or less up and running.
Someone asked me if the books was like 1984, Brave New World, or V for Vendetta. I told them that no it really wasn't at all. That's because the idea behind 1984 is that the government li
I'm watching yuo (Score:2)
I know what "Big Biother" means, you dolt (Score:2)
I guess that wasn't a surveillance camera behind Winston Smith's mirror in 1984? The reviewer is a twit. And an obvious agent of the forces of Big Brotherism. Under what rock do they find these folks?
Re: (Score:2)
Ben, Ben, Ben... (Score:2)
First and foremost, it's great that you read -- and retained -- 1984. That being said, whether you like it or not, "Big Brother" has entered the vernacular as "overly-controlled and/or observed." Things like this happen frequently -- you should probably roll with it. Next, the book is making a general point with anecdotes; without reading it, I can't state whether or not this is being abused -- but the mere fact that anecdotes are being used is not a reason to condemn, which you clearly think it is. I m
And did Big Brother come about overnight? (Score:2)
No.
Back here in the US, we're working at it, also (though this administration may change some things). Does anyone want to argue that mandatory drug tests for jobs, and for some, random drug tests (for someone not operating a vehicle) isn't "overly controlled"? How about this decade, when suddenly employers want credit checks, and now more and more want criminal background checks?
Tell me that the companies that own the government aren't the real Big Brother. Put that in the context of the people who've been
Re:big brother (Score:4, Insightful)
Both the book and the review are wildly biased, though obviously in opposite directions. I think it's safe to say that the truth lies somewhere in the wide area between the two. For what its worth, I'd guess the truth is in the area of "Politicians legitimately trying to do what they think is right but screwing it up badly by not realizing the unintended consequences of their actions".
Re: (Score:2)
...which works as an excuse until you realize they've been repeatedly warned that what they were doing had unintended consequences.
Re:big brother (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a terrible review. Totally biased in favour of Government and anti-privacy. He's basically bloated full of security-theatre koolaid.
If he's British, he must be the last man standing that supports the Government right now. Maybe they paid him with expenses money.
Re: (Score:2)
If he's British?
Should we be concerned that such a scenario play itself out in Ross Clark's UK or in the US? Likely no, as US government agencies are widely decentralized and isolated.
I tend to assume as a default position that anyone who thinks US government agencies run the UK is from the US. Of course there are conspiracy theorists of various flavours who would agree, but not so many.
Re:big brother (Score:5, Insightful)
Arguments of the form "group X doesn't want to hurt you, therefore technology Y is not dangerous to your freedom" completely miss the point; once technology Y is in place, it is waiting, ready for use by group Z which does want to restrict your civil rights.
The apparatus of a police state is dangerous even in a democracy because it makes it so much easier for some rogue element to end democracy by imposing a police state without free assembly, free speech, free practice of religion, etc.
Re:big brother (Score:5, Insightful)
Ancient example:
Under the democratic Republic of Rome, the stadium games served as a way for Group X (the Senators) to entertain the people. Just for fun. But once group Z (the emperors) arrived on the scene, the games devolved into a way to kill undesirables like criminals, slaves, and Christians/Jews.
"This job would be a lot easier if instead of a Republic, we had a dictatorship. Ha, ha, ha." - G. Dubya Bush
LBJ Said it Best (Score:5, Informative)
-- Lyndon Johnson, former President of the U.S.
This Book Review: Poorly Conceived, Poorly Written (Score:4, Insightful)
Starting with a specious criticism concerning the "erroneous" use of the term Big Brother, this review wanders through to the useless conclusion that this book should have been about something other than what it was about. What the review thinks that the book should have been about is immaterial, and making that point the conclusion of the review just marks it as a bad review.
There may be some accurate and useful criticisms here, but it is impossible to tell. The review is a disorganized mess of anecdotes from the books, which are rebutted with little to support the reviewer's case. What is needed is first to portray a useful summary of the book and its thesis, and then make criticisms based on that. There is no useful exposition of the book's theme, only a laundry list of criticisms that seems more like an extended whine.
To examine one specific criticism, it does not seem reasonable to expect a book to cover events that happen after it is written, let alone those that happen after it is typeset, printed, and bound. By citing only the apprehension of the (alleged) Craigslist killer and the Wesleyan University bookstore killer, the reviewer actually suggests that there are no significant successes for CCTV within the timeframe of the book. Is that the case? The audience is left to guess, because the reviewer does not seem to know.
To sum up, this review is simply a collection of specific points made about the subject book. The reader is left with little idea of the scope of the subject book, its themes, or any thesis that Mr. Clark presents. But it was not for naught; now I know that I should probably avoid Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent post. Well written, insightful, and even a bit funny.
Re:big brother (Score:5, Insightful)
That was exactly my thinking.
"We LOVE our government surveillence. It's legitimate and good. Don't listen to those laughable studies showing that massive surveillence has absolutely no benefit in preventing crime, and no effect on crime rates, and only serves as a tool for Intelligence organizations to collect information about citizens, so as to quell dissent, and spy on any political opposition, with such an extreme opportunity for abuse, even beyond the invasion of privacy aspect, that such a crazy system should have no place in ANY civilized society. Your government loves you. They want to play catch with your children, and buy you a beer. If you don't have anything to hide, why is there a problem? We're just the friendly Government come to make your life better"
And as for the US. The reviewer obviously hasn't been paying attention in the last few decades, as the power has been centralized more and more, taking power from the states putting it into the Federal government's hands, consolidating agencies one after another directly beneath the executive branch, federalizing the police, integrating the military with police for domestic operations against citizens, and on and on and on.
As for the UK. I've always wanted to visit, but I wouldn't be caught dead in that "Brave New World". Sounds like the reviewer would have had a great time in Nazi Germany.
Let's asume that magically all of the sudden massive surveillance into the lives of every citizen did anything good for the population (and not for the Beurocrats keeping the population under their thumb of control). Even if having a chip implant up your anus and your own personal police officer to to follow you around and arrest you if your rectal temperature deviates to rapidly made the world crime free, is it really worth it? I'd rather live in the middle of a crime ridden cess pool, than in an Orwellian Surveilance State.
The government should get back to what it's supposed to do, and micromanaging the lives of it's citizens is NOT one of those purposes.
Brothke: People like you piss me off. Go move to China. I much prefer that whole "freedom" model, even if though it's hard to come by in the suposed "free world". At least the criminals on the street don't have massive amounts of power, infastructure and resources behind them. The government criminals certainly do.
Re:i always find this topic humorous (Score:4, Interesting)
thinking that TV cameras are the slippery slope to 24/7 facism is not hilarious; it is reasonable fear. ...people would have gasped.
Suppose the british , by spending money, make the cost of cameras and software cheaper - surely that will hasten the day when, say N korea will have cameras implanted in everyone at birth...that is not wacked out/. fear m ongering, that is a reasonable fear.
I wonder how old you are: the loss of liberty and freedom, just in my shortlife (i'm 53) is astonishing - but it happens slowly, or in a climate of fear 99/11) and you don't really notice how bad things are: if you ahd told people on 9/10 that to get on an airplane, you had to show up 2 hours early, not carry a penkife,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...fears of television cameras to capture speeders is apparently the gateway to the downfall of western civilization and liberal/libertarian ideals. gee, maybe its just to catch speeders?
That's a laughably naive supposition. The first mistake you make is assuming the speed has been set for the sake of safety, and not to catch 'speeders' as a profit-generating exercise. There have been numerous stories about places where traffic lights are set up so more people will run the red and get ticketed. There's also this story [winnipegfreepress.com]. Note the 20-fold increase in tickets year-over-year. Living in the area, I can assure you it wasn't because everyone decided it was time to start speeding. As noted in
Re:i always find this topic humorous (Score:5, Insightful)
You only need the government to realise every young person totting around with cellphone cameras etc is a threat and then your main point starts to fall down. You also misunderstand that these things can also become part of the surveillance mechanism itself. Just what is happening to those pictures you send over a mobile network?
George Orwell did paint a fanciful worst case scenario, but very few academics come out and say it's outright poppycock, because it still has some plausibility. I also think you forget history, Gestapo, Cold war anti-communism in the united states. Yes the west has spent some time scrabbling for traction on the slippery slope.
Today's CCTV + Wiretapping world is far removed from Big Brother, yes, and a lot would have to go wrong for it become reality, but that doesn't make it OK nor not worth fighting.
I suggest Cory Doctorow's Little Brother as further reading: http://craphound.com/littlebrother/download/ [craphound.com]
Don't mess with slashdot hysteria. Oh and get off my lawn.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
the pillars of these western liberal notions and the rights and freedoms they support are not impervious to damage, not in the least. but they are a lot stronger than you suppose, and to destroy them to the extent that you and others suggest would take a lot more concerted effort and a lot more societal changes than some stupid transit cameras
And you think that the effort is not there? Or that rights can only be infringed upon given sweeping societal change? All that is needed for them to be negated is complacency.
Those "western liberal" governments have subverted these rights and freedoms before and will do so again. Where was due process for the Japanese-Americans during WWII, or for Muslims post-9/11? Where was free speech for those in "free speech zones" at recent major political events/conventions? Where was the right against unreasonable s
Re: (Score:2)
Let's get this straight - you think a "little brother" of disorganized and chaotic individuals with hand-held cameras is somehow proof that well-funded, state-controlled camera systems connected to ever more featureful databases aren't likely to be used for nefarious purposes? You really believe that power purifies? That there is no such thing as feature-creep? That no one within the upper ranks of law enforcement has ever thought that making their job easier was more important than the privacy and civi
There is no humor here. (Score:4, Insightful)
The proliferation of government surveillance systems is not amusing. It is disturbing. The fact that persons such as yourself dismiss the potential negative implications of omnipresent authority as paranoia is frightening.
In the novel 1984 Orwell described a government (the Party) that used ubiquitous surveillance as an instrument to consolidate power and oppress the populace. In reality, governments are installing cameras, creating databases and using technology to invade privacy on a massive scale. The correlation is obvious.
Furthermore, even if the cameras are, as you argue, only going to be used for legitimate law enforcement purposes, is that an acceptable practice? Can a society be free when there is 100% enforcement of the laws?
I guess that would depend on the laws, now, wouldn't it? Though, given some of the more insane laws on the books, and the barrage of new ones poured forth that target the "worst" in our societies (think sex offenders and terrorists), I would venture that "perfect" law enforcement is no more a legitimate function of government than maximizing tax revenue.
Also, your argument concerning "Little Brother" is flawed. Rodney King's tormentors were not convicted of any crime. Indeed, episodes of police brutality, wrongful prosecution and judicial misconduct rarely end with the offenders being punished. A citizen with a cell phone tends to be outmatched by the power of the government.
1984 is fiction. But many in power act like it's an instruction manual.
Re: (Score:2)
While you make some goods points, it's interesting how your wording provides the perfect defense against a troll mod, which in many ways would be appropriate to apply to your post. You get to call people names, and if you actually were modded troll you can say, "See? I said the groupthinkers would attempt to quash my statement. Look how correct I must be."
The presentation of your ideas in such a blatantly manipulative way does much to undermine any weight carried by your opinions, at least among those who a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference? There's no enduring record of your activities if there's just a cop on the corner. With a CCTV and sufficiently large storage, someone could go back and count exactly how many times you pass by certain places. Now what if those certain places are deemed "unseemly" such as drug hangouts, or fronts for illegal activities. They now have evidence that could be used in a warrant against you. "Your honour, the defendant was repeatedly seen in the vicinity of the smuggling warehouse, it seems only
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Cost. When surveillance is labor intensive, it is necessarily only used in exceptional circumstances(against specific high-profile enemies of the state). The only way to use it broadly is to consume an unsustainable portion of the available economic output(as in East Germany). In effect, the expense and inconvenience of low-tech surveillance function, for the vast majority of people, as a de-facto set of protections from state intrusion. Furthermore, since it is expensive an
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm missing the joke, but seriously? There are hundreds of thousands of mediocre people willing to work a mediocre job. Government pay isn't exactly mediocre anyway, at least not when there is no competitive private sector equivalent. If there is a competitive private sector equivalent, the mediocre still go into government work, because they can't get into the competitive jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if a cop sees me.
Of course, you can't hook a cop's eyes up to a recording device and have a permanent record of everything he sees, like you can with a camera.
You also can't hook a cop's brain up to a database and datamine everything he sees, like you can with a camera.
So, your analogy sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the DHS is trying to centralize it all with some degree of success.