Guess the answer before reading on.
Poll #876913 Orwell Lives!Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 60
What's the most surveilled country in the world?
China
5 (8.3%)
Iraq 0 (0.0%)
Russia 1 (1.7%)
United Kingdom 44 (73.3%)
United States 10 (16.7%)
Now that I've moved to the UK, many people ask me if I did it to escape US politics. They often don't seem to care that the UK is the most heavily surveilled country in the world. We already have 1 CCTV (closed circuit television) camera for every 14 people. A day in London results in you being photographed hundreds of times. In London, there's an "Oyster" card which lets you travel on public transportation at a lower cost than paying for individual trips. The police gather that data. It's also illegal not to register to vote, so there's now a complete history of everywhere you've ever lived. And there's plenty more. If you think it's not a problem, read the original report which found that Britian was the most watched country (PDF).
Or you could just read the news and find out for yourself.
- Roadside fingerprinting of drivers now happening.
- Police are thinking about using microphones on CCTV cameras to eavesdrop. They won't just be watching, they'll be listening.
- In a horrifying move, some London boroughs are using databases to guess which innocent people might commit crimes.
- Tony Blair, a supporter of the surveillance society, recently channeled George Orwell and said "I don't destroy civil liberties, I protect them".
- But what's worse, one study suggests that three out of four Brits are happy about all of this.
Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg. There's more. Much more. But so many Brits have told me they don't mind. "After all," they say, "you just get used to the cameras."
- Location:Under Surveillance
- Mood:
disappointed
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Comments
Liberty, freedom___________safety, security
^
Can it possibly balance out?
If you're saying that we need to find the right balance between liberty and security, you've already lost the argument. What we need to do is find the methods of maximizing security that least impact liberty.
I am vehemently opposed to ID cards. I carry a driver's licence, credit crads, and a couple of store loyalty cards (which monitor my spending habits). As you rightly point out, if I lived and travelled in London, my movements would be monitored by my Oyster card, as well as the CCTV cameras on every street corner.
But hey, at least we can demonstrate against the War in Iraq without government persecution. Then most they do is ignore us ;)
I don't want to from people who are only doing something because they have to. I want it to be a choice.
And, of course, if "none of those bastards" won, then the election would have to be re-run with different candidates.
But an easier way of encouraging people to vote, without making it compulsory to register, would be to pay people ten quid to register and another tenner when they actually show up and vote. You never know, by cutting down on admin crap that might even turn out to be cheaper too!
What I expect they're more likely to do is either vote for the silly candidates like the National Jam And Lobster Party and so not have any effect on the results, or specifically vote against the government. The latter is *always* a good thing in my opinion, even when my preferred party is in power, as it would tend to make the party in power change. Parties that remain in power for too long get arrogant, corrupt and stupid - the current and previous regimes are clear evidence of this, in that they were mostly fairly sensible in their first few years and then went bat-shit crazy.
I'm not interested in what the effects are statistically. I don't care to have votes counted of those who don't care enough to vote.
Every Step You Take (http://www.EveryStepYouTake.org)
oh, wait.
i find it very interesting that an oyster card would require registration -- why would a criminal register their card to their real information, it just doesn't make sense. that net would only catch the dumbest of criminals.
Saddam Hussein also got 100% of the vote in his elections. 'Official' figures are arse.
The police screw up all the time. My best friend was stabbed in London by a 14 year-old kid. The police caught the fucker, but couldn't prosecute because his mother lied about his whereabouts that night.
The words that come to mind for this are repugnant, repulsive, corrupt, fascist, etc. They're more direct and contextual.
PS: Congrats on Perl Hacks. Just bought a copy, myself :)
And you're right, it's repugnant. Of course, back at the ranch, both Gingrich and Jesse Jackson are apparently suggesting curbing our First Amendment rights.