Mark Edwards lays out some arguments against the Panopticon State
Yesterday I spent rather more time than I should have reading and commenting on the BBC ‘Have Your Say’ discussion about the surveillance society. Faced with the predictable response from the obedient serfs that “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” I tried to make three main points.
The first was that you have nothing to fear only if the authorities are perfect, all the time and every time. Imperfections could be mistaken identity, linking you with some criminal activity; if the bloke who asked me for the time as I bought my paper this morning went on to rob the newsagent after I left, might I be an accomplice? There is also the risk of blatant corruption, where a government employee abuses the data they collect as part of their job to identify you as being worth burgling, or to watch through your teenage daughters’ bedroom windows.
My second point was that all of this surveillance does not make us any safer; the least implausible case for it suggests that evidence may be obtained that makes conviction of those committing crimes easier. This however is not proven beyond doubt. What is well established is that the constant surveillance creates an atmosphere of paranoia, in which we are convinced there is a greater threat to each of us than is actually the case. I have found no evidence that crime has fallen where cameras have been installed (I have seen reference to situations where crime fell when cameras were installed and police activity on the ground increased, but that is by no means the same thing).
Thirdly, I tried to explain that the level of surveillance in Britain had radically changed the relationship between government and governed, and between people and the law. There is no longer any presumption of innocence, because we are all suspects. Worse than that, we are suspected of crimes that we may not have committed yet. I feel we have moved from having a Civil Service that was motivated to serve the public (even if they were often misguided), to government employees who now see themselves as ‘the authorities’.
Later in the evening I thought back over the day and realised that I had tried to justify, on purely utilitarian grounds, something that should need no justification; why should I have to justify my desire to protect my privacy? And why are so many people so careless of theirs?
You may be asking why I would want to spend my time posting to what is actually an authoritarian left wing site (the BBC), when I regard myself as libertarian right wing. My reason is simple, and, frankly, arrogant. I kid myself that my arguments may be so persuasive that someone will read my comment, and understand it enough for me to have sown a seed of doubt. I suspect this is so unlikely as be a delusion, but I keep trying. I fear I am not even nearly as persuasive as I like to think I am, and my arguments are doomed to failure, so I am wasting my time but I continue anyway.
To end on a positive note, I counted the most recommended comments at 16:00, and found the first pro camera comment was number 70. None of my contributions were in the preceding 69 but at least the forces of common sense seemed to be carrying the argument.
To address the final paragraph – posting on here is preaching to the converted. Blogging in general is preaching to the converted in fact.
Venturing into the Heart of Darkness of bbc.co.uk is exactly what needs to be done. I notice looking at the comments column in question that the “readers recommended” comments, for page after page, are uniformly opposed to the Orwellian state.
Surely someone at Beeb-Central or the limp Tory party is paying attention somewhere.
I second Last Toryboy. I was thinking that before I even hit “comments”.
It isn’t so much that you might “turn” one of the “enemy”. It’s worth doing it to show these people that they do not represent quite as broad a consensus as they like to think.
Not a delusion, but a very noble impulse.
I have said this before and in other venues:
I will support public cameras only if they are first placed in those areas where the worst and most egregious crimes occur:
In every room and every hallway of every police station in every nation.
In every room and every hallway of every legislative body in every nation.
In every room and every hallway of every executive and judicial branch of every nation.
And, as a condition of employment, upon taking the oath of office, permanently bolted to the head of every elected official, every appointed official, and every official authorized to carry arms in the course of duty.
Turned on, broadcasting, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in a manner I, and every one else, can monitor and record.
Then I will support cameras on me.
Not before.
1) Preaching to the converted is a vital part of the job of any good preacher. A coal that is taken from the fire soon stops glowing, as I once heard in a sermon.
2) As it is not a delusion to think that preaching to the uncoverted has an effect. After all, how did you get to have the opinions you now have? The trouble is, very few people ever say, “Gosh, I now see that you are right.” Doesn’t mean that years hence they might not say, “this bloke in a Have Your Say thread got me thinking…” Actually, it is somewhat more likely that years hence someone might say, “I first worked out that there was something very wrong with the surveillance society in 2006”, forgetting you entirely. But as I believe Reagan once said, it’s amazing how much you can get done if you don’t mind not getting the credit.
Pesonally, I absolutely love BBC’s Have Your Say. The piecewriter invariably does an embarassing (at least embarassing for the 99.99995% of the populace who infest the country that surrounds the walls of Broadcasting House) flaky rant of leftliberal T5 tornado velocity spin, then has to watch (presumably in horror) as his unsupported-by fact windy student-level waffle is comprehensively dismantled by his audience. Bless. I’m just waiting for the BBC to remove the “Readers Recommend” tab. It’s only a matter of time.
I am (now) ashamed to say that I used to be one of the “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” crowd. I said as much to colleague, who replied, “But who decides whether you have something to fear or not?”
I was converted on the spot.
The argument against cameras on every lamp post not only goes forward into the dystopian mist, but can be argued backwards too.
Cameras are a last ditch attempt by the incompetent bureaucracy to justify its existence as the great protector when it does anything but. Putting up crime scene tape around dead bodies a vowing to find the perpetrators (for a couple of weeks anyway) is about they do, unless someone leaves a trail a mile wide behind themselves, or someone rats on the perp. The State bites off much more than it can chew most of the time, fails miserably, yet gets a free pass for more of the same, plus more.
Allowing people to defend themselves, carry weapons for that purpose, and letting the perps know that the average person is prepared and able to fend for themselves before crime scene tape is necessary is where the argument needs to go. Cameras are simply another manifestation of failure.
I soundly endorse the comments here (tw especially) and brad’s:Cameras are simply another manifestation of failure.
We need to know who suggested ASBOs. If ever we need a “name and shame” it is for them!
While on the subject of bbc.co.uk, I discovered this site :-
http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/show/3891
the thread the URL points to is a particularly egregarious example.
The whole meme of the BBC being a bunch of lying Orwellians is definitely spreading. Not too many years ago nobody but wingnuts (probably like us lot :p) would dare criticise Auntie Beeb, but nowadays there seems to be much disgruntlement out there.
Brad…excellent point. Go onto the Beeb discussion boards and advocate the right of private citizens to bear arms, firearms training, and concealed carry weapons permits as a better alternative to camera surveillance saturation. Works in the USA, but we’re too big to surveill as densely.
Last time I was in London, in Sept. 2001, I felt very uncomfortable by all the cameras everywhere. And yes, it was before 9/11. I hadn’t been to London for 14 years before that, a much different time and place. Why have Brits gone all cowering nervous ninny and Orwellian? That isn’t the way I think of Brits…I tend to think of courage, intelligence, adventure. Snivelling around under cameras is ruining your image.
There is one benefit that has not been discussed — if someone is WRONGLY accussed of certain crimes – and they were no where near the area during that time period — – they could easily prove their whereabouts – – thus establishing an instant reasonable doubt in some cases
To the peson who said cameras can prove your innocence – just try it. You will find one of he following excuses
“The camera had no tape in it”
“We have erased it”
“We can’t release it becuase of the Data Protection Act”
“The camera wasn’t switched on”
“It’s only a dummy camera”
“The camera was faulty”
“The tape was blank when we looked at it”
(Ask the Menezes family about the last two)
I consider myself a left wing libertarian but can such a person exist – I certainly think so.
That rather depends what you mean by left wing. If my left wing you think force backed political processes are more important that social and private contract based interactions, then no, you cannot be a libertarian.
There is a case in the Mail on Sunday of somebody proving their innocence (not that you are supposed to have to do that in our system) from the tape in the camera on the police car that apprehended the person pretending to be him. Note it was a police camera, at the point of arrest, not a fixed one taking passing images, and he had to go to appeal, having been convicted, before anyone looked at it.
He had been prosecuted on paperwork alone, and so the police officer who had booked the weasely white impostor, was never asked to certify that the heavily-built, quite dark black man as the same person. That’s bureaucracy replacing fair trial, and illustrates the madness that lies ahead with rigid reliance on ID records. Relying on cameras isn’t really an answer.