What the author of Nineteen Eighty-Four could never have predicted is that the citizens would subject themselves to the scrutiny of the cameras voluntarily. The deeper threat to human dignity in 2009 is not state surveillance but pathological exhibitionism. In so many respects, what Orwell foretold has come to pass — with the crucial difference that it has been embraced by consumers not imposed upon them by the totalitarian state.
|
|||||
|
I posted this item almost as Brian hit the button on his own entry on the same subject. But I think it is worth a second bite at this cherry. Great work by Fraser Nelson at the Spectator for revealing that Royal Bank of Scotland, which is now almost totally owned by the UK government, has been asking prospective clients about their political affiliations. The exact term is to ask whether a wannabe client is a “politically exposed person”. Now, this maybe more of a cockup than a sign of anything more sinister, so my trigger finger may be getting unnecessarily twitchy, but still. This is, as the commenters on the article Fraser writes says, a classic demonstration of why state-owned banks are bad and ripe for corruption. Special favours will be demanded by the ruling party’s clients. In France, remember, the former state-run Credit Lyonnais bank was a sink of corruption. RBS is also the parent of Coutts, the private bank, and RBS Coutts, the international version of said. These banks provide clients with offshore accounts. The risk is that such a bank could be put under political pressure to deliver details about its clients, a fact that becomes particularly relevant with so many governments currently trying to shut down so-called “tax havens” such as Switzerland. If it is the case that RBS has been trying to prize out details of potential clients’ political affiliations, then at the very least the management responsible for this dim-witted idea should resign. In fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, should serious consider his own position. On his watch, the once very solid, in fact gloriously dull, UK banking group Lloyds has been pressured into buying the debt-laden UK banking group HBOS. Result: Lloyds’ share price has crashed and most of that bank is now owned by the government. (Full disclosure: I bank with Lloyds). Unbelievable. March 13th, 2009 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
Fine prose, I think you will agree. At first I had in mind to make that first sentence there into today’s SQOTD. But think about it. To Nelson, it is obvious that nobody should “ever again be asked about party political affiliation by their bank”. Excuse me? If I am wondering whether or not to lend you money, I will ask you any questions I feel like asking, and if I don’t like the answers, then it will be no deal. If you don’t like me asking such questions, you are free to look elsewhere for the funds you want to borrow, even if I say yes. If you don’t like a bank you lend money to asking such questions, then don’t lend it to them. I am talking about the right to discriminate, both by lenders and by borrowers. Discrimination is, or should be, at the heart of banking. The attempt to drive discrimination out of banking has been at the heart of our recent banking woes. That Fraser Nelson, a man most definitely on our side in the broad loves-capitalist-success hates-socialist-slums way that we regularly here celebrate, should write something like that, with no apparent sense of self-contradiction, tells you just how debased – how nationalised – the state of banking already is now in Britain, and has been for some while. It’s not that Nelson favours state micro-management of banks in the deliberate manner which I do agree is suggested by my heading. It’s worse than that. He just takes it for granted. His only question is: how should it be done? Because you see, what makes this question about whether you are a “politically exposed person” scary and Soviet, which is Nelson’s point, is that the banks already are nationalised, in the sense of their databases being, you know, like that (hands brought together into a combined, intertwined, two-handed prayer fist) with government databases. If banks operated in a true free market, banks asking about politics, or for that matter being suspected of having (and in fact having) political preferences which they make a point of not asking about, would just be stuff discussed in Which Bank? magazine. And the readers of such magazines would have plenty of banks to choose between, just as they now have plenty of magazines to choose between. March 13th, 2009 | 8 comments - (Comments are closed)
Clive Davis, who blogs at the Spectator’s Coffee House site these days, reckons the concerns that civil libertarians have about CCTVs all over the UK are “over-hyped”. Well maybe they are but it seems that Mr Davis does rather miss the point slightly. CCTV may not, of themselves, be a threat to civil liberties in the same way as some of other vast collection of laws now on the statute books in the UK, but they are not harmless in this respect, either. True, society has always had its snoops, its “nosey parkers” – as we Brits used to say – and curtain-twitching neighbours. Sometimes such vigilant folk performed a kind of public service, even if unintended, by creating a social network in which certain kinds of delinquent behaviour could be spotted and dealt with. But clearly there are costs to this in that innocent people can find their actions being picked on by the hyper-vigilant. On a more practical level, the obsession with surveillance can crowd out resources better devoted to deterring crime in other ways. In fairness to Mr Davis, I am sure that readers can come up with any numbers of contenders for laws that are far worse than CCTV. My personal favourite is the Civil Contingencies Act, which confers on government a whopping collection of powers to use in emergencies; this act received virtually no serious press coverage in the MSM whatsoever. But CCTV, and the sheer number of them in the UK, is all of a piece of a move by this country towards a Big Brother state. Yes, if one wants to be nit-picky about it, one could argue that CCTVs in privately-owned shopping malls, for example, are not intrusive since a person is not forced to go into such places, whereas cameras in public streets for which the public has a right of access are intrusive. Also, there is the sheer, practical issue of information overload: there comes a point where there are so many cameras that it is hard to know if the police can physically track all of their photos all the time. So maybe panic is unjustified. But I think Clive’s sang froid on this occasion is just as mistaken as screaming hysteria. We have moved decisively towards a police state in recent years and on some measures, are already in one. CCTVs are part of this state of affairs. Trying to pretend otherwise is not very credible. I am not entirely sure why Mr Davis wants to take the line he does. As an aside, Eamonn Butler of the Adam Smith Institute, who is a man not to get hysterical about anything, is fairly scathing about the recent British love affair with CCTV in his book, The Rotten State of Britain. It looks like a good read and I will review it later. March 4th, 2009 | 21 comments - (Comments are closed)
If you are a Samizdata reader, you probably don’t have a lot of use for your Member of Parliament. However, now is the time to use them – especially if you have a Labour MP. Here is Phil Booth:
If you are skeptical about whether anything is important enough to write a polite letter to your Labour MP, then please read my detailed briefing for parliamentarians, here (pdf). — March 1st, 2009 | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)
The splendiferous Doc Searls has an alarming article about an outfit called the Global Internet Freedom Consortium. Global Internet Freedom Consortium sell tools to break the Great Internet Wall of China. Cool. They also sell the private details of their clients who have purchased these tools to ‘vetted’ companies for ‘personalised advertising’. Extremely un-cool… catastrophically so if one of the ‘vetted’ companies turns out to be a front for the Chinese government. I despise most internet ‘push marketers’ at the best of times (not only does it not really work, it is intensely annoying… those two points are not unrelated) but to sell that sort of client list to any third party is just all kinds of a bad idea. These do not sound like people I would care to trust my liberty and quite possibly my life with if I was planning to most righteously dig a hole under the Great Internet Wall. I know two people in China who do exactly that on a regular basis and this article is probably the fastest way I have to let them know about the worm in the “Global Internet Freedom Consortium’s” apple. The moral of the story? Read the fine print when buying the tools you need to stick it to The Man… before you pull out that credit card. January 13th, 2009 | 14 comments - (Comments are closed)
The innocent have nothing [left] to lose – The answer to the question “What was the winning tagline in the government’s competition to relaunch the ID card?”, according to The Register’s perhaps slightly satirical Christmas quiz. December 26th, 2008 | One comment - (Comments are closed)
Their lack of imagination will also protect them from the apprehension that they have anything to hide.
– Unnamed members of the public quoted as endorsing the Home Office view in its consultation summary (2003) (pdf).
– David Blunkett, launching the Identity Cards Bill in 2004 Such views are surprisingly persistent. To tackle them, we (NO2ID) have produced what I suppose is the first NO2ID commercial: December 7th, 2008 | 42 comments - (Comments are closed)
The other night I rented out the DVD based on life in former East Germany, The Lives of Others. It is about what life in the former Communist state was like in the fag-end of the Cold War era. It portrays the extent to which people were spied on by the Stasi, and the brutal efficiency with which that organisation went about its job. It does not sound very promising material for an evening in front of the TV but the film is simply outstanding. I strongly recommend it. Inevitably, given recent UK events and the government’s mania for CCTV, abuse of civil liberties and assault on the Common Law, the film has a certain poignance for a British viewer. It is also clearly apparent to me that once a critical number of people become involved in spying on others and earning a living from doing this, it is very hard to dislodge it but East Germany eventually crumbled along with the Berlin Wall. When, I wonder, will ZanuLabour have its 1989? November 30th, 2008 | 20 comments - (Comments are closed)
This is even better. November 6th, 2008 | 9 comments - (Comments are closed)
One of the hardest things for a libertarian to do at the moment is to maintain any kind of optimism or sense of confidence that his or her ideas will catch on. The danger is that if one sinks into despair, then that despair will come across as a form of defeatism, which turns into a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. If I have a criticism of one of the head honchos of the UK-based Libertarian Alliance, Sean Gabb, is that he used to wallow so much in this sort of “we are all doomed” schtick that I almost imagined, that in a perverse kind of way, that he was secretly rather enjoying it and that it was all a bit tongue in cheek. Funnily enough, at last year’s annual LA conference in London – the next one is held this weekend – I sensed that Mr Gabb had cheered up a bit. Even so, reasons for to be grim about civil liberties issues remain but sometimes I think that momentum might be slowly changing at the level of public debate. Increasingly, if the government comes out with some new measure, it is geeted with a sort of wearied resignation or outright derision; enthusiasm for such measures are few, or supported by obvious toadies and fools. Take this story in the Daily Telegraph today. The outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions, no less, talks about the UK embracing the politics of fear:
Maybe they will not just bear it, but do something about it.
Paraphernalia of paranoia – that is a nice turn of phrase. October 21st, 2008 | 9 comments - (Comments are closed)
Home Office plans to require registration of mobile phones (and to register the identities of hotel guests (pdf), record who calls whom and what they read online, etc …) have a familiar feel. In the Soviet Union, all printing machinery and typewriters were registered just in case they might be used for ‘anti-social’ purposes, when the people who had access to them could be tracked-down, watched and questioned.  October 21st, 2008 | 18 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||