[Would you be OK WITH GOVERNMENT seeing you HAVE SEX. SHOWER, TV, COMPUTER, FRIDGE ALL HAVE SpYCAMS?]
Oh noes they want to spy on our fridge? What ever shall we do.
No but really, the correct question is are we ok with George Orwell's best book becoming going from a utopian / dystopian fiction book to nonfiction.
And honestly? I am.
But maybe I'd just be another lobbyist for the hive-mind driven economic machine.
20 comments
"they don't base slaves off of race or orientation if they are legitimate despotic empires"
Decoded: "If they are legitimate despotic empires, the criteria for who become slaves are such that *I* am 100% safe from becoming one!"
"they don't base slaves off of race or orientation if they are legitimate despotic empires"
How the fuck to you reach that conclusion? What would be their criteria for who they enslave, first child? Lottery? Or just good olde fashioned parental wealth? despotic governments are Tyrannical by definition and either religious or worshipping the ruler religious.
Like Utopias a conformist society is impossible, there will always be non-conformists and competing ideologies that would scuttle either.
"But despotic governments can accomplish much more than a representative democracy"
Remind me who won, between the Japanese Empire and the USA?
Sounds like a wingnut Rockwell!
"I'm just an average man with an average life...." image I ALWAYS FEEEEEL LIKE SOMEBODY'S WAAAATCHIN' MEEEEEE....
Men At Work sand a similar concept with "Who Can It Be Now". I pretty much see both as the Black American and White Australian version of the same song/video.
Just last night I saw an ad for a refrigerator with not one, but three cameras in it. The news readers, at the end of the broadcast, say "We'll see you tomorrow." They're obviously already watching us.
Research has shown that repeated exposure to porn makes it less arousing. I can't imagine a more boring job than watching my neighbors fulltime, no matter what they're doing.
I don't see too much wrong with this. The government won't care what's in my porn folder as long as I don't have child porn in there. The government doesn't care what I do when I'm in the shower as long as I'm not committing a crime (I dunno, drug smuggling?). A lot of people accept the saying "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". We implicitly do, hence why we accept police officers openly carrying guns everywhere, because they are there to fight bad guys (in theory).
So what's so wrong with giving a government the power to fight bad guys, assuming the government is on the side of justice? "Assuming" is a big word, but if (another big word) there were a government committed to justice that enforced 1984-like powers (I'd prefer slightly less than that, though), I can't really say there would be too much of a problem. I personally like the idea of "inverted totalitarianism" more than actual totalitarianism, though.
granted despotic governments have slaves, but they don't base slaves off of race or orientation if they are legitimate despotic empires
See, slavery is a nearly impossible to justify, but I've recently noticed the death penalty could be effectively replaced with "slavery" in the form of gulags. If society wants you dead for just reasons (you are a murderer, a child molester, etc.), you might as well give benefit by slaving away until you expire.
So you're OK with criminals uncaught: and terrorists given free rein to kill you?
image
Data intercepted by GCHQ - which it shares with the FBI, CIA & NSA - has saved American lives.
Also, Smartphones. Photos/videos by the public have been invaluable to the security services in catching terrorists. You can be Big Brother too.
Perhaps George Orwell hadn't counted on the march of technology. How we can have 'Telescreens' that save us from 'Thoughtcrime': those who have no right to think the way they do; I refer you to what happened in Florida of late.
...and we're still waiting on a certain rightist retard's response to the simple not 'Loaded' question 'Does ISIS have the right to think the way they do?' Scotland Yard's Anti-Terror section, MI6 & GCHQ, the FBI, CIA & NSA can answer that extremely easily: No. Especially after a defector from ISIS gave them that priceless data on those terrorists. He realised that he had no right to think the way he did. I can answer that equally easily: No. Oh, and we at FSTDT have never beaten/raped our wives. Nor would we harm animals in any way. Why should we?
My collection of photos of 1950s model Bettie Page pose no threat to national security...! [/TimeToTurn]
@ TimeToTurn
Anyone who thinks that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about hasn't studied enough history.
MLK received blackmail and threatening letters from the FBI. They threatened to reveal he was having an affair and tried to convince him to commit suicide.
While that may have been wrong having an affair is not illegal, and I doubt that if the FBI found evidence that someone who they supported was having an affair that they would've done the same thing. Hence, out of control surveillance can be used to selectively intimidate activists the FBI and other government institutions disapprove of. That effects everybody by stacking the odds heavily against political opinions the government is against.
Without oversight there is also a risk of surveillance being leaked to companies that wish to profit from it. Private companies may use the data in their advertising campaigns. Then people with privileged access get to pick winners and losers in the economy by passing along the information only to certain people.
Even with procedural safeguards in place to make sure surveillance is conducted based on evidence and not just randomly it is still possible for the power to be abused. But it at least makes corruption more difficult. Realistically if there is even the slightest reason to think someone may be involved in something serious a warrant would be granted. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, but they are human, so the seriousness or lack thereof of the allegations warranting an investigation is going to have an influence on whether or not a judge grants a warrant.
One more reason to be against the sort of total surveillance being advocated by Alex is that it would prevent bad social policies from ever being changed. Think of an activity of yours that you enjoy and that does no harm to society. Then imagine a sensationalist news campaign that demonizes that activity and convinces public opinion that it does harm society even though it does not. Imagine the government passes a law against it. If we had a total surveillance society there would be no possible way to resist the law. Worse yet, what if the government decides that speech and expression that supports changing the law is itself worthy of criminalization? Then it would be impossible for people to even start conversations about why the law should be overturn. We would be stuck with a society incapable of change, because everyone would be too afraid to voice the need for change. The greatest threat the would be posed by a 1984 type of society is the creation of a rigid society incapable of any sort of change, even if change is greatly needed.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
