4 ms·

Britain's top prosecutor warns that surveillance technology is creating a police state

5 points by theoneill 18y ago

ojbyrne 18y ago
Ok, I hate to sum up the UK in one word. But... duh. The UK really needs another leader like Thatcher, this time not attacking socialism but the whole "using crime to sell surveillance" culture. Go Sir Ken Macdonald!
- cabalamat 18y ago
  You're right that the UK does need to end the surveillance culture. But to say we need another leader "like Thatcher" is way off the mark, given that the surveillance culture and erosion of civil liberties started under her (and accelerated under Major, Blair, and Brown).
jdavid 18y ago
sometimes the only way to change something, requires that it first gets out of control. its hard to create a revolution against nothing.
gills 18y ago
The editorialized headline made me want to write a comment to the effect of "it's never the technologies we need to fear, but the abuses of the hands they are in"...good thing I read the article and found that was the gist of it.
- cabalamat 18y ago
  Unfortunately it's the combination of new technologies and existing attitudes that are the problem. For example, if you ask the average politician what's an acceptable level of crime, he'll say "none". The average member of the public will say the same. But the only way to achieve this is with omnipresent surveillance. Every electronic conversation will be monitored, there'll be a surveillance camera on every street corner (there's already 1 for every 15 people), people's movements will be tracked using their mobile phone. All cars will have tracker devices, ostensibly for road pricing, but all movements will be logged. Everyone will be forced to carry an RFID-enabled ID card. All this technology will be sold to the public as protection against terrorists and pedophiles, but will eventually be used against everyone. (For example, local councils have used terrorist legislation to snoop on householders who have allegedly not been putting their rubbish out correctly.) If it becomes possible to use brain scanners to read people's minds, this will be done too. To start with, to check for terrorists, but later to enforce conformity of thought on the entire population -- for their own good of course. For example, it's illegal not to employ someonre because of their race. Fair enough, you might say. But if a small business owner is a racist they can easily get around this by not employing people they don't want to (they have to be careful not to tell them it's for racial reasons, of course). Now a well-meaning but dim person could suggest that we check that someone wasn't refused employment for racial reasons, by scanning the brain of the employer. So eventually, anyone who thinks for themselves and doesn't just get into the habit of unthinkingly going along with the prevailing intellectual fashions of the day will find themselves in trouble. All this will happen unless the political climate changes and people accept that tolerating a certain level of crime is better than an omnipresent totalitarian state breathing down their neck all the time.
  - gills 18y ago
    It may be my sociological opiate, but I have more faith in our species to tolerate less tyranny than your post implies. I also think we will see a marked decrease in tolerance in the next few years as more people have 'nothing to lose' and choose freedom over bread.

5 points by theoneill 18y ago

Ok, I hate to sum up the UK in one word. But... duh. The UK really needs another leader like Thatcher, this time not attacking socialism but the whole "using crime to sell surveillance" culture. Go Sir Ken Macdonald!

cabalamat 18y ago
You're right that the UK does need to end the surveillance culture. But to say we need another leader "like Thatcher" is way off the mark, given that the surveillance culture and erosion of civil liberties started under her (and accelerated under Major, Blair, and Brown).

jdavid 18y ago

sometimes the only way to change something, requires that it first gets out of control. its hard to create a revolution against nothing.

gills 18y ago

The editorialized headline made me want to write a comment to the effect of "it's never the technologies we need to fear, but the abuses of the hands they are in"...good thing I read the article and found that was the gist of it.

cabalamat 18y ago
Unfortunately it's the combination of new technologies and existing attitudes that are the problem. For example, if you ask the average politician what's an acceptable level of crime, he'll say "none". The average member of the public will say the same. But the only way to achieve this is with omnipresent surveillance. Every electronic conversation will be monitored, there'll be a surveillance camera on every street corner (there's already 1 for every 15 people), people's movements will be tracked using their mobile phone. All cars will have tracker devices, ostensibly for road pricing, but all movements will be logged. Everyone will be forced to carry an RFID-enabled ID card. All this technology will be sold to the public as protection against terrorists and pedophiles, but will eventually be used against everyone. (For example, local councils have used terrorist legislation to snoop on householders who have allegedly not been putting their rubbish out correctly.) If it becomes possible to use brain scanners to read people's minds, this will be done too. To start with, to check for terrorists, but later to enforce conformity of thought on the entire population -- for their own good of course. For example, it's illegal not to employ someonre because of their race. Fair enough, you might say. But if a small business owner is a racist they can easily get around this by not employing people they don't want to (they have to be careful not to tell them it's for racial reasons, of course). Now a well-meaning but dim person could suggest that we check that someone wasn't refused employment for racial reasons, by scanning the brain of the employer. So eventually, anyone who thinks for themselves and doesn't just get into the habit of unthinkingly going along with the prevailing intellectual fashions of the day will find themselves in trouble. All this will happen unless the political climate changes and people accept that tolerating a certain level of crime is better than an omnipresent totalitarian state breathing down their neck all the time.
- gills 18y ago
  It may be my sociological opiate, but I have more faith in our species to tolerate less tyranny than your post implies. I also think we will see a marked decrease in tolerance in the next few years as more people have 'nothing to lose' and choose freedom over bread.