Surveillance is power.
When surveillance become ubiquitous, we place utmost faith and trust in those performing surveillance to use that power justly.
And as we all know… power corrupts.
If we wish to become a surveillance society, we must have checks and balances on surveillance, just as we do with other forms of government power - if not more so.
To do otherwise is to give utmost power to those performing surveillance - the ultimate result of which will be the collapse of a free, democratic society.
It is important for everyone to understand these issues if only because this is still our government. If we remain ignorant of the issues, our government will remain ignorant of the issues, and they will slip through the cracks and we will wake up to a police state without even knowing it. And you can kiss your civil liberties, your privacy, your old way of life goodbye.
And I seriously doubt anyone really wants that.
Save to Browser Favorites
Ask
backflip
blinklist
Bloglines
BlogMarks
Blogsvine
BUMPzee!
CiteULike
co.mments
Connotea
del.icio.us
DotNetKicks
Digg
diigo
dropjack.com
dzone
Facebook
Fark
Faves
Feed Me Links
Friendsite
folkd.com
Furl
Google
Hugg
Jeqq
Kaboodle
linkaGoGo
LinksMarker
Ma.gnolia
Mister Wong
Mixx
MySpace
MyWeb
Netvouz
Newsvine
PlugIM
popcurrent
Propeller
Reddit
Rojo
Segnalo
Shoutwire
Simpy
sk*rt
Slashdot
Sphere
Sphinn
Spurl.net
Squidoo
StumbleUpon
Technorati
ThisNext
Webride
Windows Live
Yahoo!
Email This to a Friend
If you like this then please subscribe to the As usual, Bruce Schneier puts it more eloquently than I can:
…it’s precisely why, when people in their business are in charge of government, it becomes a police state. If privacy and security really were a zero-sum game, we would have seen mass immigration into the former East Germany and modern-day China. While it’s true that police states like those have less street crime, no one argues that their citizens are fundamentally more secure.
That is spot on. And it’s something that I’ve been trying to get more people to understand. In this post-9/11 world, everyone is telling us to be afraid of this, that, and the other thing, and we are then being told that in order to make ourselves “safe” we need to let people into our homes, our businesses, and our private lives, and that it’s OK, they’re trustworthy, just trust us on this one, folks, we won’t screw anything up for you. Just be good little sheep and get in line.
And by and large, we’ve been good little sheep, and we’ve gotten in line. And believe it or not, we’re headed for the slaughter.
But it’s not even a this vs. that debate here - being secure doesn’t mean we have to let government into our homes and personal lives. Once again, let me quote Bruce:
The debate isn’t security versus privacy. It’s liberty versus control.
You can see it in comments by government officials: “Privacy no longer can mean anonymity,” says Donald Kerr, principal deputy director of national intelligence. “Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information.” Did you catch that? You’re expected to give up control of your privacy to others, who — presumably — get to decide how much of it you deserve. That’s what loss of liberty looks like.
What we really aught to be scared of is not each other, or vague “terrorist threats,” but instead this creeping encroachment into our personal liberties. If anything, that should be what keeps us awake at night.
It’s what keeps me awake at night, anyway.
The train is a half hour west of New Haven when the conductor, having finished her original rounds, reappears. She moves down the aisle, looks, stops between our seats, faces the person taking pictures. “Sir, in the interest of national security, we do not allow pictures to be taken of or from this train.” He starts, “I…….” but, without English, his response trails off into silence. The conductor, speaking louder, forcefully: “Sir, I will confiscate that camera if you don’t put it away.” Again, little response. “Sir, this is a security matter! We cannot allow pictures.” She turns away abruptly and, as she moves down the aisle, calls over her shoulder, in a very loud voice, “Put. It. Away!” He packs his camera.
Within a minute after our arrival in New Haven, two armed police officers entered the car, approached my neighbor’s seat. “Sir, we’re removing you from this train.” “I….;” “I……” “Sir, you have breached security regulations. We must remove you from this train.” “I…,” “I…..” “Sir, we are not going to delay this train because of you. You will get off, or we will remove you physically.” “I…..”
Nearby passengers stir. One says, “It’s obvious he doesn’t speak English. There are people here who speak more than one language. Perhaps we can help.” Different ones ask about the traveler’s language; learn he speaks Japanese. For me, a sudden flash of memory — a student at International Christian University in Japan, I took countless pictures without arousing suspicion.
The police speak through the interpreter, with the impatience of authority. “The conductor asked this man three times to discontinue. We must remove him from the train.” The traveler hears the translation, is befuddled. Hidden beneath the commotion is a cross-cultural drama. With the appearance of police officers, this quiet visitor is embarrassed to find he is the center of attention. The officers explain, “After we remove him from the train, when we are through our investigation, we will put him on the next train.” The woman translates. The passenger replies, “I’m meeting relatives in Boston. They cannot be reached by phone. They expect me and will be worried when I do not arrive on schedule.” “Our task,” the police repeat, “is to remove you from this train. If necessary, we will do so by force. After we have finished the investigation, we’ll put you on another train.” The woman translates. The traveler gathers his belongings and departs.
My earlier suggestion that you imagine being in his place leaves you free to respond and draw your conclusions. Remember: you’ve been removed from the train, are being interrogated, perhaps having your equipment confiscated; while I continue to do what I take for granted traveling unimpeded, on to Providence.
The more I replay the scene, the more troublesome it is. It is the stuff of nightmares. Relations between people and countries lie at the heart of the issue. The abstract terms that inform political and social debate appear, as if in person, unexpectedly, near enough to hear, touch, feel. Taking no position is not an option. As an educator, I would prepare and deliver a lecture on how others perceive America in the world community, then seek an audience. I’ll spare you. But — I just watched armed police officers remove a visitor from the train for taking pictures. I don’t understand this. I’m disturbed no, shaken to bear witness to these events.
The original (full) post is here.
I very nearly broke into tears when I read this. It is just… unbelievable. Terrible. And sad. Very, very sad. People used to clamor to come to America. It used to be a great honor, to visit this wonderful country. To see the sights. To be impressed by both the landscape and the variety of people.
Now, people will stay away - because of stupidity like this. What the hell is going on???
I will say it again - this kind of paranoia does not make us any safer. By being afraid like this, the terrorists have “won.”
I don’t like the idea of terrorists “winning.” Do you?
Apparently, we do.