Roger’s Rules

July 12th, 2008 4:10 am

What would Orwell say?

A few years ago, I went with some friends from London to their charming farm in Wales. We bundled into their car and were buzzing along through the British countryside for quite some time before I noticed that that we were being watched. It was out on some sylvan lane that I first noticed the closed-circuit television camera pointed the the road. “What’s that?” I asked. “Cameras to catch speeders,” I was told. Gosh.

That’s old news now, of course. Today Britain boasts–if “boast” is the mot juste, which it isn’t–some 4.2 million CCTV cameras. They’re catching on in various spots in the US, too, I regret to say, as Big Brother muscles in on us little folk. It’s hard not to think of Orwell’s grim masterpiece 1984 with its “telescreens” everywhere, keeping track of everything: “What socialism implies above all,” Lenin observed, “is keeping account of everything.” Right, and that’s why Britain has one camera for every 14 subjects: keeping account of everything is full time work.

And hardly a day goes by when the subject of surveillance isn’t in the news. I remember one story in the Telegraph that reported on the worrisome innovation, now apparently widespread, that allows the Powers That Be to talk back to the subjects they are watching, docketing, recording for future indictments. Yep, now they can actually talk back via loudspeakers attached to the camera’s mounting. “The loudspeakers,” the Telegraph reports, “will allow CCTV operators to bark orders at people committing anti-social behaviour.”

Like what? Rape? Murder? Mayhem? Well, presumably those things, but littering comes at the top of the list in the Telegraph’s story. John Reid, the former Home Secretary,  set aside nearly £500,000 to combat such plagues:

“Local communities are rightly fed up with littering and anti-social behaviour – they want to remind people about what is, and is not respectful behaviour,” he said.

“By funding and supporting these local schemes, the Government is [sending] this clear message to grown ups: act anti-socially and you will face the shame of being publicly embarrassed.”

Actually, by “funding and supporting these local schemes” the government is sending this clear message to grown ups: “You are not really grown ups after all, you are unruly children and we, the government, are in charge. We will watch over and intrude into every aspect of your life, take more and more of what you mistakenly thought was your (really it, all belongs to us), and we will reduce you, as Lenin tried to do, to being a mere “cog” in the gigantic wheel which is our metastasizing bureaucracy.”

The Telegraph quotes one opponent of the surveillance society who described the new talk-back cameras as an example of “Big Brother gone mad.” True, too true, but what an understatement.

Comment
Bookmark and Share
Digg Print Digg PJM Home

Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.

3 Comments

1. Herb:

“”to bark orders at people committing anti-social behaviour.”
Like what? Rape? Murder? Mayhem? ”

Saying “Now cut that out!!!”

Great Benny trademark. Less effective as a Law Enforcement tool.

Jul 12, 2008 - 7:39 am 2. heather:

The War on Terror justifies all this intrusiveness. ESPECIALLY, when the population has rejected the American idea of going after Afghanistan and Iraq and other foreign enemies. In such countries, people are quite happy to lose all their liberties in the mistaken belief that they can reduce this war on terror to a police problem, and the police are happy to oblige.

These cameras etc are mommy fascism in full.

At least, say the happy Brits (supine ever since Lord Beveridge published his report in 1946), they don’t have to “go to war” to be “safe.”

Jul 12, 2008 - 6:34 pm 3. OmegaPaladin:

There are cameras located throughout the city in which I live. They are good for deterring drug sales and worse things in areas where the social structure has been broken. I can trust my neighbors to report crimes at my place – not everyone can say the same thing. I thought that protecting citizens was part of the duties of a government…

Jul 18, 2008 - 1:21 am

Write a Comment

Name: (required, displayed)
Email: (required, not publicized)
URL: (optional, displayed)
Comments: