So, time to start thinking about the wisdom of writing policy ideas for Labour because, like Nineteen-eighty-four, they don’t spot the satire, they don’t spot the joke, they don’t really see the problem.
Oh, sure, they’ve managed to make it a bit more accessible and voter friendly, but the basic idea of putting the unemployed to work monitoring everyone else on CCTV from their own homes, which I wrote up as a piss take here, is apparently going to become a frickin’ reality according to the BBC.
Sick. I feel sick.
UPDATE: I realise it’s a private security company doing this, offering people ‘points’ for spotting shoplifting. Here’s the problem with this: If you provide an incentive for people to spot wrong-doing, you’re going to get an awful lot of false positives… not sure you’ve seen them put something in their bag? Better report it anyway – don’t want to miss the points, and points win prizes. As something that’s going to piss off a lot of people and just generally add to the horrible atmosphere, I think it’s a dead cert winner.
Consumers should be allowed to know which shops are using this system, so that if you’re Black, or Asian, or a teenager, or just a bit scruffy you know to stay away from these shops, or at least ensure you’re not carrying any bags, or wearing a coat, and have your hands firmly in your pockets (or in the air) at all times. Remember to avoid looking at cameras, or just generally looking at the wrong thing. Act natural.
So yes, as long as there’s a warning on the shop entrance saying, “this store is monitored by anonymous internet curtain twitchers. We take no responsibility for footage of you appearing on Youtube” so I can stay away I’ll be happy.
But if the idea’s successful, if it works, if it causes no problems, expect to see distributed CCTV monitoring being taken seriously by Councils and Government… then I’ll be distinctly unhappy.
RichieP said...
6 Oct 09 at 11:23 pm
How do you think the TV system worked in “1984″? *Someone has to watch it all and it’s much easier to get citizens to do the work for free. Also, in due time, perhaps in the next Labour administration, you could turn it into a civic duty, like paying tax.
In a way it’s no different from the kind of systems that operated in many totalitarian states before such useful and comprehensive technology was available, where you get ordinary people to gather intelligence and grass up their neighbours for thought crimes. The saddest thing is that it will no doubt be very popular, a bit like a lottery scratchcard. Decent, basic freedoms have almost gone and we all just accept it. We’ll never get it back when it’s gone.
Stu said...
6 Oct 09 at 11:29 pm
Except the scheme is privately run by free citizens, and thus stepping in to prevent it would actually be somewhat illiberal.
You know, just sayin’ is all.
Nick said...
6 Oct 09 at 11:33 pm
I am not so worried about this particular development. The point about 1984 is that officials can gather all the information they want, and use it at will, arbitrarily, against the populace. What this system does is publicise the information; that is anyone can use the system. This means the power dynamic has altered. If applied universally, there would be nothing to stop the public putting their eyes on Westminister to see who is meeting up with Government ministers this week or where they are heading to after work. You have equality of snooping!
So long as it is applied to private companies (as it is for now), they have little interest in regulating people’s lives, other than to stop them from thieving. After all, going any further would just mean harassing customers which isn’t a great way to do well in business.
Charlotte Gore said...
6 Oct 09 at 11:36 pm
What, so as long as everyone is under surveillance by everyone else, and it’s all equal, then that’s fine?
RichieP said...
6 Oct 09 at 11:37 pm
Stu said…You know, just sayin’ is all.
Maybe, but if you can’t see this as the thin end of a very sharp and dangerous wedge then you’re “Again with missing the point” as CG titles this piece. Privatised stasi, that makes it ok then does it, as well as “illiberal” to criticise it? Sounds like the old “if you’ve nothing to hide you’ve got nothing to fear” argument. Don’t let them fool you.
RichieP said...
6 Oct 09 at 11:41 pm
Nick: nothing to stop the public putting their eyes on Westminister to see who is meeting up with Government ministers this week or where they are heading to after work.
Do you really think that this will be permitted? Really? We’ve just had a week when it was announced that the children of politicians and “celebrities” will be excused being on the new child database.
Nick said...
7 Oct 09 at 12:05 am
Charlotte: in essence, yes. I am more concerned about the use of arbitrary power by the state than by people being able to observe me in public and commercial areas, just as they are permitted to do right now with their own eyes when they are in streets and in shops. If the technology is distributed and available to everyone, the opportunity for abuse is diminished as there is no “secret tapes” or whatever to use against people.
RichieP: Ok, that is a probable flaw; my scheme requires no exceptions to the scheme which I am sure a government is perfectly capable of inserting for the benefit of the establishment.
Charlotte Gore said...
7 Oct 09 at 12:07 am
Right, well writing another blog post about that as we speak, but I disagree – there’s a huge difference between seeing someone as you pass them on the street and watching them anonymously via CCTV.
Stu said...
7 Oct 09 at 12:12 am
First, I didn’t say it’s illiberal to criticise -I said it would be illiberal to prevent a private company from protecting it’s property in this way if they saw fit.
Second, it’s not the ‘thin end of tge wedge’ because the state has no involvement. Charlotte makes a good point that it may give them ideas, but that’s not the same thing at all.
Third, it’s not a ‘privatised Stazi’ unless hiring security guards is a ‘privatised militia’. These are essentially company employees wPeking from home on commission. If they weren’t doing it from home they’d be doing it from an office somewhere. Bug difference.
Lastly, it’s more like ‘if you have something to fear, don’t go in the shop’. Unlike with the state, you actually have a choice on whether to enter a shop. You can take your business elsewhere if you disagree with their security practices. Shouting about this kind of thing will do you no favours whatsoever when trying to argue against the removal of civil liberties by the state, because it makes you look logically inconsistent. In a libertarian state you would expect these kind of security schemes to crop up all over the place.
Stu said...
7 Oct 09 at 12:15 am
Bloody auto-spell adding apostrophes and stuff. I hope that’s readable enough…
subrosa said...
7 Oct 09 at 12:54 am
One day in summer I was in what could only be referred to as a ‘light hearted mood’. As I had to go shopping I set off with a spring in my accelerator foot (and perhaps one in my brake foot too) to the local town.
On entering the small Somerfields, I noted the camera for perhaps the millionth time and decided this was my opportunity for my 15 minutes of fame. So I laid my bag on the floor and started a little dance whilst humming “Let’s Twist Again’ by Chubby Checker.
Five minutes later another customer entered and her look was enough to make me realise pensioners shouldn’t behave in such a manner so I stopped and continued my shopping sedately.
A few days later, again in the store, the manager approached me. “CCTV is not the X Factor you know he said.” “I wouldn’t know because I never watch it,” I replied.
From behind his back he took a box of Milk Tray and said I’d won the best CCTV performance of the month!
Now, if we all clogged up CCTV’s in that manner, not only would some special talent be found, their whole purpose would fade.
Sorry for clogging up your comments with useless information Charlotte.
Jennie said...
7 Oct 09 at 11:19 am
http://newsarse.com/?p=6312
Unemployed Graduate said...
9 Oct 09 at 9:37 pm
People here seem to be missing the subliminal messages, but basically they will be unfairly shipping data abroad getting some 3rd worlders to view pictures for a $1 a day. The stupid banks have already taken much sensitive data out of the country, so it wouldn’t surprise me if these companies mostly managed by former criminals and people with shady past join the club.
You can already view networked cctv cameras using google, so this approach is not that difficult to implement.
Ian Eiloart said...
12 Oct 09 at 12:28 pm
Of course, to avoid paying night shift rates, one third of the monitoring should be outsourced to India, and one third to Mexico. And, Sunday working should be outsourced to non-christians.
Marilyn said...
14 Oct 09 at 11:34 pm
Very impressed with all of your articles
Kimberely Uutela said...
5 Aug 10 at 7:47 am
This degree is a waste of time if you don’t already work in this field. If you are interested in IT learn it on your own, but understand that things change so fast that a degree in it will be worthless in a few years. esp. from one of those coorespondance schools. I reccomend something more substantial like Electrical Engineering. I would if I could.