Originally by: Cpt Placeholder
Originally by: Barakkus
Unfortunately it's a trade-off, more technology or more freedom at this point. The more connected we are as a people through technology the less free we become.
It isn't, unless you're broadcasting.
The problem is the public acceptance of surveillance.
The problem is always the public.
So True !
To people saying the comparasons doesn't match because we aren't at continous state of war.
Cold war was a permanent state of war. There wasn't a continous week between the start and end where the involved parties weren't involved in some sort of clandestine/open warfare. Now we have the war on terror.
warfare isn't the point at all ! The appearance of a threat is the only important thing. During the cold war having liberal political viewpoints were seen as being anti-nationalist to the point of traitorism.
The general populace enforced the governments viewpoints.
1984 looks at a government keeping 100% control of a populace through limited technology. As many realise 1984 simply wasn't possible technologically at the point when the book was written. However it didn't need to be to become true.
McCarthy america had the populace controlling themselves through incredibly intense propaganda and narrowing the limits of acceptable political thoughts. Any rejection of the status quo was met with a near exsclusion from society/ridicule/ or outright hostility.
in UK the first labour (left) prime minister that got in during the era was put on MI5 (internal spooks) observation with suspicion of communist leanings. ( This is the democratically elected leader of the country)
In recent times we have the war on Terror. Used as a justification for removal of civil liberties and rights that even the anti-communist era didn't manage to knock down.
It was said earlier that the government isn't the problem the public is and this is so freaking true. No amount of surveillance is going to do jack sh** in western societies(except maybe keep crime/threats down)
The root of the whole issue is what is defined as "crime/threats" as long as it is something people agree is a crime/threat everything is hunky dory for the majority of the populace.
But what about when things are deemed threats to society that you don't believe are and that affect you personally ? then it is 1984 this and 1984 that. (sentence not meant as a personal attack to anyone)
See my point ? The problem has never been the amount of surveillance, the problem is and remains what we as people allow/do with the information that the surveillance brings out.
As long as we allow people to be stripped of the same basic human rights/values/worth due to their beliefs then the amount of surveillance is just a scale of efficiency in suppresion.
As long as we allow the fear of threats perceived scare us into giving governments more control and ourselves less rights, the cycle will continue.
TL/DR we suppres ourselves. Mostly by falling victims to fear scenarios and xenophobia.