Sci-Fi Stories That Predicted the Surveillance State 213
Daniel_Stuckey writes "Just to address one thing straight away: one of your favorite science fiction stories dealing, whether directly or indirectly, with surveillance is bound to be left off this list. And 1984's a given, so it's not here. At any rate, the following books deal in their own unique way with surveillance. Some address the surveillance head-on, while others speculate on inter-personal intelligence gathering, or consider the subject in more oblique ways. Still others distill surveillance down to its essence: as just one face of a much larger, all-encompassing system of control, that proceeds from the top of the pyramid down to its base."
Nothing to predict (Score:5, Insightful)
All technology is used by those who are in power, or want power.
That surveillance is one of those powers isn't particularly new. People had networks of spies in ancient times.
The real question is the people in power. They will have this power, and they will use it; toward what end? And, what is their level of moral rectitude?
I don't think we can use rules, laws and regulations to keep them in line. They need to be good people.
Re:Nothing to predict (Score:5, Interesting)
Again, the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment here in the US.
If "they" won't be good for the right reasons, then fear is a good motivator.
That said, how about a more recent book or pair of books? Little Brother and Homeland both by Cory Doctorow @ craphound.com
Re:Nothing to predict (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to predict (Score:4, Funny)
Where are the mass arrests?
Re: (Score:2)
Where are the mass arrests?
Get the guns out, people with bigger guns show up and there you have your mass arrests.
Or mass shooting, whichever comes first.
Re:Nothing to predict (Score:5, Informative)
Every political leader understands Tiananmen Square, the US had its Bonus Army en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
The US seems to be going for generational change re the 2nd Amendment- taxation, total registration, education (via youth, movies, tv), criminalization, locked transportation away from any ammo, more police questions in legal open carry states.
Your 2nd Amendment "should" cover some basic gun rights in your city or State, but jail time and fines might be the everyday reality despite Federal court cases over the years.
The US gov has learned from the Vietnam protests that "mass arrests" include some very well connected authors, lawyers, wealthy students and press.
With the risk of HD footage and sound, a good legal team a day in open court is not the the chilling effect it once was.
The US gov seems to favour infiltration, the mass use of state and federal "Agent provocateur" (infiltrate left and right wing groups and ensure crimes on camera) i.e. group leaders can be arrested just before protests
The protesters are then offered deals to bring in more quality arrests, after an event to be protested are offered 'fines' vs risking court, turned into tame busy work movements or people are moved around Federal jail system for a few week, months..
The individual is broken with lack of sleep, food, no contact with their legal team, medication withdrawl, or face a type of "Soviet punitive psychiatry" until their paperwork is found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MERRIMAC [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_RESISTANCE [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core [wikipedia.org]
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/18/patriot_games [foreignpolicy.com]
Show the evolution of US thinking on ideas like "mass arrest" - go for the person. Map out then tame, shape any "movement" leaving nothing but informants and tame groups ready to join any real protesters.
Re: (Score:3)
The NYPD arrested 700 [nytimes.com] protesters for exercising their first amendment rights in Oct 2011.
Re:Nothing to predict (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe instead of the random errant 'nuts' that you describe we should all take a personal responsibility and march on Washington and force our elected officials out of office for not working as agents of the people and therefore violating the entire purpose of their postings. Most of those 'nuts' were sane people driven to paranoia by the things that most of us ignore outright as SOP for the government. Maybe if we were all a little nuttier and didn't have one-dimensional opinions like yours, we wouldn't have things like PRISM and the Patriot Act.
Re: (Score:2)
My kingdom for some mod points for this guy...
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe instead of the random errant 'nuts' that you describe we should all take a personal responsibility and march on Washington and force our elected officials out of office for not working as agents of the people and therefore violating the entire purpose of their postings.
Do you need to force them? Every four years there's a great opportunity to really change things, and that's just at a head-of-government level - I don't know anything about how Senators or Congressmen are voted in (I'm Australian), but it seems like the ballot box is a good place to start.
It seems (from reading /. and other sites) that even seriously committed Democrats aren't happy with how the last "Change" you were promised worked out. The two party option seems to be killing you guys. Get some independ
Re:Nothing to predict (Score:5, Informative)
There are many of us on the inside who have the same opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the main part of the problem. Republicans and Democrats are different, but not radically. They are also increasingly out of touch with what the average American wants (but in different ways). They thrive in two ways:
1) Redistricting - At the local level, the
Re:Nothing to predict (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're the one who's being "cute", by assuming that war is a simple question of "who's got the biggest gun".
You could learn the facts, but you will always actively avoid doing so, because that would require you to reconsider the comforting lie that the world is a simple place that you have all figured out.
Also, you should be aware that trying to bolster an argument with "haha, you're so funny and cute" is a universally understood signal that you lack confidence in your own position. This is unsurprising si
Re: (Score:2)
My money's with the general who spoke of "getting there firstest with the mostest".
Re: (Score:2)
how long do you think you'll stand a chance against armored vehicles with non-lethal sound weapons, lethal automatic weapons, mines, RPGs, airstrikes, Apache helicopters, tanks, HMVs, navy ships firing at you from 5 miles away, SWAT teams, etc...
I think it'd be over pretty fast. After all, the rebellion would have that equipment (if nothing else, it'd come from the military units defecting to their side). And one needs sound logistics to play with those toys for more than a few days. Logistics is easy for a fully armed society in full rebellion to completely disrupt. For example, no fuel means no working armored vehicles or planes.
Re: (Score:2)
Logistics is easy for a fully armed society in full rebellion to completely disrupt. For example, no fuel means no working armored vehicles or planes.
I would imagine that the US military has more than a few days' worth of reserve fuel and could keep supply lines running for quite a while, especially within its own borders. Anyone with a military background care to comment on this thread?
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine that the US military has more than a few days' worth of reserve fuel
Not in their tanks or their aircraft. That has to get to those vehicles first. Supply lines are the big weakness of a US-style military.
Re: (Score:3)
Vietnam was a political firestorm, bring in the nukes and suddenly the problem is solved. However, that wasn't allowed for various reasons.
Chief amongst which was the fact that it would not have worked unless we'd been prepared to reduce the whole country--North AND South--to a puddle of glass. In a situation where there's a Your Zone and a My Zone and they are relatively far apart (e.g. on different continents), it makes sense for me to try to nuke Your Zone, since doing so doesn't have any effect on My Zone. In a guerrilla action with no clear and relatively stable boundaries between Your Zone and My Zone, nukes are not such a bright idea. U
Re: (Score:2)
Vietnam was a political firestorm, bring in the nukes and suddenly the problem is solved.
ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant - Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, 98AD. "where they make a desert, they call it peace". That is neither a solution to a problem, nor a way to make peace.
Re: (Score:2)
...
In your other 3 examples, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the so called Somali "pirates" have been thoroughly solved as a problem. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are now liberated and governing themselves, and who even talks about the Somali pirate problem anymore? That's like saying Watergate isn't over yet.
...
This is going be controversial on Slashdot, but keep in mind that the initial military incursions against Iraq and Afghanistan must be considered successes. The later violence that marred the US occupation couldn't be solved with conventional military operations... at least not without inflicting a lot of collateral damage.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see where it says it doesn't.
Re: Nothing to predict (Score:4, Insightful)
If the headline is about sci-fi predictions of the Orwellian state, why not just fill in the rest?
The Orwellian state seems inevitable.
Step 2,people get off the planet.
Step 3, the realize they want to be free and the government comes down on them.
That's it.
That's the future.
The future is a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
(Sorry, couldn't resist).
Actually, having re-read 1984 recently, I noticed that Smith's interrogator/torturer/reprogrammer (whose name escapes me) mentioned that the Party was evolving. Which leads to interesting speculations. We have seen in recent history that rarely does an oppressive regime last 3 generations. The founders are ideologically committed to atrocities, but successive generations aren't so heavily invested and tend to want to be seen as "better" than their predecessors. "Better" doesn't always mean fairies and flowers; China's "better" is still authoritarian, just with a looser leash. And new oppressive regimes pop up as fast as old ones fade. But at least there's some hope.
Re:Nothing to predict (Score:5, Informative)
Please. The 2nd Amendment has never, ever done anything to prevent the government from steadily eroding 1st-Amendment, 4th-Amendment, or any-other-Amendment rights.
Wrong.
Might want to research what occurred in Athens, TN in the 1946 "Battle of Athens".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) [wikipedia.org]
Might also want to find out what's happened through history to people who have been disarmed by their governments.
Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPMqfXIJpNE [youtube.com]
The 2A isn't about civilians going toe-to-toe with a regular army. It's about making it a very costly proposition for enemies of the people of the US both foreign and domestic.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have 2A in my country, but still when pension privilages for miners are under discussion, 50000 of them go to capital with pickaxes, stand in front of Parliment and threaten to dismantle it stone by stone if anything is taken away from them. And they know their way with pixaxes and destroying stone... and for last 20 years government always yielded, even if it is killing our pension system.
I somehow doubt that 50000 handgun-waving guys would have same pressure power on US Congress.
Influence of peop
Re:Nothing to predict (Score:5, Interesting)
The second amendment was because the Founding Fathers feared a standing army.
That reason is only one of multiple reasons for the 2A. Read some of the letters and other writings of Washington, Jefferson, etc. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and Common Sense.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ⦠from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ⦠the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside ⦠Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason - Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
It's impossible to eliminate guns in the US short of turning it into N. Korea.on steroids and locking pretty much everyone up in camps. As long as the US Government has guns and large, ridiculously-porous borders, the criminals will be armed and they will be the only civilians with guns.
If a civil war broke out in the US, it's guaranteed the military will fracture. Not only is the US military all-volunteer, but much of it is currently made up of National Guard. They ain't all gonna snap a salute and frag grandma and the babies, regardless of being labeled "domestic terrorists/rebels/insurgents", or whatever lame dissociative label the government attaches to them. They're not all dumb enough to believe obvious BS, or to all go along with it.
More than you think will instead reply to such orders with something like; "I'm sorry Sir, that's an illegal order. Under the UCMJ and standing/general orders, I and those under my command are forced to disobey your illegal order and obligated to immediately inform your superiors in the command chain of the details of this incident." (Not sure of the exact wording and language. Probably varies by the branch of service. Didn't feel like doing the search.)
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
It's impossible to eliminate guns in the US short of turning it into N. Korea.on steroids and locking pretty much everyone up in camps. As long as the US Government has guns and large, ridiculously-porous borders, the criminals will be armed and they will be the only civilians with guns.
Since we were talking about SF, I have one book where a strategy for removing guns is described. Quite simple: Gun ownership is made illegal with death penalty. One weekend 200 people are executed in 50 cities each for gun ownership. The second weekend, another 10,000 executions. Suddenly the police is totally overwhelmed in guns that are returned.
Most people who claim they'd die defending their right to own a gun actually don't want to die. Criminals don't want to die either.
Re: (Score:3)
In todays US I doubt such a strategy would work other than to incite riots that'd make the ones in LA look like child's play. In order for that to work you would need a much larger chunk of the population to openly support it than even bothers to vote in elections these days. My own Father refused to carry a firearm in Vietnam as a Medic when people were shooting at him on a regular basis. And even he'd be out in the streets if our legislators passed such a law.
Re: (Score:3)
When was the last time a soldier refused to obey an illegal order, and what happened to him? As far as I'm aware, only one refused to participate in the illegal war in Iraq, and he was court martialed.
Re: (Score:2)
True but you either have these guns or your have a large standing army/navy etc. Why do you need both?
I'm all for returning to a more "civilian-soldiers on call with a small national core military" model as opposed to large standing military forces.
It won't ever happen if civilians are disarmed.
Currently, there is no hope that a large standing US military can be eliminated in the foreseeable future. The only real thing preventing the government from abolishing any and all rights as it pleases, and that protects the population from both the government and criminals outside of government (dang amateurs!), are
Re:Nothing to predict (Score:5, Insightful)
The 2nd Amendment isn't meant, necessarily, for the populace to storm the Senate every single time they pass something that is disagreed with; you do its proponents a dishonour to paint them this way.
The 2nd Amendment is a poison pill, a reminder in a way, for the day that comes sooner or later, as no government can resist decay, when its own must dismember it, turn the soil, and grow something new. It's there to remind them that what they are doing is the right thing, that they have the complete backing of the original progenitors of this government to slay the Leviathan when it forgets its contract, and believes itself to be God. That's so they do not shed a tear at its funeral, and do not tarry from the work that will need to be done, as quickly or slowly as they prefer, when the time comes. Contrary to the Supreme Court's belief that it is the sole interpreter of the US Constitution, a mistruth that has been propagated for far too long as it is, the power has, and always will, rest with the People. I do, however, find it touching that the US Government would prefer to hold court over whether it is following its own social contract inside one of its own courts....stocked with its own choice of judges.
Re:Nothing to predict (Score:5, Interesting)
I keep hearing this line... but the US govn't has been rotten to the core for ages, and I still see no uprising.
When is this 'refreshing the tree of liberty' thing going to happen? Never?
They don't seem to be terribly afraid of your pea-shooters, either... letting people have guns is apparently less of a threat to power than losing votes due to further restricting them. They get to run roughshod over all the other rights, as long as folks are satisfied with having their arms.
Re: (Score:3)
When is this 'refreshing the tree of liberty' thing going to happen? Never? ... letting people have guns is apparently less of a threat to power than losing votes due to further restricting them.
You basically provide the answer. The government still changes by means of election, and the politicians still are concerned about what the voters will do when they vote. The Republic endures.
Re:Nothing to predict (Score:5, Insightful)
The government still changes by means of election,
So far as I can see, the election changes very little. Giving people a choice of two figureheads is not democracy.
Real democracy needs transparency, accountability and rule of law. Whether there is one party, or two slightly different parties, running things is a relatively minor point.
Re: (Score:2)
People keep posting views like that, that the elections change very little, and I think that is nonsense. The two parties do in fact have meaningful differences between them in terms of policy and goals. There are some areas of common agreement though. Both parties uphold the American system of a Democratic Republic, an economy based on free enterprise, and so on. Neither party wants to be the one that lets large numbers of Americans be killed through negligence or inaction against al Qaida. That accou
Re: (Score:3)
That accounts for much of President Obama's actions in the war against al Qaida.
What war against al Qaida? You mean that big recruitment drive for them in Iraq, where Al Qaida did not even exist before the US invasion?
You mean the lost war against the Taliban, US allies against Russia, who were no threat against the US, and held no grudge until being invaded?
8000 American troops dead, >600,000 Iraqi excess deaths, and worldwide loss of respect. Beats "negligence or inaction" eh?
Re: (Score:2)
What war against al Qaida?
The Authorization for Use of Military Force [gpo.gov] makes it clear who the US is fighting again, and that it is at war. It is well settled law that such an authorization is legally equivalent to a declaration of war.
You mean that big recruitment drive for them in Iraq, where Al Qaida did not even exist before the US invasion?
Like most people in the modern era, al Qaida members are able to travel. Many of them came to Iraq to fight, some were recruited locally. If you notice from the map, Iraq is near a number of countries with a notable extremist presence, and al Qaida problem.
Iraq was a major loss for al Qaida. They ma
Re: (Score:2)
That accounts for much of President Obama's actions in the war against al Qaida.
What war against al Qaida? You mean that big recruitment drive for them in Iraq, where Al Qaida did not even exist before the US invasion?
You mean the lost war against the Taliban, US allies against Russia, who were no threat against the US, and held no grudge until being invaded?
8000 American troops dead, >600,000 Iraqi excess deaths, and worldwide loss of respect. Beats "negligence or inaction" eh?
Yes but it did enable Iraqi oil to be sold on the open market again, unlike before when it was blackmarket sale only. It could have gone on like that for decades too as no fucker in Iraq was ever going to rise up and get rid of Saddam. The only people who might have are Iran and they are the last people we wanted to have the Iraqi oil fields.
Re: (Score:2)
The two parties do in fact have meaningful differences between them in terms of policy and goals
Such as? Obama's biggest achievement was implementing Romneycare.
There are some areas of common agreement though
Such as complete disregard for the constitution.
Both parties uphold the American system of a Democratic Republic
Yes, both parties give lip service to nationalism.
Neither party wants to be the one that lets large numbers of Americans be killed through negligence or inaction against al Qaida.
Is it be
Re:Nothing to predict (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't seem to be terribly afraid of your pea-shooters, either... letting people have guns is apparently less of a threat to power than losing votes due to further restricting them.
Why would they be afraid of guns, when their side has drones, tanks, ICBMs, sonic weapons (these have already been deployed against peaceful protests), smart bombs, a state-of-the-art spying network, sophisticated propaganda systems, etc?
Besides, if you really wanted to hurt the people that control this country, you'd:
A. Organize massive labor strikes. I'm talking "Nobody is working in California this week" kind of massive.
B. Stop shopping as much as possible.
The reason is that the money they use to control everything has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is from the pockets of the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3)
it is a valid point. originally there was a parity of force which no longer exists.
however, even by the Civil War that parity had begun to erode. yet what did you see, but even people within the military (mainly officers given the setup of the military at the time) choosing sides and bringing their equipment with them.
and you'd likely see the same thing today if it ever happened again, though probably on an even bigger scale. not many that presently serve in the military would willingly turn their weapons o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The second amendment has been irrelevant for its intended purpose since at least the civil war. Was it ever allowed that citizens have cannon and Gatling guns?
The 2nd Amendment is quite clearly intended as a deterrent to an oppressive state, but since that has never realistically been true in the US since maybe the Whiskey Rebellion, or the American Revolution itself... I am all for banning personal firearms.
What is the point of me having a .30 carbine when the state will come after me with 25mm auto-cannon
Re:Nothing to predict (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't a malevolent tyranny nuke its own population? Hitler condemning the German population to death in 1945 because he deemed them traitors to the German cause, and the Khmer Rouge's killing fields seem to indicate that real tyrannies have no qualms about slaughtering their own citizens.
The problem with nukes is that there won't be a 'true civil war' because it will be over too soon. The military splitting up in opposing factions with nuclear capabilities during will only hasten the deployment of ta
Re:Nothing to predict (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you greatly underestimate how difficult it is to wage war on your own populace. Imagine Iraq, but with everyone armed, your own troops defecting, and every person you kill potentially related in some way to people who are on your side. Oh, and any infrastructure you destroy is your own.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine Iraq, but with everyone armed, your own troops defecting, and every person you kill potentially related in some way to people who are on your side. Oh, and any infrastructure you destroy is your own.
You mean like in Syria?
Re: (Score:2)
Cannons and Gatling guns are both perfectly legal to own Federally, and only limited by a few of the more liberal states.
Re: (Score:2)
...fear is a good motivator.
Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station. ..
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that the same Constitution that gives you "2nd amendment rights" makes the overthrow of the government, treason, a capital crime, right? In fact, that part was ratified before the 2nd amendment.
Sounds like you pick and choose just the parts of the Constitution that sound good to you.
Interesting choices. You realize that both of those books demonstrate just how futile any "2nd am
Re: (Score:3)
Since you're posting this on the internet, which are you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but there's the myth...there are no good people, at the end of the day. There might be one person who is not particularly offensive, but the sad reality is that if you place them all in a room to come up with some laws or policies to govern something important, by the end of their terms many would not be unhappy to see them go.
Good and evil then become paltry evaluations for whether your own values jive with someone else's values, or conflict with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Too many studies have already shown what happens to 'good people' when they acquire power. The only solution is to eliminate the power, which is probably physically impossible, but finding ways of disabling the weaponry would be a good start. So, all that's left is to make the best of it, eh? What good is spending your whole life looking over your shoulder?
Re: (Score:2)
See, you simply have to assume that, sooner or later, someone who isn't 'good people' will get in -- or some misguided idiot who thinks that the ends justify the means.
If you don't assume things will go wrong, and actively build ion checks and balances (and consequences) ... it will turn on you.
People demonstrate time and time again, that if it can be abused, it will be.
"Trust, but verify" is a damned fine
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think we can use rules, laws and regulations to keep them in line. They need to be good people.
Then you've failed. This Machiavelli quote summarizes my opinion of that:
Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it.
Not 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This was a pretty good one, and pre-dated 1984 by a good few decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(book) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The computer is your friend... (Score:3)
The book you want is Huxley's Brave New World. Instead of overlords controlling people through power and domination, people allow themselves to be controlled in exchange for the pleasantries of modern life - sex, entertainment, and other trivialities. As long as they get as much of those as they want, they don't give a damn what else is going on in society or who is controlling it. As the saying goes, you attract more flies with honey...
Another good take is the role-playing game Paranoia - which made the surveillance state amusing (and insane) [1]. In addition to big brother, brave new world-ish mandatory uppers and downers combined with a Kafka-like maze of rules that can never all be respected - you are forced to betray, backstab, lie and cheat faster/better than the other players.
This, along with games like Diplomacy [2], should be mandatory for all 10y+ kids so they can become accustomed to shit that others will pull on them with more
Re:Not 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not 1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
The book you want is Huxley's Brave New World. Instead of overlords controlling people through power and domination, people allow themselves to be controlled in exchange for the pleasantries of modern life - sex, entertainment, and other trivialities. As long as they get as much of those as they want, they don't give a damn what else is going on in society or who is controlling it. As the saying goes, you attract more flies with honey...
There was much more to it than that. The Savage (whose name escapes me) rejected all those supposedly pleasant things while the citizens, having been conditioned since before they were born, accepted them. Take the epsilons, for example: they weren't afforded much at all in the way of luxury, yet still served the state and might have fought to preserve the status quo if their development hadn't been retarded to the point where they couldn't even grasp the concept.
When people talk about Ninteen Eighty-Four, they often focus on the telescreen, to the exclusion of the mass surveillance of citizens by their peers. Similarly, with Brave New World the state essentially breeding people to be satisfied with what little they have takes second place to soma and free love that is (perversely) mandatory.
There was a pause; then the voice began again.
"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able "
The Director pushed back the switch. The voice was silent. Only its thin ghost continued to mutter from beneath the eighty pillows. "They'll have that repeated forty or fifty times more before they wake; then again on Thursday, and again on Saturday. A hundred and twenty times three times a week for thirty months. After which they go on to a more advanced lesson." ... "Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too—all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides—made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!
As for 1984, literary analysis was never my strong suit, but if asked I'd say that Orwell was afraid that an oppressive state would turn men against their fellows; I can only imagine what he would say about a world where people surrender their privacy willingly.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of us will gladly sell our privacy for trivialities and convenience, but there exist forces of evil in power as well. Our current surveillance state can only exist because both of these things are true.
A little off beat, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I always thought Star Trek had a little bit of surveillance society in it, because the computer was always listening for you to say "Computer" and give it a command. Mind you, the Enterprise *was* as close to a military ship as the ST society had in the original series, so I guess it might be understandable.
Re:A little off beat, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, Star Trek does predict humanity's future...but it won't be the Federation.
We are the NSA. Your biological and technological metadata will be added to our index. Your computers will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
Brazil (Score:4, Informative)
Terry Gilliam's interpretation of Orwell's 1984: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/ [imdb.com]
Blind Faith - Ben Elton (Score:4, Informative)
Ben Elton is perhaps better known in Commonwealth countries as a TV comedian, but he writes a fine line of satire which frequently swerves into the SciFi realm and is almost always a form of social commentary.
Blind Faith is an interesting posit on where the current obsession with social media, coupled with government surveillance and the slide away from science to religion could do to a slightly futuristic society.
Well worth a read, and if you enjoy that, you may enjoy some of his older works, such as Stark, This Other Eden, or some of his more recent stuff (there's dozens).
Re: (Score:2)
Blind Faith is an interesting posit on where the current obsession with social media, coupled with government surveillance and the slide away from science to religion could do to a slightly futuristic society.
"had to cry today..."
The imporant qualifier (Score:4, Interesting)
What makes the fictional dystopias featuring surveillance states interesting isn't simply the fact that they conduct surveillance, but rather what they do with the information. In the fictional dystopias is it to engage in various sorts of general repression against the population, sometimes subtly, sometimes in a heavy handed and cruel fashion. How many of them involve actions by the state to genuinely protect the citizenry except in an Orwellian fashion? Moving from fiction to history and current events reveals that the difference between free societies using surveillance to protect themselves is in marked contrast to unfree societies. Nobody went to prison for 10 years at hard labor for simply calling George Bush, "Chimpy McHitler," while he was President, but plenty of people went to the Gulag for 10 years for telling a joke about Stalin, and far from all of the people sent to the Gulag survived. There may need to be refinement and more oversight over the activities of the intelligence services of Western governments, but getting it wrong will ultimately lead to harsh feedback of another sort.
Too true:(Listen for the joke at 1:40) Reagan tells Soviet jokes [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you could look at the Septunagent government in Stross' "Iron Sunrise". It was a minor feature, but that government could, when it chose, implement "sparrow-fart security" (which I took to mean that they not only noticed any sparrow falling, but even farting). Generally, however, they went in for a much lighter hand. Sometimes, as far as the protagonist was concerned, a bit too light. (And let people make decisions out of prejudice or malice rather than acting on good information.)
Stross doesn't l
In Russia (Score:3, Insightful)
Russia's at the same state now, if you criticize Putin you end up in jail on a trumped up charge or commit suicide or end up dead abroad. Words are enough.
Barrett Brown (who made the mistake of reporting 'anonymous' leaks and upsetting a defense contractor). His charge is grade A fabricated crap.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/21/barrett-brown-persecution-anonymous
(Wikileaks and Glenn were targetted for smear campaigns.)
Wanna see a video of undercover cops trying to plant drugs on 'protesto
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting post. I disagree with a number of your points, but I'll limit myself to a few counterpoints.
Guantanamo bay has never even held a total of 1,000 people as prisoners. Al Qaida teaches its members to lie and carry on the jihad by any means possible. Gitmo guards often attacked by detainees [usatoday.com] As to feeding tubes - yes they can be unpleasant, but it's likely the prisoners magnify the difficulties [mypetjawa.mu.nu] in line with their training.
Al Qaeda Manual Drives Detainee Behavior at Guantanamo Bay [defense.gov]
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2005 – If you're a Muslim extremist captured while fighting your holy war against "infidels," avoid revealing information at all costs, don't give your real name and claim that you were mistreated or tortured during your detention. . .
Anwar al-Awlaki was
Re: (Score:2)
Under the Law of War, POWs can be held until the end of the conflict, no trials are needed. It is misleading to suggest that there needs to be trials because they are being held as POWs, that isn't true. It is true that if you want to separately hold them accountable for specific war crimes you would need to have a trial.
Yes, I think your self labeled word games are just that regarding Anwar al-Awlaki. Many real people are dead because of his deeds. As a member of a self-declared enemy force making war
POWs? (Score:3)
Except that they aren't POWs. That would require that they be treated as per the Geneva convention (which they are not). They have none of the rights of civilian criminals (i.e. habeas corpus) AND none of the rights of military POWs.
Re: (Score:2)
Cold, the US gov can select to watch a person at a distance after looking into their full family background.
US intelligence services go for refinement and gain much more oversight per person that the tip off via a pubic gov car, suit, badge, hours of interview per visit.
ie with more people running HD cameras at home or HD cameras been turned on when two people in plain clothes show up with with badges.
Too many youtube videos about protesters followed home been question
Re: (Score:2)
What makes the fictional dystopias featuring surveillance states interesting isn't simply the fact that they conduct surveillance, but rather what they do with the information.
And since they're humans, you can't trust them.
How many of them involve actions by the state to genuinely protect the citizenry except in an Orwellian fashion?
Again, you couldn't trust them even if they claimed that was their goal; they're humans.
Re: (Score:2)
How many of them involve actions by the state to genuinely protect the citizenry except in an Orwellian fashion?
In reality, how many actions of the state genuinely protect the citizenry? Protecting the citizenry is nothing more than an excuse to get away with profiteering, cronyism, and ever expanding bureaucracy. e.g. Micheal Chertoff and his back scatter machines.
Moving from fiction to history and current events reveals that the difference between free societies using surveillance to protect themselves
Stainless Steel Rat called it frighteningly close (Score:5, Informative)
the premise is unsubstantiated (Score:4, Interesting)
all-encompassing system of control, that proceeds from the top of the pyramid down to its base
I feel this statement unduly absolves us as a society from blame for our own surveillance state -- as if we hadn't clamored for safety, as if we hadn't spouted off about having nothing to hide, as if we hadn't secretly distrusted anyone using encryption, anonymous account, or trying to live "off the grid", as if we hadn't openly derided the boys who cried wolf about the coming panopticon. Do you think something of this magnitude is simply ordered from "the top"? We asked for this. The only thing you can complain about is that the people we elected (and those they appointed or hired) to do our bidding, in an effort to more completely obey us, didn't tell us what they were doing. It's like hiring a hitman and having him tell you it's better that you not know the details of the hit you've paid for.
I don't think this is a pyramid. This is an hourglass, or a pinched torus -- we all sit on top of the government, down to a single point of control; which then sits on top of an expanding mass of surveillance state that sits in/on/around all of us. Unless of course you buy into the idea that our elections are rigged, that it's all been run by a cabal for decades/centuries/millenia, etc.
But I think it's much simpler to accept that we did this to ourselves. It doesn't take a roomful of geniuses working secretly, it just takes a nation of average Joe's being themselves. Design by committee, of millions.
Philip K. Dick - A Scanner Darkly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Philip K. Dick - Flow my tears the policeman sa (Score:2)
also features a sort of 1% -99% societal split
The novel is set in a dystopian future United States following a Second Civil War which led to the collapse of the nation's democratic institutions. The National Guard ("nats") and US police force ("pols") reestablished social order through instituting a dictatorship, with a "Director" at the apex, and police marshals and generals as operational commanders in the field. Resistance to the regime is la
Re:Philip K. Dick -Imposters and Minority Report (Score:2)
imposters was kind of interesting, but murky
-I'm just sayin'
Player Piano (Score:3)
In the book, 99% of young men are basically given 2 options: join the army or join a meaningless public works organization....this is eerily similar to today's economy. Having spent time on a military base as a contractor, I can say that most of these guys would have been working at a factory if they had been born 50 years ago, but as most of those jobs have dried up they ended up in the Army. I know people in the US like to go all hero worship on these people, but lets face facts: For most of them, it's their only ticket to anything that even closely resembles a middle class lifestyle. They either aren't cut out for post-secondary education or cannot afford it, and since we don't have any other place for them(much like in the story), we stick them in the army...... The "reeks and wrecks" are the public works people, not quite as big in the US as they are elsewhere(for instance, Japan), but they are still there.
If you have time, definitely check it out, I've just scratched the surface of how correct Vonnegut was in predicting what happens when people stop being "useful" to society.
Re: (Score:2)
" I know people in the US like to go all hero worship on these people, but lets face facts: For most of them, it's their only ticket to anything that even closely resembles a middle class lifestyle."
As a former active duty military and on-base contractor, I know what you mean. I wouldn't even be that nice about it. There are heroes in the military, but there are also idiots. Some soldiers are dedicated, others are lazy wastes of space. Even one of the 'hard chargers' I served with was useless in our actual
Neglected series from the old days (Score:3)
The Slow Glass stories, by Bob Shaw.
Re: (Score:2)
Harry Harrison's "To The Stars" trilogy [wikipedia.org] ("Homeworld", "Wheelworld" and "Starworld") also predicted a society under constant surveillance, although it's not a major part of the story. It's sort of like the future of 1984, except one where the society seems to have been founded less on "for the evilz" (which seems to be the primary motivator of the party in Orwell's "1984") and more based on greed and power-hunger.
While the story itself is not particularly engrossing, some of the predictions on the society an
Why exclude 1984? (Score:4, Informative)
Given that Orwell got so very much right about the future, why exclude 1984 from the list? Just to make an interesting discussion that would have been largely already well-hashed-out otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that you would have so many shattered people in suburbia and cities would give a Soviet 1980's dissident feel - NGO's, foreign press getting long interviews, books about their treatment.
The other view is you flood the population with food, sport, every type of sex, drugs, new education methods every generation, pleasure, addictions, books, movies, celebrities, tame press on some new scandal, mass migration and wealth generation i
Re: (Score:3)
Given that Orwell got so very much right about the future, why exclude 1984 from the list? Just to make an interesting discussion that would have been largely already well-hashed-out otherwise?
It's just to be fair to the rest of them. There are some artists who simply dominate their genre. A famous singer was once asked who her favourite Jazz vocalist was, and she said, 'You mean, besides Ella Fitzgerald?'
The reality again surprised us (Score:2)
Much more shocked (Score:5, Interesting)
A few ideas (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_(film) [wikipedia.org] power elite and a "boating accident"
The original UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(UK_TV_series) [wikipedia.org]
then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Play_the_King [wikipedia.org] for the simple pleasure of cataloging the political competitors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_Darkness [wikipedia.org] (1985) for the display of a hardened, air gapped computer network and the need for real physical access vs the amazing abili
Rainbow's End, by Vernor Vinge (Score:2)
A bit of a preview for the future: Rainbow's End. [google.com]
Oh, here, you can read some of the ideas and thoughts from this presentation he made. [sdsu.edu]
It doesn't only seem plausible at this point, it seems practically guaranteed to arise.
Good book we read in high school in the 90s (Score:2)
This Perfect Day by Ira Levin
"Christ, Marx, Wood and Wei led us to this perfect day"
From wiki- The world is managed by a central computer called UniComp which has been programmed to keep every single human on the surface of the earth in check. People are continually drugged by means of monthly treatments (delivered via transdermal spray or jet injector) so that they will remain satisfied and cooperative "Family members". They are told where to live, when to eat, whom to marry, when to reproduce, and for whi
Re: (Score:2)
by John Brunner, predates cyberpunk by half a decade and features strong themes of government secrecy and surveillance.
RTFA, newb!
Re: (Score:3)
[...] you sheeple [...]
[...] I suggest you Google [...]
"Oops?"
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much a given, that your described situation is in NO WAY possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have another name, Stanislaw Lem [wikipedia.org], with two his novels, Eden [wikipedia.org] and, to a lesser extent, Observation on the Spot" [wikipedia.org]
An extract from Eden:
'An indistinct image emerges of doublers' Orwellian information-controlled civilization that is almost self-regulating, with a special kind of system of government—one that officially does not exist and is thus impossible to destroy. The society is controlled through a fictitious advanced branch of information science Lem dubs procrustics, based on the control and stratification of information flows within the society. It is used for molding groups within a society and ultimately a society as a whole to behave as designed by secret hidden rulers. One example described in the novel is the above mentioned settlement, kind of a "concentration camp" without any guards, designed so that the prisoners stay inside apparently of their own "free" will.'
Please, note this was written in 1959.
Stanislaw Lem wrote a number of things about surveillance states where things had gone on so long that they'd developed a bizarre life of their own. Not surprising, since he lived in a Soviet "Republic". One of my favorites is in the Cyberiad, where robots had taken over a planet and were constantly on the watch for "muclid spies" (i.e.:
I would not include "The Demolished Man" on the list of surveillance-predictive stories, however. In that excellent novel, the Espers were not only tightly controlled, but