Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, February 18, 2018

Robert Draper, National Geographic: In 1949, amid the specter of European authoritarianism, the British novelist George Orwell published his dystopian masterpiece 1984, with its grim admonition: "Big Brother is watching you." Today more than 2.5 trillion images are shared or stored on the Internet annually -- to say nothing of the billions more photographs and videos people keep to themselves. By 2020, one telecommunications company estimates, 6.1 billion people will have phones with picture-taking capabilities. Meanwhile, in a single year an estimated 106 million new surveillance cameras are sold. More than three million ATMs around the planet stare back at their customers. Tens of thousands of cameras known as automatic number plate recognition devices, or ANPRs, hover over roadways -- to catch speeding motorists or parking violators but also, in the case of the United Kingdom, to track the comings and goings of suspected criminals.




Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Proliferating as well are personal monitoring devices -- dash cams, cyclist helmet cameras to record collisions, doorbells equipped with lenses to catch package thieves -- that are fast becoming a part of many a city dweller's everyday arsenal.

Even less quantifiable, but far more vexing, are the billions of images of unsuspecting citizens captured by facial-recognition technology and stored in law enforcement and private-sector databases over which our control is practically nonexistent. ...

Our smartphones, our Internet searches, and our social media accounts are giving away our secrets.

Gus Hosein, the executive director of Privacy International, notes that "if the police wanted to know what was in your head in the 1800s, they would have to torture you. Now they can just find it out from your devices."


Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.


In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement.

The sex instinct will be eradicated. We shall abolish the ------.

There will be no loyalty except loyalty to the Party.

But always there will be the intoxication of power.

Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who's helpless.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one: don't let it happen.

It depends on you.

George Orwell – A Final Warning

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-02-12 08:56 PM | Reply

From the link ...

That evening a few miles away, I'm sitting in a mobile trailer in southwest London, just down the street from the Vauxhall Underground Station. Beside me is an affable young man who goes by the name of Haz.

Several closed-circuit screens are arrayed in front of us, displaying images provided by 10 cameras aimed at two nearby nightclubs.

Haz is here a couple of weekends a month. The nightclubs, Lightbox and Fire, wish to avoid legal troubles from drug deals by their patrons, so they've commissioned a mobile CCTV operator and former policeman, Gordon Tyerman, to have his man Haz keep an eye on the crowds.

Occasionally a clubgoer happens to notice one of the cameras and responds by thrusting a middle finger or an exposed breast into Haz's field of vision. Otherwise, the thousands of young men and women entering and exiting the clubs are his unwitting entertainment.

"This is the best, most exciting job I've had so far," Haz says. "It's so unpredictable. Everything's quiet, and then suddenly a fight breaks out."

Haz sits in the trailer for 10 hours straight, eyes trained on the patrons. If he sees the makings of a drug deal or a fight, he notifies the club's in-house security by walkie-talkie. It amazes him how indiscreet drug dealers can be -- with the bulges in their socks and their melodramatic handovers -- despite the presence of security guards.

"We ask them, ‘How stupid can you be?' " he laughs. "And they take it as a challenge."

Tonight there are no drug deals, no fights, only the random foolishness of the young and inebriated. They stagger with linked arms down the middle of the street. They paw at each other. They get sick on the sidewalk. In their sudden aloneness, they break out in sobs.

Though Haz maintains that he's gained "invaluable skills from this job," chiefly the skills he's honing are those of Vauxhall's invisible, after-hours anthropologist.

"There's stuff you see on CCTV," he marvels, "that makes you think, ‘That's not adult behavior.' They tend to forget who they are."

But do they really tend to forget who they are? Or do they simply tend to forget that someone might be watching?

Yesterday I listened to Julie Mason on sirius/xm POTUS channel interview the author of the above article, Robert Draper.

Draper talked about this, and that the net sum of these sort of surveillance efforts is mostly about watching the "banality of human existence" -- people leaving nightclubs and bars who are puking, crying, and getting into fist fights -- than catching hardened criminals who are causing real disruption to communities.

#2 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-02-13 07:09 AM | Reply

Trump has no fear because he has money.

#3 | Posted by Tor at 2018-02-13 12:32 PM | Reply

Per the article ...

Does anyone doubt that a more closely inspected world over the past 150 years would have been a safer one?

We might know the identity of Jack the Ripper, whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and if O. J. Simpson acted at all.

Of course, public safety has been the pretext for surveillance before and since Orwell's time. But today such technology can be seen as a lifesaver in more encompassing ways. Thanks to imagery provided by satellite cameras, relief organizations have located refugees near Mosul, encamped in the deserts of northern Iraq.

And thanks to numerous space probes, scientists have proof that the world's climate is dramatically changing.

Could the great Orwell's imagination have failed?

Could Big Brother save humanity, rather than enslave it? Or might both scenarios be true at the same time?

The problem with this is that there's no proof that camera's and surveillance actually prevents crime.

#4 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-02-14 06:48 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Let the great master, George Carlin, speak the truth ...


I love the freedoms we used to have...

I love it when it didn't take a ------- catastrophe to get us to care for one another.

I love the fact that we're on camera all the time from all angles.

The problem I have with constant surveillance and cameras everywhere is that it creates the wrong kind of laziness. especially in law enforcement. Plus, the power of being constantly watched is greatly underestimated.

#5 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-02-14 07:05 AM | Reply

I just do not trust those who surveil. Too much power.

They hide their crimes claiming that what they are doing is classified.

If they are hell-bent on doing this, then *all* the information should be available to *anyone* at *any* time.

Then we do not get competing memos or he-said-she-said, it is all out there for all to see.

#6 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-02-18 08:45 AM | Reply

I just do not trust those who surveil. Too much power.


We agree -- but probably for slightly different reasons.

I don't trust people, all up and down the chain, to know exactly what they're doing -- to competently execute their jobs to ensure mistakes aren't made.

As for the idea of someone in the NSA knowing peoples porn searches, they have all that stuff already ...

But the practical utility of surveillance on a local level comes across allot like healthcare -- doctors only get it right half of the time and only base their clinical decisions on science 20% of the time ... so the idea of some high school educated schlup deciding what they're seeing warrants law enforcement action is, ah, scary.

#7 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-02-18 01:58 PM | Reply

The cameras aren't so good for preventing crime as they are for documenting crimes committed.

#8 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-02-18 02:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

No law or camera prevents a crime. They deal with the aftermath.

#9 | Posted by Federalist at 2018-02-18 02:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"The cameras aren't so good for preventing crime"
"No law or camera prevents a crime."

Take a macro statistics class, both of you.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-18 02:13 PM | Reply



The cameras aren't so good for preventing crime as they are for documenting crimes committed.


Too late, that's like closing the barn door after the horses bolted.

Law enforcement is supposed to serve and to protect.

Serving the community is more than going back to the cameras to make their jobs easier with crimes already committed, it means performing those duties decided upon by the community.

Protecting the community means prevention, which means earning the community's trust (first) and engaging the community to know when something changes so then they can act appropriately (second).

#11 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-02-18 02:17 PM | Reply

"No law or camera prevents a crime."

The law that allows us to have all these guns doesn't prevent crime???

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-18 02:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

I personally dislike the amount of surveillance with more and more camera's everywhere [and also cyber intrusion], but unfortunately for 'We The People' I only see it becoming increasingly prevalent and much more intrusive in our lives :(

#13 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-02-18 04:01 PM | Reply

Big government is looking out for you...........

#14 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-18 05:28 PM | Reply

"The cameras aren't so good for preventing crime"
"No law or camera prevents a crime."

Take a macro statistics class, both of you.

#10 | Posted by Danforth

Do the cops in chicago prevent murder? No, but they are there to chalk the body.

Did the law against murder stop the guy in Florida? Hell no, but the cops are going to spend the next month investigating it, just like in Los Vegas.

#15 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-19 10:51 AM | Reply

Law enforcement is supposed to serve and to protect.

#11 | Posted by PinchALoaf

According to the SC, they have no obligation for your security.

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-19 10:52 AM | Reply

The law that allows us to have all these guns doesn't prevent crime???

#12 | Posted by snoofy

See #15, Your safety is up to you. Buy a longer car antenna sno.

#17 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-19 10:54 AM | Reply

"Do the cops in chicago prevent murder? "

Would there be more or less murder if Chicago had no cops?

Again, take a class, if you're going to pretend you know a subject. The answer to your question is absolutely yes.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-19 10:56 AM | Reply

Would there be more or less murder if Chicago had no cops?

#18 | Posted by Danforth

Who knows? It will never be proven.

#19 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-19 12:38 PM | Reply

According to the SC, they have no obligation for your security.


Oh really?

#20 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-02-19 01:46 PM | Reply

"No law or camera prevents a crime." - #9 | Posted by Federalist at 2018-02-18 02:09 PM

Actually, the presence of cameras does alter behavior, including potential criminal behavior.

See: Panopticism.

#21 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-19 03:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Fake videos are on the rise. As they become more realistic, seeing shouldn't always be believing - www.latimes.com

#22 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-02-19 03:28 PM | Reply

Oh really?

#20 | Posted by PinchALoaf

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone


WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

I am happy to educate you pin. Please pay attention.

#23 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-19 05:49 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort