The Panopticon: A Mass Surveillance Prison For Humanity

This was an interesting read, and kinda goes hand in hand with what is currently going on with all the talk about surveillance and civil liberties.....

Quote:

---

The Panopticon is defined as a prison so constructed that the inspector can see each of the prisoners at all times, without being seen. This is an accurate description of the accelerating movement by western governments to erect giant, powerful, all-pervading mass surveillance, tracking and control grids that will keep all populations firmly under the baleful and watchful gaze of Big Brother.

We are still debating the NSA listening to foreign calls from the US when the NSA admitted twenty years ago that they were listening to domestic US calls under the Echelon program. This is de-classified and public but the media acts like they don't know about it.

Why is there even a debate about if they are tracking and tracing us when RFID transponders are going in cars nationwide to follow our every movement?

---

Hopefully NSA isn't reading this thread???

Panopticon

This was an interesting read, and kinda goes hand in hand with what is currently going on with all the talk about surveillance and civil liberties.....

Quote:

---

The Panopticon is defined as a prison so constructed that the inspector can see each of the prisoners at all times, without being seen. This is an accurate description of the accelerating movement by western governments to erect giant, powerful, all-pervading mass surveillance, tracking and control grids that will keep all populations firmly under the baleful and watchful gaze of Big Brother.

We are still debating the NSA listening to foreign calls from the US when the NSA admitted twenty years ago that they were listening to domestic US calls under the Echelon program. This is de-classified and public but the media acts like they don't know about it.

Why is there even a debate about if they are tracking and tracing us when RFID transponders are going in cars nationwide to follow our every movement?

---

Hopefully NSA isn't reading this thread???

Panopticon

Quote:

---

Consider today's BBC report concerning CCTV surveillance systems in an area of London which is planned to be expanded to include, just on its first implementation, tens of thousands of other citizens in other areas.

The government funded program, called ASBO TV, invites residents to pay £3.50 and have access to a TV channel that enables them to monitor 400 different CCTV surveillance cameras and report on suspicious or anti-social behavior, comparing suspects to an on-screen rogues gallery.

---

Quote:

---

The exact same program was announced for the US years ago in the New York Times. The difference is that in the US they plan to force people to watch the system either over their computer or cable system. It will be classified as 'public service' to pay for speeding tickets and eventually as a mandatory function of your civil defense Homeland Security draft duties.

Starting at two hours a week and, if you wish to be paid, upwards of twenty hours a week, you will monitor the cameras for signs of terrorism and also, as admitted in the New York Times piece, for crime.

---

Huh? Yeah, right. That's rediculous and stupid to even claim. Initially I was susspicious of the article from the nature of the site, but c'mon. Most of these things exist, but not to the degree or use of what is being claimed. I think the person whom wrote this might need to loosen the tin-foil on their head.

Quote:

---

Consider today's BBC report concerning CCTV surveillance systems in an area of London which is planned to be expanded to include, just on its first implementation, tens of thousands of other citizens in other areas.

The government funded program, called ASBO TV, invites residents to pay £3.50 and have access to a TV channel that enables them to monitor 400 different CCTV surveillance cameras and report on suspicious or anti-social behavior, comparing suspects to an on-screen rogues gallery.

---

Quote:

---

The exact same program was announced for the US years ago in the New York Times. The difference is that in the US they plan to force people to watch the system either over their computer or cable system. It will be classified as 'public service' to pay for speeding tickets and eventually as a mandatory function of your civil defense Homeland Security draft duties.

Starting at two hours a week and, if you wish to be paid, upwards of twenty hours a week, you will monitor the cameras for signs of terrorism and also, as admitted in the New York Times piece, for crime.

---

Huh? Yeah, right. That's rediculous and stupid to even claim. Initially I was susspicious of the article from the nature of the site, but c'mon. Most of these things exist, but not to the degree or use of what is being claimed. I think the person whom wrote this might need to loosen the tin-foil on their head.

I seem to remember that the Victorians built at least one prison that was designed so that all prisoners were on show at all times to all staff

the design was based on a tower with a central tower within it that the staff were in, all ceels were built onto the outer wall, and were viewable from th ewindows in the central tower ......

still seems like a good idea to me

modern technology just enables the design to be opened up into practically any arena .....

as for microphones that can eavesdrop over 200m
the cameras are a LOT better than they announce too

will it make for a bettr world ?
I suppose the only way is to try it :eek:
but what safeguards are there ? if any ?

I seem to remember that the Victorians built at least one prison that was designed so that all prisoners were on show at all times to all staff

the design was based on a tower with a central tower within it that the staff were in, all ceels were built onto the outer wall, and were viewable from th ewindows in the central tower ......

still seems like a good idea to me

modern technology just enables the design to be opened up into practically any arena .....

as for microphones that can eavesdrop over 200m
the cameras are a LOT better than they announce too

will it make for a bettr world ?
I suppose the only way is to try it :eek:
but what safeguards are there ? if any ?

I believe it's inevitable, the infrastructure is in place to build and expand upon a surveillance grid, cable,sattelite,telephone lines, all they need to do is centralise and coordinate....I remember a good movie I watched once with Gene Hackmann called "The Conversation" and this is early 70's type technology, which has certainly come a long way since then....

Also it's insidious, in how it is appearing, it's slow and unnoticable to an extent, people aren't paying attention.....until it's too late and it's entrenched into law....

As to being a benefit towards the inhabitants, if it's used properly then yeah maybe, but you would have to ensure their would be checks and balances in place to avoid possible abuse.....


They have allready started to put the video aspect into practise, I think it's being bandied about here in Canada in a few jurisdictions one being Toronto, and with the recent news about driveby shootings and all, this may be sped up.....The UK has had them for awhile now, and I think it's a mixed blessing in some areas or for some people..

Eventually, you tend to get used to changes, to a point that you don't even notice them anymore, who actually thinks about the video camera behind an ATM nowadays, that's a form of surveillance, click, got your pic, now put it on file with the account number you just typed into the machine.This file is now available to anyone who works for that bank or security firm working for that bank.......?

I believe it's inevitable, the infrastructure is in place to build and expand upon a surveillance grid, cable,sattelite,telephone lines, all they need to do is centralise and coordinate....I remember a good movie I watched once with Gene Hackmann called "The Conversation" and this is early 70's type technology, which has certainly come a long way since then....

Also it's insidious, in how it is appearing, it's slow and unnoticable to an extent, people aren't paying attention.....until it's too late and it's entrenched into law....

As to being a benefit towards the inhabitants, if it's used properly then yeah maybe, but you would have to ensure their would be checks and balances in place to avoid possible abuse.....


They have allready started to put the video aspect into practise, I think it's being bandied about here in Canada in a few jurisdictions one being Toronto, and with the recent news about driveby shootings and all, this may be sped up.....The UK has had them for awhile now, and I think it's a mixed blessing in some areas or for some people..

Eventually, you tend to get used to changes, to a point that you don't even notice them anymore, who actually thinks about the video camera behind an ATM nowadays, that's a form of surveillance, click, got your pic, now put it on file with the account number you just typed into the machine.This file is now available to anyone who works for that bank or security firm working for that bank.......?

Not sure if you know this dalek but over here if you are in a public place you can legally be photographed or filmed.

The exception is if you are a sitting (in sessions) crown court or high court judge, then it is illegal ;)

Not sure if you know this dalek but over here if you are in a public place you can legally be photographed or filmed.

The exception is if you are a sitting (in sessions) crown court or high court judge, then it is illegal ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nihil
Not sure if you know this dalek but over here if you are in a public place you can legally be photographed or filmed.

The exception is if you are a sitting (in sessions) crown court or high court judge, then it is illegal ;)

---

Yeah, I know.......it's..what is the intent of the people taking the pictures or filming you that worries people? If your a private citizen then your expectations of privacy should outweigh someone else's desire to take your picture or film you without your explicit consent no?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nihil
Not sure if you know this dalek but over here if you are in a public place you can legally be photographed or filmed.

The exception is if you are a sitting (in sessions) crown court or high court judge, then it is illegal ;)

---

Yeah, I know.......it's..what is the intent of the people taking the pictures or filming you that worries people? If your a private citizen then your expectations of privacy should outweigh someone else's desire to take your picture or film you without your explicit consent no?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by dalek
Yeah, I know.......it's..what is the intent of the people taking the pictures or filming you that worries people? If your a private citizen then your expectations of privacy should outweigh someone else's desire to take your picture or film you without your explicit consent no?

---

Actually, no. The same applies to the US. As long as you are in a public area (with exclusion of courts and certain federal properties) you can take all of the pictures you want. That's the point of being "free". You can't stop someone from doing something simply because it might irritate or annoy you. Furthermore, it would be difficult for them to do anything illegal with the photo unless the photo were illegally aquired itself (such as ATM, voyeurism, theft, etc).

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by dalek
Yeah, I know.......it's..what is the intent of the people taking the pictures or filming you that worries people? If your a private citizen then your expectations of privacy should outweigh someone else's desire to take your picture or film you without your explicit consent no?

---

Actually, no. The same applies to the US. As long as you are in a public area (with exclusion of courts and certain federal properties) you can take all of the pictures you want. That's the point of being "free". You can't stop someone from doing something simply because it might irritate or annoy you. Furthermore, it would be difficult for them to do anything illegal with the photo unless the photo were illegally aquired itself (such as ATM, voyeurism, theft, etc).

It's not just wether it's for illegal purposes or other:

Quote:

---

The distinctions among privacy rights, publicity rights, and copyright are best illustrated by example, as follows: An advertiser wishes to use a photograph for a print advertisement. The advertiser approaches the photographer, who holds the copyright in the photograph, and negotiates a license to use the photograph. The advertiser also is required to determine the relationship between the photographer and the subject of the photograph. If no formal relationship (e.g., a release form signed by the subject) exists that permits the photographer to license the use of the photograph for all uses or otherwise waives the subject's, sitter's or model's rights, then the advertiser must seek permission from the subject of the photograph because the subject has retained both privacy and publicity rights in the use of their likeness. The privacy right or interest of the subject is personal in character, that the subject and his/her likeness not be cast before the public eye without his/her consent, the right to be left alone. The publicity right of the subject is that their image may not be commercially exploited without his/her consent and potentially compensation.

---

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/copothr.html

I therefore have a right to ensure you cannot take my likeness, either through the use of a camera or video, unless I consent.So wether it's in a public place or a private setting, if I am unaware of the action taking place,(without my consent)my right to privacy has been abused??

It's not just wether it's for illegal purposes or other:

Quote:

---

The distinctions among privacy rights, publicity rights, and copyright are best illustrated by example, as follows: An advertiser wishes to use a photograph for a print advertisement. The advertiser approaches the photographer, who holds the copyright in the photograph, and negotiates a license to use the photograph. The advertiser also is required to determine the relationship between the photographer and the subject of the photograph. If no formal relationship (e.g., a release form signed by the subject) exists that permits the photographer to license the use of the photograph for all uses or otherwise waives the subject's, sitter's or model's rights, then the advertiser must seek permission from the subject of the photograph because the subject has retained both privacy and publicity rights in the use of their likeness. The privacy right or interest of the subject is personal in character, that the subject and his/her likeness not be cast before the public eye without his/her consent, the right to be left alone. The publicity right of the subject is that their image may not be commercially exploited without his/her consent and potentially compensation.

---

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/copothr.html

I therefore have a right to ensure you cannot take my likeness, either through the use of a camera or video, unless I consent.So wether it's in a public place or a private setting, if I am unaware of the action taking place,(without my consent)my right to privacy has been abused??

There are, I believe a number of theories of surveilance.

Big brother of George Orwell and Max Webber fame is one.

Michel Foucault and the way he viewed "panoptican" (conseptualized by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)) is another.

There is also "rhizomic", which researchers have coined by using the writings of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guatarri.

They are all in use, to vareing degress, in our countries and have been for many years. CCTV is a prime example of panoptic surveillance.

Rhizomic, is all the data available via, loyalty cards, banking details, health records and such like. I think you can see how the authorities can use this type of information to carry out surveillance.

Quote:

---

I therefore have a right to ensure you cannot take my likeness, either through the use of a camera or video, unless I consent.So wether it's in a public place or a private setting, if I am unaware of the action taking place,(without my consent)my right to privacy has been abused??

---

That is not what that says. It says they cannot take your likeness and place it within the public eye. Meaning they cannot take your photo and put you on television. But even then in some circumstances they can. Like you walking in the background while they have the likeness of another person in focus or you are accused of a crime. The demarkation is exploitation. If you are accused and inocent of a crime and you are on public display in a trial they can take your picture and use it anyway they want.

Back to the original point of this thread, I posted this earlier. I believe we are fast losing sight of these things in the US.