Big Brother Database A 'terrifying' Assault On Traditional Freedoms

[Cronky]

From the Independent:

 

Big Brother database a 'terrifying' assault on traditional freedoms

 

There has been enough in the UK press in the last year to know what New Labour are doing with peoples privacy. We know how they are doing it - by building lots of huge databases of personal infomration and linking them together.

 

What baffles me is just why are they doing this?

 

Sweeping new powers allowing personal information about every citizen to be handed over to government agencies faced condemnation yesterday amid warnings that Britain is experiencing the greatest threats to civil rights for decades.

and

 

Ms Chakrabarti warned about the "intrusion on privacy" created by the growth of the national DNA database, and attacked plans for national ID cards, due to be rolled out to the first British citizens this year, arguing that the developments had the potential to create a huge all-purpose database holding personal details of ever aspect of people's lives.

 

She said: "If the tide is not turned on communications data, data-sharing, ID cards and the DNA database, if that tide does not turn and if worse still it accelerates we are looking at a very different Britain in a very short time. We are looking at a Britain where there is no such thing as personal privacy at all."

 

Can anyone please tell me: are they going to do this in the Isle of Man as well?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What baffles me is just why are they doing this?

 

Because the more information you hold on those you can control the more you can control them. The state no longer has the ability to use wanton force against objectors or those that threaten its power so the more info you hold the easier it is to resort to the manipulation of information to control the populace.

 

Look at it this way, the state is not there for the purposes of serving the people, that is not why it came about. It serves those who have the people, the minority that rule. They benefit by having a system that is efficient and streamlined and that will be able to hold all the useful data on every citizen in the country. Certainly, if the systems that operate for the benefit of the government, such as the police and legal system, as opposed to the working class could potentially benefit very much from the sharing of information.

 

Can anyone please tell me: are they going to do this in the Isle of Man as well?

 

Are the interests of the ruling elite the same as in the UK? Will they benefit from this sharing? And will people stop it?

[bluemonday]

Clicky

Snoop snoop.

[Slim]

What baffles me is just why are they doing this?

 

The explanation in the article seems perfectly plausable:

 

"I think all members of the public, as I am, are in two places on this. Data relating to you and your family should be protected and that is an absolute imperative. But you don't want personally to give the same information again and again if it can be safely held and safely transferred."

[bluemonday]

'if'

[Sebrof]

if it can be safely held and safely transferred."

 

A big If.

 

S

[manshimajin]

A good persepctive on whether or not the UK Government is hypocritical about privacy matters is to look at their position on their own expenses:

 

From a few days ago (the Campaign for FOI):

 

The government had been proposing to rush through an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act to exclude information about MPs' and Peers' expenses from the Act's scope...

 

The proposal, contained in the draft Freedom of Information (Parliament) Order 2009, was announced by the Leader of of the House, Harriet Harman MP, on Thursday 15 January 2009. It was due to be voted on in the Commons and the Lords only a week later, on 22 January. If approved, it would have become law the following day.

[Cronky]

A good persepctive on whether or not the UK Government is hypocritical about privacy matters is to look at their position on their own expenses:

 

That's not the only thing they are hypocritical about. The massive kids database Contact Point was set up supposedly because 'Every Child Matters'. However, senior politicans, celebreties and the like decided that having their kids details on a database that several hundred thousand civil servants might peep at is a bit risky. I.e. if your mum is Madonna or your Dad Gordon Brown then you might attract a bit of celebrity snooping. So, senior peeps in the UK are allowed to opt out of the database. So the State can peep at all the kids except famous ones. How fair is that for crikes sake?

 

I am sick of the whole database con and hope the Tories scrap things like the National Identity Register, the car number plate database, the NHS database, the borders travel database, DNA database and the passport register of everyones fingerprints.

 

More to the point I hope the muppets in the Wedding Cake don't get grandiose ideas about copying all that crap over here.

 

P.S. you can chuck all the CCTV in the bin as well for all the good it does. I would rather have more cops and police cells.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am sick of the whole database con and hope the Tories scrap things like the National Identity Register, the car number plate database, the NHS database, the borders travel database, DNA database and the passport register of everyones fingerprints.

 

More to the point I hope the muppets in the Wedding Cake don't get grandiose ideas about copying all that crap over here.

 

P.S. you can chuck all the CCTV in the bin as well for all the good it does. I would rather have more cops and police cells.

 

This is just the way government is going. New Labour have basically given the signs that the government has every right to intrude into so many aspects of citizens lives, but don't go placing hope on the Tories. They have a slightly different ideology but the measures brought in by the Labour government increase potential control over the population and this is brilliant for any liberal democratic society. The Tories will only scrap things if it will definitely get them votes.

 

I hate the Tories with a passion, but I equally hate New Labour. I cannot believe all the measures they have taken to strip away civil liberties and increase government power. I really wish the roof of Westminster would fall on their f*cking heads.

[manshimajin]

This is just the way government is going. New Labour have basically given the signs that the government has every right to intrude into so many aspects of citizens lives, but don't go placing hope on the Tories. They have a slightly different ideology but the measures brought in by the Labour government increase potential control over the population and this is brilliant for any liberal democratic society. The Tories will only scrap things if it will definitely get them votes.

 

I hate the Tories with a passion, but I equally hate New Labour. I cannot believe all the measures they have taken to strip away civil liberties and increase government power. I really wish the roof of Westminster would fall on their f*cking heads.

LDV - as Guy Fawkes said - where did I put the blooming matches?

 

Governments have always sort to exercise control over the great unwashed whilst giving them the occasional dose of bread and circus or a great day out at the Coliseum. But it has now reached frightening proportions.

 

Given all the technology that is about, and being used to oversee peoples' lives, I can only hope and pray for the day when the advance of technology makes MPs redundant.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Given all the technology that is about, and being used to oversee peoples' lives, I can only hope and pray for the day when the advance of technology makes MPs redundant.

 

I am doubtful. I would be interested to know why you think this is. But just as the working class advance in their ability to use technology and it means that control of communication is further taken out of the hands of the elites, they will make EVERY effort to find methods of control. The internet is one particular area where the governments of the world are rightly worried because of the implications that freedom of information has on there. They don't want people to be able to read whatever you want, educate themselves as they want, and communicate any information they want. It's a threat. It would be interesting to see what government responses will be to further technological advances in the area of communications.

[yootalkin2me]

for the one answer read "1984" by George Orwell.....for another answer read "Synagogue of Satan"....................................run to the hills, run for your life...as Iron Maiden once sang

[manxy]

I've said many times LDV, that you lose me with some of the talk you do, but if ever there's a time when some of your past points make sense, then its now.

 

I could understand certain bodies keeping our information like medical, Police and even bits of the Government, but it scares the hell out of me when my information is open to all and sundry. I say that, because of recent members threads on this topic and their links highlight at least a two faced/based society of the haves and have not's. My feint notion that we're all equal has taken a huge nose dive for the worse and my own personal beliefs in things traditional and moral, has taken a beating and regretfully, opened my eyes to a society of people willing to sell our goods at the detriment of others.

I'm still questioning myself looking for purposeful reasons as to why this information is to be shared and the possible dangers it throws up.

Maybe I'm just upset with my own personal feelings, but I'm certainly feeling a little weepy over this and LDV's past points on certain areas is making some sense from all of this, which I never thought I'd agree on.

 

I'll catch you all tomorrow, when I hope to be in better spirits.

Luv to all, Manxy

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The more information you have on the people you rule, the more you can control them because you can predict their behaviour. The government's can have information of a multitude of different things, e.g. one might be how people react to a certain policy if the government brought it in. If people wouldn't like it but it is in the interests of the elite then they will make efforts to send out propaganda to convince the public of what is apparently in their public's interest.

 

But that is part of the WHY. From an anarchist perspective, the issue is also about why other groups or individuals have the right to forcefully take this information, without your consent. You don't make a choice about what information the government should have, you don't have the power on your own to successfully resist it, and you in living in a liberal democratic society you don't the power to control its use.

 

You should already be of a mindset to place the burden on the government and make it justify why it should take this information in the first place, and make it justify how it is going to be used. And it is be a big burden of proof because you have to be of the mindset that the government doesn't take this information because it is in YOUR interest.

[manshimajin]

Given all the technology that is about, and being used to oversee peoples' lives, I can only hope and pray for the day when the advance of technology makes MPs redundant.

I am doubtful. I would be interested to know why you think this is. But just as the working class advance in their ability to use technology and it means that control of communication is further taken out of the hands of the elites, they will make EVERY effort to find methods of control. The internet is one particular area where the governments of the world are rightly worried because of the implications that freedom of information has on there. They don't want people to be able to read whatever you want, educate themselves as they want, and communicate any information they want. It's a threat. It would be interesting to see what government responses will be to further technological advances in the area of communications.

LDV perhaps I have a too science fiction view of the future! The present situation is getting more and more 'Orwellian' and the political sub-group of society certainly appear to increasingly want to control and have oversight over communications. Terrorism and 'international crime' serve as useful and plausible reasons for increasing the surveillance society. The pessimistic view is that this will lead to ever increasing controls over our day to day lives.

 

On the other hand we are only at the infancy of the so-called 'communications society'. Who knows what technology will deliver over the next 50 years? So the optimistic view is that the more informed people become the less accepting they will be of political platitudes and paternalism. Just read threads here for example to see a much livelier exchange of opinions about politicians than would have been possible, say, 30 years ago. So my alternative scenario is that in the future politicians would become increasingly accountable to the population. Possibly not only will their decsions be scrutinised but also increasingly we will be able to vote directly on issues. Technology will certainly allow this.

 

To date politics is one of the few things that has not advanced as surrounding technologies have changed the landscape. What we have now is a modified, pre-industrial, medieval system designed for the era when the wealthy had a horse and travel was difficult. So in that era people had to be 'represented' rather than expressing their own opinions. As the voter franchise has widened so the party system has strengthened and exercised increasing control over 'representatives' individuality and ability to express the views of the people. Compare modern 'democracy' with the old Anglo-Saxon and Norse Thingemoot systems. In terms of the people having a direct opportunity to express political opinions about their lives we have gone backwards enormously over the last 1,000 years.

 

If future technologies allow each of us to intervene in the political process and to represent ourselves we will in one sense be going back to a pre-Westminster system of popular democracy.

 

Will future politicians pull the plug on mass communication technologies? They may have to if they want to keep power centralised. But will they be able to?