Surveillance States

Once again, statistics have proved what we already knew - CCTV has no great deterrent value, nor does it aid police in locating their suspects. Orwell was not simply an alarmist, but he foresaw with worrying detail the potential damage of such a state. In last month's Free Inquiry, Nat Hentoff points out that people's malcontent for public surveillance is not resultant of their fear of being watched, but more-so of their unknowing: are they being watched or not? This kind of unknowing manifests distrust and inevitably leads to everyday paranoia. Indeed, in sociology there exists such a concept as the 'Panoptic Gaze', which identifies the innate onlooker within all of us; we conduct ourselves at all times as if someone were watching. Did the July 7th bombers know they were being filmed as they ambled through the London Underground? Of course. Would they have conducted themselves differently if they thought otherwise? No. The same is true for any individual travelling through the great surveillance states like London, or American college campuses. Why then do our governing bodies insist on bringing us this supposedly pro-active vigilance when there remains no discernible merit? Why then has the FBI commissioned a $1 billion enterprise to database people's physical characteristics, from the way we walk to the sound of our voice? Human privacy is being eroded at massive cost for seemingly no benefit, and yet the movement continues. Our vulnerabilities are exposed on a daily basis in our ignorance of this matter. The next time you see an oblong box jutting from a building corner, or a convex black chandelier suspiciously protruding from the ceiling, do as your fellow author and extend a finger with relish.