BIG BROTHER


PDA






Burnsie
October 20, 2006, 12:30 PM
http://www.nbc5.com/news/3959595/detail.html?z=dp&dpswid=2265994&dppid=65193


You still don't feel big brother breathing down your neck, do you?
Take your eyes OFF the football game and WAKE UP!

If you enjoyed reading about "BIG BROTHER" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MachIVshooter
October 20, 2006, 12:35 PM
Your point is valid, but this particular example is old news.

Burnsie
October 20, 2006, 01:58 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/

Car Knocker
October 20, 2006, 04:24 PM
So, what have YOU done about it?

Burnsie
October 20, 2006, 09:33 PM
So what have YOU done about it?

Car Knocker,

First, I changed my major to commnunication studies and began enrolling in classes which focused on propaganda and media influence in cultures. I got pretty deep in Marshall McLuhan, and ended up working with one of the leading experts on media studies in the nation.

I then completed an internship with a (at the time) congressman, who has since been promoted by the president.

Currently, I am working for a small business, while completing my M.S. I hope to work as a professor of media studies, analyzing the effects of media and propaganda on culture, and passing the results of those studies on to students.

I donate to organizations I believe in, I spread the word, I volunteer, and I vote. I do not care to provide any further information about my personal life.

Answer your question?

Autolycus
October 20, 2006, 09:39 PM
Burnsie: one of the mods here is trying to start a forum dedicated to privacy. You might want to talk to him.

Burnsie
October 20, 2006, 09:45 PM
Which mod? I'm pretty new here, but I'm interested. It seems that on most of the sites that have privacy or civil liberties sections, those sections don't get much attention. It would be nice to see a break in that trend.

Hazzard
October 20, 2006, 09:53 PM
I believe it's Derek Zeanah.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=228964&highlight=privacy

Burnsie
October 20, 2006, 09:57 PM
Thanks very much gents.

Lucky
October 20, 2006, 11:00 PM
Burnsie, so if you studied Mcluhan do you think there is any hope? Isn't the idea that if we have electronic communications we'll be worse for it? I don't remember the details, maybe you do?

LAK
October 20, 2006, 11:04 PM
Political science, with emphasis on the history of false flag operations and government use of media and propaganda, ought to be standard high school fare in place of socialistic indoctrinations.

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Kentak
October 20, 2006, 11:04 PM
In the interest of concept clarification, let's discuss.

In 1984, everyone was potentially being watched by "Big Brother" at all times and in all places, even in "private," non public places, such as one's home.

Camera surveillance of public areas has been shown to be a deterrent of and an aid in solving street crime. But, how is that a violation of personal privacy? Is a camera on a lamp pole a violation, but a cop's gaze or scrutiny from a street corner or patrol car not?

K

joneb
October 20, 2006, 11:26 PM
Useing The War on Terror excuse, the Government has a right to know everything, Looks like the Bad guys are winning :fire:

Kentak
October 20, 2006, 11:33 PM
Useing The War on Terror excuse, the Government has a right to know everything,

What does the system in the article have to do with the WOT? No, government does not have a right to know everything. The question is, do I have a right to privacy on a public street corner?

K

LAK
October 21, 2006, 01:42 PM
Kentak,

Not a right to privacy per se. The problem is that when you have a behemoth of a gov empire, the law of averages still applies. There are all kinds of people working in gov; some good, some bad.

Information is power. Information is also a very saleable commodity, well known for commercial ends - and perhaps less well known for corrupt and criminal ends. Allowing a surveillance State to develope in this way is going to be bad news all round. And it has not reduced the overall street crime levels in any country where it is already in widespread use.

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Marshall
October 21, 2006, 01:53 PM
You still don't feel big brother breathing down your neck, do you?
Take your eyes OFF the football game and WAKE UP!

Old news, I suggest maybe it's you that has not been awake. The Bears are 6 - 0 so far this year. Maybe the camera's are watching them too. Doesn't seem to be bothering them much.

cassandrasdaddy
October 21, 2006, 10:29 PM
that the courts had already made clear that you had no right to privacy in a public area. what is the fear about? and further what kinda neighborhood are those fearful living in?i lived in parts of dc i woulda paid to have wired. and if your paranoia over floweth remember they can watch you from a sattelite so why sweat the camera

Burnsie
October 22, 2006, 09:47 PM
Kentak,

I understand your point.

Its not that its illegal, its that people shouldn't accept it from their leaders. Unfortunately, it seems that most folks are willing to sacrifice freedom for security all day long.

I am not just concerned with the current state of things - I am much more concerned with the future state of things.

Its not just about governments and citizens covering public areas with video cameras...

You always have to ask, "what's next?"

As time passes, the next step may be the placing video cameras in the homes of convicts on parole, especially sex offenders and those with a history of domestic violence. Most citizens will not have strong objections.

This will be followed by cameras being placed in the homes of those criminals who were convicted of other, often less severe crimes. Most people won't care - because this SEEMS to only effect criminals.

Simultaniously, many private citizens will choose to place cameras in their homes for purposes of security and liability - especially citizens with children. Many families have already chosen to do so.

These aren't just going to be "home movies". At some point the video feed will be transmitted out of the home, perhaps on the web, or to a database.

It is only a matter of time before gov. agencies monitor these feeds for key words as they often do with cell phone transmissions. Another inevitability will be the implementation of software which will identify the folks on camera.

I know those are big jumps. It goes further, but I'm going to stop there.

IT ISN'T "IF"
IT IS "WHEN?"

"Burnsie, so if you studied Mcluhan do you think there is any hope? Isn't the idea that if we have electronic communications we'll be worse for it? I don't remember the details, maybe you do?"

Lucky,

Marshall McLuhan was the "Godfather" of modern communication theory. Its really hard to discuss someone like him on a board like this - because of the breadth and depth of his communication theories. If you want a good summary, ready The Essential McLuhan. To answer your question, McLuhan definitely moved that way towards the later part of his life - he always "sort of" believed media could be used towards ultimately constructive OR destructive ends, but he began to lose hope as time passed. He predicted what he called the "retribalizaton" of our culture - not just for the US, but (at least) the western world.

The most effective propaganda is that which influences a subject profoundly, while the subject bears no conscious understanding that he is being influenced. SO OF COURSE THE PUBLIC DOESN'T SEE PROPAGANDA FOR WHAT IT IS - THEY AREN'T SUPPOSED TO!

Consider Nazi Germany. The German people really believed they were defending their homeland. The Nazi Propaganda Ministry, headed by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, infiltrated ALMOST every aspect of the German media. Most Germans were not aware that this propaganda altered their entire perspective of the world and of their nation and it's leaders.

Now, consider the fact that this was in the 40s, and they had 40s media technology. For example, we're talking black and white movies, with (relatively) horrible audio fidelity and video clarity, yellow newspapers, etc.

Compare that to the "tools" available today. For example big screen, hi-def, color TV w/ often hundreds of channels. We're talking about hollywood budgets and hollywood quality, or better. The average child watches 3 hours of television per day! The average person "digests" about 3000 advertising messages per day.

The results? There have been novels written on the results.
Just wait - when media "constructors" have the ability to monitor the effects of their output in an even clearer, faster way than they already can - we're in deep shiz.

Now I'm rambling. Maybe I'm just chicken little?

crunker
October 22, 2006, 09:49 PM
The microphones are so good that they can detect silenced gunshots. And we all know that every decent criminal has a silenced weapon.:what:

Burnsie
October 22, 2006, 09:56 PM
Cassandrasdaddy,

My fear is simple - I fear the move towards an increasingly homogenous culture controlled by its government.

I prefer a diverse (intellectually), independent culture which has control over it's government. If you think that is what we have now, we disagree. I think we're currently somewhere in between, and headed in the wrong direction.

I feel safe in my neighborhood sir.

If you enjoyed reading about "BIG BROTHER" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!