Today, in the UK, a law was passed that allows the government to monitor (we know they did this anyway) and store for a year all electric transactions you participate in. By this I mean, text messaging, e-mailing, even me; posting on this forum, is now to be collected and stored to "protect" me against apparent terrorist threats or other such political bullshit reasoning.
Never has something had such a profound affect on me, and at the time of writing this I have no desire to live. This isn't a cry for help or something idiotic like that, it's the potential, long reaching consequences such an item can have on our society.
The government now have free reign to collate data from the public, to gauge their reaction to anything they now do, no matter how personal the method of exchange is.
It can be argued that if you type on a forum it is free knowledge, everyone has every right to do what they will with it. However, what about e-mails and other one-to-one communications, do third parties have a right to this as well?
I'll give you a scenario. A child at school has a risk of being bullied. The school has a proposal; all conversations, interests, habits and interactions of this child are to be recorded under the promise it may help to reduce the threat of bullying.
Would this be an acceptable arrangement? So why the hell is something that is a lot more serious just allowed to exist?
The amusing thing is, the headlines of the Sun (a British tabloid, i.e. news for idiots) today has the front page emblazoned with Gordon Brown's satanic (read: sarcasm) act of misspelling a troop's name. I'm not taking away from the fact that it is indeed a tragedy, but it is merely being used as a screen to cover something far more serious.
If you're watching the pinstripes, you won't be paying attention to the bat.
Going further into this, where is our "freedom"? Isn't it meant to be protected? Or is it only meant to be protected from certain people? Parents can know what makes you tick, as long as they promise to keep the front door locked, so to speak.
What happens when the government deems this as not enough? "We need cameras in people's houses to make sure there are no terrorists in people's houses" and the public will lap it up, as they've been groomed to do so.
Its times like this I genuinely can understand why people believe governments attack their own soil, their own people. People crave safety, and it seems are more than willing to give up other basic rights to attain it. I discussed this at work, and the response: "As long as it helps them prevent terrorism". A well educated colleague no less, but completely brain washed, and completely accepting of something that is quite clearly wrong.
Attack someone with a knife, and they'll desire "knife protection", as sure as the Sun will set tonight. "If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs"; if you want to create a big brother society, you have to make some sacrifices.
The Iron Fist has tightened at an alarming rate over the last few years, and I fear where we will be in twenty years. And the best thing about this? This post will be collected as data, under the topic "Reaction to Big Brother: Phase 1"
Never has something had such a profound affect on me, and at the time of writing this I have no desire to live. This isn't a cry for help or something idiotic like that, it's the potential, long reaching consequences such an item can have on our society.
The government now have free reign to collate data from the public, to gauge their reaction to anything they now do, no matter how personal the method of exchange is.
It can be argued that if you type on a forum it is free knowledge, everyone has every right to do what they will with it. However, what about e-mails and other one-to-one communications, do third parties have a right to this as well?
I'll give you a scenario. A child at school has a risk of being bullied. The school has a proposal; all conversations, interests, habits and interactions of this child are to be recorded under the promise it may help to reduce the threat of bullying.
Would this be an acceptable arrangement? So why the hell is something that is a lot more serious just allowed to exist?
The amusing thing is, the headlines of the Sun (a British tabloid, i.e. news for idiots) today has the front page emblazoned with Gordon Brown's satanic (read: sarcasm) act of misspelling a troop's name. I'm not taking away from the fact that it is indeed a tragedy, but it is merely being used as a screen to cover something far more serious.
If you're watching the pinstripes, you won't be paying attention to the bat.
Going further into this, where is our "freedom"? Isn't it meant to be protected? Or is it only meant to be protected from certain people? Parents can know what makes you tick, as long as they promise to keep the front door locked, so to speak.
What happens when the government deems this as not enough? "We need cameras in people's houses to make sure there are no terrorists in people's houses" and the public will lap it up, as they've been groomed to do so.
Its times like this I genuinely can understand why people believe governments attack their own soil, their own people. People crave safety, and it seems are more than willing to give up other basic rights to attain it. I discussed this at work, and the response: "As long as it helps them prevent terrorism". A well educated colleague no less, but completely brain washed, and completely accepting of something that is quite clearly wrong.
Attack someone with a knife, and they'll desire "knife protection", as sure as the Sun will set tonight. "If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs"; if you want to create a big brother society, you have to make some sacrifices.
The Iron Fist has tightened at an alarming rate over the last few years, and I fear where we will be in twenty years. And the best thing about this? This post will be collected as data, under the topic "Reaction to Big Brother: Phase 1"