blatant propaganda article:

Police State Surveillance Technology (and how to Survive It)

by J. Citizen, 2000.

This article first appeared in the CD jacket for the Dystopian Records compilation CD "Dystopian Visions" (2000). This CD featured the EYE track "Psychological Warfare" (though it was released under the name of ELF, as it was considered an ELF track then.)

By way of introduction, while I'm concerned about the despotic potential of surveillance technology, I'm also wary about fear mongering. For all it takes to produce conditions ripe for tyranny, is lead the public to think they are being watched. In the words of privacy advocate Simon Davies, a "mass pacification through the fear of omnipresent knowledge" would occur.

EYE's song "Psychological Warfare" is about how authorities introduce police state conditions. It consists of funky drum & bass beats, early dubstep synths and "vocals" made entirely of chopped up samples from films, t.v. and radio documentaries. Several different versions have appeared on many compilation CDs since 1998 (sometimes under the artist name "ELF" or "aya"). You can download a free high quality audio from www.EyeMusic.info

How is the technology being introduced? Is it being imposed on us? Or sold to us by "The Conspiracy for World Domination"? Do they plant the bombs? Do they set loose Prozac-crazed hypno-programmed gun-toting maniacs in school playgrounds? There is evidence that suggests so in various cases. Whether such things are part of a conspiracy, or the actions of grass-roots terrorists and loonies, we lose when the public pleads for more laws, police powers and surveillance. On the other hand, the powers-that-be often gains from these. Overall, the technology already exists, is being implemented, and will continue to be via public outcry after more bombs and shootings.

So, how can we live with it? Three options are:
1) We trust the authorities. Likely result: a police state with little prospect of escape (possibly forever);
2) We develop privacy laws and technology to combat the detrimental aspects of surveillance. Result: an everlasting race by the public to outsmart the rich and powerful.
3) We demand total equality of surveillance. Result: a transparent society where everyone can monitor everyone else.

Option 3 above, is advocated by author David Brin. He explains:

"... oppression and oppressors thrive in shadows, and they wilt under the light... the danger lies ... in a society that is unevenly transparent - in which some lose their privacy, while others retain shrouds behind which they can scheme or manipulate... our best defense of liberty comes from accountability. Let the Left force it on big business and the rich! Let the Right force it on bureaucrats!... In the long run, our chief protection will be that people who live in glass houses dare not throw stones. How is your boss gonna fire you for having an extra chromosome, when you can look up his records and see about the time he spent in Happy Dale [mental hospital]. Funny how it makes you more tolerant of others foibles when you realise your own skeletons are on display... your protection from peeping toms will not come from curtains and shields, but from the near certainty that any violators of your privacy will be caught being peeping toms, and shamed by public exposure... in a world of light, we may argue a lot, we may be embarrassed and dream of 'privacy'. But we'll be free".

While I don't feel at all easy with it, option 3 strikes me as the most viable strategy. But many obstacles exist: i) Is it possible? Will I be able to see and hear exactly what Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch are doing at all times? ii) Can it be maintained forever so no-that one can take control of it? A system of non-centralized multiple repositories like the Internet might do the trick. iii) What about the ongoing effect of monopolistic media ownership (and associated censorship) on public prejudice and opinions? Brine argues that a transparent society would decrease prejudice and intolerance. I expect it would, but enough so that minority groups are safe? Many people like their prejudices and want to keep them. Furthermore, most people are too busy and/or distracted with tittytainment to seek out information that challenges their beliefs.

There you go, a few thoughts. Search the Internet for more! "Question that, which we now assume."