Orwellian Society: Are we already there?

Civilian_Target

A number of recent events have got me thinking about the nature of todays society.

On Thursday, the British government raised leaving age for compulsory schooling from 16 to 18. Also, a few weeks ago, I read this article (recommened reading for all) about the origins of the US primary education system: 'I'm a Saboteur'. Finally, a recent triumphant proclamation by Mayor Ken Livingstone that 90% of all London busses now have CCTV, making life safer for all of us got me thinking.

A distinctive part of George Orwell's fictional society was that most of the characters of the society were moulded, oblivious to the scenario in which they had been placed, and simply went about functioning in society in the way they were told. Telescreens were ever present to output messages of the leaders and to enforce the law by means of a threat; we can see you breaking it!

People in this society believed they had freedom, but this freedom was in fact an illusion: they were boxed in by a treacharous cage all around them, and surely the same can be said of today's world. We have far less freedom than our ancestors. Our work, occupying half of our waking lives, for many of us, stifles creativity except to the very limited extent in which goals are met. All workplaces set down very strict procedural rules which are produced either by a determination of "best practice" by managers-on-high or enforced by external legal factors.

The legal profession in itself is a way of stifing free will. Families are encouraged to allow the state the intervene to resolve internal differences, ripping apart the family as a unit and allowing brothers with 'issues' to persue each other mercilessly with a faceless trail of threatening legal jargon instead of encouraging a socially binding resolution. Neighbours are seldomly encouraged to talk to each other, and there's no incentive anyway, since we can all talk to virtual neighbours, here on the internet! The selfish individual has replaced the commuity.

How does it get this way? Surely it must be schooling. From the age of 5 we are moulded to believe what our masters tell us. Primary school is relentlessly boring and simple in its lessons. As children we are rarely challenged by what we're taught in school, so it's not what we learn.
In school we learn important lessons such as total obedience to a master, for whose attention we must bitterly squabble with our peers.
In school we learn to conform: individualism is beaten out by relentless bullying by equally bored peers, frowned on officially but inherent in the design of the school system.
In school, we learn to resign ourselves to our appropriate functions in life where, by constant testing, we accept our grades as a representation our own self-worth, and thus resign ourselves to the branch of the social tree in which our masters place us.

If you're still here, discuss!

Bottle_of_Smoke

Everyones afraid - Afraid of each other on a basic level "he might/could mug me" In comes the CCTV. Afraid others will be treated better & have it easier -In comes the rigid legal system.

Have you seen Bowling for Columbine - Marilyn Manson made a point about people "consuming" more when they're afraid - hence the newspapers report negativity by majority.

I think it's becoming more noticeable only because the population of planet earth is increasing so fast.

Civilian_Target

Ah, but that's part of the point? What makes us all afraid? Why should we be afraid of a stranger? Think about it: the vast vast majority of people are friendly and appoachable. We're not afriad of the shop attendant or the cleaner and they're strangers!

Bottle_of_Smoke

Civilian_Target wrote:

Ah, but that's part of the point? What makes us all afraid? Why should we be afraid of a stranger? Think about it: the vast vast majority of people are friendly and appoachable. We're not afriad of the shop attendant or the cleaner and they're strangers!

When we evolved & lived in the Savannah people we didn't know may not have been friendly - It might have been common that'd we'd attack other tribes for their resources/dominance - hence it would have been an advantage to survival to be wary of those you don't know. And there's no reason why our brains would have changed all that much since then.

Perhaps the reason we're not afraid of the shop attendant is we know if they mug us it would come back on them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The difference between Orwell and reality is that with Orwell, big brother shaped the society and controlled with fear. With modern day reality, society does it. Tabloids, teachers, our own collegues.

Are teachers, journalists, the guys sitting in the next cubicles in any way superior to us? Then why do we listen to them when they tell us what we should be doing? What we should be scared of?

EG - Teacher: "if you don't study hard for your junior cert, you won't get a good job and wind up sweeping the streets"
Fact is, plenty of people quit school at the junior and are doing quiet well for themselves, simply because they stood up and disagreed. They CHOOSE not to be scared.

Journalists - How many people fictious stories of kidnapping and child-molesters with vague details in tabloids and decide that there's a paedophile on every street? Too scared to let out children beyond the front gate? Point made by Brass Eye.

Regarding school. the problem with education is it's limitations. Yes, it can tax the intellectual minds of the stronger students, but it doesn't provide you with life skills. Everything from learnign to drive to learning things like meditation, mediation and how to control stressful situations. That, however, is another discussion!

OUR PEERS are the ones that tell us to be scared. NOT big brother. And they do so because we CHOOSE to let them do so.

mike65

Civilian_Target wrote:

How does it get this way? Surely it must be schooling. From the age of 5 we are moulded to believe what our masters tell us. Primary school is relentlessly boring and simple in its lessons. As children we are rarely challenged by what we're taught in school, so it's not what we learn.
In school we learn important lessons such as total obedience to a master, for whose attention we must bitterly squabble with our peers.
In school we learn to conform: individualism is beaten out by relentless bullying by equally bored peers, frowned on officially but inherent in the design of the school system.
In school, we learn to resign ourselves to our appropriate functions in life where, by constant testing, we accept our grades as a representation our own self-worth, and thus resign ourselves to the branch of the social tree in which our masters place us.

Sounds like a fairly rational way of preparing children for life actually. Tis all very well thinking like a hippy-anarchist but at the end of the day societies only function at all with compliance and the understanding that the individual
has to be willing to knuckle down and earn a living in a conventional market based system.

Our "freedom" still exists in our own off-duty lives if we choose to pursue it but 9-5 and when dealing with the state in its many forms we have to play-the-game. If its not to your taste then I suggest dropping out to west Cork to Think Big Thoughts or whatever but you'll still be relying on the rest of us "machines" to provide the means for your support systems.

Mike.

silverharp

Fear is cheeper to create then solutions to real problems. remember the Irish gov. stunts with tanks at Shannon airport or sending everyone the iodine tablets.

on the flip side though, the micochip brought down communism, it didn't reinforce it. Irish people were less free in the 1940/50's then we are now in terms of the state v the individual. This trend will continue as the welfare state retreats

Sam Vimes

Civilian_Target wrote:

People in this society believed they had freedom, but this freedom was in fact an illusion: they were boxed in by a treacharous cage all around them, and surely the same can be said of today's world. We have far less freedom than our ancestors. Our work, occupying half of our waking lives, for many of us, stifles creativity except to the very limited extent in which goals are met.

to be fair, back in the day people worked 12 hour days and more for enough to buy a loaf of bread. i think nowadays we have more freedom in that way. i for one am glad i'm not working in a sweat shop

Civilian_Target

Regarding school. the problem with education is it's limitations. Yes, it can tax the intellectual minds of the stronger students, but it doesn't provide you with life skills.

The point I'm going for is that school actually doesn't tax the mind at all, it bores you! Do you think 11 year olds are challenged by the concept of learning to spell 10 words a week, and then being tested on them? I doubt it very much!

mike65 wrote:

Sounds like a fairly rational way of preparing children for life actually. Tis all very well thinking like a hippy-anarchist but at the end of the day societies only function at all with compliance and the understanding that the individual
has to be willing to knuckle down and earn a living in a conventional market based system.

Just because the work has to be done doesn't mean that the people doing it have to be uneducated. I'm not advocating laziness or not doing meaningless tasks but shouldn't you question a society that moulds people from the age of 5 to be unambitious, fearful, mechanical cogs?

Commander Vimes wrote:

to be fair, back in the day people worked 12 hour days and more for enough to buy a loaf of bread. i think nowadays we have more freedom in that way. i for one am glad i'm not working in a sweat shop

That's not true. In real terms. the working-class American couple only earns 8% more nowadays than the average American working-class man did in 1906. I would be surprised if non-Connaught Ireland was not at least as wealthy as the US back then, so I fail to see the truth in that.

Captain Trips

Article: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061101/national/global_privacy_cda_1 - "Germany, Canada top watchdog's list as countries with best privacy protection [/url]

Indiviudalism vs Society is a common balance. In the ultra-capitalist and communist societies essentially the same social order comes about - a small ruling group and a large group from which the small group takes more and more - like in UK, with more and more small taxes, CCTV, biometrics, the US with fingerprinting, DoHS.

I think if you look at the final society that has evolved, there are many similarities between the capitalism and communism societies - neither of which I think have anything major to do with "freedom", but rather a system to remove basic cultural pillars like family and the small local community, and evolve it into a larger structure.

We see in countries that have "either" system, that people are more vulnerable to outside influence and obey the society over family. Divorce, e.g., is a typical example of when either system becomes dominant, and likewise in Ireland the system of capital influx to the ruled component of society makes it more palatable to be ruled and with less chance of removing the rulers.

I think that as the population of whatever society exists goes up, it becomes easier for that capital or communism system to maintain itself. This I believe is a fundamental difference in europe, where states are far far smaller. The exception si e.g., UK which has many many growing social problems and Italy and France. Germany has lander, no bigger than holland, ireland, austria, switzerland, Norway, sweden, etc., all quite small in population and all quite trraditionally resistive of the creation of the ultra large momentum building capital/communism system.

The creation of these big brother societies is only the result of trying to keep people who have little cultural/racial/community similarities in a paying system that must maintain itself at all costs or else you end up degenerating like African states. Do we need it in Ireland? Very unlikely.....there just isn't the critical mass yet.

The US could easily degenerate into an almight mess as could the UK, and become utterly unworkable. So you end up with a dilemma - the big brother society can maintain order as the diversity in an ever larger society increases and resources become ever more limited, or you can decide that privacy/individualism should prevail, but that second option CANNOT work where there are too many competing cultural components.

However, we are foruntate that in a smaller society, we are all pretty happy to exist in our small communities - be it Ballymun, Blackrock, being from Cork, or wherever. We have no *need* for the big brother society, as we can continue for the moment to live purely in our own society and culture.

The UK and US as they stand now are very transient - people comparing the US to the Roman empire, etc., (I've seen Americans do it), are blissfully ignorant of the 1000 years that the Romans influenced the world. Trying to package up an ever larger society to maintain taxation, and basically getting greedy, will likely end in tears for all of us.

If you want to pack in the people, to use them to generate your wealth, then you MUST create surveillance society or you will lose control. That is the only reason why it develops in these larger states. If you want the money/credit/capital system, it is the price you pay.

Let us thank the victors/saviours:





Orwell, in my opinion, wrote a parody of the "victor" society. It is used to talk about the police state, big brother society, but in my interpretation is that it is an observation of what he observed in the society that he lived (much like his observations in Burmese Days).

This poster was up in London a few years ago - (perhaps Churchill knew well what society was being created when he allegedly said "We have slaughtered the wrong pig") -

Pappa-eat-peach

Civilian_Target wrote:

That's not true. In real terms. the working-class American couple only earns 8% more nowadays than the average American working-class man did in 1906. I would be surprised if non-Connaught Ireland was not at least as wealthy as the US back then, so I fail to see the truth in that.

I'd be interested as to where that statistic came from. How do you define real terms?

Sam Vimes

Civilian_Target wrote:

That's not true. In real terms. the working-class American couple only earns 8% more nowadays than the average American working-class man did in 1906. I would be surprised if non-Connaught Ireland was not at least as wealthy as the US back then, so I fail to see the truth in that.

my house has a 32 inch tv and two others. we have a car. we go on several holidays a year. we have two computers. etc, etc, etc. i doubt that people in 1906 had all this money to spare. and i wasn't talking about 1906 anyway. i was talking more about 1806.

and the amount we earn wasn't the main point of my post either. it was that we work far fewer hours, depending on the job of course. doctors for example still work long hours but make a mint for it

Civilian_Target

Taylor Gatto - The Underground History of American Education (2005), ch37. Bionomics. wrote:

Out of Johns Hopkins in 1996 came this chilling news: The American economy has grown massively since the mid 1960s, but workers’ real spendable wages are no higher than they were 30 years ago. That from a book called Fat and Mean, about the significance of corporate downsizing. During the boom economy of the 1980s and 1990s, purchasing power rose for 20 percent of the population and actually declined 13 percent for the other four-fifths. Indeed, after inflation was factored in, purchasing power of a working couple in 1995 was only 8 percent greater than for a single working man in 1905; this steep decline in common prosperity over ninety years forced both parents from home and deposited kids in the management systems of daycare, extended schooling, and commercial entertainment. Despite the century-long harangue that schooling was the cure for unevenly spread wealth, exactly the reverse occurred—wealth was 250 percent more concentrated at century’s end than at its beginning.

The statistics were compiled by the John Hopkins University, according to the biblography for the initial entry.

Captain Trips

But, even with that wealth distribution being "worse" than 100 years ago, quality of life for those living in western societies *has* improved, I think.

You probably won't get polio, TB, be working in filth 6 days a week or something. I don't know what it was like then, but I do think in Ireland anyway the credit/capital system that has been introduced here in the past few decades has worked wonders, I think.

And if the common man is no better off, the high top-end wealth now means that you *can* get rich easier, even if it's odds of 1/1000, down from 1/10000.

That;s a bit off topic though. I think that an Orwellian society is probably a natural evolution of society as it becomes more diverse and richer, especially if you want to keep the potential to get rich as a cog. Norway e.g., has good distribution and are wealthy by many standards, but you probably will never get really rich.

Civilian_Target

Hey, I'm just saying, don't you wonder whether you've lost freedom, and an overview of the society of live in compared to your ancestors? Is it important that people should be able to even get hyper-rich?

Sand

Hey, I'm just saying, don't you wonder whether you've lost freedom, and an overview of the society of live in compared to your ancestors? Is it important that people should be able to even get hyper-rich?

Considering the horror stories I hear from my ancestors regarding the Ireland they grew up in and the sort of censorship that existed in Ireland compared to the information sources we have today [I read that an Irish blogging site neatly circumvents Irish libel laws by basing itself in New York, an Irish court might rule against them for saying Bertie Ahern is a no good dirty crook, but an American court is highly unlikely to enforce it] I think we are far freer.

Considering your comparisons to Orwellian society - if that was halfway realistic youd be already "disapeared", or better yet return with a fixed grin renouncing your previous views and hailing dear leader Bertie.

Human beings tend to respond to authority figures - it may even be a survival trait. When your a kid you need to do exactly what youre told by your parents, even if youre not clear on why for pure safety reasons. Kids entering school experience the trauma of coming into contact with a system that is designed to accomadate tens of thousands of children, not them alone.

Its unrealistic to expect a personally designed education for each any every pupil that will examine what appeals to each individual and build a 12-13 year cirriculum around it. The best that can be done is very broad strands that hopefully contain something for everyone whilst not becoming overly niche. Hence, people either adjust to make the best of it or they dont and get left behind. Its the first reality check for people when they realise theyre only one of a multitude and they have to get with the program.

Its the same in work - why do you have to do what some eejit tells you? Re-read the contract you signed, its in there somewhere. Past all the usual HR bull**** about dynamism and empowerment over your own career you do the job your asked to do by the boss your assigned to, as best you can because thats the role youre asked to play - innovate as much as you can of course because its better for when your pay review comes around, but people tend not to be overly inspired when it comes to something they have to be paid to do.

The point I'm going for is that school actually doesn't tax the mind at all, it bores you! Do you think 11 year olds are challenged by the concept of learning to spell 10 words a week, and then being tested on them? I doubt it very much!

Probably not, but then 11 year olds are taught how to spell for much the same reasons people are taught to drive on the left hand side of the road. Without the building blocks of literacy such as spelling, repetitive and mindnumbing as it may be, any attempt at creative writing that would be legiable to others would be impossible. If your child is ever put in a class with a teacher who attempts to teach spelling or basic multiplication "creatively" then demand they move to another class for their own sake.

Just because the work has to be done doesn't mean that the people doing it have to be uneducated. I'm not advocating laziness or not doing meaningless tasks but shouldn't you question a society that moulds people from the age of 5 to be unambitious, fearful, mechanical cogs?

Well you seem to have got out the other side questioning the very fabric of our society. Back to Primary school with you till you get it right.

Jackie laughlin

Several times it was almost mentioned but the discussion above fails to home in on the most notable Orwellian feature of our lives today: Newspeak.

"the politicians": They're all the same. There's no point in thinking about change.

"lack of political will": "the politicians" (undifferentiated, of course) are responsible for every ill.

"peace process": a threat, peace is not stable. Agree with the process or the killing will start again and/or talks will never end.

"freedom": market

"consumer": a word which has replaced "citizen".

Add then the management/consultant speak. Is debate possible?

casey212

Excellent topic.

You must realise that fear is a vital method through which government can extend its powers. If people did not live in fear then the would be unresponsive to government tactics. As for education, read a book by John Taylor Gatto concerning education and its purpose (free on his website).

People must refuse national id cards and biometrics. No doubt you will hear all sorts of horror stories in the lead up to their implementation.

Remember that the id card was proposed in the U.K. on the same day that peace was announced in N.Ireland. Coincidence????? and which of the two got hardly any headlines the next day.

dr_manhattan

In a bout the past 50 years the idea of privacy has been more or less invented, IMHO: it's a spur towards natural territoriality and makes people feel that the choices they make as a consumer are more valid.

However women have only really experienced anything approaching privacy since they claimed voting rights: before that even the most "developed" societies saw them as property and breeding stock. Indeed, the western notion of romantic love and it's opposition to arranged marriage may be the beginnings of this new abstract notion of privacy.

Privacy is only a matter of what rights a citizen is afforded: when you have no rights you have no privacy. It doesn't matter if there's a CCTV camera in your room or not, if a landlord comes to have sex with your wife and drum you into his standing army to fight some idiot war.

So yeah, in this bubble that's grown up in postwar (by which I mean post WW2) western english language speaking countries we have this evolved notion of "privacy". It seems to have almost grown as a side effect of this love of "freedom" - like we spent so long during the cold war talking ourselves up that we forgot that we weren't really that free at all.

So what i mean to say is, I'm suspicious of all this "privacy" that's being taken away. I'm not sure it was really there in the first place. And while I do agree that western governments are showing alarmingly totalitarian tendencies of late, I think the 1984 comparison is hilarious.

Half the world lives in 1984, sure. But we absolutely and completely do NOT. Honestly, it's not even worth going into. If you feel you are being oppressed by the thought police, if you feel that you are living in a totalitarian nightmare I suggest you go walkies in any number of countries around the world and compare the experience.

And no, just because they're less free than us doesn't mean that we're free: of course. But 1984? Seriously, that's pretty much of an insult to people who actually have to worry about the thought police.

If you lived in america you might have a point: but here? The thought police siochana? Aras na truth? Hahahahaha....

casey212

You fail to realise that things such measures are imposed piece by piece. Similar to heating a frog in a pot. He can't feel the rise in temperature until he is dead.

Also just because this country is visably more "free" that many totalatarian countries, does not make the reduction in civil liberties anymore valid.

People could possibly learn to trust their senses and base decisions on personal experience rather that what they are fed by the media. The national ID card and biometric passport will be introduced into Ireland within the next two years, what to people feel about that??

dr_manhattan

"You fail to realise that things such measures are imposed piece by piece. Similar to heating a frog in a pot. He can't feel the rise in temperature until he is dead.

Also just because this country is visably more "free" that many totalatarian countries, does not make the reduction in civil liberties anymore valid."

valid points (if nyou read what I posted, I already made your second point myself) - however your comparison to 1984 is still laughable, and part of a youth culture in the west which has always romanticised the idea of being "opressed by the system".

We are nowhere NEAR 1984.

"People could possibly learn to trust their senses and base decisions on personal experience rather that what they are fed by the media."

Good idea: I do this anyways. So by what means to you suggest people egt their information, and how is "believing the media" any different to what people have always done? You think "the media" were to be trusted more when?

"The national ID card and biometric passport will be introduced into Ireland within the next two years, what to people feel about that??"

I Feel it's ****ing unlikely, given that it hasn't been introduced anywhere else yet: but hey, continue to warn us of our impending doom, if that's your kick.

Meanwhile, our situation is still nothing like the totalitarian world of 1984.

casey212

I have never mentioned doom or 1984. You are creating and answering your own questions based on inferences of what I have said. Ask yourself who created youth culture, I can assure you it was not the youth. I believe people should get their information by speaking to others discussing issues ( as compared to watching endless sport). I never said the media were to be trusted, and I can't complain. The media are under no obligation to inform/educate anyone. If this annoys people, start your own newspaper etc. and say whatever you want.

In relation to the last area, all of the equiptment is in place. I do believe that 2009 was confirmed as the beginning of biometric passports for Ireland. I look to get the source. This policy will be applied to all nations at the same time, possibly in response to an external situation.

Preservation of liberty is or a least should be a vital component of a persons make up. freedom is never free. people must be educated and informed.

casey212

Originally Posted by breakingnews.ie
Ireland given three years to introduce fingerprints on passports
05/07/2006 - 13:06:35

All Irish passports will have to include fingerprints from June 2009 under new measures agreed by the European Commission this week.

The measures will also require all newly-issued passports across the EU to feature an electronic chip containing digital pictures, names and dates of birth from August of this year.

The Irish Government has already announced plans to introduce such passports in October.

The EU measures form part of efforts to tackle international terrorism, but are also designed to meet US demands that all countries involved in the visa-waiver scheme begin producing biometric passports from this October.

Rev Hellfire

casey212 wrote: »

Originally Posted by breakingnews.ie
Ireland given three years to introduce fingerprints on passports
05/07/2006 - 13:06:35

All Irish passports will have to include fingerprints from June 2009 under new measures agreed by the European Commission this week.

The measures will also require all newly-issued passports across the EU to feature an electronic chip containing digital pictures, names and dates of birth from August of this year.

The Irish Government has already announced plans to introduce such passports in October.

The EU measures form part of efforts to tackle international terrorism, but are also designed to meet US demands that all countries involved in the visa-waiver scheme begin producing biometric passports from this October.

I'm curious as to what your concerns about biometric passports are ?
How exactly do think they will 'oppress' you through the use of such things ?

Nick_oliveri

I think they should bugger off. I havent done anything wrong. And dont plan to in the near future. Im not a shoe bomber, a terrorist or anything else for that matter. Identity theft? Pfft, as long as i have my alibi im ok .

I wont visit America because i dont value their "supposed freedoms", i.e taking your fingerprints long before you even go to the Airport.

Anyone who doesn't see control by fear, especially within the last few years needs a reality check.

Biometric Passport Ireland, Republic of (available since 16 October 2006): €75, valid for 10 years. Free for people over 65.

The only person i want near my Iris is an eye doctor. The only time it is right for someone to have my fingerprints is when they suspect me of a crime or i have commited one and have been caught. Facial recognition? Have we lost our sight? I would have thought we could compare a photograph to a real thing. Spot the difference and all that.

Some passports, such as the Irish Passport, employ an additional encryption system which prevents the RFID chip being read without the passport being "unlocked" by the machine readable zone being read first.

If we can unlock an iphone we can unlock, read, copy and delete a RFID chip. Its just a matter of time that this secure method of identification, anti privacy card and quick airport pass will become a nightmare.

casey212

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I think they should bugger off. I havent done anything wrong. And dont plan to in the near future. Im not a shoe bomber, a terrorist or anything else for that matter. Identity theft? Pfft, as long as i have my alibi im ok .

I wont visit America because i dont value their "supposed freedoms", i.e taking your fingerprints long before you even go to the Airport.

Anyone who doesn't see control by fear, especially within the last few years needs a reality check.

Biometric Passport Ireland, Republic of (available since 16 October 2006): €75, valid for 10 years. Free for people over 65.

The only person i want near my Iris is an eye doctor. The only time it is right for someone to have my fingerprints is when they suspect me of a crime or i have commited one and have been caught. Facial recognition? Have we lost our sight? I would have thought we could compare a photograph to a real thing. Spot the difference and all that.


If we can unlock an iphone we can unlock, read, copy and delete a RFID chip. Its just a matter of time that this secure method of identification, anti privacy card and quick airport pass will become a nightmare.

Correct.

casey212

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm curious as to what your concerns about biometric passports are ?
How exactly do think they will 'oppress' you through the use of such things ?

Why would I want anyone containing personal information about me???

So you want to hand all your personal information?

Rev Hellfire

casey212 wrote: »

Why would I want anyone containing personal information about me???

So you want to hand all your personal information?

Again what information are you handing over. At present ICAO standards only require a digitised image of the face which isn't exactly a huge extra since all the information is already on the passport itself.
And the addition of a fingerprint template is hardly intrusive and helps bind the issued passport to the actual applicant reducing the potential for fraud.

I'm not sure how people can see biometrics as oppressive since the information they contain is readily available elsewhere, its not exactly difficult to obtain someone's fingerprints which offer a more detail than a template.

casey212

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Again what information are you handing over. At present ICAO standards only require a digitised image of the face which isn't exactly a huge extra since all the information is already on the passport itself.
And the addition of a fingerprint template is hardly intrusive and helps bind the issued passport to the actual applicant reducing the potential for fraud.

I'm not sure how people can see biometrics as oppressive since the information they contain is readily available elsewhere, its not exactly difficult to obtain someone's fingerprints which offer a more detail than a template.

No. Answer the question. Don't bring deception into the equation either.

Rev Hellfire

casey212 wrote: »

No. Answer the question. Don't bring deception into the equation either.

I have no problem with the relevant authorities having personal information on me, there is nothing proposed that I would have strong objections too with the exception of ID cards if the carring of them was mandatory. In which case I would most definitely want them tied to my identity using biometrics amongst other things.

Quite frankly I'm less concerned about governments than corporations having my personal details.

As for bringing ‘deception into the equation’ perhaps you’ll educate us all as to where it occurred, it sounds to me like you’re chasing phantoms.

casey212

Are you aware that vast amounts of personal information are sold to corporations by government.

The deception was in reference your statement about the illegal gaining of fingerprints. This is irrelevant.

The basic question remains; why would you want to hand over personal information, for what purpose?

Rev Hellfire

casey212 wrote: »

Are you aware that vast amounts of personal information are sold to corporations by government.

I am aware of the type of information sold and made available, but also of the type that is not. You seek to make it sound like a free for all which it is clearly not.

casey212 wrote: »

The deception was in reference your statement about the illegal gaining of fingerprints. This is irrelevant.

Hardly, you have an issue with fingerprints templates getting stored on a passport as if somehow these are precious things to be guarded jealously, that is not the case. I merely pointed out that firstly it is not a fingerprint which is stored and secondly that your finger prints are freely available.

casey212 wrote: »

The basic question remains; why would you want to hand over personal information, for what purpose?

For a myriad of reasons, biometrics alone provide a convenient way of providing credentials when performing a validation on a claim of proof of identity.

Such things would be useful at border checkpoints for pre-enrolled frequent travellers for example to expedite there movement through customs.
When included with identity cards they can help cut down on fraudulent claims for services and provide duplication checks for people who attempt to enrol multiple times (for example economic migrants can be quickly rejected or people making multiple claims on welfare). All in all for the taxpayer there are many reasons to embrace them and few if any to fear them.

Perhaps you’ll care to provide some concrete reasons as to why they should be opposed?

dr_manhattan

"I have never mentioned doom or 1984. You are creating and answering your own questions based on inferences of what I have said."

I suggest you look at the title of this thread and the first post, maybe you'd see why I'm wildly making up something to do with 1984.

"Ask yourself who created youth culture, I can assure you it was not the youth."

Okay: so HipHop was not created by a bunch of 11-17 year olds in the south bronx in the late 70s then? Punk was not created in the dive bars of new york city? Rock and roll, Jazz... who created these?

And if you're referring to current "yoof" culture mobile phone britney spears rubbish... that's not culture, that's marketing. There's a huge difference.

Not sure where your question comes from, but it's a dull one.

Regardless, as I say once again: we are nowhere near a totalitarian state and even further from 1984. I'm answering the topic.

casey212

dr_manhattan wrote: »

"I have never mentioned doom or 1984. You are creating and answering your own questions based on inferences of what I have said."

I suggest you look at the title of this thread and the first post, maybe you'd see why I'm wildly making up something to do with 1984.

"Ask yourself who created youth culture, I can assure you it was not the youth."

Okay: so HipHop was not created by a bunch of 11-17 year olds in the south bronx in the late 70s then? Punk was not created in the dive bars of new york city? Rock and roll, Jazz... who created these?

And if you're referring to current "yoof" culture mobile phone britney spears rubbish... that's not culture, that's marketing. There's a huge difference.

Not sure where your question comes from, but it's a dull one.

Regardless, as I say once again: we are nowhere near a totalitarian state and even further from 1984. I'm answering the topic.

Well try this. Why does fashion change every year. Are you trying to tell me that the people chose what is supplied in the shops???

casey212

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Perhaps you’ll care to provide some concrete reasons as to why they should be opposed?

Some reasons? Privacy, independence, security.

What would your opinion be on a cashless society

Rev Hellfire

casey212 wrote: »

Some reasons? Privacy, independence, security.

I must be stupid perhaps you'll humour me and care to explain to me how any of these are threatened if not actively enhanced though such technology.

casey212

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I must be stupid perhaps you'll humour me and care to explain to me how any of these are threatened if not actively enhanced though such technology.

Look, I can't get blood from a stone. You need to research these issues and not accept the propaganda.

dr_manhattan

"Well try this. Why does fashion change every year. Are you trying to tell me that the people chose what is supplied in the shops???"

LOL, you're confusing the fashion industry with what people choose to indulge in as "fashion": Either way, your point is moot: fashion is not forced on anyone. We may all band together and stigmatise those we deem unfashionable, but that's the closest to force feeding that ever gets done in fashion.

You're confusing "oppressive" with "oppression".

Everybody has a choice to follow or not follow fashion, to even raise it as an issue when discussing totalitarianism is hilarious.

And besides which: fashion comes from fashion designers (who are people) and from what they observe of fashion (which is people). HipHop and other street cultures have been massive influences on couture: what are you saying exactly here?

Just cos you don't like it, doesn't mean it has *anything* to do with totalitarianism or 1984. Know what soviet fashion looks like? What fashion was like in 1984? Chinese communist party fashion?

Of course you don't, that's because there isn't any.

Rev Hellfire

casey212 wrote: »

Look, I can't get blood from a stone. You need to research these issues and not accept the propaganda.

It must be the noise from the black helicopters circling overhead but I'm failing to see any substance in what you're staying.

On the topic of biometrics and their application I've fairly decent knowledge,. Perhaps you'd care to share what your research has shown.

dr_manhattan

Oh and just to put it in context:

"Well try this. Why does political theory change every year. Are you trying to tell me that the people chose what is supplied in the universities???"

"Well try this. Why does food fashion change every year. Are you trying to tell me that the people chose what is supplied in the restaurants???"

"Well try this. Why does fuel efficiency change every year. Are you trying to tell me that the people chose what is supplied in the engineering bays???"

Why does anything change every year?

casey212

dr_manhattan wrote: »

"Well try this. Why does fashion change every year. Are you trying to tell me that the people chose what is supplied in the shops???"

LOL, you're confusing the fashion industry with what people choose to indulge in as "fashion": Either way, your point is moot: fashion is not forced on anyone. We may all band together and stigmatise those we deem unfashionable, but that's the closest to force feeding that ever gets done in fashion.

You're confusing "oppressive" with "oppression".

Everybody has a choice to follow or not follow fashion, to even raise it as an issue when discussing totalitarianism is hilarious.

And besides which: fashion comes from fashion designers (who are people) and from what they observe of fashion (which is people). HipHop and other street cultures have been massive influences on couture: what are you saying exactly here?

Just cos you don't like it, doesn't mean it has *anything* to do with totalitarianism or 1984. Know what soviet fashion looks like? What fashion was like in 1984? Chinese communist party fashion?

Of course you don't, that's because there isn't any.

Stop drawing your own assumptions based on what is say. Every section of society is given their leaders and trends to follow. You are ignorant of this, that was the point I was making.

dr_manhattan

The only assumptions I can make are based on what you say. I'm beginning to think you're not very bright, somehow trying to use the fashion industry as evidence that we are "controlled"

"Every section of society is given their leaders and trends to follow."

Given by who? Sections, what sections? Who gives us our leaders and who is in control please?

"You are ignorant of this, that was the point I was making."

As I have shown in my posts, I am not ignorant of youth culture, fashion or indeed totalitarian countries. Nor am I ignorant of Biometrics, nor the technology that is used to implement Biometirc ID.

You haven't made a point yet: try not using passive verbs like "is given" and try and actually speak in a concrete fashion about what it is you are talking about. It might make sense.

Other than that, all you are saying is "ooo, biometrics, scary! We are all under state control"

Maybe you are, but I'm not.

casey212

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It must be the noise from the black helicopters circling overhead but I'm failing to see any substance in what you're staying.

On the topic of biometrics and their application I've fairly decent knowledge,. Perhaps you'd care to share what your research has shown.

I do not need to research what is so obvious to a rational mind. Also I have the ability to form personal opinions based on past experience.

Have you a knowledge of RFID technology?

casey212

dr_manhattan wrote: »

The only assumptions I can make are based on what you say. I'm beginning to think you're not very bright, somehow trying to use the fashion industry as evidence that we are "controlled"

"Every section of society is given their leaders and trends to follow."

Given by who? Sections, what sections? Who gives us our leaders and who is in control please?

"You are ignorant of this, that was the point I was making."

As I have shown in my posts, I am not ignorant of youth culture, fashion or indeed totalitarian countries. Nor am I ignorant of Biometrics, nor the technology that is used to implement Biometirc ID.

You haven't made a point yet: try not using passive verbs like "is given" and try and actually speak in a concrete fashion about what it is you are talking about. It might make sense.

Other than that, all you are saying is "ooo, biometrics, scary! We are all under state control"

Maybe you are, but I'm not.

Your stated knowledge is just dogma. Try to think independently.

"The world is run by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." Benjamin Disreali

"In the cultural grip of the media, modern societies blindly stumble from one crisis or disaster to another with the fantasized conviction that they know what they are doing, where they are going, how will they survive, who is in control, and why everything works or does not work as it should. These unconciously reinforced fantasies actually threaten survival".

Wilson Bryan Key

Rev Hellfire

Yes I do, I'm also aware of the issues associated with it.

You seem strangely reluctant to provide any tangible evidence yourself or expand upon the topic but quite happy to ask others for detail. Perhaps you'd care to answer the question specifically on the issue of biometrics, then we can deal with the issues surrounding rfid.

I look forward to your informative response.

casey212

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Yes I do, I'm also aware of the issues associated with it.

You seem strangely reluctant to provide any tangible evidence yourself or expand upon the topic but quite happy to ask others for detail. Perhaps you'd care to answer the question specifically on the issue of biometrics, then we can deal with the issues surrounding rfid.

I look forward to your informative response.

My stance on this issue has been stated. I do not want others to hold my personal data. This opinion is based on trust issues and corruption problems.

All I have asked of you is, why is this biometric information needed?

Rev Hellfire

casey212 wrote: »

My stance on this issue has been stated. I do not want others to hold my personal data. This opinion is based on trust issues and corruption problems.

So in other words you have no knowledge and are working off hunches along with quotes from indymedia.

casey212 wrote: »

All I have asked of you is, why is this biometric information needed?

I offered reasons for its use in this post and in the same post asked you for concrete reasons against its usage which you have failed to provide..

I think its pretty clear at this point that you have no knowledge of worth on the topic and can only offer vague catch words and empty gestures. But feel free to prove me wrong.

dr_manhattan

"Try to think independently."

Try not to be condescending and I just may follow your wisdom, o great one.

"The world is run by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." Benjamin Disreali

So you, presumably, have insider knowledge?

casey212

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So in other words you have no knowledge and are working off hunches along with quotes from indymedia.


I offered reasons for its use in this post and in the same post asked you for concrete reasons against its usage which you have failed to provide..

I think its pretty clear at this point that you have no knowledge of worth on the topic and can only offer vague catch words and empty gestures. But feel free to prove me wrong.

I cannot stress this enough. You are being lead blindly.

The reasons for my beliefs have been provided above. Again they are based on personal opinion not what has been promoted and accepted so widely by others. Convienence is not a valid reason for anything.

dr_manhattan

"You are being lead blindly.

The reasons for my beliefs... are based on personal opinion"

You sir, are hilarious.

casey212

dr_manhattan wrote: »

"Try to think independently."

Try not to be condescending and I just may follow your wisdom, o great one.

"The world is run by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." Benjamin Disreali

So you, presumably, have insider knowledge?

Read the works of H.G. Wells, Betrand Russell, Edward Bernays and even Plato. Everything is stated in black and white. No opinions on my part need be involved.

Bernays was the father of propaganda, his work alone would dispell many of your opinions. I only reference other work as many people would be skeptical.