Universal Broadband - 1984 come to life?

detriment

I saw another story on the news today about attempts to introduce "universal broadband", this one in the UK. Apparently the British government wants every home to have broadband by a certain date.

Am I the only one who finds it a little fishy that there seems to be so much focus by governments around the world on introducing broadband for everyone? Am I the only one who is deeply suspicious of the updates carried out every day by free anti-virus software?

Given that most of the internet consists of random crap like you find on this website, why are governments so adamant that everybody have it? I think there's a concerted attempt going on here to enable the surveillance of everybody in society. I think that the British police or the Irish Gardai could potentially use information about websites visited to blackmail just about everybody into doing what they want. Does anybody agree with me here?

Dr. Baltar

Because Broadband attracts businesses and businesses bring in money.

flogen

Universal broadband is the opposite of Orwellian.

Even the Chinese firewall, which is the most restrictive internet service in the world, cannot hold back prohibited information from users with a handful of technical know-how.

States looking to have control its people would not want to give them access to something that allows for free discussion, distribution of ideas and consumption of unmonitored opinion.

detriment

flogen wrote: »

Universal broadband is the opposite of Orwellian.

Even the Chinese firewall, which is the most restrictive internet service in the world, cannot hold back prohibited information from users with a handful of technical know-how.

States looking to have control its people would not want to give them access to something that allows for free discussion, distribution of ideas and consumption of unmonitored opinion.

I don't think freedom of information is inconsistent with a surveillance society. Look at the development in the US with the Patriot Act, and in the UK with the prevalence of CCTV. In the US furthermore, the government has forced broadband providers to allow for government surveillance in all their systems. We already know that antivirus programmes are designed to ignore some kinds of surveillance. My problem here is that police organizations which already have too much power can use people's browsing history and email correspondence to manipulate them. We've seen the disturbing police abuses in the UK already, when they've been given a little extra power.

irishgrover

detriment wrote: »

...We already know that antivirus programmes are designed to ignore some kinds of surveillance.....

I'm not disputing you here, but I'm unaware of this, can you provide some additional information on this?
thanks

monument

flogen wrote: »

Universal broadband is the opposite of Orwellian

In part it is. But, in part, it can and is being used for mass surveillance of everybody, not just criminals or suspects. Same goes for mobile phones. Sounds like the stuff of conspiracy theories? Before reading about EU and Irish data retention, I would have agreed.

It's just like many tools or bits of tech, it can be used for good or bad, sometimes both.

detriment wrote: »

Am I the only one who finds it a little fishy that there seems to be so much focus by governments around the world on introducing broadband for everyone? Am I the only one who is deeply suspicious of the updates carried out every day by free anti-virus software?

...

Given that most of the internet consists of random crap like you find on this website, why are governments so adamant that everybody have it?

Like random conspiracy theories where there is no need for such?

detriment wrote: »

I think there's a concerted attempt going on here to enable the surveillance of everybody in society.

Yes, there is. It's EU-wide data retention. And it has been reported on in the Irish Times etc. Like most things done in the name of security it has been done quite openly.

kowloon

If decent broadband, up to par with what you get in the city, ever arrives out in the country, I will eat my own face.

civildefence

Maybe better luck in this forum:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

flogen

detriment wrote: »

I don't think freedom of information is inconsistent with a surveillance society. Look at the development in the US with the Patriot Act, and in the UK with the prevalence of CCTV. In the US furthermore, the government has forced broadband providers to allow for government surveillance in all their systems. We already know that antivirus programmes are designed to ignore some kinds of surveillance. My problem here is that police organizations which already have too much power can use people's browsing history and email correspondence to manipulate them. We've seen the disturbing police abuses in the UK already, when they've been given a little extra power.

While data retention worries me as much as it should worry anyone the idea of full surveillance of millions of broadband connections seems impractial to me.

I think if a state wanted to monitor its citizens closer, as impractical as that would be, it would find cheaper ways of doing so than giving them all broadband.

monument wrote: »

In part it is. But, in part, it can and is being used for mass surveillance of everybody, not just criminals or suspects. Same goes for mobile phones. Sounds like the stuff of conspiracy theories? Before reading about EU and Irish data retention, I would have agreed.

It's just like many tools or bits of tech, it can be used for good or bad, sometimes both.

As I said above, such mass surveillance would require huge manpower - arguably more people to watch than be watched. That's not to say that the technology has no bad uses and of course there is potential (and in some quarters a willing) for it to be abused.

Regardless it's certainly not 1984 realised.

monument

First off, just to be clear, I don't buy into the plot that broadband roll-out is been done for sinister reasons. That's the stuff or conspiracy theories.

But the out come of data retention is open to be just as bad.

flogen wrote: »

As I said above, such mass surveillance would require huge manpower - arguably more people to watch than be watched. That's not to say that the technology has no bad uses and of course there is potential (and in some quarters a willing) for it to be abused.

Sure, it's problematic to sort data once collected.

However, say, for example, a minister wants to keep an eye on a journalist as has been done before in Ireland, illegally in that case. Now, with data retention of phone and internet networks you straight away have a multiply, one could now start watching the one journalist and everybody they are in contact with, and this can be done with ease.

Followed on from this, technology also can allow for automatic flagging of data depending on behaviour, patterns etc.

flogen wrote: »

Regardless it's certainly not 1984 realised.

Yes, I agree that it is not 1984 realised. But, on the other hand, what is included in data retention goes way beyond what Orwell had in mind. He never thought everybody would have a tracking device in their pockets, or that people would be communicating so much electrically.

Again, my problem is how data retention is open to abuse, I don't think there is a mass conspiracy for abuse. I'd more put it down to mass foolishness by the EU and its governments.