1
   

America, The Sexy Fascist State

 
 
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2007 03:12 pm
America, The Sexy Fascist State
Surveillance cameras are booming. The question is, do they make your butt look big?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Mark Morford


Friday, August 24, 2007

I like to picture it, if I have to picture it at all, as some sort of giant, low-lit converted warehouse, loosely staffed with a haphazard gaggle of scraggy, perpetually hung-over former frat guys and ex-cops and disgruntled former bank tellers all staring numbly at banks of 10-year-old black-and-white Dell monitors set about in a scattershot array of worn gray cubicles, all smelling of stale coffee and overloaded electrical outlets and tiny lost dreams.

They are wary, these government workers, these data miners. They are jaded, burned out, sighing heavily. After all, they know it's all some big in-joke, this supposedly ominous government surveillance thing, all the cameras and the wiretapping and the Internet scouring. I mean, isn't it?

And the joke only got worse when they were all hired en masse by a nebulous substrata of the sprawling and highly ineffective Department of Homeland Security to somehow sift through 10,000 hours of random urban surveillance-camera footage every week and 2 million Web site histories and countless witless phone conversations all of people chatting annoyingly about, you know, work, and relationships, and how tired they are, and how drunk they got last night, and nothing much at all, right alongside endless digital video of citizens walking around picking their noses and scratching their butts and looking confused and happy and miserable and lost and found and occasionally smoking a joint or buying porn or stealing a pack of gum or parallel parking very, very poorly. Fun!

Is this accurate? A likely scenario? Well, maybe. One thing we can be relatively sure of: It doesn't look anything like the edgy high-tech surveillance rooms in, say, "24," or "Las Vegas," or even "Minority Report," all packed with savvy, sexy, hyper-intelligent hipster dudes and sleek geeky babes all scouring gorgeous hi-def TVs and using top-secret NASA technology to zoom in on individual faces and retinas and fingerprints and hair follicles of just about anyone at all, on the fly, in a matter of seconds, always catching their swarthy criminal by episode's end. Would that we were so savvy. And cool. And effective. And interesting. And smart.

Perhaps this is but one of the funny and ironic things about the alarmism over America's increasing surveillance culture, which spills over into Bushco's disgusting and unconstitutional domestic wiretapping law, which points up the larger and more draconian issues surrounding the increasing lack of privacy in our daily lives overall.

It all seems very ugly and sinister and Big Brother-ish, as ominous and frightening and wrong as Dick Cheney strolling through a Vermont kindergarten, right up until you stop and think: Wait, human beings are running all this? The government? Our government, the one that can't even walk and chew gum and run an insanely botched war at the same time? And we think they can somehow keep track of the behavior of 400 million Americans and much of the Middle East using a bunch of cameras and some filtering software? Can it really be all that dangerous? You have to wonder.

And then there's this: Apparently, no one's watching. Despite all the fancy urban cameras and all the idealistic talk about thwarting gun crimes and drug dealers and pedophiles and gay people kissing publicly in downtown Salt Lake City, the bottom line is, cameras largely don't work as a deterrent (just ask the whopping 4 million cameras installed all over England), cops are far too overworked and backlogged to check most of the footage anyway (witness the story about San Francisco's own housing projects: lots of spiffy cameras, no viewers, only one arrest in two years), and, despite the American Civil Liberties Union's entirely appropriate ultra-cautionary stance, most people just see these cameras and, well, shrug.

And then smile. And then fix their hair. And hope the camera catches their good side and doesn't make their ass look huge or their double chin too obvious. Surveillance society? Pshaw. It's a celebrity society, baby. Everyone wants to be on television, no matter what kind of television it is.

It's truly a fascinating and convoluted issue, this surveillance thing, largely because it is, both morally and culturally, nearly impossible to nail down. Are cameras and wiretapping and secret GPS systems and Google Maps and so forth a huge invasion of privacy? Well, yes. Do citizens, by a surprising margin, still say they want more cameras anyway? Yes again. Is this creepy and odd and telling? Absolutely. Is it also somewhat understandable, given the public's frustration with crime and our government's general ineptitude, all undercut by a sad, ironic willingness to spend millions of tax dollars installing technology to watch for crime, as opposed to actually trying to solve the issues that cause those crimes in the first place? Bingo.

And to top it all off, is the MySpace generation -- the most shameless, fearless, blog-ready, on-camera, broadcast-everything generation in history -- already preemptively rolling its collective eyes at the whole issue, saying what's the big deal? You bet it is.

No matter. For now, surveillance is hot all over the world. Pop culture, for one, seems to be reveling in the idea, from the mad popularity of the aforementioned Google Maps to GPS-enabled cellphones to Hollywood itself, which is latching onto the hysteria by way of all sorts of creepy flicks, like the upcoming "Rendition", all about a swell, upstanding family man who's mistaken for a terrorist at the airport and is secretly whisked off to one of BushCo's beloved European torture prisons while a frantic Reese Witherspoon goes totally crazy looking for him. (Note: Dick Cheney reportedly declined a cameo as the guy who gets to stick the electrodes on prisoners' genitalia.)

Hey, it could happen. Innocent people disappearing! Black SUVs at the door! Rebellion and independent thought snuffed out like a candle! Not at all difficult to believe, really, what with the fascist, famously dissent-crushing approach of the Bush regime of these many miserable years. Hell, add some face-recognition technology to the surveillance footage of that anti-Bush political rally, and watch the GOP dogs go on the attack. What, you don't think it can happen? Is happening? Has already happened?

Hmm ... So maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe it's far more ugly and sinister than I imagine, and there's far more effective and hostile government/police surveillance happening all over our society, right now. And from the looks of it, there's a great deal more to come. RFID chip implants. Spy satellites. Tracking devices on school uniforms. Computer-encrypted ID cards -- like those being issued in China, right now -- packed with far more personal info than you imagine. Cameras popping up in schools, small towns, children's playgrounds, your shower. Yes indeed, it would seem that surveillance society is upon us, full force, cameras soon enveloping us all like a swarm of cold, ruthless bees.

It all comes down, I suppose, to how you choose to see it: It's either incredibly disturbing and shockingly dangerous and illuminates a rather ugly side of the failed human experiment, or it's all just a bit silly, hugely flawed, laughably inept.

Then again, much like the Bush regime itself, it's probably both.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 968 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2007 05:16 pm
@aaronssongs,
You and I both need therapy -- you, for creating this thread, and I, for reading it.
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2007 06:27 pm
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;32712 wrote:
You and I both need therapy -- you, for creating this thread, and I, for reading it.


Really....freedom of the press is in the Bill of Rights...you would suppress that right...you know, you have the right to disagree, but you don't have the right to suppress anything, just because you don't agree with it....you Republicans and conservatives say a whole lot of "stuff" I'd love to suppress, if you really want to know.
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2007 08:21 pm
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;32718 wrote:
Really....freedom of the press is in the Bill of Rights...you would suppress that right...you know, you have the right to disagree, but you don't have the right to suppress anything, just because you don't agree with it....you Republicans and conservatives say a whole lot of "stuff" I'd love to suppress, if you really want to know.


I only want to suppress you. That's all. Is that excessive?:dunno:
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2007 10:27 am
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;32723 wrote:
I only want to suppress you. That's all. Is that excessive?:dunno:


excessive? perhaps. More "misguided", because though you have tried, you must realize that I cannot be suppressed, except through banishment, which clearly describes your fear "of a black hat"...you would seek to suppress or silence that which you fear or loathe. Typical.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2007 11:50 am
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;32762 wrote:
excessive? perhaps. More "misguided", because though you have tried, you must realize that I cannot be suppressed, except through banishment, which clearly describes your fear "of a black hat"...you would seek to suppress or silence that which you fear or loathe. Typical.

Sure you can, you've supressed yourself a few times already. You say your leaving then you leave then you come back then you leave again then you come back again. Oh, and suppression is only an edit button away.
0 Replies
 
Red cv
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2007 12:03 pm
@aaronssongs,
Take to the street and demand your civil liberties back, it's as simple as that.
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2007 05:26 am
@aaronssongs,
Does it bother you that I'm back....if so, good, then I have done what I set out to do. Bother and confuse. Torment, if I can. Discourse, if you're able. Wishful thinking. Sorry.
0 Replies
 
tvsej
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2007 05:34 am
@aaronssongs,
I am glad you are back with conflicting views between you and Pino, I missed the entertainment with my morning coffee. T.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2007 10:34 am
@aaronssongs,
LOL. it does get addictive, Coffee i mean, LOL.
0 Replies
 
RedOct
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2007 02:22 pm
@aaronssongs,
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the 342-page first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on October 27, 2001, by 98-1 vote. On Jan. 10, 2003, Ashcroft sent around a 87-page draft of PATRIOT II, "The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" - "filling in the holes" of PATRIOT I, "refining things that will enable us to do our job", before it was leaked out by someone in the DOJ. Here's what it called for:

Americans could have their citizenship revoked, if found to have contributed "material support" to organizations deemed by the government, even retroactively, to be "terrorist." As Hentoff wrote in the Feb. 28 Village Voice: "Until now, in our law, an American could only lose his or her citizenship by declaring a clear intent to abandon it. But -- and read this carefully from the new bill -- 'the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.'" (Italics Hentoff's.)

Legal permanent residents (like, say, my French wife), could be deported instantaneously, without a criminal charge or even evidence, if the Attorney General considers them a threat to national security. If they commit minor, non-terrorist offenses, they can still be booted out, without so much as a day in court, because the law would exempt habeas corpus review in some cases. As the American Civil Liberties Union stated in its long brief against the DSEA, "Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus -- a protection guaranteed by the Constitution - since the Civil War."

The government would be instructed to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at "detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activities." Samples could be collected without a court order; one need only be suspected of wrongdoing by a law enforcement officer. Those refusing the cheek-swab could be fined $200,000 and jailed for a year. "Because no federal genetic privacy law regulates DNA databases, privacy advocates fear that the data they contain could be misused," Wired News reported March 31. "People with 'flawed' DNA have already suffered genetic discrimination at the hands of employers, insurance companies and the government."

Authorities could wiretap anybody for 15 days, and snoop on anyone's Internet usage (including chat and email), all without obtaining a warrant.

The government would be specifically instructed not to release any information about detainees held on suspicion of terrorist activities, until they are actually charged with a crime. Or, as Hentoff put it, "for the first time in U.S. history, secret arrests will be specifically permitted."

Businesses that rat on their customers to the Feds -- even if the information violates privacy agreements, or is, in fact, dead wrong -- would be granted immunity. "Such immunity," the ACLU contended, "could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft's Operation TIPS."

Police officers carrying out illegal searches would also be granted legal immunity if they were just carrying out orders.

Federal "consent decrees" limiting local law enforcement agencies' abilities to spy on citizens in their jurisdiction would be rolled back. As Howard Simon, executive director of Florida's ACLU, noted in a March 19 column in the Sarasota Herald Tribune: "The restrictions on political surveillance were hard-fought victories for civil liberties during the 1970s."

American citizens could be subject to secret surveillance by their own government on behalf of foreign countries, including dictatorships.

The death penalty would be expanded to cover 15 new offenses.
0 Replies
 
politically-wrong
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 07:48 am
@Red cv,
Red;32772 wrote:
Take to the street and demand your civil liberties back, it's as simple as that.


i wish it was that simple here too
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 03:40 pm
@politically-wrong,
politically-wrong;33006 wrote:
i wish it was that simple here too


PUH-LEEZE!
It was Bush and Co. (with Gonzales) who severely stripped away the remaining liberties we had...now, hopefully, the Democratic President-to-be, will restore them. How any Republican can justify what has been done to us as Americans, is beyond me. It's beyond shameful. It's criminal.
0 Replies
 
socalgolfguy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 04:05 pm
@aaronssongs,
Does it make your butt look big????????????????????
What kind of friggin' question is that? Once again, you continue to amaze me.
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 05:28 pm
@socalgolfguy,
socalgolfguy;33135 wrote:
Does it make your butt look big????????????????????
What kind of friggin' question is that? Once again, you continue to amaze me.


Are you well?
socalgolfguy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 06:22 pm
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;33158 wrote:
Are you well?


just keep your eyes off my butt
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 07:01 pm
@socalgolfguy,
socalgolfguy;33175 wrote:
just keep your eyes off my butt


You're not well.
Frankly sir, I could care less about you and your butt...never saw it, never want to see it...I don't understand how it got to be even an issue, as I'm happily married, and don't cheat, and wouldn't know where to view your butt if I were interested. You, on the otherhand, seem to make sexual innuendo toward any and all females in the forum...some of us are offended.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » America, The Sexy Fascist State
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 10:41:47