LF: Surveillance: You’d Better Chose Wisely

I’ve often joked that George Orwell’s novel 1984 was meant to be a warning, not an instruction manual. And yet every day the U.S. marches closer and closer to making Orwell’s dystopian nightmare a reality.

Nobody wants this. So, why is it happening? Because way too many people do want the intermediate steps that necessarily lead to Orwell’s vision.

In the opening chapter of the book, Orwell drops the reader into a fully functioning, all-encompassing surveillance state. He hints at the path society took leading up to the omnipresent gaze of Big Brother, but the reader doesn’t experience the slow erosion of privacy and the gradual expansion of government power that eventually developed into the society we experience in 1984.

Consider this: at some point in the past, Orwell’s fictional world would have probably looked a lot like ours. Big Brother wasn’t watching every citizen’s every move. There weren’t cameras on every corner and microphones in every building. It wasn’t like the people of that society woke up one day and found Big Brother peering into their living rooms. Step-by-step, over time, society and the government evolved into the totalitarian surveillance state we experience in the novel.

Are we on a similar path right here in the good ol’ US of A?

I’ve never heard anybody say they would like to live in an absolute surveillance state like the one described by Orwell. Nobody reads the book and says, “That’s the kind of future I want!” Readers generally recoil in horror at the prospect of ever-present government eavesdropping and totalitarian control over their every utterance and even their thoughts.

The problem is that a lot of people are perfectly fine with the incremental steps that eventually lead to that point.

They want ICE to use facial recognition technology to “ferret out illegal immigrants.” They want the NSA to vacuum up cellphone calls and emails to “protect them from the terrorists.” They want police to use stingray devices to track down “dangerous criminals and drug dealers.”

After all, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”

Do you want to know how we get to an Orwellian surveillance state? This is exactly how we get to an Orwellian surveillance state.

One step at a time. One new surveillance technology at a time. One small violation of the Fourth Amendment at a time.

Eventually, you end up with Big Brother in your living room. When you get to that point, it’s too late.

You may think, I don’t want Big Brother. I just want the government to protect me. Well, I doubt the people living in Orwell’s fictional world wanted Big Brother either. But they got Big Brother. When you start walking down a path, you’re eventually going to get to the destination.

It’s nonsensical to claim you don’t want an all-encompassing surveillance state while simultaneously supporting the policies that eventually lead to an all-encompassing surveillance state.

The Fourth Amendment was intended to serve as a line in the sand that the federal government must not cross, no matter what. But when we allow politicians to put even one toe across that line, it will almost certainly lead to bigger violations of your rights down the road.

Writing as “A Farmer in Pennsylvania” in the years leading up to the American Revolution, John Dickinson warned about the gradual, step-by-step encroachment of government power.

“All artful rulers, who strive to extend their power beyond its just limits, endeavor to give to their attempts as much semblance of legality as possible. Those who succeed them may venture to go a little further; for each new encroachment will be strengthened by a former. ‘That which is now supported by examples, growing old, will become an example itself,’ and thus support fresh usurpations.”

The BIll of Rights in general and the Fourth Amendment specifically, were intended to prevent fear-driven infringements of your basic right to privacy during a crisis. It doesn’t allow for exceptions and it doesn’t care whether or not you have something to hide. When you erase that line, it’s gone forever.

So, are you going to support the policies that will lead us to an Orwellian surveillance state? Or are you going to oppose the Orwellian surveillance state? You can’t have it both ways.

You’d better chose wisely.

It was that Orwellian surveillance state that solved who the two assholes were that caused the Boston bombing.... amongst MILLIONS of other shootings, fatal hit at runs, armed robberies and even two reverse racist African’s that took 3500 bucks from a black faggot actor... trying to promote faggotry and race division.

The one where the entire city was locked down and houses were searched without warrants?

I guess we can add you to the “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” category

It was that same surveillance state that paid the family of the Boston bombers to become refugees here, take advantage of welfare and free schools. And it brought the two Africans here to become the accomplices of Smollett.

The surveillance state really cares nothing about safety. They sure do like to import a lot of foreigners. It helps keep the ruling classes awash in money by importing backward Third World populations here.

The goal of the surveillance state is Surveillance World. Under U.S. control. Safety of citizens is a very distant concern, ranking well behind cheap compliant labor and other objectives.

Grand Island: It was that Orwellian surveillance state that solved who the two assholes were that caused the Boston bombing....
Deckard: Oh, the false flag op?

I missed where it was determined to be a “false flag op.” Can you please show this ole timer how it was a covert operation and what it was designed to deceive in order to create the appearance of what particular party, group, or nation was actually responsible for the activity – thusly disguising the actual source of responsibility laid on the two individuals. I will sincerely be indebted to you for your effort to do this.

The [successful Boston bombings police manhunt] where the entire city was locked down and houses were searched without warrants?

Yes. You got it right. That is the one that happened when two bombs go off within 12 seconds of each other near the Boston Marathon finish line, where thousands had gathered to cheer the incoming distance runners and three people are killed, including an eight-year-old child, and 264 injured.

Of course - the surveillance is only in use to catch the "bad guys", right?

And surveillance did assist in catching the “bad guy.” A helicopter with sophisticated infrared cameras helped police confirm a person was in a trailered boat in a Watertown, Mass., backyard on that Friday night.

I guess we can add you to the “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” category.

Why would you guess this? How does it fit in?

End of Story – In a shoot-out, Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed and several police officers injured and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been sentenced to death.

GREAT JOB – LEOs …

Salute,
Gatlin

It is important to remember – as Glenn Greenwald points out – the FBI has been “positive” about the guilt of numerous people who were totally innocent:

Of course, it turns out that the bombing suspect didn’t have a single weapon when all of the troops were sent in and police shot hundreds of rounds at him. He also never robbed a 7-11, as was claimed at first.

Indeed, the high-tech manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has reminded a lot of people of Running Man … the distopian Arnold Schwarzenegger movie where – after Schwarzenegger is framed – high-tech assassins are sent out to get him.

Again, we are not saying that Tsarnaev is innocent. We have no idea of his innocence or guilt.

But sending in overwhelming military and police force to get one 19-year old under ever-shifting explanations makes me a little nervous.

Many Americans assume that this was just a one-time emergency. After all, a terrorist who had allegedly killed and wounded many innocents was on the run … and had supposedly thrown more pressure cooker bombs at police.

Forced lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.

These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.

What has been sadly forgotten in all the celebration of the capture of one suspect and the killing of his older brother is that the police state tactics in Boston did absolutely nothing to catch them. While the media crowed that the apprehension of the suspects was a triumph of the new surveillance state – and, predictably, many talking heads and Members of Congress called for even more government cameras pointed at the rest of us – the fact is none of this caught the suspect. Actually, it very nearly gave the suspect a chance to make a getaway.

The “shelter in place” command imposed by the governor of Massachusetts was lifted before the suspect was caught. Only after this police state move was ended did the owner of the boat go outside to check on his property, and in so doing discover the suspect.

No, the suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public. He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.

Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in Boston.

Three people were killed in Boston and that is tragic. But what of the fact that over 40 persons are killed in the United States each day, and sometimes ten persons can be killed in one city on any given weekend? These cities are not locked-down by paramilitary police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent citizens.

This is unprecedented and is very dangerous. We must educate ourselves and others about our precious civil liberties to ensure that we never accept demands that we give up our Constitution so that the government can pretend to protect us.

Former Congressman Paul’s article first appeared at the-free-foundation.org, the temporary home for his weekly column until his personal web page is up and running.

It is important to remember …

It is more important to know that your “copy and paste” once again proves absolutely nothing.

Ping me when you have arrest records and trial transcripts of any convictions.

Thank you …

Salute,
Gatlin

End of Story – In a shoot-out, Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed and several police officers injured and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been sentenced to death.

Thank you for your insignificant “copy and paste” that reads like a story about a baby crying over spilled milk.

It worthlessly offers demonstrative speculation and expresses fruitless regret about something that has already happened and cannot be changed.

Salute,
Gatlin

The world is full of violent enemies, including enemy nations that would have destroyed ours if they could have. Faced with those threats, we built a big military and fought them. Of course, when you build a big military, a lot of things happen. The cost is huge, so taxes have to go up, and because people are greedy, if taxes are not enforced, people will not pay them. Therefore, there has to be some auditing and supervision of taxpaying. If there isn't any, you will have massive non-compliance. And if people don't pay the taxes, you won't have the big military, and then you will be crushed by the Nazis or by the Communists or by the Imperial Japanese.

Of course, the surveillance and auditing needed to enforce taxation, to build the military, is a step down the road to Big Brother. And it's a step that is well worth taking because the alternative is to certainly be conquered by the Nazis.

Do you know WHY there are no libertarian societies anywhere in the world, and never have been, and never will be, or CAN be? Because their organized non-libertarian neighbors devour them by force whenever they pop up. People who are free of all government restraint have no government, for a little while. Then they get a FOREIGN government imposed on them by force because they are too weak and too disorganized to be able to resist it.

To resist foreigners, you need an army. If there are big enemies, you need a big one. To have a big army, you have to pay for it. To pay for it, you have to collect taxes. People don't like having their money taken for taxes, so they won't pay them, unless you coerce them by threat and force.

Yes, TO A DEGREE that makes you like the foreigners who want to conquer you. But that degree is acceptable, because the foreigners will not just conquer you, they will UTTERLY enslave you, rape your wife and daughter, torture you and rape you and reduce you to an insect. The foreigners will do to YOU what WE did to the Indians and the Blacks - exploit you as a slave and kill you off if you're uppity.

And yes, it's FAR worse to be conquered by foreigners then to admit that you HAVE TO sacrifice SOME of your liberty in order to have the security of the big army to protect you.

Sure, your own government CAN become oppressive, it CAN go down that road of necessity to becoming almost as bad as a foreign conqueror. And guess what, dealing with threats and dangerous things is what adults do. The minute you hook your house up to electricity, you run the risk of being burnt alive in your sleep by a fault, you risk your children dying from electrocution. You risk rats chewing the wires. You risk water coming in through the junction box. You add all sorts of risks, potentially deadly ones. So, then, shall you "be safe" and not take the step of hooking up to electricity at all, and live there dirty, cold and dark, like some medieval serf because ANY STEP towards electrifying means DANGER?

Yes, any step towards law enforcement, towards defense - it all costs money, and it always means some loss of liberty.

And yes, a people that will trade SOME liberty for security is smart, sane and civilized. Any man who refuses to trade some liberty for a proportionately valuable bit of security will end up a dirty, starving slave of his belly, because he is so afraid of cooperating with anybody that he end up being dominated by the first two or three people who decide to dominate him. One man can't stand against three, and without cooperation and organization - which ALWAYS comes at the price of giving up some freedom of action - then every man stands alone.

Men won't stand alone because they are not stupid. We sacrifice quite a bit of personal liberty because we know that with ABSOLUTE liberty we all die in our teens, but that with civilization we live to 100.

Wolves live for 6 years in the wild, 20 in the zoo. People have built a worldwide zoo for ourselves, because truly living in the wild makes us prey - not just of animals, but of other organized men.

What is nonsensical is claiming that you want to live free, while simultaneously refusing to accept the restrictions on freedom that are required to allow you to continue to do it.

The men who will not sacrifice some liberty for security end up having neither, because they are conquered by the more intelligent people who will.

It has always struck me how relatively little attention was given to this example of jackboot government run amok in Boston compared to the endless stream of invective over Ruby Ridge. Boston worried me a lot more than Ruby Ridge ever did.

It wasn't the bombing, bad as it was, that was destructive to the country. It was the federal/state/local reaction that was so much worse than the actual bombing itself.

The Boston bombing illustrated the full blossoming of the rotten post-9/11 security state, lawless, naked and proud.

The cops killed one and caught the other... while all you did was complain from your computer.

Of course. Because “surveillance” doesn’t make anyone safer, any more than any LAW or BAN does. But like LAWS & BANS, “surveillance” allows for the ability to punish those that victimize my American peers and remove their FREEDOMS, due to criminal conduct against them.

While Dickard shits his geriatric diapers in fear of the Boston Police, coming for him, from several states away, the local authorities showed up, kicked ass... and all went home after the mission completed... what a police state that is. lol

Well, the system doesn't seem to work all that well, if you don't mind my saying so.

It might not work “well”, but this constitutional republic has the best criminal justice system, on the rock.

Well, maybe it will improve over the next century. If you don't mind my saying so. : )