http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/002285.html#002285

That is one really, really disturbing poster. Visions of 1984 are dancing around the room. What do you Brits think about this?

[ November 01, 2002, 05:17: Message edited by: AMaster ]

****, what's that suppose to mean? Creeps me out....

Admittedly, the poster is ridiculous. Nevertheless, I truly believe that Big Brother's entitled to do all the peering and peeping he deems fit as long as the surveillance occurs in the public domain. People are simply going to have to get used to the fact that once you've stepped out into the world, you've consequently forfeited your right to what might be called "image" privacy. Celebrities have known this for some time now. Store owners know it too. And I have yet to hear of the customer who demands that the store owner stop filming them with his or her security camera because their image "is their own." That's because it's not. Not when you're standing on someone else's property. And despite what you may think about your rights as a tax paying citizen, the public domain ( any place outside of your own home ) doesn't belong to you. If you don't believe me, go try to build a house in your local park.

But let's be clear about one thing - this in no way means that Big Brother ( merely a surveillance apparatus ) is entitled to have you arrested without just cause, or any such nonsense like that. And it certainly doesn't give Big Brother the right to strap you into a chair and place a cage over your head, with the cage itself containing two starved rats eager to tear your face apart and then burrow into your brain through your eye sockets if you don't say, "I love you Big Brother," and truly mean it. Of course Orwell's 1984 is a brilliant piece of work. At the same time it's given rise to so much paranoia that I sometimes wish it'd never been written. What's everyone afraid of? If you're not planning on doing something criminal, don't sweat it. For the laws that prevent the current police force from infringing upon your rights are not simply going to vanish because the government decides to install surveillance cameras in public places.

In short, I really welcome these sorts of crime preventing measures. And even if surveillance cameras don't reduce the number of crimes that are being committed, you can be sure that they'll reduce the number of criminals getting away with it. So smile, because Big Brother's watching and it really ain't no biggy.

If the author really believes that there is heavier surveillance in England than anywhere else, he should take a nice vacation in Monaco. I used to live in Monaco, and initially found it hard to stomach all the security cameras lining the streets. But then I read about Prince Rainier's motivation, which was essentially, "I want a country where women can walk down the streets in a million dollars' worth of diamonds and not be afraid." In case you don't know any Monegasque history, many years ago *all* taxes were eliminated and replaced with government-sponsored casinos that only tourists were allowed to use; thus, they provide an influx of money into Monaco without costing its citizens a penny or ever impoverishing a Monegasque. So, having rich women there is essential to the economy. I don't, unfortunately, own a million dollars' worth of diamonds but I did walk home late at night through tortuous and virtually unlit streets, armed only with a baguette, and I never ever felt afraid. So as far as I'm concerned, Bravo Prince Rainier.

I think that as the poster above indicated, the real concern is not "who's watching" but ensuring that punishable crime is reasonably defined and that the civil rights of the accused are respected. And England is definitely *not* the worst offender where those things are concerned.

I went to London today, and that poster featured five times on the same street.

To be honest, I prefer the Smirnoff ones - much funnier.