MESSAGE
| DATE | 2015-09-13 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] So much for gun control
|
https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2015/08/not-long-ago-we-shot-automated-surveillance-literally-when-did-we-start-accepting-it/
Not Long Ago, We Shot Automated Surveillance (Literally). When Did We
Start Accepting It?
*When automated speed traps were introduced to Sweden in the 1990s, they
were shot. Literally. Citizens were so outraged at the idea of being
automatically fined, the speed cameras were destroyed with shotguns (!),
or just about in any way conceivable: the average lifespan of a brand
new police speed camera was 14 days. They were removed for a decade,
then reintroduced en masse without any resistance at all. What happened?*
There was an important identity change in as the 1990s decade came
around. In the 1980s, the West’s entire identity had been “We are not
/them/.” And /them/, they were the countries east of the Iron Curtain,
the countries that had automated surveillance of all their citizens, all
the time. It was a false image
and a false identity, of course, but a strong identity nonetheless.
If you had told people about the Echelon
surveillance network in the
1980s, nobody would have believed you. That was the stuff of Soviet
repression, not of the free West. Perhaps due to this indoctrination –
that the West’s indentity was liberty and individual rights – was the
reaction so harsh to automated surveillance, harsh enough for people in
a country with draconian gun laws to destroy police property with
shotguns. The strength of this civil disobedience is not to be understated.
So what happened when the automated speed cameras were rolled out a
second time?
The principal geopolitical difference was that there was no longer any
repressive power to polarize against. To make a long story short, people
no longer cared about making a difference in the way they had in the
1980s, at the brink of nuclear annihilation and when people felt they
had to take a stand. Instead, all the “positive cost savings and
increase in traffic safety” could dominate the discourse, and so,
automated speed traps were rolled out en masse.
The observation here is that a population’s identity is key to whether
it cares about civil liberties or not. And paradoxically, it appears to
help to have a neighbor that does /not/ care about such liberties – or
there won’t be something to compare to.
How do we go back to a sentiment where people would care so much for
liberties that they were ready to destroy automated police equipment
that was used for mass surveillance, risking long prison sentences in
the process? Is it even possible? I don’t have a clear answer to this
question.
However, I do know that in the meantime, privacy remains your own
responsibility.
Rick Falkvinge
About Rick Falkvinge
Rick is the founder of the first Pirate Party and is a political
evangelist, traveling around Europe and the world to talk and write
about ideas of a sensible information policy. He has a tech entrepreneur
background and loves whisky. Read more of his articles on his website
.
|
|
