“1984”…A Warning, Not An Instruction Manual

March 27, 2009 at 2:00 am

Although the Spectator has gone downhill of late, it is still worth a read, and TheEye gets a regular copy. Although part of a larger article about Jade Goody, this slightly off topic paragraph stood out.

“What the author of Nineteen Eighty-Four could never have predicted is that the citizens would subject themselves to the scrutiny of the cameras voluntarily. The deeper threat to human dignity in 2009 is not state surveillance but pathological exhibitionism. In so many respects, what Orwell foretold has come to pass — with the crucial difference that it has been embraced by consumers not imposed upon them by the totalitarian state.”

It chimes in horribly with this from the Mirror:

“Counter-terror powers to spy on people have been used 10,333 times by councils for things as trivial as dog fouling.
The 10,333 council operations also targeted benefit fraud, fly tipping, theft and graffiti damage.
Just nine per cent of them led to a successful prosecution, caution or fixed-penalty notice.
Ministers are now promising to carry out a review to ensure the powers are not abused.
10,333 Number of times town halls used anti-terror laws to spy on people.
0 Number of times town halls used anti-terror laws in terror offences.”

The Telegraph has also carried a list of the strangest uses of the so-called anti-terror laws.

TheEye was particularly spooked by “establishing the identities of those taking fairy lights from a Christmas tree”, although considering that Gordoom isn’t able to run a whelk stall then “illegal sale of shellfish” seemed appropriate, and looking at Harriet Harperson “changing the identity of cattle” also figures. Looking for “overcharging by taxi drivers” seems pointless as it’d be too trivial. Finding one which charged fairly would provide much more of a challenge.

LPUK recently sent out copies of “1984” to every MP with the slogan used in the title of this post. They have a point. According to DK, all of the LibDums who bothered to reply to the gift ironically failed to understand why they had been sent it.