US and UK have become "endemic" surveillance societies

A new report out from Privacy International (UK) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (US) claims that both countries now feature “endemic” surveillance.

Link: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071231-us-and-uk-have-become-endemic-surveillance-societies.html

:cool::cool:

Yes even in small rural counties like the one I live in are going for cameras everywhere, My son works for a company installing them all over this county. With cell phones taking pictures and movies of us and business installing them you never know when you are being monitored. Someone might even be monitoring what I am typing since I am not a fan of little bush.

Look on the bright side … in 2 months, you’ll have a new turkey :stuck_out_tongue:

Keeping this a little more on topic…

The interesting thing is that while the report (as presented in the condensed arstechnica article) briefly points to increased surveillance due to terrorism in the UK and US, it only elaborates on the effect–not the true causes underlying this. I suppose I can’t fault that approach, as reports such as these are generally effects-based, not cause-based. At the same time, it engages in a kind of slippery slope, saying because of result A (the US and UK for example) that A is equivalent to B (Russia and China), and that comparison is completely absurd and unfounded. If people in the US and UK were truly under as much surveillance as those in Russia and China, then you’d hear screams of bloody murder on supression of free speech (as one example) from citizens of both countries. It’s almost as if it’s trying to promote paranoia, and anytime that’s an implied result or conclusion in anything of that nature, something is either at best incompletely examined and elaborated upon or at worst fallacious and at least partially invalid. The only way to really get to the root of this is to prove what parts are true and why, as well as what parts are false, lacking and why. Problem is that the avg. person will likely only read the headline, look at the color charts, then jump to a conclusion without asking and proving for oneself what factors should have been further elaborated upon in the report and where the same is fallacious or true.

Then I guess they have to read the whole report.

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-559597

:cool::cool: