Everyone is a number in this dystopian near-future where cameras track your every move. Score above 90 and your set for life. Score below 75 and you’re on your own, kid.
The Cycler Series
The Cyler Series: What would you do if you woke up one day as a member of the opposite sex? For Jill McTeague, this is no hypothetical question. It’s real life!
|
Sometimes I write creepy stuff. And sometimes reality is even creepier. So it was with great interest that I read this article in the Daily Express, which was brought to my attention by the ever-vigilant (and wildly talented) Mark Marshall. Thanks Mark. Apparently the UK, in keeping with its dogged commitment to sleepwalk into a surveillance state, has decided to put “problem families” under 24 hour surveillance by installing cameras IN THEIR HOMES. Yes, I said IN THEIR HOMES. All caps, because, seriously? Wow. That’s bold. I mean there’s creepy spy-happy overreach (as per the Bush admin, for example) and then there’s the British government. When they want to get Orwellian, they don’t mess around. So here’s the deal. The families in question will be “monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals. Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.” Not surprisingly, plenty of people are crying foul. But what interests me is the fact that the motivation for these measures is to protect children from bad parenting. After all, why should a child be punished for having the bad luck of being born to cruddy parents? Without giving too much away, this is what my third novel is all about. And while many people have discussed the dangers of surveillance and government overreach into private lives, I’ve always been much more interested in the ways in which surveillance and the erosion of privacy actually appeals to people. Because I think it does appeal to people. I think we love to watch each other, judge each other, rate and rank each other, kick each other off the island, and chastise each other for being bad parents. The whole concept of privacy is at war with some of our most basic desires as social beings. That’s why, despite the objections of a great many people, I believe the UK government will succeed in its plan to place problem families under 24-hour surveillance. I think most people will argue that the benefits outweigh the liabilities. And this is how privacy will erode. Not by force, but rather with the full cooperation of the people under surveillance. Imagine what would happen if the government offered to reward people for good behavior. Imagine if you could whittle away at your tax bill by being a great parent while a government agency watched you. Do you think people would object on the grounds of privacy? Or would they sign up in droves and reap the rewards? I know what I think. 9 Responses to “Surveillance in the Home”Leave a Reply |
|
RSS Feed
I’m reminded of the song “Voluntary Amputation” by the hardcore band His Hero Is Gone. Lyrics: “They don’t even have to break down our doors, blindfold and gag us with their force and install mind control devices in our homes. We buy them on our own!” That song was on their first LP, which was released 12 years ago. Prescient.
And in case it isn’t clear, I completely agree with your take on this issue.
At least they’re being open and unashamed about the proposal. I think I’m more creeped out by all the surveillance that we don’t know about, all those cameras we don’t have any control over. Sure, it’s for our protection, but it could also be subverted for some diabolical purpose.
And I think you’re right about people signing up to be watched if there’s a chance at a reward… Isn’t that basically reality television?
It is indeed, Eugene.
That article was a bit sensationalist (it is the Daily Express).
From wired.com
UPDATE: Further research shows that the Express didn’t quite have all its facts straight. This scheme is active, and the numbers are fairly accurate (if estimated), but the mentions of actual cameras in people’s homes are exaggerated. The truth is that the scheme can take the most troublesome families out of their homes and move them, temporarily, to a neutral, government-run compound. Here they will be under 24-hour supervision. CCTV cameras are not specifically mentioned, not are they denied, but 24-hour “supervision” certainly doesn’t rule this out from the camera-loving Brits.
Ooh, but that’s even creepier. A government-run compound under 24-hour surveillance? Now they’re just basically ripping off my next novel. I should sue them for plagiarism.
Seeing the state of some families I reckon its not a bad idea!
My point exactly, Damo. I think a lot of people will agree with you and this is how surveillance will spread. As for my opinion on this, I am neither pro- nor anti-. I’m merely an interested observer.
I think some parents would also choose this option over losing their children to foster care. When you’re faced with impossible choices you take the one that will cause the least harm.
I agree, Georgiana. In the end, I think surveillance will become more and more ubiquitous because we’re not as afraid of it as we are of other things.