New incarnation of Echelon in the European Union is a huge lurch forward in the creation of the prison planet based on social theorist Jeremy Benthams 18th century concept of keeping slaves oppressed.
The European Union is developing a 21st century panopticon, a beast surveillance system that critics describe as Orwellian, sinister, and positively chilling, that would collate data from numerous sources, including surveillance cameras and personal computers, in order to detect abnormal behavior across the entire continent.
In a broader sense, this is part of the move towards creating a pan-European federal police force, where information and powers are shared as part of a centralized system. It is also a giant step towards the creation of a European CIA tasked not with keeping tabs on foreign enemies, but spying on its own population.
The surveillance system, known as Project Indect, promises to collect information by way of continuous monitoring of web sites, discussion forums, usenet groups, file servers, p2p networks [and] individual computer systems. It will also use CCTV feeds and other surveillance methods to develop models of suspicious behavior by analyzing the pitch of peoples voices (suggesting that private conversations will be recorded) as well as the way their bodies move.
Its main objective will be the automatic detection of threats and abnormal behavior or violence.
This is Echelon on steroids, a new version of the decades old NSA-run program that has already been spying on citizens for years, updated and expanded for the technological applications of the early 21st century. In 1999, the Australian government admitted that they were part of an NSA-led global intercept and surveillance grid in alliance with the US and Britain that could listen to every international telephone call, fax, e-mail, or radio transmission, on the planet. Project Indect is merely a new incarnation of the same beast surveillance system.
Open Europe analyst Stephen Booth described the project as Orwellian and a huge invasion of privacy, noting that European citizens own taxes will go towards a program that treats them all as guilty until proven innocent.
Profiling whole populations instead of monitoring individual suspects is a sinister step in any society, added Shami Chakrabarti, the director of human rights group Liberty. Its dangerous enough at national level, but on a Europe-wide scale the idea becomes positively chilling, she said.
Project Indect is a huge lurch forward in the agenda to construct a mammoth surveillance pen within which the population of the entire planet is imprisoned.
The methods being employed to do this are a technologically advanced throwback to social theorist Jeremy Benthams 1785 concept of The Panopticon, a specially constructed prison building designed to allow an observer to observe (-opticon) all (pan-) prisoners without the prisoners being able to tell whether they are being watched, thereby conveying what one architect has called the sentiment of an invisible omniscience.
Bentham described the Panopticon as a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example.
The notion that the individual does not know when they are being watched by the authorities is key in achieving the ultimate goal, to keep the population in a constant state of subjugation, unease and fear, leading them to self-regulate their own behavior.
According to Danish Institute for Human Rights researcher Peter Scharff, the Panopticon was intended to promote self-regulation that was to be provoked by the constant surveillance. The concept was eventually incorporated into many prisons that continue today as podular designs, which also maximizes the amount of people that can be controlled by one person. The fact that authorities are building societal prisons around us all today using the same basic methods of control is enough to send a chill down anyones spine and remind us once again that freedom is a myth.
This has nothing to do with catching criminals as recent figures in the UK have proven, CCTV cameras have virtually no impact on crime whatsoever. This is all about letting the slaves know who their bosses are, its a psychological mind game set up to distinguish and reinforce the master-servant relationship between the state and the individual.
The endgame is to convince the individual that to express their freedom in public, to engage in any kind of protest or merely to question the power structure that surrounds them, is a suspicious act detrimental to society and that negative consequences will follow for any slave who dares to step outside of this invisible yet oppressive jail cell.
Fair winds......
Dauntless sons of Celtic sires
Whose souls the love of freedom fires,
Hark! ev'ry harp to war inspires
On Cader Idris side.
See the brave advancing,
See the brave advancing,
Each well-tried spear
Which Saxons fear,
In warlike splendour glancing.
Proud Harlech from her frowning tow'rs
Pours forth her never failing pow'rs.
Rouse, heroes, glory shall be ours,
March on, your country's pride!
Jebus the EU can't even get evil 1984 type projects running without them turning all fluffy,
Fair winds......
Dauntless sons of Celtic sires
Whose souls the love of freedom fires,
Hark! ev'ry harp to war inspires
On Cader Idris side.
See the brave advancing,
See the brave advancing,
Each well-tried spear
Which Saxons fear,
In warlike splendour glancing.
Proud Harlech from her frowning tow'rs
Pours forth her never failing pow'rs.
Rouse, heroes, glory shall be ours,
March on, your country's pride!
# construction of agents assigned to continuous and automatic monitoring of public resources such as: web sites, discussion forums, UseNet groups, file servers, p2p networks as well as individual computer systems,
-----------------------------------------------
Freedom is never free.
The insolence! Where do these barbarians get the nerve to share information between police and justice departments of different EU member states! Those poor criminals can't even escape justice by fleeing to other jurisdictions! They can't even use the internet to conduct some innocent business!!
DAMN YOU EU FOR PROPOSING A SYSTEM THAT CONTRIBUTES TO TACKLING CROSS BORDER CRIME!! DAMN YOU TO HELL!!
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
------------------------------
This message has been edited by Koz4k on Nov 1, 2009 11:18 PM
Exactly what freedom are they sacrificing? Btw, freedom is a two way street: if you have the freedom to kill someone, that person loses his freedom to live! It was either Montesquieu or Mill who said something like this.
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
There are more things on the streets of LA that compromise my life and safety on a daily basis than a EU intelligence group set to see if we're all behaving.
You know the funny thing is, the harder the people on top push those on the bottom, the more they create a new class of "criminal" thats able to outwit. Large organizations are slow and clumsy, the individual is mobile and free.
Exactly what freedom are they sacrificing? Btw, freedom is a two way street: if you have the freedom to kill someone, that person loses his freedom to live! It was either Montesquieu or Mill who said something like this.
You're sacrificing privacy. With this, especially the cameras they can find out anything about you at any time. This opens up lots of possibilities for misuse, which were well documented within the ECHELON system. Under this the possibilities are much greater.
well 7keys covered that pretty well, but that's just the start of it. if they did it all at once it would cause an overnight revolution. judging by history and human nature it will get more and more invasive over time.
"Btw, freedom is a two way street: if you have the freedom to kill someone, that person loses his freedom to live! It was either Montesquieu or Mill who said something like this. "
what's the freedom to kill got to do with anything? that is a stupid extremity.
everything has its pros and cons.
swiming is a cooling and fun summer activity that is also great exercise but you can drown. doesnt mean my right to swim should be taken away. and even if it somehow did mean that i shouldnt be allowed to swim, as a supposedly free man I don't recall giving anyone the authority to make that judgement for me.
being free doesn't mean you can do whatever you want it means others can't make you do what you don't want to. the con to this is that stupid people will do stupid things from time to time, this still gives no man the right to invade my privacy.
if i don't want to wear a seatbelt as a free man I simply shouldn't have to. do we have that freedom? no. if we dont wear one someone decided that we should have to give the government money, again I do not recall signing over this freedom to anyone.
does anyone object to this? nope cos it makes us safer. and if anyone does object they tell us "it's for the safety of our children" and that shuts everyone right the fvck up.
and to this day i have never met anyone that has said "gee I sure am glad to see these speed cameras popping up everywhere" I am confident that if it were put to a vote the majority would vote against it.
there are dozens if not hundreds of laws that are supposedly for our own good. as free people when did we allow this to happen? when was it put to a vote?
"Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice." - Arcesilaus
-----------------------------------------------
Freedom is never free.
I agree .... this is a little extreme and I don't like it .... freedom goes with periods .... now and for a long time until we solve (if possible!!) the problem that network(s) of terrorists want to blow us then I see no other solution:
there were periods in the past that were worst as others that ere better in terms of freedom .... lets hope that in a near future conditions will be set to diminish the surveillance level.
You're sacrificing privacy. With this, especially the cameras they can find out anything about you at any time. This opens up lots of possibilities for misuse, which were well documented within the ECHELON system. Under this the possibilities are much greater.
==
But is there any privacy being sacrificed? For example, if a public medium is used for communication, any and all communication can be monitored by everyone and anyone. It's a little naive to demand "privacy" if your actions are public in the first place. We have privacy within the confines of our home (and even that has its limits) but not in the streets. But maybe more importantly, how can we stop things like child pornography and human trafficking if we stop where the criminals begin? After all, technology works both ways.
well 7keys covered that pretty well, but that's just the start of it. if they did it all at once it would cause an overnight revolution. judging by history and human nature it will get more and more invasive over time.
==
That is an assumption. It could very well go in the opposite direction.
what's the freedom to kill got to do with anything? that is a stupid extremity.
==
Actually it is THE example.
everything has its pros and cons.
==
We agree on this.
swiming is a cooling and fun summer activity that is also great exercise but you can drown. doesnt mean my right to swim should be taken away. and even if it somehow did mean that i shouldnt be allowed to swim, as a supposedly free man I don't recall giving anyone the authority to make that judgement for me.
==
Depends on the level of risk. I'm certain you are aware that in certain places it is in fact forbidden to swim due to the high risk of drowning.
being free doesn't mean you can do whatever you want it means others can't make you do what you don't want to. the con to this is that stupid people will do stupid things from time to time, this still gives no man the right to invade my privacy.
if i don't want to wear a seatbelt as a free man I simply shouldn't have to. do we have that freedom? no. if we dont wear one someone decided that we should have to give the government money, again I do not recall signing over this freedom to anyone.
does anyone object to this? nope cos it makes us safer. and if anyone does object they tell us "it's for the safety of our children" and that shuts everyone right the fvck up.
==
You should read the works of Mill and Montesquieu. That's why I stated earlier: what if I want the freedom to kill someone? Or the freedom to steal? Or the freedom to rape? Can I have these freedoms? The law FORBIDS me to do these things. The same way, the law FORCES me to behave in a certain manner. These are two sides of the same coin. The law FORCES you to wear a seat belt, there is a penalty for ignoring this rule. If you don't, the consequences could be much worse not just for you, but for society as a whole. Your freedom ends, where the freedom of others begin. Why should someone pay for YOUR mistake? As for taxes: you pay taxes, but in turn you receive infrastructure, education, security, etc (freedoms). The "makes us safer" argument is only a one aspect, which could also apply to the system(s) you oppose.
and to this day i have never met anyone that has said "gee I sure am glad to see these speed cameras popping up everywhere" I am confident that if it were put to a vote the majority would vote against it.
==
You can always elect a government that removes these camera's. That's the point of living in a democracy. But I'm afraid most people aren't very interested in their democratic responsibility.
there are dozens if not hundreds of laws that are supposedly for our own good. as free people when did we allow this to happen? when was it put to a vote?
==
The moment you elected your first government and every government since.
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
------------------------------
This message has been edited by Koz4k on Nov 4, 2009 9:31 PM This message has been edited by Koz4k on Nov 4, 2009 8:45 PM
"But is there any privacy being sacrificed? For example, if a public medium is used for communication, any and all communication can be monitored by everyone and anyone. It's a little naive to demand "privacy" if your actions are public in the first place. We have privacy within the confines of our home (and even that has its limits) but not in the streets. But maybe more importantly, how can we stop things like child pornography and human trafficking if we stop where the criminals begin? After all, technology works both ways. "
it is when they say they can monitor individual computer systems. people have a lot of private things on their pc's these days. I'm sure there will be rules and regulations but i'm also sure that these will change to "save the kids". and it's not just the internet they are planning on monitoring it's pretty much everything from phonecalls to the streets we walk on. personally I don't think this is how people should be treated, it is closer to how you would treat cattle... very intelligent cattle not regular cattle :P
to me it is one step away from everyone is guilty till proven innocent.
"That is an assumption. It could very well go in the opposite direction."
of course, but given the human want for power I don't think it will. when in history have governments reduced their control over people without revolution or atleast the threat of it? I'd say it's a rare thing. everything in which our future is mentioned is an assumption.
"Actually it is THE example. "
it is taking an arguement to an unrealistic extreme. we are not robots that can only think and make decisions in black and white. like you said your freedom ends when it takes someone elses freedoms away. that is where logic and common sense comes into it.
"You can always elect a government that removes these camera's. That's the point of living in a democracy. But I'm afraid most people aren't very interested in their democratic responsibility."
Just like when Americans voted obama who promised troop withdrawals and has instead made increases? or any number of unfullfilled political promises and outright lies. but yeah luckily we are living in democracies where we can choose between 2 new liars to vote for every 4 years.
I'm not really good with politics, do the leading opposition parties in EU countries actually oppose these things?
"The moment you elected your first government and every government since."
The Government should be there to serve the people not the other way around.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
-----------------------------------------------
Freedom is never free.
But is there any privacy being sacrificed? For example, if a public medium is used for communication, any and all communication can be monitored by everyone and anyone. It's a little naive to demand "privacy" if your actions are public in the first place. We have privacy within the confines of our home (and even that has its limits) but not in the streets. But maybe more importantly, how can we stop things like child pornography and human trafficking if we stop where the criminals begin? After all, technology works both ways.
It would depend on your definition of privacy. I think many people would consider a catalogue of their every action, weather in space that could be defined as public or not as an attack on their privacy, especially depending on who is going to have access to it. Also, many of the things that this is designed to monitor are what would normally be considered "private communications". You could argue that phone conversations and emails are "public", but you'd be in the smallest minority, and the law would be against you.
As for human trafficking and child porn, I don't theink those ever will be stopped with or without the system. What matters is the tradeoff that you make. There are obviously advantages and disadvantages, but I think even the most ardent law and order types agree that there should be some limits on police powers.
it is when they say they can monitor individual computer systems. people have a lot of private things on their pc's these days. I'm sure there will be rules and regulations but i'm also sure that these will change to "save the kids". and it's not just the internet they are planning on monitoring it's pretty much everything from phonecalls to the streets we walk on. personally I don't think this is how people should be treated, it is closer to how you would treat cattle... very intelligent cattle not regular cattle :P
to me it is one step away from everyone is guilty till proven innocent.
==
In a criminal investigation the state can already investigate your computer and phone calls. But more importantly, where did you read that this system allows the state to just go around monitoring phone calls, and things like that?
of course, but given the human want for power I don't think it will. when in history have governments reduced their control over people without revolution or atleast the threat of it? I'd say it's a rare thing. everything in which our future is mentioned is an assumption.
==
Of course, but we choose our own government.
it is taking an arguement to an unrealistic extreme. we are not robots that can only think and make decisions in black and white. like you said your freedom ends when it takes someone elses freedoms away. that is where logic and common sense comes into it.
==
To the contrary! We've outlaw murder BECAUSE that amount of freedom would be unacceptable! And even if we'd assume that it's too extreme, the argument itself stands. It can be applied to any type of freedom.
Just like when Americans voted obama who promised troop withdrawals and has instead made increases? or any number of unfullfilled political promises and outright lies. but yeah luckily we are living in democracies where we can choose between 2 new liars to vote for every 4 years.
I'm not really good with politics, do the leading opposition parties in EU countries actually oppose these things?
==
Your problem (which is also my problem, be it for different reasons) is with the system. You're saying that leaders don't do as they say, but you're forgetting that everyone can run for elections and that the people can (at least theoretically) vote more responsibly. You're also forgetting that your opinion (or mine for that matter) doesn't outweigh the opinion of others. You can be certain that there are individuals out there who would prefer a police state.
In the EU it really depends on the government. But countries on EU level are trying to find effective ways to combat cross border crime. But it's hard to reach consensus.
The Government should be there to serve the people not the other way around.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
==
True, but the government is for the people, BY the people.
The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy
-- Charles de Montesquieu
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
It would depend on your definition of privacy. I think many people would consider a catalogue of their every action, weather in space that could be defined as public or not as an attack on their privacy, especially depending on who is going to have access to it. Also, many of the things that this is designed to monitor are what would normally be considered "private communications". You could argue that phone conversations and emails are "public", but you'd be in the smallest minority, and the law would be against you.
As for human trafficking and child porn, I don't theink those ever will be stopped with or without the system. What matters is the tradeoff that you make. There are obviously advantages and disadvantages, but I think even the most ardent law and order types agree that there should be some limits on police powers.
==
E-mails and phone conversions are generally considered private, but what about public forums or city streets? Private communication can only be monitored according to the law (a criminal investigation for example), this system does not change any of that. It's primarily aimed at improving effective communication between law enforcement agencies and the monitoring of publicly available information. This system works within the law.
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
"In a criminal investigation the state can already investigate your computer and phone calls. But more importantly, where did you read that this system allows the state to just go around monitoring phone calls, and things like that?"
In a criminal investigation it is fair enough, what this suggests is monitoring of whoever they choose based on unkown criterea.
as for the info it is on the website:
# to develop a platform for: the registration and exchange of operational data, acquisition of multimedia content, intelligent processing of all information and automatic detection of threats and recognition of abnormal behaviour or violence,
# to develop the prototype of an integrated, network-centric system supporting the operational activities of police officers, providing techniques and tools for observation of various mobile objects,
"multimeadia" content can be pretty much anything to do with the exchange of information.
"Of course, but we choose our own government."
no we choose out of 2 governments that are presented to us. it's like saying "you can pick any fruit you want as long as you pick the apple or the pear."
"To the contrary! We've outlaw murder BECAUSE that amount of freedom would be unacceptable! And even if we'd assume that it's too extreme, the argument itself stands. It can be applied to any type of freedom."
the arguement stands only when assuming that humans can't make logical decisions.
"Your problem (which is also my problem, be it for different reasons) is with the system. You're saying that leaders don't do as they say, but you're forgetting that everyone can run for elections and that the people can (at least theoretically) vote more responsibly. You're also forgetting that your opinion (or mine for that matter) doesn't outweigh the opinion of others. You can be certain that there are individuals out there who would prefer a police state."
anyone can run for elections can they? how much money did your last president spend on his electoral campaign? now cut the list to the people that can afford that not to mention the type of connections you would need. and I do not believe my opinion out weighs anyones, this is a discussion forum where we discuss our opinions. I never assume with absolute conviction that i am right or you are wrong. if I thought 100% I was right I wouldnt be here talking it out with you
"True, but the government is for the people, BY the people. "
That is only what it is supposed to be not what it is.
-----------------------------------------------
Freedom is never free.
In a criminal investigation it is fair enough, what this suggests is monitoring of whoever they choose based on unkown criterea.
as for the info it is on the website:
# to develop a platform for: the registration and exchange of operational data, acquisition of multimedia content, intelligent processing of all information and automatic detection of threats and recognition of abnormal behaviour or violence,
# to develop the prototype of an integrated, network-centric system supporting the operational activities of police officers, providing techniques and tools for observation of various mobile objects,
"multimeadia" content can be pretty much anything to do with the exchange of information.
==
Multimedia is a very broad term indeed, but multimedia is not the issue. Nowhere does it state that the system can operate outside of the law.
no we choose out of 2 governments that are presented to us. it's like saying "you can pick any fruit you want as long as you pick the apple or the pear."
==
I'm assuming you're referring to the United States? But you also have independent presidential nominees.
the arguement stands only when assuming that humans can't make logical decisions.
==
The argument stands BECAUSE humans can make logical decisions. We give up certain freedoms so in turn we can enforce other freedoms.
anyone can run for elections can they? how much money did your last president spend on his electoral campaign? now cut the list to the people that can afford that not to mention the type of connections you would need. and I do not believe my opinion out weighs anyones, this is a discussion forum where we discuss our opinions. I never assume with absolute conviction that i am right or you are wrong. if I thought 100% I was right I wouldnt be here talking it out with you happy.gif
That is only what it is supposed to be not what it is.
==
I partially agree, but what do you propose?
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
![[linked image]](http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1310/modsuckstt1.gif)
![[linked image]](http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/pie_face.gif)
![[linked image]](http://www.blueblood.net/boards/images/smilies2/nono.gif)
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/SmilesWAFF/smilies1684.gif)
![[linked image]](http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/8664/hbombexplosion.jpg)