The New Hearing Voices Network

nick cowen, 4 April 2007

‘Smith!’ screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. ‘6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You’re not trying. Lower, please! That’s better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.’
A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston’s body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away.
The government is expanding its scheme of ‘talking’ CCTV Cameras to various town centres around the country.

They allow camera operators to go further than merely observing crime and anti-social behaviour, and interact with the public, telling them to pick up litter or stop brawling. There is some evidence that CCTV helps prevent crime. Not as much as evidence as that in support of more traditional methods such as providing better street lighting. It has the additional expense of requiring operators to watch the cameras trained on the public, resources that could otherwise be used to put extra police or security personnel on the streets that have the advantage of eyes, mobility and the ability to intervene. But this hasn’t ever been a government to analyse the benefit of every single penny spent so why start now!
What about the social costs of expanding surveillance, the costs to privacy and freedom? In this case we are talking about the town centre. So areas of public life require some negotiation between individual liberty and public safety. However, this comes against a background of policy that has no interest in the boundaries between personal privacy and public interest.
One typical line is as follows:
‘The subject about CCTV Cameras is not a bother to those that do no wrong.’
Great but what exactly is considered ‘wrong’ in today’s society? Rather more than many would acknowledge. We all think we know what crime and anti-social behaviour is, but how far might an overzealous council with targets to meet stretch these concepts?
We are developing a political consensus that considers driving a 4×4, over-filling a council rubbish bin, or failing to divide your waste to be contributing to mass genocide. Smoking has become an act of gross indecency and a blot on public health to be restricted at all opportunities. ‘Junk food’ may soon be similarly targeted for potential restrictions. If that were not enough, police are now duty bound to investigate ‘hate incidents’ on the basis of a single individual expressing subjective feelings of offence. Prosecuting people on the basis of any unorthodox opinions will be an awful lot easier once surveillance devices can listen into the private conversations of friends as they walk through the streets.
All these issues, given the right spin, are anti-social behaviour. And anti-social behaviour is not to be tolerated.
Polly Toynbee doesn’t think too much of these issues, perhaps because her beliefs on dealing with the environment, health and social justice already entail some grim restrictions on liberty. If people’s privacy must be infringed to ensure stringent government policy is carried out properly, then so be it! For those already sceptical of the latest fashions in policymaking, the green and ‘respect’ agendas, the cost to liberty already seems too much.
But even those who buy into these current issues should remember that the tools used to enforce their favoured projects today, could be enforcing rather different policies tomorrow. For now, these cameras bark at people to pick up litter. But how long till they are instructing anexercise regime!