Last week I was watching the premier of the Eighth season of 24. In the first episode, it is mentioned that CTU (now reformed) has begun utilizing unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and counter terrorism work. These UAVs are even equipped with missiles. They were even supposed to have worked in taking out a hand-held rocket weapon. They didn't. Not the first time the government failed on a job right?
Work of fiction right?
Not entirely quite.
This morning, InTheEndIWasRight posted a new video. Go ahead and watch it, knock yourself out. It seems that several police departments in Britain are looking to use UAVs for their own operations. Here's the article. Cool right? Here's a video from a couple of years ago. I wonder how much they've progressed since then!
Once more, I'm certain that if this is successful, it will undoubtedly not be used for what it was intended, but as yet another tool to invade people's privacy. Kind of like the Patriot Act being used to listen to Americans' phone sex. I'm predicting it now: the UK (or any other state that fits your fancy) will say something along the lines of "we need this technology to keep people safe from terrorism (or any other scary substitute)!" They'll get it (or at least part of what they want). Then, some incident will happen (like last month's Christmas bomber), and these security measures will be proven inadequate. They'll then call for more security measures. They'll be just a little more intrusive, just a little more of what the state needs to prevent a horrendous act of terrorism. It's the same old story every time: just a bit more freedom for just a bit more security, a vicious cycle. And it's completely deceptive. More often than not, the state wanted to have these powers anyway, and the terror is a perfect excuse. It's like a child running back to a parent that has already been proven incompetent when it comes to protecting children, and the parent then proceeds to abuse the child with the newfound power.
I know, sarcasm and annoyance are dripping from my words. I'm just sick of constantly having to give up (or hear of others having to give up) my liberty for a false sense of security, when the state has already many times been proven completely incompetent when it comes to the matter. No added security measure or super-duper technology is going to change this. This is very important to understand. Sure, you'll hear of some success stories, but eventually, and inevitably, something will happen, and incompetence will probably show. This is because one entity simply cannot manage all the responses needed to ensure high rates of safety (especially when this entity in question is beset in a civil war of squabbling bureaucracies). Consider it the Economic Calculation Problem transplanted onto the service of providing security.
Ultimately, if we desire to truly be safe from terrorism, we as a people must understand the motivations of those committing the acts in the first place. Most of these motivations are triggered by America's (and the West's) foreign policy. I've stated this before in a previous post "24 Season Seven and Non-Intervention," so I won't go into it here.
To end this, I'll turn to an overused quote from Benjamin Franklin.
"Those who give up a little liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither and will lose both."
How right he was!
No comments:
Post a Comment