So what happens when the government is caught with it’s pants down over not being able to secure people’s personal data? It squeals ‘Merry Christmas, but watch your back’ instilling the old argument of ‘fear’ as their method of control, in their latest spin tactic.
With the home secretary, Jacqui Smith citing that rather than addressing the growing amount of data being collected by agencies and questioning the long term ethical considerations of such a move, her argument goes as far to say that we should go the whole hog and surrender everything.
“The whole point about the identity system is that, actually, you will need to have both biographic details and biometric details” stating that knowing someone’s address wouldn’t be enough to steal their identity, they need your fingerprint too – and by her reasoning this should somehow make me feel more safe?
Why don’t you take my voice using recognition software, take my sight using iris scanners, a blood sample, DNA swab, heck I could even give you a semen sample while I am at it… then only successful match of ALL of the above will enable me to withdraw funds out of my own bank account. That would make me feel a whole lot safer!
Wake up people, based on what evidence will handing over yet more data make us feel secure? Ask the 50,000 people who just signed the Facebook petition if they agree, for example.
Surely in the politician’s eyes, the only option is if every one of us is completely chipped-and-tagged and everything we say and do is monitored so completely, would be the only way to catch criminals, who suddenly act out side of the ‘normal’ routine, whatever that is deemed to be. In fact let’s give free resign to fear even in the workplace and assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent;
After all, in a world where calling a teddy bear a certain name at work at the request of others causes riots demanding blood, (yet ironically I have met at least half a dozen men bearing the same name whose parents obviously thought it was an honour), and at the same time where “oh Geez” is seemed to be perfectly acceptable in the office under religious tolerance – who exactly in this world is left to define the nature of ‘normal’ routine? I am at a loss as to how they are going to use this data to ascertain how to control what is right for one, but bad for another – short of ushering in some kind of dictator – and when we are at that point, data will indeed leave most stone cold with fear as there will be ‘nowhere’ to hide.
Strange that, I thought spontaneity and creativity and freedom of choice were things that defined the human race and distinguished us from animals and robots…
Ah well, at least once everyone’s tagged we can then determine where everyone is in order to serve them advertising, and I will justify it with the following illustration. Sitting on a London bus with a rucksack, a mobile phone beeps with a targeted message; ‘Thinking of committing homicide? Why not phone the Samaritans?’