Has Orwell's '1984' Come 22 Years Later?

gabec asks: "This weekend my mother bought a grille lighter, something like this butane lighter. The self-scanner at Kroger's locked itself up and paged a clerk, who had to enter our drivers license numbers into her kiosk before we could continue. Last week my girlfriend bought four peaches. An alert came up stating that peaches were a restricted item and she had to identify herself before being able to purchase such a decidedly high quantity of the dangerous fruit. My video games spy on me, reporting the applications I run, the websites I visit, the accounts of the people I IM. My ISP is being strong-armed into a two-year archive of each action I take online under the guise of catching pedophiles, the companies I trust to free information are my enemies, the people looking out for me are being watched. As if that weren't enough, my own computer spies on me daily, my bank has been compromised, my phone is tapped--has been for years--and my phone company is A-OK with it. What's a guy that doesn't even consider himself paranoid to think of the current state of affairs?" The sad state of affairs is that Big Brother probably became a quiet part of our lives a lot earlier. The big question now is: how much worse can it get?

Am I just accustomed to old ways? Does the new generation, born with these restrictions, feel the weight of these bonds and recoil from my fears as paranoia? What can I, a person with no political interests--a person that would really rather think that the people in office are there because they're looking out for us, our rights, and our freedoms and not because their short-sightedness is creating a police state--do to stem the tide?"

Re:Go Fig

My view is this. If we had a perfect government with perfectly just and compassionate laws, then I would submit to total observation by the government. But we don't have a perfect government or a perfect world. Therefore, I do not want total observation.

Re:Go Fig

"Ghandi and King both worked in the open against unjust laws, and they won--by being in the open. If you're too cowardly to do whatever it is that you do out in the open, then you shouldn't be doing it."

Neither Ghandi or King masterbated in public.

Re:Go Fig

Sheeze, a little bit of an over reaction. Here we go again. I just meant that the only way I'd want to submit to total observation would be to an entity that I can trust without question to do the right thing. There is no such body, so I do not willingly submit to total observation. I am not, however an idiot. I do know that the influence that society has on an individual is very important. This is why I submit to some observation.

As far as your example of Gandhi. What the hell are you talking about? Gandhi was a public figure, yes, but he didn't peek into everyone's bedroom did he? No. I think you are confusing the issue.

Re:Go Fig

Obviously, you didn't read it carefully enough either. This is interesting, since you seem to feel quite superior to the rest of us that think it's a very relevant piece of work.

Surveillance and control are intimately linked. Once you remove the barriers against observation, you also remove the barriers against control. This would be one of the main themes of that entire book.

It is very relevant because in our hyper-informational society, it is becoming easier to surveille people than ever, and information is being used *against* us as opposed to *for us*.

The government should not be able to leverage what you do in your private life, what you do with your property, what you do with your money, against you, as long as you're not harming anyone else with your actions - and even when we do harm other people, we have institutions in place to protect ourself against the government - habeas corpus, the right to not incriminate ourselves, etc. It's the government that should be transparent and open to surveillance - not the populace. This is, after all, a *democracy* where the people, not any autocratic police government, are in power.

If at any moment it is possible that you are being observed by someone - anyone - aren't you less inclined to exercise your freedoms? I certainly am.

Re:Go Fig

(This is one of the surprisngly modern parts of Christianity, btw -- "and what you whisper in shadows will be shouted from rooftops" and all that.)

If you are less inclined to exercise your freedoms when you are being observed, well, then you probably are confusing "excerise your freedoms" with "break the rules of good behavior". Please go back to kindergarten, I think you missed a few lessons on how to operate in civilzied society.

Spoken like someone for whom "civilized society" has always been synonymous with "my own cultural mores". Ironically, that culture only survived to become a mainstream belief by carefully protecting its privacy amidst a larger, often hostile society. The fish symbol which car owners and companies use to advertise their Christianity today was originally intended to do the opposite, as a passcode to help Christians keep their beliefs secret from observers who might do them harm.

Peaches?

I don't think you can claim that the store told you that four peaches was a "restricted item" without at least explaining the situation a little bit further.

Re:Peaches?

Interesting thing about peaches is that they contain cyanide. [cdc.gov] From that respect I could see why the scanner would go off...

Re:Peaches?

FTFA: cyanide is found in a number of foods and plants. In certain plant foods, including almonds, millet sprouts, lima beans, soy, spinach, bamboo shoots, and cassava roots (which are a major source of food in tropical countries), cyanides occur naturally as part of sugars or other naturally-occurring compounds.
 
C'mon. I'd like to see you take all of this stuff up to the self-checkout and get a deep rooted anal search for it.

What a day to shop.

Re:Peaches?

I think if I were confronted with that same situation, I'd say, "Excuse me?" I'd then say nothing more, leave the entire order there at the checkout, and leave the store.

I refuse to shop with merchants who agree to help our currently corrupt government turn American into the Home of the Paranoid and Land of the Caged.

Re:Peaches?

I think if I were confronted with that same situation, I'd say, "Excuse me?" I'd then say nothing more, leave the entire order there at the checkout, and leave the store.

That wouldn't do any good, you'd just get the person working the checkout calling you a crazy. If you're going to make a point, explain why you think it's stupid to the manager, and do it at the checkout queue.

Re:Peaches?

I don't think you can claim that the store told you that four peaches was a "restricted item" without at least explaining the situation a little bit further.

Maybe they were underage? :)

Re:Peaches?

Maybe they were underage? :)

That's cherries.

SORRY, YOU ARE NOT CLEARED FOR THAT

Please strip to your underwear and sit with your hands folded behind your head in preparation for a courtesy visit from your friends and fellow Class 1 citizens from Homeland Security's Produce Control Division.

And stop thinking about goats when you play with yourself.

Re:Peaches?

Besides peaches being a source of cyanide, also note that the only source of ricin [wikipedia.org], one of the most deadly poisons known to man, is castor beans.

Re:Peaches?

Speaking of Ricin, US Patent 3060165 "Preparation of Toxic Ricin" is a famous example of a redacted patent. It is available from European sources [espacenet.com], though not from the USPTO.

Although ricin has been prepared in crystalline conditions in the laboratory in small quantities, it becomes necessary for purposes of toxological warfare to prepare relatively large quantities in a high state of purity. This neccesitates that as much as possible of the nontoxic material present be removed in the process.

This document [globalsecurity.org], however, implies that the production method described in the patent results in a impure mixture of various denatured proteins.

Re:Peaches?

even 1/2-strength ricin is more lethal than many toxins.

"half -strength" may be an exceptionally optimistic yield. The patent doesn't address the efficiency of the process.

Re:Peaches?

What's really interesting is that I would know about none of this if the scanner hadn't gone off and led to that anecdote.

Not saying that that was why the scanner went off, or that steps must be taken to protect us from the fruits, but that high profile reactions to items perceived to be inoccuous can spread around information you'd rather stayed put.

Re:Peaches?

after oranges, peaches are known to be the second most popular weapons in Drive-by Fruitings [urbandictionary.com].

Re:Peaches?

But what if he has a point-ed stick??

Re:Peaches?

A pointed stick, and when someone comes at you with oh oh oh getting all high and mighty eh? Well let me tell you something, when some great homicidal maniac comes at you tonight with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me!!!

I'm guessing it's one of two things

1) Register error. There are things like alcohol that will flag a stop and check for ID situation, and of course it's controlled from the central inventory software. It's not like the register is concious of what you order, it just checks to see if item #X has an ID flag set. If it is, it stops the sale and asks the clerk to check ID.

2) He's making shit up to try and be dramatic.

I mean peaches certianly aren't globally restricted. We just bought some the other day, no problems, as I imagine millions of people did. You would hear about it if they were sending flags up all over.

As for check ID items, it's up to the store how far they go. Like with alcohol I've had the entire range. Some simply dismiss the warning assuming fomr appearnace I'm over 21. Some check my ID each time. At grocery and convience stores they are usually more carefuly. Some check the ID and enter the birthdate in the register, some have you scan it in a little machine that checks. The most extreme case I saw was at a Frys which is near the university and a couple of high schools, thus lots of underage purchaes. They check your ID, record it, and make you sign the book they recorded it in.

Basically it's the levle of CYA they feel necessary to not get fined/shut down. Fact of the matter is, someone will fool them and buy underage. Well if a fuss is made of it, the liquor board investigates. They then have to prove they took steps to stop that from happening. The liquor board deicded based on that if they were really trying and it was an honest mistake, or if they are being delibratly lax.

thus the response depends on the store, it's not government mandidated, the government just says "You can't sell to minors and you are responsable for taking steps to make sure you don't." Up to you to determine the kind of steps and the proof you keep of them so you can defend yorself if need be.

But ya, I am not seeing any federal peach crackdown here. If that's the case, we'd probably hear about it on CNN.

Re:Peaches?

Peach seeds: ~40 ppm cyanide. Apricot seeds: ~500 ppm. Lucky you didn't buy apricots, or you'd be in Guantanamo by now.

It may be too late...

"What's a guy that doesn't even consider himself paranoid to think of the current state of affairs?"

First thought...more educated and informed than the masses of sheeples?

Seriously, I think a lot of us feel the same way and see that we aren't on a slippery slope any more. We are plummeting down a sheer drop off. The way I see it the government and big business will control more and more of our every day life as we lose more and more privacy and individual choices. Some of us will get sick of it and cash out and go live off the grid in the most remote boondocks we can find and some of us will suffer in relative silence and reminisce over the "good old days" before we lost so much of our privacy and constitutional rights. Others will never notice they lost anything. Maybe there will be another American revolution some day to try and put back into place a government whose altruistic ideals can be effected indefinitely. Hell, 200+ years is pretty good when looked at in the big picture of history but eventually power and money corrupt those who should be looking out for the good of everyone. I guess this sounds kind of defeatist but take the federal minimum wage as an example. How come 30 million people have to try to live on $5.15 an hour? How are their voices not heard? How are our voices not heard?

Money talks and the politicians and big business have the money.

Something wrong with $5.15 an hour?

Suppose we raise it to $60 an hour. Better? Would you still have a job?

OK, that's too much. Well, how many lost jobs are acceptable? Can you give a number? If we raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour and lay off 15% of the workforce, is that good?

More money is great as long as YOU don't lose your job. Everybody, even those already on minimum wage, thinks it'll be the other guy who loses his job or that some rich guy won't be so rich. Sure, and pigs fly really well.

To pay the cleaning people their new minimum wage, we can get rid of one web developer. The other guys can work overtime to make up the loss. Then again, maybe it's just time for the company to go bankrupt and get rid of EVERYBODY.

It goes the other way too. A smelly drunk isn't likely to get hired at $5.15 an hour, but his value might be above zero. He deserves a chance to work. The same goes for the fat girl with acne that makes people feel ill, the guy who stares inappropriately, the lady who has conversations with her knuckles... They all deserve a chance to work.

Re:Something wrong with $5.15 an hour?

I've got a better solution, which will also address the outsourcing issue: how about we raise the minimum wage in all countries outside America to $10,000,000,000/hour.

And if they refuse to comply, we nuke them!

There, solved it for you.

Re:Something wrong with $5.15 an hour?

Well, something has to be done. Take for example the poor man who can't afford health insurance: he waits until his health problems escalate, then goes to the emergency room. Not being able to pay, the hospitals increase their rates, and the insurance companies pass it on to their paying customers. So, those who can afford it will end up paying for the poor guy ANYWAY. Furthermore, if his problem stems from microbial infection, he may have the opportunity to spread the misery through the workforce before getting treated. This costs people and businesses even more money.

The variance of the payscale needs to be reduced. The janitor's function in society is just as important as that of the CEO of Exxon, and he should be compensated at a level that enables him to pay for housing, utilities, health care, transportation, and a little extra for some fun. Why should extremely gifted or the extremely lucky be the only ones to partake of what life has to offer? It's a sad commentary on the history of human civilization that after 5,000 years we still haven't evolved beyond exploiting one another.

Re:Something wrong with $5.15 an hour?

Are you stupid? The man did not say that all pay should be equal. He said that the variance, the difference, between the low end and the high end should be reduced. Everyone in the wealthiest nation in the world should have enough to "pay for housing, utilities, health care, transportation, and a little extra for some fun." Basically, we should not be complete slaves to our economic conditions. In other words, we should be FREE and have the full rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These ideas are not communist. They're as democratic and American as mom and the flag and apple pie.

The CEOs that run the corporations decide what people get paid. In fact, the CEOs even decide their own level of compensation since they control the board of directors and who gets accepted on there. You want a raise? Ask your boss. He'll look at his budget, which was handed down to him from his boss, which was given to him from his boss, all the way up to the CEO. You have no control over this organization. You did not vote in your boss. The CEO takes the money that you earn and gives most of it to himself. The corporation is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship.

In fact, the corporation is so decidedly undemocratic since they decide what you can or can not say, even in your time off. They decide who you can or can not associate with, even in your time off. They decide what you can or can not do, even in your time off. The corporation is so undemocratic and so un-American that's it's completely laughable that anyone uses the "Communist" card to defend corporate policies of screwing the janitors making minimum wage in order to give the CEO another million dollars.

Re:Something wrong with $5.15 an hour?

Once you decide that anyone has a right to the product of another person's labor, yes, it's communist.

then I suppose the CEO's are communists, and the oil companies, and ESPECIALLY the **AA organizations, and of course the republican government who thinks its their right to take our hard earned money for their pet wars.

Re:Something wrong with $5.15 an hour?

"then I suppose the CEO's are communists, and the oil companies, and ESPECIALLY the **AA organizations, and of course the republican government who thinks its their right to take our hard earned money for their pet wars."

No, becuase CEO's and oil companies are not forcing their rules upon us with the power of police and prisons and the military. If I choose to work for a company I follow their rules. I can choose to work somewhere else.

This is what people mean when they call your idea communism. You want the govornment to make these decisions for everyone.

If you'd check your history you would see that communism does not work. Why do you think it would work in the U.S.? Do you think a govornment that coddles corporations and does not care about the little guy would all of the sudden completely turn around? Do you think an apathetic populas will all of the sudden forge a utopia?

Re:Devil's advocate objects:

Ahahh. You're right that studying hard/working hard should produce a nice compensation. FYI, janitors work very hard, as do flight attendants, cooks, checkout clerks, delivery folks, and machinists; just about any profession as a matter of fact. What you're describing is the market place of labor. Its always been the case that those in highest demand get paid more. That's why CEO's get $50mega bucks per year. Its not because they work any harder or have studied any harder than the construction worker (ye olde Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard in the first year). But is it fair? Of course not. Life isn't fair. Communism was a pathetic attempt at making life more fair. The minumum wage is a reasonable attempt at making life more fair.

I resent your implication that janitors have kids on welfare. Get that silver spoon and troll out of your lower class hating mouth.

Here is a reason to support making life more fair: If you don't, then poor people who have been taken advantage of will eventually stop listening to southern accent affecting Presidents and their church preachers and will burn your rich ass into a pile of ash in that brand new exurb of yours. Its happened in many many places when the wealth balance gets too whacked. That's why rich folks should support the minimum wage. Its also why they should pay more in taxes, because they benefit the most from a structured society. Its called nobility, and only snobs don't have it.

On the other hand if your going for the revolution - then by all means, get rid of all work place protections and put those 7 year old WICK program/AFDC kids to work in a debtor's prison. I'm just one of those terrible libral's who's studied history and would like our society to go on another 200 years.