Image courtesy Ken from Ken’s Kitchen
POINT: The establishment a constant and pervasive surveillance systems is an invasion a privacy an violation a the Fourth Amendment protection a the right a the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, an effects, against unreasonable searches an seizures! —Falkor
COUNTERPOINT: If you can be seen or heard, then it isn’t an invasion of privacy to be looked at or listened to! Besides, if you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. We must give our protectors in government and law enforcement the bottomless toolbox of tools they need to protect the Homeland from Terror! —Gizzard
COUNTER-COUNTERPOINT: A regime of constant observation, though unable to process every single item of data with its “unequal gaze,” is still effective of compelling good behavior by creating a “sentiment of an invisible omniscience.” —Chaplain Montag of the First Knights of the 19 Quart Lobster Pot
Remember when the Awards Committee said…
With this kind of brainpower at our disposal, the next BACK-TALK post should probably solicit in some way prescriptions for world justice and equality. Either that or an answer to the ages old question: “Ginger or Mary-Ann?”
Let’s try the former.
QUESTION: Is a Panopticon, or “Big Brother” style security apparatus effective in the prevention of terrorist attacks within a society, or are would-be terrorists aware of the nature of the “unequal gaze,” and realize, that with care, they can avoid said gaze? I.E.: is it like what my Dad said about door locks on a house, ‘They won’t keep a determined thief out, but they’ll keep someone honest honest’?
Answer in the comment section and you’ll be automatically entered in the Comment of the Week contest, Spot! (Not sanctioned by William of Malmsbury.)
The events and characters depicted in this bloggoplay are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living, dead or bloginary, is purely coincidental… Or is it intentional? I always forget how that goes.