h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Most people haven't read Orwell's 1984 but automatically equate surveillance of individuals or society as a whole with the themes it explores. This is not entirely accurate. 1984 was portraying a whole society that was controlled by, amongst other things (for example, the ingrained behaviour of it's constituents), the surveillance. The surveillance was just a part of what was going on. The hero's battle was not primarily with the cameras but with the attitudes of others and his own ingrained behaviour. All this new emphasis on email and phone tapping and ID cards may be scary but our society is still free (in name at least) and more importantly the vast majority think that it is important to be free. Using the words 'Big Brother' and '1984' in relation to surveillance is an effective shorthand but it's lazy and innacurate and there's nothing that bugs me more than lazy and innacurate journalist types. I thought H2G2 would be free from these forever but now it's part of the BBC...

Well, to be fair, I think the point wasn't so much about the book itself and its relation to our society, I believe it was more just a tool used in order to spark a conversation about our privacy.
(On the other hand, couldn't the point be that all of this surveillance and lack of privacy could lead us to this "ingrained behavior"?) Innacurate or not, you said it yourself, it is an effective shorthand. I don't think it was really laziness on the writer's part, it was simply an allusion to a related topic.

While it is true that we are still free, and of course the majority,if not all, of our society believes in the importance of freedom, the point is that freedom is not an easily defined idea.

Who gets to be the decision-maker on how much privacy you get? What is freedom without privacy? Is not privacy one of the possible definitions of freedom? There are plenty of different interpretations, and that's what causes all this controversy, but that's exactly the point that the writer is trying to make.

"...our society is still free (in name at least)..."
Is that enough? Is being free in name sufficient?

Self-Paradoxical

Hi

I wrote this week's Talking Point. I have to admit I have not read the book. Neither am I a journalist! Talking Points are written by the Community Team

I am sorry if you think I am misinterpreting what Orwell said. However, the term 'Big Brother' is known more widely then the context of 1984 because it has gathered connotations since the book's publication. In fact there are an awful lot of people who don't even know the term was original coined by Orwell. I think that the use of that term is justisified because of that - it is a shorthand phrase that most people understand.

Thanks for the feedback. This is exactly the sort of thing we thrive on.

PS I am going to buy the book on my way home!

The reference to Big Brother is absolutely correct. Of course that wasn't all the book was about but it was a major aspect of the book. Big Brother was watching and it was Big Brother's biggest weapon.

The similarity comes in that all communication and daily life in the book was watched by Big Brother and in this society things are starting to follow that pattern. The problem is that freedoms get etched away bit by bit and after a while you just don't notice anymore.

You don't see it as an invasion of privacy that conversations may be tapped because we are told it is to catch terrorists. We don't complain that police have stop and search facilities, cause they are catching bad guys. CCTV is a classic example - do we really want to be monitored, is city centre crime really that bad? Well as time goes on we start to accept that but the cameras start to get links to other systems. Then they really are watching us, then it really is big brother and if every one is forced to have an ID card and all government agencies have access to the data - this is starting to show some similarity to Orwell’s Big Brother.

Another of big brothers big weapons was war. They were always at war with unseen enemies. Big brother bombs its own people to keep them under control but the principal is that you take peoples freedoms away if you scare them enough. People are very scared of terrorists at the moment and around the world governments have used this to take control away. In Britain the government used it to change laws to detain people without trial and ID cards are there to cut crime, particularly benefit fraud. Feeling Big Brothers breath yet?

Anyway, that's my two penneth but to the guy who said he has never read Big Brother - give it a go. Both it and Animal Farm (no not that version) are excellent reads.

It's worth observing that the term "Big Brother" in Orwell's book is not a random one - the familial implications along with the wider suggestion of concern, protection were deliberately chosen (or evolved) by the Party to aid the acceptance of various aspects of the Party's regime. Big Brother - from his very name - must be on our side...

In the UK Case, perhaps an interesting cross-reference could be "Nanny State".

'Big Brother' in '1984' was probably an oblique reference to the USA. A lot of that book was about the way the world of 1948 was shaping up, with the superpowers carving up Europe amongst themselves. The UK became 'Airstrip One', which was in turn part of Oceania (the American continent and a few other islands). This was how the US probably saw our strategic role at that time. So much for the Special Relationship (which was never that special anyway: it took Pearl Harbour to make the US wake up to what was going on the world).

Coming back to the main reason why I decided to contribute to this discussion, we are very definitely living in a 'Big Brother' (as the common usage has it) society. The organisation Privacy International (http://www.privacyinternational.org/) now has an Orwell award (http://www.privacyinternational.org/bigbrother/) each year, and the British Government gets a mention quite often. Take for example the RIP act and now the plans to introduce ID cards. Pity, because when I voted this lot in I had great expectations. Plus a change, plus c'est la meme chose....

Duly noted. I think there was a good point in my post somewhere amongst the ranting but yours about the phrases gathering connotations and therefore being justified as shorthand terms that most people understand are equally valid. I'm glad you are able to thrive on feedback even when it includes misdirected and unjustified criticism. Sorry! (Wish I knew the smiley for 'sorry and feeling a little guilty'). Still, seems to have generated some debate.

If it were possible to strike the last two sentences and replace them something more measured I would. Hope you like the book, it might not be an enojyable read but it's well worth it.

Abi (and others), another good book which is in similar in some ways to 1984 is "We" by Yevgeny Zamiatin.

1984 is a more apt allegory than perhaps we realise.

Since reading this Talking Point I have looked again at the book and at some of the issues raised here. One thing seems to keep presenting itself to me:

Comfort.

We are now pretty much comfortable with the idea that CCTV is a great way to reduce crime.
We are comfortable with the possibility of having various forms of communication monitored in order to prevent terrorism and organised crime.
We are comfortable with the possibility of having ID cards to prove who we are because then people cannot enter the country illegally or commit benefit fraud.
We are comfortable with the idea that watching ordinary people doing mundane things is entertaining.

The recent actions against the RIP bill demonstrate that some people are at least worried where this all might lead but doesn't it seem...odd...that we're being introduced to the idea of constant covert surviellance and the regulation of movement in a manner that makes us feel "Oh, well that's OK then...because that's not going to make a difference to me".

I am wondering whether the next step is a declaration that people who don't agree to measures like the RIP bill are "unmutual".

It seems to me that greater surviellance measures and the like, introduced to tackle crime, are in fact simply treating symptoms of a greater problem. Treating the root cause of this problem is a much longer term solution and one that is probably not in the interests of a government who, at best, plan as far as the next general election.

In the mean time, we're learning to love the Orwellian Big Brother.

I personally have no problem with the Government eavesdropping my private communications PROVIDING that I have complete and unrestricted access to any communication taken by, or information held by people elected to govern on my behalf. Somehow I just can't see this level of transparency and mutual trust coming about.

The ideal state of transparency between me and the goverment would be that of a brick wall. Failing that, I'd settle for a glass partition, but in no way will I accept a one-way mirror.

For me, the best arrangement would be a one-way mirror, with the see-through bit on my side.

What would happen, I wonder, if they held an election and nobody voted?

It seems to be heading that way. I was one of the dwindling number that voted in the last election. I always will vote because I have no respect for people who whinge about the state of the country then fail to exercise a right which people in other countries are dying for.

The vote, though, seems to be the only way to hold the Government to account. Once every five years we get to put our cross on a ballot paper, and the rest of the time they get to put repressive measures like RIP through Parliament without any effective means of scrutiny. Technology could just as easily be a tool FOR greater democracy as against it, but nobody in power seems to be pushing this perspective anywhere near as hard.

Stand back -- This is Leg's demolition of the British constitution.

Many people say that the monarchy is a harmless and beneficient institution. This is in fact simply false. The monarchy is the ultimate cause of all our problems of an unaccountable big brother state.

The ultimate source of power in any state is called the sovreign. This distributes power to other parts of the state. The nature of the sovreign varies from state to state, and in Britain it is the crown in parliament. In most democratic countries around the world it is the people. In effect, the people do not rule in Britain because they only enjoy such power as the Crown is prepared to give them, which can consequently be taken back. Where the people are sovreign, the state cannot extend its powers without the people's consent.

The issue of sovreignty also affects other parts of the constitution. We do not have access to state documents in Britain because the sovreign forbids it. Were we sovreign ourselves, we could demand access as a precondition of the government being allowed to rule. The sovreign can prevent power in the state being allowed to check itself. In Britain the legislature is controlled by the executive, and the judiciary is tied to the legislature. Indeed, in the office of the Lord Chancellor, we have an individual who is a member of all three branches of government.

Many will say that the executive is the Prime Minister and Cabinet, not the crown, which is therefore blameless. In fact, the matter of royal perogative is a fundamental issue. It is with this power, exercised by the Prime Minister in the name of the Crown, that the executive can declare war and ratify treaties without consulting Parliament. In short, it leaves the powers of the executive totally unchecked.

A fundamental reversal of the British constitutional foundation is required. The people must stop being subjects, swearing alliegance to the person of the monarch, and become citizens, swearing alliegance to the nation and its constitution, which the head of state (who could still be heriditary and crowned) must also swear alliegance to. The constitution will have to be overhaulled at this point, with the British people placing restrictions of governmental power. The government must not pry into our lives, and we must be able to hold the executive to account, both by openness, and a restructuring of institutions.

All this comes down to history. The people have never taken freedom and power. They have accepted it as a benevolant gift from above. And now the inevitable is happening. Those above are taking it back.

Unfortunately we exported our revolution to the USA. Which is why we're in this state. I'm an anti-monarchist, as I find the idea offensive, and I believe the institution does more harm on balance than good. Your argument is one example of the harmful effects of the crown.

You all talk about the ballence of power and Orwell, and what a shame it is that this is not checked in the government, but you forget one of his major themes, esp. in Animal Farm. Absolute power corrupts absolutly.

I don't see that as a theme in Animal Farm as much as I see it as an allegory of the Communist system. Which is perhaps why we don't talk about this observation: it's too implicit in his broader observations.