I read an incredible article today on the BBC news website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7340174.stm) . Unsurprisingly I did not find it incredible because of its powerful journalism or dissenting viewpoint, I found it incredible because it was yet another of those initiatives that ought to leave middle England spluttering into their cornflakes, but instead passes by without a second look, and confirms this countries descent into fascism and enforced conformity.
The story outlines how the police have been ‘learning lessons’ form the recent protests around China hosting this years Olympics. One assume they have not been learning the lesson ‘don’t’ give the Olympics to totalitarian regimes with appalling human rights records’, but have perhaps been learning a thing or two about policing from their Chinese special forces counterparts. The article outlines how in the interests of ‘security’ police are spending £600million in the run up to the 2012 Olympics to:
> Install a “technological footprint” across London as a “first line of security
> Introduce state of the art technology that tracks all spectators from the venue right to their homes, through the use of special tickets with trackers in them
> Deploy advanced identity-recognition techniques to monitor the crowds,
> Deploy enhanced car number-plate recognition systems
> Buy three new helicopters to carry out close surveillance
> Install biometric fingerprint checks for all workers on the Olympic sites
Two thoughts follow form this revelation: one, who are the police expecting at the 2012 Olympics that they feel the need to deploy the biggest security operation this side of Dunkirk; and, are people simply going to stand by and allow this to happen?
Sadly there is no debate about it at all for the most part. News items like this are not widely reported, you have to look for them and keep your eyes and ears open, and certainly the majority of the population that maybe don't take a paper or watch news, or the rest that read tabloids and watch sky news (i.e. those being spoon fed Rupert Murdoch’s agenda) have no idea, or regurgitate the old chestnut that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".
For me it has been proven time and time again that technologies like this can not and will not make any real, quantifiable difference to security. Thus, you have to wonder about other motives and forces drive these decisions. And I think the prime one is a desire to know more and more information. Begging the question, why? Well, I think governments are increasingly in the pockets of business interests (I know it has always been the case, but I think the way globalisation has led to a huge re-scaling of business from a primarily local, or national enterprise to a series of huge global conglomerates has grossly reinforced the power and control by business over government).
And I think that in the 21st Century, the so called 'Knowledge Economy' and focus on technologies, means that one of the most valuable commodities in the world is data. Our governments collect data on us. Our credit cards collect data on us. Our mobile phone collects data on us. Our internet service providers collect data on us. Everyone is busy collecting data on us. You think how many times in a day or a week you have to provide data to various external organisations and government departments. And why? It's always portrayed as being for our security, or to make our lives easier, or to improve the shopping experience by allowing retailers to tailor their products or their special offers to our own individual needs. I actually think the desire of business to get their hands on our data is at least as insidious as the governments desire.
Both have one driving influence in their quest for knowledge. Power. If you have enough information on us you have power over us. Either the power of the government to monitor and record so much information on us that they can keep us supine and docile (who wants to go on a demo if the police are going to be there videoing you with a digital camcorder that when run back against a computer checks your facial biometric details against the record of biometrics they take when you renew your passport, thus allowing them to conclusively prove you took part in an 'illegal' activity, allowing them to arrest you, and take more of your details: your dna and fingerprints, etc) or the power of business to market products at us, offer credit to us, get us locked into a never ending contract of debt, desire and consumerism.The worrying trend is that the government now sells the data it collects on us to businesses, and businesses collect data on us which they hold for many years and pass, if asked, on to the various law enforcement agencies. I believe it is a new form of control, certainly in advanced western countries, to replace the reliance on physical force. Whilst that option will always remain for governments, they have realised it is much cheaper, much more effective, and much better for public relations, to control the population implicitly rather than brutally and explicitly. So perhaps one lesson that the English police are learning form the Chinese experience of the Olympics is that it is better to invest heavily in security than have the spectacle of protestors fighting police on the capitals streets.
So many of the things that saddle and burden us these days exist to subtlety condition our behaviours. Who feels able or motivated to stand up and protest/live autonomously/make a stand/complain when they are saddled with debt, fear, and unfulfilled (and unfulfilable) desire? Debt coupled with false expectations. For why do people get into debt? Because it is easy. Because the banks make it far too easy for people to get their hands on money they can not ever hope to repay. Because people are led to believe form an early age that status is achieved through material possession. That owning a house, a car, gucci jeans, rayban sunglasses, the latest blackberry, a 32" plasma TV, or a big new shinny car makes you a better person. And now, with the level of data control it is even easier to control this pattern. Banks and businesses know what your interest are, they know what your dreams are (after all they have spent vast sums of money trying to condition your dreams and desires), and they know how to interact with you. You have been segmented, placed into a specific demographic field, you are communicated with very very specifically.
In creating the twin leviathans of debt and desire you control a population much more thoroughly than through the mere threat of violence. Effectively you have made each person internalise the system of control, so instead of needing external physical forms of control (i.e. the police) individuals now do their own policing. They stop to think, can I afford to jack this job in? Can I afford to stand up for my rights? Can I afford to get cautioned if it affects my ability to go abroad? Can I afford to get arrested if it affects my chances of getting a good job? And if you decide you can’t afford it, then just take out a loan, get another credit card, or re-mortgage your house.
And interestingly, for the people that see through this lie, and who choose to live and exist autonomously as individuals, the more traditional, old fashioned sort of control, that borne of physical violence, is rolled out. And interestingly, the roll out of force is more often that not preceded by, directed by, and driven by, data. Hence the emergence of ‘intelligence led policing’, which more often than not exhibits the antithesis of intelligence, and simply relies on observation, phone tapping, the trawling of various radical websites, and the use of agents to infiltrate groups and organisations. (Only this week the anti-airport expansion group Plane Stupid exposed one of their newer members as a stooge working for a private security firm with very concrete ties to BAA.). The state powers seem offended by groups and individuals that refuse to play ball and share all their data in the public domain. Indeed this offends them so greatly that they will go to extremes just to infiltrate these groups, gain information, and then crack down physically on them. And of course their end goal, to complete this vicious cycle of control, is to capture data. Names, dates, plans, networks, phone numbers, email addresses, finger prints, dna. Enough data to ensure that they do not have the same difficulties tracking you or your groups in future. One of the many fascist tendencies of the recent terrorism legislation was its bestowing of powers on police to be able to force individuals to give up data without even being suspected of a crime (let alone involved in one).
And so we come full circle. The government wishes to control us, and operates at the behest of elite interests, predominantly the interest of capital. Hence they wish to host global spectacles like the Olympics as it is a great way to boost business, open new markets, gain media exposure, and so on. This desire rides roughshod over the desires of anyone else. From the people displaced by the building needed for this global spectacle of capital to take place (whether those displaced in China, or those displaced in east London) to those that object to China’s record in Burma, Tibet, and within its own borders to those that simply question whether their taxes should be spent to boost the flow of capital in the global economy; there are many who do not feel the Olympic spirit. And these dangerous, dissenting voices must be controlled. Only, you understand, in order to defend the Olympic ideal.
Those police on foot, on bike, on roller blades, on buses, in helicopters, and observing through the lenses of camcorders and CCTV cameras who so valiantly defended the Olympic flame as it passed through London, Paris and San Francisco, were all defending the Olympic ideal! And in order to do so they needed to observe and record, to capture data, to infiltrate dangerous and subversive groups, and to deploy physical violence (alongside some Chinese special forces in nice tracksuits) to catch those who dissented. And when these reprobates had been caught they were sifted for data and forced to provide permanent forms of ID (dna, fingerprints and photos) in order to improve security.
Security to allow the games to take place. So that more products can be sold, more records kept (why on earthy would you need a ticket that can track your movements!?). You can buy your official 2012 Olympic tickets with your Visa card (official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics), possibly online using software by Microsoft (official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics ), print your directions on your Samsung printer (official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics ), purchase a McDonalds (official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics), shave with a Gillette macfusionpowervibratesuper (official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics) , drink a coca cola (official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics), or if it all gets too much for you why not stay at home and watch the spectacle on your Panasonic 32” plasma TV (official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics). You get the picture.
But don’t forget the Olympics is all about a sporting ideal. One borne of wide spread drug abuse admittedly, but hey, don’t let that stop you consuming. The Olympics drive the economy, they encourage consumerism, and in doing so they continue the conditions for a free flow of data form consumers to corporations and governments. These corporations and governments will not allow anything to stand in the way of this 21st economic ideal, and so will, borne of necessity, share data with the forces of law and order to ensure your security and the security of the games(after all how would the world continue if the men’s 85kg straight lift didn’t go ahead?!). If threatened they will deploy force to uphold the noble traditions of the Olympics.
This little musing may appear to have developed on twin tracks, the Olympics and the quest for data, but the two are related. The quest for data underpins the quest for increased consumerism, increased consumerism produces more and more data, and once you get used to having more and more data taken from you and recorded (both by state and businesses) you will be de-sensitised to it. You will also be controlled. You will know that they know. You will think twice about fighting your corner. So bear two things in mind – think about the data you are asked for and daily provide. Think who is asking for it, what they will do with it, and why they need it. And refuse to play along. Your information is yours, don’t’ allow it to become another commodity because commodities feed consumerism and the free play of consumer capitalism requires security. Everything needs increased security these days it would appear. But why? If the Olympics just didn’t go ahead would it matter? Would the world stop? Would all those hormone and steroid ridden athletes implode with disappointment? Only if the lack of Olympics meant they could no longer be the official face of Nike, official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics.
