State's new monopoly: photography?

[Verbal Mike]

So here's a quick though I had while reading this:
http://cominganarchy.com/2009/04/24/britains-watchful-eyes/
There's the theory that one of the defining aspects of the sovereign state is a monopoly on violence. With this whole surveillance thing and simultaneous anti-photography-of-public-places thing going on, could it be some states are trying to get a new monopoly - a monopoly on photography??

[Template]

I doubt they intended to from the start--except that, you know, all should emanate from the State, for the benefit of the State.

They'll act like they intended to, as much as governments act like the other monopolies were fully intentional.

I doubt they intended it even now.  They'll just use the monopoly somewhat effectively.

[Requia ☣]

This seems more like a case of admitting a policy that was in place all along.  Cops have always been happy to harrass people for taking pictures of something they don't like, now they can arrest you after you're beaten and had your camera smashed too.

[the last yatto]

pention to ban cameras from citizens
something about letting them keep their guns*


if in a place where guns are are already outlawed substitute swords

[fomenter]

our cameras can do no wrong,
your camera can do no good,
anybody caught using camera to prevent the abuse of power will be arrested,
any abuse of power by our cameras will be endorsed.. 

[Novatore]

DAys after a cop shot a handcuffed man on a BART transit stop the NYPD began pushing for the ability to shut off cellphones and other mobile devices in case of terrorist threat.
hxxp://grinding.be/2009/01/24/its-going-to-get-worse-before-it-gets-better/

[fomenter]

 tim fiolat is getting his conspiracy on 


http://cominganarchy.com/2009/04/24/britains-watchful-eyes/

[Cain]

Anthony Giddens (ironically or not, one of New Labour's chief ideologues) has some ideas that might relate to this:

Giddens argues that the development of capitalism, industrialism and the nation-state cannot be understood adequately in any simple 'base–superstructural' manner. Each has its own independent logic and cannot be reduced to the other. 'Capitalism [must be] prised free from the general framework of historical materialism, and integrated in a different approach to previous history and to the analysis of modern institutions.' Giddens claims that the accumulation of administrative, and particularly state, power is the dominant force driving distantiation. The rising administrative power of the state derives from its capacities to code information and supervise activity. As a result, the state increasingly can control the timing and spacing of human activity. It is not just the commodification of labour power that makes the development of productive forces possible. Surveillance in the workplace is equally important. Drawing heavily on the work of Michel Foucault, Giddens argues that the concentration of allocative resources depends upon authoritative resources, so that productivity does not develop from within capitalism alone.

The development of capitalism depended upon the emergence of a centralized state capable of pacifying the population and enforcing a calculable law, subject to neither the whim of kings nor lordly exemption. As in the work of Charles Tilly, Giddens claims that this task was accomplished through the expanding administrative power of absolutist states in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, driven in part by the exigencies of changing modes of warfare. The demand for resource extraction led the state to monetize the economy and stimulate its growth, and to secure mass conscription. The reduction of overt violence within the state, combined with the growing surveillance of its population by the state, was a necessary precondition for the expansion of industrialism and capitalism.

[Sheered Völva]

Is the poster on that site real?  Under it, the author Munro Ferguson wrote, 'What the Met envisions as "reassurance" looks a bit more like a book cover illustration for the latest re-print of Orwell's 1984.'

I partially disagree.  That poster looks like the cover of a science fiction magazine sometime around the 1940s to 1960s.  I wonder if this is a put on.  I hope they don't actually expect modern day Brits to buy into this....and even more, I hope modern day Brits don't.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Is the poster on that site real?  Under it, the author Munro Ferguson wrote, 'What the Met envisions as "reassurance" looks a bit more like a book cover illustration for the latest re-print of Orwell's 1984.'

I partially disagree.  That poster looks like the cover of a science fiction magazine sometime around the 1940s to 1960s.  I wonder if this is a put on.  I hope they don't actually expect modern day Brits to buy into this....and even more, I hope modern day Brits don't.

"1984" was published in 1949, and some of the book covers have in fact looked a lot like that poster, what with the "watchful eye" theme and all.

[fomenter]

[Spork]

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/05/12/police-arrest-man-for-taking-photo-in-rei

Man snaps pics of Loomis guards opening cash machine in local REI.  Cops are called and arrest him.  Man refuses to produce ID.  Good on him.

Police and Loomis are gonna get the dirty end of this stick.  REI has emphatically stated that Man was not trespassing.  There's no expectation of privacy in public.  What were they thinking?

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

Is it just me or does the big brother on this picture look like a really mad elf?

[LMNO]

It looks like Moloch.
   \

[P3nT4gR4m]

Never mind big brother, WTF is up with Julia? 

also...



Sgt Pepper is watching you