I think I agree with you about the UK. Most people do seem ok with it. Of course, we'll never know if that might have been different had the reporting not been quashed by D notices.
I have to admit, I find surveillance extremely creepy, but then I translate it into my head into an Iain Banks novel. The great orbital in Look to Windward, is essentially governed by the AI Mind at its heart, which lets them all go freely about their business, yet saves them from peril. I like that world, and if I knew the ones who save me would never abuse it, I'd be happy.
Given the fact it's probably impossible to stop surveillance, I think the real question is how we make sure it's used for good. As it stands, the people in charge appear to believe public knowledge and debate is a bad thing.
So my question is less: "how much surveillance can democracy withstand?" and more, "how little oversight can a democracy withstand?"
The problem seems to be that power always seems to get abused at some point or another. Initially the surveillance was supposedly about terrorism. Now everyone is scrambling to use it for other purposes [1]. Organised crime, drug smuggling, human trafficking. They are all worthy things to fight, but it is a slippery slope I believe.
Soon they will access your car GPS to figure out if you were speeding or even if you possibly could have spent that time doing the work you claimed so that you can deduct your travel on the taxes. Where does it stop? And who watches the watchers? They are very resistant to any insight by anyone who isn't on a committee with insiders, i.e. politicians who have worked all their lives to get to the point where they can sit on these committees. Do you think they will say: "Stop! Enough!"?
I have to admit, I find surveillance extremely creepy, but then I translate it into my head into an Iain Banks novel. The great orbital in Look to Windward, is essentially governed by the AI Mind at its heart, which lets them all go freely about their business, yet saves them from peril. I like that world, and if I knew the ones who save me would never abuse it, I'd be happy.
Given the fact it's probably impossible to stop surveillance, I think the real question is how we make sure it's used for good. As it stands, the people in charge appear to believe public knowledge and debate is a bad thing.
So my question is less: "how much surveillance can democracy withstand?" and more, "how little oversight can a democracy withstand?"