Southerners and the Police State.

[stephendare]

For the past couple of years Ive been kind of surprised at the commentary and the opinions that Ive seen expressed on the local boards when it comes to fear of a Police State.

I guess I just automatically assumed that anyone who grew up with a yankee hating grandmother and a genetic belief in the right to bear arms would be highly allergic to anything that looked remotely like a loss of civil liberties.

In this, I guessed completely wrong.  Time and time again, when people are asked about their concern at domestic surveillance, closed circuit televisions, blackmail, registration of offenders, random searches etc.  There is always an firm if not enthusiastic receptiveness to these tactics and procedures.   I was kindof shocked.

Since it challenged my premises, I then thought that maybe it was due to the "Terrorism" panacea.

But that turned out to be short trip into the discard pile.  Regardless of terrorism, most of the locals also seperately endorsed the idea that "if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to worry about".

So then I kindof half remembered an old sociological study which found that while southerners werent any more likely than any other kind of American to be violent, as a group, they were exponentially more likely to approve of the violence.

"Well, did he need an ass kicking?"

Maybe that thinking was the somehow the guiding principle, I thought.  But then I decided that it didnt have much to bear on the subject and was a silly idea anyways.

I have finally come to the conclusion which I feel rock solid in hanging my hat on now.

Southerners (the men especially) do not fear a Police State.

Indeed.  Why should they?

They have spent their entire lives being the children, spouses, brothers, and associates of Southern Women.

This has cured them of any real fear of the Government.

From the cesspools of gossip at First Baptist to the locker rooms of the San Jose Country Club, to the topless bars of the westside, nothing of any importance escapes the detection, discussion, dissection and ultimate judgement of southern society.

In fact, nothing at all escapes.  Not even the totally, provably unimportant things.  Further, if even that is unavailable, most red blooded southerners (myself included) will simply make stupid shit up out of thin air.

Keeping a secret in a southern society is a laughable joke.  Its just a polite fiction.  Everyone knows all your damned business anyways, they are just pretending that they don't to see what kind of lies you'll tell about it.

I know this for a fact, because along with everyone else I know, I do it myself.  Frequently.

Text messages, facebook accounts, call histories, and now even gps systems are routinely deployed with the age old institutions of personal sightings, second hand gossip, choir meetings, and outright spying to make sure that no member of a southern family ever has any true privacy.

My Aunt margie was so connected with all the sundry women of garden club and church that I literally could not go to regency mall without her hearing about it before nightfall.  My father was similarly challenged.

In fact, there is only one way to prevent the spread of gossip, It won't be truly a secret of course, just a well contained bit of information:  and that is actual cold blooded blackmail.  In the south, while we can't really prevent complete personal transparency, we can at least make sure that there arent any terrible public discussions.  You can just keep the tales down to whispers and catty conversations at other people's lunches.

My other Aunt Bonnie foolish husband cheated on her for years, fond in the misplaced belief that she was blissfully unaware.   He never was noted for having much sense though.   She just held out for the divorce, letting her stack of reciepts and proof do the talking.  I do believe that the onset of No Fault Divorces in the State of Florida probably killed half of the enjoyment of married life:  The possibility of totally destroying your spouse if ever the need arose.

Compared to simple things like medical history and arrest records, what terror can those pale amatuers of the New World Order every hold over the heart and mind of a true southerner?

After all, if you can lie your way out of it with a Southern Mother/Girlfriend/Neighbor, the CIA is going to be a cakewalk.

Stephen Dare

[sheclown]

thanks Stephen, great post

[Karl_Pilkington]

I'm afraid you'd be sorely disappointed at the lack of gossip in the San Jose Country Club locker rooms, a cesspool of gossip?  hardly.  I will say this though, never been in the womans locker room, perhaps there's more going on there, maybe StephenDare knows.  Perhaps you meant the Epping Forest locker rooms, afterall thats Peyton's place.

[Dog Walker]

Hilarious, Stephen!

On a serious note you have given a perfect illustration about how a village keeps people in line and sets limits on their behavior.  You can't keep a secret in a village and you can't conceal your true nature.

Maybe our resorting to cameras in public places and open records is our attempt to create this transparent village environment in the big city.  You had no privacy in public places in a village so maybe we shouldn't have an expectation of privacy in the public spaces of a city.

[ChriswUfGator]

I'm afraid across most of the US, including just about every federal highway, this ship has already sailed before we even knew about it. They can track your car nonstop from florida through at least new jersey, via cameras they installed several years ago allegedly for "safety" reasons.

In addition, we are already covered by an intense web of cameras at every store, gas station, and ATM that we ever visit, all of which will be readily available for use against you if you ever do anything wrong. Prosecutors have software that dumps the ECU in your vehicle, and can tell them exactly how fast you were going, etc., if/when a crash occurs. If you have a GPS in your car, then there's already a record of where you went, when you went, how you got there, where you stopped, and how fast you were going. Ditto with OnStar, TeleAid, and similar systems.

So...while I DO think the proposal for cameras in public places should certainly be shot down, the truth is that the horse is already out of the barn on this one and we're just desperately trying to cling onto the tail. Over the last 10 years, every last bit of privacy has already been eroded, and most people didn't even notice it.

[Deuce]

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother

[Dog Walker]

But maybe the difference is that our Southern way at least allows us to sleep with the enemy.

OK!  Enough with the Southern incest jokes!

When we are in a public space, the street, a store, the highway, do we reasonably have an expectation of privacy?  What is the difference between a camera and a nosy neighbor or a passerby or the cop on the beat?  Doesn't public mean that we expect to be seen?

[Karl_Pilkington]

(If you see Christof, tell him I said hello)

Chef Christof hasn't been at SJ for some time now.  Chef Marcos has spiced up the menu with a latin flair which has been really good.  Neuvo latino has made it into the stodgy old SJ club fare and its been soundly welcomed.  He has also created a chefs table in the kitchen where he creates an incredible menu including specialty drinks to go with the dish, its excellent.

[ChriswUfGator]

But maybe the difference is that our Southern way at least allows us to sleep with the enemy.

When we are in a public space, the street, a store, the highway, do we reasonably have an expectation of privacy?  What is the difference between a camera and a nosy neighbor or a passerby or the cop on the beat?  Doesn't public mean that we expect to be seen?

He's just objecting to our society's continual slide down the slippery slope. As should you.

[Dog Walker]

"He's just objecting to our society's continual slide down the slippery slope. As should you."

I am not comfortable with it either, but am not sure if it is just discomfort with something new or concern about a real slope to a surveillance centered society. 

China and Cuba have a surveillance centered society, but they have done it low tech by having "block captains" who watch 24 hours a day on the street and who can call anyone down to explain what they are doing. 

London has the largest number of cameras in public places of anyplace in the world, but they don't seem to be loosing their civil liberties or be called to explain why they were going somewhere to the authorities.  The London subway and bus bombers were identified with their omnipresent cameras.

I think our (my) fear is that they might be used for something other than law enforcement i.e. something proactive rather than reactive.  Is there some law that could be used to spell out and limit how public cameras could be used.  Do the laws on the books already protect us from misuse?

[Deuce]

Dog Walker raises a great point. This is exactly what PKD raises in his sort story Minority Report. If we know someone is about to commit a crime, should we arrest them or stop them before they actually commit the crime, thereby preventing someone from becoming a victim. The dilemma that arises is the actual minority report. There is a chance they were not going to commit a crime at all, that by viewing the future we can actually change the future, kind of like the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. If there are not laws on the books that delimit the usage of the cameras as a public safety tool then inevitably civil rights will be violated.

[ChriswUfGator]

Dog Walker raises a great point. This is exactly what PKD raises in his sort story Minority Report. If we know someone is about to commit a crime, should we arrest them or stop them before they actually commit the crime, thereby preventing someone from becoming a victim. The dilemma that arises is the actual minority report. There is a chance they were not going to commit a crime at all, that by viewing the future we can actually change the future, kind of like the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. If there are not laws on the books that delimit the usage of the cameras as a public safety tool then inevitably civil rights will be violated.

But there are two different standards of behavior when it comes to private individuals and government. Just because a person can put up a security camera doesn't mean it's constitutional for the government to do it.

[macbeth25]

As long as I've done nothing wrong, I'm not too worried about who's taking my picture.  The problem, of course, is that photos or videos can be manipulated.  I'm sure readers have read or seen of someone's head or face appearing on another body or in the process of doing something they never did.  If that camera records someone breaking into my car or beating me up, I'm all for its being there.  I guess it depends on the end result.