As REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES have shouted these few decades------these security and surveillance goals were part of a MASTER PLAN from REAGAN/CLINTON era for US cities being made FAILED STATES.
Remember, this is when the US went from being controlled by REAL LEFT social progressives to FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1%. This is what brought the shift in what defines PUBLIC SAFETY----COMMUNITY POLICING.
As we see below all these global banking 1% surveillance policies really took hold in NYC-----and since BALTIMORE was at that time hit by NYC MAYOR BLOOMBERG controlling PUBLIC SAFETY at global hedge fund JOHNS HOPKINS -----our 99% of WE THE BALTIMORE CITIZENS black, white, and brown citizens were captured by these same surveillance/camera/video structures.
Back in 1990s these technologies were not as advanced-----these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----brought higher and higher surveillance quality.
New NYPD surveillance cameras to cover stretch of Upper East ...
www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-metro... Three of the eight new Argus cameras will provide coverage next to the FDR Drive that is difficult for police to reach by patrol car, including Andrew Haswell Green Park, near E. 62nd St., and ...
N.S.A. Triples Collection of Data From U.S. Phone Companies ...www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/politics/nsa...The National Security Agency collected last year three times the phone and text message records it did the year before, a new report said on Friday. ... on Page A11 of the New York edition with ...
The Best New York Homeowners Insurance for 2019 | Reviews.comwww.reviews.com/homeowners-insurance/new-york The Best New York Homeowners Insurance Companies New York’s average annual premiums for homeowners insurance are right in line with the national average — $1,287 per year for an HO-3 policy, compared to $1,173 nationwide.
FBI Surveillance Team Reveals Tricks Of The Trade : NPRwww.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=...FBI Surveillance Team Reveals Tricks Of The Trade The members of the FBI's Special ... When I met three SSGs in New York City recently, they would only talk to me under the strictest conditions
At the same time, each of these policing agencies were consolidated-----HOMELAND SECURITY now represents all of these US local, state, and national policing and security agencies.
January 23, 2019 9:18 AM ET
Diversified Consumer Services
Company Overview of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is an educational and research institution that provides academic programs in public health services. The institute offers doctorate and masters education with focus on biochemistry and molecular biology, biostatistics, environmental health sciences, epidemiology, health policy, molecular microbiology, and immunology areas. It also provides certifications, continuing education, distance learning, and graduate training programs. The institute was founded in 1916 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health operates as a subsidiary of Johns Hopkins University.
Center for Health Security rejoins JHU's Bloomberg School of Public Health
Center, founded at Johns Hopkins in 1998, aims to protect people's health from consequences of epidemics, disasters through research, policy recommendations
By Stephanie Desmon
/ Published Jan 17, 2017
In a move designed to create significant new opportunities for research and for contributing to national and international public health policy, the Center for Health Security—previously affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center—has joined the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
"The Center for Health Security brings strong expertise in global health, health policy, and environmental health that will enrich our school's work around the globe."
Mike Klag, Bloomberg School dean
The mission of the Center for Health Security is to protect people's health from the consequences of epidemics and disasters by conducting research and making policy recommendations. Center researchers study the organizations, systems, and tools essential to preventing and responding to public health crises.
The center, originally founded at Johns Hopkins in 1998 by the late D. A. Henderson, has been affiliated with UPMC since 2003.
"The mission of our center is a perfect fit with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health because we share a commitment to improving global health and to protecting lives through large-scale change," says Tom Inglesby, director and CEO of the Center for Health Security. "Moving to the Bloomberg School will expand the reach of the center and help us collaborate with and tap into the universe of great talent at Johns Hopkins. We look forward to joining our expertise on health security and preparedness policy to Johns Hopkins' internationally recognized community of scientists and public health scholars."
Leadership at both the center and the Bloomberg School said they hope that collaboration on current health challenges such as Zika, Ebola, antibiotic resistance, refugee health needs, and the effects of climate change will lead to greater advances against these leading threats.
"The Center for Health Security brings strong expertise in global health, health policy, and environmental health that will enrich our school's work around the globe," says Michael J. Klag, dean of the Bloomberg School. "We welcome our new colleagues to the school and look forward to working together on research, evaluation, and policy development, both nationally and internationally."
The Center for Health Security officially joins the Bloomberg School today with 22 employees. Its offices will remain in the current location at 621 East Pratt St. in Baltimore.
Here we have from a global banking 1% FAKE NEWS media outlet what we knew back in 1990s-------YES, this is a surveillance state structure-----yes, NYC and BLOOMBERG were the source of these FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% policies wrapped in PRETENDING to be left social benefit.
We want to repeat------these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA having been called PRAGMATIC CENTRIST ------that CENTER MODERATE ------have NEVER been pragmatists-----they have always been NIHILISTS.
When we discuss PRIVACY issues in Baltimore as surround sound surveillance cameras and audio structures throughout the city----now MOVING FORWARD to your neck of the woods ---all mid-size US cities now installing these structures-----this is how long it took to reach today's saturation.
When far-right wing global banking 5% freemason/Greek players wonder why we constantly say all this is bad------why would citizens want to live in these surveillance structures-----often we hear some US citizens feel SAFER. Indeed, that is how these structures were originally sold as public policy---but today we already see where MOVING FORWARD will be brutally repressive and oppressive ---not for public safety but for INDOCTRINATION of repressive authoritarian regime societal structures
THE ATLANTIC in 1990s when all these public policy were beginning to be installed were writing articles selling these ideas as PUBLIC SAFETY.
Mayor Bloomberg Is a Surveillance-State Extremist, Not a Pragmatic Centrist
He talks as if 9/11 and the Boston marathon bombing justify cameras everywhere. But they wouldn't have stopped either attack.
Apr 25, 2013
Even when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg receives criticism, he is regarded as "a pragmatic, apolitical, solution-oriented centrist," as Joe Nocera once described him in The New York Times.
But it isn't so.
The conventional wisdom is wrong. Although Bloomberg belongs to neither the conservative movement nor the progressive movement, he is an ideologue. His response to events is influenced by his paternalistic ideas about the direction society "needs to" head more than by a dispassionate response to the facts. This makes him a lot like most politicians. The conceit that he is a pragmatist is based in nothing more than the fact that he is more willing than most to transgress against norms of personal liberty.
The latest illustration of his ideological approach: his response to the Boston marathon bombing.
"Look, we live in a very dangerous world," he said. "We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11."
We have to understand that in the world going forward, we're going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That's good in some senses, but it's different than what we are used to. And the people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry, but we live in a complex world where you're going to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution I think have to change.
It is hardly surprising that an unapologetic paternalist who frequently shows disregard for civil liberties would favor creating a more expansive surveillance state than the one that presently exists.
But ponder the examples Bloomberg cites as if they justify his conclusion.
Security cameras wouldn't have prevented hijackers from flying airplanes into the World Trade Center. In Boston, there were already enough private security cameras in place to identify the bombing suspects, and more cameras couldn't have stopped two guys with backpacks from dropping them.
There's no reason to think more surveillance cameras or fewer Constitutional rights would've saved lives in either case*. Yet Bloomberg invokes 9/11 and Boston in support of that preexisting agenda, exploiting the terrorist attack to advance his purposes as blatantly as Dick Cheney.
I don't doubt that Bloomberg earnestly believes America would be better off with omnipresent surveillance and fewer Constitutional protections, any more than I doubt that Dick Cheney really believed that invading and occupying Iraq was in the long-term interests of the United States. But neither is a rational response to the terrible attacks we actually suffered, even though both men improved the odds of getting their way by invoking the specter of terrorism.
At least the political press understands that Cheney is an ideologue, even when those who share his agenda try to represent it as pragmatic. Despite it all, Bloomberg is still treated as a pragmatist.
That should end.
A solution-oriented pragmatist wouldn't respond to the Boston attack by telling people they need more security cameras and fewer rights. He or she would look at facts specific to the case, many of which are still being discovered, and suggest solutions grounded in what actually happened. Invoking a tragedy isn't off limits. If you want to argue that the FBI should pay more attention to tips it receives from foreign governments, of course you're going to cite Tamerlan Tsarnaev. What's unpersuasive is invoking Boston in service of a policy that wouldn't have stopped it.
A certain kind of surveillance is almost certainly going to be more common in the future -- the sort that we all participate in by walking around with smart phones that take GPS tagged, high resolution photos and videos. Between smart phones and private security cameras, it's increasingly hard to imagine any notable event happening in a big crowd without someone noticing.
Right now, it takes a major crime for all that visual data to be accessed. In other words, it is made available to authorities after a mass casualty attack, but is of no use to someone like, say, a busybody mayor who wants to monitor the size of soda cup held by the patrons exiting a particular bodega. I doubt that's the specific reason that Bloomberg wants more surveillance cameras. But I'm confident he's imagined all sorts of paternalistic ways to make use of NYC's surveillance cameras that have nothing to do with protecting Americans from future terrorist attacks.
Just wait until removing the cameras is unthinkable.
Meanwhile, many who write about all the cameras he's installed in NYC don't ask any hard questions. This MSNBC story is particularly amusing:
If you put your backpack down in lower Manhattan and walk away, a "smart" camera may just focus in on it. And if you don't retrieve it within a few minutes, a bomb squad might storm your knapsack. More and more "smart" surveillance cameras are being used to identify potential threats in New York City, according to Ray Kelly, the city's police commissioner. "You can put an algorithm in these cameras" that can spot potential threats like a discarded backpack or large package, Kelly explained.
When a bag was left outside the New York Stock Exchange, Kelly said it was "smart" cameras who alerted the NYPD. The police quickly deemed it a threat and sent out a bomb squad. That bag didn't contain a bomb, he said, but it's a prime example of how "smart" surveillance cameras work.
So that's a prime example? A false positive?
The story never mentions an instance when cameras actually stopped a terrorist plot. Or how easy it would be to plant a bomb in a crowded subway car or department store instead of on the street, if the cameras really did get good enough to rush police to the scene of a bomb and diffuse it before it exploded, which is itself an unlikely scenario. Of course, this comes from the mayoral administration that defends years of racially profiling innocent Muslim Americans, at great costs to their community, even though the divisive, resource intensive work "never generated a lead or triggered a terrorism investigation."
That isn't very pragmatic.
And Bloomberg isn't a pragmatist. He is ideologically committed to the proposition that increasing the power of authorities and impinging on once sacrosanct liberties is necessary to keep people safe, whether from terrorists or themselves. Of course he wants to watch us all more closely. We'd be fools to let him.
*The massacre at Columbine High School, the movie-theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, the Newtown shooting, and the killing spree at Fort Hood: None of these horrific acts would've been prevented by increasing police surveillance in public places.
So, here is the problem from 1990s to today. When we discuss far-right wing global banking 5% freemason/Greek players black, white and brown as being in a NETWORK------working for other freemason/Greek organizations and themselves-----and as we discuss how getting a job in US cities like NYC and BALTIMORE come with requiring applicants and employees to be members of these FREEMASON/GREEK organizations-----we see a small group of PLAYERS tied to a NETWORK being made to feel they are INSIDERS/WINNERS------when in fact the goals of these repressive/oppressive structures will not include what is today a 5% freemason/Greek player club. What is today a NETWORK of insiders inside a NETWORK of global corporate security corporations will end in that 5% NETWORK disappearing.
Today, as employment is made harder and more scarce------people are required to be members of these 5% freemason/Greek player groups----we are seeing ALL community activities surrounding PRIVACY-------DISAPPEAR.
This is the GORILLA-IN-ROOM public policy for our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE-----in regards to PRIVACY policies.
big brother Aug. 9, 2012
The NYPD’s Domain Awareness System Is Watching You
By Joe Coscarelli
The New York City Police Department and Microsoft have partnered up to bring the world a surveillance system straight out of a sci-fi novel. With a name both mundane and a little bit menacing, the Domain Awareness System allows the department to access around 3,000 CCTV cameras around the city and link the feeds with software to cross-check criminal and terrorist databases, take radiation levels, scan license plates, and more — 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, from a lower Manhattan headquarters. And when Microsoft turns around and sells the technology to other cities, New York gets a cut.
“We’re not your mom-and-pop’s Police Department anymore,” said Mayor Bloomberg yesterday at the system’s unveiling. “We are in the next century. We are leading the pack.” Ray Kelly added, “We can track where a car associated with a murder suspect is currently located and where it’s been over the past several days, weeks or months.” Months! The archival period for video is actually 30 days, but can be extended if the Deputy Commissioner of Counterterrorism feels like it.
The official documents ensure, “As with all NYPD operations, no person will be targeted or monitored by the Domain Awareness System solely because of actual or perceived race, color, religion or creed, age, national origin, alienage, citizenship status, gender (including gender identity), sexual orientation, disability, marital status, partnership status, military status, or political affiliation or beliefs.” But we’ve heard that one before.
Beyond the surveillance integration, the Domain Awareness System is an investment. “I hope Microsoft sells a lot of copies of this system,” the mayor said, “because 30 percent of the profits will go to us.” High-tech crime fighting and a business opportunity? It’s a Bloomberg-ian dream.
We often hear that MEGALOMANIA-----is MOVING FORWARD as global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS capture our sovereign US and bring it to colonial status. CALIGULA and those pre-Christian NERO/CATO/SENECA have always been described as MEGALOMANIACS----as too CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----working for foreign sovereignty of MALTA KNIGHTS OF MALTA----TRIBE OF JUDAH. These are what is called .0001% of global rich ---we call them the global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
Whenever we have these far-right wing authoritarian global corporate FASCIST captures of our government-----tied to EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY-------it brings MEGALOMANIA into our public policies-----and nothing is more POWER-seeking then MOVING FORWARD TOTALITARIAN surveillance.
When we discuss the surveillance side of these POWER structures we are talking about VOYEURISM------as a mental illness----tied to megalomania.
Megalomania is a disorder of mentality at which the consciousness or behavior of the person is seriously broken. It is shown in revaluation of own importance, popularity, wealth, power, significance. The megalomania isn’t considered as an individual disease, but as a symptom at maniacal syndrome, paranoia, or as one of inferiority complex types.
Causes of disorder development have not been yet investigated, but it is supposed that megalomania causes are:
- strong stressful situations;
- mental injuries;
- complications of general paralysis;
- affective psychoses;
- paraphrenic schizophrenia.
Symptoms of megalomania:
- revaluation by the patient of the importance, physical and mental abilities;
- narcissism (narcissism);
- hyperactivity, garrulity;
- concentration on own thoughts.
- frequent change of mood;
- lack of interest to the opinion of people around;
- aggression in relation to people around;
Disease is dangerous with possible development of a depression and aphrenia.
Apply the preparations containing lithium, neuroleptics, fenotiazin for megalomania treatment. It is necessary to treat a basic disease – maniac-depressive psychosis, schizophrenia. Good results are provided by psychotherapy. Patients with megalomania need social rehabilitation; their interaction with society is complicated.
Here in Baltimore City these few decades has seen a MAYOR SCHMOKE/MAYOR O'MALLEY/MAYOR RAWLING-BLAKE/now PUGH all MOVING FORWARD in installing these hyper-surveillance voyeuristic structures.
Exposed: Voyeurism, Surveillance and the Camera
Blake Morrison looks at the history of voyeurism, from Actaeon to paparazzi hounding the Princess of Wales. A new exhibition shows how technology has given us fresh ways of satisfying our desire for a secret glimpse
Fri 21 May 2010 19.06 EDT First published on Fri 21 May 2010 19.06 EDT
Snap happy ... Walker Evans's Women On a Subway. Photograph: Walker Evans Archive/Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
As Actaeon was the first to discover, snooping is a serious offence. In Ovid's version of the legend, Diana is bathing in a spring of clear water with her nymphs when Actaeon comes upon her at the end of a day's hunting. He doesn't intend to pry, but he can't help staring, and she's outraged by the intrusion on her privacy. As Ted Hughes retells it, Diana "Raged for a weapon – for her arrows / To drive through his body. / No weapon was to hand – only water. / So she scooped up a handful and dashed it / Into his astonished eyes, as she shouted: / 'Now, if you can, tell how you saw me naked.' / That was all she said, but as she said it / Out of his forehead burst a rack of antlers . . ." Transformed into a stag, Actaeon is hunted down and torn to pieces by his own hounds.
The man who spied on Lady Godiva, and who gave the term Peeping Tom to the language, was punished by being struck blind. As for the Elders who gawped at Susanna bathing, then tried to blackmail her, they were put to death. The paparazzi who spied on Diana's namesake, the Princess of Wales, got off more lightly. But in the aftermath of her death they were accused of brutally hunting her down: insidious stalkers who'd destroyed their innocent prey. It was said in their defence that the princess, unlike her predecessor, hadn't minded being looked at – that she enjoyed bathing in the limelight. But there was blood on their hands nonetheless.
All art involves looking. But some looks are more invasive than others. Where's the line to be drawn? What's allowable and what's exploitative? Is it OK to portray people without them knowing? These questions come up in regard to life writing and documentary films. But it's with photography that they're most contentious, and a major new exhibition at the Tate, Exposed: Voyeurism, Surveillance and the Camera, raises them in relation to images of sex, war and celebrity from the past 150 years.
Modern technology has made voyeurism more sophisticated, through zoom lenses, camera phones and CCTV. But as the curator of the Tate show, Sandra Phillips, argues, the desire to peek into the lives of others is basic to the human species. The pioneers of photography recognised that, using the camera to gain access behind closed doors. Some of their subjects were complicit. In the 1860s, the countess of Castiglione, mistress of Napoleon III, revelled in performing for a professional photographer. But by the end of the century, the fashion was for something less contrived. "Taken Unawares: Snapshots of Celebrated People" was a page in the tabloid Penny Pictorial. Readers welcomed it as proof that the rich and powerful are no different from the rest of us; the rich and powerful disliked it for the same reason.
To take a shot in secret was no easy thing in those days. But from the start photographers proved resourceful. Early portable cameras – known as "detectives" – were disguised as books and parcels, or hidden in canes, umbrellas and shoes. More practical was the vest pocket camera, with a shutter release cable dangling down the sleeve into the hand. Later came false lenses and right-angle viewfinders, with the camera pointing in one direction while the shot was taken in another. Walker Evans used this ploy in the 1930s, while photographing the poor in New Orleans and Mississippi; so did Helen Levitt, on the streets of Harlem. Later, the two of them prowled the New York subway, with Evans's camera concealed inside his overcoat. Uneasy about his sneakthief methods, Evans waited 25 years before publishing the results: "The rude and impudent invasion", had, he hoped, "been carefully softened and partially mitigated by a planned passage of time".
Some photographers justified their furtiveness as a ploy to secure an un-self-conscious pose or as an exercise in social reform. Jacob Riis's photos of the New York underclass in How the Other Half Lives (1890) were intended to highlight hardship and injustice. Lewis Hine tricked his way into mines and factories in order to expose the scandal of child labour. Tom Howard secreted a camera in his trouser leg in order to photograph the electrocution of the murderer Ruth Snyder. Another American, Paul Strand, took photos in the Bowery: his famous portrait of a blind woman – with a number pinned to her dress and a sign denoting her disability hanging from her neck – inspired Evans to take up photography as a career.
Strand's photo is disturbing because it highlights the helplessness of photographic subjects, who can't see what the camera is seeing (and in this case can't see at all). Those accustomed to public scrutiny are more streetwise and can spot a lens almost by instinct. Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, caught canoodling in swimsuits by Marcello Geppetti in 1962, may not have cared that they were being filmed; by then their affair was in the open. And Margaret Thatcher (ousted from office) and Paris Hilton (on her way to face drug charges) were too distraught to worry about hiding their tears when snapped in the back of their cars. But even celebs sometimes crack when their privacy is intruded on – in the Tate show there's a photo of Anita Ekberg's husband Anthony Steel angrily pursuing paparazzi down the street.
Rather than lurking out of sight, some photographers remind us of their presence. When Gary Winogrand snapped a snogging couple in New York in 1969, he was echoing Robert Doisneau's famous shot of a "spontaneous" lovers' kiss in Paris in 1950. But there's an onlooker in the image as well, a girl staring at the camera as if to challenge its presumption; the woman being kissed is staring, too; everyone knows what's going on (whereas Doisneau's couple are professional models pretending not to know). An earlier New York photographer, Weegee, is more surreptitious; his shot of lovers kissing at the movies in 1940 is taken from above. He's as remote as God or Google Earth, and they've no idea they're in the frame.
With pornography, most subjects knowingly perform private acts for public consumption. But an imbalance of power remains. If the models hadn't fallen on hard times, or weren't addicted to hard drugs, would they be willing to expose themselves? Degas both painted and photographed working women as they dried themselves after taking a bath. His models were seamstresses and ballet dancers as well as prostitutes, but all were conscious of their inferior social status; portraying them nude was his droit de seigneur. To judge by the Tate show, most early porn is peekaboo stuff of this kind – the thrill of the illicit. One model stares boldly back while touching herself; others are masked, half-clothed or reflected in mirrors. Either way, the viewer is a guilty voyeur.
A more recent trend has been to show voyeurism in action, with those watching, rather than those watched, the centre of attention. Kohei Yoshiyuki has a series of photos taken in Tokyo parks with infra-red sensitive film and filtered flashbulbs that show spectators sneaking up on couples while they have sex under cover of darkness. In similar vein, Susan Meiselas examines the faces of men leering at a stripper in a bar. These photos echo pictures of Susanna and the Elders, as painted by Rubens, Rembrandt, Tintoretto, Van Dyck and Gentileschi – a story of innocence falling victim to unscrupulous male desire. They point a moral, but they titillate as well.
With violence, as with sex, viewers don't always respond as the artist intends. Just as erotica can fail to arouse desire, so images of death and mayhem can fail to incite revulsion. Included in Exposed are photos of a burial party in the American civil war, the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, and assorted lynchings, firing squads, murders, electrocutions, suicide leaps, self‑immolations and mass graves. With war photos (whether Robert Capa's of a soldier falling in the Spanish civil war, or Eddie Adams's of a Viet Cong officer being shot in the head) there's often a suspicion of something being set up or over-elaborately composed. As Susan Sontag puts it: "People want the weight of witnessing without the taint of artistry, which is equated with insincerity." By this measure, Weegee emerges as the major figure of his day, because his photos of New York murders and tenement fires are so brutally frank – artful only in their literalism. Weegee grasped that to move the viewer the photographer must himself remain unmoved. For 10 years he took shots of murder and suicide victims, often arriving at the scene before the police did and noting details with icy clarity (when a woman jumps from a window and lands on the street, he reported, there won't be a mark on her face but usually one of her shoes comes off).
With murder victims and the war dead, permissibility is a sensitive issue: these people haven't consented to be shown as corpses. Press and broadcasting editors may decide that such photos deserve to be shown because they expose the realities of crime or battle and are therefore in the public interest. Photos from the Vietnam war – of the My Lai massacre, for instance – undoubtedly influenced anti-war sentiment. But as Sontag points out in her eloquent essay Regarding the Pain of Others, while images of distress "may spur people to feel they ought to 'care' more", they may also feel "that suffering and misfortune are too vast, too irrevocable, too epic to be much changed". The image of an Iraqi soldier, hideously disfigured after burning to death in a truck, caused a strong reaction when published in the Guardian in 1991, and prompted a long poem from Tony Harrison. But it didn't prevent the 2003 invasion. And it's only enemy soldiers (safely foreign, with families too far away to know or object) who are depicted so starkly; to show the corpses of British troops in current conflict would be deemed disrespectful and in shockingly bad taste.
The camera can't change the world, but there's an idea that it can protect us – hence surveillance, which promises to watch over us, and watch out for us, rather than merely watch. The idea of surveillance has already produced a sizeable body of literature, film and music – Huxley's Brave New World, Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, Hitchcock's Rear Window, Coppola's The Conversation, Henckel von Donnersmarck's The Lives of Others, even the Police song "Every Breath You Take" ("I'll be watching you") – and it's central to photography, too. Some of the first photos were police photos. And it wasn't just convicted criminals whose mugshots were placed on file but anyone who might pose a threat – anarchists, suffragettes, anti-war demonstrators, foreign spies whispering in the street.
The extent to which the state is watching us today would shock even Orwell. And while some photographers have hijacked advances in technology for their own kind of snooping (such as Alair Gomes, training telephoto lenses on muscled young men on the beach, or Merry Alpern taking a videocam into a women's dressing room), others have used old-fashioned landscape shots to depict the insidious spread of surveillance cameras in our suburbs and streets. To the photographer, CCTV is an affront, because it records at random, without human agency; it doesn't know it's bearing witness. And yet, as Sandra Phillips says, certain photos taken for security reasons – aerial reconnaissance shots of missile sites, for example, or the green glow of buildings seen through night-vision goggles – have a strange abstract-expressionist beauty.
Modern surveillance techniques look like the stuff of science fiction. But there's nothing new about the desire to watch someone without them knowing – and nothing unnatural about them being furious if they find out. If Actaeon happened on Diana today, he'd use his camera phone. But if he tried to post the photos on the internet, she'd have her lawyers rip him apart.
Muse - Megalomania (lyrics)
Published on Sep 6, 2012
ARTIST: Muse SONG: Megalomania ALBUM: Origin of Symmetry ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO MUSE! Enjoy!