For 10 years, Edward Snowden has been stuck in Russia after leaking thousands of documents revealing a secret surveillance network (not unlike the one found in 1984) controlled by the U.S. government.
One of the most shocking projects brought to light was called PRISM, wherein the National Security Agency collected data from internet corporations like Yahoo and Google. Even those that tried to legally resist ended up losing in a secret court overseen by secret judges. Another was called Bull Hill, and in this project the NSA built back doors into the databases of corporate partners to access their information, also leaving it vulnerable to anyone else with the means to find it. Snowden explains that the NSA had been wanting to put these kinds of projects in place since the 1990s, but they were rejected. However, after 9/11, “they used secrecy and they used the justification of terrorism to start these programs in secret without asking Congress, without asking the American people” (Snowden). This is very similar to how the Party uses capitalism and their war with Eurasia or Eastasia to justify constant surveillance and worsening living conditions. However, it has been shown, both in reality and in Orwell’s novel, that these are just covers for action. In 1984, Julia even speculates that “the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, ‘just to keep people frightened’” (Orwell 160). The government is constantly switching the roles of ally and enemy between Eurasia and Eastasia. They plaster huge posters all over London depicting monstrous Eurasian soldiers to elicit hate and support for the Party. At one point in the novel, Winston describes Victory Square, in which “Big Brother’s statue gazed southward towards the skies where he had vanquished the Eurasian aeroplanes (the Eastasian aeroplanes, it had been, a few years ago)” (Orwell 143). It’s clear that the war is being used as a kind of propaganda. As for the U.S. government, Snowden explains that since he leaked the documents, “the first open court, the first federal court that's reviewed this, outside the secrecy arrangement, called the programs Orwellian and likely unconstitutional”. Additionally, “two independent White House panels who reviewed all of the classified evidence said these programs have never stopped a single terrorist attack that was imminent in the United States” (Snowden). What Snowden revealed is that weakening internet security without consent in the name of fighting terrorism is only making the people more vulnerable to things like cyber attacks, not less. What the NSA did was illegal and harmful to the public. It doesn’t seem that Snowden was the one who compromised the county’s security, rather it was the American government who had already been doing this for years in secret. Without him, we would still be in the dark. At least now, we are aware of these violations and can fight for a free and secure internet. To top it off, there have been no harmful repercussions after Snowden exposed the unethical government surveillance: “the risks that have been threatened, the risks that have been played up by the government have never materialized” (Snowden). Because of all of these factors, Ed Snowden is a hero. If he had not released those documents, who else would have? Who else would be willing to risk their life and reputation for the sake of the world’s privacy? Snowden utilized the First Amendment and free press to challenge the government in a completely open way, something that would not have been possible in 1984. What he did needed to be done; the programs he brought forth could not have been allowed to continue without any supervision. The future would have become far too Orwellian.
0 Comments
There are countless warnings of surveillance technology stealing away our privacy found in the news, TED talks, documentaries, and even novels like 1984. However, not many people seem overly concerned. The convenience of a friendly voice-activated home assistant outweighs any ominous warning of an impending catastrophe. There are real concerns though, and often the reality of what is done with our information is lost in obscurity.
“Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plate commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment” (Orwell 4). Without adequate context, this quotation taken from a passage in 1984 describing a telescreen could easily be interpreted as a description of a modern surveillance system. While it’s true that the collection of information today is usually harmless (used for advertising and statistical purposes), we have our own version of the Thought Police in hackers that can tune into cameras and devices without breaking a sweat. As Sameer Patil, an assistant professor at Indiana University, puts it, “I don’t mind if [Amazon] is hearing what I’m saying and storing it for four months, but what if it’s stored on a server that gets hacked? What if it has stored my location and it knows I’m on vacation and somebody robs my house? It’s not about being afraid of the parties that gather the information—it’s the second and third parties and what they can do with it, plus the element of government surveillance, which I personally do not want” (Abel). It’s important to realize that the idea of Big Brother has shifted from a single governmental entity to a large collection of different tech companies (at least in North America). With surveillance technology constantly being developed, expanded and improved, our laws need to evolve with it. It’s worrying to think of what could happen when companies with hundreds of billions of dollars and access to enormous amounts of our personal information are not kept in check. I don’t think that any company out there has an evil goal of taking over the country and spying on its citizens 24-7, but I do think it’s true that ethics are probably not their primary concern, making money is. While there are many parts of George Orwell’s world that seem concerningly similar to our own, our surveillance is largely voluntary, not forced upon us by Big Brother. It’s a choice to go on social media or to install a smart device. As said by the CEO of an analytics company set to comb through social media for keywords relating to suicide, “We’re not violating anybody’s privacy—it’s all public posts” (Abel). When we are shocked and appalled by what the devices in our homes can do, it’s probably because we haven’t read the privacy policy or the setup instructions. Winston never had the option of turning his telescreen off, whereas, with Alexa, all we need to do is push a button. In 2014, the journalist Louisa Lim wrote a book revisiting the Tiananmen Massacre, wherein she called China “The People’s Republic of Amnesia”. I couldn’t think of a more fitting name for the socialist, one-party, totalitarian state that is Oceania in George Orwell’s 1984.
Just like the Chinese government tried to erase all records of the terrible event from its citizens’ memory, in this novel, the main character, Winston, has the official job of falsifying historical documents. He reflects that the past “had not merely been altered, it had been destroyed. For how could you establish even the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside your own memory?” (Orwell 38). There are Chinese inhabitants that witnessed the protests first-hand, that lost loved ones and family members that day. However, their loss was never validated and their stories have been made taboo. Winston expresses that in Oceania, even if you know with absolute certainty that something occurred, even if it happened just a few days ago, “You could prove nothing. There was never any evidence”. (Orwell 39). In this way, law and order go out the window. There is no justice to the world; the government doesn’t abide by any kind of logic. The way a Chinese anchorwoman was immediately fired from her job for wearing black after the massacre is eerily similar to how the Thought Police can make you vanish in the dead of night for the slightest show of unorthodoxy. Under regimes like these, you just accept wherever you are told, smothering the voice in the back of your mind that knows how ludicrous and unfair the decree might be. The concepts of truth and lie become a farce. I can’t imagine how frustrating that must be. At first glance, “The Shining Houses”, a short story about suburban conflict, and “Interstellar”, a sci-fi blockbuster, seem to have nothing in common. However, a quote by Mary Hale finds a way to link them together through a common theme: “When you fight to cling to things that are no longer meant to be in your life, you delay your destiny. Let them go”.
In “The Shining Houses”, immaculate new developments are being built over forests dotted with older, some might say uglier, houses. To the dismay of the families moving in, one original resident, Mrs. Fullerton, refuses to move from or sell her property, lowering the value of those of her new neighbours. She definitely fits into the target audience of this quotation; Mrs. Fullerton does not want to let go of the past or leave the place where her husband that left her long ago might possibly come back to find her. She fights against developers, her neighbours, and even her own children who all wish for her to adjust to the new reality. Though it might seem unfair, times are changing, and by resisting them she only fosters spite and isolates herself from others. Similarly, in “Interstellar”, society has rejected scientific advancement and reverted back to the past where uneducated farmers work the land, completely at the mercy of increasingly violent and unpredictable weather patterns. Instead of trying to improve the failing and outdated agricultural practices with technology like greenhouses, vertical farming, sensors, and GPS technology, they keep their head in the sand and refuse to move forward. Cooper, a former engineer, voices his frustration with the situation, saying that they needed to move on and look up to the stars instead of stubbornly staying put on a dying planet and hopelessly waiting year after year for conditions to improve. He says, “Mankind was born on Earth. It was never meant to die here”. Thus, just as the quotation says, humanity is delaying its destiny. It’s a hard line to draw between fighting to keep what you love and fighting against inevitable change. Sometimes, obstinacy can be mankind’s greatest strength. In the works “The Shining Houses” and “Interstellar” however, stubbornly clinging to the things we are meant to let go causes more harm than good. It is in situations like these that adaptation becomes our species’ true power. “The Large Ant” by Howard Fast seems to suggest that humans are innately violent and incapable of rational thought, all because in this story people started killing giant alien ants showing up in front of them. Personally, I think that’s a bit of a stretch.
First of all, Mr. Morgan, who killed an ant that appeared in his bed, is eventually overcome with guilt and regret after the characters in the story have a long and gruelling philosophical thought exchange on murder, human nature and the possible intelligence of the creatures. That in itself proves that humans are far from senseless savages as the scientist Lieberman suggests. If it had been a creature that looked harmless, not in its subtle expression as Morgan noted but in its actual physical appearance, then I doubt he would have smashed it with a golf club. It is on appearance that we base our initial reaction to something unknown, and a grossly enlarged arthropodic insect is something straight out of a horror movie. Fear is an appropriate response, especially since the ant showed up out of nowhere right beside Morgan when he was relaxed and lying down in a vulnerable position. I would have done the same thing. That is not because we are terrible, murderous creatures, but because our body and brain are biologically predisposed to react negatively towards insects. According to a study published in ScienceDirect, “Negative attitudes towards insects manifest as the emotion disgust, which is regarded as a psychological adaptation to produce pathogen-avoidance behaviour”. Early human brains evolved to perceive insects as threats in order to protect themselves from potentially dangerous creatures, which makes sense since bugs are often poisonous or venomous. In a way, Fitzgerald was right when he said, “We can't change. We are what we are” (Fast). Of course, when he said that he was referring to humankind’s violent and intolerant tendencies. Really, he should have been referring to our brain’s built-in chemical response to bugs. I mean, come on, let’s give ourselves a little more credit. The short stories "The Pedestrian" by Ray Bradbury and "The Fun They Had" by Isaac Asimov share many haunting similarities. They are commenting on how we all spend too much time staring at screens, and if we continue down this road, the loss of intimate connection will only grow.
Bradbury’s Leonard Mead is isolated as the only man that goes outside for a walk in a world where the rest of the population is plugged into screens. There, the pedestrian becomes shocking and outlawed. Likewise, Asimov’s Margie is isolated from other students in a world where teachers are domestic appliances tailored for each individual. The stories also focus on the idea that our continued reliance and addiction to technology will one day result in it replacing us. In a way, Margie was right when she said that a man could never know as much as her robotic teacher. Machines will always surpass humans in their capacity for knowledge, but will forever be lacking in the area of actual teaching and compassion. Similarly, Leonard Mead is arrested and taken away by an empty police car, the need for real people in uniform eliminated. It’s clear in both stories that the absence of human presence and empathy has a negative effect on society. They are reminiscent of older times, when people read books on paper and socialized in places like school. Currently, our world is plowing forward at an alarming rate, pushed on further by a global pandemic that altered the way society functioned and deepened our dependence on technology. What "The Pedestrian" and “The Fun They Had" can teach us is that it is important to reflect on where exactly these new advances are taking us, and if that is really the future we want. I have always thought of family as the people who will stay with you forever. Those bonds run so deep that they’re impossible to fully sever. They are the gift of unconditional love you are given at birth, while friendship is something you must search for throughout your life. Of course… this is not always the case.
Enter Shakespeare’s King Lear. This story is filled with toxic relationships, from terrible parents to traitorous children. Three pages into the play an enraged Lear is already disowning his daughter Cordelia: “Here I disclaim all my parental care, Propinquity and property of blood, And as a stranger to my heart and me Hold thee from this for ever” (Shakespeare 1.1.15-18). Barbara Kimenye’s “The Winner”, is a gentle mix of these two very different perspectives. It shows the greedy and exploitative parts of family, but also the genuinely good relationships that can be fostered amidst the chaos. When Pius, the main character of the story, wins the football pools “Hosts of relatives converged upon him . . . of whose existence he had never before been aware . . . who assured Pius that they and they alone were capable of seeing that his money was properly invested—preferably in their own particular businesses” (Kimenye). This situation can be compared to how Regan and Goneril showered Lear with words of love when he possessed power and land (which he was about to give to them). Of course, when Pius finds out that he did not win nearly as much money as previously thought, his family promptly leaves him, much like Regan and Goneril turning on their father once he gave up all his power to them and had begun to lose his sanity. However, it must be said that in both these instances, there were those who stayed by the old men’s sides, loving and loyal. With Pius, it was Cousin Sarah, whom he had originally thought “insisted on treating him like an idiot invalid” (Kimenye). In actuality, she was just looking for a companion to live with and thought Pius could use her help. Let’s not forget about Kent, who loved his king so much that he returned in disguise after being banished by Lear himself in order to continue helping him. And Cordelia, who as mentioned was forsaken by her father, holds no ill will against him and still loves him dearly. When reunited with Lear and hears of how his madness has progressed, she says: “O my dear father, restoration hang Thy medicine on my lips, and let this kiss Repair those violent harms that my two sisters Have in thy reverence made!” (Shakespeare 4.7.26-29). She recognizes that has been betrayed by her sisters and desperately wants to help him recover his sanity. It turns out family bonds can’t be broken so easily after all. Both characters were the victims of Lear’s worst wrath, and yet both forgave him and loved him anyways. Although family doesn’t guarantee unconditional love, it can certainly provide it. We can’t choose our relatives, for better or for worse, but what we can do is choose our friends. Adversity will always weed out allies from enemies. It's those who stay by our side, blood or not, with whom we forge truly unbreakable bonds. The sibling bond is an ever-present topic throughout the course of Shakespeare's King Lear. So many of the characters’ motivations and personalities stem from their relationships with their sisters or brother. Being a tragedy, the play is able to showcase the worst sides of this dynamic, aligning with some of the ideas in Jeff Kluger’s sibling-themed TED talk.
About halfway through the aforementioned talk, Kluger starts to explain how “A study [he] cite[s] . . . in the book "The Sibling Effect" found 70 percent of fathers and 65 percent of mothers exhibit a preference for at least one child”, going further to say that “the most common favourite for a father is the last-born daughter” (Kluger). This is exactly the case with Lear and his youngest daughter, Cordelia. The old king actually confesses, “I loved her most, and thought to set my rest On her kind nursery” (Shakespeare 1.1.125-126). Ironically, Kruger later goes on to talk about how birth order shapes siblings’ personalities and says that last-borns are “at the greatest risk of getting eaten alive, so they have to develop what are called "low-power skills" -- the ability to charm and disarm, to intuit what's going on in someone else's head, the better to duck the punch before it lands”. Anyone who read this play would know that Cordelia could not be any further from this description. In the first scene of the play, Lear instructs each of his three daughters to proclaim their love for him in exchange for their inheritance. As Cordelia listens to her sisters' flourishing speeches she laments “poor Cordelia! And yet not so, since I am sure my love’s More ponderous than my tongue” (Shakespeare 1.1.78-80). At a loss for words and wit, she decides to pick apart her father’s order and refuses to tell him what he wants to hear: that she loves him more than anything. Charm and disarm? More like embarrass and enrage. Unsurprisingly, instead of ducking the metaphorical punch, she gets belted in the face, her punishment all the more severe given her previous position as the favourite. And thus the plot is set into motion with Cordelia being disowned and banished by her father in a fit of rage. Though it is not said directly, Lear’s favouritism towards his youngest certainly had a negative effect on his connection with his other daughters, Regan and Goneril. While Cordelia eventually forgives and helps to cure Lear’s madness, Regan and Goneril turn on him quickly and with no remorse at the first sign of mania. But it’s not only the father-daughter dynamic that suffers. After focusing on the topic of sibling rivalry, Kruger makes the important point that “parents exacerbate this problem further when they exhibit favouritism”. He suggests that competing for attention from a parent who favours another sibling creates rifts in their relationship. And we know that this type of situation literally plays itself out in the first scene. While the two older sisters might appear a united front when they collectively shun their father, we see later on in the play that there is more distrust than love found in their relationship. For example, when Goneril hears of Regan’s husband’s death she says, “One way I like this well; But being widow, and my Gloucester with her, May all the building in my fancy pluck Upon my hateful life” (Shakespeare 4.2.83-86). There is no sympathy for Regan; Goneril’s immediate reaction is to be pleased that her sister’s political position has weakened, showing that they see each other as competition or future threats. Then she starts to worry that her sister will steal away her boyfriend, leaving her stuck with her own cowardly husband. To be fair, this is exactly what Regan ends up trying to do, possibly out of spite since she is fully aware of her sister’s affair. I guess they aren't so united after all. More consequences of favouritism can be found when examining the relationship between Gloucester and his sons. Edmund's treatment as an embarrassing bastard with no claim to inheritance or even time with his father caused him to resent and plot against Gloucester and his brother. I would have to agree with Edmund when he says, “This is the excellent foppery of the world, that when we are sick in fortune, often the surfeit of our own behaviour, we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and stars; as if we were villains by necessity” (1.2.118-122). We're not destined to betray our fathers, it isn’t written in the stars. We are all simply a product of our own choices and upbringing, in which siblings play a huge role. Though Shakespeare's representation of the sibling bond may be a slightly pessimistic one, I think it’s pretty amazing that so many parallels can be drawn between a TED talk made in 2011 appertaining to a modern audience and a play written in the seventeenth century. It just goes to show that siblings have always been (and will always be) leading forces in our lives. |
AuthorHello, I'm Anna. Thanks for reading my blog :) Archives
December 2022
Categories |