IAIN Macwhirter is to be congratulated for continuing to draw attention to the outrageous breach of our privacy represented by the surveillance state ("Do not allow Thought Police to take away our freedoms", The Herald, October 10).
Not only does this breach our privacy now, but in time it may well destroy our free society too.
We are told that this is to keep us safe from terrorists, but it is not terrorists who are the greatest threat to our freedoms and indeed our safety. History shows that it is oppressive governments that represent the greatest threat to us.
It was not terrorists who carried out the atrocities of Nazi Germany or the terror of Stalin's Soviet Union or who - most pertinently - were responsible for the mass surveillance in East Germany. In each case the government was the threat to the people and this has not changed. I do not think the administrations of President Obama in America or David Cameron here will commit atrocities on the level I mentioned previously, but what of future governments?
What if there is a Tea Party President in America or a right-wing populist government here? What will they do with that data and that ability to spy on people? Those of us who are open opponents of the right will have the most to fear then, but others will be affected too.
There is a culture these days of accepting erosion of our privacy and people are even tacitly assenting to it by publishing so much of their details on social media sites, something I do not do myself - if for no other reason than I do not want advertisers targeting me any more than they already do.
However, does the fact people do not realise how much of their information is available to anyone really to be taken as their tacit consent to be spied upon?
We will all suffer greatly if that is the case.
Iain Paterson,
2F Killermont View,
Glasgow.
IAIN Macwhirter overstates his case when one considers the world we live in. I do not object to CCTV on streets. If you are going about your lawful, workaday business you have nothing to fear. With regard to checks on telephones, computers, and other forms of IT, I am content to accept that such items of technology should be subject to scrutiny with regard to protecting the lives, limbs and property of the law-abiding people of this country. If you consider that all the organs of the state are going to act in bad faith, then there is no hope for us all.
Iain Macwhirter is not entirely correct in drawing the comparisons which he makes. George Orwell in writing 1984 was concerned about the increase during his lifetime of totalitarianism and leader worship. He was also concerned about the growth of centralised economies, which were not based upon democratic principles, and the fact that much of the so-called intelligentsia in Britain objected to Hitler, but at the same time were keen to accept Stalin and all his works. With the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall and everything that followed these episodes, most of these fears have been dissipated.
With regard to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, who chose to expose information pertaining to the security of many countries, including the UK, I would like to see them leave their boltholes in Moscow and London and have the courage of their convictions to justify their positions openly.
We are living in what is at times a dangerous and violent world, much changed from that inhabited by George Orwell.
Ian W Thomson,
38 Kirkintilloch Road,
Lenzie.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article