Big Brother is watching you.

No wait -- I got that wrong.

I am watching you.

That whole "Big Brother is Watching You" is bantered about constantly by people online, in reference to the percieved invasion of privacy going on in the online world. The US Government admits of owning a piece of software meant to paruse online e-mail in search of criminal acts, possibly even things which may lead to criminal acts. Privacy advocates cry foul - how dare any government agency invade our privacy for their own ends? These are the same people who cry foul at cookies - how dare corporate monsters place little bits of data on my computer for their own ends? They gasp when Napster has the ability to turn over thousands of usernames which have used the free service to download Metallica music. The idea of Big Brother abounds on the world we live in, according to the watchdogs.

I just finished reading George Orwell's 1984, but it confuses me about attributing the "Big Brother" concept to the internet world. The crime in that world consisted of thoughts. To think against the government, to not unconditionally believe the things that the government says, to doubt the government's ability to run it's domain in the best possible way, it is a crime. The constant surveillance is intended to root out thoughtcrimes, but that is not what the entire function of Big Brother is. The focus of the government is to stay in control of everything, which extends to it's subjects thoughts. Constant surveillance allows them to keep track of those who may subvert their control, but through lies, manipulation, coercion, and violence, Big Brother keeps everything working in the favor of Big Brother.

When you are working online, why do you assume privacy is available? Is it because you're sitting in your own room, you cannot see anone else, and nobody but you an see the things on your screen? This is entirely an illusion. The internet itself is an open, spaceless void. There are no borders, no obstructions, and no controls. There should be no more assumption of privacy than there is when standing in a public park. Privacy can be added through encryption, but that must be a concious action. The unconcious activities of sending an email to a friend, browsing a webpage, downloading a file, all could fall under the scrutiny of the other people on the internet.

Online, we lack privacy, and the government & corporate entities have taken it upon themselves to monitor the actions of the users of the internet. To truly assume there's a parallel to Big Brother, you need to consider the control aspect. Big Brother didn't just take the surveillance data and react to it, they used the data to control the subjects. Today, if there becomes a crime against the government, the government takes the time to pass laws, but those laws more than likely will not apply to the original actions which induced the law to be created in the first place. Or, current laws in place apply to it in some way. There is a predefined reaction to the actions of the subjects.

In the case of Big Brother, however, there are no laws in place. People who might find a way to overthrow the government are caught long before they can take any action. They are controlled through manipulation of the world around them, they are tortured, and they are brainwashed, until they lose their ability to think in terms of opposition of the government. Nobody can commit a crime, because the ability to do so is taken away from them.

An earlier book, The Demolished Man by Alfred Bester, has an almost identical concept, but is written in a less fatalistic way. There is no government mentioned, beyond the police force. Serious crime is averted by the presence of mind-readers in the population. Police can read minds, doctors can read minds, teachers can read minds. Their presence allows for the people with criminal mindsets to be collected and re-educated before they are able to commit a crime. Bester's novel does not address the removal of free will as Orwell does. After reading The Demolished Man, one might think that it's possible to live in a perfect world without crime, if only we had the ability to catch criminals before they can commit a crime.

Above is an excellent example of doublespeak -- "catch criminals before they can commit a crime." How can a person be a criminal without committing a crime? Orwell's answer in 1984 is that the thought is the crime. Winston Smith gets a diary, but hesitates slightly before writing. The thought which induces him to write is that whether he writes it or not, he has still thought it, which would result in a serious punishment regarless of if it were acted upon.

In 1984, however, only the government has access to the information they collect. Newspeak is designed to reduce the ability to comunicate complex thoughts from one person to another. The thoughts of the population are manipulated through propoganda in order to keep the same attitudes and ideas in all of the government's subjects. In The Demolished Man, every person with psychic abilities can exchange ideas without any outside influence, and they can accumulate thoughts from the non-psychics around them. There is no control or limitation to what can be passed around from person to person. The connections in 1984 are two-way, from the person to the government. In the Demolished Man, they are omnidirectional.

The internet is equally omnidirectional. The world of the Demolished Man is not a collapsed Dystopia because there is no restriction on knowledge. Everyone can have access to the same information online. The US Government cannot just snoop emails regardless of location - Carnivore must be run on a server at which email stops. This can be done by anyone; I know of a technician at an ISP who regularly digs through email out of boredom. Whether the government does it, a casual user, or some corporate entity watches you, all that they do is react. There is no capacity for them to control your actions, or manipulate reality to influence your thoughts. Sure, isolated examples can be magnified and pointed at, but the information collected isn't limited only to the uses of one controlling force. They are available to everyone with access to a computer. Everything on that computer not password-protected or encrypted, is at their disposal. A connection to a server opens both sides up -- everything not deliberately hidden is open for view. The technology behind it is far more complex than I'm making it sound, but the point is this: The movement is not a two-way communication of data. It is omni-directional, depending on the level of online activity. Governments may have influence over one part, corporations may suck up your data for their own purposes, and webmasters may watch your online actions as you browse their sites. This is how I am watching you. Am I controlling your actions, forcably changing your ideas to conform to my desires? Hardly. The controlling government behind Big Brother in 1984 used their influence to control EVERYTHING, the past, the present, the future, and the thoughts of their subjects, in order to remain in power. The internet doesn't help that concept along. It prevents it, by allowing a fragmented, decentralized system exist. The users of this system cannot view everyone and everything, influencing all actions and thoughts simultaneously. Big Brother restricts information, impossible to be communicated from person to person. The internet promotes free thought, and the only way for free thought to exist is for it to be open and for all to see.