Indian Politician Plans To Install Surveillance Cameras In His Ministers' Homes And Offices

from the do-as-you-would-be-done-by dept

Recently, Tim noted that, for some strange reason, politicians don't like having the same level of surveillance applied to them as they wish to inflict on the public. Here's a nice case from the state of Uttar Pradesh in northern India, found via Evgeny Morozov, where politicians aren't being given any choice:

UP [Uttar Pradesh] chief minister Akhilesh Yadav has decided to install CCTV cameras at the residences and camp offices of all the ministers in his cabinet.
As usual, the politicians are up in arms:
But a minister told Mail Today on the condition of anonymity that many of his colleagues including Raja Ram Pandey, khadi and village industry minister, Paras Nath Yadav, animal husbandry minister, Awadhesh Prasad, social welfare minister and Durga Prasad Yadav, stamp and registration minister, have opposed it.
The reasoning behind the move is interesting:
'the CM [Chief Minister] found the idea exciting mostly because he could boast of this action during Lok Sabha election campaign to claim that his ministers were observing complete transparency in their activities,' a source close to the CM said.
It's clear from this that there are some ulterior political motives behind this extreme form of governmental transparency. But equally, assuming that Uttar Pradesh's Chief Minister goes through with his plans, there's no denying that it would give politicians a unique insight into the reality of surveillance, and that can't be bad thing.

Indeed, what we need is a general rule that politicians anywhere who are contemplating increased snooping on their citizens must be put under 24x7 surveillance in their homes and offices before they are allowed to enact any such laws. If that were the case, I predict their enthusiasm for spying might well evaporate.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 24th, 2012 @ 11:53am

    but who said politicians do anything underhand? they are the most trustworthy people that could be hoped for!! it's those they represent that are always up to no good!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Oct 24th, 2012 @ 11:54am

    I've suggested this before as a joke. I didn't think anyone would actually suggest it in the real world.

    It reminds me of the episode of Aeon Flux about "the new transparency" that Trevor Goodchild institutes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 24th, 2012 @ 11:57am

    Too bad this won't happen in America where we could use it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Oct 24th, 2012 @ 12:13pm

    Gov't workers need to lose rights, not gain privileges.

    It's actually WELL-established common law that when you "enlist" in (or are drafted into) the military, you give up certain rights, such as not be maimed or die for the good of the tribe. It's not talked up much for obvious reasons, but that's the reality.

    So I hold that when anyone goes into gov't, elected or employed, they should lose some part of rights of the citizens whom they're supposed to be serving. We The People need to be able to keep watch on known power-mad thieves. They should most of all lose the right to presumption of innocence for any officical act, and have to PROVE themselves innocent. -- I'd make gov't work -- I mean shirking -- undesirable, and might even have to institute a draft to provide its (few) necessary services.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Tech42 (profile), Oct 24th, 2012 @ 12:21pm

    How comprehensive?

    This is a wonderful idea, but only if it applies to Yadav as well as his subordinates.

    Surveillance that stops short of the top just redefines where the line of privilege is drawn; it doesn't erase that line.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 24th, 2012 @ 12:49pm

    To give a little more insight regarding the reason behind this move - the state of UP is one of the most corrupt states of India, and on top of that, most of its politicians are CRIMINALS (murder, kidnapping, rape, etc., you name it and you will find any or all of these adjectives attached with their names).

    So this move can be viewed as one for gaining publicity (rather a cheap one coz everyone knows the outcome).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Keii (profile), Oct 24th, 2012 @ 1:00pm

    If you have nothing to hide...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 24th, 2012 @ 1:05pm

    What an absolute disaster in the making. Has it ever occurred to minister Akhilesh Yadav that he will not install these without them being known they are there?

    If you planned to break the law and knew these devices were there to record it, what ever would you do? First thing that occurs to me is to be elsewhere out of the watchful eye when actually doing the planning and execution.

    This is the same great idea that was done for congress with cameras. You know, let the public see how its' done. What happens? When it gets sticky as the last time, Boehner decides to pull the plug during the live camera time so as not to record the 'evidence' of being caught on camera and in doing so totally defeating the purpose the cameras were put there for in the first place.

    It is now used to orate to the public but it is not a serious tool to educate the public in the workings of congress.

    Pray tell, how will this be any different?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 24th, 2012 @ 2:10pm

    Re:

    Sarcastic bastard. What do you *really* think?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Oct 24th, 2012 @ 2:48pm

    Re:

    We could install SECRET cameras in congress...

    ones that they don't know about...

    Hmm...

    Anyone up for it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 24th, 2012 @ 4:08pm

    Seconded

    "a general rule that politicians anywhere who are contemplating increased snooping on their citizens must be put under 24x7 surveillance in their homes and offices before they are allowed to enact any such laws."

    I'll second that motion!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Oct 24th, 2012 @ 5:09pm

    Make the chefs eat their own cooking.

    This feedback method should be applied to the members of congress at federal and state levels and those who wish to influence them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Oct 24th, 2012 @ 5:16pm

    Re: Gov't workers need to lose rights, not gain privileges.

    Of course this would not apply to those in the higher echelons of government due to security reasons. It would only be mandatory for those occupying the lower rungs of the government ladder - you know - the peons, the ones who get wet from all that trickle down activity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Oct 24th, 2012 @ 5:23pm

    Re: Gov't workers need to lose rights, not gain privileges.

    The difference between military service, and governmental service though is the 'right not to be ordered into danger' is one that has to be revoked for the former, otherwise it just wouldn't work, so in that case it makes sense that enlisting costs you some rights.

    I think the better way to handle politicians would be to take away some of the prestige and special rights they gain. If it's seen, and treated as, less as one step short of nobility, and more as what it is supposed to be, namely serving the public, that right there would weed out a number of those that should never be put in a position of power.

    Also, as I've noted in another comment, if it was required that any law with a potential negative impact had, as it's first targets the ones passing it, that would pretty much guarantee that politicians would be a lot more careful about passing overreaching laws, since they would know they would be affected first.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    John Doe, Oct 25th, 2012 @ 4:45am

    You know what else would be good?

    If the US president and congress had to have use the same healthcare plan they foisted on the people and exempted themselves from.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2012 @ 6:39pm

    A camera in every teepee. That spells heap big trouble.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This