Big Brother Among Us: Orwell's 1984 and Modern Surveillance

Introduction: How Close Are We to Orwell's World?

George Orwell conceived a world that was very different from the one the world had fought to protect in 1948. In 1984, Orwell portrays a totalitarian society in which individual freedoms are completely subjugated to the state. Control of the individual extends as far as policing and regulating the very thoughts that people think. The world Orwell painted is in continual war, and individuals are under continual surveillance. This world seemed horrific and impossible in the immediate aftermath of World War II. The idea of Big Brother and the totalitarian state seemed so far-fetched that it was largely dismissed as ridiculous. Today, the idea of a totalitarian state of that extreme still seems ridiculous — but as one begins to examine the world around us, one has to wonder whether we are truly that far from the Orwellian world painted in 1984.

Cold War Inspiration and the Climate of Fear

George Orwell wrote his famous novel as the final blows of World War II came to pass and the world entered the new Cold War era. The world around Orwell was changing, filled with speculation and fear about an uncertain future. Orwell's book has been banned many times throughout history for many different reasons. The controversy it stirs is sparked by the fear that it might plant unwanted ideas and incite rebellion — which is, in itself, an Orwellian notion.

Now we face a similar era of uncertainty, and once again we question the authority of the state to invade our privacy alongside its responsibility to keep us safe. In a struggle to calm the fears of the American public in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the government has continued to erode our basic rights little by little. This erosion began with the ostensibly noble ideal that extra measures — such as increased security at airports and the seemingly unlimited powers granted by the Patriot Act — were necessary to protect us from another attack (U.S. Senate). If one compares this mental state to the one in which George Orwell wrote, the underlying ideology was not all that different. It was a mentality built on fear, and the state attempted to calm the public through increased control of whatever created uncertainty. Like Cold War-era society, Americans were willing — until recently — to simply stand by and allow the government to invade their lives little by little in the name of national security.

The crucial difference between the world we live in now and the Cold War era is the level of surveillance technology available. Since the early 1950s, surveillance and the ability to monitor other people's lives has become a natural part of everyday existence. It is simply assumed that when you walk into a grocery store or a department store, you are on camera and someone in a back room is watching your every move. The ability of Homeland Security to intercept private communications makes people cautious about what they say on the phone, lest something be misconstrued as a potential threat (Froomkin). The very level of surveillance that was intended to calm the fears of the American public has generated many fears of its own. People must now be cautious about what they carry on airplanes, what they say on the phone, and whether they leave packages unattended in public places, for fear of being accused of placing a bomb.

Surveillance in the Post-9/11 World

This feeling of being watched by Big Brother that permeates today's society must have been much like what the characters in 1984 felt as they went about their daily lives. The story centers on a man named Winston Smith, who works for the Ministry of Truth, which is responsible for censoring the media and promoting government propaganda. The main character is himself a part of the system against which he eventually rebels. In the world of 1984, all televisions are transceivers: the viewer can watch the screen, but it also functions as a camera that invades every aspect of both public and private life.

In 1984, history is revised daily to support the Party's current agenda. Historical records change constantly, and public perception is manipulated through transmission of the latest revisions. When one looks at how media coverage of the War on Terrorism has shifted since 2001, it becomes easy to see how Orwell's ideas could reasonably come to pass. The dates, times, and places of the war have not changed, but the war's focus has shifted considerably since its beginning (Rapporteur). After nearly a decade of fighting, it began to seem as though the war would never end, and many people forgot what started it in the first place. Public feeling and opinion about the war shifted throughout the decade-long conflict.

This ideological drift is similar to what Orwell presented in 1984. Winston remembers the major historical events that led to the creation of the society in which he lives. However, as those memories fade with time, his recollection of the sequence and details of those events begins to change — much like what happened with the public perception of the War on Terror. As memory of the events that started the war faded, it became easier to manipulate the facts and redirect public attention. Everyone still remembers watching the World Trade Center attacks on television, but the connection between that event and more recent security measures — such as the invasive pat-down procedures at airports — is largely lost on the general public. The link between the original event and the current state of affairs has been severed, much like the distant memories of the atomic wars and the ever-present surveillance of Big Brother in Winston's reality.

Winston can only vaguely recall the horrors that transformed the world he knew in childhood. Similarly, children who were old enough to watch the destruction of the World Trade Center at age ten are now in their early twenties, subjected to invasive pat-downs at airports. How strongly they connect that intrusion on their privacy to that distant childhood event is questionable.

In Orwell's world, hidden microphones and telescreens monitor every individual conversation. A "thoughtcrime" is punishable by death. Children are raised within the system to spy on others — particularly their parents, who might violate restrictions on personal opinion and freedom of expression. Parents are most vulnerable to "impure" thoughts, since somewhere within them are memories of a time that was freer than the society into which they have been involuntarily pressed. Today, the American public is encouraged to report "suspicious" behavior by others in order to prevent another attack on our freedoms.

Electronic Fingerprints and the Erosion of Privacy

The stated purpose of surveillance cameras is to protect persons and property from those who would commit crimes or harm others. Yet it has reached the point where one can reasonably question whether privacy exists at all. The people in Orwell's world were under constant surveillance. Today, each of us has an electronic fingerprint that is unique to us. A study found that there were nearly 4.2 million surveillance cameras in Great Britain — one for every fourteen people — and that nearly 20% of the world's CCTV cameras are located there (London Evening Standard). According to the same report, the average person is viewed by approximately 300 cameras on any given day.

The electronic trail we leave every day is enormous. As one browses the Internet, browsing activity is recorded. Our names and personal information reside in an unknown number of databases. Data about us is stored in DNA databases, fingerprint databases, and medical records. Our spending habits are carefully tracked through banking and credit card databases. If one stops to think about it, nearly every move we make throughout the day is tracked in some way and contributes to our electronic fingerprint.

In Orwell's world, mass surveillance systems were no more capable of preventing thoughtcrime than CCTV cameras today can stop someone from robbing a convenience store. However, as with the Orwellian surveillance system, cameras and electronic data points make it more likely that a criminal will be caught. As in Orwell's world, the heightened probability of being caught is sufficient to deter many crimes. Surveillance works, in large part, by instilling fear in would-be criminals.

Works Cited

Froomkin, D. "Obama Hasn't Entirely Abandoned the Bush Playbook." The Washington Post, 18 Feb. 2009.

London Evening Standard. "George Orwell, Big Brother Is Watching Your House." 31 Mar. 2007.

Orwell, George. 1984. Penguin Putnam, 1950.

Rapporteur, B. "Changing Perceptions of Terrorism in Public Opinion and the Media." European Security and Defence Assembly. Document A/1949. Resolution 130. 20 Dec. 2006.

United States Senate. H.R. 3162. Patriot Act. 107th Congress, 1st Session. GPO, 24 Oct. 2001.