What would be the most extreme form of a surveillance state? And what would living/working in it look like?

Question

For a story, I try to create a perfect Orwellian state with the current state of technology.

The government controls every aspect of its citizens daily life via constant automated surveillance (CCTV, biometric systems and wearable electronic devices), ministerial departments pass extreme anti-individualistic laws (citizen may only wear certain clothes and are assigned their jobs, apartments and mates for procreation by a computer system, etc.) and a radical (secret) police force makes sure there won't be any form of violent resistance against the system.

Almost everyone of the citizen are very content with the current government, due to the perceived wealth, security and lack of terror/crime. Their lifelong indoctrination at schools, universities and the media keeps them rooted for the leading party and against all enemies of their way of life.

1) Did I miss out any aspect or possibility to oppress the people of my state?

2) The protagonists of my story are working in completely different careers (i.e. a paramedic, an engineer and a businessman), that represent different aspects of the live within the state. How would their work be different compared to our current, free society?

Answer 1

You've got indoctrination in there, but think about the details of how that'd work. For maximum evil you need the people to not just root for the State but (1) to be terrified of it and (2) to be forced to think and act in its support including helping to root out other dissidents, rather than passively obeying the laws.

A few models to look at in reality are Hussein-era Iraq (dictator has spies try to talk people into rebellion; targets must turn the spy in or be arrested themselves); socialist East Germany (something like 20% of whole population are informants, and typewriters are registered and possible to link to documents typed on them); and the upcoming "social credit score" system in China which turns obedience into a game. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHcTKWiZ8sI ) Your setting will be most oppressive if the people are actively participating in making the oppression work, so even your family members are untrustworthy.

The terror of imminent death is a possibility too, or of absolute impossibility of escape. Two fictional models: "Agent of Chaos", in which there's a list of "permitted actions" in any area, and any action not on the list is said to set off a deathtrap that kills everyone nearby; and Vinge's "A Deepness In the Sky" in which nanotech surveillance devices saturate a whole area and are linked to a constantly-listening, obsessive spy network.

Re: careers, figure that innovation is frightening because it means deviating from known approved designs. Don't know if it's true, but I recently heard Russia once built an experimental plane with a weird kink in its airframe because the blueprint was damaged and everyone was terrified to say that the Party had gotten it wrong. Figure also that corruption is rampant despite the surveillance (when does it ever really stop this sort of thing?). Also, that people have a tough time working together because anyone could be a spy. You could well have your paramedic knowingly kill somebody because Bob says 100 ccs is the proper dose, and Bob is a Party official reading from a State-approved guidebook. It can't be wrong.

A good nonfiction reference is "MiG Pilot", the story of a Russian pilot who defected to the West. Among other things it talks about the pilot's utter disbelief at how US aircraft carrier crews worked so well together, cooperating and trusting. It also covers what life was really like for even a well-liked, loyal pilot under the Soviet state. (Corruption, shoddy building standards, lousy facilities because the only aspect of morale that matters is Party loyalty...)

Answer 2

What would "the most extreme" be?

Thought Reading and Thought Control.

Often forgotten when listing freedoms is Freedom of Thought. Maybe it is considered so obvious few think it might be threatened but never the less: all other freedoms start with this one. It is no accident that Orwell created the concept of "Thought-crime", because knowing what people think and taking action against thoughts, ideas, concepts, dreams, wishes, emotions is the ultimate totalitarianism.

Thankfully the root of all documents concerning freedoms - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - does bring up Freedom of Thought, in article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (...)

So if you want to create the worst of the worst, disable article 18, and go the full Monty on what that implies... thought monitoring, thought crime, thought modification, thought engineering, forbidden thoughts, societal thought alignment, thought eradication...

Everyone that goes with the program will be perfectly happy, because their thoughts - as supplied by the state - tells them that they are. And here comes the really insidious part: everyone that falls off the wagon will be miserable. Not because the state makes them that, but because they will suddenly feel things like sadness, anger, outrage, fear, anxiety. These are terrible things to feel when you previously were only happy. Many will want the bliss that the state provides. Those that have felt it will long for it again...

...and then do you have the most extreme you can think of: when it makes us yearn for the shackles. Nothing is firmer than that...

Answer 3

The first thing that came to mind was the Borg.

Everything about your life is controlled, parsed and preplanned. You cannot deviate, your cannot rebel. You are the system. Everything is done for the collective good and the collective good all has the same goal.

Answer 4

The most horrible would be a society where people actually believed they were free and did not realize in what ways the communication technology and surveillance was used to toy with their emotions to steer their thoughts and behaviours. Anyone pointing it out would be troublesome as it would hurt the pride of the people listening. It is painful to realize that one has been fooled - first blow would be to the self image, second to social status and pride.

However this would be efficient mostly in the individuals we have managed to establish a sense of pride and concept of shame. For individuals we're not able to establish that in... I guess we could always label them "sick". Get them locked up or managed by medication or somehow socially marginalized so at least they don't spread their influence.

Answer 5

Virtual societies are the most oppressive possible state.

Imagine a society where, rather than wandering about their daily lives, all individuals exist in state-run facilities will full life support, immersed in a virtual world. CCTV, body scanners, and the like may exist, but they're just for show. The state has full access to the running code of the reality its individuals live in, and can determine exactly the state of every individual in society at all times. There is no part of the simulated world its controllers can't monitor at an arbitrary level of detail, so it's impossible to hide any action from the controllers of the world.

The most extreme possible version of this would be one where the individuals in society aren't just jacked into the computer system, a la the matrix, but are in fact programs themselves. Either they were coded into existence or uploaded into the virtual world. Every thought, need and emotion of a virtual citizen can be monitored, just like everything else in the world.

In this world, the secret police are a myth who exist to help further the illusion of existence, just like the cameras and body scanners that give the government an excuse for knowing everything. In reality, the government has a much simpler way of dealing with lawbreakers: it simply deletes them.

In a virtual state, all work is done along the lines of what sort of 'reality' the state wants to present to its citizens. Ultimately, any "job" that influences only virtual beings or creates only virtual goods is worthless, since the government can alter the world at will. Things like code development or research that can be exported outside the virtual world would probably be heavily promoted, since those are things the government can profit from. Jobs like 'paramedic' or 'burger flipper' may still exist, but they serve only as a way to further the illusion of the virtual state.

Answer 6

You could add religion into the mix and have a mandatory state religion and morality police. Regular confession could be demanded, and make use of polygraphs and truth drugs and drug tests. "Criminals" need not only to punished but shamed too and the message needs to get out about how the authorities have saved the people from terrible moral corruption. People who denounce their own families could be lauded as heroes.

Answer 7

Orwell wrote a fairly terrifying state in 1984, but a lot of the technologies referred to are now obsolete or redundant, though other factors are still perfectly valid.

Telescreens: These are now redundant. We each carry a little spy in our pocket that can listen wherever we are and track our movements. We no longer need to regulate to have a telescreen on in our house as someone in the room will always have a mobile phone turned on.

Two minutes hate: It's hard to tell the difference between this and a Trump rally, but it's about uniting the people in adversity, telling everyone that the enemies are still out there and they must accept the bad things to keep them safe.

Children informing on their parents: This was a side plot leading to the downfall of the neighbour. Taking away the children and turning them against their parents is still perfectly valid and still terrifying.

Now we have new factors though

Overwhelming marketing: How much of what you do or think is controlled by what's broadcast through your telescreen? We all like to think that we think for ourselves but for how many of us is that actually true?

Misinformation: A lie runs around the world before the truth can get its boots on. Even faster with a good clickbait tagline on social media. Who needs the heavy hand of control when you can just tell people a pretty story and have them believe anything you like.

Security cameras: There are various figures about being seen by 300 security cameras a day. This is an old figure for London, it may or may not be true but it means your day to day movements are now easily tracked. Those cameras are mostly linked to networked computers. Anything that's on the net can be watched centrally.

Where I'm going with all this, is that the crude old methods of informing on every little crime, and making people suspicious of each other, leaving them constantly in fear are not required with modern technologies. It's far simpler and easier to use the technology that we accept and want day to day against us and if someone complains, just write them off as a crank. Everyone thinks they live in the best of all possible worlds and even keeps reelecting their leaders from the same cabal as they always have.

In practice Orwell was wrong, Huxley was right, but Orwell is the one we remember.

Huxley wrote Brave New World, also dystopian but rather than being oppressed by power, the people are controlled by pleasure. Enjoy your "reality" TV.

Answer 8

Computer-based supply management chains that determine what gets purchased and where it goes. There is no appeal, and people don't decide who gets what. As a kicker, it should actually work: everyone gets enough, and people get rewarded seemly randomly with extra stuff with notes saying why.

A huge percent of the population is spent on monitoring other people. The monitors are in turn monitored, as is their monitoring. Failure to report crime is a crime, so you have to work really hard at monitoring crime. There is a load-factor of around 10: 10 people are monitoring you and/or being cross-monitored for everyone actually doing something "productive".

Movement and noise based monitoring lowers the load at "sleep time". At sleep time, you must be alone; any attempt to communicate is a crime. Mostly automated systems can then be left monitoring you, reducing the load.

For near-future, implants that read your surface thoughts could exist. Basically, stick some electronics in your head, train it to work out what you are thinking about, then generate an approximation of what you are thinking about. Again, we have people monitoring them, and people monitoring the monitors.

Spy social games where your points in the game are highly important to getting rewards. See Halting State: an intelligence service that is gameified. The people playing the game never know if their operations are really important, or just algorithmic games used to spend the leasure time.

Menial jobs are done by remote control. You put on a headset with a cam, and a computerized voice instructs you what to do next. Sometimes it is a computer, sometimes it is a citizen operating you by remote control. So you'll be told to go to the bathroom and clean the toilet, step by step. Failure to clean the toilet in the average amount of time will be reflected in your next performance review, if noticed.

A high reproduction rate, which permits a high winnowing factor.

Everyone has a GPS-type chip that constantly reports their location, or records it and sends it back. Going outside of communication range gives you a warning, and you are told to go back, unless you have special dispensation.

Answer 9

Give everyone a mandatory blood pressure cuff and regulatory device. Simple tech, Id think. If you can regulate their emotions, you can get them riled up only when you want them to be. And calm only when you want them to be. Their thoughts will follow.

Answer 10

You have missed the reviews.

A really aggressive state could provide the surveillance data not for its agency, but for another citizens, making all citizens responsible for reviewing the behavior of somebody living next to them. It is possible to put pressure of these reviews being as strict as possible, and negative reviews having huge negative impact on the target (who probably wrote the similar killing review on somebody else). This would make easy to ensure that people live in a constant fear, watching all details of they behavior. This also result to hate and friction between people, dividing society and making sure they cannot unite for overturning the government.

Answer 11

I don't think 1984 was a guide, nor the Democratic People's Republic of Korea an example to follow. You, sir, are devious.

I have one remark though: isn't gender an individual trait? Would be "businessperson" or somesuch more appropriate? We wouldn't want people to think they have unique characteristics, would we?

As for the other question, I'm pretty sure the work wouldn't be very different in a lot cases. It kind of depends on how you treat science and knowledge. Likely, it would be restricted to a small number of people whose job require it. So a paramedic would still be a paramedic. They may use medicine from the fifties, but it's better than no medicine probably. Ditto for engineers. They might engineer different things, or they might engineer it like it's 1989, but there's always something to engineer.

North Korea for instance has engineers working on missiles and nukes. They have their own operating system, their own intranet (unironically called Walled Garden IIRC). They have technology of their own, and yes it's antiquated but it kind of works, or at least they're getting there. Your state would likely operate on the same level, technologically backwards but there are a lot of things you can still do with older technology.

Business is something else. See, why would any industry not state-owned in the first place? Business decisions would be left to a handful of high level civil servants. The managers of a factory would manage the workers of the factory, what's their jobs. Who buys what, from who and at what price wouldn't be the concern of factory-level management. They don't get to decide what happens in the country.

Being a "businessman" would be more about managing flows of resources than conducting business though. At least, that's how I'd do it.

As for doing business abroad, it would be even more limited. The reason is that doing business outside means the Party cannot provide for absolutely everything, and we can't have that. Not that are many countries in our international scene would deal with them.

Answer 12

AI managed rebellion police (With Brain implants) [This is not exactly near future, but anyway is a pretty Orwellian state]

Everyone have a brain-implant to serve the establishment, but this time everyone have freewill and are no subject for some kind of brain manipulation (most of the time), also it does no is a social credit system. But a thought police that does not want to pursue complaints and claims against the establishment, but pursues actions that really could harm the establishment.

The establishment does not care if you dislike it, but it cares about you sabotaging their money making infrastructure or make protests, or anything that is more than just complains.

So the AI managed thought-police, is designed to identify when someone tries to do something that is a real action and not just complains, then he or she is mind-controlled to no want do it, and distracted to anything else (preferably something that makes money for the establishment).

Even more evil if the establishment allows for critic media to exists. So the people know they are in a dystopia but they are mentally unable to do anything about it.

Answer 13

The worst surveillance state would be one that everyone accepts as normal.

• Open browser history? You got nothing to hide, right?
• The wallet-app is so easy! It just comes at the low price of every purchase being registered.
• Carrying your ID, medical, and legal record with you is normal. Now the government doesn't strictly need it anymore because of all other identifying data, but alas, it is still very helpful as it is open for everyone for the sake of "public safety" and allows prospective employees to ensure you aren't working with know criminals/drunkards.
• Forced identification. Want to play a game? Use your identifier app! Easy, quick, all it takes is 1 swipe and you are logged in. No need to fill tedious forms with all your (fake) data. All so the government can track how you play, with who you play, your chat history, the hours not worked, etc. Maybe even make it publically available. Only stringently approved games though.
• Forced identification 2. As we are identifying ourselves, might as well use it for everything. Want to open your front door? Just scan your phone. Want to use an elevator? Scan your phone. Want to make use of medical services? just a quick scan will tell them everything they need to know about you.

Basically, I made it completely impossible to live without your ID-phone. Sure you are technically allowed to choose not to get one, but you'll find that you can't do anything without one.

This is basically what social credits are, you can now deny people (basic) resources based on their credit, or reward them for being a "good" citizen. Now grant/remove some credits based on association, and people will be busier with their place in the system than removing the system. Anyone against it will die a slow death being denied almost every resource, shunned, and unable to escape.

Answer 14

This sounds bad if you think in paranoid terms, but you have to remember, you can do a lot of good with total surveillance. Consider cops in Germany arresting people who post xenophobic material on the internet. If they're willing to take this seriously, the Germany government can 100% shut down any public opposition to unrestricted immigration (or any other government policy to which opposition is illegitimate). That's huge: Immigration is the most pressing moral imperative in our time. You can't allow opposition to it. Xenophobia is not a legitimate position, period. There's no debate on that point. The German people don't get to redefine right and wrong just because they fear change.

That's just an example. It's early days yet, but consider the benefits to society of being able to prosecute anybody who engages in any type of hate speech or denialism, even in absolute privacy. Fundamentally, what people need is not privacy, but safety. The socially legitimate purpose of privacy is to allow minorities to protect themselves from those who hate.

You're talking about a civilization where reasonable people can finally establish the limits of legitimate debate, and enforce them. That's the exact opposite of a dystopia. It's a society where a Hitler or a Trump never could have gotten out of the starting gate. It's a society where everybody is safe, unless they choose to make others unsafe.

Sounds good to me.