This, from Huffington Post yesterday, disconcerts me a tad:
Young people with highly technical computer skills could become targets — or instigators — of organised crime, the government has warned.
A new Home Office “prevent” guide to identifying those “at risk” of falling into crime, spotted by Techno Guido, says that “specialist knowledge and skills in IT and communications” could be a gateway to potential criminality.
“Early behaviours could include modifications to games or software and sharing online. Recent evidence suggests that the number of frauds committed by young adults are increasing.”
The report also notes that “online networks and communities” could provide a “pathway into serious and organised crime”.
So people who only have menial skills are out of the frame, whereas people who want to get actively involved in adding value to their communities and economies – precisely by using their brains, learning and self-learning to do this – are at risk of being typed and followed by the state as subversive individuals.
There is almost a double-whammy approach here: on the one hand, we create and propagate the conditions of job-market insecurity which allow those with wealth to continue pressuring those without – and what’s more, we then justify the process by blaming the so-called scrounging poor for the parlous state of the wider economy; whilst, on the other, we argue that anyone who does want to be ambitious enough to raise themselves from poverty via an intelligent self-learning – or even through institutional training – is potentially ambitious enough to want to commit crime.
No matter that most of the truly heinous crimes I’ve got the feeling have been committed prior to and after the credit crunch of 2008 appear to have far more to do with middle-aged males, carrying out loosely controlled executive functions, than the down-at-heel young now apparently under the microscope of the security establishment.
I can only sigh at all the above.
I prefer to believe it’s unintentional – maybe just another manifestation of a broader inability to carry out proper analyses, end-to-end.
But it does, also, seem hard to resist the impression they’re deliberately looking to punish intelligent people – exactly for exhibiting even their constructive intelligences – somewhere down the shabby and shoddy line.
We don’t need this. We really don’t. We don’t need a state which perceives the condition-at-birth of every future citizen as being a potential criminal within the people.
That it now appears to be happening can only be symptomatic of the following circumstance: the state knows something so terrible about the relationship between itself and its citizens that, once revealed, if ever revealed, would lead to shocked reaction.
Honestly. The psychology of it all seems that: the psychology of the abuser – maybe the abused too (who knows?) – who, hidden all these years, can only see the bad in others.
How can an intelligent government like ours want to track, follow and permanently pursue precisely those people and citizens who, given half a chance, would be able to make our communities, societies, economies and politics work so much better than the current levels of dysfunctionality allow?
Almost as if those in charge don’t want things to improve.
And taken to its logical conclusion, anyone who didn’t wilfully choose to be a poor, put-upon, skiving, scrounging, illiterately TV-dinner-consuming commoner would offer quite enough reasons to be put on the ever-increasing watchlist which – I’m pretty sure – already exists.
Really sad stuff going down here.
With this definition of austerity’s purpose, you’re neither allowed to get the end of the month on the back of the state nor aspire to getting there out of your own volition and clevernesses.
So what the hell is this all about? Anyone any idea?
Does no one trust us any more? Is that what we must conclude?