Surveiller

surveiller final

Busy signals

signals flicker

under oath

you throw blanket

over both

the truth

and lies

that you’ve

huddled together

in a mess

of wires

emitting

sparks

which

scatter that

across the

world.

 

(Photo credit: takomabibelot)

Other articles

Support Second Nature

Second Nature depends on the generous donations of readers like you.

Second Nature is published by the International Institute for the Study of Technology and Christianity (IISTC), a 501(c)3 non-profit dedicated to studying technology in light of the Christian tradition.

Your generous contributions make this work possible. Please consider donating today to help us continue this important work.

About the Contributor

Mark Nenadov

Mark Nenadov
Mark Nenadov is a poet from Essex, Ontario, Canada. He lives with his lovely wife and their three young children. Mark's poems have appeared in numerous publications and anthologies in the United States, Canada, Pakistan, India, Australia, England, and Ireland. See http://www.marknenadov.com for more details. 

Comments

  1. You are just one out of 8,000,000,000 (eight BILLION!) people who are at this moment inhabiting the Earth — do you really think that you’re THAT important that somebody, anybody, may be wasting their time spying on you?

    It’s just in your head!

    “Since Sputnik and the satellites, the planet is enclosed in a manmade environment that ends ‘Nature’ and turns the globe into a repertory theater to be programmed. Shakespeare at the Globe mentioning ‘All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players’ (‘As You Like It’, Act II, Scene 7) has been justified by recent events in ways that would have struck him as entirely paradoxical. The results of living inside a proscenium arch of satellites is that the young now accept the public spaces of the earth as role-playing areas. Sensing this, they adopt costumes and roles and are ready to ‘do their thing’ everywhere.” –Marshall McLuhan (“From Cliche to Archetype”, 1970, pp. 9-10.)

    Stop spreading anarchist/paranoid nonsense and label it as “Christian”!

    • Mark N. says:

      Hello Bob,

      Thank you for reading my poem and posting a comment

      I’m honored that you are taking my poem seriously. On the other hand, though, I think your charge of “anarchist” is wholly unjustified. In fact, my contention would be that the very foundation of the “:anti-indiscriminate-surveillance” position is an appeal to the rule of law and well-ordered authority.

      Furthermore, I think you are misreading the poem if you see me in it. I’ve re-read the poem and I don’t see any pronouns besides “you”..

      Even if we were to grant that I am “in” this poem, I would merely point you to the report from the U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which found that over 89,000 Americans were targeted for collection under Section 702. So even IF I were in this poem, it wouldn’t be a totally pie-in-the-sky, paranoid thing to feel as if one could be targeted.

      Blessings,
      ~Mark

      • My rant was “in general” — no specific target. Just found this post, because of its theme/title, more appropriate for me to “speak my mind”.

        I believe we should start our discussion first by distinguishing between surveillance on the street and surveillance on the Internet. The street is a public space. I see no problem if there’s a policeman in physical presence or just “his eyes” — a policeman behind a video camera — watching over the activity and safety of the citizens. Perhaps there should be more real policemen actually patrolling on the streets.

        The Internet is more or less a different story… There are public virtual spaces (like this website), there are private virtual spaces (e-mail and social networking accounts), and then there is the socialist jungle of Web 2.0 with its user-generated content. — But most people who complain about surveillance on the Internet are software pirates.

        To be completely honest, I didn’t really understood your poem.

        • Mark N. says:

          Hi Bob,

          You said: “To be completely honest, I didn’t really understood your poem.”

          Yeah, that’s the impression I got when I originally assumed your comments were directed at my poem.

          That’s OK, though, the poem is meant to be a bit shadowy and vague.

          “But most people who complain about surveillance on the Internet are software pirates.”

          On what basis do you say that? It’s my general impression that the pirates tend to care less than many others who have an interest in their privacy, since (a) they know that there is limited interest (and ability) to investigate their activities and (b) tend to be above average in their technical ability to evade monitoring.

          Honestly, though, in my observation the complaint against surveillance on the Internet is currently about as broadly based as it can be. Of course people with technical expertise and who are engaged in matters that are most sensitive (for good or ill) will always be prominent among those who are most vocal about it. In any case, though, does it even really matter. Does the fact that a group of discredited people generally tend to share a certain area of concern make that area of concern illegitimate?

          Anyways,have a great day, Bob! Thanks for interacting with me here.

          Btw. I also have a poem titled “Web 2.0” in this publication.

          • I’m sorry, but I don’t really understand modern poetry — or modern art in general, not necessarily poetry.

            “That’s OK, though, the poem is meant to be a bit shadowy and vague.”

            What’s the point of writing a poem that only you can understand? (And perhaps in a few years you will also forget what it was about.)

            Anyway… I’m not “here” to talk about poetry.

            “Does the fact that a group of discredited people generally tend to share a certain area of concern make that area of concern illegitimate?”

            What exactly do you mean? What is YOUR concern?

          • Mark N. says:

            Hello Bob,

            You said: “What’s the point of writing a poem that only you can understand? (And perhaps in a few years you will also forget what it was about.)”

            I didn’t say only I could understand it. Unless “a bit shadowy and vague” is equivalent to “only I can understand it”?

            You said you aren’t here to talk about poetry. This is a poem. So I’m not sure what we have a ton to converse about, then. If you want to know what my concern is in the area of surveillance, then I would say that I am very concerned about the effect that unrestrained surveillance (unaccountable to due process) has on society as a whole and individuals within society.

            I hope you have a good day.

  2. Correction: 7,000,000,000 (seven billion).

  3. “…a group of discredited people…”

    To which group of “discredited people” do you think you’re belonging to, Mr. Nenadov?

  4. “You said you aren’t here to talk about poetry. This is a poem. So I’m not sure what we have a ton to converse about, then.”

    Okay… Sounds fair. Would you be willing to explain your poem then? The only things I understand is that it’s about surveillance (because of the title) and about lies being “huddled together” (mixed) with the truth “in a mess of wires” (the Internet?)… What other things do you had/have in mind? Or is that it? Is it just some sort of political commentary?

    And what does a poor spider’s web has to do with the Web 2.0? :-)

    “…I am very concerned about the effect that unrestrained surveillance (unaccountable to due process) has on society as a whole and individuals within society.”

    Did you ever believe that there was such a thing as “restrained surveillance”? And what effects?

    “I think your charge of ‘anarchist’ is wholly unjustified.”

    I don’t believe my “anarchist nonsense” charge was exaggerated. You people (well, maybe not you Mr. Nenadov, but others on this website) promote the writings of Jacques Ellul, a self-professed anarchist. — I have wasted years of my life with such Pseudo-Christian hogwash. (So, yes, these comments are somewhat a personal vendetta of mine.) No more! If Mr. Ellul was such a “good Christian”, why didn’t he recognize the authority of the Pope or of the Church? Why didn’t he recognize the authority of ANY Church, be it Catholic or Orthodox or at least that of some Protestant denomination?

    ‘anarchy’ (noun) : A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of [any] authority or other controlling systems. (Oxford dictionaries)

  5. You can delete my comments from this post. I will later repost only the McLuhan quote.

    Peace.

Leave a Reply to Mark N. Cancel reply

*

Support Second Nature

If you find value in the work we do at Second Nature, please consider making a modest donation. Every donation, no matter how small, is a huge encouragement to us in our work.