We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Please applaud Dan Gillmor for spelling out that security and privacy are not incompatible in his article Don’t Deny Privacy for Security’s Sake in Computerworld. He mourns the fact that despite their supposed libertarian principles, Silicon Valley companies and their competitors around the world are racing to help the snoops. An example of technology that promotes both security and privacy is encryption and if we want a safe economy in the Digital Age, strong cryptography – with its positive and negative uses – isn’t an option but a requirement. His challenge is to the IT industry:
IT should be considering what happens when businesses are forced to put holes into everyday systems so that law enforcement can easily find wrongdoers or potential criminals. If government has a back door to every communication or collects vast amounts of data in central locations, the potential for a privacy debacle is enormous.
Please read and rejoice that someone has stood up to the post-September 11th tendency to compromise liberty in the supposed interest of security. 
Finally I have found a way to mention a subject related to what I try to do for living, in a way relevant to libertarians and like-minded netwarriors. I have been interested in networks and their security for some time but only recently I have begun to notice articles and books attempting to analyse the implications of technology and information age on networks at a more strategic level. (I am not saying that they did not exist, simply that I haven’t been able to reach them despite my continuous searches). Perhaps it is a result of the very network effect that the topic is attracting more attention as it spreads into more industries, areas and levels of society.
And so I have come across a book titled Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime and Militancy published by RAND (a contraction of the term Research and Development), the first organisation to be called a “think tank”. The authors take as a given that the fight for the future is not between the armies of leading states, nor are its weapons those of conventional armed forces. What today’s combatants – whether it be terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, drug smuggling cartels of Columbia and Mexico, or non-violent, civil-society activists for environment, human rights or liberty – have in common is that they operate in small, dispersed units that can deploy anytime, anywhere. They all feature network forms of organisation, doctrine, strategy and technology attuned to the information age. This gives rise to a new spectrum of conflict that has been termed netwars.
Netwar is the lower-intensity, society rather than state based counterpart to the mostly military concept of cyberwar and its distinguishing features are:
a) a dual nature – conflicts waged, on the one hand, by terrorists, criminals and ethno-nationalist extremists; and by civil-society activists on the other.
b) no leaders – networked groups without the obvious need for leadership
c) suppleness and flexibility – ability to come together quickly in swarming attacks
d) novelty – new practices triumph until an appropriate response is discovered
The framework for assessing such networks looks at five levels: the technological, social, narrative, organisational and doctrinal. All five must be right for the network to be fully effective. (Perry, I hope you are taking notes. )
The technological sophistication is not the only thing that matters. The other levels have as much, if not more, effect on the potential power of the group. The social basis for co-operation is important for establishing trust and identity, for example among the members of ethnically based terror and crime groups. Among civil-society netwarriors, in the absence of the ethnic or social ties the narrative level matters most as sharing and projecting a common story empowers them and attracts audiences. Finally, the defining level of a netwar actor is the kind of network and the sort of doctrine he uses.
To confront and cope with networked adversary, the same framework must be used to assess his strengths and weaknesses. The most serious opponents are highly networked and flexible, backed by social ties, secure communications and a common story about why they are together and what they need to do.
The network form of organisation is a serious challenge to nation states because it strains their ability to cope with the threats posed by such non-state actors, especially if used for criminal or terrorist objectives. Strategists and policy makers in Washington and elsewhere have already noted this dark side of the netwar phenomenon. The book recommends that whilst they continue to keep an eye on the perils posed by the ‘bad guys’, they must form coalitions between states and civil society’s networked actors. I imagine if they follow this suggestion, there will perhaps be a link, in the appropriate category, to the U.S. Department of Defense on the side bar. Or vice versa.
In his debut film released later this week the deliciously un-PC Ali G gets elected as MP (Member of Parliament) for Staines and becomes involved in a plot to overthrow the Prime Minister. He presents his manifesto for a more ‘wikid’ Britain in Da State We Iz In published in the last Sunday Telegraph. In a rousing finale of this articulate document he answers the question of “Why should u change de world?” in a practical manner whilst keeping his eyes on the ultimate dream:
U should do it 4 your childrens benefit and for your unemployment benefit, your housing benefit and your disability benefit: try to increas dem as much as posible. I know it’s a dream but together lets try and make de place where we bring up our kidz to be as good as South Central LA…
Anyone fancy joining him?… I thought not, but it is a wikid larf. 
Neel Krishnaswami writes:
Utilitarian arguments are the only arguments I have known to successfully convince anyone across ideological boundaries.
…and…
A political philosophy beyond utilitarianism is essential to avoid absurdity, but concrete utilitarian arguments are essential both to convince others and to keep ourselves honest.
I definitely agree with Neel in the sense that theoretical concepts ought to be supported by empirical evidence and facts. My dislike of utilitarianism is based on one of its consequences – ultimate disregard for the individual. Numerous amendments and elaborations of utilitarian ethics and political theories fail, in my eyes, to remedy this serious flaw. Neel is clearly aware of it and provides examples to this effect himself. If I understand his point correctly it is more about the workings of the human mind and its susceptibility to be convinced by ‘utilitarian arguments’ more successfully than by statements of ‘ideological bullshit’.
In my experience utilitarian arguments that focus strictly on consequences or plain facts and numbers create one of two reactions in the opposing party – either attempts to discredit the source of the information and/or desire to go forth and collect similar ‘statistics’ supporting their views.
My second reservation about utilitarian methods of a debate is that they don’t work. How else do you explain the fact that the vast regiments of lefties (apologies to Perry for using the term out of meta-context) are still polluting the media and public life with their incandescently idiotic convictions about socialism, communism and current authoritarian regimes? No statistics, facts and numbers about Stalin and other communists and the atrocities they committed on the Russian and surrounding nations managed to eliminate communism as an ideology and barely forced its metamorphosis into a ‘benign’ socialism. The facts are dismissed as inconvenient and unconvincing if they clash with fundamental beliefs. Some are happy to use utilitarian arguments to defend communism even in its original guise – I have come across people who argue that Stalin may have done some naughty things but he also turned Russia into an industrial nation. ’nuff said.
I find that the best strategy, and perhaps the most difficult, is one of exposing inconsistencies in the opponent’s ideas and hope to identify the beliefs that get in the way of a rational discourse. Beliefs are notoriously difficult to change. As one of the characters in my favourite film points out:
You can’t change people’s beliefs but you can change their ideas.
If however by utilitarian we mean anything relating to the specific, concrete and non-theoretical then we are simply using the term in different ways. Let me explain what I believe, that is, what my idea of a sound theory is and why I find utilitarianism pitifully inadequate in dealing with reality’s bigger picture. My judgement of a theory depends on three elements:
1. its content, that is its premises, logical consistency and order, its relation to reality
2. the motivation of its author and propagators
3. consequences of the theory when tested or put into practice.
To me consequences are secondary elements of a theory. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the theory’s credibility and its popularity. They can also influence the motivation of its supporters and their responsibility in upholding it. However, consequences in themselves cannot change the correctness of a theory itself; they can make neither true nor false a theory that is in itself flawed.
Have fun and experience a sense of premonition reading an article titled Microsoft launches ‘seek and destroy’ XBox by the The Brains Trust (Trust Us / We Know), a satirical on-line netpaper.
That’s why Internet Explorer 6 can automatically send us error reports containing a list of every piece of non Microsoft software installed on your machine, your name, address and credit card details and the 100 porn sites you last visited. It’s our way of being more responsive to our users.
The author takes on many issues, namely Microsoft, Bill Gates and privacy using the kind of journalistic and marketing speak that just begs to be sent up the way The Brains Trust contributors has been doing for the last year or so.
[Editor: Adriana is being naive: there is nothing satirical about this, it is serious reporting!  ]
Given my long and strongly held reservations about the European Union (EU) and my enthusiasm for most things Internet and World Wide Web, I felt considerable discomfort reading an Accenture paper The euro and eCommerce: Bringing Europe closer to a single market. The reason for my discomfort, apart from the source of the paper, was its argument that ‘the interaction of a single currency and e-commerce will forge powerful synergies across the euro zone, enhance European competitiveness and accelerate the emergence of pan-European capital market’. So does Bad [EU] plus Good [e-commerce] equal an enhanced Good [capital market unification and its benefits]?
How is it possible that something as centralising and anti-competitive as the euro can provide such a fertile ground for e-commerce, a symbol of non-regulated and most free market business model? At first I could not fault the paper’s conclusion or even its argument, but then I realised that a dose of ‘meta-context’ analysis is needed to understand what are the underpinning ‘world views’ at work here.
The EU debate (a civilised term for the battle between the strongly opposing camps) seems to be conducted on a simplistic utilitarian level, an argument that cannot get beyond the second-tier logic and with a short to medium-term horizon. It consists, at least in the media, of collecting examples and anecdotes of beneficial or damaging effects the European project will or might have. The EU supporters put forward the positive results of their efforts and EU opponents strive to point out their negative impact. Although consequences are an important measure of success or failure, this approach rarely addresses the fundamental premises from which both sides launch their campaigns.
An EU supporter would use the paper’s conclusions to point out that the positive impact of the euro, as enhanced by e-commerce, makes the justification of monetary union more powerful. The euro together with e-commerce further breaks down the barriers between the nations and moves us closer and more rapidly towards the ‘glorious day’ of pan-European capital markets. This also:
- reduces currency exchange risk and cost.
- through the Growth and Stability Pact limits the size of public-sector deficits thus indirectly increasing private sector access to capital by reducing ‘crowding out’ by public-sector borrowers,
- encourages growth of the European corporate bond market that is now widely seen as being able to match the dollar market,
- in combination with information and communications technology enables more fluid and efficient payment processes and settlement systems,
- enhances competition and creates greater price transparency.
There you are – all of the above worthy of any libertarian, or indeed common sense, endorsement. Why would we want the UK to forgo such lovely things, which is what will happen, if we don’t join the €uro?
To me the issue is not about centralisation and efficiency versus free market and disorder. The successful coupling of the euro and e-commerce has a straightforward explanation – the euro provides, by default, a transparent standard for transactions. E-commerce, e-business or any e-prefixed interaction cannot reach its full potential without it. The issue is about the distinction between standards (good) and uniformity (bad) – uniformity as an objective, out of context and without regard for the long-term consequences (if we are to play the utilitarian game) does not sit comfortably with the pursuit of freedom. The distinction between inefficiency (bad) and variety (good) – although a certain degree of inefficiency may have to be the price we pay for variety. It seems to me that the EU has been designed and promoted by the kind of mind that does not value variety and freedom as much as it values uniformity and supposed efficiency.
I believe that the truth about the EU lies in understanding and exposing the true objectives and motivations of its supporters. An understanding of the unintended consequences of market and human interactions will have to play an important role. Therefore I call for a meta-context based examination of the EU debate that reveals the actual view of the world its supporters would have us accept instead of wasting our adrenaline on specific EU horror stories.
Computer World has recently warned us about a German research student who found out that by measuring the light reflected from a user’s face information on a computer screen can be reconstructed. As if we have not enough surveillance in the UK already.
The Cambridge whizz-kid explains: “Even if I can’t see your screen surface, as long as your face is illuminated from a distance of 50 meters I can collect the photons from your face into a sensor and I will have a very good chance of turning it into a readable text”… While his research on information leakage from monitor reflections shouldn’t worry the general population of computer users, government agencies and corporations dealing with top secret or confidential materials would probably want to take precautions, he said.
I find this information interesting for two reasons. First, having grown up the other side of the Iron Curtain, this is the first time I felt a stab of regret that the Cold War is over as such technology has its obvious and spectacular uses. Secondly, being a woman I have already thought of an ‘improvement’ to its application – a light absorbent or, better yet, information distorting make up.
It also demonstrates, at least to me, that one should not attempt to control or regulate the consequences of human inventiveness. Individuals will always find a way around such measures using unforeseen and exotic approaches. The only way to counter negative results of such creativity is to let other individuals’ twisted minds match it…
It is a strange twist of fate that I should make my debut on the blog defending a French film that was found too offensive to be advertised on the London Underground (known locally as ‘The Tube’). This caring attitude of the tube authorities to French sensitivities and tourists has been noted and reported by Reuters. The picture accompanying the article made me think of the aesthetically minded among us bloggers (no names, Perry)…and I must admit the hand gun looks quite impressive.
 I do not know whether this sudden respect for French etatism is a good or bad sign. A bad sign because the male population of London will not be perked up every morning by a sight that could actually compete with the latest Dolce & Gabbana underwear advertising campaign – and as we know competition is good. A good sign because more people may realise how pointless such bans are. It may also highlight the fact that the film was not banned in the UK despite the opposition it faces in France. So much for European harmonisation. Vive raunchy French films!
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
