|
02/12/02
Total Information Awareness
Hi AH
i pretty much agree with alot of your views
but your view about the gov. getting too much information on the people i dont
garee with....this article says it better than i could.
-- Forget
Milk. Got ID? Joseph Bommarito
K
Hi K
It certainly is a good article. And I do know
what you mean. I understand the 'fears', but I actually don't think that there's
any way of stopping governments getting more information. Also, whenever I read
articles that are against the government accessing more information, they never
really state what the huge benefits might be for us all, nor how
any ensuing problems might best - and quite easily - be countered. The articles
tend to be completely one-sided - a bit like mine when it comes to feminism, I
suppose.
For example, in the article, Joe says, "All
that private medical information will automatically be available to doctors,
insurance companies, researchers, hospitals, and even data processing
companies." But then he doesn't really say why all this would
necessarily be such a problem! He simply assumes that it will be.
Well, it might cause problems to some people,
but for most people there would surely be many benefits.
Surely, there are enormous benefits that could
be gained for most people through allowing "researchers, hospitals, and
even data processing companies" to get their hands on medical
information?
There could even be many gains made by letting
the insurance industry have access to it! - if the associated laws concerning
data-handling procedures are developed correctly.
In general, I think my feeling is that unless
people are very extreme - and very 'rare' - then governments and important
organisations just would not be able to discriminate against them for very long
because there would just be too many people creating a fuss about it.
For example, what if a law said that any data
handled by an organisation had to be combined with data showing what use the
organisation had actually made of it? And, further, that this had to be made
available for public scrutiny, or for scrutiny by a judicial body concerned only
with citizens' rights. (Let's call it the Mutual Access Law.)
And let's just take the example of insurance
companies, say, discriminating against those who have, for example, a 'bad
gene'. Well. OK. But if the Mutual Access Law says that if they are using 'gene
data' then they must make available to public scrutiny their prices and their
policies in a way that matches up to the gene data, so that, say, statistical
analyses can be made of it all to see what effects the data is having on the way
that the company is 'reacting' to the information, then society can surely
respond appropriately.
Perhaps a law would be passed that forbids a
company to charge different premiums to those with a bad gene - and with access
to the information provided, an insurance company could easily be checked out by
lawyers to ensure that it did not discriminate against such people.
Further, provided that ordinary people also
had legal access to all the information that was kept about themselves, then
those who discovered that they had a 'bad gene' could also get together and form
a very powerful lobbying group - perhaps to get more research done concerning
their medical problems - or whatever.
Indeed, if a law prevented insurance companies
from discriminating on the basis of certain information - let's say, the genetic
propensity to get disease X - then the insurance industry could actually benefit
a great deal by supporting research that ameliorated disease X!
Well. OK. The above may not be the best
solutions to problems concerning the insurance industry getting its hands on
medical data. I'm no expert on such things. My point, however, is that there can
always be found a solution to ensure that people are not unjustly
treated as a result of large organisations accessing information. And, further,
it seems to me that even very effective solutions to counter any problems - or
abuses - are likely to be relatively simple and extremely cheap in comparison to
the resources that will be saved and the benefits that will be gained by making
the information available to organisations.
I've had loads of discussions with people who
fear the spread of detailed information - for one reason or another - and when I
look very closely at the specifics, their arguments just don't seem to be very
strong - when looking at the long term.
The increased accessing of information by
governments and large organisations is definitely fraught with problems. It is
going to take us down a bumpy road and abuses of power are undoubtedly going to
take place.
They already do!
BUT. The road which denies them this
information is going to be a lot bumpier. And abuses of power can always be
dealt with and procedures put in place to avoid them. Further, as I've said many
times, I don't think that we are going to stop this process because the benefits
to society are just too enormous to ignore. And, further, in the end, it is the
powerful and the 'bad' who will end up being disempowered by the spread of
information.
And it seems to me that whenever I read an
article decrying the threat to civil liberties that the spread of information
could give rise to, and I look closely at the 'fears', it doesn't seem too
difficult for me to come up with ways in which these fears can mostly be
allayed. And I'm not talking here about governments being beneficent and
willingly handing over to the people powers and laws that will protect them from
governmental abuses of power. No Siree! I don't trust the government any more
than you do. But with the spread of information, the powerful and the bad are
disempowered. And these include those who work for governments. And the people
can always force their governments to put measures in place that
will protect them. Well, in democracies with free speech etc, they can!
Of course, if only the government is allowed
access to information then we really are in trouble! And this is why it is so
important that ordinary citizens must always have the right to access
information and to communicate and speak freely.
Here's another example from Joe's article.
"Someone gets stopped for a tail light
out. The police officer can swipe his card and find out his library reading
record and political party membership on the spot. The officer can tell if
he’s one of those privacy nuts or other un-American dissidents and really
whack it to him."
Well, surely, provided that people have access
to information - as per the Mutual Access Law - the officer could be charged
with harassing a particular kind of person. For example, the data on all the
people ticketed by the officer could be statistically analysed in a jiffy! And
if it is found, say, that Democrats are ticketed far more often than others,
then, surely, the officer himself could be placed in some kind of trouble for
this discrimination. Indeed, the very accessibility of the information
disempowers the officer! - or it might do so in the future!
On the other hand, society could simply demand
that police officers on traffic duty are not allowed to access such
information unless - and until - satisfactory safeguards are put in place.
Here is another example from Joe Bommarito's
article.
"I use a credit card or write a check
to buy some books. The clerk swipes my NID. So, the purchases go into the
national database so that you, Government, can ferret out these privacy nuts and
anti-government types based on what they’re reading."
But the same principles apply. Provided that
officials themselves can be monitored by using the same information, it wouldn't
take long to discover those who were abusing their positions.
The way to deal with the potential abuse of
power by government employees is to monitor them! - by demanding access to the
very same information that they, themselves, have access to - or at least access
to information that can be statistically analysed without revealing any personal
identities.
Indeed, if there turn out to be many abuses of
power in a particular area, people will surely demand that bodies completely
independent of government are formed to scrutinise most carefully what is going
on.
And, further, in this particular example, when
it comes to discovering those people who are reading 'anti-government' books,
what would the officials find? They would find that people from all walks of
life were reading such things; priests, teachers, doctors, nurses, academics,
police officers, scientists, mothers, TV celebrities, politicians, government
employees, judges etc.
If anything, government officials would soon
discover that very ordinary and very nice people were reading such materials.
And this, in fact, might even inspire many of them to start reading such things
for themselves! And then, before long, enough of them might begin to be swayed
by the arguments in those books and so the government would end up having more
'anti-government' folk actually working within its own ranks!
This may sound naive, but when you bear in
mind that government employees are mostly no different from ordinary citizens,
and that they are also often concerned about people's rights and liberties -
after all, they have their own loved ones, friends and families to worry about -
then it seems highly likely that, eventually, enough of them will begin to
protest against any abuses against people who read such material.
And they are on the 'inside'!
Here's another example from Joe's article.
"Remember a few years back when IRS employees were getting into private tax
files and spreading private information around to non-IRS people and
tabloids?" But surely he is not suggesting that the IRS should not have
access to detailed financial information? That would be ridiculous.
In this example, IRS employees were abusing
their powers - and, quite simply, they should be punished for doing so.
Though, having said this, I'm not quite sure
why people's finances should be kept secret. After all, if everybody's financial
position was readily accessible to everyone else, then what would it matter if,
say, the tabloids got hold of them?
Regular readers of angryharry are surely aware
of how angry I seem permanently to be over matters to do with governmental
abuses of power. Indeed, there can be few people alive in the western hemisphere
who spend more hours than me working to try to disempower western governments.
Goodness me, I absolutely detest the way in which politicians seek to serve only
themselves and seem not to give a damn about the people whom they are supposed
to be serving. And when it comes to 'feminist' issues, I hope and pray that the
politicians and the government employees - especially the men - who support the
man-hating agendas really do fall flat on their faces in their own personal
lives. I really hope that they get to be as hurt by their own moral corruption
as are the ordinary men who have suffered from it. I want to see them kicked out
of their homes. I want to see them falsely accused of abuse. I want to see them
torn apart by divorce settlements, custody disputes, paternity fraud and what
have you. I want them to share in all the consequences that they have inflicted
upon others.
And I would also like to see politicians
eventually prosecuted for treason - or something like it - for paying such
little regard to the welfare of their own people by, for example, opening up
their nations' borders to all and sundry simply in order to get themselves more
votes and to break down national boundaries in order to feather their own nests
at the expense of their own people. In my view, the public needs to understand
that they are as malevolent as would be, say, doctors, who purposely spread
diseases in order to enhance their own lifestyles.
After all, here in the UK, we have a crisis in
the National Health Service, the educational system is unable to do its job
properly, the traffic problems are horrendous, our pensioners are treated
miserably, we've got crime and mayhem permanently on the increase, our taxes
continue rising, and what are the politicians doing? They're allowing into the
country a few hundred thousand economic migrants every year!
How are we supposed to cope with this
continual influx when we can barely cope now?
And the same sort of thing is happening in
America with immigration from the south..
But the left-wing politicians are leaving the
doors open because they want to become permanent members of an ever-expanding
governing elite. They want as many problems as possible to beset the ordinary
people so that they can justify creating more governmental jobs and so adduce to
themselves greater powers. And they also want to break down our national borders
because economic migrants are far more likely to vote for them.
Left-wing politicians seem completely
unconcerned about their duty to serve their own people.
And here in the UK the left-wing politicians
keep handing our powers to govern ourselves over to politicians in Europe!
It is really quite disgraceful. And I am
absolutely determined to do my best to get back at them.
I have a very, very, very low opinion of many
of those inside government. And I want to see them disempowered, vilified and
exposed for the egotistical self-serving creatures that they are.
Further, as a man - or, rather, as a male - I
am nothing more than a piece of sh*t in their official eyes. And this must be
absolutely obvious to anyone who looks closely at what they have been doing over
these past three decades.
So K, make no mistake, I am very determined to
undermine them and to expose them.
And of one thing I am almost certain, having
obsessed about the issue for so long.
And this is that the more that information is
spread around - even to government employees - the more undermined will they
eventually be!
Anyway. Here's Lord Tebbit speaking a few days
ago. (He was very high up in Margaret Thatcher's 1979-1992 Tory government.)
He seems to be endorsing my view about certain
politicians.
"Blair's constitutional reforms …
his social reforms undermining the family, his criminal and civil law reforms
overturning 1,000 years of British jurisprudence … his attempted obliteration
of the culture and history of this Kingdom, the betrayal of those who would be
British whether in Ulster or Gibraltar, his contemptuous disregard of our kith
and kin in Zimbabwe, his resolution to cede our very currency to foreign
interests are all part of one agenda - the destruction of this Kingdom and its
absorption within a foreign jurisdiction, over the heads or behind the backs of
its people and contrary to the oaths he swore on taking office.
"Never before have we had in office a
Government and most particularly a Prime Minister who detests our history, our
constitution, our institutions and indeed the very nation we are and whose
intention is to subjugate us to foreign rule."
I suppose that what I am trying to say to you
is this. My credentials (my activism) surely show quite clearly that I am
someone who is absolutely determined to reduce the power of governments and
politicians. And I am furious at their continued lack of concern for their own
malefolk and for the neglect of their very own country in order to benefit
themselves. To me, they are like doctors purposefully spreading diseases. And
I'm after them as best as I can be.
I hate what they are doing.
But, am I concerned about them accessing more
and more information about their citizens?
No. I'm not!
Well, not in the long run.
In fact, it amuses me to see them almost
rushing to disempower themselves.
However, the cleverer politicians will realise
that this is actually in their own interest in the long run. By disempowering
themselves they will bear far less responsibility and blame for any problems
that arise - problems that cannot be hidden so easily these days. And it
makes sense for them to offload some of this responsibility by sharing more of
their powers with the ordinary people. (An example of this sort of thing
currently operating in the higher echelons of power can be seen in Bush
desperately wanting the support of the UN against Iraq even though he has all
the firepower and doesn't actually need its support in order to carry out a
war.)
And so it is that men will also become
increasingly empowered. And doubly so! After all, not only are they ordinary
citizens, but they also have the men's movement rising up to support them - a
movement that has barely existed until recently.
The spread of information is therefore of
double benefit for men. And so I am fairly confident that the poor treatment of
men will soon be coming to an end. And it is worth stressing the point that
without the spread of information this just would not be happening.
I often receive emails very much concerned
with the government's monitoring of personal communications and there is clearly
a widespread fear that people will be prosecuted for their speech and that
anti-government websites will be closed down. Well, I fear this too. And I will
fight against it. But, in the end, there are just too many of us.
And some people out there have influence!
For example, would European politicians have
the police arrest well-known national journalists who criticised them? What about
well-known TV commentators? Comedians? Other politicians? Women? What about Bill
Gates - or some equivalent? What about Rupert Murdoch, who does not like the EU?
What about the head of the Confederation of British Industry who often openly
opposes the EU?
Will all these people be silenced and
prosecuted too?
In my view there are just far too many of us.
And wherever governments might try to set the limits of free speech, the people
will eventually overcome them.
Of course, politicians and governments will do
their best to try to suppress those who criticise them, but provided that
people have access to the new communications technology they have no
hope of succeeding in doing this.
And they know it!
For people out there who are currently hiding
information - or themselves - from governments in some way, the spread of
information is clearly going to be a problem. But, given that this probably cannot
be avoided in the long run, at least, not without some considerable cost
to themselves (worry!) the best solution is for them to band together with those
in a similar situation and get themselves prepared to fight for their cause.
And even if they lose the fight, they are
likely to be better treated as a result of their own increasing powers, and they
will also have made themselves a greater number of friends if they find each
other and band together.
The further spread of information will empower
the men's movement enormously. And in the near future governments will not be
permitted to persecute men (e.g. through grossly unfair child support demands)
nor to discriminate against them (e.g. through the family courts).
And it is worth remembering that most
government employees are men! And they are on the 'inside'. The spreading of
information into their hands will therefore undermine most
effectively any governments who persist in discriminating against men.
These men inside government are not really
aware of gender issues at the moment. And they are not yet fully comprehending
of how badly they are being mistreated.
But they will be!
AH
Anyway, just to drone on about the subject,
here's an article by Ted Rall. He's a well-known writer about matters concerning
civil liberties.
USA Since
most of the data the TIA analyzes relates to loyal American citizens, Total
Information Awareness creates the potential for abuse of governmental power on
an unprecedented scale.
This is true. But when I read the article,
what do I see? I see a lot of complaints and many fears expressed concerning TIA,
but neither are fully explained, and there is no mention of any of its benefits
- such as a reduced likelihood of terrorism!
Here are a few examples.
The TIA believes that knowing if and when
Fluffy got spayed--and whether your son stopped torturing Fluffy after you put
him on Ritalin--will help the military stop terrorists before they strike.
But this is just a ridiculous caricature of
what TIA is about.
The truth is that the computer modelling of
behaviour patterns may well help to track down all sorts of groups or
individuals who have terrorist or criminal backgrounds. And, just as
importantly, it will help to eliminate the need to harass innocent
individuals.
For example, if a bomb explodes in Manhattan
and your "Web cookies, school transcripts, medical files, property
deeds, magazine subscriptions, airline manifests," etc show a
complete lack of connection to anything out of the ordinary, then the FBI will
not waste its time - and your money - on harassing you.
Isn't this of benefit to most people?
Ted Rall then asks, "Is Poindexter
more interested in digging up dirt on Bush's political foes than fighting
Islamist terrorism?"
Well, that's certainly possible!
But this is an example of the powerful
undermining the powerful! As I keep saying, it is the powerful who have the most
to fear from the spread of information. And, in the end, they will disempower
each other!
In other words, this particular example of the
potential for the 'abuse of power' has nothing to do with protecting the
ordinary citizen.
Ted Rall now pokes some more fun at the
security arrangements around airports. "Presuming there will be an exact
replay of Sept. 11 has led to long security lines at airports and no screenings
whatsoever at train stations and bus depots. Which targets would you go after if
you were a terrorist?"
The joke here is that it is wasteful to make
airports more secure because potential terrorists will just come up with other
targets. Well, this is certainly true. But if there were no extra security
measures taken around airports then they would be as vulnerable as they were
before 9/11! And so a similar attack could happen all over again.
What is Ted Rall suggesting that the
government does about preventing another 9/11 type of attack? Nothing?
Any government that did nothing would deserve
to be booted out of office pretty quickly!
In many ways, Ted Rall's lampooning of the
Bush government's security efforts to date is actually based on the fact that
terrorists can choose so many different methods and targets to cause
destruction. But it is precisely because of this that something like TIA seems
so necessary!
What is the alternative?
Indeed, Ted Rall is, effectively, throwing in
the towel and saying that there are so many possible methods, targets and
potential terrorists out there that there is nothing that can be done.
Poindexter, on the other hand, is saying that
something can very definitely be done. He is saying that, "Information is
the Key!" And, as you all know, I agree!
(I also notice that the motto chosen by
Poindexter is the very same one that heads angryharry: 'Knowledge is Power'.
Hmm. I'm beginning to like this man!)
Ted Rall says that, "Since most of the
data the TIA analyzes relates to loyal American citizens, Total Information
Awareness creates the potential for abuse of governmental power on an
unprecedented scale."
Well, this is certainly true. But my belief is
that if civil liberties activists spent more of their time figuring out ways to
stop the government being able to abuse its powers and less of their time
worrying about the government accessing evermore information - particularly
since we are NEVER going to stop this - we would all be heading
more quickly into a much, much better future.
Further, in the past, governments had
something of a monopoly when it came to accessing information and controlling
the flow of it. But this is just not the case any more. And so it is not going
to be at all easy for them to abuse their powers on 'an unprecedented scale'.
Finally, if citizens have freedom of speech,
access to information, and access to communications technology, governments will
not be able to abuse their powers for very long. It is these three
things, more than anything else, that will protect citizens from
their governments. And so it is these three things that civil liberties
activists must really fight to maintain, rather than worrying about governments
accessing information.
AH
|
