14/10/01

Who's dishing out the anthrax?

(Some highly dangerous anthrax spores recently sent through the USA mailing system has resulted in the death of at least one person and has caused chaos throughout the postal system.)

Well, it MUST be Osama Bin Laden's terrorist groups, or those allied to it.

Or, then again, it might be some Muslim group OPPOSED to him, trying to bring more hostilities to be rained upon him.

On the other hand, it could be the FBI, trying to stir up some further justifications for the need to bomb Afghanistan.

Come to think of it, it could be an American PATRIOT! It could be someone who wants to push the American government into being hell of a lot more cautious when it comes to defending itself - and HIS family - in the future.

It could be a biologist, deranged with anger at the fact that the Americans have simply not taken his authoritative warnings about biological warfare seriously enough, and who has decided to wake them all up, for he fears for the safety of his country.

It could be a criminal.

It could be a Jewish group taking advantage of the situation to scare the Americans into believing that all these Muslims are really rather dangerous and should therefore be dealt with very severely.

It could be a Muslim group giving out a warning to Americans about what kinds of things may follow if they dare to mistreat their fellow Muslims.

It could be a fundamentalist Christian group trying to garner support against Islam.

It could be Saddam!

And herein lies the problem.

In principle, it really doesn't matter who is currently doling out the anthrax. any of the above, could, in the future, do something similar. 

And this is the problem!

There are two overall strategies that can be employed to try to reduce the probability of such terrible things from happening in the future. 

The first is to impose some kind of draconian regime where the government pays and controls hundreds of thousands of enforcement officials who monitor everybody almost at every level of their lives - with secret informants, covert surveillance, tough policing and an imposing, repressive legal framework.

The second is to move toward a world where people feel free to speak their minds openly, without fear of intimidation, and where just about all available information is accessible by ALL.

Imagine a large park - a dark, gloomy one - filled, comfortably, with 1000 people standing around. Some are whispering to each other. Every so often, a laser-information-grabbing-spotlight from a  governmental turret points to a small group of the people to 'check out' what is going on, and to hear what is being said.

A scream is heard, somewhere in the distance. Someone has been badly assaulted. The spotlight shifts to the scene, and everyone cranes their necks, trying to see what happened. No-one saw anything. An investigation takes place. People are interrogated, examined and suspected.

Now, imagine another park. It is bright. Everyone can see each other. And people are talking openly. They mill around and gossip with each other without fear.

There is no need for a governmental turret.

There is far less likely to be any assault.

If there was an assault, the culprit would be seen carrying it out!

In the dark park, somewhere, a few people, here and there, are cheating on their Tax Returns, and some are smoking pot. Most are lucky. They haven't yet been caught. But they don't sleep at night either. The laser-information-grabbing-spotlight may catch them at anytime, should it, by chance, home in upon them. These 'wrongdoers' form 'underground' networks, links and escape mechanisms. There is subterfuge and criminality. There is a constant state of tension, hostility and negativity.

In the bright park, however, no-one bothers to cheat on their Tax Returns. They would be spotted in a jiffy. Everyone can see what's going on - at all times. And so, it just doesn't happen.

And if these people want to pay less money in taxes then, instead of engaging in criminality (which creates a whole host of horrible 'organisms' - including the ugly and sinister Investigation Department of the IRS) they would get together and lobby politically to achieve their aims.

Is not this a better way to run the world?

In the park that is bright, all the pot-smokers can see each other, and everyone can see them. If some of the surrounding people are so concerned about pot-smoking, then they can simply turn their backs on the pot-smokers. They can avoid them. But they can always turn and look, if they want to. On the other hand, they can shunt themselves and their families further away, so that the pot-smokers are out of sight. The choice is theirs.

Of course, they could prosecute pot-smokers, but then this would drive them, and their associates, and their families and friends, toward the park that is dark.

But in the park that is dark, criminality and terrorism can grow and grow.

And the world cannot afford such luxuries any longer. 

In the park that is bright, criminality and terrorism can rarely take off.

But for a park to be bright, EVERYONE must have access to the information. EVERYONE must be able to see, should they look.

...

AT least five police officers are under investigation after a man whose leg and wrist were broken as he was being arrested outside his home released a videotape of the incident.  

This is one of many examples where the new technology is being used to empower ordinary people against those who traditionally wielded much more power.

As I have said many times, the traditional sources of power are crumbling thanks to the new technology.

Citizens should not be afraid of this technology - invasive though it is - provided that they also have access to it, and that the availability of 'information' (in this case, video images) is ready at hand for everyone who seeks it.

At the moment, for example, the UK government wants to deny some defendants the right to a trial by jury - and this is quite apart from the similar issue currently being discussed in connection with terrorists. 

There has been a legitimate outcry from those concerned about civil liberties regarding the further erosion of what is meant to be an impartial justice system if ordinary members of the public are denied their parts as jury members.

But would people really fear this sort of thing if, for example, such trials were videotaped - and copies were made available to any people who sought to see the trials for themselves? - perhaps online.

In many ways, such a trade-off would empower the defendant, in that any abuses of the system would be recorded, and the tape could then be played back to lawyers and to the media to demand a retrial, or, at the very least, some compensatory action.

If I was being tried in a court, I would much rather have a trial without a jury - provided that the whole thing was recorded and the recording made available to whomsoever I chose to give it too - than to have a trial with a jury in which the proceedings were not fully recorded.

(And think of the cost saving!)

Why not videos in classrooms, operating theatres, council meetings -  indeed, wherever government employees or other professionals exercise power over ordinary people?

It sound like a crazy idea at first, but if you think more carefully about it, where's the harm? It would protect the government employees themselves - who would become minor 'celebrities' among those who were interested -  while empowering us all.

A first thought is that no professional would want to be 'on screen' all the time, in case, perhaps, they made a mistake. But, would it really matter if mistakes were made on screen?

Imagine, for example, surgeons doing operations on heart patients. On occasions, mistakes will be made. Everyone makes mistakes. And so, on record, will be lots of surgeons making mistakes. Before long, however, everyone will get used to the idea that such procedures are hazardous, and mistakes are made. These things happen. And there won't be any undue hysteria about them UNLESS the mistakes are UNDUE!!! And, in this case, the public damn well ought to know about them; particularly if it is their own loved ones lying on the operating table.

Imagine, for example again, the school lessons of Form IIIB being pumped down the internet for the parents to watch them, if they so choose. They can see the behaviour of their very own children in the classroom. They can check to make sure that the lessons are of a reasonable standard. How can there be anything but benefit from this?

Why should a teacher giving a school lesson have anything to hide?

Oh Dear, but what if the teacher hasn't prepared the lesson properly that day, or shouts too loudly, or whatever? Would individual teachers want to subject themselves to this kind of scrutiny - especially on a bad day?

Why not? If the 'error' is a common one, it will pale into insignificance, and will hardly matter to anyone. On the other hand, if the error is a gross one, and a rare one, then it will be picked up quickly, before matters get any worse.

'Openness' and 'access' will protect not only the public from the abuse of power, it will also protect the professionals in that if they are behaving like reasonable human beings (given their jobs) they are highly unlikely to arouse any wrath.

And such things will also protect them from false allegations.

The more that people have access to the realities and the truths about situations, the better will the entire world be - which is why I never really support any policy which takes us in the direction of hiding information.