Re: <nettime> Hackers can't solve Surveillance

[John Hopkins <jhopkins@neoscenes.net>]

Good points Dmytri & Morlockelloi--

> The nature of "political challenges" has changed *due* to the technology, and
> there is no way to enroll the unwashed into the action without understanding the
> said technology.

It is clear that the feedback loops between what people do in life and what 
comes back to them get longer and longer in terms of how technology taps off 
their life-energies. And a 'big picture' that allows a sussing-out of the 
connections is very much not available to the general population. But I'm not so 
sure that a detailed understanding of a particular technological concept is any 
solution -- I think more principled understandings that are not so difficult to 
grasp, when presented in the right way, can address this problem. Given that the 
tech is predicated on systems theory -- perhaps some critical systems thinking 
could go a long way in allowing people to understand many of the power 
relationships that are operational in the present situation.

> Today, to get political traction on this issue, one needs to explain (a) long
> term consequences of the loss of privacy by (b) complex technical means. It's
> not going to happen unless you essentially teach the population to do crypto
> themselves, without benevolent or malevolent elites. You will not get real
> political traction on blind faith ("something elite hackers tell us to do".) You
> cannot substitute real political engagement by religion, which this "trust us,
> we're the good guys" approach boils down to.

Yet this is exactly the kind of traction that operates for those who get all 
sorts of uneducated folks to follow them -- it is occurring 'where the rubber 
hits the road' around the world -- the blindest of all faith -- from religious 
imbecility to techno-utopianism that continues (remarkably) to fluorish. This 
substitution is absolutely augmented by the technological. And it spawns 'real' 
political engagement -- especially at the level of bodies being spent to control 
territories.

> So it is back to the technology, and deep understanding by pretty much everyone.
> There are no shortcuts, and no amount of 20th century politics will solve this.
> That's the real challenge - education, and it looks like a lost cause. The
> unwashed are dumb, and the smart ones are well paid.

I do agree with this -- 19th&20th century political theory (or action) will not 
solve these issues. I know of no such ideology yet that is predicated on the 
concept "get rid of 90% of the species and we'll be fine." Maybe in the near 
term such ideologies will arise with more force than anyone expects. Although I 
rather guess that the 'ideology' of viral contagion, or lack of water and food 
will trump any organized (and possibly altruistic) human response to what we 
face in the moment. An ideology that skips altruistic blandishment and 
intellectual pretension for "I've got the biggest gun" will be very attractive 
to many. Oh, wait that's what's happening, never mind...

I don't see a good correlation between intelligence and pay. Maybe you are 
talking about a certain kind of intelligence? Like, how to manipulate people or 
something? I find that intelligence above a certain level is almost a handicap 
in average socialization.

JH
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. John Hopkins, BSc, MFA, PhD
grounded on a granite batholith
twitter: @neoscenes
http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org