From: Michael Wiik (mwiik@messagenet.com)
Date: Wed Sep 12 2001 - 09:37:58 MDT
Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
> You want to turn hackers into spies or what? I am sure that any
> of us, in any line of work, that have leads on groups that might
> be up to something like this would come forward with the
> information.
The information might well have been out there, on the net someplace. If
it was super-obvious, I'm sure folks would speak up. (Maybe some did,
who knows?). I don't think more subtle cues would have alerted anyone,
but maybe some sort of 'homeland defense' training would help here.
Maybe they don't need to become spies. Maybe they could just program and
run simulations. I'm not sure in the following that I will be able to
get my point across, but what I think we need is not just outside the
box thinking but out-of-left-field thinking.
This idea is what preoccupies my thoughts on 'fighting the system' when
it comes to various oppressive laws. I think it's becoming impossible.
People will say, give money to the EFF to help oppose the DMCA and free
Skylarov. And some folks will give money, and I think that's a generally
a good idea. But I think there's a feeling that once you do that, you've
done your part. Your issues with the DMCA or SSSCA or whatever is
'resolved', at least in certain short-term ways.
I read years ago that the CIA had funded some left-wing organizations
that, for example, supported the people of El Salvador. The purpose
being to have people feel that they helped somehow if they gave money to
such organizations. This might 'resolve' the issues for these people;
they did something, and now can go on with their lives even as the
repression in that country continued.
So I conclude that there is *nothing you can do* (within the context of
the system as generally presented and defined). Writing your congressman
impassioned pleas for civil liberties may have no effect whatsoever on
someone who is just in office to maximize wealth and power, and getting
big contributions from the MPAA.
I used to play a lot of historical strategy boardgames, and recall
reading some article about how people who didn't know the history
presented in the game often made better beta-testers. Those who knew
their history played the game in the 'proper' way. Those who didn't know
the history played the game system instead, maximizing what it offered
w/o regard to what happened historically. (One example I recall was a
Milton Bradley game on Roman conquests: building armies of catapults
exclusively was a winning strategy). Computer games featuring online
multiplayer gaming unleash a great deal of talent applied to maximizing
the system w/o regard to how the game designers intended it to be
played. Strategies for computer RPG's suggest 'dont roleplay', i.e.,
dont get caught up in your character or the gameworld ambiance if you
want to maximize your win.
US intelligence services no doubt have thinking-outside-the-box
training. But I can see how they can still be too close to it. Having
hackers hack the 'system' of terrorism might well come up with ideas
that wouldn't occur to intelligence agencies. Perhaps it's also a matter
of just good taste. Remember all those Challenger jokes? Do you think
these were passed around at NASA to generate laughs? A computer game in
which you play a terrorist using commercial airliners as cruise missiles
sounds utterly tasteless and offensive but there seems a possibilty that
some insight might be gained from playing such a thing. Or play the
other side and do the cost/benefit analysis of giving bin Laden a few
cruise missiles, so terrorists wouldn't need to use airplanes as such.
I remember a game called Ultimatum. The idea was US vs Soviet Union
power struggles in a worldwide setting, but the main part of the
gameboard was maps of the US and SU, and counters for missiles, bombers,
etc, and lots, lots, of cool nuclear explosion markers. Imagine such a
system for the real world: you visit the strategic command center, and
off to the side there's a bunch of bored folks running Excel
spreadsheets and printing out maps, then they turn on the nuclear war
fighting system and it's some supercool holographic display of the
entire planet with little glowing missile and bomber icons. The
Ultimatum game encouraged nuclear war just by having that be the focus
of the game's presentation: it was cool to have one. This may not be a
super relevent example but I would think there are 'systems' in use in
intelligence agencies that support a focus on certain types of thinking
as opposed to others.
> But in general I don't see a tighter relationship
> with authority, much of which wishes to suppress us and is used
> for that purpose big-time, as being a good thing.
Half the time I would agree. The other half of the time I think we're
approaching -- or in -- the type of world in which some of the more
horrific news headlines in novels such as Halperin's _The Truth Machine_
and _The First Immortal_ are quite plausible. A world where small groups
of people or even individuals will be able to cause immense amounts of
damage and/or loss of life. I can often see perfectly valid reasons for
a survelliance state. I could support such a state *if it was focused on
the real dangers we face*.
You know, the extropians list is a system as well. There are so many
erudite people on this list it's often difficult for me to express my
thoughts. I have lots of draft emails I never sent. I don't claim to be
an expert in anything outside web production. I have some differences
with core extropian values, the ones we're not supposed to debate. Maybe
like 'casual friday' in the workplace, we need a 'anything goes tuesday'
or whatever, a space where we can present ideas without them being
analyzed to death, so we can at least have them on the back burner of
our minds and let them percolate for while.
Thanks,
-Mike
-- ====================================================================== Michael Wiik Principal Messagenet Communications Research Washington DC Area Internet and WWW Consultants http://messagenet.com mwiik@messagenet.com ======================================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:32 MST