FW: Shot 'Round the World

[Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>]

From -uni- (Dark):

Freedom of information, and nil transaction cost in anonymous settings
is key in empowering the individual and securing individual rights.
Obviously the goal will conflict with modern intelligence agencies that
seek to attempt domestic monitoring, but I think everyone here needs
to address the role of such agencies in the grand scheme of things.

Is the cypherpunk position a lawless one, or one promoting the evolution
of law?
....................................................
1.   What if the cypherpunk position was one or the other; what effect 
would it have on the subscribers, or upon the law itself? How much do 
those on the list allow themselves to be affected by other's 
positioning, and how much could anyone with influence in the law really care?

2.  Jeff Davis has mentioned in a past message that the electronic war 
against the "enemies of freedom" (intelligence agencies)  would be 
mostly a psychological war (or something to that effect).  I am 
concluding that he must have been attempting to accomplish something 
like this by his act of sending out that NSA manual to all.

On the subject of psychological warfare as a method in this privacy 
effort, I was pondering:

.  the effectiveness of the tactic employed
.  the character of the intended recipient of the message
.  how it will be interpreted by them
.  predicting whether they will care, in the same way as the sender, 
about the purpose & content of the message

Since the communication is mostly words framing thoughts and 
philosophical arguments, the effects that one can aim for will be 
either cognitive or psychological (hopefully achieving both).  To aim 
for a psychological effect only, is to propose that you know so much 
about psychology,  that you know precisely what to aim for - in the 
minds of all of the recipients, and to expect predictable results.

However:
. people will often sense when they are being targeted
. if they do, they will be resentful at being the object of someone's attack
. they may respond in an unpredictable manner different from what was 
intended,  if the total factors involved are more than are known or can 
be successfully controlled by the attacker
. if the intent is only to involve others as elements in the attempt, 
they can also become angry for being enmeshed in crossfire for a 
purpose which is not of their own choosing (i.e. being  used) and be 
unconducive to the success of the intent.

In the attempt to persuade, convince, convert others from their 
position which is offensive to one's own, the methods employed are 
typically negative:  pointing out the adverse consequences, pointing 
out what is wrong with what is being done, pointing out how 
bad/lousy/wrong/mistaken the offending party is, etc.

But it has occurred to me that part of the problem with the effort to 
defend the dignity of one's "rights" is that there is so much more 
negativity than positiveness brought into play in the proffered 
arguments.  What impresses me as lacking in the vision of the offending 
parties is a picture of 'normality'; they're suffering from visions of 
abnormal motivations. ( I mean normality in the sense of having a 
"sense of life" which allows for the expectations of normal activity & 
thought  in the average person.)

To present only negative insights about the problem to those who 
propose the disagreeable methods by which they seek to solve it, is to 
only push the imagination further into the black hole of deficiency.  
What is lacking in the mind of that type of psychological target is a 
perspective on what is normal to a regular human being.  So how could 
positive indicators to the rest of life be given; how could a vision of 
what else is true about real people be created, so that the perspective 
of those targeted individuals or agencies is offered something better 
to think about than the problems created by a few out-of-control types; 
so that their outlook on the subjects of their attention (in this case, 
the citizens of the US) is not composed only of visions of delinquency 
and aberrant behavior?

It is a challenge to "maintain one's head while all about one, others 
are losing theirs".  Yet not only is that what is needed, but the 
agencies supposedly charged with our welfare could also use some help 
in maintaining *their* rationality.  They apparently need some support 
to the end of acquiring confidence in our judgement (the rest of us who 
are not members of the elite, the chosen few).  They are alarmed by the 
potential threat of destruction of a system which they prize as the 
means to social stability.  What would reduce their felt need to cover 
the world with wiretraps in order to make sure that they don't miss any 
loose cannons out in the mists of the wild electronic atmosphere?  What 
could provide that sort of reassurance, that everyone is not going to 
begin using their liberties in wanton, uninhibited, juvenile ways 
against the system or against each other.  What could provide evidence 
contrary to the agencies' conclusion that non-government employees do 
not have what it takes to make rational decisions about the toys & 
tools and other devices which they create for their own amusement.

Considering also:  agencies do not by themselves create the man, but 
vice versa.  That is, just because an agency exists, because it has 
been created for a particular purpose, it does not follow that the 
people hired to function within it no longer have a recognizable human 
nature similar to everyone else's [that's part of the problem :>) ].   
They also must bring their own personality and character to what they 
do, however unlikely it seems that they would have the opportunity to 
do so.  If this were not so, then there would be no reason to think 
that one could argue with them at all.  It would be better to give up 
the effort of communicating with them or attempting to affect them 
psychologically, since they could not be expected to understand anyway; 
it would be better instead to think of other methods for achieving the 
preferred manner of existence.

There would be a great benefit to a psychological type of warfare, if 
it could achieve points for the potential to normality which exists in 
everyone; if it could present evidence to counter the argument that the 
individual cannot be trusted, that we need to be saved from each other 
(by the intelligence agencies).  What could bolster their lack of 
confidence in the judgement of the general population, such that the 
conclusion made to use the services of these agencies would be proved 
unnecessary?

This would be demonstrated by the kinds of actions taken by individuals 
in response to the threats against their privacy.

To wage a psychological war is to assume a great responsibility for the 
impressions made upon those who will be judging the behavior of their 
"charges".  The psychological warriors would be taking part in the 
creation of a picture of the population, the effects of which would be 
a determining factor in the decisions made for future policies.  It is 
very easy to take exceptional cases and use them as examples upon which 
to base techniques implemented for the cause of safety.  It could 
hardly be expected that a limited few would have the resources to 
accomplish the goal for everyone, of saving the image of the individual 
against the one-dimensional cyclops (within our own lifetime); it is 
questionable whether any individual should associate themselves with 
the burden of such a responsibility.

Blanc