[Reader-list] Re: Reader-list digest, Vol 1 #83 - 2 msgs

[Tapas Ray]

Just to let you know the funny (?) side:
http://www.backwire.com/go.asp?cid=60617&nhid=3264&uid=1096666&bx=n2

EVERY DRIVE YOU TAKE, I'LL BE WATCHING YOU
You're on vacation, joyriding in your upscale rental car equipped with cool
stuff like a GPS. And hey, the rental agency's happy, too, because it can
charge you each time you speed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: on identification and social control (Rana Dasgupta)
>    2. Re: on identification and social control (Menso Heus)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Rana Dasgupta <rana_dasgupta at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] on identification and social control
> To: reader-list at sarai.net
>
> Within the context of recent postings on surveillance
> I would like to ask the question: what does freedom
> look like in the networked society?
>
> Modern surveillance and social control do not just
> begin with cameras and email censorship.  They are
> there in much older systems.
>
> For instance, an economy built on credit - which is
> the case in the US for all of the post-WW2 era -
> imposes a profound kind of control.  Instead of a
> period of restraint and saving followed by a libidinal
> rush of spending on a long-desired asset (a car, for
> example), this model extends that phase of restraint
> over the entirety of life.  Credit card bills and
> mortgages ensure that citizens cannot deviate too far
> from the hard work that allows them to remain
> financially afloat.  In this kind of society one's
> main social duty is to consume and thus keep up one's
> 'debt to society' - the rest (production,
> self-control, etc) will follow.  this predates more
> precise forms of surveillance that the credit system
> makes possible - your credit card bill as a map, for
> instance, of your locations and actions.
>
> As the system's need for growth demands an ever
> greater level of both consumption and production from
> individuals, it is clear that both activities are ever
> more closely controlled.
>
> but one should not look at this in a vacuum, as if, if
> such modes of control were not there, there would be
> no control at all, and individuals would be totally
> free.  the level of such dispersed, internalised
> control, i am sure, has an inverse relationship with
> the level of centralised, external control that is
> required in a society.  in a place like india where
> both kinds of control are at work, they are unequally
> applied: i would imagine that middle class people are
> much more subject to the former, and working class
> people to the latter.
>
> if this is the only choice, personally i'd prefer to
> be subject to a control that is abstract and whose
> workings i can anticipate than one that is personified
> and random.  and i think that within the realm of the
> actually-existing these are the only kind of choices
> we have.  here in india where we are familiar with the
> experience of society being inadequately 'managed' the
> absence of any kind of control whatsoever does not
> seem wholly romantic.
>
> if it is true - and i'm not actually sure it is - that
> all the phenomena we are looking at point only to
> changing forms of control rather than different
> amounts of it, then any ideas of 'freedom' must only
> be relative.  how do people on the list imagine
> 'freedom'?
>
> R
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 02:28:18 +0200
> From: Menso Heus <menso at r4k.net>
> To: Rana Dasgupta <rana_dasgupta at yahoo.com>
> Cc: reader-list at sarai.net
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] on identification and social control
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 09:19:10AM -0700, Rana Dasgupta wrote:
> > Within the context of recent postings on surveillance
> > I would like to ask the question: what does freedom
> > look like in the networked society?
> >
> > Modern surveillance and social control do not just
> > begin with cameras and email censorship.  They are
> > there in much older systems.
> >
> > For instance, an economy built on credit - which is
> > the case in the US for all of the post-WW2 era -
> > imposes a profound kind of control.  Instead of a
> > period of restraint and saving followed by a libidinal
> > rush of spending on a long-desired asset (a car, for
> > example), this model extends that phase of restraint
> > over the entirety of life.  Credit card bills and
> > mortgages ensure that citizens cannot deviate too far
> > from the hard work that allows them to remain
> > financially afloat.  In this kind of society one's
> > main social duty is to consume and thus keep up one's
> > 'debt to society' - the rest (production,
> > self-control, etc) will follow.  this predates more
> > precise forms of surveillance that the credit system
> > makes possible - your credit card bill as a map, for
> > instance, of your locations and actions.
>
> The difference between creditcards and other 'networked'
> surveillance is that with creditcards *I* get to choose
> to use them and thus have somewhat more freedom.
> Hence: If I want to buy porno mags and don't want my bank
> or whoever to find out, I go in and pay by cash.
> One could argue that getting the money from an ATM is logged
> which is true, but they will not know what I spend it on
> (unless you're one of those people who believe they track
> all notes by their serial number, which too me seems just
> too much hassle :-)
>
> The fact that the store most likely has a cam however is
> something I can't do anything about, I cannot choose to
> not be filmed in the store or on the streets unless I
> choose to avoid those places.
> I cannot choose for people not to tap my email, surely I
> can try to fix a workaround (e.g. use encryption) but since
> storage is cheap they can store it now and by the time
> the next big generation of CPU's kicks in they'll decode it
> in a blink then when they think it's necessary.
>
> > As the system's need for growth demands an ever
> > greater level of both consumption and production from
> > individuals, it is clear that both activities are ever
> > more closely controlled.
>
> Is that need really there or is it there because Nokia, Intel,
> McDonalds, Nike and Foodworld supermarkets tell you so?
> We have come a long way, from hunting to prevent starvation to
> eating burgers sitting on our couch watching cartoon network
> while we grow fat and swallow anything that comes in a shiny
> packaging. I think Cow from the Cow And Chicken show on cartoon
> network said it best when she said "I'm gonna follow my herd!"
>
> Naturally, each herd has a leader and we have decided that big
> corporations are the way to go at some point or another....
>
> > but one should not look at this in a vacuum, as if, if
> > such modes of control were not there, there would be
> > no control at all, and individuals would be totally
> > free.  the level of such dispersed, internalised
> > control, i am sure, has an inverse relationship with
> > the level of centralised, external control that is
> > required in a society.  in a place like india where
> > both kinds of control are at work, they are unequally
> > applied: i would imagine that middle class people are
> > much more subject to the former, and working class
> > people to the latter.
>
> I wouldn't be to sure on this, eventually all is controlled by
> the government and big corporations and even bigger clubs
> behind those. The internalised control is thus controlled by
> the external, governmental control (which might seem passive or
> look the other way if there's good enough reasons to do so, and
> there is ofcourse only one: money!)
>
> > if this is the only choice, personally i'd prefer to
> > be subject to a control that is abstract and whose
> > workings i can anticipate than one that is personified
> > and random.  and i think that within the realm of the
> > actually-existing these are the only kind of choices
> > we have.  here in india where we are familiar with the
> > experience of society being inadequately 'managed' the
> > absence of any kind of control whatsoever does not
> > seem wholly romantic.
>
> There is a big difference between saying control is bad and
> saying losing your freedom is. Funnily enough, in most groups
> of people I've met these forms of control evolve naturally and
> the 'group leaders' also are picked naturally instead of imposed.
> The image you create of a form of control that you can anticipate
> on is a nice one but not very current I think. While governments
> and big corps want to know more and more about us they are becoming
> less transparent in their own actions every day.
> Thus one could argue that the forms of control are getting tighter
> and tighter, perhaps reaching Orwell's 1984 (but when it does,
> they'll have made sure the book's not available anymore and nobody
> knows it, having sitcoms and cartoons about 'paranoid people' that
> want some privacy, ridiculing the concept).
>
> > if it is true - and i'm not actually sure it is - that
> > all the phenomena we are looking at point only to
> > changing forms of control rather than different
> > amounts of it, then any ideas of 'freedom' must only
> > be relative.  how do people on the list imagine
> > 'freedom'?
>
> When something like the concept of control changes the amount or
> grip it has changes with it. It's a bit like a glass of water, one
> full and one half-empty and asking 'Is the form of the water between
> these two glasses different or does the amount change?"
>
> Ofcourse ideas of freedom are relative, there is no question about
> that. The amount of control society allows to be had on it though
> is not in my opinion. You see, the reason the sense of freedom is
> relative between people from different cultures or different times is
> because of the different amount of control their culture has on them.
>
> For example, a Turkish girl in The Netherlands might relate the idea of
> Dutch girls not wearing anything to cover their head to freedom, girls
> from England or Sweden however will not, since they do not know it
> any different. The Turkish girl will say "Oh, you are so free!" and the
> Dutch one will reply by saying "Oh, you're so oppressed!" and the father
> of the Turkish girl will say "It's the way God wants it" and is thus
> again controlled by religion* and that will be the start of it:
> The girl will need to figure out if she wants to live the way her family
> and religion think is best or if she wants the freedom to go and dress
> the way she wants to, and thus brake with current culture and traditions.
>
> Herbert's Dune series show the different ways control works quite nicely,
> the most famous words probably being "He who controls the spice controls
> the universe!" where spice is a drug that enables people to do crazy
things
> like travel through dimensions and stuff, but that's not really the point
> here.
>
> The spice for our people seems to be money, everybody wants it and the
> more the better, if not for material things than to pay holidays or
> things like that.
> The growing demand for production comes from the growing demand for money,
> thus resulting in a world where we end up with lavalamps because the
> guy at the shop convinced us we need them because they look  so damn cool,
and we buy it.
> Thus resulting in a world where a popular square is hang full with
> camera's so you can feel safe, sure, the cops will never arrive in time
> when you get robbed, raped or murdered but hey, they can always sell
> the footage to some reality TV show to go along with that HappyMeal
> product we really need, can't they?
> Thus resulting in a world with bitter 19-year olds replying to emails
> about freedom while they should be out getting drunk and stoned out of
> their minds along with some nice college girls while not worrying about
> things like this.
>
> There is no such thing as complete freedom, even if it were just because
> of our sense of obligations to the people we love and care about (e.g.
> I will not have sex with someone else than my partner because I know
> it upsets him/her). There is however definately different amounts of
control
> and current society will need to figure out just how much it will allow
> and to what purpose and how to mix up the different amounts of control
> between cultures to find a balance between them.
>
> GoodKnight,
>
> Menso
>
> * This comment is not made to upset any religious people. I am not
> saying all religion is bad, I am however very aware of the fact that
> most wars in this world had as reason: "My god is better than yours, and
> if you do not agree I will kill you eventhough my religion's bible says
> it's never ok to kill someone"
>
> Think about it, do you really need a church or does the church need you?
>
> ** For the Indian people out there, a Quarterpounder menu is a burger
> that you can get in all McDonalds across the world, except *yours* that
> have the highly irritating sign saying "No beef products sold here".
> And yes, it is indeed called a "Royal with cheese" in France as the movie
> Pulp Fiction claims it is and it makes quite an ok breakfast/lunch/dinner.
> One could argue that Indian culture prevents people from other cultures
> to eat beef products at their favorite fastfood joint, thus apply'ing
> more control (and leaving less freedom) to that person.... the burger
> doesn't really seem worth it though ;)
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway, the :// part is an 'emoticon' representing a man with a strip
> of sticky tape across his mouth.   -R. Douglas, alt.sysadmin.recovery
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Reader-list mailing list
> Reader-list at sarai.net
> http://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>
>
> End of Reader-list Digest
>