Slashdot Mirror
MIT Technology Review on Where Orwell Went Wrong
nakhla writes "MIT's Technology Review is running an interesting article entitled Who's Afraid of 1984? The article talks about Orwell's famous work, and examines how Orwell's view of technology's impact on freedom and democracy was flawed. The article points out that, in fact, freedom and democracy were strengthened by technological innovations, and addresses its affect on Stalinism and Nazism. An interestng read for those who are worried about technology's impact on our generation and beyond."
Orwell's vision wasn't wrong, it may be he just had the year incorrect. Not everything has come to pass yet. Yet being the operative word, especially if we as a society allow it. Just look at proposed legislation in our own congress (copy right and anti-terrorist and `protect the children`). Look at the DCMA (Is reverse engineering really illegal???).
Here are some other things that HAVE come to pass
1. Many Police units have their own paramilitary force
2. Camera Camera everywhere, and more on the way
3. Reading certain books can and will get you put on a "watch list"
4. Members of certain political parties are actively discriminated against (not all presidential canidates will face each other in a debate)
5. Loosening controls on wiretaps and eavesdropping (more so in Europe than here)
This article didn't convince me that our freedoms aren't under attack. It just reminded me how many sheep there are in the world
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Exactally.
The only mistake that orwell seemed to make was the timeline, and accounting for biotech. (how long untill genetic profiling?)
between TIPS (aka "The Party".. are you a member?)
DRM and the olagopoly of companies now being allowed to own the media, we are well on our way to being told "the big lie"
DRM requires no copying of digital media without permission. And soon we will be required to have all digital broadcast media.
Perhaps he should have also been more afraid of the private sector than the coporate sector.
We're ending up with the MAX HEADROOM future instead of the 1984 one.
Well, long term at least. The printing press made cheap paper useful, and that encouraged and enabled literacy, and the main government of the day, the Roman Church, could no longer keep the actual Bible contents secret. The result was a decentralizing of power from Rome to individual nation states. It has continued to decentralize into smaller and smaller communities. The spread of information robs those in power of their control over information, which makes it that much harder to steer things their way. The US had 3 national networks for a long time, but cable brought in more, and now the US gov can't control news as easily as it used to. The cheap computer was the next step, first bulletin boards and now the internet.
Sure there are wobbles in the trend towards "information wants to be free", but the overall trend is unmistakeable and unstoppable: less centralized control of information means less centralized control of people.
David Brin wrote a book, The Transparent Society (I think), which considered what will happen as webcams shrink. Neal Stephenson (sp?) wrote The Diamond Age along the same lines. Scott McNealy is right: privacy is dying, get used to it. It will hurt the powerful more than the poor. Look what cheap videocams did for police brutality in the Rodney King case. Now lots of cop cars have cameras, more for self protection against false claims than for evidence of crime or for TV ratings. Imagine what will happen when ordinary people have access to floating dust mite webcams, ten to the dollar. What would you rather watch on the internet spy cams: someone getting banged in a trailer in Kansas, or back room deals at the White House? Well, maybe individuals will watch the Kansas coupling, but the press and volunteer watchdogs will opt for the White House every time.
Infuriate left and right
Remember Orwell's book is called 2084. It has always been called 2084, and it will always be called 2084.
So things don't go badly in the real 2084, it is very important that we give our full and unconditional love and obedience to our government, the sole defender of freedom in the world. Otherwise, we could face the horrors Orwell wrote about: economic ruin, mass unemployment, global warming, parentless children roaming the streets in packs, cities isolated and divided by attacks on communication infrastructure synchronized with encrypted messages over the very same lines, suitcase nuclear weapons, drug-dealing warlords with more power than a feeble and helpless legitimate government, and so forth.
We need to make sure there is no place for a terrorist like Big Brother to hide.
This attitude is probably one of the most dangerous things out there. The assumption that your being sufficiently uninteresting will keep you from being put under the microscope is short sighted at best. Privacy is not something to be taken lightly. Lots of people have things they would like to hide from prying eyes- especially when those eyes have no legitimate business with them. Would you like things like that nasty, embarassing problem you saw the doctor for last week to be known by anyone that didn't have a need-to-know? What about your screwed up family, and that incident when you were 5 that you still see a counselor for? What about that nasty little habit you have -yes, that one- does the frequency of that need to be known to anyone who thinks they have a need? What about your non-pc views (no, not the ones you talk about - the other ones) that could really cost you in the wrong situation?
Keep in mind that everyone either does things, or has characteristics that others might consider "deviant", and you probably don't know what those things are because they seem normal to you because you take your privacy for granted. Also keep in mind that things that are "normal" now might be "deviant" in the future.
People aren't afraid of the legitimate use of their information. They are afraid of the abuse of priveledged information- and the only way to keep that from happening is to keep it hidden.
I would say that you are delusional to think that you have nothing that could be used against you in the right context.
DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
Everyone who is really interested in how technology affects personal freedom should really read the following book.
The Mode of Information By Mark Poster
The chapter on Foucault and Databases is the one that has struck me as the most telling on the subject of personal liberties.
The key concept is that of the Super-Panopticon. The Panopticon is a design for a prison. The prison is designed as an octagonal tower. The cells are all along the inside surface of the tower, guard posts in the center. Each cell is equipped with one-way glass allowing the guards to see in, but not allowing the prisoners to see out. Prisoner behavior is therefore controlled by the knowledge that they may be observed at any time without knowing whether they are being observed.
Poster points out that the information collected about each person in the high-tech age is all put into databases. Where they shop, what they buy, what books they read, what movies they see, what sites they surf on the web, etc, etc. The fact that all this information is available to the State if the State chooses to access it.
Thus, like the panopticon-prison, control is exerted by the State as each citizen knows that the information can be accessed but does not know if it is being accessed.
This is how totalitarianism creeps in thru today's technology. The Super-Panopticon is a passive control system for the masses, made possible by the availability of stored personal information.
In 1984 Orwell writes that one never knew if there was anyone watching at the other end of the telescreen, but it was always advisable to act as if there were.
Today the telescreen is invisible, but no less there for all of that. The original totalitarian states may be gone, but today's quasi-representative governments have gained the means to impose their own kind of control.
--"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think."