This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Are "We The People" Useful Idiots In The Digital Age?
Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
Back in the heyday of the old Soviet Union, a phrase evolved to describe gullible western intellectuals who came to visit Russia and failed to notice the human and other costs of building a communist utopia. The phrase was “useful idiots” and it applied to a good many people who should have known better. I now propose a new, analogous term more appropriate for the age in which we live: useful hypocrites. That’s you and me, folks, and it’s how the masters of the digital universe see us. And they have pretty good reasons for seeing us that way. They hear us whingeing about privacy, security, surveillance, etc., but notice that despite our complaints and suspicions, we appear to do nothing about it. In other words, we say one thing and do another, which is as good a working definition of hypocrisy as one could hope for.
—John Naughton, The Guardian
“Who needs direct repression,” asked philosopher Slavoj Zizek, “when one can convince the chicken to walk freely into the slaughterhouse?”
In an Orwellian age where war equals peace, surveillance equals safety, and tolerance equals intolerance of uncomfortable truths and politically incorrect ideas, “we the people” have gotten very good at walking freely into the slaughterhouse, all the while convincing ourselves that the prison walls enclosing us within the American police state are there for our protection.
Call it doublespeak, call it hypocrisy, call it delusion, call it whatever you like, but the fact remains that while we claim to value freedom, privacy, individuality, equality, diversity, accountability, and government transparency, our actions and those of our government overseers contradict these much-vaunted principles at every turn.
For instance, we disdain the jaded mindset of the Washington elite, and yet we continue to re-elect politicians who lie, cheat and steal. We disapprove of the endless wars that drain our resources and spread thin our military, and yet we repeatedly buy into the idea that patriotism equals supporting the military. We chafe at taxpayer-funded pork barrel legislation for roads to nowhere, documentaries on food fights, and studies of mountain lions running on treadmills, and yet we pay our taxes meekly and without raising a fuss of any kind. We object to the militarization of our local police forces and their increasingly battlefield mindset, and yet we do little more than shrug our shoulders over SWAT team raids and police shootings of unarmed citizens.
And then there’s our love-hate affair with technology, which sees us bristling at the government’s efforts to monitor our internet activities, listen in on our phone calls, read our emails, track our every movement, and punish us for what we say on social media, and yet we keep using these very same technologies all the while doing nothing about the government’s encroachments on our rights. This contradiction is backed up by a recent Pew Research Center study, which finds that “Americans say they are deeply concerned about privacy on the web and their cellphones. They say they do not trust Internet companies or the government to protect it. Yet they keep using the services and handing over their personal information.”
Let me get this straight: the government continues to betray our trust, invade our privacy, and abuse our rights, and we keep going back for more?
Sure we do. After all, the alternative—taking a stand, raising a ruckus, demanding change, refusing to cooperate, engaging in civil disobedience—is a lot of work. What we fail to realize, however, is that by tacitly allowing these violations to continue, we not only empower the tyrant but we feed the monster. In this way, as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, what starts off as small, occasional encroachments on our rights, justified in the name of greater safety, becomes routine, wide-ranging abuses so entrenched as to make reform all but impossible.
We saw this happen with the police and their build-up of military arsenal, ostensibly to fight the war on drugs. The result: a transformation of America’s law enforcement agencies into extensions of the military, populated with battle-hardened soldiers who view “we the people” as enemy combatants.
The same thing happened with the government’s so-called efforts to get tough on crime by passing endless laws outlawing all manner of activities. The result: an explosion of laws criminalizing everything from parenting decisions and fishing to gardening and living off the grid.
And then there were the private prisons, marketed as a way to lower the government’s cost of locking up criminals. Only it turns out that private prisons actually cost the taxpayer more money and place profit incentives on jailing more Americans.
Are you starting to notice a pattern yet? The government lures us in with a scheme to make our lives better, our families safer, and our communities more secure, and then once we buy into it, they slam the trap closed. Doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about red light cameras, DNA databases, surveillance cameras, or zero tolerance policies—they all result in “we the people” being turned into enemy #1.
In this way, the government campaign to spy on our phone calls, letters and emails was sold to the American people as a necessary tool in the war on terror. Instead of targeting terrorists, however, the government has turned us into potential terrorists, so that if we dare say the wrong thing in a phone call, letter, email or on the internet, especially social media, we end up investigated, charged and possibly jailed.
This criminalization of free speech, which is exactly what the government’s prosecution of those who say the “wrong” thing using an electronic medium amounts to, is at the heart of Elonis v. The United States, a case before the U.S. Supreme Court this term.
If you happen to be one of the 1.31 billion individuals who use Facebook or one of the 255 million who tweet their personal and political views on Twitter, you might want to pay close attention, because the case has broad First Amendment implications for where the government can draw the line when it comes to expressive speech that is protected and permissible versus speech that could be interpreted as connoting a criminal intent.
The case arose after Anthony Elonis, an aspiring rap artist, used personal material from his life as source material and inspiration for rap lyrics which he then shared on Facebook. For instance, shortly after Elonis’ wife left him and he was fired from his job, his lyrics included references to killing his ex-wife, shooting a classroom of kindergarten children, and blowing up an FBI agent who had opened an investigation into his postings.
Despite the fact that Elonis routinely accompanied his Facebook posts with disclaimers that his lyrics were fictitious, and that he was using such writings as an outlet for his frustrations, he was charged with making unlawful threats (although it was never proven that he intended to threaten anyone) and sentenced to 44 months in jail.
Elonis is not the only Facebook user to be targeted for the content of his posts. In a similar case making its way through the courts, Marine veteran Brandon Raub was arrested by a swarm of FBI, Secret Service agents and local police and forcibly detained in a psychiatric ward because of controversial song lyrics and political views posted on his Facebook page. He was eventually released after a circuit court judge dismissed the charges against him as unfounded.
Earlier this year, rapper Jamal Knox and Rashee Beasley were sentenced to jail terms of up to six years for a YouTube video calling on listeners to “kill these cops ‘cause they don’t do us no good.” Although the rapper contended that he had no intention of bringing harm to the police, he was convicted of making terroristic threats and intimidation of witnesses.
And then there was Franklin Delano Jeffries II, an Iraq war veteran, who, in the midst of a contentious custody battle for his daughter, shared a music video on YouTube and Facebook in which he sings about the judge in his case, “Take my child and I’ll take your life.” Despite his insistence that the lyrics were just a way for him to vent his frustrations with the legal battle, Jeffries was convicted of communicating threats and sentenced to 18 months in jail.
The common thread running through all of these cases is the use of social media to voice frustration, grievances, and anger, sometimes using language that is overtly violent. The question the U.S. Supreme Court must now decide in Elonis is whether this activity, in the absence of any overt intention of committing a crime, rises to the level of a “true threat” or whether it is, as I would contend, protected First Amendment activity. (The Supreme Court has defined a “true threat” as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”)
The internet and social media have taken the place of the historic public square, which has slowly been crowded out by shopping malls and parking lots. As such, these cyber “public squares” may be the only forum left for citizens to freely speak their minds and exercise their First Amendment rights, especially in the wake of legislation that limits access to our elected representatives. Unfortunately, the internet has become a tool for the government to monitor, control and punish the populace for behavior and speech that may be controversial but are far from criminal.
Indeed, the government, a master in the art of violence, intrusion, surveillance and criminalizing harmless activities, has repeatedly attempted to clamp down on First Amendment activity on the web and in social media under the various guises of fighting terrorism, discouraging cyberbullying, and combatting violence. Police and prosecutors have also targeted “anonymous” postings and messages on forums and websites, arguing that such anonymity encourages everything from cyber-bullying to terrorism, and have attempted to prosecute those who use anonymity for commercial or personal purposes.
We would do well to tread cautiously in how much authority we give the government to criminalize free speech activities and chill what has become a vital free speech forum. Not only are social media and the Internet critical forums for individuals to freely share information and express their ideas, but they also serve as release valves to those who may be angry, seething, alienated or otherwise discontented. Without an outlet for their pent-up anger and frustration, these thoughts and emotions fester in secret, which is where most violent acts are born.
In the same way, free speech in the public square—whether it’s the internet, the plaza in front of the U.S. Supreme Court or a college campus—brings people together to express their grievances and challenge oppressive government regimes. Without it, democracy becomes stagnant and atrophied. Likewise, if free speech is not vigilantly protected, democracy is more likely to drift toward fear, repression, and violence. In such a scenario, we will find ourselves threatened with an even more pernicious injury than violence itself: the loss of liberty. In confronting these evils, more speech, not less, is the remedy.
»
- 8170 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Humans vs. Computers, coming to a town near you
http://youtu.be/Q5fvds9QkV4?t=2m15s
It wont end well.
Anyone who wants government is a useful idiot.
Only to the government, though.
For those who don't know...
the Rutherford Institute, based in Charlottesville, Virginia has for many years filed scorch the earth law suits in defense of civil liberties and basic constitutional rights. The Libertarian establishment should find the guts to go forth and do likewise, instead of spending so much time gossiping on camera and attending cocktail parties.
everyone works for the Government..
http://hedgeaccordingly.com/2014/11/down-south-a-quieter-keystone-xl-deb...
Elon Musk thinks robots will start killing humans within 5 years...he equates people to spam
Does he mean autonomous robots?
Yeah, specifically robots with advanced AI. I think he's a little early in that call, but I have no doubts governments will deploy robots with less advanced AI to do that specific task, and do so much more reliably than those pesky soldiers that revolt, support coups, and have occasional glimmers of humanity that result in really unfortunate press leaks.
Denying inalienable human rights to robots is rayciss.
You put AI soldiers and police out there, some 16 year old kid will learn to hack their systems and then those "in charge" may find that turnabout is fair play. Automatons that blindly follow orders sound like a great idea to the MIC until somebody else figures out how to be the one giving them orders.
Listen.
"Why We Need a Federal Agency on Robotics"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-we-need-a-federal-agency-o...
Yes, perhaps giving them instructions such as ""Kill All Bankers above C-Suite that have private security".
Semi-autonomous machines for fighting overseas wars are already very attractive, and since machines are much sturdier than people, this will be an inevitable pathway for the big development $$s, especially in the area of combat aircraft. As mentioned on one of the Aviation blogs not so long ago, "the next generations of autonomous military aviation will be as far removed from current piloted aircraft, as the modern jet is from the Wright Brother's creation".
For fighting the "Civilian war" back home - it's still far cheaper (and more effective) to simply "plant" evidence on troublesome individuals' electronic hardware, and "let the Courts sort it out", or encourage "tribal justice" - whichever is easiest / cheapest / least likely to finger the true causative agency.
Iran stole a CIA drone right out of the sky 2 years ago (with some help from the Russians and/or Chinese, no doubt). Imagine stealing a whole batallion of automated soldiers or a whole fighter wing of automated F-35s.
You don't need the drone to have the AI.
You need just one CCCi node to be automated and get smart, and it takes control of a few drones and begins to strafe your neighbourhood.
two legged and wheeled killer drones are coming to your neighbourhood and battlefield soon.
I can't wait till they ship chip my ass goodbye.
This past weekend 8 young adults (5 women, 3 men) came out to the East End of Long Island where I live. All in their late 20s and early 30s, all very friendly, very sociable and fun. They were all living in NYC, 3 were bankers at BOA and one worked at a hedge fund. Didnt catch what the others did. They all chipped in $100 each to get a limo to take them to a few wineries for 3 hours or so. No idea what they spent on wine but I imagine it wasnt cheap. They rented the house for the weekend (which also isnt cheap, as its on the water) and they all pay around $2k a month each to live in the city. Again they were all great, fun people and I joined them for beers Saturday night. So what is the problem? All 8 of them are living this life of luxury on borrowed time and none of them have a clue about it.
It's because a large number of them are no cleverer or wiser than anyone else and they also buy into the meme.
I was talking to someone the other day about the effects on the middle class (of which he is one) and his response 'But David, at least the stock market is up'. I kid you not.
DavidC
The nice Mexican family of 5 who live by me moved into their 200,000 home 5 years ago. He is a landscaper and she is a field worker/house cleaner. They have 4 vehicles, all 3-5 years old, bought new furniture when they moved in, have a pool and spa built into their back yard.
They go to the Emergency Food and Supplies store which is designed for people who have lost their job, or homes to fire or are destitute, buy household items such as lamps, furniture, dishes, decorative items and then, every 3 months, they put these items which were purchased dirt cheap in their drive way and have a yard sale, charge 2-3 times what they paid.
And they are nice people too.
Gladiator - Now We Are Free Super Theme Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yOZEiHLuVU
I see.
It is so easy to blame the victim of rape for being raped... and to laud the rapist quarterback for being virile.... and a "hero". (I have learned to hate that word)
It is an American pastime. Our history is one of murder and betrayal. Our founding fathers and their financiers are the worst kinds of evil parasites.
The vast majority of the American people are not hypocrites. The vast majority are mentally young, trusting and naive, mesmerized by those who they innocently look up to as their betters... but who in fact are their slavers.
How dare you blame the victims for the crimes that have been beset upon them. Shame.
Don't forget the companies who mine data and want to also control you, got a new one today, CVS so when you hear ecommerce, the translation is we want to sell more consumer data and maximize our profits.
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2014/11/cvs-to-open-new-e-commerce-technology.html
They have no concern about ripping consumers dignity from them, gotta make that money. Don't use any of their promos, which half are bunk and don't work anyway and give them any more data than you have to.
"Not only are social media and the Internet critical forums for individuals to freely share information and express their ideas, but they also serve as release valves to those who may be angry, seething, alienated or otherwise discontented. Without an outlet for their pent-up anger and frustration, these thoughts and emotions fester in secret, which is where most violent acts are born."
Hey isn't this how revolutions start? I'm seeing some serious things wrong with keeping this whole co-opted social(ist) media thing alive..the lees distractions these morons have the more they'll fell the cold and hear thier empty bellies huh? probably not tho who knows just a wandering thought ---------------> Forward as usuall into the void
The "risk" to the individual, or even to larger groups, is VERY significant, with loss of property guaranteed, along with probable loss of liberty, and increasingly, loss of life.
With this level of "risk", for many the "reward" aspect simply doesn't justify the risk (yet). If societal divisions continue to fester, this balance will change, maybe soon, maybe not.
Then there's the problem of organising a significant show of force. How are "we" going to do it? E.mail / Facebook / Twitter is how. Guess who is positioned for early warning - using IT systems the US Taxpayer paid for? As to the alternatives - Ham radio / SW / CB / Marine? All jammable. All traceable - in real time.
Finally, "They" have used "your" taxes to ensure "they" are very well prepared indeed. "Their" level of preparedness (backed by their computer simulations) will be beyond the most ardent "Prepper"'s wildest dreams. For them Ferguson was at worst a distraction, or more probably a "real-life scenario" training program. Expect more of the same in the future, and expect a progressively more totalitarian response - fully backed by the MSM, "for everyone's protection".
Hmmmm.
Useful? You have a rather high opinion of yourself, Sir.
"And then there’s our love-hate affair with technology, which sees us bristling at the government’s efforts to monitor our internet activities, listen in on our phone calls, read our emails, track our every movement, and punish us for what we say on social media, and yet we keep using these very same technologies all the while doing nothing about the government’s encroachments on our rights."
Why SHOULDN'T people continue to use those technologies, even though the government is using them to monitor our internet activities, listen in on our phone calls, read our e-mails, track our every movement, and punish us for what we say on social media? WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG! The government is. Why should we stop? As another poster pointed out, that's like blaming a rape victim for wearing "provocative" clothing--the rapist just couldn't help himself. In this case, we're apparently supposed to stop using useful technology because the government info-rapists can't help themselves. LOL...fuck you, asshole, and fuck the government.
Furthermore, what exactly are you, the author, doing to change things? Are you picking up a gun, pal? No, of course not, because I'm sure that conveniently for you, violence isn't the answer, right? LOL...wait, I know--let's "protest" and vote in "better" people, right? Fuck you. People don't want to fight the government because they're legitimately SCARED, and because they're getting along okay even though things kind of suck, and because they don't want to lose everything for no good reason. Are you out there putting your entire life and loved ones on the line to truly fight the government? Hmmm, let me think for a second...NOPE!
Data Rape
Social media is just the logical extension of my Greater Internet Pacification Theory - it's safer and easier to sit home and post a long, rambling screed about (insert grievance here), sit back, and feel good about the Echo Chamber patting you on the back and agreeing, than to march in the streets.
As an added bonus, the NSA gets to read your screed too, and decide if they want to come scoop you up in the night, rather than calling out the National Guard to suppress riots from like-minded folks.
Win-Win - we get to feel like we're being heard, and the government gets to nab troublemakers one at a time instead of trying to sweep streets nationwide.
Orwell would be proud.
Well, what did you think Zero Hedge is good for?
We whine, crave for green arrows and do nothing.
Democracy is a lie, we have never had it! Look at our history and think about whether we have ever had 'Democracy'. In case you still don't get it, then get this, get ready for the clamp down. We are being manipulated and it's not going to end well.
DEEDS NOT WORDS.
The State is intellectually challenged and does not grasp or understand
communication or the English language let alone 'we the people' or human behaviour, politics, liberal arts, rhetoric, or prose. The State is a mindless
myopic machine like character with no ability to reason what speech on Internet is or what can be interpreted from it. The State in an instance of interpretation will always rely on expert opinion from arms of the state superstructure. In jurisprudence they are commonly refered to as whores of the court. If you show up to court with better looking whores than the State presents to the court you will likely win judgement. Always remember that the State is only as strong as their weakest link in their chain of argument. Empiricism can beat the State into submission if it is applied correctly.
Useful idiots right up until someone pulls a gun and blows someone's head off. Then shit gets serious fast. I seriously fear for my country that this will not end well at all.