IT: Control vs/and communication (was Aunt Reet)

[John Carvill]

Hi Monte. Glad to see your emails are now getting through to the list.

>
> There's a telling difference between GR's early-1970s retrodiction set in
> 1945 and IV's late-2000s retrodiction set in 1970. The former was written
> when very few had hands-on experience with computers and reflects a broad
> "electronic brains will take over" anxiety. The latter, written well into
> Internet time, is a more ambivalent "*we* will be able to get information"
> [about real estate or whatever].

Yes, but not just 'we will be able to get information', there's also
the inevitable corollary: 'they will be able to get information about
us'.

The internet is a great resource, but it also has the potential to be
an immensely powerful instrument of control. (Yes, I know you already
know this.) That's why it makes for such a typically Pynchonian
dichotomy.

>
>  By now, we're less worried about an UberBrain
> running the world than about some 17-year-old Bulgarian whiz kid's virus
> cutting us off from YouTube and the P-list. It's a lot more democratic --
> not to say anarchic -- than anyone expected circa 1973, and ain't it grand?
>

Respectfully disagre. A virus can wipe out a lot of valuable data on
my PC - and one did, at least once, do so to me - but that's far from
my biggest computer-related worry. How about someone inserting an
errant '=' sign into a crucial piece of code and as a resut, i dunno,
say, launching a nuclear strike on Havana? Or how about GCHQ here in
teh UK, monitoring all our electronic communications (hello there,
boys!), and you guys in the States with your NSA? And aren't they now
linked up? Etc.

The internet may be 'anarchic' now, but it's an easily monitored
anarchy. And tehre are already powerful forces at work, trying to shut
down the 'freedoms' we now enjoy. See yesterday's Guardian, for
instance, and how teh Murdoch media dynasty are closing in on all
that's positive and unruly in the online world:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/28/james-murdoch-bbc-mactaggart-edinburgh-tv-festival

The thrust of Murdoch's argument is two-fold:

1. The BBC has too much power, which is leading us into a 'Socialist'
future; this must be prevented;
2. People are enjoying free access to news, media, and information,
online; this must be prevented.

Notice how Murdoch labels the BBC as 'authoritarian'. What he objects
to is not that authority; rather he is anxious to gain that authority
for his politically active corporate entity. Yes, please Jimmy, can we
have FOx News instead of teh BBC?

Thatcher's government *changed legislation* to enable their chum
Rupert Murdoch to breach media monopoly law and acquire a dangerously
large slice of Britain's media. The Conservatives will form another
Govenment, some time very soon, one which will face no viable
challenge from what's left of teh Labour party, probably for two or
three generations. When they do regain power, will the Tories, as
inveterate BBC-haters, be sympathetic to the Murdochs, with whom they
wine and dine on a frequent basis? Well, naturally, yes.

Chilling stuff

Here's a good op-ed piece on the matter:

"The "state-sponsored journalism" of the BBC is, says James Murdoch,
"a threat to the plurality and independence of our news provision,
which is so important for our democracy". But there is a greater
flourishing of journalism on the web than anywhere else. Not all of
it, it's true, is profitable. But it is there in far greater numbers
than BBC web pages.

"Trust people" he says. Although, he suggests, not those millions who
illegally fileshare – as they are thieves and should be treated as
such. An area where the government has hitherto "dithered".
Governmental intervention is very welcome when it curbs what the
market has really decided – that some forms of digital content is
free."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/28/james-murdoch-mactaggart-lecture-bbc


Cheers
J