(These are notes for an address to be given as part of a Plenary Panel on Governing Digital Spaces: Issues of Access, Privacy and Freedom–International Association of Mass Communications Research (IAMCR)–Hyderabad, India, July 18, 2014)
Many of us started out on this particular journey at the World Summit on the Information Society… those were days of hope and splendour but now…
The Information Society is in Crisis–not the Internet Society, nor the Networked Society, nor the Digital Society but quite specifically the Information Society.
And why the Information Society and not the others… because the Information Society is the terminology that focuses on the Information, the flow through, the digitized, the content and it is here in the place where the technology, the information and its uses/users come together that we find that the crisis is occurring.
This crisis to some extent was long foretold and yet came up so suddenly that we are still in the midst of the aftershocks (or perhaps the precursor shocks for earthquakes yet to come… This crisis of the Information Society can be understood best by drawing pathways between the various and recent local eruptions.
First there was uneasiness from some quarters concerning the directions of Internet Governance–controversies (and name calling) at the ITU/WCIT and the subsequent campaigns and reactions and critiques concerning “Internet Freedom” and whether that extended to “freedom from having to pay taxes”, “freedom to manipulate the world’s knowledge to support various of Google’s commercial interests” and even including their allies in the US State Department’s “freedom to enshrine and ennoble a unipolar global Internet Governance sphere which privileges some structures of control and influence and renders impossible the development of alternatives that might support alternative interests”.
Then it was Mr. Snowden telling us how the NSA and its co-conspirators in various other parts of the world were tapping into, collecting and ultimately intervening and massaging the data flows and communications activities for all the world.
Then it was Amazon, attempting to use its market domination to control what books we read so that they can capture a few more percentage points of profit from our acts of information seeking.
Most recently it has been Facebook, revealing, if inadvertently how it is ready, willing and able to undertake mood control and who knows what else as some merge their personal information flows with Facebook’s information stream and thus allow their very individual consciousness to become a bauble to be manipulated by who knows who for who knows what end.
And so the Information Society is in crisis… The Information Society which was to ensure that all of human knowledge would be available to everyone at all times and in and from all places has to a considerable degree come to pass. But what has also come to pass and which wasn’t expected in those early euphoric days was that the foundation elements, the platforms, the frameworks, the integral algorithms that would provide such a cornucopia and an informational utopia would not be operated in a beneficent way in support of the broad public interest but would in fact be ultimately controlled by machines and hidden forces of commerce and surveillance–forces well beyond the capacity of individuals or groups, of civil society or even the ordinary political forces of nation states to control.
What we have built (or have allowed to be built in our name and with our information — with the very essence of who we are as sentient knowledgeable human beings) are vast, uncontrolled and very likely uncontrollable mechanisms which not only undermine and subvert human freedom and civil liberties but are even in a position to frame and structure the basis of the discussion concerning these and if or how we might be able to respond.
We become dependent on email to inform us and keep in touch with our colleagues, our friends, our comrades and yet we know that the NSA is capable and most likely reading all of those mails and equally having the capacity to redirect, or delete or even false flag e-mails as and when they choose.
We turn to Google to give us the knowledge base for acting in the world–for helping us to reduce the complexity of choice in a world over overwhelming with options and choices and too too much information. And yet we know that how Google presents that information to us, how it supports those choices–what it provides and perhaps most important what it doesn’t provide — what it allows to disappear is unknown to us and as unapproachable as the deepest of deep secrets hidden both by the choices of the corporation and by the intricacies of the technology which it chooses to use as its filter and framework.
We cozy up to Facebook to provide us with our human contacts and the semi-intimate knowledge of the to-ing and fro-ing of our distant friends and relatives. Even on occasion we rely on FB to inform us of those closest to us even though we suspected and now know that this device is not a neutral platform but equally an algorithm choosing and selecting what to present and what to hide and again for reasons and with patterns to which we have no access. And of course, where FB’s ultimate concern is clearly to maximize ourselves and our information as products being delivered and sold to advertisers.
The crisis of course, is that we now know all of this.. It is writ large and public and it is inescapable. And most importantly the making of the links between each of these eruptions, the beginning to see a discernible pattern underneath all of these is equally inescapable if only by recognizing the connections at the individual, corporate, financial, political and governmental levels. A corporate executive here becomes a government advisor there and a senior government official leaves to take up a senior corporate policy post with responsibility for funding sympathetic academic researchers and civil society organizations and of course there is the to-ing and fro-ing at conferences and workshops and various special events which regularly mark the progress towards the fully integrated Networked Surveillance and Digital Control Society.
And since all of this streams forward on a torrent, even a tsunami of wealth as labour value becomes translated into and incorporated and displaced by digital value–as repetitive tasks become software and an economy of goods becomes translated into an economy of the virtual, the digital, the informational–the capacity and temptation to use this wealth to smooth the pathway forward towards the corporate and Surveillance State goals is overwhelming.
It absorbs the media almost fully, both by first undermining its revenues, making obsolete its delivery systems and its conceptual frameworks and then by replacing it with — well almost nothing, really.
Then it enraptures and ultimately captures most of academe through its glitter, the promise of its largesse as an alternative to those less captured sources of research funding which are slipping away along with the collapse of other state institutions as a result of the neo-liberal subversion and the Reaganesque erosion of the tax bases on which this support for independent intellectual production has rested.
And finally, it buys or otherwise captures huge swathes of civil society which in the great scheme of things comes cheap and is only too happy to find a friendly shelter under the seemingly benign funding umbrellas with corporate and governmental co-religionists in the great temple of belief supporting “Internet Freedom” on the Internet.
Rather than one crisis, in fact there are multiple interconnecting crises with the Information Society. First there is the crisis of expectations… The Information Society was not supposed to be this way….rather it was to have been a place of free wheeling anarchism and free expression, of openness and creativity. The requirement, nay the absolute necessity to adjust those expectations to the new reality of total surveillance and sub-structural control are just now beginning to be felt among those for whom these things matter the most and the first–the artists, the intellectuals, the critics, the dissidents. But these are simply the canaries in the mines and this crisis in expectations/anticipations of what a “Total” Information (errr Surveillance) Society might look like is coming into more general consciousness at Internet speed.
There is also the crisis of trust. One of the founding and necessary elements of a world and set of activities built on the virtual and the ephemeral is “trust”–that is that one is what one says one is, that what we see as a representation is in fact a representation and not a distortion, that even if we can’t otherwise verify it what our limited capacity to sense via the digital is in fact accurate in what is being provided. That trust of course, is now gone, perhaps forever.
An element of this crisis of course, is the breakdown of trust as between countries who increasingly see the Internet not as a means of interconnection and communication but of interpenetration and potential subversion by state actors and non-state actors. The very real threat to the end to end capabilities of the Internet from fracturing along national lines is a further consequence and the overall failure to find ways of integrating China into the global communications space represents a significant gap and loss to the possibilities that the Information Society presents.
We can no longer trust those who supply us with the infrastructure for the digital world as they willingly or no have been turned into conduits for the illicit gathering of information. We can no longer trust our service providers as they too have become sources of information to the authorized and the unauthorized–for purposes of commercial gain equally to purposes of political control. And finally we cannot trust the flow of information through these digital streams whether manipulated to deliver a more passive and willing product to advertisers or even more insidiously to provide a passive and manipulable public to politicians and those shadowy figures in the background whose pulling of strings for their murky purposes are only slowly being brought to some sort of visibility.
There are the multiple financial crises which information as other areas are subject to… the stemming and direct reduction of funding for research and other forms of information creation again for purposes of manipulation and control, the overall reduction in financial support for disinterested information with the fiscal crises of states in part resulting from the unwillingness of the Internet giants to pay their fair share of taxes and the willing compliance of suborned politicians in enabling this theft from the public good.
And of course, there is the crisis of the increasing economic inequality within developed countries accompanied by the increasing precariatization of work particularly for the young, all associated with the uncontrolled unregulated rise of the digital economy and its impacts on the entire range of productive activities and particularly and increasingly on knowledge intensive goods and services.
There is the crisis of control. The Information Society was to have been one which ceded control to the edges, to the users, to the people. Rather of course, now the control is so visibly with those at the centre, those with capital, those with influence, those who can buy their ways into the levers and pushbuttons that direct the mechanisms and algorithms of the Information Society either through their wealth, their political power or their technical expertise.
And finally there is the crisis of governance. The Information Society was to have been a place with no governance or at least a place where no governance was manifestly required. And so the memes and motivations of the most fervent exponents of the Information Society have all been anti-governance, Internet Freedom, the California Ideology. Thus there are no mechanisms or instrumentalities in place to rebuild, to retake the Information Society from those who have so unexpectedly and precipitately conquered it.
And even more troubling the very concepts of governance and democratic control have been polluted by the meme masters in Silicon Valley and K Street in Washington DC so we have the 1984ish scenario where Freedom is Control and Free Speech is another name for Facebook Group Think on one side; or finding a place on one or another NSA or corporate “watch list” on the other side.
I should also add in the context of the IAMCR that these crises are playing out most strongly in the Developed World but have great significance for the Developing World and for Communications and ICT for Development as well. Issues of surveillance, of trust, of control are all issues which ultimately impact on Developing Countries equally with Developed Countries if only after an ever-shortening time lag. The drives towards “Internet Freedom”, which on the one hand restricts governments in theory from controlling and censoring what is communicated on the Internet; on the other hand means that no global authorities are available to sanction companies which use their transfer pricing capacity to ensure that little or no Internet generated wealth finds its way much beyond the corporate corridors of the globalized Internet elite and that ever more wealth cascades upwards from the poor in the poor countries to the rich in the rich countries.
Equally a Facebook (or a GCHQ) which is massaging our information flows for advertising purposes may without our and including those in LDC’s, knowing or having any means of intervention, acting to control the flow and framing of information and communications to achieve the political objectives of one or another superpower or even local political forces.
So what to do?
Underlying our understanding and response to these multiple crises in the Information Society is the profound recognition that we cannot go back. Something has irrevocably changed in the way in which we manage, create, integrate, use information and that cannot be changed unless we suffer, as unfortunately is increasingly possible, a total and catastrophic breakdown in the infrastructure of developed societies. But barring that we are condemned to the Information Society and even as we once celebrated it unreservedly, so we must still recognize what profound and remarkable and even magical if two-sided gifts which it has accorded to us.
In previous eras and sadly only in highly selected jurisdictions one might have turned to democratic processes and the power of representative democratic institutions to respond and put order into the chaotic environment which is emerging. But now no single jurisdiction is capable even if willing to attempt to manage (regulate) the Internet even while individual countries such as Brazil, India, France, Germany are coming forward with their individual if deeply felt and diplomatic level grievances.
What is needed is a global agreement, a global compact which sets out the broad framework for an Internet in the public interest, an Internet evolving and operating in support of the public good understood in the broadest possible way. One which doesn’t restrict but rather enables the many but not allowing the continued dominance of the few; one which is based on true Internet Freedom that is the Freedom from Internet surveillance, from the domination of a single language or a single culture, Freedom for a balanced and widely distributed set of benefits from the outputs of the Information Society.
Such a global compact can in fact be a true democratically anchored multi-stakeholder initiative where national governments recognizing their needs for sovereignty and support of national interests, corporations looking for global level playing fields and stable environments for trade and markets and civil society concerned with human rights and economic and social justice can find common cause in building a new and global Information Society for the common good.
Of course, such a development is completely idealistic and yet the Internet is so important to all of us, to nation states, to the private sector in all of its various components and of course to civil society–and even to those who currently might resist such a development as undermining their current benefits and advantages–for surveillance, for control, for “excessive” profits. If the alternative is a fragmented Internet, one which has no basis of trust, where this fundamental infrastructure develops with huge gaps and significantly weakened connections then, even those currently most opposed might recognize that an Internet that functions is better than one that doesn’t and if the price of this continued successful functioning is to have some taming of the wild west of digital space then better a solution of compromise and finding mutual interest and benefit rather than one of winner takes.
jerry
July 17, 2014
I like the focus here on information rather than the conduit of that information – it foregrounds the human dimension. The interesting thing about governance is the extent to which governments are privatising the networks and writing themselves out of legitimate control.
Oh, and I think you mean illicit, rather than elicit in the text above. 🙂
Michael Gurstein
July 17, 2014
Tks and yes to both of your points… sharp eyed reading 🙂
D.Sadoway
July 17, 2014
Dear Michael,
Interesting observations on several key dilemmas facing communitarian-informatics practitioners and digitally-dependent citizens these days. I do miss your usual use of paragraph breaks or subtitles (as without these the piece is harder to parse) in the piece. None-the-less your cogent discussion about ‘c o n t r o l’ brings to mind Gilles Deleuze’s short, yet potent essay published nearly a quarter century ago: “Postscript on the Societies of Control.”
Published in French in 1990 (and English in 1992) that piece touched on issues of enclosure, discipline, (in)dividuation and info-capitalism in the Net’s early days. Most importantly Deleuze foresaw how control mechanisms would become central to debates about the info-surveillance society/space. His work concludes by questioning whether unions can in some way foment “new form of resistance against the societies of control.” It is this question that has attracted my own (and I suspect many others) interest in ‘community’ informatics.
Barring the potential for communities or solidarity-driven counter-formations (e.g. civic associations, co-ops, unions, etc.) to reorient ‘info-control mechanisms,’ rather than continuously being swallowed/appropriated by the corporate-borg, or stifled/self-censored by surveil-states—the options to strategically digitally unplug and/or delink (strategic neo-luddism?) does indeed become increasingly attractive (and potentially fruitful) in the long duree.
In Solidarity and Peace,
~david (Montreal)
JSTOR copy of Deleuze’s essay:
Click to access Gilles%20Deleuze%20-%20Postscript%20on%20the%20Societies%20of%20Control.pdf
HTML copy of Deleuze’s essay:
http://news.genius.com/Gilles-deleuze-postscript-on-the-societies-of-control-annotated
Michael Gurstein
July 18, 2014
Interesting response David and thanks for the references. Useful.
Mike
Florian Cramer
July 19, 2014
A useful summary of the current state of affairs! There seem to be obvious conclusions
to be drawn from this which, apparently, nobody dares to state clearly:
(a) The Internet – i.e. anything traveling over TCP/IP and routed via DNS –
cannot be trusted for any form of truly private or classified information.
It needs to be seen as one, global, public billboard – yet with varied
privileges of access that non-corporate and non-governmental users are in
not control of. The fact that all information received through this network
is, as you write, potentially tampered, is the second issue on top of the
privacy issue.
However, these restrictions still imply that the Internet can serve such
good purposes as running UbuWeb or Nettime.
Crypto activism does not solve these two issues despite its good
intentions. Too many core technologies like OpenSSL, TrueCrypt,
PGP-E-Mail (with its lack of meta data encryption), TOR, … have turned
out to be flawed or compromised. They all can do more harm than good for
one’s privacy if one isn’t a highly skilled computer user running
non-mainstream operating systems like Tails.
Offline communication still remains a simple alternative for dealing with
these restrictions. A good example is Henry Warwick’s “Radical Tactics of
the Offline Library” (http://networkcultures.org/blog/publication/no-07-radical-tactics-of-the-offline-library-henry-warwick/).
(b) These two above issues lead to the logical conclusion that no critical
infrastructure should ever rely on Internet communication. That includes
all mainstream scenarios of the Internet of Things, Smart Cities and most
other technologies marketed with a “smart” prefix, drones, robotics and
autonomous cars. To give one example: If I correctly interpret information
I received from a colleague of mine, a researcher in water management, then
it is already possible to flood the Netherlands through computer hacking
because its current systems of levees and watergates is controlled via a
local sensors in the levees connected to a data center that controls the
pumps based on the real time sensor data; all these data connections run
over the Internet via a VPN. If technology development blindly proceeds
with such “smart technologies”, we’ll be able to study Philip K. Dick
novels and “Terminator” movies as predictive scenarios – and write
screenplays for war movies where countries get attacked by someone hacking
and crashing all Google cars.
(c) The San Francisco billboard you posted elsewhere likely epitomizes the end of an
“information society” and media bubble period roughly between 1998 and
2008. In that time, the classical media and information economy, and their
jobs, were still in swing while the industries that were about to replace
them first came in as additional players running on venture capital. The
temporary coexistence of these two economies created an inflated market. I
remember how in the late 1990s, newspapers such as Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung suddenly boomed and expanded (employing some Nettimers as writers,
btw.) because dotcoms massively placed their ads in them. In retrospect,
this could be described as the media eating itself. The same must have
historically happened in other industries, for example in transportation,
when railroads where built while coachmen were still in business. In both
cases, the economic growth model – and investment stimulus – for the new
industry is the prospect of taking over the market with a fraction of the
previous costs and resources, basically replacing comparatively
inefficient, local and regional players with a few global players.
In the media and information sector, the business model for the new players
(Google, Apple, Facebook) has not only been centralization, but also the
fact that they are media companies that no longer employ “content”
creators. This conversely means that the economic exchange value of media
creation, in the classic sense of editorial or artistic/audiovisual/design
work, is sinking to unforeseen lows. For regional commercial video
producers in Europe, to take an example with which I’m familiar, hourly
rates are the same as for repairman only in the best case; in most cases,
they are lower, and don’t reflect investment into equipment. Another
example: according to market research, the average pre-tax income of
commercial photographers in the Netherlands is about $20,000/year. If this
is indicative of any larger trend in media jobs, then it means that nothing
is more obsolete than the notion of the “creative class”, but that the bulk
of “information society” and media jobs have become working class
employment or worse.
Michael Gurstein
July 19, 2014
Thanks Florian for your excellent comments and very useful examples!
Mike
billpks
August 5, 2014
While I read this piece, and the early comments, when they first appeared it seemed necessary that I give it all some soak time – so strong were my initial reactions.
A couple of weeks later, my core response remains the same – the notion of an Information Society with the imagined features of equality cited by Michael could never have been more than an idealistic dream. If in this essay we were to substitute the imagined utility of the railroads, in say 1880, for the Internet in 2010, might not the same concerns have been expressed? Certainly the actions of those with concentrated economic power were identical – around the globe – in the two instances.
Ordinary people might in 2014, now a century out from the War to End All Wars, ask ourselves just how well served we supposed “moderns” have been in giving flight to hysteria or righteous indignation in the face of malevolent predation by the 0.1% None of this very real abuse is a new phenomenon – there are things that can be done and in all likelihood they will bear goodly resemblance to what has worked in the past.
I would even go so far as to say that most of the leverage to be had exists at the local level and doesn’t require organizing a prior global agreement about anything – complex adaptive systems don’t work that way. I’ve spent four decades working in a highly regulated high-tech industry. I’ve watched the most determined efforts of command and control leadership run afoul of the Muddle – those circumstances that may or may not fit within the preconceived definition of “how things are to be done.”
Giving the NSA, big government, or giant corporations credit for the ability to wreck widespread havoc surely makes sense; but implying that they know what they’re doing in the process is totally unrealistic. As any military leader knows the “plan” never survives the first encounter with one’s adversary – many a corporate leader has yet to learn that truth the hard way.
Any study of modern economic history would strongly appear to suggest that there is a rather large shakeout coming in the world of “things digital.” Unlike prior industry-specific shakeouts (e.g. in airlines post deregulation) the “battle of the bigs” in their own self-described Information Sector promises to be very entertaining – at least from the sidelines.
My bet is that all the “too big to fail” players are soon going to turn on each other in an effort to be left among the elect. We consumers have a choice – we can keep asking about value propositions as they apply to the relatively simple local scope of our lives. Ignore the big stuff and all the posturing – yes it can be hard, but it’s not impossible. Talk amongst your neighbors – the old fashion way; take a day without thumb-speaking – every week; invite a coder to dinner and actually sit around the table instead of the flat-screen.
Technology is substructure, not superstructure of human experience; keep that in mind.
Michael Gurstein
August 6, 2014
Interesting comments, Bill… I guess we can only wait and see.
M
billpks
August 6, 2014
Michael,
I don’t want to leave the impression that there is nothing to be concerned about or that no basis exists for action by members of the general public as concerns the future of governance regarding life in a substantially digitized world. Abuse of power is real and warrants resistance under any circumstances.
What nags at me is to wonder if there aren’t scenarios for the restoration of more equitable distributions of power that can be affected on a local scale and on the basis of historically relevant measures of equity without regard to the role that digital recording plays in creating vulnerability to exploitation.
We are born naked, but it has been many centuries since the utility of clothing became a commonly accepted feature of human life. We have only experienced this seeming “digital nakedness” for a mere couple of decades. It seems likely that there are aspects of “clothing ourselves” against the “digital” elements which we’ve yet to identify.
It serves those who would abuse power to keep us distracted from identifying those protective measures by way of a natural assessment of the environment and what can be done to provide effective protection at reasonable effort. We don’t have to play along.
To my knowledge there is no international proposal to do away with venomous snakes or crocodiles even though human physiology is quite vulnerable to the more dangerous aspects of those species – the same for poison ivy. Quarantine and avoidance are available choices.
If everyone were to stop using Facebook tomorrow, what features of modern life would have to be foregone? I suggest that there is plenty of room for discussion of digital hygiene options; not easy ones to be sure, that, since we can’t seem to resist the move to put corn syrup in every prepared food source in the modern North American diet.
Just as I have to believe that universal diabetes is an avoidable condition, although some instance will arise, so I suggest is the likelihood that digital abuse of power is resistible in many instances.
Such resistance will take more collaborative public effort than we’ve recently been accustomed to exerting in many jurisdictions, but there is precedent. And, it seems total folly to imagine that we can’t get better representation in government than a club full of millionaires beholding to the national Chamber of Commerce.
Perhaps a place to start is with the notion that the existence of the Internet is evidence that there is such a thing as a “free lunch.” Bully pulpits can work that one.
Michael Gurstein
August 6, 2014
Bill, I guess that I see it as rather more immediate, total and catastrophic than you do. It seems to me that what we see from Snowden is the putting into place of the elements not only of a total surveillance state but of a total control state since the technology ultimately allows for action at a distance as well as observation at a distance. I agree about the possibility of local action but unfortunately it doesn’t really scale and in any case it would be like attempting to fence the ocean. It may be possible to action the levers of power, particularly through collective responses but that window won’t stay open for very long (if it is still open).
Mike
billpks
August 7, 2014
Micheal,
I wonder about this sense of impending catastrophe – what has changed since the fall of Soviet Communism regarding the ability of a totalitarian hegemony (invariably hierarchical/patriarchal and internally competitive by all the history I know about) to terrorize a large population indefinitely?
Where’s the evidence that the Master’s of the Digital Universe are any more able to actually leverage all of that surveillance data any better than Stalin or Hitler could by making of their entire societies enclaves of collective mutual mistrust?
Look at the air war campaigns of WWII in Europe – unprecedented industrial prowess in the West did not lead to immediate success or intimidation of those almost certainly destined to lose that war. By comparison, I worry more about Google Drones dropping on my house than being taken out by a Hellfire Strike – dead is dead, but likelihood does matter.
Systems theory suggests that the wider the chronic mistrust the more a system tends towards stuckness and dissolution of whatever effectiveness its hierarchical architecture might have temporarily produced.
Lots of pain and grief to be sure, but I’m having trouble envisioning a global digital catastrophe on a par with WWII. Singapore or the UAE might prove to be the Cuba of the digital era – Worth watching and on a non-trivial scale – if things go really bad along the lines you’re identifying I’d anticipate the signs to appear there first. We can spy too.
Throughout my almost seven decades of increasingly high-tech experience I’ve become more and more convinced that those guys at the top are at once rich and lazy – in practice they would rather cheat than manage – and with a few exceptions, the bigger the pond they sail in the more inclined they are to cheat.
Time and again in history, the big cheaters have been brought up short by the masses deciding – in collaboration – that enough is enough. That’s political work and generally results from bottoms-up organizing. That is always a little late to the table, but late is relative, not absolute.
Perspective does make a difference though. I would point out that ships are examples of success at “fencing the ocean.” And if local action didn’t scale then I doubt the planet would be covered with 6+ billions of cognizant humans. Take heart, we do outnumber the bastards by a substantial margin.
Bill M