In 1986, Peter Benning argued that the invention of networking had a greater effect on human practices than that of the Apollo space missions. I think the magnitude of this claim is self-explanatory. I personally cannot even begin to grasp the significance of humanity's propulsion into outer space. The claim that the invention of networking is of greater significance for human practices than our intervention into the universe deserves much more reflection and research than anyone can possibly provide in a blog post.
On an intuitive level, I can't help but agree with him. In 2013, I am consumed by a society which has been networked on multiple levels and although this society is also constantly engaged in space research the effects of the former far outweigh the effects of the latter on my day to day life. Right now, I am communicating through a computer network. Whereas space research is a sufficient condition for this communication the network is a necessary condition. Internet communication is possible without satellites whereas the network is necessary for the internet's possibility.
This bit of networked communication - this blog post - guarantees the permanence, the possible dissemination and analysis of my thoughts by unknown agents. However, on the other hand I guarantee that these thoughts are transient, discrete and superficial. I will change my mind after I click publish. The dissemination of these thoughts could only reflect a moment in my life however as the post disseminates at the speed of light it will take on a dynamic meaning - as if my thoughts continue to persist through time and space. All I had intended was to communicate with my present audience yet I have no choice but to publish my thoughts for all future generations and all future audiences. A blog post for this class is not a 'published' work yet it possesses more permanence than non-electronic books by legendary authors. Especially books which aren't past copyright restrictions or on libgen.info* or a torrent website.
The permanence and the possible dissemination guaranteed by the computer network (I don't know if this is due to its nature or if this is an additional characteristic) make possible government surveillance which in turn deteriorates my trust in the government since it reveals the lack of trust in our relationship.
This is like the third conflict Benning discusses in his paper. Benning talks about the inherent distrust exhibited by the implementation of 'trusted computer networks' and the effects of such managerial decisions on the manager-employee relationship. Benning asks whether or not it is plausible to imagine that the addition of a technological layer to distrustful relationships will actually improve those relationships.
I think this question is pertinent to our daily lives as the government implements ever more sophisticated systems of surveillance and as the internet and the internet-of-thing devour more and more spaces. I know all my online communication is under surveillance just like how all your online communication is under surveillance. In addition, I know all our electronic transactions are under surveillance. *Click on the link for documentation supporting my claim.* Supposedly, this is for 'security' as if any political actor would have anything against me personally. So, I 'forfeit' - since I was asked about this during the last government questionnaire concerning citizen satisfaction - the security of my thoughts and communication for 'security.' To me, it seems like this surveillance system reveals a fundamental aspect of the citizen-government relationship - that is, the government does not trust the citizenry which it purports to represent. We have ever greater convenience of communication across borders, governmental jurisdictions, etc. yet we are under unprecedented surveillance. Why? Is it because we can't handle our freedoms? We must be protected from ourselves?
I also think its interesting how this relationship of distrust is made possible by the permanence of transactions within a computer network.All our transactions are permanent and due to their permanence can be retraced if we are to exhibit suspicious behavior. Maybe, if actor A were to commit a crime then his life can be pulled out of a database in the future and the factors which led to his crime seeking behavior isolated - factors whose nature were unknown to him. Maybe this sort of permanence is the driving force behind the distrust, the fact that every act can be scrutinized so closely is given as a reason that every act must be ready for scrutiny.
These is a crude exploration but I would be interested in comments about it if anyone has some.
*you can download current books for free at libgen.info
On an intuitive level, I can't help but agree with him. In 2013, I am consumed by a society which has been networked on multiple levels and although this society is also constantly engaged in space research the effects of the former far outweigh the effects of the latter on my day to day life. Right now, I am communicating through a computer network. Whereas space research is a sufficient condition for this communication the network is a necessary condition. Internet communication is possible without satellites whereas the network is necessary for the internet's possibility.
This bit of networked communication - this blog post - guarantees the permanence, the possible dissemination and analysis of my thoughts by unknown agents. However, on the other hand I guarantee that these thoughts are transient, discrete and superficial. I will change my mind after I click publish. The dissemination of these thoughts could only reflect a moment in my life however as the post disseminates at the speed of light it will take on a dynamic meaning - as if my thoughts continue to persist through time and space. All I had intended was to communicate with my present audience yet I have no choice but to publish my thoughts for all future generations and all future audiences. A blog post for this class is not a 'published' work yet it possesses more permanence than non-electronic books by legendary authors. Especially books which aren't past copyright restrictions or on libgen.info* or a torrent website.
The permanence and the possible dissemination guaranteed by the computer network (I don't know if this is due to its nature or if this is an additional characteristic) make possible government surveillance which in turn deteriorates my trust in the government since it reveals the lack of trust in our relationship.
This is like the third conflict Benning discusses in his paper. Benning talks about the inherent distrust exhibited by the implementation of 'trusted computer networks' and the effects of such managerial decisions on the manager-employee relationship. Benning asks whether or not it is plausible to imagine that the addition of a technological layer to distrustful relationships will actually improve those relationships.
I think this question is pertinent to our daily lives as the government implements ever more sophisticated systems of surveillance and as the internet and the internet-of-thing devour more and more spaces. I know all my online communication is under surveillance just like how all your online communication is under surveillance. In addition, I know all our electronic transactions are under surveillance. *Click on the link for documentation supporting my claim.* Supposedly, this is for 'security' as if any political actor would have anything against me personally. So, I 'forfeit' - since I was asked about this during the last government questionnaire concerning citizen satisfaction - the security of my thoughts and communication for 'security.' To me, it seems like this surveillance system reveals a fundamental aspect of the citizen-government relationship - that is, the government does not trust the citizenry which it purports to represent. We have ever greater convenience of communication across borders, governmental jurisdictions, etc. yet we are under unprecedented surveillance. Why? Is it because we can't handle our freedoms? We must be protected from ourselves?
I also think its interesting how this relationship of distrust is made possible by the permanence of transactions within a computer network.All our transactions are permanent and due to their permanence can be retraced if we are to exhibit suspicious behavior. Maybe, if actor A were to commit a crime then his life can be pulled out of a database in the future and the factors which led to his crime seeking behavior isolated - factors whose nature were unknown to him. Maybe this sort of permanence is the driving force behind the distrust, the fact that every act can be scrutinized so closely is given as a reason that every act must be ready for scrutiny.
These is a crude exploration but I would be interested in comments about it if anyone has some.
*you can download current books for free at libgen.info
Zahide, quite a lengthy post, but I will try to address a few of the interesting points that you raise, with Denning's help (not Benning!). First, we could productively debate whether or not digital interactions and material are characterized by "permanence"... in some sense, I think you're right, given this age of web crawlers and indexers, backups and downloads (just think of the last time a celebrity wanted to get a scurrilous or scandalous report off the public airwaves but couldn't). Marianne Weems has a useful term for this--"data bodies," or the digital selves that shadow us throughout our lives and are difficult to mold as we see fit. On the other hand, most archivists acknowledge that there is way more digital activity and material being produced than can ever possibly be saved for posterity (and really, who would want to?). Yes, ISPs and government authorities might be required by law or policy to hold onto transaction records for a set number of years, but most digital "stuff" isn't considered worthy of even 15 minutes of fame, and to many seems easier to skim, ignore, or trash than things we process in paper or other forms.
ReplyDeleteYour ideas on trust are also worth pursuing, perhaps later this semester (and our discussion this week on the book will take some of these lines further, as well).