[liberationtech] Israeli AG Approves Tracking of Suspected Coronavirus Infections...

[Robert Mathews (OSIA)]

On 3/17/20 2:22 PM, David Stodolsky wrote:
> The Snowden releases and the blatantly unlawful attacks upon Assange and others who try to inform the public of the crimes committed in their name have made it clear that elites worldwide are in a precarious position. From my upcoming paper ("Subverting Surveillance" or "Surveillance and goal formulation in mass direct actions”):

In the interest of time and brevity, I shall aim to focus upon those
items in your correspondence to which a reply is possible at the
moment.   I beg your indulgence, and a careful review. 

Permit me to begin here......

In relation to your aforementioned statement, historically, 'Power
Systems' have exhibited a great antipathy to any bequeathment of their
crowns.  From a wholistic point of view then, Snowden and Assange are
‘quantities’ in OUR collective and contemporary power struggles;
individuals who had determinedly launched, and once maintained, their
mostly unconnected struggles with Power Systems.

> — Introduction —
>
> [ .... ]    Evens, Stoker, and Halupka (2018) found “compelling evidence of an increasing trust divide between government and citizens” and that “fewer than 41% of Australian citizens are satisfied with the way democracy works in Australia.” Further, they found that the “Appetite for democratic reform is extremely strong.”


Since, the warranted clarity is unavailable to me, to what precisely--
Evens, Stoker, and Halupka (2018) are pointing, when they suggest, that
an /“//[a]//ppetite for democratic reform is extremely strong...//”/,
the reference in general - is at least confusing.   In a contemporary
context, notions of “democratic reform” as such, is hardly imaginable as
being substantive, and being anything but a purely aureate reference,
especially considering, the subject of “democratic reform” has been
'undignified' by great numbers of scholarly dissections for the better
part of 2 centuries.   Lack of intellectual clarity has been the
dominant result from those dissections.  To great personal displeasure,
some years ago, I had somehow managed to stumble upon an imprudent
pigeonholing by Cartwright and Baker (2005), who underlined that, /“…the
American Declaration of Independence from Britain was an event heralding
democratic reform"/ (in: Literature and Science: Social Impact and
Interaction).  The “Declaration of Independence” – by its very nature,
detailed seditious intent and action;  hardly democratic, and hardly
reformatory at heart or in function!   It is well known that by, and
upon 'the Declaration', Benjamin Franklin had wittily remarked to John
Hancock that, /“…we must indeed hang together, or, most assuredly, we
shall all hang separately.”/  

Even within that tight wrapping of wit and sarcasm, was a sense and
drive of unity and cohesion in Franklin’s words;  a cohesion - to higher
ideals, and a “break-neck” understanding that such a matter as ‘the
Declaration’, had to be undertaken, and that consequences must then be
borne by all involved.  Contrastingly, if the United States of today is
to continue being an example (and it must be, in this case), > 30% of
contemporary American citizens could not name a single branch of
government, when asked.   More than HALF (53%) could not identify the
Chief-Justice of the United States Supreme Court when we were queried. 
Protections of personal freedoms, and the effectiveness of governance
systems cannot be preserved, maintained or enhanced with that kind of
historically protracted intrinsic ignorance.  Such *willful ignorance*
of vital facts essential to the *stewardship* of the integrity of a
Republic, only fosters and accelerates decline of society.

I have attempted to share, and in condensed form, the intersection of
several samples ofthat which I characterize as /anthropotechnomorphic/
effects, and of the clouding (no pun intended) technology-use related
impingement upon personal freedoms the world over.  If there is
interest, it can be found here: /"Interrogating “privacy” in a world
brimming with high political entanglements, surveillance,
interdependence & interconnections"/ [From: Springer-Nature, WHO &
IUPESM  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12553-017-0211-5
(freely accessible)]


> John Chalcraft (in McKenzie, 2019) of the London School of Economics and Political Science argued that while there were specific and varying triggers for the protests around the world, the existence of "a much wider lack of trust in the political elite, a feeling of crisis of authority, and a wide variety of grievances and feelings of discontent" in Chile, Lebanon, and Hong Kong amplified the initial protests into "sustained protest movements, continuing even after their initial grievance has been met." Le Monde (2019) described the changes as a "planetary demand [to] reconquer democracy.”

Your particularization of global discontent, disorder, fragmentations
and chaos, leading to the ending opinion from */Le Monde/* in the
“Introduction”, which has sought to sum-up all preceding political
upheavals as a “planetary demand [to] reconquer democracy”, is both
timely and relevant, not only to Privacy discussions, also to the future
of governance systems and their respective structures.  In addition, and
importantly, we must reflect upon the same, and with good focus - in
order to determine, and to direct - what we 'will do', to ensure the
survival of the "idea of civilization”, and the critical pathways  (that
are still left) for "enabling civilization”.

*The sentiment from /Le Monde/ should be noted appreciably by each of
us*-- not for the sobriety it  proffers into ‘prospects’ for a
“_reconquering of democracy_”, rather, for the succinct and eloquent
exemplification to the nature of /“brokenness”/ of systems, the world
over, which now demands that we  build, NEW novel, pristine, functional,
durable, and reliable systems, and their respective sub-structures for a
new era.


> “Journeys to new terra firma” have been undertaken, but explorers have typically found that the ground is incapable of supporting them. 

Perhaps you have mis-understood.  Permit me to be explicit.  I have
iterated that "journeys" to date have been insufficient.  Therefore, by
the very nature of the assertion, still MORE journeys are essential.  


> https://praxxis.io/xx-network-faq
>
> Widespread application of these technologies is a precondition for an understanding of Privacy. However, a proper understanding requires that the new technology supports a new media that is free of elite domination. This can provide the basis for a recapture of physical-space, which we should be prepared for: 

I would like to humbly submit, and fundamentally so, that, there is a
vital need for parties to MASTER technology.  However, a commonly
communicated impression is: “digital natives” are more comfortable using
technology.  This may be so. But, it does not translate to the mastery
of it.  And, that which we need, in all demographic segments is:
MASTERY;  not merely someone’s ACCEPTANCE of tech, or an assurance of a
COMFORT-LEVEL in their use of tech.  

There is NO SUBSTITUTE for TECHNOLOGICAL/TECHNICAL competence - very
personally achieved.  Going FORWARD, mastery, and/or the proven
competence in 'technology utilization' - at various life levels - will
be a firm pre-requisite to at least being minimally functional, and to
being positioned to compete in the digital universe.  A running joke in
the 70's through the 90's had to do with someone's inability to PROGRAM
their VCR.

 

It had already been this way for a long while.  We had JUST CHOSEN to
‘not’ acknowledge the need for MASTERY of technology;  as it has been
convenient to deny the need, to this point;  no further.

 

Any 'green sprouting', and consequential proliferations of technology -–
in more “apps”, or the likes of  “blockchain” derivatives, could not
possibly solve the more fundamental problems that have been persistent
among most users of technologies.   At the moment, we tend to become
victims to Privacy invasions and Security violations due to the absence
of 'inherently individual defenses', and of 'herd immunity', too.

 

We are at cross-roads now; and hard choices must be made.  We live in *a
post-industrial world,* which urgently demands that we build within --
robust societal systems, supporting structures and accompanying
practices -- emphasizing greater participation in *the* *Information Age
& the Information Society*; elevating our commitment and our practices
to positively impact "each" in our society.  Still, many deeply embedded
within */legacy systems,/* accomplished with */associated legacy
mind-sets,/* continue to postulate a fruiting from a */4^th industrial
revolution!/*

 

Thank you, for your patience…


> dss
>
> [ ..... ]
>
> David Stodolsky, PhD                   Institute for Social Informatics
> Tornskadestien 2, st. th., DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark
> dss at socialinformatics.org          Tel./Signal: +45 3095 4070

-- 
/Dr. Robert Mathews, D.Phil.
Principal Technologist &
//Distinguished Senior Research Scholar//
//Office of Scientific Inquiry & Applications (OSIA)//
//University of Hawai'i
/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/lt/attachments/20200319/40c0049e/attachment-0001.html>