From: Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 94 13:31:43 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RE: Milgram & Authority
Message-ID: <9404261932.AA17296@netmail2.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From: Hal

We have as much responsibility as Milgram to consider the likely 
results if we succeed.  It will be a different world, and, we hope, a 
better one.  But some things will be worse, of that there is little 
doubt.  We must constantly weigh the bad against the good and take 
actions on that basis, rather than blindly and unthinkingly seeking to 
push the envelope just to see what happens.
.........................................................

I was thinking that perhaps Phil Zimmerman is under "fire" at this time 
because the powers-that-be have concluded that he pushed the envelope 
of liberty to an unacceptable degree; that he has been categorized by 
them as having taken a "bad" action without forethought in regard of 
the adverse consequences which will befall society, if everyone is in 
full possession of their very own secret code.

Reading what Hal said earlier about PhilZ's qualities of character, I 
was thinking - if this is the kind of person whom they would define as 
a criminal, that his actions would be considered irresponsible and 
damaging, then it makes sense that from their perspective he should be 
subjected to investigation and prosecution (persecution?).

Were their concerns based on the fact that he has introduced a 
dangerous tool into the "herd"?
Was it that he had overstepped the boundaries of the authority allowed 
to him as a citizen unit?
Was it that they feel threatened by what he represents to them in the 
kind of person he is (not respecting of their authority), or by the 
situation which was created when he made available his software to all?

I'm examining the perspective from which one makes conclusions about 
human actions per se;  how decisions about which actions to take depend 
upon how one interprets the situation.

This discussion originally developed from the question of whether 
humans have herd instincts and whether this explains their behavior in 
the face of "authority".   In a herd, the bovines don't have much room 
to see beyond the next cow, and it would be difficult to see why those 
in front will go in one direction or another, but it would be easy to 
follow along based on the presumption that the ones at the front who 
have the better view will also know why what direction to take better 
than those stuck somewhere in the middle.

This experiment was a contrived fabrication, an 'experiment'.  The 
information available about it was mostly limited to what the 
researcher provided, and some exaggerated behavior from the actors (I 
guess it was mostly sound?).  I expect that the test subjects believed 
that the 'tortured ones' were in consent to being subjected to the 
supposed suffering with which they were being inflicted (right?), 
unlike a real circumstance wherein the torture would have been repelled 
and the participants would have had no cause to deliver it.  In real 
life, there must be cause for behavior - things must make sense to the 
person who is interpreting the situation and making decisions about what to do.

From the perspective of many on this list, it's wrong to abdicate from 
personal responsibility even under stressful circumstances; on the 
other hand, the above example presents good argument for authoritative 
types who think it is necessary to lead people around by the nose 
because otherwise, it is claimed, they will not be able to make good 
moral decisions when left to their own devices (or Phil Zimmerman's 
devices).  That they should be subject to an external authority because 
they cannot be trusted to know when to accept responsibility.

Blanc