From: greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles)
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 94 21:31:27 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: FW: Shot 'Round the World
Message-ID: <m0pqDOS-0002BpC@ideath.goldenbear.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


Blanc Weber writes:

> On the subject of psychological warfare as a method in this privacy 
> effort, I was pondering:

> .  the effectiveness of the tactic employed
> .  the character of the intended recipient of the message
> .  how it will be interpreted by them
> .  predicting whether they will care, in the same way as the sender, 
> about the purpose & content of the message

> Since the communication is mostly words framing thoughts and 
> philosophical arguments, the effects that one can aim for will be 
> either cognitive or psychological (hopefully achieving both).  To aim 
> for a psychological effect only, is to propose that you know so much 
> about psychology,  that you know precisely what to aim for - in the 
> minds of all of the recipients, and to expect predictable results.

This goes too far; it's possible/reasonable to only suspect that an action
will cause a certain effect in a useful segment of the target population.
We don't insist on all-or-nothing accuracy in other forms of warfare,
why expect it here?

> In the attempt to persuade, convince, convert others from their 
> position which is offensive to one's own, the methods employed are 
> typically negative:  pointing out the adverse consequences, pointing 
> out what is wrong with what is being done, pointing out how 
> bad/lousy/wrong/mistaken the offending party is, etc.

This doesn't sound like psychological warfare to me - it sounds like some
form of discussion. Psychological warfare is about manipulation and FUD
(fear, uncertainty, doubt). (For all I know, it's about other stuff, 
too. Folks with actual training in the field are welcome to correct me.) 

> What is lacking in the mind of that type of psychological target is a 
> perspective on what is normal to a regular human being.  So how could 
> positive indicators to the rest of life be given; how could a vision of 
> what else is true about real people be created, so that the perspective 
> of those targeted individuals or agencies is offered something better 
> to think about than the problems created by a few out-of-control types; 
> so that their outlook on the subjects of their attention (in this case, 
> the citizens of the US) is not composed only of visions of delinquency 
> and aberrant behavior?

It sounds like your point is "if we're really good and eat our 
vegetables and clean our rooms, maybe Dad will let us stay up late to
watch TV." Well, fuck that. The state is not our parent, and we don't
need to demonstrate good behavior to convince it/them that we deserve
or can be trusted with strong crypto or untapped phones.

> It is a challenge to "maintain one's head while all about one, others 
> are losing theirs".  Yet not only is that what is needed, but the 
> agencies supposedly charged with our welfare could also use some help 
> in maintaining *their* rationality.  They apparently need some support 
> to the end of acquiring confidence in our judgement (the rest of us who 
> are not members of the elite, the chosen few).  They are alarmed by the 
> potential threat of destruction of a system which they prize as the 
> means to social stability.  What would reduce their felt need to cover 
> the world with wiretraps in order to make sure that they don't miss any 
> loose cannons out in the mists of the wild electronic atmosphere?  What 
> could provide that sort of reassurance, that everyone is not going to 
> begin using their liberties in wanton, uninhibited, juvenile ways 
> against the system or against each other.  What could provide evidence 
> contrary to the agencies' conclusion that non-government employees do 
> not have what it takes to make rational decisions about the toys & 
> tools and other devices which they create for their own amusement.

No, they do not need our solicitude to bolster their flagging confidence,
they need a good kick in the teeth. I suspect that good behavior will only
convince them that we're up to something *really* evil that they need 
more tools/access to discover.

[...]

> There would be a great benefit to a psychological type of warfare, if 
> it could achieve points for the potential to normality which exists in 
> everyone; if it could present evidence to counter the argument that the 
> individual cannot be trusted, that we need to be saved from each other 
> (by the intelligence agencies).  What could bolster their lack of 
> confidence in the judgement of the general population, such that the 
> conclusion made to use the services of these agencies would be proved 
> unnecessary?

There is no rational argument that can force the non-trusting to trust.
Attempts to formulate one frequently inspire further mistrust.

> This would be demonstrated by the kinds of actions taken by individuals 
> in response to the threats against their privacy.

So .. to demonstrate that we deserve privacy, we should ask politely
for it? Bad little girls and boys are to get no dessert? Heck, my dog is
smarter than that - she wants to see the treat before she does the trick.
I don't even see the treat here (and am uninterested in letting the state
teach me any new tricks).

> To wage a psychological war is to assume a great responsibility for the 
> impressions made upon those who will be judging the behavior of their 
> "charges".

Sometimes it's useful to drive opponents into such a frenzy that they're
no loger capable of rational thought; it can be dangerous when the 
frenzied opponent will use the mechanisms of "public safety" to express
its frustration. I agree that this sort of project must be undertaken
with some care - but the point may be to create a state of irrationality,
not a particular rational conclusion. The former is frequently easier and
cheaper to create.

> The psychological warriors would be taking part in the 
> creation of a picture of the population, the effects of which would be 
> a determining factor in the decisions made for future policies.  It is 
> very easy to take exceptional cases and use them as examples upon which 
> to base techniques implemented for the cause of safety.  It could 
> hardly be expected that a limited few would have the resources to 
> accomplish the goal for everyone, of saving the image of the individual 
> against the one-dimensional cyclops (within our own lifetime); it is 
> questionable whether any individual should associate themselves with 
> the burden of such a responsibility.

Perhaps this discourse about "images" isn't useful, and it's time to talk
about capabilities. Individuals have the capability to carry on private
conversations whether the state likes it or not. Just as the forces of
"public safety" can and will represent themselves as activists, terrorists,
and saboteurs in order to infiltrate and influence dissident political
groups, members of the public safety forces may be or may become disenchanted
with the current regime or political climate and use inside 
information to embarass or injure the machinery of the state. I don't
think Jeff Davis' action was an attempt at discourse but a shot fired across
the bow of the ship of state. As such, it does indeed serve the purposes
of rational discussion poorly; but it was meant to reach other goals.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLajOb33YhjZY3fMNAQGWMAQArmz5Ue8t8MCy09lM2q2w3QWARhzw1zHl
vysopTCHhHh9CYtxJRaMPRsmCXWf4/b8ThEVE30dfVDYA1TeZktxYQCtDzRP7Xg+
wCPlxKGFCnpfaOdjkrq02sl/hMoZgBT89q8Y/rz5DLAcbKFBh/Ei5Pkyl2a5Kst3
mFnc0xpe/Bw=
=JQNO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----