From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 96 20:35:45 PST
To: blanc <blancw@accessone.com>
Subject: Re: Net Control is Thought Control
In-Reply-To: <01BADFF7.0DBE4740@blancw.accessone.com>
Message-ID: <199601150435.UAA11531@netcom3.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>the problem that "covert thought control" becomes more possible with
>an information age that does not handle identity in any "permanent" or
>"enduring" way. agent provocateurs etc. may be more difficult to =
>identify
>and easier to create and maintain.   in fact a single "government
>thought control agent" might be able to create and maintain dozens of
>convincing identities, all of them working to subtly manipulate the
>population's thinking without detection. (...)
>........................................................................=
>...................................
>
>I read the book, too, Nuri, and I think you overlooked an important =
>point.  It doesn't matter about the identity of the provocateur.  It is =
>the identity of the "target" which is crucial.  It is when the prisoner =
>in a psychologically restricted setting begins to identify with their =
>agent-provocateur cell mates, to sympathize with and accept their =
>ideology, that change in that prisoner's mind becomes possible and the =
>thought control is achieved.

I don't understand your point. both the agent provocateur and "victim"
are crucial to the process of brainwashing. they are the yin and yang
of it all, of course, and I am certainly not arguing otherwise. what
I was pointing out was that it is increasingly difficult to identify
people's secret agenda in cyberspace. 

if in the real world, someone
eventually successfully identifies an agent provacateur (or any kind
of criminal for that matter) they are "outed" with their mug shot and
fingerprints or whatever. now, in cyberspace you have no such "leash"
or "handle" on identity. a single person could be a zillion different
agent provocateurs all over cyberspace, but if you out him in one
place, you don't out him anywhere else.

if you find that some pseudonym is actually a government agent, you
have little recourse. you could discredit that single pseudonym, 
but potentially the person behind it has plenty of others to play with.

cypherpunks probably say,
"oh yeah, that's cyberspace's greatest design feature". this 
tends to mask some of their assumptions:

1. you can't commit a crime in cyberspace.
2. so what if someone has a zillion identities all over the place.

I disagree with both of these premises, but of course I'm not going to
get anywhere arguing with anyone that starts with them as given.

you were talking about prisoners identifying with the agent provocateur.
I was trying to draw the analogy to a mailing list scenario where
the people on the list are the "victims" (not "prisoners"). the situation
is the same: the "victims" are in danger if they begin to identify with
the brainwashing agent. the agent of course will show few signs of his
true identity or actual agenda.

>
>This change in the prisoner's image of themselves is not so easily =
>accomplished in a setting where they are free to leave, free to seek and =
>hear other points of view - more importantly, the actual truth.

that's very true, but you must realize how powerful peer groups are. 
a prison is just one kind of peer group. workplace employment, the 
cypherpunks, or really any kind of group *always* has a pecking order
and peer pressure. there are all kinds of opinions on certain subjects
that are wholly relevant to this list that are "taboo" to talk about
on this list if the poster is interested in working his way up the
"perceived reputation pecking order". any place you have a group,
and peer pressure, you have the opportunity to manipulate people.

>	"The primary effect of unfreezing is that it makes the prisoner seek =
>information
>	which will guide him in finding an adaptational solution to his =
>problems.  Such
>	information can be gotten to some extent from the propaganda input to =
>him
>	via the mass media, lectures, loudspeakers, etc., but more likely is =
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>obtained
>	from cell mates or interrogators who begin to be models of how to adapt
>	successfully.

I agree, a prison is the easiest place to brainwash people, but I think
the authors were interested in writing their book precisely because they
recognized the techniques they were describing are reflected in many
"legitimate" social institutions.

  The prisoner who has been unfrozen begins to treat the =
>inter-
>	personal cues he obtains from them as credible and valid, and begins to =
>
>	take their point of view seriously, where previously he may have paid =
>no
>	attention to it or even discounted it. "=20

again, the entire book is prison-specific. I would be very interested
of course in a study dedicated to cyberspace, but lacking that the 
research is the closest analogy. Alcoholics Anonymous is another
example of a group that is not prison oriented but shares all the
brainwashing techniques the authors identify. (I am not saying AA
is a brainwashing organization. neither am I saying they are not.)

>A mistake people make even when they are not physically imprisoned, is =
>that they seek to benefit by association:  they will accept an =
>appearance of confidence as equivalent to knowledge, accepting the word =
>of those who "seem to know", instead of searching for definite facts.  =
>They come to depend upon their identification with groups of such =
>like-minded people, and thus get themselves in trouble when the whole =
>herd is suddenly corralled and taken for a ride (by their leaders).

you are thinking too literally in terms of the research. the techniques
are not at all required to be practiced in a prison. I can give you numerous
examples of the same techniques used in many institutions, groups, and
settings far removed from a prison atmosphere. they are not primarily
religious either.

>Rather than worry so much about anyone's actual identity as a =
>determining factor in what one will accept from them, I think it is much =
>more critical to consider the content of the information they offer; to =
>develop one's judgement (to "know how to know")so to be able to evaluate =
>that information and make realistic decisions for one'self about what to =
>support or what actions to take.
>

classic cypherpunks argument. problematic in the real world. we
have laws that require disclosure of who pays politicians in their campaigns,
yet one could make the argument, "rather than worry about people's identity,
let their money and interests speak for themselves." 

I agree that information
should on one level be judged independently of the source. but there's just
no doubt that the *origin* of the message is *itself* often *very*valuable*
information. that is, the messenger's identity is *part* of the message.
of course, it is not *the* message. this belief leads to things like the 
"genetic fallacy" (proof by discrediting reputation) course.

agent provocateurs and brainwashers will benefit immensely from your 
attitude. they will be the first to emphasize, "why are we so concerned
about people's backgrounds? let people say what they want to say and
judge them on the message". I am not saying we should have a purity test
on the cypherpunks list. I'm simply pointing out that the idea that
identity and communication are not related is preposterous by strong
refutation of the real world.

another possibility is a whole army of false personas creating a 
nonexistent "consensus" by sheer force and magnitude of postings 
in cyberspace.  would you care to deny such a thing is possible? 
there may be active research projects underway this very moment here or 
elsewhere. it would be difficult to establish a control to quantify
efficacy for this kind of experiment, but probably not beyond 
someone with some ingenuity and malice.

the next time you see a flamewar, ask yourself this question: what would
I think if I found out every opinion and post on one side  was manufactured
by a single person? how can you be so sure they aren't?

there is absolutely no doubt that humans are very strongly influenced
by *who* is behind a message. it is one of the elements they use to
judge reasonableness of a message when there are not other obvious factors
to judge the message (such as: it is about the future, it is about what
people "should" do, etc.). to deny this is to deny basic human nature.

consensus, and perception of consensus, are two different animals, and
the agent provocateur understands the subtle distinction and *exploits*
it in his favor.

I don't expect anyone to understand these points. such a contrarian
position (here anyway) will likely be flamed. no surprise there.