Controlling Information to Protect Us (From Ourselves)

As this was my suggestion, I have to work up some sort of examination of the topic.  It didn't make it into the reminder/introduction e-mail, but as long as it's somewhere, I guess.

There were two angles on my mind when I suggested the topic: one was censorship, really, simply not allowing certain data to reach the public because of the risk of misinterpretation and unpleasant consequences; the other was more like manipulation, in which information is available but presented in ways that make the audience take it with a grain of salt, or at least consider before accepting it.  There are cases in which it makes sense not to provide information without caution or context.  Teaching children about the negative experiences of life is one example.  Also worth mentioning are criminal cases in which all the facts have not been examined or revealed and when releasing the names of parties involved could encourage vigilantes to mete out their own sort of justice.  The problem becomes, who can we trust to make these decisions?  When is it acceptable to be treated essentially like children?  When information is kept secret by authority, it is generally to protect the authority rather than those under authority.  There is also the strategy of disseminating information, but in such a pile of trivia or garbage that nobody who does not suffer from some sort of obsession will be able to extract anything useful.  Some consider the availability of information through modern technology to be this very move.

Another complaint made about modern connectivity is that it allows people with unpopular and dangerous ideas to find each other.  Sometimes this refers to sexual predators, other times to hate groups, and still other times to followers of political ideologies that are a threat to the status quo.  When crimes that target certain groups are committed, there is often a clash between the ideas that the perpetrator felt alone and isolated and that there was a community and support for the act.  This is especially true with hate crimes, since overt prejudice and discrimination is no longer acceptable in most of Western society, but the effects of the past remain.

The Artist took a somewhat negative stance on this issue, saying we live in a state of war over access to and control of information, also noting that the ease of acquiring data through modern communications means that physical spies are no longer necessary.  It also means, in his opinion, that freedom as disappeared.  I disagree slightly; actual people for spying may be less necessary, but sometimes a pair of hands is needed to do things microchips cannot.  I also am not of the opinion that it is freedom that has disappeared, rather it is privacy.  As the Artist himself mentioned, one use of controlling information for the greater protection of all is tracking disease.  In the past, unless one presented obvious symptoms, there was no real way to protect the population from possible infection, especially if the carrier or host was not aware of the danger, e.g. Typhoid Mary.  In these cases, information is often limited for public access in an attempt to prevent panic, although there tend to be leaks and rumors accepted as truth, that is the "real" truth.  Later, the Artist lamented the loss of value in expert opinions due to the volume of ideas made available: information is nothing because it is infinite; access is free; anybody can say anything, even if they know nothing.  On the topic of knowing, he stated that what we know is mere moments of consciousness, which we try to record in various ways but they often lose their relevance when the moment has passed.  In spite of that, others can easily steal our thoughts with cut and paste, even more easily than in the past when the words had to actually be copied letter by letter.  For the Artist, control of intellectual property is a necessary thing, not only for the rights of the creators, but for the accurate presentation of the creations.  If taken from their context, the true meaning can be lost.  One might argue that meaning being subjective anyway, it is natural for things to be transplanted and used to represent a different interpretation.  So, the respect for the creator seems to be the most pressing need here.  Despite the danger of having one's work pirated and plagiarized, the Artist is aware of the necessity of internet presence.  "If you're not on the internet, you don't exist."

The Writer echoed the sentiment of information overload, and also referenced our natural tendency to look for stability and control, but with more confidence in our own abilities to decide what is necessary for everyone's protection than anyone else's.  He admitted the government's right to control classified information, but we still might wonder what criteria are used to classify it in the first place.  A person's private thoughts are just that - private; a government, on the other hand, is not an individual but a collective body meant to oversee the interactions of individuals under its authority, among other things, and therefore without the natural right to privacy.  The Writer doubted the danger from plagiarism, saying the same technology that makes it easy to copy/paste makes it easy to track by searching exact phrases.  Finally, he referred to the control that comes from excess of information, leading us to pay attention only to the easiest or most entertaining bits.  When he posts serious things on his social media page, there are but few positive responses; trivial matters, on the other hand, receive huge amounts of positivity.

The Organizer also admitted the need for control on certain types of information, when it has to do with national security for example.  When the danger is so large and difficult to control, like epidemics or meteor strikes, why not prevent panic?  He centered on the use of information and blocking some of it as a means of creating fear in the population, especially the type of fear that leaves people unable to act decisively.  This is a tactic used by both governments and companies to bend the public to their will.  In that light, they both hide their mistakes from public knowledge, which is really the sort of information that should be public so that those mistakes can be avoided in the future.  Organizations sometimes appear to have a very human embarrassment about their failings.  To close, he fretted about the apathy people have with regards to available information, saying few people are interested in making sure what they are told is accurate.  With few independent watchdogs, information distributors have little incentive to be open or objective and can easily work for the benefit of government or business rather than the population as a whole. 

The problem is multi-layered, having aspects of public safety, voyeurism, and distraction.  We like to find out secrets, both about other people and organizations.  For this reason gossip media flourishes.  However, most of those secrets are trivial and more superficially embarrassing than truly important, and allowed into the public sphere for the purpose of keeping people entertained.  If we have our ears full of gossip we might not devote the time and effort to discovering the important and deeply embarrassing facts that might motivate us to demand real changes in our lives.