tyranny may be able to slow our progress, but the will of the people cannot be stopped
"Transparency is an essential condition of democracy: citizens cannot make the informed decisions self-rule requires if they are denied knowledge of the actions of their government. Government cannot be accountable if its actions are veiled. But more than this, transparency is an ethical ideal, the political expression of a commitment to honesty." from the NY Times column, Moral of the Story - The Ethicist's take on the news: Neda, Obama and the Power of Pictures, by Randy Cohen, June 29, 2009, 11:59 pm
I have made a fundamental commitment that I will witness any event; and that I will inquire as skeptically as possible into the nature of events that I witness. Furthermore, I have made a solemn pledge that I will register my perspective on the events as I have perceived them; and that I will report them accurately, to the best of my ability. One thing that I have noticed in all cultures is a degree of conservative guidelines that define how people are expected to behave to be recognized as citizens. Although I do wish to emphasize all of our similarities as fellow humans, I also want us to be able to celebrate our differences through building a continuous dialogue with one another. I believe that this issue essentially reduces to a matter of agreeing upon a protocol which can be used to determine whose turn it is to speak and for how long. This too has been a question debated since time immemorial, whether it was among shamans passing the proverbial talking stick, or in the parliamentary exchanges at the Areopagus in Athens, Greece.
However, I also believe that a mature society offers its constituents a forum in which they are permitted to question the established order. This sort of skeptical dialogue encourages a healthy evolution of paradigm shifts that can incorporate the inevitable changes in our world of exponentially accelerating information exchange and technological applications. In antiquity, ritual clowns & shamans often provided this role of questioning the status quo for the benefit of society; but with the advent of a strong consumer commodity culture (and one-way mediums like radio, TV, film & printed materials), mass consent to sweeping orthodoxy has been even easier than ever to manufacture. But now, with the advent of hand held video-cameras from which footage can be almost instantaneously uploaded for the world to witness, it has been easier for individuals to question the authority of governments and corporations which have often abused their almost absolute power. Eighteen years ago (in 1991), the world had to wait until the following evening's nightly news broadcast on KTLA-TV to air the video footage of the police brutally assaulting Rodney King (the story was picked up by CNN the day after that). Today, with many smartphones capable of streaming video, current events can be viewed live or with seconds or minutes of delay, depending on the situation and circumstances.
The two-way nature of peer-to-peer transactions in the information age encourages people to carefully consider their opinions, and develop more skeptical perspectives on the accuracy and validity of information. There have been numerous examples in the past few decades of how technology can significantly impair authoritarian power. The fall of the iron curtain has been convincingly attributed to the development of technological implements for information exchange, from photocopiers to computer BBS (Bulletin Board System) networks. However, I believe that the actual deciding factor in the demise of the Soviet Empire was the way in which the information exchange was implemented among the populace. People in the Soviet Union were well aware that the party line was full of misinformation & outright lies. So, they tended to prefer to get their information from underground & international sources, yet they still interpreted the information with skepticism.
However, the information age has forged into a double-edged sword, as tyrannical regimes all over the world, from rogue paramilitary groups like the Zetas in Mexico to the ruling elite in Iran, have been using technology to oppress people as well (Reporters Without Borders currently cites the "12 Enemies of the Internet" as: Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.). The Iranian government is continuing to jam cell phone voice and text signals, as well as blocking internet traffic that is not state-sponsored. And at the very least, bloggers and other protestors who question the ruling elite are silenced as soon as the authorities can locate them. Security forces are hunting for bloggers using IP address, location stamp and timezone searches, as well as potentially triangulating cell phone & GPS signals. At the same time, we are discovering that the same sort of deep packet inspection technology that is being used in Iran is of course being utilized all over the world by corporations, as well as government intelligence agencies, in order to promote everything from product placement, to censorship & persecution of individuals & groups.
As the conditions in Iran have been revealed, public opinion has quickly galvanized in support of Iran's Green Party; particularly since two videos containing graphic footage of Neda Agha-Soltan's horrifically tragic death spread instantaneously across the world. A decentralized network of hackers from all over the world were already assisting the Iranian protestors in a full-scale cybernetic war...reposting Twitter feeds (with backing and enforcement by the US State Dept.), providing links to everything from proxy web servers to get photos, text, & video information (legally) out of Iran so that the world can see what is really going on there, to engaging in Distributed Denial Of Service (DDOS) attacks (illegally) to shut down Iranian gov't websites. Censoring the government in an attempt to defend victims of systematic human rights abuses is a delicate scenario which leads to a slippery ethical slope of hypocrisy. I am a lifelong advocate of the ACLU, and I fully support giving free speech to everyone, even especially including hateful & prejudicial voices (aka "enough rope to hang themselves"); so I do not approve of these DDOS attacks. People must learn how to tell the difference between state-sponsored misinformation/lies and investigative reports with journalistic integrity.
Amnesty International suggests Iranians write letters to their government to petition for their human rights. Although, I have to admit, I think the evidence seems to show that critical letters are unlikely to have any noticeable effect on improving social justice in a nation well known for tyrranical abuses of corrupt power in general. The power of rational dialogue has been recognized all over the world and throughout history for it's ability to transform participants. However, Secrertary of State Hillary Clinton rescinded the Obama Administration's overly optimistic invitation for Iranian gov't officals to attend a July 4th US Independence Day celebration at the US embassy, which has been referred to as failure of "BBQ Diplomacy." Even the ridiculous irony of a party offering hot dogs to Muslims has been overshadowed by the travesty of justice in which university students and other protesters are being routinely arrested, abducted, savagely beaten, and killed throughout Iran. These human rights abuses will continue as long as the tyrannical ruling party of Iran can censor the news of this oppression, suppress the truth of their corrupt behaviour, and otherwise control the transmission of information about the protests in Iran.
I am sensitive to the issues addressed by political activists through peaceful means and I will even support civil disobediance through demonstrations and strikes. However, I do not generally advocate violence, intimidation of persons, or destruction of property, unless such actions are in self-defense or in defense of innocent victims. Obviously, the paradigm shift brought about by the ubiquitous proliferation of the information age (easily accessible cell phones, for instance) is requiring us to reevaluate our ethics in the context of information as power and influence, which can lead directly to people being injured. This is a fact which military intelligence and espionage organizations have been aware of since time immemorial. For many years in Iran, the simple act of transmitting electronic information critical of the government has often been enough for bloggers, online activists, and technical staff to be faced with jail terms, harassment, abuse, and even death. Many people in Iran try to ignore these facts. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called the WWII Holocaust a "myth" and he has "accused the West of using the Holocaust as a 'pretext' for aggression against Palestinians." Perhaps some Iranians do not even realize that the censorship and persecution is going on in their country, much less do many of those that are aware of it feel willing or able to do anything to change the situation? Maybe it was being surrounded by these feelings of helplessness against a tyrannical dictatorship that led Neda Agha-Soltan to participate in the protest that her associates indicate she was well aware might mean the end of her life? The L.A Tmes interviewed Neda's friend known as Golshad, who says that she and Neda's parents tried to convince Neda not to go to the protests. The Times quotes Golshad as saying "I told her, 'Neda, don't go!' She said, 'Don't worry. It's just one bullet and it's over.'" If these statements are accurate, then was her act of protest that dissimilar to the Unknown Rebel who stood in front of a line of tanks in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China slightly over twenty years ago? Or perhaps she is not unlike the students at Kent State University, who were slain by US National Guard Troops thirty-nine years ago. Perhaps these tragic events will galvanize the youth of Iran towards a lasting solidarity which will supplant the aging leaders of the "Islamic Revolution" who are inevitably on their way out of power. As the political pendulum and the dominant paradigm has shifted towards hope for true democracy in the US, maybe there will be other similar changes around the world? By supporting transparency of communication, we may be able find answers to crucial questions such as these, and possibly even contribute to creating a more tolerant, peaceful, and democratic situation in Iran, as well as in our own government and industry.
"... 'No government can justly claim authority', as South Africa's ANC militants put it in their Freedom Charter of 1955, 'unless it is based on the will of all the people.' Needless to say it is up to the people of Iran to determine their own political course. Foreign observers inspired by the courage of those demonstrating in Iran this past week are nevertheless entitled to point out that a government which claims to represent the will of its people can only do so if it respects the most basic preconditions for the determination of such a will: the freedom of the people to assemble, unhindered, as an inclusive collective force; the capacity of the people, without restrictions on debate or access to information, to deliberate, decide and implement a shared course of action. ..."
- from "Open letter of support to the demonstrators in Iran," Written by Peter Hallward & Alberto Toscano, Friday 19 June 2009
Signed by Noam Chomsky,Slavoy Zizek, Etienne Balibar, Judith Butler, Professor Rada Ivekovic, & Alenka Zupancic
--
Other entries I have written concerning Neda:
tears lost in a flood of blood...
Let's You And Him Fight
What dreames may come?
I have made a fundamental commitment that I will witness any event; and that I will inquire as skeptically as possible into the nature of events that I witness. Furthermore, I have made a solemn pledge that I will register my perspective on the events as I have perceived them; and that I will report them accurately, to the best of my ability. One thing that I have noticed in all cultures is a degree of conservative guidelines that define how people are expected to behave to be recognized as citizens. Although I do wish to emphasize all of our similarities as fellow humans, I also want us to be able to celebrate our differences through building a continuous dialogue with one another. I believe that this issue essentially reduces to a matter of agreeing upon a protocol which can be used to determine whose turn it is to speak and for how long. This too has been a question debated since time immemorial, whether it was among shamans passing the proverbial talking stick, or in the parliamentary exchanges at the Areopagus in Athens, Greece.
However, I also believe that a mature society offers its constituents a forum in which they are permitted to question the established order. This sort of skeptical dialogue encourages a healthy evolution of paradigm shifts that can incorporate the inevitable changes in our world of exponentially accelerating information exchange and technological applications. In antiquity, ritual clowns & shamans often provided this role of questioning the status quo for the benefit of society; but with the advent of a strong consumer commodity culture (and one-way mediums like radio, TV, film & printed materials), mass consent to sweeping orthodoxy has been even easier than ever to manufacture. But now, with the advent of hand held video-cameras from which footage can be almost instantaneously uploaded for the world to witness, it has been easier for individuals to question the authority of governments and corporations which have often abused their almost absolute power. Eighteen years ago (in 1991), the world had to wait until the following evening's nightly news broadcast on KTLA-TV to air the video footage of the police brutally assaulting Rodney King (the story was picked up by CNN the day after that). Today, with many smartphones capable of streaming video, current events can be viewed live or with seconds or minutes of delay, depending on the situation and circumstances.
The two-way nature of peer-to-peer transactions in the information age encourages people to carefully consider their opinions, and develop more skeptical perspectives on the accuracy and validity of information. There have been numerous examples in the past few decades of how technology can significantly impair authoritarian power. The fall of the iron curtain has been convincingly attributed to the development of technological implements for information exchange, from photocopiers to computer BBS (Bulletin Board System) networks. However, I believe that the actual deciding factor in the demise of the Soviet Empire was the way in which the information exchange was implemented among the populace. People in the Soviet Union were well aware that the party line was full of misinformation & outright lies. So, they tended to prefer to get their information from underground & international sources, yet they still interpreted the information with skepticism.
However, the information age has forged into a double-edged sword, as tyrannical regimes all over the world, from rogue paramilitary groups like the Zetas in Mexico to the ruling elite in Iran, have been using technology to oppress people as well (Reporters Without Borders currently cites the "12 Enemies of the Internet" as: Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.). The Iranian government is continuing to jam cell phone voice and text signals, as well as blocking internet traffic that is not state-sponsored. And at the very least, bloggers and other protestors who question the ruling elite are silenced as soon as the authorities can locate them. Security forces are hunting for bloggers using IP address, location stamp and timezone searches, as well as potentially triangulating cell phone & GPS signals. At the same time, we are discovering that the same sort of deep packet inspection technology that is being used in Iran is of course being utilized all over the world by corporations, as well as government intelligence agencies, in order to promote everything from product placement, to censorship & persecution of individuals & groups.
As the conditions in Iran have been revealed, public opinion has quickly galvanized in support of Iran's Green Party; particularly since two videos containing graphic footage of Neda Agha-Soltan's horrifically tragic death spread instantaneously across the world. A decentralized network of hackers from all over the world were already assisting the Iranian protestors in a full-scale cybernetic war...reposting Twitter feeds (with backing and enforcement by the US State Dept.), providing links to everything from proxy web servers to get photos, text, & video information (legally) out of Iran so that the world can see what is really going on there, to engaging in Distributed Denial Of Service (DDOS) attacks (illegally) to shut down Iranian gov't websites. Censoring the government in an attempt to defend victims of systematic human rights abuses is a delicate scenario which leads to a slippery ethical slope of hypocrisy. I am a lifelong advocate of the ACLU, and I fully support giving free speech to everyone, even especially including hateful & prejudicial voices (aka "enough rope to hang themselves"); so I do not approve of these DDOS attacks. People must learn how to tell the difference between state-sponsored misinformation/lies and investigative reports with journalistic integrity.
Amnesty International suggests Iranians write letters to their government to petition for their human rights. Although, I have to admit, I think the evidence seems to show that critical letters are unlikely to have any noticeable effect on improving social justice in a nation well known for tyrranical abuses of corrupt power in general. The power of rational dialogue has been recognized all over the world and throughout history for it's ability to transform participants. However, Secrertary of State Hillary Clinton rescinded the Obama Administration's overly optimistic invitation for Iranian gov't officals to attend a July 4th US Independence Day celebration at the US embassy, which has been referred to as failure of "BBQ Diplomacy." Even the ridiculous irony of a party offering hot dogs to Muslims has been overshadowed by the travesty of justice in which university students and other protesters are being routinely arrested, abducted, savagely beaten, and killed throughout Iran. These human rights abuses will continue as long as the tyrannical ruling party of Iran can censor the news of this oppression, suppress the truth of their corrupt behaviour, and otherwise control the transmission of information about the protests in Iran.
I am sensitive to the issues addressed by political activists through peaceful means and I will even support civil disobediance through demonstrations and strikes. However, I do not generally advocate violence, intimidation of persons, or destruction of property, unless such actions are in self-defense or in defense of innocent victims. Obviously, the paradigm shift brought about by the ubiquitous proliferation of the information age (easily accessible cell phones, for instance) is requiring us to reevaluate our ethics in the context of information as power and influence, which can lead directly to people being injured. This is a fact which military intelligence and espionage organizations have been aware of since time immemorial. For many years in Iran, the simple act of transmitting electronic information critical of the government has often been enough for bloggers, online activists, and technical staff to be faced with jail terms, harassment, abuse, and even death. Many people in Iran try to ignore these facts. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called the WWII Holocaust a "myth" and he has "accused the West of using the Holocaust as a 'pretext' for aggression against Palestinians." Perhaps some Iranians do not even realize that the censorship and persecution is going on in their country, much less do many of those that are aware of it feel willing or able to do anything to change the situation? Maybe it was being surrounded by these feelings of helplessness against a tyrannical dictatorship that led Neda Agha-Soltan to participate in the protest that her associates indicate she was well aware might mean the end of her life? The L.A Tmes interviewed Neda's friend known as Golshad, who says that she and Neda's parents tried to convince Neda not to go to the protests. The Times quotes Golshad as saying "I told her, 'Neda, don't go!' She said, 'Don't worry. It's just one bullet and it's over.'" If these statements are accurate, then was her act of protest that dissimilar to the Unknown Rebel who stood in front of a line of tanks in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China slightly over twenty years ago? Or perhaps she is not unlike the students at Kent State University, who were slain by US National Guard Troops thirty-nine years ago. Perhaps these tragic events will galvanize the youth of Iran towards a lasting solidarity which will supplant the aging leaders of the "Islamic Revolution" who are inevitably on their way out of power. As the political pendulum and the dominant paradigm has shifted towards hope for true democracy in the US, maybe there will be other similar changes around the world? By supporting transparency of communication, we may be able find answers to crucial questions such as these, and possibly even contribute to creating a more tolerant, peaceful, and democratic situation in Iran, as well as in our own government and industry.
"... 'No government can justly claim authority', as South Africa's ANC militants put it in their Freedom Charter of 1955, 'unless it is based on the will of all the people.' Needless to say it is up to the people of Iran to determine their own political course. Foreign observers inspired by the courage of those demonstrating in Iran this past week are nevertheless entitled to point out that a government which claims to represent the will of its people can only do so if it respects the most basic preconditions for the determination of such a will: the freedom of the people to assemble, unhindered, as an inclusive collective force; the capacity of the people, without restrictions on debate or access to information, to deliberate, decide and implement a shared course of action. ..."
- from "Open letter of support to the demonstrators in Iran," Written by Peter Hallward & Alberto Toscano, Friday 19 June 2009
Signed by Noam Chomsky,Slavoy Zizek, Etienne Balibar, Judith Butler, Professor Rada Ivekovic, & Alenka Zupancic
--
Other entries I have written concerning Neda:
tears lost in a flood of blood...
Let's You And Him Fight
What dreames may come?