The Information War

Arpil 9, 2000

There's a psychology experiment that fascinates me. It goes like this: You strap some poor volunteer into a chair and tape electrodes to him, which runs to a box that administers electric shocks. It has two controls, the zap button and a big intensity dial, so you can vary the severity. Then an interviewer comes in who asks questions, and if the subject doesn't answer, he increases the intensity a bit, and shocks him, and asks again. And again. The shock dial is clearly labelled, and goes from 'tickle' through 'pain' and up to a red-zone dangerous level that can kill. The interviewer is clearly informed of this.

In fact, the shock box doesn't do what it says. It never produces more than a tickle, and the person in the chair is an actor. The subject is actually the person pressing the button, and the object of the experiment is to see how far he will go up the scale before he stops, since the person in the chair will never answer his questions. In almost all cases, the 'interviewer' stops well before the danger zone. After all, it's just a psychology experiment. You wouldn't want to hurt the poor guy.

There's a second, scarier part to the experiment. Split the 'interviewer' job between two people, one who asks the questions and one who administers the shocks at his direction. (Both still think the 'subject' is the person sitting in the chair.) This changes everything. The person pushing the button rationalises that he's not in control, since he's just following orders. The person asking the questions looses any sense of responsibility, since his 'requests' are carried out second-hand. The result is that, together, they keep going right into the danger zone, and a frightening number of normal people end up with the setting on deadly maximum and the interrogator shouting "Shock him again! Again! Again!"

Jon Johansen had his home raided by police, his computer taken, his life invaded. The 'order' almost certainly originated inside the MPAA. Yet another case of corporate excess, we say. We rage against the machine, pound our fists on their steel edifices in frustration, and then deplore the state of the world. But it keeps happening, and it's getting worse. The Mattel suit, for shining example.

Someone inside the MPAA decided that it was a good idea to start legal action against Jon. An individual inside Mattel decided that it was a good idea to prosecute Eddy and Matthew. The order was handed to the legal department, and we suddenly have that wonderful separation of responsibility which lets some pointy-haired sociopath order raids on a teenager, and not feel accountable. They initiate the act, and then hide behind walls of PR and corporate secrecy.

Many modern problems are traceable to corporate-restricted information flow. Their desire to own it all. Non-disclosure agreements, gag orders, non-compete contracts and injuctions are all symptoms. The patent system got broken because it's another way for corporates to control ideas. Reverse-engineering rights are under attack, as is the right to scholarly review, thanks to the DMCA.

The solution is as simple as it is chilling. We need to find out who makes these decisions, and make them feel responsible. We need to close the circle. To do that, we need more information. We need names.

I feel very queasy saying this, because identifying the decision maker and then 'informing' him of his error can easily take a very nasty turn. If someone posted the name and email address of the manager inside Mattel who moved to prosecute, the current high emotions of the community would produce something very like a lynch mob. On the other hand, I'd almost consider that justified, given the kinds of life destroying tactics they are using against fairly innocent parties. They are causing real harm to real people for the most abstract reasons, and it has to stop. No more victims.

Taking responsibility for your actions is the core of ethical behaviour. If the people running companies are morally bankrupt, it's partly our own fault for letting them get away with it for so long. The basic principles of democracy and free speech mean that it's our solemn duty to find the people making these bad decisions, and inform them personally, in no uncertain terms, that what they are doing is very wrong.

The most damaging thing you can do to a company is tell the truth about their behaviour, and the people who run them. They have whole PR and Legal departments to prevent that. While the Mass Media of Television News reigned, they were safely ensconced behind a one-way flow of propaganda they largely controlled. Ask Noam Chompsky. So it's no surprise that all the legal action initiated by Mattel, the MPAA, the RIAA, and others is about controlling the flow of information on the Net as well. Hell, CyberPatrol does it directly, by censoring the websites of critics. At least with Government, we knew that Senator Exxon was to blame for the CDA. With CyberPatrol, who? Eddy and Matthew deserve to know their accuser's name.

In a strange way, we owe it to their accuser too. To re-humanise them. To give them their name back.

I'd dearly love to see someone in the MPAA get an ear-thrashing from Jon's mother. She can tell them what it was like to have her son arrested. She can call their boss, and ask if they really want someone like that around. Jon was intended to be an example. The MPAA's actions were designed to "send a message" to us. Let's send a new message straight back. "We know who you are".

The corporates are busy stripping away our privacy. I see no reason why we shouldn't return the favor.

If you think this is creepy as hell, I agree. It's only one step away from stalking. I don't see any other way. Like the Mambo says, you use the black vodun to fight the black vodun.

You can't argue with a company, (except via lawyer) and it takes ten thousand people to express displeasure in the economic terms they understand. But you can argue with a person, even if they're an idiot, and it only takes one voice to make a difference to them.

This is the new war. An information war, not fought between governments, but between anonymous corporates and outspoken individuals. In this war, everyone is in espionage, everyone is trying to find out who everyone else is, and information is both a weapon and the prize. At stake is nothing less than the ability to speak the truth without fear. So far, the casualties have all been ours.