I found this piece the NYT printed hyperlinked in a piece at dissident voice; i’ll try to dig it up later. but i’m copying the whole thing, as i’m sure he’d approve, and also because it’s a bit inaccessible due to the new constraints of their paywall.
to say that it makes things a whole lot more clear as regards the big online companies and their (hidden) alliances with the security state is mild. eric schmidt’s current outrage at the nsa having jumped onto the biberoptic cables upstream is almost morbid after this. dunno about apple’s cook ceo, but i wouldn’t be a bit surprised it… anyway. in his own words:
By JULIAN ASSANGE
Published: June 1, 2013 81 Comments
“THE New Digital Age” is a startlingly clear and provocative blueprint for technocratic imperialism, from two of its leading witch doctors, Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, who construct a new idiom for United States global power in the 21st century. This idiom reflects the ever closer union between the State Department and Silicon Valley, as personified by Mr. Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, and Mr. Cohen, a former adviser to Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton who is now director of Google Ideas.
The authors met in occupied Baghdad in 2009, when the book was conceived. Strolling among the ruins, the two became excited that consumer technology was transforming a society flattened by United States military occupation. They decided the tech industry could be a powerful agent of American foreign policy.
The book proselytizes the role of technology in reshaping the world’s people and nations into likenesses of the world’s dominant superpower, whether they want to be reshaped or not. The prose is terse, the argument confident and the wisdom — banal. But this isn’t a book designed to be read. It is a major declaration designed to foster alliances.
“The New Digital Age” is, beyond anything else, an attempt by Google to position itself as America’s geopolitical visionary — the one company that can answer the question “Where should America go?” It is not surprising that a respectable cast of the world’s most famous warmongers has been trotted out to give its stamp of approval to this enticement to Western soft power. The acknowledgments give pride of place to Henry Kissinger, who along with Tony Blair and the former C.I.A. director Michael Hayden provided advance praise for the book.
In the book the authors happily take up the white geek’s burden. A liberal sprinkling of convenient, hypothetical dark-skinned worthies appear: Congolese fisherwomen, graphic designers in Botswana, anticorruption activists in San Salvador and illiterate Masai cattle herders in the Serengeti are all obediently summoned to demonstrate the progressive properties of Google phones jacked into the informational supply chain of the Western empire.
The authors offer an expertly banalized version of tomorrow’s world: the gadgetry of decades hence is predicted to be much like what we have right now — only cooler. “Progress” is driven by the inexorable spread of American consumer technology over the surface of the earth. Already, every day, another million or so Google-run mobile devices are activated. Google will interpose itself, and hence the United States government, between the communications of every human being not in China (naughty China). Commodities just become more marvelous; young, urban professionals sleep, work and shop with greater ease and comfort; democracy is insidiously subverted by technologies of surveillance, and control is enthusiastically rebranded as “participation”; and our present world order of systematized domination, intimidation and oppression continues, unmentioned, unafflicted or only faintly perturbed.
The authors are sour about the Egyptian triumph of 2011. They dismiss the Egyptian youth witheringly, claiming that “the mix of activism and arrogance in young people is universal.” Digitally inspired mobs mean revolutions will be “easier to start” but “harder to finish.” Because of the absence of strong leaders, the result, or so Mr. Kissinger tells the authors, will be coalition governments that descend into autocracies. They say there will be “no more springs” (but China is on the ropes).
The authors fantasize about the future of “well resourced” revolutionary groups. A new “crop of consultants” will “use data to build and fine-tune a political figure.”
“His” speeches (the future isn’t all that different) and writing will be fed “through complex feature-extraction and trend-analysis software suites” while “mapping his brain function,” and other “sophisticated diagnostics” will be used to “assess the weak parts of his political repertoire.”
The book mirrors State Department institutional taboos and obsessions. It avoids meaningful criticism of Israel and Saudi Arabia. It pretends, quite extraordinarily, that the Latin American sovereignty movement, which has liberated so many from United States-backed plutocracies and dictatorships over the last 30 years, never happened. Referring instead to the region’s “aging leaders,” the book can’t see Latin America for Cuba. And, of course, the book frets theatrically over Washington’s favorite boogeymen: North Korea and Iran.
Google, which started out as an expression of independent Californian graduate student culture — a decent, humane and playful culture — has, as it encountered the big, bad world, thrown its lot in with traditional Washington power elements, from the State Department to the National Security Agency.
Despite accounting for an infinitesimal fraction of violent deaths globally, terrorism is a favorite brand in United States policy circles. This is a fetish that must also be catered to, and so “The Future of Terrorism” gets a whole chapter. The future of terrorism, we learn, is cyberterrorism. A session of indulgent scaremongering follows, including a breathless disaster-movie scenario, wherein cyberterrorists take control of American air-traffic control systems and send planes crashing into buildings, shutting down power grids and launching nuclear weapons. The authors then tar activists who engage in digital sit-ins with the same brush.
I have a very different perspective. The advance of information technology epitomized by Google heralds the death of privacy for most people and shifts the world toward authoritarianism. This is the principal thesis in my book, “Cypherpunks.” But while Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Cohen tell us that the death of privacy will aid governments in “repressive autocracies” in “targeting their citizens,” they also say governments in “open” democracies will see it as “a gift” enabling them to “better respond to citizen and customer concerns.” In reality, the erosion of individual privacy in the West and the attendant centralization of power make abuses inevitable, moving the “good” societies closer to the “bad” ones.
The section on “repressive autocracies” describes, disapprovingly, various repressive surveillance measures: legislation to insert back doors into software to enable spying on citizens, monitoring of social networks and the collection of intelligence on entire populations. All of these are already in widespread use in the United States. In fact, some of those measures — like the push to require every social-network profile to be linked to a real name — were spearheaded by Google itself.
THE writing is on the wall, but the authors cannot see it. They borrow from William Dobson the idea that the media, in an autocracy, “allows for an opposition press as long as regime opponents understand where the unspoken limits are.” But these trends are beginning to emerge in the United States. No one doubts the chilling effects of the investigations into The Associated Press and Fox’s James Rosen. But there has been little analysis of Google’s role in complying with the Rosen subpoena. I have personal experience of these trends.
The Department of Justice admitted in March that it was in its third year of a continuing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks. Court testimony states that its targets include “the founders, owners, or managers of WikiLeaks.” One alleged source, Bradley Manning, faces a 12-week trial beginning tomorrow, with 24 prosecution witnesses expected to testify in secret.
This book is a balefully seminal work in which neither author has the language to see, much less to express, the titanic centralizing evil they are constructing. “What Lockheed Martin was to the 20th century,” they tell us, “technology and cybersecurity companies will be to the 21st.” Without even understanding how, they have updated and seamlessly implemented George Orwell’s prophecy. If you want a vision of the future, imagine Washington-backed Google Glasses strapped onto vacant human faces — forever. Zealots of the cult of consumer technology will find little to inspire them here, not that they ever seem to need it. But this is essential reading for anyone caught up in the struggle for the future, in view of one simple imperative: Know your enemy.
Julian Assange is the editor in chief of WikiLeaks and author of “Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet.”
A version of this op-ed appears in print on June 2, 2013, on page SR4 of the New York edition with the headline: The Banality of ‘Don’t Be Evil’.
This is Tom Englehardt’s ‘Surveillance State Scorecard‘; a keeper if only for the many links, but his finally several paragraphs are very worthwhile, especially the ones about what a nation with only a couple open-source intelligence agencies might look like. Perhaps there would be some actual intelligence involved, as he says. Plenty of analysis with his tongue often embedded in his cheek. :)
Nobody’s listening; but “Ears” O’bama (reckon it’s a relic of his Irish heritage’s legacy of Transatlantic telegraphy)!
yes; mr. ‘if i wanna know what angela’s (or dilma’s) thinking, i just call her on the phone, ha ha…’
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine Washington-backed Google Glasses strapped onto vacant human faces — forever. Zealots of the cult of consumer technology will find little to inspire them here, not that they ever seem to need it. But this is essential reading for anyone caught up in the struggle for the future, in view of one simple imperative: Know your enemy.”
cypherpunks had it right in so many ways (not all, imo, but that’s another long and personal story, maybe irrelevant to the discussion).
As an Orwell 1984 acolyte (and born in the 1949 publication year), I caught and thoroughly agree with the Assange quote above. But (as previously related), upon returning to my St. Pete birthplace for the (hopefully) last (Syria) anti-war protest (with only 40 others, in a megalopolis of 4 MILLION); none of the attendees knew what PNAC was, nor the enemy who or why it targeted Syria (nor Iran, NEXT). They also believed we ‘stopped’ that war, when it was primarily a competent Putin taking advantage of team Obama’s inept WaterKerry! It’s not simply their wired spying to fear; the enemy’s advanced to wireless interference
halloween-trick/ (and who knows what more)! So, Obamanably Fuehrerward through the googling Glass, darkly to our dismal future visions, Barney!. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkkA-9–S1c
yes: ‘what the hell was cheney’s secret energy task force?’ i hear you. putin: yes, but also cameron’s government demanding a vote, then blocking it, no? i did try to follow david swanson’s take that ‘the people said no to war’, but…a lemonade look, perhaps.
now the french acting for (israel, the saudis?) are said to have tanked the negotiations. christ in a canoe. i’d seen that post by cmawkish, but it was all geek to me, and then some. mi amigo kgb cypherpunk was often of the opinion that c was (to quote) ‘pullin’ it out of his ass’, so…there’s that. ;)
snuffy was adorable. g’night, dream well…
Though, as Richard Lewis used to claim of his “Pulling a penguin; right out of his ‘acronym’ ” ; still, when all of our telescreens are FCC-mandated to be at least digital, requiring an analog “converter” box on each; and again, even our cars’ Obamandated *ECM-monitored TIRE-STEMS (fer Georgesake) are Traceable AND HACKABLE; there’s plausible credibility to c.’s least mawkish claims.
* “Electronic CONTROL Module” (central computer)
wish i knew enough to even grok any of it, but…alas, no. :) hacking onboard auto function chips i do get. as in: michael hastings. oh, and we have a converter box for our over-the-air signal collection, or did…i forget, lol.
while hunting for more on wikileaks after i read assange’s piece, i was collecting links and info to go with a trnn video, when ‘Hola!’ i found today’s leaked tpp chapter. early birrrrd catches the wrigglers, eh, wot?
Well then, Bon matin; Flush with your TPP score, eh?
yes, and i just posted it a bit ago, silly mon. and g’mornin’ to you.
What I get from this, and my experience being watched here is as follows. I was just on the Guardian site to follow the updates they do on a day of events in the Philipines. On this one they had comments, so I started to look.
I am noticing a definite change in the aspect of comments – they are not being filtered carefully, and most of them are asinine. This is different from even just a few weeks ago. Something has happened.
I think what has happened is that those comments which were actually news items and locally informative are being weeded out – either the Guardian itself is doing it, or the commenters are realizing that what Julian Assange advises is true – they have begun to know their enemy, and their enemy resides in the tech, deep, deep within. Whatever it is, the comments aren’t worth reading any more.
It may very well be that real life can no longer be influenced on these forums, even in our emails. I’m chewing that over. There is such a thing as too much oversupervison. Especially by those who don’t think oi polloi can think.
interesting take on the comment threads, ww. and yes, julian speaks to schmidt and cohen’s creepy future vision of a world dominated by google glasses and tech.
but here is evidence that schmidt and *his* technology are allied, *partners*, if you will with government, including extolling the virtues of US foreign policy. very bad. and it further ballasts the idea that google (and perhaps apple) calling for the nsa to allow them to release info on the level of compliance they provided the nsa and other security state acronyms with their data, metadata, etc. is just an ass-covering feint. these are not the ‘good guys’, iow.
but it is what started me on a search of their tweets and website, including last month’s spy files. more ‘technocratic imperialism’. yes!
Thank you also for linking to Tom Englehardt’s excellent essay. I just refreshed myself on the links to the Lannan Foundation event in Santa Fe as well. An amazing surfeit of richness from which I take the following:
“…They will see us, but in the end, we will see them, too.”
Yes, we will! With your help.
It’s great, isn’t it? Che Pasa has posted the videos from Santa Fe, although he couldn’t go on halloween. i haven’t found, or at least made the time to watch yet.