5 ms·

The article misses a rather large point: We (meaning the tech elite) are the first army in human history to be less concerned with the acquisition of power and

The article misses a rather large point: We (meaning the tech elite) are the first army in human history to be less concerned with the acquisition of power and control and more about giving that empowerment to the individuals we fight for. Hear me out. Those of us over the age of 30 are mostly digital immigrants. We remember a world without CallerID, a PC in every office, and a global network interconnecting all the things. If you were "That Computer Guy/Gal" you were a pioneer along the Oregon Trail that helped pave the way for the common person to have access to the breadth of human knowledge. While the government spun (and continues to spin) its wheels on how to legislate, tax, and control this virtual landscape, many of us were forced to develop of our code of ethics; many times in complete isolation from one another. A select few had the worlds biggest glass up against the world's biggest door; and most of us chose (choose) to honor that responsibility by respecting the privacy of one another. There are some that are corrupted by this power and choose to monitor everything they can about everyone they can but by and large the majority of us drew the line on privacy issues a long time ago. Most of us know how easy it would be to fire up email archives, chat logs, and remote screenshot tools but we've made a conscious decision to not do so outside the context of our daily responsibilities. Even more so, I do not stand alone in my past decisions to inform company users of any changes in the assumed privacy of their workspace instead of merely turning on a new fizzbuzz feature that ends them up in my office. We developed our own morality in a vacuum where historically the opposite has been done. Nietzsche would be having a field day with this. The "We Watch Everything" concept pisses us off because it's old thinking. Just because you can doesn't mean you should and the technical elite community has proven that absolute power does not have to corrupt absolutely. We can self-govern while respecting the right to privacy of the individual. That, in a nutshell, is why I think so many of us are appalled at PRISM and the other programs we all assumed existed.

dalke 13y ago
"first army in human history to be less concerned with the acquisition of power and control and more about giving that empowerment to the individuals we fight for" That sounds incredible egocentric. Under what standard do you exclude all suffragettes and all abolitionists from this category?
- toyg 13y ago
  In fact, the opposite is true: most revolutionary movements spurred from philosophical elaborations of wealthy and well-educated members of the ruling classes, which then allowed "inferiors" to claim their newly-defined 'natural rights'. People like Locke or Voltaire had little or nothing to gain from saying what they said, but were conscious that others would have been empowered by their words.
  - dalke 13y ago
    Then you do not understand my objection. ChikkaChiChi said "We (meaning the tech elite) are first army in human history, ..." What makes this tech army categorically different than that of abolitionists? Don't Barlow, Gilmore, and Kapor, founders of the EFF, count as "wealthy and well-educated members of the ruling classes" just as much as Garrison and Tappan, founders of the American Anti-Slavery Society? "People like Locke or Voltaire had little or nothing to gain" You veer into a trap with that viewpoint. Frederick Douglass escaped from slavery, and fought against slavery and for equal rights. He had much to gain in his effort, including love and marriage. As a side-effect of doing so, and as a mechanism for achieving that goal, he gained political and social power. ChikkaChiChi said "less concerned with the acquisition of power and control", but that balance point becomes a subjective view. The only people that cannot fit those constraints are either 1) those with power and control but who don't want more, and 2) those who have no power or control, and therefore neither you nor I have likely heard of them.
    - toyg 13y ago
      I actually agree with your opinion, sorry if it wasn't clear :) I was just pointing out that, generally speaking, many movements who were "fighting for our oppressed fellow man" were in fact produced not by the oppressed, but by dissenting elements of the oppressing classes. Not all of them, of course.
      - dalke 13y ago
        Ahh, I didn't understand. I couldn't figure out where "the opposite is true" was supposed to apply. How do you tell when a movement was produced by the oppressed, but where the strongest and most influential voice that the oppressing class hears is from a dissenting member of that class? Given how quickly Luther's views spread, it can't be that he was the only one who didn't like the actions of the Catholic church. I still feel that you're walking into a trap. If a member of the oppressed class become notable and influential, then that person's work could be recast as a way to achieve personal power and thereby become part of an oppressing class. If so, then oppression is perpetual until we figure out how to make 7 billion people be equally notable and influential. How does a dissenting element of the oppressing class ever leave that class?
JamisonM 13y ago
Army? Give me a break! We developed our own morality in a vacuum.. Sorry, there are plenty of old-timey hackers I worked with at telcos that were happy to look up phone records and just generally mess with stuff, including people's privacy. When they got old enough to fear losing their jobs or saw the new system with auditing in place they stopped. Your comment sounds too much like hagiography to me.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
w_t_payne 13y ago
Well, the term "army" implies a great deal more control and coordination than I currently see in place. Mind you, if we did organize, it would scare the bejezus out of the authorities.
- mogrim 13y ago
  Unlikely: a standing army is a lot easier to squash than a load of unrelated, unconnected individuals.
  - w_t_payne 13y ago
    The truth very rarely gets in the way of perception and appearances.
rayiner 13y ago
What a bunch of egocentric, self-aggrandizing tripe. > are the first army in human history to be less concerned with the acquisition of power and control and more about giving that empowerment to the individuals we fight for. Everyone who calls to arms thinks that. Most radicals end up being more oppressive than the regimes they replaced. Forward progress has, much more often, come incrementally, from the U.S.'s very conservative revolutionary ideals to the U.K.'s bloodless internal revolutions. > many of us were forced to develop of our code of ethics; many times in complete isolation from one another. That makes no sense when you're talking about a bunch of people who are the least isolated group in history, being connected by the internet. > A select few had the worlds biggest glass up against the world's biggest door; and most of us chose (choose) to honor that responsibility by respecting the privacy of one another. Oh yes, great respect! As an industry, you only chose to sell their information to the highest bidder to Big Advertising. > We developed our own morality in a vacuum where historically What? No.
- toyg 13y ago
  "Conservative revolutionary ideals"? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" -- this was political and philosophical dynamite in the XVIII century, when kings and gods still reigned supreme over the whole world (in fact, it still is quite an incendiary statement in many countries). What were the writers trying to "conserve", exactly? "U.K.'s bloodless internal revolutions"? Cromwell's Civil War was many things, but bloodless is not one of them. I may or may not agree with parent, but your statements are very peculiar indeed.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The founding fathers were no radicals. Whereas the leaders of the French revolution changed everything dramatically, the founders left the basic structure of American society more or less intact. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was not an incendiary statement in late 1700's England. The 1688 Glorious Revolution had made Parliament ascendent in England, and the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a turn of Locke's phrase "life, liberty, and estate" which he published in the 1689 "Two Treatises of Government" in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution. 17th century England was a fairly different place than is commonly taught in school. E.g (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Bonham%27s_Case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Bonham%27s_Case). Consequently, the level of continuity that existed between English rule and independence is usually vastly understated. The Constitution is best understood as a formalization of various strands of thought and practice that was already well-established in England by that time. And when I say "bloodless" I mean as far as revolutions go--compared to say the French revolution or the Chinese revolution.
jiggy2011 13y ago
There are certainly people like you describe. On the other hand in the early days of the net there were legions of script kiddies and others doing all kinds of shitty things. Also don't forget that there are probably a lot of geeks working at the NSA; considering that, their leak rate is really pretty low. People are fundamentally drawn to power. Having an open and censorship free internet gives people who understand technology the most power. Having a regulated internet accessed through "walled garden" devices gives that power back to governments and suits.
ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
I appreciate the feedback. Some of the criticism is the price you pay for an off-the-cuff for draft. :) If I rewrote this, I would definitely tone down the egocentrism by a few factors. I didn't realize it came off as such. I'm not going to say that there aren't the Terry Childs types out there that give all of the tech community a bad name but its anecdotal at best. My comment was based on my own personal opinion and observations. I did not say that my use of the term 'army' in any way precludes other collectives of individuals fighting for the just and that somehow that the tech community is exclusive in this fact. What I was pointing out was that never before has the power to abuse been in the hands of so many and yet (for the most part) that power has been handled responsibly. The 'walled garden' jiggy2011 mentions is my biggest fear as well. Without a continued commitment to open systems we place the control mechanisms in the hands of fewer individuals where morality plays a far less part in the concept of self-governance. As for selling information to the highest bidder, I cannot speak to that as I do not have a strong background of experiences to develop an opinion. Personally, I exchange certain aspects of my contact information and habits to companies in exchange for certain services (Facebook, Google, HN, etc.)

dalke 13y ago

"first army in human history to be less concerned with the acquisition of power and control and more about giving that empowerment to the individuals we fight for" That sounds incredible egocentric. Under what standard do you exclude all suffragettes and all abolitionists from this category?

toyg 13y ago
In fact, the opposite is true: most revolutionary movements spurred from philosophical elaborations of wealthy and well-educated members of the ruling classes, which then allowed "inferiors" to claim their newly-defined 'natural rights'. People like Locke or Voltaire had little or nothing to gain from saying what they said, but were conscious that others would have been empowered by their words.
- dalke 13y ago
  Then you do not understand my objection. ChikkaChiChi said "We (meaning the tech elite) are first army in human history, ..." What makes this tech army categorically different than that of abolitionists? Don't Barlow, Gilmore, and Kapor, founders of the EFF, count as "wealthy and well-educated members of the ruling classes" just as much as Garrison and Tappan, founders of the American Anti-Slavery Society? "People like Locke or Voltaire had little or nothing to gain" You veer into a trap with that viewpoint. Frederick Douglass escaped from slavery, and fought against slavery and for equal rights. He had much to gain in his effort, including love and marriage. As a side-effect of doing so, and as a mechanism for achieving that goal, he gained political and social power. ChikkaChiChi said "less concerned with the acquisition of power and control", but that balance point becomes a subjective view. The only people that cannot fit those constraints are either 1) those with power and control but who don't want more, and 2) those who have no power or control, and therefore neither you nor I have likely heard of them.
  - toyg 13y ago
    I actually agree with your opinion, sorry if it wasn't clear :) I was just pointing out that, generally speaking, many movements who were "fighting for our oppressed fellow man" were in fact produced not by the oppressed, but by dissenting elements of the oppressing classes. Not all of them, of course.
    - dalke 13y ago
      Ahh, I didn't understand. I couldn't figure out where "the opposite is true" was supposed to apply. How do you tell when a movement was produced by the oppressed, but where the strongest and most influential voice that the oppressing class hears is from a dissenting member of that class? Given how quickly Luther's views spread, it can't be that he was the only one who didn't like the actions of the Catholic church. I still feel that you're walking into a trap. If a member of the oppressed class become notable and influential, then that person's work could be recast as a way to achieve personal power and thereby become part of an oppressing class. If so, then oppression is perpetual until we figure out how to make 7 billion people be equally notable and influential. How does a dissenting element of the oppressing class ever leave that class?

JamisonM 13y ago

Army? Give me a break! We developed our own morality in a vacuum.. Sorry, there are plenty of old-timey hackers I worked with at telcos that were happy to look up phone records and just generally mess with stuff, including people's privacy. When they got old enough to fear losing their jobs or saw the new system with auditing in place they stopped. Your comment sounds too much like hagiography to me.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

w_t_payne 13y ago

Well, the term "army" implies a great deal more control and coordination than I currently see in place. Mind you, if we did organize, it would scare the bejezus out of the authorities.

mogrim 13y ago
Unlikely: a standing army is a lot easier to squash than a load of unrelated, unconnected individuals.
- w_t_payne 13y ago
  The truth very rarely gets in the way of perception and appearances.

rayiner 13y ago

What a bunch of egocentric, self-aggrandizing tripe. > are the first army in human history to be less concerned with the acquisition of power and control and more about giving that empowerment to the individuals we fight for. Everyone who calls to arms thinks that. Most radicals end up being more oppressive than the regimes they replaced. Forward progress has, much more often, come incrementally, from the U.S.'s very conservative revolutionary ideals to the U.K.'s bloodless internal revolutions. > many of us were forced to develop of our code of ethics; many times in complete isolation from one another. That makes no sense when you're talking about a bunch of people who are the least isolated group in history, being connected by the internet. > A select few had the worlds biggest glass up against the world's biggest door; and most of us chose (choose) to honor that responsibility by respecting the privacy of one another. Oh yes, great respect! As an industry, you only chose to sell their information to the highest bidder to Big Advertising. > We developed our own morality in a vacuum where historically What? No.

toyg 13y ago
"Conservative revolutionary ideals"? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" -- this was political and philosophical dynamite in the XVIII century, when kings and gods still reigned supreme over the whole world (in fact, it still is quite an incendiary statement in many countries). What were the writers trying to "conserve", exactly? "U.K.'s bloodless internal revolutions"? Cromwell's Civil War was many things, but bloodless is not one of them. I may or may not agree with parent, but your statements are very peculiar indeed.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The founding fathers were no radicals. Whereas the leaders of the French revolution changed everything dramatically, the founders left the basic structure of American society more or less intact. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was not an incendiary statement in late 1700's England. The 1688 Glorious Revolution had made Parliament ascendent in England, and the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a turn of Locke's phrase "life, liberty, and estate" which he published in the 1689 "Two Treatises of Government" in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution. 17th century England was a fairly different place than is commonly taught in school. E.g (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Bonham%27s_Case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Bonham%27s_Case). Consequently, the level of continuity that existed between English rule and independence is usually vastly understated. The Constitution is best understood as a formalization of various strands of thought and practice that was already well-established in England by that time. And when I say "bloodless" I mean as far as revolutions go--compared to say the French revolution or the Chinese revolution.

jiggy2011 13y ago

There are certainly people like you describe. On the other hand in the early days of the net there were legions of script kiddies and others doing all kinds of shitty things. Also don't forget that there are probably a lot of geeks working at the NSA; considering that, their leak rate is really pretty low. People are fundamentally drawn to power. Having an open and censorship free internet gives people who understand technology the most power. Having a regulated internet accessed through "walled garden" devices gives that power back to governments and suits.

ChikkaChiChi 13y ago

I appreciate the feedback. Some of the criticism is the price you pay for an off-the-cuff for draft. :) If I rewrote this, I would definitely tone down the egocentrism by a few factors. I didn't realize it came off as such. I'm not going to say that there aren't the Terry Childs types out there that give all of the tech community a bad name but its anecdotal at best. My comment was based on my own personal opinion and observations. I did not say that my use of the term 'army' in any way precludes other collectives of individuals fighting for the just and that somehow that the tech community is exclusive in this fact. What I was pointing out was that never before has the power to abuse been in the hands of so many and yet (for the most part) that power has been handled responsibly. The 'walled garden' jiggy2011 mentions is my biggest fear as well. Without a continued commitment to open systems we place the control mechanisms in the hands of fewer individuals where morality plays a far less part in the concept of self-governance. As for selling information to the highest bidder, I cannot speak to that as I do not have a strong background of experiences to develop an opinion. Personally, I exchange certain aspects of my contact information and habits to companies in exchange for certain services (Facebook, Google, HN, etc.)