We're not in 1984. We're not in Brave New World. We're not even in Zamyatin's We. We're in bloody Brazil.
INTERVIEWER
Deputy minister, what do you believe
is behind this recent increase in
terrorist bombings?
HELPMANN
Bad sportsmanship. A ruthless
minority of people seems to have
forgotten certain good old fashioned
virtues. They just can't stand
seeing the other fellow win. If
these people would just play the
game, instead of standing on the
touch line heckling
INTERVIEWER
In fact, killing people
HELPMANN
In fact, killing people they'd
get a lot more out of life.
We PULL AWAY from the shop to concentrate on the shoppers.
Helpmann's voice carries over the rest of the scene.
INTERVIEWER
Mr. Helpmann, what would you say
to those critics who maintain that
the Ministry Of Information has
become too large and unwieldy... ?
HELPMANN
David... in a free society
information is the name of the
game. You can't win the game if
you're a man short.
I hate to draw the comparison, but it reminds me even more of this:
""What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.
"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.
"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter."
Tell us what about that excerpt doesn't precisely describe what has been occurring in the US?
No one said we're going to become Nazi Germany, but Nazi Germany also didn't appear out of thin air. There were a series of actions and evolution at the state level that eventually provided the necessary preconditions for Nazi Germany to exist. I'm sure that what ended up being Nazi Germany was one of several path that Germany could have taken given those necessary preconditions that permitted its existence. We don't know what those other paths are, one of those paths could be where we end up instead. What is known, is that this ever widening gap permits individuals, possibly several acting in concert and possibly in the belief that they are doing the right thing to exert undue influence upon the political decisions of the country for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. The two wars we have become embroiled in unnecessarily are prime examples of such acts.
We probably won't become Nazi Germany. But there is nothing going on that suggests that we won't become something that is a democracy or republic only in name, and that the will of the people and the rights of individuals simply become inconsequential. I personally have no reason to believe that we will become Nazi Germany, but I have every reason to believe that we are becoming a nation that no longer protects my rights and the rights of my fellow citizens and that we are becoming a nation that protects the self interest of the few at the expense of the self interest of the many... us.
Furthermore, there a large number of cultural precursors that existed from before Hitler was even born.
Hitler didn't invent antisemitism. Martin Luther clearly envisioned a genocide of Jews, in what was one of Hitler's favorite books. [1]
Eugenics was bigger in the U.S. than anywhere else.
The U.S. even invented modern nationalism, and it clearly remains more popular here than anywhere else in the western world. (Though, at least originally, this was tempered by the idea that Enlightenment ideals were universal, though admittedly, "Freedom" and "Liberty" are now just empty newspeak)
No no, you see, the Germans were EVIL and were knowingly doing terrible things because they enjoyed them. Hitler was drinking the blood of children while the wehrmacht paraded guns around going "BLITZKREIG! BLITZKREIG!", and everyone supped from the skulls of slaves on a daily basis.
Sadly, this was the vision promulgated by western propaganda, as the notion that a civilised group of people could end up where Germany ended up was unconscionable, and incomprehensible to most - and this visage is still stuck in the mind of most as "how NAZIsm happened", rather than the very slippery, very real slope they found themselves tumbling down.
Exactly. Instead what should have been popularized were Stanley Milgram's obedience to authority experiments that were performed to answer the question as to why many otherwise well meaning humans would collectively engage in horrible acts like extermination of a race of people. That experiment and Soloman Asch's experiments in conformity pretty much show that Americans are just as capable of the same acts as Nazi Germany.
Sadly we really don't even need those experiments to show we are also capable of such atrocities. Abu Gharaib, Guantanamo Bay, Extraordinary Rendition, WWII Japanese Internment camps and other examples from our history show that we already have.
Godwin's Law is well rooted in basic human nature.
I downvoted you for your mid-brow dismissal of the parent comment.
Yes, there are parallels between UK in 2013 and Nazi Germany in 1933. Scary parallels. People who know their history understand that authoritarianism and fascism tend to take hold within a relatively short amount of time. In Germany for example, the Nazi party was formed in 1920, came to power in 1925 and within a decade it was implementing racist and nationalist policies all over the country. We all know what that led to.
That would be the same United Kingdom that now has posters on busses in London telling illegal immigrants to go home? The one with the opt-out web-filter to stop "terrorists" and "paedophiles" who can't Google "proxy"? The one where failing to turn your encryption key over to the police will land you in jail? The one where teenagers are arrested for obvious jokes on Twitter?
The Nazis have been given this special place in history, in discussions, in almost all aspects they've been examined, such that they are seen as the extreme end of the spectrum in almost all cases, brutality, efficiency, deadliness, zealousness, etc.
Propaganda is good for motivating people, it's not good for making rational, informed decisions (indeed, it's point is to bypass rational decision making by applying to emotional cues).
The truth is, they were an entire country of people, with varying and diverse opinions on everything. The fact that we elevate them to this position does not make us less likely to follow their path, by viewing them as so distinct from us, it makes us more likely. There's a little Nazi in all of us, and the sooner we come to terms with that, the better we'll be at noticing and taming it.
I was re-watching Brazil the other day and this was exactly what came to mind. We are not in 1984. Terry Gilliam's vision is terrific, and captures with precision how someone working for the NSA (even though it's not called like that in the movie) thinking he is working for Good actually discovers the impact of his actions on real people's lives.
Not sure this is fair. The government isn't crazy like Deputy Minister Helpmann in Brazil. It really is trying to do its job. Imagine if every American football coach had to announce his play to the other team. What purpose would there be in it? So, there needs to be a system in place that helps keep secrets. But, the question is how should those that expose secrets be dealt with? No one wants to deal with those exposing state secrets because they are doing it to no one in particular, and aren't being seen as actively trying to help terrorists. That is the problem and that is the reason we are comparing things to the movie Brazil here.
Growing up in the U.S., we were all taught the history of our country, which included Benedict Arnold. But very few see a parallel to Benedict Arnold in Snowden. They cannot see how someone whose main claim to fame in the press has been, "They are watching you!" has exposed state secrets. Neither do they think Julian Assange is Benedict Arnold. Julian is just posed as a well-meaning but much misled Australian hacker that probably got framed in a rape case and is on the run, like a modern day Frank Abagnale, but with state secrets instead of fake checks.
The fact is, our governments need respect in order to keep secrets better, but prosecuting and hunting down these people is not the answer, neither are other "control" techniques. They just need better security. If they had better security, I for one would respect the fact that they said, "Oops! I guess I left the playbook in front of the press tent. I guess I should keep it on my person at all times."
The Benedict Arnold comparison is absurd and the football analogy is very weak.
There is no 'other team' and the coach is paranoid. He keeps the playbook secret from his own team, suspecting any one of them may be playing for the other side, which does not exist. No games are scheduled anyway, but still he insists on spying on them and recording all the details of their private lives in his secret playbook.
One day one of the team finds the playbook and is horrified at what their coach has been doing behind their backs...
I agree that the football analogy is weak. As an outsider looking in, it seems as though the 'secret plays' are secret just because that's the way it's become... not because it's the only way.
I mean, you just have to look at pretty much every other team sport out there: none of those have secret playbooks. The team is smart enough to work together to determine the best course of action, sometimes taking the advantage, sometimes responding to the loss of that advantage.
So what we have is one sport out of dozens that has a particular quirk, and then we use that weirdness to justify what the government is currently doing?
Whether or not it's appropriate to be using sports analogies here, it's not true that football is unique in the secrecy of information. Plenty of sports have information that is known between teammates and not shared with the other team (baseball pitchers don't communicate what they're going to throw, basketball teams draw up plays, etc.).
The only thing that's unique about football is how much complexity they can factor into each play since they've got 11 players to work with and there's a stoppage before each play during which they can regroup and coordinate.
A better analogy from sports is Jerry Sandusky. Snowden is analogous to someone who had the fortitude to draw attention to obvious wrongdoing.
Our elected officials are analogous to Joe Paterno as they try to hide the truth and deny the wrongdoing.
Respect, both for governments and individuals, must be earned. Many Americans still do trust the US Government, but Snowden's revelations have caused many to question that trust. When we watch our leaders (Obama, tech leaders, etc.) deny responsibility and show no interest in doing anything about the actual crimes that the leaks revealed, we rightly lose trust and respect for our government.
So, there needs to be a system in place that helps keep secrets.
How about a simple workflow before marking something Top Secret?
1. Did we break the law?
-> Yes -> End: don't mark Top Secret; call the police and have responsible parties arrested.
-> No -> End: mark Top Secret.
-> Maybe -> End: don't mark Top Secret; call the police and have responsible parties arrested.
And we could use the same workflow for encountering already Top Secret docs. In fact, that's exactly what Snowden and Manning did. Not sure what the fuss is about: they're whistleblowers, so we should all be happy and all see a lot of DoJ guys in vests escorting NSA guys from datacenters in handcuffs (or gals).
Well, it is a fair comparison in that the crazy torture/interrogation state of Gilliam's "Brazil" was driven by the profit motive -- the victims of torture paid for their own interrogation.
This is eerily similar to the manner in which our own surveillance state is also driven by the profit motive - ordinary people paying for the profit-driven private companies that subject them to surveillance -- and in the process, keeping us all in a state of abject terror of the hidden dangers from which we are being "protected".
Hmmm... how much is it like a protection racket? Indeed, look at what happens to the people who want out?
That's preposterous, are you suggesting that government in Brazil isn't trying to do its job?
Jokes aside, I don't think comparisons to football game are apt. Most people are simply not interested in competing with people in other countries, at least not any more than in competing with their own elites in government and elsewhere. So it's not like we are all one happy team inside the state.
> Imagine if every American football coach had to announce his play to the other team.
That actually does happen in most sports though. Football (Soccer) coaches announce the line up and formation. In fact in most team sports you know who's going to be playing and who's on the bench before the match starts. In F1, you know which cars are carrying more fuel or planning for more pit-stops. And even with sports popular for gambling (eg horse racing) you are given the history of horses races, it's trainer and the jockey riding it.
Sports are seldom played with any kind of secrecy - the only exception being games likes Chess or Poker and even in those cases, everyone is on a level playing field with access to the same information, it's only the individual players strategy and their bluffs that's kept secret.
I can understand and even agree with governments not announcing secret agents, what locations they're going to raid or even what specific information they've collected on genuine suspects. The problem is their entire operation is done in secret and they indiscriminately monitor the entire worlds population. This is more than just hiding your next move, this is a gross abuse of power and with the officials well aware that they're on legally dubious ground which is why they're so keen to keep even the general overview of their operations a secret. And ironically, in doing so they turn people into terrorists because any form of direct opposition to their operations - regardless of how reasonable the individual is being - and anyone who dares expose such activities are automatically added to the "naughty list". It's become a self fulfilling prophecy because they're now classifying innocent people as terrorists just to hide the fact that their operations have spun out of control.
Sports are seldom played with any kind of secrecy - the only exception being games likes Chess or Poker and even in those cases, everyone is on a level playing field with access to the same information, it's only the individual players strategy and their bluffs that's kept secret.
Maybe you are not familiar with American football; replace "players" with "coaches" and that's exactly how it works.
> The government isn't crazy like Deputy Minister Helpmann in Brazil.
Who said Helpmann was crazy? He's perfectly sane and rational, from his frame of reference. So are our governments. The issue arises when the subjective reality in which ones leaders reside and the subjective reality in which you reside are radically disconnected, which makes decisions and actions made by either side seem irrational and scary.
I'd argue that governmental secrecy is bad, in all its forms, as it always ends up being abused, from the perspective of the cit. I understand your point, but it's demonstrably the case that secrecy begets secrecy, which begets corruption.
I stand by my parallel of Brazil, for we do not exist under a brutal, evil, autocratic government, nor under a consciously designed society intended to be "better", but instead under a self-sustaining zombie bureaucracy that no longer connects to the world it governs, and in fact is attempting to reshape the subjective reality of others to suit its own ends - which are, in fact, none, other than perpetuation of the status quo and hegemonic systemisation of anything which conceivably can be - which was the crux of Brazil.
What I admire about Edward Snowden was that he leaked documents that revealed secrets that are important for the public to know. But most importantly, his leaks did not contain secrets about the whereabouts of American personnel. No one was put in immediate danger because of his leaks. And Mr Snowden has stated himself that was his intent; he had come across documents that revealed a far reaching system that he simply could not justify not revealing.
However, while Mr Snowden's conduct was admirable, there will be some people out there interested in state secrets, with the intent of malice. With the intent of doing harm to the government, the state, people working for the government/state or the people of that state.
I agree that secrecy is bad, but I feel we must at least have some secrecy, but clear and public requirements for when something can become (or remain) secret.
Sweden has a relevant law to define a public requirement for when someone can become liable for publishing secrets¹. It demands evidence that shows that the information was correctly classified, and that some damage actually happened from the publishing. Simply having a seal on the document is not enough.
The precedent case for this law happened during the cold war, and was about a newspaper that published a counter-espionage report (Case: NJA 1988 s. 118²).
The military argued that the national safety was damaged by the publishing, but would not give any details because of the nature of doing national security work.
The court made two tests to decide the case. Did the information deserve to be classified under secrecy, and was the damages reported by the military believable. On the first, they said it was doubtful, and on the second they said a straight no. Case dismissed.
To me it sounds as very clear and public requirement, which would work fine in both Snowden's and Manning's cases.
1) Please note that this is only about publishing secrets. Breaking a contract or an oath can and is likely to be punished under different laws.
Was the law used in the 1988 ruling? Or was the law created following that ruling? I assume it is the former, as Sweden is a Civil Law countries and judgements don't make something enforceable.
But regardless, that is a decent enough requirement system. The military refusing to present evidence in the case also hurt their argument, which is how it should be.
Funny that you should say that. I read HN every day and I don't know what's in the documents that Snowden leaked. Granted, I usually only skim these types of posts trying to glean any insightful comments.
Anyway, the point is that if I don't know what Snowden leaked, I bet most people don't know either.
I think the easy opt out here then is to say that governments shouldn't be secret, but the military can. But then you get to the strange point, as to whether the government can trust the military.
That's not a strange point. That's the way it should be. The military represent the people. The government represent the people. The police/law enforcement agencies represent the state-sanctioned violence of the government's legislative branch. Note that this does not mean that the military represent the government. This has come to be the case in many western democracies, but has not always been the case.
Military coups are the outcome of a disconnect. Whether that disconnect lies between the people and the government, or the government and the military, varies.
But fundamentally, no, the government should not trust the military, nor the military the government, as the two should be at odds, for otherwise the military have no distinction from the police - and the police no distinction from the military - and then you find yourselves in a scary place indeed.
