The Breaking Time

Transparency is an ammo dump

Which means you actually have to load and fire the damn things. And hit.

Oh my, but this has been a huge topic lately, hasn't it? With the massive Wikileaks dump of documents relating to the Afghanistan war earlier this week, the issues come up, with various observers saying that this changes everything, that this really changes everything and that this changes nothing. Of course, in the midst of all this, a favorite topic has re-emerged: transparency.

One of the best summations, Wikileaks: No Substitute for Transparency, was written by Quinn Norton shortly after the leak broke. It summed up the ongoing debate well, and linked to a number of articles that have wondered if transparency is all it's cracked up to be. She gets to the heart of the matter fairly well, I think: 

My least favorite argument about transparency is that it breeds complacency. This is an argument from a position of tremendous privilege that comes from forgetting why we fight corruption in the first place. It is always the case that corruption costs; right now it is taking a terrible price on a real and growing segment of the population which the corrupt entity is meant to serve. You can only forget the proximate hurt if you’re someone in a position to forget it, someone with money, health insurance, the right travel options. Someone with good schools, and probably, it’s easiest to forget the day to day cost of corruption in America as someone with white skin. Without transparency threatened populations have to take up common myths about why they are in the situation they are in. In short, they blame themselves. Not only are they the victims of corruption, but when it’s not discussed, they’re the victims of believing they’ve brought the situation on themselves. If you want a complacent population, ruining their lives and then getting them to believe they did it themselves is a pretty good way to start.

That's (mostly) it, at least about the consequences of not being transparent. The problem with corruption is that it means someone's getting screwed and something isn't working the way it's supposed to. In the long run it eats away at the heart of government: legitimacy. People being what they are, though, many won't go the victim route and will begin turning to other methods to get things accomplished, be it the black market, vigilantism or, eventually, outright revolt.

Transparency, sometimes, can act as a check on that, because it essentially serves as the body politic's ammo dump, with all those revealing bits of secrets and information the individual bullets. Together, as Norton writes, all that forms a mindset.

If it's used. 

The Rundown: March of the Skeleton Army

The Skeleton Army fights the Salvation Army in the streets, 1884

I'm leaving later today for the West Coast, for Foo Camp. In the meantime, blogging will be light. Keep the homefires burning, y'all, and enjoy this assemblage of interesting links.

* The Skeleton Army Resisting the Salvation Army's attempts to shut down drinking dens in the 1880s, groups of ruffians banded together in a surprisingly organized fashion, calling themselves the Skeleton Army and fighting the pious Salvationists in the street in unrepentant defense of their vices.

They adopted macabre imagery like the Skull and Crossbones (obviously), along with the slogans "Blood and Thunder" and "Beef, beer and Bacca." This was all quite real, and another reminder that history is freaking awesome.

* 5 Reasons You Should Be Scare of Google Yes, it's a Cracked article, but one that makes some surprisingly good points. Some interesting info about exactly how far Google's reach extends, and how badly it's handled collisions with political and privacy issues. A reminder that putting your faith in companies as anything other than carefully watched tools is a bad idea.

* Judge throws out $1 billion copyright suit against YouTube/Google To give the media giant their due, however, Google's on the right side of this suit, protecting the vitally important "Safe Harbor" provision from Viacom. Good to see a legal ruling that actually goes media freedom's way.

* Monopolies, Gov 2.0 and Community The long knives come out in a fight over conferences and tech companies. Worth reading and some legit points about entrusting too much future government program development to large companies with a spotty track record. This is one of the reasons I keep calling for Gov 2.0 efforts to expand past the tech business-government agency sphere.

Another reason is that, were there a broader coalition, some enterprising activists would take this moment to say "Cut this squabbling shit out, we got work to do."

* In jail for being in debt Hellishly horrifying. Not only do large parts of the corporate classes act as if they're an aristocracy, but debtor's prisons (yes, you read that right) are making a comeback. Yes, this is quite illegal, but creditors have been slowly shoving back at debtors' protections, and this is the latest example of overreach. This sort of shit needs to be stopped now, before lettres de cachet and Dukedoms make a comeback as well.

* Coercive Games Some interesting ideas from John Robb on shifting non-violent political action away from the moribund protest cultures to actively ruining the peace of mind of officials from a larger organization who, right now, aren't being held responsible. Certainly, with the current lack of accountability, I don't think many would shed any tears if BP executives or corrupt officials started losing sleep and had their lives made hell. Fear is part of politics and movements that don't instill some measure of it into their opponents don't get very far.

At the same time, it's easy to see these tactics of individual intimidation having some pretty devastating impacts on the social fabric if widely enough applied. Food for thought.

* Saving newspapers, one dead blogger at a time Via Coilhouse comes this hilarious trailer for a fictitious Citizen Kane remake that manages to also serve as a sharp satire of both "print is dying!" hysteria and over-the-top action movie cliches. I lost my shit at the AP Stylebook line.

Platform Diving

Gov 2.0's favorite metaphor, delivered in grand style

Above is a speech by Tim O'Reilly from the recent Gov 2.0 expo (which, being thoroughly tied up with journalism work and low on cash, I could not attend). It is the best elaboration on the "government as platform" idea I've yet heard and considering I'm fairly skeptical about that particular meme, that's something.

So, why do I like this particular presentation, and why does the idea matter?

* Specific historical examples Any reader of this blog knows, I love history in all the wrong ways. One of my complaints about Gov 2.0 from the start has been the seeming ignorance of similar attempts to reform government throughout history. I believe Gov 2.0 has a lot to learn from the pitfalls (and triumphs) of the Progressive Movement of the early 20th Century and the Best and Brightest of the 1960s. Finally, this speech views Gov 2.0 in the context of similar governmental initiatives (Marshall Plan, Interstate System, Public Education) and thus as something a little less idealistic but perhaps more concretely achievable.

* Call to get some shit done More specific than before. I always thought one of the reasons Gov 2.0 seemed too amicable was the fact that many of its ideas for societal improvement weren't being thought through to their obvious ends. Finally, the fact that conflict is a necessary part of these initiatives is being acknowledged, and I'll admit that, on the idealistic front, the dreamer in me does like O'Reilly's call to try to achieve "greatness." As much as I usually try to err on the side of pragmatism, there are some big nasty problems facing the world now, and it's going to take some pretty grand solutions to start fixing them.

So, where should things go from here, and what still remains unaddressed?

Surprise: big tech acts like big business

The porn-freer, back in the day

Let's have a quick review, shall we? There's increased rage over Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's cavalier attitude towards privacy, and it turns out that back in his younger days he was calling people dumb fucks for trusting their info to him (I'm not jumping FB, but Adriel Hampton has an interesting post on why he is). Meanwhile, Steve Jobs wants to rid the world of porn. This comes after a legally shady and brutal raid fell upon a tech blogger who got ahold of an iPhone prototype.

That's not all, of course. Google's setting their own goddamn foreign policy, while Microsoft doesn't pay its taxes and cracks down on whistleblowers.

Why does this all sound so terribly familiar?

Because from years "don't be evil" and "think different" tech companies, and the subcultures attached to their products, have pushed the idea that they were somehow a new and superior mutation. Here was the fusion of idealism and capitalism: they were going to build a better world while making piles of money at the same time. This pitch is not new: innovative industry always believes that it is somehow fundamentally different from its predecessors. Hence technologists who work for massive companies can tweet on about stopping "big business" from the latest outrage. They mean, of course, other big businesses, outside their sector.

So forget that old Apple ad. Tech companies are companies: their primary purpose is and always will be to make money and expand their own power. Often, like any company, they're not too picky about using harsh methods to do so or keeping their word. Trust and mercy aren't their primary purpose. 

Further, it turns out tech companies are just as driven by their founders' egos and prejudices as they are by their personal ideals.

Traditionally, that's exactly why laws are developed to govern business and set the rules of the fight; to keep it from getting too out of hand.

One of my main gripes with the current course of Gov 2.0 and any number of other technologist projects is a blindness to this simple fact. The reason I believe technology (and those who make it) are best incorporated as part of a broader movement is because of the nature of the beast. It's not like the tools these companies create don't have a use, but depending on their altruism is foolish.

Something similar to what Jobs, Zuckerberg and the rest are doing was inevitable. Instead of shock, the reaction should be an effort to restrain the flaws of big businesses that are, at the end of the day, still big business.

The Rundown: Avatars in the late, late night

Photo by Robbie Cooper

It's past one in the morning and my sleep schedule is shot all to hell, both from a nasty head cold and the medicines I'm using to fight it. And I've seen so many interesting things, readers, that it's high time I shared some of them with you. Thank insomnia.

* Behind the Avatars A fascinating photo series from Robbie Cooper that puts people's images side by side with the virtual avatar they've created. In a more fractured cultural landscape, we increasingly individualize our identities, with countless cultures and fantasias to draw from. To top it all off, there's now virtual worlds to roam around in where we can create new visual identities with a few clicks.

Like the best photography, Cooper's series speaks volumes. In lesser hands this could've ended up with simple exploitative gawking ("Wow, look at who chose to have a hot chick as their avatar hur hur"), instead it's surprisingly poignant and doubly interesting for how many avatars do resemble their offline bodies.

* Children by the Millions Wait for Alex Chilton Speaking of brilliant poignance, Joshua Ellis' superb essay from Coilhouse 04 has now made its way to the online edition. It starts with a personal story and makes its way to the mutated state of our current cultures.

Ellis' time predated (and was radically different from) mine, but like all the best stories it resonates no matter where you are. This is a piece still has me thinking about its points large and small, long after I first read it. Only the best essays do that.

* Keats in Space Molly Young's interesting call for a re-fusion of poetry and science, harkening back to the days when Milton's poetry graced astronomy books. I don't think Art and Science can merge as comfortably as some might believe, but this is an excellent reminder that both mentalities can learn from — and need — each other greatly.

* The State of the Internet Operating System Tim O'Reilly (poetically, at some points) breaks down exactly how the fuck the internet does what it does and how quickly that's changing. For those of us to whom the nuts and bolts of technology don't come that naturally, this is an excellent primer on how infrastructure matters — and why we should pay attention to what form tomorrow's may take.

* Stealing Krakatoa If anything that better sums up, in the most batshit supervillain way "Well fuck, the future's here" than Indonesian black marketeers hauling away the most famous volcano on the planet, I can't think of it.

* Lawmakers announce bipartisan transparency caucus Interesting, and while I'll have to see where it goes, worth applauding. I hope this marks the point where some of the Gov 2.0 ideas begin transitioning into the larger political realm. The air can get a little rarefied up there.

Just in case you're wondering, here's all the bastards on Twitter.

* Iceland bans stripping, adult entertainment, declared female-friendly haven Ah, Neo-Puritanism ain't dead yet. A disturbing story on a number of levels, not least because the reaction of some media is to take the idea that women need to be sheltered from witnessing or participating in certain acts as empowering, instead of disturbing paternalism Bullshit, of course, and Salon's writers justly call them on it.

* Captain Planet is not as cool as a jetski Just think about it for awhile. He's really not.

The Rundown: Long Overdue edition

My, it has been a bit, hasn't it? Plenty of interesting items out there lately. Let's let loose a horde, shall we?

* Lost Exile An excellent Vanity Fair article on the rise and fall of The Exile, Russia's ballsiest and most asinine paper, which also launched Matt Taibbi's journalistic career. A fascinating reveal of a particularly anarchic time in recent Russian history. As Taibbi's gone onto bigger things, it's also an enlightening glimpse into what's right, and vastly wrong, about his "FUCK YOU!" style of journalism.

* Scrapheap Transhumanism In which the author cuts himself open with a scalpel and inserts an RFID chip. The first successful Grind? You be the judge.

* How a new jobless era will transform America Don Peck wraps economic upheaval, the Great Depression, sociological trauma and the perils of helicopter parents up in one neat package in this tour de force Atlantic article. Read it. You might need a drink afterwards.

At the same time, consider that a generation desperately searching for a purpose might be awesome if it can chuck a bullshit sense of entitlement and that a better awareness of how the vicissitudes of class drive many political battles might be sorely needed.

* The mystery of Zomia Does the vast land stretching from Vietnam through Tibet offer a radically different lesson in societal organization? Or are some academics slathering their own theories on top of vastly different societies? Either way, this article touches on some interesting debates about exactly what civilization is, and how desirable we find it.

(thanks to m1k3y for this one)

* Search the world's government data Courtesy of the wonderful people over at The Guardian. A great resource, right at your fingertips.

* The New Caveman lifestyle The New York Times finds Gotham crawling with people embracing the new caveman lifestyle, trying to eat and exercise in a fashion closer to our distant ancestors (raw meat and lots of jumping).

I'm always interested to see how experiments play out, and I'd be interested in the results of such a change, as well as more research on the cultural factors fueling it. At the same time, these modern primitives are working in fields like online advertising and live in one of the largest cities on the planet, so I have to ask: does just a diet and exercise routine define a lifestyle?

If only there were a blast-from-the-past lifestyle more up my alley. But what would such a thing look like?

* Machiavelli 2.0 Fuck yeah! That's what I'm talking about! I want to go to that conference (with my own food taster, a bulletproof vest and a good knife). Joking aside, that article in the Harvard International Review has some interesting things to say about applying good 'ol fashioned manipulation to a modern, "networked" society. In casting Machiavelli as a prophet of the modern state, it misses many of the deeper lessons about power that he observed (there's a reason 'ol Niccolo used ancient examples), but it's worth a read.

* Ask me anything Still answering questions, and loving it. Guilt, individualism, transhumanism, blogging and more. Keep 'em coming.

Thanks for your patience over the last week, readers. While it was unfortunate that work and life put me out of the blogging realm for a bit, I returned to find all sorts of interesting suggestions, links and more. So thanks, y'all are awesome.

Government 2.0 meets the wall

Now; do they smash it, climb it or just stare at the damn thing?

I have been relatively silent, in this space, on Government 2.0 over the past few months. Not because there haven't been some important things going on, but because I came back from the September summit with a lot to think on. I also wanted to see how time and the messy business of implementing those ideas would change the discussion. Lastly, I wanted to see what lessons the ongoing national political battles might offer on the obstacles facing broader reforms.

The Gov 2.0 event in Los Angeles wrapped last month. In its wake there have come the usual statements about the importance of "dialogue" and "the people." However, some interesting debates have also emerged, specifically around the role of the public in all this.

Andrea DiMaio has observed, in an excellent post, that the debates may signal Gov 2.0's descent into the "trough of disillusionment" possibly located next to the hangover of regret or the glass of water and two Ibuprofen of recovery. While I think Mark Drapeau was making a more narrow point (jargon's going to happen and might not always be a bad thing), the title, along with some of the pithier passages certainly hit a nerve, and it's provoked a larger discussion.

Many Gov 2.0 advocates, at least as I saw it, did see transparency as a holy grail capable of amazing restorative powers. With the reactions to Drapeau's question and the underwhelming response to the government's first data surge, and the suggestion that maybe the American people are just short on ideas. That illusion seems to be breaking. Improving government, as I've said here before, requires not just greater transparency but accessible political power for people — especially those who aren't affluent or well-connected — to make use of all that shiny information and for politicians to care about it.

So, with due respect to DiMaio, I don't see this as a trough. It's a wall. A big, old, hole-riddled, yet seemingly insurmountable wall. The question, then, is what's created this wall, and what to do about it.

True to the corporate backgrounds of many Gov 2.0 advocates, there are now suggestions that a PR campaign or a slick logo may do the trick. 

No. What Gov 2.0 needs is not more marketing. To overcome the wall, it needs to take a page from politics. It needs a base. Now.

States. Who needs 'em?

Neil Freeman's reformed map of the United States. Larger version here

Above is a brilliant cartographical thought experiment by artist and urban planner Neil Freeman. Responding to the wonky electoral college and the fact that sparsely populated regions have a disproportionate political power, while highly prosperous urban areas wield relatively little, he redrew the state boundaries along population and geographical boundaries. Each has (as of the 2000 census figures) roughly 5.6 million people.

It's particularly fascinating because it offers a snapshot of how an industrial society has changed and how some of the most important administrative divisions (states here or in Australia, provinces in Canada, etc.) fail to reflect that.  

This would seem to be a trivial difference, but it's not. Witness how New York, a city with the GDP and population of a small country, feels stifled by the legislature in Albany. Witness how different the needs and views of the many different parts of California are (would LA or SF Bay states have a Prop 8?). I've heard more than one urban Canadian grouse about how much power remains in the hands of clueless provincial governments.

State governments were drawn up in the days when slower technology made quick administration over a nation difficult, and thus a middle layer of government was more essential. Today, the boundaries are essentially arbitrary, and state governments complicate a whole range of policies on important issues such as transportation and the environment. Even many smart people still (mistakenly) peg cultural qualities to certain states, whether dividing them into Red or Blue or swearing to boycott/move away from a particular one when the electorate votes the wrong way.

Freeman's map shows a country organized closer to how it actually functions: large rural swaths, clusters of medium-sized cities and a few super-dense city-states.

It's often said that the future is local. To some extent I think this is true: there's certainly a need for active, powerful local government along with a more self-sufficient economy. I also think that a grander-scale government entity is absolutely necessary to have a hope of tackling more massive problems. However, to fulfill that, a far larger structure than the traditional state/province is needed.

The larger question then, is where the state, history's political middle-man, fits in the future. Does it have one at all?

P.S. - Freeman's map also abolishes South Carolina. The official Breaking Time stance on this is Yes.

Gov 2.0 Finale: Lessons' shadows

It's now just over a week since Gov 2.0 wrapped. This piece has been delayed, first by travel, then by some nasty illness and the work load that awaited me upon my return. My apologies for the gap, dear readers. Here are my final reflections and thoughts.

Photo by Alex Dunne

"How can we be a nation of laws if the law is behind a cash register?"

On Thursday morning I rose out of my seat, applauding loudly, shortly after those words were spoken. Then I stand, along with the entire Gov 2.0 crowd. There are shouts and cheers. One of them, at least, was mine.

Open government pioneer Carl Malamud had just sounded a clarion call, which is a term I don't use lightly. In a surprisingly low-key tone, he had delivered a short speech that drew on the history of America's democracy (the better parts, at least) channeled to a concrete goal: tearing down the wall that limits full access to the law to the legal profession and universities.

Here was what I had hoped to see from the conference: grand ideals translated into practical action in an area that often gets ignored. An area where the use of modern technology could prove a great boon.

That our elected leaders —good, bad or ugly— come extensively from the legal class is an oft-overlooked fact that affects our current perspective on government in many ways. Oddly for this era, many legal cases and opinions are still behind a wall, confined to expensive services. Breaking this information out would be huge. 

As Malamud wrapped up, I could see the good that could be done with millions of minds picking over the sudden flood of revealed laws: exposing loopholes, making them easily searchable and looking for ways to topple outdated precedents. The exclusive legal priesthood would quiver with rage, but fuck 'em.

The law is for all? Maybe not quite yet, but it would be a good start.

Malamud's talk was one of the high points of the conference. The Gov 2.0 summit was exhilarating: there were good ideas and plenty, usually delivered rapid-fire by very bright people doing their damndest to bring a shining future into being. I can be cynical. I can cut. I do both because I believe that experience must direct the fire of ideas for them to have any meaning. But there was something in the air.

There was also enough naivete and hubris to fill an oil tanker. There's much that can be done here; and many, many obstacles in the way.

Back

My apologies for the unexpectedly long absence, everyone. I ended up drawn into battle with some nasty illness, Visigoths and the Newark Airport. Regular posting, including a wrap-up of the Gov 2.0 conference, will resume shortly.

Thanks for your patience,

David Forbes

P.S.- In the meantime, did you know about the Benny Hillifizer? You should. It allows you, the people, to add Yakety Sax to anything. Truly we live in a wondrous and amazing world.