the future history of dissidence

the new dynamics of an asymmetric warring mechanism

denis sener, draft – 3rd february 2011

current landscape
for some time, we have been in a transition period, where conventional balances of
various power struggles get crushed one after another as a result of the new
communications technologies, superstructures and emerging attitudes; as, somehow, the
heavy hand of the distinctly more powerful side does not necessarily mean a surefire
victory over the lesser opponent, we get used more and more to the new concept of
asymmetry; and, consequently, it seems as if the battle fields is becoming increasingly
leveled, and ever so, but not depending on the size and resources of the players; lately,
this can be also observed in case of operational communications, information gathering,
surveillence, tracking, processing, dissemination of information/disinformation, social
engineering, propoganda machination, and other similar activities...

yes, the “center” transforms, too; but with a caveat!

even if the power mechanisms themselves catch up with the realities of the day as
imposed by the new technological milieu, and are forced, for example, to become more
decentralized and distributed, they still take all the necessary measures -although the
latest events proved that they were lagging far behind in that respect- to process
information and govern centrally: any nervous system is, by definition, central (q.e.d.)

a half-hearted conformism
unfortunately, even representative, deliberative or direct democracy mechanisms usually
end up in overt or thinly veiled autocracies, or at best, operate, in the name pragmatism or
realpolitik, sub rosa, dodging the accepted standards of governing; individuals are left,
then, even if healf-heartedly or disapprovingly, with little alternatives other than yielding
to all kinds of manifestations of autocratic power wielding, as there is no reason to believe
that these ancient and delicate power focii would give up their privileges in the new era
depicted above...

dissidence
probably since the dawn of mankind, the individual vis a vis the "authorities" has,
however, to its disposal a very powerful, and by nature, an asymmetrical tool to fight
back: dissidence! impromptu or organized, of whatsoever kind... dissidence is our vital
source to create, that is, to patch up new "realities" and transcend beyond the "given"; and
this creativity comes usually in the shadows of conflicts, tensions, cracks, disapprovals,
inconsistencies, disharmonies, pains, derailments, implosions, you name it... hence
Minerva's owl begins its flight only in the gathering dusk (die Eule der Minerva beginnt
erst mit der einbrechenden Dämmerung ihren Flug)

anatomy of dissidence
two simple points suffice to dissect the concept of dissidence... first, the right to act
dissidently, rebelly, iconoclastically, unorthodoxly is based on the right of the freedom of
expression (article 19, the universal declaration of human rights); albeit, physically an
extremely tiny, limited space, the hyde park is an omnipresent megasymbol of freedom of
expresion: its blogosphere counterpart, the cyber park must be established with the same
resolution and vigor... and, second, dissidence results in creativity (Minerva's owl, "out of
the box" thinking, etc.); the diagonally opposite concept, the status quo, is, on the other
hand, have minimal utility, if ever...

changes
 "authorities" change... governance/accountability/transparency,
globalization/interconnection, decentralization, massive/real time information
processing capabilities, massive/real time surveillance (total surveillance space -
total CCTV space: ALL streets, facilities, buildings, elevators, etc.), objectification
(e-government: no need for human intermediaries during transactions),
mechanization (call centers > no human "managers" available)
 "individuals" change... extended existence in the cyberspace (accounts/passwords,
exposure, socializing, massive/real time information access,
communities/connectivity, flash mob formation, mobility)
 "platforms" change... conventional media gives way to Internet media, citizen
journalism, real time dissemination, mobility, convergence, cloud computing (i.
centralization tendency, ii. complexity -of maintenance of technology based,
interconnected but still insular microworlds- is too difficult to overcome)
the new players (in the dissidence game)
toward the "new" turn of the century, because of, especially, the Internet and the potential
for decentralization it has been hatching all the way during its deployment, two
unexpected and unsolicited
new players emerged: the anonymous, and self-proclaimed leaker (the little brother
watching back the Big Brother); that is, the person who, somewhat more equipped than
the whistleblowing role model of the past, turns around, asymmetrically, the intelligence
and surveillance mechanisms against the authorities, and makes use of the same
dissemination platforms -which are used by the Big Brother- for purposes of some
deliberate dissidence... the other player is the lurker: usually, a community platform (of
the scientists/technologists -technorati) on the Net, again self-proclaimed, for promoting
and facilitating leakers to do their job, in a safe and secure environment; the lurker
depends on dusk computing (distinct from malware or dark computing) which comprises
various technologies and communities such as chaosboxes, Tor, Freeeet,Telecomix,
WeRebuild.eu, (the latter two are "a group of agents as a method to interact with the
European Union and to direct the union towards a more open society") etc; hence, today,
Joseph Turner has a a more effective toolbox for his disclosures... but the ultimate player -
and the star of the show- is the transformed public (flash)power! thanks to memetics, it
can emerge spontanously, and seemingly out of blue, for a cause, becomes visible, makes
an impact, and vanishes back into the "dusk" from which it extracted its life energy and
was invigorated into existence...

the hypothesis: there will be no clear winner, ever

however, there will be never a clear winner in this tug-of-war between dissidence and
surveillence parties: basically, it is just another escalation game...

compromises? is this really possible?

one thing is indisputable: authorities’ need and appetite for more surveillence “in the
name of public good” is clearly a stifling threat for the individual... however, another
development, i.e. the asymmetrical power gained by the individual on the -seemeingly-
leveled battlefield will be, probablly, not welcome by the authorities; the only solution to
this problem is, then, to make a compromise and accept a “mutually coordinated
supervision” of the stifling and tolerating mechanisms, subject, of course, unavoidably, to
applicable jurisdiction...
the inevitable future landscape
 ultimately, technologically everything will be a single system (total convergence)
(even if balkanized at national levels)
 it seems, as stated above, this single system cannot be allowed, as a matter of fact,
to exist outside the national/international "jurisdiction"
 on the other hand, the extreme, and fine structured monitoring capabilities are too
dangerous to be left to the authorities
 the only solution is shared governance of the monitoring process
(monimonitoring)
 and additionally, an allowance must be made for incognito activities (traditional
mechanisms allow them, too: e.g. secrecy of the votes, secret ballot, etc.)
 probably, however, this central/altercentral effort ( altermonitoring: futuristic
watchdogging) and the tolerated incognito activities will be not the only game in
town
 it will be exremely difficult to stop individuals/”communities” to operate in the
dusk (incognito)
 dusk computing (and black computing, i.e. people abusing the “system” for their
own interests) will always exist

neologies
monimonitoring, leaker, lurker, technorati, dusk computing (dissidence computing), in the
dusk, cyber park