The Use of Computers to Support Oppression(www-cs-students.stanford.edu)
www-cs-students.stanford.edu
The Use of Computers to Support Oppression
http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.comp.html
8 comments
The problem here is the oppression, not the computers. An "Access Control System" is a banal piece of software that decides who to let in and who to keep out. Hotels, banks, golf clubs ... and oppressive regimes, they all use one.
You could also write an article on "The Use of Clothing to Support Oppression", and again, the problem is not with the clothes.
You could also write an article on "The Use of Clothing to Support Oppression", and again, the problem is not with the clothes.
That's too blase for my taste.
Technologies are transformative: they create the opportunities for agents to commit entirely new kinds of actions, good and bad. You can't decouple their existence from the new things that result from them (from Nazi death camps to apartheid to the contemporary Panopticon State), any more than you can try to decouple, say, totalitarian political systems from the oppression they entail.
This doesn't mean that we should smash all our technology and all return to the farm. It just means we've got to think critically and pro-actively about how to make sure technology is used for good.
Technologies are transformative: they create the opportunities for agents to commit entirely new kinds of actions, good and bad. You can't decouple their existence from the new things that result from them (from Nazi death camps to apartheid to the contemporary Panopticon State), any more than you can try to decouple, say, totalitarian political systems from the oppression they entail.
This doesn't mean that we should smash all our technology and all return to the farm. It just means we've got to think critically and pro-actively about how to make sure technology is used for good.
I have to disagree here.
Technology itself clearly is not something that you can "make sure..is used for good". The problem is not with any one piece of technology (eg. the computer) or technology as the sum of all individual technologies. I see the root of the problem being technologizing. Oppression is more oppressive because we've technologized it. Totalitarian governments are more controlling because they've technologized control. The essence of technology is control. The plow let farmers control where and what things grew in an area of land. The hydroelectric dam controls the flow of an entire river to generate electricity. Your cellphone lets you control personal and professional interactions. Control and technology are deeply connected. That is why technology is both dangerous and beneficial. Technologies are not transformative they are indicative of trends in the larger field of control/power.
Technology itself clearly is not something that you can "make sure..is used for good". The problem is not with any one piece of technology (eg. the computer) or technology as the sum of all individual technologies. I see the root of the problem being technologizing. Oppression is more oppressive because we've technologized it. Totalitarian governments are more controlling because they've technologized control. The essence of technology is control. The plow let farmers control where and what things grew in an area of land. The hydroelectric dam controls the flow of an entire river to generate electricity. Your cellphone lets you control personal and professional interactions. Control and technology are deeply connected. That is why technology is both dangerous and beneficial. Technologies are not transformative they are indicative of trends in the larger field of control/power.
I'm not sure we disagree.
I'd phrase my core logic as this. Historically, most really big things, great or terrible, have been done by centralized states. Central to state-building, though, is the concept of legibility: making information about the world understandable to the State and making it so that the State can efficiently use and act on that information to enact its will on the world. And technology--particularly telecommunications, including spoken language, counting, writing, roads, the printing press, arithmetic, ship building, radio, all the way up to computer programming--is all about legibility. Every advance in technology extends the State's power, and that continues today.
That's why Lenin could hop on a train in 1917 and drop straight into absolutist Russia without anyone in charge noticing. Then in the 1980s the apartheid government had the ability to effectively track the movements and contacts of dissidents and activists. And today the US federal government can call up a couple contacts and know everything about you, from how many times a week you get a coffee from the store at the corner to what you were thinking and searching for online on January 4, 2010, after lunch.
I'd agree that it was unrealistic for me to say we can direct how technology will end up being used. It's obviously true that you can't really direct it, nor can you really avoid it by ignoring it and hoping it goes away. What's now important for being proactive is building technology that will make human actions less legible and less subject to control by external forces.
I'd phrase my core logic as this. Historically, most really big things, great or terrible, have been done by centralized states. Central to state-building, though, is the concept of legibility: making information about the world understandable to the State and making it so that the State can efficiently use and act on that information to enact its will on the world. And technology--particularly telecommunications, including spoken language, counting, writing, roads, the printing press, arithmetic, ship building, radio, all the way up to computer programming--is all about legibility. Every advance in technology extends the State's power, and that continues today.
That's why Lenin could hop on a train in 1917 and drop straight into absolutist Russia without anyone in charge noticing. Then in the 1980s the apartheid government had the ability to effectively track the movements and contacts of dissidents and activists. And today the US federal government can call up a couple contacts and know everything about you, from how many times a week you get a coffee from the store at the corner to what you were thinking and searching for online on January 4, 2010, after lunch.
I'd agree that it was unrealistic for me to say we can direct how technology will end up being used. It's obviously true that you can't really direct it, nor can you really avoid it by ignoring it and hoping it goes away. What's now important for being proactive is building technology that will make human actions less legible and less subject to control by external forces.
> Technology itself clearly is not something that you can "make sure..is used for good".
Why not? There is not one infallible way to ensure a technology is used for good and you never know in advance but it is not a reason to stop trying. I'd say for example that open formats and protocols are more likely to generate less evil than their counterparts.
Why not? There is not one infallible way to ensure a technology is used for good and you never know in advance but it is not a reason to stop trying. I'd say for example that open formats and protocols are more likely to generate less evil than their counterparts.
How do you place yourself in regards of military nuclear technology, then?
I'm not going to get into the technoppression debate, but I will say that the use of computers under Apartheid is quite similar to Immigration and Customs Enforcement program known as "secure communities".
Secure communities is a data sharing initiative between ICE, the FBI and several other agencies. Participating police districts now automatically pass on the citizenship status of detainees to ICE. Under President Obama, secure communities has deported more "dangerous illegals" than any other administration.
Talking with a friend who works at the county jail, this is the same protocol that was previously done by a human being, only made much more efficient by the data sharing initiative. Instead of having an officer look through a list of names for dangerous criminals, the system picks up people with really minor offenses.
To date my state of Washington has deported more people for having an expired fishing license than for murder. Secure communities has certainly upped the ante in terms of who is deported when pulled over by a police officer.
Secure communities is a data sharing initiative between ICE, the FBI and several other agencies. Participating police districts now automatically pass on the citizenship status of detainees to ICE. Under President Obama, secure communities has deported more "dangerous illegals" than any other administration.
Talking with a friend who works at the county jail, this is the same protocol that was previously done by a human being, only made much more efficient by the data sharing initiative. Instead of having an officer look through a list of names for dangerous criminals, the system picks up people with really minor offenses.
To date my state of Washington has deported more people for having an expired fishing license than for murder. Secure communities has certainly upped the ante in terms of who is deported when pulled over by a police officer.
Is there any scope in our developed economy for inventors to maintain influence over who it is that gains from their creativity? Or is that hope completely lost?
Not really, but inventors can educate the public on the risks their inventions create.
I'd already heard about IBM supplying the Nazis, but not South Africa. Interesting to know..
If anyone else is interested,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
At the same time Southern Africa was fighting a proxy war between the West and USSR. It was pretty hard to dismantle apartheid but be sure Russia didn't end up with a South African client. After the cold war ended the decision became much easier.
[deleted]
I vaguely recall computerized lists were used during the Rwanda massacres as well, but can't find any citation.
I hate how you americans kicked South Africa for the same things they stopped to do, like, just fifteen years earlier.
That's like punching other people instead of saying "sorry, I did bad things". Bonus thing, you ruin a country in process.
That's like punching other people instead of saying "sorry, I did bad things". Bonus thing, you ruin a country in process.
The initial leaders of the disinvestment-from-South-Africa campaign were some of the same people who were involved in the American Civil Rights Movement (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Sullivan), so it seems pretty consistent to me. They opposed white segregationists in the U.S. first, then once they'd won significant victories there, took the fight to white segregationists elsewhere.
The US establishment was definitely not on board with that until years later. When the disinvestment campaigns were launched in the mid-1970s, and sanctions efforts had some initial success in the UN General Assembly, the US and UK opposed any Security Council involvement (i.e. anything with teeth).
It was only in 1986, following a significant escalation in violence and repression in South Africa, that the anti-apartheid activists in the US Congress (led by another Civil Rights Movement veteran, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Dellums) finally got a bill passed--- and Ronald Reagan vetoed that bill. It was eventually passed again over his veto.
The US establishment was definitely not on board with that until years later. When the disinvestment campaigns were launched in the mid-1970s, and sanctions efforts had some initial success in the UN General Assembly, the US and UK opposed any Security Council involvement (i.e. anything with teeth).
It was only in 1986, following a significant escalation in violence and repression in South Africa, that the anti-apartheid activists in the US Congress (led by another Civil Rights Movement veteran, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Dellums) finally got a bill passed--- and Ronald Reagan vetoed that bill. It was eventually passed again over his veto.
Still I don't understand why South Africa.
Most of world's countries are in sad state, especially africa. South Africa was unique because it was both successful and messed up at the same time. It could go either up and down. I have the feeling they went down: more messed up than successful today. I don't exactly know what happens there, tho.
The question is: why "nuke" (economically and politically) this particular country and not any other?
Most of world's countries are in sad state, especially africa. South Africa was unique because it was both successful and messed up at the same time. It could go either up and down. I have the feeling they went down: more messed up than successful today. I don't exactly know what happens there, tho.
The question is: why "nuke" (economically and politically) this particular country and not any other?
Because their ruling class was a brutish sibling to the Anglosphere's, and we were giving them massive amounts of economic and military support to dominate and terrorize 90% of their country's population in what was effectively a set of really large concentration camps?
Well, just stop doing that without going bully on them?
You made it bad by supporting them and then made it even worse by cutting support really fast and isolating them.
It's amazing how you got the worst outcome possible. Glad they more or less survived it anyway. It could me much worse.
You made it bad by supporting them and then made it even worse by cutting support really fast and isolating them.
It's amazing how you got the worst outcome possible. Glad they more or less survived it anyway. It could me much worse.
That would be our American leaders, not us. Our democracy functions by having irrelevant arguments about gays or drilling in Alaska every 4 years and then the leaders do whatever they want while nobody pays attention.
Living in a democracy means you cannot divorce yourselves from the actions of your leaders, unlike people who do not have the luxury of the vote.
So if you ever did something bad, you can't stop other people doing it? An ex-thief gone straight should watch and do nothing as someone is robbed in front of him? A reformed killer must turn away as someone is murdered in front of her? A nation that manages to start on the road away from its prejudices must turn a blind eye to the suffering of other peoples?
There is this thing where former alchoholics fight alchohol, former addicts fight drugs and former racists fight racism. They would do that overzealously, theyr involvement may cast a shadow over the whole fight, and they would hurt innocent, or not so much guilty, people by trying to make others pay for their own sins. This happens.
If an ex-thief becomes a sheriff, I say I'd be cynical and worried.
If an ex-thief becomes a sheriff, I say I'd be cynical and worried.
At risk of speaking for others, I don't think most Americans feel a cohesive group identity as an 'American' or as a white American. Does it make much sense to generalize "you South Africans" including both Afrikaners and Bantus?
The article-about-South-Africa-writing kind of Americans.
This article is more about casting shame on IBM, not South Africa.
Don't think I want corporations to judge my morality before selling me goods. They might e.g. stop selling me stuff the other day because I torrent. Do I want that? I guess I do not!
Example:
"This system broke down the structure of the African family, as the workers were prohibited from living with their families"
Didn't that also happen to american black family due to reasons entirely economic? Some people prefer to kill with money not guns, doesn't make the murder less bad.
My family made extensive use of IBM computers and technology in their ANTI-apartheid activities.
They wrote speeches with Wordperfect and Wordstar on IBM XTs.
They saved them to Verbatim floppy disks, printed them out on Epson and HP printers, faxed them with imported fax machines (Canon?), scanned for viruses with McAfee antivirus, shredded evidence with imported shredders, and powered it all with no doubt dubiously imported UPSes and petrol generators.
Then they used US Robotics modems and PCAnywhere with encryption software (2) to transmit files to people both around South Africa and overseas.
They used personal-database software to keep track of press articles and potential supporters overseas, and then used Lotus 123 to calculate where the money was going.
They used the international telephone system (Gasp! Technology!) and Swiss Bank accounts (I think - I was never sure on where the banks were) to transfer money that supported anti-apartheid causes.
They also smuggled people over the border, no doubt using foreign-manufactured cars, airplanes, and perhaps foreign weapons in the process.
Did my family help more than having a computer system run the Pass system hurt? Absolutely not - but I like to think that by having access to some of this technology things changed for the better sooner.
Somehow in this history I've picked up a healthy anti-respect for authority, a view that some things can be used for both good and evil, and a fundamental respect for the power of computers. Balance in all things.
1. Many of your friends no doubt earned their pocket money by cleaning the yard and taking out the trash. I earned mine by shredding hundreds of pages of activist documentation for my grandmother.
2. The encryption software they used was dumbed down thanks to US ITAR export rules, probably putting the lives of countless good people in danger.