On Sep 3, 10:55=A0am, "steve" wrote:
> Just thought you might be interested in another Orwellian proposal from a
> member of the Obama admin. =A0Im talking about Cass Sunstein, currently
> Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. =A0He
> advocates the govt infiltration of groups advocating "false conspiracy
> theories". =A0The ink is barely dry as the paper is from 2008.
>
> You can see the abstract and DL the paper (find the "instand download"
> button at the top of the page), here:
>
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3D1084585
>
> Here is a chilling excerpt:
> (excerpt)*******************************
> 3. Cognitive infiltration
> Rather than taking the continued existence of the hard core as a constrai=
nt,
> and
> addressing itself solely to the third-party mass audience, government mig=
ht
> undertake
> (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist
> theories, arguments
> and rhetoric that are produced by the hard core and reinforce it in turn.
> One promising
> tactic is cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. By this we do not m=
ean
> 1960s-style
> infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information,
> possibly for use in
> future prosecutions. Rather, we mean that government efforts might succee=
d
> in
> weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complex=
es
> that
> constitute these networks and groups.
> ...
> (end excerpt)*******************************
>
> So we have the head of "Information and Regulatory Affairs" advocating us=
ing
> taxpayers money to secretly infiltrate groups, pose as private citizens, =
and
> work the issues as the bureaucracy deems appropriate. =A0I dont suppose t=
he
> fundamental inappropriateness of these actions escapes you, OR the potent=
ial
> for sweeping abuse, the chilling of political speech, intimidation, and
> disinformation. =A0The proposal is sold as a tool against obviously "fals=
e
> conspiracy theories", but, of course, that distinction cannot be made by =
any
> govt agency under any reasonable reading of the first amendment.
>
> Is there any chance you dont find such attitudes, especially when held by
> someone close to the president, deeply offensive and dangerous to free
> speech and liberty?
>
> It's also interesting that CS refers to these tactics "legal" without
> further discussion. =A0The use of taxpayer money to fund speech that is
> disguised as private is, in and of itself, a violation of the 1st amendme=
nt
> (and probably several other provisions in the constitution). =A0That he f=
ails
> to even see that there is an issue speaks volumes about his attitudes and
> understanding of both the spirit and letter of the constitution.
>
> Both the left and right should be shocked and offended by such proposals.
> After all, even if you're an evil bastard with no respect for liberty (no=
,
> that's not an accusation, PM, just an extreme case to make my point) it w=
ont
> always be your friends in power. The "conspiracy theory" may someday be y=
our
> own.
>
> This is one scary and dangerous administration.
Well, you dilute your outrage against such "Orwellian" tactics by
denouncing, with seemingly equal fervor, that they're carried out
"using taxpayer money" ...a bit like complaining that the St.
Valentine's Day massacre occurred on a Federal Holiday.
But, to the point, here's the (abridged) abstract from your link:
--------
"Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe
that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the
truth about some important practice or some terrible event. ... Those
who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks,
including risks of violence... Because those who hold conspiracy
theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, ... the best
response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. ...
[Whether] it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or
to ignore them, are explored in this light."
--------
Afaics (including from the passages you cite) "cognitive infiltration"
means publishing *rational* counter-argument in such a way as to
dispel the public's natural -- but *irrational* -- affinity for
melodramatic theories per se.
And, if I'm reading all this right, the safeguard against the
government's misuse of such a proposed program (as if *any* government
program were safe from misuse) is that its active ingredient -- as
stated here -- is to awaken the public's rationality ...always a good
thing to do, afaik.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com |