Paul Eres ([info]rinku) wrote,
@ 2008-05-19 06:10:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:world

China & the Panopticon.

Some, like Google, have argued that despite having to limit access to the Internet, they are contributing to an overall increase of freedom in China. It's a story that glosses over the much larger scandal of what is actually taking place: Western investors stampeding into the country, possibly in violation of the law, with the sole purpose of helping the Communist Party spend billions of dollars building Police State 2.0. This isn't an unfortunate cost of doing business in China: It's the goal of doing business in China. "Come help us spy!" the Chinese government has said to the world. And the world's leading technology companies are eagerly answering the call.

(Post a new comment)


[info]wynand
2008-05-19 03:20 pm UTC (link)
A guy in my neighborhood got shot at maybe a month or two ago right by one of those cameras. When he was talking to the police he pointed out the fact that there was supposed to be a camera at the end of the street, and they said that yes there was, but someone had turned it by 90 degrees three years ago so it wasn't filming anything useful

Good article, but that's a good detail to keep in mind as far as panopticons go

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]rinku
2008-05-19 04:33 pm UTC (link)
They have those cameras in Brooklyn now? I thought it was only lower Manhattan that they had them so far.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]wynand
2008-05-19 05:01 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, they have them on Nostrand Avenue at least

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]nastygakusei
2008-05-19 06:33 pm UTC (link)
"Come help us spy!" the Chinese government has said to the world. And the world's leading technology companies are eagerly answering the call.

Well, duh. Since when has any leading technology company given a shit about the motivations of those with whom they do business? Stating the obvious here, but it's all about money. Always has been and always will be, no matter how wrong it is.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]rinku
2008-05-19 06:44 pm UTC (link)
I think that's incredibly simplistic & wrong, as I tried to convince you of once over IM like 3 months ago or so but which you ignored.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]nastygakusei
2008-05-19 06:53 pm UTC (link)
Yes, it is a simplistic opinion to say that it's all about money. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Tell me what is wrong about it. And don't just dismiss it and say, "You wouldn't understand"

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]rinku
2008-05-19 06:59 pm UTC (link)
I didn't say you wouldn't understand, but I think it always takes a lot of effort to replace a simpler and inaccurate model with a more complicated and accurate one.

Here's one thing that may convince you though: do you remember how you didn't finish Harlock's assignment, even though there was money involved? The reason is that certain motivations are stronger in you than the desire for money. This isn't unique to you, it's a general pattern in people, desiring material wealth is very low on most people's priority scales, including the people who run corporations. Much stronger motivations are self-esteem, being liked, dominatng others, and just habit.

As another example: why is China attempting to control its people so much? Why put 2 million cameras in one city? Why hire 70,000 people to make sure people don't use the internet in bad ways? What monetary gain would the government of China get from this behavior? Doesn't it make more sense to say that the government of China is not motivated by money, but by something else?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]rinku
2008-05-19 07:01 pm UTC (link)
And this is especially true of the rich: the more money you have, the less you desire it. It's the poorer people who make money much more of a priority, they're much more motivated to do anything for money (e.g. prostitution, selling drugs, etc.), whereas people who already have a great deal of money have very little impulse to get more, because what can they buy with 3 billion that they can't already buy with 2 billion?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]nastygakusei
2008-05-19 07:09 pm UTC (link)
Yes, you're right. You are, however, forgetting about a little thing called GREED.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]rinku
2008-05-19 07:10 pm UTC (link)
I'm not forgetting about it, it's just that I've never actually met anyone who was greedy, so it seems like a legend or a myth that people use to hate the rich rather than something that actually exists.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]nastygakusei
2008-05-19 07:14 pm UTC (link)
Haha. No. It exists.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]rinku
2008-05-19 07:17 pm UTC (link)
If it did, you'd be able to name people you know who have it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]nastygakusei
2008-05-19 07:20 pm UTC (link)
Small example, but:

Your mom and her constant need to obtain insane amounts of material things event though she doesn't need them and is making your apartment nearly uninhabitable by having them.

I love your mom and this wasn't meant as an attack on her, but it's one example that I could think of off of the top of my head.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]nastygakusei
2008-05-19 07:20 pm UTC (link)
even*

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]rinku
2008-05-19 08:02 pm UTC (link)
I think you have a habit of misidentifying psychological disorders as personality trait attributable to beliefs and choice. This is one example, but you also did it recently in your entry of 3 bad things -- shyness is a psychological disorder rather than a personality trait attributable to beliefs and choice. I.e. it comes out of differences in the brain, especially an overactive amygdala, the part of the brain which (among other things) is responsible for seeing other people as a threat, not out of a belief in being unsure how you're perceived by others. Similarly, hoarding is an OCD disorder, it doesn't come out of too much of a focus on material wealth, it comes out of an overactive sentimentalism and attachment to things -- it's been known to have been caused by brain injury, for illustration.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]rinku
2008-05-19 07:05 pm UTC (link)
More examples: why do some powerful people in the US want to ban abortion, keep gay marriage banned, teach creationism in schools, etc.? There's no money to be made in desiring those things.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]nastygakusei
2008-05-19 07:11 pm UTC (link)
Fine, I now feel that it was wrong to say that money is the motivation behind EVERYTHING. I still think it applies to this particular situation, though.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]nastygakusei
2008-05-19 07:08 pm UTC (link)
Yes, I suppose you're right. There is no monetary reason that China behaves in this way. But! We're not talking about China, as a country. We're talking about the technology companies. Yes, I agree that not everything may be motivated by the possibility of monetary gain, but we're talking about a company.

The company was formed in order to create things and gain money from them. This being said, why is it not the most obvious observation that money is what motivates their dealings with China?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]rinku
2008-05-19 07:16 pm UTC (link)
Companies don't always have money as their highest priority, and besides which, companies are run by people, and it's people that make the decisions, and people have different motivations.

It's true that a company has to make a profit to stay in business, but it doesn't necessarily follow from that that a company will do anything for a profit.

I think it's possible that money is one motivation here, but there are probably other more important ones.

It's to some companies' benefit, for example, to have a more repressive world. As an example, the pharmaceutical industry wouldn't exist without the repression of the FDA; the airline industry wouldn't exist without subsidies -- so it may just be survival behavior, perhaps those companies realize that they need to help China become stricter in order for their own companies to survive long-term.

But more likely, they see it as doing a good thing. On the theory that without some measure of spying on citizens the danger of rebellions and terrorism is higher, those who fear such things are more likely to help governments become more repressive, and they see it as performing a noble service by making society more stable.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…