On 12/18/2017 11:01 PM, Morlock Elloi wrote:
This assumption then leads to conclusion that VCs pouring money into
these data taps knew from the start what the end game was. This, in
turn, implies some serious centralized long-term (15-20 year) planning.
Is there any evidence of such planning?
There is, but centralized long-term planning is far too crude a concept
to catch what is going on.
One of the takeaways from JD Moreno's excellent little book, Mind Wars,
is the pervasiveness of the Dual Use strategy in US military funding.
Dual use means that a technology, or some strategic element of it, has a
legitimate civilian use as well as a military one that need not be
mentioned at any point in its development. An agency like Darpa or
In-Q-Tel can selectively stimulate aspects of a civilian technological
development process in order to create pieces of a puzzle that it alone
can put together. That way, as new technological worlds emerge, it turns
out they are already weaponized. It's like the nightmare scenario in
Harun Farocki's Inextinguishable Fire, where the factory worker keeps
stealing pieces of a vacuum cleaner he wants to bring home, but when he
tries to assemble it, it always turns into a gun.
From this perspective the notion of comprehensive "planning" looks
obsolete. Rather it's about managed co-evolution. This is done in the US
by informal coordinating groups that keep high-level government
functionaries in close contact with corporations, most of which in turn
do a lot of work for the government and the military. The classic
example is the Bohemian Grove summer camp founded by the owners of the
engineering firm Bechtel. But from the dot-com era onward you can look
to the Highlands Forum, described perfectly in the article you cite by
by Nafeez Ahmed, who btw is one of my favorite journalists:
"Total participants in the DoD’s Highlands Forum number over a thousand,
although sessions largely consist of small closed workshop style
gatherings of maximum 25–30 people, bringing together experts and
officials depending on the subject. Delegates have included senior
personnel from SAIC and Booz Allen Hamilton, RAND Corp., Cisco, Human
Genome Sciences, eBay, PayPal, IBM, Google, Microsoft, AT&T, the BBC,
Disney, General Electric, Enron, among innumerable others; Democrat and
Republican members of Congress and the Senate; senior executives from
the US energy industry such as Daniel Yergin of IHS Cambridge Energy
Research Associates; and key people involved in both sides of
presidential campaigns."
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e
It's obvious that for these military-industrial-entertainment circles,
the prospect of being able to put whole societies in tin cans outfitted
with multiple peep holes was too good to be true. And alas, that's the
direction our capitalist economy has gone, dragging the rest of the
world with it. For more insight you can check out Newton Lee's Facebook
Nation: Total Information Awareness (2013), which seems damn good after
having skimmed it. The Wikipedia article on In-Q-Tel quotes former
director George Tenet saying that the strategic venture-capital fund
"enabled CIA to take advantage of the technology that Las Vegas uses to
identify corrupt card players and apply it to link analysis for
terrorists." That's a direct reference to the Evidence Extraction and
Link Discovery program of Total Information Awareness in the early
2000s, just so you can see how crucial the entertainment component is
(Disney-Booz-GE, same struggle). They do not have to plan the
development of such technology start-to-finish in the old
operations-research way, instead they just look for it in the private
sector, or seed-fund it if it's not already there. This is all totally
coherent with the current corporate doctrine of Open Innovation (see
book of same name), which relies on scanning the global technological
landscape and appropriating the key components for any given job.
Open Innovation is very different from the former paradigm of
coordinated academic-corporate-military research that emerged under
direct government control during WWII. Centralized long-term planning
was a good description for the innovation system of that time. The
paradigm was maintained up to the late 1970s, when the Church Commission
tried to specifically outlaw military research in universities.
Subsequently, not only legality and citizen oversight were a problem,
but also funding for big blue-sky projects was harder to secure. But
from the dot-com era on, DoD and other US control agencies have made
adversity into a virtue by adopting the new epistemology, which
conceives socio-technical development as the interplay of multiple
conflicting strategies. Though it's nowhere near as crudely sexy as a
good conspiracy theory (like, Facebook is secretly run by the CIA!)
still I recommend you read a 2014 military intelligence report called
"Policy Challenges of Accelerating Technological Change: Security Policy
and Strategy Implications of Parallel Scientific Revolutions." Here's a
quasi-random quote to give you a flavor:
"An analytic framework needs to be developed for a new key strategic
variable, namely, the study of how ST&E assets, commercialization
resources, and technology adoption capacities are distributed globally,
and how they may affect the economic and global security environment in
the future. Analogous to the study of geopolitics, this variable could
be termed GeoInnovation. The factors contributing to GeoInnovation
ultimately enhance the diplomatic, information, military, and economic
(DIME) levers of national power by underpinning the future economic,
military, and political power of a nation. GeoInnovation factors,
however, are leading indicators (by years or even decades) as they
reflect the future capacity to develop and deploy technological
innovations."
http://ctnsp.dodlive.mil/files/2014/09/DTP1061.pdf
The major concern in that paper is the declining US percentage of global
science, technology and engineering research (ST&E). And that's the
crucial thing to get your head around: the control agencies *lag behind*
the global R&D process. However they know it, so they continually seed
promising developments and then follow up by figuring out how to
instrumentalize them in advance of widespread adoption and weaponization
by other actors. The CIA and other control agencies do not just "turn on
the taps" of the big social media companies when they want. However,
they did fund aspects of social media development, they did appropriate
elements of social media technology, and now that social media has been
weaponized by many actors ranging from ISIS to Russia, they are actively
working on data mining (see the article on recent In-Q-Tel investment,
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/14/in-undisclosed-cia-investments-social-media-mining-looms-large).
Managed co-evolution, or what might better be termed "strategic
steering," is what these agencies actually do, to the limits of their
ability. It's not central planning and there is no puppet master. But if
"breathing together" is the primal definition of conspiracy, well, yeah,
there's a lot of that going on in the government-funded halls of the
academic-corporate-military-entertainment complex, that's for sure.
best, BH
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
