Little Brother
I just finished Cory Doctorow's 'Little Brother', his surveillance-state novel for young adults. I read it for free, because he wants me too - it's published under a Creative Commons license that lets me download and print the PDF1. I read the last page this evening, and wanted to jot down my initial thoughts. Basic overview: I liked it a lot, except for the parts I really didn't. The following contains minor spoilers.
The setting is a not-too-distant San Francisco, where the surveillance is constant, even in schools. After a terrorist attack it gets far worse, and a group of students use all the technology at their disposal to fight back.
In many ways I think it's everything a modern young-adult novel should be. For starters, it assumes readers can understand anything explained clearly enough - it goes into some fairly odd cryptographic concepts, for example. Which you'd think risky - public and private keys aren't very intuitive - but there's no hesitation or couching in 'don't worry if you don't understand this'. Mr Doctorow just dives right in, using his considerable writing skills to render the topic comprehensible, and none of it seemed patronising. He was also telling it straight - I know a little about cryptography, and I didn't notice any glaring oversimplifications. The plot relies heavily on technology and modern networks, and to my eyes it was easy to follow (and there's no reason it shouldn't be).
The novel also doesn't shy away from sex, violence or bad language - it doesn't dwell on any of these, but the plot revolves around a 17-year old fighting a fascist state: such topics are going to come up. And, again, they're handled truthfully. People get crushed in stampedes, and the government tortures people. People on the Internet swear, because they do. Sex is new and odd, and unleashes a torrent of emotions that confuse the hell out of the young characters. It's the way things are, and I don't think young-adult books should pretend otherwise.
I also found it compelling. It's not long, but I nevertheless raced through it, despite having 155 loose pages. The plot moves fast, and is full of interesting asides. From freegans, to ARGing, to the flaws of planned cities as opposed to those which grow organically (with nods to real books on the subject), there's a lot to learn, and I suspect I've forgotten much already.
Each chapter is headed with dedications to a particular bookstore, with brief descriptions. Mr Doctorow's love of books shines through, and you find yourself wanting to visit every one, just to hang out. There's an extensive bibliography, showing that most of the technologies mentioned already exist, and which are the best books on the subjects. My wishlist expanded substantially. There are also two addenda, written by Xbox hacker Andrew 'bunnie' Huang and security expert Bruce Schneier. Which brings us to the politics, which is where I start to get twitchy.
I didn't go in blind - I've been on Cory's mailing list for years, and followed Boing Boing for longer. I know his current positions on surveillance and security etc., and I often agree. But it's a book designed to introduce such concepts to young adults, and right out of the gate it pissed me off with its use of 'snitching'.
I hate that word. It's a bully-word, and a bully-concept. I have never, in real life, heard it used by anybody with a moral case. But the novel's definition broadens it - any technology that spies on you 'snitches' you to the police if you do anything wrong. It's loosely linked to the database-state, but the implication is that giving the police any kind of information, even if it's actually about a crime, is 'snitching'. And there's therefore something wrong with it2. Which is just bullshit.
I'm happy to listen to the arguments about surveillance. I'm happy to agree that imploring people to report 'suspicious activity' is stupid, when 'suspicious activity' means 'using an SLR'. But that's not the same thing as reporting crimes to the police. It's almost always a moral duty to 'snitch' if you have knowledge of a crime. Because the justice system isn't, actually, totally corrupt, and the police aren't out to get you.
Which is another problem: in this novel, the police are evil. No question. And this was where I started to get annoyed. It starts off with the main character railing against surveillance and anti-terror tactics in his school and city, with many well-argued points. But this is then conflated with fascism. The police beat people up willy-nilly; they gas kids at a rock concert; there is not a shred of decency about a single officer. The government is the same - towards the end they find video footage of a Karl Rove-like3 figure calling the people of San Francisco 'fags and atheists' and revealing the government knows of a terrorist plot, but is going to let it happen before the mid-term elections. There's even a brief nod to 9/11 conspiracies. I know Cory isn't into that crap, but it's there nonetheless. And I found this cartoony and disappointing.
The reader is clearly meant to draw parallels with the modern USA in terms of surveillance, but the subsequent unambiguous evil of authority isn't realistic, despite the obsessions of the 1984 crowd, and conflating the two is dishonest. Perhaps the point is that 100% surveillance will lead to this kind of thing - absolute power corrupts and all that. Perhaps the point is that anything with the potential to create such a world needs to be stopped. But the book doesn't suggest why either of these should be the case.
Like I said, I am happy to listen to arguments against the surveillance state. They'll probably convince me. But, as far as I can tell, data-collection atm has the potential to be used for evil. It's not actually ruining our lives, right now, today. For all the complaining about store-cards, airport security measures and 42-day-detentions, the real world with all its problems is incredibly benign compared to the situation in the book. Of course an evil government and violent police force are bad things, but they don't necessarily go hand-in-hand with surveillance. You need to make your case without invoking them. I have the same problem with anti-DRM campaigners talking about how DRM doesn't work - if it did work it'd still be stupid, and going on about how it doesn't makes you look like anti-phone mast campaigners who claim their local mast won't be a good business strategy. They look like they're hiding something. Show me why a totally benign surveillance state is evil - and I'm not saying you can't - and I'll be more impressed. The book does this a little with discussions of the need for privacy, but it's fairly subdued compared to the anti-authority stuff.
So I didn't like that aspect. But the book, while obviously a polemic, isn't totally one-sided. The main character's social studies class is a good forum for debate, and the political aspects are no less clear or watered-down than the technical explanations. There are a few right-wing nutcases thrown in as foils, but also numerous less-extreme viewpoints from characters trying, albeit briefly, to figure out the best approach. The main character is also not a superhero - he regularly doubts that he's doing the right thing, and things don't always turn out ok.
I learnt a lot. It was particularly penetrating, for me, on privacy issues. I tend to be on the oh-do-shut-up side when it comes to privacy debates, because I generally don't give a damn what people know about me, but various points made me pause. I suspect they'll play over in my head for quite a while. The arguments surrounding the right to dismantle things, and freedom of information, and the trade-offs of security, safety and freedom are all relevant and compelling. I'd recommend it to anyone wanting a decent introduction to these issues, or even people - like me - who think they know it already. I'd even recommend it to young adults (not that I really know any). But the unambiguous authority = evil, as opposed to just something that needs to be closely watched, is a shame. I wish there'd been one policeman character who disagreed with the way things were going, but still emphasised the need for a fair police force. There was just a little too much paranoia.
And all this for free. I feel bad. I'll certainly buy a copy, or at least contribute appropriately to his library-donation program.
I’ll decide the important issues in elections, thank you very much
I don't understand one-issue by-elections. I'm not going to vote for the BNP candidate who declares the campaign solely about free bouncy castles. That's ass-backwards. If he gets elected, there's nothing saying he can only vote on bouncy-castle-related issues. Trick. I might agree with David Davis about the 42 days, but I disagree over a lot more. Even if he campaigns on general civil liberties, that's only one part of the political agenda.
I'm assuming his seat is safe, so this is really about consciousness-raising. Which could be worthy, but only works if everyone is in on the game. You can't have a meaningful by-election that's only about one issue. That's contradictory. If everyone agrees to use the by-election as a platform to vote on civil liberties issues, fine, but they haven't. The voter's duty is to elect the person who best espouses their views, and that averaging-out should take all issues into account. This is just buggering about with democracy, and isn't fair.
Strikes me that an MP in the shadow cabinet is already in a good position to fight these things, but I suppose he's gambling on publicity helping his cause. Which is convenient, as you can't argue with the publicity argument. PR is a good argumentative firewall. Claim that something is good/bad publicity and the discussion has to stop, as nobody really has any clue. Discussions about the 'New Atheists' eventually devolve into this - one side claims they're harming the cause, the other side says they're not. And that's it. Sometimes you can look at the results over time, but gauging the effects of publicity is complex at best - both sides can cherry-pick statistics forever - and rarely produces anything definitive.
David Davis has probably done a good job of screwing the Labour Party, though. If Labour put forward a candidate, at their current popularity levels, they'll go down hard. If they don't, they'll look scared. They could just say this outright, given it's what everyone's thinking, but for some reason government doesn't work that way.
Armed Forces Day
Has Gordon Brown gone off the deep end, or what?
Britain is to hold an Armed Forces Day to allow the public to show their support and respect for the military, Gordon Brown has suggested.
In a letter seen by the Sunday Telegraph, the prime minister signals that plans are being drawn up for "a special day of celebration".
Yes, because what we all need is to worship the military a bit more. It's difficult to discuss this without giving the wrong impression, but what the hell, I'm having a crappy day so let's try anyway.
This isn't about showing 'support and respect for the military', it's about encouraging mindless patriotism.
For all that people in the military are brave, their job is not to think about what they're doing. Their job is to follow orders. And that's fine - the world is such that this is necessary. But this is only applicable within military institutions. The absurd hand gestures, individuality-quashing routines, vilification of 'cowardice' and the unquestioning deference to authority are not virtuous - in any non-military arena they'd be revolting. It's a crappy way to behave, and a crappy way to think. But if you want people to follow orders unquestioningly, that's what you have to do. It's a necessary evil, I'm bloody glad there are people willing to do it, and I don't judge anyone who chooses to, but don't make me pretend the military outlook is a great thing.
Again, before people start yelling: I am not criticising any individuals. I don't think there's anything wrong with doing this, as long as it's a free choice to enlist. But I do have a problem with the idea that being brave enough to put yourself in harm's way means I have to pretend all the above isn't true, or couch any negative statements into abstraction by surrounding them in tropes emphasising how great it all is. Don't tell me I have to treat 'the military' like gods among men, who've earned the right to do whatever they want. They're not. I won't. I will be exactly as polite to someone in the military as I am to anyone else. This is not 'unpatriotic', nor do I intend any insult - it's about trying to get the correct perspective.
'Respect' does not extend to the entire person. I can 'respect' someone's abilities while thinking they're cretinous in other ways. Newton was a genius, but a total dick. Being brave enough to put yourself into battle is without doubt brave and impressive, but not the be-all and end-all. Social workers, abuse counsellors and parole officers all do a job I couldn't perform in a million years, and put their mental health on the line every day. This isn't to suggest that there's a hierarchy, or that putting yourself in harm's way is somehow less important than people suggest, just that it's one of many things worthy of 'respect'.
But my particular viewpoint obviously isn't the cultural reality. In practice it's black and white - not thinking the military is the epitome of greatness apparently means you want them all to die. Every politician competes over whose chest can swell the most while smacking down on anybody who dares say the slightest negative thing. Remembrance Sunday is a bizarre dichotomy: remember those who have died, and say it should never have happened, but remember that dying for one's country is the most noble, admirable thing one can do, and would that we were all so brave. But there's no duty to be willing to die for 'your' country. If people want to, sure, but the heavily promoted idea of patriotic sacrifice is made up so that people will.
And that's why 'armed forces day' is so insidious. We're meant to worship 'the military', and we're meant to see that the people society demands we unflinchingly respect do whatever their country tells them, and think this is in some way virtuous. But it's not - following orders is their job, ours is to make damn sure the orders being given are correct. Being impressed that people are brave enough to go into battle does not mean the reasons they're told to do so make any sense, and 'armed forces days' are an exercise in blurring this boundary.
I'm not a pacifist, nor anti-government. This post is isn't anti-Iraq or anti-soldier, nor am I suggesting the government is actively setting out to be manipulative. On the contrary, I suspect they genuinely think it's a good idea - maybe they think it'll encourage a sense of 'Britishness', or whatever. But this feels too much like taking understandable emotions and using them to quell critical thinking. We can admire people in the military, in specific ways, without having to worship them.
I'm a bit worried people might be terribly insulted by this, but I've hopefully been clear that I don't intend to criticise anyone in the military, just that the emotion surrounding it shouldn't prohibit discussion...If anyone's offended, please do tell me why.
One day I’m going to bite someone’s head off, money be damned
"Don't worry about an invoice. You'd have to do things properly then, wouldn't you."
I hate this. I hate that the only way out is to give a non-committal answer. I hate that people assume I'm happy to break the law. I hate that people use roads, hospitals, schools, public services and specialists who will rush to your aid 24/7/365, yet don't have the first clue as to how this happens, or what it's like elsewhere. But mostly I hate the way they say it.
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often dance around humanism, photography and general wonderments, but there's dabblage aplenty.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- Andrew: I have so not cooked you a meal.
on Sister update. - Clare: Congratulations! Your photography is pretty cool.
on Resident. - Tamsin: hahahahah WTF?!
on Antivenn. - Tamsin: Noooo! Another one?! Why? Wasnt one painfull enough?!!
on Sister update. - Tamsin: Go You!
on Upcoming Humanist Symposium.
