law enforcement – mil's page

aside, definition, design philosophy, rationale

“On people called #melians who have no regrets”

In truth, whilst change IS inevitable — just as #siliconvalley and its dreadful hangers-on have universally, dogmatically and terrifyingly proclaimed for over half a century — its NATURE never automagically was. It’s just a fact, this: just a fact, too. For #bigtech is an only “half-the-story #tech”. And only ever has been.

Mil Williams, 27th April 2025, Arlanda Airport, Stockholm, Sweden,

It’s what I said a while ago.

There’s no courage involved in not feeling fear. And therefore no virtue whatsoever in being fearless.

There’s only virtue in doing something despite the need to overcome.

And one other thing I’ve learnt:

Not everyone should like you. If they did, you’d probably be doing something wrong.

Not wrong in itself. Wrong because in the first instance, in my experience, when you have an idea and are NOT stubborn enough not to have your course changed, it’s an error of crass proportions if and when you ultimately fail to persist in transforming the world, particularly when you ideas manifestly deserved to.

And sometimes, maybe often, we do fail to transform what’s around us with our thoughts and imagination precisely because, equally, we want to be liked: I mean, that is, that we tend to prefer to think not being liked is a sign we’re on the incorrect path.

But I now think the reverse. This is what I think. In two parts:

1. It’s always the bad guys who first see the dangers and implications — for them and their easy business models — of different and obstinately held ideas to their preferred future-present: the one they considered, out of their absolute sense of entitlement, absolutely theirs forever. Ideas like the ones, never necessarily originally but for sure always firmly, I’ve continued to propound over the years.

2. It’s always the good guys who last see the virtues and positives — for them and their terribly oppressed democratic communities — of different and obstinately held ideas to their assumed future-present: the one they were told was a result of inevitable change I mean, and absolutely NOT theirs forever.

In truth, whilst change IS inevitable — just as #siliconvalley and its dreadful hangers-on have universally, dogmatically and terrifyingly proclaimed for over half a century — its NATURE never automagically was. It’s just a fact, this: just a fact, too. For #bigtech is an only “half-the-story #tech”. And only ever has been.

This is why, when you want to deliver transformation, you have to accept you won’t be liked.

Firstly, the bad guys won’t ever do anything but hate you with their casually polite, practised and breezily easy business smiles.

And this will happen for perhaps the first five years.

And their goal is to break you, and make you stumble, and then dispirit you to the extent, perhaps, you kill yourself.

But then they have a problem. If they sense there will, after all, be a “next five years”, they realise the sword they wanted all that time for you to fall on no longer usefully, or at least reliably, exists.

So they will try to get closer to you and maybe even persuade you that all the while the smiles they sent your way with minimal financial breadcrumbs attached were actually, all the time in question, offerings of real dough.

And some of us out here give in at this point and take the money and run. And then the bad guys close down the ideas, and life continues to get worse for everyone else. Despite our ideas. Despite their coming originally into being. Despite what might have been.

The thing is … this is the thing. If you are stubborn … not original at all … just irreversibly firm in your preferred outcomes, even as fabulously flexible in your means and ways of getting there … well … you may end up concluding what I did when I got to the second and third and fourth and fifth “five years”: you only need to be liked by one group of people.

That’s all it ever takes.

Just one group is needed.

This group being?

The good guys who one day will realise that the #meliandialogue can be upturned: the islands of the world can beat — hands-down — the totalitarians.

Islands?

Places where we continue to understand that once in our histories we built fortresses in order to expand outwards with security and safety first and foremost. And that this was a good idea. And that this was the best idea. And that this is our next best step now.

And then we shall be … NOT #athens, ever … no. Not that. Not the #valley that causes so many tears. Never that. We never could be.

Rather, people called #melians who no longer shall have any regrets.

aside, definition

on british intelligence’s taste in interior decoration

it's good to burn bridges 
when they're built by bastards 
who occupy cozy offices 
in central london office blocks 

it's good to burn bridges 
when they're built by agencies
who occupy anything 
but spaces of self-reflection 

and who are incapable 
of respecting the enemies we face 
to such an extent that they then see ...
... they always see themselves 

as better than anyone else 
and thus will remain inferior forever
to everyone out there far or near   
who ever you'll find out here at all 

because british intelligence 
is anything but ...
and british intelligence 
is stuck in that rut ... well it is ...

... of empire and suchlike 
and then it's the pleasant island 
and verdant and stuff 
and so well ... they say and oh they may 

but actually not at all at all 
and so then again as eyesight dulled 
and vision quite blinded and sullied and hidden 
and quite blinkered and suffering

as if the tree of oak itself 
is rotting from the core 
and nothing more is to be done 
when all is sung and said 

and just the well-read remain as saviours 
who actually can't any more anyways
in a country where the rule of law 
is no longer treasured by the enforcers of the same 

never mind the citizens they once said they served 
and so it's as if it's a stain on the country's disdain
in respect of anything that might truly lead 
to life and its wily interventions 

greater now it's true 
than the declensions of the idiots 
who run this country through influence not politics 
like the strata of medieval wastes grossly uncovered 

as they make haste 
oh they do 
to run the lives of me and you 
as badly as one might wish to conceive 

because they have no idea at all
and they really have none worth talking of
whilst instead of chasing the real criminality
they prefer to focus on you and me 

saying our desire for privacy 
makes us just as dangerous 
as those they let slip in cities of the north 
and others of balding and silly nick

and as they did so terribly that day 
and as they claimed to rue the horror 
anyhow and every way 
they let the bad they lost sight of at such cost 

bomb to awful bits the innocents of terror 
whilst all this time 
they've feathered their own closets and offices
into things quite truly grand and fine 

as if the most important thing today 
in all our democracy of hey and wow  
is to show how good 
their taste in interior decoration

enables their decidedly stylish and cool
creatively fabulous comforts of label
rule over the safety of the ordinary citizens 
who find themselves utterly unable any more 

dying hopelessly in the gutters as they are 
of the homeless and the buggered 
that end up left all to one side 
by the men of british intelligence 

who knowing all they have 
all these years of strife 
actually and truly and forcefully and cruelly
really really don't give a fuck

definition, design philosophy, rationale

On choosing to be a servant not an enforcer

I am minded to write this poem because of a small and discreet event I attended at Liverpool John Moores University, one evening some years ago.

The event was given by a chief constable of a nearby north of England police force.* The standout stat I remember he offered us was when he wanted to contextualise what differentiates the average experience of a police officer with the average experience of a democratic citizen — and perhaps, in so doing, making it easier for both sides to be less opposing and more conciliatory.

Most citizens, he said, experienced 10 to 11 “life events”: what he meant was serious incidents such as witnessing the horrible injuries of others, maybe their violent passing, one’s own experiences of near-death, and/or perhaps the death of a family member or close friend.

Then he asked the collected audience what they thought the stat was for the average police officer. Not even the attending officers themselves knew how to hazard a guess.

The figure was 400.

It sank in. He let it sink in slowly and quietly, too.

It will never be forgotten.

That is how much the average police officer suffers. And wherever they individually choose to remain servants of the citizenry, not enforcers of the same, is when we have the very best of our societies standing rightfully to attention in front of us.

Just this.

Have a safe day.

(And just that.)

* I also recall the fact that I was once very firmly informed by a community police officer in a suburb of Chester, UK, that whilst the public liked to see the British police as a service, the British police never see themselves as anything but a force.

“the 400: a poem about service”

i was told one evening

by a chief constable near where i lived

amongst an audience of people good and free

that 400 was the number

which for the rest of us was 10 or 11

being life events

that break our souls

and make us weep with heaps of tears

like babbling brooks

when nothing’s then right

and all is then took

and life is then no longer worth living at all

and this chief of big team

was the kindest of souls

and he knew how to roll with the times and the goals

but equally he was clear

what should be made more clear

and this was that police and citizenry both

needed to come closer

not as yoke of law

nor as harness of tough

but just as two parts which completed a whole

and so his view of policing

and of law enforcement proudly served

i’ve found in very few places since then

and how

but where i have seen this

is where i am now

which is sweden and stockholm

and where they really must take a bow

and here i have seen

that policing is a team

but where force doesn’t define

the many first few steps

and only kicks in when a blue line protects

the service which otherwise

inscribes the good deeds

of a law enforcement and policing philosophy

designed specifically

to deliver a broader humanity

via a society engineered and scoped

to improve what we do to each other

as human beings seen as such

rather than automatically

as monsters capable of horrendous touch

and so this is what really floats my boats

much much more than relationships

of a personal sort of love that deludes

because what i need

and what i want

is much much less than to quantify the affection

that baldly a person might feel for my person

and much much more to qualify the ways

we should be treating ourselves society-wide

hiding from nothing

and fearing absolutely no one

as we relearn to live

with the kindest heads and hearts

and so i say

and so i say i may

that love of people is a service not a force

and law enforcers who prefer to serve us fully

are worth their weight in gold all told

and so these are the places

where really i want to live and work

and have the deepest of friends and colleagues

never lovers or wife or anything more

because my focus from now on in

is the health of my civilisation

and the democracies i want us to repopulate

as every step we now must take

involves us just choosing … to do good

definition, design philosophy, rationale

on a blended approach to #totalsurveillance

background

i read a meme a while back which said:

it takes ten years ramming a new idea down people’s throats for them to get it.

i started what would become the #intuitionvalidationengine back when a discovery interview with a #liverpool university. in the middle of this interview i came up with the phrase #industrialisationoforiginalthought. i didn’t know, then, the roots of this occurrence.

i do know now.

my first university qualification, of the three i now have, was a ba hons in film & literature, back in the early 1980s. i realised a few years ago now that this was the very source of my thinking around #intuitionvalidation.

film, until #generativeai, was an example of how, despite the temptations, movie technologists chose to make a tech that enhanced and expanded human beings, rather than diminished and automated them out of relevance.

the microphone made the voice more powerful; the camera, the eye more beady-eyed; the film language of close-up and long-shot making the actor able to express their feelings with more impact; and even the stage and a wider mise-en-scene serving to extend the ability for great actors to deepen their expressiveness using the surroundings designed specifically around them.

that, then, all a clear example of the #industrialisationoforiginalthought.

and with that, a direct precursor to the #intuitionvalidationengine, and what then became #platformgenesis:

• gb2earth.com/tools | gb2earth.com/pgtps

if we take 2016 as my baseline of these later ideas, though not where the ideas originally connect back to, of these ten years i allude us to, ramming a new idea down everyone’s throats, i’m in year 8 of the aforementioned decade.

what next …

i’d like now to make something firmly tangible of all this.

and this, for two reasons and two reasons only:

1. under the current #totalsurveillance philosophies, 9/11, putin’s russia, and hamas all flourished. i’m not saying those who promoted these solutions, where machines have humans as extensions of their processes and procedures, wilfully ignored an alternative i’ve been proposing for a number of years now: that is, humans with machines as extensions of themselves. but if it does continue to be rejected, the ignoring of them does become wilful:

2. the second reason is more personal. i’d like to think that some good people at the highest levels of #tech begin to recognise that perhaps everyone — all of us, that is, without exception — should have considered other options sooner.

9/11 was a horrendous event we considered absolutely singular and, thankfully, unrepeatable.

but then came along the utterly illegitimate invasion of ukraine by putin’s russia, where we still even today — some of us, that is — choose to see him as a man who stumbles into one misadventure after another. only this isn’t true at all. he’s a horrible nonconformist whose awful capacity to think out of the box is left untouched by our machine-driven teams and ways of working.

and so, finally, 9/11 does repeat after all. with, you can’t say no, hamas’s dreadful attack on israeli and palestinian people, both. and under the very same philosophy of #totalsurveillance which didn’t succeed as it could’ve done the first two times round either.

my ask

so what do i say? what do i want? what can i get reasonably from you?

what can we all, ultimately, achieve together?

it’s not #totalsurveillance that’s the problem: it’s a #totalsurveillance which upscales exclusively machines over humans for every security, law-enforcement, and espionage process ever.

it’s the philosophy and implementation, not the need or the instinct to protect and defend absolutely: because the latter is absolutely spot-on. meantime, 9/11, ukraine, and now hamas surely question the former in ways we never cared to in the past twenty years.

this is why i am now looking proactively and openly for a powerful and paradigm-upturning partner who can provide the runway to get this blended approach to #totalsurveillance all underway: an approach which i have proposed with so many challenges to my own person all along.

and the aim of these ideas?

simple, tbh.

no more 9/11s, invasions like that of ukraine, or attacks like that of hamas on israeli and palestinian peoples both.

i want to save us all from future pain.

that is the gain i most want out of my legacy.

that is what i want my ideas around #totalsurveillance to begin to deliver: a more secure world which feels, also, so much safer …

definition, design philosophy, rationale

NUESTRA huída hacia delante

I lived in Spain for around sixteen years. My Spanish is quite good; but I’m not a native in the language and never learnt it formally.

But the poem below, for some reason today, I felt obliged to write in Spanish: that is, castellano. Because there are a number of sometimes quite different languages the Spanish state and peoples communicate in. I know only castellano.

Mainly, in the street — and then receiving correction via an assiduous daily reading over the years of a linguistically ferocious Spanish newspaper called El País.

I wrote the poem below in response to a post that came my way an hour or so ago on LinkedIn. So the poem is dedicated to the man who posted that post, and made me want to write the poem.

Comments, as always, welcome always.

NUESTRA huída hacia delante 

sí lo es 
una huída 
hacia delante 
sin querer en absoluto 
y sin preocuparse por nada 

porque es hora de ver 
si tienes razones 
por pensar 
si hay personas e instituciones 
que te quieren 

y que quedan -como debieran- 
para que quererles 
a su vez y de vuelta 
sea sensato 
o no

porque he llegado 
a la conclusión 
que necesito
estar sólo 
con gente de buena fe

NO las que te hacen reír ...
pero entonces nada más que desde sus estupideces 
y desde sus más profundas idioteces
donde crecen sólo sus mentiras
cuando no las tetas de sus nenas

por arte 
del instagram
o del tiktok 
de las narices 
y de los gobernantes chinos que sólo te miran 

porque sólo quiero estar ya
con personas buenas
quienes saben ya de mi mundo
desde su interior:
para que otras explicaciones ya no son necesarias 

y porque ellos también
lo han experimentado y sufrido 
en el presente
igual 
que en el pasado 

y entonces si eso significa 
que a la gran mayoría
(que solo parece 
que sea la mayoría y -desde luego-
constituida en nada de "gran") 

me veo obligado a dar mi espalda
es porque tengo ganas
no de dar la espalda a nadie 
pero en su lugar 
mirar con firmeza de frente 

a caras como la tuya:
es decir 
a otra clase 
completamente 
de gente 

gente que sólo cree en un mundo
donde el jugo que se derrita 
no son las sangres 
de la población mundial entera 
ni de sus cuerpos frágiles 

llenos de las bondades 
por encima 
de cualquier abuso 
cometido por vicio 
y por medio de la violencia corporal 

de todos los hombres 
y mujeres 
autoritarios ...
pero para que -de otro modo 
bien distinto y precioso-

lo que echamos 
no es nada de menos 
a nada que hemos valorado
desde hace siempre 
como lo mejor de todo ser humano 

ni que hayamos querido derretir   
los jugos de nuestras vidas 
en campos de guerra 
y en apartamentos donde bombas
despiertan al bebé recién nacido  

para que pueda morir en el acto 
en charcos de su propia sangre 
con los cuerpos de sus hermanos enfrente
proclamando el adiós cruel 
de los violentos tan poderosos ... 

pues NO: 
no ... 
no ...  
no ... 
no paso más tiempo con gente así 

no es ésta la vida que elijo consentir:
y estar con la gentuza 
que sí prefieren consentirla
con las sábanas rojas de esos niños
todos los días de las semanas tan agredidas 

NO es donde voy a quedarme:
porque ya pido más a la vida 
y no me quedo con el lujo
de beber el mejor vino por un lado  
y derretir la humanidad por el otro 

como HAMAS nunca JAMÁS 
debiera haber concebido 
y ya no digo lo que pudo llevar a cabo
porque ellos sí han sabido siempre 
todo lo que han hecho y han querido hacer 

y así -en profundo recuerdo 
de ukraine y de 9/11-
damos la vuelta al verso anterior:
bebemos todos YA 
de las humanidades que más nos hacen nobles  

y derretimos únicamente 
a partir de ahora 
os ruego -por favor-
sólo los vinos 
de mas esplendor 

de los viñedos con más sabiduría  
y que nos sean capaces de bendecir BIEN
con sus alegrías 
de amores bien vividos 
y de muchos ciudadanos y ciudadanas viviendo ahora 

que deben luchar con una ferocidad 
que corresponde SÓLO 
a los que han intentado por todos los medios 
buscar otros caminos por esos medios 
e incluso cuando no queremos pelear así en absoluto 

porque cuando la guerra te toca a ti
tienes sólo dos opciones:
ninguna es fácil 
pero sólo una conduce 
a una muestra de lo que es firmemente mantenerse humano

y puedes ceder en todo por supuesto 
y quedar con lo que te dan si eso
o puedes luchar 
para otro futuro 
bien distinto 

y aunque yo sé lo que es para mí
y -ciertamente siempre será así-
no puedo ni debo definirlo para ti ya
porque ser un humano es eso:
la elección de cada uno ... elección bien propia 

pero lo que sí reservo -sin sentirme mal-
es el derecho a decir a la fecha de hoy 
y la de mañana 
y el año que viene
y desde mis escritos 

que quizás durante cientos de años 
pueda que perduren 
o -a lo mejor- solamente 
en las mentes de muy poco gente 
y a lo mejor ni eso ... ni eso mi amor 

pero a decir la verdad
me da igual ya
porque lo único que quiero 
de la vida que me queda 
en los años venideros (y espero llenos de amor)

es encontrarme con mis gentes
y NO con sangres encharcándose
y ni de hombres ahorcándose ...
pero sí -y eso sin duda- 
con mujeres y hombres tiernos 

capaces de vivir la vida 
correctamente y de manera noble 
incluso cuando 
nos han tocado los campos 
de la inhumanidad más espeluznante

definition, design philosophy, rationale

An open letter to all UK politicians, past and present

My message, then, to all UK politicians past and present? DON’T use your politics to obviate your HUMAN duty to be prudent emotionally; purposeful societally; and compassionate humanely. Because if that’s your game — that is, your politics is more an invisibility cloak than a badge of courage — you’re also, on top of not being all that, not redeemable either.

And if so, you don’t deserve to lead a dog, never mind a country.
Mil Willliams, 27th August 2023, Ellesmere Port UK

The difference between feeling secure and feeling safe.
With gratitude to my eldest son, Guillermo, who narrates this short.

This is my position:

I will fight, always now, in favour of a state #surveillance and citizen #sousveillance that hand-in-hand serve to be each other’s keeper, where this becomes us and is at all possible.

That is to say, a process of permanent democratic observation — the million eyes of #opensource translated to societal re-engineering — which then exists to support and serve … never intrude and control.

Because this is why I have been condemned since 2017 at least — maybe before, too — to a life of vibrantly incessant failure. I realised then, in that year of Criminal Justice, that there was an alternative to #totalsurveillance and secular #originalsin. And what was more dangerous for the establishment in all of that was that I began to acquire the critical apparatus and appetite to deliver to the academic and technological satisfactions of the vast majority the alternative I had begun to shape:

Download a PDF of my 2017 MA dissertation on Secular Original Sin and #totalsurveillance

But I realised this year I am not the only one any more. And actually I never was. After the past year’s events, I have been able to satisfactorily evidence, to myself at least, that I am not the only soul in the world who believes — not just in theory but in goddamn real-life practice — that #surveillance can serve to serve and enhance both the citizen experience and ENJOYMENT of life: not only re its securities, then; also, its deepest and kindliest safeties.

My most important experiences in my life, this year:

In the country I have been visiting since just before Christmas — Sweden — I found a society that had already legislated and implemented regulations in premises that ensured a certain distance between CCTV camera and the citizenry below; that already required private-sector street CCTV to watch only that square metre or so which ensures due and reasonable coverage of entry points; and that, above all, when travelling on public transport all footage thus gathered has public sell-by dates of tens of hours not tens of weeks, is only viewed by the police themselves, and is stationed so it FEELS, ffs, like something you can embrace wholeheartedly as part of a vigorous democracy, not something you must reject out-of-hand as signs of an all-too-evident encroaching authoritarianism.

And with all this, I am actually convinced, without knowing for sure, that they will have as much CCTV as we do in the UK. The difference there being that it’s designed to make citizens feel free and open in their sense of how these securities are intended to function, not imposed on by the overbearing and censorious guardians of the state as many here might feel.

Surveillance as an extension of the citizen then, not the state:

No. Sweden is not perfect. We are not perfect. We have virtues, it is true. So do they. What we can do perfectly, meantime, is learn the best of each other to integrate these things, encountered and assessed judiciously, into the best of our own.

Right now, the UK political system disables this purposeful approach to society-building and their sustaining. The current Swedish government is as right-wing as ours. But it’s not right-wing or left- that has to matter. It’s whether we choose to be questioning, querying, learning beings or not. Whatever are the politics we wish to espouse.

My message, then, to all UK politicians past and present? DON’T use your politics to obviate your HUMAN duty to be prudent emotionally; purposeful societally; and compassionate humanely. Because if that’s your game — that is, your politics is more an invisibility cloak than a badge of courage — you’re also, on top of not being all that, not redeemable either.

And if so, you don’t deserve to lead a dog, never mind a country.

Now do you?

Two directions

If total surveillance and omnisciently intrusive CCTV serve only to inhibit us and not Putin et al, the new swords we must begin to develop must have radically new philosophies, much more than just beefier technologies.
On why we need radically new secrecy-positive architectures | Mil Williams, 24th August 2023, Manchester UK

I think I’m being offered two directions to move forwards definitively on my projects. And I think in my mind it’s clarifying my view on what to do next, where, and how.

I think the two directions can both happen, too.

But for many reasons, only one can happen here in the UK, in Ireland and most other places we consider.

If my thinking isn’t mistaken, the security version must only happen in Sweden and countries which share the philosophy that is embedded firmly in a wider Scandinavian way of foregrounding the citizen and their rights when constructing and rebuilding democracies.

So.

What I think is being suggested:

IVP1

1. My #neurodiverse #complexproblem-solutioning proposals may sit in many and perhaps all cultures eventually. If you like, the B2C product and service, where the “C” of B2C equals “Culture”, and which the Swedish intuition corporation I am proposing we build as per The Guardian newspaper group’s Scott Trust would deliver, mostly, indirectly.

Here, in the wider field of using arts-based thinking for solving real-world problems, therefore, practically anything and anyone gets a hearing:

• complexify.me

• complexifylab.com

Meantime, the Swedish corporation I would like us to create would not, as alluded to, be involved directly in even a tenth of all the activities that might arise through this Intuition Validation Project 1 (IVP1), alongside its set of related workstreams.

• www.sverige2.earth/unified

We would only need to license the rights for using the core technologies and philosophies I’ve been thought-leading since 2016. That’s as far as we would go. No need, for example, to shape how any of this was to be implemented. No longer would there exist roadblocks on any side to arise.

It would, therefore, even be possible to make these platforms and architectures available from the starting-blocks for countries with whose security policies I, and a wider Swedish society quite separately and much before me, fundamentally find ourselves disagreeing on: for example, oppressive manifestations of total surveillance & CCTV, and the complete removal of public access to encryption and so forth, even in banking applications, being the approach the UK has been advocating and wishing to put into practice for decades.

Equally, the Swedish and similar, where total surveillance is employed, use it to enable the citizenry and make them feel safer and more empowered: never to make them sense, as we do get to suspect in the UK, that they are permanently being inspected and tracked in order to bulldoze voters and similar into good behaviours out of tools, primarily, aimed at inducing fear.

Seen in Vällingby tunnelbana station, Stockholm Sweden, 2023

And that’s a philosophical difference of import: in the UK, we trust that people will be bad: that is, secular Original Sin. In other countries, we trust that enabling the help of the citizenry is paramount; we trust that what we might call “good trust” needs to be promoted strategically. Here, then, it’s not enough to be secure at all; we need to be safe, too. We shouldn’t have to be looking over our shoulders all the time. And our policies should reflect this.

One Swedish example to underline: street CCTV on private and state buildings must look down only on the entrance itself to the building being surveilled. No dragnet across all passers-by.

So. If we think like this — IVP1 I mean — there’s no need to negotiate these matters any more, before we may begin, because IVP1 will be in the hands of creators of different kinds, even where what they create may deliver tangible and utilitarian real-world solutions.

And then again, just the one condition too: periodic licence fees, but ourselves, as an intuition-validation corporation, being utterly hands-off.

IVP2

2. Security — the project we might now call IVP2 — is a quite different matter, however.

My Criminal Justice Master dissertation (linked to here), from 2017, on the subject of secular Original Sin*, laid it out really clearly: in an ever more complex world there will be no edge obtained by law enforcement and security if we ensure citizens feel as pursued as the real criminals. The only way we can be collectively more than the bad guys and gals is if we get citizens deeply onside: enabling them to act out their proactive roles as joint defenders of the law. It’s not enough that they just nod their acquiescence to what we claim to be doing when faced by the horrors of modern criminality.

Until countries like the UK accept that our total surveillance-friendly software architectures (admins who see all; users who see nothing but even so are aware, all too aware, how they are being permanently surveilled) have fatally inhibited — impaled, even — our own capacity to think creatively in security, crimefighting and law-enforcement contexts, we cannot develop my ideas in respect of security where such acceptance is not forthcoming.

• www.secrecy.plus/fire

Because criminals like the Putins of this world do continue to enjoy their own deepest secrecy-positive spaces whilst they longitudinally plan our destruction, despite our own ongoing total surveillance strategies:

• www.secrecy.plus/why

You get now, I hope, then, where my objections really lie; where they are firmly seated? If total surveillance and omnisciently intrusive CCTV serve only to inhibit us and not Putin et al, the new swords we must begin to develop must have radically new philosophies, much more than just beefier technologies.

Security for me, therefore, sits where the right philosophies existed prior to my own arrival. And my travails when writing the dissertation in question back in 2017, clearly caused me by British security, indicate, even post-Ukraine, that for quite a while they will not be enabled here in the UK.

To summarise:

IVP1 — just about everywhere

IVP2 — the kind of places and states where new swords may come into being from a prior and existent embedded instinct and impulse to openness and invention in the fields of tech philosophy and architectures

Yeah?

____________________

* Footnote: under total surveillance philosophies we are no longer innocent until proven guilty but incessantly, and permanently, considered guilty, whilst never to be proven innocent again.

definition, design philosophy, rationale

“astrids trädgård”: the swedish-located bletchley park

I’ve been note-taking again; yesterday on the tunnelbana (Stockholm’s metro) and today in one particular Joe & the Juice I love because of the jazz playlist you often get in the mornings. The one near Hötorget.

I’ve taken a liberty, too. It may not be the right thing to do: but if it’s not, we can amend and choose something else. What follows I have headed as “Astrid’s Garden”, in its English translation. Because, just as Alan Turing was a man of good genius, and yet had to fight for his right to be himself, so Astrid Lindgren, in a different time, place and culture, chose to fight what she believed in. And like Turing, it was for and behalf of a society which one day might become of the good.

Here is the stream of thought I’ve had over last night through to just after this midday …

mission:

fight fire with water wherever possible; only fight it with fire when utterly unavoidable

1. all the participating organisations achieve representation in terms of the potential and promise of individuals who belong to each.

to achieve this:

we create a bespoke evaluation process which allows us to identify this individual potential and promise in ways no one dreamed of.

the basis of the project is neuro-diverse complex problems-solutioning tech architectures: hardware, wearables and software all.

• https://www.sverige2.earth/unified

stepped in stages from the first privacy-sensitive structures through privacy-positive and secrecy-sensitive to the final goal: secrecy-positive.

• https://www.sverige2.earth/complexify-roadmap

we should spend as much money on people and their brains as we ever will on tech.

why does this feel uncomfortable? when did we ever feel spending massive amounts of money on tech was wrong? isn’t that the purpose of tech — to have money spent on it? ok. well. lots of virtues in that, for sure. but why not feel comfortable with doing the opposite? spending money on people: on our strengths and our capabilities.

• https://www.secrecy.plus/hmagi | hmagi.com

why not?

what could it mean?

spending directly, with salaries that allow for correct, humane, and moral conditions and sustenance; and then supportively, re technologies that upskill, expand and enhance the capacity for — ultimately — a wholly secrecy-positive “pure thought” that each person chosen will be chosen for because they already bring it – in more or less raw state — to the table at the start.

the projects and workstreams will then be enabled to first drive with efficiency (that is, leading to hyper-nonconformist hyper-performing person-focussed inside-out tech always) but along the way also creating regularly and inclusively (that is, what i have already conceptualised as hyperteam-delivering tech) as the programme progresses.

• https://thephilosopher.space

2. the goal is, however, also unremitting. completely so. as completely as the uk’s bletchley park during the second world war.

the targets as twofold:

a) bad actors; and b) preferred outcomes

a) the first target will focus on russia and china, and others who have, equally, allowed the criminality of the aforementioned to embed itself longitudinally throughout these years: from the russian wealth and war-focussed revenue streams in the uk alongside the collaboration at, and of, all levels of the conservative party to the chinese “police stations” spreading across supposedly sovereign britain and europe, with huawei and others as pure extensions of the chinese government’s aims to install surveillance within our internet backbones, never mind on phones, devices multiple, and so forth … all these are all examples of what i have called neocrime:

• https://crimehunch.com/neocrime

things we don’t see or even imagine until usually their creators have moved on to something else, at which point they lose interest in ongoing concealment. because whilst concealment exists, it happens for one reason: those committing such criminality are clever enough not to need to show anyone, ever, exactly how clever they are.

so we simply remain unaware, thinking “random” or “life” or … whatever.

3. astrids trädgård must therefore exist to anticipate, scope, identify, protect, and serve the interests of a real, good western democracy.

there is more we need to focus on …

b) in the best traditions of the united nations, we don’t only focus on detail, which is often passing. we focus also on the overarching and inalienable: the universal; the unchanging … literally and figuratively.

this is why i would add to the word “unremitting” already introduced one other word:

4. when we are able to fight fire with water, the word already mentioned. but when fire is our only alternative, then perhaps from a related org not open to astrids trädgård personnel themselves (for everyone’s mental wellbeing and sense of proportion and focus) we must fight this awful longitudinal fire that led to ukraine in the first place, and is sustained by the joint authoritarianism of russia and the chinese since much longer than we care to realise, with an equally merciless fire of our own.

so … proportionality always:

proportionate always, i repeat: but more than what “unremitting” tells us. and you may disagree, too; we may need to refine; we might have to finesse.

but in all cases, peter levine, the american civic thinker, and one of the most humane humans who ever lived, was right: good democracy demands we be inclusive, yes, but equally … we must be efficient.

• https://peterlevine.ws/?p=6359

so if covert spending exists to fund the fire with fire side, then it must have another name and mission quite different from astrids trädgård.

5 however, one thing must remain sharply clear: the final goal of both organisations will thankfully be shared.

it must be thus:

the objectives of both fire with water and fire with fire are to preserve, expand, deliver, share, and educate everyone globally — facilitating, also, that everyone become completely versed re these arts of learner and teacher — in the virtues of what i have seen in sweden these months:

a community spirit built on the absolute sovereignty of what we all hope are ultimately the nation’s most thinking citizens. and with this i mean … everyone in their absolute diversity and dignity to be enabled to express themselves of this diversity.

we MUST, similarly, trust that human beings will prefer their innate humanity over what we see in ukraine, in london’s richest money-laundering centres, in china, in places of similar authoritarianism across the globe — just so many, too many, far too many.

but in order for a human being to prefer humanity over inhumanity when the choice presents itself, we also MUST give the humanity we want to flower the tools to make it possible for all people to FEEL that it’s SAFE TO BE GOOD.

which is why i say: nation-building and citizen-building have to be accompanied by fighting crime and ensuring global security in the ways i will never stop advocating. ways which, to date, we have absolutely never pursued.

i hope this is ok. i hope for many reasons.

and i am always open to debate, to new ideas, to restructuring it all, if the evidence says it must be so.

but i also hold true to the reality that no one believed anything i said for twenty, and maybe more, years … but twenty at least.

and so i cry now not for me, but for the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions too, of other human beings who still aren’t believed in just the same way because we knowingly, negligently, make it possible for criminals (and all similar — including those who advantage themselves of loopholes and zemiological processes multiple) to be far more creative and nonconformist in their criminality than we have dared — ever CARED! — to be in our battle against the same.

one final thought:

just reconsider this.

just one more time.

why are criminals the strongest link in their criminality whilst the security industry consistently sustains the rest of us humans must be the weakest link in security?

• https://www.secrecy.plus/fire

it wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that it’s easier to monetise a widely imposed, machine-based counterforce to criminality than it is to integrate machines closely and sympathetically with the actual needs of the most competent, existent crimefighters we already have.

finding themselves, it’s true, not only having to fight the rampant criminality that leads directly to authoritarian russia and ukraine but also the #it- and #ai-#tech which their manufacturers utterly refuse, even today, especially today, to make supportive of humans as we actually are.

would it?

definition, design philosophy, rationale

and what if i am right in respect of #neoterrorismontheindividual (#noi)? and what if people like me are simply canaries in the mine?

and maybe the real problem here is that it’s not my sensitivity that makes me personally dysfunctional but your insensitivity that enables putin, society-wide, over and over again, to leave babies in their cots, bleeding red and dead as they slept.
mil williams, 14th august 2023, stockholm sweden

• neo-terrorism on the individual: how to undermine society without society ever realising it’s been happening | #darkfigure #neocrime | slide-deck version here

our problem

your problem is as follows.

if i am right re #noi, it’s been undermining all our societies for decades:

our = western, as well as locally here

and where i am right, the owners of #neoterrorismontheindividual and its processes and tools collect data on everyone, without exception. however, their owners and users choose when to use this data: they pick their moments and actual targets really judiciously.

mostly, it only gets visibly used against those who notice: what happened to me in 2003 in the uk.

but imagine if everyone began to notice: what then?

then, all the data these bad actors have collected on you over the years — keeping their powder utterly dry, if you like, in expectation of inevitable future need — would allow them to rapidly up their game overnight: because then, for them, the threat level would actually begin to exist. to date, it’s been all one-sided: theirs.

so what then?

#noi would become a visible act of repression, not an invisible one. it wouldn’t be #neocrime any more. what before sociology and criminology called #darkfigure:

• crimehunch.com/neocrime

and maybe #ukraine is not a sign of putin’s strengths in longitudinal gaslighting, though it might be easy to come to this conclusion.

maybe it’s a sign of his ultimate desperation. for his version of #noi, even factoring in pandemic, banking scandals, and three wars of his making in the last fifteen years, haven’t led quite enough to the total dislocation of western economies he sorely — and i’m sure dearly — expected would be delivered after all these years of having being a kgb acolyte of the worst, turned thug in fancy suits of the most horrible and politically immobilising kind.

because #ukraine has never just been about territory. that is, not physical. equally, and maybe much more, it’s been about distracting and dismantling western unity and sense of time & place: all good people’s mental territories and landscapes.

in the end, putin and his ilk are not even spymasters: they’re chessmasters in the most terrifying traditions. it’s chess they’re playing, not politics. total surrender, but sometimes — right to the end — with you not even thinking it’s going to be your fate. like the jews in the ghettos: worse than this, it surely can’t get.

in conclusion?

i can live with being ignored. i can live with being gaslit daily, in the trivial and incompetent ways they do. i can live with the #ukraines we have awaiting us. i suffered the #balkan one. i survived that, even at the cost of being improperly incarcerated as a result of the another democratic dismantling in 2003: the terrifying lead-up to #iraq which led to my own provoked mental dysfunctionality.

and we can’t forget 9/11: we never must.

and we can’t forget #pandemic either, though we already are: how the mercilessly rich knew it was coming and prepared their supply lines to benefit.

but let’s just imagine that for every hyper-sensitive person you assume people like me are, what you’re really witnessing are canaries in the mine: and meantime, as you laugh at us, and those who cause pandemic graft, invasions like #ukraine, disasters like #iraq, tragedies like 9/11 … and #brexit, and #trump, and all that stuff … well, maybe we’re not sensitive to irrelevance; maybe, instead, you’re insensitive to the embedded criminality that starts with the smallest of communities, the tiniest of acts, the symbolic gaslighting of the idiot on the metro … and maybe the real problem here is that it’s not my sensitivity that makes me personally dysfunctional but your insensitivity that enables putin, society-wide, over and over again, to leave babies in their cots, bleeding red and dead as they slept.

“Building the FEARless CITIZEN” #NoFutureUkraines

design philosophy, rationale

Next steps for #complexproblems …

“Because there is nothing that stops us more from achieving the impossible than by asking ‘how’. And nothing better to enable that impossible than focussing on the societal harm being committed over and over and over again … and then agreeing, of course, it’s now inconceivable to ignore it any more.”
Mil Williams, 6th August 2023, Stockholm Sweden

I’ve been meditating on next steps.

Background:

Usually in innovation circles, the person with the idea spends years trying to convince someone to fund its making, so then a client can be convinced it should be bought as solution which, actually, may not find a problem that needs it.

Better practice is to work closely with a potential client in these years, in order to bring to the table finally idea+client for funding to be arrived at: a problem identified first before a technology is made tangible.

This is why all my incessant thought-experimenting since 2016 …

I’m engaged these days in stopping the #putins of this world from ever getting a stranglehold over the countries and peoples I treasure, ever again. I want us to have more confidence, little by little, that there will exist a collective and shared future-present we can look forward to: in all aspects.

But I want us to solve a complex problem with complex thinking and outcomes. I don’t want us to use traditional startup tools which insist we must simplify before we can solve, and which then mean we inevitably lose sight of this complex problem’s essence:

• complexify.me

And:

• www.sverige2.earth/complexify-roadmap

I’m aiming high, it’s clear: it’s the only way. The stakes are just this: babies bleeding to death from shrapnel that punctures their apartment walls as they sleep. Not the rain of drops of beautiful nature but the rain of death of horrible men.

My objectives … which I’d like you to buy into also

This is what I want:

1. I want us to have tech architectures that enable us to prevent history repeating itself.

• omiwan.com/the-foundations

• thephilosopher.space

2. I want all citizens to become FEARless CITIZENS: it’s these sorts of citizens I want us to build.

• mils.page/phd

3. I want a security which believes also in a very human sense of safety too.

4. And I want ALL our law-enforcement and security agencies to become rigorously legal in all their actions … in everything they do, even when covertly:

• legalallways.com | www.secrecy.plus/law

What I believe in, then …

I believe in narrating inconvenient truths. It is my one foundation stone: the truth. I don’t believe in the relativism of post-modernism at all. The appalling and alleged “he says, she says” journalistic objectivity of organisations like the UK BBC leads to the fake news trumpeted by the likes of Trump, Farage, Johnson et al, as they achieve a ridiculous prominence with their ridiculous lies, via their being awarded equal dollops of public- and private-service airtime, whatever they assert.

How I want us to approach this “making it real” challenge

In the light of all the previous thought-experimenting, done precisely so as to avoid us building solutions for problems that don’t exist, I propose a different order to reach the goals I want us to deliver on one day:

Step 1: We start with the client, yes. But understood in their widest sense. We don’t ask what hurts them most and benefits us financially the easiest, with the quickest-to-invoice path we can think up. No. In the world the client inhabits, which is our world too when dealing with the complex problems I am asking us to debate, I want us to define and focus on what should’ve been solved generations ago. And most importantly, when we do:

“Kick into the grass ALL thoughts of HOW we might achieve such solutions. First, ONLY, consider ONLY whether the problems are hurting us all as badly as, for example, #ukraine is hurting everyone too.”

“Why?” you may ask.

“Because there is nothing that stops us more from achieving the impossible than by asking ‘how’. And nothing better to enable that impossible than focussing on the societal harm being committed over and over and over again … and then agreeing, of course, it’s now inconceivable to ignore it any more.”
Mil Williams, 6th August 2023, Stockholm Sweden

And it’s the client that provides the funding, not private investors.

Step 2: then we move to the research institutions, which will adapt to the requirements of a client that is not constituted out of their direct interests as money-generating institutions, amongst other important matters, but, rather, from the framework of the existent client that has emerged from Step 1, already agreed upon.

Step 3: if the client defined in Step 1 considers it safe for the overarching security and citizen-safety projects and workstreams under discussion to be opened up to wider investment, then we do so. However, big money has no national loyalties, as a general rule. So I suggest that the real due diligence that needs to be conducted will be on the provenance of the interested investors and their funding-pots, as well as their historical relationships — which will need to be audited closely, at start and on continuation throughout the projects and related workstreams — with countries and private interests that could easily be prejudiced by both the research I have already conducted to date as well as the work I would like for us to begin to deliver on together.

On societal forces which are actively destroying the agency of good human beings

In all this, there’s the impact of #neoterrorismontheindividual (#NoI)– a #tech-driven longitudinal #gaslighting which I suggest firmly by now is being used in really bad faith by the parties I want to exclude from our work, so they can shape and structure our societies in ways that benefit them deeply and prejudice democracy — that is, ourselves — profoundly:

• omiwan.com/the-humans

Linked to, then, from a few years ago, my draft #phd proposal in text form, and in respect of #NoI.

It’s not a project which needs doing now as a piece of research, but it should become — in a more developed form — an instruction manual whose lessons need to remain front-of-mind for anyone who works with us from now on in.

Because to destroy human agency — to give the impression one is predicting the random future when in truth one is scoping and delivering an artificially designed and beneficial future for limited and very private interests (NOT the same as prediction at all) — is actually evil: and it leads to #ukraine and a whole bunch more of actions we could all do well without.

Conclusion:

Meditating as I have been today, this is what I have come up with.

And I’m open to discussion now, of course. In the real world, that is, of compromise and even fudge. It’s better to do something good even if it enables, still, some evil — when it didn’t need to enable any. Because we can’t always do as well as we ought to: we don’t always do as well as we should.

Yet this shouldn’t stop us from trying, now should it?

Let’s shoot high. Can we?

Let’s …

• www.sverige2.earth/overview