A shortened version of a different but related matter from a few years ago — my first delivery of a #phd research-level roadmap — can be found in the form of a slide-deck here:
There’s plenty of other material on the historical, current and brand-new hub already. An initial objective-set dating a year or so ago now can be found in the gallery below:
“Building the FEARless CITIZEN” … to deliver #NoFutureUkraines
Meantime, here we have my most recent strategy to eliminate the scourge of legal societal harm (that is, loopholes or — more academically speaking — #zemiology): “Building the FEARless CITIZEN”, so that we ensure #NoFutureUkraines …
On a mental distress sourced in the environment
Keeping in mind that mental distress — ie a human dysfunctionality which has its roots in a sick environment, rather than a mental illness with its location inside the individual — is obviously on the rise, we need to operate on two fronts:
1. Change the environments.
2. Change ourselves.
And it’s clear, also, that both actions will serve each other: if we change the environment, our wellbeing will obviously improve. And if we change ourselves to be this FEARless I suggest, to be FEARless citizens in everything we do from now on in that is, the environment automagically changes, too.
It’s clear that #criminaljustice isn’t working. The fact of #putin’s #russia and its invasion of #ukraine — just one example of how malevolent experts in #loopholes are able to act in the very worst of bad faith — absolutely demonstrates that #criminaljustice manifestly can’t pursue and being to book the most serious #societalharm before it harms in the most serious ways.
Because #ukraine didn’t start the year of the invasion. It started a long time ago when the #kgb man #putin has always been firmly decided that any vestiges of #european hopes that a joint way forwards which might have been found between one side of the ex-#ironcurtain and the other needed to be longitudinally strategised out of existence forever. But also stealthily so: you don’t tell the enemy there’s a knife getting ready to be twisted deeply right in their back.
And so #ukraine was also enabled long-term by the richest centres of power on the planet: transnational corporations which had implemented the original way-back-when command & control #sovieteconomics — top-heavy and hyper-integrated economic structures — which in the age of supercomputers and their capacity to number-crunch in ways the #soviets never even dreamed possible made it possible for these companies to calendarise entire societies over periods as long as decades, never mind the crusty Lada-ridden 1984-style five-year plans.
What exactly am I getting at here?
Some of these corporations have more power than ANY country. Maybe not in the sense of the country GDP versus corporate revenue numbers themselves: but definitely in the almost authoritarian capability they have to make rapid decisions about billions of whatevers; and when I judge rapid I mean virtually from one day to the next.
And, therefore, in this sense in much more immediately impactful ways than any mere democracy will ever be able to engineer.
So this is power: and if knowing you have it you do choose to act, and you prevent #ukraines with your perspicacious even where secretive research data — even if only for bottom-line reasons, forget for the moment the rag-doll babies lying in pools of red at the end of a parent’s counterpane — it’s a massive power indeed exerted for the wider good.
But if conversely you don’t act; if you limit yourself to the role of spectator; if you trim and tack your humongous dinghy so any possibility of encroaching waves remains distant to your ship of shareholder stock … then effectively, when all those immense command & control buttons of the brightest are simply NOT being pressed, you actually are proactively enabling the #putins of the world.
Why is so hard for good people to do good? Really … why?
Well. There’s a thing, for sure.
I read a George Monbiot article in the Guardian a long while ago: it described a survey which said that most of us think most of us are bad people but, equally, most of us simultaneously see ourselves as good people.
Curious, huh?
Some weird disconnect, there.
For me it’s a question of access: the potential whistleblower needs to know their digital notes won’t be read by #badtech people (as mine almost certainly were on the metro this evening); equally, the #abusedspouse must know not only that her husband’s #mafia-behaving business colleague won’t be able to touch a friendly police office for a favour that needs to be called in, but that when it ends up in court and the husband’s word against hers, some kind of fair #tech platform for validating such assertions will also have been invented in the first place, so the pillar of the community he is won’t be able to sway the jury with his mere presence.
This is mostly why I want The Philosopher Space: so people – ALL of us, citizens and professionals, both — can recover our right to the secrecy of pencil and paper but with the 21st century advantages of digital.
That is, when we’re obliged to use digital, we aren’t forced by the system to strip ourselves naked in front of the #tech experts — as I might accurately observe, 70 percent men — who NEVER themselves have to perform the same humiliating acts of self-discovery.
OUR end-to-end thinking. The creative crimefighting we now need: bringing together the complementary and existent interests and skills of military, security and law-enforcement into one macro-team of defenders of the species.
Mil Williams, 2nd July 2023, Stockholm Sweden
On eliminating the Petri dish of Putin & Co’s creatively criminal strategies towards a European and wider longitudinal dislocation
Introduction
This is the current law-enforcement, security and military situation as I see it:
1. Organised crime funds Putin & Co’s Russia by embedding itself in local communities across Europe and other regions: it’s effectively the last mile of creative criminality:
2. Organised crime is then the deep connector of glocal (global <-> local) reach. It makes it possible for top-down and bottom-up approaches to moving illegal money around and in respect of its generation, capture, and delivery to easily acquire an almost impossible to unpick synthesis of seamless functioning.
3. It also allows Putin & Co to longitudinally gather data — on local turfs and from great distances — on trends, movements and rising individuals in democratic systems that might all prove threats to the established order he and his kind continue to strategise in order to achieve and sustain.
This is why I argue that in order to develop a capacity to prevent another #ukraine from ever being contemplated, never mind delivered on, we need to create human-enhancing technologies that empower good human beings like ourselves to fight back with a “War & Peace (II)” approach:
That is to say, for a change our kind of war on our sort of terms: but even so, permanent and ongoing; and then again, our kind of peace on our sort of terms: and even so, permanent and ongoing.
What will the process leading to these preferred outcomes consist of?
1. Identifying sources of power and wealth which to date could have contributed to #ukraine not happening and which, nevertheless, have chosen either a) to effectively sit on the sidelines and watch the region burn; or b) have proactively consented to and created the environments and frameworks which have led directly to #ukraine: nation-states; large transnational corporations and others with huge reserves of cash and wealth of various kinds; zemiological actors of multiple kinds.
2. With this information to hand, we robustly and firmly ringfence these actors future participation in:
a) our own future human-interfacing and enabling tech tools and platforms; and
b) the strategic and longitudinal reconstruction of a wider Western democracy.
I suggest, above all, that as a general principle we do NOT use the often self-interested advisory and consulting processes of tech and related corporate organisations when scoping, developing and configuring the natures of the architectures of our proposed new software and hardware architectures and frameworks.
Instead, from our own university and other research institutions we build up teams of our own consulting and advisory specialists consisting of human-related and tech-related researchers both — as well as others who may be chosen to be upskilled in such skillsets, in the collective democratic future-present we wish to forge anew — in order to create a permanent future-present capability in such processes.
The proposal would then employ big tech and related SIMPLY AND ONLY as implementers of, never participants in, our secret sauces.
After all, you cannot invite into the kitchen of future Western stability those organisations which have actively collaborated in the poisoning of Western democratic ways of acting and engaging with complex problems — either by default and their sitting on the sidelines, or through an affirmation on their part of criminal activity by their working alongside and continuing to gladly invoice such organisations in full knowledge of their ongoing zemiology:
We can however, I now firmly believe, use such corporations as simple extensions of fully formed projects which reach them with absolutely all the necessary specifications and requirements ready drawn-up by the aforementioned bespoke teams of OUR own researchers and in-house advisory & consulting experts.
To summarise
If we follow the above path, in this way:
a) we won’t lose the agility of large corporates’ manifest capability to deliver massively on clear specifications when everything is duly finalised and competently in possession of its always necessary roadmap;
b) but, equally, we don’t allow them to move us in the direction of solutions which continue to be optimal for their bottom lines but not for a European and wider security and safety environment:
c) nor will we lose the element of absolute internal and external secrecy we need if, in any reasonable way, we are to successfully fight back against Putin & Co’s longitudinal strategising in favour of the sustenance of his own brand of creative criminality and its related Petri dish.
Because it’s time to break into unusable pieces that serve zero purpose the Petri dish of Putin & Co that enables local-turf criminality from feeding — ultimately — into the pockets of their aspirations to global dislocation and domination.
Because it all starts from that neighbourhood you live in, where you enjoy shooting the breeze with the man you know, for sure, to be a gangster.
And it all ends in the bloodied baby’s cot in a Kyiv apartment block.
Let’s think as creatively as the criminals, for a change
OUR end-to-end thinking. The creative crimefighting we now need: bringing together the complementary and existent interests and skills of military, security and law-enforcement into one macro- and hyper-team of defenders of the species.
Just that.
And so then, finally, by both scoping and using new tech architectures which Putin & Co cannot bribe themselves into acquiring under any circumstances, we make it increasingly difficult for #ukraine to happen ever again.
https://www.secrecy.plus | for human-expanding and upskilling #secrecypositive software architectures and hardware
my ex- has two indian friends she used to teach spanish to. they lived close to where we did: a married couple.
we were invited to theirs on occasions, and would go over enthusiastically of course, for a full evening repast with other guests we might or might not have met before. they were immensely gracious guests, were her indian friends.
one time, we were introduced to what turned out to be a techie guy: an executive type, though.
yes … not a software engineer or anything like this.
i was clear i’d been invited by apple via the brother of the bebo founder, at a meetup in the wellcome foundation cafe some years before in london, to come onboard.
this time, the techie guy basically spun the story that all tech corps controlled the next ten years of tech … all tech corps. this wasn’t an apple thing, let’s be clear. this was all of them, including apple. (he did assert he knew the apple case from inside.)
so. big tech would rarely launch useful stuff, just for the good of the world. it would do so when a series of conditions were met.
for example:
• what — for them — was all-too-existent tech, but invisible and, indeed, unknown to the outside world, wouldn’t end up being revealed to anyone unless there was a sound bottom-line reason. they wouldn’t even float the concept publicly (that is, telling the idea but not saying they had developed it …)
• neither did they ever seem keen to express the desire, or be driven by the need, to apply such apparently non-existent tech imaginatively for the whole species’ benefit, before, that is, its time arrived as per their aforementioned ten-year calendarisations of the related monetisation opportunities and timelines
remember google glass?
research the year it appeared: go on.
dr steve mann invented it and used his own from 1984, if my memory serves me right:
google then had to finally retire its own consumer version from sale because of “invasion of privacy” concerns from the wider market (and perhaps, also, the wider mass media): and this, even when the version sold had an unnecessarily large and obviously clumpy camera.
do you think they weren’t using it far more covertly way before they launched a consumer version?
do you think they stopped using their own privately covert version after the consumer version was boxed off and deactivated?
of course they used it way before, covertly and more, on everyone.
of course they wouldn’t stop using such a powerful surveillance — and counter-surveillance — tool.
like exxon in the 1970s hiding the research that predicted THEN to the tenth of a degree the global warming (not climate change, ffs) NOW incurred due directly to their fossil fuels:
well. big tech behaves in exactly the same way. it has massive solutions: it had them decades ago. its bottom-line doesn’t need them now, though.
and it certainly DOESN’T want to democratise genius, as i have argued increasingly our species needs us to aim at doing, if we want to survive the cataclysmic climate and other challenges encroaching more and more our daily experiences of life:
so what do we do? if big tech refuses to change its ways 180 degrees — and it will refuse, i assure you — what do we do?
we do it ourselves!
we do it for the military and security, but also for a citizen force which uses sousveillance not to control the state but work with it.
we create relevant software constitutions to achieve it. we use the genius resident deep down in every human being to deliver unpredictable thought, predictably.
and ultimately, we will eliminate ALL loopholes.
and we will eliminate a wider zemiology from every community.
and we will cut back the dried-out deadwood of our societies’ most creatively criminal poachers.
we will make the woods of every community — whether professional or geographical — good again: all of them.
that is, make the timbers of a civilised society no longer anything to be shivered about by anyone.
look:
in sweden you already invented a cctv which is useful but, at the same time, doesn’t need to store the images to deliver law-enforcement support.
it’s this kind of shameless thinking — shamelessly free! — that i hanker after, and now really really do need.
this is why from here: from sweden. exactly this.
yes …
and i appreciate, too, that everyone needs to participate.
but i am angry at big tech for giving up on the species.
and i know how capable it is of getting into projects in order to mess around with them for defensive reasons and purposes: to protect above all the interests of its blessed bottom-line over the interests of, for example, war-torn victims.
the fortnite founder event in salford i attended some years ago proved this, when i was informed by an attendee that basically my idea of #hmagi had been bought up and closed down from another bright mind years before:
in #stockhom #sweden #sverige, what was broached in #dublin #ireland in 2016 is now possible here.
and i feel like it is new; not returning to an awful toxic past and having to pay every day for it, as it remains close and clammy to the touch.
no.
not that.
solving the putin problem
i was asked on the train today what the keys are to solving the #putinproblem.
the #putinproblem includes #trump, and #brexit, and #facebook escaping with virtual murder as #cambridgeanalytica became the fall guy for the inevitable outcome of #zuckerberg’s choice of business model: this outcome being the savage and unremitting dismantling of citizen agency in modern western and associated democracies.
it includes everything that means even professionals will think, when they take a life-changing decision on someone in their life-changing nominal charge, they do so with this agency i mention: no one else is furtively intervening. and god forbid that those intervening might be criminals on the scale of #putin’s #russia.
so the keys to solving these #complexproblems longitudinally and long-term are …?
first: accepting how we’ve been part of the problem
first, everyone who wants to join me in this battle in favour of a new democracy and against the #tech-driven #gaslighting that has been designed, developed and implemented over decades must accept they both tolerated and in some senses embraced #neoterrorismontheindividual because they used it themselves to shape their societies. they must take it firmly on the chin, as i do, that we are still part of the problem.
and whilst they/we were better at it than the enemy — #russia, a #badmoney without sovereign frontiers, #bigtech in practically all its manifestations — all was kinda ok. people like myself did get improperly incarcerated by proficient users of symbolic communication such as the #british, and by extension the #irish, but those of us who had to suffer such indignities and injustices were relatively small in number. i suppose.
second: how we’ve enabled the enemy
the problem is when the enemy gets better than you could ever imagine at this #neoterrorismontheindividual i uncover. and an even bigger challenge: when you simply have no inkling that they have got so much better than you, nor indeed for how long … nor when it all started to go belly-up.
this is what i say has happened already. i was saying it somehow in my #criminaljustice dissertation back in 2017. i realise in hindsight now that both the #british and #irish agreed and were as one: i had to be scoped out of academic circulation. symbolic language is a mark of the #british security state’s capacity to control a society without ever taking ownership. (the #irish — suffering the colonising #english — had to compete against this: and we know the #tech adage about being careful who you compete against because, one fine terrible day, you’ll become just like them.)
and so see how cozying up to these #espionage ways and means enabled deep #russian interests close to #putin to embed themselves in #uk football clubs, financial institutions and other channels where money flows freely and conveniently.
third: symbolism as a cancer to democracy
wherever a country prefers to use #symbolism to rule we have a cancer: a cancer on democracy; on the opportunities for democracy to flourish; on the chances that democracy might sustain and renew itself where needs be.
‘question is: are the upsides of using #symbolic systems worth the downsides? maybe they are: #espionage is a common thread throughout #human #history. so maybe all ok in this sense (despite the occasional collateral damage such as myself back in 2002-2003 and then again in 2004, and in 2017 … and many more times i guess even i haven’t yet sussed).
but it’s NOT ok when the genie whose bottle we uncorked centuries ago becomes owned by the enemy under our noses.
so to answer, finally, the question i was posed on the train this morning: if #zuckerberg and the illegitimate influencing of democratic discourse … if #brexit … if #trump and insurrection … and ultimately if #putin’s three wars in fifteen years culminating in his unforgivable invasion of #ukraine … if all this doesn’t provide the evidence we need in order to say we’ve currently, deeply, awfully lost the war of #espionage; that our enemies far outplay us; and that tolerating and even embracing the tools described in my slide-deck below are something we can continue to do … you really really do, sadly so too, have zero self-awareness.
fourth: solutions and caveats
and i’m not saying don’t use the tricks i define in the slide-deck. i’m saying:
1. if you do sanction their use, do so legally.
2. if you do sanction their use, then do not do so against your own, just because they’re inconvenient voices and thinkers. (that leads to a dismantled democracy from within, and thus supports the enemy even more profoundly than they could hope for.)
3. and last but not least, if you do end up seeing no alternative, never never never show by default or inaction that you underestimate the enemy because #bigtech #corporations tell you that you have all the tools you need. and all the tools the enemy might have.
i tasted cold coffee with soya drink just now and the memories of a campsite somewhere in austria maybe high up in the mountains where summer green was all around and showers stopped automatically and buttons had to be repeatedly pressed and the early morning drifted smells of bacon grill and more and the milk was uht 'cos it had to be it just had ...
so all this came drifting back to me and all this was sharp as nines and all this was in my head just how and right now is when i remembered with fondness the trials and tribulations and real pain of being my mother and father's son
because mostly it was pain: slashing tongues which fast cut me to the quick nailing me to the spot like hammer hitting out and lashing me with criticisms of everything i tried to make emerge from me
and so only this minute do i begin very slowly to do the things i always wished to do and be the man i never was and grin to love not grin to bear and find at last in human relations the right to enjoy myself full fair without recrimination or disapprobation or disapproval of some religious scriptures: what hurt me so all those years ago and still on occasions serves to actually destroy my soul
and so now i don't care what he might think because now he's passed and is in his clink and she meanwhile reveals herself as authoritarian body of dictatorial mouse: scampering around and making all silent and then patting down the violences of them both
for the passive-aggression he imposed on my child was fully enabled by her actions of default and whilst i was younger and felt myself deeply the blame of just being there and occupying a space which was never to be mine in the end it's true i've had this life of falsehood and in the end it will be TRUER you and me or me and another or whomsoever i shall finally meet in joy and daily grandeur when heads hit pillows and the mellowness of affection turns into for a moment no longer the passions of terrible and bloody rejection for my brain is a magdalena and my memories are beginning to heal
Today I had a brief video-chat with someone positively predisposed to the idea of #intuition. He even saw it as bordering the mystical. He was Indian. Indians love #intuition, it’s true. But #it-#tech Indians have caveats they all seem to share. This is something I have seen before: real deep trust in human #intuition’s capabilities but a real distrust in any chance of ever validating it usefully.
This man is also involved professionally in #it-#tech. When I gave him four examples of how not all #tech had chosen to diminish human beings in the field of non-traditional #datasets, he was still unconvinced.
The four templates we should look to when validating #intuition:
Example 1: the #film-#tech industry from its beginnings over a hundred years ago has decided to almost always amplify and enhance existent human abilities: more voice with a microphone; keener vision with a camera; greater expressiveness with the language of close-up. And in so doing it’s made billions, perhaps trillions, in the paradigmatic century of its total cultural dominance.
Example 2: in my younger years video was not admissible evidence in the #criminaljustice system of my homeland. Now it is. What changed to put in the hands of #lawenforcement and #justice’s stakeholders and subjects this tool to eliminate procedural waste so dramatically? We didn’t change any #justice system: we just introduced new tools to validate video evidence, so that the hidden knife in the real life holdup was proven to have been used via a validated electronic cousin.
Example 3: the detective who just knows that someone is lying in an interrogation may be wrong too, on occasions; but often they all too accurate. Yet it then takes due process months, maybe years, to arrive at the same conclusion. What if we could validate — not prove right but decide definitively (as the #video example above now allows us to much more speedily) whether in truth MAYBE wrong but ALSO maybe right — so that this detective’s #hunch would bring about a conviction (or release) of the most adequate?
Example 4: I then suggested to my interlocutor that we should come up with a new 9/11 before it strikes us again. Here, I suggest we learn how to reverse- or forward-engineer bad human thought, so as to stop it in its tracks, with the most #creativecrimefighting you could conceive of:
But not the “when” or “who” of what is already being planned out: in these cases, machine automation operates really competently on the basis of existent #lawenforcement and #nationalsecurity #it-#tech data-gathering processes …
Rather, I mean to say here the “what” and “how” of an awfully #creativecriminality. And I say this because 9/11 was a case of where assiduous machines which humans used conscientiously, and in all good faith, were roundly beaten by horrible humans who used machines as extensions of themselves terrifyingly well: being the case, therefore, of simply not supporting existent habits of #creativecrimefighting (because detectives can be immensely creative already in tussling out narratives that explain otherwise insoluble crimes) with conventional #it-#tech choices and strategies that absolutely do NOT since time immemorial care to foreground and upskill human #intuition.
What happened next and, maybe, why:
When I said to my interlocutor that these four examples surely served as robust precedents and templates for proceeding to validate #intuition and #crimehunch insights just as deeply, as well as to an equally efficient end … well, this was when he veered back to talking again of #intuition’s impenetrable workings. “Yeah,” he was saying, “intuiting is great process … but don’t dare to untangle it.”
And it’s funny how those who work in an industry — that is, #it-#tech — where the richest of its members are incredibly wealthy on the back of their particular and often mostly privately privileged visions of how the future must become … well, that these wealthy individuals then, and similarly equally, find themselves incapable of conceding that such a profoundly value-adding activity for them should have its own wider validation systems for usall. Why? Well. In order that EVERYONE who could care to might acquire a distributed delivery of similar levels of genius-like thinking: what I have in fact called the “predictable delivery of unpredictable thinking”.
I’d like us to create software, wearables, firmware and hardware environments where not only a select few can enjoy being geniuses, but where we all have the opportunity to be upskilled and enhanced into becoming value-adding, natively intuition-based thinkers and creators:
Attached below, just one small application we might develop, using existent architectures — not the particular ones I think more appropriate for truly deep #intuitionvalidation, where we conflate admin/user in one #datasubject — and with a proposed 100-day roadmap to demonstrate that the beautiful insight I had more than a year ago is actually, honestly, spot-on:
1. That #intuition, #arationality, #highleveldomainexpertise, #thinkingwithoutthinking, and #gutfeeling are potential #datasets as competent as #video suddenly became when we believed finally its validation was a real deliverable.
2. That all the above all-very-human ways of processing special #datasets actually contain zero #emotion and even less of the #emotive when it’s their processes we’re dealing with. And that when they do EXPRESS themselves emotionally it’s out of the utter frustration which the driver and #datasubject of such #intuitive processes suffers from as a consequence of the fact that no one at all, but NO ONE, in #it-#tech cares to consider #intuition and related as #datasets worthy of their software and platform attentions.
So out of frustration I say .. but never the intrinsic nature of such #intuitive patterns of collecting #data and extracting insights which people like that detective I described earlier do believe sincerely in, when driving the most mission-critical operations of #publicsafety of all.
The real nub of the issue is this: in the absence of data, we can only use data that is present. Here, it’s clear when someone commits a crime and we catch them after the event with a certain number of mobile train security personnel on our payroll. That’s measurable: the ratio of events to arrests, for example. What’s not measurable by automated data science and analytics half so easily is when something doesn’t happen because a permanent guard is present to act as deterrent.
Mil Williams, Stockholm Sweden, 21st April 2023
Introduction:
There are strikes on the commuter trains — the otherwise fabulous pendeltågs — here in Sweden: even the occasional wildcat ones. The frustration is patent: more so, because the strikers are right.
This is why:
An aside:
As a brief by the by before I continue, I think the train companies are able to claim the numbers of security and safety staff would remain the same, and yet still want to go ahead with it all, because they’re changing the type of workforce: you still need to go through with rightful and rigorous measures to vet and upskill non-train guards of all sorts it’s true, but with a train guard it’s less easy to change and chop their working locations, conditions and so forth. Or outsource the workforce, even. Change overnight who employs them and how.
No?
So …
How a data-driven world can deceive:
The thing is, here we have a perfect example of when a “data-driven world” actually needs academia more than it needs an automated data analytics and data science as we usually understand them.
The train companies in Liverpool and Sweden both I am sure will have had long-term strategies to re-engineer the structures of their employees and related re in-house and outsourcing options, and whilst taking guards off the trains in the circumstances described wouldn’t deliver immediate economic advantage, as indeed they underlined in Liverpool for sure, long-term if I’m right it definitely would.
The real nub of the issue is this: in the absence of data, we can only use data that is present. Here, it’s clear when someone commits a crime and we catch them after the event with a certain number of mobile train security personnel on our payroll. That’s measurable: the ratio of events to arrests, for example. What’s not measurable by automated data science and analytics half so easily is when something doesn’t happen because a permanent guard is present to act as deterrent.
And this is the challenge here. It really is a challenge around what we do when the evidence base is incomplete: that is, how it leads us to take quite the wrong decisions.
To the solution:
There is a solution too; I alluded to it above. Straightforward academia gives us tools to codify absences, in for example qualitative data such as an interview transcript or video, so that what isn’t said is as significant as what is.
If we could create an equal set of tools for strategic decision-making when deciding if to take train guards off trains or no, perhaps we would avoid the strikes we’re having everywhere: and at the very least, we could validate, in a less conflictive way, the common sense most users of public services have that a “bobby on the beat” engenders an incomparable feeling of safety even where a car in the neighbourhood can be evidenced to deliver on objective data relating to quantitative crime events.
Summarising:
In crime and public safety, what doesn’t happen is as important as what does: and the “why” of both these matters, too.
So.
Let’s do something after the evidence bases for both aspects of the truth: that which has a visible side and the invisible events as well.
And then let’s achieve delivery of these aspirations sooner rather than later.
Another by the by: the promoters of today’s information are a further example of why we should act on the basis of what is not visible, as well as what is.
The Sweden Democrats started out as fascist and redolent of nazism of the very worst sort — at least according to the English version of Wikipedia. They themselves claim to have re-engineered their political DNA, which is not impossible but highly unlikely. Even so, medical professionals claim bespoke DNA of the human kind is very close to becoming a reality now; so we could argue that in politics it’s not unthinkable any more.
Let’s just say, however, for the moment unlikely and hard to do.
So. The risk from relying on present datasets instead of datasets relating to both what’s present and absent too? We allow people to hijack in bad faith what needs to be promoted in good faith.
The train personnel are right. Guards on trains deliver safety and security. This Swedish political party — in the current security conditions which China and Russia together have been stealthily laying out for decades together — are also correct to highlight the dangers of such, separate, narratives.
But they are wrong to a) conflate two issues like this; and b) lever the abuse and violence of both nation-states and their outliers in the fields of geopolitics to then promote an immigration narrative of their own re Sweden which delivers total obfuscation of our all too human reality and a zero confusion around their racist truths. Unless you choose to remain confused.
Sometimes it’s right to be firm: China — not all Chinese people — is a toxic regime. Putin’s Russia, too, has absolutely no redeeming qualities. But firm doesn’t mean we have to give fascism a place at the table of a wider collective progress.
Don’t besmirch the truth of the train staff by taking political shortcuts. And if this is what changing your political DNA leads to, change is what clearly you are NOT delivering.
Just occurs to me, too: even more reason to proceed with #intuitionvalidation.
introduction to my rationales for a new #neurodiverse-#it in order to solve #complexproblems:
my real concerns around being #secrecypositive, or not at all, have lately had nothing to do with governments and what they do with our right to #secrecy. after all, many citizens buy #secrecypositive reading- and sharing-machines of highly controversial content quite legally in all #european countries: we call them books, and they are made of paper. nothing more #secrecypositive than this millennium-old way of sharing and spreading, both in good and bad faith, information of all kinds.
so if it’s legal on paper, with pencil or ink, and has been for centuries, why not repeat in digital — and sooner than later?
you see, the problem isn’t discovering a digital burglary has taken place. because the removal of a digital privacy or object or piece of content like this is possible to achieve by copying exactly. the removal is consequently effected without removing. but its potentially prejudicial removal is a fact all the same. just as if in a life more conventionally real:
my problem is never a government access to my bedroom, and always instead a criminal usage of similar accesses:
no.
i don’t mind — really don’t mind — knowing good governments can see what i do. i wouldn’t mind, for example, the #swedish government watching me in this way, because they are a state which strives to legitimate itself always.
meantime, i have minded the british doing the same to me since they incarcerated me improperly back in 2003, using #mentalhealth legislation to achieve #nationalsecurity objectives: there really is no way the homeland of boris johnson, even now as it currently stands twenty long years later, can be called a legitimate world player of any standing whatsoever.
and certainly not for the rest of #europe. because in order to erect and democratically sustain a hierarchy of surveillance, you have to robustly aspire in an ongoing way to manifesting that same democracy of legitimation.
to challenges, then, which i’d like to answer with the project “complexify.me”:
but even governments and governances as immensely competent as the #swedish ones manifestly show themselves to be can’t respond wholly cogently to the following set of quandaries i and many others find ourselves both intellectually and emotionally suffering from right now:
yes, the governments of good nation-states like #sweden must act deeply to preserve the delicate balance of their societies which evidence this goodness: and more intelligently as a result of their delicacy.
for they, more than say the british (and not just now but, in hindsight, for much longer than we pretended was ever the case), are entirely vulnerable — out of choice … and rightly so! — to such ecosystems of goodwill being upturned by outsiders and insiders who prefer to take advantage of these profoundly democratic freedoms for their own criminal gain. for in the freedoms of such constituted trusts lie the essences of their wisdoms.
the quid pro quo, or the caveat if you like, is this: we must as essentially democratic peoples accept that sometimes in order to protect our treasured states there will exist a need to do less democratic acts. but for a limited period of time clear to all, and even then to proportionate measure.
because being this kind of democracy doesn’t mean you cannot maintain yourself with insight and firmness. you don’t have to limit yourself to rolling over and thinking of the northern lights because you are good and mustn’t defend yourself with decision on occasions. and so to deliver on this, you do need to have the ongoing capacity to gather any information and datasets that preserve these laudable states of fragile coexistence, without at the same time puncturing them.
summarising my thoughts on these matters a little:
understand me: i’m not saying don’t watch your citizens. i’m saying as citizens we have to watch each other, all of us to all of us: but as KEEPERS of each other’s human souls, so that necessary violent actions of the state are always, always, kept to a bare minimum.
finally, digital burglary — as described above — inconveniently can happen without us ever being aware of it: and in this “us”, i mean the state, its best professionals and its most intelligent citizens … all of us.
my issue, therefore, with deep surveillance is that if my government does it, even where immensely cleverly, in it will exist people with two dangerously connected roles:
a) rights of legal and proper access to state surveillance tools, datasets and infrastructures; and
b) illegitimate obligations, for whatever reasons, as humans possessed of covert and completely illegal relationships with an ever more embedded, organised, and creative criminality.
conclusions to the above:
if my state says it needs to surveill me to the extent that it can even see and hear me whilst i have sex, in order that it may protect me in more relevant matters, it will already exist as a capability of the aforementioned criminality years before. and so, as mil’s theorem suggests:
“in an almost infinitely malleable digital environment and world, if i — with my limited intellect and financial resources — can imagine a new crime, someone else with far more money and brains will already be doing it. i don’t need to prove this #neocrime exists to know it does.”
the consequences being …? we can’t fight this kind of crime only with good #neurotypical people who are naturally comfortable with such #neurotypical-#it platforms and tools.
we must include equally good people with #neurodiverse abilities and brand new kinds of #neurodiverse-#it, so they can then start to construct and tell the stories that describe the #darkfigure increasingly being committed out there in some of the ways i now describe.
stories which the existent #neurotypical professionals — properly and usefully so, too — can then begin to chase down and stop in whatever sanctioned ways the states of good faith in our #europeanunion judge to be necessary, at each historical moment in our collective future-presents.
crime is a domain i have pretty good knowledge of at #autoethnographic and #academic levels, but it is always going to be a subset of #complexproblems: #complexproblems are NOT a subset of a generally creative #criminality.
mil williams, stockholm sweden, 14th april 2023
i just want this to be clear. i’m happy for others to work with my ideas in security and so forth. but i am going to focus on developing systems for #neurodiverse #thinkingspaces that begin to solve #complexproblems our species needs resolving, above and beyond #criminality.
things like #climatechange and #foodsecurity for example.
crime is a domain i have pretty good knowledge of at #autoethnographic and #academic levels, but it is always going to be a subset of #complexproblems: #complexproblems are NOT a subset of a generally creative #criminality.
what’s more, i don’t have the confidence of people in #lawenforcement and #security. never have: never will. i’m a free-thinker, above all. this doesn’t make me better, at all. but it might mean it makes me incompatible with good #security and #lawenforcement praxis.
so this is what i am now thinking and strategising. i may be able to acquire the necessary confidence to do these things in other fields of human endeavour. at the very least, the potential for a decent engagement is more likely in other areas now.
if there are people in some allied country who work, even so, in crime and related, and still are interested in what i propose, do come forwards and show yourselves.
but even here, let’s propose that anything we do starts with the principle and framework of #complexproblems, not creative #criminality.
contact me on the email below, if you do want to explore.
just explore.
just see the reality. examine the truth. and maybe, just maybe, do something usefully different for a change:
mil's page 