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:
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.
as if we were talking, in fact, about creating software code in the shape of UN inalienable rights and charters, conventions and manifestos, and stuff with these kinds of discourses, as opposed to the more conventional laws and regulatory approaches parliaments and so forth generally prefer to come up with
from my iphone’s app this late morning / around midday:
introduction
yes
this is what we can embrace, if we choose to:
• one nation-state fully onboard
• one big tech partner, fully committed
• one local and regional web of finance, legislation, tax, accountability, delivery, and societal benefit: sweden
then once this is secured, we can discuss exporting
but not before
in respect of past deeds
not interested in the past in respect of those of us who deserve to be in CORE
am interested in collective future-present and deep partners who want a different future-present from the ones we’ve all been a part of in the past
this i repeat is also true for me, just as much as for anyone else or for any other org
good
on trust systems and their development
this means … we have to learn to trust each other, but always suspect everyone and everything
be childlike to the most if you like; but equally, not naive in the least
game-changing trust is built over time with tools no one has ever considered
this is why we need the brightest nonconformist brains committed to changing the world for the better: both gradually and overnight
that is, parallel processes
the value of cultural dissonance and internal respect amongst all parties
yes
true
everything is best when combined
not one or the other team
everything
cultural dissonance and cultural rub are the preconditions for both innovation and invention
but the condition being that different types of seeing and doing also learn to value the others interchangeably and equally
generously
truly generously
so as long as with this caveat upfront and conditioning everything we all do, we will also need conformists at the base of everything we do
my work / life expectations and aspirations
personally, i want to live modestly
i want to think untrammelled, obviously
so this is why i need the modest life to ensure the untrammelled doesn’t leak into my behaviours
a modest life, therefore
decent food
healthy exercise
and a dollop of joy every so often
the fields of action and play
the battlegrounds are various:
• resistance: putin’s russia and everyone who approves of its actions
• fightback: putin’s russia and everyone who approves of its actions
• long-term, however, the focus MUST be local and regional: embedded global criminals at local and regional levels who use symbolic communication as per mafias everywhere, to evade justice as it currently stands, need to be dealt with
why? these are the real funding streams that enable putin and his ilk everywhere to not only have the cruel ambitions they have but the capability, the financial muscle, to deliver on them: local crime turfs spread out across the continents and connected via 21st century digital means
implications
thus:
in my judgement, law enforcement and trusted private security need both to be involved at the start, at least with the 100-day rapid app development programmes that use existing architectures
but they have so much knowhow, the aforementioned security and citizen-safety orgs and their people i mean, that they deserve to be in deep, also from the beginning, re the scoping of new architectures and ways of structuring tech
but i am always open to other opinions and views
always will be, now
now we begin to propose having these foundations
my emotional life
i’d like an emotional life, yes
someone with a view of life i can engage with and which allows her to engage with my work and play, both
and me with hers in equal, and absolutely peer-to-peer, measure
and it’s obviously part of the whole, but firm foundations to the project as we are discussing today will help me be much much more patient and much much less needy now
so all good
it’s ok
with the two pillars we need to fight neo-terrorism on the individual (noi), trust will grow very quickly
spain sits curiously: i separate what i feel about the country easily from what i feel about the personal, which obviously has existed from the start
so it’s ok in this respect
i could travel to and from and work with people from there, despite the fact that i also had really dreadful experiences with businesspeople there once upon a time
and i don’t know why now ok. maybe there is a reason. maybe just time
maybe just the time that has elapsed
why sweden
for me, in my opinion, humbly expressed, sweden is objectively better as a collective built on individual rights than any other country i have ever known or lived in
whatever it is, the most important thing for me here in sweden is that i see people who strive to be good people every day. and even people with the power to effect change (eg in the uk there are also plenty of good people: none of them are powerful)
not all people here do this, of course. not all do good by any means, even in my limited personal experience
impossible that it should be so
maybe, even, not desirable: it wouldn’t be allowing for the human we sometimes imperfectly have to be
but enough do good to the best of their ability for the threshold to be far gooder than i have sensed intuitively at any other time in my life
anywhere else
and not just strive and then wave their hands foolishly when it doesn’t work:
• because you don’t fucking give up until it works here in sweden
• but you don’t get silly either. you wait until this moment arrives beautifully, and only then do you pounce supportively
it’s a series of behaviours i would love one day to emulate well myself
so again, here it’s true: people laugh a lot
and this is good
but sarcasm isn’t a national trait as far as i can see
inquisitiveness defo is
a thirst to uncover and discover
it’s refreshing
it suits my own deep ways of being and seeing
and maybe now much more possible, my ways of doing
a caveat or two re funding provenance
as long as we establish funding-stream provenance professionally and competently, i’m open to support from whom you judge trustworthy
even the countries i’ve mentioned in less glowing terms
yeah
and so i guess some covert part of the uk, which isn’t and never will be mi5 or have relationships with the unis that have bad-actor funding connections … even here we could propose some kind of engagement after the groundwork i’m sketching out today was firmly put in place
the evidence of good faith would have to be overpowering, tho’. absolutely incontrovertible and irreproachable … and right now, no one in the uk is in a position to offer anyone this evidence of their ability to distinguish between political right and geopolitical wrong
who may form part of CORE
none of them as CORE, for reasons that should be obvious (and if to you who are reading these words they’re not obvious, this pretty automagically precludes you from any participation at any level for a long time: certainly, until they do become obvious to you)
not that, then: not them inside CORE
this means, therefore, that none of the alluded to, i repeat, will have any CORE influence over how and what and when and stuff re product, service, platform architectures, and so on.
none will have the ability to impose their preferred approaches whereby innovation would become mere tweaking, and invention something we never even broach. ukraine can’t be won through a mentality of tweaks, after all (and if you believe it can, that’s why you’re automagically not going to be a part of CORE)
• such parties will only be enabled to participate — if we decide they deserve it — as right-at-the-end clients, in a covert marketplace if covert is needed
• and if not needed, a public marketplace of b2b and b2gov
• but no bespoke or consultative products, services or outcomes here
what CORE will consist of
this is my proposal, as it stands today:
• one committed nation-state: that is, yourselves
• your local and regional business, commercial, tax, legislative, delivery and sociocultural infrastructures as framework in perpetuity
• finally, where this is judged advisable and collaboratively intelligent, one big tech partner who wants to redo the world, including maybe what they did in other times which they’d now begin to question … (but then again, this will clearly be the same for most of the rest of us too, as already observed)
if it has to be eventually more oppenheimer than curie, that’s ok
i understand
but curie laid the foundations for oppenheimer, after all
and if it’s more global boiling than fighting directly the kind of criminality i’ve been discussing itself, i’d still say that to ensure our researchers feel brave enough and protected enough to deliver the killer blows to the climate denial we all want them to deliver, they need to know and feel they will be permanently and efficiently protected to the max from new kinds of crime and zemiology, potentially conducted on their persons day in, day out
so even if it’s now to become more a climate change / global boiling focus, it needs to remain a crime and zemiology one robustly in parallel as well
what CORE will consider and deliver
the CORE needs to strategise the castle & moat as well as the thinking-spaces and their architectures
our secrecy-positive spaces will be needed to protect our desired climate boiling people and outcomes
this is what i propose be our strategy from now on in:
• we should focus on creating an an impregnable theoretical, philosophical, practical and technological castle around the sweden-chosen big tech partner-local & regional partnership before moving out to other areas of endeavour and action — even at the risk of not doing as much for those in need as we might
• why? because you just HAVE to know you utterly CANNOT be undermined by anyone, before you reach out a hand to others however deserving
re precedents, we can follow the manhattan project, apollo moonshot, and darpa internet templates if we like
but i think we can learn from modern silicon valley strategy too:
• a flexible PLATFORM is the best research tool in the right hands
• out of which specific applications can be delivered, just as japanese car manufacturers first did with elements of a car
• example: separate workstreams for each element (eg dashboard design & functionality) identified as key, and then slotted whenever discretely ready in terms of their own timelines into what became new versions of the cars
• therefore, manufacturing a car isn’t a new car release every five years as in the olden days, but modulating and updating regularly
the intuition validation engine, then …?
do we go back to platform genesis and the raw READ.ME of the intuition validation engine? i think we do …
• a library of tools
• as already determined, a PLATFORM in order to enable ACCESS freely, not to tie in users to one software / hardware constitution or another
• equal sovereignty for all objects, whether people, code, or machines
as if we were talking, in fact, about creating software code in the shape of UN inalienable rights and charters, conventions and manifestos, and stuff with these kinds of discourses, as opposed to the more conventional laws and regulatory approaches parliaments and so forth generally prefer to come up with
and some would say this would lead to vague
i radically disagree
i would term it as being the “precisely ambiguous”:
• that is, an arts-based approach to real-world problem-solving
• a structure, but not one which deeply determines the kinds of outcomes
• something, instead, that will remain relevant and useful for as long as we do this: JUST like UN charters
in order for it to exist like this, it just needs to be considered for longer before — finally! — finalising its directives
🙂
but we will know when it is finalised
how? because it will be our eureka moment: it will just feel gobsmackingly RIGHT!
Today I’m posting in full an example 7-year roadmap for ultimately delivering #secrecypositive #neurodiverse-enabling #thinkingspaces I produced the other evening: in this case, specifically focussing on #climatechange but easily lending itself to being repurposed to #security and so forth. Here’s the introduction to the first presentation and online whitepaper of the series I published a few days ago:
why simplifying problems means we have been ignoring the biggest ones
We have a global startup ecosystem which, for decades, has delivered a capability to simplify problems from a complicated journey to a set of easy-to-understand “pain-points”.
It’s solved many problems we needed solving — though sometimes has caused others which have delivered a much less happy set of outcomes.
This presentation, shown in four parts below, has the goal of beginning to stir a debate around whether the concept of incremental progress is useful for us, by itself, any more.
The question I would like you to take away from this online whitepaper is whether you think humanity can incrementally save itself from its past.
Contact details are contained within the presentation itself, as well as in clickable mailto: format at the end.
Otherwise, if you can at least reflect, I’d be really grateful.
I have been working on making the timelines practical, comfortable and safe for all stakeholders — whether #climatechange- or #lawenforcement/#security-focussed.
We now take things step-by-step, over the proposed period mentioned, evaluating the results of the four workstreams A-D in turn in firm but responsive ways.
Here’s the second presentation in the series, which offers an initial roadmap for #neurodiverse-solutioning #thinkingspaces to solve #complexproblems such as that which #climatechange now presents humanity on all fronts:
My suggestion is now that:
we locate — with #swedish, #us, #irish and #uk stakeholder engagement — the core #complexproblems HQ in #dublin #ireland, in close and permanent collaboration with one large consulting corporation and one preferred tech corporation;
that all IP generated by anyone be #govtech only;
that the project management and related responsibilities for #security and similar belong freely and entirely to domain owners in each participating country;
that tech partnerships and other frameworks for #security etc will also be freely entered into by the respective domain owners in each country (that is, military, agencies, and others);
that any of the #govtech thus created belongs in the future only to these stakeholders above-mentioned;
and that as everyone who contributes will have access to everything everyone else contributes, we will need to establish contribution KPIs that ensure contributions by all equal the usage we all make of others’ contributions.
I’ll be thinking more on these matters in the next couple of days and may post more here or elsewhere as a result.
Let’s see if by my concentrating on having direct responsibilities only for #complexproblems-solutioning with #neurodiverse approaches, and then acting only in a consultancy capacity in the field of #security etc when and if the separate country projects see the need, we can finally unleash all these projects in a due, proper and deliverable manner.
do we agree that creative people have neurotypical brains or neurodiverse ones?
let’s say, without any evidence being presented to hand, that they are more than likely to be tending to neurodiverse.
so.
what about creative criminals?
will they more than likely be neurodiverse — or just plain old simple neurotypical?
will they prefer to conform or disconform? will they keep things ticking over collaboratively and constructively? or do they prefer to break things when doing so serves to reward them with ill-gotten gains?
you know i’ve been right all along. and it’s hurting so much you’d rather leave me in the hell of your denial than accept i am right, in order that then we could do something about it by changing some of the direction of law enforcement and national, regional and global security.
though not necessarily the whole of the process at all. i’m not advocating this; never have either.
more of this in a bit.
neurodiversity, criminality, crimefighting and the real problem
if criminals — like artists — are more often than not neurodiverse, and machines — like #it-#tech more generally — deliver neurotypical environments where rules and regulations aggressively must regulate and rule everything we do when we inhabit and work in them, how on earth will what we do in global, regional and national security and law enforcement ever completely be capable of preventing even a minimum of creatively criminal acts of the highest criminal order?
the ones, i mean, that shake civilisations and their historical development …
traditional it-tech … what do you think?
this is the big question of today’s post:
is traditional it-tech made in the image of the freedoms of neurodiversity or the strictures, rules and regulations of neurotypicality?
mil williams, stockholm sweden, 13th april 2023
if machines are more neurotypical than not, and creative criminality is more neurodiverse than anything else, where’s the judiciousness we will have demonstrated to be operating here when we choose to use machines plus more than likely neurotypical humans — that is agency operatives who are focussed on applying rules and laws (and quite rightly, too)?
how will we be ever able to fight neurodiverse creative criminality of the 9/11 sort — especially when now applied to the deepest digital cyberspace, to dark figure, and to neocrime — if we don’t use newly neurodiverse crimefighting humans enabled by the radically neurodiverse software and hardware architectures i am now advocating in the complexify.me workstream?
and to be delivered in the following order — humans (maybe neurotypical and neurodiverse) first in the workflow, supported by machines in second place; not in the traditional order — machines which spot and spit out largely neurotypical (even when obviously mega-) insights to support equally neurotypical humans …
look.
don’t get me wrong, please. we need neurotypical: we need conformists more than any time in our history. we need people who just love to pursue those who don’t follow the rules and laws that provide the best foundations for civilisations and societies we’d all wish to be proud of again. people who love to apply these legal figures with due and appropriate process. people you’d trust with your youngest children. people you’d trust with your life.
but we need neurodiverse colleagues; so much, too. nonconformists in every breath we draw, so we may all become better able to pursue bad actors imaginatively, and therefore finally — on equal terms and learning how to properly fight fire with fire — we properly police this space we call digital: a space which has become almost infinitely malleable … and so intimately present in our lives now that we are not even safe when we drink a coffee in our local coffee shop …
mil's page 