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 newspapercalled El País.
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
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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!
In a nutshell — or a chipset! — what I propose we do asap is move radically away from the more recent division of power and hierarchies between admins versus users that has shaped #ai and #it ever since the arrival of the Internet, towards the suggested conflation of admin and user in one.
Mil Williams, 3rd July 2023, Stockholm Sweden
Proposal
Would anyone in #scandinavia, more specifically I’d be bound to say #sweden, like to begin work on designing and implementing, from scratch, a totally repurposed set of #ai- and #it-related architectures and frameworks in order to create absolutely future-proof ethical and privacy-positive #ai and #it frameworks?
That is: do for #ai what I have already suggested via the concept of a digital equivalent of the #privacypositive and #secrecypositive attributes pencil and paper have for centuries conferred on us:
The original “intuition validation engine” README on GitHub
In this case, in respect of #ai- and #it-#tech, I would suggest using a starting-point I already clearly described with the original 2019 specification of the #intuitionvalidationengine (i’ve) (currently on my GitHub account in private mode, and reproduced in full below):
intuition-validation-engine
The goal of this engine is to permit both human and machine intuition to be validated.
This will be done constantly, but not intrusively. People and machines will have a choice, always.
It is assumed that for the purposes of this project both parties will be encouraged to upskill the other in mutual dialogue and equal partnership.
It is also assumed, a priori, that the keywords for the processes involved will be:
1. A procedure of CAPTURE, controlled by humans on the one hand and machines on the other, where neither will be obliged to share ideas, content and personal data that they do not feel safe sharing.
2. A procedure of EVIDENCING, where the captured data can be stored, retrieved, shaped and patterned, and used for supportive purposes that expand the lives and experiences of the beings concerned.
3. A procedure of VALIDATION, where it becomes clear to everyone participating: a) why a human being might believe and act in a certain way; and equally so, b) why the machines that prefer to work within the framework of this project will arrive at their own particular positions and conclusions.
Finally, it is hugely important that everyone who chooses to work on the project might easily understand that it is not a traditional software paradigm: let us assume, instead, that people, code, machines and all other objects participating will form part of a new space we might call “i’ve”.
That is to say, there will be no distinction or hierarchy in this space between the individuality of the objects in question, with respect to their entity as sovereign actors. In this sense, all will enjoy becoming part of a multiple-perspective environment, and all will help to support and contribute to a wider and transcendental knowledge that both befits and benefits others.”
Alongside the clearly developed initial architectural philosophy stated above, i would then have us move on to working with the #platformgenesis progression of the original concept as it existed since 2019:
Then, with further collaborative actions, especially in the light of other technologies developed since, we could begin to properly propose an absolutely future-proofed #ai and #it-#tech which, as per their real-world template of pencil and paper, could never NOT become privacy- and ethically-sensitive, whatever the regulatory demands created in the future by any global or regional body.
This would be my objective from two directions: legal and technological; abandoning neither for the other. And making both future #ai and #it-#tech as firmly #ethical and #privacypositive by design as to make regulatory innovations that might challenge it impossible to design.
To summarise
In a nutshell — or a chipset! — what I propose we do asap is move radically away from the more recent division of power and hierarchies between admins versus users that has shaped #ai and #it ever since the arrival of the Internet, towards the suggested conflation of admin and user in one.
The division described has, in my judgement, severely — and increasingly — affected the citizens and workforces who strive to function and live creatively, despite the challenges, in Western corporates and wider societies when needing to think freely. These needs arise in many — if not all — fields of endeavour too, and in most during mission-critical moments and when decisions have to be taken using an unpickable #highleveldomainexpertise (something we sometimes are also happy to call #gutfeeling) which becomes the only thing we may be able to reliably depend on.
The real existential challenge for our democracies and business discourses and praxis then arises when we fail to think as freely as others who, with a clear and ongoing possession and enjoyment of #privacysensitive and #secrecysensitive architectures and technologies, maintain their capacity to beat us hands-down, at least on the #intuition side of societal and business activities:
• https://crimehunch.com/terror | concentrate here on considering which team would be best at a new “what and how” (I’m happy, meanwhile, to recognise that pattern-recognition capabilities in machines will inevitably process vast amounts of data better when focussing on more concrete questions of “who and when”)
If you want to find out more about my latest ideas, why not go to the #sweden located and focussed online whitepaper I’ve been using to further my thought around complementary strands of complex thinking?
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
i’ve described the idea of “mil’s theorem” before:
“If, in an almost infinitely malleable digital world, I can imagine a new kind of criminal activity via the limited intellectual and financial resources I have access to, others with far more of both will already be doing what I imagined. I don’t, therefore, need to provide more evidence than that to be able to demonstrate it’s happening and it exists.”
let’s take the above theorem one more time then.
the definition, in my #whirled and your #world, of #neocrime having become this:
crimehunch.com/neocrime | an updated understanding of the 19th century concept of “dark figure”
now then: if we accept my argument for argument’s sake, that in almost infinitely malleable digital we only have to intuitively and creatively think up new criminal activity in terms of its “whats” and “hows” (“who” and “when” remaining the preserve always of the machines) in order to be evidencing their existence, today i bring a new one to the table:
“let’s imagine that communities of professional praxis exist in #espionage, too. just like journalists who communicate outwith their employer-spaces with other journalists; just like security people and bus drivers acknowledge the presence of the nominal ‘opposition’ with a tip of the cap or a thumbs-up … just like any profession where specialised skillsets bring humans together with humans who are like them because of their knowledge-sets more than the allegiances they are paid to maintain …
imagine the above, then, in #spycraft in particular; and so imagine over the years that a network out of sight of the employers themselves has grown up exponentially, where — using tools i nowadays sustain firmly have been developed to operate in the areas of #neocrimes and #darkfigure (supposedly on the side of the good gals and guys, too) — agents commonly communicate with each other using #secrecypositive (and NOT #totalsurveillance-compliant as i would prefer) environments and architectures, in order to basically scratch each other’s backs at the expense of broader citizen and state interests.
remember “mil’s theorem”: if i can simply think it up, someone else more powerful and monied than me already did long ago.
but here’s the thing: it’s possible the field operatives might be doing such things but it’s also possible that in 99 percent of cases out of deep ingrained senses of honour and responsibility (and why not? patriotism too …) they’ve chosen over the years not to. even when they could. (some of us still exist, you know.)
so here’s another #neocrime-ism: what if it wasn’t the operatives who worked behind democracy for their own self-enrichment — or maybe even global domination — but, instead, their bosses …?
not one and all. not even all that many. but enough to tip the balance over the years between #ukraine NEVER happening and #russia being given an under-the-counter carta blanca to proceed as it would wish, and always wanted.”
ok. that’s the last bit of “mil’s theorem” theorising for today.
enough, right? and maybe understandably insulting for many at that.
listen up before you get utterly irritated with me. what i’m doing here is using a public space as if it were a #secrecypositive space. i’ve reached a moment in my life where i realise what was done to me in 2003 can’t be done again. since then, i’ve studied #criminaljustice at master’s level and have a whole battery of logical tools and legal principles to defend myself. and so i’m feeling fairly impregnable — and will continue to do so unless someone actually, literally, wipes me off the face of the planet.
but assuming the latter won’t happen … what if #secrecypositive spaces have now been turned against the people who invented them? and not me thinking now? but them, having built decades ago? because when you create a weapon of destruction you ALWAYS consider how its corresponding shield might need to look …
so what if the guys and gals who did this technology all those years ago as i now surmise were good people who defend our security and safety every day? and what if the bad gals and guys are now abusing savagely — to the extent of enabling #ukraine AT LEAST — such architectures and platforms to their own ends?
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.
last night, speaking with a member of family, who professes a faith that includes a deity called god and its counter-element being the devil, i realised that society is full of bad people. not weak people: deeply bad people.
21st century third-decade societies — whether british, irish … wherever … oh yes, there are good people … but power in a tech-riven digital world, a world where tech of all kinds of levels rules, is insidiously criminalising every effect we once were reasonably able to assert was random. there are plenty of good people it’s true; but only the bad exert the power that makes the world run and administers what actually happens.
an anecdote from yesterday:
a young woman said to me yesterday evening: “it’s just stuff.” she was either facile & naive or dangerous. but probably dangerous in any case, because in the face of such embedded criminality, she chose to claim it was random.
re dark figure, law enforcement and security globally:
and so we come to this conclusion: law enforcement and security across the world find it much easier to deliver on their kpi structures by chasing and incarcerating those who don’t know what they’re doing than the covert digital-based criminals at all levels of tech who do know what they’re up to — and more importantly, how.
why i will no longer look to work with security-related citizens:
i’ve already signalled on these pages and others that i will no longer work on projects related to these kinds of professions: let me now explain why.
they depend on modern tech; on modern tech partners to explain what’s possible and what’s not. in a system where legitimately we have always separated out judge and jury, when it comes to procurement of tech we connect judge and jury both so they’re in the same bag as the criminals themselves.
tech is corrupt from top to bottom. it shouldn’t be trusted with advising what’s possible in respect of innovation.
but hey … who am i to say?
my next steps:
i’m no longer going to bang my head till it bleeds. i’m going to repurpose ALL my #secrecypositive ideas — this time with zero elements of #totalsurveillance compliance — in order to begin to implement tools to solve the #complexproblems the #leanjourney toolkit has chosen to filter out all these years:
because modern tech only primarily aims its crosshairs at ONE problem: how to ensure the customer pays. everything else is how to cherry-pick out of solutioning-process what’s not relevant to a bottom-line.
great for the individual company’s balance-sheet; but sincerely catastrophic for a wider society.
as climate change — just one example — now shows.
complexify.me – done simply well:
i’m now going to concentrate all my forces on creating a tech ecosystem and set of tools which tech doesn’t care to invent; has chosen, in fact, just about criminally not to all these years.
an ecosystem and tools where #neurodiversity FINALLY delivers as a skillset, not a touchy-feely inclusion impulse.
and to the extent that #diversity becomes the new norm; and so normality returns to being just one more arrow in our society- and species-saving quivers …
mil's page 