In an important step toward an accountably transparent world, offshore owners of British property will be forced to reveal their true identities or face jail sentences and unlimited fines under draft laws that aim to end the UK’s reputation as a high-risk jurisdiction for money laundering. Overseas criminal gangs were using British property transactions to launder billions of pounds in corrupt funds. Parliament’s foreign affairs committee went further earlier this year, saying that corrupt Russian funds laundered through the UK, including via property, posed a threat to national security.
The Brits and Europeans are the ones with guts right now, peeling away layers of what amounts to open warfare against the West by wold mafias. See how Russian GRU (KGB) agents have been running amuck, committing acts or sabotage, espionage and murder with increasing impunity, while Russian agent-hackers are caught red-handed spying on the investigation into the crash of flight MH17, as well as the World Anti-Doping Agency.
And now the thing I've been demanding for 25 years. What is an 'Unexplained Wealth Order'? A UWO is a new power passed by the British Parliament to target suspected corrupt foreign officials who have potentially laundered stolen money through the UK. Take this example of the wife of a former Azerbaijani state banker who risks losing her £15m home near the London Harrod's store where she has spent another 15 million pounds, if she fails to explain the source of her wealth to the High Court. Now, if only some of the laundered money can make its way back to the poor citizens of the original nations.
God bless Europe for keeping a candle lit. Light is our last, best weapon. This has got to be just the beginning, or we will have that Helvetian War.
== The How and Why of using light to save civilization ==
So how does this relate to China’s Social Credit system? “It’s
probably the largest social engineering project ever attempted, a way to
control and coerce more than a billion people… Smartphone apps will also be
used to collect data and monitor online behavior on a day-to-day basis… The
system will be enforced by the latest in high-tech surveillance systems and
facial recognition as China pushes to become the world leader in artificial
intelligence.”
Moreover, as in the chilling Black Mirror episode “Nosedive,” your crucial score will be harmed if you associate with the “wrong people,” meaning anyone who dissents or even displays eccentricity.
Moreover, as in the chilling Black Mirror episode “Nosedive,” your crucial score will be harmed if you associate with the “wrong people,” meaning anyone who dissents or even displays eccentricity.
How do I reconcile one
form of coercive transparency while denouncing another? Duh? One is aimed at
reinforcing the things that have kept us free, safe from coercion by topmost
castes, by applying light to all elites who would exercise power. The other is
a method elites can use to force obedience and conformity from the masses, from
us.
Germane to this is a site that quizzes you on which parts of "social credit" might benefit or harm you: "Social Credit Scoring is a way for governments, banks and insurers to grade you by your actions both on and offline. Overspending or associating with the wrong people could lower your score and lead to financial and social restrictions. Starting with an average social credit rating of 475, find out if your actions would lead to rewards or punishment."
Dig it well, something
like social credit is inevitable. We’ll see each other and adjust whom we want
to hang or associate with. But there are two failure modes that we know how to
evade, if we prove smart and wise and assertively determined.
1) If light is
vigorously applied upward – thoroughly and habitually! – then these tools might
hold elites accountable. More important, we can sic elites against each other,
which was the great innovation set up under the U.S. Constitution. If that includes NGOs with millions of middle class members, then
there’s a chance that transparency might serve and protect freedom, not crush
it.
2) Okay, suppose we do that,
then everything is open and democratic, right? No Big Brother. Only then what’s to stop a 51%
prudish, oppressive majority from democratically and openly voting to cram
conformity upon all the eccentrics and unusual folk out there? It’s happened
before, and it is the style of democratic despotism portrayed in Ray Bradbury’sFahrenheit 451.
Will a paramount Big Brother be replaced by millions of nosy, judgmental Little Brothers? See how there's great news... that the world population is now majority middle class! But that doesn't necessarily translate into pro-tolerance, diversity and eccentricity. Middle classes can be bigoted, too.
Only step back. The fact that I am asking that pointed question… and YOU are nodding with shared worry… is a clue to the answer.
Values.
Transparency will empower the majority to impose its values. But if that value system extolls diversity, tolerance and MYOB… or Mind Your Own Business… then think about the effect. Bullying others to repress their differences will be deemed a worse crime than any harmless eccentricities they exhibit. Let me repeat that, because it is what you believe should be our future. If bullying and conformity-oppression are among the worst social sins, then that is what gets socially punished. And light just might be our friend.
No. You still don't get it. In all my life, I've found no concept to be harder to convey. This is the fundamental wellspring of all our freedoms and individuality, yet it seems utterly counter-intuitive to most folks. So let me illustrate with an example from mass culture-media.
Picture that scene from the movie version of The Circle, in which nasty putzes use cell phone cameras to torment a shy person. Blatantly, that is the kind of thing the director wants you to hate! Only dig it, in today’s America, those bullies would likely be shot - in turn - by the cell cams of better folks, who will show the bullies' nasty behavior to their moms.
Will a paramount Big Brother be replaced by millions of nosy, judgmental Little Brothers? See how there's great news... that the world population is now majority middle class! But that doesn't necessarily translate into pro-tolerance, diversity and eccentricity. Middle classes can be bigoted, too.
Only step back. The fact that I am asking that pointed question… and YOU are nodding with shared worry… is a clue to the answer.
Values.
Transparency will empower the majority to impose its values. But if that value system extolls diversity, tolerance and MYOB… or Mind Your Own Business… then think about the effect. Bullying others to repress their differences will be deemed a worse crime than any harmless eccentricities they exhibit. Let me repeat that, because it is what you believe should be our future. If bullying and conformity-oppression are among the worst social sins, then that is what gets socially punished. And light just might be our friend.
No. You still don't get it. In all my life, I've found no concept to be harder to convey. This is the fundamental wellspring of all our freedoms and individuality, yet it seems utterly counter-intuitive to most folks. So let me illustrate with an example from mass culture-media.
Picture that scene from the movie version of The Circle, in which nasty putzes use cell phone cameras to torment a shy person. Blatantly, that is the kind of thing the director wants you to hate! Only dig it, in today’s America, those bullies would likely be shot - in turn - by the cell cams of better folks, who will show the bullies' nasty behavior to their moms.
Oh, you are steaming
now, I bet. Fuming that we aren’t that vigorous at defending diversity and
eccentricity. And you’re ignoring the very value system that taught you to feel
that way! That drives you to be unsatisfied with our partial progress toward
tolerance.
And you’re right! We’re only vastly more tolerant and diverse and eccentric than all other human societies, combined. It’s not good enough! Those values must be reinforced, before the tools of social credit sweep the world!
And here is just one example - out of many happening every single day - that should inspire you!
And you’re right! We’re only vastly more tolerant and diverse and eccentric than all other human societies, combined. It’s not good enough! Those values must be reinforced, before the tools of social credit sweep the world!
And here is just one example - out of many happening every single day - that should inspire you!
Hey… I… am… on… your…
side in this. Now is not the time for complacency. If we don’t achieve miracle
#1, then modern tech tools will enable some cabal of the rich and Mafiosi and
demagogues and other fanatics to shut down this Periclean renaissance, possibly
forever. Ferociously upward-aimed transparency is the only thing that can
prevent it, and bring us miracle number one…
…but in order to achieve
the second wonder - and stymie the pernicious scheme to repress diversity with things like "social credit" - it will be up to us to ensure the coming flood of light
empowers our best values, encouraging a humanity whose wide stance – based on
diversity and tolerance and MYOB – leaves
us ready for whatever may come.
== Five Myths about
Transparency ==
There is a clever "five myths" feature that
appears in the Washington Post outlook section every Sunday. For example,
detailing and appraising five commonly held assumptions about recycling, or
artificial intelligence or presidential pardons. I’m occasionally told I should
write one of these perspectives… or ten, on different topics… but I never find
the time.
Philosopher Arnold Kling has suggested
especially something related to transparency. "Five myths about each new
revelation of surveillance" — or things that happen every single
time the news reveals that we’re being seen, starting with the mythology that
any of it is surprising. These surveillance myths are:
Myth #1. We should be shocked by the arrival of
new tools for surveillance. We should be surprised that elites (e.g.
government, criminal, foreign, corporate, aristocratic or technological) will
try to exploit them in secret.
Myth # 2. That laws limiting surveillance tools have ever worked in the past, or
can possibly work in the future.
Myth #3. That such tools cannot be turned around
to equalize the playing field, by letting average folk look back at power
(sousveillance.)
Myth # 4. That it even matters what elites know
about us, instead of controlling and deterring what they can do to us.
Myth # 5. Our culture must ban technologies
rather than adapt to them.
Your feedback on rephrasing this set would be welcome.
== Can we even believe our eyes, anymore? ==
Which photos are real? We’ve all
seen the recent videos, showing Barack Obama saying (harmless, so far) things
he never said. It’s only a matter of time, before counterfeit “reality” floods
our perceptions, the way fake news did, earlier. San Diego startup Truepic raises $8 million to
develop methods to certify the authenticity of online photos - and debunk
"deep fakes.”
It’s a problem with
deep roots. In my nonfiction book The Transparent Society, I had a chapter entitled “The End of Photography as Proof
of Anything At All?” Even earlier, in my
novel EARTH (1989) I discussed the likelihood we’d be dealing with this, by
now.
Google's DeepMind computer vision artificial
intelligence showed that it can generate an accurate three-dimensional map or graphic from a set of two-dimensional images. For many years, computer “vision”
was poor and image fakery easily detected.
But that was during the Moore’s Law Era, back when hardware advanced
swiftly, but software remained leaden and far behind.
In what I’ve called the “Big Flip,” we see
Moore’s Law finally in its long predicted taper-off… while suddenly software
has gone on a tear, accelerating in capabilities almost exponentially. And
nowhere is this more apparent than in image processing. Or “deep fakery.”
And yes, there is a
solution — I talk about it, in The Transparent Society. It can work, because it
is the only thing that ever worked against skilled liars. Unfortunately,
it will only be done after (as Winston Churchill put it) we’ve “tried
everything else.”








