Crowdsourcing Utu

“If you want to make enemies, try to change something.” -Woodrow Wilson

 ---

While Syria is dominating the news, John Robb brings up an interesting concept as an alternative to conventional military intervention or strikes. Instead of deploying military assets, like cruise missiles or commando teams (which could cause civilian casualties, collateral damage, easily escalate any conflict, and political blowback), a list of "targets" (those accused of chemical weapon deployment in this case) could be designated and given a time limit to surrender. Beyond that, "anything goes," including drone strikes or assassination attempts.

This is a topic mused about before in some ways, but the truly interesting part comes from combining it with decentralized networks and crypto-currencies. Imagine a non-state agency or group that would offer "rewards" (e.g. a certain amount of crypto-currency or other resource) for hindering a certain individual/corporation/nation/gang/etc. in various ways. It could range from, say, whistleblower sites or journalists offering rewards for disclosing information of note, like documents of secretive dealings.

The "defenses" and abuses of such a system are rather interesting as well. In the case of the journalism leaking reward, for instance, fake data and documents could be submitted. Likewise, the individuals running the system could be watched or compromised (although automating that in some form of software could act as a "dead man's switch"). Governments could also use such a system to find wanted fugitives of the more mundane variety, such as wanted murderers on the loose or simple violations of note to watchdog groups (environmental, legal, etc.).

Such a system could be deployed at a global level, effectively extending a group's reach around the world, irrespective of polity. As such, "international law" could become applicable to realms beyond conventional nations, perhaps even some as of yet unseen forms of law. A positive example of this could be a worldwide "bill of rights" that gives anyone the presumption of innocence, yet is compatible with many existing human rights philosophies. Interestingly, law can exist without a state or polity, or at least the modern sense of "nation state."

The abuses, however, could be great fodder for a science fiction novel or technothriller. Imagine a dystopian, corrupt government falsely smearing a refugee or dissident with various criminal, misleading labels (as already happened). The main character must face bounty hunters, spies, and others trying to send him/her back to his/her home country (or simply trying to assassinate them). Another concept is some kind of criminal network offering bounties for assassinations, beatings, and intimidation towards its foes. The software could be distributed widely around the world, so the bounty remains until someone collects it... Another idea is some kind of activist or civil rights network that gets corrupted into something more insidious due to simple human short-sightedness. Expect a novel incorporating concepts like that soon.

The Maori of New Zealand had a word, "Utu," which can be translated as revenge, reciprocity, or justice. While it inspired a movie of the same name, I believe that such a bounty-hunting system reflects the concept. Somewhere between vigilantism, revenge, and "justice" can lie utu. Whether started by darknets or drone kill lists, the concept is simple and nasty, just like many of history's most enduring weapons. Trial by media could certainly become much more dangerous for the accused, as well.

Blindsided by Revolution

Saying that Turkey is unstable is an understatement. What began as a protest against the demolition of a park (to give the land to some developers) escalated across the country. What makes Turkey interesting, however, is some of the historical and geopolitical considerations. With the Syrian civil war already a proxy conflict for the US, Israelis, Arab League, Russians, and Iranians, relative political stability of actors cannot be taken for granted.

Since Ataturk founded the secular republic of Turkey, the military has had a habit of deposing governments they deem to be too religious (the ghost of Ataturk if you will) and then stepping aside as a new civilian regime takes power. It is arguable that without the secularist Ataturk founding the Republic in Ankara, the Ottoman Empire would have lingered on as some sort of colonial rump state (much like Saudi Arabia), with a vestigial monarch propped up with foreign weapons and funding.

 The current Prime Minister, Erdogan, has been keen to exploit religion (but not extensively) and has also been keen on using Turkish soil to assist rebels in Syria. The Turkish public was opposed to this, as no matter who won the civil war, fearing that heavy weapons could end up in the hands of the PKK (the Kurdish separatist group that has fought the Turks for decades). The Turks likewise feared getting drawn into the war. In addition, Erdogan's authoritarian response has galvanized many bystanders.

I believe the Turkish military is the key faction to watch. They have been rumblings of a coup against Erdogan before, and the military is helping the protestors against the police. Likewise, the dictator of Egypt was deposed by a military coup. The political aftermath, however, is uncertain. Whether there are elections, rigged elections, or de facto dictatorship is unknown. The new regime's position on its neighbors may likewise shift, perhaps retreating inwards to focus or attempting to distract people with foreign foes. The political stability of any government or regime is only as strong as the force it can use to defend it and the force of population that's had enough. What may be certain, though, is that some police chiefs may soon be joining criminals in jail.

Lessons in Supervillainy: Attorney General Eric Holder

Today's lecture will put an example of practical supervillainy into focus. A supervillain, by definition, uses their rank, connections, and abilities to commit massive crime, prevent the administration of justice, or preferably administer injustice. Now, in the United States, there is a Department of Justice, the group in charge of law enforcement administration at a Federal level. The Attorney General in charge of the DoJ is a Presidential Cabinet member and a powerful figure in the interpretation and enforcement of the laws of the land. 

As such, assignment of the position to a corrupt and/or criminally incompetent person would seriously compromise any attempts to retain the rule of law across the USA. As of this writing, the current holder of that position has done his best to turn the DoJ into the Department of Injustice. Appointing a corrupt public official to a position involving legal matters is the very incarnation of regulatory capture.

The list is certainly something worthy of a Bond villain more than an equitable arbiter. Some noteworthy events:

-Mexican drug cartels were armed by US law enforcement.

-Spying was performed upon all manner of political groups.

-There is a failure to prosecute the admission of nearly a trillion dollars with of money laundering for criminal and terrorist groups by mega-bank HSBC.

-The latest scandal, surveillance on even mainstream media reporters, is merely the icing on the cake.

 This is no isolated case, either. Neocon remnants of the Bush years linger on like a bad hangover. Interventions (overt and covert) continue. With due process free drone assassinations, indefinite detection on no evidence, blanket legal immunities for political and corporate leaders, and a growing gap between the rich and poor, what could possibly go wrong?  

The Spectacle of Violence

While the events involving a stabbing attack on a British soldier in London are still shrouded in uncertainty, possible revenge attacks have also started. The grisly spectacle has quickly devolved into a violence-porn media chasing every possible rumor or story. Whether the attackers had some religious or political motive or merely were apolitical attention seeking sociopaths, I do not know. This does, however, illustrate one of the darker points of the current media cycle.

Compared to the USA, the city of London has become a virtual police state (although the Americans are rapidly changing that). There are CCTV cameras everywhere, privatized police/security, and strict gun (and other weapon) control laws. Despite all of these 'precautions,' a mad slasher with a knife and one unlucky victim managed to provoke such a media reaction (and public backlash). A grim "return on investment" for the price of a cheap blade would be millions of pounds worth of police/security/media coverage of such an event that feeds upon itself as the frenzy builds.

For all the fuss about an inaccurate, exploding 3D printed gun in recent times, the knife attack serves to remind that the equipment for disruptive actions (including violent ones) is rarely far outside one's own kitchen. Even with development of 3D printers, firearms, and ad hoc explosives vanish from the earth, a single edged weapon can still stand as an assassin's weapon, as it has for the sum total of human history. Why should the future be different?