2012 is the year that the internet became a political force. What took so long? Well, the majority of us have surely been distracted by LOLcats and pr0nz.

Full disclosure: I work on issues at the intersection of technology, copyright and policy. In recent months, I’ve been able to observe firsthand the impact of internet-powered social movements. To wit: the unprecedented outrage around the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT-IP (PIPA) stopped either bill from becoming law — something many in Congress assumed was a fait accompli.

Then there’s the immense pressure brought on Susan G. Komen for the Cure after the organization pulled funding to Planned Parenthood. The swift disapproval — again, largely web-driven — was so intense that Komen’s VP is now stepping down.

The “bitroots” blowback is hardly limited to the US. Public demonstrations are currently taking place in the EU over ACTA, an international intellectual property agreement that some think goes too far. Protests have spilled into the streets, with more than 20,000 people participating in Poland alone. But the real engine of dissent is online.

Powerful as this new form of protest is, it’s hardly perfect. Oversimplifications are common, which is to be expected when complex policy matters are condensed into viral action items. Still, there is one clear takeaway: the world’s netizens will no longer lay back while decisions are made that impact their lives, online and otherwise.

From my experience, I can say that the anti-SOPA/PIPA movement was broad and remarkably diffuse. Internet users are now stakeholders, and they have countless ways to share information and amplify their voices. And, although it would be incorrect to call them a monolithic group, they are perfectly capable of representing their own self-interests when push comes to shove.

It’s unfair to characterize the SOPA/PIPA skirmish as one between Hollywood and Silicon Valley (read: Google). While some major tech companies were certainly involved, most of the push happened at the netroots level. I’d say it went down something like this:

1. Tumblr saw the liabilities they’d face under this overly-broad legislation and independently decided to black out their pages in protest. This woke a lot of folks up right quick.
2. The Reddit community started paying attention, and more people became very well-informed on the issue (and got pretty pissed off).
3. Wikipedia joined the loosely-organized “blackout,” and in the process inspired millions more people to call their representatives. (I think Google put a widget next to the search field on their home page, but they didn’t go dark.)
4. Some of us goobers in Washington — completely outnumbered by the well-heeled entertainment industry goons — pointed out that a lot of constituents (including tens of thousands of copyright holders) weren’t comfortable with this legislation as drafted.

The true action came from internet users who found themselves in a position to push back against a fairly draconian set of proposals. The technology itself amplified their message to the extent that a bill that had already passed out of full committee in the US Senate was put on ice, and the House companion never even made it past markup. You can believe me when I tell you that this is a new dynamic in Washington. I’m not sure anyone has fully wrapped their heads around what it means.

So, are these movements merely lighting in a bottle, or the foundations of a new and lasting form of advocacy? Can these spontaneous yet incredibly potent movements be transitioned from something reactive to something proactive? We may have to wait a while to find out. For now, if I was the MPAA or the RIAA, I might consider internalizing the lesson, instead of blithely dismissing the movement as ill-informed, or worse, driven by tech companies.

What do you bet they won’t?

Which brings me to Iran…

Now, before you go thinking that I’m some kind of hippie peacenik, know that I am quite fond of blood and guts and gore and veins in my teeth. Even as someone whose foreign policy views verge on realpolitik, I recognize the threat of a nuclear Iran to Middle East stability. I’m also aware that our options are limited.

But this isn’t about geopolitical choice so much as the language that shapes how we perceive choice itself.

Exhibit A: US Fears Israel Will Hit Iran Without Warning

“Whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late,” Israeli Defense minister Ehud Barak said. (The Post notes he switched from Hebrew to English when saying the words, “Later is too late.”) Leon Panetta, meanwhile, declined to refute a report that he was worried about an Israeli attack.

It’s probably unsurprising that Israel is trying to convey a sense of inevitability here. Still, one wonders if Israel has the capability of neutralizing the below-ground, concrete-reinforced facilities that comprise Iran’s nuclear workshops. In which case, the drum beating may be a nudge to the US to hurry up and complete work on its Massive Ordnance Penetrator, which may or may not be up to the task. (Either way, the MOP can be seen as a major advancement in military hardware as phallic symbol.)

Exhibit B: U.S. Intel: Iran Willing To Attack on American Soil

Poppycock.

The framers were Masonic Deists. This belief system seeks knowledge of God through the application of reason and meditation on natural laws. God here is the Great Architect, not a “life coach in the sky.”

So the next time you hear someone like Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum prattling on about America being a Christian nation, keep the following quotes in mind.

John Adams
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”

“The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

Adams also signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
“The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

Thomas Jefferson
“I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

“Christianity…(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man… rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus.”

“The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves…these clergy in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.”

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.”

“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

Thomas Paine
“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.”

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of… each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all… of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.”

“The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretend imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.”

James Madison
“What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.”

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

Madison was also against tax exemption for churches.

Another fun fact: a mere 7 percent of dwellers in the original 13 colonies belonged to a church at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Separation of Church and State
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” —Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, January 1, 1802

And here’s one last quote, but not from a framer:

“Hence today I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” —Adolph Hitler

The stock market has sure been twitchy lately, hasn’t it? But that’s not all. What with the economic turmoil in Europe, the perennial threat of our own government being shut down by further gridlock in Congress, relentlessly radical statements and completely insane “plans” coming from various presidential candidates, it’s easy to see why people are just scared shitless. I know I am.

But enough of that negativity. If we’re going to move forward and heal, we need a potential future to focus on, something besides imagining ourselves running screaming into the night. Let’s see what the art of Tarot has to offer in the way of guidance. Here is my latest reading.

1 Present: The Moon
Things may not be as they seem, and we all know they probably aren’t. But that doesn’t stop us from howling at the moon about it.

2 Crossing: 6 of Swords
A long journey — not a fun one. We’re stuck on this trip until it’s over, friend.

3 Goal: 5 of Swords
We want to totally kick the ass of this recession. Hopefully it works like that. Apparently, that is how we’re approaching this problem.

4 Distant past: King of Wands
Oh remember when we all thought we could just elect the right guy president and we’d have a perfect future? Wealth, productivity, and an honest, hardworking government working for our best interest? This card does.

5 Recent past: 7 of Cups
Dude, we’ve been living a fantasy. We thought we’d get all our wildest dreams just like *poosh* but it didn’t happen, did it?

6 Future influence: 6 of Cups
Yeah, we’re pretty much stuck on our childhood fantasies about the American dream — and that’s what’s going to have the biggest influence on this year’s election.

7 Questioner: 4 of Pentacles
We want our damn money. If we already have any, we’re holding on to it for dear life. If we’re looking for money, watch out, because we think we’re pretty hardcore.

8 Environment: 7 of Wands
People are freaking out, you guys. People are ready to kick some ass and start some shit. It’s like that.

9 Hopes: The Star
What do we want? Apparently we want, more than anything, hope. We want an answer to our prayers. A light to shine in the darkness. And that’s a big deal.

10 Outcome: The Tower
What’s to come of all this? Well it’s not going to be sunshine and roses right away. Shit’s going to get real. But the only possible solution is a do-over — destroy what we know, and create anew. Not at all a small thing.

One of the reasons I haven’t been posting much is that I’m spending every spare bit of my energy trying to make sure a pair of ill-conceived pieces of legislation do not become law (at least in their current form). The bills in question are the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House of Representatives, and the PROTECT-IP Act in the Senate. (Of the two, SOPA is the worst.)

Now, both of these proposals could be considered well-intentioned, but their language is dangerously overbroad and could have serious implications on free speech, innovation and cybersecurity. I won’t bore you with the details, because I have a broader point to make. (Here’s my favorite analysis of the bills’ scope and provisions, if you’re curious.)

What pisses me off most is that there’s likely another way to achieve the bills’ goals — namely, combating foreign sites that traffic in unauthorized American intellectual property. Yet these alternatives are largely being ignored by a Congress eager to simply hand the internet over to Hollywood. And can say with certainty that these folks are always happy to restrict speech and quash competition in the name of preserving an antiquated business model.

In an agonizing twist of irony, Congress’ mad rush to codify online censorship is in direct opposition to the American government’s efforts to promote informational freedom abroad. This article in Slate expertly explains the discontinuity.

There is a recurring theme in terms of how recent legislation is being crafted. We’re seeing deliberate loopholes that don’t explicitly detail how your liberties will be restricted, but nonetheless establish the conditions under which such outcomes are not only possible, but likely.

Take for example, the highly controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Steve Benen has an excellent analysis about whether this law would allow for the permanent detention of American citizens.

Not to compare apples to oranges, but I was struck by the following disclaimer in NDAA:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Oh, good! Then there’s NO WAY a court could interpret this statute as giving the president the option of indefinitely detaining without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism!

This deliberate-loophole doublespeak reminds me of the opening renunciation in SOPA (emphasis mine):

(1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

(2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY- Nothing in title I shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.

That must mean that there can be absolutely NO WAY that any portion of a site that is “avoiding confirming a high probability” of infringement could be blocked by the US attorney general or have its commercial transactions halted on the mere accusation of infringement (the latter without any due process, and and with an impossibly narrow window for recourse). I feel so much better now!

We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

To go any further would require a level of legal analysis that would likely put you in a coma. So I’ll close with this hopefully straightforward statement: American civil liberties are currently under threat, and our elected officials have abdicated their fundamental responsibility to safeguard these basic freedoms.

And that should scare the shit out of you.

I’ve censored the following, in protest of a bill that gives any corporation and the US government the power to censor the internet — legislation that could pass THIS WEEK. To see the uncensored text, and to stop internet censorship, visit: http://americancensorship.org/posts/15233/uncensor

The ████████ is too █████████ to ████ up. █████ I ███████ ████████ in the ███████ of ████████ to ████████ the █████ of █████ ██████████, ████ ████ be ████ to do so in an ███████████ ████ ██████ ████ to ███████ ██████████ ██████ and ███████████ in the ███████████ ████ ████ ████ the ████████ ████ a ██████████ ██████ for ██████████, ██████████ █████████████ and ████████.

████ is so ███████ █████ the ████████ is ████ it has ███████ ████████ and █████ █████████████ to ███████ ███████ ███████████ ██████ to ████████ █████ ██████████ to ███████ ████████ as a █████████ of ████████ the ███████████. The ████████ of ████ new ███████ — █████ ████████ █████████████ can ████████ the █████ of █████ ██████████ on █████ own █████ — ████ be █████████.

My ████████ █████ ████ is ████ it ██████ ████ too far. We ████ to ██████ ████ all ████████ ████ the ███████ to ███████████ in not ████ █████’s ███████████, but ████████’s.

In the █████ ██████████ we are ███████ ██████ a ██████████ ███████ ███████████ ████████ by the █████ ██████ ███████ ███████ to the █████ ████ of the ████████ ██████. I’m ███████ █████ ████████ of ██████ █████ ███████ due ███████.████ █████ ██████████ the ███████, ████████ ████ █████████ ██████ ████████ and █████ ███████ ██████ █████████ in its ███████. ████ isn’t ████ for ████████.

████████ ████████ are ███████ to ███████ █████████████ — and let’s ████ it, ████ ████ was ████████ by the ███████ █████████████, not the ██████ guy — ████ ████ ████ ███████ how the new ███████████ █████████. ████ ████ not ████ ████ █████ ███████████, and █████████ ████ be █████████ ████ ████████ law.

Then he looked up at his disciples and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” – Luke, 20-21

I have a cousin who is a born-again Christian. I haven’t seen her in years, but she is, of course, on Facebook. Recently, I came across one of her status updates, compelling the OWS protesters to “occupy a job,” and poking fun at the mass arrests. Now, this sentiment doesn’t seem particularly Jesus-like to me, but then again, I am entirely confused by contemporary interpretations of the New Testament.

I’m also fascinated by the shift from the social gospel and its emphasis on community and cooperation to the me-first, “Jesus-as-life-coach” culture of modern evangelicals. And I’m scared shitless by their political influence. (There is some great literature on the subject, including a book I’ve recommended before, The Family, by Jeff Sharlet.)

Even more mind-boggling to me is that another Facebook acquaintance, a self-professed LaVeyan Satanist, made a comment on my wall in defense of my cousin’s initial statement. He used five economical words: “She’s right. Deal with it.” Then he proceeded to unfriend me.

Isn’t it interesting that the contemporary evangelical movement espouses the same moral perspective as a religion whose express purpose is to eliminate Christianity? Both groups owe a tremendous amount to Ayn Rand, and preach individuality above self-sacrifice. That’s fine for Satanists, as their beliefs reflect no internal contradictions. But how does any of this jive with the Gospel of Christ?

Clearly, it doesn’t.

The Jesus of the Bible railed against money-lenders and “redistributed” loaves and fish to the hungry. He tended to the needy and sick. Moreover, he encouraged others to do the same.

Compare that to the sweeping push by those aligned with the evangelical movement to eliminate social programs meant to aid our society’s most needy. These are the same folks who loudly and proudly tout their so-called “Christian values” and claim a moral high ground.

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” – Mark, 10:21-25

Let’s see here… Jesus instructed his disciples to redistribute their personal, material wealth to the poor as a key means to entering the Kingdom of God. It’s right there in the Bible. I hope I don’t need to mention that Jesus freely healed the sick with no regard to “pre-existing conditions” like leprosy.

These teachings were carried on by the disciples after Jesus’ crucifixion. It would be amazing if the Christians of today were to take them to heart instead of celebrating the suppression of speech and liberty.

My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong? – James, 2:1-7

To me, the more frustrating thing than the outright hypocrisy is the unwillingness to engage in even moderate self-reflection. No need to account for your actions, no reason to adjust your personal behavior to be more in line with the articles of your supposed faith. The act of becoming “born-again” simply guarantees your place at the Lord’s table. I can see why this belief system is attractive, as it requires practically zero effort. But it is absolutely not in keeping with Jesus’ actual teachings.

And anyone who tells you otherwise is deluded or disingenuous.

Look, I have some sympathies with the OWS movement. I certainly think that my cousin’s statement is ignorant, and that there are hundreds of reasons why people in an economic depression (when one in 16 are below the poverty line, that’s what it is) may want to publicly demonstrate their dissatisfaction with wealth inequality in the United States. But this isn’t about my political views. It’s about the tendency of the modern evangelical movement to mask their disgust for their brothers and sisters behind a veneer of faith.

I don’t care if you happen to be related to me. I’m calling bullshit.

Is it over? Looks like.

Early Tuesday morning, NYPD swept through the original Occupy Wall Street encampment at Zuccotti Park in New York City, clearing out people and belongings, and arresting demonstrators. Journalists, too, were rounded up and carted away. And we’re not just talking bloggers here: reporters from AP, New York Times, NPR and NY Daily News were among those arrested.

Anecdotal reports include the deliberate destruction of the books in the OWS library (they had a library!), as well as personal items and gear.

The journalists themselves were not immune from violence. From New York Times reporter Brian Stelter‘s Twitter feed:

I’m w/ a NY Post reporter who says he was roughed up by riot police as Zuccotti was cleared. He thinks violence was “completely deliberate.”

Per @LindseyChrist, riot police didn’t distinguish between media & protesters. “They took a Post reporter and threw him in a choke hold.”

Even the airspace above the park was restricted. On the ground, reporters from Village Voice, Mother Jones, Byline Beat, Brooklyn Ink, the New York Observer and others were told by NYPD their credentials did not matter; they would not be allowed to cover the raid in any fashion.

The crackdown is apparently not unique to Zuccotti Park; varying reports indicate at least 18 mayors across the country have issued similar orders, most likely in coordination.

I’ve refrained from weighing in directly on the OWS movement, as I wasn’t able to observe the protests firsthand even in my hometown of Washington, DC. But the deliberate targeting of the media is unconscionable in a free society. What is happening here is no different than when more oppressive states quash the dissemination of information.

Leaders in America need a reality check. They criticize foreign governments for the silencing of speech and then act in coordination to block journalists from reporting on what is essentially an exercise in martial law. Constitutional interpretations regarding the right to assemble and public welfare aside, the deliberate suppression of a free press must be recognized as counter to our nation’s ideals.

These are hardly the last tent cities America will see, I’m afraid. We might just not hear about them through “official” channels.

I live in Washington, DC and work in tech policy (as it relates to creative content). This means I have the dubious privilege of seeing how the sausage is made when it comes to the laws that shape our digital future. Increasingly, I’m witnessing a convergence of some pretty hairy issues that previously had limited public impact. And, for better or worse, policymakers — domestic and international — have started to pay attention.

There are three core concerns that will have an outsized effect on how we all experience technology. The first one encompasses the other two, which are of nearly equal importance. Bookmark this page, and we can talk about it in 10 years (provided we’re all still here).

1. Internet freedom
2. Intellectual Property Enforcement
3. Data Privacy/Security

Before I explain how these issues are converging, let’s look at what each means individually.

Internet Freedom
This is the mother of all tech-policy debates, and the one with the most potential to impact every facet of your online experience. The internet is essentially a packet-switching information exchange network that uses a simple protocol to allow all these interconnected machines to “talk” to each other. Its process is, by and large, neutral with regard to content. This is what has allowed it to become the most powerful engine for democratic speech in the history of humanity. That speech may very well be 90 percent LOLcats, but it also includes political speech and practically every other flavor of expression. In the United States, this means that our First Amendment rights are automatically ported over to this digital conduit. That may not be the case with other countries, which is why you see a lot of high-falutin’ talk from the State Department about the importance of maintaining global networks where free expression can flourish.

Unfortunately, recent American trends giving corporate speech unparalleled weight means that your own online speech could depend on how deep your pockets are. This is the crux of the so-called “net neutrality” debate, in which the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) want to charge a premium for the faster delivery of content, sites and services. Without clear rules of the road, speech that does not benefit the ISP’s bottom lines — or those of their corporate partners — may be delayed, or worse still, blocked. There has been progress in achieving at least some protections here. But these rules — promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission — are currently in danger of being stripped away by Congress.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the FCC established separate rules for the “wired” web vs. internet accessed on mobile devices. This distinction, to me, is arbitrary and pointless. There is ONE internet, regardless of how you connect to it. Having a tiered internet for wireless may end up impacting those whose speech has historically been at the greatest disadvantage, as underprivileged and minority communities are more likely to access the internet via mobile devices.

It will be very interesting to see how the American virtue of free expression plays out on our domestic networks, especially as we promote open technology platforms as a means of democratic participation overseas.

2. Intellectual Property Enforcement
Wikipedia defines Intellectual Property (IP) as “a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized… common types of intellectual property rights include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.”

IP is big business. REALLY big business here in America. Which is why there are so many large stakeholders pushing for stronger intellectual property laws on the internet. I have no problem with this in theory, as I am a copyright holder myself, and believe that I should have exclusive rights over how my expression is capitalized upon in the marketplace – that is, for a limited term, which was the balance struck by Congress when it devised our laws governing this part of IP. There are different rules for trademarks and patents, on which I am no expert. So I’ll stick with what I know.

Increasingly, copyright law is coming to loggerheads with the consumptive behaviors of internet users. This is something I’ve written about and spoken on extensively in my professional life. In the interest of space, and without picking sides, I can say this: rightsholders are currently pushing hard on Congress to pass laws that, to my reading, look like blunt instruments when it comes to protecting IP online. And by this I mean legislation currently proposed could, at worst, restrict legitimate speech and compromise the underlying security of the internet. For further details, I point you to my DC colleagues, Public Knowledge. (Full disclosure: my wife works for them.)

3. Data Privacy/Security
Which brings me to my final issue, data privacy/security. Again, I can’t claim to be an expert here, but on the other hand, not many can. Here, we have everything from domestic defense to corporate espionage to individual rights and even First Amendment concerns. Some may have heard Eric Schmidt of Google‘s statement on total data transparency being the key to informational security. I’m sure the NSA would agree, so long as they are the ones with “total” access to the data. I bring this up because at no other point in history has informational privacy been of such import — perceived and actual. I can remember people on the street where I grew up being hesitant about having their name listed in the phone book. Now, everything we do and say online leaves a digital trace. Before you get yourself in some Philip K. Dick psychological tailspin, keep in mind that there’s a big difference between personally-identifying data and non-personally-identifying data. The former can be used to target, track and harass individuals; the latter is basically why Amazon knows what books you might be interested in reading next. Still, there is a lot of grey area with regard to how this information is collected, shared and exploited. And, at the moment, US privacy law is a patchwork of state-by-state regulations and jurisprudence. That might not be the case forever, as Congress has shown interest in establishing a federal privacy standard. Obviously, that could cut both ways.

Data security is the other side of the coin. Here, we reach the queasy intersection of defense, espionage — corporate and state — and hackerdom. Much of what occurs in the world of data security happens privately, or though private-public contracts between government and IT wizards. Obviously, any breach of US information security comes with pretty severe (domestic) penalties, but that doesn’t mean that hackers here and abroad aren’t trying to break into our informational infrastructure every second of every day. A serious breach is practically guaranteed, as is the subsequent crackdown. I believe this is what is referred to as the “Internet 9/11.”

The US isn’t just playing defense here. I’ve followed closely reports of how the administration very seriously considered a cyberattack on Libya’s air defense network in the lead-up to the NATO engagement. We ultimately decided against it, likely for a combination of reasons: one, we may not have wanted to be the first country to open the Pandora’s Box of cyberwar; two, we didn’t have enough time to pinpoint and exploit weaknesses in the Libyan network before airstrikes were scheduled to commence; and three, there were lingering legal questions about whether cyberattacks are considered “hostilities” subject to Congressional oversight within the War Powers Act. I guarantee these questions will soon be answered one way or another. And this will undoubtedly impact the evolution of global information networks.

All three of these issues intersect in myriad ways. The economics of digital entertainment is related to open networks vs. walled gardens, and also bumps up against data privacy/security on both the consumer and corporate end of the spectrum. Participatory democracy depends on open tech platforms and access to robust data pipelines and mobile spectrum. Overly-broad IP enforcement has the potential to limit exactly that openness while sending the signal to other nations that censorship is OK. Digital networks can also be exploited by despots (and even less-nefarious governments) to monitor the speech and movement of a populace. And around and around we go.

Taken together, as they are destined to be, these three issues represent the last tech-policy debate. How we respond will shape human interaction for decades, if not centuries to come.

Welcome to another edition of our sometime-series, The Contrarian’s Old-Time Conspiracy Hour! Today, we’re going to look at a pair of subjects closer to the truth than your average intrigue: The Great Pirates and the Gross Universal Cash Heist (GRUNCH). These two concepts were originally put forth by intellectual rapscallion R. Buckminster Fuller, a man whose genius knew few bounds.

Devised decades ago, Bucky’s hypotheses have never been more timely, what with the Occupy Wall Street protests and a tottering global economy. Great Pirates and GRUNCH are best taken as informed allegory, not hard fact. This is why they often get slapped with the “conspiracy” label. But unlike, say, reptilian shapeshifters who secretly run the world, the Great Pirates and GRUNCH are based on actual dynamics in trade, information and governance.

Let’s start with GRUNCH. Basically, this is the overarching strategy of the Great Pirates (more on them in a second). The theory posits that the nations of the world are actually “sponsored entities” of a few select financial networks. World governments (and their subjects) are kept in place through debts, which is why politicians are always going to raise taxes, no matter what they promise — they have to contain rising interest. Of course, even in politics, you have to pay to play. In 1980, Bucky estimated that it cost $100 million to run for president, $30 million to run for Senate and $10 million for the House of representatives. Obviously, the price tag is much higher now, but the story is the same: politicians are “sponsored” by the financial networks and their overlords, who invest in campaigns. The Supreme Court supports this arrangement, as demonstrated by the Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission ruling.

Now, Bucky didn’t think that there was any single gang of Great Pirates running the show; he believed that there were likely a number of them, often tugging in different directions. As an engineer, he found such shoddy staging inefficient, and therefore unacceptable.

So who are these Great Pirates? The late, great, Robert Anton Wilson has a typically elegant summation:

The Great Pirates signify those men combining elements of what ethologists call the alpha male, historians call the despot and sociologists call the sociopath… our primitive ancestors, Fuller says, were conquered by wave after wave of these despotic-sociopathic Great Pirates, until all humans became accustomed to being ruled by Great Pirates, since the only other choice was to be murdered by them.

The Great Pirates then discovered that other people were working at science, and hired the scientists to produce gadgets to suit their own needs. Therefore, Bucky says, science knows more about weaponry than about “livingry.” Fuller’s experimental geometry and housing were attempts to contribute to the livingry he felt science had largely ignored.

If you to accept the basic outline here — and I do, to a fair degree — you’ll quickly recognize where the far right and far left get it wrong. The right sees government as invasive and liberty-depriving, but they fail to grok that the majority of today’s governments are merely puppets of a corporate behemoth that seeks only increased profits. Today’s left views government as the only entity that can tame the corporate beast, completely missing that policymakers are already ensnared by the financial/corporate apparatus.

Until a critical mass of people realize the nexus of criminality here, we are likely to remain in bondage. So listen up, lefties and Tea Partiers: you can yell about freedom or the corporatocracy until you’re blue in the face — the fact of the matter is, you are only dividing yourselves. And guess who benefits from that? Why do you think “wedge issues” exist? Because the people running the campaigns don’t want you to pay attention to the real issues.

Is Occupy Wall Street the commencement of a new understanding? I have no idea, but the cynic in me highly doubts it. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong.

If you want to learn more about the Great Pirates and GRUNCH, I recommend you check out Bucky’s book GRUNCH of Giants — available free at the Buckminster Fuller Institute.