DIGITAL ALQAEDA

Recently a young man committed suicide when the prosecutor's net was closing in on him. This has set off an extraordinary debate on, among other things, the (American) Legal system, freedom of speech(!!),  ownership, control, and freedom of internet and trite old 60's debate on individual Vs the Establishment. The interesting thing about these debates is that you get to hear only one side: the side of the Digital Elite.They expose, they argue loudly, they condemn chide and they threaten in turns; they are the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all in one. And them being Digital Elite the dissenting voices are not heard - who would want to have a spat with Mike Tyson in the parking lot or with a man carrying an assault rifle with a 100-round magazine?

By all accounts the deceased was a talented young man in the prime of his life and as such it was a tragic waste of a life. It should be considered a waste, even if he hadn't been talented. We lose tens of young people in their late teens every year, unable to cope with the academic and social pressures of the elite institutions into which socio-political engineering parachutes them. They are all tragic and unnecessary deaths which could be avoided if only those responsible had exhibited some wisdom instead of political expediency. Talent alone - or more accurately, the lack of it - does not determine if a death is justified or not. No death, especially at such a young age, is justifiable, whatever the reason.

But the arguments put forward by the Digital Elite  are, to say the least, disingenuous and expose their arrogance and desire to be held to a different - and lower - standard of behaviour. 

The facts of the case are that the deceased young man, Swartz, downloaded millions of documents from two subscription-only databases.The documents are apparently in the public domain and are not the intellectual property of the database owners (MIT and JSTOR). When the prosecutors closed in on him Swartz, fearing sentence as long as 50 years in prison, committed suicide. Even before the case has gone to court the prosecutor has been vilified, the justice system faulted  general threat of retribution made and the deceased sainted.

The entire digital world was immediately up in arms over the incident rounding on the prosecutor in particular and the establishment in general. I wouldn't be surprised if, unable to withstand the intense pressure from the Digital Elite, the prosecutor herself were to commit suicide. I would be equally unsurprised if some of the Digital Elite were to actively seek and work towards such an outcome which they would proceed to justify as a justifiable retribution to avenge a wrong.

The Digital Elite argument is threefold:

1. The rules of normal society do not apply to the Digital Society, especially where it concerns rights and wrongs. Swartz was a digital genius and did not deserve to be treated like a criminal of the garden variety.

2. Swartz has been arguing for freedom on the net. Therefore his act was justified and not criminal.

3. He was anti-establishment and thus deserved a different treatment. One writer went so far as to compare him to Noam Chomsky and Establishment's tolerance of him notwithstanding an uneasy  relationship.

The digital vigilantes have promised to let loose their digital wrath on all and sundry who don't agree with them and have promised specific retribution against MIT. They may also take out (only digitally, I hope) anyone who dares to disagree with them.

What is the merit, if any, in their arguments?

Lets dismiss 4 straight away because it is trite, it is old, has been advanced since 60's and still does not hold water. Simply being anti establishment does not exempt one from the current laws of the land. You will have to change those laws. You are anti-establishment because you are convinced that it is wrong and that conviction arises out of well- reasoned thought. Establishment, having exhausted its reasons, normally reverts to "because  I say so and I am the Establishment" , leading to an impasse.The anti-establishmentarian has no option but to attempt to change the establishment's norms.

Being anti establishment is not a walk in the park; it entails taking on the might of the establishment and all its apparatuses. By nature it is a painful, and one who undertakes it better be ready to be ostracised one way or another and for all manner of minor, major and severe harassments. It is not for the faint of heart. Gandhi took on the colonial establishment and Mandela the apartheid one. They both paid for it  with significant chunks of their lives being taken from them in the form of imprisonments. Even at the height of their struggles neither they nor their supporters cried out for a special or lenient treatment. They paid for their convictions. Do the Digital Elite have what it takes to be anti-establishment? I fear not. Which explains in part their vehemence and anger. Their argument seems to be "we are right and you are wrong". And they carry a very big digital stick which they are not loath to use.

The other three arguments of the Digital Elite have a common and very disturbing underlying theme: "we are the digital elite and the laws of ordinary mortals don't apply to us". The proponents of this line of thought glorify the derring-dos of digital felons who in turn are deified. Stealing may be bad, but digital stealing is nothing short of genius. It seems that the act itself is forgotten if the means are exotic, complicated and requires considerable intelligence. The use of technology seems to cleanse the act of moral turpitude and legal culpability. It is somewhat like saying that one who breaks into your home is a felon; but the guy who cracks the combination of your lock and walks in is a celebrity. By vesting the morality in the tools of the (mis)deed, the Techies are treading on very dangerous ground indeed. A theft should be a theft, period.

A theft is the taking of something that does not belong to you. It does not matter if the person you are taking it from had himself stolen it in the first place. If you were to steal it in order to restore it to its rightful owner, your act is still a theft but the severity is somewhat ameliorated by your intent which is to right an earlier wrong. This latter act can lead to all sorts of moral and judicial complications which is why the simple injunction that "two wrongs dont make a right". If you were socially minded or brave enough to liberate something from someone in order to restore it to its rightful owner, then you should be prepared to pay the price for your act of felony. The problem arises when you punish another man's felony and hold it contemptible and expect to be lionised for your own. This is exactly what the digital elite are doing.

There is another disturbing aspect to the Digital Elites' line of argument. It is a sort of "I am a celebrity, get me out of here" kind of argument. These are claims for immunity on the basis of their elite status. They are so arrogant that they do not even attempt to take a superior moral position, however tenuous, in their defence. The cornerstone of their entire argument is their superior technical abilities. It is as if their technical skills have banished into irrelevance the norms of ordinary discourse. They are not guilty because they say so and they say so because the rules don't apply to them - they are the Digital Elite.

There is a plain and simple lack of balance, moderation and tolerance of dissent and the "other". The world is what the Digital Elite decree it is. Their world view does not provide for dissent, difference or debate or any civilised form of discourse.  Even when they attempt to engage with the world order they so detest, it is always in the shadow of the threat of a digital attack.

Where have we seen this form of behaviour before? The rejection of accepted behaviour, the extreme focus in their cause and lack of balance, an inability to engage with the world and an inability to even see alternate viewpoints let alone accommodate them? A total rejection of due process and instant delivery of justice from the barrel of an AK47?

Doesn't that sound remarkably like Al Qaeda?

NEW YEAR RESOLUTIONS

Like all good people I made my New Year resolutions for the year 2013. I have always made them for decades. I have also, with equal regularity, broken them for years. Like quitting smoking, for instance.  Fifteen years of resolutions to quit didn't help beyond the first weeks of the New Years. Finally my GP's refusal to attend to me unless I quit forced me to give up. I haven't looked back since, a full quarter century later. Dealing with Wine has been a lot easier given the serious mismatch between my preferences (single malt) and local availability (rot gut). Women were never a serious pursuit (I am not saying this to please my family - it is due my Tambram origins and upbringing) and I am not a warbler, even of the bathroom variety.

I am no glutton and am not a party animal. I don't need to make serious lifestyle changes except exercising. I have embraced the last named since the middle of last year and believe it is keeping my bad stuff down and good stuff up - I am too chicken to get them tested.

What I mean is I don't need to make fresh resolutions for living a better life - my Tambram credentials ensure that I cannot lead a more boring - and virtuous - life.

Still I have made some resolutions for the year 2013. These involve the following:

A. Drive like a local which entails

1. Driving around in vehicles with blackened windows notwithstanding its express prohibition by the Supreme Court.
2. Installing and using a multi-tone horn in my car and honking it as often and as long as I possibly can
3. Flying a party flag from the hood of my car to secure immunity from the police
4. Not stopping at red lights in line with principles of Physics which hold that slower speeds increase chances of collisions and slowest speed presents the most risk of collision. 
5.  Lanes are for wimps and the entire road surface is meant to be used. If the only way to take a right turn is from the extreme left lane, so be it. I believe they do this in some states in the USA, only the other way around.

And so on

B. I shall flout all laws and regulations. Those who can flout the law do so. Those who can't, invoke discipline, courtesy and such  nonsense. Discipline and courtesy are for the wimps. We Tamils hail from a proud martial tradition.

C. I shall force my way through queues at cinemas, hospitals, restaurants, railway stations, chemists etc. "They also serve who stand and wait" may be OK for Milton and those who want to serve.. But I want to be served which entails others standing and waiting while I am being served. I shall elbow sharply those who get in my way and stare down anyone who raises an eyebrow.

D. In the time-honoured Chennai tradition I shall share my all with everyone around and that includes my thoughts, family stories, phone conversations etc. This entails expressing thoughts, and conversing on phone at the loudest my larynx can manage. Even in public. Sharing will also involve sharing my garbage as in leaving my garbage in front of the neighbours' homes. My children however will not squat in front of my neighbours' homes - they are too grown up for that. The sharing shall  include one's B.O.

E. To keep the family ties alive I shall visit family often and without prior information. Since life starts early in Chennai these visits shall be early in the day or mid afternoon which for some may be waking and siesta times. Family means never having to say you are coming, to paraphrase Love Story.

F. I shall take an active interest in culture, attending concerts during the Chennai Music Season. This may involve acting knowledgeable in matters musical, discussing the merits or lack thereof of musicians and composers, carrying songbooks to concerts and sharing my knowledge with those around. I shall also endeavour to make notes during concerts which is a highly evolved skill considering that it has to be done in a darkened concert hall while listening to the singer and discussing the finer points of the raga with the neighbour despite his / her obvious lack of enthusiasm for my views.

G. I shall take an active interest in match-making between eligible boys and girls and strive to ensure that Chennai does not fall victim to the kind of "one for four" demographic problem that afflicts China today. In the absence of constant encouragement and nudging young people today tend to forget to have babies.

H. I shall  feign indifference in the affairs of neighbours and goings on in the neighbourhood. This might involve, among others, keeping oneself abreast of their family matters with particular focus on family squabbles, financial affairs, affairs of the heart, spending habits, saving habits (or lack thereof) and generally all matters which enable one to conclude how badly others manage their lives as opposed to how well one does.

In short, I resolve to become 100% Chennai-ite in 2013.

PS: The above list is only indicative and not exhaustive. Others may find obvious omissions in the list and I encourage them to make additions to the list as they deem fit and compose their own resolutions.

DON'T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT

Long ago, when he was still on top of his game, golfer Seve Ballesteros  used to extol the virtues of American Express cards on TV. He used to end the advert with an exhortation "don't leave home without it" ("donlivhhomewithoutit" in Seve-speak). Years later when my daughter was going abroad alone for the first time she wondered what to pack for the trip. I advised her to not leave home without her Common Sense.  Everything else could be purchased or procured one way or another.

There is this woman in Belgium who evidently has not had the benefit of such wisdom from any quarter.

 Belgium, you may recall, is a very small country and in the time it takes to make your way from Malad to Colaba in Mumbai or Central Station to Singaperumal Koil in Chennai or Gurgaon to the University area in Delhi, you can go round Belgium twice with time for a coffee or beer in between. In the case of going from point A to point B in Bengaluru you could do Belgium twice as many times. Hitler's armoured columns led by Heinz Guderian took a leisurely stroll across Belgium and entered France in the space of a day or so - his tanks were very slow and needed to be fuelled every 40 or 50 miles. English tourists driving to their Continental vacations take an hour or so to cross Belgium and that is when disembarkation queues are especially long.

Belgians come in two flavours  the French speaking Walloons of the South and the Dutch-speaking Flemings of the North. Unlike their cousins the lemmings, the Flemings do not run to the nearest cliff only to jump off it, perhaps because there are no cliffs in Belgium. When stressed, they do run off to a monastery and brew some excellent beer. The Flems  are generally regarded as the  Belgian version of Poles or, if you prefer an Indian comparison, Sardars. While the Flemish painted some great art, they are otherwise not known for their mental acuity. It is surmised that the time spent in Belgium as a miner had something to do with van Gogh cutting his ear off in later life - he didn't realise that the ear he was cutting off in the mirror was his own.

There is this woman in Belgium whose name is not van Gogh nor is she a known relative of van Gogh. She is a 21st century exemplar of the low mental abilities of the Belgians. She started one day from her home in Belgium to go to Brussels, 38 miles away, and ended up 900 miles away in Zagreb in Croatia. She attributed this to meticulously following the instructions of her GPS system.

She seems to have ignored many a warning sign:
Firstly, within a few minutes of her starting her drive she must have crossed a border to France, Luxembourg Germany or Netherlands, depending on which route she took. Border signposts in these countries are all in different languages and even when there is no one at the check posts, traversing them entails driving through in a zigzag at very slow speed. Despite their lack of mental acuity Belgians do not build zigzags in the middle of their highways, a fact that seemed not to have piqued her curiosity.
Secondly, the highways are all well-signposted and are in German / Dutch / French as the case may be. The last time Belgian roads were signposted in German was in 1941 after the aforementioned Herr Guderian took his afternoon stroll.
Thirdly, the road signs on these Autobahns / Autoroutes  point to towns which have not been known to have been part of Belgium in the last five thousand years. Her own destination must have been conspicuous by its absence on these road signs. She said later, "I saw all kinds of traffic signs. First in French, then in German - Cologne, Aachen, Frankfurt," but chose to trust her GPS rather than common sense
. 
Fourthly, crossing  Germany of France would have entailed driving through some thick forests and hills as opposed to the flat Belgian countryside.
Fifthly, she would have had to cross the Alps at some point. While not as great as the Himalayas in height or grandeur, there is no mistaking the Alps for Belgian landscape.
As she was nearing her destination, she must have noticed architecture with more than a passing resemblance to the Islamic style. Far from the Belgian barnyard style.

Above all, 40 miles is at worst one hour's worth of driving as opposed to 900 miles which, assuming your car could sustain the speed would have taken over fifteen. That much of driving involves loo-breaks, coffee breaks and lunch / dinner breaks all of which she appears to have taken without sparing a thought as to why she needed a break for a 40-mile trip.
I know of no car which could take you 900 miles in one tank full of fuel. Jeremy Clarkson reportedly did London -Edinburgh-London on one tank full of diesel in a large car with an even larger fuel tank and that's only 800 miles. At the fuel stop she should have noticed a different price, indicated in a different language, but apparently not.

Her faith in her GPS seems to have been absolute and unshakable to the extent that she did not doubt its directions but floored the pedal instead."I didn't ask myself any questions. I was just distracted, so I kept my foot down".

Clearly she left home without it.