'AN APPRAISAL OF TECHNOLOGIES OF POLITICAL CONTROL': A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT WORKING DOCUMENT
The Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Unit, of the European Parliament's Directorate General for Research, has prepared an appraisal of technological developments in the area of political control.
In keeping with the inherent questions regarding the nature and legitimacy of these mechanisms, noteworthy in this appraisal is the analysis of more than the purely technical aspects of this evolution. Concurrent focus is placed upon an examination of the history, deployment, social ramifications, and political/democratic control of these technologies.
Key to the analysis presented is the perspective of early visionaries Habermas, Ellul and the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science (BSSRS). In 1964 Habermas and Ellul foretold the danger of an erosion of "traditional freedoms and civil liberties associated with broad technological advances in the future". A little over a decade later, BSSRS warned of the birth of a "new technology of repression...whose main purpose was quelling internal dissent". Later, BSSRS went on to highlight that the "effects of these new technological aids are both broader and more complex than the more lethal weaponry they complement".
Building upon the need to avoid an examination of developments from an isolated perspective, the report's author, Steve Wright (Omega Foundation, Manchester, UK), highlighted the necessity of examining the "hardware" of political control (the "tools, machines, appliances, weapons and gadgets") in a manner that encompasses its impact upon "the associated standard operating procedures, routines, skills, techniques (the software); and the related forms of rationalised human social organisations, arrangements, systems and networks (the liveware) of any programme of political control." Of particular note, in this regard, are the questions of: technological and decision drift, technology push vs. demand pull, the "convergence" of police and military, the "globalization" of political control, and the issue of "bureaucratic capture" (which may well be at the heart of the preceding issues).
Bureaucratic Capture
Bureaucratic Capture is discussed as a phenomenon where the senior officials of a government effectively control their ministers as opposed to being controlled by them. The report goes on to note how this has led to ministers being "systematically denied the information they require" to effectively safeguard against "excesses or abuse of this technology". Most telling in the report is the author's reference at the end of each report section to discussion of possible areas of policy change, at the end of each report section, "which could bring much of this technology back within the reach of democratic control and accountability". He thus implies that a significant and present threat from the technology of political control already exists, described as being both beyond accountability and outside of democratic control.
Present status and future trends
The report is divided into seven sections. Summarising these briefly, they are: the role and function of this technology, recent trends, surveillance developments, innovations in crowd control weapons, the privatisation of prisoner control, interrogation and torture, and the implications both of this technological evolution and the political imperatives it bespeaks. While there is a wealth of data presented on the specific tools of control, and certainly how their utilization adversely impacts individual populations, the report's portrait of emerging trends in how civil liberties are being sacrificed on the altar of State Security is most telling.
The search for technical fixes for political problems
As previously noted, much of the thinking behind the evolution of these then emerging technologies began in the sixties and seventies. Factors such as the conflicts in Vietnam and Northern Ireland fuelled the growing pursuit by States of "technical fixes for their most pressing and intractable social and political problems". The report goes on to note that one school of thought perceives "it is at the point where authority fails that repression begins". Particularly noteworthy in this context are the issues of: globalization, convergence, and the rise of the "Police Industrial Complex".
Political control technology proliferation
As regards "globalization", this is a term utilized in the context of the adoption of similar methodology, in varying degrees and with varying controls, by States of the "North and South, the East and West". The report notes that up until the 1960's, surveillance was difficult and extremely expensive. For example, the East German secret police employed 500,000 secret informers in their efforts. However, in quoting David Bannisar of Privacy International, the report notes that the evolution in today's technology of political control means that the type of surveillance "the East German secret police could only dream of is rapidly becoming a reality in the free world." According to Bannisar, this technology facilitates "mass and routine surveillance of large segments of the population without the need for warrants and formal investigations".
Modern communication systems virtually transparent
At this juncture, a review of some of the surveillance technology the report cites is most illustrative. For example, modern communication systems are highlighted as "virtually transparent". Of particular note is that "the message switching systems used on digital exchanges like System X in the UK supports an Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) Protocol. This allows digital devices, e.g. fax to share the system with existing lines. The ISDN subset is defined in their documents as Signalling CCITT1-series interface for ISDN access.' What is not widely known is that built in to the international CCITT protocol is the ability to take phonesoff hook' and listen into conversations occurring near the phone, without the user being aware that it is happening...System X has been exported to Russia and China."
With respect to the use made of surveillance technology for political control, a London Observer report cited quotes "highly placed intelligence operatives" who stated that they "can no longer remain silent regarding that which we regard to be gross malpractice and negligence within the establishment we operate". To illustrate their contentions, these sources noted those targeted for communications interception included charities such as "Amnesty International and Christian Aid". Further, the report goes on to note that within Europe, the US National Security Agency routinely intercepts "all email, telephone and fax communications...transferring all target information from the European mainland via the strategic hub of London then by Satellite to Fort Meade in Maryland".
The concept of "technological and decision drift" begs review in this context. While many States with checkered human rights backgrounds have become synonymous with the kinds of questions the use of the technology of political control raises, the association of these issues with liberal democracies is most difficult. Privacy International's David Bannisar may well again provide a key perspective, in that he notes, "privacy invasion schemes were originally tried on populations with little political power...and then applied up the socioeconomic ladder. Once in place, the policies are difficult to remove and inevitably expand into more general use" - technological and decision drift?
Military weaponry used for domestic policing
The report addresses the increasing levels of force used against a State's own citizens, and the use of weaponry, banned by Treaty for use in International Conflicts, on domestic populations. Noteworthy in this analysis is the utilisation of military type weaponry and tactics upon a State's own population - "convergence". Irritant Gas Sprays, such as CN and Oleoresin Capsicum (commonly called OC, Capstun, or pepper spray), are coming into ever wider use...although with pepper spray, as "a plant toxin it is banned for use in war by the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention but not for internal security use". Regarding applications of this technology, the report notes that a "disturbing case of police deploying riot weapons against a peaceful festival occurred last year in Zurich on 1 May, using watercannon laced with CN irritant and rubber bullets below the 20 metres threshold, shows the process of convergence well."
The Police Industrial Complex
Particularly notable in the process of convergence are questions as regards "supply push" vs "demand pull" of these technologies, as well as the decline of the Military Industrial Complex, and the rise of the "Police Industrial Complex". The report notes that to "counteract reductions in military contracts which began in the 1980's...companies are expanding into new markets - at home and abroad - with equipment originally developed for the military". The report then goes on to note how the end of the cold war meant that the 1990's in particular have seen the transferring to law enforcement applications of the mission and technology of both defence and intelligence agencies in order to "justify their budgets".
The issue of "supply push" inherently contains a number of disturbing implications ranging from a corruption of the evaluation processes on these technologies, to the more esoteric questions of the polarisation of societal groups, and the fostering of increased levels of violence in the groups targeted for "political control". In the vein of evaluation being corrupted, the most glaring example cited is that of Capstun (pepper spray).
Presently, pepper spray is not being widely used in Europe. However the US and Canada (as well as a number of other States) do use it extensively, and it is being marketed in France, Germany, Spain and the UK. In 1993, the US Army tested pepper spray and found it could cause "mutagenic effects, carcinogenic effects, sensitization, cardiovascular and pulmonary toxicity, neurotoxicity, as well as possible human fatalities..." The report also notes that in California alone, there have been "27 deaths in custody of people sprayed with pepper gas". Most troubling, is the revelation that "the head of the FBI's Less-Than Lethal Weapons Programme, Special Agent Thomas WW Ward, took a 57 thousand dollar bribe from a peppergas manufacturer to give the Zarc product Capstun, the all clear". Thus, the "supply push" aspects of this incident appear most straightforward, and the report goes on to discuss that "countries as disparate as Australia and India have subsequently adopted pepper gas on the back of US research".
US lead in technology of political control
Noteworthy in the data presented, the majority of the technology of political control appears to emanate from the US. Its proliferation in Europe, and from Europe to other locales, are concerns the report addresses. In this context, it is perhaps appropriate to note that in a recent report, Amnesty International cited US police for violating international treaties on torture with apparent impunity. The Amnesty report also notes an "us versus them" mentality among many of these police, thereby illustrating a polarisation of societal groups. Looking in retrospect at the Oklahoma City bombing by a domestic US group, the escalation in levels of violence that have occurred may beg examination in conjunction with the evolving deployment of the technology of political control.
Making the case for deployment
The report also notes another school of thought which "identifies developments in policing technology with efficiency, cost-effectiveness and modernisation. This school believes that the police and internal security agencies require the most up to date forms of equipment to fight crime, mob-rule and terrorism." An intrinsic part of this perspective cited is that present "controls and regulations governing the use of this technology are considered by adherents of this school to have been adequately designed to ensure that no misuse takes place".
Defining Civil Liberties and Human Rights
The STOA report concludes by noting that "unchecked vertical and horizontal proliferation of the technologies of political control present a powerful threat to civil liberties in Europe (...) particularly if the political context of freedoms of expression changes in the next century, as many times as it has in the last." Noting the alarming rate of the incremental erosion of civil liberties and human rights "fuelled" by this technology, the report highlights that "Members of the European Parliament have a right and a responsibility to challenge the costs, as well as the alleged benefits of so called advances in law enforcement."
Jack Rodgers (New York)
Sources: 'An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control', by Steve Wright, Omega Foundation, European Parliament, STOA, Document PE 166 499; Amnesty International, "United States of America - Police brutality and excessive force in the New York City Police Department", AI Index - AMR 51/36/96.Comment
"Surveillance technology can be defined as devices or systems which can monitor, track and assess the movements of individuals, their property and other assets. Much of this technology is used to track the activities of dissidents, human rights activists, journalists, student leaders, minorities, trade union leaders and political opponents"...as noted in the appraisal of technologies of political control.
Almost a half century ago, in 1949, George Orwell's novel "1984" was first published. While most of us have a passing familiarity with Orwell's vision of a totalitarian state, comparisons between present societal trends, and this obvious fiction, beg to be labelled as exaggerated at best, and lunacy more likely. Yet, it was once said, "All a poet can do is warn"...and indeed, there are those who believe 1984 to be just such a warning. While there has been considerable discussion about topics such as: the politicisation of our Justice System, the "need" to redefine civil and human rights in the interests of "State security", and the "imperative" to increase police powers to "protect populations from criminal activity"...revisiting 1984 may prove stimulating indeed.
Of course, as with any artistic work, Orwell takes a certain license in colouring the novel's milieu; yet, it has been written that..."The nightmare of Orwell's future - a boot stamped forever into a human face - is that it is no future. It is the prison of the perpetuated present in which the only things which change are technological advances, combined with the manoeuvres of political groups worshipping their own power... The future projected by power, war, propaganda, brain-washing, espionage and police terror, all continuously 'improved' by machinery... There seemed to Orwell a likelihood that a great part of the world would go either Communist or Fascist. And if this did not happen in an obvious sense, nevertheless the combination of the machinery of centralized power, combined with the betrayal of standards of objective truth of the intellectuals, would result in the triumph of the means of power over the ends of human freedom" (the preceding is quoted from the introduction to my edition of 1984*).
Jack Rodgers
\* "1984", George Orwell, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973 Ed.