An Interview with George Orwell & Paddy Chayefsky: Part 2 of 2 - Jaffer Ali - MediaBizBloggers

The following is Part 2 of a fictitious interview with George Orwell and Paddy Chayefsky; Part 1 appeared in this same column space last week.

JA: With all due respect, Mr. Orwell, I'm not sure I agree. Isn't everyone, including Behavioral Targeting advocates, worried about government encroachment, just like YOU were?

GO: While it's true that I never envisioned the private sector assuming the role of Big Brother, what people seem to be missing is that the very act of snooping constitutes the violation, regardless of which sector – private or government – does the actual snooping. Once you go online there is no way of knowing whether you are being watched or tracked. You essentially surrender your privacy to a level of trust that hasn't been demonstrated, let alone earned. And it matters not how often or on what system you're engaged, BT can follow you and record your behavior. It's even conceivable that "they" are watching everybody all the time. Morality doesn't care who "they" are. But the fact remains that "they" can now eavesdrop on your private thoughts wherever and whenever "they" want to. We have now reached the point where we must assume that every online post, search, and Website visit is being monitored, every movement scrutinized. It is this covert scrutiny that violates our dignity and menaces our trust.

PC: There are many people who howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only Microsoft, and Google, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow and Exxon. They are the true power in today's world. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business. It has been since man crawled out of the slime.

JA: Wait a second. I am a serial entrepreneur who also happens to be libertarian. In keeping with our personal freedom of choice, couldn't we just ask online audiences to choose whether or not they want to be tracked? Wouldn't this get around the morality issue? After all, some folks are perfectly willing to have their online behavior tracked.

PC: Mr. Ali, I fear you're beginning to believe the illusions being spun here. To be morally relevant, choice must be both free and informed. For example, 75% of U.S. citizens believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11 before the U.S. attacked Iraq. What this tells us is that our opinions and the resulting choices can be manufactured, which makes them not free by design. Given enough money, you can buy off the media pundits…you can control editorial policy…you can, as my good friend Noam Chomsky suggests, manufacture consent.

GO: Those with enough resources can make lies sound truthful and even murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.Yet online audiences are far from being informed. Ever read one of those15-page privacy agreements? I think people would be shocked to discover just how much information about them has been collected, stored, bought and sold. Informed consent is now nothing more than a lofty ideal buried somewhere in the fine print.

JA: I would like to go back to something Mr. Orwell said. "Unconsidered technology is inherently dangerous." I am not sure I understand this fully.

PC: May I jump in? When the Manhattan Project began, a cadre of twenty-something, brilliant PhDs got caught up with what was possible. They did not stop to consider the moral implications…

JA: But they eventually did if I recall. The Chicago group wanted to halt the project, didn't they?

PC: Yes, that's true. However, I was speaking of the initial rush of enthusiasm for the project. The morality of the technology was almost entirely unconsidered. Likewise, I believe the young tech marketers today have not yet considered the moral implications of BT, and few of the older generation even understand how BT works, so where are the checks and balances necessary to protect us from ourselves?

JA: But Mr. Chayefsky, many BT proponents say that they only want to deliver relevant information. They say they are doing online audiences a favor.

GO: Spare me those favors. We have seen over and over how the private sector hands over information to the government.All that is required is a subpoena.Besides, the gathering of informationis not a means to an end, it is the end! The object of information is information. The object of persecution is more persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

GO: I have observed the growing discourse among BT proponents, and more often than not, they will admit to collecting information for which they presently have no use. They are collecting it "just in case" they ever find a buyer for it. The collection and mining of personal data has become a technological imperative.

JA: I have spoken with my oldest son who is in college and he doesn't see what the big deal is regarding Facebook, Google, Choicepoint and others engaged in the harvesting and brokering of personal information. Apparently there are a lot of young people who simply do not care about that which you both believe violates their dignity.

PC: That's understandable. Right now, there's an entire generation that never knew anything else. Technology is the gospel, the ultimate revelation. Since they have grown up under complete surveillance, they don't even notice it -- kind of like an animal born and raised in captivity. It knows nothing of the joys and dignity of freedom.

GO: Just as driving while intoxicated poses a moral and legal dilemma, regardless of whether or not you crash into someone, the act of driving drunk is unacceptable and justifiably assailable behavior. Having our privacy violated through the stealth maneuvering of some faceless technology, regardless of intent or purpose, breaches our existential core in much the same manner as the drunk behind the wheel. BT's chimerical pursuit of "one-to-one" marketing can't justify the creepy practice of scrutinizing our every online movement.

GO: My fear is greater today than it was sixty years ago. Big Brother was obvious. Totalitarianism has given way to a generation that not only wears their chains gladly, but sees no reason to question the status quo.

JA: I want to thank you both for taking the time to share your thoughts with our readers. Your words and opinions are as timely today as they were when you first uttered them. It is an honor to view today's reality in light of your work.

JA: Is there anything you want to say in closing?

PC:Thanks for the opportunity to virtually speak from the grave. I know it's tough out there. Everybody's either out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it.

GO: In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Indeed, we are obligated to protect and defend our freedoms from those who would rob us of them, be it out in the open at the point of a knife, or at the hands of a technological predator lurking in the shadows.

About Jaffer AliJaffer Ali is CEO of Vidsense, The Video Snack Network. With more than 100,000 advertiser-friendly video clips licensed from major film and TV studios, the Vidsense Video Snack Network of more than 50,000 safe-for-work websites delivers millions of qualified visitors directly to advertiser websites on a pure Pay-Per-Visitor (PPV) basis.

Read all Jaffer’s MediaBizBlogger commentaries at Jaffer Ali - MediaBizBlogger.