English 
Español 
Prague 9.11.2020
We offer a brief review of the book by Fred Turner, professor of Communication Sciences at Stanford University, USA. In the Neue Zuercher Zeitung in Switzerland his main ideas on the subject were published a few months ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pql2nNR80k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhutZM8Hmt8
Previous observations by the editorial staff
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a scientific and technical event that will profoundly change our lives, in a not too distant horizon of a few years. Like all technological progress, it can also be used for evil, as we well know. But this does not justify demonizing progress, but rather to see in it a challenge that interpellates man to progress also in his moral profile, so open to the search for good.
AI will substitute man’s work in many productive processes and in the provision of services, for example, in mining, construction of buildings, roads and bridges, in agriculture and cattle raising, in the surveillance and regulation of automobile traffic, in medicine, etc., etc. This will lead to a further reduction in working hours, to prevent unemployment, so that, in the end, more time can be devoted to the education of children, the family and the noble interests of man, for which there has not been enough time so far.
However, what could cause horrific consequences is the possibility that a government could use AI to establish a totalitarian tyranny, bypassing constitutional guarantees under the pretext, for example, of an epidemic… Signs that this risk is real can already be seen today.
———————————— End of previous observations.
Silicon Valley’s leading entrepreneurs – from Steve Jobs to Mark Zuckerberg – have announced that digital media will contribute to an egalitarian society, more collaborative and free from the tyranny of the state. At this point, perhaps they should not be so sure, because in recent years, people have begun to sense a disturbing irony: the very aspects of digital media that were believed to make our societies more democratic are in the process of undermining democratic institutions and norms.
The ease with which digital images and text can be altered is gradually undermining our confidence in the facts. In the US, one can almost feel how the social and cultural foundations of democratic debate, and with them the democratic state itself, are beginning to crumble. At the same time, the foundations of a new form of authoritarian government are emerging worldwide. States are not only developing and using their own technologies, for surveillance and propaganda purposes, but are also contributing to the work of national and international technology companies to achieve their ends.
In order to monitor each of its citizens comprehensively and individually, the People’s Republic of China uses Wechat, a system that is used for all aspects of life, from payment to agreements and reading the news. And in the US, companies like Palantir cooperate with government agencies – from local police forces to the National Security Administration (NSA).
Unlike paper or film, electronically stored data can be endlessly copied without affecting the original; it can be undone, turned back into the original, and sent around the world at the speed of light. This means that almost anyone can make their thoughts public anywhere, even anonymously, if they wish. Anyone can spread propaganda and disinformation at will, and each user, for his part, can immediately put his readings into circulation. In any remote corner of the Internet, lies can be told that sound like the truth and can be put into circulation around the world in a matter of minutes – and vice versa. And states barely have the means to stop such processes.
The Chinese model
This computer practice is taking China to its highest level of sophistication. For two decades, the Chinese government has imposed a combination of technological and regulatory measures to limit its citizens’ access to the global Internet and to restrict the activity of international companies within its own borders. The technology used is new, but this form of censorship is ancient. In fact, states have always used censorship techniques – as well as surveillance and propaganda – to control their citizens.
Digital technologies have dramatically expanded the possibilities of the Chinese state in all these dimensions. Wireless networks that allow the masses to communicate online help the state track their activities on an individual level with extraordinary precision. Thus, every action of a digital instrument user creates an electronic trail. And because these tracks are electronic in nature, they require little storage space. In this way, data is immediately collated, analyzed and put back into circulation. And through machine learning and artificial intelligence, these data records are able to predict almost in real time who might take action against the state.
But probably the most effective state strategy of digital technology is to link different types of data. In Sinkiang province, for example, in this way, the government has made an effort to bring a restless minority under control. There, the state has implemented an extensive closed video surveillance system, drones and GPS trackers to follow the movements of each citizen.
By combining various data sources and using techniques such as facial recognition, fingerprint sensors and DNA testing, it has been possible to monitor and control the regional population with an extraordinary degree of individual accuracy. As soon as data indicates a suspicion that someone is crossing the line, the police are immediately called to the scene of the incident.
And in the West?
Even in Western democratic states there is already an efficient surveillance network. Just think of the data that Facebook has collected from its users, or the data that Google appropriates in a day full of searches.
This naturally gives rise to a temptation in the states. In times of crisis, companies could be required to hand over their data or algorithms under the threat of arrest. Or they could simply force those companies to cooperate through official regulations. A state, and especially an authoritarian state, has an almost infinite hunger for technology and computing power. It is easy to imagine what companies can gain in return for meeting these digital needs.
Business cooperation with the state in the USA does not yet seem to match the level of centralization controlled by the Chinese state. But that could come very quickly. That would be – as I mentioned at the beginning – a kind of irony of recent history. People would have to settle for the fact that their desire to advance individual freedom has helped establish a new form of state power and control down to the smallest detail.
