I like to keep saying that "the net is about sociology, not technology"
[1]. Here's a corollary of that. A very interesting set of implications,
too. Society needs its hackers - in all senses of the term.
Thoughts?
Udhay
[1] http://www.cluetrain.com/signers.html
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-1105.html#1
Status Report: "The Dishonest Minority"
Three months ago, I announced that I was writing a book on why security
exists in human societies. This is basically the book's thesis statement:
All complex systems contain parasites. In any system of cooperative
behavior, an uncooperative strategy will be effective -- and the system
will tolerate the uncooperatives -- as long as they're not too numerous
or too effective. Thus, as a species evolves cooperative behavior, it
also evolves a dishonest minority that takes advantage of the honest
majority. If individuals within a species have the ability to switch
strategies, the dishonest minority will never be reduced to zero. As a
result, the species simultaneously evolves two things: 1) security
systems to protect itself from this dishonest minority, and 2) deception
systems to successfully be parasitic.
Humans evolved along this path. The basic mechanism can be modeled
simply. It is in our collective group interest for everyone to
cooperate. It is in any given individual's short-term self-interest not
to cooperate: to defect, in game theory terms. But if everyone defects,
society falls apart. To ensure widespread cooperation and minimal
defection, we collectively implement a variety of societal security systems.
Two of these systems evolved in prehistory: morals and reputation.
Two others evolved as our social groups became larger and more formal:
laws and technical security systems. What these security systems do,
effectively, is give individuals incentives to act in the group
interest. But none of these systems, with the possible exception of some
fanciful science-fiction technologies, can ever bring that dishonest
minority down to zero.
In complex modern societies, many complications intrude on this
simple model of societal security. Decisions to cooperate or defect are
often made by groups of people -- governments, corporations, and so on
-- and there are important differences because of dynamics inside and
outside the groups. Much of our societal security is delegated -- to the
police, for example -- and becomes institutionalized; the dynamics of
this are also important.
Power struggles over who controls the mechanisms of societal
security are inherent: "group interest" rapidly devolves to "the king's
interest." Societal security can become a tool for those in power to
remain in power, with the definition of "honest majority" being simply
the people who follow the rules.
The term "dishonest minority" is not a moral judgment; it simply
describes the minority who does not follow societal norm. Since many
societal norms are in fact immoral, sometimes the dishonest minority
serves as a catalyst for social change. Societies without a reservoir of
people who don't follow the rules lack an important mechanism for
societal evolution. Vibrant societies need a dishonest minority; if
society makes its dishonest minority too small, it stifles dissent as
well as common crime.
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
