Fergus Cassidy

Majority report

IN more than a tip of his cap to George Orwell, Steven Spielberg's film Minority Report pitched its tale at a future vision of society. Tom Cruise plays a homicide cop, whose hotshot, gung ho attitude has put him at the top of the hero pecking order in his precinct.

His department is called Pre-Crime and aided by some mutant humans, a cloning experiment gone badly wrong, Cruise is able to piece together a date, time and place on murders that have not yet been committed. The mutants - humants maybe - have rough visions of the future crime being committed and Cruise then uses technology to locate the crime scene. All that is left is for the hero is to round up the pre-bad guy, who is blissfully unaware that he is not going to get away with it until Cruise arrests him.

Spielberg is playing with the choices that society in the future might have to make. That is, notwithstanding how the information comes about, information leading to the arrest and charging of a person who has not actually committed a crime - and thus a denial of their judicial rights - can be be justified on the basis of the greater good. In other words, society grapples with its conscience and society wins.

While Minority Report was classified in general terms as a science fiction movie, it is only a matter of decades since the idea of incarcerating people on the basis of crimes they might commit was actually put into practice. It happened here in Ireland and it was called internment. Prior to that the United States did the same thing during World War II, when citizens of Japanese ancestry were detained without trial.

In both of these situations the moral and ethical justification - legal justification is always more readily available - for the denial of human rights was alluded to as being in the interest of the greater good.

But what happens in a society where it is not possible to identify and single out those who may injure or otherwise harm the greater good? In heightened periods of social tension, such as disasters, war or acts of individual terrorism - it is a much easier task to identify 'the enemy'. But what happens when 'the enemy' remains hidden, and the threat to the greater good cannot be readily or easily predicted?

In that situation - and it's one that is very relevant throughout the world at the moment - there seems to be an unstoppable drift in the direction that law and human rights is taking. A Pre-Crime solution is coming more into play, particularly in the so-called developed or industrial parts of the world.

Predicting criminal behaviour is now a goal of many governments, acting unilaterally but also forming strategic alliances with other like-minded governments and blocs. While governments, of one hue or another, have always used technology (radar, sonar etc) to predict events, that avenue has always been limited by the speed and rate of growth of science and technology.

Since the race to land a man on the moon, however, there has been an unprecedented speeding up of that process. Transistors and miniaturisation leading to digital microchip computing, has propelled technological development far ahead of the pace that most societies can travel at. This momentum, and also the recent collapse of the technology markets, have added to the zeitgeist that technology - and computing in particular - has taken on a life of its own. It hasn't been a very long walk from setting paraffin wicks on fire to receiving television signals from a satellite in geo-stationary orbit hundreds of miles above the earth.

Information about society
Human beings haven't changed all that much over the millennia but what has changed constantly is our perception of the world around us. And information and knowledge largely shapes and forms that perception.

In societies of a more hierarchical nature, information - and knowledge flowing from that - comes from a quite rigid top-to-bottom structure. Those with access to education and power interpret information and pass (more likely sell) it down the line. Those who are poor or without access to information are left with little choice other than to listen and trust the 'experts'.

What is referred to in sound-byte and sometimes lip-service terminology as the information society, in reality contains the potential to reverse the knowledge flow in hierarchical societies. If not reverse, then certainly a levelling of the playing field and a flatter structure leading to a wider dispersal of information and knowledge.

The current World Summit in South Africa has all the hallmarks of the top-down structure, where the great and knowledgeable leaders of the western world are coming to deliver their enlightened wisdom. Failing the wisdom, then some home truths and harsh realities. While mouthing an awareness and empathy for the plight of the world's impoverished, these leaders will not be swayed from reality as they see it. They have information, knowledge and the real power that comes from that.

But information is no longer the preserve of an educated elite or those rich enough to buy it. Although still in its infancy, the internet and the web has enormous potential for distributing information and knowledge. Along with other scientific and technological discoveries, knowledge can change the world in a very fundamental way - how we perceive and understand this planet of ours and our place in it.

However, this access to information seems to be increasingly conditional, even for those who are fortunate enough to get access. There are louder and louder voices willing to point out the dangers inherent for the greater good, in a modern day retelling of the Garden of Eden. So Adam and Eve must be watched and monitored and listened to for the unmistakable sound of an apple being crunched. Even if they're not tempted, there are any number of snakes in the grass waiting to push them. If Eve or Adam were to enquire as to their privacy or other aspects of their human rights, they will be told of the evils lying in wait in the long grass. In any case if they've nothing to hide, why are they complaining?

Article 19 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted in March 1976 states: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."

Any diminution in these rights for those fortunate enough to live in those parts of the world free from hunger and disease, is also an attack on the poor. Information on the plight of over half the earth's population is needed by those who can influence and change those governments and policies which copperfasten the poor's nightmare.

The internet is supposed to belong to the whole world. Whatever about that romantic idea, the decentralised structure of the network does make it a scalable communications system that is very resilient to domination or control. And the more it grows the more resilient it becomes.

If all animals are equal, the internet is of critical importance in undermining the reality that some animals are more equal than others.