Security Brought to you by 
Virtual Reality
Paul Virilio
Operating System

The Paradox of Security in Information-Societies
©Cyberhobbit 1997


1. Introduction
2. Politics as a Security-Project
2.1. Security through Virtualisation
2.2. Geo-political Reasons for enhancing Surveillance
2.3. Security through Surveillance
2.4. The Simulation of Surveillance
2.5. Dehumanization of Surveillance
2.6. Conclusion of Chapter 2
3. The Risks of Virtualisation
3.1. Baudrillard's 'Simulation': the Challenge for the Reality Principle
3.2. Virilio's Substitution: the Accident of Reality
3.3. Conclusion and the Question of Resistance
3.4. The Threat for Politics itself
4. Bibiliography

1. Introduction

In this essay I try to bring together basic ideas of the thinkers Jean Baudrillard, William Bogard, Mick Dillon, Michel Foucault and Paul Virilio in a field which I would rouhgly frame with the terms: Security-politics and its inherent security-paradox, surveillance and its simulation, the virtualisation of society and the effect on the individual. It is all about the possibilities and risks of politics in information-societies.
To deal with the forces (lineartiy of text, time- and space-limit) which are inherent in writing an essay like this, the argumentation given here is dense and therefore may sounds ideological or sindgelsided. My point of view is certainly not unbiased. This essay is also full of presuppositions. On the one hand it is an answer to the Seminar: Securtiy and Modernity, taught by Mick Dillon, on the other hand a certain degree of understandig of digital technologies is necessary as well.

2. Politics as a Security-Project

Modern politics in this context is to be understood as a security project. After Heidegger and his deconstruction of metaphysics the very grounding, the 'arche' of politics can not be a metaphysical one. As the 'arche' of modern politics is nothing else left than the individual. We are free before we are secured. So modern politics faces the tragic irony that it is often compelled to take away human freedom in order to secure it. "Along the way, it ocassiconally notes a so-called security paradox; that my security may excite your insecurtiy." (Dillon 1996: 18) This is one notion of the security paradox. In fact I see many ways how to understand this security paradox. I want the security paradox in this context to be understood in a broader sense, which could be brought to the formula: The more you secure, the more you also get some sort of insecurity.
In a practical non-philosophical sense the security paradox can be understood as e.g. Politics try to secure a stable electric power-supply in building nuclear power stations. What happens is that they create with this security-project the risk of a nuclear meltdown.
In an individual sense the security project of politics interferes with what is suppossed to be the personal freedom. The more politics try to secure, the more it takes away the freedom of the individual. The individual as the 'arche' of politics is therefore subject to the power of control and normalisation as Foucault tried to work out. So there is "a parallel to be drawn between what he saw the technology of disciplinary power/knowledge doing to the body what the principle of security does to politics."(Dillon 1996: 14) The more the individual is subject to the power of normalisation I would argue, the more this power produces an anti-power e.g. in form of counter-cultures which try to thread the system and therefore creates insecurity, so once again the security paradox.
As Dillon argues further on there is an alliance of security and knowledge which is very characteristic for modern politics. "Hence: security as knowledge (certainty); security's reliance upon knowledge (surveillance); security's astonishing production of knowledge in response to its will to know (calculability); and the claim of knowledge which gives security its licence to render all aspects of life transparent (totality)." (Dillon 1996: 17)
So for gathering knowledge about its own grounding, the 'individual', politics has to rely upon its knowledge-producing institutions in this case especially the police and secret services, which themselves have to rely on the technologies of knowledge.
These technologies of knowledges are provided or better become ameliorated by electronic and especially digital technologies which mark the emergence of the so called information-society, which I would like to refer on as the 'virtualisation of society'.

2.1. Security through Virtualisation

By virtualisation, I mean the massive deployment of electronic technologies, that takes place nowadays in our society. I think in this context especially about technologies like videocameras (CCTV) for 'surveillance', information technologies like computernetworks (e.g. the Internet) for 'knowledge and therefore certainty', but also of technologies of Virtual Reality and computer-modelling (simulationtechnologies) as a form of 'calculability' and the possiblity of massive data-storage as 'totality'. For sure these technologies have their advantages and ease our lives in many ways. They have possibilities of securing our existance and the one of our planet.
So for example CCTV are often used to secure public life from crime, in shops to prevent from shoplifting, in carparks and underground stations to prevent people from being attacked. Videocameras can also be seen as weapons to secure order and power, for example videocameras in the hand of the police can be used in political demonstrations to record bad guys throwing stones. In war, to 'see' is to be able to destroy and therefore to secure power, as Virilio tries to show in many of his books.
Informationtechnologies secure in a different way. They provide the possiblity of global communication and knowledge-exchange and therefore provide some certainty but also possiblities of surveillance. That computernetworks are a security-project can be seen especially at the example of the internet, whose origin in the 60s are the military arpanet network, which was created to secure defense-communication, even in the case of a nuclear war, when nearly all telephonelines are broken down. Non-hierarchical networks like the internet are so secure that they more or less can not be physically destroyed. This can be seen by the example of the gulfwar, where even the Americans were not able to destroy the defense-communication of the Iraquis, which was established in a similar way than the internet. I think it is important to have in mind when talking about the internet, that we are talking about military technology which has invaded the public and private life.
Simulationtechnologies are in science often used to estimate risks of accidents and predict their effects. So they offer the possiblity of calculability.
Data-storage-technologies provide for example information about criminals and therefore tries to keep life transparent (totality).
All these are just examples and shall only show some of the security effects of these technologies. Also the division in these four categories is not very exact. All these technologies are linked and get more and more linked together and therefore are hard to separate at all. So do not be surprised if I do not stay with this categorisations later on.
But nevertheless all these technologies can be used for gathering knowledge about the grounding of politics which we have said is nothing else than the individual. In this way these technologies become technologies of surveillance of the individual, of categorizing, profiling and individualising the anonymous mass. Therefore I think when we speak of securing politics by the individual we speak of surveillance of every individual.
Surveillance is also a fantasy of the power driven by the dream of order. Digital technologies as Informationtechnologies and as we shall see later also esp. simulation-technologies are the perfect tools for fulfilling this dream.

2.2. Geo-political Reasons for enhancing Surveillance

The geo-political reason for enhancing surveillance I have in mind, is mainly the end of the cold war. During the cold war western secret services task was mainly to fight secret-services of the eastern block and were therefore equipped with a lot of budget, best available surveillance technologies and freed from the boundaries of laws, like dataprotection-acts. Best example here is probably the German BND which was mainly established to fight GDR's Stasi and the KGB. Now these almost secret societies, nearly uncontrollable by politics as many scandals in the last few years showed esp. at the example of the BND try to create a new enemy. Otherwise they would have to face massive cuts. This new task they get by politics is to fight mainly terrorism, organised crime in form of the dealing with drugs, weapons and fissionable material and money-laundering. All these forms of activities cannot be understood as block-activities but as network of people, so every person becomes a potential criminal and therefore the whole population is subject of observation. ".. the only way to prevent terrorist acts is through surveillance of everyone and everything." (Neal Stephenson in: Time-magazine, February 3, 1997, p.44)
So there is a shift of tasks of secret services, from outer to inner security. Secret-services take over some tasks of the police. The scarry thing about this shift is that e.g. the BND is still not subject to normal laws and therefore can observe everyone without permission by a judge. So far there were quite strict laws at least in Germany to prevent information-exchange from the BND in direction to the executing organ, the police. Now this boundary becomes softened, which you can be seen esp. around the debate of the so called 'Lauschangriff' (bugging operation). Similar new laws are in preparation also in the UK concerning the MI5 (according to BBC2: The Sci-files)
So one of the surveillance-authorities are secret-services which are not subject to normal laws and which have massive technical surveillance-technologies, e.g. 'The Hill' a huge bugging-system in the UK run by the American CIA, which observes every kind of electronic communication, from telephone-calls, radio telephony and computernetworkcommunication, where all communication is first filtered by digital technology that filters interesting stuff from the mass of communication by speech-recognizing digital technology which is compared to certain keywords in a database.

2.3. Security through Surveillance

"That you don't have paranoia so far, does not mean that they are not behind you." Anonymous

For me the method per se for politics to gain security in our information-society is surveillance. "Surveillance is a social technology of power - supervising, monitoring, and recording, its most common methods, are simply ways to control persons and their behavior." (Bogard 1996: 8) The way power works through surveillance Foucault worked out in Discipline and Punish (1979) and is mostly referred to by the example of the Panocpticon. "Much of the contemporary debate with Foucault [..] has revolved around his thesis in this work that western societes can be characterized as 'disciplinarian', and that discipline, as a strategy for normalizing individual conduct or administering the affairs of social collectivities, has now become the general formula for domination in these societies. "(Bogard 1996: 64) "Foucault says that the Panopticon is a schema or 'diagram' of the forces that individualize persons, differentiating and separating them from a confused mass of bodies, composing and realigning their relations, and turning them into a productive order." (Bogard 1996: 65)
When we think of politics we have to think of a bureaucratic state and
"the modern bureaucratic state gathers massive amounts of data on citizens, their incomes, their health, their preferences and tastes and dispositions. (Bogard 1996: 16) But not only politics try to individualize the mass in this sense. Many kind of companies try to get to know their customers by creating customer-profiles. So "business likewise generate literally mountains of information about workers and consumers, about their debts and balances, credit histories and lifestyles. [..] Almost everything we do, in fact almost everything that happens these days, creates trails of records." (Bogard 1996: 16) Just think of the reward-cards of Sainsbury and Tesco. The aim is nothing else than profiling the customer and individualise the offers and advertisements, nothing else than to get to know and categorise the customers. Another example today is the internet which has not a lot to do any more with the great anarchistic network, it is so often described as. It is more like the biggest marketplace of the world and the marketplace with the best methods of profiling- and categorising- and I therefore argue surveillance-possiblities. If you still believe you are not observed when surfing the internet than you have never heard of the cookie-files of Netscape® and the Microsoft Webexplorer®. Other examples which I cannot all explain in detail here are for example Windows95®in combination with Microsoft-network, which is suppossed to have at least the possiblity to scan your harddrive for unregistered software and transmitt these information to Microsoft, a practice of course illegal, but not impossible. Even more power over your own computer is transferred to other authorities by applications like Active-X or Java.
Surveillance is nothing new and has been observed by sociologists already for a long time, e.g. by Max Weber. Also Foucault traced surveillance with his genealogical analysis back to the eightienth and ninetienth century. But nowadays there is a big discourse going on about the 'new surveillance'. There is a change a step further in the development of surveillance.
The deployment of digital technologies with the proliferation of electronic sensors, codes, and databases, with information availability in 'real time' is the way in which Foucault's Panopticon becomes Mark Poster's Superpanopticon. (Bogard 1996: 71)
As Bogard argues further on, "technologies of simulation are forms of hypersurveillant control, where the prefix 'hyper' implies not simply an intensification of surveillance, but the effort to push surveillance technologies to their absolute limit." (Bogard 1996: 4)
This dream of total observation is for example realised by certain methods of 'electronically being in jail' which are in use in the US already nowadays. While I am writing this I just find out that I am myself in an electronic jail, the only difference is that I am there for free will and I am even paying for this. Every couple of seconds the little LED on my mobile phone blinks indicating me that the satellite of my service-provider requests my mobile phone to identify by its pin-number. This way any person having access to the service-providers computer can also find out where I am. The discussion about equipping cars with electronic identification chips, multifunctional chipcards, which can be used for everything from a key to cheque- or telephonecards, or even the talk about implanting identification chips (as a substitution for identity cards) into human bodies which can then be traced by the satellite-based GPS (Global Positioning System), are just further steps in the development of surveillance, and all these technologies become linked together.
Speaking in terms of Baudrillard, this is also the way in which surveillance becomes hyperrealized and therefore becomes the simulation of surveillance.
Nowadays the methods of surveillance become more and more technologised. "Digital technologies, we are told, mark the emergence of 'surveillance societies'" (Bogard 1996: 3)

2.4. The Simulation of Surveillance

When the technologies of simulation and surveillance come together, this does not only mean that surveillance is enhanced but it means that another step in surveillance is reached. William Bogard using the terminology of Baudrillard argues that this step is, that surveillance itself is replaced by the simulation of surveillance. "If surveillance is the transparency of the surface, the simualtion of surveillance is the transparency of perception itself, and the availability to anyone who plugs in."(Bogard 1996: 36) There are different ways how to understand the 'simulation of surveillance'. One understanding is the one, that the simulation of surveillance precedes the actual surveillance. Bogard describes this
"simulation of surveillance [ a] control strategy that informs most of the latest diagnostic and actuarial technologies we associate with the information age - computer profiling and matching, expert decision-systems and cybernetic intelligence, electronic polling, genetic mapping and recombinant procedures, coding practices of all sorts, virtual reality. These technologies simulate surveillance in the sense that they precede and redouble a means of observation. Computerprofiling, for instance is understood best not just as a technology of surveillance, but as a kind of surveillance in advance of surveillance, a technology of 'observation before the fact.'" (Bogard 1996: 27)
So the conjunction of simulation-technology and surveillance produces certain categories which are then subject of more surveillance than other categories. So if a simulation-model used by the police finds out that the category: black, dreadlocks, male, under 40 years is more likely to smuggle drugs this category is subject to more control and surveillance.
Another understanding of the simulation of surveillance is that surveillance is replaced by simulated surveillance in the meaning of feigned surveillance.
The idea behind this simulated surveillance is already inherent in Foucault's example of the Panopticon, though Foucault himself never used this terminology. The Panoptic model of Foucault also works without an observer in the tower, because the mere existence of the tower in the middle and therefore the existence of the possiblity of observation leads to the effect of self-observation.
"Already in Bentham there is the recognition that the technology of surveillance functions by subtly subverting itself, not simply by creating an 'illusion' of observation with what is essentially a blind apparatus (the central tower), but a frictionless mechansim of self-observation and 'participatory' policing in which the central tower is increasingly reduced to a supplement, a 'mere' sign or signal of the power to discipline, a counterfeit. In the final analysis, it is superflous. Thus, from the beginning, the panoptic space, is haunted by its double - its 'immaterial' form - a simulation of power which secretly works to dismantle the old inefficient technology of control while simultaneaously refashioning it in a purer, less confined, less obstrusive, yet more inflated form. With simulation, the still relatively crude form of panoptic surveillance first manifests the possibility of escaping the limits of place." (Bogard 1996: 66f.)
What is tried to be realised through this simulation of surveillance is the steady selfobservation of the individual, the illusion that whatever you do whereever you are, it is recorded.
The possiblility of this surveillance is enough to act like one would be observed all the time. Bogard puts this effect in the terms of an ironic utopia: "The simulation of surveillance is an imaginary solution to all the problems of discipline in postindustrial societies (all its imperfections, its inefficiences, its inability to record everything, see everything, be everywhere, all the time!). From now on, the hypercontrol of virtual systems will be the order of things."(Bogard 1996: 48) When surveillance is taken to its limit, by its virtualisation, it does not matter anymore whether you are in the tower or in one of the rooms, because you the one in front of the screen are the observer and the observed at the same time. "In telematic societies, the players are cyborgs, wired flesh, the observer are all observed, the controllers all controlled." (ibid: 49)
That is what Bogard describes as an paradox of control: "Simulated surveillance [..] is a fantasy of absolute control and the absence of control at the same time, total control and the end (perfection, cancellation) of control." (Bogard 1996: 22)

2.5. Dehumanization of Surveillance

The way I understand this paradox, I disagree to the assumption that simulated control means the end of control. I am more likely to say that the instance of control is changing to a new one. By creating e.g. artificial intelligences (AI) the human beings give away the power to control themselves but instead transfer this power to so called ethical expert-systems in form of AIs. There is no human observer anymore but the machine/computer itself is out of control, becomes a deus ex machina and regulates the human. A simple but fictional example of this is a system which I just make up in my mind and is easy imagineable: speed-control in traffic. You do not need any human anymore to do this. A computer measures the speed of your car, decides that it was too fast send you by e-mail a ticket or/and transfers the money from your bank-account to the one of the police. There is no human involved in the whole action, exept of the observed, driving too fast and even this can be replaced by an intelligent car ...
How much power these ethical expert-systems have already nowadays can be seen by an incident during the gulfwar, where the American Army shot down a civil aircraft, because the computer in one of the military-aircrafts could not recognize this aircraft as 'friend' and therefore decided 'enemy'. So already nowadays decisionmaking computerprogrammes take decisions about life and death.

2.6. Conclusion of Chapter 2

As I showed in the beginning the whole project of security has the inherent risk of insecurity in it. The security-project of surveillance or better the simulation of surveillance is a security project where politics try to secure its gounding by monitoring its grounding the individual. So this security project goes along with a loss of freedom and by hyperrealising and simulating surveillance becomes so total that a steady selfobservation becomes normal. In medical or psychological term I would like to describe this effect as paranoia, a form of neurosis. So paranoia is the price the individual has to pay for being secured by politics, a form of paranoia so normal, that it is not diagnosed anymore. This sounds already dramatic, but it is still the one side of the paradox and as we change the side of the medal to the risk of virtualisation, the effects the individual has to bear become even more dramatic.

3. The Risks of Virtualisation

Modern surveillance as we have seen is linked to the technologies of the virtualisation of society. So the risk or insecurity of surveillance can be described also as the risks of virtualisation itself. So if you are taking part in this virtualisation, if you use the internet and VR-equipment and many people are confronted nowadays with these technologies, these individuals are exposed to even bigger risks, the risks of virtualisation itself, which are described by quite a few thinkers. I want to stay here with two french thinkers Jean Baudrillard and Paul Virilio. Both of them see in virtualisation something which threatens the reality principle or concept of every individual, but use different description and terms for it. Virilio also offers a predicition for an accident or insecurity of the virtualisation which has effects on a macro-level.
Because of problems of space I can only very shortly outline their basic ideas along their basic terms, Baudrillard's simulation and Virilio's substituion.

3.1. Baudrillard's 'Simulation': the Challenge for the Reality Principle

Baudrillard sees digital technologies basically as technologies of simulation, through which reality becomes hyperrealised. In Baudrillard's concept of evolution simulation is the third step after representation and production. Simulation can also be seen in contrast to dissimulation, as a form of feigning or deception:
"To dissimulate is to feign not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign what one hasn't. One implies a presence, the other an absence. But the matter is more complicated, since to simulate is not simply to feign: 'Someone who feigns an illness can simply go to bed and make believe he is ill. Someone [sic] who simulates an illness produces in himself some of the symptoms.' Thus feigning or dissimulating leaves the reality principle intact: the difference is always clear, it is only masked, whereas simulation threatens the difference between 'true' and 'false', between 'real and 'imaginery'." (quoted by Bogard 1996: 10)
So through simulation it "becomes increasingly difficult to separate the realms of the true and false, appearance and reality, secrecy and transparency." (Bogard 1996:11) Simulated reality becomes hyperreality and therefore more real than reality. "It is finally impossible to distinguish truth from fiction, real and unreal, the production of goods from the production of signs, persons from their holographic images or bionic reconstructions, or societies from their reincarnations over electronic nets." (Bogard 1996: 11) What happens is that the whole definition of the real according to Baudrillard is 'that of which it is possible to give an equivalent reproduction.' So the real is not thinkable without the hyperreal and the hyperreal therefore precedes the real.
So it all comes to the point that the reality principle is threatened. This sounds very philosophical and seems to have not an actual effect on the world, but that is not true. Our reality-principle is the very basic, the very grounding, the 'arche' of our perception. If we loose the principle of reality, the effect is similar to madness in form of schizophrenia.

3.2. Virilio's Substitution: the Accident of Reality

The Dromologist Paul Virilio is even more radical than Baudrillard in his concept of how the reality-principle is threatened by virtualisation. One of his basic terms is substitution. He says in an interview.
"I disagree with my friend Baudrillard on the subject of simulation. To the word simulation, I prefer the one substitution. [..] I don't believe in simulationism, I believe that the word is already old-fashioned. As I see it, new technologies are substituing a virtual reality for an actual reality. And this is more than a phase: It's a definite change. We are entering a world where there won't be one but two realities, just like we have two eyes or hear bass and treble tones, just like we now have stereoscopy and stereophony: there will be two realities: the actual and the virtual. Thus there is no simulation, but substitution. Reality has become symmectrical. The splitting of reality in two parts is a considerable event which goes far beyond simulation." (WWW: Cyberwar, God and Television: 3)
For Virilio the effect of this substitution of reality is a radical 'de-realisation', which he often compares with the psychiatric term of schizophrenia or multiple personality syndrome:
"It's not one, two, hundreds or thousands of people who are being killed, but the reality itself. In a way , everybody is wounded from the wound of the real. This phenomenon is similar to madness. The mad person is wounded by his or her distorted relationship to the real. Imagine that all of a sudden I am convinced that I am Napoleon: I am no longer Virilio, but Napoleon. My reality is wounded. Virtual reality leads to a similar de-realisation. However, it no longer works only at the scale of individuals, as in madness, but at the scale of the world." (WWW: Cyberwar, God and Television: 5)
No matter what the proper term is whether simulation or substituion, the risk of loosing or wounding the reality-principle are enormous because it can lead to psychoses.

These are two philosophical explanations of the effects of virtualisation for the individual. More clear becomes this by looking at some practical examples of possible life-styles in a 'wired world', especially when you take a look of life-styles of resistance, like in the next chapter.

3.3. Conclusion and the Question of Resistance

As we have said the individual is subject to bear the consequences of this security-project. These are on the one hand a loss of freedom, which goes along with the security paradox, this can be also the paranoia of surveillance or as we see here the schizophrenia of loosing the concept of reality.
Politics tries to secure, therefore observes and as another step simulates surveillance.
I see a kind of psychotization of the individual that goes along with this development: The individual looses freedom, therefore becomes paranoid and as another step schizophrenic.
This psychotization I see as an effect of the virtualisation, but also as a life-style of individuals in the 'wired world'. So I would not say to become paranoid or schizophrenic is abnormal, but more and more a reasonable, understandable and normal way to deal with 'virtualisation', its consequences and a form of resistance.
So if I am surrounded by CCTV and everything what I do is recorded or at least possible to be recorded, it is just normal to behave like a paranoid, it is just some sort of self-protection, to be paranoid becomes a form of life-style of resistance.
It is the same with becoming schizophrenic or better show a multiple-personality-syndrome, is a possible life-style of resistance. To create several personalities in computernetworks is a way of escaping surveillance. So as an example, if you want to use your right of free speech in the internet, e.g. by publishing subversive literature and you do not want to be recorded and traced back for what you are doing you create another web-personality, by using another account with another name. It is one pretty common way to hide your tracks in cyberspace. So you create multiple personalities in cyberspace and these identities you can use also in your real life, e.g. by talking on conferences under your wrong name. There are many people who have different identities for different activities. For example Peter Lamborn Wilson and Hakim Bey are the same individual. The alias Wilson is used for religious publications, Hakim Bey for anarchist publications and probably he has even more aliases.
I cannot describe all the consequences of this here in deep, but there is good literature on the subject esp. John Brunner's 'The Shockwave Rider', which belongs to the genre of science fiction literature, but can be understood as well as literature critical of society or even social theory.
On the psychological effects of this mulitple-personalities-syndrome in Cyberspace there is good research done by Sherry Turkle.
Bogard himself is even more pessimistic about possible strategies of resistance. Bogard suggests an 'counter-actualization rather than a negation'."We need more than a critique of the media, anyway. We need to counter it with a whole different way of life, like becoming nomads again, and I don't mean electronic nomads." (WWW: Interview with Bill Bogard: 2)

3.4. The Threat for Politics itself

But the effects of this derealisation are not only limited to the micro-level of the individual, but implement also risks for the macro-level and therefore politics itself. This is what Virilio calls according to Einstein the second bomb, the information bomb.
"I agree with what Einstein used to say about the three bombs: there are three bombs. The first one is the atomic bomb, which disintegrates reality, the second one is the digital or computer bomb, which destroys the principle of reality itself - not the actual object and rebuilds it, and finally the third bomb is the demographic one." (WWW: Cyberwar, God and Television: 3)
With the invention of a certain technology goes along the invention of a certain accident, just like derailment was invented together with the invention of the railway. The technologies which provide the basis for security of politcs are surveillance technologies based on telecommunication-technologies. This goes along with a globalisation-effect. Virilio who has already been quite successful in the past with his predictions, predicts that
"after globalization of telecommunications, one should expect a generalized kind of accident, a never-seen-before accident. It would be just as astonishing as global time is. This never-seen-before kind of time. A generalized accident would be something like Epicurus called 'the accident of accidents' [..]. The stock-market collapse is merely a slight prefiguration of it. Nobody has seen this generalized accident yet. But then watch out as you hear talk about the 'financial bubble' in the economy: a very significant metaphor is used here, and it conjures up visions of some kind of cloud, reminding us of other clouds just as frightening as those of Chernobyl..." (WWW: Speed and Information: Cyberspace Alarm!: 2).
So What happens if the often demonised Millenium-bug in Computer-software becomes real at New-Years-day 2000 and hundreds or thousand computers crashes or are out of control at the same time? What does this mean for the security of the world?
The whole security-project politics is so dependent on the technology which is also so full of bugs and is so vulnerable and any accident can be a catastrophy. So my analysis of the security project is, that it is a kind of gambling where you can not get rid of the rest-risk. So the more you try to secure the less probable gets maybe an accident, but also the more catastrophic are the effects of such an accident. So once again we are caught in the trap of the security-paradox which can be repeated in a thousand slightly different forms. Globalisation makes the possiblity of an accident more improbable, but the effects of an accident are much worse.

4. Bibiliography


Bogard, William 1996: The Simulation of Surveillance: Hypercontrol in telematic societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Brunner, John 1992: Der Schockwellenreiter, München: Heyne-Verlag
original: 1975 : The Shockwave Rider
Dillon, Mick1996: The Politics of security: towards a political philosophy of continental thought, London: Routledge
Virilio, Paul 1994: The vision machine. London: The British Film Institute

Spiegel Special: Die Welt der Agenten, Januar 1996, Nr.1, Hamburg: Spiegelverlag
Stephenson, Neal: Dreams & Nightmares of the digital age, p.43-44 in: Time February 3, 1997, Vol 149 No.5, Amsterdam: Time Warner Publishing

It has to be taken into account that WWW-Sources are not very stable. Addresses often change or disappear at all.
Bogard, William 10/07/96: Interview with Bill Bogard by Ricardo Dominguez, ThingReview, WWW:
Dromologies: Paul Virilio:Speed, Cinema, and the End of The Political State, by Shawn Wilbur 1994. WWW:
Cyberwar, God and Television: Interview with Paul Virilio; Louise Wilson for CTHEORY, 21.10.1994. WWW:
Speed and Information: Cyberspace Alarm!: Paul Virilio, 11.08.95. WWW: