SELL COMPUTERS TO THE SOVIEIS? NELL ,YES!
    
                                  CO~PUT8RS
                                   ARD TRC
                             TOTAL9TAR9AR STATE
    
    The July 9, 1984, issue of Computerworld printed
    an article by Rex Malik, titled Communism vs. the
    Computer which was based on an earlier essay
    published in England. Malik made many sweeping
    generalities which were difficult to evaluate and he
    presented a slew of assumptions about the Soviet
    economy which were also not verifiable. His main
    theme, however, came across clear as a bell: the
    Soviet l~nion cannot possibly take a lead in the
    computer revolution. The reasons for this are many,
    but in som, they lead to the conclusion that no
    centralized State can survive the Information
    Explosion.
    
    There is an inherent paradox-in the computer.
    When the year 1984 finally rolled around, it started
    with a flurry of coramentaries from rightwingers
    and leftwingers atike on the nature of the Orwellian
    State. Isthisreally 1984?,theyasked. Inmostcases,
    much was made of the massive data banks which the
    Federal and State governments have assembled.
    Only the most well hidden people are not on some
    system's file somewhere. It was `'obvious" to the
    local sacialist and the syndicated conservative that
    the computer represented a tool of the Total State.
    
    When I heard that socialist on a radio talk show it
    was clear to me that he was suffering from
    computer-phobia. He had never used his home
    computer to browse the stacks of the city library at 3
    a. m. He had never called the NAS A Gasline. He was
    not a subscriber to Compu-Serve or Dialog. I had to
    admit that he was correct in assuming that the State
    Police Red Squad was keeping his file on a disk
    somewhere and probably had tele-communicated
    the information to the FBI as well. But they had also
    just as probably sent paperworlc through the mail.
    
    The conservative columnist was afraid tbat
    individual liberties might be jeopardized by the
    Welfare and Education Departments as they gather,
    correlate and exchange data about you and me. He
    was mute later in the year when it was reported that
    hackers had penetrated the TRW Database which
    holds several score millions of peopie's credit
    records. He also hasn't said a word about the
    massive datafiles accumulated by data processing
    service buresus like Automated Data Processing
    (ADP) and Electronic Data Systems (EDS).
    
    The computer is, on the one hand' just a tool. It is
    little more than a fancy hammer. When teaching
    computer literacy at local retail stores, I used to
    draw analogies between the automobile and the
    computer. Analogies are also possible between the
    computer and the gun.
    
    ~9
    
    Gunpowder gave kings the power to topple
    barons and establish the first nations. Gunpowder
    also gave John Wilkes Booth the power to kill
    Abraham Lincoln. It is doubtful that Booth could
    have been as successfnl in hand-to-hand combat
    against Old Abe.
    
    This nation is a republic because the people who
    built it were genetically individualistic. One
    expression of their desire to be free is the Second
    
    Amendment to the Constitution: the People hold
    for themselves the right to keep and bear arms.
    Likewise, the computer can be used for good or ev~l.
    If a machine is owned by an individualist, it is a tool
    for producing freedom.
    
    It is common to assume that a centralized
    economy would use computers to control and
    regulate people. The USSR has tried this with some
    small measure of success. On the other hand, as
    computers become cheaper to own and easier to
    operate, they are cost-effective at lower and lower
    levels of that centralized economy. Generally' in
    order to use a gun, you have to own one or have
    acquired one in some way. This is not true of the
    computer.
    
    When a small-size system is insta}led at a Soviet
    metal fabricating plant, the people who use it are not
    entirely limited in their activity. A computer which
    stores production records can also hold a copy of
    Dr. Zh~vago.
    
    The Soviet system discourages individual
    enterprise. So where do smart people put their
    efforts? For one thing, the USS R has a great
    collection of chess players. Also theoretical
    physicists and mathematicians. These people en3oy
    the power of their own thoughts and the pleasure of
    thinking is completely private.
    
    Along these lines, consider the computer
    programmer. Can the State pretend to win in mental
    combat against a programmer? As G. Gordon
    Liddy might say it, in a Battle of Wills, the State is
    unarmed.
    

    





    In our country, the best paid systems analysts are
    all but powerless when their computers are
    subjeeted to heavy hacking by a clever teenager.