[onosendai]

> people easily forget all their personal ethics when someone in authority (whether their boss or the police) tells them to do something.

I don't know whether you're aware of this or not, but you just described a famous experiment which essentially arrived at the same conclusion. It's worth a read for those not familiar with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

[etiam]

I know of no better or more accessible review of the psychology of evil than "The Lucifer effect" (2007) by Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist who, in spite of a long and illustrious career, probably is still best known for the infamous Stanford prison study. The companion website to the book is still up on http://www.lucifereffect.com/

Zimbardo has stated that he is still pained at the memories of the Stanford prison study, which had to be aborted prematurely because the vile characteristics it exposed in normal, healthy participants was going out of control. He reluctantly revisited the study in detail because he saw striking parallels to the torture and humiliation in the Abu Ghraib prison under US occupation. While he's at it he also reviews much other research into the psychology of authoritarianism, obedience, dehumanization and other facets of social psychology that add up to what may very reasonably be called Evil.

I might add that organizations like the CIA are well aware of these principles, and appears to have been working on ways of weaponizing them. It is my opinion that they are using them to corrupt individuals and whole social environments when that suits their ends. In fact, in spite of "The Lucifer Effect" being a fascinating read from beginning to end, one of the parts I found most interesting was the evidence indicating that US intelligence actively created the psychological conditions for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Highly recommended reading, and very relevant for much of the potential consequences of mass surveillance.

[bwaldrep]

An alternate view of Zimbardo's prison study: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=3025

[etiam]

That's mildly funny as a quip, but I hope you don't really base your opinion on that strip.

[Crito]

I haven't looked into it myself, but I did hear that there is an alternative interpretation of that experiment. Apparently the test subjects did as they were asked, up until the very last prompt used, which was the strongest. Less a request and more a demand. As soon as the prompts stopped appealing to the test subjects desire to further science or not fuck up the experiment, but began making demands, the test subjects almost universally balked.

This interpretation isn't really any less disturbing, since it suggests that people will commit atrocities and simultaneously believe that they are doing the right thing. Perhaps it also says something about the general public's trust of, not necessarily authority figures, but rather scientists.

Reading up on this has been on my back-burner for a while, this interpretation might be well considered and discarded, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

I believe this is related: http://www.is.wayne.edu/MNISSANI/PAGEPUB/Milgram.htm