On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:32:11AM +0100, Nick wrote: Of course in case of state surveillance, this will cause the unwilling subjects to exert counterpressure, ultimatively making looking for terrorism a self-fullfilling prophecy. Of course if you're fishing for evidence to justify your budget, and look for more... honi soit.
Salon.com Sunday, Oct 13, 2013 01:00 PM CEST TED talks are lying to you http://www.salon.com/2013/10/13/ted_talks_are_lying_to_you The creative class has never been more screwed. Books about creativity have never been more popular. What gives? By Thomas Frank The writer had a problem. Books he read and people he knew had been warning him that the nation and maybe mankind itself had wandered into a sort of creativity doldrums. Economic growth was slackening. The Internet revolution was less awesome than we had anticipated, and the forward march of innovation, once a cultural constant, had slowed to a crawl. One of the few fields in which we generated lots of novelties — financial engineering — had come back to bite us. And in other departments, we actually seemed to be going backward. You could no longer take a supersonic airliner across the Atlantic, for example, and sending astronauts to the moon had become either fiscally insupportable or just passé. And yet the troubled writer also knew that th
original to: http://nyti.ms/1akhmcT A Novel Prompts a Conversation About How We Use Technology By JULIE BOSMAN and CLAIRE CAIN MILLER Has Dave Eggers written a parable of our time, an eviscerating takedown of Silicon Valley and its privacy-invading technology companies? Or has he missed his target, producing a sanctimonious screed that fails to humanize its characters and understand its subject? Book critics are divided over the quality of Mr. Eggerss highly anticipated novel The Circle, which went on sale Tuesday. But in Silicon Valley and beyond, the books theme promises to spark an even bigger debate over the 21st-century hyperconnected world that Mr. Eggers describes. Set in an undefined future time, Mr. Eggerss novel tells the story of Mae Holland, a young idealist who comes to work at the Circle, an immensely powerful technology company that has conquered all its competitors by creating a single log-in for people to search, shop and socialize online. Initial orders have lifted th
[Cc: cypherpunks-ItmAqHPOIbAdnm+yROfE0A< at >public.gmane.org, info-lfXsXZLTG3+GglJvpFV4uA< at >public.gmane.org, zs-p2p-cWFMoju5LpeZ04cT+8uYmw< at >public.gmane.org -- mod (tb)] At 02:46 AM 10/4/2013, Eugen Leitl wrote: I never liked Joe Nacchio, back when he and I used to work for the same company. I didn't know him personally (he was probably a VP by then, in a different organization); he was an aggressive sales guy who liked to brag about his Porsche. But he was also insightful about the state of the business even in the mid-80s, and anybody in 2000-2001 who didn't have a clue that the telcos were in for a world of trouble had no business running one. He might have had more specific knowledge about the specific troubles Qwest was having, but besides the overall crash that the DotCom boom was going through, the telcos had just done a huge round of overbuilding on fiber, there was a glut of the stuff because everybody was doing it, and DWDM (dense wavelength division multiplexing) meant that you had to pour a
Hello, People seem to be missing one critical aspect of the panopiticon and if you have ever been inside of a prison based on these principles, which I have, the missing element is quite apparent. The central location of the observation tower created a type of one way mirror in which prisoners could be observed by the guards but the guards could not be observed by the prisoners. The operative principle was that prisoners could not tell when they were being observed and were conditioned to assume that they were under 24 hour surveillance. The theory was (and to some extent was realised) that prisoners would be forced to condition their behaviour because of the assumption that they were under constant observation. This works fine if you assume that prisoners have no intelligence and that guards are strictly following the routines associated with observation and surveillance. In fact neither is the case. So, a distinction needs to be made between the panopticon on paper, in theory, and how it worked in practi
< http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/11/the-core-internet-institutions-abandon-the-us-government/ > The core Internet institutions abandon the US Government [Milton Mueller] October 11, 2013 In Montevideo, Uruguay this week, the Directors of all the major Internet organizations - ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the World Wide Web Consortium, the Internet Society, all five of the regional Internet address registries - turned their back on the US government. With striking unanimity, the organizations that actually develop and administer Internet standards and resources initiated a break with 3 decades of U.S. dominance of Internet governance. A statement released by this group called for "accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing." That part of the statement constituted an explicit
This discussion thread indicates that (a) there is a high level of discomfort with the current situation of the digital panopticon, and (b) bringing the oversight of engineers (or other humans) into the loop is not really going to change things much because there are wider systemic issues at stake here. So what do we do about it? Or given that it is likely to be a long and arduous struggle: where do we start? My sense is that a fundamental issue on which a great deal of work is needed is the question of how presence is authenticated within space. This springs from Lawrence Lessig's argument that there are four primary factors that condition our behaviour: (1) Laws; (2) Markets; (3) Social and cultural norms; and (4) Architecture. And it is at the level of architecture where things have changed the most. When all architecture is physical, the spaces we move through are directly and explicitly tangible to a high degree. We sense and perceive the spaces we are in, their limits and links, their divisio
Quoth morlockelloi-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org: I basically agree with this, but don't you contradict yourself by saying earlier that knowledge won't save you? Granted knowledge of being fucked over by a system is not enough, but actually working to gain the knowledge to help shape and control the technology could be liberatory. Maybe people by their nature are mostly uninterested (I should say 'probably'), in which case you're wholly correct. I suppose the important distinction is between a Marxist 'awareness' and the practical knowledge to actually (re)build. Free software is important as it allows those who are willing and able to gain the skills to effectively control their environment.
On 10/11/2013 01:46 PM, Newmedia-YDxpq3io04c< at >public.gmane.org wrote: No, that's not what I meant. There are at least two differences between the current systems of surveillance and panoptic ones. First, even if the guard is temporarily absent, there still needs to be a guard who demands to be paid and wants a pension, there still needs to be a prison built and maintained, and the very fact that power puts someone in prison, means it becomes responsible for that person who needs to be fed, clothed and otherwise taken care of. A prison is not the same as slave plantation, after all. Current systems try to get rid of all these costs and responsibilities by making the controlled populations do their own controlling and even pay for the privilege of doing so. Second, panoptic systems are about internalizing proper behaviour through self-policing. So, in the end, it's an educational system, aiming at reforming the inmates psychology, basically through creating an ID, if you like, for people who lack proper s
Dear Burak so nice to here from you. what do u think about Turing Complete User article? and thank you for reminding about user labor! a great project indeed. did it develop any further? do u think u can formulate some write for userrights that would link and remind about this initiative. i can do myself, but is of course nicer to have more people contributing. where are u nowdays? greetrings from dragan olia On 10/11/2013 04:12 PM, Burak Arikan wrote: <...>
It becomes a kind of Borges-esque -- in the future, everyone on Earth will be watching everyone else on Earth, at the same time, all the time. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:24 AM, chris mann <chrsmnn-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:
This realization per se is pretty much useless, as are endless ruminations regarding how free we were, once upon time. The old Marxist postulate that awareness will save the species is blatantly false - look around you. These technologies came to rule the world because their proponents made coherent efforts to make it so. The only way to do something about it is to actively develop other technologies which tilt the balance in the direction you like better. Countering technology with words, laws and general awareness will get you nowhere. See 'bronze age'. The corollary is that the future belongs to the few, not to the masses, because high tech is centralized by nature, as it requires understanding, and those capabilities are scarce. The rest are fucked ... I mean 'users'. There are only competing elites.
Hi Olia, this is simple and awesome. It should be developed further to include the almost invisible interfaces of social software. In this regard, we've designed a framework for sustaining user labor across the web. This can obviously be tied to user rights. http://userlabor.org Best, Burak On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:11 AM, olia lialina <olia-cD5O5LpvM0Rg9hUCZPvPmw< at >public.gmane.org> wrote: <...>
sure, amateur DIT surveillance defines fb and credit, but lets not forget the enthused amateur surveillance defining fame. or fashion. or any of those. (i'm still convinced that the nsa is modelling a new version of capital.. louis fourteenth enthused about greed as a mechanism for policing the burgeoning bourgeoisie. hence the legislation for capitalism. or as althusser, what would the subject be if it wasnt capital? On 11 October 2013 04:19, Felix Stalder <felix-XQarKSnW/Y+akBO8gow8eQ< at >public.gmane.org> wrote: <...>
hi, Am 11.10.2013 um 10:19 schrieb Felix Stalder: this is quite a good point. to be honest i havent seen it so clear this way. thanx. best florian -------------------------------------------------- http://www.floriankuhlmann.com antoniusstra?e 7 40215 D?sseldorf tel 0211 / 26 10 24 91 fax 0211 / 97 71 99 79 mobil 0175 / 4 17 26 05 mail kontakt-jSDZ7s6eUcQqwWPThG0zTUEOCMrvLtNR< at >public.gmane.org twitter < at >fkuhlmann skype florian_kuhlmann ----------------------------------------------------
Dear nettimers A year ago, in Turing Complete User http://contemporary-home-computing.org/turing-complete-user/, I wrote that the development of the Invisible Computer results in the creation of an Invisible User. We need to keep both the term and the idea of the User alive, to insure that users --- those who use a system they haven't developed --- don't lose either their rights or the opportunity to protect them. In the article I only briefly mention what these users rights could be. Now I'd like to invite computer users to elaborate and suggest points (long or short) that could be included in a hypothetical Bill Of Computer Users Rights. http://userrights.contemporary-home-computing.org/ please contribute olia
Felix: Correct. The principles involved have been in force for the past 100+ years -- long before *digital* systems. In the original 19th-century Benthamite Panopticon, the key idea was that the "inmates" had no idea if anyone was watching, so they "policed" themselves. DIGITAL systems finally make these principles fully operative. We have long been our own "jailers," making the notion of a 1930s-style Gestapo/Stasi *completely* obsolete. Those "agencies" operated under radio-conditions, with a population that was still getting used to *controlling* themselves. Both the 1932 "Brave New World" and the 1948 "1984" were written with the radio *environment* in mind and did *not* fully anticipate what was already being planned. Television "programmed" the population to the next level of "self-policing" in the 1960s/70s. This is why McLuhan separated HOT media (i.e. radio, where you were told what to do) from
The Institute of Network Cultures presents: MoneyLab: Coining Alternatives Over the past few years, while the economic downturn endures and budget cuts prevail, we have witnessed the emergence and rise of alternative payment systems and revenue models in digital media. Online bartering sites, a plethora of crowdfunding platforms, new forms of valuation, e-wallets and crypto-currencies like Bitcoin, are but a few examples. These coincide with the huge growth of mobile money transfer services across Asia and Africa and the general convergence of digital and financial industries. Is this where a healthy economic future lies? Do these economic ventures testify to a paradigm shift from a market-based economy towards a network economy? What are the possibilities, pitfalls and issues at hand? Will these experiments gain wider -- over the counter
Quoth Felix Stalder: It seems to me that the term "panopticon" is now used at such a far remove from Bentham's idea that it's just a way of scoring style points and making the author sound erudite. The author of this article talks about predicting and preventing "bad actions", but that really isn't what the panopticon was designed to do (except rather indirectly). It was about the possibility of surveillance moderating the behaviour of its subjects, not about prediction at all. Felix, thanks for the reference to Bauman. I haven't read him, but it certainly sounds like a good way of conceptualising the present condition, so I'll surely rectify that soon. Nick