Krieg der Daten gegen die Kommunikation, Le Monde Diplomatique, de (2.2014)

"Krieg der Daten gegen die Kommunikation" war der Titel, den ich der LMD vorgeschlagen hatte. Wurde wohl aus Platzgründen gekürzt...
Le Monde diplomatique, 2.2014
In der zweiten digitalen Phase
Daten versus Kommunikation

Seit Edward Snowdens Enthüllungen der umfassenden Überwachung (fast) aller Kommunikation lässt es sich nicht mehr leugnen: Die Internetrevolution befindet sich in ihrer gegenrevolutionären Phase. In den 1990er Jahren war sie angetreten, um durch Dezentralisierung, Kooperation und Transparenz neue Möglichkeiten individueller und kollektiver Autonomie zu schaffen. Heute nehmen Bestrebungen Überhand, die eben gewonnene Freiheit durch neu ausgerichtete Kontrollmechanismen wieder einzufangen und zu neutralisieren. Standen in der ersten Phase die Möglichkeiten der Kommunikation im Fokus, sind es in der zweiten Phase das Sammeln und Auswerten von Daten.

Beitrag zur Diskussion: Das Internet nach Snowden (ak-analyse & kritik)

AK ak - analyse & kritik / Nr. 591 / 18.2.2014
Kontrolle über die Kommunikation erlangen!

Nach Edward Snowdens Enthüllungen scheint klar: Normale Alltagskommunikation wird fast vollständig von den Geheimdiensten aufgezeichnet. Dabei ist keine Informationsquelle zu banal, Computerspiele, ja sogar Spiele wie Angry Birds scheinen ausgewertet zu werden. Die oftmals betonte Unterscheidung zwischen den Inhalten der Kommunikation und den Metadaten, die die Kommunikation beschreiben, ist im Hinblick auf die Überwachungseffizienz weitgehend irrelevant. Das Arsenal von Möglichkeiten, das den Geheimdiensten zu Verfügung steht, geht aber weit darüber hinaus und ermöglicht, mit mehr oder weniger großem Aufwand, auch verschlüsselte oder anderweitig geschützte Kommunikationskanäle zu überwachen. Das Bild, das sich daraus ergibt, übertrifft selbst die Befürchtungen der meisten PessimistInnen. Dass wir nun alle wissen und nicht nur vermuten, dass unsere Kommunikation abgehört wird, sollte eigentlich die politische Debatte darüber tief greifend verändern und zur Stärkung der gesetzlichen Grundlagen zum Schutz der Privatsphäre führen.

Transparency & Power

My talk at the "Eindruck der Dunkelheit" conference in Berlin, Jan 25/26.2014.

In the talk, I focussed on different types of power and how they relate to transparency. Put simply, transprancy (visibility + accountability) is great to put a check on "institutional power", but not very helpful to regulate "network power. On the contrary, it helps to increase such power. The discussion, which starts after 30 min, mainly dealt with questions of regulation and what to do to counter "network power".

My new book, Digital Solidarity, is out now.

Update Sept.2014: Dieses Essay liegt nun auch in deutscher Übersetzung vor. Dank an die Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.

Update Oct.2014: This essay is now also available as an epub. Thanks a lot to PJ :)

This extended essay, Digital Solidarity, responds to the wave of new forms of networked organisation emerging from and colliding with the global economic crisis of 2008. Across the globe, voluntary association, participatory decision-making and the sharing of resources, all widely adopted online, are being translated into new forms of social space.

This movement operates in the breach between accelerating technical innovation, on the one hand, and the crises of institutions which organise, or increasingly restrain society on the other. Through an inventory of social forms – commons, assemblies, swarms and weak networks – the essay outlines how far we have already left McLuhan’s ‘Gutenberg Galaxy’ behind. In his cautiously optimistic account, Stalder reminds us that the struggles over where we will arrive are only just beginning.

The War of Data against Communication

Talk at the Embros Theater, Athens, 30.09.2013

Spooky light and noisy sound, which fits the place and the theme of the talk. Check out as well Konrad Becker's talk, same event.

The Curious Retreat of Art (open!)

While the current historical situation demands urgently a redefinition of authorship, the art world offers very little in terms of critique or alternative practice.

Much of the 20th century’s avant-garde art can be read as a revolt against the bourgeois conception of the artist as an exceptional individual who creates art through a mysterious process of introspection into his – mainly his – particularly sensitive soul. The introduction of mass-produced materials into artworks, of randomness, the exploration of the subconscious and, after WWII, the turn towards machinic and algorithmic processes, all served to decentre the process of making art away from the artist’s inner world and his or her complete control. In the 1960s, literary theory caught up and famously declared the death of the authoritative, omniscient author. The matter seemed to have been laid to rest by Foucault’s famous “murmur of indifference:” ‘What matter who’s speaking?’”

All of this has been debated to death and the issues have mostly been settled, but, now that the battles over the conception of authorship and associated constructions of rights and modes of ownership have moved from the field of cultural theory to the centre of society, the art world – in which “contemporary art” plays a minor supporting role – has fallen curiously silent. Not only that, the deeply neoliberal makeover of the last two decades have actually moved it into the opposite direction. Authorship and individuality are being asserted more strongly than ever. This is not due solely to the power of market forces with their predictable need for stars and commodities.

Interview on the Internet after Snowden

[Das Interview gibt es auch in Deutsch]

Uschi Reiter: With the Snowden affair the Internet as space for surveillance has reached a wider public. This incident and the excitement it caused hasn’t brought about any major withdrawal from the social network Facebook, for example. What impact does this knowledge of control have on the way we culturally act and communicate on the net?

Felix Stalder: As long as there is no real alternative to the ever expanding parts of the Internet, that act as surveillance spaces, the current discussion about the way we should act on the net will remain quite limited. Cryptoparties and such are more symbolic acts. As long as the infrastructure of surveillance is optimised, creating individualised private spheres later will remain a highly complex matter. So it will always be a minority activity.

On the other hand, what we can see already is a shift in general assumptions. Extensive surveillance is considered normal, defending yourself against it naive. In the case of legal actions taken against Google’s data mining, Google justified itself recently by saying that Gmail users can’t expect that their e-mails and private information will not read and analysed (“a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties”).

Uschi Reiter: Encrypting e-mails and anonymisation services such as Tor is more of practise of geeks. Do you think this practise will spread?

Das Paradox der "sozialen Medien"

Clemens Apprich gab der Springerin (Nr.3/2013) ein schönes Interview zu den "Netzkulturen der 1990er Jahren". Zentrales Thema ist die Hybridisierung von online und offline, und die lokale Spezifität, die sich daraus ergibt. Anlass dazu war die Publikation des Buches "Vergessene Zukunft. Radikale Netzkulturen in Europa", welches wir gemeinsam letztes Jahr herausgeben haben. Das Interview ist leider nicht online, deshalb hier nur als scan (PDF, 1.5 MB).

three concurrent struggles

At the moment, i think in the West (core and periphery) we can distinguish between three struggles in advanced stages.

One is against authoritarian regimes that force a closed set of values on their increasingly diverse societies. Within these societies, a new mind set is emerging that values, understands and can deal with this diversity.

Another one is against the subversion of the democratic processes through the capture of the traditional institutions of liberal democracy by financial markets, which includes the fight against austerity policies and the invention of new democratic institutions redrawing the balance between participation and representation.

And, one is against the increasing subversion of civil liberties through the militarization of the state. This process is certainly the most advanced in the US, and so is the resistance against also mainly coming from the US. However, not from organized interests, but from brave individuals who cannot tolerate the contradiction between what they are supposed to do (defend liberty) and what they are actually doing (destroy liberty).

Of these three, I think the first one we can win and many many people in networks like this and places too numerous to count are working on this. This is what the Internet was made for, particularly those layers that we all can access (aka the "front end of the internet")

The second one is really hard, but also manageable. Perhaps not winning, but it can redraw the balance of forces. The contradictions evident in society can be mobilized by us. A lot of people are working on this too, and there is an increasing mood, from what I understand, that the next step (for social movements) is about creating institutions that can realize the promises we all see.

Syndicate content