Patrice Riemens | 27 Jul 12:51 2014

Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part Three, section #1 (begin)

Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part III

The Freedoms of the Net

(section 1)
On-line revolution and couch activism: between myth and reality

Occupy's media exposure and Anonymous' logistic and technical support
bring us back to considerations on the perspectives and practices of
(political) engagement, democracy and on-line organization. (Digital)
Social networks have become successful because of the opportunities to
make and maintain contacts they offer: potentially, their constituency
encompasses the whole world. However, it is not to the user to make a
choice about how to establish that contact with others, but it is her/his
service provider, who, by using his 'default power' decides as he pleases
on the functionalities and mode of operation of this shared environment.
(Now it turns out that) It is easier to engage on-line than to commit
oneself into an off-line ('real world') organization. For example, the
effort needed to create a Facebook group to collect funds for refugees of
this or that environmental or other catastrophe is of a totally different
order than the resources mobilization required to build up a sort-alike
initiative in an non-digital, off-line setting. Moreover, when it comes to
facing the brutal realities of non-virtual organizing - Byzantine
bureaucracies, group discussions going no-where, material hurdles, etc. -
the non-digital citizen feels fatally powerless, whereas his on-line
counterpart is imbued with a feeling of omnipotence that goes with being
'on the Net'. The main strength of couch activism is that it offers a
simulacrum of participation, going with a good whack of 'Like' and 'Share
this Link', while one can fume with indignation about all the world's
(Continue reading)

nettime's de-terminator | 25 Jul 16:05 2014

Newmedia@... More Crisis in the Information Society.]

----- Forwarded message from Eric Kluitenberg <epk@...> -----

From: Eric Kluitenberg <epk@...>
Subject: Re: <nettime> More Crisis in the Information Society.
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:06:03 +0200
To: nettime-l@...
Resent-From: nettime@...
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:27:21 +0200
Resent-To: Nettime <nettime-l@...>
Resent-Message-Id: <20140724162721.8350210B6168@...>

Hi Mark,

I was not suggesting that 'society' can be designed - a rather absurd
idea indeed, but that we can 'design' democratic politics, which in my
understanding means things like decision making procedures, oversight
and control structures, protocols, both social and technological
ones, forms and modes of assembly, deliberation spaces, communication
modalities (alternative social media platforms for instance) and much
much more.

All these kinds of 'interventions' can certainly be designed, just as
current institutional structures have been designed, and if they do
not function properly they should be re-designed.

But there is a much more serious flaw in your argument - it is overly
techno-deterministic. Your claims imply that democracy would be a
by-product of television and other mass-media. Maybe McLuhan and
Kittler would like that idea, but it is way too crude. Democratic
(Continue reading)

Felix Stalder | 24 Jul 11:29 2014

paying users for their data

Occasionally there is the idea that the big internet companies, which
collect and monetize user data, should pay their users directly, as they
are, after all, the original producers of all that data. Jaron
Lanier has made this argument, among others.

So, lets make a simple calculation, based on Facebook's latest, better
than expected, quarterly numbers.

users: 1,32 billion
revenue: 2,91 billion
profit: 0.791 billion

This is an incredible profit margin. Now, lets assume that Facebook
would use half of that profit to pay users for their data.

395'000'000 / 1320'000'000 = .30

So, the average user would earn about 30 cents, per quarter. If it's
correct that Facebook users spend 40 minutes per day on the site, then
adds up to roughly 60 hours per quarter.

If you divide the 30 cents income by the 60 hours work, the you end up
with an hourly-wage of $.005.

Now this is obviously the roughest of ballpark estimates you can make --
and I would be happy to see a better one -- but on the face of it,
it seems to indicate that viewing one personal data as an economic asset
is really a lousy idea, no matter how you slice it.

(Continue reading)

nettime's_lifelong_learner | 23 Jul 09:54 2014

automated digest [x2: griffis, gurstein]

RE: Automation: Learning a Living (Marshall McLuhan, 1964)

     ryan griffis <ryan.griffis@...>
     "michael gurstein" <gurstein@...>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:49:14 -0500
From: ryan griffis <ryan.griffis@...>
Subject: Re: Automation: Learning a Living (Marshall McLuhan,,	1964)

On 7/22/14, 10:44 AM, Newmedia@... wrote:

> This is a logic that appears plainly enough
> in the difference between firelight and electric light, for example.
> Persons grouped around a fire or a candle for warmth or light are
> less able to pursue independent thoughts, or even tasks, than people
> supplied with electric light. In the same way, the social and
> educational patterns latent in automation are those of self-employment
> and artistic autonomy. Panic about automation as a threat to
> uniformity on a world scale is the projection into the future of
> mechanical standardization and specialism, which are now past.

I'd love to see McLuhan's empirical research that shows that "fire
people" have less independent thoughts than "tv people". Although,
personally, I do feel a little less "independent" when I'm camping.

Do you think McLuhan was eating a ham sandwich when he wrote this?
Someone should tell these folks to stop panicking over automation...
(Continue reading)

Patrice Riemens | 21 Jul 20:38 2014

Evgeny Morozov: The rise of data and the death of politics

Original to:

bwo Kees Stad, with thanks

The rise of data and the death of politics
By Evgeny Morozov
Sunday, July 20, 2014

Tech pioneers in the US are advocating a new data-based approach to
governance -- 'algorithmic regulation'. But if technology provides the
answers to society's problems, what happens to governments?

On 24 August 1965 Gloria Placente, a 34-year-old resident of Queens,
New York, was driving to Orchard Beach in the Bronx. Clad in shorts
and sunglasses, the housewife was looking forward to quiet time at
the beach. But the moment she crossed the Willis Avenue bridge in
her Chevrolet Corvair, Placente was surrounded by a dozen patrolmen.
There were also 125 reporters, eager to witness the launch of New
York police department's Operation Corral -- an acronym for Computer
Oriented Retrieval of Auto Larcenists.

Fifteen months earlier, Placente had driven through a red light and
neglected to answer the summons, an offence that Corral was going to
punish with a heavy dose of techno-Kafkaesque. It worked as follows:
a police car stationed at one end of the bridge radioed the licence
plates of oncoming cars to a teletypist miles away, who fed them to
a Univac 490 computer, an expensive $500,000 toy ($3.5m in today's
dollars) on loan from the Sperry Rand Corporation. The computer
checked the numbers against a database of 110,000 cars that were
(Continue reading)

Newmedia | 21 Jul 20:44 2014

Automation: Learning a Living (Marshall McLuhan, 1964)

[Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, Marshall McLuhan, 1964,
pp. 357-59, final chapter, the last four paragraphs]

Automation: Learning a Living

Such is also the harsh logic of industrial automation. All that we had
previously achieved mechanically by great exertion and coordination
can now be done electrically without effort. Hence the specter of
joblessness and propertylessness in the electric age. Wealth and work
become information factors, and totally new structures are needed
to run a business or relate it to social needs and markets. With
the electric technology, the new kinds of instant interdependence
and interprocess that take over production also enter into market
and social organizations. For this reason, markets and education
designed to cope with the products of servile toil and mechanical
production are no longer adequate. Our education has long ago acquired
the fragmentary and piece-meal character of mechanism. It is now under
increasing pressure to acquire the depth and interrelation that are
indispensable in the all-at-once world of electric organization.

Paradoxically, automation makes liberal education mandatory. The
electric age of servomechanisms suddenly releases men from the
mechanical and specialist servitude of the preceding machine age.
As the machine and the motorcar released the horse and projected it
onto the plane of entertainment, do does automation with men. We are
suddenly threatened with a liberation that taxes our inner resources
of self-employment and imaginative participation in society. It has
the effect of making most people realize how much they have come to
depend on the fragmentalized and repetitive routines of the mechanical
(Continue reading)

michael gurstein | 22 Jul 06:47 2014

Re: [SPAM] Re: More Crisis in the Information Society

I am finding it very interesting if a bit discombobulating to see my initial provocation turned into the
stuff of common room chat. As one who has only one or two tremulous toes dipped in the sacred waters of
academe the self-absorption that this represents is quite astonishing if not deeply saddening.

I think that Ted goes to the river but doesn't in the end immerse himself (sorry, I've just been briefly
spending time with the 100???s of thousands of Shiva devotees braving a semi-torrential up-stream
Ganges in search of something--but certainly not academic enlightenment...

The "crisis in the Information Society" dear friends is not simply a crisis of potential conscience
(consciousness?) among "new media" faculty however important in the great scheme of things that might

It is as I was trying to point out, a deep, dare I say existential crisis, for Western democracies and their
camp followers.  The technologies which were to have taken them/us to a new stage of
economic/social/cultural/political liberation are now demonstrated to be doing exactly the opposite
and our addiction (to the digital) is so profound and so integral that there is no ???work-around??? ??? we
have seen the Surveillance/Control State and it is us???

So unless we can figure out and implement a way of controlling the ???deep (digitally empowered) state???
we had better all get out our well-worn and now (???it???s so 80???s???) discarded volume of 1984 and get
our Newspeak lexicon up to speed (I???m wondering when it might be added as a language for Google translate
??? no time like the present and somehow it seems profoundly appropriate.


-----Original Message-----

From: nettime-l-bounces@...
[mailto:nettime-l-bounces@...] On Behalf Of t byfield
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 12:16 AM
(Continue reading)

Patrice Riemens | 21 Jul 19:29 2014

Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part Two,

With this installment, we reach the end of the second part of Ippolita
Collective's In the Facebook Aquarium. The third part ('The freedoms of
the Net') is the last one, and is only very marginally shorter than the
first and second parts.
I propose to make the next installments longer (and hence less frequent)
to reduce the stress to nettimers, who, I am told, tend to get a bit lost
and forget the gist of the argument due to its segmentation. The rapid
fire of the preceding installments had also a bit to do with my desire to
'make some good progress' in moving this translation forward, so I ask for
your forbearance.

Cheers from p+2D!, hoping you enjoy!


Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part Two

Anonymous, or out-of-the-box activism (section 8, conluded)

Sociality and politics work in the same way: on-line practice is narrowly
connected with real life practice, and cross-fertilization occurs all the
time. Anonymous' initiatives made a big splash in the media, which in its
turn focused the attention of the police on the group, something they
would have gladly done without. During the Occupy Wall Street
demonstrations, which were inspired by the 'Indignados' movement in Spain
occupying central squares all over the country, Anonymous brought in its
technical expertise. Twitter and Facebook apps were created on the spot to
improve communications between protesters. On many occasion, transparency,
so disparaged, became an effective weapon against the police, e.g. to
identify those law-and-order personel manhandling protesters. Yet the same
(Continue reading)

Örsan Şenalp | 21 Jul 18:28 2014

Fwd: interference↘15.08/17.08↘amsterdam

Interference, n:

preventing (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried
out properly.
the combination of two or more electromagnetic waveforms to form a
resultant wave in which the displacement is either reinforced or

Interference is a gathering of people, perspectives, theories, and
actions that share a critical approach to society and technology. It
will take place at the Binnenpret in Amsterdam, NL from 15th to the
17th of August 2014. It will be a space where we can meet, debate,
share, learn, and find our affinities and oppositions. The event comes
as a response to the lack of a common ground for confrontation and
discussion over themes like hacking, technology, art and politics that
could break out of the existing containers and roles for such concepts
and practices.

Interference is not a hacker conference. From a threat to the
so-called national security, hacking has become an instrument for
reinforcing the status quo. Fed up with yet another recuperation, the
aim is to re/contextualize hacking as a conflictual praxis and release
it from its technofetishist boundaries. Bypassing the cultural
filters, Interference wants to take the technical expertise of the
hacking scene out of its isolation to place it within the broader
perspective of the societal structures it shapes and is part of.

Interference tries not to define itself. Interference challenges
(Continue reading)

Keith Sanborn | 21 Jul 18:27 2014

Security back doors in iOS

A recent posting on MacRumors I thought might be of interest to nettimers. My apologies to those for whom
this is obvious and too downstream. 

Keith Sanborn

As part of a recent Hackers On Planet Earth (HOPE/X) conference presentation, forensic scientist and
iPhone jailbreak expert Jonathan Zdziarski detailed several backdoor security mechanisms that are
secretly included in iOS by Apple. These mechanisms make covert data collection easier for Apple and
governmental authorities, reportsZdziarski via ZDNet. 

Zdziarski confirms that iOS is reasonably secure from attack by a malicious hacker, but notes that the
mobile OS includes several forensic services and noticeable design omissions that make the OS
vulnerable to snooping by forensic tools. 

These services, such as "lockdownd," "pcapd" and "mobile.file_relay," can bypass encrypted backups to
obtain data and can be utilized via USB, Wi-Fi and possibly cellular. They also are not documented by Apple
and are not developer or carrier tools as they access personal data that would be not used for network
testing or app debugging purposes. 

While detailing these backdoors, Zdziarski makes it clear he is not a conspiracy theorist, but does want to
know why Apple appears to be deliberately compromising the security of the iPhone and opening the door to
professional, covert data access.
I am not suggesting some grand conspiracy; there are, however, some services running in iOS that shouldn?t
be there, that were intentionally added by Apple as part of the firmware, and that bypass backup
encryption while copying more of your personal data than ever should come off the phone for the average
consumer. I think at the very least, this warrants an explanation and disclosure to the some 600 million
customers out there running iOS devices. At the same time, this is NOT a zero day and NOT some widespread
security emergency. My paranoia level is tweaked, but not going crazy. My hope is that Apple will correct
the problem. Nothing less, nothing more. I want these services off my phone. They don?t belong there.
Zdziarski also notes that he isn't the only one aware of these backdoors. Several existing forensic
(Continue reading)

Patrice Riemens | 20 Jul 20:47 2014

Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part Two,

Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part Two

Anonymous, or out-of-the-box activism (section 8, continued)

Viewed from out the media, the reaction of the church of Scientology, just
as that of all Anonymous' (many) casualties afterwards, was to portray the
members of the group as monomaniac computer fanatics and cyber-terrorists,
or in one word: (dangerous) hackers. It is not easy to define Anonymous in
terms of ideology, but one aspect cannot escape notice: what boils up from
all the Anonymous nodes is a very peculiar interpretation of freedom of
expression, which is adamantly refered to as 'non-negotiable' [71]. As can
be seen with the /OpBart/ operation, Anonymous often appears when
censorship appears too [72]. Anonymous' and Wikileaks' paths crossed again
between December 6 and 10, 2010 during /Operation Avange Assange (aka
Operation Payback/), when several DDoS attacks were mounted, many
successful, against a twelve-some banks and financial institutions which
had blocked monetary transfers in favor of Wikileaks [73x].

To uncover the enemy's misdeeds while keeping a mask on, defy opacity
through transparence while remaining anonymous, attack powerful actors
(churches, armies, governments, banks) by way of interventions pairing
technical competences with spectacular mass media engagement, and to adopt
a truly warrior attitude, whether in the form of open warfare or sabotage
actions - these are the features Anonymous and Wikileaks share in common.
But the similarities stop here. Unlike Wikileaks, one cannot identify
Anonymous with one really existing person because it is not a SPO [###*],
but always operates as a (fluctuating) collective. In theory, anybody can
be part of Anonymous, whereas passing on a top secret piece of information
to Wikileaks does not result in identification of the person doing it.
Anonymous in its turn, is made up of a great many individuals, networks,
(Continue reading)