[iwar] Fw: [IWS INFOCON] the electrohippies collective's occasional paper no.3
From: Vernon Stagg
To: iwar
From: vstagg@deakin.edu.au
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:18:54 +1100
fc Thu Mar 8 16:23:40 2001
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
for fc@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 08 Mar 2001 16:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 21735 invoked by uid 510); 9 Mar 2001 00:17:59 -0000
Received: from ci.egroups.com (64.211.240.235)
by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 9 Mar 2001 00:17:59 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1018-984097152-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.55] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 Mar 2001 00:19:12 -0000
X-Sender: vstagg@deakin.edu.au
X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 9 Mar 2001 00:19:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 39561 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2001 00:19:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Mar 2001 00:19:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO deakin.edu.au) (128.184.136.2) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Mar 2001 00:19:09 -0000
Received: from marmadas (marmadas.cm.deakin.edu.au [128.184.80.75]) by deakin.edu.au (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f290Itg25988 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:18:55 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <021901c0a82e$8783fcf0$4b50b880@cm.deakin.edu.au>
To: "iwar"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
From: "Vernon Stagg"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe:
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:18:54 +1100
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] Fw: [IWS INFOCON] the electrohippies collective's occasional paper no.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
hmm, electrohippies, hactivists, not sure about the
"IT security goons" tag though!
Makes an interesting read,
Vernon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wanja Eric Naef (IWS)"
To: "Infocon-Mailinglist@Yahoogroups. Com"
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 11:03 AM
Subject: [IWS INFOCON] the electrohippies collective's occasional paper no.3
> the electrohippies collective's occasional paper no.3:
> "Who does the Internet serve?"
> - "he who pays the piper is only a participant in process;
> The who makes the pipes controls the tune"
>
> Written to accompany the electrohippies presentation to the London
Institute
> of Contemporary Arts meeting, Hacktivists: Cyberwarriors Or Political
> Agoraphobics? , 8th March, 2001
> Produced by the electrohippies collective, March 2001.
> website: http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/
> email: ehippies@gn.apc.org
> Note: This paper is also available for download as an Adobe Acrobat
> file.
>
> Hacktivism - a movement without identity?
> There is an ancient proverb, "he who pays the piper calls the tune". In
the
> world of traditional, real-world media this has been the case for
centuries.
> But today the Internet, the new mass communications media, does not work
> according to this rule. The Internet is a technology-mediated form of
> communication. Whoever designs the technical standards, or sets the
> framework within which those standards are defined, is the person who
> controls the pipe the piper plays; those who pay the piper merely
> participate in the process, within the rules of those who control the
pipes.
>
> Hacktivism, as a process that people seek to engage in, is a culture
> searching for an identity. The history of hacktivism is one of computer
> geeks engaged in earnest programming, pranks or stunts, which are mediated
> by the open technology of the Internet; perhaps one of the least media
> comprehensible subcultures. But over the past five years hacktivism has
> grown to encompass whole new areas, from the free and open source software
> movements, to localised community pressure campaigns, to global online
> direct action.
> Today, the Internet is under pressure to conform to the model of other
mass
> media - to accept censorship, and some form of political control, "in the
> public interest". Consequently, any use of Internet- mediated
communications
> that seeks to develop an alternative or novel view of the use of the media
> must internalise these pressures as part of their argument. How
hacktivists
> respond to the calls by the 'status quo' for some form of editorial
control
> over the Internet and Internet-enabled communications will define the
future
> of how hacktivist actions will take place.
> The Internet is a tool - nothing more. In addressing the future of the
> Internet we should therefore seek to address it's use as an object of
> utilitarian function: who does it serve, and hence who defines the form of
> the medium, who controls the medium, and who defines the constraints of
the
> medium?
>
>
> Defining the public medium of the Internet
> From the point of view of the electrohippie collective, the Internet is a
> Situationists' media. Certainly, that's how we approach our application of
> 'hacktivism' to Internet-based actions. The Internet was conceived during
> the period of the Situationists' International, but at that time it was
not
> a mass media. How would the various strands of the Situationists movement,
> such as Guy Debord, Asger Jorn and Raoul Vaneigem, have addressed the
> Internet? How would The Society of the Spectacle read if the Internet had
> been present as a viable mass media in the 1950s? The form of the
Internet,
> and its ability to represent abstraction's of human consciousness, in many
> ways represent a Situationists' dream.
> The Internet can be broadly summed up as a totally conceptual medium,
devoid
> of any meaningful human geography, personal stereotypes and real-world
> cultural or normative etiquette? The barriers to its use are only
technical.
> In terms of a movement seeking to democratise arts and expression, it is
> possible to have many entertaining hours considering how the Situationists
> would have used the media created through the Internet - the ultimate
> psychogeographical landscape. But the analysis of the leading
Situationists,
> especially how they defined the interaction of people, of modern
technology
> and of personal expression, has great relevance to how we can define an
> identify for hacktivism today.
> In society, when describing groups or persons, we are traditionally
> encouraged to frame that description in terms of ethnic, social, national
or
> political allegiances - the very cultural keys the Situationists sought to
> challenge. These traditional anchors become weakened or blurred when we
look
> at groups who use the Internet, in turn creating misunderstanding or
> uncertainty within the medium itself.
> This new identity created within the Internet is not wholly heterogeneous;
> it is dependent upon the framework in which the individual or group
> addresses the 'Net. Many of those who came to the Internet from real-world
> groups merely project an extension of that group's real-world persona. But
> those wholly virtual 'interest groups' that are today arising on the
> Internet are developing a new individually based identity. This identity
> expresses a far more diverse expression of personal opinions rather than a
> group identity, and reflects the nature of the Internet itself - an
alliance
> of decentralised interests rather than centralised power. It is this
> underlying transference of the associative structure that gives an
> individual equal access to a transnational corporation; it this also this
> transference that many in the corporate and political world perceive as
> threatening.
>
>
> Defining the form of the Internet
> The Internet is part of society, but it exists only conceptually. However,
> any conceptual entity is open to external redefinition. For example, in
the
> UK the Internet was promoted as a tremendous platform for e-commerce,
> bringing 'point and click' consumerism to the masses. But when that
> e-commerce platform was used to buy babies from the USA, it was soundly
> condemned by much the same group of people. How we define the value, the
> threat or the perversity of the 'Net is therefore directly related to the
> context, the perceptions and prejudices of the beholder (yet another
> Situationist construct).
> The lack of a traditional framework within which we can pigeonhole certain
> groups or campaigns makes it difficult to grapple for those wishing to
> elucidate or disparage the use of the Internet for campaigns and direct
> action. But the prejudices of those who oppose, within their
> 'interpretation' of, what hacktivism is, also make open debate difficult
to
> achieve. To date hacktivists have been very bad at communicating a
positive
> message about the potential of the Internet as a vehicle for public
> education, participation and debate. Those who have promoted such ideas
have
> themselves, often as members of right wing and the libertarian
organisations
> in the USA, had a quixotic relationship with the 'Net (they love it, but
if
> they ever had power would they tolerate it?). One of the early principles
> evolved within the electrohippie collective was that the debate created by
> Internet action was more important than the action itself. Hacktivism
needs
> to openly promote alternative perceptions of the Internet in order to
> challenge the authoritarian views of the corporate IT sector and
> governments.
> The problem is, much like the perceptions of the ICA in calling for this
> debate on the nature of hacktivism, to define what hacktivists represent.
> This cannot take place within the limited and overly pejorative
definitions
> that the term 'hacktivist' evokes. When deciding a name for the group whom
> later became known as the electrohippies we had this debate on 'identity'.
> In our view hacktivism, because of the skewed perceptions of the media and
> politicians on what 'hacktivism' is, doesn't convey the true meaning of
what
> many of those engaged in hacktivism are striving for. It doesn't encompass
> the concept of free software, it doesn't encompass equality of access, and
> it doesn't encompass Internet exercisable civil rights.
> The lexicon of the IT industry is currently dominated by the IT security
> goons who want to stamp out any kind of non-corporate independent thought
on
> electronic networks. From recent experience [1], the electrohippies have
> been able to demonstrate that these groups not only talk-up the threat
from
> hacktivism, but they positively manufacture fictitious threats for the
> consumption of the broadcast media. What hacktivists must do, to break
this
> confining definition of their philosophy, is to break the status quo's
> control over the lexicon by subverting that control, using terms that make
> the IT authoritarians contradict or ridicule their own position.
Curiously,
> this is the same type of thought process as Guy Debord engaged in when
> undertaking a decomposition of the then prevalent social structures of
> post-war Europe.
> Today, there are three conceptual views of the Internet that are
challenging
> the real-world status quo for domination of this new virtual space:
> * Governments - who see the Internet as a means to streamline many
> functions of society, perhaps to reduce costs, but with a longer term
> objective of reinforcing the political status quo through some sort of
> 'qualitative' control of the medium's content.
> * E-commerce - who see the Internet as a low-cost trading environment
> and, in the longer term, a business medium that can be used to trade
without
> the usual public pressures associated with commerce (labour standards,
> environmental standards, consumer protection, etc.).
> * The Utopians (for want of a better label) - who see the Internet as
> a means to create a seamless, barrier-less medium of human interaction and
> consciousness, and therefore a means to greater understanding and human
> unity.
>
> All these groups will continue to work and coexist on the 'Net. But, in
> terms of which philosophy will prevail, the conflicts over the nature of
the
> Internet, it's regulation, and the terms on which people have access to
it,
> will be fought over the next five to ten years as the medium matures
within
> the public consciousness.
>
>
> Who controls the medium
> Many hacktivists have talked of the 'un-governability' of the Internet.
This
> is a fallacy, wrapped up within the more libertarian elements of hacker
> culture that have emerged from the USA. The fact that the American
> constitution protects free speech is no guarantee for the citizens of
other
> states. You may be free to host controversial material on a US web server,
> but access it from your own country and you will commit a criminal
offence.
> Is the Internet, and so the practice of hacktivism, immune to real-world
> control? - NO.
> As has been demonstrated in the UK recently, through the new provisions of
> the Terrorism Act 2000 [2], and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers
(RIP)
> Act 2000, the Internet as a whole system is not governable, but the people
> accessing it at the end of the pipe are. It makes no difference how free
the
> Internet is if ordinary people are blocked, surveilled or filtered,
without
> any prior evidence of wrongdoing, in their accessing of it's content. This
> is what the combination of the Terrorism Act, the RIP Act, and the Police
> Act 1997 enables in the UK. Recent proposals [3], drawn up under the
> sweeping discretion under the RIP Act creates, also enable all data
> communications to be centrally stored for four or seven years for later
> accessing or study by the authorities.
> More worryingly, these repressive new laws developed in the UK are now
being
> exported - both South Korea and Australia have expressed intent to enact
> similar laws soon, and The Netherlands is on the way to doing so.
> It is important that hacktivism seeks to move beyond the "we're
unstoppable"
> ethos that dominates it's American origins. The Internet is vulnerable -
not
> as a system, but at the end of the pipe where the individual accesses it.
> Such hacktivist bravado really stems from a lack of political awareness by
> many hacktivists, and perhaps a utopian naivety about the forces that have
> made, and may ultimately break, the open nature of the 'Net. Across the
> globe, in response to the public's enthusiastic adoption of the Internet,
> states and security forces are adopting new procedures and laws that seek
to
> make the Internet as something separate, something unique, and something
so
> fundamentally dangerous that it must be defined as apart from other
> communications media. More importantly, through this double standard,
states
> are seeking to justify the application of highly restrictive laws that
> offend the very basis of our hard-won civil rights, and which would not be
> tolerated for other mass media.
> It is essential that states are not permitted to seek the same demarcation
> of standards in the exercise of the public's civil rights in the use the
> Internet. As the Internet becomes and ever-more pervasive mass medium
within
> society, the exercise of civil rights will increasingly depend upon the
ease
> of access and use of the 'Net. In this situation, where the exercise of
> civil rights is dependent upon access to the 'Net, uncensored and
unfiltered
> Internet access itself must become a civil right.
>
>
> Who defines the constraints of the medium
> The Internet is a technologically mediated mass communications media. As
> such, the transference of information is circumscribed by the stands that
> this system of technological apparatus operates to. In the early years of
> the Internet all standards were open. But the advent of Internet enabled
> commerce has led to a proprietary annexation of the Internet's governing
> bodies and technical standards. Two issues stand out here:
> * Internet governance - There are a number of bodies that control the
> operation of the Internet. For example, the Internet Engineering Task
Force
> (IETF) is an 'expert body' that develops operational standards for the
> Internet. To date this body has not come to prominence in the debate about
> the Internet - although they might shortly as their new standard for
> Internet data packets has serious implications for civil liberties. But
the
> more minor of the governance bodies, the Internet Corporation for Assigned
> Names and Numbers (ICANN) has become very prominent because the names
people
> can use on the Internet represent intellectual property - and therefore
> carry great financial value. The recent power struggles within ICANN do
not
> directly threaten the technical operation of the Internet, but should the
> IETF come under the same pressures there would be serious implications for
> the ability of ordinary people to use the Internet freely, without
> proprietary barriers.
> * Technical standards - As noted above, IETF set standards for the
> physical hardware of the Internet. But increasingly IT corporations are
> defining their own proprietary standards that sit on top of the 'network
> layer' that the Internet represents. Leading these organisations is
> Microsoft. Microsoft has an identified policy of adopting a technical
> standard, adding proprietary functions to that standard that no one else
can
> use it, and then using their global dominance in computers to enforce
their
> system over all others. In this way, the substance of which was the core
of
> the recent Microsoft anti-trust trial in the USA, Microsoft are able to
> enforce their own view of "what's good for the 'Net" over everyone else.
>
> Perhaps the best example of the 'hacktivist' movement is the response to
the
> technical constraints imposed by the increasing proprietary domination of
IT
> systems - led by the free software and open source movement, enabled by
the
> freely available GNU/Linux operating system. This is also a good example
of
> where the traditional media and corporate IT definitions of what
hacktivism
> is break down. This is a strand of hacktivism that clearly takes human
> openness and sharing as it's core philosophy.
> Fundamentally, unless the public as a whole are able to become involved
> within the issue of Internet governance, and in particular the setting of
> standards, then the Internet as a whole will remain vulnerable to
> exploitation or control by proprietary interests. This would have an
> inevitable detrimental impact, compared to the currently 'open' system, in
> determining to how the public at large is able, or are permitted
> technologically, to use the 'Net.
>
>
> What is hacktivism?
> This has been left to the end. Why? Because, like the term 'Situationism',
> 'Hacktivism' has no tangible meaning. In 1961, here at a meeting of the
> Institute for Contemporary Arts, Maurice Wyckaert was asked "what is
> Situationism". Guy Debord, after promptly issuing an insult, then led a
walk
> out of the Situationists' from the room. A similar issue arises with
> 'hacktivism'. Hacktivism, as a label, has evolved predominantly as a
> convenient tag for activities which many, particularly within the media,
do
> not understand. But hacktivism cannot encompass, as a term, all those
> activities that it seeks to containerise.
> A hacker is someone who is good with computers - nothing more. This should
> not be confused with people who are good with computers and who use this
> expertise to break into computer systems - in computer parlance these
people
> are 'crackers'. The activities of hackers are, to all intent and purposes,
> far more benign, but in the process may still threaten many vested
interests
> (such as governments wanting to restrict debate on public issues, or IT
> corporations seeking to restrict the release of free alternatives to their
> software).
> Hacktivism can be anything that the context defines. It can be writing a
new
> utility for the Linux operating system. It can be developing a new web
site
> to promote civil rights or social change. It can also be developing online
> direct actions against the virtual personas of corporations or governments
> on the 'Net.
> In deciding what the relevance of the Internet is to social movements we
> have to identify whom the Internet serves and how, and the tensions that
> these differential perceptions of the Internet create - and so where the
> 'hackers' fit in. As a filtered reflection of society, understanding how
the
> Internet enables debate or action can provide an insight into how people
are
> using this new medium. But for the online activists, such as the
> electrohippies, understanding how different groups perceive the Internet
is
> the first step in developing, or influencing, a new online consciousness
> that can create a new environment for realising societal change, locally,
> and even globally.
> At its root, hacktivism is seeking to use one's knowledge of IT systems to
> create a meaningful human use of computer hardware or computer networks.
> Within that definition, anything is possible. It is, like the conceptual
> nature of the 'Net, defined within the meanings, influenced by the
context,
> that the individual applies to the action. It is then, ultimately, a
> Situationist philosophy, and therein lies the paradox that defines its
> identity.
>
>
>
> References:
> See the electrohippies communiqué, April 2000 (in the 'archive'
> section of our website ).
> A briefing on The Terrorism Act is available from the GreenNet Civil
> Society Internet Rights Project web site -
> http://www.gn.apc.org/action/csir/index.html <
> http://www.gn.apc.org/action/csir/index.html>
> See The Observer, 3rd December 2000 -
> A leaked
> copy of the ACPO/NCIS discussion document is available at
>
>
>
> END
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Find software faster. Search more than 20,000
software solutions on KnowledgeStorm. Register
now and get started.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ncHzAA/yMSCAA/7f4EAA/kzAVlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
------------------
http://all.net/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/