Category: politics

Hackers can’t solve Surveillance

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), also known as Doctors without Borders, is an organization that saves lives in war-torn and underdeveloped regions, providing health care and training in over 70 different countries. MSF saves lives. Yet, nobody thinks that doctors can “solve” healthcare. It’s widely understood that healthcare is a social issue, and universal health care can not be achieved by either the voluntary work of Doctors or by way of donations and charity alone.

Just as Doctors can’t solve healthcare, Hackers can’t solve surveillance. Doctors can’t make human frailty disappear with some sort of clever medical trick. They can help mitigate issues, fight emergencies, they can be selfless, heroic. but they can’t, on their own, solve healthcare.

One of the ways that Hackers can fight surveillance is to develop better cryptographic communications tools, and train people how to use them.. This is certainly critical work that hackers can contribute to, but we can’t, on our own, solve surveillance.

Nothing that Hackers can do on their own can eliminate surveillance. Just as universal healthcare is only something that can be achieved by social means, privacy respecting mass communications platforms can only be achieved by social means. Safe mass communications platforms can not be created by private interests, neither commercially, nor voluntarily.

As we well know, private medical provisioning provides unequal health care. The reason is obvious, health needs and the ability to pay are not usually corelated. Private provisioning means that those who can’t pay, wont be served by profit-driven institutions, and though this can be mitigated by voluntarism and charity, it can’t be fully overcome.

Likewise, mass communications that are built for the profit motive either need to charge a fee, and thereby be exclusive, or be advertising supported. Other options can exist for connected and technically savvy users, but these will be niche by necessity. For the masses, the main options available will always be well funded platforms with employees to do support, development, and marketing, without wich, it’s impossible to build-up a mass user base.

The lucrativeness of advertising-based platforms, makes it difficult even for fee-based systems to compete, since they don’t generally produce enough revenue to invest significantly in support, development and marketing, which makes them less attractive even to users who could or would pay, but the major issue that kills such platforms is that the fee means that some people will not be able to use it at all.

Thus, commercial mass platforms tend to be advertising driven. This means that the business of platform operators is selling audience commodity. Commodities are sold by measure and grade. You can buy 10lbs of Fancy Grade Granny Smith Apples, or two dozen Grade A free range eggs. Or 2 million clicks from age 18-35 white males.

Audience commodity, the users of the platform, are sold to advertisers, by measure of clicks or conversion, and by grade. For advertisers, audience is graded by specifications that include age, sex, income level, family composition, location, ethnicity, home or automobile ownership, credit card status, etc. The Demographics, as they say.

Since an advertising funded platform must grade audience commodity, it must collect data on it’s users in order to grade them. This means that the one thing such a platform can not offer its users is privacy. At least not privacy from the platform operators and their advertisers.

And so long as the platform operators collect such data, there is no way that this data will not be made available to local and foreign intelligence agencies.

This hard reality has been hard to grapple with, especially for a hacker community who saw the Internet as a new realm, as John Perry Barlow wrote in the Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace: “We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.” His colleague, John Gilmore, famously claimed “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.”

Those two quotations, born of the 90s hey-day of net.culture, contrast starkly with what Adam Curtis describes in his BBC documentary All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace:

“The original promise of the Californian Ideology, was that the computers would liberate us from all the old forms of political control, and we would become Randian heroes, in control of our own destiny. Instead, today, we feel the opposite, that we are helpless components in a global system, a system that is controlled by a rigid logic that we are powerless to challenge or to change”

Oddly, the film doesn’t credit Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron who coined the term the “Californian Ideology” in their seminal 1995 text, which was among the first to identify the libertarian ideology endemic in Silicon Valley culture.

The visions of a free, uncensorable cyberspace envisioned by Barlow, Gilmore and others was incompatible with the needs of Capital, and thus the libertarian impulses that drives Silicon valley caused a change in tune. Cyberspace was no longer a new world, declared independent with its own unalienable rights, it was now an untamed frontier, a wild-west where spooks and cypherpunks do battle and your worth is measured by your crypto slinging skills and operational security. Rather than united denizens of a new terrain, we are now crypto individualists homesteading in hostile territory.

This, as Seda Gurses argues, leads to Responsibilization, “Information systems that mediate communications in a way that also collects massive amounts of personal information may be prone to externalizing some of the risks associated with these systems onto the users.”

Users themselves are responsible for their privacy and safety online. No more unalienable rights, no more censorship resistant mass networks, no more expressing beliefs without fear of being silenced. Hack or be hacked.

Since libertarian ideology is often at odds with social solutions, holding private enterprise as an ideal and viewing private provisioning as best, the solutions presented are often pushing more entrepreneurship and voluntarism and ever more responsibilization. We just need a new start-up, or some new code, or some magical new business model! This is what Evgeny Morozov calls Solutionism, the belief that all difficulties have benign solutions, often of a technocratic nature. Morozov provides an example “when a Silicon Valley company tries to solve the problem of obesity by building a smart fork that will tell you that you’re eating too quickly, this […] puts the onus for reform on the individual.”

Karl Marx makes a similar argument in Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte:

“The proletariate […] gives up the task of revolutionizing the old world with its own large collective weapons, and, on the contrary, seeks to bring about its emancipation, behind the back of society, in private ways, within the narrow bounds of its own class conditions, and, consequently, inevitably fails.”

Solutionism underestimates social costs and assumes that social issues can be solved by individuals and private interests, and some may be, but where universality, equality and fairness need to be provided regardless of skill or wealth this is not the case. These sorts of things can only be provided socially, as public goods.

Many Hackers have always known this. In a excellent Journal of Peer Production essay Maxigas quotes Simon Yiull:

“The first hacklabs developed in Europe, often coming out of the traditions of squatted social centres and community media labs. In Italy they have been connected with the autonomist social centres, and in Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands with anarchist squatting movements.”

Early hacklabs didn’t view their role as being limited to solutionism, though hackers have alway helped people understand how online communications works and how to use it securely, hackers where embedded within social movements, part of the struggle for a fairer society. Hacker saw themselves as part of affinity groups fighting against privatization, war, colonialism, austerity, inequality, patriarchy and capitalism, they understood that this was the way to a new society, working shoulder to shoulder with mass movements fighting for a new society, and that here their knowledge of networks and communications systems could be of service to these movements.

Yet, as Maxigas goes on to argue,, “hackerspaces are not embedded in and not consciously committed to an overtly political project or idea.”

Instead, hackerspaces often focus on technological empowerment, which is certainly beneficial and important, but like community health centers that teach health maintenance practices are beneficial, they can’t solve larger social issues, such each-one-teach-one projects can not, on their own, solve social issues like privacy or health.

Hackers need to understand that there is no business model for secure mass communications. In order to achieve a society where we can expect privacy we need more hackers and hackerspaces to embrace the broader political challenges of building a more equal society.

Miscommunication Technologies with @dmytri & @baruch at @BerlinAtonal

Baruch Gottlieb and I will be giving a talk about Miscommunication technologies at Berlin Atonal today.

http://www.berlin-atonal.com/

Below is a text written by us about the series of artworks originally published in “Disrupting Business,” Edited by Tatiana Bazzichelli & Geoff Cox and published by Autonomedia – Data Browser 05.

http://networkingart.eu/2013/10/disrupting_business/

Miscommunication Technologies
Telekommunisten Artworks 2009-2013
Dmytri Kleiner, Baruch Gottlieb

The development of communication technologies is not merely a neutral process driven by discovery, progress and innovation, but an intensely social and political process where choices are made in ways that fundamentally influence the reproduction of the class conditions of the societies that produce these technologies. Communications technologies embody and perpetuate the social relations of their mode of production.

The Miscommunication Technologies series of artworks by Telekommunisten explore these social relations by creating technologies that don’t work as expected, or work in unexpected ways. The artworks in the series allow the embedded social relations to be critically experienced and confronted. The series employs parody, juxtaposition, exaggeration and reductio ad absurdum to bring aspects of these relations which are normally hidden from view, into the foreground.

The Miscommunication Technologies artworks illustrate some of the real world challenges faced by anyone or any group which would like to challenge the dominance of capitalist models of production. Miscommunication Technologies take a light-hearted approach to an intractable reality: capitalism is not only the system by which maximum value is extracted from social production, it is also the current global system which, in its unsatisfactory yet somewhat reliable manner, provide vital services we depend on every day. Any challenge to capitalist hegemony must be prepared to provide for the same social needs which will persist any system.

The illusions of the early Internet as a panacea platform for the emancipation of human intelligence and collaborative spirit emerged because it was financed for use-value, not exchange-value. It’s early developers were universities, NGOs, hobbyists and, prominently, the military. The contributors to the early Internet built the platform according to what could be seen as a product of a communist credo, “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”

As Richard Barbrook described in “The::Cyber.Com/munist::Manifesto” “Within the Net, people are developing the most advanced form of collective labour: work-as-gift.” Information and software spread freely across the network. This, to many people, created the impression that a new society was emerging, for instance, “The Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” by John Perry Barlow stated “We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.” Barlow’s EFF co-founder, John Gilmore claimed that “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” implying that The Net existed beyond the jurisdiction of States, or even the organisations that operate it, as it can simply “route around” those that would seek to interfere with the freedom of exchange on the network.

This might have held true to some extent during the initial stages of commercialisation of the Internet, since the first commercial ventures, “Internet Service Providers” or “ISPs” did not develop their own communications technologies, but only provided access to the public Internet, and the decentralized, open technologies that ran on it, such as email and usenet. The exchange value these ISPs were capturing was collectively created. Each ISP was independently earning income by being a part of a common platform, not owned by anybody as a whole, but composed of the mutual interconnections of the participants. Though made up of parts owned by public and private organizations, the platform as a whole functioned as a commons, a common stock of productive assets used independently by the ISPs and their users.

In parallel to the Internet, “Online Services” like CompuServ emerged from the capitalist imagination, they were financed for exchange value, by profit seeking investors, and as such did not employ a mesh topology like the Internet, but rather employed a star topology. Users could not communicate directly with each other, but only through the central servers of the operator, which could not be “routed around.” This was required by profit-oriented business models, since control of user interaction and user data is required to monetise the platform, for instance by charging fees or selling advertising.

Part of what fed the illusion of the emancipatory potential of the then-possible Internet was the fact that the platform made Capitalist-funded “Online Services” like CompuServ and AOL obsolete. This happened largely because of the explosive growth made possible by it’s distributed infrastructure, allowing the ISP industry to develop as a kind of petit-bourgeois industry of small producers. ISPs were a cottage industry of mom and pop telecoms of sorts. The design of the Internet allowed anybody with a connection to the internet, to provide a connection to others, thus the barrier of entry to becoming an ISP was relatively small, just an upstream connection, some computers, modems and telephone lines.

During the early days of the public Internet the communistic petit bourgeois ISPs prevailed over the feudalistic haute bourgeois Online Services, making it seem momentarily that the superior technical architecture of the Internet, combined with the cultures of sharing and gift economies would be able to surpass and even transcend Capital.

Both personal and commercial users migrated en masse to the internet. For instance, in a letter to their customers that is still available online the software company BASIS international, “The Big Little Software Company,” writes “By the end of 1997, BASIS plans to move completely off CompuServe (CSi) and onto the Internet. This is a logical consequence of the many changes that have taken place in the online world over the past few years.” In their letter, BASIS spells out a lot of these changes; “While our CSi presence has served the company well in the past, its pay-to-access structure is increasingly harder to justify with the Internet providing almost limitless content at a negligible incremental cost. People are moving away from CSi in significant numbers, making it a less effective platform from which to address our current and future customers. We believe that moving our existing support infrastructure from CSi to the Internet will give us better access to our customers and our customers better access to us” and goes on to explain how it will now use open platforms like email, Usenet and IRC instead of CompuServ’s proprietary and centralized applications. How ironic that now web 2.0 platforms have companies and individuals returning to centralized, proprietary systems for their support and communications. The reason for this is not because centralized platforms where superior all-along, but because they are they only kind of systems that are funded by capitalists.

While ISPs invested in bringing Internet access into households and offices worldwide, they did little to actually develop the communications platforms used on the network, these were largely developed within the gift economy of the users themselves. The ISPs were even less able to take over the provision of long-haul data transmission, dominated by international telecommunications conglomerates. Most ISPs got their start by simply connecting shelves full of consumer grade modems to consumer grade computers running free software, providing connectivity to an upstream internet provider for end-users who were using freely available communications platforms.

Thus, while the emergence of the ISPs and the rapid mainstream adoption of the Internet were spectacular, they were not able to capture enough profit to scale up and take over the more investment-heavy infrastructure of Internet provision. The end was already apparent in beginning. Well-financed telecommunications conglomerates would soon replace the mom & pop ISPs, either buying them up, or driving them out of business by providing “broadband” services which delivered internet to the home along with telephone service, leaving the remaining ISPs as just resellers, providing service over telecom managed circuits.

As Internet usage grew, technically-oriented users became the minority. The general Internet user became what Clay Shirkey eventually called “everybody”. This had a significant impact on the culture of sharing and tolerance. The first wave of “everybody” to arrive was when AOL, in an effort to remain relevant, allowed it’s users to access the Internet, this epoch has been called “The Eternal September” since then. The Jargon File, a glossary of hacker slang, describes this as “All time since September 1993. One of the seasonal rhythms of the Usenet used to be the annual September influx of clueless newbies who, lacking any sense of netiquette, made a general nuisance of themselves. This coincided with people starting college, getting their first internet accounts, and plunging in without bothering to learn what was acceptable. These relatively small drafts of newbies could be assimilated within a few months. But in September 1993, AOL users became able to post to Usenet, nearly overwhelming the old-timers’ capacity to acculturate them; to those who nostalgically recall the period before, this triggered an inexorable decline in the quality of discussions on newsgroups.”

The Jargon File, mentions “Netiquette,” a quaint term from the innocent times of net.culture, yet Netiquette was not simply a way of fitting-in, like table manners at an exclusive dinner party. The cultural context of that Internet that made acculturation necessary was its relative openness and lack of stratification.
Netiquette was required, because the network had relatively little constraints built into it, the constraints needed to be cultural for the system to work. There was much more to this culture than teaching new users how to not abuse resources or make a “general nuisance of themselves.” Netiquette was not so much about online manners, it was rather about how to share. Starting from the shared network resources, sharing was the core of the culture, which not only embraced free software and promoted free communications, but generally resented barriers to free exchange, including barriers required to protect property rights and any business models based on controlling information flow.

As dramatic as the influx of new users was to the old-timers’ net.culture, the influx of capital investment and its conflicting property interests quickly emerged as an existential threat to the basis of the culture. Net.culture required a shared internet, where the network itself and most of the information on it was held in common. Capital required control, constraints and defined property in order to earn returns on investment. Lines in the sand were drawn, the primitive communism of the pre-September Internet was over. The Eternal September began, and along with it, the stratification of the internet began.

Rather than embracing the free, open, platforms where net.culture was born, like Usenet, EMail, IRC, etc, Capital embraced the Web. Not as the interlinked, hypermedia, world-wide-distributed publishing platform it was intended to be, but as a client-server private communications platform where users’ interactions were mediated by the platforms’ operators. The flowering of “Web 2.0” was Capital’s re-engineering of the web into an internet accessible version of the online services they were building all along, such as the very platforms whose mass user bases where the influx that started the Eternal September. CompuServ and AOL most notable among them.

The gift-economy model of software development that developed platforms like email and usenet was unable to compete with a quickly growing Venture Capital start-up scene pushing Web 2.0 platforms. Like the profit-oriented Online Services before them, these start-ups were also compelled by the the profit motives of their investors to implement a centralised topology, a star topology, because once again, the central control of user data and interaction was required to monetise the platforms. We have moved from a world CompuServ and AOL to a world of Amazon and Facebook. Scratch off the Facebook logo and you’ll find the CompuServ logo underneath.

The OCTO P7C-1 prototype premiered at transmediale 2013 was produced by Jeff Mann, Jonas Frankki, Diani Barreto, Baruch Gottlieb and Dmytri Kleiner with raumlaborberlin. OOCTO exemplified this problematic. OCTO, the fictional venture capitalist start-up promised to build the next dimension of the Internet, the physical dimension of communication through a pervasive pneumatic tube network. The utopian rhetoric of the OCTO boosters is exuberantly cliché, promising all manner of human empowerment and positive transformation, and conveniently leaving behind in the shadow of bold promises the fact that this technology will be completely centralised and completely transfused with invasive security and monitoring technologies.

OCTO P7C-1 presented the situation on several parallel levels. First, the actual working prototype, the P7C-1 allowed visitors to send capsules around the entire Haus der Kulturen der Welt. The P7C-1 stations were integrated everywhere at transmediale and used by staff and visitors alike. Use of the system was purposefully complicated, every capsule having to be sent through a central station in coordination and at the mercy of the operators positioned there. P7C-1’s cumbersome, labour-intensive and privacy-agnostic factuality flew in the face of the transcendent promises unflaggingly issued from the fictional directorship of the fictional OCTO company. The constant work of managing the central station, end-stations and tube network is labour theatre, unlike the internet where the physical labour is hidden, the labour in OCTO P7C-1 is presented as a central theatrical aspect of the work. OCTO the company, provided the second layer, the social fiction, constantly driving home the lesson that there is a price for the convenience of every new technological utopia under capitalism, and the price will be extracted from those who are promised to benefit.

We have moved from administering our own email to using the centralized email services of giant entities like Google and Yahoo, which, as part of their mere functioning, parse and analyse private contents. Massive data sets have proven as useful for optimising AI applications such as automatic translation as any improvement from the (academic) information science community. Access to these storehouses of real-time contextual semantic data is the nec plus ultra of contemporary web profit models.

The revolutionary Internet that inspired Barbrook, Barlow, Gilmore and many others has become a dystopia, a platform whose capabilities and pervasiveness of surveillance and behavioural conditioning and influence surpass the wildest dreams of the tyrants and technocrats of previous eras. As we will see again and again, despite claims that culture and economy has gone ‘immaterial’, the rules of access to the physical technology of the internet conditions the forms of services which are eventually at the disposal of users.

Whereas OCTO is the archetypal network startup with a unabashed agenda of market sector conquest, Thimbl appears as the light at the end of the long dark tunnel of centralised hegemonic corporate dominance of the Internet. Developed by Dmytri Kleiner, Jonas Frankki, Rico Weise and Mike Pearce with contributions from a small community that developed around it, including Anthony Shull, Silja Neilson, Mark Carter and Fernando Guillen ,Thimbl is made out to be a distributed, peer-to-peer alternative to microblogging platforms such as Twitter. Thimbl appears as an analogue of projects like Diaspora, also launched in 2010 like Thimbl, Diaspora is a purely altruistic project with no profit motive and only the idealism of freedom of information.

The tragedy of projects like Diaspora is that they are not really a viable replacements for capital-funded projects like Facebook, for economic and political reasons, not technical reasons. Therein lies the message of Thimbl. Anyone who has some understanding of the elementary server architecture of the Internet can use Thimbl, because it is based on a protocol originally developed in the 1970’s called Finger which allowed users to post public “project” and “plan” messages akin to status updates. The free-access, non-commercial functionality of finger harkens back to the period when the Internet was still being developed for use value. By retrieving finger, Thimbl indicates how users today are allowing corporations to benefit from the value of their social interactions for services which, in principle, could be used freely and for free. Thimbl shows that all that is necessary to provide a microblogging experience like Twitter is available for free and built in to the Internet right now, but, precisely because they are freely available, technologies based on protocols like finger will never be developed to the extent that they offer the satisfactory user experience of competitive commercial platforms.
Unlike the highly centralized OCTO, capital will never fund a project like Thimbl because it will not generate sufficient ROI. Thimbl is an economic fiction or social fiction. Making it work is not the greatest challenge, making it financially viable is. Thimbl does not provide investors with the ability to control it’s users or their data, and as Thimbl’s Manifesto states “This control is required by the logic of Capitalist finance in order to capture value. Without such control profit-seeking investors do not provide funds.”

For Thimbl, or any other platform with a similar vision, to become a real alternative to the capitalist financed platforms like Facebook and Twitter, we need more than running code, even more than a small, perhaps dedicated, user base. To get beyond this and actually break the monopolizing grip of centralized social media we need to match their productive capacities. We need financing on a similar scale. so that the development, marketing, and operations budgets are comparable and sufficient to compete. Just like science fiction becomes reality when science transcends the limitations that existed when the fiction was imagined, for economic fiction like Thimbl to become reality society will need to transcend the political and economic limitations that we currently face. We can write code, we can write texts, we can create artworks, but as a small network of artists and hackers, we can’t change the economic conditions we work in by ourselves.

Free, distributed platforms are very practically suited to the work of radical communities, both symbolically as a matter of solidarity, and also practically, since support for privacy and cryptography is often desirable. These platforms should, in a meritocratic economy of technological product, become prevalent, but instead they are marginalized by the current ‘owners’ of the Internet. Free, distributed platforms cannot provide the same ease-of-use, the so-called user-experience (UX) provided by capitalist platforms because they simply lack the work-time to generate such quality. The result is that radical programmers pride themselves on the superiority of the software and bemoaning the state of things which prevents that such software become prevalent. Radical programmers are motivated to campaign on the level of code for a freer, anarchist, egalitarian Internet, but they are not motivated to confront the political and economic realities which prohibit the social adoption of these technologies. This generates much frustration and defensiveness, rather than the commitment to dedicate some small quanta of their formidable imaginations and intelligences to the problem of ownership.

Miscommunication Technologies show-up the improvisatory economic structures of network-optimism in the way they inevitably ‘fail’ to deliver the seamless networked experience they provocatively advertise. The schism between the promise of utopia and the reality of a system which requires much spontaneous effort on the part of users even to provide a modicum of functionality, playfully points to the immense work still needed to produce conditions which will support a radically different model of industrial communications as it prioritizes the generation and cultivation of direct interpersonal engagement between a community of users.

General concern regarding the censorship and surveillance on commercial online platforms is growing, and these concerns are opportunities to to introduce political topics by arguing that these features are not unintended side-effects of these platforms, but central to their business models, and that platforms that do not surveille or control can not and will not be financed by capital, but only by collective or public undertaking as an expression of priorities which diverge from capitalism. Once this becomes clearer, concern over privacy settings on Facebook can be directed towards capitalism itself, instead of the idiosyncrasies of that platform or it’s founders.

Privacy and surveillance, at the same time, become wedge issues to de-legitimize alternative networks and services for the general public. Under the banner of security and ‘quality’, corporations have lobbied governments to favour centralized ‘unfree’ network applications built on the still free but ever fading-from-view Internet. We have seen often enough how products like Bitcoin can be impugned to ‘enable elicit activity’, cast as disreputable, until completely controlled and regulated by capital-concerned governments. Without acknowledging the systemic necessity, under the capitalist financing regime, of a centralized Internet, citizens’ legitimate concerns about corporate encroachment into private and personal spheres is co-opted to generate unfavorable opinions about technologies which could help disrupt the dominance of capitalist priorities of control.

It is worthwhile to re-emphasize that the Internet itself is not immaterial. The Internet is only accessible through hardware which needs to be built according to unfree and often unfair industrial production rules. The industrial production of electronics is a quintessentially capital-intensive undertaking requiring global flows of materials, which, under capitalism take place in extreme conditions of competition and extraction of labour value. Any challenge to how the Internet is run, or what it is available to be used for must also challenge how it is produced and reproduced.

iMine, an experimental art-app/game produced by Baruch Gottlieb in 2011 with Horacio González Diéguez and Cocomoya, prior to Baruch’s work with Telekommunisten, is now integrated into the Miscommunication Technologies series. iMine is a game that can be played on a smartphone building the reality of labour exploitation in the mining industries needed to produce the minerals required to make the device being used to play the game into the experience of playing the game. iMine does not try to make the gameplay enjoyable or directly educational but seeks to create an experience of bleakness and drudgery, true to that of the mine workers, not to entertain the user with the story of the mining, but evoke the experience of the miner. At the heating heart of the emancipatory digital device, are highly hierarchic systems of production and control. iMine is dismalware.

The gameplay is designed from the start to be stripped down to the mere basics Someone who wants to play first creates a new miner giving it a unique name and a country. After this simple registration the only thing left to do is repeatedly thrust the phone as if it were a shovel into the ground. The website keeps track of the global iMining action going on at any particular time, and also features an extensive resource section with information on mining and the political and economic enjeu in global supply chain for minerals necessary in portable computing device production. After having been developed and premiered at LABoral,

Miscommunication Technologies thus indicates that there can be no uniquely technological fix. Colonial wars and security states, corporate rule and centralization will persist despite the best intentions of emancipatory technologists, and worse, the best and most innovative technologies are not only appropriated to perpetuate capital but to this end they are incomparably better funded than had been the visionary projects of their emancipatory inventors. The technologies which become dominant, become dominant in the form dictated by the prevailing conditions of capitalist production under which we labour today.

The free, distributed platforms, that can not be controlled or censored, can not exist on any large scale under capitalism. Not for technical reasons, in fact the technology that enables such interaction is in many cases well-described and readily available, but for social and political reasons. The productive capacity that is required to build and support them will not be provided by Capital, thus so long as Capital is the dominant mode of production, it will produce platforms that reproduce itself, thus platforms than enable the accumulation of wealth by engineering control and extraction into communications systems.

R15N, originally developed as Jessycom by Dmytri Kleiner during a residency at the Israeli Center for Digital Art, was premiered as R15N in collaboration with Jonas Frankki, Jeff Mann, Baruch Gottlieb, Rico Weise and Mike Pearce at transmediale 2011. R15N is a project which pushes to absurdity the emancipatory rhetoric of mobile networked computing. Events like the antiglobalization protests in Copenhagen or the political upheaval often referred to as ‘arab spring’ generate much enthusiastic hyperbole about how new realtime networks employing mobile devices can become an unstoppable democratising force. R15N points to the economic predilections built into the provision of network connectivity may work against such emancipatory agendas.

R15N retrieves an obsolete form of social networking, the ‘telephone tree’ and dresses it up as the lastest thing in robust circumventionist networking. Perfect for planning a flash mob, R15N easily becomes a nuisance as phone calls multiply rendering the commitment one made to one’s community by joining the network a near-constant obligation to participate.

Whereas iMine proposes that critical games or critical media can only do so much to challenge the economic exigencies underlying an unacceptable status quo, and that the materiality (itself) of networked utopia is the key to understanding its injustices, R15N suggests that circumventionism will not fundamentally challenge intolerable social conditions without the concurrent care and effort being dedicated to actually building up strong communities which have committed to working together toward transforming society, as users of R15N are constantly reminded, the system depends on your competence and diligence.

Miscommunication Technologies are artworks with a principal purpose, that of engaging people in provocative networked experiences in which they inadvertently but necessarily confront the unadorned material and economic conditions under which such experiences are made possible.

Dear #NETMundial, Governance is cool and all, but we need to DEMAND IPv6 NOW! cc #OurNetMundial

Many of my friends and colleagues where in Sao Paulo last week for NETMundial, the Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil, convened this initiative to “focus on principles of Internet governance and the proposal for a roadmap for future development of this ecosystem.”

NETMundial was originally motivated by revelations from Edward Snowden about mass surveillance conducted by the US and UK governments, including spying on President Rouseff herself. These revelations prompted Mrs Rousseff to state “In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy” in a speech to the UN at the 68th General Assembly.

Yet, as important as Internet governance is for our future, and as valuable any effort to address this is, it is unlikely to do much, if anything, about the right to privacy online. Why? Because surveillance is not an issue of Internet governance, but of the way the Internet is financed. The vast amount of consumer data amassed by private companies like Google, Facebook and Verizon is not the result of IANA or ICANN policy, but of the business models of these companies which seek to generate profits by way of this data. It is inconceivable that these companies could amass such vast amounts of consumer data, use it for marketing purposes, sell and share access to it with other companies, and yet, somehow keep it out of the hands of the NSA and similar intelligence agencies. Likewise, the extraordinary hacks, mods and exploits the NSA has conducted, as revealed by Snowden, would not be thwarted by any IANA regulation. Aggression by the US is not an Internet problem, and Internet governance can not do away with it, any more that it can do away with drone strikes and regime change projects.

Yet, there is lots that governments can do to ensure the right to privacy, and they can do so today, even absent any change in global Internet governance.

Governments have the ability to regulate the way Telecomms and Internet companies operate within their countries, indeed, the government is no stranger to creating regulation. Government regulation ensures buildings are built correctly, structurally sound, follow the fire code, etc. Governments create rules that make sure highways, roads, and sidewalks are used safely. Governments pass laws to prevent consumers from being defrauded, create statuary warranties, labour standards, regulate broadcast media, etc. Governments can pass regulations to protect the right to privacy. The idea that the Governments such as Brazil, Germany and the others participating in NETMundial need reforms to IANA and friends before they can work towards guaranteeing their own citizens’ right to privacy is absurd.

To guarantee the right to privacy, communication systems must implement the end-to-end principle, which states that functionality ought to reside in the end hosts of a network rather than in intermediary nodes. The term “end-to-end” principle was coined in a 1981 paper by J.H. Saltzer, D.P. Reed and D.D. Clark at the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, “End-to-End Arguments in System Design,” in which they specifically address privacy.

In the section titled “Secure transmission of data,” the authors argue that to ensure “that a misbehaving user or application program does not deliberately transmit information that should not be exposed,” the “automatic encryption of all data as it is put into the network […] is a different requirement from authenticating access rights of a system user to specific parts of the data.” This means that to protect the users’ rights to privacy, it is not sufficient to encrypt the network itself, or even the platform, as this does not protect against the operators of the network, or other users who have access to the platform. What is needed, the authors argue, is the “use of encryption for application-level authentication and protection,” meaning that only the software run by the user on the end-node, or their own personal computer, should be able to encrypt and decrypt information for transmission, rather than any intermediary nodes, and only with the user’s own login credentials.

The end-to-end principle is a key concept in the design of the Internet itself, the underlying “Transmission Control Protocol,” one of the core protocols of the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP), exemplifies the end-to-principle, and allows applications running on remote nodes to use the Internet for the reliable communication of arbitrary data across the network, without requiring any of the intermediary nodes to know or understand the purpose of the data being transmitted.

In principle, therefore, there is absolutely nothing technically stopping everybody from employing private communications on the Internet. So then, how do we get into this mess we’re in now? Why did the Internet, which has the end-to-end principle in it’s core architecture, become host to the most large scale mass surveillance in history?

Two reasons: Capitalism and IPv4. Let’s start with IPv4.

Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4) was created in 1981, the same year the Saltzer, Reed, and Clark paper was published. IPv4 provides approximately 4.3 billion addresses, which sounds like a lot, until you realize the every device that connects to the Internet needs at least one. Running out was not presumed to be a big issue at the time, as this version was originally presumed to be a test of DARPA’s networking concepts, and not the final addressing scheme for the global Internet. In 1981 4.3 billion addresses seemed like an awful lot, but when the public Internet began to take off in the Nineties, it became clear that this would not be nearly enough. In 1998 RFC 2460 was released, this document is the specification for IPv6, an addressing scheme that allows for a near limitless number of addresses, trillions of trillions for each person on earth. Yet, as NETMundial was taking place in Brazil, nearly 16 years since the protocol was invented, Google reports that about 3% of visits to its services use IPv6. The “World IPv6 Launch” site, which promotes IPv6 adoption, estimates that more than half Internet users around the world will have IPv6 available by 2018. In other words, 20 years after the design of the protocol, nearly half of all Internet users will not have access. It’s important to note that it is not hardware adoption that is holding things up, it’s highly doubtful that many device made in the last 10 years could not support IPv6, it’s rather that the owners of the networks do not configure their networks to support it.

As everybody knows, 20 years is effectively infinity in Internet years. With IPv6 a far away utopia, and with IPv4 addresses still the currency of Internet service, NAT was developed. The vast majority of devices available to users where not assigned public IP addresses, but only private ones, separated from the public internet by “Network Address Translation” (NAT), a system that allowed the sharing of public IP addresses by many end-nodes, this was an effective solution to IPv4 address exhaustion, but introduced a bigger problem, the network was no longer symmetric, software running on users’ computers can reach central Internet resources, but can not reach other users, who are also on private address space, without some intermediary service providing access.

What this means is that so long as users’ are on private address space, any communication system they use requires centralized resources to bridge connections between users, and what’s more, the scale of these central resources must grow in proportion to the the number of users it has. In order for the end-to-end principle to be respected, these intermediary services need to support it.

And this where we get to the Capitalism part: Building, maintaining and scaling these resources requires money. In the case of “web scale” platforms, lots of money.

By and large, this money comes from Venture Capital. As Capitalists must capture profit or lose their capital, these platforms require business models, and while many business models are possible, the most
popular today, the one presumed to be the most lucrative by investors, is big data. Thus, instead of respecting the end-to-end principle and engineering functionality into the end hosts of a network, capitalists instead only invest in applications where core functionality is built into the intermediary nodes, that can capture user data and control user interaction, which is how they make money.

Capitalist platforms grow and collect data around these intermediary nodes in the same way the mould grows around leaky pipes. In order to give alternative platforms that respect the right to privacy a fighting chance and rid the Internet of the mould of centralize data-collecting platforms, we must fix the pipes, we need to remove the asymmetry in the network.

We can not allow private initiative alone to push adoption of IPv6, and wait however many years or decades it takes to get it. If governments want to promote their citizens right to privacy, they need to mandate adoption of IPv6, to ensure their citizens are able to use software that respects the end-to-end principle.

Here is a charter of rights that all Governments can provide to their own citizens right now to promote the right of privacy:

– IPv6 connectivity with adequate public address space for all!
– At least one DNS Domain Name for every citizen!
– At least one Government signed SSL certificate for every citizen!

If each citizen had a public address space, a domain name and a signed certificate, the leaky pipes of the Internet could be fixed, the surveillance mould would dissipate, and new privacy-respecting applications could flourish!

DEMAND IPv6 NOW!

Anti-Capitalism: The Musical! and The Panel! // Galway, Ireland.

I’ll be in Galway, Ireland, this weekend, to particate in a panel to discuss the themes in “Anti-Capitalism: The Musical!”

The Panel is free to attend. All are welcome. Please pass it on.

Anti-Capitalism: The Musical!

Venue: The Cube, NUI Galway
Áras Na Mac Léinn
NUI Galway National University of Ireland, Galway
University Road
Co. Galway
Phone: +353 91 524411
URL: http://www.nuigalway.ie/

choreographed & composed by Deirdre Murphy

A fairytale of musical theatre, using circus, song, and dance to create a near-future political reality similar to our own. A large scale theatrical narrative with a cast of 15 dancers, singers, circus performers, actors and a live band, it uses acrobatics, plot twists, assassinations, and intrigue to tell the tale of a heroic group of everyday acrobats, aided by the Greek-chorus style narrations of a powerful triumvirate of fairy godmothers.
‘Social criticism wrapped in wit, glee and stunning physical & vocal performance’.

Anti-Capitalism: The Panel!
Sunday, March 30 at 2:30pm

A panel of speakers from various backgrounds lead an open discussion on issues raised by Anti-Capitalism: the Musical!

Since the financial crash of 2008 the world has entered into a new depression. While some in the top 1% have remained comfortable, the .01% of the richest in the population have become much richer. At the same time that the broad mass of the population is struggling to make ends meet. Unemployment, underemployment, emigration and the misuse of internships are serious problems. Climate change and other environmental problems which at one time seemed to be on the agenda have disappeared from public discourse.

We will explore what we can do and how to get involved in doing it.

Chair: Gavin Mendel-Gleason
panel speakers: Deirdre Murphy, Dmytri Kleiner, John Bissett

M-C-LOL: Circuits of value in the Lulz economy.

Neither free software, nor crowd funding will save us from capitalism. We can’t overthrow capitalism by undertaking work merely for the Lulz, we need to create new value circuits that allow is to build new means of survival for the planet, and only then can we do away with capitalism.

In the stages of capitalist production, the Capitalist comes to market twice. The first time as a buyer, the second time as a seller.

Marx described this as M – C – M’

In the first stage the capitalist buys commodities and labour time. In the second stage, the purchased commodities and labour time are put into production. The result is a commodity of more value than that of the elements entering into its production. In the third stage, the capitalist returns to the market as a seller; the new commodities are turned into more money.

As the capitalist winds up with more money as a result of the productive process, the capitalist can purchase more labour time and commodities and repeat the process again, and again.

Investing in production allows the capitalist to reproduce, increase and accumulate capital. This reproduction cycle is what makes capitalism a thriving, dynamic system, that expands.

This very process of capitalist production has many negatives, many of which extend from the inherent exploitation involved in making labour time into a commodity, many others from the practice of allocating productive assets in the interests of profit, instead of social good, still more from the dispossesion and enclosure required to create the social conditions for capitalist production.

Yet, capitalism sustains us. Despite it’s social costs, its factories and institutions provide the means of survival that the world depends on, even while it’s contradictions jeopardize our survival.

In order to transcend capitalism, we need to find ways to provision the means of survival differently. “Ending” Capitalism, before alternative productive strategies for survival are not only conceived, but actually existing on sufficient scale, would more likely lead to collapse and a new dark ages than it would a fairer and more sustainable society.

In order for any such alternative productive strategies to grow to a scale in which they could be a viable alternative to capitalism, they must, like capitalism be thriving, dynamic systems capable of growth. They need to be able to reproduce their productive inputs. Economic alternatives need to have sustainable value circuits to be truly viable.

Free Software as well as the goods financed by Kickstarter and similar sites seem like production, after all stuff is produced. One can use free software, just like one can consume a movie, book, album or novelty gadget funded by Kickstarter.

Yet, the way the creation of these goods is financed can not reproduce its inputs.

In the creation of free software and in the funding of Kickstarter projects, money to sustain the inputs comes from donation, either actual donation of money in the case of crowd funding, or in-kind in the form of free labour in the case of some free software. These donations and in-kind contributions are done voluntarily. Yet such voluntarist production is different from capitalist production.

M – C – LOL

Thus, like capitalists, voluntary producers, come to market twice. Fist time as buyers, the second time for the lulz. However, unlike capitalists their circuit is not completed, because the lulz do not enable them to be buyers again, do not allow for them to acquire the inputs they need to repeat such production.

Yes, in the case of Free Software, major corporations do provide funding, lots of it. This is when the Capitalist is coming to market as a buyer, not a seller. Thus it is capitalist consumption, they don’t need to make a profit from Free Software directly, they use it in their production process and make money when they return to the market with the resulting product, which is distributed for more money, not lulz.

The source of this money is not a new mode of production, but capitalism. It’s simply part of the investment capital must make in its means of production, it is consumption not production.

And yes, recipients of Kickstarter financing can use such financing to make money, but such income does not flow back to those that donated the funds in the first place. The donors, for the most part, need to go back to work to get another paycheck before donating again. Thus the money comes from their Capitalist employers and is spent out of their “disposable income,” in other words, once again it is consumption, not production.

Both free software and crowd funding are simply novel forms of distribution within the capitalist mode of production, and therefor not a new mode of production that could potentially disrupt capitalism.

In order to transform these practices into genuinely revolutionary forms, we must collectively own the means of production so created, so not only must the software be free, but we must collectively own the wealth that results form using the software in production. We must collectively own the products produced by crowd funding, so that we can use the wealth created to reproduce the cycle, again, and again.

So long as our free labour earns only lulz in return, Capitalism has the last laugh.

I’ll be at Cafe Buchhandlung tonight around 9pm or so, come by if you’re in time, hope we have lots of surprise guests still hanging around Berlin after transmediale.

Scratch-off the Facebook logo, and you’ll find the CompuServ logo underneath.

During the summer I traveled to the Monostori Fortress near Komárom, Hungary to attend IslandCQ 2013 “Crisis! Re/Constructing Europe.” This text is for the IslandCQ 2013 publication. Rather than simply transcribing my presentation, I have created this text to cover some of things we talked about, and to expand upon them and take the topic further. This text is a remix and extension of three previous texts, two from my blog, and one co-written with Baruch Gottlieb.

Remixing and forking both software and text is an approach I have used for years, and indeed most of my texts contain fragments of other texts, some of which I have written myself, some co-written with others. I inherited this technique from the long history of radical art, from practitioners of cut-up, like Brion Gysin and William Burroughs, to Dada and The Situationists International, and into my own generation with the Neoist Network.

The Internet and free software, to me, were a natural extension of my already existing support of free communications and anti-copyright. When I encountered the Internet for the first time I immediately embraced it, its distributed architecture, its capacity for allowing free speech, and perhaps most significantly, its culture of sharing. The Internet embodied the social relations to match my political and artistic convictions.

However, when I encountered the Internet, though I didn’t know it, it was already dying. It was clear to me that there were challenges, to be sure, but I didn’t yet realize how bad the prognosis was. To me, my fight to save the Internet was against the cencorius desires of other users and the timidity of the small companies providing internet services. This was a fight that seemed winnable. However, what I didn’t know at the time, was that the real fight was against Capitalism, and as such, the inevitable end of the Internet was already evident.

A good example of my early participation is a text I posted on Usenet, it was republished on Wired Magazine’s HotWired site, which claimed to be the world’s first commercial web magazine. In it, I argue that sysadmins working for internet service providers should focus on keeping their servers running, and sanction users that are abusing system resources, but not interfere with content, because if they did so, if they assumed the role of online censor, they would jeopardise the spirit of the Net, and also jeopardise the viability of their own service.

In some way I was right, assuming the Net worked the way we thought it worked, worked the way that John Perry Barlow thought when he wrote “We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity,” or the way John Gilmore thought when he wrote “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it,” or the way Richard Barbrook thought when he wrote “Within the Net, people are developing the most advanced form of collective labour: work-as-gift.”

Unfortunately, I wrote my article in September. The 790th day of September, 1993, to be exact. What would have been October 31st, 1995 on the pre-September calendar.

The Jargon File defines “The September that never ends” as “All time since September 1993. One of the seasonal rhythms of Usenet used to be the annual September influx of clueless newbies who, lacking any sense of netiquette, made a general nuisance of themselves. This coincided with people starting college, getting their first internet accounts, and plunging in without bothering to learn what was acceptable. These relatively small drafts of newbies could be assimilated within a few months. But in September 1993, AOL users became able to post to Usenet, nearly overwhelming the old-timers’ capacity to acculturate them; to those who nostalgically recall the period before, this triggered an inexorable decline in the quality of discussions on newsgroups.”

Once the internet was available to the general public, outside of the research/education/NGO world that had inhabited it before September, the large numbers of users arriving on the untamed shores of early cyberspace “nearly overwhelmed the old-timers’ capacity to acculturate them.” The Jargon File mentions “netiquette,” a quaint term from the innocent times of net.culture, yet netiquette was not simply a way of fitting in, it wasn’t like table manners at an exclusive dinner party. The cultural context of that Internet that made acculturation necessary was its relative openness and lack of stratification.

Netiquette was required, because the network had relatively little constraints built into it, the constraints needed to be cultural for the system to work. There was much more to this culture than teaching new users how to not abuse resources or make a “general nuisance of themselves.” Netiquette was not so much about online manners, it was rather about how to share. Starting from the shared network resources, sharing was the core of the culture, which not only embraced free software and promoted free communications, but generally resented barriers to free exchange, including barriers required to protect property rights and any business models based on controlling information flow.

As dramatic as the influx of new users was to the “old-timers” net.culture, the influx of capital investment and it’s conflicting property interests quickly emerged as an existential threat to the basis of the culture. net.culture required a shared internet, where the network itself and most of the information on it was held in common. Capital required control, constraints and defined property in order to earn returns on investment. Lines in the sand were drawn, the primitive communism of the pre-September Internet was over. The Eternal September began, and along with it, the stratification of the Internet began.

Rather than embracing the free, open platforms where net.culture was born, like Usenet, email, IRC, etc, Capital embraced the Web. Not as the interlinked, hypermedia, world-wide-distributed publishing platform it was intended to be, but as a client-server private communications platform where users’ interactions were mediated by the platforms’ operators. The flowering of “Web 2.0″ was Capital’s re-engineering of the web into an internet accessible version of the online services they were building all along, such as the very platforms whose mass user bases were the influx that started the Eternal September. CompuServ and AOL most notable among them.

The Eternal September started when these Online Services allowed their users to access Internet services such as Usenet and email. Web 2.0 replaced Usenet and email with social platforms embedded in private, centralized web-based services that look and work very much like the old Online Services.

Scratch-off the Facebook logo, and you’ll find the CompuServ logo underneath.

The Internet is no longer an open free-for-all where old-timers acculturate new-comers into a community of co-operation and sharing. It is a stratified place where the culture of sharing and co-operation has been destroyed by the terms of service of online platforms and by copyright lobbies pushing for greater and greater restrictions and by governments that create legislation to protect the interests of property and “security” against the interests of sharing.

The culture of co-operation and sharing has been replaced by a culture of surveillance and control.

Much later that September, the 6,820th day of September, 1993, to be exact, I gave a talk with Jacob Appelbaum at the 6th annual Re:publica conference in Berlin. In part, I responded to the earlier presentation by Eben Moglen, the brilliant and tireless legal council of the Free Sofare Foundation and founder of the FreedomBox Foundation, who gave a characteristically excellent speech. However, in it was something that just couldn’t be right.

Moglen claimed that Facebook’s days as a dominant platform are numbered, because we will soon have decentralized social platforms, based on projects such as FreedomBox, users will operate collective social platforms based on their own hardware, retain control of their own data, etc. The trajectory that Moglen is using has centralized social media as the starting point and distributed social media as the place we are moving toward. But in actual fact, this transformation had already occured very long ago.

During the twilight of the CompuServ era, both personal and commercial users migrated en masse to the Internet. For instance, in a letter to their customers that is still available online the software company BASIS international, “The Big Little Software Company,” writes: “BASIS plans to move completely off CompuServe (CSi) and onto the Internet. This is a logical consequence of the many changes that have taken place in the online world over the past few years.”

In their letter, BASIS spells out a lot of these changes: “While our CSi presence has served the company well in the past, its pay-to-access structure is increasingly harder to justify with the Internet providing almost limitless content at a negligible incremental cost. People are moving away from CSi in significant numbers, making it a less effective platform from which to address our current and future customers. We believe that moving our existing support infrastructure from CSi to the Internet will give us better access to our customers and our customers better access to us.”

It goes on to explain how it will now use open platforms like email, Usenet and IRC instead of CompuServ’s proprietary and centralised applications. This letter was published around the same time HotWired reposted my Usenet article.

Contrary to Moglen’s trajectory of social media, the fact is that we already had distributed social media, we already abandoned the centrally controlled platforms such as CompuServ and AOL, and moved to the Internet, and despite this, our decentralized platforms have since been replaced, once again, with centralized social media. Why? Because Capitalism.

The Internet is a distributed social media platform. The classic internet platforms that existed before the commercialization of the web provided all the features of modern social media monopolies. Platforms like Usenet, email, IRC and finger allowed us to do everything we do now with Facebook and friends. We could post status updates, share pictures, send messages, etc. Yet, these platforms have been more or less abandoned. So the question we need to address is not so much how we can invent a distributed social platform, but how and why we started from a fully distributed social platform and replaced it with centralized social media monopolies.

The answer is quite simple. The early internet was not significantly capitalist funded. The change in application topology came along with commercialization, and this change is a consequence of the business models required by capitalist investors to capture profit. The business model of social media platforms is surveillance and behavioral control. The internet’s original protocols and architecture made surveillance and behavioral control more difficult. Once capital became the dominant source of financing it directed investment toward centralized platforms, which are better at providing such surveillance and control, the original platforms were starved of financing. The centralized platforms grew and the decentralized platforms submerged beneath the rising tides of the capitalist web.

This is nothing new. This was the same business model that capital devised for media in general, such as network television. The customer of network television is not the viewer, rather the viewer is the product, the “audience commodity.” The real customers are the advertisers and lobby groups wanting to control the audience.

Network Television didn’t provide the surveillance part, so advertisers needed to employ market research and ratings firms such as Nielson for that bit. This was a major advantage of social media. Richer data from better surveillance allowed for more effective behavioral control than ever before, using tracking, targeting, machine learning, behavioral retargeting, among many techniques made possible by the deep pool of data companies like Facebook and Google have available.

This is not a choice that capitalists made, this is the only way that profit-driven organizations can provide a public good like a communication platform. Capitalist investors must capture profit or lose their capital. If their platforms can not capture profit, they vanish. The obstacle to decentralized social media is not that it has not been invented, but the profit-motive itself. Thus to reverse this trajectory back towards decentralization, requires not so much technical initiative, but political struggle.

So long as we maintain the social choice to provision our communication systems according to the profit motive, we will only get communications platforms that allow for the capture of profit. Free, open systems, that neither surveil, nor control, nor exclude, will not be funded, as they do not provide the mechanisms required to capture profit. These platforms are financed for the purpose of watching people and pushing them to behave in ways that benefit the operators of the platform and their real customers, the advertisers, and the industrial and political lobbies. The platforms exists to shape society according to the interests of these advertisers and lobbies.

Platforms like Facebook are worth billions precisely because of their capacity for surveillance and control.

Like the struggle for other public goods, like education, child care, and health care, free communication platforms for the masses can only come from collective political struggle to achieve such platforms.

This is a political struggle, not a technical one.

Chelsea Manning, Mr. Bumble’s Wife, and the Law as the Ass of Capital

“Oh, Eeyore, you are wet!” said Piglet, feeling him. Eeyore shook himself, and asked somebody to explain to Piglet what happened when you had been inside a river for quite a long time.

Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison. And as there should be, there is wide scale outrage over this. Manning’s punishment is more than many convicted of rape, murder, and even of war crimes. As such, many are decrying this apparent miscarriage of justice.

Eeyore would probably ask somebody to explain what happened when you challenged the power of the State. I’ll give it a try.

The phrase “the law is an ass” was popularized by Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist, when the character Mr. Bumble is told he is legally responsible for his wife’s theft of some jewelry as “the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction”. Mr. Bumble replies “If the law supposes that … the law is a ass — a idiot. … I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience”

The dictionary gives several meaning for the word “ass.” Mr. Bumble is using the word to mean “a pompous fool.”

The law, he supposes, is as misguided as a fool, and with some more experience, “his” eye would be open, and he would realize that woman are independent people and their husband’s don’t control them, and thereby that Mr. Bumble should not be held responsible for his wife’s stealing.

Foolishness seems an odd charge to make of such a studious and contested field as the law.

The law is forged on behalf of the most powerful by their most vetted representatives. Could it be that they simply didn’t know women enough to realize women where real independent people? Or, perhaps more likely, they wanted to employ the law to restrict the independence of woman?

In the Theory of the Leisure Class, Veblen writes “The early differentiation out of which the distinction between a leisure and a working class arises is a division maintained between men’s and women’s work in the lower stages of barbarism. Likewise the earliest form of ownership is an ownership of the women by the able bodied men of the community”

In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels write “The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production.”

Maybe the law as not as foolish as it seems, rather it’s simply promoting the interests of the leisure class against the working class and ensuring patriarchal property rights. So perhaps, the law is not an ass in the sense of “pompous fool,” but rather in another meaning from the dictionary, a “hardy and sure-footed animal, smaller and with longer ears than the horse.”

The donkey has been used as a working animal for at least 5000 years. Rather than acting the fool, what the law is doing is carrying water for the beneficiaries of a stratified society. It is the means by which the class structure protects itself from threats. The level of crime, and thereby the just punishment is not based on the damage done to individuals, but rather the threat to the structures that allow one class to exploit another.

The law is an ass. It is capital’s loyal ass. And to use the word in another sense, “the fleshy part of the body that you sit on,” that’s exactly where Chelsea Manning kicked it.

If you understand legal justice as being rooted in fairness and equality, then it is impossible to understand how Manning could possibly be deserving of more punishment than those who commit heinous, violent and inhuman crimes. However, if you understand legal justice in a materialist sense, you realize that hurting people doesn’t necessarily hurt capital or threaten the structure of class society, and therefor is not such a big crime.

Attacking the legitimacy of the State is a very big crime.

From the point of view of Capitalism, Manning got what she deserved. As such, cries for “fair” treatment for Chelsea are likely to fall on deaf ears. Though it’s ears are long, Capitalism’s ass only hears what it wants to. We can only change the logic of the law by resisting capitalism.

On a happier note, DJ Podinski is back from his Balkan adventure with new beats to share, so join us at Buchhandlung this evening!

 

David Miranda, Keith Vaz and Legitimizing the “Ordinary” State.

When I met David Miranda, he was introduced to me as Glenn’s partner. I nodded and smiled and was pleased to meet him. I chatted with David about his home in Brazil, about his 10 dogs and the banana-throwing monkeys that torment them, and other things. A few minutes later, after hearing again that he was “Glenn’s husband,” I whispered to a friend “Um, who’s Glenn?” “Glenn Greenwald” I was told.

David and I didn’t talk about Greenwald, Snowden, the NSA, or any other such thing. I was quite surprised when yesterday morning, while still in the French mountains for a Telekommunisten retreat with several friends, I heard that David was detained in the UK, and that his computer, cellphone, storage media, etc., was taken away from him.

The same day I met David, another friend’s backpack, also containing cellphones and storage media, was stolen from the bar we we’re in. It seems possible these things are connected, perhaps some clumsy SIGINT looking to intercept Snowden material destined for Greenwald.

Many voices have quite rightfully come forward to protest the detainment of Miranda, especially under the specious pretence of anti-terror legislation, and rightfully so. We must all protest the further degradation of our ability to travel and to keep possession of our personal belongings and data, and to maintain our privacy.

In doing so, we must remember that the rule of law and the power of the State is not guided by wisdom or fairness, but always by the interests of the most powerful. And always against whatever adversaries they face.

The state is not a neutral, disinterested mediator, uninfluenced by regard to personal interest nor free from bias or prejudice. The state does mediate among the classes, but always on behalf of the dominant class, and what’s more, there is nothing sinister or nefarious about this, this is nothing more than a material fact, like the fact that moss grows on the damp side of the rock.

The unequal distribution of moss on the surface of a rock is not a conspiracy against the sunny side of the rock, but simply a matter of irrigation. The moss needs water to grow, there is simply more of it on the shady side.

Just as moss needs water, power needs wealth, and the wealth of the most powerful provides the irrigation for the growth of the State, which would shrivel without it. The interests of the State are always ultimately driven by the interests of wealth. We can not change this. The only thing we can change is how wealth is created and distributed in society by producing and sharing differently and thereby change what the State’s interests are.

So long as the the wealthiest members of society depend on control and exploitation, the State will serve the interests of control and exploitation. If we can instead develop ways to build social wealth based on co-operation and equality, the State, to whatever degree it is needed at all, will serve these interests instead. It is not a matter of clandestine schemes to control the state, it’s a matter of irrigation.

British Labour MP Keith Vaz called the detention of David Miranda “extraordinary.” Yet, there is nothing “extraordinary” about the State attempting to intercept communications by physically taking away media and storage devices. The hollow protestation of Keith Vaz is just part of the spin to deflect attention away from the systemic fact that the State is using its power to protect its interests, and instead frame the story as the behaviour of particular government agents, or perhaps details of law.

By calling the detention of David “extraordinary” Vaz is defending the legitimacy of the State and its power of search and seizure in the “ordinary” case. He makes this clear: “it is right that the police and security services should question people if they have concerns or the basis of any concerns about what they are doing in the United Kingdom.”

And yet, even in the ordinary case, the State will continue to develop its capacities for surveillance and control in concert with its capitalist partners, and this is what will inform the “concerns” of police.

So, while protesting injustices such as the detention of David Miranda is very important, it’s perhaps even more important to remember that it’s not enough to protest the “extraordinary” but the “ordinary” even more so.

It’s far too simple to blame tyrannical law enforcers and clueless politicians while ignoring the laws of motion of capitalism and the profit motive. We must not be under the impression that all can be fixed by simply amending some legislation and reprimanding some border guards. We must always remember that our conflict is with capitalism itself.

I’ll be at Stammtisch as usual today, at 9pm, and I look forward to seeing everybody. Though I hate to say it, please bring only what you need. Let’s watch each others stuff, and do whatever we can to keep our possessions and data safe.

 

Vote WikiLeaks 2013

Correction: Assange is standing for the Senate, not Parliament, and would therefore become a Senator, not an MP.

Entering the Ecuadorian Embassy last Wednesday felt kind of like visiting a private house, a rather posh house right beside Herrods in the conspicuous consumption district of central London, but just a house nonetheless.

The Embassy is neither fortified, nor particularly guarded, neither compound nor fortress, protected not by rampart nor battlement, but only by diplomatic law granting inviolability to diplomatic premises. Ecuador’s Embassy stands in stark contrast with the barricaded garrisons typical of US Embassies around the world. Ecuador, one supposes, has a much shorter list of official enemies.

It’s been a few years since I met Julian Assange at 26C3, and the interim has no doubt been interesting times, as WikiLeaks and Julian himself rose from hacker exemplar to international cause célèbre, currently confined as an asylee in the Embassy for over a year to avoid extradition.

The relative smallness of the building means that the street is never more than a few metres away, always visible through windows and doors, yet beyond reach for Julian, unable to step outside.

Not withstanding his confinement on Hans Crescent, Assange is standing in the Australian Federal elections with the newly formed WikiLeaks party, with elections coming up on September 7th. He stands a good chance of becoming an Australian Senator.

Obviously, the first question that comes to mind is whether or not becoming a Senator would change his situation with regard to potential extradition or somehow allow him to leave the embassy and return to Australia to attend parliament, but Assange doesn’t think it would. He plans to serve as a Senator in exile, from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. As he put it, the only way it would change the situation is make his confinement even more absurd.

The idea of the party is taking advantage of the political process as a public platform for the agenda of WikiLeaks, “Transparency. Accountability. Justice.” As their platform says, “Where the truth is suppressed or distorted, corruption and injustice flourish.” Clearly, the suppression of truth is not an Australian issue, per se, but rather a global issue and WikiLeaks has never had a policy focus, let alone Australian policy specifically.

WikiLeaks is a publisher, aiming to primarily make a contribution to journalism; “Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public.”

This makes the framing of a “WikiLeaks Party” a somewhat odd fit. Yet, my interest in it stems from my endorsement of the concept of “Counterpolitics,” the same basis of my support for the Pirate Party, and my proposal for the Debtors’ Party.

The goal of “Politics” is to impose the interests of powerful groups on the rest of society. The Political process provides a pretense of participation and thereby provides legitimization for rule. However, political participation requires the capacity to campaign, to donate, to lobby, etc, so in the end it’s a battle of capacities in which only the wealthy can push relentlessly towards their own interests. The interests of the less wealthy and less powerful groups can never be imposed by way of the political process, as those that are more powerful will inevitably have more wealth with which to resist them.

This is why the goals of less powerful groups must be pursued from the bottom up, by building and expanding alternatives, not by way of top down restructuring of society through the power of the State.

Thus, our political engagement is not politics proper, but rather counterpolitics. Our goal can not be to impose a new society from the top down, since only dominant groups can impose their interests that way, but rather to resist attacks on our ability to build alternatives.

As such, it doesn’t matter whether or not a WikiLeaks Party represents a coherent platform for ruling Australia, the party will never rule Australia, and we can not achieve communism by offering to manage capitalism for the capitalists.

What does matter is whether or not the WikiLeaks Party can, by way of participating in Australian parliament, and by way of using that country’s upcoming elections as a publicity platform, help defend our ability to build the new society in the shell of the old. Just like the Pirate Party and the proposed Debtors’ Party, I believe it can.

Australia, Vote WikiLeaks 2013!

I’ll be at Stammtisch at Cafe Buchhandlung tonight at 9pm or so, look forward to see you all there.

The Quantity Theory of Money is the Flat Earth Theory of Economics.

There’s an old joke that you can prove that the earth is flat with a simple experiment you can do anywhere: Jump!

Since scientists claim that Earth is rotating at a very high rate of speed, by simply jumping up as high as you can, you can prove it’s not true! If the Earth were indeed spinning at such a fast speed, wouldn’t you land hundreds of feet away instead of in the exact same spot you jumped from? Obviously the Earth is flat! QE god-damn D!

Quantity Theory believers also often start with a similarly personal scale from which to understand a macroeconomic question. They have a fixed amount of money. Money, to them, is like a pile of stuff. If you imagine that everything else there is to buy in the world is a similar pile of stuff, then, obviously, if you take the total amount of money in the pile of money and divide it up by total amount of stuff in the pile of stuff: you have the value of money.

If you increase the amount of money, by, for instance (in the flat earth vernacular) “printing” it, each “piece” of money in the pile goes down in value, because the pile of stuff still has the same amount of stuff. “More money chases fewer goods” as they say.

Joan Robinson frequently recounts that the great Michal Kalecki once exclaimed to her “I have found out what economics is; it is the science of confusing stocks with flows!” The trouble with the flat earth economists, is that they confuse the dynamic flows of production and consumption that make up an economy with static piles of stuff. Robinson further reasoned that “it is this confusion that has kept the Quantity Theory of Money alive until today.”

Just to start with, money is not something that is “printed,” the physical number of paper bills or minted coins is simply an artefact of the retail demand for such to conduct cash transactions. Money is either spent into existence by the government, or lent into existence by the banks. The amount of money created by government spending is a matter of government policy, the amount of money created by banks is a matter of the level of qualified demand for borrowing there is in the economy. In neither case is there any pile of paper, coins, or anything else that limits how much they can spend or lend.

A flat earth economist reasons that if more money is created (“printed”) the value of money necessarily goes down. This would only be the case if the total number of things to buy where a fixed stock. Not only that, it also assumes that any new money would be necessarily spent on buying things, and these things are locally produced.

In reality, of course, the number of things to buy is not fixed, in most economies, particularly in down-cycles, unemployment exists, and so does underutilized productive capacity. New money can be created in such a way so as to put more people to work and more capital to work to produce more things, as such, the flow of money and the flow of goods both increase.

And of course, not all new money is spent on locally produced goods, thus newly created money is also sometimes simply saved, or used to repay debt, or is sent abroad and results in greater imports and foreign savings.

When you add it all up, it becomes very clear that the amount of money that is “printed” (aka spent) by the government tells you very little about the level of prices on it’s own, this can only be understood within the context of sectoral balances, taxation levels, unemployment, utilization of productive capacity and local and foreign propensity to save the currency.

To put this in terms of a macroeconomic identity, the quantity theory of money can be expressed as MV = PQ. M is the number of units of money in our pile of money, and V is the number of transactions that occur in a given period, this must, by definition, be equal to the price level (P) multiplied by the real GDP (Q), our pile of stuff.

As Bill Mitchell argues, following Kalecki and Robinson, to render this a theory of inflation one has to assume that V and Q are fixed, in other words that propensity to save, invest and import never change and that the economy is always operating at full capacity. Since that is empirically demonstrable to be not the case, the assertion that an increase in M necessarily results in an increase in P is demonstrably false. This theory is as dead as they come.

So what is the real reason that zombie economic theories like the Quantity Theory continue to stalk the earth when they have been unequivocally refuted ages ago? Remember that all money is created in one of two ways, it is spent into existence by the government or lent into existence by the banks.

The Quantity Theory and the related monster mash of undead theories that go along with it are popular among proponents of social austerity because they falsely imply that “printing” money necessarily leads to inflation. This means that government should be artificially limited to spending only as much as it taxes. When tax revenues fall as a result of economic downturns, government should cut spending, just as the communities it serves need government spending the most.

This is really a win-win for financial elites with lots of money! On one hand, the immiseration of workers by way of austerity allow capitalists to push for lower wages and benefits, as the workers are in a weaker position to resist, on the other hand, without any infusion of money from the government, additional money needs be borrowed instead, thus increasing interest income for all those financiers smart enough to be very rich!

The Quantity Theory of Money is nothing more than a fable invented to convince the whole of society that they should have less, so that the very rich can have even more!

In any case, as is is my tradition, I will bring a small pile of money to spend on a signification volume of beer on Tuesday night, so join me at Toronto Stammtisch at The Embassy in Kensington Market, the rest of the Telekommunisten crew and friends and will be at Cafe Buchhandlung in Berlin. Please come!