Bestand wählen

Resisting the Surveillance State and its network effects

Zitierlink des Filmsegments
Embed Code

Automatisierte Medienanalyse

Erkannte Entitäten
people were get aid so the b how everyone I can see analysis slides that see still there I handed you gotta take up of arms and so on thanks for everyone for coming out today 12 30 such high holding a try this would that I make this is much of as much of the discussion as possible and try to get the audience
involved and and topic each other of events so wrong the message again just going to understand going to start off with an opening statement that the rather short and then and then I will I will take your questions and we'll see if we can go further so my background is some local economy information with on this manifesto and they look at look at networks and vertical wages topology so we're talking about we're talking about the surveillance state I daughters died or a standard states to be simply just the government and by the way you might imagine some kind of state it's revealing its citizens but I imagine the state as being an institution of that is actually formed with the public and private sector or the private interests
are always contesting in the States so you can consider the states of the the institution that mediates among the classes but always on behalf of the ruling class right
some of the private private interests drive state whether the private interests of the people in the social power the the private interests of corporations and the money and here's the state is always is always driven by by private interests so if you want understand its surveillance there if you want to know you're resisted or comment on at all you have to look at it from the point of view of the private interests not
necessary point of view of the state as some kind of autonomous organization and the thing about surveillance is that surveillance has the possibility of behavioral control actually have always been the economic basis of media if you look back to the to the writing of the Economist Dallas life in the fifties about network television he talks about something called the audience
commodities and the consciousness industry and this is how
the media is funding media is funded it's always been funded it's not it's not it's not the media the commodity is not the media being delivered so for instance a time when they were television the commodity in question is of a television show the television show is just simply used to attract the real commodity which is the audience and the audience is not the customer not the user in any kind of any kind of sense like in the market the audience is actually what is being sold and is being sold to advertisers and lobby groups what's might call the consciousness industry the industry it's interesting to controlling your behavior and this is and this is
always been this has always been how many years funded right so what's different about modern communication platform is that the social aspect of it actually enables more surveillance so whereas in in a broadcast error they'll still be error-control with economic basis of it but the surveillance was not quite as important because what was not so much among porn but not as much available the technology of surveillance was not nearly as developed as it is as it is now and if you look at the social media
platforms and what makes them special makes them economically viable is exactly that's revealed that we build we build communication tools but not individually but as well as a society there is in the in the in the philosophy of technology there's a concept called the paradox of the frame rate which shows which is kind of interesting to understand it's that the pair the pair of people often assume that success follows efficiency that if you have a technology that sufficient will become successful but in actual fact efficiency follows the success rate of technology becomes efficient because successful for social reasons and therefore has social investment therefore we use a social capacity further and by iterations of going it further it becomes successful right so if you look at the
platforms like the social media platforms so we all know like Twitter like Facebook and things like that they didn't become successful because because they were efficient they became efficient because they were successful in the game efficient because they provided they provided a business model that could be funded by capitalism and business model is surveillance so it's not an accident it's not it's not something that the negative consequences of social media surveillance and behavioral control is the purpose of is the reason they get funding Reznik investment and and and it's the with the means by which the investors can get a richer and their get a return on their investment right so investors invest money into into into into a start up and I hope to get more money back in them and the business model here is is based on surveillance and behavioral control that's what from the internet and that's and that's what that's what always has
funded funded funded for development now I we referred alot
of times here on this question of extra valence and and and 1 of the solutions 1 of solutions proposed is that we need to build a different social media and use social media once 1 based around distributed servers and peer-to-peer software and all this kind of stuff and this is actually a really really funny point of view because this sort of assumes that we have something now called social media and we can reinvented in a peer-to-peer form right but it's actually very strange because of course we've already had sort of a distributed social media platforms so you may remember it's called the internet right the internet was a social media platform was fully distributed from its earlier days technologies such as e-mail Iousy finger in you have addressed books of your friends share and share share photographs posters in journalism put status updates all of that was there so the question that we should be asking is not how we can move from centralized surveyed social media funded by surveillance and be able
control to open and free social media the question
should really be how is it that we went from Free and open
social media to centralized platform especially the question that the transformation that happened we already had distributed federated social media is not something in needed to invent it's something that we actually abandoned and why did we abandon the reason the advantages because once again what is the business model right when you look at the classing peer-to-peer platforms a peer-to-peer platform is based on the idea that individual individual users can directly communicate with 1 another when individual users can directly communicate with 1 another thing you don't have is exactly the surveillance and behavioral control the capitalist media funding depends on so somewhat resisting resisting surveillance we're entering the question is not simply a matter of like house 1 the government or creating some kind of technology that will let you have a certain way to evade certain kinds of surveillance the question to ask is the social question how can we build the social capacity for communication which without depending on surveillance of the and the surveillance and behavioral control as the primary funding method I leave it at that for now and so we can go 1 and 1 for the capacitor Jake thanks those so concerned about it here and abroad
demo on at the last 2nd because I felt that it would be important to have say exactly what you just said as I've
heard quite a lot of people that talk about post privacy and they talk about it in terms of feeling like you know it's too late right where were done for there's just like no possibility for privacy left anymore and we just have to get used to it and this is a this is pretty fascinating thing because it seems to me that you never hear of feminist say they were most concerned because there is great right and why is that the reason is because that's bullshit right we can't have a post privacy world until were post privilege right this is what the most talking about so when we cave in our sort of I guess you could say economy then we can sort of say well OK we don't we don't need privacy anymore in fact we don't have priors same on I'm OK with that realistically I think most people are not comfortable with that because if you only look at it from a position of privilege like say white man on a stage then yeah because privacy maybe works out OK
for those people but if you've ever not or if you are currently not a white man with a passport from 1 of the 5 good nations in the world it might not really work out well for you and in fact it might be designed specifically such that it will continue to not work out well for you because the structures themselves produce these inequalities so when you hear someone talking about post privacy I think it's really important to engage them about their own privilege in the system and what it is that they are actually arguing for so for example they might say something like well it's a utopian world there were talking about we wanna live in Utopia where it's possible to have this kind of was privacy world where we don't have to worry about this for a can of cameras everywhere everything we do can be recorded will have lots of good data about what it is that you want to purchase when you go to a bookstore before you even arrived and that's maybe they're version of utopia but I think that that sounds like a dystopia actually I don't want to live in a world where people spy on each other all the time that sounds like a total nightmare and so if if that is the utopia that they're talking about the good news is that we can't ever reach because we will not ever be post privilege with the structures that exist in our society right now but it's still important to say that if for some reason in theory we could arrive there we need to know that that's actually not the end point right part of part of the least form from me about philosophical and political anarchism is this notion that there actually isn't an end point right and as a result this means that when people have these utopian ideals and they discuss them as if that's the place in which we must arrive and and stay there and they're not really thinking I think quite clearly about the fact that for some people we are at the end of their of their utopian idea and we will continue to want to change it because it turns out it's actually not as good as we thought it might be worth
as people previously thought that it might be and and so it it I think it is there some concrete examples here but the
secrecy of the vote in democracy is extremely important I think for representatives who representing you secrecy and their vote is actually about accountability so they don't really and in many democracies they don't actually get this secrecy and this may be a good thing for accountability now the structure itself is still not necessarily just but for
us to be able to have secrecy vote it allows us to keep our jobs it allows us to be able to live in a world with people that do not entirely agree with us and to have some amount of dignity so for example the naked scanners that exists all across the world but especially in Europe and in the United States some of which have ionizing cancer causing machine parts right there like pretty scary even if they were completely safe they would still be undignified and that in itself regardless of whether or not you get cancer from is actually as important because in fact living without dignity living without privacy is a cancer in itself to society which in itself also eats away at the human and I mean I'm an atheist but I really think it also eats away at your soul when you live under that kind of surveillance like total absolute surveillance for every time you pick up the phone you know that it's being recorded you see things differently so as we sort of move into this nightmarish world we have to decide if that's actually the world we want to live in and least for myself I think for Dmitri and I would hope for 1 or 2 people in the audience that's also you and in fact in Germany in particular I find it amazing that there could be a privacy person at all but even once especially when you consider the history of the 20th century
you know without getting too much on Germany the United States seems to have not learned very much from which is kind of surprising to me we do incredible amounts of surveillance some of which is actually illegal in fact most of which if you talk about it in the bowl is legal and I think that if we're going to be post privacy we should start with the fascist 1st and we should do that by bringing them to justice for the crimes especially the crimes where they violate the democratic principles of our societies and use the surveillance and use the privilege against us especially for political and but also for basically the dignity of the people that live in these regimes and so whenever someone suggests that we should have so-called lawful intercept so that they can catch terrorists we need to remember that for every terrorist that they've ever cotton there 15 or 20 or more police officers that have beat up people at protests and still police we don't ever hear people talking about surveilling the Internet in order to catch the people that commit physical violence on those that express their political will nonviolently directly and legally why is that why is it that we always hear about child demographers and terrorists and yet at the same time we know concretely in my country for example that if you happen to be a person of color riding a train your chances of getting shot in the back of dying and then the police officer being let go after maybe no
trial at all maybe a small child may be a small
punishment basically nonzero that should be something we aim for as an actual 0 things in our society should not have to fear people that may or may not be necessary but certainly do exist the bogeyman of state terrorism in fact sort of the lesson of the 20th century and were sort of growing
Internet in the 21st century which is that state terrorism is as real as the so called asymmetric threats like the fear of Muslims basically is what most people are talking about which is pretty disgusting and we have to ask ourselves why it is that we buy into it and part of it is the emotional arguments and part of it is with Demetrius talking about which is the actual social structures that produce this but the other reason is because people feel like they don't have agency and they feel like they've already lost they don't contextualize the fact that the curtains that they have on the windows are privacy-enhancing technology or that just because you use the Internet you can use something like that or network which I and other people work on so that sites you visit actually don't have all the information about you when you're using the internet so there are things we can actually do but if you don't know those things you will feel like you have no choice and so you will rationalize and I've seen many people do it and they'll say well I'm not important so it doesn't matter or a well and you know you haven't got it but it
doesn't matter because I'm never going to attract any attention which must be really lucky and you and you know even the people they get that they realize it but there's just nothing that I can do but the reality actually is that there is something that you can do and the 1st thing that you can do is actually care about the things that are wrong and this is the thing that is wrong that affects the ability to maintain a republic or a democracy when you have for example representatives that are under total surveillance intelligence communities or even just people with like 20 dollars cell phones can know how they're gonna vote and influence that can know who is important to them can map out the social networks can do all kinds of terrible things for example the the the Zeta cartel people's privacy people I think that suggests that they
don't need to worry about privacy that at all I think it would be really fascinating to send them to like you know Juarez Mexico with like a giant what of money in their pocket and tell them to talk about privacy and how like we can all get along comedy on everything is greater than I don't think that that would work out very well and that's because contextually the white privilege long-serving entity shot in the head and minutes it's not for even got off the airplane and I'm not saying that that's the ideal state and that should happen to them but I think it's important to acknowledge that the reality that people talk about is not everyone's reality but it is everyone's reality at least in the current European and North American state and lots of Asia and lots of South America lots of Africa that it's possible to use for example strong encryption to reduce the amount of data that the surveillance state produces about us so
without the I think we've all sort of covered our different angles and I think it would be more things having everything tested anybody in the audience eventually orifice privacy 1st and this was a couple things about the problem from their to him in a
sense almost a couple things from all of the above the public-private divide so I think that's that's kind of important to take a closer look at as well because it our there is no in surveillance through surveillance by the state there's data retention laws there's all kinds there's all kinds of of
laws that all all people known about here from the DMCA there's still plenty but all these kinds of things that emerged to try to to try to enforce more surveillance and control over the Internet and the funny thing is is as important as the fight the these large still still exist expecting there to be something of a public space called the IntelliCorp public park and in these laws because it's in the public space there's still social contestation we can still fight we can fight against those laws and sometimes we even when rarely usually
the corporate interest when but sometimes we even with with social power to social movements now however when we change the context from the public park to the shopping mall that all of a sudden we never went to get a private space right so when moving from this internet this original decentralized system that we used to have that's being attacked by obvious horrible lies were still fighting in a public space when we moved to social media monopolies like Facebook like YouTube etc. We have no rights there all its private property our our our our rights there are simply based on the privileges granted by the operator which means we can use the platform only in ways that benefit the operator right so if you look at if you
if you look at things like the DM the DMCA which is 1 of the 1st of the big draconian laws that came in came into fights and perceived damages of piracy and stuff like that of cooperated material is the DMCA
assumes a causal relationship between the rights holders and the publisher that assumes a situation where somebody has a website or something that is hosting some kind of copyrighted material and and and and the and the rights holder needs of course of law that can take it to the courts to get to course this person to take it down right this is still
grants both parties rights right so even the DMCA draconian city is still grants some
rights to go to to the publisher and that they have to the right holder has the file of a court order and then and then there has to be certain timeliness to with the quarter as we farther than a certain amount of time with a constant goes back up because of the public space the rights were still going both ways but now but now because they're private spaces places like you to from the rights holder was to take
material down they no longer need to go to the courts and all they already have a relationship with the
platform that came as a condition of the funding that allows us simply take out whatever content they want and what and what is a dispute the dispute is routed not to the court's not 20 3rd party not given to that often not even to the publisher themselves but to the rights holder so when so was so when you put something up on youtube for example in a gets taken down and then you complain about it say no actually do have the rest of this the person who actually decides whether that's true is actually the rights holder not the platform not you money
judiciary so in some ways the centralization of social media is privatization of this kind of online public space has almost made these battles of the DMCA and so blind people kind of irrelevant because we're talking about what we're talking about we're talking about our rights in the public park but social space is no longer the public park are social space is now the shopping mall in which the security guards have absolute and total power and so we're talking about
privacy in this context comes back to using what privilege right I mean it's not it's you know privacy is ultimately relationship right it's a it's a relationship that we have with
society right and and there's certainly there's there might be advantages there might be advantages to me wanting to other people to know certain things about me and maybe yes maybe even vendors might be better services but it's a matter of control and if this was a public sphere may we could even have some control we can fight data retention was right but when it but it is with the private sphere we lose all control right and and and and 1 answered that people often have to this is well we just used to use Facebook see social media platforms we should use like you know I support for a status Natterer X number of various other kind of alternative social media platforms right and in some cases this is this is a valid point really support efforts to develop those platforms but in other cases it's a fantasy were selling a fantasy the reality is that social capacity to build communication platforms is has to work on a very very large scale and we need to have social
processes that actually provide for the funding sustenance development of communication platforms in the same way as needed for roads and train
systems social media platforms communication platforms don't build themselves they're are expensive to build and operate and to imagine that a few hackers can build something in their spare time they can then that can function for the 6 billion people on the planet is strictly delusional is strictly delusional it's it functions for
us I have no problem using it many many many people here use can be our own kind of private channel but it's not but but if we're going to look at how the masses communicate society itself communicates with capacity for communication is we have to ask these questions socially and we have to ask is capitalism is private is private profit the right model to build communication platforms and so we ask that question we can deal with surveillance privacy and I think it's also make them worth noting on some of the laws the doomers
talking about here so there's a lot that was recently proposed it's called Mrs. but have you heard of this and all that so basically a surrounded a couple people it's basically a surveillance law that says that all the privacy laws in the United States don't
apply anymore to corporations or the US government's and and that they would be able to surveil anything and this this fascinating notion about private property here where there's a will companies can choose if they opt in or out the funny thing is that when
18 t who collaborated with the NSA also known as the t trees and when they got together and exported people's data there were a lot of companies that probably were not involved in that and didn't want to be involved in it but because they used 18 t or communicated on the Internet through 18 teams networks which is basically everyone those people they lost they lost because someone else with more privilege instead of having a duty of care to protect the rights of people and instead of having a duty of care that comes from certain model basically monopolies or broken apart
the duty of care was clicked and they no longer have a duty of care they had a duty of patriotism to surveil everyone and sicis because along which is very similar to data protection so so-called data retention and protection laws here work which is about you know fighting criminals and so on but the fascinating thing about it is that the the UK and Canada and other places around the world are all talking about having these massive data retention source and some people would say well that's OK too can like really figure anything out from a like this the spider was just killed in the UK they can't even figure out what happened with him it's interesting because it's true that they will be incredibly incompetent and doing the things that they're selling it for but it is also the case that that's not the only reason that people build these systems the surveillance systems want them by what they say in public and what they actually want private are not necessarily perfectly matched and if anybody here is ever been the subject of intense police or state surveillance you probably know that they're a little duplicitous at times even if there are the best people which generally they are not so we can we can look at this net neutrality debate as well and we can sort of look at it in terms of privacy and we should say I
think a big part of it is that it makes it very difficult to even have private space when we have this kind of surveillance because everyone's autonomy in and and sounds can be violated by anybody that's in the middle and since the state generally has special relationships of all of these companies especially companies that have fiber-optic cables that are landing there if we don't take serious basically the threat to our privacy I think the threat to our liberty will simply not even occur to us when when it comes down to it because we will miss that battle entirely in fact the medium will not be able to be used in defense of itself because the medium will in fact be
subverted by these economic interests but in addition to the economic interest just quite simply the fact that this privilege is in itself obviously an academic economic interest but it's also in fact interested is worth preserving that is not necessarily about directed dollar or euro transfer and it's it's very very useful to have that relationship so I wanted to I wanted to say before we took it out to the stage to the audience from the stage people talk about censorship as if it is somehow independent from surveillance and 1 of the things that we need to remember is that censorship is is is a byproduct of almost all surveillance and so with the internet what we've done is we've taken loss the sum total of all human communications and we have put them into protocols which are very easy for machines to pass so for example when we speak this is a really hard problem to solve to transcribe what we're saying there's a human that's doing it in the background right now what the internet has done is it has changed all of us into using a protocol or a series of protocols electronically they're easy not only to understand in terms of the actual communication that is transmitted but also in some cases semantically like defining these friend of a friend protocols are defining these corporate social networks or having state-based ID systems that a mandatory or passports and so on we start to build a thing that allows us to use machines to correlate and to put all of this data together and historically even simple stuff like a census was enough to wipe out an entire society so we have to ask ourselves
why it is that we're building these systems now knowing what we know what people do even if the people at Google and Facebook and so on are the best people in the world and some of them are really amazing people technologists and morally the incredible people what happens when the systems are not under the control of the moral people anymore right and theory that 1 could argue that capitalism is the best system that exists or democracy is the best that exists in some way and and there are many people that have done that and that's fantastic but what safeguards exist to make
sure that when that stops being the case for the people in
the position of power when the abuse it that they're held to account in my country that has not happened in the last 10 years and that's really scary when you consider that we have drones fly and kill children right that's a really weird thing because it seems to me that we cannot ignore that these things are related for example on walking is a guy who was a big homophobic super scary kind of like and everywhere you can imagine that pushes all the buttons for Americans with regard to terrorism and he was killed by a drone in Yemen and many people I would say did not shed a tear for him but his crime was basically is associations and he was associated as far as I can tell what some pretty bad guys it is alleged he had no trial of course he possible alot of stuff on youtube and he was a total asshole as far as I can tell and he sent a bunch of e-mail again associations and for this he was killed by a flying robots and that OK maybe you're OK with that because he's a total asshole
right but his son who was 16 years old born in the United States 2 weeks later was killed by a drunk and his crime was being the son of a total asshole so that kind of Internet freedom is maybe not the kind of Internet freedom we want I want the freedom for total assholes like that cannot be
killed by drones without a trial and for his children for example to not meet the same fate and it is connected in fact when we talk about surveillance so we talk about privatization and we talk about privilege it's also important to note that the drone might not be going for what you consider to be a total asshole next time and the same is true with surveillance and with censorship which is a product of that surveillance because what is a drone killing of a person who publishes things if not the most extreme form of censorship so but that's images topic I was hoping we could take some questions and I get the feeling is that the world has had a part of area before we take questions to
really stand up than others some people will lead to stand up
1 vertical lot stretch out so that that's that's your
turn now to return to this about so many regions and a but if I had that we see that they're they're lazy
and I was previously wanted to hear your opinion plants still a lot of yes I would like to hear your opinion on this 1 I think a lot of these control of mechanisms they backfired on the people in power and by means of law of unintended consequences and things like that so all for instance I think most the things will good died as soon as we have a leaks about people empower themselves to the set trying to say here that I think the area from different it but we should think it's true that there are
unintended consequences but I do not believe that the system will dismantle itself right I think there are lots of good people that work in governments and corporations who they contribute a very small part and they feel like the part they're doing is actually doing more good than harm and they're not willing to for example we could documents about something inside that's happening that's wrong because they know that will be the last document David Leitch potentially and so this causes this interesting feedback loop where people ask themselves is this the thing that's worth throwing myself on the railroad and being run over by the trained for and of course the answer is almost invariably no sign that a man whose name is Bill Binnie here is probably the most intensely brave person I've ever met from the US government have to qualify I think in scientist distill the bravest person I've ever met but building is incredible because he worked for the NSA for 40 years and in 40 years he fought the Cold War he probably spied on your parents I don't know what he did but he quickly the NSA as a whistleblower recently and disclosed in fact and public that the NSA has been spying on Americans and interesting thing that happens at the NSA those that those people often don't care about people on Americans like so there's this constitutional right for Americans not spot on this this American exceptionalism so you're not going to be saved by this this American exceptionalism right even the best people a bill didn't have that exact same thought processes he actually sort of said I think it is a and his exact words sort of fuzzy to me I was a late nite last nite basically what he expressed was that this is the type of thing that is sort of a necessity in our modern world and it is
unfortunate that it is this way so he sort of you did
not American exceptionalism way other people that i've met and talked to from the NSA they view it in this sense like it's it's OK to spy on everybody but
not Americans and they don't actually think it's wrong all there's no question of mortality for them even a little bit but that's the job that's the charter legal and illegal is the same as right and wrong so that's all there is to it and you know that's like for example that's 2 people from the and say well that that there really a large organizations there are in fact they have a lot of space around the world like more than almost any other American government agencies and their
task was spying on everybody on the whole planet and if the best you get after about 40 or 50 years is likely to 6 people and they leave I mean it
doesn't really bode well for the system changing itself from the inside even with the most moral and ethical of people you know people who really believe that the actual core thing is wrong even if the people think it's not wrong but they still wish it wasn't happening to Americans for example in both of those cases you're still up and that's the really sad thing because the structures themselves create that inequality and they make it such that people that are on the inside are not willing to just hang themselves in order to basically protect people and everything that L-selectin mean and also just the little bit
careful about when you when you say people in power because because we'll power society is is is held by
accumulated wealth for attribute talking with talking with power and holding power talk about holding wealth so even even even when certain and unexpected consequences of public outcries over mixture whatever but do have leaders face consequences those years representatives of wealth not wealth itself so what was still held by the same classes and relations of wealth hasn't changed and so we have a communications infrastructure in which surveillance and behavioral control is the logic of investment is the business model of of of the platform then you know firing a few officials now and then in our age is not change that right and honest a different business model for communication platforms that since simply can change is not strictly possible change it's very it's very clear I mean everybody here knows that so that the social media platforms that Facebook are being or being valued now and in the tens hundreds of billions of dollars right so we're talking about a tremendous amount of accumulated wealth right that's being that that is available to these platforms words and decentralized platforms from things like the very classic ones the that built and sold into originally like e-mailed you that and all these kind of things are basically uninvested incompletely except like down certain extreme spam nobody's really spending any money at all of these things because there's no business model what makes Facebook worth hundreds of billions of dollars is not anything to do with the software or the servers has to
do with the capacity for surveillance and behavioral control and so if that is the business model and then
changing of representatives released is not going to make a significant difference so the next question is height
and my question is and mostly I'm messages to you Mr. miss a climate would you describe the
opening statement was basically an advertisement finance business model as which is of course of the business model of some of the companies like Google and Facebook friends that's the 1 thing I'm thinking about was you know when I go to the supermarket and pay with my credit card and I actually paid for the services that I get there from the credit card company and from the supermarket mice data is still going to be sold to marketers I mean that's and that's something that you didn't mention I mean that the problem is that we have a genius you know the beach whole basically in the some which is open for marketers to work well any kind of company to access my data even the I am paying for the service yeah just yeah just because you the customer doesn't mean you can't possibly the product is monitors money the or either
or situation for you and I but to write in that social media is only the most obvious example there's like the this business model data collection is use permeates all kinds of aspects of modern commerce online and I came here today to jacket because
the solute before and thing you you're really speaker and have listening I felt increasingly uneasy because you that the way describe the world as a division between good and evil and for example in the beginning that you portrayed on the on the transparency will be so you don't wanna live in a fully transparent the world where things OK and as I could you just defined transparency actually so they I wanna live in a world where I don't have privacy-enhanced spied after the other the other I actually think
transparencies good transparencies for institutions privacy is for people that I think this is really a simple thing institutional transparency is good personal privacy is also good and they're not in conflict you
can have an institution where you understand how it works and this
democratically accountable but I don't need to know how long your data is true and maybe the 1 that's a fair and but then
few that's not a good and evil thing it's understanding what's going on and then correcting as it goes from a result user vocabulary we can say OK when every private persons fully transparent you can say it's a good thing because you know something is evil or you can say everybody spying on the everybody like you said which is which has a different view on the world saying that if you transfer and everybody's spying on each other or the way you look at Facebook where you say OK it's you portrait dumb powers that the privileged or the people in power you can say that it's fair to say that but you can have a different view and say if you wanna start a social network and we need to find that somehow you can ask people for money and say OK everybody pay 1 dollar if you want to be on Facebook but no it's going to do that so you say OK I take your personal data and everybody knows Facebook takes personal data and you take it as a business model and I think what came with the Internet is a business model of collecting data and everybody knows it and as soon as everybody knows that it's OK so you can either pay off or you can give your data it's the same for gaming we have games where you pay for your games where you don't but data can be can you give me an
example of a social platform that's why available used by millions and billions I can pay for not not it don't think it's it's light it's a viable business model that's it
so that events of this idea that have a choice is a false is a false a false statements and I don't really have a choice and maybe some business models just don't work and I think business models for social platforms where you have to pay maybe like when they were the point is that society doesn't need to
adjust the focus around business as the only thing that matters and only measure of what is good and it will recall you will have for example like I
think it's really interesting that in Europe welfare is thing that society has an American it's thing that basically
Republicans say for black people are on the really big difference there right like I really like the European model where welfare isn't the world's worst word ever and I think it's incredible actually to hear of sort of liberalization argument from someone has obviously benefited from a thing that has no business model right how did you get an education I mean did but it's really frustrating to me to hear this because you basically fucking your own society over and saying well this is like the rational thing to economic thing to do you can actually have privacy and anonymity the ability to use social networking but you have to have people putting in for but not by asking them to pay a dollar but by actually showing the true value of their own social networks and in fact just because everyone knows a thing is happening it doesn't actually mean that they're going to be OK with that there actually people that show that know when you're making your statement and you disregard them when you talk about how the business model is more important than their voice right in a democracy the idea is that each person separated from their wealth is equal and their ability to say things and to be able to affect society and we have to consider for a moment that this business model in some cases is totally anti-democratic and it's even built from your own efforts the telecom lines that are laid across the countries of the whole world usually related to the ITU come from socialized investment in telecommunications infrastructure and now it's being privatized and sold off and the argument comes down to well it's a viable business model to just get over it that's the way that is and that's bullshit it's just it's a it's a bullshit argument and I'm sorry to be dismissive of that we could talk about 4 hours afterwards but really when it comes down to it we have to decide what is important to us and it's the most important thing is making marks Zuckerberg rich then I think it is inherently anti-democratic thing that you proposed and we do not need to accept that it is not too busy confucian idea that what is inevitable is immoral to resist this the
Chinese Chinese idea that I think actually 1st of all we have to decide what is inevitable and we have to decide if that philosophy even works at all and I would say that it is not inevitable that this is the case because as Dmitri stated earlier we actually start out with business models that were
totally viable they survived on their own in fact they evolved to meet this maybe we did need to go that far right used to when you build an activist group you would have to worry about infiltration you don't have to worry about it anymore it's guaranteed when you build on Facebook so-called lawful intercept ensures that you don't need to compromise people anymore the networks do it themselves but in the event that the network doesn't do it perfectly enough to actually have in Facebook the largest database of Jews ever built you have stars the book you like things you don't like things in your report on your friends you tag them and photographs who fucking cares of the business model is solid it's the wrong world to live and the result will be be that the the like hi my name is minus
beta and I appreciate very much of Europe
during the talk here and the it's to me would go to the opening speech of modeling the morning on wednesday so he was talking about the change from consuming media media consuming as basically the same they're talking about so if we want to overcome this so what we we have to understand what is the reason may be made as this I mean under a 50 year old so I remember quite well at the time let's say 20 years ago where it was it was a statement of progressiveness to keep your privacy you can use it to to to to to be opponent of moves central structures and knowledge part of it's it's a statement of progressiveness obviously you to talk about people's privacy is what what made us so to do this because if we want to overcome it so we think we have to go deeper into the psychology of which which which is behind so maybe it's just convenience it's so convenient to listen to music was quantified that actually I don't do it because I don't want uh essential structure to understand what type of music I'm I'm I'm listening to what was even if it's convenient and so it's not the reason along the convenience I think again
we have to go back to the paradox of the frame the reason it's convenient this music on Spotify is not the centralized platform is inherently more convenient it's not the reason is because he was chosen and therefore invested in and therefore iterated towards efficiency of the of the earlier platforms like Usenet you know and I assume so for the original decentralized Internet platforms were developed before the commercialization of the Internet could also have been generated but we didn't and the reason we didn't is because 1 the social question of how should media be built was answered with by private interest right and private interests will build things in certain ways that that meets the in business models the capital is required to capture value so when when the developers of the internet had pack depended for funding to the capitalists there were commercializing the Internet they need to sell them centralization in order to fulfill the business model otherwise they simply would not get the investment if you if you put if he proposed a peer-to-peer Spotify right with based on like you know Creative Commons music or something like that you simply would not get any interest from investors because they wouldn't be would be clear to them where the prophet capture this right the business model the marks up Roberg explained to the investors makes a lot of sense to them because it's exactly the same as the business model the fund in network television the business model of surveillance and control is already is or is already known so that is why we
had a decentralized network as you remember right and it became centralized because we as a society decided that we were going to build our communication platforms not socially not mutually not publicly but privately for the gain of profit and this is the kind of network that profit will build an additional layer of say that there is a legal angle to this so for example in some countries streaming music or competing with something like Spotify as actually directly controlled by the state through agreements where right holders often artists for example and they they may be weren't at the table together right and so you get this interesting situation where if you wanted to this build distributed Spotify you know it would probably look a lot like BitTorrent and the Pirate Bay confused and you'll notice that that's under attack and in the UK it's now blocked by law so in fact part of the problem is actually the state and the so called solution comes from private enterprise and the collusion together it creates a false choice of centralization and it creates a situation where we have to actually have these methods of resistance to be able to visit a website which is totally ridiculous mandatory network I think in which our work on that helps provide anonymity for people it you know it it wasn't designed for over there stamp right it was designed for everyone to have anonymous speech it's ironic because they think that as time goes on people will end up using it for all kinds of things that we never even imagined because we couldn't imagine in so-called democratic States we would have this kind of over fascist censorship blocking of things usually without any consent from the public often entirely because someone with like a 20 million dollar business really lobbyists quite hard and so this is a false choice creates a problem where people who want convenience who you know you're you're talking about the left-wing people I don't really I don't know what that means
anymore but this this kind of choice that people are making it comes from the fact that there's a there's a gap indication about how the technology works and it's OK to not know how the Internet works pretty much nobody knows how the Internet works as a whole should and they may be don't need to yeah I think that's OK but I think that that's part of the reason is the convenience is actually a matter of education which when you tied back to funding of the state you notice that education alot of places is being cut like for example even computer science departments from universities are being pulled to the 1 thing that look like makes people more literate in this field is even in some cases being restrained their people obviously working counter to that I would also say the other reason is sex which is maybe a little bit of work to do you know less like diversion there but who here is ever use Facebook to get laid or gone to a party that resulted in that anybody not 1 fucking person in this room and you're all fuckin
life that's ridiculous so want this seriously don't believe
it will have all the in face account anymore but for sure right and you know that's the network effect exerting itself in really interesting unintended ways they used to be when you signed up on Facebook and you added a friend you could say you hooked up with them and they capture that metadata and you know that's a really fascinating things that come at my friend from the party last nite that was what kind of world rebuilding their and it turns out that you're incentivize to build that kind of network where you have friends and then you get stuck in and you have all of these different returns from different people and you start to measure those relationships almost at that and I think it's I associate that way to live to like this is my friend mn Facebook actually destroyed the word friend which is kind of nice right it's like in America everyone different and actually none of them will be there for you probably but there's a difference between Americans and Germans that I've noticed actually Germans never say that your friend until they're going to take a bullet for an American to their friends instantaneously and they would never take a ball for it's again it's too short I think
that's a faithful rendering is sort of like that but the reason you will participate in something like that I think is because
of things in in some cases that are not based on money so you do trade your data which is a currency and Eric Schmidt talk about a sort of like you bring binary bring data you know that is why people from all sides of the political spectrum use and it's not just the left that is the train humanity in this case it everybody all of us because we're incentivized to do it by our own communal spaces and our own funds being taken from us in some cases and the duty of care being rejected and then we each get our own special deal with these companies are with the state and in return we feel OK about a we feel like we have no choice and there we are and it makes sense that we would get there
but we have to remember that it doesn't have to be that way just because it's really is going in that direction and and and I think it's important to acknowledge that we have agency for change you can still go to parties about Facebook you can still have a social group without it the rise of for example has a service called crabgrass which is sort of like a distributed Facebook application but unlike days for its distributed in Thailand's you have like a rise were crabgrass instance and then you can share files and photos and have some social networking aspects but all private by default obviously the server can still see everything
because of the architecture but you know you have to take the server to be able to get the data so you can build private eyes Islands if you want as in private not necessarily accompanied by affinity groups and you can do that and it actually already exists and a lot of people to do that but you don't really hear about it in the same way because it doesn't advertise itself it doesn't buy a telephone interview services for it but it doesn't
mean it doesn't exist so we have to use this thing there's a kind audiences love bald guy with glasses that there's touching his head region and he's working on building a distributed social networking tools and and code and stuff like that which doesn't require massive amounts of capital it only requires that each person asserts that they value their privacy and that they want to be able to communicate with each other in a peer-to-peer fashion and it's not even technically complicated I mean it took a lot of effort but this kind of stuff he's building alternative and now who's going to find him will probably nobody is going to find him fiscally but all it you can find him with your social energy and by rejecting the
surveillance state and talking to that guy of maybe stand up there and so that guy he's the guy that's the related parties How I want
just written off of what you said about that if you were to imagine a kind of like a peer-to-peer pyruvate
sorry peer-to-peer Spotify that look like a pirate day I think that's I think that's very that's that's that's that's very true that's very clear on 1 thing that strikes me is like a 1st media as a great interpreter of of of things that really creates the context that we understand things and and if
anybody remembers that you know the early in mid nineties peer-to-peer was about the sexiest word that was in technology magazines everything everybody was talking about distributed systems attribute computing intelligent agents that would be like you like filtering and cooperatively doing things for us this vast complicated attributed network and peer-to-peer was really exciting positive work right and how you think about if you think about the way peer-to-peer is used today all of a sudden now peer-to-peer is a sinister word it's something it's used to describe technologies used by the use of the contraband used by terrorists a pirates right the the the very concept of peer-to-peer has shifted from being something really exciting to being something very dodgy something really to be avoided right and this is because it was completely incompatible with that with with the needs of financial capital to actually build the system the need for security in the state right so when peer-to-peer was actually taken over from the kind of academic and libertarian hobbyist world of the internet was born out of an election taken over you know by the dot com boom which only member with the when capital actually took over this Internet to build up further the 1st wanted to do was get rid of peer-to-peer and the reason and the reason is not so much the terribly worried about so pirates and terrorists as you as you can all imagine it's because it invades again evades surveillance and behavioral control which they need for their business models many women in the audience
asked a question any we take I think with that late
sorry who attentive to be the focus of a lot higher than that other I have included some sort of a thing
where it if it is right now thank you very much thanks thanks was very thank you PRP and
Gewichtete Summe
Schreiben <Datenverarbeitung>
Gesetz <Physik>
Service provider
Negative Zahl
Vorzeichen <Mathematik>
Gruppe <Mathematik>
Metropolitan area network
Befehl <Informatik>
Kategorie <Mathematik>
Gebäude <Mathematik>
Güte der Anpassung
Kontextbezogenes System
Motion Capturing
Dienst <Informatik>
Rechter Winkel
Ordnung <Mathematik>
Tabelle <Informatik>
Selbst organisierendes System
Baum <Mathematik>
Klasse <Mathematik>
Mathematische Logik
Virtuelle Maschine
Arithmetische Folge
Äußere Algebra eines Moduls
Affiner Raum
Inhalt <Mathematik>
Attributierte Grammatik
Gerichtete Menge
Protokoll <Datenverarbeitungssystem>
Spider <Programm>
Open Source
Elektronische Publikation
MIDI <Musikelektronik>
Offene Menge
Wort <Informatik>
Abstimmung <Frequenz>
Prozess <Physik>
Gemeinsamer Speicher
Kartesische Koordinaten
Prozess <Informatik>
Figurierte Zahl
Zentrische Streckung
Nichtlinearer Operator
Physikalischer Effekt
Pirate Bay
Ideal <Mathematik>
Zusammengesetzte Verteilung
Arithmetisches Mittel
Twitter <Softwareplattform>
Betrag <Mathematik>
Autonomic Computing
Extreme programming
Web Site
Gewicht <Mathematik>
Total <Mathematik>
Transformation <Mathematik>
Physikalische Theorie
Digitale Photographie
Bildgebendes Verfahren
Leistung <Physik>
Physikalisches System


Formale Metadaten

Titel Resisting the Surveillance State and its network effects
Serientitel re:publica 2012
Teil 07
Anzahl der Teile 72
Autor Appelbaum, Jacob
Kleiner, Dmytri
Lizenz CC-Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland:
Sie dürfen das Werk bzw. den Inhalt zu jedem legalen Zweck nutzen, verändern und in unveränderter oder veränderter Form vervielfältigen, verbreiten und öffentlich zugänglich machen, sofern Sie den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen und das Werk bzw. diesen Inhalt auch in veränderter Form nur unter den Bedingungen dieser Lizenz weitergeben.
DOI 10.5446/20781
Herausgeber re:publica
Erscheinungsjahr 2012
Sprache Englisch

Inhaltliche Metadaten

Fachgebiet Informatik
Abstract Re-contextualizing our social interactions in the face of privatisation of data leads us into a space of social responsibility. The impact of our permissive data sharing habits and the economic models that incentivize it is not yet fully understood. How may we ensure that we're fully informed and consenting to information released or sold about us? How may try we ensure that consent is required? How can we re-contextualize and better come to a shared understanding about transitive risks posed by the surveillance state?

Ähnliche Filme