• Kẏra’s Division III: A Division III by Kẏra

  • Chapter 1 — Some Were Already Anonymous: Surveillance’s Persistence Through the Whiteness of Privacy

  • Chapter 2 — Free/Libre and Open Source Software

  • Chapter 3 — Free Culture

  • Uncategorized Sources

  • Toni Weller — The Information State: An Historical Perspective on Surveillance

  • Nicholas De Genova — The Production of Culprits: From Deportability to Detainability in the Aftermath of “Homeland Security”

  • Torin Monahan — The Right to Hide? Anti-Surveillance Camouflage and the Aestheticization of Resistance

  • Joseph Turow and Nora Draper — Advertising’s New Surveillance Ecosystem

  • Ayse Ceyhan — Surveillance as Biopower

  • Mark Andrejevik and Mark Burdon — Defining the Sensor Society

  • Kelly A Gates — Biometrics and Post-9/11 Nostalgia

  • Catherine Zimmer — The Global Eye: Satellite, GPS, and the “Geopolitical Aesthetic”

  • Caren Kaplan — Precision Targets: GPS and the Militarization of U.S. Consumer Identity

  • Jacob Applebaum

  • Claudia Aradau and Tobias Blanke — Politics of prediction: Security and the time/spaceof governmentality in theage of big data

  • Peter A. Chow-White — The Informationalization of Race: Communication Technologies and the Human Genome in the Digital Age

  • N. Katherine Hayles — How We Became Posthuman Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics

  • Adrian Mackenzie — Cutting Code: Software and Sociality

  • Matthew Kelly — All Bugs Are Shallow: Digital Biopower, Hacker Resistance, and Technological Error in Open Source Software

  • Wendy Hui Kyong Chun — Updating to Remain the Same: Habitual New Media

  • Wendy Hui Kyong Chun — Programmed Visions: Software and Memory (Software Studies)

  • Dmytri Kleiner — The Telekommunist Manifesto

  • Shannon Winnubst — Queering Freedom

  • **Söderberg, Johan. “Copyleft vs. copyright: A Marxist critique.” First Monday 7, no. 3 (2002).

  • *Barbrook, Richard, and Andy Cameron. “The californian ideology.” Science as Culture 6, no. 1 (1996): 44-72.

  • **Robins, Kevin, and Frank Webster. “Cybernetic capitalism: Information, technology, everyday life.” The political economy of information (1988): 44-75.

  • Kathy Bowrey and Jane Anderson — The Politics of Global Information Sharing: Whose Cultural Agendas Are Being Advanced?

  • deazley

  • Intellectual Property at the Intersection of Race
    and Gender: Lady Sings the Blues

  • Keith Aoki, Distributive Justice and Intellectual Property: Distributive and
    Syncretic Motives in Intellectual Property Law (with Special Reference to Coercion,
    Agency, and Development), 40 U.C. DAVIs L. REv. 717, 738-47 (2007) (noting that
    slave owners often took credit for inventions by slaves)

  • K.J. Greene, Copyright, Culture and Black Music: A Legacy of
    Unequal Protection, 21 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L.J. 339 (1999)

  • Shubha Ghosh,
    Globalization, Patents, and Traditional Knowledge, 17 COLUM. J. ASIAN L. 73 (2004).

  • K.J. Greene, What the Treatment of Black Artists Can Teach About
    Copyright Law, in PETER K. YU, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INFORMATION WEALTH
    ISSUES AND PRACTICES IN THE DIGITAL AGE 385 (2007).

  • Madhavi Sunder — IP³

  • Minh-Ha T. Pham — Visualizing “The Misfit”: Virtual Fitting Rooms and the Politics of Technology

      • 160: Visuality is about the normalization of state control through techniques of classification, separation, and aestheticization, which enforce a kind of reductive, exclusionary legibility. As Nicholas Mirzoeff writes, “Visuality sutures authority to power and renders this association ‘natural’” ; it manifests in a set of extractive and dehumanizing complexes (plantation, imperialist, and military–industrial) that are institutionalized through bureaucratic and scientific apparatuses that render classifications true and populations governable. Frequently, these complexes have explicitly racist, neocolonial, and necropolitical aims, affording the prejudicial allocation and distribution of death for populations deemed dangerous to the state, which could include terrorists, asylum seekers, or the poor in today’s capitalist economy. Thus, biopolitics and necropolitics fuse in destructive ways, in the service of neoliberal capitalism, to create conditions of bare life, or at least of abjection and human insecurity. Visuality, therefore, denies from the Other the right to legitimate autonomy and agency; it denies “the right to look” back and challenge the identities ascribed by institutions. As Stephen Graham reminds us, following Michel Foucault, there is also a “boomerang effect” to the deployment of biopolitical and necropolitical technologies in distant territories, leading frequently to their application in the homeland on so-called civilian populations, as can be seen, for example, with the domestication of drones and biometric identification systems.

        #visuality

      • 160: Countervisuality projects may be necessary to disarm the natural logics of state visuality and confront their supposed order from nowhere. Rather than merely opposing visuality or seeking to substitute it with different totalizing regimes, countervisuality would instead challenge forms of violence and oppression, acknowledging differential exposures and effects. After all, despite popular claims about universal subjection to surveillance, it must be recognized that a host of surveillance functions are reserved for those who threaten the status quo, principally those classified as poor or marked as Other. Racialized identities of dangerousness are encoded back upon the targets through surveillance encounters that are always tied to the threat of state force (e.g., the stop-and-frisk search, the video-tracking of racial minorities through commercial stores, the scrutiny of purchases made by welfare recipients). These are mechanisms of marginalizing surveillance that produce conditions and identities of marginality through their very application.

        #visuality

      • 160-161: The field has had a longstanding concern with discriminatory surveillance practices predicated on “categorical suspicion” of marginalized groups and “social sorting” of populations through increasingly abstract, invisible, and automated systems of control. Perhaps because of the strong voyeuristic modalities of surveillance, scholars have further interrogated the gendered dimensions of watching and being watched, and have explored possibilities for gender-based appropriation and resistance. Recently, there has also been a concerted effort to foster engaged feminist and race studies critiques that attend to intersectional forms of oppression, which are often enforced by surveillance practices. For instance, Corinne Mason and Shoshana Magnet show how many policy initiatives and surveillance apps intended to combat violence against women tend to responsibilize victims, fail to target perpetrators, and aggravate conditions of vulnerability, especially for poor women who may lack a social safety net if fleeing from an abuser or risk assault or arrest if they do call the police. Feminist and intersectional approaches to surveillance studies connect the embodied, grounded nature of individual experience with larger systems of structural inequality and violence. Such approaches investigate the technological and organizational mediation of situated practice, advancing a critique of contemporary surveillance systems and power relations. The analysis presented here builds upon this orientation by questioning the values and implications of aestheticized forms of anti-surveillance.

        #surveillancestudies #sources #surveillance

      • 161-162: Taken at face value, anti-surveillance camouflage enacts a play of surveillance avoidance. It frames the enemy either as state and corporate actors invading one’s privacy or as malicious individuals seeking to violate helpless others through voyeuristic transgressions. The gaze is always unwanted; it always individuates; it always objectifies. In this narrative, there is little room to engage the problems of categorical suspicion that undergird marginalizing surveillance because the unit of analysis is the individual, not the group. There is little room to explore complex amalgams of desired surveillance, extractive systems, and hidden effects. The provocation is one of the enlightened, bourgeois subject asserting his or her right to be left alone, which is a claim that by its very implied utterance already reveals the relative privilege of the one making it. […] It would seem, then, that systems of oppression and discrimination—racism, sexism, classism, ableism, etc.—are preserved or at least not directly contested by anti-surveillance artistic experiments.

        #neoliberalism

      • 172: Ultimately, discourses of “the right to hide” are weak variations of “the right to privacy,” both of which depend on conceptually inadequate and empirically deficient mobilizations of universal rights. Indeed, poor and racialized populations subjected to the most invasive forms of monitoring are much more concerned with issues of domination and control, along with the practicalities of survival, than they are with legal or philosophical abstractions like privacy. Privacy is also a deeply individualistic concept, poorly suited to forestall discriminatory practices against social groups. As Sami Coll explains, “The notion of privacy, as a critique of [the] information society, has been assimilated and reshaped by and in favour of informational capitalism, notably by being over-individualized through the self-determination principle.” The discourse of the right to hide, as with the right to privacy, accepts the legitimacy of state demands for legible populations and offers symbolic compromises to assert degrees of freedom within those constraints.

        Instead of being content with artistic forms of hiding, countervisuality projects, by
        contrast, would “look back” and pursue alternatives to totalizing regimes of state
        visuality.

        #neoliberalism

      • 172: Instead of being content with artistic forms of hiding, countervisuality projects, by contrast, would “look back” and pursue alternatives to totalizing regimes of state visuality. They would seek to undermine the authority of state control by challenging the capitalist imperatives that lend legitimacy to forms of state violence and oppression. What is required is a full engagement with “the political,” which, as Rancière describes, is always in opposition to the police:

        The police is not a social function but a symbolic constitution of the social. The essence of the police lies neither in repression nor even in control over the living. Its essence lies in a certain way of dividing up the sensible. . . . Politics, by contrast, consists in transforming this space of “move-along,” of circulation, into a space for the appearance of a subject: the people, the workers, the citizens.

        #police

      • 173: Whether through filming and documenting cases of police
        misconduct, engaging in culture-jamming activities to raise awareness of corporate malfeasance, or challenging the status quo of rape culture by hacking into computer
        systems and publicizing attempts to cover up sexual assault, there are many viable prototypes for artists and activists. […] Projects might make visible data on police shootings, stop-and-frisk profiling, security contracts, drone attacks, or illegal rendition of terrorist
        suspects. Alternatively, artists could launch projects like the “Million Hoodies Movement for Justice” that emerged after the 2012 shooting death of black teenager
        Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in Florida; the “hoodies” used in this movement might disrupt legibility by surveillance apparatuses, but their more important function is to express solidarity, protest systemic violence against racialized groups, and galvanize change.

        #alternatives

      • 133: In the public policy arena, especially in the USA, the concerns around data mining of this sort come from the notion that individuals can be identified and harmed using data that has been collected about them. Less attention has been given to the practice of constructing personae or “reputations” of individuals that determine the information, consumer deals and surveillance attention that a person receives. Types of firms that did not exist a decade and a half ago have as their core aims assembling data about the audience, trading the data, trading access to the audience members, and/or evaluating the success of those activities. The new media-buying system is increasingly affecting more than just the commercial messages individuals receive. It has created the technologies and logics to personalize price, information, news and entertainment based on audience categorizations that the individuals being described do not know about and with which they might not agree. The advertising system’s increasing ability to define individual reputations raises new versions of concerns about the system’s power over the opportunities people receive as well as the visions of themselves and the world that they are presented with (see also Gandy, this volume).

      • 136: These converging surveillance activities point toward a broadening future for social discrimination. It is one where individuals receive advertisements, discounts, and even news and entertainment agendas based upon ideas that advertisers, data firms, and publishers circulate about their audiences often without their
        knowledge and permission.

      • 139: Schmidt went further: “I actually think most people don’t want Google to answer their questions. They
        want Google to tell them what they should be doing next” (Jenkins, Jr 2010).

        By stressing the trust implied in letting Google tell them what they should be doing next, Schmidt was
        also implying that his firm would have their trust in using their data to assess their future interests, friendships and activities. Doing that, Google will be turning profiles into reputations for marketers. That is, Google will help them decide that certain demographic, lifestyle, friendship, and personality markers make certain people valuable and others not valuable targets for particular types of businesses (see also Pridmore, this volume).

        All this will take place under an umbrella of industry exhortations that individuals and households are receiving the most relevant, and therefore interesting, materials possible. Personalized customer relationship marketing by marketers and media firms will reach out to people to assure them of the benefits of tailored content.

      • 38: First, surveillance is not only a form of a liberal governmental ration-
        ality seeking maximum effectiveness and managing the market and the population by observing, classifying
        and sorting individuals, but is also intended to capture the contingent features of the “uncertain” (l’aléatoire) that characterizes our times. […] In this context, the biopoliticized surveillance, that is surveillance taking the human body and its movements as the focal points, appears like a political technology of population management and a technique of reassuring populations in complex and uncertain contexts of our times where security has become a high priority.

      • 40-41: As the vast literature produced by surveillance studies indicates surveillance is an old activity that has existed as long as humans have existed and interacted with each other (Lyon 2006). In modern times it had been intimately connected with the regulation of the capitalist society and the modernization of the army and the nation-state. According to the Foucauldian problematic of biopoliticized security, surveillance can be understood as the very form of liberal governmentality seeking maximum efficiency for the regulation of bodies and species. It is an activity undertaken both by governments and institutions and even by the subjects themselves against each other. Regarding governmental forms of governmentality, according to Foucault, the idea that government should intervene in society means that the population should be managed and even remediated or improved to ensure its members can participate productively in the market. This implies the regulation of subjects through means and diverse techniques, which are based upon the medical metaphor of body, circulation and flow. In this perspective, the biopoliticized regulation of population requires that the population has to be known both in terms of its actual behavior and with respect to the probabilities of
        its future behavior (what will the population probably do?).

      • 42: The concept of apparatus that Foucault borrowed from Deleuze does not refer to any single device or techné, but reflects an ensemble of both physical and non-physical means. Indeed, in Deleuze’s understanding apparatus meant “a heterogeneous ensemble, a sort of network that includes both the said and the unsaid, that is to say discourses, laws, regulations, administrative enunciations, institutions and architectural ensembles” (Deleuze 1989: 185). Following this, Foucault envisioned security apparatuses as connecting any physical security phenomenon such as theft with a series of both measures, means, discourses and likely events (probabilities) that are expected to occur. Not only do these apparatuses calculate risks, but they also calculate their costs and foresee the reactions of power and set the optimal acceptability level by the population (Foucault 2004: 8). In consequence, security apparatuses introduce a new form of power different from classical disciplinary power, which relies mainly on coercion. Indeed, contrary to disciplinary measures, security apparatuses do not intervene directly in the game but shape the rules of the game. Instead of being straightforwardly implemented, they operate indirectly or remotely. As such, they participate in what Foucault calls “governmentality,” that is the ensemble constituted by the institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections, calculations and tactics which can support “that very specific but very complex form of power whose main target is the population, major form of knowledge is the political economy and essential technical instrument are security apparatuses” (Foucault
        2004: 111).

      • 43: Relying upon complex analysis of data, “algorithmic surveillance” (Norris et al. 1998) is thus designed to uncover relationships among widely disparate information and enable predictive analysis of behavioral
        patterns. Contrary to the classical panoptic form of surveillance that Foucault described, based on Bentham’s model for prisons, actual surveillance is characterized by embedded, silent and hidden processes that make it difficult for individuals and society to be aware of and scrutinize it (Introna and Wood 2004). Moreover these processes threaten to replace social negotiations with technological process of judgment and generate unexpected social, ethical and juridical consequences (Lyon 2003, 2006).

        One of the most distinctive features of this surveillance is that its predictive orientation is aimed at the
        detection of criminal acts, and at all human behavior in order to detect the risky ones. Even if this surveillance is processed through sensors, mathematical instructions and sequences of computer operations and thus appears neutral, such emphasis enhances in fact the biopolitical character of surveillance.

      • 44: Consequently, more than a straightforward biopolitical power of the subjugation of bodies, what we witness today resembles better the politics of artefacts, which, by its very design, includes certain interests and excludes others (Lascoumes et al. 2001; Introna and Wood 2004). These artefacts are heterogeneous systems that function like assemblages and transform the locations of power and politics. They connect different technologies like biometrics, video cameras, GPSs and algorithms and produce an insidious form of surveillance, which impacts individuals’ lives not from the outside but from the domestic and private spheres where these technologies become more and more integrated. This makes us define a new form of governmentality and regulative power that is located in non-traditional places like the Internet (Google, for instance), shopping malls, marketing services, phone companies, businesses and high-tech corporations. In these mundane, functional and dynamic locations, social negotiation is replaced by customer management, risk assessment, market analysis, and efficiency and efficacy measures (Lyon 2003, 2006).

        • “…what people used to call liberty and freedom, we now call privacy, and we say, in the same breath, that privacy is dead. […] We should consider that when we lose privacy we lose agency, we lose liberty itself, because we no longer feel free to express what we think. There’s this myth of the passive surveillance machine, but actually what is surveillance except control?”

          Citizen Four

        • 2-3: As big data promises to ‘unlock’ the blockages and limitations of disciplinary and biopolitical techniques of government, we argue that a digital mode of prediction emerges today through the reconfiguration of time/space through calculations of ‘between-ness’. We have coined the notion of ‘between-ness’ to capture the logic of predictive analytics.

        • 5: The Panopticon as a space that ‘concentrates, focuses and encloses’, where ‘the mechanisms of its power will function fully and without limit’ (Foucault, 2007: 67) is co-constituted through time. Discipline does not only arrange bodies in space, but must be understood through mechanisms of adding up and capitalizing on time. As David Murakami Wood (2007: 260) has noted, what is central to disciplinary apparatuses is ‘the spatial and temporal distribution and regulation of the body’. Time is segmented and separated, so that it becomes exhaustively used: training, eating, exercising, all this is allocated a particular temporal segment within ‘clock’ time. This segmentation of abstract or ‘clock’ time is conjugated to a progressive time, which leads to the final point of the ‘normal’, when disciplinary mechanisms become redundant. ‘The disciplinary methods’, Foucault pointed out, ‘reveal a linear time, whose moments are integrated one upon another, and which is orientated towards a terminal, stable point; in short, an ‘‘evolutive’’ time’ (Foucault, 1991 [1977]: 174). Disciplinary mechanisms display an orientation towards the future, which is the stable point of normality to be reached by acting upon particular spaces. For Foucault (2008: 70), disciplinary power ‘looks forward to the future, towards
          the moment when it will keep going by itself and only a virtual supervision will be required, when discipline, consequently, will have become habit’.

        • 8: We use the notion of ‘between-ness’ to capture the geometrical measure of the shortest path between two data points in the feature space. Between-ness thus measures the connection and relatedness between anything mapped into the geometry of the feature space. It is not simply a connection or network, but an understanding of similarity and difference based on geometrical distance. The classification algorithms used in predictive analytics rely on assumptions about how the feature space can be optimally partitioned and the calculability of ‘between-ness’ as a measure of how distant or close data points are. A digital mode of prediction thus emerges in a regime of between-ness.

        • 10: Alongside predicting the future and the
          present, a third injunction to ‘predict the past’ with big data implies the counter-intuitive prediction of past performance by joining historical data sets. In the case of policing, predictive analytics offers the promise of not just anticipating future crimes, but ‘leading to more precise attribution of past crimes, and the apprehension of suspects’.

        • 11: Alongside predicting the future and the
          present, a third injunction to ‘predict the past’ with big data implies the counter-
          intuitive prediction of past performance by joining historical data sets. This way, security
          analysts have, for instance, identified historical spatio-temporal patterns of improvised
          explosive device (IED) use by the Provis
          ional Irish Republican Army during ‘The
          Troubles’ and analysed the ‘historical behaviour of terrorism’ (Tench et al., 2016). In
          the case of policing, predictive analytics offers the promise of not just anticipating future
          crimes, but ‘leading to more precise attribution of past crimes, and the apprehension of
          suspects’ (Wang et al., 2013: 515

          Spatio-temporal integration is not new to policing, as neighbourhoods, wards, beats
          and hotspots have long underpinned police and military action. The increased availabil-
          ity and collection of data, however, allow t
          he proponents of predictive policing to
          articulate new governmental interventions th
          at depart from traditional statistically-
          based hotspot policing, which produced maps based on historical data of crime fre-
          quency. For Colleen McCue (2015: 24), policing needs to ‘shift from describing the
          past – counting, reporting, and ‘‘chasing
          ’’ crime – to anticipation and influence in
          support of prevention, thwarting, mitigation, response, and informed consequence man-
          agement’. Data-driven predictive policing technologies promise to be proactive rather
          than reactive, as historical data was thought to replicate the past rather than ‘intervening
          in emerging or future patterns of crime’ (CTOlabs, 2013). In

        • Hotspots are between-ness actualized in near-real-time. A governmental apparatus of
          big data enacts prediction as between-ness calculations of similarity and difference.
          Between-ness is distinct from the ‘docile bodies’ of discipline or the population of
          biopolitical government, as it is the production of pure relationality, of geometrical
          connection as simultaneously similarity and difference. By featurizing space, time and
          type of crime, PredPol experts can also argue that they use ‘no personal information
          about individuals or groups of individuals, eliminating any personal liberties and profil-
          ing concerns’ (PredPol, 2015a). Yet, time/space configurations are not separate from the
          ‘conduct of conduct’ of subjects of government. What counts for a critical analysis of
          security and predictive policing is to develop vocabularies that challenge the regime of
          between-ness underpinning predictive policing with big data. p.13

        • “Identified with the rational mind, the liberal subject possessed a body but was not usually represented as being a body. Only because the body is not identified with the self is it possible to claim for the liberal subject its notorious universality, a claim that depends on erasing markers of bodily difference, including sex, race, and ethnicity.” p.5

        • Software’s fringe existence seems to corroborate the commonsense notion that it is “intangible” rather than physical, that it is something more like a social convention or rule than machine-thing. The characteristics of software as a material object, as a means of production, as a human-technical hybrid, as a medium of communication, as terrain of political-economic contestation—in short as sociality—seem hard to represent. Software as a material with specificities, singularities, traits, and modes of existence has been displaced by software as mundane application, as infrastructural element in a wider social or technological change (the information revolution, “digital culture,” “new media,” “network society” or “convergence”).

          p3

        • open access to computer code helped strengthen the connection between individual conceptions of identity and economic practices in order to reveal how FOSS does not reject the late-capitalist system from which it emerged. Rather, FOSS accelerates the decentralizing tendencies of such a system by saturating society with possible outlets for production — that is, each individual computer user as someone who can modify and circulate the productive capacities of source code — while removing restrictions prohibiting information exchange.

        • free- and open-source practices did not miraculously appear as a self-contained ideology from beyond the capitalist paradigm but, rather, materialized through the internal fissures, struggles, and unforeseen reactions within software programming communities as well as the governmental legislation thereof.

        • code can be seen both as a discursive practice — in that is an expressive medium that can shape personal conceptions of the world, […] and a productive apparatus that contributes to the regulation of a biopolitical paradigm (that is, code directly affects the productive capacities of an individual via software programs)

        • Habitual New Media counters this trend to analyze the present through soothsaying by revealing that our media matter most when they seem not to matter at all, that is, when they have moved from the new to the habitual. Search engines are hardly new or exciting, but they have become the default mode of knowl­edge acquisition. Smart phones no longer amaze, but they increasingly structure and monitor the lives of their so-called owners.

          p.1

        • Habit is both the source and the action because it is ‘programmed. ‘ The logic of programming reduces the living world to dead writing; programs condense everything to “ source code” written in advance, hence the adjec­tive “ source. “ This is because code allegedly does what it says. This understanding presumes no difference between source code and execution, instruction and result. It perversely renders code, because of machinic, dead repetition, into logos. Like the King’s speech in Plato’s Phaedrus, code does not pronounce knowledge or demonstrate it; it transparently pronounces itself, for it does what it says. The hidden signified-meaning; the father’s intentions-shines through and transforms itself into action. Like Faust’s translation of logos as “deed”-“The spirit speaks! I see how it must read / And boldly write: ‘In the beginning was the Deed! “—software is word become action: a replacement of process with inscription that makes writ­ing a live power by conflating force and law. By converting action into language, source code emerges. To put it slightly differently and to revise an example from Programmed Visions, the fact that lawyers working at the intersections of new media and law declare that “code is law”—that pro­grams encode certain regulations—is, at one level, hardly profound. Code, after all, is a systematic collection or digest of the laws of a country, or of those relating to a particular subject”; but “code as law” makes code something different: automatically executable. This executability makes code not law but rather every lawyer’s dream of what law should be: automati­cally enabling and disabling certain actions, and functioning at the level of everyday practice. Code as law is code as police. Insightfully, Derrida argues that modern technologies ensure the sphere of “the police absolute ubiquity.” The police weld together norm with reality; they “are present or represented everywhere there is force of law. … They are present, some­ times invisible but always effective, wherever there is preservation of the social order.”

          p.82

        • Tellingly, this machinic execution of law is linked to the emergence of a sovereign user. Celebrations of an all-powerful user/agent-YOU as the net­work, YOU as “produser”-counteract concerns over code as law as police by positing YOU as the sovereign subject, YOU as the decider. An agent, however, only holds power through proxy; an agent acts on behalf of another subject. In networks, the real power would seem to be technology, rather than the users or programmers who authorize actions through their commands and clicks. Programmers and users are not creators of languages, nor the actual executors, but rather living sources that take credit for the action.

          p.84

        • “The ability of numbers, statements, currencies, or other signs to stand in for all kinds of things gives systems of abstraction and generalization immense power, especially when they can be made to line up into larger-scale structures, producing veritable machines.”

          viii

        • In other words, the fact that “code is law”—something legal scholar Lawrence Lessig emphasizes—is hardly profound. After all, code is, according to the OED, “a systematic collection or digest of the laws of a country, or of those relating to a particular subject.” What is surprising is the fact that software is code; that code is—has been made to be—executable, and this executability makes code not law, but rather every lawyer’s dream of what law should be: automatically enabling and disabling certain actions, functioning at the level of everyday practice.

        • “By 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit held in In re Alappat (1994) that all software was inherently machinic, since it changed the material nature of a computer: “a general purpose computer in effect becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software.”19 A change in memory, it seems, a change in machine.”

          p.4

        • As a physical process, however, software would seem uncopyrightable. 20 Copyright seeks to protect creative expression; as Radin notes, patents and copyrights were supposed to be mutually exclusive: “Copyright is supposed to exclude works that are functional; patent is supposed to focus on functionality and exclude texts.” 21 To address this contradiction, the U.S. Congress changed the law in 1975, so that expressions, as opposed to the actual processes or methods, adopted by the programmer became copyrightable. 22 The difference, however, between expression and methods has been difficult to determine, especially since the expression of software has not been limited to source code.

          p.5

        • software emerged as a thing—as an iterable textual program—through an axiomatic process of commercialization and commodification that has made code logos: a word conflated with and substituting for action.

          p.9

        • This chapter investigates the implications of code as logos and the ways in which this simultaneous conflation and separation of instruction from execution, itself a software effect, is constantly constructed and undone, historically and theoretically. This separation is crucial to understanding the power and thrill of programming, in particular the nostalgic fantasy of an all-powerful programmer, a sovereign neoliberal
          subject who magically transforms words into things. It is also key to addressing the nagging doubts and frustrations experienced by programmers: the sense that we are slaves, rather than masters, clerks rather than managers — that, because “ code is law, ” the code, rather than the programmer, rules.

          p.19

        • Software, free or not, is embedded
          and participates in structures of knowledge-power.

          p.21

        • In other words, the fact that “code is law”—something legal scholar Lawrence Lessig emphasizes—is hardly profound. After all, code is, according to the OED, “a systematic collection or digest of the laws of a country, or of those relating to a particular subject.” What is surprising is the fact that software is code; that code is—has been made to be—executable, and this executability makes code not law, but rather every lawyer’s dream of what law should be: automatically enabling and disabling certain actions, functioning at the level of everyday practice.

          p.27

        • While the work of imperialism and colonialism, the twin politics of nationalism’s promises to freedom, has been forced underground, these slippery dynamics of domination have assumed the guise of liberation. The United States, for example, speaks under the banners of “democracy” and “liberation” as it legitimates its invasions of other nations and then initiates the bizarre process of ‘nation-building’ in the conquered lands, once again enacting the colonialist narrative of bringing civilization to savage, virgin, or empty soil. The designation of what constitutes a legitimate or illegitimate nation still rests in the imperialist hands of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, even if that power has largely migrated across the Atlantic Ocean. And the politics and rhetoric of freedom have wholly displaced the politics and rhetoric of imperialism, granting them newfound vigor through the very erasure enacted in the displacement. Who, after all, dares to argue against freedom?

          The language of freedom thereby continues to frame one of the fundamental discursive sites of modern western cultures. It functions as the ethical value and space that no one can disavow: our political fealties seem to fall away in the face of freedom. We can dispute the nuances of its various meanings or disagree over the best ways to enact, ensure, protect, and cultivate it, but no one can articulate a politics or ethics without an appeal to this sacred value of modernity. Joining us together in the lasting project of modernizing humanity, these unassailable appeals to freedom place us all in the same discursive field and, ultimately, flatten any differences between political convictions. In the end, we are all freedom fighters.

          […]

          when we desire freedom, we may be seduced by systems of domination.

          p.2

        • Like the activity of many ‘alternative’ subcultures that are not directly defined by their political engagement, “the struggles are at once economic, political, and cultural - and hence they are biopolitical struggles, struggles over the form of life. They are constituent struggles, creating new public spaces and new forms of community” [46]. The chief uniting and mobilising force for the hacker underground is the common enemy of Microsoft (Bezroukov, 1999a). Opposition to Microsoft draws both from socialist anarchistic principles, and from high-tech libertarianism. The rightwing drift, dubbed as the Californian Ideology, is a recent transition, and not surprising given the hegemonic dominance of the corporate sector in the United States and the greater stakes in free software for business. However, it runs counter to the roots of hacking, which essentially is a reaction against Taylorism (Hannemyr, 1999). Basic motivations to engage in free programming are the rush of technological empowerment (Sterling, 1994), the joy of un-alienated creativity (Moglen, 1999), and the sense of belonging to a community (commonly recognised by hackers themselves as ‘ego’, but reputation only viable within a group of peers, i.e. a community). Those values may not seem political at first sight, but they are on collision course with the commercial agenda of turning the Internet into a marketplace. The rising tension within the hacker community are illuminated by the words of Manuel Castells: “The struggle between diverse capitalists and miscellaneous working class is subsumed into the more fundamental opposition between the bare logic of capital flows and the cultural values of human experience” [47].

        • Lancashire alleges that the low engagement in free software in the U.S. (in relative, not absolute, numbers) disproves notions on post-scarcity gift-economies, because the U.S. is the wealthiest country in the world. His conclusion is flawed because he too fails to take into account the distribution of the wealth. Quite to the contrary, the study supports a connection between general welfare systems and commitment to non-commercial projects. Therefore the hacker movement is political in a second sense. The thriving of the free software community is embedded in a wider political context of redistribution, even when hackers do not take direct part in that struggle.

        • Despite the central role played by public intervention in developing hypermedia, the Californian ideologues preach an anti-statist gospel of cybernetic libertarianism: a bizarre mish-mash of hippie anarchism and economic liberalism beefed up with lots of technological determinism. Rather than comprehend really existing capitalism, gurus from both New Left and New Right much prefer to advocate rival versions of a digital ‘Jeffersonian democracy’. For instance, Howard Rheingold on the New Left believes that the electronic agora will allow individuals to exercise the sort of media freedom advocated by the Founding Fathers. Similarly, the New Right claim that the removal of all regulatory curbs on the private enterprise will create media freedom worthy of a ‘Jeffersonian democracy’.

        • Media analysts and the communication “revolution” :: they’ve failed to identify the wider social structures that determine the shape and character of these new technologies and platforms.
          “Information revolution” affect on “everyday life” demonstrates the ways in which capital trans/forms culture. (both economic base and ideological superstructure)

        • While open access, public domain and creative commons articulate themselves differently, they share motivations in terms of developing frameworks for social change with regards to how knowledge is to be accessed and circulated. As such they each rely upon, and fold into each other, ideational principles that oscillate around concepts such as ‘freedom’, ‘public’, ‘openness’,
          ‘sharing’ and ‘commons’. Such concepts come with complex derivations, histories and politics, both in relation to their generic definitions, and more importantly, their place within liberal and democratic frameworks of action.

          p2

        • As Tatiana Flesess (2008: 394) has observed in a recent edition of this journal, ‘participants in the debates regarding the commons . . . are establishing (and then policing) the thresholds and boundaries between differing versions and visions of the past, of “us” and “them” and of what is available to be claimed for use and by whom’. Such terms, despite their appearance and constantly shifting nature, are not and have never been wholly inclusive of peoples, perspectives or cultures. Their borders are managed in order to establish normative orders for inclusion and participation. This reality runs like a fault-line through these movements, connecting them together in important ways, while at the same time compromising their promise to change global knowledge cultures. For their success, there must now be a serious commitment to understanding the ongoing instances where these movements, sometimes unwittingly, repeat significant historical exclusions.

          p2

        • The ethos of freedom, public, openness and commons is problematic because it does not properly deal with the baggage of the past. For many Indigenous people across the globe, there is no fuzzy, warm glow that automatically accompanies western words like humanity, culture, progress, freedom, openness, knowledge. For Indigenous people living in Australia there is no automatic sense of entitlement or inclusion that comes with notions of ‘the public’, the ‘public good’ or ‘the public interest’. These idealistic political and cultural concepts were, and arguably still are, largely experienced by Indigenous people as terms of exclusion. These were the very terms that justified the denials of sovereignty, dispossession of culture and lands and removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities.

          .p2

        • Our problem, however, stems from a fundamental concern that the politics of access to knowledge unwittingly provides support for those who seek to prevent and delay the repatriation and restitution of stolen Indigenous cultural and intellectual property. This raises critical questions that we strongly believe require more considered attention and discussion. Namely, who benefits from greater access and whose cultural agendas are being advanced through this politics?

          p3

        • Unease manifests around questions of power relations, presumptions of
          liberal freedom, the politics of sharing, the construction of subjectivity and
          the space made for an active citizenry, including for Indigenous resistance.

          p3

        • As an effect of the access movement’s response to maximalist IP and the treatment of Indigenous peoples within IP law, Indigenous exclusion is explained as cultural while knowledge itself remains disassociated from cultural politics, contemporary economic agendas and new projects of governance. This speaks to the developed reliance upon ‘culture’ as an explanatory tool for Indigenous differentiation and exceptionalism within the IP system more generally.

          p4

        • It is well recognized that dispossession and appropriation accompanied the age of Empire. Industrial espionage, piracy and pillaging of texts and inventions at will, between European powers and from within their colonial outposts, characterized much of the period (Harris, 1998; Ben-Atar, 2004; Schiebinger, 2007; Schiebinger and Swan, 2007). However, civilized modern nations developed modes of diplomacy and, by the mid-late 19th century, treaties to accommodate reciprocal IP recognition and rules of ‘sharing’. This has led to a misconception that, so far as the history of intellectual property is concerned, the politics is primarily about the parameters of the right to private property and implications for access to knowledge (Boyle, 2003; Deazley, 2006; May and Sell, 2006). However, to have access to any ownership and control entitlements, one first needed to be accorded a status among the ‘civilized’. It is that legacy which endures.

          p6-7

        • As early as 1825, claims about Aboriginal physiological weakness and the fiction of Aborigines as a dying race were read into the bones by comparative anatomists and phrenologists (Fulford et al., 2004; Turnbull, 2007). This biological gloss was (and still is) deployed as a political tool to undermine and silence ongoing Indigenous political claims.

          p7-8

        • That the Indigenous case for repatriation still has to be argued, illustrates ongoing hierarchical distributions of the entitlements of ‘global’ citizenship and the imaginary inclusions that are presumed in contemporary articulations of the ‘public’.

          p8

        • The freedom to circulate information unfettered is antithetical to certain localized practices. Freedom does not mean that all knowledge is common or for the commons.

          p16

        • Phantoms of romanticism ground conventional views about high art and culture and are never far away from critiques of copyright law from the perspective of the humanities. For example, one of the recurring criticisms of copyright is that this body of law supports commodification at the expense of a genuine interest in fostering culture, creativity and art created.

          Romanticism directly links the notion of true artistic identity with artistic suffering in the world and with alienation from Nature.

          p10

        • The central focus of the statute was, and remains, a quid pro quo. Parliament was not concerned with the recognition of any pre-existing authorial right, nor was it primarily concerned with the regulation of the book trade. Rather it sought to encourage ‘learned Men to compose and write useful Books’, through the striking of (an) economic, social and cultural bargain.

        • The history of the production of cultural property in the United States follows the same pattern as the history of the racial divide that inaugurated the founding of the Republic. The original U.S. Constitution excluded both black women and men from the blessings of liberty.

          p2

        • The treatment of blacks, women, and indigenous peoples in the IP system reflects the unfortunate narrative of exploitation, devaluation, and promotion of derogatory stereotypes that helped fuel oppression in the United States, and in the case of indigenous peoples, both here and abroad.

          p3

        • idea/expression dichotomy, improvisation unprotected, minimum standard of originality

          p8

          The fact that black artists continued to create and
          innovate, even in the face of diminished economic incentives, poses a
          challenge to copyright policy, which dictates that copyright “is
          fundamentally about providing a balance of incentives for authors.” 3 6 This
          phenomenon surely gives weight to the notion that economic incentives
          alone are not the sole motivator of creative output.

          p9

        • While individual black artists without
          question have benefited from the IP system, the economic effects of IP
          deprivation on the black community have been devastating.

          p6

        • “beneath Professor Lessig’s analysis lies a much more insidious form of piracy. The early music industry was built on the back of black cultural production from the era of slave songs and spirituals to the period of black-face minstrelsy-America’s most popular and profitable form of entertainment from 1800 to the end of the last century.”

          p9

        • The treatment of blacks in the IP system has been characterized by two
          dynamics that have import for racial and distributive justice. First, black
          authors and inventors have found their works routinely appropriated and
          divested. Second, appropriated and distorted creative works protected by
          copyright, and trade symbols and imagery protected by trademark, have
          promoted derogatory racial stereotypes that facilitate racial subordination.

          p7

        • IP “is understood almost exclusively as being
          about incentives.”

          p7

          Sunder, supra note 24, at 257; see also ROBERT P. MERGES ET AL.,
          INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE NEW TECHNOLOGICAL AGE 12 (2d ed. 2000) (noting
          the primacy of incentive theory as underlying the basis of IP protections).

        • There has always been “an overwhelming prevalence of black innovators in
          jazz, ‘ 28 as well as blues, ragtime, rock-and-roll, and today’s hip-hop music.
          The history of black artists within U.S. IP law, however, has been one of
          appropriation, degradation, and devaluation beginning with the creation of
          the nation until the 1950s and ‘60s. In the arena of music, there is no need
          to assume mass appropriation and disparate treatment of black composers
          and performers. Time after time, foundational artists who developed
          ragtime, blues, and jazz found their copyrights divested, and through
          inequitable contracts, their earnings pilfered. 29 I argued elsewhere that for
          a long period of U.S. history, the work of black blues artists was essentially
          dedicated to the public domain.

          p7

        • “copyright
          law… was created without deference to the interests of large segments of
          society,” including women and minorities.

          p8

          Greene, Copyright, supra note 26, at 356

        • minstrelsy, ragtime, blues, rock and roll, rnb, rap and hip hop, etc.

        • racially 26 neutral construct of IP has adversely impacted African-
          American artists.

        • racially 26 neutral construct of IP has adversely impacted African-
          American artists.

        • IP serves not merely as
          a legal doctrine allocating rights, but “as a legal vehicle for facilitating (or thwarting) recognition of diverse contributors to social discourse.”

        • 171-172: In addition to their appearance and function, virtual fitting rooms and airport security scanners share a military history. The scanning technology was created at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)—a research arm of the US Department of Energy—where the technology was being applied to detect enemy submarines. In 2002, in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, PNNL began granting commercial licenses. Two of the first licenses went to Intellifit (a Philadelphia-based company with a Canadian CEO developing a virtual fitting room that was then called My Best Fit and is now called Me-ality for “Measured Reality”) and SafeView, Inc. (a supplier of high-tech security products specializing in airport scanners). While these companies seem totally different—one in the business of fashion retail and the other in aviation security—they are unified in their shared interest in predicting human behavior as well as in the belief that the monitoring and regulation of human behavior are effective strategies for achieving this goal. Thus, while Intellifit and SafeView are private commercial entities, they both perform a governmental service that was intensely significant in the immediate aftermath of 9/11: surveillance.

        • 172: Despite the deeply intertwined history and future of airport security scanners and virtual fitting rooms, the general perception of them could not be more divergent. One is associated with the enhancement of freedom (a consumer’s freedom from fitting rooms, a bad fit, etc.) while the other is associated with the curtailing of freedom (of travel, of privacy, etc.). Even individuals who have a less adverse reaction to airport security scanners characterize them as a necessary inconvenience. We stand in line for airport security scanners because we are obligated to do so, not because we want to. In contrast, consumers enthusiastically seek out and volunteer to stand in line for virtual fitting rooms.

        • 174: Recall that VanBrackle describes the computer-generated printout of
          appropriate sizes and styles as a set of instructions that “tells consumers what to do.” Virtual fitting rooms thus help consumers achieve not only the perfect fit but also the perfect shopping experience.

          #neoliberalism

          Similar to Eric Schmidt on Google

        • 175-176: The popular and scholarly discourse about virtual fitting rooms aligns them with the ever-broadening horizon of neoliberalism based on a core belief in, as Inderpal Grewal puts it, “the self-actualizing and identity-producing possibilities of consumption.” 34 Under neoliberalism, Grewal explains, the market is the site and source of liberal democracy because it “promot[es] endlessly the idea of choice.” 35 Key to neoliberal conceptions of identity formation is that self-making is mutually constitutive and coextensive with making consumer choices. In Grewal’s succinct formulation, neoliberal progressive feminism is premised on “the idea [that] ‘having choices’ [is] the opposite of ‘being oppressed.’”

          The printout of appropriate clothing sizes and styles that virtual fitting
          systems generate is itself a form of neoliberal subject-making. Providing individuals with a rationalized and precalculated set of consumer choices, these printouts or instructions effectively teach consumers how to self-manage and self-regulate their bodies and images in and through the market. Underpinning the operations and logics of virtual fitting systems is the idea that the source of women’s body dissatisfaction—and consequently, myriad other professional and personal failures—is in their failure to choose the right clothing sizes and styles. Rather than the massive ecosystem of idealized and largely unattainable women’s body images reproduced and reinforced in mass media, neoliberal feminist discourses about self-fashioning make women responsible
          (and to blame) for their economic, social, and mental well-being.

          #neoliberalism

        • 176-177: “If neoliberalism provides the conditions of human-to-virtual fitting room interface, virtual fitting rooms also bolster neoliberalism. Indeed, as David Harvey has argued, information technologies have a crucial role to play in the expansion of neoliberalism. Their “creation and capacities to accumulate, store, transfer, analyze, and use massive databases to guide decision in the global market place” is invaluable for maximizing the reach, frequency, and domain of the market that neoliberalism holds is the primary site of liberal democratic freedoms.”

          #neoliberalism
          184: Data analysis methods help organizations control the behavior of consumers by offering them incentives to consume (e.g., coupons, promotional offers, rewards for high levels of activity) as well as incentives to leave. Highly valued consumers are offered—by e-mail, pop-up ad, and regular mail—coupons, promotional offers, and rewards for high levels of activity. Low-value or sometimes “low-margin” consumers are subject to an array of “weblining” practices, a sophisticated system of market discrimination in which they are offered no advertising and no coupons, and are subject to practices that actively price them out of the market, forcing them “to settle for products of lesser quality.”

          Retailers are just as concerned with getting rid of low-value consumers as they are with attracting and keeping high-value ones. This business practice is based on a central tenet of the Pareto principle: “eighty percent of any firm’s profit is derived from twenty percent of its customers.” 59 Data miners sift through and analyze information to discover and identify this much-coveted class of consumers while marking out consumers who are “avoidable risks” (including those who are in a statistical category determined to have a propensity for not consuming whether because of habitual window-shopping, shoplifting, or product returning). “The easiest thing” for companies to do, explains Fredrick Newell, is “to entice [low-value] customers to leave.”

          The critical literature on database management systems is clear. […] In Lace’s formulation, data-mining
          systems “sort and sift populations more intensively and efficiently than ever before, enhancing the life chances of some and retarding those of others.

          #ghettoization

                {"cards":[{"_id":"7248ff228fc201b959000018","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":8994172,"position":3,"parentId":null,"content":"# **Kẏra's Division III**: A Division III by Kẏra"},{"_id":"724901038fc201b959000019","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":8994288,"position":1,"parentId":"7248ff228fc201b959000018","content":"## Chapter 1 — **Some Were Already Anonymous**: Surveillance's Persistence Through the Whiteness of Privacy"},{"_id":"7249e26a8fc201b95900001d","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9115685,"position":0.5,"parentId":"724901038fc201b959000019","content":"### Toni Weller — The Information State: An Historical Perspective on Surveillance\n"},{"_id":"7249e8378fc201b959000022","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9115686,"position":0.75,"parentId":"724901038fc201b959000019","content":"### Nicholas De Genova — The Production of Culprits: From Deportability to Detainability in the Aftermath of “Homeland Security”\n"},{"_id":"724907da8fc201b95900001c","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":8994289,"position":1,"parentId":"724901038fc201b959000019","content":"### Torin Monahan — The Right to Hide? Anti-Surveillance Camouflage and the Aestheticization of Resistance\n"},{"_id":"730ae3400a7c9702ec00002d","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9415399,"position":1,"parentId":"724907da8fc201b95900001c","content":"160: Visuality is about the normalization of state control through techniques of classification, separation, and aestheticization, which enforce a kind of reductive, exclusionary legibility. As Nicholas Mirzoeff writes, “Visuality sutures authority to power and renders this association ‘natural’” ; it manifests in a set of extractive and dehumanizing complexes (plantation, imperialist, and military–industrial) that are institutionalized through bureaucratic and scientific apparatuses that render classifications true and populations governable. Frequently, these complexes have explicitly racist, neocolonial, and necropolitical aims, affording the prejudicial allocation and distribution of death for populations deemed dangerous to the state, which could include terrorists, asylum seekers, or the poor in today’s capitalist economy. Thus, biopolitics and necropolitics fuse in destructive ways, in the service of neoliberal capitalism, to create conditions of bare life, or at least of abjection and human insecurity. Visuality, therefore, denies from the Other the right to legitimate autonomy and agency; it denies “the right to look” back and challenge the identities ascribed by institutions. As Stephen Graham reminds us, following Michel Foucault, there is also a “boomerang effect” to the deployment of biopolitical and necropolitical technologies in distant territories, leading frequently to their application in the homeland on so-called civilian populations, as can be seen, for example, with the domestication of drones and biometric identification systems.\n\n#visuality"},{"_id":"730ae9b90a7c9702ec00002e","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9112469,"position":2,"parentId":"724907da8fc201b95900001c","content":"160: Countervisuality projects may be necessary to disarm the natural logics of state visuality and confront their supposed order from nowhere. Rather than merely opposing visuality or seeking to substitute it with different totalizing regimes, countervisuality would instead challenge forms of violence and oppression, acknowledging differential exposures and effects. After all, despite popular claims about universal subjection to surveillance, it must be recognized that a host of surveillance functions are reserved for those who threaten the status quo, principally those classified as poor or marked as Other. Racialized identities of dangerousness are encoded back upon the targets through surveillance encounters that are always tied to the threat of state force (e.g., the stop-and-frisk search, the video-tracking of racial minorities through commercial stores, the scrutiny of purchases made by welfare recipients). These are mechanisms of marginalizing surveillance that produce conditions and identities of marginality through their very application. \n\n#visuality"},{"_id":"730af3a80a7c9702ec00002f","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9112538,"position":3,"parentId":"724907da8fc201b95900001c","content":"160-161: The field has had a longstanding concern with discriminatory surveillance practices predicated on “categorical suspicion” of marginalized groups and “social sorting” of populations through increasingly abstract, invisible, and automated systems of control. Perhaps because of the strong voyeuristic modalities of surveillance, scholars have further interrogated the gendered dimensions of watching and being watched, and have explored possibilities for gender-based appropriation and resistance. Recently, there has also been a concerted effort to foster engaged feminist and race studies critiques that attend to intersectional forms of oppression, which are often enforced by surveillance practices. For instance, Corinne Mason and Shoshana Magnet show how many policy initiatives and surveillance apps intended to combat violence against women tend to responsibilize victims, fail to target perpetrators, and aggravate conditions of vulnerability, especially for poor women who may lack a social safety net if fleeing from an abuser or risk assault or arrest if they do call the police. Feminist and intersectional approaches to surveillance studies connect the embodied, grounded nature of individual experience with larger systems of structural inequality and violence. Such approaches investigate the technological and organizational mediation of situated practice, advancing a critique of contemporary surveillance systems and power relations. The analysis presented here builds upon this orientation by questioning the values and implications of aestheticized forms of anti-surveillance.\n\n#surveillancestudies #sources #surveillance"},{"_id":"730c0e230a7c9702ec000030","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9112646,"position":4,"parentId":"724907da8fc201b95900001c","content":"161-162: Taken at face value, anti-surveillance camouflage enacts a play of surveillance avoidance. It frames the enemy either as state and corporate actors invading one’s privacy or as malicious individuals seeking to violate helpless others through voyeuristic transgressions. The gaze is always unwanted; it always individuates; it always objectifies. In this narrative, there is little room to engage the problems of categorical suspicion that undergird marginalizing surveillance because the unit of analysis is the individual, not the group. There is little room to explore complex amalgams of desired surveillance, extractive systems, and hidden effects. The provocation is one of the enlightened, bourgeois subject asserting his or her right to be left alone, which is a claim that by its very implied utterance already reveals the relative privilege of the one making it. [...] It would seem, then, that systems of oppression and discrimination—racism, sexism, classism, ableism, etc.—are preserved or at least not directly contested by anti-surveillance artistic experiments.\n\n#neoliberalism"},{"_id":"730d11180a7c9702ec000031","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9112894,"position":5,"parentId":"724907da8fc201b95900001c","content":"172: Ultimately, discourses of “the right to hide” are weak variations of “the right to privacy,” both of which depend on conceptually inadequate and empirically deficient mobilizations of universal rights. Indeed, poor and racialized populations subjected to the most invasive forms of monitoring are much more concerned with issues of domination and control, along with the practicalities of survival, than they are with legal or philosophical abstractions like privacy. Privacy is also a deeply individualistic concept, poorly suited to forestall discriminatory practices against social groups. As Sami Coll explains, “The notion of privacy, as a critique of [the] information society, has been assimilated and reshaped by and in favour of informational capitalism, notably by being over-individualized through the self-determination principle.” The discourse of the right to hide, as with the right to privacy, accepts the legitimacy of state demands for legible populations and offers symbolic compromises to assert degrees of freedom within those constraints.\n\nInstead of being content with artistic forms of hiding, countervisuality projects, by\ncontrast, would “look back” and pursue alternatives to totalizing regimes of state\nvisuality.\n\n#neoliberalism"},{"_id":"7313e4900a7c9702ec000042","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9116716,"position":5.5,"parentId":"724907da8fc201b95900001c","content":"172: Instead of being content with artistic forms of hiding, countervisuality projects, by contrast, would “look back” and pursue alternatives to totalizing regimes of state visuality. They would seek to undermine the authority of state control by challenging the capitalist imperatives that lend legitimacy to forms of state violence and oppression. What is required is a full engagement with “the political,” which, as Rancière describes, is always in opposition to the police:\n\nThe police is not a social function but a symbolic constitution of the social. The essence of the police lies neither in repression nor even in control over the living. Its essence lies in a certain way of dividing up the sensible. . . . Politics, by contrast, consists in transforming this space of “move-along,” of circulation, into a space for the appearance of a subject: the people, the workers, the citizens.\n\n#police"},{"_id":"730d21a50a7c9702ec000032","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9112903,"position":6,"parentId":"724907da8fc201b95900001c","content":"173: Whether through filming and documenting cases of police\nmisconduct, engaging in culture-jamming activities to raise awareness of corporate malfeasance, or challenging the status quo of rape culture by hacking into computer\nsystems and publicizing attempts to cover up sexual assault, there are many viable prototypes for artists and activists. [...] Projects might make visible data on police shootings, stop-and-frisk profiling, security contracts, drone attacks, or illegal rendition of terrorist\nsuspects. Alternatively, artists could launch projects like the “Million Hoodies Movement for Justice” that emerged after the 2012 shooting death of black teenager\nTrayvon Martin by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in Florida; the “hoodies” used in this movement might disrupt legibility by surveillance apparatuses, but their more important function is to express solidarity, protest systemic violence against racialized groups, and galvanize change.\n\n#alternatives"},{"_id":"7249e3478fc201b95900001e","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":8994297,"position":3,"parentId":"724901038fc201b959000019","content":"### Joseph Turow and Nora Draper — Advertising’s New Surveillance Ecosystem"},{"_id":"73125e930a7c9702ec000037","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9115644,"position":1,"parentId":"7249e3478fc201b95900001e","content":"133: In the public policy arena, especially in the USA, the concerns around data mining of this sort come from the notion that individuals can be identified and harmed using data that has been collected about them. Less attention has been given to the practice of constructing personae or “reputations” of individuals that determine the information, consumer deals and surveillance attention that a person receives. Types of firms that did not exist a decade and a half ago have as their core aims assembling data about the audience, trading the data, trading access to the audience members, and/or evaluating the success of those activities. The new media-buying system is increasingly affecting more than just the commercial messages individuals receive. It has created the technologies and logics to personalize price, information, news and entertainment based on audience categorizations that the individuals being described do not know about and with which they might not agree. The advertising system’s increasing ability to define individual reputations raises new versions of concerns about the system’s power over the opportunities people receive as well as the visions of themselves and the world that they are presented with (see also Gandy, this volume)."},{"_id":"7312c8c90a7c9702ec00003a","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9115655,"position":2,"parentId":"7249e3478fc201b95900001e","content":"136: These converging surveillance activities point toward a broadening future for social discrimination. It is one where individuals receive advertisements, discounts, and even news and entertainment agendas based upon ideas that advertisers, data firms, and publishers circulate about their audiences often without their\nknowledge and permission."},{"_id":"7312df5b0a7c9702ec00003b","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9115664,"position":3,"parentId":"7249e3478fc201b95900001e","content":"139: Schmidt went further: “I actually think most people don’t want Google to answer their questions. They\nwant Google to tell them what they should be doing next” (Jenkins, Jr 2010).\n\nBy stressing the trust implied in letting Google tell them what they should be doing next, Schmidt was\nalso implying that his firm would have their trust in using their data to assess their future interests, friendships and activities. Doing that, Google will be turning profiles into reputations for marketers. That is, Google will help them decide that certain demographic, lifestyle, friendship, and personality markers make certain people valuable and others not valuable targets for particular types of businesses (see also Pridmore, this volume).\n\nAll this will take place under an umbrella of industry exhortations that individuals and households are receiving the most relevant, and therefore interesting, materials possible. Personalized customer relationship marketing by marketers and media firms will reach out to people to assure them of the benefits of tailored content."},{"_id":"731307f40a7c9702ec00003d","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9116158,"position":3.5,"parentId":"724901038fc201b959000019","content":"### Ayse Ceyhan — Surveillance as Biopower"},{"_id":"7313115d0a7c9702ec00003e","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9116267,"position":1,"parentId":"731307f40a7c9702ec00003d","content":"38: First, surveillance is not only a form of a liberal governmental ration-\nality seeking maximum effectiveness and managing the market and the population by observing, classifying\nand sorting individuals, but is also intended to capture the contingent features of the “uncertain” (l’aléatoire) that characterizes our times. [...] In this context, the biopoliticized surveillance, that is surveillance taking the human body and its movements as the focal points, appears like a political technology of population management and a technique of reassuring populations in complex and uncertain contexts of our times where security has become a high priority."},{"_id":"73132fb60a7c9702ec00003f","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9118696,"position":2,"parentId":"731307f40a7c9702ec00003d","content":"40-41: As the vast literature produced by surveillance studies indicates surveillance is an old activity that has existed as long as humans have existed and interacted with each other (Lyon 2006). In modern times it had been intimately connected with the regulation of the capitalist society and the modernization of the army and the nation-state. According to the Foucauldian problematic of biopoliticized security, surveillance can be understood as the very form of liberal governmentality seeking maximum efficiency for the regulation of bodies and species. It is an activity undertaken both by governments and institutions and even by the subjects themselves against each other. Regarding governmental forms of governmentality, according to Foucault, the idea that government should intervene in society means that the population should be managed and even remediated or improved to ensure its members can participate productively in the market. This implies the regulation of subjects through means and diverse techniques, which are based upon the medical metaphor of body, circulation and flow. In this perspective, the biopoliticized regulation of population requires that the population has to be known both in terms of its actual behavior and with respect to the probabilities of\nits future behavior (what will the population probably do?)."},{"_id":"73134cd80a7c9702ec000040","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9116569,"position":3,"parentId":"731307f40a7c9702ec00003d","content":"42: The concept of apparatus that Foucault borrowed from Deleuze does not refer to any single device or techné, but reflects an ensemble of both physical and non-physical means. Indeed, in Deleuze’s understanding apparatus meant “a heterogeneous ensemble, a sort of network that includes both the said and the unsaid, that is to say discourses, laws, regulations, administrative enunciations, institutions and architectural ensembles” (Deleuze 1989: 185). Following this, Foucault envisioned security apparatuses as connecting any physical security phenomenon such as theft with a series of both measures, means, discourses and likely events (probabilities) that are expected to occur. Not only do these apparatuses calculate risks, but they also calculate their costs and foresee the reactions of power and set the optimal acceptability level by the population (Foucault 2004: 8). In consequence, security apparatuses introduce a new form of power different from classical disciplinary power, which relies mainly on coercion. Indeed, contrary to disciplinary measures, security apparatuses do not intervene directly in the game but shape the rules of the game. Instead of being straightforwardly implemented, they operate indirectly or remotely. As such, they participate in what Foucault calls “governmentality,” that is the ensemble constituted by the institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections, calculations and tactics which can support “that very specific but very complex form of power whose main target is the population, major form of knowledge is the political economy and essential technical instrument are security apparatuses” (Foucault\n2004: 111)."},{"_id":"7313d4d70a7c9702ec000041","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9116681,"position":4,"parentId":"731307f40a7c9702ec00003d","content":"43: Relying upon complex analysis of data, “algorithmic surveillance” (Norris et al. 1998) is thus designed to uncover relationships among widely disparate information and enable predictive analysis of behavioral\npatterns. Contrary to the classical panoptic form of surveillance that Foucault described, based on Bentham’s model for prisons, actual surveillance is characterized by embedded, silent and hidden processes that make it difficult for individuals and society to be aware of and scrutinize it (Introna and Wood 2004). Moreover these processes threaten to replace social negotiations with technological process of judgment and generate unexpected social, ethical and juridical consequences (Lyon 2003, 2006).\n\nOne of the most distinctive features of this surveillance is that its predictive orientation is aimed at the\ndetection of criminal acts, and at all human behavior in order to detect the risky ones. Even if this surveillance is processed through sensors, mathematical instructions and sequences of computer operations and thus appears neutral, such emphasis enhances in fact the biopolitical character of surveillance."},{"_id":"73146f0e0a7c9702ec000043","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9116974,"position":5,"parentId":"731307f40a7c9702ec00003d","content":"44: Consequently, more than a straightforward biopolitical power of the subjugation of bodies, what we witness today resembles better the politics of artefacts, which, by its very design, includes certain interests and excludes others (Lascoumes et al. 2001; Introna and Wood 2004). These artefacts are heterogeneous systems that function like assemblages and transform the locations of power and politics. They connect different technologies like biometrics, video cameras, GPSs and algorithms and produce an insidious form of surveillance, which impacts individuals’ lives not from the outside but from the domestic and private spheres where these technologies become more and more integrated. This makes us define a new form of governmentality and regulative power that is located in non-traditional places like the Internet (Google, for instance), shopping malls, marketing services, phone companies, businesses and high-tech corporations. In these mundane, functional and dynamic locations, social negotiation is replaced by customer management, risk assessment, market analysis, and efficiency and efficacy measures (Lyon 2003, 2006)."},{"_id":"7249e4f28fc201b95900001f","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9116154,"position":4,"parentId":"724901038fc201b959000019","content":"### Mark Andrejevik and Mark Burdon — Defining the Sensor Society"},{"_id":"7249e57e8fc201b959000020","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":8994299,"position":5,"parentId":"724901038fc201b959000019","content":"### Kelly A Gates — Biometrics and Post-9/11 Nostalgia"},{"_id":"7249e6318fc201b959000021","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":8997829,"position":6,"parentId":"724901038fc201b959000019","content":"### Catherine Zimmer — The Global Eye: Satellite, GPS, and the “Geopolitical Aesthetic”"},{"_id":"7249e9158fc201b959000023","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":8994317,"position":8,"parentId":"724901038fc201b959000019","content":"### Caren Kaplan — Precision Targets: GPS and the Militarization of U.S. Consumer Identity\n"},{"_id":"73120cc60a7c9702ec000034","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9115207,"position":9,"parentId":"724901038fc201b959000019","content":"Jacob Applebaum"},{"_id":"73120cfb0a7c9702ec000035","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10517085,"position":1,"parentId":"73120cc60a7c9702ec000034","content":"\"...what people used to call liberty and freedom, we now call privacy, and we say, in the same breath, that privacy is dead. [...] We should consider that when we lose privacy we lose agency, we lose liberty itself, because we no longer feel free to express what we think. There's this myth of the passive surveillance machine, but actually what is surveillance except control?\"\n\nCitizen Four"},{"_id":"734e6c85a022c358a400003e","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9434838,"position":10,"parentId":"724901038fc201b959000019","content":"###Claudia Aradau and Tobias Blanke — Politics of prediction: Security and the time/spaceof governmentality in theage of big data"},{"_id":"734e6db1a022c358a400003f","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9148313,"position":1,"parentId":"734e6c85a022c358a400003e","content":"2-3: As big data promises to ‘unlock’ the blockages and limitations of disciplinary and biopolitical techniques of government, we argue that a digital mode of prediction emerges today through the reconfiguration of time/space through calculations of ‘between-ness’. We have coined the notion of ‘between-ness’ to capture the logic of predictive analytics."},{"_id":"734ea989a022c358a4000040","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9148578,"position":2,"parentId":"734e6c85a022c358a400003e","content":"5: The Panopticon as a space that ‘concentrates, focuses and encloses’, where ‘the mechanisms of its power will function fully and without limit’ (Foucault, 2007: 67) is co-constituted through time. Discipline does not only arrange bodies in space, but must be understood through mechanisms of adding up and capitalizing on time. As David Murakami Wood (2007: 260) has noted, what is central to disciplinary apparatuses is ‘the spatial and temporal distribution and regulation of the body’. Time is segmented and separated, so that it becomes exhaustively used: training, eating, exercising, all this is allocated a particular temporal segment within ‘clock’ time. This segmentation of abstract or ‘clock’ time is conjugated to a progressive time, which leads to the final point of the ‘normal’, when disciplinary mechanisms become redundant. ‘The disciplinary methods’, Foucault pointed out, ‘reveal a linear time, whose moments are integrated one upon another, and which is orientated towards a terminal, stable point; in short, an ‘‘evolutive’’ time’ (Foucault, 1991 [1977]: 174). Disciplinary mechanisms display an orientation towards the future, which is the stable point of normality to be reached by acting upon particular spaces. For Foucault (2008: 70), disciplinary power ‘looks forward to the future, towards\nthe moment when it will keep going by itself and only a virtual supervision will be required, when discipline, consequently, will have become habit’."},{"_id":"734f781aa022c358a4000041","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9148720,"position":3,"parentId":"734e6c85a022c358a400003e","content":"8: We use the notion of ‘between-ness’ to capture the geometrical measure of the shortest path between two data points in the feature space. Between-ness thus measures the connection and relatedness between anything mapped into the geometry of the feature space. It is not simply a connection or network, but an understanding of similarity and difference based on geometrical distance. The classification algorithms used in predictive analytics rely on assumptions about how the feature space can be optimally partitioned and the calculability of ‘between-ness’ as a measure of how distant or close data points are. A digital mode of prediction thus emerges in a regime of between-ness."},{"_id":"734f826da022c358a4000042","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9148726,"position":4,"parentId":"734e6c85a022c358a400003e","content":"10: Alongside predicting the future and the\npresent, a third injunction to ‘predict the past’ with big data implies the counter-intuitive prediction of past performance by joining historical data sets. In the case of policing, predictive analytics offers the promise of not just anticipating future crimes, but ‘leading to more precise attribution of past crimes, and the apprehension of suspects’."},{"_id":"734f9864a022c358a4000045","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9148760,"position":5,"parentId":"734e6c85a022c358a400003e","content":"11: Alongside predicting the future and the\npresent, a third injunction to ‘predict the past’ with big data implies the counter-\nintuitive prediction of past performance by joining historical data sets. This way, security\nanalysts have, for instance, identified historical spatio-temporal patterns of improvised\nexplosive device (IED) use by the Provis\nional Irish Republican Army during ‘The\nTroubles’ and analysed the ‘historical behaviour of terrorism’ (Tench et al., 2016). In\nthe case of policing, predictive analytics offers the promise of not just anticipating future\ncrimes, but ‘leading to more precise attribution of past crimes, and the apprehension of\nsuspects’ (Wang et al., 2013: 515\n\nSpatio-temporal integration is not new to policing, as neighbourhoods, wards, beats\nand hotspots have long underpinned police and military action. The increased availabil-\nity and collection of data, however, allow t\nhe proponents of predictive policing to\narticulate new governmental interventions th\nat depart from traditional statistically-\nbased hotspot policing, which produced maps based on historical data of crime fre-\nquency. For Colleen McCue (2015: 24), policing needs to ‘shift from describing the\npast – counting, reporting, and ‘‘chasing\n’’ crime – to anticipation and influence in\nsupport of prevention, thwarting, mitigation, response, and informed consequence man-\nagement’. Data-driven predictive policing technologies promise to be proactive rather\nthan reactive, as historical data was thought to replicate the past rather than ‘intervening\nin emerging or future patterns of crime’ (CTOlabs, 2013). In"},{"_id":"734f9885a022c358a4000046","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9148771,"position":6,"parentId":"734e6c85a022c358a400003e","content":"Hotspots are between-ness actualized in near-real-time. A governmental apparatus of\nbig data enacts prediction as between-ness calculations of similarity and difference.\nBetween-ness is distinct from the ‘docile bodies’ of discipline or the population of\nbiopolitical government, as it is the production of pure relationality, of geometrical\nconnection as simultaneously similarity and difference. By featurizing space, time and\ntype of crime, PredPol experts can also argue that they use ‘no personal information\nabout individuals or groups of individuals, eliminating any personal liberties and profil-\ning concerns’ (PredPol, 2015a). Yet, time/space configurations are not separate from the\n‘conduct of conduct’ of subjects of government. What counts for a critical analysis of\nsecurity and predictive policing is to develop vocabularies that challenge the regime of\nbetween-ness underpinning predictive policing with big data. p.13\n"},{"_id":"724905838fc201b95900001a","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":8994284,"position":2,"parentId":"7248ff228fc201b959000018","content":"## Chapter 2 — Free/Libre and Open Source Software"},{"_id":"7249e9748fc201b959000024","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9541264,"position":1,"parentId":"724905838fc201b95900001a","content":"### Peter A. Chow-White — The Informationalization of Race: Communication Technologies and the Human Genome in the Digital Age\n"},{"_id":"762939dbf15298c728000047","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9541317,"position":2,"parentId":"724905838fc201b95900001a","content":"###N. Katherine Hayles — How We Became Posthuman Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics"},{"_id":"76293b6af15298c728000048","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9541340,"position":1,"parentId":"762939dbf15298c728000047","content":"\"Identified with the rational mind, the liberal subject possessed a body but was not usually represented as being a body. Only because the body is not identified with the self is it possible to claim for the liberal subject its notorious universality, a claim that depends on erasing markers of bodily difference, including sex, race, and ethnicity.\" p.5"},{"_id":"762942e5f15298c72800004a","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9541318,"position":2,"parentId":"762939dbf15298c728000047","content":""},{"_id":"7631514c65c5b57eae00004a","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10025555,"position":3,"parentId":"724905838fc201b95900001a","content":"###Adrian Mackenzie — Cutting Code: Software and Sociality"},{"_id":"7631516165c5b57eae00004b","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9544598,"position":1,"parentId":"7631514c65c5b57eae00004a","content":"Software's fringe existence seems to corroborate the commonsense notion that it is \"intangible\" rather than physical, that it is something more like a social convention or rule than machine-thing. The characteristics of software as a material object, as a means of production, as a human-technical hybrid, as a medium of communication, as terrain of political-economic contestation—in short as sociality—seem hard to represent. Software as a material with specificities, singularities, traits, and modes of existence has been displaced by software as mundane application, as infrastructural element in a wider social or technological change (the information revolution, \"digital culture,\" \"new media,\" \"network society\" or \"convergence\").\n\np3"},{"_id":"763181f365c5b57eae00004d","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9547309,"position":4,"parentId":"724905838fc201b95900001a","content":"###Matthew Kelly — All Bugs Are Shallow: Digital Biopower, Hacker Resistance, and Technological Error in Open Source Software"},{"_id":"7631825b65c5b57eae00004e","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9544609,"position":1,"parentId":"763181f365c5b57eae00004d","content":"open access to computer code helped strengthen the connection between individual conceptions of identity and economic practices in order to reveal how FOSS does not reject the late-capitalist system from which it emerged. Rather, FOSS accelerates the decentralizing tendencies of such a system by saturating society with possible outlets for production -- that is, each individual computer user as someone who can modify and circulate the productive capacities of source code -- while removing restrictions prohibiting information exchange. \n"},{"_id":"76319aa965c5b57eae00004f","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9544618,"position":2,"parentId":"763181f365c5b57eae00004d","content":"free- and open-source practices did not miraculously appear as a self-contained ideology from beyond the capitalist paradigm but, rather, materialized through the internal fissures, struggles, and unforeseen reactions within software programming communities as well as the governmental legislation thereof."},{"_id":"7631c94765c5b57eae000050","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9544653,"position":3,"parentId":"763181f365c5b57eae00004d","content":"code can be seen both as a discursive practice -- in that is an expressive medium that can shape personal conceptions of the world, [...] and a productive apparatus that contributes to the regulation of a biopolitical paradigm (that is, code directly affects the productive capacities of an individual via software programs)"},{"_id":"774da518580409f19400004e","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9721061,"position":5,"parentId":"724905838fc201b95900001a","content":"###Wendy Hui Kyong Chun — Updating to Remain the Same: Habitual New Media"},{"_id":"774da65d580409f19400004f","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9721127,"position":1,"parentId":"774da518580409f19400004e","content":"Habitual New Media counters this trend to analyze the present through soothsaying by revealing that our media matter most when they seem not to matter at all, that is, when they have moved from the new to the habitual. Search engines are hardly new or exciting, but they have become the default mode of knowl­edge acquisition. Smart phones no longer amaze, but they increasingly structure and monitor the lives of their so-called owners.\n\np.1"},{"_id":"774df882580409f194000050","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9721311,"position":2,"parentId":"774da518580409f19400004e","content":"Habit is both the source and the action because it is 'programmed. ' The logic of programming reduces the living world to dead writing; programs condense everything to \" source code\" written in advance, hence the adjec­tive \" source. \" This is because code allegedly does what it says. This understanding presumes no difference between source code and execution, instruction and result. It perversely renders code, because of machinic, dead repetition, into logos. Like the King's speech in Plato's Phaedrus, code does not pronounce knowledge or demonstrate it; it transparently pronounces itself, for it does what it says. The hidden signified-meaning; the father's intentions-shines through and transforms itself into action. Like Faust's translation of logos as \"deed\"-\"The spirit speaks! I see how it must read / And boldly write: 'In the beginning was the Deed! \"—software is word become action: a replacement of process with inscription that makes writ­ing a live power by conflating force and law. By converting action into language, source code emerges. To put it slightly differently and to revise an example from Programmed Visions, the fact that lawyers working at the intersections of new media and law declare that \"code is law\"—that pro­grams encode certain regulations—is, at one level, hardly profound. Code, after all, is a systematic collection or digest of the laws of a country, or of those relating to a particular subject\"; but \"code as law\" makes code something different: automatically executable. This executability makes code not law but rather every lawyer's dream of what law should be: automati­cally enabling and disabling certain actions, and functioning at the level of everyday practice. Code as law is code as police. Insightfully, Derrida argues that modern technologies ensure the sphere of \"the police absolute ubiquity.\" The police weld together norm with reality; they \"are present or represented everywhere there is force of law. … They are present, some­ times invisible but always effective, wherever there is preservation of the social order.\"\n\np.82"},{"_id":"774e6e63580409f194000051","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9721464,"position":3,"parentId":"774da518580409f19400004e","content":"Tellingly, this machinic execution of law is linked to the emergence of a sovereign user. Celebrations of an all-powerful user/agent-YOU as the net­work, YOU as \"produser\"-counteract concerns over code as law as police by positing YOU as the sovereign subject, YOU as the decider. An agent, however, only holds power through proxy; an agent acts on behalf of another subject. In networks, the real power would seem to be technology, rather than the users or programmers who authorize actions through their commands and clicks. Programmers and users are not creators of languages, nor the actual executors, but rather living sources that take credit for the action.\n\np.84"},{"_id":"774ef891580409f194000052","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9721496,"position":6,"parentId":"724905838fc201b95900001a","content":"###Wendy Hui Kyong Chun — Programmed Visions: Software and Memory (Software Studies)"},{"_id":"774ef9aa580409f194000053","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10025047,"position":1,"parentId":"774ef891580409f194000052","content":"\"The ability of numbers, statements, currencies, or other signs to stand in for all kinds of things gives systems of abstraction and generalization immense power, especially when they can be made to line up into larger-scale structures, producing veritable machines.\"\n\nviii"},{"_id":"58edc5f72fa9185e35515f07","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10025679,"position":1.5,"parentId":"774ef891580409f194000052","content":"In other words, the fact that “code is law”—something legal scholar Lawrence Lessig emphasizes—is hardly profound. After all, code is, according to the OED, “a systematic collection or digest of the laws of a country, or of those relating to a particular subject.” What is surprising is the fact that software is code; that code is—has been made to be—executable, and this executability makes code not law, but rather every lawyer’s dream of what law should be: automatically enabling and disabling certain actions, functioning at the level of everyday practice."},{"_id":"774f076e580409f194000054","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10024329,"position":2,"parentId":"774ef891580409f194000052","content":"\"By 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit held in *In re Alappat* (1994) that all software was inherently machinic, since it changed the material nature of a computer: “a general purpose computer in effect becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software.”19 A change in memory, it seems, a change in machine.\"\n\np.4"},{"_id":"774f7018580409f194000055","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10024331,"position":3,"parentId":"774ef891580409f194000052","content":"As a physical process, however, software would seem uncopyrightable. 20 Copyright seeks to protect creative expression; as Radin notes, patents and copyrights were supposed to be mutually exclusive: “Copyright is supposed to exclude works that are functional; patent is supposed to focus on functionality and exclude texts.” 21 To address this contradiction, the U.S. Congress changed the law in 1975, so that expressions, as opposed to the actual processes or methods, adopted by the programmer became copyrightable. 22 The difference, however, between expression and methods has been difficult to determine, especially since the expression of software has not been limited to source code.\n\np.5"},{"_id":"7769058396a12b0e69000059","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10025162,"position":3.25,"parentId":"774ef891580409f194000052","content":"software emerged as a thing—as an iterable textual program—through an axiomatic process of commercialization and commodification that has made code logos: a word conflated with and substituting for action.\n\np.9"},{"_id":"77526bbf580409f194000059","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10025115,"position":3.5,"parentId":"774ef891580409f194000052","content":"This chapter investigates the implications of code as logos and the ways in which this simultaneous conflation and separation of instruction from execution, itself a software effect, is constantly constructed and undone, historically and theoretically. This separation is crucial to understanding the power and thrill of programming, in particular the nostalgic fantasy of an all-powerful programmer, a sovereign neoliberal\nsubject who magically transforms words into things. It is also key to addressing the nagging doubts and frustrations experienced by programmers: the sense that we are slaves, rather than masters, clerks rather than managers — that, because “ code is law, ” the code, rather than the programmer, rules.\n\np.19"},{"_id":"774f711f580409f194000056","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9723698,"position":4,"parentId":"774ef891580409f194000052","content":"Software, free or not, is embedded\nand participates in structures of knowledge-power.\n\np.21"},{"_id":"77518ff7580409f194000057","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10025134,"position":5,"parentId":"774ef891580409f194000052","content":"In other words, the fact that “code is law”—something legal scholar Lawrence Lessig emphasizes—is hardly profound. After all, code is, according to the OED, “a systematic collection or digest of the laws of a country, or of those relating to a particular subject.” What is surprising is the fact that software is code; that code is—has been made to be—executable, and this executability makes code not law, but rather every lawyer’s dream of what law should be: automatically enabling and disabling certain actions, functioning at the level of everyday practice.\n\np.27"},{"_id":"7806161550fa90f83200005a","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9832876,"position":7,"parentId":"724905838fc201b95900001a","content":"###Dmytri Kleiner — The Telekommunist Manifesto"},{"_id":"7825e715d69fdbae5800005b","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9850467,"position":1,"parentId":"7806161550fa90f83200005a","content":""},{"_id":"787f6d94998bf3c49500005c","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9900572,"position":8,"parentId":"724905838fc201b95900001a","content":"### Shannon Winnubst — Queering Freedom"},{"_id":"787f6dfa998bf3c49500005d","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9900565,"position":1,"parentId":"787f6d94998bf3c49500005c","content":"While the work of imperialism and colonialism, the twin politics of nationalism’s promises to freedom, has been forced underground, these slippery dynamics of domination have assumed the guise of liberation. The United States, for example, speaks under the banners of “democracy” and “liberation” as it legitimates its invasions of other nations and then initiates the bizarre process of ‘nation-building’ in the conquered lands, once again enacting the colonialist narrative of bringing civilization to savage, virgin, or empty soil. The designation of what constitutes a legitimate or illegitimate nation still rests in the imperialist hands of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, even if that power has largely migrated across the Atlantic Ocean. And the politics and rhetoric of freedom have wholly displaced the politics and rhetoric of imperialism, granting them newfound vigor through the very erasure enacted in the displacement. Who, after all, dares to argue against freedom?\n\n\nThe language of freedom thereby continues to frame one of the fundamental discursive sites of modern western cultures. It functions as the ethical value and space that no one can disavow: our political fealties seem to fall away in the face of freedom. We can dispute the nuances of its various meanings or disagree over the best ways to enact, ensure, protect, and cultivate it, but no one can articulate a politics or ethics without an appeal to this sacred value of modernity. Joining us together in the lasting project of modernizing humanity, these unassailable appeals to freedom place us all in the same discursive field and, ultimately, flatten any differences between political convictions. In the end, we are all freedom fighters.\n\n[...]\n\nwhen we desire freedom, we may be seduced by systems of domination.\n\np.2"},{"_id":"787f76fd998bf3c49500005e","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9900579,"position":2,"parentId":"787f6d94998bf3c49500005c","content":""},{"_id":"7ce2782de64ea66970000078","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10533551,"position":9,"parentId":"724905838fc201b95900001a","content":"**Söderberg, Johan. \"Copyleft vs. copyright: A Marxist critique.\" First Monday 7, no. 3 (2002).\n"},{"_id":"7ce2785ae64ea66970000079","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10533549,"position":1,"parentId":"7ce2782de64ea66970000078","content":"Like the activity of many 'alternative' subcultures that are not directly defined by their political engagement, \"the struggles are at once economic, political, and cultural - and hence they are biopolitical struggles, struggles over the form of life. They are constituent struggles, creating new public spaces and new forms of community\" [46]. The chief uniting and mobilising force for the hacker underground is the common enemy of Microsoft (Bezroukov, 1999a). Opposition to Microsoft draws both from socialist anarchistic principles, and from high-tech libertarianism. The rightwing drift, dubbed as the Californian Ideology, is a recent transition, and not surprising given the hegemonic dominance of the corporate sector in the United States and the greater stakes in free software for business. However, it runs counter to the roots of hacking, which essentially is a reaction against Taylorism (Hannemyr, 1999). Basic motivations to engage in free programming are the rush of technological empowerment (Sterling, 1994), the joy of un-alienated creativity (Moglen, 1999), and the sense of belonging to a community (commonly recognised by hackers themselves as 'ego', but reputation only viable within a group of peers, i.e. a community). Those values may not seem political at first sight, but they are on collision course with the commercial agenda of turning the Internet into a marketplace. The rising tension within the hacker community are illuminated by the words of Manuel Castells: \"The struggle between diverse capitalists and miscellaneous working class is subsumed into the more fundamental opposition between the bare logic of capital flows and the cultural values of human experience\" [47]."},{"_id":"7ce2792be64ea6697000007a","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10533550,"position":2,"parentId":"7ce2782de64ea66970000078","content":"Lancashire alleges that the low engagement in free software in the U.S. (in relative, not absolute, numbers) disproves notions on post-scarcity gift-economies, because the U.S. is the wealthiest country in the world. His conclusion is flawed because he too fails to take into account the distribution of the wealth. Quite to the contrary, the study supports a connection between general welfare systems and commitment to non-commercial projects. Therefore the hacker movement is political in a second sense. The thriving of the free software community is embedded in a wider political context of redistribution, even when hackers do not take direct part in that struggle."},{"_id":"7ce32869e64ea6697000007b","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10533677,"position":10,"parentId":"724905838fc201b95900001a","content":"\n***Barbrook, Richard, and Andy Cameron. \"The californian ideology.\" Science as Culture 6, no. 1 (1996): 44-72.\n"},{"_id":"7ce32884e64ea6697000007c","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10533676,"position":1,"parentId":"7ce32869e64ea6697000007b","content":"Despite the central role played by public intervention in developing hypermedia, the Californian ideologues preach an anti-statist gospel of cybernetic libertarianism: a bizarre mish-mash of hippie anarchism and economic liberalism beefed up with lots of technological determinism. Rather than comprehend really existing capitalism, gurus from both New Left and New Right much prefer to advocate rival versions of a digital 'Jeffersonian democracy'. For instance, Howard Rheingold on the New Left believes that the electronic agora will allow individuals to exercise the sort of media freedom advocated by the Founding Fathers. Similarly, the New Right claim that the removal of all regulatory curbs on the private enterprise will create media freedom worthy of a 'Jeffersonian democracy'."},{"_id":"7ce32cd9e64ea6697000007d","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10533682,"position":11,"parentId":"724905838fc201b95900001a","content":"**Robins, Kevin, and Frank Webster. \"Cybernetic capitalism: Information, technology, everyday life.\" The political economy of information (1988): 44-75.\n"},{"_id":"7ce32e50e64ea6697000007e","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10533683,"position":1,"parentId":"7ce32cd9e64ea6697000007d","content":" \n \nMedia analysts and the communication “revolution” :: they’ve failed to identify the wider social structures that determine the shape and character of these new technologies and platforms. \n“Information revolution” affect on “everyday life” demonstrates the ways in which capital trans/forms culture. (both economic base and ideological superstructure)\n\f\n"},{"_id":"724906938fc201b95900001b","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":8994285,"position":3,"parentId":"7248ff228fc201b959000018","content":"## Chapter 3 — Free Culture\n"},{"_id":"7cc58d750ffef33242000060","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10756604,"position":1,"parentId":"724906938fc201b95900001b","content":"Kathy Bowrey and Jane Anderson — The Politics of Global Information Sharing: Whose Cultural Agendas Are Being Advanced?\n"},{"_id":"7cc58daa0ffef33242000061","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10518675,"position":1,"parentId":"7cc58d750ffef33242000060","content":"While open access, public domain and creative commons articulate themselves differently, they share motivations in terms of developing frameworks for social change with regards to how knowledge is to be accessed and circulated. As such they each rely upon, and fold into each other, ideational principles that oscillate around concepts such as ‘freedom’, ‘public’, ‘openness’,\n‘sharing’ and ‘commons’. Such concepts come with complex derivations, histories and politics, both in relation to their generic definitions, and more importantly, their place within liberal and democratic frameworks of action.\n\np2"},{"_id":"7cc5def60ffef33242000062","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10518677,"position":2,"parentId":"7cc58d750ffef33242000060","content":"As Tatiana Flesess (2008: 394) has observed in a recent edition of this journal, ‘participants in the debates regarding the commons . . . are establishing (and then policing) the thresholds and boundaries between differing versions and visions of the past, of “us” and “them” and of what is available to be claimed for use and by whom’. Such terms, despite their appearance and constantly shifting nature, are not and have never been wholly inclusive of peoples, perspectives or cultures. Their borders are managed in order to establish normative orders for inclusion and participation. This reality runs like a fault-line through these movements, connecting them together in important ways, while at the same time compromising their promise to change global knowledge cultures. For their success, there must now be a serious commitment to understanding the ongoing instances where these movements, sometimes unwittingly, repeat significant historical exclusions. \n\np2"},{"_id":"7cc5f1780ffef33242000063","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10756610,"position":3,"parentId":"7cc58d750ffef33242000060","content":"The ethos of freedom, public, openness and commons is problematic because it does not properly deal with the baggage of the past. For many Indigenous people across the globe, there is no fuzzy, warm glow that automatically accompanies western words like humanity, culture, progress, freedom, openness, knowledge. For Indigenous people living in Australia there is no automatic sense of entitlement or inclusion that comes with notions of ‘the public’, the ‘public good’ or ‘the public interest’. These idealistic political and cultural concepts were, and arguably still are, largely experienced by Indigenous people as terms of exclusion. These were the very terms that justified the denials of sovereignty, dispossession of culture and lands and removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities.\n\n.p2"},{"_id":"7cc66d0c0ffef33242000064","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10756613,"position":4,"parentId":"7cc58d750ffef33242000060","content":"Our problem, however, stems from a fundamental concern that the politics of access to knowledge unwittingly provides support for those who seek to prevent and delay the repatriation and restitution of stolen Indigenous cultural and intellectual property. This raises critical questions that we strongly believe require more considered attention and discussion. Namely, who benefits from greater access and whose cultural agendas are being advanced through this politics?\n\np3"},{"_id":"7eb014fd63489a3d7a000080","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10756699,"position":4.5,"parentId":"7cc58d750ffef33242000060","content":"Unease manifests around questions of power relations, presumptions of\nliberal freedom, the politics of sharing, the construction of subjectivity and\nthe space made for an active citizenry, including for Indigenous resistance. \n\np3"},{"_id":"7cc66de40ffef33242000065","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10756616,"position":5,"parentId":"7cc58d750ffef33242000060","content":"As an effect of the access movement’s response to maximalist IP and the treatment of Indigenous peoples within IP law, Indigenous exclusion is explained as cultural while knowledge itself remains disassociated from cultural politics, contemporary economic agendas and new projects of governance. This speaks to the developed reliance upon ‘culture’ as an explanatory tool for Indigenous differentiation and exceptionalism within the IP system more generally.\n\np4"},{"_id":"7cc701d00ffef33242000066","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10522333,"position":6,"parentId":"7cc58d750ffef33242000060","content":"It is well recognized that dispossession and appropriation accompanied the age of Empire. Industrial espionage, piracy and pillaging of texts and inventions at will, between European powers and from within their colonial outposts, characterized much of the period (Harris, 1998; Ben-Atar, 2004; Schiebinger, 2007; Schiebinger and Swan, 2007). However, civilized modern nations developed modes of diplomacy and, by the mid-late 19th century, treaties to accommodate reciprocal IP recognition and rules of ‘sharing’. This has led to a misconception that, so far as the history of intellectual property is concerned, the politics is primarily about the parameters of the right to private property and implications for access to knowledge (Boyle, 2003; Deazley, 2006; May and Sell, 2006). However, to have access to any ownership and control entitlements, one first needed to be accorded a status among the ‘civilized’. It is that legacy which endures.\n\np6-7"},{"_id":"7cc7d59b0ffef33242000067","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10756625,"position":7,"parentId":"7cc58d750ffef33242000060","content":"As early as 1825, claims about Aboriginal physiological weakness and the fiction of Aborigines as a dying race were read into the bones by comparative anatomists and phrenologists (Fulford et al., 2004; Turnbull, 2007). This biological gloss was (and still is) deployed as a political tool to undermine and silence ongoing Indigenous political claims.\n\np7-8"},{"_id":"7cc7ed080ffef33242000068","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10756635,"position":8,"parentId":"7cc58d750ffef33242000060","content":"That the Indigenous case for repatriation still has to be argued, illustrates ongoing hierarchical distributions of the entitlements of ‘global’ citizenship and the imaginary inclusions that are presumed in contemporary articulations of the ‘public’.\n\np8"},{"_id":"7cc7f3f20ffef3324200006b","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10756640,"position":9,"parentId":"7cc58d750ffef33242000060","content":"The freedom to circulate information unfettered is antithetical to certain localized practices. Freedom does not mean that all knowledge is common or for the commons.\n\np16"},{"_id":"7cc9b3b20ffef3324200006c","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10756643,"position":10,"parentId":"7cc58d750ffef33242000060","content":"Phantoms of romanticism ground conventional views about high art and culture and are never far away from critiques of copyright law from the perspective of the humanities. For example, one of the recurring criticisms of copyright is that this body of law supports commodification at the expense of a genuine interest in fostering culture, creativity and art created.\n\nRomanticism directly links the notion of true artistic identity with artistic suffering in the world and with alienation from Nature.\n\np10"},{"_id":"7cc7ef0c0ffef33242000069","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10522355,"position":2,"parentId":"724906938fc201b95900001b","content":"deazley"},{"_id":"7cc7ef5e0ffef3324200006a","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10756646,"position":1,"parentId":"7cc7ef0c0ffef33242000069","content":"The central focus of the statute was, and remains, a quid pro quo. Parliament was not concerned with the recognition of any pre-existing authorial right, nor was it primarily concerned with the regulation of the book trade. Rather it sought to encourage ‘learned Men to compose and write useful Books’, through the striking of (an) economic, social and cultural bargain."},{"_id":"7cd46e0cf134c621cd00006d","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823484,"position":3.5,"parentId":"724906938fc201b95900001b","content":"Intellectual Property at the Intersection of Race\nand Gender: Lady Sings the Blues"},{"_id":"7cd46ea1f134c621cd00006e","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10756647,"position":1,"parentId":"7cd46e0cf134c621cd00006d","content":"The history of the production of cultural property in the United States follows the same pattern as the history of the racial divide that inaugurated the founding of the Republic. The original U.S. Constitution excluded both black women and men from the blessings of liberty. \n\np2"},{"_id":"7cd46f26f134c621cd00006f","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10756649,"position":2,"parentId":"7cd46e0cf134c621cd00006d","content":"The treatment of blacks, women, and indigenous peoples in the IP system reflects the unfortunate narrative of exploitation, devaluation, and promotion of derogatory stereotypes that helped fuel oppression in the United States, and in the case of indigenous peoples, both here and abroad. \n\np3"},{"_id":"7cd47038f134c621cd000070","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823779,"position":3,"parentId":"7cd46e0cf134c621cd00006d","content":"idea/expression dichotomy, improvisation unprotected, minimum standard of originality\n\np8\n\nThe fact that black artists continued to create and\ninnovate, even in the face of diminished economic incentives, poses a\nchallenge to copyright policy, which dictates that copyright \"is\nfundamentally about providing a balance of incentives for authors.\" 3 6 This\nphenomenon surely gives weight to the notion that economic incentives\nalone are not the sole motivator of creative output.\n\np9"},{"_id":"7f2f25405bc44f37dc000080","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823462,"position":3.5,"parentId":"7cd46e0cf134c621cd00006d","content":"While individual black artists without\nquestion have benefited from the IP system, the economic effects of IP\ndeprivation on the black community have been devastating.\n\np6"},{"_id":"7cd57f9df134c621cd000073","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823473,"position":4,"parentId":"7cd46e0cf134c621cd00006d","content":"\"beneath Professor Lessig's analysis lies a much more insidious form of piracy. The early music industry was built on the back of black cultural production from the era of slave songs and spirituals to the period of black-face minstrelsy-America's most popular and profitable form of entertainment from 1800 to the end of the last century.\"\n\np9"},{"_id":"7f2f2c105bc44f37dc000081","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823564,"position":5,"parentId":"7cd46e0cf134c621cd00006d","content":"The treatment of blacks in the IP system has been characterized by two\ndynamics that have import for racial and distributive justice. First, black\nauthors and inventors have found their works routinely appropriated and\ndivested. Second, appropriated and distorted creative works protected by\ncopyright, and trade symbols and imagery protected by trademark, have\npromoted derogatory racial stereotypes that facilitate racial subordination.\n\np7"},{"_id":"7f2f4e095bc44f37dc000089","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823565,"position":5.5,"parentId":"7cd46e0cf134c621cd00006d","content":"IP \"is understood almost exclusively as being\nabout incentives.\"\n\np7\n\nSunder, supra note 24, at 257; see also ROBERT P. MERGES ET AL.,\nINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE NEW TECHNOLOGICAL AGE 12 (2d ed. 2000) (noting\nthe primacy of incentive theory as underlying the basis of IP protections)."},{"_id":"7f2f4de45bc44f37dc000088","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823712,"position":6,"parentId":"7cd46e0cf134c621cd00006d","content":"There has always been \"an overwhelming prevalence of black innovators in\njazz, ' 28 as well as blues, ragtime, rock-and-roll, and today's hip-hop music.\nThe history of black artists within U.S. IP law, however, has been one of\nappropriation, degradation, and devaluation beginning with the creation of\nthe nation until the 1950s and '60s. In the arena of music, there is no need\nto assume mass appropriation and disparate treatment of black composers\nand performers. Time after time, foundational artists who developed\nragtime, blues, and jazz found their copyrights divested, and through\ninequitable contracts, their earnings pilfered. 29 I argued elsewhere that for\na long period of U.S. history, the work of black blues artists was essentially\ndedicated to the public domain.\n\np7"},{"_id":"7f2f99565bc44f37dc00008a","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823814,"position":7,"parentId":"7cd46e0cf134c621cd00006d","content":"\"copyright\nlaw... was created without deference to the interests of large segments of\nsociety,\" including women and minorities.\n\np8\n\nGreene, Copyright, supra note 26, at 356"},{"_id":"7f2f9e055bc44f37dc00008b","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823817,"position":8,"parentId":"7cd46e0cf134c621cd00006d","content":"minstrelsy, ragtime, blues, rock and roll, rnb, rap and hip hop, etc."},{"_id":"7f2f31615bc44f37dc000082","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823493,"position":3.75,"parentId":"724906938fc201b95900001b","content":"Keith Aoki, Distributive Justice and Intellectual Property: Distributive and\nSyncretic Motives in Intellectual Property Law (with Special Reference to Coercion,\nAgency, and Development), 40 U.C. DAVIs L. REv. 717, 738-47 (2007) (noting that\nslave owners often took credit for inventions by slaves)"},{"_id":"7f2f352f5bc44f37dc000085","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823496,"position":3.8125,"parentId":"724906938fc201b95900001b","content":"K.J. Greene, Copyright, Culture and Black Music: A Legacy of\nUnequal Protection, 21 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L.J. 339 (1999)"},{"_id":"7f2f360e5bc44f37dc000086","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823497,"position":1,"parentId":"7f2f352f5bc44f37dc000085","content":"racially 26 neutral construct of IP has adversely impacted African-\nAmerican artists."},{"_id":"7f2f31ec5bc44f37dc000083","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823490,"position":3.875,"parentId":"724906938fc201b95900001b","content":"Shubha Ghosh,\nGlobalization, Patents, and Traditional Knowledge, 17 COLUM. J. ASIAN L. 73 (2004)."},{"_id":"7f2f34435bc44f37dc000084","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823494,"position":3.9375,"parentId":"724906938fc201b95900001b","content":"K.J. Greene, What the Treatment of Black Artists Can Teach About\nCopyright Law, in PETER K. YU, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INFORMATION WEALTH\nISSUES AND PRACTICES IN THE DIGITAL AGE 385 (2007)."},{"_id":"7f2f36c45bc44f37dc000087","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823498,"position":1,"parentId":"7f2f34435bc44f37dc000084","content":"racially 26 neutral construct of IP has adversely impacted African-\nAmerican artists."},{"_id":"7cd47716f134c621cd000071","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10528411,"position":4,"parentId":"724906938fc201b95900001b","content":" Madhavi Sunder — IP³"},{"_id":"7cd47735f134c621cd000072","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":10823472,"position":1,"parentId":"7cd47716f134c621cd000071","content":"IP serves not merely as\na legal doctrine allocating rights, but \"as a legal vehicle for facilitating (or thwarting) recognition of diverse contributors to social discourse.\""},{"_id":"7264b9482e0a437a8f000025","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9009212,"position":4,"parentId":"7248ff228fc201b959000018","content":"## Uncategorized Sources"},{"_id":"7264b9902e0a437a8f000026","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9149050,"position":1,"parentId":"7264b9482e0a437a8f000025","content":"### Minh-Ha T. Pham — Visualizing \"The Misfit\": Virtual Fitting Rooms and the Politics of Technology"},{"_id":"7264bbf02e0a437a8f000028","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9724395,"position":0.5,"parentId":"7264b9902e0a437a8f000026","content":"171-172: In addition to their appearance and function, virtual fitting rooms and airport security scanners share a military history. The scanning technology was created at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)—a research arm of the US Department of Energy—where the technology was being applied to detect enemy submarines. In 2002, in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, PNNL began granting commercial licenses. Two of the first licenses went to Intellifit (a Philadelphia-based company with a Canadian CEO developing a virtual fitting room that was then called My Best Fit and is now called Me-ality for “Measured Reality”) and SafeView, Inc. (a supplier of high-tech security products specializing in airport scanners). While these companies seem totally different—one in the business of fashion retail and the other in aviation security—they are unified in their shared interest in predicting human behavior as well as in the belief that the monitoring and regulation of human behavior are effective strategies for achieving this goal. Thus, while Intellifit and SafeView are private commercial entities, they both perform a governmental service that was intensely significant in the immediate aftermath of 9/11: surveillance.\n"},{"_id":"7264c5432e0a437a8f000029","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9009223,"position":0.75,"parentId":"7264b9902e0a437a8f000026","content":"172: Despite the deeply intertwined history and future of airport security scanners and virtual fitting rooms, the general perception of them could not be more divergent. One is associated with the enhancement of freedom (a consumer’s freedom from fitting rooms, a bad fit, etc.) while the other is associated with the curtailing of freedom (of travel, of privacy, etc.). Even individuals who have a less adverse reaction to airport security scanners characterize them as a necessary inconvenience. We stand in line for airport security scanners because we are obligated to do so, not because we want to. In contrast, consumers enthusiastically seek out and volunteer to stand in line for virtual fitting rooms."},{"_id":"7264c8452e0a437a8f00002a","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9009231,"position":0.875,"parentId":"7264b9902e0a437a8f000026","content":"174: Recall that VanBrackle describes the computer-generated printout of\nappropriate sizes and styles as a set of instructions that “tells consumers what to do.” Virtual fitting rooms thus help consumers achieve not only the perfect fit but also the perfect shopping experience. \n\n#neoliberalism\n\nSimilar to Eric Schmidt on Google"},{"_id":"7264ca292e0a437a8f00002b","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9009254,"position":0.9375,"parentId":"7264b9902e0a437a8f000026","content":"175-176: The popular and scholarly discourse about virtual fitting rooms aligns them with the ever-broadening horizon of neoliberalism based on a core belief in, as Inderpal Grewal puts it, “the self-actualizing and identity-producing possibilities of consumption.” 34 Under neoliberalism, Grewal explains, the market is the site and source of liberal democracy because it “promot[es] endlessly the idea of choice.” 35 Key to neoliberal conceptions of identity formation is that self-making is mutually constitutive and coextensive with making consumer choices. In Grewal’s succinct formulation, neoliberal progressive feminism is premised on “the idea [that] ‘having choices’ [is] the opposite of ‘being oppressed.’”\n\nThe printout of appropriate clothing sizes and styles that virtual fitting\nsystems generate is itself a form of neoliberal subject-making. Providing individuals with a rationalized and precalculated set of consumer choices, these printouts or instructions effectively teach consumers how to self-manage and self-regulate their bodies and images in and through the market. Underpinning the operations and logics of virtual fitting systems is the idea that the source of women’s body dissatisfaction—and consequently, myriad other professional and personal failures—is in their failure to choose the right clothing sizes and styles. Rather than the massive ecosystem of idealized and largely unattainable women’s body images reproduced and reinforced in mass media, neoliberal feminist discourses about self-fashioning make women responsible\n(and to blame) for their economic, social, and mental well-being. \n\n#neoliberalism\n"},{"_id":"7264b9ba2e0a437a8f000027","treeId":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","seq":9992728,"position":1,"parentId":"7264b9902e0a437a8f000026","content":"176-177: \"If neoliberalism provides the conditions of human-to-virtual fitting room interface, virtual fitting rooms also bolster neoliberalism. Indeed, as David Harvey has argued, information technologies have a crucial role to play in the expansion of neoliberalism. Their “creation and capacities to accumulate, store, transfer, analyze, and use massive databases to guide decision in the global market place” is invaluable for maximizing the reach, frequency, and domain of the market that neoliberalism holds is the primary site of liberal democratic freedoms.\"\n\n#neoliberalism\n184: Data analysis methods help organizations control the behavior of consumers by offering them incentives to consume (e.g., coupons, promotional offers, rewards for high levels of activity) as well as incentives to leave. Highly valued consumers are offered—by e-mail, pop-up ad, and regular mail—coupons, promotional offers, and rewards for high levels of activity. Low-value or sometimes “low-margin” consumers are subject to an array of “weblining” practices, a sophisticated system of market discrimination in which they are offered no advertising and no coupons, and are subject to practices that actively price them out of the market, forcing them “to settle for products of lesser quality.”\n\nRetailers are just as concerned with getting rid of low-value consumers as they are with attracting and keeping high-value ones. This business practice is based on a central tenet of the Pareto principle: “eighty percent of any firm’s profit is derived from twenty percent of its customers.” 59 Data miners sift through and analyze information to discover and identify this much-coveted class of consumers while marking out consumers who are “avoidable risks” (including those who are in a statistical category determined to have a propensity for not consuming whether because of habitual window-shopping, shoplifting, or product returning). “The easiest thing” for companies to do, explains Fredrick Newell, is “to entice [low-value] customers to leave.”\n\nThe critical literature on database management systems is clear. [...] In Lace’s formulation, data-mining\nsystems “sort and sift populations more intensively and efficiently than ever before, enhancing the life chances of some and retarding those of others.\n\n#ghettoization"}],"tree":{"_id":"5823e8adb110bfba4a09641d","name":"Division III Notes","publicUrl":"division-iii-notes"}}