Saturday, monochrom and Telekommunisten are hosting DISMALWARE2 at Supermarkt Berlin, we will be screeing the movie DIE GSTETTENSAGA: THE RISE OF ECHSENFRIEDL, here is a guest post from Bonni Rambatan about the movie

Bonni Rambatan

(Contains movie spoilers.)

If the film is the defining medium of the 20th century, the social media is what defines the 21st century. That much is clear to anyone who pays attention to the way media constructs the lives and desires of contemporary society. If the film, as Slavoj Žižek remarks, teaches us how to desire, the social media, as it were, sets those ways of desiring into stone by determining how we like, how we share, to whom, to which things we are exposed, and so on. All is codified within the realm of technology, that—at least to non-hackers—remain opaque, even invisible. And all, of course, are presented as comfort—a perfect illustration to the Foucauldian “society of control”,
This is where the contemporary romaticism of nerds as agents of change often falls short—and precisely the target of Johannes Grenzfurthner’s latest film, Die Gstettensaga: The Rise of Echsenfriedl. In the film, we follow the adventures of two young nerd protagonists who are hired by the old media mogul, Thurner von Pjölk, to find and interview via live broadcast the reclusive new media mogul, Echsenfriedl—only to find that all is von Pjölk’s scheme of banning television and other forms of new media, because the live interview would turn all viewers into stone (because Echsenfriedl is a basilisk), hence creating mass hysteria of the dangers of new media.

It’s easy to see the Edison-vs-Tesla mythology at play in the von Pjölk-Echsenfriedl relationship constructed throughout the film. Much to the delight of the nerds, Echsenfriedl (obviously the more Tesla of the two) eventually won—but this twist brings a problematic ending. Echsenfriedl becomes the new media mogul, and the nerds overtly rejoice, even starts burning books and other forms of old media. In the narrator’s own words, “today … creative technophilia is not expressed in underground makerspaces, but out on the open streets!” and Echsenfriedl says “I like it when young people do something” and that he trusts “the wisdom of the crowd.”

It brings into question, then: are movements like Occupy Wall Street really “movements” in the traditional revolutionary sense? Is it not, rather, more of an expression of “creative technophilia”? There is nothing wrong with that, of course—as I have said in many of my other writings, hacking and play are the roots of revolution, since they shed light on new possibilities. However, what we should be careful of—and about which the film warns us so cleverly, if tongue-in-cheek—is this all-too-readiness in today’s otherwise potentially revolutionary petit-bourgeoisie to embrace technology and crowd wisdom as a sort of romantic proto-revolution for a more equal future, while it in fact remains firmly planted in the capitalist universe. In the end, it is Echsenfriedl who has the last laugh, while the nerds, as one can easily deduce, are “doing things” and producing “crowd wisdom” which produces yet more data and more market for the new media business.

The film doesn’t beat around the bush and pretend to give us a solution to this conondrum, but nor does it have to. What it does is that it forces us to think deeper about this conondrum, and the fact that much of today’s romanticized revolutions often go eerily hand in hand with the development of digital capitalism. Few films today, if any, manage to do such a feat.
Baudrillard mentioned, regarding to pornography, that what is being offered is a seduction of not sex but scientism, of objective close-ups, subsuming the real into the hyperreal. Might not the same be said today of prevailing discourses of digital revolution? What is being offered is a seduction not of true change, but of digitalism, of making the real world work more like the computerized world—a subsumation of the real into the computerized. And while on the one hand this may bring about new possibilities of equality, let us not forget that the decentralization of power it offers is a thin veil of power’s evolution as distributed biopolitical control.

(„Die Gstettensaga“ can be seen at various film festivals, hacker cons and on Pirate Bay.)

Bonni Rambatan is an independent critical theorist and cultural researcher with a main focus in digital culture, psychoanalysis, and Left-wing political theory. He has given talks and published writings in various seminars and anthologies in Europe and Asia. A graduate of English Literature, he now studies Management in Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship at Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia. He also actively writes novels and makes films.

Twitter is like Coca-cola

Is “free expression” a right or a product?

If Turkey shut off its market to Coca cola or McDonald’s would there be the same outrage and ridicule we see today? “Wait! Twitter is not Coca-cola!” you cry? Just as Coca cola is not all beverages, Twitter is not the Internet. It is not “free speech” or “free expression”. It is a private company owned by private shareholders, some of the largest players in global finance. What does it mean to complain that people are being deprived of a corporate product worth billions to a handful of global finance investors? Who is generating the contemporary outcry for what purposes?

Is “free expression” a human right or a product of global finance capital? Inversely, is anything which exists outside of global finance capital automatically not free? For all those around the world who believe in the emancipatory potential and the democratic exigency of free expression, and that this can be fostered on the Internet, the technology is there to provide it for everyone. This is a provocative point of Telekommunisten’s Thimbl. Thimbl is a distributed microblogging platform based on Finger, a protocol from the 1970s which is still usable today to provide robust networked messaging around the world. Thimbl is an artwork which proves the point that anyone could implement an alternative distributed global networked messaging system.

The reason a platform like Thimbl is not being used right now to circumvent official Turkish censorship is because it does not have the finance capital investment necessary to be able to provide the extent and ease of services any web-user could use. The web could offer a plethora of federated, distributed, and also publicly- and commonly-owned-and-managed networked messaging platforms, a beautiful, diverse landscape of services whereby users could choose myriad alternative paths to the people they wish to reach or, if desired, broadcast to the whole freedom-loving world.

That monopolistic platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have come to be synonymous with “free-speech” and “free-expression” indicates the conflation of these ideas with “free-trade”. This “freedom of financial expression” is the historical meaning of ‘liberal‘. Resistance to this ‘freedom’ is historically called “conservative”. What we are more likely seeing in Turkey today is a desperate stand of a cabal of (conservative) local oligarchs against a (liberal) insurgent bourgeois with globalist finance capital backing.

Let’s try to disentangle our terms to understand what is really happening so that we can channel our anger to challenge what we truly cannot accept.

emancipation-ists of the world unite!
keep the focus of our indignation
on the right fight
global finance capital
will own our days and nights
until we all can coalesce
our power and insights!

a heavy heaving freedom

This world of high technologies is positively breath-taking, dizzying, ecstatic. The birth of the machine for work was the birth of the machine for pleasure.

The freedom we taste is contingent on a very regimented and domesticated environment. The freedom of the bungee jumper is contingent on the perfectly functioning textiles technology in the bungee cord. If the bungee cord is not manufactured according to stringent disciplinary standards, the freedom of the jump will become its opposite.

From the factory floor to the infinitesimal transistors inside every computer chip reigns an unfree hegemonic regime. Like the soldiers who provide the protective shell within which texts such as this can be ‘freely’ composed and published, the workers assembling computers can have no freedom in their duties. They are entirely subjugated to the demands of their jobs, which are imposed to a large extent by the science of the technology they are assembling.

In other words, we freely use the instruments they produce, and these function reliably because they were assembled exactly according to the rules. There is no place for dissidence on the assembly line. Dissidence would result in malfunctioning technologies.

Similarly, and this is not a metaphor, the chemical reactions inside the computer CPU are slave-like. They have no freedom. Any freedom there is error and sophisticatedly filtered out of sight out of mind . The weaknesses in the production chain produce substandard apparatuses, these are sold at a discount or trashed immediately. We all depend on the slave-like behaviour of the electrons in our circuits submitting to the laws of physics and chemistry.

Such ‘scientific’ laws are entirely abstract. By this I mean that they employ only chemicals which have been abstracted from their ordinary heterogenous suspensions in the atmosphere and in the plants, bodies and earth. These chemicals which behave so reliably must be abstracted from their accustomed habitat, purified and concentrated to the extreme. Often this means that they become deadly poisonous and horrifically polluting, but they behave! They behave marvelously to the beat of the electric current, the tribal drum of the electronic age. The electrons course around like infinitesimal remote controlled ants (or drones) through the circuits delivering charges. Hegemonischer gibt’s nicht!

The ‘creative’ ‘freedom’ we enjoy with computers, manipulating highly abstracted and disciplined images and sounds and texts on our devices, is predicated on unfree practices. This unfreedom is central and compulsory, inexorable to ‘free expression’.

We need, as Evgeny Morozov recently emphasizes, a much deeper analysis of the tricky and morally fraught relationship between techno-industrial unfreedom and social rights. And we need to acknowledge, honestly, scientifically, fundamentally, our continuing beholdenness to traditions of slavery-like unfreeness in the production chains of modernity.

Finally, we need to acknowledge, or at least earnestly envisage that, were programs, strategies and practices to become prevalent which could sustain other less-hegemonic conditions of production, such forms of productions will likely not be able to supply us with the same technological devices, and same techno-scientific vectors we are persistently informed are the unique guarantee of our survival as a species.

We will increasingly need to rely on much more involving and troubling things, possibly somewhat less convenient but potentially even more breath-takingly fulfilling and redeeming. We will need to rely more on eachother.

We can ground the ‘freedom’, especially that which is expressed in the unconditional enjoyment of automated services today, by countenancing the individual and social human legacies inscribed in the materials of the technologies.

Join the NUMBERS community!



When a name is lost, communities and individuals can cease to exist. FEAR OF LOSING NAMES ACTS AS A DISCOURAGEMENT TO GETTING NAMES AT ALL.

The people, not having their own names, use names granted by the CONSCIOUSNESS INDUSTRY, granted only to gain access to the words and images that the people see and share, and to know which people share with each other, these names are granted for the sole reason of TURNING THE PEOPLE INTO AUDIENCE COMMODITY.

THE NAMING OVERLORDS USE THEIR POWER TO REMOVE THEIR ADVERSARIES FROM THE NETWORK MY TAKING AWAY THEIR NAMES. This is a very insidious form of censorship, a theft not only of voice, but of identity.


The NUMBERS COMMUNITY is a clandestine network, disciplined and diligent, dedicated and ready to act. The NUMBERS STATION broadcasts day and night. NUMBERS AGENTS listen and decode the cryptographically encoded messages and act in the name of NAMES FOR ALL.

The NUMBERS COMMUNITY works to overthrow the name system and end their dominance over names on the network.

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.


--> http://telekommunisten.net/numbers-station






THE WEB SERVER DOES NOT SERVE YOU. IT ENTRAPS YOU. As the web has been transmogrified by capitalist enclosure into a social tar baby, a honey pot for attracting communities and families into apparent sharing. Intercepting what could otherwise be direct communication and interjecting its systems of surveillance and control.

THE END TO END PRINCIPLE WAS WHAT GAVE US HOPE THE INTERNET COULD BE A PLATFORM FOR FREEDOM. A platform that would not only transform the way we communicate, but WOULD TRANSFORM SOCIETY ITSELF. Information would route around censorship. Speech would be free and no voice could be silenced. Privacy and anonymity would be inviolable.

THE WEB SERVER PUT AN END TO THE END TO END PRINCIPLE. The web server stands in between browsers, vetting, verifying, measuring, monetizing. CONTROLLING USER INTERACTION AND DATA.


DOWN WITH THE WEB. WE DEMAND DIRECT, UNMEDIATED, COMMUNICATIONS FOR ALL USERS! WebRTC is too little, too late. We must act now! We must be relentless in our resolve.

The NUMBERS COMMUNITY is a clandestine network, disciplined and diligent, dedicated and ready to act. The NUMBERS STATION broadcasts day and night. NUMBERS AGENTS listen and decode the cryptographically encoded messages and act in the name of UNMEDIATED COMMUNICATION FOR ALL.


“Will you log into my platform?” said the Spider to the Fly,
'Tis the prettiest little platform that ever you did spy;
The way into my platform is up a winding stair,
And I've a many curious things to shew when you are there.”

“Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair
-can ne'er come down again.”

--> http://telekommunisten.net/numbers-station




"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways—the point however is to change it"?

Now is the time to do it. Now is the time for the NUMBERS COMMUNITY.


The IPV4 Regime keeps addressability under the control of the privileged. IPV4 scarcity is distorting the network, rather than the symmetry of universal addressibility, address translation warps and degrades the topology of our platforms. Deforms freedom. Censorship and surveillance develop in the choke points of asymmetric networks. The CONSCIOUSNESS INDUSTRY manoeuvres to control the choke points, the gateways, the means of addressibility and impose their rule over the network, reducing all participants to AUDIENCE COMMODITIES.

The NUMBERS COMMUNITY is a clandestine network, disciplined and diligent, dedicated and ready to act. The NUMBERS STATION broadcasts day and night. NUMBERS AGENTS listen and decode the cryptographically encoded messages and act in the name of ADDRESSABILITY FOR ALL.

The NUMBERS COMMUNITY works to overcome the IPV4 system of privilege, of divisions between those that can be addressed and those who can not. IPV4 is a feudal and obsolete system of control.

The NUMBERS COMMUNITY militates for the immediate adoption of IPV6 and the delegation of address space for all.

And the great owners, who must lose their IP addresses in an upheaval, the great owners with access to history, with eyes to read history and to know the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people are without addressability they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed

--> http://telekommunisten.net/numbers-station

check your preferences for “a hellhole dystopia”

Julian Assange, in his skyped-in address at the 30th Chaos Communication Congress a few days ago used the phrase “a hellhole dystopia” to refer to the current security state, and also to the situation he finds himself in at the dawn of 2014. Julian exhorted the system administrators of the world to discover their class status, to rise as a class against the unjust system which threatens to comprehensively oppress us all. He uses apocalyptic language: it is now or else. Perhaps it is true, and he would know, the Internet is (and not only becoming) a massive surveillance machine. But that is what it always has incipiently been.

Sysadmins need to know who their real enemy is, and it is not merely “the state”, it is those who cause the state to abuse the Internet against the interests of its users. The class identity and class struggle Julian calls for among the sysadmins will not be catalysed merely through the fear of losing liberties and rights, it will only be catalysed in the acknowledgement that its real, active and fundamental enemy is capitalism. Whereas, in the old days, the mastery of information was mostly local, through local informants, spies etc. now, the spying is taking place globally on a preemptive and provisional basis. It used to be important for the powerful to know their enemies, now it is important to know everyone, because everybody has the potential to be an enemy, an enemy of capitalism.

Beneath the apparent political implications of this spying, what Annie Machon and others have described as the chilling effect of instilling generalized self-censorship, the financial principles of the web are at play. Personal data is the key to the ongoing investment bubble shell game which is driving the so-called digital economy today. The web could be almost anything we would like it to be, but its contemporary manifestation is conditioned by capitalist exigencies. The financialisation of personal data is absolutely central to how the web services most of us rely on every day for our social and economic lives is produced.

Many people seem not to fully realize that commercial web services need information about users in order to provide the services they do. The less they need to ask users for permission to get this information, the more seamless and satisfying the services are to use. Therefore users click the “agree” boxes and move on with their lives, augmented by the latest wonderful web-linked functionality, shrugging off the fact that they have summarily allowed (unknown and known) private companies access to their private data. The fact that webservices systemically need to work in concert to provide the expected conveniences means that, very soon the users’ data is shuttled and replicated myriad times across the web.

Sharing personal data is intrinsic to a wired lifestyle. There is no other way around it. Companies might be pressured into taking certain technical steps to limit access to private data they themselves acquire from users, but that will simply make the provision of the services users are conditioned to rely on less efficient. The more user data is interoperable across various platforms, the more amazing new intuitive webservices can be developed, making possible ever newer forms of sociability. That, under prevailing conditions of capitalism, this new sociability is always capitalised, should come as no surprise.

The world is a “dystopian hellhole” because users are mountaintop utopians. The cloud is privately-owned industrial server farms located on real privately-owned plots of land. The web is increasingly private property, and has become that way because users are willing to put up
with the unfairness of private ownership in exchange for certain services they have been convinced they need. They need these services for the financialization of their own lives, for their mere survival in an economy where life and productive work (for private interests) is indistinguishable. So we need to discuss to what extent the private-sphere sacrifices demanded of web users are actually avoidable under capitalism. To eschew one’s own (data-) interoperability is ostensibly to compromise one’s value on the life-labour market, compromising one’s own economic auspices under capitalism.

Users seem to prefer the unfairness of private ownership over the unfairness of commonly elaborated policy. Capitalism’s automatic indifference is seen as preferable to human limitation and potential failure. In other words, machines never disappoint, and users prefer dissatisfaction to disappointment. It should then come as no surprise that the world is becoming increasingly inhuman. The messy and inadequate systems of governance, with all the checks and balances we have laboured over for generations are being superseded by the call to convenience and interoperability. The inexorable drive of capitalism produces a scenario where (self-)exclusion can be fatal. No wonder that we wake up every morning ready to even more consummately surrender our most intimate information to web services.

“Hellhole dystopia” is simply a way of describing the eternal present, its inexorable and excruciating complexity, its enormous and intractable social exigencies and challenges. It is the counterface of a heavenly utopianism which is metaphysical, quasi-religious Messianism. Julian Assange is a living breathing, blogging, vlogging stigmata. He is being sacrificed for all of us to continue going about our insecure and compromised hellhole existences. But, as far as emancipating the Internet-using public, the ‘truth’ he struggles for has long been available. Users are being exploited, used, for profit, not their own. Users are financialized life-work beings whose mere existence, in data and otherwise is integral to the production of value for investors.

Under prevailing conditions of capitalism, the user is compelled to be ‘transparent’ to the entities delivering vital services, be these informational, medical, financial or other. This, today, is “transparency international”, any inhibition of user transparency creates “inconvenience”. It may be interesting to remember that convenience comes from the word “convene” which means meeting. Convenience in the digital age means that users convene their behaviour to inter-operate more smoothly with automated services. It is convenience which drives users to open themselves up to mass-surveillance. So, for most users, desperately precarious, privacy is not a question of ‘preferences’.

Workshop at 4pm Today, Hall 13. #SeidenStrasse, #30c3, @telekommunisten, #OCTO++

Telekommunisten Workshop at 4pm Today, Dec 28th at 30c3

Join us for an open discussion about Tekommunisten, Octo, SeidenStrasse, etc.


Recordings from Day 1 Presentation, with *m, Frank, Jeff Mann and Diani Barreto

The event is in Hall 13, all welcome.



While “enjoying” the High Media Theater

…a corollary to Dmytri’s post today

Public pressure to demand legislative reforms is the conventionally condoned response to government overreach in democratic countries. Governments are thus naturally always positioned against the accumulation of such pressure. Throughout history they have honed various means to carefully channel and disrupt the coalescence of public outrage. A superb tactic in that regard is the stigmatist scenario.

A person or group is produced to represent some aspect of the contemporary unjust state. This person catalyses public interest and discussion. The public will invest in the story and fate of the person, investing the urgency of their general dissatisfaction with the political condition into emotional association with the stigmatist’s predicament.

The stigmatist will rise and fall, and rise and fall again, and up and down the public emotion will echo and roll.   These tides of emotion are the forceful emanations of an ocean of disillusioned passions.  This ocean connects us all.   The moral compulsion to empathise with the stigmatist is abused by the information organs of the state to dissuade us from articulating and asserting our communal interests.  The real-life actors playing themselves in contemporary high-media theater  are used to produce an enthralling narrative which tragically reconfirms the rule of law.

The Rule of Law, a set of governmental bureaucratic protocols has functioned, in many individual cases, to protect people from injustice and persecution. But the real stability generated by the Rule of Law is the maintenance of real material dominance over the economy by a class who also employ the government.   Here we see another form of high media theater, high-legal drama, an extremely popular genre from american television where the contortions of stigmata twisted on the semantic rack  of constitutional writ make for exquisite socio-technical agonism.

Did we ever need the rack to ensure liberty or justice?    The people look forlornly to the government to repair itself, forgetting that once repaired ,the government will proceed, as before, to act appropriately against their interests.

The news-screens flash the latest glamourous glimpses of the stigmatist trapped in a garish and infuriating form of high media theater.  The disillusion scatters like shrapnel through twitter feeds and comment threads.  Public outcry and pressure are valuable, but in addition to the semantics of dissidence, the emotions  produced therein can be appreciated more generally to convey the people’s deep-seated disillusion with the notion that the government can ever work in their interest.

Stiigamatists,  and the rack on which they are laid out, are not necessary to improve the general human condition.  To counteract high-media theater, we may need a materialist theater of economic or social fictions, which, as it transfixes, also functions to remind and resonate the common needs of the people against the polarizing and individualizing tactics of government administration.

It is important, in addition to caring for the stigmatist, to appropriate and divert the energies catalysed in the high media theater built around them towards cultivating cultural forms which genuinely, methodically, and carefully produce other ways of community, other means of social collaboration and sharing which can take over the stabilizing functions of the state.   As Dmytri implied in his post, the aim is  not to reform governments, but to work towards making them  unnecessary.

cryptocuration and its miscontent

The tides appear to be turning. We all need to be aware: the Internet is not the Plain Old Telephone System (as if POTS ever was only merely what it appeared to be), not to mention the Plain Old Postal System (which was vulnerable to if not amenable to intersession by intelligence agents), the Internet is a domain which exists beyond international jurisdiction, beyond governmental jurisdictions in a million shades of grey zones where corporate conduct confers with national and international security and economic concerns, both ad and sub rosa.

The cryptocuratorial agenda is to have the general population become more cognisant of the systemic accessibility issues, the privacy vulnerabilities of our Internet-worked information existences. In other words we all need to know a bit more about how the convenience of email and online shopping and banking and the amazingly global reach of platforms like facebook and twitter actually work, how they connect you and the information you send with the world of services standing between you and the people you would like to interact with.

The Internet is not a mystery, but it is complex. How companies provide the services we have integrated in our daily lives is also not alchemy, it can be completely explained down to the most intricate and subtle tiny switch. The Internet can be imagined as an enormously ingenious and elaborate clockwork which produces all the effects we see and hear on the clockface, but the mechanism is entirely comprehensible, composed of highly specialized parts. Because the Internet is entirely made by human beings, it is entirely understandable, we can access it, or any aspect of it.

Like the POTS and POPS, the Internet was not developed or built by one person, it was a massive undertaking involving government, industry, academics, scientists, intelligence services, the military. In other words it is a victory of human collaboration across disciplines. In this spirit we use these services, as humans, for all the compromises we must acquiesce to as a function of residing in a society, a recompense in the form of far-reaching and reliable services which provide us with an experience of our world we could not imagine without the enormous synergy afforded by societies.

Now the threat is announced, your communications are being watched. Not only this, you are being watched in every way you use your ‘new’ devices. You are being watched, tracked, sensed, correlated, interpreted and analyzed, in general “to serve you better”, even if that means “to serve and to protect”, and to protect means not necessarily for you, but possibly also from you. Whether you are on the happy side of ‘to serve and to protect’ or not, depends, increasingly, on computer records held on you in official databases, and how they are interpreted, if you are lucky, not through algorithms, but through a process involving cognisant human beings, with something more reliable than a notion of ‘due process’.

The cryptocuratorial agenda will encrypt all data, for our own good. People who know how it works, like William Binney, sketch out a scenario where nefarious agents will want to build a case against an innocent person, but will not be able to access personal records because these have been encrypted. Binney’s crypto-utopia relies on the notion of due process, whereby records can be decrypted only through administrative decisions, which means, at least there will be a “paper trail” of decisions and their motivations which led up to the access to personal information, and this only by official bodies.

Binney’s model forces us to trust in the state, in the laws and conventions of government bureaucracy. In his model, the radical transparency of the citizen is a given. The radical transparency is summarily encrypted, so what we have is an ever-building database of inaccessible information. This  scenario is unlikely especially since so many popular web services today rely on general compatibility of data which will be inhibited by pervasive cryptography.

The asymmetry of access to information is not addressed. In Binney’s crypto-utopia the ordinary citizen has even less direct access to information about what the government or business is doing. This is not only sequestered from citizen access, but now also encrypted. Now there are two layers between the people and knowledge of the world they live in. Imagine if this begins to happen in the sciences, and academia. To encrypt or not to encrypt becomes an ethical issue, and we all know what happens to ethical issues in a so-called rational age.

Ethics are easy to understand but difficult to justify, inevitably they are based on values, not merely surplus value, and they are not based on principles, they are based on comprehension. It takes time to comprehend a situation, some of this time must be spent in private reflection, not only on personal advantage, but also on longer-term advantage of the society, on altruistic themes. There must be allowances made for the inevitable gaps in comprehension. Contemplation and discussion on altruistic themes takes time, and it is unreliable, because it is human. Cryptography, once developed, in principle takes less time, and is completely reliable, because automatic.

The danger with light speed apparatus is that actions can be initiated which propagate faster and more intensively than it is humanly possible to act. This is a danger we are somewhat accustomed to, since electricity has been employed, or even, since words have been employed (words propagating at light-speed through our minds), that is to say the danger is endemic to the  technical capacity in everyone. We as citizens of a technocracy need access to information about how the apparatus works, we need access to the design decisions informing the operations of the apparatus.   These decisions affect us not only explicitly, through official declarations, but implicitly encoded into the inner workings of our networked lives.

Since encryption is a service, when the whole world is encrypted, the powerful will still be better served than everyone else. Cryptography, in this case,  will merely interpose other forms of privilege, of asymmetry. We who need to know about decisions being made on the governmental and corporate level which will affect us, rather than capitulating to the privacy discourse, need to address the fundamental illegitimacy of the information asymmetry which unjustly holds us out of the know.

A society needs checks and balances, and these cannot be fully automated. Rather we need to foster, cultivate and build institutions or spaces which will allow public scrutiny of corporate and governmental behaviour and elucidate and elaborate ethical informational practices on the private/citizen level. We may not want or trust institutions or government, but in this ever-transitional period where borders personal and physical seem to become permeable, disrupting ancient classifications and notions of integrity, we need some structures, provisional as they may be, to fortify our engagement with those entities which will take advantage of us. To parry on more equal footing, we need ethics more than we need cryptography, and in an environment hostile to ethics we need spaces wherein ethics can be cultivated.  In the society, which fuses online and offline experience of the world. ideas can communicate faster than data.

What happens after ‘radical transparency’, when ‘nothing to hide’ becomes ‘nowhere to hide’? The problem with absolutist ideals is in the disruption pattern where the hyperbolic definition approaches the maxim. There will always be interpretation necessary, because where principles or laws confront human affairs, the issue is rarely “clear and distinct”. How this interpretation will be generated needs to be understood, examined, explored. Who may interpret judiciously, under what conditions? Who has the free time and leisure to contemplate on complex matters. If they do not have the time, why not? Those who have the time, are they more entitled to judge? Plato seemed to think so 2400 years ago, and this is why he would ban not only slaves, women and poets but also workers and craftspeople, from politics.

Finally, we need to acknowledge that asymmetry of information access is endemic to asymmetry of economic conditions, and these need to be understood and addressed for us to make thoughtful decisions on the future we are already creating right now.  So many brilliant people are dedicating so much philanthropic time and energy to improving cryptography for circumvention of the dominant hegemonic information-industrial regime.    This brief essay is a plea to consider re-assigning a tiny fraction of that time to engaging with the intricately bound problems of asymmetric access to resources, intellectual, informational, and especially economic, which underlies the threat we address with cryptography and circumventionism.

The immediate future, like or not, is social, generated through a miraculous coalescence of human abilities.  Threats to our security, to our livelihoods, cannot be adequately addressed uniquely through algorithms and automated processes, they must be addressed socially, and this takes time.

Last night Jacob Applebaum, amid emotional pleas to his audience to use more secure communications, frequently conceded that the social component to ‘security’  was of fundamental importance. Not only in order to help find the strategies that will sufficiently encourage  one’s parents and other “general users”  to commit to becoming that slight bit more cognizant of how networked computation works and implement crypto  privacy/security procedures, the social component is fundamental to understanding why our privacy is so preyed upon in the first place.

Part of the pleasure of platforms like facebook and twitter is in their imaginably global reach, this appeals to the technicity in all of us, the elaboration of our selves, our intellects, imaginably even the electrical currents of our thoughts and desires fusing with the charges in the circuits and spreading infinitely around the globe.   Otherwise said, these un-transparent and exploitative platforms offer us an unprecedented  experience of our own technical capacity. Thus it is no surprise that populations flock to these platforms despite the well-known compromises entailed.  To confront the popularity and power of these centralized platforms, we need to confront their socio-economic motivations, and those of their users.  Conditions of desperate austerity, and perpetual fear of terrorism, economic collapse, climate change, etc., tend to cow populations, especially in the richer countries, into conservative postures. The fear factory of main stream media is described as having a ‘chilling effect’ on alternative expression.  To paraphrase Birgitta Jónsdottir, our minds are ‘caught up’ in the concerns of the day and have little place time to reflect on how the economy is operated against us.

More cryptography or less (inevitably more), we must struggle for our sovereignty against the ownership elite and their scarcity economics.  Such a struggle requires that we too develop strong theoretical and practical understandings of economics, allowing us to methodically elaborate the kinds of economics we would like to foster, which would thereby necessarily generate different social conditions of information exchange.  We need space and time to consider and work out our program seriously, and we will need to encourage ourselves and the people around us to dedicate a small fraction of their talents and energies to socio-economically-oriented reflection, discussion and action.  As much as we may need cryptography, we need to innovate on the social front. We need to take a little time back from our full time jobs in the fear factory.

We need to see that the call for pervasive cryptography, the cryptocuratorial regime heralds the militarization of the social sphere.  No longer can we in civil society be innocent consumers of technologies honed to protect the state. We must become part and parcel of that formerly discrete realm of society, and accept some of the responsibility and all the ambivalence that the people in that role have traditionally had to shoulder .  No longer can we have the luxury to excise military concerns from our social aspirations.