Sunday, November 30, 2008

new york times article on leaving a digital trail and privacy.

if you guys are interested... 
i thought it was pretty relevant.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

A Thanksgiving Prayer

"You always were a headache, and you always were a bore." William Burroughs gives thanks. Director Gus Van Sant helps out.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Keywords!

1. accountability
2. basic income guarantee
3. body
4. California Ideology
5. canon
6. code
7. commons
8. control
9. credential
10. crypto-anarchy
11. culture
12. cybernetic totalism
13. cyberspace
14. democracy
15. digital
16. elite
17. end-to-end principle (e2e)
18. enframing
19. enhancement
20. filtering
21. finitude
22. free software
23. industrial model
24. linking
25. mass culture
26. media
27. neoliberalism
28. Netroots
29. objectivity
30. open source
31. panopticon
32. peer to peer (p2p)
33. popular
34. post-humanist
35. privacy
36. private property
37. professional
38. propaganda
39. public
40. publication
41. public good
42. reductionism
43. representative
44. retro-futurism
45. secrecy
46. sousveillance
47. spontaneous order
48. techno-utopianism
49. transparency
50. -- WILD CARD: Good for one term I've failed to include in the list.

Choose thirty Keywords from this list. Organize your chosen Keywords into three separate, conceptually connected, sets. You can use any criteria that seems useful to you to organize these sets. The only rule is that no resulting set can contain fewer than six Keywords.

Each set should have a title or heading that indicates the criteria governing inclusion into that set. Once you have organized your three sets in this way, briefly define each one of the Keywords you have included in each set in your own words. Ideally, your definitions should be as clear and as concise as possible. These definitions should be a matter of a sentence or two, NOT a paragraph or two. They are definitions, not essays or explanations. It should be clear from your definitions why each of the Keywords in each of the three sets are conceptually connected to each other, but it is also crucial that no terms within a set are to be treated as synonymous, and that your definitions distinguish Keywords from one another (even if the resulting distinctions are sometimes matters of nuance).

Once you have defined all these Keywords, provide a short quotation (feel free to edit and prune to keep your chosen citations properly pithy) from one of the texts we have read this term to accompany your definition. The quotation you choose can be a definition you found helpful in crafting your own definition, it can be an example or illustration you found especially clarifying, it can a matter of contextualization, framing, or history that you found illuminating, it can even be something you disagreed with so strongly it helped you understand better what you really think yourself.

Obviously, there are endless ways of organizing these sets, defining their Keywords, distinguishing them from one another, and connecting them up to the texts we have read. What matters here is that you follow the rules of the exercise, not that you arrive at some single "right answer" you may think I have in mind.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Hey yawl,
I'm going to do my report tomorrow on Richard Kamler. He is a local artist who uses his art to challange current affairs, and believes that art is a powerfull tool to bring social change. His work can be placed in New Genras catigories, but can be very inspirering for all young active artist who are interested in staying active in political issues. Kamler has won many awards,including the Adaline Kent Award from the San Francisco Art Institute in 1996. Kamler is well know for his work with his collaboration with inmates of the San Francisco County Jail. Along side many other pieces wich we some might have hurd of, and we can descuss. If you get a chance to check out his web site it very intersting and easy to view. see you in the morning.
Rachel
http://www.richardkamler.org/buffalo.html
here is his artist statement for you to get an understanding...
RICHARD KAMLER
"For the past 30 years, that idea has driven me towards the practice of art engaged in worldly affairs. It has driven me towards an understanding that art is as much a part of our life as is the air we breathe and the water we drink. That art is an agent for social change. It is our fuel and our glue."


I practice art to communicate.
I practice art to make the world a better place.
I practice art because it is the most meaningful thing I can think of doing.
I practice art to come to the table and engage in dialogue.
I practice art to have fun.
I practice art to be part of the global community of artists and to participate in our common and creative struggle for freedom.
I practice art because I sing while I’m doing it.
I practice art to respect my grandfather’s request when he screamed at me to show him the face I had before I was born.
I practice art to have ONE un-edited activity for the full swimming of my imagination.
I practice art to say YES!

Unleash Your Inner Cyborg and Sousveillance!

Sousveillance, By Steve Mann



Sousveillance is the opposite of surveillance and means watchful vigilance from underneath or undersight. In other words, filming as opposed to being filmed. Putting the surveillance back in the hands of the people.

Mann starts off this paper by defining the true causes of terror. He believes that terrorism arises from the larger operating system that initiates the surveillance. Not from the individual who gets out of line. These closed looped operating systems such as powerful governments have no checks and balances unlike the lower end operations that create feedback. And what we need to do is look at these systems that “operate without scrutiny” (Mann). What Mann is saying here is not too radical. We need to question the government. Hey that's a great idea!

Mann then points out that citizens' rights to record the activity of these large and powerful operating systems are being taken away. This can be seen on the micro level in department stores or corporate spaces, where there are tons of planted cameras hidden from plain view. In these places the customer or citizen is prohibited to take pictures or film. This basically makes these spaces or systems totalitarian regimes that rely on secrecy and high surveillance. Liberal democracy relies on the opposite. High surveillance equals high terror.

That is where Mann offers sousveillance as a solution. He argues that it creates a feedback for these closed off operations. A feedback that is necessary to restore order, balance, and freedom. Those large operations that encourage sousveillance will actually benefit from decreased acts of violence and terror. Sousveillance makes everyone happy! He argues that while this may increase surveillance, it actually destroys the monopoly on surveillance, democratizing surveillance. My question is how do you put out fire? By fighting fire with fire? NOT. I think there has to be a better way.

I start to doubt Mann's argument even more when he begins to describe the ways in which we should carry out sousveillance. “I'm not suggesting that the cameras be mounted on the floor...I am suggesting that the cameras be mounted on people in low places.” (Mann). He kinda beats you over the head with his explanation of not “literally” but “figuratively.” Yeah, we get it, not on the floor, on low people.

Like this fashionable EXISTech personable security necklace:




He also describes a “simple experiment” in which you go into a regime and ask them “Hey Regime, why ya got all those gosh darn surveillance cameras around?” They will respond with “Only criminals ask those questions!” Then you should take a picture of this official and “observe reaction.” Oh yeah and don't forget to bring your friends along to prevent an “eruption of violence.” This guy is kind of nuts.

There is also World Sousveillance Day: Operation Python aka December 24 (the biggest shopping day of the year) where you have to take a picture (with your camera phone) of all the cashiers you encounter. This will help to prevent your cashier from running your credit card twice. Seriously do it. Biggest shopping day of the year, don't get charged twice.

You know she was totally going to rip you off on that latte if you didn't take a picture of her:



While I definitely think that we should be aware of the totalitarian oppression in closed loop operations, I don't necessarily think that giving them a taste of their own medicine is the answer. Surveillance destroys trust. We need to create systems of feedback and balance that encourage trust.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

sorry this is so late!!!

“Three cheers for the Surveillance Society!”

 

David Brin believes that ever increasing Surveillance technology is inevitable and that ultimately, it will be an increasing benefit.   I agree that in some ways, society could benefit from this technology.  However, who will benefit depends on who’s hands it is in.

Holding those with power accountable is a necessary safeguard.  Ideas such as chipping everything in our lives so we can locate lost or stolen property, missing children and “criminals” could as easily be abused as be used for the common good.  What is to stop “Big Brother” from tracking down dissenting or questioning voices?  We live within a capitalist society and this is the context that we must use when looking into the future.  How can we assume that power will be in the hands of the people?  Why is Brin so sure that surveillance technology will be used to serve the collective good?  Maybe the collective he is talking about isn’t the same as the one I am thinking of.  If tracking criminals is good, who defines the criminal behavior to be punished? Do we impose implants on corporate criminals in the same way we would to those committing crimes due to poverty? And unfortunately our current un-just “justice” system does not instill the hope that the purpose of our prison industrial complex will be dissolved though “chipping”.  Brin praises the RFID technology systems for their convenience as a social benefit.  This form of automation, like almost all corporate devised “advancements” will result in the deskilling and displacing of working peoples and jobs.

Not surprising many of the jobs eliminated due to “labor savers” (or self checkouts) have been union positions, Brin says “Does that sound simultaneously creepy and useful?” The question is, Useful to whom and at what cost?

Brin also uses the example of medical information. Is it more likely that universal access to ones medical information would result in insurance companies cherry picking who they will insure than the paramedics downloading the medical history of an average guy having a heart attack? Employers could also use medical information to discriminate.

Brin states, “In the short term, expanded powers of vision may embolden tyrants. But over the long run, these systems could help to empower citizens and enhance mutual trust.”  I don’t agree that constantly surveilling each other equals “mutual trust”.

 

Orwell said “the moral to be drawn from this nightmare situation is a simple one: Don’t let it happen- It depends on you”. 

While Brin might feel that what Orwell is saying we should stop technology, I see it as a recognition that we need to hold each other and ourselves accountable and make sure that technology serves the people not “Big Brother”.  

Meditation on Cultural Violence

Number of views of Maya Deren's film Meditation of Violence Part One and Two: 5259 (combined)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYd7STccjN8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaYdqRUNd7s

Number of views of Mariah Carey's Touch my Body: 22,181,113

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzxR8OH-fDQ

Number of views of Adrian Piper's Foundational Conceptual/installation/video work: 1707
(combined parts one and two)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUJ8MhXTwtI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIkvjGq7VgM

Number of views of Beyonce's Single Ladies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mVEGfH4s5g 6, 933, 255

Monday, November 17, 2008

Losing ourselves in a sea of information?

After last week's discussion, I was thinking a lot about archiving and libraries (two things I'm interested and invested in) and how the internet, is some ways, pressuring our current traditional paper and media archives and information sources to go digital and online or die out. We can see this now with newspapers declining, going all online, publishers losing print sales and resorting to online publishing, filmmakers pressured by digital video, and many other physical sources all being pressured to go online or be obscured (in some ways) from view and access by others.
In one of our strands of talk in class, we passed briefly on the topic of the loss of our traditional sources of information and the seemingly chaotic and unfiltered pool of information and information sources we are seeing as the internet spreads further, encompasses more of our lives, and is moving in some ways toward a P2P reality (with blogs and commons, etc.). This all made me think about the future role of these traditional information sources and the need for a kind of filtering system to glean out a lot of the bogus or otherwise incorrect information (not that Encyclopeadia Britanica speaks the whole, unbiased truth) and more importantly, the 'who' and 'how' of preserving our digital information. When a technology is outpaced and obsolete within say 5 years, how can we hold on to the information locked inside of the outdated tech.? Who still has an old green screen that can read those giant floppy disks with the hole in the center, or even the smaller ones with the metal slider, or even an earlier version of a software?
The pace of our technological 'advancement' and volume of information becoming digital are absolutely insane and there is no way that the information can be upgraded as technology pushes further and leaves it's past behind.
So, to make a long ramble end now, I found a non-profit organization, Internet Archive who is working to create and maintain an archive on the internet. They are based in SF's Presidio and have been doing a shitload of work since 1996 to get the archive up, running, and accessible. They now have a massive database of all kinds of information; website searches, video and audio files, including old films and radio programs, news searches, text, and more. Although I'm not very convinced of the archival-ness of digital technology (even they say that a tape storage format they've used only lasts 30years), I'm glad to see an organization striving to weed through the mess being created and preserve and provide access to information the we cannot afford to lose.

Link to main page: http://www.archive.org/index.php
Also check out about us: http://www.archive.org/about/about.php

The Rise of the Participatory Panopticon

In this essay by Jamais Cascio, the panopticon is only briefly mentioned in reference to it's history as a prison model, but is described more thoroughly in reference to the rise in camera and recording technology today, making this idea of the panopticon,"a world in which all of us are under constant surveillance" much more personal and participatory (hence the title).

Cascio goes through a basic overview of the introduction of camera phones in Japan, and the way in which they so quickly became more popular than non-camera-bearing phones. This way, people who are able to afford phones with cameras on them are able to record snippets of daily life, can become much more active in their engagement with the telephone itself (who's functions are described as typically passive in the way the phone is an "always on network device."

The way this relates to the participatory panopticon is directly related to the growing uses of camera phones today. Doctors are diagnosing physical medical problems via cellphone-photos, and bar code scans from a phone can give consumers information about products on the spot. These changes in technological uses become even more closely related to the panoptic "watchfulness" when the group "video vote vigil" urged voters during last November's election to watch and record voting abuses. Changes like this "make it clear that every citizen with a cameraphone can be a reporter."

Here, "Sousveillance," meaning "watching from below", is introcuced, in contrast to surveillence, which means watching from above. This idea of everyday citizens being able to keep an eye on everyone else creates this system of the participatory panopticon. Abu Ghraib was an incident described in the piece to sum up sousveillence.

Unfortunately though, like reality television, skewed information can paint inaccurate pictures of an events, public quotes, etc. that have occurred. This skewing can come from a variety of sources, two of which can be selective recording, and editing of raw footage.

Technology is now permitting the early creation of memory saving devices. These will eliminate the need for hand held phones. They're currently being worked on in the form of wearable phones with computers (maybe like a wearable iphone) built into them. These soon to be "personal memory assistants" are said to be ways to record what you're seeing and hearing, and then through the wireless network you're connected to, show others what you're experiencing, as well as share what you think about what you're experiencing.

This recording of memory seems to be a bittersweet concept. While misremeberings of events (say, the fading of certain traumatic situations and emotions) are helpful to ones emotional self, it is frightening to think of a world in which you could recall such emotional events so easily and with such accuracy. For one thing, lying would be very difficult "It's a world where we can all be witnesses with perfect recall. Ironically, its a world where trust is easy, because lying is hard." This quote sounds romantic, but I'm still mildly uncomfortable with the rise in this ability. Would it create a safer world? I would think it would be safer physically (those who broke the law would not be able to get away with it, as long as there were (a) witness(es) wearing a PMA) but what about safer emotionally? I'm not really sure. I do know though, that this technology is on the rise, and while I can anticipate its introduction into our culture, I feel very torn about whether or not I feeling welcome to it (the PMA that is). I feel like I sound a bit like the main character in "The Gentle Seduction."

whats behind those logos?

Knowmore.org  is a website that is similar to wikipedia in some senses, but also not...

It is a website dedicated to providing informational data regarding the conditions of workers rights, human rights, environmental abuse, political influence, and business ethics of corporations and websites in order to raise awareness and hopefully assist in creating "ethically" responsible consumers. 

i suggest you go to the website, click on the tab "browse" to the left, and when you get to the logos, click on them to see how ethical the companies really are. You'll definitely be surprised.


Friday, November 14, 2008

Second Life Becomes Real Life!

Check out this article, Crazy!!! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/14/international/i060826S39.DTL&tsp=1

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

The Political Economy of Peer Production

The Political Economy of Peer Production

By Michel Bauwens

I chose this reading with the intentions of receiving a better understanding of peer-to-peer techno science.
To describe the Political Economy of Peer Production, Bauwens had to begin to describe distributed networks as a new human dynamic. Which is emerging as peer-to-peer production. Describing P2P as a “third mode of governance” and the importance of widespread participation of the community. Bauwens also describes the peer-to-peer processes, with the free cooperation of producers, the importance of ‘third mode of governance’ and a ‘third mode of ownership’.
To allow this new mode of production with in a political economy, this WI-Fi movement needs to follow an infrastructure of requirements. Certain requirements to follow, for example, “existence of a technological infrastructure that operates on peer to peer processes and enables distributed access to ‘fixed’ capital.” Other requirements, such as alternative communication systems, and global trust, cooperation, and culture are all part of the infrastructure the p2p2 rests upon.
Important Characteristics of Peer Production is the process of distributed networks, which autonomous agents can freely determine their behavior. Also keeping projects open, to those providers who have necessary required skills to contribute to a project. This can also be described as Holoptism, or the process, which allows participants free access and ability of contribution. The best part is that there is “no obligatory reciprocity involved” each contributes and takes only according to their needs. With in the process of peer to peer, people voluntarily cooperative construction according to communist principle. Each volunteer contributes according to his or her ability, and according to his or her needs.
“In fact, the aim of peer to peer theory is to give a theoretical underpinning to the transformative practices of these movements. It is an attempt to create a radical understanding that a new kind of society, based on the centrality of the Commons, and within a reformed market and state, is in the realm of human possibility. Such a theory would have to explain not only the dynamic of peer to peer processes proper, buy also their fit with other inner-subjective dynamics.”
This is Bauwens’s way of describing The Political Economy of Peer Production, which allows a freedom of the contributor with in communal shareholding, and the highly dependence n the market for peer production through immaterial production. With peer-to-peer ability to allow such freedoms with in its community, “productivity is highly reliant on cooperative teamwork.”

The Political Economy of Peer Production

The Political Economy of Peer Production

By Michel Bauwens

I chose this reading with the intentions of receiving a better understanding of peer-to-peer techno science.
To describe the Political Economy of Peer Production, Bauwens had to begin to describe distributed networks as a new human dynamic. Which is emerging as peer-to-peer production. Describing P2P as a “third mode of governance” and the importance of widespread participation of the community. Bauwens also describes the peer-to-peer processes, with the free cooperation of producers, the importance of ‘third mode of governance’ and a ‘third mode of ownership’.
To allow this new mode of production with in a political economy, this WI-Fi movement needs to follow an infrastructure of requirements. Certain requirements to follow, for example, “existence of a technological infrastructure that operates on peer to peer processes and enables distributed access to ‘fixed’ capital.” Other requirements, such as alternative communication systems, and global trust, cooperation, and culture are all part of the infrastructure the p2p2 rests upon.
Important Characteristics of Peer Production is the process of distributed networks, which autonomous agents can freely determine their behavior. Also keeping projects open, to those providers who have necessary required skills to contribute to a project. This can also be described as Holoptism, or the process, which allows participants free access and ability of contribution. The best part is that there is “no obligatory reciprocity involved” each contributes and takes only according to their needs. With in the process of peer to peer, people voluntarily cooperative construction according to communist principle. Each volunteer contributes according to his or her ability, and according to his or her needs.
“In fact, the aim of peer to peer theory is to give a theoretical underpinning to the transformative practices of these movements. It is an attempt to create a radical understanding that a new kind of society, based on the centrality of the Commons, and within a reformed market and state, is in the realm of human possibility. Such a theory would have to explain not only the dynamic of peer to peer processes proper, buy also their fit with other inner-subjective dynamics.”
This is Bauwens’s way of describing The Political Economy of Peer Production, which allows a freedom of the contributor with in communal shareholding, and the highly dependence n the market for peer production through immaterial production. With peer-to-peer ability to allow such freedoms with in its community, “productivity is highly reliant on cooperative teamwork.”

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Insanely Destructive Devices

This short piece by Lawrence Lessig was about self-replicating, genetically engineered pathogens and how our futures and freedom could be effected by them. Lessig spoke briefly about an essay by Bill Joy entitled "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" and in that he expresses his fear of key technologies of the future. "In particular, genetic engineering, nanotech, and robotics because they are self-replicating and increasingly easier to craft- would be radically more dangerous than technologies of the past." Lessig sought out to question Joy's challenges by teaching a course on the topic. In his class he posed the question of how do we protect ourselves from "innovations that lead to pox viruses with 100-percent kill rates." Initially his students said that science must be controlled. In order to keep ourselves safe we must limit how much freedom we give to science. They also wanted communications to be surveilled by the government, but Lessig showed them that much would be lost if the government checked out everything as well as our general freedom would be surrendered if we implanted that idea. One of Lessig's students raised the notion of reducing the incentive to attack us. That is a great idea but Lessig points out that we have done only the opposite. "Our present course of unilateral coyboyism will continue to produce generations of angry souls seeking revenge on us." The most interesting point Lessig states is that there is a logic to peer-to-peer threats that we as a society don't yet get. "Crazies, of course, can't be reasoned with."

HURRY UP HURRY UP

hey guys, if i havent already sent this to you or you havent seen it yet, scurry over to this site and repeal the shit outta prop 8.
http://www.couragecampaign.org/RepealProp8

WORD
-weiss

Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC)

Hello All, this is the internet group I will be talking about in class. They have some of the same concerns as some of the other groups we've talked about earlier in the semester. I'll elaborate more in class, but if you want to take a peek before, here is there website http://gilc.org/privacy/ they also have a great list of member organizations that they affiliate with if anyone is having trouble finding a group.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Tomorrow

Just to be sure -- we've nudged the syllabus forward a week, and so we're talking Thursday about another short story (Sterling's wonderful Maneki Neko), a short sharp editorial on WMD by Lawrence Lessig and a longer piece of political economy by Michel Bauwens that is a nice supplement/corrective to the Benkler we read at the beginning of term. I'm really looking forward to our discussion, and hope it is as engaged as last week's. Precises, reports?

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Propaganda Model

I cannot help but think of the current election that just passed, and everything the media did to discredit Obama and his campaign. And some still thought that the election would be stolen again. Yet the people prevailed, giving new found hope to a nation who had lost it the past eight years.

We noted that the five factors involved--ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak, and anticommunist ideology--work as 'filters' through which information must pass, and that individually and often in additive fashion they greatly influence media choices.” While being in Colorado I came across a good mix of people. Some of which were aware of the happenings, others completely clueless, believers of the media, the propaganda they feed us to keep us dumb and quiet. Yet some how this election has shown us that the US is starting to wake the fuck up. It seems that people are starting to forget the old ways and wanting new ways of thinking, a better more sustainable society. Has the propaganda model failed or evolved? “In short, the propaganda model describes a decentralized and nonconspiratorial market system of control and processing, although at times the government or one or more private actors may take initiatives and mobilize coordinated elite handling of an issue.” We have seen something like this in the past with JFK. Will this feeling last?

“Coverage of issues like gun control, school prayer, and abortion rights may well receive more varied treatment than, say, global trade, taxation, and economic policy. Moreover, well-organized campaigns by labor, human rights, or environmental organizations that are fighting against abusive local businesses can sometimes elicit positive media coverage.” Just like replacing the world news with the stars lives.

 I do not really understand where the critique of Hallin fits in here. They quote a lot of people in this article.

 “The model does describe a system in which the media serve the elite, but by complex processes incorporated into the model that involve mechanisms and policies whereby the powerful protect their interests naturally and without overt conspiracy.”

 illegitimate functionalism! 

 Journalists reporting what the ‘elite’ want them to because they are more concerned about money than the reporting the news to the people, ‘professionalism.’

 “Although the new technologies have great potential for democratic communication, there is little reason to expect the Internet to serve democratic ends if it is left to the market” Hopefully this will not happen with Obama in office because the Internet is a truly democratic state.

 “There are, by one count, 20,000 more public relations agents working to doctor the news today than there are journalists writing it (Dowie 1995: 3-4).” This is an interesting fact to throw in at the end.

 It is hard to find out what is true in the media, or Internet because you can hear several different versions of the same story. How should we know what to believe? How to know what sources spit the most truth It’sreally hard to know.

Report

Hey all,

Tomorrow I'm going to give my report on the activist group Intersex Initiative.

http://www.intersexinitiative.org

From the site-
Intersex Initiative (IPDX) is a Portland, Oregon based national activist and advocacy organization for people born with intersex conditions. It was founded by Emi Koyama, a multi-issue social justice activist and former intern at Intersex Society of North America (2001-02).

I know this may seem somewhat out of left field to a lot of you, but I thought it was relevant to both our discussion tomorrow on commons (in reference to David Bollier's piece) re: equal and reliable access to information, as well as our soon to be (dec 4) discussion of biogenetic technology and its connection to medical conformity (interesting readings, check them out if you have time!)

See you all tomorrow!
Nicki

For Ling

Here is my precis for this week and report for next week

Precis:

I feel quite ashamed that I didn't fully understand what a "commons" is
until I read David Bollier's essay. I have a friend who works for Creative
Commons so I have been to their parties and a couple of their wristbands
have been sitting on my desk for the longest time. I have always thought of
them as an organization close to Archive.org, but apparently it's not.
Basically, according to Bolier, a commons is something that "arises whenever
a given community decides that it wishes to manage a resource in a
collective manner, with a special regard for equitable access, fairness and
sustainability" The goal for the commoners is to change how people do
things. He quoted from R. Buckminster Fuller "You never change things by
fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that
makes the existing model obsolete" I think that pretty much summed up what
the commons movements are all about. Commons are believed to be a new kind
of organism in our culture that can potentially out-perform conventional
institutions of government, business and media, thus encourage a great leap
forward in citizenship. Evidences proved that this new type of
Internet-enabled citizenship could increasingly play a direct role in
politics and self-governance. This citizenship has more reliable and more
timely knowledge than big institution. Free culture represents a new kind of
democratic polity and a new form of governance. People have access to a
larger pool of talents, the power to express our passions on a global
stage and to initiate political action directly. This challenges the
centralized bureaucracies of government and corporations.

One other thing that Bollier also points out is that commoners' fight
against market enclosure will face the challenge of the fundamental
difference between market closure of nature and market closure of culture.
This challenge is mainly because natural resource is depletable but the
creative works are not, which I think will definitely be a very interesting
test in the future to witness.

Report:

"Some Rights Reserved"

Here is the Creative Commons Website

They have an event coming up on Nov.7 and 8 in UC Berkeley:

TAKEOVERS&MAKEOVERS

It is a series of lectures on the issue of copyright and file-sharing in the
digital age. A huge part of it will also be focusing on the
artistic appropriation of intellectual properties

Monday, November 03, 2008

Has The LHC destroyed the Earth Yet?

http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/

Sunday, November 02, 2008

Links Should All Be Hot Now

Don't forget to vote Tuesday -- and make sure everybody you know who is registered votes as well, whether you approve their taste in candidates or not. Remember, even if you think California's Presidential verdict is already baked into the cake there are Propositions on the ballot that mean quite a bit to lots of people and are balancing on a knife's edge at the moment.