21 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2017
    1. Atanyrate,thisbringsustothesecondgroupwementionedearlier:hacktivists.Thetermisnotanelegantone,andithashadalimitedtraction,probablyforthatreason.Butitintroducesavitaldistinctionintermsofunderstandingtheeffectsofwhathackersdoinorbysayingsomethingandthusdoingsomethingwithcode.JordanandTaylorcapturedthisvitaldifferencebydesignatinghacktivistsasrebelswithacauseandyetposingthisstatementwithaquestionmarktoindicatethattheeffectsarenotstraightforwardtointerpret.

      For example, they admit that although hacktivism arises from hackers, it is difficult to draw the line between the two: ‘[B]ecause hacktivism uses computer techniques borrowed from the pre-existing hacker community, it is difficult to identify definitively where hacking ends and hacktivism begins.’[55] They understand hacktivism as ‘the emergence of popular political action, of the selfactivity of groups of people, in cyberspace. It is a combination of grassroots political protest with computer hacking. Jordan and Taylor also provide a historical overview of dissent and civil disobedience as repertoires of politics, which we would call ‘acts of digital citizens’. They discuss how, for example, electronic civil disobedience by Zapatistas, the Mexican dissident group, changed the terms of policies by engaging incipient Internet technologies in the 1990s to argue that Zapatismo—the convention combined of grassroots and electronic activism—was in many ways the birthplace of hacktivism as a disruptive convention. [...] At this point in time it is difficult to know how much of a disturbance these acts of electronic civil disobedience specifically make. What we do know is that neoliberal power is extremely concerned by these acts.’

      En el caso de La Gobernatón, lo que hicimos fue auditar los términos de la contratación pública usando técnicas de verificación de integridad de software, basadas en firmas de integridad criptográfica (una combinación alfanúmérica única asociada a un archivo, que se modifica bastante, si el archivo cambia en lo más mínimo, por ejemplo, agregando un espacio). Fue el hecho de aunar técnicas computacionales clásicas, como seas las que activaron la idea de la Gobernatón y luego del Data Week. Esto ocurrió localmente, al margen de las prácticas anteriores y paralelas que hacían los zapatistas, o los peiordistas de datos. Era una idea cuyo tiempo había llegado y se empezaba a originar e distintos lugares, con las variaciones propias de cada contexto).

    2. Levydrewamorenuancedandpanoramicviewofhackersyetstillpracticallyreproducedtheclandestineimage.Critiquingthisimage,TimJordanandPaulTaylorarguethatvariousclassesofhackersemergedovertimeandneedtobedistinguished.

      Coleman (Coding Freedom) dice lo mismo.

      [...] By the 1990s, hackers were already functioning in at least four ways: original hackers (dissident and libertarian), microserfs (subservient and submissive), a growing group of open-source software developers (critical and resilient), and politically motivated hacktivists (political and subversive).[44] These two last groups—open-source developers and hacktivists—constitute the most significant groups for understanding the emergence of citizen subjects in cyberspace.

  2. Sep 2017
    1. Put slightly differently, if we want civic hackathons to produce ideas that improve society, we need to more deeply and sincerely shape choices, thought processes, and activities that might make technology civic.

      De acá la importancia de crear capacidad en las bases para que ellos digan sus propias voces medidos por la tecnología.

    2. Dunne and Raby’s (2013) notion of speculative design helps outline how future-oriented thought works at civic hackathons. They suggest that speculative design on “wicked problems” creates “spaces for discussion and debate about alternative ways of being, and to inspire and encourage people’s imaginations to flow freely” (Dunne & Raby, 2013, p. 2). They find merit in dreaming, as the future is an “aid imaginative thought” (p. 3). Materialities assist development of ideas and approaches to collectively thinking about possible futures. For them, critique has a place in design, particularly humor. Designers can “pull new technological developments into imaginary but believable everyday situations so that we can explore possible consequences before they happen” (p. 57). Speculative design is a helpful bridge to the civic imagination.

      De nuevo, acá hay una tensión sobre cómo el puente entre el presente y dichos futuros se logra. Como he señalado en otras ocasiones, la brecha entre dichos futuros y el presente es llenada por alguna forma de distopia usualmente, como pasó para con la visión Dynabook y los paradigmas actuales de computación.<br> Sin embargo hay que abonar la inmensa diversidad de que esa visión no se lograra (pues era un sistema mono-lenguaje, mono-paradigma). Podrían estas miradas diversas pero de complejidad accidental, hablar con las de los sistemas monolenguaje con complejidades fundamentales? (COLA parece una idea al respecto).

      Grafoscopio transita y propone dichos puentes entre futuros posibles y presente buscando inspiraciones diversas y combinándolas en una materialidad particular.

    3. that civic hackathons are highly fluid and contested spaces where power is negotiated. However, critical and design perspectives clearly differ on the theorized relationship between civic participation and technology. The imposed civic ideology perspective tells us high technology corporations force an essentially bogus ideology on the event. Participants

      encounter a version of civic life warped by the neoliberalist goals

    4. Simply diversifying participantion is no guarantee that outcomes benefit diverse communities, and declaring an event civically important does not make it so. After years of participating in and running civic hackathons I noticed a new turn. This new type of civic hackathon was intentionally run to foster performance, spectacle, and communicative activities around a loose shell of technology-oriented activities. Technology became more talked about than materially captured.
    5. More staunch critics questioned if the White House was being duplicitous by inviting “civic hackers” under the guise of transparency while having the worst administrative record for prosecuting whistleblowers.

      Acá la crítica consistente ha sido la tardía invitación de la sociedad civil a participar de la construcción de la política pública. En ese sentido, el carácter performativo de la hackatón puede servir como una forma de brand washing sobre opacidades y ausencias de participación más profundas, por ejemplo frente a la ejecución de presupuestos públicos, cómo mostró la gobernatón.

    6. Initially at least, civic hackathons were initially positioned as a form of public outreach for civic hackers, a loose-knit community interested in applying technology for social good. James Crabtree (2007) defined “civic hacking” as “the development of applications to allow mutual aid among citizens rather than through the state.” In particular, he suggested an extra-institutional definition, thatcivic hacking filled in where e-democracy had failed. The meaning of “civic” at this stage leaned towards a libertarian perspective, which remains a persistent critique of hacking among critical studies scholars (Golumbia, 2013).
    7. The two perspectives are also not mutually exclusive — a participant might be frustrated at the rushed, corporatized nature of a certain civic hackathon and come to explore ideas about improving civic life.
    8. Civic hackathons have been hotly debated in recent years. Critical studies scholars have lambasted civic hackathons for aligning with middle-class citizenship(Irani, 2015)and co-opting participant labor (Gregg, 2014a). Silicon Valley is often the fait accompliin these perspectives, bringing a flawed ideology that seduces organizers and participants into transposing technological language onto civic issues (Also see: Barbrook & Cameron, 1996; Morozov, 2013). In this paper I refer to this perspective as an “imposed civic ideology.” The second perspective comes from design scholars interested in material participation (Marres, 2012) as cohering publics to work on particular social issues. Lodato and DiSalvo (2016) suggested that civic hackathons served two purposes. First, they help people think through civic issues using props — “objects, services, and systems that engage with issues” (p. 16). Second, they cohere ephemeral proto-publics for short-term engagement on issues of public concern. As they summarized, "what is important is not the inventiveness of a particular prototype product or service, but rather, how the event fosters opportunities for collaborative or collective issue articulation" (p. 15). They drew attention to how outcomes of civic hackathons may more likely be social and cultural than functional material objects. I refer to this design perspective as an “emergent civic subjectivity.”

      La pregunta sería cómo los protopúblicos y activistas pueden encontrarse en este formato y cómo los "props" se convierten en prototipos durables e iterables, parecido a como lo hacemos con Grafoscopio.

      En particular me llama la atención entre las narrativas de datos y soluciones completas/integradas para ellas (tipo Grafoscopio) y las aplicaciones móviles más orientadas a la recolección de información, así como las redes sociales y canales de chat para articular ciudadanos. Los puentes sobre esas materialidades serían motivo de exploraciones futuras.

    1. The baroque succeeded because it expressed something all Latin American people (Indians, Africans, mestizos, and even sons and daughters of Spaniards born on the con-tinent) had in common: the rejection of the domineering and distant center. Carpentier (1995) explains that to understand “Why is Latin America the chosen territory of the baroque?” we must look at the people and processes that allowed them to finally own the continent: “Because all symbiosis, all mestisaje engenders the baroque. The American baroque develops [...] with the self-awareness of the American man [...] the awareness of being Other, of being new, of being symbiotic, of being a criollo” (p

      Eso se parece a la idea de decir, con las tecnologías del colono, la voz de los colonizados y es similar a lo dicho por Freire y lo que practicamos desde el Data Week, donde rechazamos el discurso centralizado, imperialista y capitalista del "emprendimiento", a pesar de que usamos tecnologías digitales producidas en EEUU para hablar de las voces locales.

    1. “Civic hackers” are a diverse range of individuals who improve community life by creating and modifying digital infrastructure. Policy-makers optimistically describe them as driving new economies using government data. Critical scholars note how they precariously labor for waning institutions. Yet, we may misunderstand civic hackers because they transgress established political categories of libertarianism and liberalism, and adversary and unitary democracy. Andrew Schrock charts a middle ground by argu-ing that civic hacking—and its fraught, even contradictory politics—partly emerged from a history of progressive informational practices. In the shift from “information” to “data,” the original goals of these practices became muted, even as new possibilities for civic engagement emerged. “Data activism and advocacy” describes a fraught but diverse range of political tactics of amateur experts working for change, often within the political system. He argues these remediated practices carry the impulses of political reform, even as they are often tied up with conflicting imperatives.

      Mi percepción en Hackademia es que esta tercera vía en las múltiples identidades hacker era invisible.

    1. Might “utopian realist” be applicable to the practices of civic hackers, intertwined with particular repertoires, technologies, and affective publics? McKenzie Wark (2014) sug-gests that the relationship between utopian and realist might be mutually constitutive rather than dialectical. He re-frames utopia as a realizable fragment or diagram that re-imagines relations. From this perspective, civic hacking gets traction not because they were ever intended to be the sole “solution” to a problem, but they are ways of acting and creating that are immediately apprehensible. Prototypes capture the imagination because they are shards of a possible future and can be created, modified, and argued about (Coleman, 2009).
    2. Civic hackers might be most appropriately described as utopian realists (Giddens, 1990: 154), a term Giddens employed to capture how assuaging negative consequences in a risk society required retaining Marx’s concern of connecting social change to insti-tutional possibilities while leaving behind his formulation of history as determining and reliance on the proletariat as change agents. He positioned utopian realists as sensitive to social change, capable of creating positive models of society, and connecting with life politics.
    3. civic hackers seek to ease societal suffering by bringing the hidden workings of abstract systems to light and improve their functioning. Part of the academic discomfort with recognizing civic hacking might stem from their activities cutting across political categories that have traditionally been passionately defended: unitary and adversary, citizen and consumer, horizontalist and institutionalized, and prefigurative and strategic.

      La noción de realistas utópicos se vincula con la idea del "no todavía" como utopía expresada en la tesis.

    4. Data activism and advocacy ranges from civic engagement (Putnam, 2001) to more oppositional activism (Jordan, 2001). In this sense, it is a spe-cific association of technologically mediated participation with particular political goals (Lievrouw, 2011) resulting in a wide range of tactics. Although open government data is still evolving and is constrained by predictions for economic growth and self-regulation, I argue it enables civic hackers to participate in civic data politics. This is particularly important because data-driven environment is often distanced from pro-viding individuals a sense of agency to change their conditions (Couldry and Powell, 2014). Data activism and advocacy can take place through organizing on related top-ics, online through mediated data repositories such as Github, and in-person events such as hackathons.

      [...]Contributing, modeling, and contesting stem from residents leveraging possibilities of open data and software production to attempt to alter process of governance.

      En este amplio espectro, sería chévere ver maneras de gobernanza y cómo pasan a la esfera de lo público y se articulan con los bienes comunes y las entidades encargadas de preservarlos y extenderlos.

      Esta transición aún está desarticulada y no la hemos visto. Las formas de gobernanza de HackBo, aún se encuentran distantes de las formas institucionales públicas, privadas y del tercer sector (ONG), si bien piezas de este rompecabezas se exploran en paralelo, su escalamiento a nivel ciudad aún está por verse.

    5. Civic hacking can broadly be described as a form of alternative/activist media that “employ or modify the communication artifacts, practices, and social arrangements of new information and communication technologies to challenge or alter dominant, expected, or accepted ways of doing society, culture, and politics” (Lievrouw, 2011: 19). Ample research has considered how changes in technology and access have created “an environment for politics that is increasingly information-rich and communication-inten-sive” (Bimber, 2001). Earl and Kimport (2011) argue that such digital activism draws attention to modes of protest—“digital repertoires of contention” (p. 180)—more than formalized political movements

      La idea de tener "repertorios de contención" es similar a la de exaptación en el diseño.

    6. Organizations such as Code for America (CfA) rallied support by positioning civic hacking as a mode of direct partici-pation in improving structures of governance. However, critics objected to the involve-ment of corporations in civic hacking as well as their dubious political alignment and non-grassroots origins. Critical historian Evgeny Morozov (2013a) suggested that “civic hacker” is an apolitical category imposed by ideologies of “scientism” emanating from Silicon Valley. Tom Slee (2012) similarly described the open data movement as co-opted and neoliberalist.
    7. Other definitions capture broader notions of civil society. A 2010 study backed by the Open Society Foundation described civic hackers as “deploying information technology tools to enrich civic life, or to solve particular problems of a civic nature, such as democratic engagement” (Hogge, 2010: 10).
    8. I conclude civic hackers are utopian realists involved in the crafting of algorithmic power and discussing ethics of technology design.

      In the process, civic hackers transgress established boundaries of political participation.

    9. Successive waves of activists saw the Internet as a tool for transparency. The framing of openness shifted in meaning from information to data, weakening of mechanisms for accountability even as it opened up new forms of political participation. Drawing on a year of interviews and participant observation, I suggest civic data hacking can be framed as a form of data activism and advocacy: requesting, digesting, contributing to, modeling, and contesting data