You may not access or use the Site in any manner that could damage or overburden any MIT server, or any network connected to any MIT server. You may not use the Site in any manner that would interfere with any other party’s use of the Site.

“la clave de la sustentabilidad radica en las verdades prácticas que cada uno de nosotros descubre en la vida cotidiana y que contribuyen a las actividades colectivas de nuestra cultura”

The Stack es el nuevo nomos o geografía política de la Tierra. Es la dimensión que necesitamos añadir a la tríada analítica del Estado, la sociedad civil y el mercado —así que ahora también tenemos la Plataforma o The Stack—. Dentro de ella la nube y el usuario operan una sub-estructura, que Bratton llama Black Stack, una ‘totalidad computacional’ de hardware y software que produce una geopolítica acelerada y que media y da forma a las economías como a las subjetividades, transformando el significado de lo humano mediante la proliferación de sus habitantes y usuarios no humanos. Más aún, para algunos activistas, las infraestructuras digitales son el ancla y medio esencial de las nuevas tecnologías de gobierno de las poblaciones, más allá de los estados y los mismos intereses económicos, y su propósito no es otro que el control, así se sea bajo la apariencia de la libertad de interacción (Invisible Committee 2014). Esta geo/biopolítica de lo digital tiene profundas implicaciones para el diseño.

Tothinkthatdigitalrightsincyberspacecanbeguaranteedandsecuredbyinscriptionincharters,declarations,andmanifestosofrightsistoneglectthatthedailyenactmentofrightsisanecessarybutnotsufficientguarantee.Conversely,tothinkthatthedailyenactmentofrightsincyberspaceistheguaranteeoffreedomistoneglectthatwithoutinscription,enactmentwouldnothaveitsperformativeforce.Beingdigitalcitizensrequiresstagingscenesofdissensusbyactingassubjectsthatdonothavetherightsthattheydoandhavetherightsthattheyshould.Themosteffectiveguaranteeofrightsisboththeirinscription(citation,repetition,anditerationindeclarations)andenactment(resignificationthroughacts).

First,itisundecidablewhetheranactisindeedcapableofproducingasubjectthatitnames.Forthatreason,withoutguarantees,itmustbedoneregardlessofitsactualeffects,fortheeffectsofcitationanditerationareasmuchaboutbringingthepoliticalsubjectthusnamedintobeingasaboutmakinganattempttoremindourselvesthat‘I,we,theyhavearightto’mustbeperformed.Second,withoutnamingthepoliticalsubject,withoutcitinganditeratingyetagainthat‘I,we,theyhavearightto’,itseventualeffectwillnotbeaccomplished,thatis,bringingtheforceoflawintobeing.

Asweaffirminchapter2,wethinkthatthecitizensubjectisnottheexclusivepropertyofthenation-state.Onthecontrary,thenation-statemayhavebecomealiabilityforupholdingthesubjectofpowerwehaveinherited.AsAllanwrites,manyoftheissuesthatcitizenjournalismraisesare‘setagainstthebackdropofincidentsaroundtheglobewherethenation-state’sideologicalappropriationofcitizenship—fromoutrightattacksonitslegitimacytothesteadyerosionofitsprotections,typically(andironically)inthenameofnationalsecurity—hasmadejournalismasastruggleover“therighttobearwitness”.’[39]Citizenwitnessingisanongoingandcrucialaspectofdemocraticcitizenship.TheInternet,bycreatingopeningsfordigitalcitizens,hasmadecitizenwitnessinganindispensablepartofapoliticalimaginary.Thisisnotwithoutitsdangersandperils(co-optation,assimilation,infiltration,taming,blocking,filtering,andsoon),butthat’swhatalsomakesitasiteofpoliticalstruggles.

Thatis,ratherthanasimplequestionofchoiceorexchangeeconomy,citizensubjectsarecaughtbetweenthedemandstoparticipateandconnect—andallthereasonsandvaluestheyattachtothis—andtheinterests,imperatives,andtrade-offsconfiguredbyplatformowners.Butitwouldbewrongtoreducethistomerelytheinterestofplatformowners,whichareonlyoneelementinthemake-upofconventionssuchasbrowsing.Theconventionsofsocialnetworkinginevitablyembodythesocialandculturalnorms,rules,andcustomsofwhichcitizensubjectsareapartandtakepart

Questionsremain.Whywasthereafilterinthefirstplace?Whowasbeingprotected?Byhavingunblockedtheresultofourquery,shouldwehavefeltreliefthatouractivitywasnotcriminal?HowwouldwehavereactedhadtheBritishLibrarycontinuedtoblockaccesstoBanksy’swebsite?

EvgenyMorozov,forexample,arguesthatopennessisconfiguredbypoliticalchoicesandinrelationtospecific‘digitaltechnologies’andthatthosechoicesshouldbebothresistedandpoliticallydebated.Butlikethemisfiresofcriticswenotedattheendofchapter4,controlisgivenovertohowdigitaltechnologiesareconfiguredwithoutaccountingforhowpeopleactthroughtheInternet,theconventionstheyrepeat,iterate,cite,orresignify,andtheperformativeforceoftheirengagements

subjectsofpowerincyberspacehavecomeintobeingthroughtheaccumulationofrepetitiveactions,throughtheirtakingupandembeddingofconventionsintheireverydaylivesinhomes,workplaces,andpublicspaces.Itisthroughtheactsofparticipating,connecting,andsharingthatthesehavebecomedemandsandlearnedrepertoiresthatarenotseparatefrombutindeliblyshapedbyandshapingofsubjects.

Forexample,whatresourcesofcyberspacedodigitallyequippedsubjectshavetheauthorizationtoaccessasaresultoftheworkingsofsearchalgorithmsandfiltersortheprotocolsthatgovernandnormalizetheretention,storage,sharing,anddiscoverabilityofinformation?[36]Iflegalityandimaginaryconfigurethecitizenasasubjectofpowerandplacedemandsonhertoparticipatedigitally(submission),whatwefindinterestinghereandinrelationtohowwehaveunderstoodbeingdigitalcitizensistheperformativityofparticipatingthatprovidesaglimpseofthecitizenasalsoapotentialsubjectofsubversion.How,forexample,doesparticipatinggiverisetosubversiveactions,suchasthoseofcriticalcitizenscience?[37]Or,asMatthewFullerandAndrewGoffeyputit,howdoinjunctionssuchasGoogle’s‘Don’tbeevil’maximbeliethepropensitiesthatareactivatedbyrelativelyunstablesociotechnicalarrangementsthataregenerativeof‘unintendedorsecondaryeffects’?

Becomingadigitalcitizeninvolvesrespondingtocallingswhereparticipatingisoneofthem.Participatingdemandsspecificactionsofskillingandtoolingthatcitizensneedtoundertaketoequipthemselves.

Wecannotsimplyassumethatbeingadigitalcitizenalreadymeanssomething,suchastheabilitytoparticipate,andthenlookforwhoseconductconformstothismeaning.Rather,digitalactsarerefashioning,inventing,andmakingupcitizensubjectsthroughtheplayofobedience,submission,andsubversion

Tounderstanddigitalactswehavetounderstandspeechactsorspeechthatacts.Thespeechthatactsmeansnotonlythatinorbysayingsomethingwearedoingsomethingbutalsothatinorbydoingsomethingwearesayingsomething.ItisinthissensethatwehaveargueddigitalactsaredifferentfromspeechactsonlyinsofarastheconventionstheyrepeatanditerateandconventionsthattheyresignifyareconventionsthataremadepossiblethroughtheInternet.Ultimately,digitalactsresignifyquestionsofanonymity,extensity,traceability,andvelocityinpoliticalways.

Toputitsimply,whiledigitalactstraverseborders,digitalrightsdonot.Thisiswherewebelievethinkingaboutdigitalactsintermsoftheirlegality,performativity,andimaginaryiscrucialsincethereareinternationalandtransnationalspacesinwhichdigitalrightsarebeingclaimedthatifnotyetlegallyinforceareneverthelessemergingperformativelyandimaginatively.Yet,arguably,someemergingtransnationalandinternationallawsgoverningcyberspaceinturnarehavinganeffectonnationallegislations.Toputitdifferently,theclassicalargumentabouttherelationshipbetweenhumanrightsandcitizenshiprights,thattheformerarenormsandonlythelattercarrytheforceoflaw,isnotahelpfulstartingpoint.

ThepremiseofthisbookisthatthecitizensubjectactingthroughtheInternetisthedigitalcitizenandthatthisisanewsubjectofpoliticswhoalsoactsthroughnewconventionsthatnotonlyinvolvedoingthingswithwordsbutdoingwordswiththings.

Ifcallingssummoncitizensubjects,theyalsoprovokeopeningsandclosingsformakingrightsclaims.Weconsideropeningsasthosepossibilitiesthatcreatenewwaysofsayinganddoingrights.Openingsarethosepossibilitiesthatenabletheperformanceofpreviouslyunimaginedorunarticulatedexperiencesofwaysofbeingcitizensubjects,aresignificationofbeingspeakingandactingbeings.Openingsarepossibilitiesthroughwhichcitizensubjectscomeintobeing.Closings,bycontrast,contractandreducepossibilitiesofbecomingcitizensubjects

Whatwemeanbythisisthatasaclaim,theutterance‘havearightto’placesdemandsontheothertoactinaparticularway.

Tounderstandcitizensubjectswhomakerightsclaimsbysayinganddoing‘I,we,theyhavearightto’,wearemovingfromthefirstpersontothesecondandthethird,fromtheindividualtothecollective.Weneedtoconsidertwoadditionalforcesthatmakeactspossible.Thetwoforcesaretheforceofthelawandtheforceoftheimaginary.

Onthecontrary,citizensubjectsperformativelycomeintobeinginorbytheactofsayinganddoingsomething—whetherthroughwords,images,orotherthings—andthroughperformingthecontradictionsinherentinbecomingcitizens.

‘Theforceoftheperformativeisthusnotinheritedfrompriorusage,butissuesforthpreciselyfromitsbreakwithanyandallpriorusage.Thatbreak,thatforceofrupture,istheforceoftheperformative,beyondallquestionoftruthormeaning.’[22]Forpoliticalsubjectivity,‘performativitycanworkinpreciselysuchcounter-hegemonicways.Thatmomentinwhichaspeechactwithoutpriorauthorizationneverthelessassumesauthorizationinthecourseofitsperformancemayanticipateandinstatealteredcontextsforitsfuturereception.’[23]Toconceiveruptureasasystemicortotalupheavalwouldbefutile.Rather,ruptureisamomentwherethefuturebreaksthroughintothepresent.[24]Itisthatmomentwhereitbecomespossibletodosomethingdifferentinorbysayingsomethingdifferent.

Ifmakingrightsclaimsisperformative,itfollowsthattheserightsareneitherfixednorguaranteed:theyneedtoberepeatedlyperformed.Theircomingintobeingandremainingeffectiverequiresperformativity.Theperformativeforceofcitizenshipremindsusthatthefigureofthecitizenhastobebroughtintobeingrepeatedlythroughacts(repertoires,declarations,andproclamations)andconventions(rituals,customs,practices,traditions,laws,institutions,technologies,andprotocols).Withouttheperformanceofrights,thefigureofthecitizenwouldmerelyexistintheoryandwouldhavenomeaningindemocraticpolitics.

Givenitspervasivenessandomnipresence,avoidingorshunningcyberspaceisasdystopianasquittingsocialspace;itisalsocertainthatconductingourselvesincyberspacerequires,asmanyactivistsandscholarshavewarned,intensecriticalvigilance.Sincetherecannotbegenericoruniversalanswerstohowweconductourselves,moreorlesseveryincipientorexistingpoliticalsubjectneedstoaskinwhatwaysitisbeingcalleduponandsubjectifiedthroughcyberspace.Inotherwords,toreturnagaintotheconceptualapparatusofthisbook,thekindsofcitizensubjectscyberspacecultivatesarenothomogenousanduniversalbutfragmented,multiple,andagonistic.Atthesametime,thefigureofacitizenyettocomeisnotinevitable;whilecyberspaceisafragileandprecariousspace,italsoaffordsopenings,momentswhenthinking,speaking,andactingdifferentlybecomepossiblebychallengingandresignifyingitsconventions.Thesearethemomentsthatwehighlighttoarguethatdigitalrightsarenotonlyaprojectofinscriptionsbutalsoenactment.

Wearguethatmakingrightsclaimsinvolvesnotonlyperformativebutalsolegalandimaginaryforces.Wethenarguethatdigitalactsinvolveconventionsthatincludenotonlywordsbutalsoimagesandsoundsandvariousactionssuchasliking,coding,clicking,downloading,sorting,blocking,andquerying.

WedevelopourapproachtobeingdigitalcitizensbydrawingonMichelFoucaulttoarguethatsubjectsbecomecitizensthroughvariousprocessesofsubjectivationthatinvolverelationsbetweenbodiesandthingsthatconstitutethemassubjectsofpower.WefocusonhowpeopleenactthemselvesassubjectsofpowerthroughtheInternetandatthesametimebringcyberspaceintobeing.Wepositionthisunderstandingofsubjectivationagainstthatofinterpellation,whichassumesthatsubjectsarealwaysandalreadyformedandinhabitedbyexternalforces.Rather,wearguethatcitizensubjectsaresummonedandcalledupontoactthroughtheInternetand,assubjectsofpower,respondbyenactingthemselvesnotonlywithobedienceandsubmissionbutalsosubversion.

First,bybringingthepoliticalsubjecttothecentreofconcern,weinterferewithdeterministanalysesoftheInternetandhyperbolicassertionsaboutitsimpactthatimaginesubjectsaspassivedatasubjects.Instead,weattendtohowpoliticalsubjectivitiesarealwaysperformedinrelationtosociotechnicalarrangementstothenthinkabouthowtheyarebroughtintobeingthroughtheInternet.[13]WealsointerferewithlibertariananalysesoftheInternetandtheirhyperbolicassertionsofsovereignsubjects.Wecontendthatifweshiftouranalysisfromhowwearebeing‘controlled’(asbothdeterministandlibertarianviewsagree)tothecomplexitiesof‘acting’—byforegroundingcitizensubjectsnotinisolationbutinrelationtothearrangementsofwhichtheyareapart—wecanidentifywaysofbeingnotsimplyobedientandsubmissivebutalsosubversive.Whileusuallyreservedforhigh-profilehacktivistsandwhistle-blowers,weask,howdosubjectsactinwaysthattransgresstheexpectationsofandgobeyondspecificconventionsandindoingsomakerightsclaimsabouthowtoconductthemselvesasdigitalcitizens

Alongwiththesepoliticalsubjects,anewdesignationhasalsoemerged:digitalcitizens.Subjectssuchascitizenjournalists,citizenartists,citizenscientists,citizenphilanthropists,andcitizenprosecutorshavevariouslyaccompaniedit.[7]Goingbacktotheeuphoricyearsofthe1990s,JonKatzintroducedthetermtodescribegenerallythekindsofAmericanswhowereactiveontheInternet.[8]ForKatz,peoplewereinventingnewwaysofconductingthemselvespoliticallyontheInternetandweretranscendingthestraitjacketofatleastAmericanelectoralpoliticscaught

Moreover,withthedevelopmentoftheInternetofthings—ourphones,watches,dishwashers,fridges,cars,andmanyotherdevicesbeingalwaysalreadyconnectedtotheInternet—wenotonlydothingswithwordsbutalsodowordswiththings.

IftheInternet—or,moreprecisely,howweareincreasinglyactingthroughtheInternet—ischangingourpoliticalsubjectivity,whatdowethinkaboutthewayinwhichweunderstandourselvesaspoliticalsubjects,subjectswhohaverightstospeech,access,andprivacy,rightsthatconstituteusaspolitical,asbeingswithresponsibilitiesandobligations?

While much attention is reserved for whistleblowers and hactivists as the vanguards of Internet rights, there are many more anonymous political subjects of the Internet who are not only making rights claims by saying things but also by doing things through the Internet.

Such a conception moves us away from how we are being ‘liberated’ or ‘controlled’ to the complexities of ‘acting’ through the Internet where much of what makes it up is seemingly beyond the knowledge and consent of citizen subjects. To be sure, one cannot act in isolation but only in relation to the mediations, regulations and monitoring of the platforms, devices, and algorithms or more generally the conventions that format, organize and order what we do, how we relate, act, interact, and transact through the Internet. But it is here between and among these distributed relations that we can identify a space of possibility—a cyberspace perhaps—that is being brought into being by the acts of myriad subjects.

The problem is that popular critics have become too concerned about the Internet creating obedient subjects to power rather than understanding that it is also creating submissive subjects of power who are potentially and demonstrably capable of subversion. I believe that addressing the question I posed at the beginning requires revisiting the question of the (political) subject. By reading Michel Foucault, Etienne Balibar conceived of the citizen as not merely a subject to power or subject of power but as embodying both. Balibar argued that being a subject to power involves domination by and obedience to a sovereign whereas being a subject of power involves being an agent of power even if this requires participating in one’s own submission. However, it is this participation that opens up the possibility of subversion and this is what distinguishes the citizen from the subject: she is a composite subject of obedience, submission, and subversion where all three are always-present dynamic potentialities.

democratization of hacking itself. This claim, however, threatens to unrealistically situate hackerspaces as paragons of learning and overly central to hacker culture at large, and democracy as a panacea. As discussed, GeekSpace was not without exclusion that operated in spite of its official ideology. Further, GeekSpace was constantly being re-built around individual conflicts, organizational collaborations, and cultural shifts. Returning to revisit the question of collectivity itself, the emphasis of the collective is on maximizing perceptions of individual agency through material and social encounters. This harkens back to Thomas' (2011) observation that "collectives provide tools for the unique and individual expression of identity within the collective itself'' (p. 2) and is why "community," which works quite oppositely, is likely the wrong form of social structure at work. HMSs provide a context for a negotiated sociality -sometimes warm conversations, frequently simply co-working. This provides a physical example of Turkle's (1985) observation that, online, "hacker culture is a culture of loners who are never alone" (p. 196). The failure of the first incarnation of GeekSpace was, in the eyes of members, an abundance of socialization.

The discussion of the rich social life of data behind the scenes stimulated a discussion for a spin-off project on aggregating geographic data about environmental issues in city. The apparently rote task of transcribing the presence of open data was an inroad to broader questions about how data was constructed behind the scenes and ways residents might add to it.

Yet, the natural equating of “openness” or government transparency (Hood and Heald, 2006) with accountability increasingly became dubious (Tkacz, 2012). The move to “open data” was often an imperative that didn’t make clear where the levers were for social change that benefited citizens (Lessig, 2009). Still, I argue that civic hackers are often uniquely positioned to act on issues of public concern; they are in touch with local communities, with technical skills and, in many cases, institutional and legal literacies. I conclude by connecting the open data movement with a specific set of political tactics—requesting, digesting, contributing, modeling, and contesting data.

In each case data was framed as repressive of notions of civil society or enforcing an impoverished or constrictive notion of citizenship. The perspectives of Tufekci and Cheney-Lippold provide valuable insight into how algorithms and data are powerful shapers of modern life. Yet, they leave little room for a different form of algorithmic citizenship that might emerge where indi-viduals desire to reform technology and data-driven processes. As Couldry and Powell (2014) note, models of algorithmic power (Beer, 2009; Lash, 2007) tend to downplay questions of individual agency. They suggest a need to “highlight not just the risks of creating and sharing data, but the opportunities as well” (p. 5). We should be attentive to moments where meaningful change can occur, even if those changes are fraught with forces of neoliberalism and tinged with technocracy.

I conclude civic hackers are utopian realists involved in the crafting of algorithmic power and discussing ethics of technology design.

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