14 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2017
    1. Whoisthesubjectofthesedigitalrights?Sinceweareinterestedintheprocessesthroughwhichtheserightsareenactedratherthantheirsubstance,ourquestionof‘who’concernsthatofpoliticalsubjectivitythroughtheInternet.[4]Aswehaveexpresseditinvariousways,‘who’doesnotcorrespondtoanalreadyformedpoliticalsubjectbutafigure:Howisapoliticalsubjectbeingconstitutedasaclaimantofdigitalrights?Wehaveillustratedthroughoutthisbookthatdigitalactstraversemultiplenationalbordersandlegalorders.Yetmakingrightsclaimsthattraversebordersisoftenaddressedthroughsovereignregionalornationallegalordersandtheirparticularunderstandingofrights.

      So the question of ‘who’ the subject is of digital rights is both an analytical but also an urgent political question that requires addressing. If we use ‘citizen’ as the subject of these rights, clearly it does not capture how both the enactment of the political subject and of cyberspace cut across national borders and legal orders. Today, the citizen functions as a member of a nation-state, and there are no corresponding rights and obligations beyond the nation-state that can govern subjects whose acts traverse international spaces. [...] What we gather from Rancière and Derrida is the importance of refusing to make a choice between the citizen and the human as the subject of digital rights. Instead, we anticipate a new figure of a citizen yet to come as the subject of digital rights.

  2. Sep 2017
    1. Accounts of hacker cultures often highlight bug fixes (Coleman, 2011; Nafus, 2012), portraying failures as integral to the inventive, creative process of design and engineering (Petroski, 2006). Mothership HackerMoms began to address failure differently from these productivist tendencies. In addition to viewing failure as central to achievement, members identified personal failures and failures to transform hacker cultures, formulating failure as a moment for reflection. To make this argument, we examine two empirical contexts of failure: first, failure as members conceptualize it in the Failure Club project of narrativizing the self; and, second, failure as expressed from the outside through online “hate mail.” By tracing how members redefine failure we show how HackerMoms became a site of resistance: hacking the very ontology of hacking.



    1. Born in the Plantation, the Hacienda, the Latifundio, and the Mine, creolization is now “scattered in those sheet plates and concrete mazes where our common becoming is adventuring itself, in favellas and mega-cities” (Glissant, 1995: 87). Alive and well, cre-olization can be found where Latin Americans live, in the spaces where they are exposed to new technologies. Born of avoidance (like Internet Protocol (IP) packets that find a route around obstacles) and mixing (like mashups and re-mix), creolization fits the realm of ICTs.
    1. Inconsistencies in ideological perspective are not uncommon in activities which attempt to balance individualism and communalism. These very frictions might belie possibilities for a greater imagination or shared experience. However, we argue that it is only in the disputes and frictions between pluralities of publics that democratization emerges. Dissensus across making and hacking communities allows people to experiment, eventu-ally finding communities and processes in which they feel comfortable and can identify. These very migrations, connected by fluid narratives and practices, drive the capacity of communities to develop and innovate.

      Esta idea de fluidez y confrontación también la vivimos en HackBo, con miradas encontradas sobre la gestión del espacio y la falta de apoyo colectiva a determinadas iniciativas colectivas, lo cual permitió replantear nuevas dinámicas y establecer nuevos grupos.

    2. Many movements have become somewhat unsta-ble and decentralized. This instability allows for fluidity and moments where cultures become complicit in neoliberalism and globalization. This complicit exploitation is espe-cially visible when we consider the relationship between maker publics and technolo-gies. In buying, creating, and re-purposing technologies, hacker and maker groups engage capitalist enterprises that span the globe.

      [...] Frequently, these groups rent space, pay for electricity, buy parts, and otherwise deeply participate in highly capitalized high technol-ogy industries. In other words, they sometimes espouse open resistance to the very capi-talism that their actions support. The conflicting narratives surrounding hacker/maker cultures identify elements of their ideology that are in tension and inconsistent.

    3. The public has become aware of the popularization of hacking and making mostly through moments of emergency and scandal. Forgetting serves a function for the public, allowing them to get on with their own interests. Concurrently, this public forgetting allows hackers to regain their spaces of creativity and action. Maker culture, too, forgets in order to find a perpetual sense of novelty in their very existence. Forgetting, an important social and cultural project, is also part of the democratic project. Democracies forget to put aside old tensions and re-form in order for the public to sup-port them.

      De ahí que las hackatones sean aceptadas y a veces cooptadas, ahora como formas de innovación ciudadana. Esta percepción pública del hacker es reinventada para aceptar la acción/estética hacker de la hackatón.

    4. We have framed the theme of this issue as “The Democratization of Hacking and Making” to draw attention to the relationships between action, knowledge, and power. Particularly, hacking and making are about how practices of creation and transforma-tion generate knowledge and influence institutions. These acts concentrate and distrib-ute power through publics and counterpublics. Yet, the very mutability of hacker and maker relations makes them a challenge to identify and research. Hacking and making collectives have proven capable of constituting and reconstituting themselves in physi-cal and virtual spaces. They integrate across infrastructures, collaborative systems, socio-economic divides, and international boundaries.
    1. Eventually she became more entangled with social relationships, which helped her work on technical projects that brought a comfort of similarity from previous work. Initially she didn’t identify with the term “hacker.” Only later did she came to understand herself as oriented around self-sufficiency and creative problem-solving. For her, the resonance with hacking as an identity came after participation and a deeper entanglement.
    2. This work perceptively suggested that people often don’t arrive at hackerspaces with an identity fully-formed. Tools and projects, as socio-material assemblages, shepherded new arrivals in and helped them understand

      themeselves in relation to the group. “The process of becoming such an established maker seems to rely less on inherent abilities, skills, or intelligence per se, and more on adopting an outlook about one’s agency”

      Esto ha pasado con el Data Week y Grafoscopio y está vinculado a comunidades de práctica y lo identitario.

      Se puede empezar por acá la caracterización de lo hacker!

    3. That hackers are created, not born, is hardly a new claim. In Coding Freedom Gabriella Coleman described how an open-source hackers’ identity emerged from a fervent brew of digital connectivity, technological concepts, and shared work (Coleman, 2012). Political awareness was connected to liberalism through open-source and code over time. Put simply, being a hacker is a trajectory with multiple points of origin and destinations. Neither is suggesting that hackers are ordinary meant to discard a concern with exceptional hackers. We should be concerned with the Chelsea Mannings and Edward Snowdens of the world, and the causes they have championed.

      Can the data activism be a connection between the concerns of the ordinary and the extraordinay hacker? The Data Week experience seems to support this claim, as a frequent activity in our common hackerspace, that invites a diverse group of people but put activist concerns as a explicit topic, instead of the neutralized "hello world" introduction to technology.

    4. We may simply misunderstand what motivates them to do what they do as new groups adopt the identity. We presume they follow in a certain mold of hackers, or are Trojan horses for Silicon Valley.

      ¿Pueden ser estos troyanos del Valle del Silicio ser culturales, como en el caso descrito por los Radical Engineers de Götz?

  3. May 2017
  4. Jan 2017
    1. Like many other AI practitioners, I’m a philosophical functionalist: I believe that a cognitive state, such as one derived from reading, should not be defined by what it is made of in terms of hardware or biology, but instead by how it functions, in relation to inputs, outputs and other cognitive states. (Opponents of functionalism include behaviourists – who insist that mental states are nothing other than dispositions to behave in certain ways – and mind-brain identity theorists – who argue that mental states are identical with particular neural states, and are tied to specific biological ‘hardware’.)

      La idea de dependencia en un "hardware" biológico es la más cercana a mi perspectiva. La funcionalista se acerca al test de Turing y proponentes similares.

  5. Nov 2015
    1. Lo identitario es clave y debe balancearse con el anonimato. Pareciera que se necesita un sistema p2p, que corra en nuestras máquinas y hardware (un llavero, físico, USB), que se pueda usar para proteger nuestra identidad digital. Se encargaría de temas como la encripción y desencripción de mensajes, el uso de correos temporales para descargar información, la creación de perfiles anónimos, pero con reputación, para compartir cierta información crítica y en general de las actividades que implican "danzar con el poder" como decían en el evento de STEPS Latinoamérica.