Thoughts on Hacktivism: post Y2K

[jesse hirsh <jesse@tao.ca>]

[: hacktivism :]


  ->   http://internet.tao.ca   <-


Thoughts on Hacktivism: post Y2K
by Jesse Hirsh <jesse@tao.ca>
written in the winter sun on Jan 5 in Toronto


It would appear that the most important, if not essential aspect of
surviving in this 'post-Y2K' society has become the task of "Understanding
Reality". That is to say, our society has reached such a high level of
media saturation, that reality is not so much an objective experience, but
more a subjective construct facilitated by a sprawling economy that
combines telecommunications, computers, marketing, and entertainment, to
generate a facility that more and more permits the customization of
reality, when and where possible. Power in this system manifests as the
ability to control, contain, maintain, and escape one's constructed
reality. As with most political systems, power is centralized and
continuously accumulated into the hands of the few, while the appearance
of distributed wealth is enabled by the reality of distributed computing
and communications. For every remote control there is the illusion of
change, even when we all know that everything is the same, regardless of
the channel.

For most people however, reality bites, and it bites hard. The values that
the society presents as the bonds of its existence, include accumulative
and possessive individualism, often at the expense of the society (and
social fabric) itself. We are told that happiness is in success, that
success is in power, and that power comes with money, so we need to get
mo' money and mo' money, by any means necessary.

Hacking Reality is the means by which we can reclaim our communities and
struggle towards an equitable and democratic society. Within this
technological system that surrounds us, the Hacker struggles to become
human. We are all born animals, but via socialization with each other, and
our environments, we become the human being that we're instinctively
driven to become. What sets the Hacker apart from other identities in our
society, is the considerable effort and ongoing change that the Hacker
undergoes to understand, and furthermore, transform, the environment in
which they reside. Contrast this with the average Consumer, who has
discarded their humanity, in favour of a much more reliable and secure
corporate identity, that guides them through the trends and fads of their
culture. The Consumer does not understand or attempt to transform their
environment; rather they accept it as it is, conforming to whatever
changes the system presents.

What these two identities hold in common is an existence within a dynamic
and ever changing system. For as we all see and hear: the only constant in
our world, is change itself. Yet what sets the Hacker apart, is their
possession of social power, which is largely derived from an understanding
of their environment (a/k/a/ reality). For within this technological
society, there are always inherent mechanisms of power built into the
logic and operations of its systems. Colloquially this is referred to as
"God Status", and most frequently manifests as a systems' root account.
While these powers generally exist (and were intended) for administrative
purposes (and control) they can also have countless secondary and tertiary
applications, especially when it comes to unintended applications or
possessions of said power.

As a culture, and as a set of social networks, Hackers have been uniquely
successful in both understanding the presence and role of this power
(within the system) as well as being able to both subvert and broaden the
access to said positions and mechanisms of power. Out of this particular
ability, if not potential social role, has emerged the concept of
Hacktivism, which while widely used (by the mass media) really does not
have a consensual definition that is accepted by all actors in the
culture. For the purpose of this discussion however, let us define
Hacktivism as: Social Activism augmented by an advanced literacy of
communications environments. For one of the largest tensions that is
underlying many of the conflicts in our technological society is the
contrast between open source shared organizing, and closed proprietary
development. In the realm of Hacktivism, this is the difference between
the military-centric strike teams, and the social-centric hackers (and
groups) who freely give out source code and intelligence that they gather.

Most of our technology, indeed, most of our communication environments,
were originally, and for the most part still are, the domain of the
military. This is not to say that economic and civil activities cannot
simultaneously co-exist, but it does mean that any telephone and computer
is within reach of the eyes ears and guns of the military and state
intelligence establishments. This only serves to emphasize and highlight
the need for a broader sphere of: Critical Collaborative Free Open Source
Distributed Development.

Essentially we are all squatters on the largest military base ever
created, and it is the role of Hacktivists to help the residents of the
squat (o/k/a society) understand what it is they can do with the
facilities (Internet) as part of a greater struggle to be human beings
living in a social world.



However a recent, and potent example, of where Hacktivism was essentially
absent, when and where it was desperately needed, was the ideological
exercise that was presented to the public as the Y2K Bug. At no time did a
coherent transcendence of Y2K emerge, that simultaneously addressed both
the dependence on technology that our society possesses, as well as the
mythology (and ideology) embedded in the Y2K spectacle, that had nothing
to do with technology, nor even the messianism and eschatology that was
adjacent to Y2K. For Y2K served two primary purposes, that are in and of
themselves, central to the existence and prosperity of our current
political economic system. The first was to reinforce the primacy of the
focused self-interest. The second was the further normalization of an
insular and pragmatic culture.

Y2K as a spectacle, or in some respects, a social concern, was more about
a "Me, Myself, and I" rather than a "We, Us, and I and I". What arose was
more of a "Bunker Mentality" rather than a sense of shared conditions. The
emphasis was on stocking up on personal supplies, driven by a fear that
stems from a combined sense that nobody really knows what could (or would)
happen. Even those administrators and experts who in the final days
assured all that nothing would go wrong, still holed up in bunkers and
control rooms of their own, to safely monitor what they perceived as
potential (if not falsely promised) social chaos.

Indeed it is the social construct of the Bunker that serves to contain
(and protect) the culture of the possessive individual. Surrounded by
Globalization in all its myriad of forms, the Y2K spectacle allowed the
industrialized world to cocoon themselves in a social reality that was
insulated from the misery and poverty of the rest of the world. While a
minority of people were concerned they may lose their running water,
electricity, or telephones for a day or two (because of the Y2K bug), most
of the people in the world had never even made a telephone call, let alone
have access to clean running water, or affordable housing. What Y2K has
illustrated is just how exclusive the systems that we once thought of as
universal really are. The so called industrialized world is desperately
trying to insulate itself from the social reality of the rest of the
world, and one only has to look at the rising poverty and homelessness in
what was once arrogantly referred to as the first world, to see that in
fact, times are hard for people all over.

Y2K as ideological exercise was really an initiation of a select few into
what little remains of the prospering and developing future. The beauty
(sarcasm) of its execution is the way in which it inculcates its
inhabitants to thinking that everyone is like them, and everything is as
good as it is where they are. Imagine a sphere, with mirrors (as monitors)
on the inside, in which the Consumer is contained, and encapsulated with
the constant site of their own ever-changing image. What appears as
infinity, is really an inverted self-reflection, that displays everything
as an image of one's self. This sphere used to be described as 'Plato's
Cave', but now it might be appropriate to call it 'Einstein's Egg', where
instead of representation (and reflections) upon a wall, we perceive the
world as relative to our own insularity.



Enter the Hacker, the child of the networks, the animal of light, the
human inside the system. From this individual identity, now emerges the
culture of Hacktivism: a collaborative, and networked agent of social
change. Hacktivism has been adept at engaging the public mind and
furthering the level of debate around particular social issues. Employing
spectacular and situational techniques, Hacktivists have been able to
rapidly and contagiously, distribute and broaden political participation.
Whether organizing networks, or mobilizing with them, Hacktivism does
offer the tools to engage and effectively appear in the (technological
society's) political arena.

Paradoxically, Hacktivism is a force for the demystification of the
technological society, where open multifaceted and distributed processes
allow participants and observers to learn about the communications,
technical, and political infrastructure that surrounds (and may contain)
them. In this public education comes through demonstration, as stunts,
hacks, and performances, highlight different elements or tensions within
the system. Most often this comes in the area of network security, but
increasingly, will involve more lucrative areas, such as trade policy
(WTO) and social controls (Genetic Engineering). The power of Hacktivism
resides largely in the development of more tactile and tangible notions of
communications, that involve the politics of occupation, rather than
abstention. Why stay in your bunker, when you can occupy the whole system?
When we can occupy the routers and the streets at the same time we will
find that we outnumber those still huddled in the (remote) control room.

However with that said, Hacktivism, as a self-identified culture, is still
juvenile, and does not possess the breadth or diversity that enables
greater effectiveness and accessibility amongst (and for) social
movements. At present the Hacktivism milieu can be categorized into three
groups: the Artists, the Techies, and the Politicos, all three of which
need to come together in a much more coherent manner (and setting) if
Hacktivism is to live up to its potential. For while all three groups
involve elements of each other, each one is defined on that which they
choose to focus on.

The Artists (such as the Electronic Disturbance Theatre and RTMark) focus
on their artistic attributes and activities, often as an excuse to ignore
criticisms from their counterparts, even though they do employ elements of
technology for political purposes. The Techies (such as l0pht.com and
2600.com) on the other hand, are largely focused on the development of
technical tools and platforms, as well as engaging in activities that are
centered around said technology (and related issues). While there is
certainly an artistic and political element to the activities of the
Techies, they at times neglect both the esthetics and political dynamics
of their work, which results in their alienation or distance from other
social movements. Similarly the Politicos (such as tao.ca and iww.org)
emphasize the political dynamic of their activities, often at the expense
of the technical or aesthetic (accessible) elements of their work. Yet, as
a result of their political background, it has been the Politicos who have
done the most so far to bring these three divergent groups together, with
http://hacktivism.tao.ca as one example.

Yet it is in this need or desire to forge greater cross-cultural links,
that Hacktivism may offer a model for social movements in general, in
terms of enabling a singularity of multiplicity, where many identities and
movements can co-exist. The ability to (optionally) emulate successful
(political and organizational) models is the innovation that stems from
the emerging network culture of experimentation and open development.
Ongoing situational diversity nurtures a desire for difference that fuels
the breadth that provides the dynamism and strength resident in the notion
of Hacktivism. It is something of a self-referential feedback loop that
given the right balance of social agency and distributed networking can
provide a myriad of options to those involved in social struggles.


However socializing the technology is difficult, if not treacherous, due
to the immediate and constant presence of the military and state actors.
It is not to suggest or encourage paranoia, but rather recognize the
immediacy of conflict, and the inherent class war mechanisms that are
ceaselessly operating against us. Thus openness is essential, if not
catalytic to our ability to not only survive, but demonstrate what human
life can be like in the here and now. Sharing what we do have, rather than
hoarding that which we seek to keep, is a potent means by which to subvert
the very system we find ourselves residing in.

Hacktivism is the existentialism of the Network Society. It is the way of
being for those of us who want to become human, leaving behind the
corporate consumer identity that has enshrouded our world. While the flood
of information torrentially subsumes people, we learn to swim against the
current, while helping others regain their senses, so as to find their
bearings, and join us in this social struggle.


		~~~~~~~~~
	a message from the internet list
	http://internet.tao.ca
		the internet you say?
			qui est-ce?


[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]