[-empyre-] the netopticon
Johannes.Birringer at brunel.ac.uk
Tue Jan 11 16:09:54 EST 2011
dear all, dear Christina
now you've moved from the stuffed MGM logo lion via
Foucault on ethics to "newstweek" proposing the manipulation and falsification of news content.
This could just as equally be performed in any cafe, school, library or airport with a remote user logging
in and manipulating news content read by wireless network users>>
I am not sure why you'd want to go there.
"Leaking" information of a certain kind (private, confidential, classified) is of course a rather serious matter
as well, and surely involves discussion of ethics and journalistic practice, addressed for example in Christian
Caryl's article in the New York Review of Books, January 13, 2011 (Why WikiLeaks Changes Everything)
Incidentally, reading this issue of New York Review of Book was baffling, it begins with a review of
George W. Bush's "Decicion Points" (and what he remembers as decisive), then moves to the myth of Cleopatra,
and then to Annie Cohen-Solal's biography of the art dealer Leo Castelli ("Leo and his Circle").
Here again i am not sure I'd follow Christina when it is suggested that:
>> Living inefficiently might be seen as a form of rebellion. And what
could be more inefficient than art-making? ?
Reading about Castelli and the artists who painted (for his gallery and dealership) - most efficient and most rewarding, one gathers.
Thanks, Julian! I look forward to checking out the sites. In fact,
there is no way to be sure that any of us is experiencing the same site
unless we do side by side comparisons because we have yet to have a
trusted platform. (That doesn't prevent people from trusting....) This
comes up whenever the issue of Internet voting is raised and underlies
arguments against on-line adjudication.
On 1/10/2011 8:51 PM, Julian Oliver wrote:
> " Can we safely use the Internet for communication as individuals if our every
> action, what we write to each other, watch, read, can be known by government as
> it occurs? Will there not be a massive chilling of speech?"
> And then what about the network itself, and our dependence on it? What if it did
> not disperse a unanimous reality with which to contest or comply?
> Here is a project that explores this complexity.
> Newstweek allows for network users to manipulate the network enabled world-view
> of others. It is a small, innocuous device to manipulate news read by other
> people on wireless hotspots (cafes, schools, airports).
> Here is an incredibly geeky and thorough video of the device in action:
> Shorter video here:
empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
More information about the empyre