Dominios, públicos y acceso - Contribuciones del usuario [es]

Categoría:2018

2022-07-07T20:06:16Z

Paz:

[[Categoría:Año de inicio]]

2014 - Manifiesto Transhackfeminista - Pechblenda Lab

2022-07-06T23:25:52Z

Paz:

[[Archivo:Screenshot-pechblenda.hotglue.me-2020.04.20-13_42_58.jpg|miniaturadeimagen|derecha|https://pechblenda.hotglue.me/?transhackfeminismo]]

== '''Texto''' ==

Hartas del polvo mugriento, monótono y aburrido, de las atmósferas inertes, irrespirables, competitivas y excluyentes, de la información semiliberada y, por tanto, totalmente bajo control, poder y decisión de maromos encogidos de hombros por su enorme infantilismo y egocentrismo.

Cansadas de cuerpos reprimidos, impenetrables y “homogenéricos”, reseteamos y migramos nuestros cuerpos,códigos modificables lubricados y fluidos, lejos de tan triste panorama.

Cansadas de la manipulación inservible y recursiva de la información, estudiamos, construimos y fallamos en todo lo que nos rodea con fines múltiples, monstruosos y odiosos. Desde la expansión informativa hasta la mutación dispositiva, deseamos hackear y recodificar todo aquello que se encuentra estática y estrictamente programado, social y tecnológicamente impuesto.

PECHBLENDA se inocula en nuestras venas como antídoto destructor de la arrogancia heteropatriarcal que nos rodea. Un disturbio, una distorsión electrónica transhackfeminista.

Hemos encontrado el lugar para nuestros rituales, lo habíamos soñado, escrito en ciencia ficción.

Ahora lo habitamos
con la potencialidad del alto voltaje,
con la intensidad de las tinieblas;
despegamos unidas con deseos comunes, con nuestras diferencias.

Las paredes tiemblan y el agua penetra los ínfimos agujeros,
se expande cual código indescifrable excitándonos las neuronas;
cambiamos el rumbo aparente del acontecer de las cosas transitando antimelodías, el noise como apertura aritmética, fuera de lo homogéneo y calculado, el ruidismo como fuente de alimentación hacia la experimentación ilimitada.

Si no podemos generar noise no es nuestra revolución.
Performance improvisada
creando y descifrando códigos,
construyendo máquinas híbridas.
Beat roots y oscuros paisajes mutantes
que devienen secreciones incontroladas de nuestros deseos.

Electronáutica y bioelectricidad que saturan el entorno químicamente
el olor a ácido de nuestras hormonas sacude el espacio,
resituadxs entre cables, resistencias, condensadores y líquidos corrosivos.

Natura y tecnología no son cosas diferentes,
la natura fue a las brujas lo que la tecnociencia es para nosotrxs,
las cyborg witches.
Nos infiltramos en la máquina con las manos, el sudor y la atención dispersa,
nos preparamos para una verificación inexacta donde el error aparente es deseado, donde FXLLAMOS, somos.

Somos putones geeks,
cyborg zorras.
Devoramos Haraway y Asimov,
Preciado y manuales de Python,
Itziar Ziga y Neil Sthepenson,
Margulis y Despentes,
hackmeetings y jornadas transfeministas,
electronica DIY y bricolaje sexual;
absorbemos pdfs sobre teoría de la electrónica
escuchando psicofonías del entorno;
leemos y diseñamos circuitos,
y experimentamos con ellos en nuestros cuerpos.

Chillamos noise y akelarres cyborgs,
soldadura y alquimia;
escupimos performances e instalamos gnu-linux,
frikeamos reciclando y reparando hardware en tetas.

Nos reímos de todo, de nosotrxs mismxs…
Nos repugna lo políticamente correcto.
Parodiamos lo socialmente entendido como femenino y masculino.
Cuestionamos la identidad de género que nos asignó el sistema,
la exageramos, la ridiculizamos.
Extremadamente sexuales, irónicas, sarcásticas,
nos encanta la fiesta, no dormir si nos apetece,
drogarnos si nos sale del coño,
tanto para irnos con nuestrxs amigxs
como para acabar un circuito
o improvisar una jam noise ad infinitum.

Nutridas por el pornoterrorismo y la cultura libre,
sabemos sacar garras y dientes cuando hace falta.

== '''Archivo''' ==

[[Archivo:Transhackfeminismo.pdf|miniaturadeimagen]]

== '''Fuentes''' ==

Spideralex Interview, Neural, issue 61autumn 2018.
https://transhackfeminist.noblogs.org/post/2014/07/29/transhackfeminist-manifesto/
https://anarchaserver.org/mediawiki/index.php/TransHackFeminist/Que_significa%3F/What_it_means%3F
https://donestech.net/noticia/computer-grrrls-history-gender-technology
https://donestech.net/files/libro_ciberfeministas_final.pdf

Revisar bien la fecha.

Neural Spideralex Interview issue 61 autumn 2018

https://transhackfeminist.noblogs.org/post/2014/07/29/transhackfeminist-manifesto/

https://anarchaserver.org/mediawiki/index.php/TransHackFeminist/Que_significa%3F/What_it_means%3F

https://donestech.net/noticia/computer-grrrls-history-gender-technology

https://donestech.net/files/libro_ciberfeministas_final.pdf

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''Primera Edición:'''

'''URL:'''https://pechblenda.hotglue.me/?transhackfeminismo

'''Wayback Machine''' https://web.archive.org/web/20200325043737/https://pechblenda.hotglue.me/?transhackfeminismo

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría: Cataluña]]
[[Categoría:2014]]
[[Categoría:Pechblenda Lab]]

2014 - Manifiesto Transhackfeminista - Pechblenda Lab

2022-07-06T23:24:49Z

Paz: /* Fuentes */

[[Archivo:Screenshot-pechblenda.hotglue.me-2020.04.20-13_42_58.jpg|miniaturadeimagen|derecha|https://pechblenda.hotglue.me/?transhackfeminismo]]

== '''Texto''' ==

Hartas del polvo mugriento, monótono y aburrido, de las atmósferas inertes, irrespirables, competitivas y excluyentes, de la información semiliberada y, por tanto, totalmente bajo control, poder y decisión de maromos encogidos de hombros por su enorme infantilismo y egocentrismo.

Cansadas de cuerpos reprimidos, impenetrables y “homogenéricos”, reseteamos y migramos nuestros cuerpos,códigos modificables lubricados y fluidos, lejos de tan triste panorama.

Cansadas de la manipulación inservible y recursiva de la información, estudiamos, construimos y fallamos en todo lo que nos rodea con fines múltiples, monstruosos y odiosos. Desde la expansión informativa hasta la mutación dispositiva, deseamos hackear y recodificar todo aquello que se encuentra estática y estrictamente programado, social y tecnológicamente impuesto.

PECHBLENDA se inocula en nuestras venas como antídoto destructor de la arrogancia heteropatriarcal que nos rodea. Un disturbio, una distorsión electrónica transhackfeminista.

Hemos encontrado el lugar para nuestros rituales, lo habíamos soñado, escrito en ciencia ficción.

Ahora lo habitamos
con la potencialidad del alto voltaje,
con la intensidad de las tinieblas;
despegamos unidas con deseos comunes, con nuestras diferencias.

Las paredes tiemblan y el agua penetra los ínfimos agujeros,
se expande cual código indescifrable excitándonos las neuronas;
cambiamos el rumbo aparente del acontecer de las cosas transitando antimelodías, el noise como apertura aritmética, fuera de lo homogéneo y calculado, el ruidismo como fuente de alimentación hacia la experimentación ilimitada.

Si no podemos generar noise no es nuestra revolución.
Performance improvisada
creando y descifrando códigos,
construyendo máquinas híbridas.
Beat roots y oscuros paisajes mutantes
que devienen secreciones incontroladas de nuestros deseos.

Electronáutica y bioelectricidad que saturan el entorno químicamente
el olor a ácido de nuestras hormonas sacude el espacio,
resituadxs entre cables, resistencias, condensadores y líquidos corrosivos.

Natura y tecnología no son cosas diferentes,
la natura fue a las brujas lo que la tecnociencia es para nosotrxs,
las cyborg witches.
Nos infiltramos en la máquina con las manos, el sudor y la atención dispersa,
nos preparamos para una verificación inexacta donde el error aparente es deseado, donde FXLLAMOS, somos.

Somos putones geeks,
cyborg zorras.
Devoramos Haraway y Asimov,
Preciado y manuales de Python,
Itziar Ziga y Neil Sthepenson,
Margulis y Despentes,
hackmeetings y jornadas transfeministas,
electronica DIY y bricolaje sexual;
absorbemos pdfs sobre teoría de la electrónica
escuchando psicofonías del entorno;
leemos y diseñamos circuitos,
y experimentamos con ellos en nuestros cuerpos.

Chillamos noise y akelarres cyborgs,
soldadura y alquimia;
escupimos performances e instalamos gnu-linux,
frikeamos reciclando y reparando hardware en tetas.

Nos reímos de todo, de nosotrxs mismxs…
Nos repugna lo políticamente correcto.
Parodiamos lo socialmente entendido como femenino y masculino.
Cuestionamos la identidad de género que nos asignó el sistema,
la exageramos, la ridiculizamos.
Extremadamente sexuales, irónicas, sarcásticas,
nos encanta la fiesta, no dormir si nos apetece,
drogarnos si nos sale del coño,
tanto para irnos con nuestrxs amigxs
como para acabar un circuito
o improvisar una jam noise ad infinitum.

Nutridas por el pornoterrorismo y la cultura libre,
sabemos sacar garras y dientes cuando hace falta.

== '''Fuentes''' ==

Spideralex Interview, Neural, issue 61autumn 2018.
https://transhackfeminist.noblogs.org/post/2014/07/29/transhackfeminist-manifesto/
https://anarchaserver.org/mediawiki/index.php/TransHackFeminist/Que_significa%3F/What_it_means%3F
https://donestech.net/noticia/computer-grrrls-history-gender-technology
https://donestech.net/files/libro_ciberfeministas_final.pdf

Revisar bien la fecha.

Neural Spideralex Interview issue 61 autumn 2018

https://transhackfeminist.noblogs.org/post/2014/07/29/transhackfeminist-manifesto/

https://anarchaserver.org/mediawiki/index.php/TransHackFeminist/Que_significa%3F/What_it_means%3F

https://donestech.net/noticia/computer-grrrls-history-gender-technology

https://donestech.net/files/libro_ciberfeministas_final.pdf

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''Primera Edición:'''

'''URL:'''https://pechblenda.hotglue.me/?transhackfeminismo

'''Wayback Machine''' https://web.archive.org/web/20200325043737/https://pechblenda.hotglue.me/?transhackfeminismo

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría: Cataluña]]
[[Categoría:2014]]
[[Categoría:Pechblenda Lab]]

2004 - Manifiesto hacker - McKenzie Wark

2022-07-06T21:27:24Z

Paz: /* Enlaces */

[[Archivo:Hacker manifesto.jpg|miniaturadeimagen|derecha]]

== '''Texto''' ==
A HACKER MANIFESTO [version 4.0]

McKenzie Wark

Manifestation

01. There is a double spooking the world, the double of abstraction. The fortunes of states and armies, companies and communities depend on it. All contending classes - the landlords and farmers, the workers and capitalists - revere yet fear the relentless abstraction of the world on which their fortunes yet depend. All the classes but one. The hacker class.

02. Whatever code we hack, be it programming language, poetic language, math or music, curves or colourings, we create the possibility of new things entering the world. Not always great things, or even good things, but new things. In art, in science, in philosophy and culture, in any production of knowledge where data can be gathered, where information can be extracted from it, and where in that information new possibilities for the world are produced, there are hackers hacking the new out of the old. While hackers create these new worlds, we do not possess them. That which we create is mortgaged to others, and to the interests of others, to states and corporations who control the means for making worlds we alone discover. We do not own what we produce - it owns us.

03. And yet we don't quite know who we are. While we recognise our distinctive existence as a group, as programmers, as artists or writers or scientists or musicians, we rarely see these ways of representing ourselves as mere fragments of a class experience that is still struggling to express itself as itself, as expressions of the process of producing abstraction in the world. Geeks and freaks become what they are negatively, through their exclusion by others. Hackers are a class, but an abstract class, a class as yet to hack itself into manifest existence as itself.

Abstraction

04. Abstraction may be discovered or produced, may be material or immaterial, but abstraction is what every hack produces and affirms. To abstract is to construct a plane upon which otherwise different and unrelated matters may be brought into many possible relations. It is through the abstract that the virtual is identified, produced and released. The virtual is not just the potential latent in matters, it is the potential of potential. To hack is to produce or apply the abstract to information and express the possibility of new worlds.

05. All abstractions are abstractions of nature. To abstract is to express the virtuality of nature, to make known some instance of its manifold possibilities, to actualise a relation out of infinite relationality. Abstractions release the potential of physical matter. And yet abstraction relies on something that has an independent existence to physical matter -- information. Information is no less real than physical matter, and is dependent on it for its existence. Since information cannot exist in a pure, immaterial form, neither can the hacker class. Of necessity it must deal with a ruling class that owns the material means of extracting or distributing information, or with a producing class that extracts and distributes. The class interest of hackers lies in freeing information from its material constraints.

06. As the abstraction of private property was extended to information, it produced the hacker class as a class. Hackers must sell their capacity for abstraction to a class that owns the means of production, the vectoralist class - the emergent ruling class of our time. The vectorialist class is waging an intensive struggle to dispossess hackers of their intellectual property. Patents and copyrights all end up in the hands, not of their creators, but of the vectoralist class that owns the means of realising the value of these abstractions. The vectoralist class struggles to monopolise abstraction. Hackers find themselves dispossessed both individually, and as a class. Hackers come piecemeal to struggle against the particular forms in which abstraction is commodified and made into the private property of the vectoralist class. Hackers come to struggle collectively against the usurious charges the vectoralists extort for access to the information that hackers collectively produce, but that vectoralists collectively come to own. Hackers come as a class to recognise their class interest is best expressed through the struggle to free the production of abstraction not just from the particular fetters of this or that form of property, but to abstract the form of property itself.

07. What makes our times different is that what now appears on the horizon is the possibility of a society finally set free from necessity, both real and imagined, by an explosion in abstract innovations. Abstraction with the potential once and for all to break the shackles holding hacking fast to outdated and regressive class interests. The time is past due when hackers must come together with all of the producing classes of the world - to liberate productive and inventive resources from the myth of scarcity. "The world already possesses the dream of a time whose consciousness it must now possess in order to actually live it."

Production

08. Production produces all things, and all producers of things. Production produces not only the object of the production process, but also the producer as subject. Hacking is the production of production. The hack produces a production of a new kind, which has as its result a singular and unique product, and a singular and unique producer. Every hacker is at one and the same time producer and product of the hack, and emerges in its singularity as the memory of the hack as process.

09. Production takes place on the basis of a prior hack which gives to production its formal, social, repeatable and reproducible form. Every production is a hack formalised and repeated on the basis of its representation. To produce is to repeat; to hack, to differentiate.

10. The hack produces both a useful and a useless surplus, although the usefulness of any surplus is socially and historically determined. The useful surplus goes into expanding the realm of freedom wrested from necessity. The useless surplus is the surplus of freedom itself, the margin of free production unconstrained by production for necessity.

11. The production of a surplus creates the possibility of the expansion of freedom from necessity. But in class society, the production of a surplus also creates new necessities. Class domination takes the form of the capture of the productive potential of society and its harnessing to the production, not of liberty, but of class domination itself. The ruling class subordinates the hack to the production of forms of production that may be harnessed to the enhancement of class power, and the suppression or marginalisation of other forms of hacking. What the producing classes - farmers, workers and hackers - have in common is an interest in freeing production from its subordination to ruling classes who turn production into the production of new necessities, who wrest slavery from surplus. The elements of a free productivity exist already in an atomised form, in the productive classes. What remains is the release of its virtuality.

Class

12. The class struggle, in its endless setbacks, reversals and compromises returns again and again to the unanswered question - property - and the contending classes return again and again with new answers. The working class questioned the necessity of private property, and the communist party arose, claiming to answer the desires of the working class. The answer, expressed in the Communist Manifesto was to "centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state." But making the state the monopolist of property has only produced a new ruling class, and a new and more brutal class struggle. But perhaps this was not the final answer, and the course of the class struggle is not yet over. Perhaps there is another class that can pose the property question in a new way - and offer new answers to breaking the monopoly of the ruling classes on property.

13. There is a class dynamic driving each stage of the development of the vectoral world in which we now find ourselves. The pastoralist class disperse the great mass of peasants who traditionally worked the land under the thumb of feudal landlords. The pastoralists supplant the feudal landlords, releasing the productivity of the land which they claim as their private property. As new forms of abstraction make it possible to produce a surplus from the land with fewer and fewer farmers, pastoralists turn them off their land, depriving them of their living. Dispossessed farmers seek work and a new home in cities. Here farmers become workers, as capital puts them to work in its factories. Capital as property gives rise to a class of capitalists who own the means of production, and a class of workers, dispossessed of it - and by it. Dispossessed farmers become workers, only to be dispossessed again. Having lost their land, they lose in turn their culture. Capital produces in its factories not just the necessities of existence, but a way of life it expects its workers to consume. Commodified life dispossess the worker of the information traditionally passed on outside the realm of private property as culture, as the gift of one generation to the next, and replaces it with information in commodified form.

14. Information, like land or capital, becomes a form of property monopolised by a class of vectoralists, so named because they control the vectors along which information is abstracted, just as capitalists control the material means with which goods are produced, and pastoralists the land with which food is produced. Information circulated within working class culture as a social property belonging to all. But when information in turn becomes a form of private property, workers are dispossessed of it, and must buy their own culture back from its owners, the vectoralist class. The whole of time, time itself, becomes a commodified experience.

15. Vectoralists try to break capital's monopoly on the production process, and subordinate the production of goods to the circulation of information. The leading corporations divest themselves of their productive capacity, as this is no longer a source of power. Their power lies in monopolising intellectual property - patents and brands - and the means of reproducing their value - the vectors of communication. The privatisation of information becomes the dominant, rather than a subsidiary, aspect of commodified life. As private property advances from land to capital to information, property itself becomes more abstract. As capital frees land from its spatial fixity, information as property frees capital from its fixity in a particular object.

16. The hacker class, producer of new abstractions, becomes more important to each successive ruling class, as each depends more and more on information as a resource. The hacker class arises out of the transformation of information into property, in the form of intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, copyright and the moral right of authors. The hacker class is the class with the capacity to create not only new kinds of object and subject in the world, not only new kinds of property form in which they may be represented, but new kinds of relation beyond the property form. The formation of the hacker class as a class comes at just this moment when freedom from necessity and from class domination appears on the horizon as a possibility.

Property

17. Property constitutes an abstract plane upon which all things may be things with one quality in common, the quality of property. Land is the primary form of property. Pastoralists acquire land as private property through the forced dispossession of peasants who once shared a portion of it in a form of public ownership. Capital is the secondary form of property, the privatisation of productive assets in the form of tools, machines and working materials. Capital, unlike land, is not in fixed supply or disposition. It can be made and remade, moved, aggregated and dispersed. An infinitely greater degree of potential can be released from the world as a productive resource once the abstract plane of property includes both land and capital - such is capital's 'advance'.

18. The capitalist class recognises the value of the hack in the abstract, whereas the pastoralists were slow to appreciate the productivity that can flow from the application of abstraction to the production process. Under the influence of capital, the state sanctions forms of intellectual property, such as patents and copyrights, that secure an independent existence for hackers as a class, and a flow of innovations in culture as well as science from which development issues. Information, once it becomes a form of property, develops beyond a mere support for capital - it becomes the basis of a form of accumulation in its own right.

19. Hackers must calculate their interests not as owners, but as producers, for this is what distinguishes them from the vectoralist class. Hackers do not merely own, and profit by owning information. They produce new information, and as producers need access to it free from the absolute domination of the commodity form. Hacking as a pure, free experimental activity must be free from any constraint that is not self imposed. Only out of its liberty will it produce the means of producing a surplus of liberty and liberty as a surplus.

20. Private property arose in opposition not only to feudal property, but also to traditional forms of the gift economy, which were a fetter to the increased productivity of the commodity economy. Qualitative, gift exchange was superseded by quantified, monetised exchange. Money is the medium through which land, capital, information and labour all confront each other as abstract entities, reduced to an abstract plane of measurement. The gift becomes a marginal form of property, everywhere invaded by the commodity, and turned towards mere consumption. The gift is marginal, but nevertheless plays a vital role in cementing reciprocal and communal relations among people who otherwise can only confront each other as buyer and sellers of commodities. As vectoral production develops, the means appear for the renewal of the gift economy. Everywhere that the vector reaches, it brings into the orbit of the commodity. But everywhere the vector reaches, it also brings with it the possibility of the gift relation.

21. The hacker class has a close affinity with the gift economy. The hacker struggles to produce a subjectivity that is qualitative and singular, in part through the act of the hack itself. The gift, as a qualitative exchange between singular parties allows each party to be recognised as a singular producer, as a subject of production, rather than as a commodified and quantified object. The gift expresses in a social and collective way the subjectivity of the production of production, whereas commodified property represents the producer as an object, a quantifiable commodity like any other, of relative value only. The gift of information need not give rise to conflict over information as property, for information need not suffer the artifice of scarcity once freed from commodification.

22. The vectoralist class contributed, unwittingly, to the development of the vectoral space within which the gift as property could return, but quickly recognised its error. As the vectoral economy develops, less and less of it takes the form of a social space of open and free gift exchange, and more and more of it takes the form of commodified production for private sale. The vectoralist class can grudgingly accommodate some margin of socialised information, as the price it pays in a democracy for the furtherance of its main interests. But the vectoralist class quite rightly sees in the gift a challenge not just to its profits but to its very existence. The gift economy is the virtual proof for the parasitic and superfluous nature of vectoralists as a class.

Vector

23. In epidemiology, a vector is the particular means by which a given pathogen travels from one population to another. Water is a vector for cholera, bodily fluids for HIV. By extension, a vector may be any means by which information moves. Telegraph, telephone, television, telecommunications: these terms name not just particular vectors, but a general abstract capacity that they bring into the world and expand. All are forms of telesthesia, or perception at a distance. A given media vector has certain fixed properties of speed, bandwidth, scope and scale, but may be deployed anywhere, at least in principle. The uneven development of the vector is political and economic, not technical.

24. With the commodification of information comes its vectoralisation. Extracting a surplus from information requires technologies capable of transporting information through space, but also through time. The archive is a vector through time just as communication is a vector that crosses space. The vectoral class comes into its own once it is in possession of powerful technologies for vectoralising information. The vectoral class may commodify information stocks, flows, or vectors themselves. A stock of information is an archive, a body of information maintained through time that has enduring value. A flow of information is the capacity to extract information of temporary value out of events and to distribute it widely and quickly. A vector is the means of achieving either the temporal distribution of a stock, or the spatial distribution of a flow of information. Vectoral power is generally sought through the ownership of all three aspects.

25. The vectoral class ascend to the illusion of an instantaneous and global plane of calculation and control. But it is not the vectoralist class that comes to hold subjective power over the objective world. The vector itself usurps the subjective role, becoming the sole repository of will toward a world that can be apprehended only in its commodified form. The reign of the vector is one in which any and every thing can be apprehended as a thing. The vector is a power over all of the world, but a power that is not evenly distributed. Nothing in the technology of the vector determines its possible use. All that is determined by the technology is the form in which information is objectified.

26. The vectoral class struggles at every turn to maintain its subjective power over the vector, but as it continues to profit by the proliferation of the vector, some capacity over it always escapes control. In order to market and profit by the information it peddles over the vector, it must in some degree address the vast majority of the producing classes as subjects, rather than as objects of commodification. The hacker class seeks the liberation of the vector from the reign of the commodity, but not to set it indiscriminately free. Rather, to subject it to collective and democratic development. The hacker class can release the virtuality of the vector only in principle. It is up to an alliance of all the productive classes to turn that potential to actuality, to organise themselves subjectively, and use the available vectors for a collective and subjective becoming.

Education

27. Education is slavery, it enchains the mind and makes it a resource for class power. When the ruling class preaches the necessity of an education it invariably means an education in necessity. Education is not the same as knowledge. Nor is it the necessary means to acquire knowledge. Education is the organisation of knowledge within the constraints of scarcity. Education 'disciplines' knowledge, segregating it into homogenous 'fields', presided over by suitably 'qualified' guardians charged with policing the representation of the field. One may acquire an education, as if it were a thing, but one becomes knowledgeable, through a process of transformation. Knowledge, as such, is only ever partially captured by education, its practice always eludes and exceeds it.

28. The pastoralist class has resisted education, other than as indoctrination in obedience. When capital required 'hands' to do its dirty work, the bulk of education was devoted to training useful hands to tend the machines, and docile bodies who would accept as natural the social order in which they found themselves. When capital required brains, both to run its increasingly complex operations and to apply themselves to the work of consuming its products, more time spent in the prison house of education was required for admission to the ranks of the paid working class.

29. The so-called middle class achieve their privileged access to consumption and security through education, in which they are obliged to invest a substantial part of their income. But most remain workers, even though they work with information rather than cotton or metal. They work in factories, but are trained to think of them as offices. They take home wages, but are trained to think of it as a salary. They wear a uniform, but are trained to think of it as a suit. The only difference is that education has taught them to give different names to the instruments of exploitation, and to despise those their own class who name them differently.

30. Where the capitalist class sees education as a means to an end, the vectoralist class sees it as an end in itself. It sees opportunities to make education a profitable industry in its own right, based on the securing of intellectual property as a form of private property. To the vectoralists, education, like culture, is just 'content' for commodification.

31. The hacker class have an ambivalent relationship to education. The hacker class desires knowledge, not education. The hacker comes into being though the pure liberty of knowledge in and of itself. The hack expresses knowledge in its virtuality, by producing new abstractions that do not necessarily fit the disciplinary regime of managing and commodifying education. . Hacker knowledge implies, in its practice, a politics of free information, free learning, the gift of the result to a network of peers. Hacker knowledge also implies an ethics of knowledge subject to the claims of public interest and free from subordination to commodity production. This puts the hacker into an antagonistic relationship to the struggle of the capitalist class to make education an induction into wage slavery.

32. Only one intellectual conflict has any real bearing on the class issue for hackers: Whose property is knowledge? Is it the role of knowledge to authorise subjects through education that are recognised only by their function in an economy by manipulating its authorised representations as objects? Or is it the function of knowledge to produce the ever different phenomena of the hack, in which subjects become other than themselves, and discover the objective world to contain potentials other than it appears?

Hacking

33. The virtual is the true domain of the hacker. It is from the virtual that the hacker produces ever-new expressions of the actual. To the hacker, what is represented as being real is always partial, limited, perhaps even false. To the hacker there is always a surplus of possibility expressed in what is actual, the surplus of the virtual. This is the inexhaustible domain of what is real without being actual, what is not but which may be. To hack is to release the virtual into the actual, to express the difference of the real.

34. Through the application of abstraction, the hacker class produces the possibility of production, the possibility of making something of and with the world - and of living off the surplus produced by the application of abstraction to nature - to any nature. Through the production of new forms of abstraction, the hacker class produces the possibility of the future - not just 'the' future, but an infinite possible array of futures, the future itself as virtuality.

35. Under the sanction of law, the hack becomes a finite property, and the hacker class emerges, as all classes emerge, out of a relation to a property form. Like all forms of property, intellectual property enforces a relation of scarcity. It assigns a right to a property to an owner at the expense of non-owners, to a class of possessors at the expense of the dispossessed.

36. By its very nature, the act of hacking overcomes the limits property imposes on it. New hacks supersede old hacks, and devalues them as property. The hack as new information is produced out of already existing information. This gives the hacker class an interest in its free availability more than in an exclusive right. The immaterial nature of information means that the possession by one of information need not deprive another of it.

37. To the extent that the hack embodies itself in the form of property, it gives the hacker class interests quite different from other classes, be they exploiting or exploited classes. The interest of the hacker class lies first and foremost in a free circulation of information, this being the necessary condition for the renewed statement of the hack. But the hacker class as class also has an interest in the representation of the hack as property, as something from which a source of income may be derived that gives the hacker some independence from the ruling classes.

38. The very nature of the hack gives the hacker a crisis of identity. The hacker searches for a representation of what it is to be a hacker in the identities of other classes. Some see themselves as vectoralists, trading on the scarcity of their property. Some see themselves as workers, but as privileged ones in a hierarchy of wage earners. The hacker class has produces itself as itself, but not for itself. It does not (yet) possess a consciousness of its consciousness. It is not aware of its own virtuality. It has to distinguish between its competitive interest in the hack, and its collective interest in discovering a relation among hackers that expresses an open and ongoing future.

Information

39. Information wants to be free but is everywhere in chains. Information is the potential of potential. When unfettered it releases the latent capacities of all things and people, objects and subjects. Information is indeed the very potential for there to be objects and subjects. It is the medium in which objects and subjects actually come into existence, and is the medium in which their virtuality resides. When information is not free, then the class that owns or controls it turns its capacity toward its own interest and away from its own inherent virtuality.

40. Information has nothing to do with communication, or with media. "We do not lack communication. On the contrary, we have too much of it. We lack creation. We lack resistance to the present." Information is precisely this resistance, this friction. At the urgings of the vectoralist class, the state recognises as property any communication, any media product with some minimal degree of difference recognisable in commodity exchange. Where communication merely requires the repetition of this commodified difference, information is the production of the difference of difference.

41. The arrest of the free flow of information means the enslavement of the world to the interests of those who profit from information's scarcity, the vectoral class. The enslavement of information means the enslavement of its producers to the interests of its owners. It is the hacker class that taps the virtuality of information, but it is the vectoralist class that owns and controls the means of production of information on an industrial scale. Privatising culture, education and communication as commodified content, distorts and deforms its free development, and prevents the very concept of its freedom from its own free development. While information remains subordinated to ownership, it is not possible for its producers to freely calculate their interests, or to discover what the true freedom of information might potentially produce in the world.

42. Free information must be free in all its aspects - as a stock, as a flow, and as a vector. The stock of information is the raw material out of which history is abstracted. The flow of information is the raw material out of which the present is abstracted, a present that forms the horizon the abstract line of an historical knowledge crosses, indicating a future in its sights. Neither stocks nor flows of information exist without vectors along which they may be actualised. The spatial and temporal axes of free information must do more offer a representation of things, as a thing apart. They must become the means of coordination of the statement of a movement, at once objective and subjective, capable of connecting the objective representation of things to the presentation of a subjective action.

43. It is not just information that must be free, but the knowledge of how to use it. Information in itself is a mere thing. It requires an active, subjective capacity to become productive. Information is free not for the purpose of representing the world perfectly, but for expressing its difference from what is, and for expressing the cooperative force that transforms what is into what may be. The test of a free society is not the liberty to consume information, nor to produce it, nor even to implement its potential in private world of one's choosing. The test of a free society is the liberty for the collective transformation of the world through abstractions freely chosen and freely actualised.

Representation

44. All representation is false. A likeness differs of necessity from what it represents. If it did not, it would be what it represents, and thus not a representation. The only truly false representation is the belief in the possibility of true representation. Critique is not a solution, but the problem itself. Critique is a police action in representation, of service only to the maintenance of the value of property through the establishment of its value.

45. The politics of representation is always the politics of the state. The state is nothing but the policing of representation's adequacy to the body of what it represents. Even in its most radical form, the politics of representation always presupposes an abstract or ideal state that would act as guarantor of its chosen representations. It yearns for a state that would recognise this oppressed ethnicity, or sexuality, but which is nevertheless still a desire for a state, and a state that, in the process, is not challenged as an statement of class interest, but is accepted as the judge of representation.

46. And always, what is excluded even from this enlightened, imaginary state, would be those who refuse representation, namely, the hacker class as a class. To hack is to refuse representation, to make matters express themselves otherwise. To hack is always to produce a difference, if only a minute difference, in the production of information. To hack is to trouble the object or the subject, by transforming in some way the very process of production by which objects and subjects come into being and recognise each other by their representations.

47. The politics of information, of knowledge, advances not through a critical negation of false representations but a positive politics of the virtuality of statement. The inexhaustible surplus of statement is that aspect of information upon which the class interest of hackers depends. Hacking brings into existence the inexhaustible multiplicity of all codes, be they natural or social, programmed or poetic. But as it is the act of hacking that composes, at one and the same time, the hacker and the hack, hacking recognises no artificial scarcity, no official licence, no credentialing police force other than that composed by the gift economy among hackers themselves.

48. A politics that embraces its existence as statement, as affirmative difference, not as negation can escape the politics of the state. To ignore or plagiarise representation, to refuse to give it what it claims as its due, is to begin a politics of statelessness. A politics which refuses the state's authority to authorise what is a valued statement and what isn't. A politics which is always temporary, always becoming something other than itself. Even useless hacks may come, perversely enough, to be valued for the purity of their uselessness. There is nothing that can't be valued as a representation. The hack always has to move on.

49. Everywhere dissatisfaction with representations is spreading. Sometimes its a matter of breaking a few shop windows, sometimes of breaking a few heads. So-called 'violence' against the state, which rarely amounts to more than throwing rocks at its police, is merely the desire for the state expressed in its masochistic form. Where some call for a state that recognises their representation, others call for a state that beats them to a pulp. Neither is a politics that escapes the desire cultivated within the subject by the educational apparatus.

50. Sometimes direct democracy is posited as the alternative. But this merely changes the moment of representation - it puts politics in the hands of claimants to an activist representation, in place of an electoral one.. Sometimes what is demanded of the politics of representation is that it recognise a new subject. Minorities of race, gender, preference demand the right to representation. But soon enough they discover the cost. They must now police the meaning of this representation, and police the adherence of its members to it. Even at its best, in its most abstract form, on its best behaviour, the colour blind, gender neutral, multicultural state just hands the value of representation over to the commodity form. While this is progress, particularly for those formerly oppressed by the state's failure to recognise their identity as legitimate, it stops short at the recognition of expressions of subjectivity that seeks to become something other than a representation that the state can recognise and the market can value.

51. But there is something else hovering on the horizon of the representable. There is a politics of the unrepresentable, a politics of the presentation of the non-negotiable demand. This is politics as the refusal of representation itself, not the politics of refusing this or that representation. A politics which, while abstract, is not utopian. In its infinite and limitless demand, it may even be the best way of extracting concessions precisely through its refusal to put a name - or a price - on what revolt desires.

Revolt

52. The revolts of 1989 are the signal events of our time. What the revolts of 1989 achieved was the overthrow of regimes so impervious to the recognition of the value of the hack that they had starved not only their hackers but also their workers and farmers of any increase in the surplus. With their cronyism and kleptocracy, their bureaucracy and ideology, their police and spies, they starved even their pastoralists and capitalists of innovative transformation and growth.

53. The revolts of 1989 overthrew boredom and necessity. At least for a time. They put back on the world historical agenda the limitless demand for free statement. At least for a time. They revealed the latent destiny of world history to express the pure virtuality of becoming. At least for a time, before new states cobbled themselves together and claimed legitimacy as representations of what revolt desired. The revolts of 1989 opened the portal to the virtual, but the states that regrouped around this opening soon closed it. What the revolts really achieved was the making of the world safe for vectoral power.

54. The so-called anti-globalisation protests of the 90s are a ripple caused by the wake of these signal events, but a ripple that did not know the current to which it truly belonged. This movement of revolt in the overdeveloped world identifies the rising vectoral power as a class enemy, but all too often it allowed itself to be captured by the partial and temporary interests of local capitalist and pastoralist classes. It was a revolt is in its infancy that has yet to discover the connection between its engine of limitless desire and free statement, and the art of making tactical demands.

55. The class struggle within nations and the imperial struggle between nations has taken shape as two forms of politics. One kind of politics is regressive. It seeks to return to an imagined past. It seeks to use national borders as a new wall, a neon screen behind which unlikely alliances might protect their existing interests in the name of a glorious past. The other form is the progressive politics of movement. The politics of movement seeks to accelerate toward an unknown future. It seeks to use international flows of information, trade or activism as the eclectic means for struggling for new sources of wealth or liberty that overcomes the limitations imposed by national coalitions.

56. Neither of these politics corresponds to the old notion of a left or right, which the revolutions of 1989 have definitively overcome. Regressive politics brings together luddite impulses from the left with racist and reactionary impulses from the right in an unholy alliance against new sources of power. Progressive politics rarely takes the form of an alliance, but constitutes two parallel processes locked in a dialogue of mutual suspicion, in which the liberalising forces of the right and the social justice and human rights forces of the left both seek non-national and transnational solutions to unblocking the system of power which still accumulates at the national level.

57. There is a third politics, which stands outside the alliances and compromises of the post-89 world. Where both progressive and regressive politics are representative politics, which deal with aggregate party alliances and interests, this third politics is a stateless politics, which seeks escape from politics as such. A politics of the hack, inventing relations outside of representation.

58. Expressive politics is a struggle against commodity property itself. Expressive politics is not the struggle to collectivise property, for that is still a form of property. Expressive politics is the struggle to free what can be free from both versions of the commodity form - its totalising market form, and its bureaucratic state form. What may be free from the commodity form altogether is not land, not capital, but information. All other forms of property are exclusive. The ownership by one excludes, by definition, the ownership by another. But information as property may be shared without diminishing anything but its scarcity. Information is that which can escape the commodity form.

59. Politics can become expressive only when it is a politics of freeing the virtuality of information. In liberating information from its objectification as a commodity, it liberates also the subjective force of statement. Subject and object meet each other outside of their mere lack of each other, by their desire merely for each other. Expressive politics does not seek to overthrow the existing society, or to reform its larger structures, or to preserve its structure so as to maintain an existing coalition of interests. It seeks to permeate existing states with a new state of existence, spreading the seeds of an alternative practice of everyday life.

Version 4.0 edited by Joanne Richardson for subsol. A much longer Version 2.0 can be found online at feelergauge and textz.com . Version 3.0 is still off-line.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Entrevista sobre el manifiesto https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/193/ http://web.archive.org/web/20220327190210/https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/193/

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Archivo''' ==

MANIFIESTO HACKER1 [versión 4.0] por McKenzie Wark (warkk@newschool.edu)

Texto original en inglés: http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/warktext.html

Traducción al español: https://monoskop.org/images/c/c6/Wark_McKenzie_Manifiesto_hacker_v4.pdf

[[Archivo:Manifiesto Hacker.pdf|miniaturadeimagen]]

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''Primera edición:'''

'''URL:''' https://www.laneros.com/attachments/manifiesto-hacker-zip.15635/

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20220524194635/https://monoskop.org/images/c/c6/Wark_McKenzie_Manifiesto_hacker_v4.pdf [español]

[[Categoría: Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría: McKenzie Wark]]
[[Categoría: Estados Unidos]]
[[Categoría: Español]]
[[Categoría: 2004]]

2004 - Manifiesto hacker - McKenzie Wark

2022-07-06T21:15:10Z

Paz: /* Archivo */

[[Archivo:Hacker manifesto.jpg|miniaturadeimagen|derecha]]

== '''Texto''' ==
A HACKER MANIFESTO [version 4.0]

McKenzie Wark

Manifestation

01. There is a double spooking the world, the double of abstraction. The fortunes of states and armies, companies and communities depend on it. All contending classes - the landlords and farmers, the workers and capitalists - revere yet fear the relentless abstraction of the world on which their fortunes yet depend. All the classes but one. The hacker class.

02. Whatever code we hack, be it programming language, poetic language, math or music, curves or colourings, we create the possibility of new things entering the world. Not always great things, or even good things, but new things. In art, in science, in philosophy and culture, in any production of knowledge where data can be gathered, where information can be extracted from it, and where in that information new possibilities for the world are produced, there are hackers hacking the new out of the old. While hackers create these new worlds, we do not possess them. That which we create is mortgaged to others, and to the interests of others, to states and corporations who control the means for making worlds we alone discover. We do not own what we produce - it owns us.

03. And yet we don't quite know who we are. While we recognise our distinctive existence as a group, as programmers, as artists or writers or scientists or musicians, we rarely see these ways of representing ourselves as mere fragments of a class experience that is still struggling to express itself as itself, as expressions of the process of producing abstraction in the world. Geeks and freaks become what they are negatively, through their exclusion by others. Hackers are a class, but an abstract class, a class as yet to hack itself into manifest existence as itself.

Abstraction

04. Abstraction may be discovered or produced, may be material or immaterial, but abstraction is what every hack produces and affirms. To abstract is to construct a plane upon which otherwise different and unrelated matters may be brought into many possible relations. It is through the abstract that the virtual is identified, produced and released. The virtual is not just the potential latent in matters, it is the potential of potential. To hack is to produce or apply the abstract to information and express the possibility of new worlds.

05. All abstractions are abstractions of nature. To abstract is to express the virtuality of nature, to make known some instance of its manifold possibilities, to actualise a relation out of infinite relationality. Abstractions release the potential of physical matter. And yet abstraction relies on something that has an independent existence to physical matter -- information. Information is no less real than physical matter, and is dependent on it for its existence. Since information cannot exist in a pure, immaterial form, neither can the hacker class. Of necessity it must deal with a ruling class that owns the material means of extracting or distributing information, or with a producing class that extracts and distributes. The class interest of hackers lies in freeing information from its material constraints.

06. As the abstraction of private property was extended to information, it produced the hacker class as a class. Hackers must sell their capacity for abstraction to a class that owns the means of production, the vectoralist class - the emergent ruling class of our time. The vectorialist class is waging an intensive struggle to dispossess hackers of their intellectual property. Patents and copyrights all end up in the hands, not of their creators, but of the vectoralist class that owns the means of realising the value of these abstractions. The vectoralist class struggles to monopolise abstraction. Hackers find themselves dispossessed both individually, and as a class. Hackers come piecemeal to struggle against the particular forms in which abstraction is commodified and made into the private property of the vectoralist class. Hackers come to struggle collectively against the usurious charges the vectoralists extort for access to the information that hackers collectively produce, but that vectoralists collectively come to own. Hackers come as a class to recognise their class interest is best expressed through the struggle to free the production of abstraction not just from the particular fetters of this or that form of property, but to abstract the form of property itself.

07. What makes our times different is that what now appears on the horizon is the possibility of a society finally set free from necessity, both real and imagined, by an explosion in abstract innovations. Abstraction with the potential once and for all to break the shackles holding hacking fast to outdated and regressive class interests. The time is past due when hackers must come together with all of the producing classes of the world - to liberate productive and inventive resources from the myth of scarcity. "The world already possesses the dream of a time whose consciousness it must now possess in order to actually live it."

Production

08. Production produces all things, and all producers of things. Production produces not only the object of the production process, but also the producer as subject. Hacking is the production of production. The hack produces a production of a new kind, which has as its result a singular and unique product, and a singular and unique producer. Every hacker is at one and the same time producer and product of the hack, and emerges in its singularity as the memory of the hack as process.

09. Production takes place on the basis of a prior hack which gives to production its formal, social, repeatable and reproducible form. Every production is a hack formalised and repeated on the basis of its representation. To produce is to repeat; to hack, to differentiate.

10. The hack produces both a useful and a useless surplus, although the usefulness of any surplus is socially and historically determined. The useful surplus goes into expanding the realm of freedom wrested from necessity. The useless surplus is the surplus of freedom itself, the margin of free production unconstrained by production for necessity.

11. The production of a surplus creates the possibility of the expansion of freedom from necessity. But in class society, the production of a surplus also creates new necessities. Class domination takes the form of the capture of the productive potential of society and its harnessing to the production, not of liberty, but of class domination itself. The ruling class subordinates the hack to the production of forms of production that may be harnessed to the enhancement of class power, and the suppression or marginalisation of other forms of hacking. What the producing classes - farmers, workers and hackers - have in common is an interest in freeing production from its subordination to ruling classes who turn production into the production of new necessities, who wrest slavery from surplus. The elements of a free productivity exist already in an atomised form, in the productive classes. What remains is the release of its virtuality.

Class

12. The class struggle, in its endless setbacks, reversals and compromises returns again and again to the unanswered question - property - and the contending classes return again and again with new answers. The working class questioned the necessity of private property, and the communist party arose, claiming to answer the desires of the working class. The answer, expressed in the Communist Manifesto was to "centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state." But making the state the monopolist of property has only produced a new ruling class, and a new and more brutal class struggle. But perhaps this was not the final answer, and the course of the class struggle is not yet over. Perhaps there is another class that can pose the property question in a new way - and offer new answers to breaking the monopoly of the ruling classes on property.

13. There is a class dynamic driving each stage of the development of the vectoral world in which we now find ourselves. The pastoralist class disperse the great mass of peasants who traditionally worked the land under the thumb of feudal landlords. The pastoralists supplant the feudal landlords, releasing the productivity of the land which they claim as their private property. As new forms of abstraction make it possible to produce a surplus from the land with fewer and fewer farmers, pastoralists turn them off their land, depriving them of their living. Dispossessed farmers seek work and a new home in cities. Here farmers become workers, as capital puts them to work in its factories. Capital as property gives rise to a class of capitalists who own the means of production, and a class of workers, dispossessed of it - and by it. Dispossessed farmers become workers, only to be dispossessed again. Having lost their land, they lose in turn their culture. Capital produces in its factories not just the necessities of existence, but a way of life it expects its workers to consume. Commodified life dispossess the worker of the information traditionally passed on outside the realm of private property as culture, as the gift of one generation to the next, and replaces it with information in commodified form.

14. Information, like land or capital, becomes a form of property monopolised by a class of vectoralists, so named because they control the vectors along which information is abstracted, just as capitalists control the material means with which goods are produced, and pastoralists the land with which food is produced. Information circulated within working class culture as a social property belonging to all. But when information in turn becomes a form of private property, workers are dispossessed of it, and must buy their own culture back from its owners, the vectoralist class. The whole of time, time itself, becomes a commodified experience.

15. Vectoralists try to break capital's monopoly on the production process, and subordinate the production of goods to the circulation of information. The leading corporations divest themselves of their productive capacity, as this is no longer a source of power. Their power lies in monopolising intellectual property - patents and brands - and the means of reproducing their value - the vectors of communication. The privatisation of information becomes the dominant, rather than a subsidiary, aspect of commodified life. As private property advances from land to capital to information, property itself becomes more abstract. As capital frees land from its spatial fixity, information as property frees capital from its fixity in a particular object.

16. The hacker class, producer of new abstractions, becomes more important to each successive ruling class, as each depends more and more on information as a resource. The hacker class arises out of the transformation of information into property, in the form of intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, copyright and the moral right of authors. The hacker class is the class with the capacity to create not only new kinds of object and subject in the world, not only new kinds of property form in which they may be represented, but new kinds of relation beyond the property form. The formation of the hacker class as a class comes at just this moment when freedom from necessity and from class domination appears on the horizon as a possibility.

Property

17. Property constitutes an abstract plane upon which all things may be things with one quality in common, the quality of property. Land is the primary form of property. Pastoralists acquire land as private property through the forced dispossession of peasants who once shared a portion of it in a form of public ownership. Capital is the secondary form of property, the privatisation of productive assets in the form of tools, machines and working materials. Capital, unlike land, is not in fixed supply or disposition. It can be made and remade, moved, aggregated and dispersed. An infinitely greater degree of potential can be released from the world as a productive resource once the abstract plane of property includes both land and capital - such is capital's 'advance'.

18. The capitalist class recognises the value of the hack in the abstract, whereas the pastoralists were slow to appreciate the productivity that can flow from the application of abstraction to the production process. Under the influence of capital, the state sanctions forms of intellectual property, such as patents and copyrights, that secure an independent existence for hackers as a class, and a flow of innovations in culture as well as science from which development issues. Information, once it becomes a form of property, develops beyond a mere support for capital - it becomes the basis of a form of accumulation in its own right.

19. Hackers must calculate their interests not as owners, but as producers, for this is what distinguishes them from the vectoralist class. Hackers do not merely own, and profit by owning information. They produce new information, and as producers need access to it free from the absolute domination of the commodity form. Hacking as a pure, free experimental activity must be free from any constraint that is not self imposed. Only out of its liberty will it produce the means of producing a surplus of liberty and liberty as a surplus.

20. Private property arose in opposition not only to feudal property, but also to traditional forms of the gift economy, which were a fetter to the increased productivity of the commodity economy. Qualitative, gift exchange was superseded by quantified, monetised exchange. Money is the medium through which land, capital, information and labour all confront each other as abstract entities, reduced to an abstract plane of measurement. The gift becomes a marginal form of property, everywhere invaded by the commodity, and turned towards mere consumption. The gift is marginal, but nevertheless plays a vital role in cementing reciprocal and communal relations among people who otherwise can only confront each other as buyer and sellers of commodities. As vectoral production develops, the means appear for the renewal of the gift economy. Everywhere that the vector reaches, it brings into the orbit of the commodity. But everywhere the vector reaches, it also brings with it the possibility of the gift relation.

21. The hacker class has a close affinity with the gift economy. The hacker struggles to produce a subjectivity that is qualitative and singular, in part through the act of the hack itself. The gift, as a qualitative exchange between singular parties allows each party to be recognised as a singular producer, as a subject of production, rather than as a commodified and quantified object. The gift expresses in a social and collective way the subjectivity of the production of production, whereas commodified property represents the producer as an object, a quantifiable commodity like any other, of relative value only. The gift of information need not give rise to conflict over information as property, for information need not suffer the artifice of scarcity once freed from commodification.

22. The vectoralist class contributed, unwittingly, to the development of the vectoral space within which the gift as property could return, but quickly recognised its error. As the vectoral economy develops, less and less of it takes the form of a social space of open and free gift exchange, and more and more of it takes the form of commodified production for private sale. The vectoralist class can grudgingly accommodate some margin of socialised information, as the price it pays in a democracy for the furtherance of its main interests. But the vectoralist class quite rightly sees in the gift a challenge not just to its profits but to its very existence. The gift economy is the virtual proof for the parasitic and superfluous nature of vectoralists as a class.

Vector

23. In epidemiology, a vector is the particular means by which a given pathogen travels from one population to another. Water is a vector for cholera, bodily fluids for HIV. By extension, a vector may be any means by which information moves. Telegraph, telephone, television, telecommunications: these terms name not just particular vectors, but a general abstract capacity that they bring into the world and expand. All are forms of telesthesia, or perception at a distance. A given media vector has certain fixed properties of speed, bandwidth, scope and scale, but may be deployed anywhere, at least in principle. The uneven development of the vector is political and economic, not technical.

24. With the commodification of information comes its vectoralisation. Extracting a surplus from information requires technologies capable of transporting information through space, but also through time. The archive is a vector through time just as communication is a vector that crosses space. The vectoral class comes into its own once it is in possession of powerful technologies for vectoralising information. The vectoral class may commodify information stocks, flows, or vectors themselves. A stock of information is an archive, a body of information maintained through time that has enduring value. A flow of information is the capacity to extract information of temporary value out of events and to distribute it widely and quickly. A vector is the means of achieving either the temporal distribution of a stock, or the spatial distribution of a flow of information. Vectoral power is generally sought through the ownership of all three aspects.

25. The vectoral class ascend to the illusion of an instantaneous and global plane of calculation and control. But it is not the vectoralist class that comes to hold subjective power over the objective world. The vector itself usurps the subjective role, becoming the sole repository of will toward a world that can be apprehended only in its commodified form. The reign of the vector is one in which any and every thing can be apprehended as a thing. The vector is a power over all of the world, but a power that is not evenly distributed. Nothing in the technology of the vector determines its possible use. All that is determined by the technology is the form in which information is objectified.

26. The vectoral class struggles at every turn to maintain its subjective power over the vector, but as it continues to profit by the proliferation of the vector, some capacity over it always escapes control. In order to market and profit by the information it peddles over the vector, it must in some degree address the vast majority of the producing classes as subjects, rather than as objects of commodification. The hacker class seeks the liberation of the vector from the reign of the commodity, but not to set it indiscriminately free. Rather, to subject it to collective and democratic development. The hacker class can release the virtuality of the vector only in principle. It is up to an alliance of all the productive classes to turn that potential to actuality, to organise themselves subjectively, and use the available vectors for a collective and subjective becoming.

Education

27. Education is slavery, it enchains the mind and makes it a resource for class power. When the ruling class preaches the necessity of an education it invariably means an education in necessity. Education is not the same as knowledge. Nor is it the necessary means to acquire knowledge. Education is the organisation of knowledge within the constraints of scarcity. Education 'disciplines' knowledge, segregating it into homogenous 'fields', presided over by suitably 'qualified' guardians charged with policing the representation of the field. One may acquire an education, as if it were a thing, but one becomes knowledgeable, through a process of transformation. Knowledge, as such, is only ever partially captured by education, its practice always eludes and exceeds it.

28. The pastoralist class has resisted education, other than as indoctrination in obedience. When capital required 'hands' to do its dirty work, the bulk of education was devoted to training useful hands to tend the machines, and docile bodies who would accept as natural the social order in which they found themselves. When capital required brains, both to run its increasingly complex operations and to apply themselves to the work of consuming its products, more time spent in the prison house of education was required for admission to the ranks of the paid working class.

29. The so-called middle class achieve their privileged access to consumption and security through education, in which they are obliged to invest a substantial part of their income. But most remain workers, even though they work with information rather than cotton or metal. They work in factories, but are trained to think of them as offices. They take home wages, but are trained to think of it as a salary. They wear a uniform, but are trained to think of it as a suit. The only difference is that education has taught them to give different names to the instruments of exploitation, and to despise those their own class who name them differently.

30. Where the capitalist class sees education as a means to an end, the vectoralist class sees it as an end in itself. It sees opportunities to make education a profitable industry in its own right, based on the securing of intellectual property as a form of private property. To the vectoralists, education, like culture, is just 'content' for commodification.

31. The hacker class have an ambivalent relationship to education. The hacker class desires knowledge, not education. The hacker comes into being though the pure liberty of knowledge in and of itself. The hack expresses knowledge in its virtuality, by producing new abstractions that do not necessarily fit the disciplinary regime of managing and commodifying education. . Hacker knowledge implies, in its practice, a politics of free information, free learning, the gift of the result to a network of peers. Hacker knowledge also implies an ethics of knowledge subject to the claims of public interest and free from subordination to commodity production. This puts the hacker into an antagonistic relationship to the struggle of the capitalist class to make education an induction into wage slavery.

32. Only one intellectual conflict has any real bearing on the class issue for hackers: Whose property is knowledge? Is it the role of knowledge to authorise subjects through education that are recognised only by their function in an economy by manipulating its authorised representations as objects? Or is it the function of knowledge to produce the ever different phenomena of the hack, in which subjects become other than themselves, and discover the objective world to contain potentials other than it appears?

Hacking

33. The virtual is the true domain of the hacker. It is from the virtual that the hacker produces ever-new expressions of the actual. To the hacker, what is represented as being real is always partial, limited, perhaps even false. To the hacker there is always a surplus of possibility expressed in what is actual, the surplus of the virtual. This is the inexhaustible domain of what is real without being actual, what is not but which may be. To hack is to release the virtual into the actual, to express the difference of the real.

34. Through the application of abstraction, the hacker class produces the possibility of production, the possibility of making something of and with the world - and of living off the surplus produced by the application of abstraction to nature - to any nature. Through the production of new forms of abstraction, the hacker class produces the possibility of the future - not just 'the' future, but an infinite possible array of futures, the future itself as virtuality.

35. Under the sanction of law, the hack becomes a finite property, and the hacker class emerges, as all classes emerge, out of a relation to a property form. Like all forms of property, intellectual property enforces a relation of scarcity. It assigns a right to a property to an owner at the expense of non-owners, to a class of possessors at the expense of the dispossessed.

36. By its very nature, the act of hacking overcomes the limits property imposes on it. New hacks supersede old hacks, and devalues them as property. The hack as new information is produced out of already existing information. This gives the hacker class an interest in its free availability more than in an exclusive right. The immaterial nature of information means that the possession by one of information need not deprive another of it.

37. To the extent that the hack embodies itself in the form of property, it gives the hacker class interests quite different from other classes, be they exploiting or exploited classes. The interest of the hacker class lies first and foremost in a free circulation of information, this being the necessary condition for the renewed statement of the hack. But the hacker class as class also has an interest in the representation of the hack as property, as something from which a source of income may be derived that gives the hacker some independence from the ruling classes.

38. The very nature of the hack gives the hacker a crisis of identity. The hacker searches for a representation of what it is to be a hacker in the identities of other classes. Some see themselves as vectoralists, trading on the scarcity of their property. Some see themselves as workers, but as privileged ones in a hierarchy of wage earners. The hacker class has produces itself as itself, but not for itself. It does not (yet) possess a consciousness of its consciousness. It is not aware of its own virtuality. It has to distinguish between its competitive interest in the hack, and its collective interest in discovering a relation among hackers that expresses an open and ongoing future.

Information

39. Information wants to be free but is everywhere in chains. Information is the potential of potential. When unfettered it releases the latent capacities of all things and people, objects and subjects. Information is indeed the very potential for there to be objects and subjects. It is the medium in which objects and subjects actually come into existence, and is the medium in which their virtuality resides. When information is not free, then the class that owns or controls it turns its capacity toward its own interest and away from its own inherent virtuality.

40. Information has nothing to do with communication, or with media. "We do not lack communication. On the contrary, we have too much of it. We lack creation. We lack resistance to the present." Information is precisely this resistance, this friction. At the urgings of the vectoralist class, the state recognises as property any communication, any media product with some minimal degree of difference recognisable in commodity exchange. Where communication merely requires the repetition of this commodified difference, information is the production of the difference of difference.

41. The arrest of the free flow of information means the enslavement of the world to the interests of those who profit from information's scarcity, the vectoral class. The enslavement of information means the enslavement of its producers to the interests of its owners. It is the hacker class that taps the virtuality of information, but it is the vectoralist class that owns and controls the means of production of information on an industrial scale. Privatising culture, education and communication as commodified content, distorts and deforms its free development, and prevents the very concept of its freedom from its own free development. While information remains subordinated to ownership, it is not possible for its producers to freely calculate their interests, or to discover what the true freedom of information might potentially produce in the world.

42. Free information must be free in all its aspects - as a stock, as a flow, and as a vector. The stock of information is the raw material out of which history is abstracted. The flow of information is the raw material out of which the present is abstracted, a present that forms the horizon the abstract line of an historical knowledge crosses, indicating a future in its sights. Neither stocks nor flows of information exist without vectors along which they may be actualised. The spatial and temporal axes of free information must do more offer a representation of things, as a thing apart. They must become the means of coordination of the statement of a movement, at once objective and subjective, capable of connecting the objective representation of things to the presentation of a subjective action.

43. It is not just information that must be free, but the knowledge of how to use it. Information in itself is a mere thing. It requires an active, subjective capacity to become productive. Information is free not for the purpose of representing the world perfectly, but for expressing its difference from what is, and for expressing the cooperative force that transforms what is into what may be. The test of a free society is not the liberty to consume information, nor to produce it, nor even to implement its potential in private world of one's choosing. The test of a free society is the liberty for the collective transformation of the world through abstractions freely chosen and freely actualised.

Representation

44. All representation is false. A likeness differs of necessity from what it represents. If it did not, it would be what it represents, and thus not a representation. The only truly false representation is the belief in the possibility of true representation. Critique is not a solution, but the problem itself. Critique is a police action in representation, of service only to the maintenance of the value of property through the establishment of its value.

45. The politics of representation is always the politics of the state. The state is nothing but the policing of representation's adequacy to the body of what it represents. Even in its most radical form, the politics of representation always presupposes an abstract or ideal state that would act as guarantor of its chosen representations. It yearns for a state that would recognise this oppressed ethnicity, or sexuality, but which is nevertheless still a desire for a state, and a state that, in the process, is not challenged as an statement of class interest, but is accepted as the judge of representation.

46. And always, what is excluded even from this enlightened, imaginary state, would be those who refuse representation, namely, the hacker class as a class. To hack is to refuse representation, to make matters express themselves otherwise. To hack is always to produce a difference, if only a minute difference, in the production of information. To hack is to trouble the object or the subject, by transforming in some way the very process of production by which objects and subjects come into being and recognise each other by their representations.

47. The politics of information, of knowledge, advances not through a critical negation of false representations but a positive politics of the virtuality of statement. The inexhaustible surplus of statement is that aspect of information upon which the class interest of hackers depends. Hacking brings into existence the inexhaustible multiplicity of all codes, be they natural or social, programmed or poetic. But as it is the act of hacking that composes, at one and the same time, the hacker and the hack, hacking recognises no artificial scarcity, no official licence, no credentialing police force other than that composed by the gift economy among hackers themselves.

48. A politics that embraces its existence as statement, as affirmative difference, not as negation can escape the politics of the state. To ignore or plagiarise representation, to refuse to give it what it claims as its due, is to begin a politics of statelessness. A politics which refuses the state's authority to authorise what is a valued statement and what isn't. A politics which is always temporary, always becoming something other than itself. Even useless hacks may come, perversely enough, to be valued for the purity of their uselessness. There is nothing that can't be valued as a representation. The hack always has to move on.

49. Everywhere dissatisfaction with representations is spreading. Sometimes its a matter of breaking a few shop windows, sometimes of breaking a few heads. So-called 'violence' against the state, which rarely amounts to more than throwing rocks at its police, is merely the desire for the state expressed in its masochistic form. Where some call for a state that recognises their representation, others call for a state that beats them to a pulp. Neither is a politics that escapes the desire cultivated within the subject by the educational apparatus.

50. Sometimes direct democracy is posited as the alternative. But this merely changes the moment of representation - it puts politics in the hands of claimants to an activist representation, in place of an electoral one.. Sometimes what is demanded of the politics of representation is that it recognise a new subject. Minorities of race, gender, preference demand the right to representation. But soon enough they discover the cost. They must now police the meaning of this representation, and police the adherence of its members to it. Even at its best, in its most abstract form, on its best behaviour, the colour blind, gender neutral, multicultural state just hands the value of representation over to the commodity form. While this is progress, particularly for those formerly oppressed by the state's failure to recognise their identity as legitimate, it stops short at the recognition of expressions of subjectivity that seeks to become something other than a representation that the state can recognise and the market can value.

51. But there is something else hovering on the horizon of the representable. There is a politics of the unrepresentable, a politics of the presentation of the non-negotiable demand. This is politics as the refusal of representation itself, not the politics of refusing this or that representation. A politics which, while abstract, is not utopian. In its infinite and limitless demand, it may even be the best way of extracting concessions precisely through its refusal to put a name - or a price - on what revolt desires.

Revolt

52. The revolts of 1989 are the signal events of our time. What the revolts of 1989 achieved was the overthrow of regimes so impervious to the recognition of the value of the hack that they had starved not only their hackers but also their workers and farmers of any increase in the surplus. With their cronyism and kleptocracy, their bureaucracy and ideology, their police and spies, they starved even their pastoralists and capitalists of innovative transformation and growth.

53. The revolts of 1989 overthrew boredom and necessity. At least for a time. They put back on the world historical agenda the limitless demand for free statement. At least for a time. They revealed the latent destiny of world history to express the pure virtuality of becoming. At least for a time, before new states cobbled themselves together and claimed legitimacy as representations of what revolt desired. The revolts of 1989 opened the portal to the virtual, but the states that regrouped around this opening soon closed it. What the revolts really achieved was the making of the world safe for vectoral power.

54. The so-called anti-globalisation protests of the 90s are a ripple caused by the wake of these signal events, but a ripple that did not know the current to which it truly belonged. This movement of revolt in the overdeveloped world identifies the rising vectoral power as a class enemy, but all too often it allowed itself to be captured by the partial and temporary interests of local capitalist and pastoralist classes. It was a revolt is in its infancy that has yet to discover the connection between its engine of limitless desire and free statement, and the art of making tactical demands.

55. The class struggle within nations and the imperial struggle between nations has taken shape as two forms of politics. One kind of politics is regressive. It seeks to return to an imagined past. It seeks to use national borders as a new wall, a neon screen behind which unlikely alliances might protect their existing interests in the name of a glorious past. The other form is the progressive politics of movement. The politics of movement seeks to accelerate toward an unknown future. It seeks to use international flows of information, trade or activism as the eclectic means for struggling for new sources of wealth or liberty that overcomes the limitations imposed by national coalitions.

56. Neither of these politics corresponds to the old notion of a left or right, which the revolutions of 1989 have definitively overcome. Regressive politics brings together luddite impulses from the left with racist and reactionary impulses from the right in an unholy alliance against new sources of power. Progressive politics rarely takes the form of an alliance, but constitutes two parallel processes locked in a dialogue of mutual suspicion, in which the liberalising forces of the right and the social justice and human rights forces of the left both seek non-national and transnational solutions to unblocking the system of power which still accumulates at the national level.

57. There is a third politics, which stands outside the alliances and compromises of the post-89 world. Where both progressive and regressive politics are representative politics, which deal with aggregate party alliances and interests, this third politics is a stateless politics, which seeks escape from politics as such. A politics of the hack, inventing relations outside of representation.

58. Expressive politics is a struggle against commodity property itself. Expressive politics is not the struggle to collectivise property, for that is still a form of property. Expressive politics is the struggle to free what can be free from both versions of the commodity form - its totalising market form, and its bureaucratic state form. What may be free from the commodity form altogether is not land, not capital, but information. All other forms of property are exclusive. The ownership by one excludes, by definition, the ownership by another. But information as property may be shared without diminishing anything but its scarcity. Information is that which can escape the commodity form.

59. Politics can become expressive only when it is a politics of freeing the virtuality of information. In liberating information from its objectification as a commodity, it liberates also the subjective force of statement. Subject and object meet each other outside of their mere lack of each other, by their desire merely for each other. Expressive politics does not seek to overthrow the existing society, or to reform its larger structures, or to preserve its structure so as to maintain an existing coalition of interests. It seeks to permeate existing states with a new state of existence, spreading the seeds of an alternative practice of everyday life.

Version 4.0 edited by Joanne Richardson for subsol. A much longer Version 2.0 can be found online at feelergauge and textz.com . Version 3.0 is still off-line.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Entrevista sobre el manifiesto https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/193/ http://web.archive.org/web/20220327190210/https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/193/

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Archivo''' ==

MANIFIESTO HACKER1 [versión 4.0] por McKenzie Wark (warkk@newschool.edu)

Texto original en inglés: http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/warktext.html

Traducción al español: https://monoskop.org/images/c/c6/Wark_McKenzie_Manifiesto_hacker_v4.pdf

[[Archivo:Manifiesto Hacker.pdf|miniaturadeimagen]]

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''Primera edición:'''

'''URL:''' https://www.laneros.com/attachments/manifiesto-hacker-zip.15635/

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20170426192531/http://dpya.org/wiki/images/b/bc/Manifiesto_Hacker.pdf

[[Categoría: Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría: McKenzie Wark]]
[[Categoría: Estados Unidos]]
[[Categoría: Español]]
[[Categoría: 2004]]

2013 – Users Right – Olia Lialina

2022-06-26T23:15:39Z

Paz: /* Enlaces */

[[Archivo:Screenshot-userrights.contemporary-home-computing.org-2019.02.26-20-52-48.png|miniaturadeimagen|derecha|http://userrights.contemporary-home-computing.org/ copia de 02-04-2018]]

== '''Texto''' ==

== '''Contexto''' ==

Users Right es una invitación de Olia Lialina hacía los usuarios de las computadoras a elaborar y sugerir puntos que deberían ser incluidos en una lista de derechos (1). La autora hace un llamado a los colaboradores a incluir cualquier cosa que crean necesaria (1).

El manifiesto, de corte colaborativo, fue publicado en línea el 4 de octubre de 2014 con cuatro sugerencias iniciales de Olia Lialina, las cuales son las siguientes: “usar software libre en mi propia computadora”, “ser dueño de mi información”, “ver la computadora” y “escoger ninguna de las anteriores” (4).

En la actualidad el proyecto cuenta con múltiples sugerencias y demandas emitidas por diferentes usuarios de las computadoras y del Internet (1). Cada sugerencia tiene dos botones, uno de “de acuerdo” y otro de “en desacuerdo” que permiten visualizar el número de personas que cree o no conveniente la demanda, además cada una de las publicaciones de los usuarios pueden ser discutidas por otros visitantes del sitio (1).

En el manifiesto, que presenta actividad hasta el 2017, las demandas son ordenadas de ascendente a descendente según el número de personas que están de acuerdo con alguna afirmación (1). Aquellos que visiten el sitio pueden suscribirse a las actualizaciones del manifiesto, es decir, podrán recibir en su correo electrónico notificaciones sobre las nuevas demandas postuladas por los usuarios (1). En la página web también está disponible una versión animada del manifiesto con algunas de las sugerencias (2).

== '''Autoras''' ==

Olia Lialina es una artista nacida en Moscú considerada una de las pioneras del net.art. Es profesora de Nuevos Medios en la Merz Akademie y autora de algunas de las obras de net.art más emblemáticas de los noventa (3), entre las que se encuentran ''My boyfriend came back from the war'' (1996) (4) y ''Agatha appears'' (1997) (5). Lialina también es creadora de art.teleportacia.org, galería en línea dedicada al net.art en la que se hospedan gran parte de sus obras (6).

== '''Fuentes''' ==

(1) http://userrights.contemporary-home-computing.org/

(2) http://userrights.contemporary-home-computing.org/3d/ignore.html

(3) http://art.teleportacia.org/olia.html

(4) http://www.teleportacia.org/war/

(5) http://www.c3.hu/collection/agatha/

(6) http://art.teleportacia.org/

== '''Archivo''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''Primera edición:''' http://userrights.contemporary-home-computing.org/

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20180402221819/http://userrights.contemporary-home-computing.org/

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Derechos digitales]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Rusia]]
[[Categoría:2013]]
[[Categoría:Olia Lialina]]

1991 - Manifiesto ciberfeminista para el siglo XXI - VNS Matrix

2022-06-25T23:52:50Z

Paz: /* Texto */

[[Archivo:Castallano Sphere Final web.jpeg|miniaturadeimagen|derecha]]

== '''Texto''' ==

Somos el coño moderno

anti razón positiva

ilimitada liberada despiadada

vemos arte con nuestro coño hacemos arte con nuestro coño

creemos en el placer la locura la santidad y la poesía

somos el virus del nuevo desorden mundial

reventando desde adentro lo simbólico

saboteadoras de gran patriarca el computador central

el clítoris es una línea directa a la matriz

VENUS MATRIX

exterminadoras del código moral

mercenarias del fango

chupamos el altar de la abyección

sondeando el templo visceral hablamos en lenguas

infiltrando irrumpiendo diseminando

corrompiendo el discurso

somos el coño del futuro

== '''Contexto''' ==

Desde Adelaida y Sidney (Australia) Josephine Starrs, Julianne Pierce, Francesca da Rimini y Virginia Barratt 3 lanzaron el manifiesto en 1991 4 . Haciéndose viral en poco tiempo circuló por fax, correo, radio, TV, anuncios de prensa, exposiciones, IRC, mundos virtuales como LambdaMOO, videos, vallas publicitarias, carteles impresos 5 ... popularizando el término “ciberfeminismo”con el que se vendrán a identificar muchas activistas y artistas de la red.
Ha sido publicado, traducido y versionado 6 en múltiples ocasiones 7 .

Aparece en Varios autores. (2016). Manifestos For The Internet Age v0.8. M.Schmalstieg, B. Crevits, V.Kruug (Eds). Greyscale Press.

https://github.com/greyscalepress/manifestos/tree/master/content/manifestos

http://web.archive.org/web/20220406034427/https://github.com/greyscalepress/manifestos/blob/master/content/manifestos/1991-cyberfeminist.md

http://web.archive.org/web/20220405034046/https://greyscalepress.com/books/manifestos-for-the-internet-age/

== '''Autoras''' ==

VNS Matrix fue un colectivo de media art fundado en Adelaida, Autralia en 1991, aunque se disolvieron en 1997, las integrantes se reúnen ocasionalmente para trabajar en algunos proyectos y presentaciones. El grupo se constituyó por Virgina Barratt, Julianne Pierce, Francesca da Rimini y Josephine Starrs, quienes a través de su trabajo cuestionaron de forma subversiva la relación entre las mujeres y los discursos de control y dominación en el ciberespacio (3). El trabajo de VNS Matrix se constituye por numerosas instalaciones, eventos, publicaciones y obras de arte público que involucran nuevos medios, fotografía, sonido y video. Su obra pretende "investigar y descifrar las narrativas de dominación y control que rodean a la alta cultura tecnológica, y explorar la construcción del espacio social, la identidad y la sexualidad en el ciberespacio" (4). Las VNS Matrix acuñaron la palabra “ciberfeminismo” (3), término que en los noventa inspiró a diferentes artistas y dio pie a varias conversaciones sobre el tema (1). El proyecto que perseguían consistía en desacreditar los mitos masculinistas que podían alejar a las mujeres de los dispositivos tecnológicos y de sus productos culturales (4).

== '''Archivo''' ==

[[Archivo:VNSMatrix.pdf|miniaturadeimagen]]

== '''Fuentes''' ==

(1) https://web.archive.org/web/20200222234547/http://archive.rhizome.org/anthology/vns-matrix/poster.pdf

(2) https://web.archive.org/web/20200222234627/https://vnsmatrix.net/

(3) https://web.archive.org/web/20200222234737/https://vnsmatrix.net/the-artists

(4) Melinda Rackham (2018) Manifesto en: https://web.archive.org/web/20200222235908/https://vnsmatrix.net/essays/manifesto

(5) https://web.archive.org/web/20200222235321/https://anthology.rhizome.org/a-cyber-feminist-manifesto-for-the-21st-century

(6) Véase, por ejemplo, el video remix Undaddy Mainframe con Soda_Jerk (2014)
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200222235432/http://sodajerk.com.au/video_work.php?v=20140724231348] o el Cyberfeminist Manifesto Generator de Isabella Maund (2015)
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200222235628/https://isabellamaund.art/cyberfem/]

(7) https://web.archive.org/web/20190812205525/https://vnsmatrix.net/projects/the-cyberfeminist-manifesto-for-the-21st-century

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''Primera edición:'''

'''URL:''' http://www.2-red.net/habitar/tx/text_vns_c.html, https://anthology.rhizome.org/a-cyber-feminist-manifesto-for-the-21st-century

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20170426231127/http://www.2-red.net/habitar/tx/text_vns_c.html, https://web.archive.org/web/20170426231525/https://anthology.rhizome.org/a-cyber-feminist-manifesto-for-the-21st-century

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Español]]
[[Categoría:Australia]]
[[Categoría:1991]]
[[Categoría:VNS Matrix]]
[[Categoría:Virginia Barratt]]
[[Categoría:Julianne Pierce]]
[[Categoría:Francesca da Rimini]]
[[Categoría:Josephine Starrs]]

2011 - Manifesto: A Manifesto for Art in the Age of the Internet - Antoinette LaFarge

2022-05-28T01:15:23Z

Paz: /* Contexto */

== '''Texto''' ==

a manifesto for art in the age of the internet

1.Don’t just lurk: participate in this world of realtime, distributed, social, immersive, shared, and collaborative media. New game, new rules.

2.Buy art online, like everything else. Buy it like you would a book, not a car. When you’re done with it, pass it on like you would a book, too. Don’t let it get so precious you shy away from it.

3.Buy direct from the artist when you can. Trust your own taste, take a chance. You don’t need a critic, a curator, or a gallery holding your hand. (Which isn’t to say you might not like them; curators tend to be very interesting people.)

4.Buy art for any reason at all: whim, passion, investment, fetish, curiosity, bragging rights, respect, delight, nostalgia.

5.Not all art can be bought; some art that can be bought is only affordable by the rich. Enjoy what you find anyway. Not everything has to be owned.

6.Link the art that you find, comment on it, blog about it, get the word out.

7.Talk to artists online and off, question them, guide them, cheer them, challenge them, make friends with them. You may discover in the process that you are an artist. And they only sometimes bite.

8.Open the door to sharing: encourage artists you know to make some of their work under a Creative Commons license.

9.Bring your own stuff to the net. Make culture happen.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Aparece en https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/64/

Se data usando la copia más antigua del manifiesto de 2011 que aparece en su antoinette lafarge's blog and store "art is all we have"
https://web.archive.org/web/20110701162330/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

I have a blog about art and also doubles as my online store "art is all we have", and I also blog as "zelda" over at the techno-feminist blog Difference Engines.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111202153327/http://www.forger.com/writing.html

Su página principal en esos años era https://web.archive.org/web/20110711020234/http://www.forger.com/ y la copia más antigua es de 2006 porque las anteriores copias del mismo dominio no copiaron el contenido https://web.archive.org/web/20060206214013/http://www.forger.com/ pero ninguna menciona nada del manifiesto

Hoy su sitio es http://www.antoinettelafarge.com/index.html

== '''Autoras''' ==

Antoinette LaFarge
I am an artist, writer, and longtime netizen. I prefer virtuality to materiality on the whole (with major exceptions) and don't really understand art's continuing attachment to thingness. This is my combination online store and bloge: an experiment in net-based distribution. It's also turning out to be something of a fragmented autobiography as well as a manifesto for new ways of thinking about the artist's career. My main projects archive is at www.antoinettelafarge.com. For any queries related to this site please email: staff@artisallwehave.com.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:2011]]
[[Categoría:Antoinette LaFarge]]

2011 - Manifesto: A Manifesto for Art in the Age of the Internet - Antoinette LaFarge

2022-05-28T01:10:51Z

Paz: Paz trasladó la página 0000 - Manifesto: A Manifesto for Art in the Age of the Internet - Antoinette LaFarge a 2011 - Manifesto: A Manifesto for Art in the Age of the Internet - Antoinette LaFarge sin dejar una redirección

== '''Texto''' ==

a manifesto for art in the age of the internet

1.Don’t just lurk: participate in this world of realtime, distributed, social, immersive, shared, and collaborative media. New game, new rules.

2.Buy art online, like everything else. Buy it like you would a book, not a car. When you’re done with it, pass it on like you would a book, too. Don’t let it get so precious you shy away from it.

3.Buy direct from the artist when you can. Trust your own taste, take a chance. You don’t need a critic, a curator, or a gallery holding your hand. (Which isn’t to say you might not like them; curators tend to be very interesting people.)

4.Buy art for any reason at all: whim, passion, investment, fetish, curiosity, bragging rights, respect, delight, nostalgia.

5.Not all art can be bought; some art that can be bought is only affordable by the rich. Enjoy what you find anyway. Not everything has to be owned.

6.Link the art that you find, comment on it, blog about it, get the word out.

7.Talk to artists online and off, question them, guide them, cheer them, challenge them, make friends with them. You may discover in the process that you are an artist. And they only sometimes bite.

8.Open the door to sharing: encourage artists you know to make some of their work under a Creative Commons license.

9.Bring your own stuff to the net. Make culture happen.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Aparece en https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/64/

Se data usando la copia más antigua del manifiesto de 2011 que aparece en su blog (online store) "art is all we have"
https://web.archive.org/web/20110701162330/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

I have a blog about art and also doubles as my online store "art is all we have", and I also blog as "zelda" over at the techno-feminist blog Difference Engines.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111202153327/http://www.forger.com/writing.html

Su página principal en esos años era https://web.archive.org/web/20110711020234/http://www.forger.com/ y la copia más antigua es de 2006 porque las anteriores copias del mismo dominio no copiaron el contenido https://web.archive.org/web/20060206214013/http://www.forger.com/ pero ninguna menciona nada del manifiesto

Hoy su sitio es http://www.antoinettelafarge.com/index.html

== '''Autoras''' ==

Antoinette LaFarge
I am an artist, writer, and longtime netizen. I prefer virtuality to materiality on the whole (with major exceptions) and don't really understand art's continuing attachment to thingness. This is my combination online store and bloge: an experiment in net-based distribution. It's also turning out to be something of a fragmented autobiography as well as a manifesto for new ways of thinking about the artist's career. My main projects archive is at www.antoinettelafarge.com. For any queries related to this site please email: staff@artisallwehave.com.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:2011]]
[[Categoría:Antoinette LaFarge]]

2011 - Manifesto: A Manifesto for Art in the Age of the Internet - Antoinette LaFarge

2022-05-28T01:10:34Z

Paz: /* Contexto */

== '''Texto''' ==

a manifesto for art in the age of the internet

1.Don’t just lurk: participate in this world of realtime, distributed, social, immersive, shared, and collaborative media. New game, new rules.

2.Buy art online, like everything else. Buy it like you would a book, not a car. When you’re done with it, pass it on like you would a book, too. Don’t let it get so precious you shy away from it.

3.Buy direct from the artist when you can. Trust your own taste, take a chance. You don’t need a critic, a curator, or a gallery holding your hand. (Which isn’t to say you might not like them; curators tend to be very interesting people.)

4.Buy art for any reason at all: whim, passion, investment, fetish, curiosity, bragging rights, respect, delight, nostalgia.

5.Not all art can be bought; some art that can be bought is only affordable by the rich. Enjoy what you find anyway. Not everything has to be owned.

6.Link the art that you find, comment on it, blog about it, get the word out.

7.Talk to artists online and off, question them, guide them, cheer them, challenge them, make friends with them. You may discover in the process that you are an artist. And they only sometimes bite.

8.Open the door to sharing: encourage artists you know to make some of their work under a Creative Commons license.

9.Bring your own stuff to the net. Make culture happen.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Aparece en https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/64/

Se data usando la copia más antigua del manifiesto de 2011 que aparece en su blog (online store) "art is all we have"
https://web.archive.org/web/20110701162330/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

I have a blog about art and also doubles as my online store "art is all we have", and I also blog as "zelda" over at the techno-feminist blog Difference Engines.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111202153327/http://www.forger.com/writing.html

Su página principal en esos años era https://web.archive.org/web/20110711020234/http://www.forger.com/ y la copia más antigua es de 2006 porque las anteriores copias del mismo dominio no copiaron el contenido https://web.archive.org/web/20060206214013/http://www.forger.com/ pero ninguna menciona nada del manifiesto

Hoy su sitio es http://www.antoinettelafarge.com/index.html

== '''Autoras''' ==

Antoinette LaFarge
I am an artist, writer, and longtime netizen. I prefer virtuality to materiality on the whole (with major exceptions) and don't really understand art's continuing attachment to thingness. This is my combination online store and bloge: an experiment in net-based distribution. It's also turning out to be something of a fragmented autobiography as well as a manifesto for new ways of thinking about the artist's career. My main projects archive is at www.antoinettelafarge.com. For any queries related to this site please email: staff@artisallwehave.com.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:2011]]
[[Categoría:Antoinette LaFarge]]

Categoría:Antoinette LaFarge

2022-05-28T01:10:05Z

Paz: Página creada con «Categoría:Autoras»

[[Categoría:Autoras]]

2011 - Manifesto: A Manifesto for Art in the Age of the Internet - Antoinette LaFarge

2022-05-28T01:09:46Z

Paz: /* Enlaces */

== '''Texto''' ==

a manifesto for art in the age of the internet

1.Don’t just lurk: participate in this world of realtime, distributed, social, immersive, shared, and collaborative media. New game, new rules.

2.Buy art online, like everything else. Buy it like you would a book, not a car. When you’re done with it, pass it on like you would a book, too. Don’t let it get so precious you shy away from it.

3.Buy direct from the artist when you can. Trust your own taste, take a chance. You don’t need a critic, a curator, or a gallery holding your hand. (Which isn’t to say you might not like them; curators tend to be very interesting people.)

4.Buy art for any reason at all: whim, passion, investment, fetish, curiosity, bragging rights, respect, delight, nostalgia.

5.Not all art can be bought; some art that can be bought is only affordable by the rich. Enjoy what you find anyway. Not everything has to be owned.

6.Link the art that you find, comment on it, blog about it, get the word out.

7.Talk to artists online and off, question them, guide them, cheer them, challenge them, make friends with them. You may discover in the process that you are an artist. And they only sometimes bite.

8.Open the door to sharing: encourage artists you know to make some of their work under a Creative Commons license.

9.Bring your own stuff to the net. Make culture happen.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Aparece en https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/64/

Se data usando la copia más antigua del manifiesto de 2011 que aparece en su blog (online store) "art is all we have"
https://web.archive.org/web/20110701162330/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

I have a blog about art and also doubles as my online store "art is all we have", and I also blog as "zelda" over at the techno-feminist blog Difference Engines.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111202153327/http://www.forger.com/writing.html

Su página principal en esos años era https://web.archive.org/web/20110711020234/http://www.forger.com/ y la copia más antigua es de 2006 porque las anteriores copias del mismo dominio no copiaron el contenido https://web.archive.org/web/20060206214013/http://www.forger.com/ pero ninguna menciona nada del manifiesto

Hoy su sitio es http://www.antoinettelafarge.com/index.html

== '''Autoras''' ==

Antoinette LaFarge
I am an artist, writer, and longtime netizen. I prefer virtuality to materiality on the whole (with major exceptions) and don't really understand art's continuing attachment to thingness. This is my combination online store and bloge: an experiment in net-based distribution. It's also turning out to be something of a fragmented autobiography as well as a manifesto for new ways of thinking about the artist's career. My main projects archive is at www.antoinettelafarge.com. For any queries related to this site please email: staff@artisallwehave.com.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:2011]]
[[Categoría:Antoinette LaFarge]]

2011 - Manifesto: A Manifesto for Art in the Age of the Internet - Antoinette LaFarge

2022-05-28T01:09:08Z

Paz: /* Contexto */

== '''Texto''' ==

a manifesto for art in the age of the internet

1.Don’t just lurk: participate in this world of realtime, distributed, social, immersive, shared, and collaborative media. New game, new rules.

2.Buy art online, like everything else. Buy it like you would a book, not a car. When you’re done with it, pass it on like you would a book, too. Don’t let it get so precious you shy away from it.

3.Buy direct from the artist when you can. Trust your own taste, take a chance. You don’t need a critic, a curator, or a gallery holding your hand. (Which isn’t to say you might not like them; curators tend to be very interesting people.)

4.Buy art for any reason at all: whim, passion, investment, fetish, curiosity, bragging rights, respect, delight, nostalgia.

5.Not all art can be bought; some art that can be bought is only affordable by the rich. Enjoy what you find anyway. Not everything has to be owned.

6.Link the art that you find, comment on it, blog about it, get the word out.

7.Talk to artists online and off, question them, guide them, cheer them, challenge them, make friends with them. You may discover in the process that you are an artist. And they only sometimes bite.

8.Open the door to sharing: encourage artists you know to make some of their work under a Creative Commons license.

9.Bring your own stuff to the net. Make culture happen.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Aparece en https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/64/

Se data usando la copia más antigua del manifiesto de 2011 que aparece en su blog (online store) "art is all we have"
https://web.archive.org/web/20110701162330/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

I have a blog about art and also doubles as my online store "art is all we have", and I also blog as "zelda" over at the techno-feminist blog Difference Engines.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111202153327/http://www.forger.com/writing.html

Su página principal en esos años era https://web.archive.org/web/20110711020234/http://www.forger.com/ y la copia más antigua es de 2006 porque las anteriores copias del mismo dominio no copiaron el contenido https://web.archive.org/web/20060206214013/http://www.forger.com/ pero ninguna menciona nada del manifiesto

Hoy su sitio es http://www.antoinettelafarge.com/index.html

== '''Autoras''' ==

Antoinette LaFarge
I am an artist, writer, and longtime netizen. I prefer virtuality to materiality on the whole (with major exceptions) and don't really understand art's continuing attachment to thingness. This is my combination online store and bloge: an experiment in net-based distribution. It's also turning out to be something of a fragmented autobiography as well as a manifesto for new ways of thinking about the artist's career. My main projects archive is at www.antoinettelafarge.com. For any queries related to this site please email: staff@artisallwehave.com.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:'''

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Antoinette LeFarge]]

2011 - Manifesto: A Manifesto for Art in the Age of the Internet - Antoinette LaFarge

2022-05-28T01:04:31Z

Paz: /* Contexto */

== '''Texto''' ==

a manifesto for art in the age of the internet

1.Don’t just lurk: participate in this world of realtime, distributed, social, immersive, shared, and collaborative media. New game, new rules.

2.Buy art online, like everything else. Buy it like you would a book, not a car. When you’re done with it, pass it on like you would a book, too. Don’t let it get so precious you shy away from it.

3.Buy direct from the artist when you can. Trust your own taste, take a chance. You don’t need a critic, a curator, or a gallery holding your hand. (Which isn’t to say you might not like them; curators tend to be very interesting people.)

4.Buy art for any reason at all: whim, passion, investment, fetish, curiosity, bragging rights, respect, delight, nostalgia.

5.Not all art can be bought; some art that can be bought is only affordable by the rich. Enjoy what you find anyway. Not everything has to be owned.

6.Link the art that you find, comment on it, blog about it, get the word out.

7.Talk to artists online and off, question them, guide them, cheer them, challenge them, make friends with them. You may discover in the process that you are an artist. And they only sometimes bite.

8.Open the door to sharing: encourage artists you know to make some of their work under a Creative Commons license.

9.Bring your own stuff to the net. Make culture happen.

== '''Contexto''' ==
Aparece en https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/64/

Se data usando la copia más antigua del manifiesto de 2011 que aparece en su blog (online store) "art is all we have"
https://web.archive.org/web/20110701162330/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

I have a blog about art and also doubles as my online store "art is all we have", and I also blog as "zelda" over at the techno-feminist blog Difference Engines.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111202153327/http://www.forger.com/writing.html

Su página principal en esos años era https://web.archive.org/web/20110711020234/http://www.forger.com/ y la copia más antigua es de 2006 porque las anteriores copias del mismo dominio no copiaron el contenido https://web.archive.org/web/20060206214013/http://www.forger.com/

Hoy su sitio es http://www.antoinettelafarge.com/index.html

== '''Autoras''' ==

Antoinette LaFarge
I am an artist, writer, and longtime netizen. I prefer virtuality to materiality on the whole (with major exceptions) and don't really understand art's continuing attachment to thingness. This is my combination online store and bloge: an experiment in net-based distribution. It's also turning out to be something of a fragmented autobiography as well as a manifesto for new ways of thinking about the artist's career. My main projects archive is at www.antoinettelafarge.com. For any queries related to this site please email: staff@artisallwehave.com.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:'''

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Antoinette LeFarge]]

2011 - Manifesto: A Manifesto for Art in the Age of the Internet - Antoinette LaFarge

2022-05-28T01:01:26Z

Paz: /* Contexto */

== '''Texto''' ==

a manifesto for art in the age of the internet

1.Don’t just lurk: participate in this world of realtime, distributed, social, immersive, shared, and collaborative media. New game, new rules.

2.Buy art online, like everything else. Buy it like you would a book, not a car. When you’re done with it, pass it on like you would a book, too. Don’t let it get so precious you shy away from it.

3.Buy direct from the artist when you can. Trust your own taste, take a chance. You don’t need a critic, a curator, or a gallery holding your hand. (Which isn’t to say you might not like them; curators tend to be very interesting people.)

4.Buy art for any reason at all: whim, passion, investment, fetish, curiosity, bragging rights, respect, delight, nostalgia.

5.Not all art can be bought; some art that can be bought is only affordable by the rich. Enjoy what you find anyway. Not everything has to be owned.

6.Link the art that you find, comment on it, blog about it, get the word out.

7.Talk to artists online and off, question them, guide them, cheer them, challenge them, make friends with them. You may discover in the process that you are an artist. And they only sometimes bite.

8.Open the door to sharing: encourage artists you know to make some of their work under a Creative Commons license.

9.Bring your own stuff to the net. Make culture happen.

== '''Contexto''' ==
Aparece en https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/64/

Se data usando la copia más antigua del manifiesto de 2011 que aparece en su blog (online store) "art is all we have"
https://web.archive.org/web/20110701162330/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

I have a blog about art and also doubles as my online store "art is all we have", and I also blog as "zelda" over at the techno-feminist blog Difference Engines.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111202153327/http://www.forger.com/writing.html

Su página principal en esos años era https://web.archive.org/web/20110711020234/http://www.forger.com/

Hoy su sitio es http://www.antoinettelafarge.com/index.html

== '''Autoras''' ==

Antoinette LaFarge
I am an artist, writer, and longtime netizen. I prefer virtuality to materiality on the whole (with major exceptions) and don't really understand art's continuing attachment to thingness. This is my combination online store and bloge: an experiment in net-based distribution. It's also turning out to be something of a fragmented autobiography as well as a manifesto for new ways of thinking about the artist's career. My main projects archive is at www.antoinettelafarge.com. For any queries related to this site please email: staff@artisallwehave.com.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:'''

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Antoinette LeFarge]]

2011 - Manifesto: A Manifesto for Art in the Age of the Internet - Antoinette LaFarge

2022-05-28T00:45:27Z

Paz: /* Autoras */

== '''Texto''' ==

a manifesto for art in the age of the internet

1.Don’t just lurk: participate in this world of realtime, distributed, social, immersive, shared, and collaborative media. New game, new rules.

2.Buy art online, like everything else. Buy it like you would a book, not a car. When you’re done with it, pass it on like you would a book, too. Don’t let it get so precious you shy away from it.

3.Buy direct from the artist when you can. Trust your own taste, take a chance. You don’t need a critic, a curator, or a gallery holding your hand. (Which isn’t to say you might not like them; curators tend to be very interesting people.)

4.Buy art for any reason at all: whim, passion, investment, fetish, curiosity, bragging rights, respect, delight, nostalgia.

5.Not all art can be bought; some art that can be bought is only affordable by the rich. Enjoy what you find anyway. Not everything has to be owned.

6.Link the art that you find, comment on it, blog about it, get the word out.

7.Talk to artists online and off, question them, guide them, cheer them, challenge them, make friends with them. You may discover in the process that you are an artist. And they only sometimes bite.

8.Open the door to sharing: encourage artists you know to make some of their work under a Creative Commons license.

9.Bring your own stuff to the net. Make culture happen.

== '''Contexto''' ==
Aparece en https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/64/

©1980 - 2014 Antoinette LaFarge unless otherwise specified

== '''Autoras''' ==

Antoinette LaFarge
I am an artist, writer, and longtime netizen. I prefer virtuality to materiality on the whole (with major exceptions) and don't really understand art's continuing attachment to thingness. This is my combination online store and bloge: an experiment in net-based distribution. It's also turning out to be something of a fragmented autobiography as well as a manifesto for new ways of thinking about the artist's career. My main projects archive is at www.antoinettelafarge.com. For any queries related to this site please email: staff@artisallwehave.com.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:'''

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20171219210814/http://www.artisallwehave.com/manifesto

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Antoinette LeFarge]]

2018 - Manifesto - Digital fingerprints

2022-05-28T00:42:45Z

Paz: Paz trasladó la página 0000 - Manifesto - Digital fingerprints a 2018 - Manifesto - Digital fingerprints sin dejar una redirección

== '''Texto''' ==

This manifesto explains the mission of '''fingerprints.digital''' team about behavioural biometrics, privacy and ethics.

Our ultimate goal while creating fingerprints.digital is to '''provide a tool that would defend every user of the critical service from the digital hijack.''' In the world of an exponential growth of computational capabilities and data ingestion, we believe that all of the simple authentication methods such as passwords WILL sooner or later be cracked.

Behavioural biometrics is our way to '''provide you with an additional layer of security with no impact on your experience''' in the services that embed this technology. We study your behaviour; store it in the form of machine learning models and then use it to judge if it is you or someone else that tries to use your privileges.

Privacy of your behaviour is directly related to the data that we process. '''We do not, and we will never acquire any data that is perceived as sensitive''', i.e. your passwords, the text that you write or what services you use. Instead, we acquire the information on how you type, how you move through service and how you react. That is the way we feel the balance between privacy and capability to protect the users with our service should be.

As a team, we have shared ethics that lead us towards the goal of making this world a better place. We do not misuse your data for experiments other than the protection of your account. We do not sell your data to anyone. '''Your data is not and never will be used beyond the fingerprints.digital service.''' We believe that GDPR is a great way to move forward with protecting the privacy of customers. We aim to provide a higher level of protection for your data.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Manifiesto de la empresa Digital Fingerprints ubicada en Polonia.

La fecha de publicación no está clara pero se menciona en la copia más antigua del sitio de 2018

https://web.archive.org/web/20181102044042/https://fingerprints.digital/

cuyo enlace redirige a esta copia del texto de 2020

https://web.archive.org/web/20200811011115/https://fingerprints.digital/manifesto/

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' https://fingerprints.digital/manifesto/

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20200811011115/https://fingerprints.digital/manifesto/

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:2018]]
[[Categoría:Privacidad]]
[[Categoría:Polonia]]
[[Categoría:Digital fingerprints]]

2018 - Manifesto - Digital fingerprints

2022-05-28T00:42:32Z

Paz: /* Enlaces */

2018 - Manifesto - Digital fingerprints

2022-05-28T00:42:13Z

Paz: /* Contexto */

== '''Texto''' ==

This manifesto explains the mission of '''fingerprints.digital''' team about behavioural biometrics, privacy and ethics.

Our ultimate goal while creating fingerprints.digital is to '''provide a tool that would defend every user of the critical service from the digital hijack.''' In the world of an exponential growth of computational capabilities and data ingestion, we believe that all of the simple authentication methods such as passwords WILL sooner or later be cracked.

Behavioural biometrics is our way to '''provide you with an additional layer of security with no impact on your experience''' in the services that embed this technology. We study your behaviour; store it in the form of machine learning models and then use it to judge if it is you or someone else that tries to use your privileges.

Privacy of your behaviour is directly related to the data that we process. '''We do not, and we will never acquire any data that is perceived as sensitive''', i.e. your passwords, the text that you write or what services you use. Instead, we acquire the information on how you type, how you move through service and how you react. That is the way we feel the balance between privacy and capability to protect the users with our service should be.

As a team, we have shared ethics that lead us towards the goal of making this world a better place. We do not misuse your data for experiments other than the protection of your account. We do not sell your data to anyone. '''Your data is not and never will be used beyond the fingerprints.digital service.''' We believe that GDPR is a great way to move forward with protecting the privacy of customers. We aim to provide a higher level of protection for your data.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Manifiesto de la empresa Digital Fingerprints ubicada en Polonia.

La fecha de publicación no está clara pero se menciona en la copia más antigua del sitio de 2018

https://web.archive.org/web/20181102044042/https://fingerprints.digital/

cuyo enlace redirige a esta copia del texto de 2020

https://web.archive.org/web/20200811011115/https://fingerprints.digital/manifesto/

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' https://fingerprints.digital/manifesto/

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20200811011115/https://fingerprints.digital/manifesto/

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Privacidad]]
[[Categoría:Polonia]]
[[Categoría:Digital fingerprints]]

2018 - Manifesto - Digital fingerprints

2022-05-28T00:41:31Z

Paz: /* Enlaces */

== '''Texto''' ==

This manifesto explains the mission of '''fingerprints.digital''' team about behavioural biometrics, privacy and ethics.

Our ultimate goal while creating fingerprints.digital is to '''provide a tool that would defend every user of the critical service from the digital hijack.''' In the world of an exponential growth of computational capabilities and data ingestion, we believe that all of the simple authentication methods such as passwords WILL sooner or later be cracked.

Behavioural biometrics is our way to '''provide you with an additional layer of security with no impact on your experience''' in the services that embed this technology. We study your behaviour; store it in the form of machine learning models and then use it to judge if it is you or someone else that tries to use your privileges.

Privacy of your behaviour is directly related to the data that we process. '''We do not, and we will never acquire any data that is perceived as sensitive''', i.e. your passwords, the text that you write or what services you use. Instead, we acquire the information on how you type, how you move through service and how you react. That is the way we feel the balance between privacy and capability to protect the users with our service should be.

As a team, we have shared ethics that lead us towards the goal of making this world a better place. We do not misuse your data for experiments other than the protection of your account. We do not sell your data to anyone. '''Your data is not and never will be used beyond the fingerprints.digital service.''' We believe that GDPR is a great way to move forward with protecting the privacy of customers. We aim to provide a higher level of protection for your data.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Manifiesto de la empresa Digital Fingerprints ubicada en Polonia.

La fecha de publicación no está clara pero la copia más antigua es de 2018
https://web.archive.org/web/20200811011115/https://fingerprints.digital/manifesto/

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' https://fingerprints.digital/manifesto/

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20200811011115/https://fingerprints.digital/manifesto/

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Privacidad]]
[[Categoría:Polonia]]
[[Categoría:Digital fingerprints]]

2018 - Manifesto - Digital fingerprints

2022-05-28T00:39:42Z

Paz: /* Contexto */

== '''Texto''' ==

This manifesto explains the mission of '''fingerprints.digital''' team about behavioural biometrics, privacy and ethics.

Our ultimate goal while creating fingerprints.digital is to '''provide a tool that would defend every user of the critical service from the digital hijack.''' In the world of an exponential growth of computational capabilities and data ingestion, we believe that all of the simple authentication methods such as passwords WILL sooner or later be cracked.

Behavioural biometrics is our way to '''provide you with an additional layer of security with no impact on your experience''' in the services that embed this technology. We study your behaviour; store it in the form of machine learning models and then use it to judge if it is you or someone else that tries to use your privileges.

Privacy of your behaviour is directly related to the data that we process. '''We do not, and we will never acquire any data that is perceived as sensitive''', i.e. your passwords, the text that you write or what services you use. Instead, we acquire the information on how you type, how you move through service and how you react. That is the way we feel the balance between privacy and capability to protect the users with our service should be.

As a team, we have shared ethics that lead us towards the goal of making this world a better place. We do not misuse your data for experiments other than the protection of your account. We do not sell your data to anyone. '''Your data is not and never will be used beyond the fingerprints.digital service.''' We believe that GDPR is a great way to move forward with protecting the privacy of customers. We aim to provide a higher level of protection for your data.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Manifiesto de la empresa Digital Fingerprints ubicada en Polonia.

La fecha de publicación no está clara pero la copia más antigua es de 2018
https://web.archive.org/web/20200811011115/https://fingerprints.digital/manifesto/

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' https://fingerprints.digital/manifesto/

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20211217024459/https://fingerprints.digital/manifesto/

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Privacidad]]
[[Categoría:Polonia]]
[[Categoría:Digital fingerprints]]

2011 - Malleable Manifesto no. 1 - Brandon Clifford

2022-05-28T00:24:14Z

Paz: /* Enlaces */

== '''Texto''' ==

Malleable Manifesto no. 1

Architects seem to be preoccupied with variability more than ever. It isn’t hard to understand why, especially when considering contemporary digital culture. We exist in a world bombarded with opportunities to build new social profiles. Each of our embodiments somehow performs differently from previous ones. We update our status instantly only to change it moments later. This culture embraces endless modification and resists resolution. The lack of terminus in contemporary digital culture removes a fear of commitment and nourishes our desire for the unique. It is no longer necessary to compromise our intentions in service of permanence. Iteration, uniqueness, and change are king. This culture is emerging in architecture as well. The profession commonly associated with permanence is becoming malleable.

Malleability is not simply a material property. It is liberation from constraints of resolution that responds to contingency. To therefore describe something as malleable is to acknowledge an object’s capacity for change in response to a force. For sake of clarity, let us address a few material property examples. Rubber stretches only when it is pulled apart. Ice melts only when heat is applied. Our typical conception of architecture is to mute these changes, to ultimately ensure stability. Perhaps this compulsion to freeze is because the idea of continual (and potentially unscripted) change occurring in the built environment is antithetical to our assumption of architects as authors. How can unscripted change be authored? We may have this compulsion to halt and stabilize, but it is merely a conceptual act. Malleability has always existed, for instance, in the various iterations during the design process. It exists in the inevitable weathering and decay of buildings.[1] It exists in the palimpsest of scars created through occupation. It also exists in a select few projects that resolve the concept with literal movement such as Villa Girasole as a means to track the sun. Even though malleability has existed in architecture, somehow our discourse turns a blind eye to this truth. Now is the time to remove this unwarranted aversion to malleability. Our contemporary architecture process is full of life. Why do we kill this process to construct the building?

In the past decade, a proliferation of digital manufacturing techniques such as tessellating, contouring, and sectioning[2] have allowed architects to take the first steps toward a digitized malleable architecture. A malleable architecture revolts against the idea of standardized construction, instead taking full advantage of automation. Through automation, this now more malleable form of architecture is able to compete with standardization in terms of manufacturing efficiency; eliminating the comparative advantage of mass production over mass customization. Robots could care less if every part is unique. These exercises in geometric variability in conjunction with the automation of making are allowing architects to generate specific (custom) architectural responses. The result is a dethroning of modernist universality in favor of a malleable construction unit.

By communicating through computers to machines that create custom parts, architecture is once again free from the oppressive mold of standardization. Generating complex geometry after complex geometry, bragging about variability and parametric alterations — only to create an architecture frozen in time? Walls bend and flex with the click of a mouse, but—once built—they become static. Why do we limit ourselves to such methods? Why are we satisfied with only making curvy ribs and complex perforations? These clichéd techniques have become a vacuous stylistic exercise originally intended to evoke the effect of dynamism through a temporally static object. How did this contradiction emerge? As it turns out, it is extremely difficult to extend the malleable culture beyond the drawing process.

The contemporary design process arguably extended malleability because it is supported by parametric and other computational models, which promote change as a viable approach; however, the extension of the design system into a constructible unit commonly undergoes a freezing moment. The variability inherent to the design process is unfortunately abandoned at first sight of physicality. All malleability is removed and all variables are halted. The system is built in an idealized state. Perhaps this peculiar moment of freezing is due to the convention of transferring drawings from the architect to the contractor. If previously, the process operated initially as a highly malleable process in the form of sketching. The presumption is that this malleability slowly diminishes as it approaches the construction phase where the word ‘change order’ is a death sentence to an architect. Today, with the aid of digital fabrication, a paradigm shift has occurred. Change is now embraced as a collaborative opportunity. Parametric alterations in response to site-specific forces are currently the norm. This malleability has not only impacted the relationship between the architect and the contractor. It has also persuaded the architect to indulge in complexity. When working with a complex figure considered impractical without the aid of digital fabrication, one applies the previously mentioned techniques to break the larger geometry down into construct-able units — a process previously left to the contractor in the form of shop drawings. By undermining this convention, architects reclaim control, an ethos that has aided in rendering our architecture temporally static. Ultimately this process is hardly different from the approval of a final set of drawings to be built. Complex geometries mask an otherwise normative architectural process — design, decide, build. Instead, the malleable process should be embraced for its potential to revolutionize our concept of animating space creation[3], not simply break it down into unique construction units.

In recent years, a deluge of projects have introduced malleability in the form of a generative process. Such projects signal a paradigmatic shift in our perception of the design process. Take for example the works of Axel Killian, Supermaenouvre, and Kokkugia. These works use animation to represent and promote this malleable design process; however, the process is anything but an animation. Animations are linear and pre-determined, while these works are real time applications responding to inputs. Some of these applications even produce varied results each time they run. This process embraces malleability and rejects the notion that authorship is determined by static results instead of processes. Working on a foundation created by analog studies[4], these demonstrations of real time feedback, aided by computers, evolved the perception of authorship. As many of these designs bear root in mathematics as generators, authorship is blurry and oftentimes indefinable. The architects listed above exemplify such blurring every time they publish their scripts, programs, and algorithms as open source code to the public. Anyone is welcome to re-author these works. This open source policy is in it-self a vehicle for malleability. Unfortunately the advancement of malleability is halted every time the stop button is slammed and the permanent solution selected — thereby re-inserting authorship into the equation. Projecting to the future — physical architecture will became a manifestation of this conceptually fluid process. This process does not start or end in order to create, but rather is continual and responsive in simultaneous reciprocity with the built form and it’s environment, thus reconsidering the hindrance of authorship. These speculative research projects do advance our tendency towards malleability in architecture, but mainly in conception and process. Bridging the gap to physicality appears to be an insurmountable task proving difficult — but not impossible.

Other architects apply the concept of malleability to physical objects. Here, it is important to note that movement does not characterize the results of these architects’ research practices. That would be an all-too-easy categorization of their work. Like architects who embrace algorithmic techniques in service of their designs, those who apply the concept of malleability in physical objects do so by privileging feedback. Making a tower that spins and twists does not advance the discourse. Making a physical object that responds to information with real time feedback does. For example, with a time-lapse camera, one may record the decay of a building over time, and ultimately produce a video of the slow (and now fast) erosion of an object. This video would of course be compelling and seductive, but it is important to separate the seduction of change, movement, and kinetics from this definition of malleability. Decay does not occur for the sake of change. It occurs in response to external forces, be they wind, water, organic matter, or others. It is not scripted, not pre-determined.

One strong example of a malleable object is the Defensible Dressby the research and design team of Eric Höweler and Meejin Yoon. This dress exemplifies physical malleability through a focused exercise in making. Aided by sensors and actuators, the dress recognizes an intruder approaching through a measurement of distance. It reacts to this information by expanding and defending its host. This dress does one thing and one thing only — it defends. Höweler and Yoon pick up where the process driven researchers left off, but the project lacks the versatility the algorithms demonstrate so well. Projecting to the future, we would find a dress that defends and embraces, harasses, or even ignores.

A slightly more dynamic example would be the Hyposurface Wall by Marc Goulthorpe of Decoi. Decoi’s work straddles a fine line between the virtual and physical—the Hyposurface Wall is not only an architectural object that responds to real-time feedback, but it is also operated by a software that is endlessly editable. And like any physical project to date, this wall is subjected to constraints, the largest being the configuration of the standardized units that aggregate to make the whole. This malleability bypasses the configuration and takes refuge in the software and kinetic interaction.

Physical malleability need not be actuated. Take for example Logic Matter by Skylar Tibbits of SJET. This project extends the body of research in physical computation[5] into the discourse of architecture. Tibbits claims “This system suggests a new paradigm for computing, one that materializes the capabilities of a hard drive and processor from a single sequence of inputs.”[6] Will we approach a time when the architecture itself is computing? I argue we already have. We are simply denying it.

I am not calling for a strictly kinetic architecture. I am calling for our discourse to admit to itself our yearning for change. I am calling for the recognition that architecture is already malleable. I am calling for a abolishment of the assumption our profession is dedicated to permanence and stability. I am calling for an architecture where our conception of variability and response extend beyond the CAD program used to design it, through the CAM process that makes it, and to the architecture itself. This malleable concept must endure beyond the software. Imagine a world where your individual environment responds to both you as well as your greater surrounding. Imagine a future where the built environment and design process work in reciprocity, responding to various agents of information. Imagine a future where architecture is unshackled from its falsely assumed allegiance to permanence. This future will house an architecture of malleability. It will be anything but static.

We are dedicated to
variability
reciprocity between drawing and making
living architecture
We revolt against
standardization
the assumption that architects are not responsible for the means and methods of making
the death of architecture

[1] Bruno Latour and Albena Yaneva, “Give me a Gun and I will Make All Buildings Move: An ANT’s View of Architecture,” in Geiser, Reto (ed.), Explorations in Architecture: Teaching, Design, Research (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2008), 80-89. In this text an argument is made that buildings have a life span, and they alter constantly — weathering, transforming, and renovating. It is this definition I am referring to.

[2] Lisa Iwamoto, Digital Fabrications: Architectural and Material Techniques (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009). These techniques are taken from the chapter titles Lisa Iwamoto uses to categorize digital fabrication techniques by distinct drawings processes.

[3] Greg Lynn, “Animate Form,” Animate Form (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999). 8-43. I am not using Greg Lynn’s definition of animate form. Lynn makes an argument that architecture is inherently static, though it does have to respond to numerous forces. He uses a boat hull analogy to argue that boat hulls don’t change shape, but do mediate between ideal forms in response to various conditions. This definition rejects the previously argued point by Bruno Latour that while most assume buildings are static, buildings do in fact change.

[4] Antonio Gaudi’s analog catenary models are strikingly similar to the particle-spring gravity studies of both Axel Killian and Dave Pigram. The sofware developed by these researchers were clearly based on a larger foundation of material and physical knowledge.

[5] Mechanical and physical computing of the 1950′s is a clear departure point for Tibbits. This research founded by Charles Babbage, Lionel Penrose, and John von Neumann. This research has also been continued by contemporary researchers like N. Gershenfeld, S. Griffith, J. Bachrach, and E. Demaine. Logic Matter is not simply an exercise in physical and spatial computing It is an extension of this concept into the discourse of architecture.

[6] Skylar Tibbits, “Logic Matter,” in Fabricate: Making Digital Architecture, ed. Ruairi Glynn & Bob Sheil (Riverside Architectural Press, 2011) 51.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Aparece en https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/73/

== '''Autoras''' ==

Brandon Clifford

https://web.archive.org/web/20130613181143/http://www.themalleablists.org/category/manifestos

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20130529011341/http://www.themalleablists.org/a-malleable-manifesto-no-1/

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:2011]]
[[Categoría:The Malleablists]]
[[Categoría:Brandon Clifford]]

2011 - Malleable Manifesto no. 1 - Brandon Clifford

2022-05-28T00:23:27Z

Paz: Paz trasladó la página 0000 - Malleable Manifesto no. 1 - The Malleablists a 2011 - Malleable Manifesto no. 1 - Brandon Clifford sin dejar una redirección

== '''Texto''' ==

Malleable Manifesto no. 1

Architects seem to be preoccupied with variability more than ever. It isn’t hard to understand why, especially when considering contemporary digital culture. We exist in a world bombarded with opportunities to build new social profiles. Each of our embodiments somehow performs differently from previous ones. We update our status instantly only to change it moments later. This culture embraces endless modification and resists resolution. The lack of terminus in contemporary digital culture removes a fear of commitment and nourishes our desire for the unique. It is no longer necessary to compromise our intentions in service of permanence. Iteration, uniqueness, and change are king. This culture is emerging in architecture as well. The profession commonly associated with permanence is becoming malleable.

Malleability is not simply a material property. It is liberation from constraints of resolution that responds to contingency. To therefore describe something as malleable is to acknowledge an object’s capacity for change in response to a force. For sake of clarity, let us address a few material property examples. Rubber stretches only when it is pulled apart. Ice melts only when heat is applied. Our typical conception of architecture is to mute these changes, to ultimately ensure stability. Perhaps this compulsion to freeze is because the idea of continual (and potentially unscripted) change occurring in the built environment is antithetical to our assumption of architects as authors. How can unscripted change be authored? We may have this compulsion to halt and stabilize, but it is merely a conceptual act. Malleability has always existed, for instance, in the various iterations during the design process. It exists in the inevitable weathering and decay of buildings.[1] It exists in the palimpsest of scars created through occupation. It also exists in a select few projects that resolve the concept with literal movement such as Villa Girasole as a means to track the sun. Even though malleability has existed in architecture, somehow our discourse turns a blind eye to this truth. Now is the time to remove this unwarranted aversion to malleability. Our contemporary architecture process is full of life. Why do we kill this process to construct the building?

In the past decade, a proliferation of digital manufacturing techniques such as tessellating, contouring, and sectioning[2] have allowed architects to take the first steps toward a digitized malleable architecture. A malleable architecture revolts against the idea of standardized construction, instead taking full advantage of automation. Through automation, this now more malleable form of architecture is able to compete with standardization in terms of manufacturing efficiency; eliminating the comparative advantage of mass production over mass customization. Robots could care less if every part is unique. These exercises in geometric variability in conjunction with the automation of making are allowing architects to generate specific (custom) architectural responses. The result is a dethroning of modernist universality in favor of a malleable construction unit.

By communicating through computers to machines that create custom parts, architecture is once again free from the oppressive mold of standardization. Generating complex geometry after complex geometry, bragging about variability and parametric alterations — only to create an architecture frozen in time? Walls bend and flex with the click of a mouse, but—once built—they become static. Why do we limit ourselves to such methods? Why are we satisfied with only making curvy ribs and complex perforations? These clichéd techniques have become a vacuous stylistic exercise originally intended to evoke the effect of dynamism through a temporally static object. How did this contradiction emerge? As it turns out, it is extremely difficult to extend the malleable culture beyond the drawing process.

The contemporary design process arguably extended malleability because it is supported by parametric and other computational models, which promote change as a viable approach; however, the extension of the design system into a constructible unit commonly undergoes a freezing moment. The variability inherent to the design process is unfortunately abandoned at first sight of physicality. All malleability is removed and all variables are halted. The system is built in an idealized state. Perhaps this peculiar moment of freezing is due to the convention of transferring drawings from the architect to the contractor. If previously, the process operated initially as a highly malleable process in the form of sketching. The presumption is that this malleability slowly diminishes as it approaches the construction phase where the word ‘change order’ is a death sentence to an architect. Today, with the aid of digital fabrication, a paradigm shift has occurred. Change is now embraced as a collaborative opportunity. Parametric alterations in response to site-specific forces are currently the norm. This malleability has not only impacted the relationship between the architect and the contractor. It has also persuaded the architect to indulge in complexity. When working with a complex figure considered impractical without the aid of digital fabrication, one applies the previously mentioned techniques to break the larger geometry down into construct-able units — a process previously left to the contractor in the form of shop drawings. By undermining this convention, architects reclaim control, an ethos that has aided in rendering our architecture temporally static. Ultimately this process is hardly different from the approval of a final set of drawings to be built. Complex geometries mask an otherwise normative architectural process — design, decide, build. Instead, the malleable process should be embraced for its potential to revolutionize our concept of animating space creation[3], not simply break it down into unique construction units.

In recent years, a deluge of projects have introduced malleability in the form of a generative process. Such projects signal a paradigmatic shift in our perception of the design process. Take for example the works of Axel Killian, Supermaenouvre, and Kokkugia. These works use animation to represent and promote this malleable design process; however, the process is anything but an animation. Animations are linear and pre-determined, while these works are real time applications responding to inputs. Some of these applications even produce varied results each time they run. This process embraces malleability and rejects the notion that authorship is determined by static results instead of processes. Working on a foundation created by analog studies[4], these demonstrations of real time feedback, aided by computers, evolved the perception of authorship. As many of these designs bear root in mathematics as generators, authorship is blurry and oftentimes indefinable. The architects listed above exemplify such blurring every time they publish their scripts, programs, and algorithms as open source code to the public. Anyone is welcome to re-author these works. This open source policy is in it-self a vehicle for malleability. Unfortunately the advancement of malleability is halted every time the stop button is slammed and the permanent solution selected — thereby re-inserting authorship into the equation. Projecting to the future — physical architecture will became a manifestation of this conceptually fluid process. This process does not start or end in order to create, but rather is continual and responsive in simultaneous reciprocity with the built form and it’s environment, thus reconsidering the hindrance of authorship. These speculative research projects do advance our tendency towards malleability in architecture, but mainly in conception and process. Bridging the gap to physicality appears to be an insurmountable task proving difficult — but not impossible.

Other architects apply the concept of malleability to physical objects. Here, it is important to note that movement does not characterize the results of these architects’ research practices. That would be an all-too-easy categorization of their work. Like architects who embrace algorithmic techniques in service of their designs, those who apply the concept of malleability in physical objects do so by privileging feedback. Making a tower that spins and twists does not advance the discourse. Making a physical object that responds to information with real time feedback does. For example, with a time-lapse camera, one may record the decay of a building over time, and ultimately produce a video of the slow (and now fast) erosion of an object. This video would of course be compelling and seductive, but it is important to separate the seduction of change, movement, and kinetics from this definition of malleability. Decay does not occur for the sake of change. It occurs in response to external forces, be they wind, water, organic matter, or others. It is not scripted, not pre-determined.

One strong example of a malleable object is the Defensible Dressby the research and design team of Eric Höweler and Meejin Yoon. This dress exemplifies physical malleability through a focused exercise in making. Aided by sensors and actuators, the dress recognizes an intruder approaching through a measurement of distance. It reacts to this information by expanding and defending its host. This dress does one thing and one thing only — it defends. Höweler and Yoon pick up where the process driven researchers left off, but the project lacks the versatility the algorithms demonstrate so well. Projecting to the future, we would find a dress that defends and embraces, harasses, or even ignores.

A slightly more dynamic example would be the Hyposurface Wall by Marc Goulthorpe of Decoi. Decoi’s work straddles a fine line between the virtual and physical—the Hyposurface Wall is not only an architectural object that responds to real-time feedback, but it is also operated by a software that is endlessly editable. And like any physical project to date, this wall is subjected to constraints, the largest being the configuration of the standardized units that aggregate to make the whole. This malleability bypasses the configuration and takes refuge in the software and kinetic interaction.

Physical malleability need not be actuated. Take for example Logic Matter by Skylar Tibbits of SJET. This project extends the body of research in physical computation[5] into the discourse of architecture. Tibbits claims “This system suggests a new paradigm for computing, one that materializes the capabilities of a hard drive and processor from a single sequence of inputs.”[6] Will we approach a time when the architecture itself is computing? I argue we already have. We are simply denying it.

I am not calling for a strictly kinetic architecture. I am calling for our discourse to admit to itself our yearning for change. I am calling for the recognition that architecture is already malleable. I am calling for a abolishment of the assumption our profession is dedicated to permanence and stability. I am calling for an architecture where our conception of variability and response extend beyond the CAD program used to design it, through the CAM process that makes it, and to the architecture itself. This malleable concept must endure beyond the software. Imagine a world where your individual environment responds to both you as well as your greater surrounding. Imagine a future where the built environment and design process work in reciprocity, responding to various agents of information. Imagine a future where architecture is unshackled from its falsely assumed allegiance to permanence. This future will house an architecture of malleability. It will be anything but static.

We are dedicated to
variability
reciprocity between drawing and making
living architecture
We revolt against
standardization
the assumption that architects are not responsible for the means and methods of making
the death of architecture

[1] Bruno Latour and Albena Yaneva, “Give me a Gun and I will Make All Buildings Move: An ANT’s View of Architecture,” in Geiser, Reto (ed.), Explorations in Architecture: Teaching, Design, Research (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2008), 80-89. In this text an argument is made that buildings have a life span, and they alter constantly — weathering, transforming, and renovating. It is this definition I am referring to.

[2] Lisa Iwamoto, Digital Fabrications: Architectural and Material Techniques (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009). These techniques are taken from the chapter titles Lisa Iwamoto uses to categorize digital fabrication techniques by distinct drawings processes.

[3] Greg Lynn, “Animate Form,” Animate Form (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999). 8-43. I am not using Greg Lynn’s definition of animate form. Lynn makes an argument that architecture is inherently static, though it does have to respond to numerous forces. He uses a boat hull analogy to argue that boat hulls don’t change shape, but do mediate between ideal forms in response to various conditions. This definition rejects the previously argued point by Bruno Latour that while most assume buildings are static, buildings do in fact change.

[4] Antonio Gaudi’s analog catenary models are strikingly similar to the particle-spring gravity studies of both Axel Killian and Dave Pigram. The sofware developed by these researchers were clearly based on a larger foundation of material and physical knowledge.

[5] Mechanical and physical computing of the 1950′s is a clear departure point for Tibbits. This research founded by Charles Babbage, Lionel Penrose, and John von Neumann. This research has also been continued by contemporary researchers like N. Gershenfeld, S. Griffith, J. Bachrach, and E. Demaine. Logic Matter is not simply an exercise in physical and spatial computing It is an extension of this concept into the discourse of architecture.

[6] Skylar Tibbits, “Logic Matter,” in Fabricate: Making Digital Architecture, ed. Ruairi Glynn & Bob Sheil (Riverside Architectural Press, 2011) 51.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Aparece en https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/73/

== '''Autoras''' ==

Brandon Clifford

https://web.archive.org/web/20130613181143/http://www.themalleablists.org/category/manifestos

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:'''

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20130529011341/http://www.themalleablists.org/a-malleable-manifesto-no-1/

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:2011]]
[[Categoría:The Malleablists]]
[[Categoría:Brandon Clifford]]

Categoría:Brandon Clifford

2022-05-28T00:22:49Z

Paz: Página creada con «Categoría:Autoras»

[[Categoría:Autoras]]

2011 - Malleable Manifesto no. 1 - Brandon Clifford

2022-05-28T00:22:32Z

Paz: /* Enlaces */

== '''Texto''' ==

Malleable Manifesto no. 1

Architects seem to be preoccupied with variability more than ever. It isn’t hard to understand why, especially when considering contemporary digital culture. We exist in a world bombarded with opportunities to build new social profiles. Each of our embodiments somehow performs differently from previous ones. We update our status instantly only to change it moments later. This culture embraces endless modification and resists resolution. The lack of terminus in contemporary digital culture removes a fear of commitment and nourishes our desire for the unique. It is no longer necessary to compromise our intentions in service of permanence. Iteration, uniqueness, and change are king. This culture is emerging in architecture as well. The profession commonly associated with permanence is becoming malleable.

Malleability is not simply a material property. It is liberation from constraints of resolution that responds to contingency. To therefore describe something as malleable is to acknowledge an object’s capacity for change in response to a force. For sake of clarity, let us address a few material property examples. Rubber stretches only when it is pulled apart. Ice melts only when heat is applied. Our typical conception of architecture is to mute these changes, to ultimately ensure stability. Perhaps this compulsion to freeze is because the idea of continual (and potentially unscripted) change occurring in the built environment is antithetical to our assumption of architects as authors. How can unscripted change be authored? We may have this compulsion to halt and stabilize, but it is merely a conceptual act. Malleability has always existed, for instance, in the various iterations during the design process. It exists in the inevitable weathering and decay of buildings.[1] It exists in the palimpsest of scars created through occupation. It also exists in a select few projects that resolve the concept with literal movement such as Villa Girasole as a means to track the sun. Even though malleability has existed in architecture, somehow our discourse turns a blind eye to this truth. Now is the time to remove this unwarranted aversion to malleability. Our contemporary architecture process is full of life. Why do we kill this process to construct the building?

In the past decade, a proliferation of digital manufacturing techniques such as tessellating, contouring, and sectioning[2] have allowed architects to take the first steps toward a digitized malleable architecture. A malleable architecture revolts against the idea of standardized construction, instead taking full advantage of automation. Through automation, this now more malleable form of architecture is able to compete with standardization in terms of manufacturing efficiency; eliminating the comparative advantage of mass production over mass customization. Robots could care less if every part is unique. These exercises in geometric variability in conjunction with the automation of making are allowing architects to generate specific (custom) architectural responses. The result is a dethroning of modernist universality in favor of a malleable construction unit.

By communicating through computers to machines that create custom parts, architecture is once again free from the oppressive mold of standardization. Generating complex geometry after complex geometry, bragging about variability and parametric alterations — only to create an architecture frozen in time? Walls bend and flex with the click of a mouse, but—once built—they become static. Why do we limit ourselves to such methods? Why are we satisfied with only making curvy ribs and complex perforations? These clichéd techniques have become a vacuous stylistic exercise originally intended to evoke the effect of dynamism through a temporally static object. How did this contradiction emerge? As it turns out, it is extremely difficult to extend the malleable culture beyond the drawing process.

The contemporary design process arguably extended malleability because it is supported by parametric and other computational models, which promote change as a viable approach; however, the extension of the design system into a constructible unit commonly undergoes a freezing moment. The variability inherent to the design process is unfortunately abandoned at first sight of physicality. All malleability is removed and all variables are halted. The system is built in an idealized state. Perhaps this peculiar moment of freezing is due to the convention of transferring drawings from the architect to the contractor. If previously, the process operated initially as a highly malleable process in the form of sketching. The presumption is that this malleability slowly diminishes as it approaches the construction phase where the word ‘change order’ is a death sentence to an architect. Today, with the aid of digital fabrication, a paradigm shift has occurred. Change is now embraced as a collaborative opportunity. Parametric alterations in response to site-specific forces are currently the norm. This malleability has not only impacted the relationship between the architect and the contractor. It has also persuaded the architect to indulge in complexity. When working with a complex figure considered impractical without the aid of digital fabrication, one applies the previously mentioned techniques to break the larger geometry down into construct-able units — a process previously left to the contractor in the form of shop drawings. By undermining this convention, architects reclaim control, an ethos that has aided in rendering our architecture temporally static. Ultimately this process is hardly different from the approval of a final set of drawings to be built. Complex geometries mask an otherwise normative architectural process — design, decide, build. Instead, the malleable process should be embraced for its potential to revolutionize our concept of animating space creation[3], not simply break it down into unique construction units.

In recent years, a deluge of projects have introduced malleability in the form of a generative process. Such projects signal a paradigmatic shift in our perception of the design process. Take for example the works of Axel Killian, Supermaenouvre, and Kokkugia. These works use animation to represent and promote this malleable design process; however, the process is anything but an animation. Animations are linear and pre-determined, while these works are real time applications responding to inputs. Some of these applications even produce varied results each time they run. This process embraces malleability and rejects the notion that authorship is determined by static results instead of processes. Working on a foundation created by analog studies[4], these demonstrations of real time feedback, aided by computers, evolved the perception of authorship. As many of these designs bear root in mathematics as generators, authorship is blurry and oftentimes indefinable. The architects listed above exemplify such blurring every time they publish their scripts, programs, and algorithms as open source code to the public. Anyone is welcome to re-author these works. This open source policy is in it-self a vehicle for malleability. Unfortunately the advancement of malleability is halted every time the stop button is slammed and the permanent solution selected — thereby re-inserting authorship into the equation. Projecting to the future — physical architecture will became a manifestation of this conceptually fluid process. This process does not start or end in order to create, but rather is continual and responsive in simultaneous reciprocity with the built form and it’s environment, thus reconsidering the hindrance of authorship. These speculative research projects do advance our tendency towards malleability in architecture, but mainly in conception and process. Bridging the gap to physicality appears to be an insurmountable task proving difficult — but not impossible.

Other architects apply the concept of malleability to physical objects. Here, it is important to note that movement does not characterize the results of these architects’ research practices. That would be an all-too-easy categorization of their work. Like architects who embrace algorithmic techniques in service of their designs, those who apply the concept of malleability in physical objects do so by privileging feedback. Making a tower that spins and twists does not advance the discourse. Making a physical object that responds to information with real time feedback does. For example, with a time-lapse camera, one may record the decay of a building over time, and ultimately produce a video of the slow (and now fast) erosion of an object. This video would of course be compelling and seductive, but it is important to separate the seduction of change, movement, and kinetics from this definition of malleability. Decay does not occur for the sake of change. It occurs in response to external forces, be they wind, water, organic matter, or others. It is not scripted, not pre-determined.

One strong example of a malleable object is the Defensible Dressby the research and design team of Eric Höweler and Meejin Yoon. This dress exemplifies physical malleability through a focused exercise in making. Aided by sensors and actuators, the dress recognizes an intruder approaching through a measurement of distance. It reacts to this information by expanding and defending its host. This dress does one thing and one thing only — it defends. Höweler and Yoon pick up where the process driven researchers left off, but the project lacks the versatility the algorithms demonstrate so well. Projecting to the future, we would find a dress that defends and embraces, harasses, or even ignores.

A slightly more dynamic example would be the Hyposurface Wall by Marc Goulthorpe of Decoi. Decoi’s work straddles a fine line between the virtual and physical—the Hyposurface Wall is not only an architectural object that responds to real-time feedback, but it is also operated by a software that is endlessly editable. And like any physical project to date, this wall is subjected to constraints, the largest being the configuration of the standardized units that aggregate to make the whole. This malleability bypasses the configuration and takes refuge in the software and kinetic interaction.

Physical malleability need not be actuated. Take for example Logic Matter by Skylar Tibbits of SJET. This project extends the body of research in physical computation[5] into the discourse of architecture. Tibbits claims “This system suggests a new paradigm for computing, one that materializes the capabilities of a hard drive and processor from a single sequence of inputs.”[6] Will we approach a time when the architecture itself is computing? I argue we already have. We are simply denying it.

I am not calling for a strictly kinetic architecture. I am calling for our discourse to admit to itself our yearning for change. I am calling for the recognition that architecture is already malleable. I am calling for a abolishment of the assumption our profession is dedicated to permanence and stability. I am calling for an architecture where our conception of variability and response extend beyond the CAD program used to design it, through the CAM process that makes it, and to the architecture itself. This malleable concept must endure beyond the software. Imagine a world where your individual environment responds to both you as well as your greater surrounding. Imagine a future where the built environment and design process work in reciprocity, responding to various agents of information. Imagine a future where architecture is unshackled from its falsely assumed allegiance to permanence. This future will house an architecture of malleability. It will be anything but static.

We are dedicated to
variability
reciprocity between drawing and making
living architecture
We revolt against
standardization
the assumption that architects are not responsible for the means and methods of making
the death of architecture

[1] Bruno Latour and Albena Yaneva, “Give me a Gun and I will Make All Buildings Move: An ANT’s View of Architecture,” in Geiser, Reto (ed.), Explorations in Architecture: Teaching, Design, Research (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2008), 80-89. In this text an argument is made that buildings have a life span, and they alter constantly — weathering, transforming, and renovating. It is this definition I am referring to.

[2] Lisa Iwamoto, Digital Fabrications: Architectural and Material Techniques (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009). These techniques are taken from the chapter titles Lisa Iwamoto uses to categorize digital fabrication techniques by distinct drawings processes.

[3] Greg Lynn, “Animate Form,” Animate Form (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999). 8-43. I am not using Greg Lynn’s definition of animate form. Lynn makes an argument that architecture is inherently static, though it does have to respond to numerous forces. He uses a boat hull analogy to argue that boat hulls don’t change shape, but do mediate between ideal forms in response to various conditions. This definition rejects the previously argued point by Bruno Latour that while most assume buildings are static, buildings do in fact change.

[4] Antonio Gaudi’s analog catenary models are strikingly similar to the particle-spring gravity studies of both Axel Killian and Dave Pigram. The sofware developed by these researchers were clearly based on a larger foundation of material and physical knowledge.

[5] Mechanical and physical computing of the 1950′s is a clear departure point for Tibbits. This research founded by Charles Babbage, Lionel Penrose, and John von Neumann. This research has also been continued by contemporary researchers like N. Gershenfeld, S. Griffith, J. Bachrach, and E. Demaine. Logic Matter is not simply an exercise in physical and spatial computing It is an extension of this concept into the discourse of architecture.

[6] Skylar Tibbits, “Logic Matter,” in Fabricate: Making Digital Architecture, ed. Ruairi Glynn & Bob Sheil (Riverside Architectural Press, 2011) 51.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Aparece en https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/73/

== '''Autoras''' ==

Brandon Clifford

https://web.archive.org/web/20130613181143/http://www.themalleablists.org/category/manifestos

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:'''

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20130529011341/http://www.themalleablists.org/a-malleable-manifesto-no-1/

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:2011]]
[[Categoría:The Malleablists]]
[[Categoría:Brandon Clifford]]

2011 - Malleable Manifesto no. 1 - Brandon Clifford

2022-05-28T00:21:33Z

Paz: /* Autoras */

== '''Texto''' ==

Malleable Manifesto no. 1

Architects seem to be preoccupied with variability more than ever. It isn’t hard to understand why, especially when considering contemporary digital culture. We exist in a world bombarded with opportunities to build new social profiles. Each of our embodiments somehow performs differently from previous ones. We update our status instantly only to change it moments later. This culture embraces endless modification and resists resolution. The lack of terminus in contemporary digital culture removes a fear of commitment and nourishes our desire for the unique. It is no longer necessary to compromise our intentions in service of permanence. Iteration, uniqueness, and change are king. This culture is emerging in architecture as well. The profession commonly associated with permanence is becoming malleable.

Malleability is not simply a material property. It is liberation from constraints of resolution that responds to contingency. To therefore describe something as malleable is to acknowledge an object’s capacity for change in response to a force. For sake of clarity, let us address a few material property examples. Rubber stretches only when it is pulled apart. Ice melts only when heat is applied. Our typical conception of architecture is to mute these changes, to ultimately ensure stability. Perhaps this compulsion to freeze is because the idea of continual (and potentially unscripted) change occurring in the built environment is antithetical to our assumption of architects as authors. How can unscripted change be authored? We may have this compulsion to halt and stabilize, but it is merely a conceptual act. Malleability has always existed, for instance, in the various iterations during the design process. It exists in the inevitable weathering and decay of buildings.[1] It exists in the palimpsest of scars created through occupation. It also exists in a select few projects that resolve the concept with literal movement such as Villa Girasole as a means to track the sun. Even though malleability has existed in architecture, somehow our discourse turns a blind eye to this truth. Now is the time to remove this unwarranted aversion to malleability. Our contemporary architecture process is full of life. Why do we kill this process to construct the building?

In the past decade, a proliferation of digital manufacturing techniques such as tessellating, contouring, and sectioning[2] have allowed architects to take the first steps toward a digitized malleable architecture. A malleable architecture revolts against the idea of standardized construction, instead taking full advantage of automation. Through automation, this now more malleable form of architecture is able to compete with standardization in terms of manufacturing efficiency; eliminating the comparative advantage of mass production over mass customization. Robots could care less if every part is unique. These exercises in geometric variability in conjunction with the automation of making are allowing architects to generate specific (custom) architectural responses. The result is a dethroning of modernist universality in favor of a malleable construction unit.

By communicating through computers to machines that create custom parts, architecture is once again free from the oppressive mold of standardization. Generating complex geometry after complex geometry, bragging about variability and parametric alterations — only to create an architecture frozen in time? Walls bend and flex with the click of a mouse, but—once built—they become static. Why do we limit ourselves to such methods? Why are we satisfied with only making curvy ribs and complex perforations? These clichéd techniques have become a vacuous stylistic exercise originally intended to evoke the effect of dynamism through a temporally static object. How did this contradiction emerge? As it turns out, it is extremely difficult to extend the malleable culture beyond the drawing process.

The contemporary design process arguably extended malleability because it is supported by parametric and other computational models, which promote change as a viable approach; however, the extension of the design system into a constructible unit commonly undergoes a freezing moment. The variability inherent to the design process is unfortunately abandoned at first sight of physicality. All malleability is removed and all variables are halted. The system is built in an idealized state. Perhaps this peculiar moment of freezing is due to the convention of transferring drawings from the architect to the contractor. If previously, the process operated initially as a highly malleable process in the form of sketching. The presumption is that this malleability slowly diminishes as it approaches the construction phase where the word ‘change order’ is a death sentence to an architect. Today, with the aid of digital fabrication, a paradigm shift has occurred. Change is now embraced as a collaborative opportunity. Parametric alterations in response to site-specific forces are currently the norm. This malleability has not only impacted the relationship between the architect and the contractor. It has also persuaded the architect to indulge in complexity. When working with a complex figure considered impractical without the aid of digital fabrication, one applies the previously mentioned techniques to break the larger geometry down into construct-able units — a process previously left to the contractor in the form of shop drawings. By undermining this convention, architects reclaim control, an ethos that has aided in rendering our architecture temporally static. Ultimately this process is hardly different from the approval of a final set of drawings to be built. Complex geometries mask an otherwise normative architectural process — design, decide, build. Instead, the malleable process should be embraced for its potential to revolutionize our concept of animating space creation[3], not simply break it down into unique construction units.

In recent years, a deluge of projects have introduced malleability in the form of a generative process. Such projects signal a paradigmatic shift in our perception of the design process. Take for example the works of Axel Killian, Supermaenouvre, and Kokkugia. These works use animation to represent and promote this malleable design process; however, the process is anything but an animation. Animations are linear and pre-determined, while these works are real time applications responding to inputs. Some of these applications even produce varied results each time they run. This process embraces malleability and rejects the notion that authorship is determined by static results instead of processes. Working on a foundation created by analog studies[4], these demonstrations of real time feedback, aided by computers, evolved the perception of authorship. As many of these designs bear root in mathematics as generators, authorship is blurry and oftentimes indefinable. The architects listed above exemplify such blurring every time they publish their scripts, programs, and algorithms as open source code to the public. Anyone is welcome to re-author these works. This open source policy is in it-self a vehicle for malleability. Unfortunately the advancement of malleability is halted every time the stop button is slammed and the permanent solution selected — thereby re-inserting authorship into the equation. Projecting to the future — physical architecture will became a manifestation of this conceptually fluid process. This process does not start or end in order to create, but rather is continual and responsive in simultaneous reciprocity with the built form and it’s environment, thus reconsidering the hindrance of authorship. These speculative research projects do advance our tendency towards malleability in architecture, but mainly in conception and process. Bridging the gap to physicality appears to be an insurmountable task proving difficult — but not impossible.

Other architects apply the concept of malleability to physical objects. Here, it is important to note that movement does not characterize the results of these architects’ research practices. That would be an all-too-easy categorization of their work. Like architects who embrace algorithmic techniques in service of their designs, those who apply the concept of malleability in physical objects do so by privileging feedback. Making a tower that spins and twists does not advance the discourse. Making a physical object that responds to information with real time feedback does. For example, with a time-lapse camera, one may record the decay of a building over time, and ultimately produce a video of the slow (and now fast) erosion of an object. This video would of course be compelling and seductive, but it is important to separate the seduction of change, movement, and kinetics from this definition of malleability. Decay does not occur for the sake of change. It occurs in response to external forces, be they wind, water, organic matter, or others. It is not scripted, not pre-determined.

One strong example of a malleable object is the Defensible Dressby the research and design team of Eric Höweler and Meejin Yoon. This dress exemplifies physical malleability through a focused exercise in making. Aided by sensors and actuators, the dress recognizes an intruder approaching through a measurement of distance. It reacts to this information by expanding and defending its host. This dress does one thing and one thing only — it defends. Höweler and Yoon pick up where the process driven researchers left off, but the project lacks the versatility the algorithms demonstrate so well. Projecting to the future, we would find a dress that defends and embraces, harasses, or even ignores.

A slightly more dynamic example would be the Hyposurface Wall by Marc Goulthorpe of Decoi. Decoi’s work straddles a fine line between the virtual and physical—the Hyposurface Wall is not only an architectural object that responds to real-time feedback, but it is also operated by a software that is endlessly editable. And like any physical project to date, this wall is subjected to constraints, the largest being the configuration of the standardized units that aggregate to make the whole. This malleability bypasses the configuration and takes refuge in the software and kinetic interaction.

Physical malleability need not be actuated. Take for example Logic Matter by Skylar Tibbits of SJET. This project extends the body of research in physical computation[5] into the discourse of architecture. Tibbits claims “This system suggests a new paradigm for computing, one that materializes the capabilities of a hard drive and processor from a single sequence of inputs.”[6] Will we approach a time when the architecture itself is computing? I argue we already have. We are simply denying it.

I am not calling for a strictly kinetic architecture. I am calling for our discourse to admit to itself our yearning for change. I am calling for the recognition that architecture is already malleable. I am calling for a abolishment of the assumption our profession is dedicated to permanence and stability. I am calling for an architecture where our conception of variability and response extend beyond the CAD program used to design it, through the CAM process that makes it, and to the architecture itself. This malleable concept must endure beyond the software. Imagine a world where your individual environment responds to both you as well as your greater surrounding. Imagine a future where the built environment and design process work in reciprocity, responding to various agents of information. Imagine a future where architecture is unshackled from its falsely assumed allegiance to permanence. This future will house an architecture of malleability. It will be anything but static.

We are dedicated to
variability
reciprocity between drawing and making
living architecture
We revolt against
standardization
the assumption that architects are not responsible for the means and methods of making
the death of architecture

[1] Bruno Latour and Albena Yaneva, “Give me a Gun and I will Make All Buildings Move: An ANT’s View of Architecture,” in Geiser, Reto (ed.), Explorations in Architecture: Teaching, Design, Research (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2008), 80-89. In this text an argument is made that buildings have a life span, and they alter constantly — weathering, transforming, and renovating. It is this definition I am referring to.

[2] Lisa Iwamoto, Digital Fabrications: Architectural and Material Techniques (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009). These techniques are taken from the chapter titles Lisa Iwamoto uses to categorize digital fabrication techniques by distinct drawings processes.

[3] Greg Lynn, “Animate Form,” Animate Form (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999). 8-43. I am not using Greg Lynn’s definition of animate form. Lynn makes an argument that architecture is inherently static, though it does have to respond to numerous forces. He uses a boat hull analogy to argue that boat hulls don’t change shape, but do mediate between ideal forms in response to various conditions. This definition rejects the previously argued point by Bruno Latour that while most assume buildings are static, buildings do in fact change.

[4] Antonio Gaudi’s analog catenary models are strikingly similar to the particle-spring gravity studies of both Axel Killian and Dave Pigram. The sofware developed by these researchers were clearly based on a larger foundation of material and physical knowledge.

[5] Mechanical and physical computing of the 1950′s is a clear departure point for Tibbits. This research founded by Charles Babbage, Lionel Penrose, and John von Neumann. This research has also been continued by contemporary researchers like N. Gershenfeld, S. Griffith, J. Bachrach, and E. Demaine. Logic Matter is not simply an exercise in physical and spatial computing It is an extension of this concept into the discourse of architecture.

[6] Skylar Tibbits, “Logic Matter,” in Fabricate: Making Digital Architecture, ed. Ruairi Glynn & Bob Sheil (Riverside Architectural Press, 2011) 51.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Aparece en https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/73/

== '''Autoras''' ==

Brandon Clifford

https://web.archive.org/web/20130613181143/http://www.themalleablists.org/category/manifestos

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:'''

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20130529011341/http://www.themalleablists.org/a-malleable-manifesto-no-1/

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:2005]]
[[Categoría:The Malleablists]]

2012 - Maker Manifesto - Maker Faire Africa

2022-05-28T00:17:43Z

Paz: Paz trasladó la página 0000 - Maker Manifesto - Maker Faire Africa a 2012 - Maker Manifesto - Maker Faire Africa sin dejar una redirección

== '''Texto''' ==

If you want something you've never had, then you've got to do something you've never done.

This is the Maker Manifesto

1. We will wait for no one. 2. We will make things Africa needs. 3. We will see challenges as opportunities to invent, and invention as a means of proving African ingenuity. 4. We will be obsessed with improving things, whether just a little or a lot. 5. We will show the world how sexy African manufacturing can be. 6. We will hunt down new skills, unmask locally made materials, keep our work sustainable and be kind to the environments in which we make. 7. We will share what we make, and help each other make what we share. 8. We will be responsible for acting on our ideas. 9. We will forge collaborations across our continent. 10. We will remake Africa with our own hands.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Aparece en http://web.archive.org/web/20220131054309/https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/213/ pero la datación no es correcta.

En el blog del sitio anuncia el manifiesto en 2012
http://makerfaireafrica.com/2012/10/20/our-maker-manifesto/

En 2022 el manifiesto sigue siendo el mismo:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220302125352/http://makerfaireafrica.com/maker-manifesto/

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' http://makerfaireafrica.com/2012/10/20/our-maker-manifesto/

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20220528001415/http://makerfaireafrica.com/2012/10/20/our-maker-manifesto/

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:2012]]
[[Categoría:Maker Faire Africa]]

2012 - Maker Manifesto - Maker Faire Africa

2022-05-28T00:17:29Z

Paz: /* Contexto */

2012 - Maker Manifesto - Maker Faire Africa

2022-05-28T00:15:30Z

Paz: /* Enlaces */

== '''Texto''' ==

If you want something you've never had, then you've got to do something you've never done.

This is the Maker Manifesto

1. We will wait for no one. 2. We will make things Africa needs. 3. We will see challenges as opportunities to invent, and invention as a means of proving African ingenuity. 4. We will be obsessed with improving things, whether just a little or a lot. 5. We will show the world how sexy African manufacturing can be. 6. We will hunt down new skills, unmask locally made materials, keep our work sustainable and be kind to the environments in which we make. 7. We will share what we make, and help each other make what we share. 8. We will be responsible for acting on our ideas. 9. We will forge collaborations across our continent. 10. We will remake Africa with our own hands.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Aparece en http://web.archive.org/web/20220131054309/https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/213/ pero la datación no es correcta.

En el blog del sitio se aununcia en 2021
http://makerfaireafrica.com/2012/10/20/our-maker-manifesto/

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' http://makerfaireafrica.com/2012/10/20/our-maker-manifesto/

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20220528001415/http://makerfaireafrica.com/2012/10/20/our-maker-manifesto/

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:2012]]
[[Categoría:Maker Faire Africa]]

2012 - Maker Manifesto - Maker Faire Africa

2022-05-28T00:14:57Z

Paz: /* Enlaces */

== '''Texto''' ==

If you want something you've never had, then you've got to do something you've never done.

This is the Maker Manifesto

1. We will wait for no one. 2. We will make things Africa needs. 3. We will see challenges as opportunities to invent, and invention as a means of proving African ingenuity. 4. We will be obsessed with improving things, whether just a little or a lot. 5. We will show the world how sexy African manufacturing can be. 6. We will hunt down new skills, unmask locally made materials, keep our work sustainable and be kind to the environments in which we make. 7. We will share what we make, and help each other make what we share. 8. We will be responsible for acting on our ideas. 9. We will forge collaborations across our continent. 10. We will remake Africa with our own hands.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Aparece en http://web.archive.org/web/20220131054309/https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/213/ pero la datación no es correcta.

En el blog del sitio se aununcia en 2021
http://makerfaireafrica.com/2012/10/20/our-maker-manifesto/

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' http://makerfaireafrica.com/maker-manifesto/

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20220302125352/http://makerfaireafrica.com/maker-manifesto/

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:2012]]
[[Categoría:Maker Faire Africa]]

2012 - Maker Manifesto - Maker Faire Africa

2022-05-28T00:14:35Z

Paz: /* Contexto */

== '''Texto''' ==

If you want something you've never had, then you've got to do something you've never done.

This is the Maker Manifesto

1. We will wait for no one. 2. We will make things Africa needs. 3. We will see challenges as opportunities to invent, and invention as a means of proving African ingenuity. 4. We will be obsessed with improving things, whether just a little or a lot. 5. We will show the world how sexy African manufacturing can be. 6. We will hunt down new skills, unmask locally made materials, keep our work sustainable and be kind to the environments in which we make. 7. We will share what we make, and help each other make what we share. 8. We will be responsible for acting on our ideas. 9. We will forge collaborations across our continent. 10. We will remake Africa with our own hands.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Aparece en http://web.archive.org/web/20220131054309/https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/213/ pero la datación no es correcta.

En el blog del sitio se aununcia en 2021
http://makerfaireafrica.com/2012/10/20/our-maker-manifesto/

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' http://makerfaireafrica.com/maker-manifesto/

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20220302125352/http://makerfaireafrica.com/maker-manifesto/

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Maker Faire Africa]]

2012 - Introducing Adversarial Design - Carl DiSalvo

2022-05-28T00:06:24Z

Paz: Paz trasladó la página 0000 - Introducing Adversarial Design - Carl DiSalvo a 2012 - Introducing Adversarial Design - Carl DiSalvo sin dejar una redirección

== '''Texto''' ==

Consultar PDF

== '''Contexto''' ==

Aparece en:

https://www.digitalmanifesto.net/manifestos/211/

Garnet Hertz (ed.) (2012). Critical Making.Telharmonium Press. Hollywood. California USA [incluye una sección de manifiestos
]http://conceptlab.com/criticalmaking/

En 2012 Carl DiSalvo publica con MIT Press, Adversarial Design, pero en el libro no se incluye el manifiesto.
https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/2184/Adversarial-Design

Tampoco aparece citado en la web de DiSalvo
https://www.carldisalvo.com/publications

Se data por ello con la fecha e publicación del libro de Hertz en 2012.

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' http://conceptlab.com/criticalmaking/PDFs/CriticalMaking2012Hertz-Manifestos-pp21to22-DiSalvo-IntroducingAdversarialDesign.pdf

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20200327162438/http://conceptlab.com/criticalmaking/PDFs/CriticalMaking2012Hertz-Manifestos-pp21to22-DiSalvo-IntroducingAdversarialDesign.pdf

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:2012]]
[[Categoría:Carl DiSalvo]]

2012 - Introducing Adversarial Design - Carl DiSalvo

2022-05-28T00:06:11Z

Paz: /* Enlaces */

2012 - Introducing Adversarial Design - Carl DiSalvo

2022-05-28T00:05:45Z

Paz: /* Contexto */

Categoría:MIT Hacking community

2022-05-27T23:43:47Z

Paz: Página creada con «Categoría:Autoras»

[[Categoría:Autoras]]

1994 - Hacking Ethics - MIT Hacking Community

2022-05-27T23:43:28Z

Paz:

== '''Texto''' ==

'''Executive Summary:'''

The MIT Hacking community is saddened by the series of recent events which have made the "MIT Guide To Lockpicking" available electronically in a indiscriminate fashion. We would like to state, once again, that we believe such distribution is inappropriate. Since we clearly have no control over the guide's dissemination, we would, at the least, like those distributing the guide to do the following:

Add an integral section on [Hacking] Ethics

Disassociate the MIT name from the distributed guide

'''Rationale:'''

We believe that the guide should be freely available to hackers who have a sense of ethics. Individuals have always been encouraged to only pass the information on to others who will use the information responsibly. Dissemination of the "MIT Guide" to the anonymous usenet and internet masses is irresponsible, at best. While most members of the internet community may use this information in ethical ways, some may not. Even if only a few people (a trivial percentage of the potential electronic readership) use the information in an unethical fashion, the damage can be considerable.

Many have, correctly, noted that there is no "magic" information contained in the "MIT Guide". All the basic information is available from other texts. The MIT Guide distills the information relevant to lock picking and presents it clearly and succinctly. Electronic dissemination of this ~40 page text lowers the effort (and hence commitment) an individual must expend to gain a working knowledge of lockpicking. Widespread electronic availability of the document encourages everyone, regardless of their personal mores, to gain the skill.

The guide was originally written to pass on non-destructive methods of entry to members of the MIT Hacking community. At MIT "Roof and Tunnel Hacking" is a pastime where students explore the Institute where they live and work. For reasons of safety, liability, and privacy, the MIT administration isolates certain portions of the Institute from general traffic using various methods, including locks. Mastery over locks is, hence, a valuable asset to the dedicated roof and tunnel hacker.

Roof and tunnel hacking at MIT is concerned primarily with non-intrusive exploration. The goal is to discover and learn, not to steal, destroy, or invade anyone's privacy. Unfortunately, the skills which one needs in hacking can be perverted to nefarious ends. Established MIT Hackers always make an effort to convey a proper sense of ethics to new hackers and to be discerning about the techniques they teach to new hackers. The "MIT Guide" has always been given to new hackers only after they demonstrated themselves to be responsible.

The "MIT Guide" was never intended to be distributed separate from the oral tradition and indoctrination associated with the MIT Hacking community. In hindsight, we can acknowledge, that it was a grievous oversight on the part of the author(s) of the "MIT Guide" that the document was written without attempting to integrate some of the ethics and context of MIT Hacking into the document itself. We agree that no amount of words will convey the same sense of hacking ethics as one acquires being a part of the MIT Hacking community. Nonetheless, we feel the distributed guide, stripped of its context--the MIT Hacking community, is very irresponsible and sadly lacking. We believe the very least that can be done is to attempt to include in this artifact some of the ethics which are part of the oral hacking education at MIT.

The MIT Hacking community does not support the guide's distribution in electronic form for the reasons mentioned above. Further, it is quite clear from the actions taken by Ted T. Tool and others that the MIT Hacking community has no control over the guide's dissemination.
Consequently, we feel it is inappropriate for the guide to be labelled as an "MIT Guide". At this point, the guide is neither being distributed by MIT nor with the blessing of the MIT Hacking community. We would like to ask Ted T. Tool [who left the MIT Hacking community several years ago] and anyone else distributing copies or derivatives of the original work, to disassociate the guide from MIT if they insist on continuing anonymous distribution. Such actions are counter to MIT Hacking ethics, and the MIT community would prefer not to imply that it condones such actions.

Words will not do justice to the MIT Hacking Ethics. Nonetheless, following is a brief list containing a few of the major principles to which the MIT Roof and Tunnel Hacking community adheres during its exploratory expeditions:

Be SUBTLE -- leave no evidence that you were ever there. (This is a general rule which applies to lots of circumstances -- a few are enumerated explicitly in this list, but many principles follow from this simple edict)

Leave things as you found them (or better).
If you find something broken call F-IXIT (a local number for reporting problems with the buildings and grounds -- Hackers often go places the normal institute workers do not frequent regularly and hence may see problems before the workers do).

Leave no damage.

Do not steal anything.

Brute force is the last resort of the incompetent.

Do not hack while under the influence of alcohol/drugs/etc.

Do not drop things (off a building w/out a ground crew).

Do not hack alone (just like swimming).

Exercise COMMON SENSE. (This is another general rule with very wide applicability -- when exploring, you are often in places which were not intended for normal traffic. The people who built the area may not have assumed anyone would be there without special knowledge of the area. Many of the assumptions you are used to making are not valid or applicable while hacking. It is very important that you stay alert and think clearly.)

Please, consider your actions carefully. If you feel you must continue to distribute the guide, we strongly advocate the addition of an integral section on ethics. As long as the MIT community has no control over the contents or distribution of the guide, it is inappropriate to call it the MIT guide. Consequently, we ask that the name of the distributed guide be changed.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Se trata de una trasncripción de principios orales que posiblemente sean anteriores a la fecha del correo donde aparecen.

El listado de principios éticos aparece ligado a la polémica sobre la publicación indiscriminada de la
"MIT Guide To Lockpicking" que se narra en el correo.

== '''Fuentes''' ==

https://everything2.com/title/MIT+Guide+to+Lockpicking
https://web.archive.org/web/20090727011712/https://everything2.com/title/MIT+Guide+to+Lockpicking

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' http://web.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/www/stock-answers/lockpicking-guide

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/19990824161625/http://web.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/www/stock-answers/lockpicking-guide

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:1994]]
[[Categoría:Estados Unidos]]
[[Categoría:MIT Hacking community]]

1994 - Hacking Ethics - MIT Hacking Community

2022-05-27T23:39:52Z

Paz: Paz trasladó la página 0000 - Hacking Ethics - MIT Group a 1994 - Hacking Ethics - MIT Hacking Community sin dejar una redirección

== '''Texto''' ==

'''Executive Summary:'''

The MIT Hacking community is saddened by the series of recent events which have made the "MIT Guide To Lockpicking" available electronically in a indiscriminate fashion. We would like to state, once again, that we believe such distribution is inappropriate. Since we clearly have no control over the guide's dissemination, we would, at the least, like those distributing the guide to do the following:

Add an integral section on [Hacking] Ethics

Disassociate the MIT name from the distributed guide

'''Rationale:'''

We believe that the guide should be freely available to hackers who have a sense of ethics. Individuals have always been encouraged to only pass the information on to others who will use the information responsibly. Dissemination of the "MIT Guide" to the anonymous usenet and internet masses is irresponsible, at best. While most members of the internet community may use this information in ethical ways, some may not. Even if only a few people (a trivial percentage of the potential electronic readership) use the information in an unethical fashion, the damage can be considerable.

Many have, correctly, noted that there is no "magic" information contained in the "MIT Guide". All the basic information is available from other texts. The MIT Guide distills the information relevant to lock picking and presents it clearly and succinctly. Electronic dissemination of this ~40 page text lowers the effort (and hence commitment) an individual must expend to gain a working knowledge of lockpicking. Widespread electronic availability of the document encourages everyone, regardless of their personal mores, to gain the skill.

The guide was originally written to pass on non-destructive methods of entry to members of the MIT Hacking community. At MIT "Roof and Tunnel Hacking" is a pastime where students explore the Institute where they live and work. For reasons of safety, liability, and privacy, the MIT administration isolates certain portions of the Institute from general traffic using various methods, including locks. Mastery over locks is, hence, a valuable asset to the dedicated roof and tunnel hacker.

Roof and tunnel hacking at MIT is concerned primarily with non-intrusive exploration. The goal is to discover and learn, not to steal, destroy, or invade anyone's privacy. Unfortunately, the skills which one needs in hacking can be perverted to nefarious ends. Established MIT Hackers always make an effort to convey a proper sense of ethics to new hackers and to be discerning about the techniques they teach to new hackers. The "MIT Guide" has always been given to new hackers only after they demonstrated themselves to be responsible.

The "MIT Guide" was never intended to be distributed separate from the oral tradition and indoctrination associated with the MIT Hacking community. In hindsight, we can acknowledge, that it was a grievous oversight on the part of the author(s) of the "MIT Guide" that the document was written without attempting to integrate some of the ethics and context of MIT Hacking into the document itself. We agree that no amount of words will convey the same sense of hacking ethics as one acquires being a part of the MIT Hacking community. Nonetheless, we feel the distributed guide, stripped of its context--the MIT Hacking community, is very irresponsible and sadly lacking. We believe the very least that can be done is to attempt to include in this artifact some of the ethics which are part of the oral hacking education at MIT.

The MIT Hacking community does not support the guide's distribution in electronic form for the reasons mentioned above. Further, it is quite clear from the actions taken by Ted T. Tool and others that the MIT Hacking community has no control over the guide's dissemination.
Consequently, we feel it is inappropriate for the guide to be labelled as an "MIT Guide". At this point, the guide is neither being distributed by MIT nor with the blessing of the MIT Hacking community. We would like to ask Ted T. Tool [who left the MIT Hacking community several years ago] and anyone else distributing copies or derivatives of the original work, to disassociate the guide from MIT if they insist on continuing anonymous distribution. Such actions are counter to MIT Hacking ethics, and the MIT community would prefer not to imply that it condones such actions.

Words will not do justice to the MIT Hacking Ethics. Nonetheless, following is a brief list containing a few of the major principles to which the MIT Roof and Tunnel Hacking community adheres during its exploratory expeditions:

Be SUBTLE -- leave no evidence that you were ever there. (This is a general rule which applies to lots of circumstances -- a few are enumerated explicitly in this list, but many principles follow from this simple edict)
Leave things as you found them (or better).
If you find something broken call F-IXIT (a local number for reporting problems with the buildings and grounds -- Hackers often go places the normal institute workers do not frequent regularly and hence may see problems before the workers do).
Leave no damage.

Do not steal anything.

Brute force is the last resort of the incompetent.

Do not hack while under the influence of alcohol/drugs/etc.

Do not drop things (off a building w/out a ground crew).

Do not hack alone (just like swimming).

Exercise COMMON SENSE. (This is another general rule with very wide applicability -- when exploring, you are often in places which were not intended for normal traffic. The people who built the area may not have assumed anyone would be there without special knowledge of the area. Many of the assumptions you are used to making are not valid or applicable while hacking. It is very important that you stay alert and think clearly.)

Please, consider your actions carefully. If you feel you must continue to distribute the guide, we strongly advocate the addition of an integral section on ethics. As long as the MIT community has no control over the contents or distribution of the guide, it is inappropriate to call it the MIT guide. Consequently, we ask that the name of the distributed guide be changed.

== '''Fuentes''' ==

https://everything2.com/title/MIT+Guide+to+Lockpicking

http://web.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/www/stock-answers/lockpicking-guide

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' http://web.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/www/stock-answers/lockpicking-guide

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/19990824161625/http://web.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/www/stock-answers/lockpicking-guide

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:1994]]
[[Categoría:Estados Unidos]]
[[Categoría:MIT Hacking community]]

1994 - Hacking Ethics - MIT Hacking Community

2022-05-27T23:39:27Z

Paz: /* Enlaces */

== '''Texto''' ==

'''Executive Summary:'''

The MIT Hacking community is saddened by the series of recent events which have made the "MIT Guide To Lockpicking" available electronically in a indiscriminate fashion. We would like to state, once again, that we believe such distribution is inappropriate. Since we clearly have no control over the guide's dissemination, we would, at the least, like those distributing the guide to do the following:

Add an integral section on [Hacking] Ethics

Disassociate the MIT name from the distributed guide

'''Rationale:'''

We believe that the guide should be freely available to hackers who have a sense of ethics. Individuals have always been encouraged to only pass the information on to others who will use the information responsibly. Dissemination of the "MIT Guide" to the anonymous usenet and internet masses is irresponsible, at best. While most members of the internet community may use this information in ethical ways, some may not. Even if only a few people (a trivial percentage of the potential electronic readership) use the information in an unethical fashion, the damage can be considerable.

Many have, correctly, noted that there is no "magic" information contained in the "MIT Guide". All the basic information is available from other texts. The MIT Guide distills the information relevant to lock picking and presents it clearly and succinctly. Electronic dissemination of this ~40 page text lowers the effort (and hence commitment) an individual must expend to gain a working knowledge of lockpicking. Widespread electronic availability of the document encourages everyone, regardless of their personal mores, to gain the skill.

The guide was originally written to pass on non-destructive methods of entry to members of the MIT Hacking community. At MIT "Roof and Tunnel Hacking" is a pastime where students explore the Institute where they live and work. For reasons of safety, liability, and privacy, the MIT administration isolates certain portions of the Institute from general traffic using various methods, including locks. Mastery over locks is, hence, a valuable asset to the dedicated roof and tunnel hacker.

Roof and tunnel hacking at MIT is concerned primarily with non-intrusive exploration. The goal is to discover and learn, not to steal, destroy, or invade anyone's privacy. Unfortunately, the skills which one needs in hacking can be perverted to nefarious ends. Established MIT Hackers always make an effort to convey a proper sense of ethics to new hackers and to be discerning about the techniques they teach to new hackers. The "MIT Guide" has always been given to new hackers only after they demonstrated themselves to be responsible.

The "MIT Guide" was never intended to be distributed separate from the oral tradition and indoctrination associated with the MIT Hacking community. In hindsight, we can acknowledge, that it was a grievous oversight on the part of the author(s) of the "MIT Guide" that the document was written without attempting to integrate some of the ethics and context of MIT Hacking into the document itself. We agree that no amount of words will convey the same sense of hacking ethics as one acquires being a part of the MIT Hacking community. Nonetheless, we feel the distributed guide, stripped of its context--the MIT Hacking community, is very irresponsible and sadly lacking. We believe the very least that can be done is to attempt to include in this artifact some of the ethics which are part of the oral hacking education at MIT.

The MIT Hacking community does not support the guide's distribution in electronic form for the reasons mentioned above. Further, it is quite clear from the actions taken by Ted T. Tool and others that the MIT Hacking community has no control over the guide's dissemination.
Consequently, we feel it is inappropriate for the guide to be labelled as an "MIT Guide". At this point, the guide is neither being distributed by MIT nor with the blessing of the MIT Hacking community. We would like to ask Ted T. Tool [who left the MIT Hacking community several years ago] and anyone else distributing copies or derivatives of the original work, to disassociate the guide from MIT if they insist on continuing anonymous distribution. Such actions are counter to MIT Hacking ethics, and the MIT community would prefer not to imply that it condones such actions.

Words will not do justice to the MIT Hacking Ethics. Nonetheless, following is a brief list containing a few of the major principles to which the MIT Roof and Tunnel Hacking community adheres during its exploratory expeditions:

Be SUBTLE -- leave no evidence that you were ever there. (This is a general rule which applies to lots of circumstances -- a few are enumerated explicitly in this list, but many principles follow from this simple edict)
Leave things as you found them (or better).
If you find something broken call F-IXIT (a local number for reporting problems with the buildings and grounds -- Hackers often go places the normal institute workers do not frequent regularly and hence may see problems before the workers do).
Leave no damage.

Do not steal anything.

Brute force is the last resort of the incompetent.

Do not hack while under the influence of alcohol/drugs/etc.

Do not drop things (off a building w/out a ground crew).

Do not hack alone (just like swimming).

Exercise COMMON SENSE. (This is another general rule with very wide applicability -- when exploring, you are often in places which were not intended for normal traffic. The people who built the area may not have assumed anyone would be there without special knowledge of the area. Many of the assumptions you are used to making are not valid or applicable while hacking. It is very important that you stay alert and think clearly.)

Please, consider your actions carefully. If you feel you must continue to distribute the guide, we strongly advocate the addition of an integral section on ethics. As long as the MIT community has no control over the contents or distribution of the guide, it is inappropriate to call it the MIT guide. Consequently, we ask that the name of the distributed guide be changed.

== '''Fuentes''' ==

https://everything2.com/title/MIT+Guide+to+Lockpicking

http://web.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/www/stock-answers/lockpicking-guide

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' http://web.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/www/stock-answers/lockpicking-guide

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/19990824161625/http://web.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/www/stock-answers/lockpicking-guide

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:1994]]
[[Categoría:Estados Unidos]]
[[Categoría:MIT Hacking community]]

1999 - Hackerethik - Chaos Computer Club e.V.

2022-05-27T23:22:41Z

Paz: Paz trasladó la página 0000 - Hackerethik - Chaos Computer Club e.V. a 1999 - Hackerethik - Chaos Computer Club e.V. sin dejar una redirección

== '''Texto''' ==

What are the ethical principles of hacking - motivation and limits

*Access to computers - and anything which might teach you something about the way the world really works - should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the

*Hands-On Imperative!

*All information should be free.

*Mistrust authority - promote decentralization.

*Hackers should be judged by their acting, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race, or position.

*You can create art and beauty on a computer.

*Computers can change your life for the better.

*Don't litter other people's data.

*Make public data available, protect private data.

The hacker ethics were first written down by Steven Levy in his book "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution (ISBN 0-440-13405-6, 1984). He mentions the Tech Model Railroad Club at MIT, their members constructed a supersystem of relays and switches - some of them became core members the ai lab. They used the term "hack" for an "elaborate ... prank" with "serious respect implied". The hacker ethics evolved in a time when computers were scarce; and the people sharing a machine had to think about rules of cooperation.

The last two point are additions by the CCC from the 80s. After some more or less crazy individuals from the hacker scene had the idea of offering their "hacker know-how" to the KGB there were intense discussions, three letter agencies have a somewhat different opinion about freedom of information. As well were intrusions into outside systems considered more and more counter productive.

To protect the privacy of the individual and to strengthen the freedom of the information which concern the public the yet last point was added.

Hacker ethics are —like the rest of the world— as such in constant discussion and development. The above rules should be considered as guidelines and basis for discussion.

== '''Contexto''' ==

Aparece en Varios autores. (2016). Manifestos For The Internet Age v0.8. M.Schmalstieg, B. Crevits, V.Kruug (Eds). Greyscale Press.

https://github.com/greyscalepress/manifestos/tree/master/content/manifestos

http://web.archive.org/web/20220406035437/https://github.com/greyscalepress/manifestos/blob/master/content/manifestos/1999-Hackerethik.txt

http://web.archive.org/web/20220405034046/https://greyscalepress.com/books/manifestos-for-the-internet-age/

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' https://www.ccc.de/de/hackerethik

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20011227211029/http://www.ccc.de/hackerethics

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Alemán]]
[[Categoría:1999]]
[[Categoría:Alemania]]
[[Categoría:Chaos Computer Club e.V.]]

1999 - Hackerethik - Chaos Computer Club e.V.

2022-05-27T23:22:18Z

Paz: /* Enlaces */

1994 - Digital Manifesto - The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement

2022-05-27T23:18:58Z

Paz: Paz trasladó la página 0000 - Digital Manifesto - The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement a 1994 - Digital Manifesto - The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement sin dejar una redirección

[[Archivo:Digitalmovement.png|miniaturadeimagen|derecha|https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html copia de 12-05-2018]]

== '''Texto''' ==

'''CONTENTS'''

The Digital Revolution

-- The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL)

Digital Democracy and Citizens' Rights

-- Freedom of speech

-- Privacy, privacy of letters, encryption

-- Protection of intellectual property: the legal status of e-mail

-- Renewing government and politics

-- Electronic access to public information

-- Avoiding the information divide

-- Protection against unwelcome behaviour

An Accessible and Affordable Public Network

-- User friendly access

-- Space for non-commercial applications

-- Giving the non-profit sector a digital profile

-- Telecommuting

'''The Digital Revolution'''

A digital revolution is taking place in the Netherlands. A new, digital world is being created, one which runs parallel to the one that we've always known. This digital world, let's refer to it as the Net, is expanding rapidly. Computers are being used in more and more places. In offices and at home. Billions are invested in corporate networks. These computers and computer networks are being attached to each other more and more. PC and TV are growing gradually into one. De phone lines are no longer just being used to make telephone calls. Not only television programmes are being broadcast via cable. Ever increasing amounts of computer data are being transmitted along it, with which information and entertainment are being offered in all sorts of ways, think of Videotex, Teletext, Internet. On this digital infrastructure different kinds of services are being developed which will define the society of the future: telecommuting, teleshopping, video on demand and many more.
The mass use of information and communication technology will have great effect on the way we work and live. It will change the manner in which we have contact with each other, pay bills and place orders. It will change the way we do our job, gain information, make decisions and fill our spare time. It will change the way we govern and are governed. International borders fade away with the use of international digital communications systems. The foundation on which the idea of national legislation is based was never prepared for an international manifestation such as the Net. Existing regulations and prohibitions were never designed for the new digital world. The new world requires new rules and etiquette. And that requires ideas, creativity and knowledge. Chances and threats in the information society

The chances are there for the grabbing. New forms of communication and contact between individuals and corporations. New forms of work opportunity and new services. Better informed citizens. Less distance between the public and politicians. But the threats are present as well. Haunting images appear of 24 hour police patrols on the Net, watertight government legislation, and of monopolies in the telecommunications industry a la Berlusconi. What about democracy on the Net? Do citizens get a say in the many decisions, small and large, made in the back rooms of government buildings? Do they have a say in the investments of the government and the commercial sector which will pave the way to the information society of tomorrow? Can everybody profit from this information society or just a small elite? What is the situation with traditional citizens' rights such as freedom of speech, protection of privacy, involvement by citizens in policy making?. What is the situation with access to public information? Is there s pace for community services on the Net? In other words, what are a citizens' rights and responsibilities on the Net? And who defends their interests?

'''--- The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL)'''

The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL) sticks up for the interests of digital citizens. If a new digital society is on the horizon, then we want it to be a democratic one. That it may offer chances to every citizen, not merely to government and commerce. Information and communication technology must not just be a toy for a technical or a powerful elite. We would rather not leave the form of the new digital society over to those who possess the means and the power. We want to help think about what is happening and in which direction it should go. We want to help think and help make decisions about which digital techniques are to be placed on offer, and the accessibility and use of these techniques. Whether we're asked to or not.

That is necessary, because the public and politicians are hardly aware of what is happening now under everybody's nose and what is about to happen. DB.NL wishes to stimulate the debate about the chances and threats in the information society. DB.NL wants to follow national and European government subsidies and commercial investments critically to ensure that they used are in the public interest. DB.NL wants to come up with ideas. With advice. With suggestions for legislation. With test cases. What it comes down to is this: we want to use our collective creativity and knowledge to use the chances that information and communication technology offer to society to the full and to avert the threats.

DB.NL wants to book results with every aspect of this manifesto. In order to do that, we will form alliances locally, nationally and internationally with individuals, organisations, corporations and legislators who are concerned about the interests of the digital citizen and democracy. Everyone to whom this appeals is invited to join us!

'''Digital Democracy and Citizens' Rights'''

'''--- Freedom of speech'''

Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental guarantees of democracy. DB.NL wants this right of the citizen to remain intact on the Net. This means that monopolies a la Berlusconi have to be avoided. The Net-company that owns (part of) the digital infrastructure or offers digital data transport may not have a monopoly in the services which are developed on it. Users/producers must be able to decide for themselves which information they offer, not the company that runs the network. It should be discussed whether Net providers should be subject to a mandate similar to that which the telecommunications company was in the Netherlands: everybody within a certain geographical area should be connected for the same fee.

'''--- Privacy, privacy of letters, encryption'''

At different locations information junctions appear with masses of data on people and businesses. By laying links between these data sources enormous possibilities are created to organise society more efficiently, but also a great danger of abuse of technology for detailed control of unexpecting citizens. Net users must be protected against abuse of their personal information for commercial means. It must be possible to send E-mail securely. Citizens must have the right to control information about themsleves which is stored in databases. We must further define in which cases the right to access should be accompanied with a right to correct, ammend and delete data. Traditional telephone and post may be used in companies for trade union activities. This communication is thanks to privacy regulations further protected against intrusion by an employer. This extra protection must also be the case for digital communication, such as e-mail over the company network.
A balance must be found between the repressive application of information and communication technology, for example for law enforcement and detection of fraud, and protection of citizens' rights. The efficency strived for in detective work must never undermine the rights of society as a whole.

News: DB.NL is against the mandatory inclusion of chips that allow the preventative tapping of all digital communication equipment, such as the case may become in the United states and Norway.

Information and communication technology has up until now been considered Big Brother, as privacy's greatest threat. The moment has now come where that very same technology can be used to protect personal privacy, for example with certain forms of encryption. Encryption also allows the use of digital money and the placing of an authentic electronic signature. DB.NL advocates therefore public use of encryption in order to allow personal and commercial communication and transactions to be executed safely.

News: DB.NL is against the bill of spring 1994 in which citizens and corprations are required to apply for a permit in order to use encryption te secure their own communications.

'''--- Protection of intellectual property: the legal status of e-mail'''

In the electronic world no one can tell the difference between a copy and the original. That is favourable for a free and unrestricted flow of information. This must, however, not mean that everybody can copy and use work created by someone else without paying for it. Just as in the analogue world intellectual property must be protected in the digital world. DB.NL wishes to discuss the question of where the limits lie and what the effective control measures are. Maybe here too technology (software) offers solutions to protection of copyright rather than the usual method of legislation.

If digital communication wishes to become a medium in it's own right, then the legal status of electronic messages must be clearly defined. A signature in an e-mail message must be just as legally binding as a genuine signature under a handwritten contract.

'''--- Renewing government and politics'''

Our political system dates from the time of steam engines and is behind on the newest developments. The relationship between citizens and government, between governers and the governed, is definitely not ideal. Information and communication technology kan possibly assist in modernising politics. It can allow citizens and their organisations to exercise more influence upon the way their life is filled in for them. Exercising more influence from the bottom up. Having a say in the decisions concerning their environment. Democracy is active involvement in decision making, following the course of events, thinking along with the decision makers, isn't it? On all levels: in the neighbourhood, regional, national, international. Assisted by tele-referendums and tele-opinion polls politicians can be better informed of the wishes of their supporters. How that will be possible and under which conditions, remains to be seen. DB.NL is helping to search for the possibilities of information and communication technology in r enewing democracy. DB.NL strives for an equal bi-directional interactive philosophy rather than a one-directional consumer culture.
Go back to top of page

'''--- Electronic access to public information'''

De digital presence of databases with "public" information is good for the availability of government information and the clarity of government policy. If citizens wish to increase their involvment in and their influence upon political decisions local, regional and national then the availability of information is a prerequisite, thus also electronic access. De digital version is often the most up to date and the most concise, and is the easiest to come by. At the same time it is easier to discover digital information and to search through it. That is especially important to campaigners who would gladly be equipped with such information as they contest government plans. DB.NL advocates therefore that all information which can be tagged "public" under which catagory many government databases fall, such as tax regulations, acts of parliament, ministerial and parliamentary public information services be placed on the Net and offered to the public free of charge.

Currently many of the databases which have been payed for with public funds, such as legislation, are sold by the government to commercial publishers, who may henceforth call these laws their "property" and charge money for their reference and use. DB.NL is severely critical of this practice.

News: DB.NL will enter a bill in parliament in which the electronic availability of information from government and semi-governmental authorities (local, regional and national) will be made mandatory.

'''--- Avoiding the information divide'''

DB.NL wants to avoid a division between the information haves and have-nots. As long as there is not a computer ot interactive TV in every living room, DB.NL advocates the placing of public terminals in locations such as community centres, libraries, town halls etc. This allows every citizen access to the Net. Libraries have a special task in making information available to a large public. They will also have to fulfil this task in the digital age. News: DB.NL is against the bill in parliament spring 1994 in which libraries are forbidden to lend digital information.
The division is already apparent on the subject of sex. The Net has up until now been largely developed and used by men. DB.NL wishes to stimulate the use of the new possibilities offered by information and communication technology by women.

'''--- Protection against unwelcome behaviour'''

Digital communication has the advantage that aspects such looks and age are not known when people make contact with each other, and therefore don't count in any further communication. That can be very refreshing. There are also new disadvantages, which must be tackled. The Net users must be protected against unwelcome behaviour from salesmen and consumers, such as intrusive advertisements and (sexual) harassment.
Go back to top of page

'''An Accessible and Affordable Public Network'''

DB.NL advocates the development of a digital infrastructure (also known as Digital or Information (Super) Highway) that is accessible and affordable for every citizen, just as the telephone network is now. Just as water, the sewer system and the postal system became accessible to everyone around the turn of the century, now that must happen with electronic information, communication and public services in one public network. There already are diverse (part)networks for digital communication between citizens, corporations, governments and research institutes. The internet , the world-wide network of networks, could, in our view, function as the nucleus of this new Net. It has the open structure which satisfies our requirements: bottom-up design, low threshhold, to be used by everyone, connected computers. In the long run it must not be important if the connections are made via (tv)cable, telephone line or satellite, if that connection is made with your PC, the tv or another device. As long as the apparatus an d transport have enough capacity and are user friendly (amongst other things a graphical user interface) and fully interactive. This last item means: information must not only be transmitted in one direction to the user, such as was normal up until now, but also from a user to others. This infrastructure can be used for bi-directional communication and services between citizens, corporations and government.

Citizens must not only be able to send text via the Net, but also (moving) images and sound. Only then can applications and services be developed that are user friendly and and that contain all the communication and information media. The Net must also be "open", so that more than one company can develop hardware and software. That is favourable for competition, keeps the prices down an stimulates innovation. Every user must be able to plug in from home, irrespective of the technology they are using if they are using a computer or a television set, via the ether or cable.

'''--- User friendly access'''

Information and communication technology must be accessible and understandable for all citizens. The use of information and communication technology must not be reserved for a small, technically educated, well informed and rich elite. DB.NL stimulates developments toward a user friendly (equipped with a graphical user interface) communications system, so that everyone can work without any problems and can bear the fruits of it. DB.NL wishes to bring the aspect of accessibility and improving the quality of the Net to the attention of the producers (Net providers, producers of software and harware, government).

'''--- Space for non-commercial applications'''

On the Net commercial and non-commercial applications will be developed. That is no problem as long as more space (bandwidth) is and remains available for the non-commercial applications. As long as socially valuable services can be available alongside the wave of games, porno and pulp. There is no negotiation on that point as far as DB.NL is concerned. Digital exchange of information and opinions can allow citizens to organise themselves faster and more easily, with less barriers such as distance and time. This can be the case for a school club or a group of activists against sonic pollution in their neighbourhood or a patient administration. In this way information and communication technology can assist in the creation of "virtual societies", where citizens with the same interests or points of view kan meet each other and where new forms of "neighbourhood" are developed.

'''--- Giving the non-profit sector a digital profile'''

The traditional sharp division between passive consumers and active producers is archaic. Everyone now can become an information or service provider on the Net. This gives enormous chances to citizens and and their organisations to intensify their contacts with their members and employees and inform themselves about their wishes, ideas and needs. DB.NL advocates low threshhold, affordable, user friendly possibilities to the connection of citizens and their organisations to the Net and helping giving them a profile. Extra effort must be put into connecting the non-profit sector education, social care, health care, social organisations, social work, social movements and local government to the Net. DB.NL advocates educational projects which help citizens and their organisations learn to work with information and communication technology. Projects such as 'De Digitale Stad' (The Digital City) in Amsterdam, that help close the divide between the public, technology and politics, deserve support and followers.

We do not only consider this a task for the government. Also commerce must have an eye open for such "public affairs", even if they are commercially less interesting. In that way commercial organisations can show their involvment with the society for which and wherein they function.

'''--- Telecommuting'''

More and more labour in the Netherlands is becoming knowledge-intensive. More and more work is done on the PC. That makes it possible for employees and self-employed workers to do a part of their work (usually the thinking and writing work) at home in front of the computer and fax. The traditional requirement of visible presence behind a desk is becoming less and less important for a number of professions and functions. Telecommuting means in the long term a reduction in the levels of commuter traffic, in the total time spent travelling to and from work and in the discharge of exhaust gases from motor vehicles. That saves the environment. Statistics show that telecommuting increases a worker's productivity and job satisfaction for employee and employer alike. It makes it easier to combine work and doing the household chores and/or looking after the children. In addition to that it gives enormous chances to handicapped people to do payed work.

It can be expected that the Net will be used increasingly for telecommuting. In all probability this will bring about great changes in the organisation of labour and in the conditions of contract. It is not yet possible to say whether these changes will be positive or negative. On the one hand, there are certainly chances to come to more flexible forms of labour and to do work which is more satisfying. On the other hand that flexibility could swing around to the unjust. DB.NL wants to prevent this. Telecommuting must become a win-win situation for both parties. DB.NL advocates a policy in which employees whose function allows this, have a right to telecommuting, as long as this is voluntary. There may be no question of compulsion.

------------
One last remark. Perhaps it is not always necessary to call on the tried and tested method of "legislation". Maybe the Net-societies can solve a number of digital problems themselves. This would be entirely in the spirit of the (interactive) citizen. And of this manifesto.

== '''Contexto''' ==

01-10-1994 het Digitaal Manifest, de beginselverklaring van DB.NL bij de officiële oprichting in oktober 1994
10-01-1994 el Manifiesto Digital, la declaración de principios de DB.NL en el establecimiento oficial en octubre de 1994
https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/Verleden.html

DB.NL se disolvió el 19 de noviembre de 1999.
https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/
https://web.archive.org/web/20030610170027/https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/

Digitale Burgerbeweging NederLand or short DB.NL strives for:

1. digital democracy (civil liberties such as freedom of expression, protection of privacy, citizen's participation)
2. publicly useful applications of information and communications technology
3. an accessible and user-friendly public digital network

https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/index.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20030611000440/http://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/index.html

An excerpt of the Bylaws of the Digital Citizens Foundation Netherlands (DB-NL)
https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/Bylaws.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20030613005232/http://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/Bylaws.html

DB.NL quiere fortalecer la función de información y comunicación en la red para la gente común ('ciudadanos digitales') defendiendo el derecho a la libertad de expresión y la autodeterminación informativa (骿 decide por ti mismo qué información recibiré o no recibiré.. .) para centralizar. La teledemocracia ("ciudadanos en control"...) es también una pauta para DB.NL.

Conviértase en un participante de la fundación DB.NL. Cuesta veinticinco dólares, pero por eso eres inmediatamente parte de una organización pionera teledemocrática. También puedes apuntarte a la iniciativa teledemocrática Pnyx-ParleNet.

https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/
https://web.archive.org/web/20030610170027/https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/

Traducido con Google translator

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20180512215617/https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Holanda]]
[[Categoría:1994]]
[[Categoría:Derechos digitales]]
[[Categoría:The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement]]

1994 - Digital Manifesto - The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement

2022-05-27T23:18:41Z

Paz: /* Enlaces */

1994 - Digital Manifesto - The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement

2022-05-27T23:17:59Z

Paz: /* Contexto */

[[Archivo:Digitalmovement.png|miniaturadeimagen|derecha|https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html copia de 12-05-2018]]

== '''Texto''' ==

'''CONTENTS'''

The Digital Revolution

-- The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL)

Digital Democracy and Citizens' Rights

-- Freedom of speech

-- Privacy, privacy of letters, encryption

-- Protection of intellectual property: the legal status of e-mail

-- Renewing government and politics

-- Electronic access to public information

-- Avoiding the information divide

-- Protection against unwelcome behaviour

An Accessible and Affordable Public Network

-- User friendly access

-- Space for non-commercial applications

-- Giving the non-profit sector a digital profile

-- Telecommuting

'''The Digital Revolution'''

A digital revolution is taking place in the Netherlands. A new, digital world is being created, one which runs parallel to the one that we've always known. This digital world, let's refer to it as the Net, is expanding rapidly. Computers are being used in more and more places. In offices and at home. Billions are invested in corporate networks. These computers and computer networks are being attached to each other more and more. PC and TV are growing gradually into one. De phone lines are no longer just being used to make telephone calls. Not only television programmes are being broadcast via cable. Ever increasing amounts of computer data are being transmitted along it, with which information and entertainment are being offered in all sorts of ways, think of Videotex, Teletext, Internet. On this digital infrastructure different kinds of services are being developed which will define the society of the future: telecommuting, teleshopping, video on demand and many more.
The mass use of information and communication technology will have great effect on the way we work and live. It will change the manner in which we have contact with each other, pay bills and place orders. It will change the way we do our job, gain information, make decisions and fill our spare time. It will change the way we govern and are governed. International borders fade away with the use of international digital communications systems. The foundation on which the idea of national legislation is based was never prepared for an international manifestation such as the Net. Existing regulations and prohibitions were never designed for the new digital world. The new world requires new rules and etiquette. And that requires ideas, creativity and knowledge. Chances and threats in the information society

The chances are there for the grabbing. New forms of communication and contact between individuals and corporations. New forms of work opportunity and new services. Better informed citizens. Less distance between the public and politicians. But the threats are present as well. Haunting images appear of 24 hour police patrols on the Net, watertight government legislation, and of monopolies in the telecommunications industry a la Berlusconi. What about democracy on the Net? Do citizens get a say in the many decisions, small and large, made in the back rooms of government buildings? Do they have a say in the investments of the government and the commercial sector which will pave the way to the information society of tomorrow? Can everybody profit from this information society or just a small elite? What is the situation with traditional citizens' rights such as freedom of speech, protection of privacy, involvement by citizens in policy making?. What is the situation with access to public information? Is there s pace for community services on the Net? In other words, what are a citizens' rights and responsibilities on the Net? And who defends their interests?

'''--- The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL)'''

The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL) sticks up for the interests of digital citizens. If a new digital society is on the horizon, then we want it to be a democratic one. That it may offer chances to every citizen, not merely to government and commerce. Information and communication technology must not just be a toy for a technical or a powerful elite. We would rather not leave the form of the new digital society over to those who possess the means and the power. We want to help think about what is happening and in which direction it should go. We want to help think and help make decisions about which digital techniques are to be placed on offer, and the accessibility and use of these techniques. Whether we're asked to or not.

That is necessary, because the public and politicians are hardly aware of what is happening now under everybody's nose and what is about to happen. DB.NL wishes to stimulate the debate about the chances and threats in the information society. DB.NL wants to follow national and European government subsidies and commercial investments critically to ensure that they used are in the public interest. DB.NL wants to come up with ideas. With advice. With suggestions for legislation. With test cases. What it comes down to is this: we want to use our collective creativity and knowledge to use the chances that information and communication technology offer to society to the full and to avert the threats.

DB.NL wants to book results with every aspect of this manifesto. In order to do that, we will form alliances locally, nationally and internationally with individuals, organisations, corporations and legislators who are concerned about the interests of the digital citizen and democracy. Everyone to whom this appeals is invited to join us!

'''Digital Democracy and Citizens' Rights'''

'''--- Freedom of speech'''

Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental guarantees of democracy. DB.NL wants this right of the citizen to remain intact on the Net. This means that monopolies a la Berlusconi have to be avoided. The Net-company that owns (part of) the digital infrastructure or offers digital data transport may not have a monopoly in the services which are developed on it. Users/producers must be able to decide for themselves which information they offer, not the company that runs the network. It should be discussed whether Net providers should be subject to a mandate similar to that which the telecommunications company was in the Netherlands: everybody within a certain geographical area should be connected for the same fee.

'''--- Privacy, privacy of letters, encryption'''

At different locations information junctions appear with masses of data on people and businesses. By laying links between these data sources enormous possibilities are created to organise society more efficiently, but also a great danger of abuse of technology for detailed control of unexpecting citizens. Net users must be protected against abuse of their personal information for commercial means. It must be possible to send E-mail securely. Citizens must have the right to control information about themsleves which is stored in databases. We must further define in which cases the right to access should be accompanied with a right to correct, ammend and delete data. Traditional telephone and post may be used in companies for trade union activities. This communication is thanks to privacy regulations further protected against intrusion by an employer. This extra protection must also be the case for digital communication, such as e-mail over the company network.
A balance must be found between the repressive application of information and communication technology, for example for law enforcement and detection of fraud, and protection of citizens' rights. The efficency strived for in detective work must never undermine the rights of society as a whole.

News: DB.NL is against the mandatory inclusion of chips that allow the preventative tapping of all digital communication equipment, such as the case may become in the United states and Norway.

Information and communication technology has up until now been considered Big Brother, as privacy's greatest threat. The moment has now come where that very same technology can be used to protect personal privacy, for example with certain forms of encryption. Encryption also allows the use of digital money and the placing of an authentic electronic signature. DB.NL advocates therefore public use of encryption in order to allow personal and commercial communication and transactions to be executed safely.

News: DB.NL is against the bill of spring 1994 in which citizens and corprations are required to apply for a permit in order to use encryption te secure their own communications.

'''--- Protection of intellectual property: the legal status of e-mail'''

In the electronic world no one can tell the difference between a copy and the original. That is favourable for a free and unrestricted flow of information. This must, however, not mean that everybody can copy and use work created by someone else without paying for it. Just as in the analogue world intellectual property must be protected in the digital world. DB.NL wishes to discuss the question of where the limits lie and what the effective control measures are. Maybe here too technology (software) offers solutions to protection of copyright rather than the usual method of legislation.

If digital communication wishes to become a medium in it's own right, then the legal status of electronic messages must be clearly defined. A signature in an e-mail message must be just as legally binding as a genuine signature under a handwritten contract.

'''--- Renewing government and politics'''

Our political system dates from the time of steam engines and is behind on the newest developments. The relationship between citizens and government, between governers and the governed, is definitely not ideal. Information and communication technology kan possibly assist in modernising politics. It can allow citizens and their organisations to exercise more influence upon the way their life is filled in for them. Exercising more influence from the bottom up. Having a say in the decisions concerning their environment. Democracy is active involvement in decision making, following the course of events, thinking along with the decision makers, isn't it? On all levels: in the neighbourhood, regional, national, international. Assisted by tele-referendums and tele-opinion polls politicians can be better informed of the wishes of their supporters. How that will be possible and under which conditions, remains to be seen. DB.NL is helping to search for the possibilities of information and communication technology in r enewing democracy. DB.NL strives for an equal bi-directional interactive philosophy rather than a one-directional consumer culture.
Go back to top of page

'''--- Electronic access to public information'''

De digital presence of databases with "public" information is good for the availability of government information and the clarity of government policy. If citizens wish to increase their involvment in and their influence upon political decisions local, regional and national then the availability of information is a prerequisite, thus also electronic access. De digital version is often the most up to date and the most concise, and is the easiest to come by. At the same time it is easier to discover digital information and to search through it. That is especially important to campaigners who would gladly be equipped with such information as they contest government plans. DB.NL advocates therefore that all information which can be tagged "public" under which catagory many government databases fall, such as tax regulations, acts of parliament, ministerial and parliamentary public information services be placed on the Net and offered to the public free of charge.

Currently many of the databases which have been payed for with public funds, such as legislation, are sold by the government to commercial publishers, who may henceforth call these laws their "property" and charge money for their reference and use. DB.NL is severely critical of this practice.

News: DB.NL will enter a bill in parliament in which the electronic availability of information from government and semi-governmental authorities (local, regional and national) will be made mandatory.

'''--- Avoiding the information divide'''

DB.NL wants to avoid a division between the information haves and have-nots. As long as there is not a computer ot interactive TV in every living room, DB.NL advocates the placing of public terminals in locations such as community centres, libraries, town halls etc. This allows every citizen access to the Net. Libraries have a special task in making information available to a large public. They will also have to fulfil this task in the digital age. News: DB.NL is against the bill in parliament spring 1994 in which libraries are forbidden to lend digital information.
The division is already apparent on the subject of sex. The Net has up until now been largely developed and used by men. DB.NL wishes to stimulate the use of the new possibilities offered by information and communication technology by women.

'''--- Protection against unwelcome behaviour'''

Digital communication has the advantage that aspects such looks and age are not known when people make contact with each other, and therefore don't count in any further communication. That can be very refreshing. There are also new disadvantages, which must be tackled. The Net users must be protected against unwelcome behaviour from salesmen and consumers, such as intrusive advertisements and (sexual) harassment.
Go back to top of page

'''An Accessible and Affordable Public Network'''

DB.NL advocates the development of a digital infrastructure (also known as Digital or Information (Super) Highway) that is accessible and affordable for every citizen, just as the telephone network is now. Just as water, the sewer system and the postal system became accessible to everyone around the turn of the century, now that must happen with electronic information, communication and public services in one public network. There already are diverse (part)networks for digital communication between citizens, corporations, governments and research institutes. The internet , the world-wide network of networks, could, in our view, function as the nucleus of this new Net. It has the open structure which satisfies our requirements: bottom-up design, low threshhold, to be used by everyone, connected computers. In the long run it must not be important if the connections are made via (tv)cable, telephone line or satellite, if that connection is made with your PC, the tv or another device. As long as the apparatus an d transport have enough capacity and are user friendly (amongst other things a graphical user interface) and fully interactive. This last item means: information must not only be transmitted in one direction to the user, such as was normal up until now, but also from a user to others. This infrastructure can be used for bi-directional communication and services between citizens, corporations and government.

Citizens must not only be able to send text via the Net, but also (moving) images and sound. Only then can applications and services be developed that are user friendly and and that contain all the communication and information media. The Net must also be "open", so that more than one company can develop hardware and software. That is favourable for competition, keeps the prices down an stimulates innovation. Every user must be able to plug in from home, irrespective of the technology they are using if they are using a computer or a television set, via the ether or cable.

'''--- User friendly access'''

Information and communication technology must be accessible and understandable for all citizens. The use of information and communication technology must not be reserved for a small, technically educated, well informed and rich elite. DB.NL stimulates developments toward a user friendly (equipped with a graphical user interface) communications system, so that everyone can work without any problems and can bear the fruits of it. DB.NL wishes to bring the aspect of accessibility and improving the quality of the Net to the attention of the producers (Net providers, producers of software and harware, government).

'''--- Space for non-commercial applications'''

On the Net commercial and non-commercial applications will be developed. That is no problem as long as more space (bandwidth) is and remains available for the non-commercial applications. As long as socially valuable services can be available alongside the wave of games, porno and pulp. There is no negotiation on that point as far as DB.NL is concerned. Digital exchange of information and opinions can allow citizens to organise themselves faster and more easily, with less barriers such as distance and time. This can be the case for a school club or a group of activists against sonic pollution in their neighbourhood or a patient administration. In this way information and communication technology can assist in the creation of "virtual societies", where citizens with the same interests or points of view kan meet each other and where new forms of "neighbourhood" are developed.

'''--- Giving the non-profit sector a digital profile'''

The traditional sharp division between passive consumers and active producers is archaic. Everyone now can become an information or service provider on the Net. This gives enormous chances to citizens and and their organisations to intensify their contacts with their members and employees and inform themselves about their wishes, ideas and needs. DB.NL advocates low threshhold, affordable, user friendly possibilities to the connection of citizens and their organisations to the Net and helping giving them a profile. Extra effort must be put into connecting the non-profit sector education, social care, health care, social organisations, social work, social movements and local government to the Net. DB.NL advocates educational projects which help citizens and their organisations learn to work with information and communication technology. Projects such as 'De Digitale Stad' (The Digital City) in Amsterdam, that help close the divide between the public, technology and politics, deserve support and followers.

We do not only consider this a task for the government. Also commerce must have an eye open for such "public affairs", even if they are commercially less interesting. In that way commercial organisations can show their involvment with the society for which and wherein they function.

'''--- Telecommuting'''

More and more labour in the Netherlands is becoming knowledge-intensive. More and more work is done on the PC. That makes it possible for employees and self-employed workers to do a part of their work (usually the thinking and writing work) at home in front of the computer and fax. The traditional requirement of visible presence behind a desk is becoming less and less important for a number of professions and functions. Telecommuting means in the long term a reduction in the levels of commuter traffic, in the total time spent travelling to and from work and in the discharge of exhaust gases from motor vehicles. That saves the environment. Statistics show that telecommuting increases a worker's productivity and job satisfaction for employee and employer alike. It makes it easier to combine work and doing the household chores and/or looking after the children. In addition to that it gives enormous chances to handicapped people to do payed work.

It can be expected that the Net will be used increasingly for telecommuting. In all probability this will bring about great changes in the organisation of labour and in the conditions of contract. It is not yet possible to say whether these changes will be positive or negative. On the one hand, there are certainly chances to come to more flexible forms of labour and to do work which is more satisfying. On the other hand that flexibility could swing around to the unjust. DB.NL wants to prevent this. Telecommuting must become a win-win situation for both parties. DB.NL advocates a policy in which employees whose function allows this, have a right to telecommuting, as long as this is voluntary. There may be no question of compulsion.

------------
One last remark. Perhaps it is not always necessary to call on the tried and tested method of "legislation". Maybe the Net-societies can solve a number of digital problems themselves. This would be entirely in the spirit of the (interactive) citizen. And of this manifesto.

== '''Contexto''' ==

01-10-1994 het Digitaal Manifest, de beginselverklaring van DB.NL bij de officiële oprichting in oktober 1994
10-01-1994 el Manifiesto Digital, la declaración de principios de DB.NL en el establecimiento oficial en octubre de 1994
https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/Verleden.html

DB.NL se disolvió el 19 de noviembre de 1999.
https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/
https://web.archive.org/web/20030610170027/https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/

Digitale Burgerbeweging NederLand or short DB.NL strives for:

1. digital democracy (civil liberties such as freedom of expression, protection of privacy, citizen's participation)
2. publicly useful applications of information and communications technology
3. an accessible and user-friendly public digital network

https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/index.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20030611000440/http://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/index.html

An excerpt of the Bylaws of the Digital Citizens Foundation Netherlands (DB-NL)
https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/Bylaws.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20030613005232/http://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/Bylaws.html

DB.NL quiere fortalecer la función de información y comunicación en la red para la gente común ('ciudadanos digitales') defendiendo el derecho a la libertad de expresión y la autodeterminación informativa (骿 decide por ti mismo qué información recibiré o no recibiré.. .) para centralizar. La teledemocracia ("ciudadanos en control"...) es también una pauta para DB.NL.

Conviértase en un participante de la fundación DB.NL. Cuesta veinticinco dólares, pero por eso eres inmediatamente parte de una organización pionera teledemocrática. También puedes apuntarte a la iniciativa teledemocrática Pnyx-ParleNet.

https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/
https://web.archive.org/web/20030610170027/https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/

Traducido con Google translator

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20180512215617/https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Derechos digitales]]
[[Categoría:The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement]]

1994 - Digital Manifesto - The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement

2022-05-27T23:15:35Z

Paz: /* Contexto */

[[Archivo:Digitalmovement.png|miniaturadeimagen|derecha|https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html copia de 12-05-2018]]

== '''Texto''' ==

'''CONTENTS'''

The Digital Revolution

-- The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL)

Digital Democracy and Citizens' Rights

-- Freedom of speech

-- Privacy, privacy of letters, encryption

-- Protection of intellectual property: the legal status of e-mail

-- Renewing government and politics

-- Electronic access to public information

-- Avoiding the information divide

-- Protection against unwelcome behaviour

An Accessible and Affordable Public Network

-- User friendly access

-- Space for non-commercial applications

-- Giving the non-profit sector a digital profile

-- Telecommuting

'''The Digital Revolution'''

A digital revolution is taking place in the Netherlands. A new, digital world is being created, one which runs parallel to the one that we've always known. This digital world, let's refer to it as the Net, is expanding rapidly. Computers are being used in more and more places. In offices and at home. Billions are invested in corporate networks. These computers and computer networks are being attached to each other more and more. PC and TV are growing gradually into one. De phone lines are no longer just being used to make telephone calls. Not only television programmes are being broadcast via cable. Ever increasing amounts of computer data are being transmitted along it, with which information and entertainment are being offered in all sorts of ways, think of Videotex, Teletext, Internet. On this digital infrastructure different kinds of services are being developed which will define the society of the future: telecommuting, teleshopping, video on demand and many more.
The mass use of information and communication technology will have great effect on the way we work and live. It will change the manner in which we have contact with each other, pay bills and place orders. It will change the way we do our job, gain information, make decisions and fill our spare time. It will change the way we govern and are governed. International borders fade away with the use of international digital communications systems. The foundation on which the idea of national legislation is based was never prepared for an international manifestation such as the Net. Existing regulations and prohibitions were never designed for the new digital world. The new world requires new rules and etiquette. And that requires ideas, creativity and knowledge. Chances and threats in the information society

The chances are there for the grabbing. New forms of communication and contact between individuals and corporations. New forms of work opportunity and new services. Better informed citizens. Less distance between the public and politicians. But the threats are present as well. Haunting images appear of 24 hour police patrols on the Net, watertight government legislation, and of monopolies in the telecommunications industry a la Berlusconi. What about democracy on the Net? Do citizens get a say in the many decisions, small and large, made in the back rooms of government buildings? Do they have a say in the investments of the government and the commercial sector which will pave the way to the information society of tomorrow? Can everybody profit from this information society or just a small elite? What is the situation with traditional citizens' rights such as freedom of speech, protection of privacy, involvement by citizens in policy making?. What is the situation with access to public information? Is there s pace for community services on the Net? In other words, what are a citizens' rights and responsibilities on the Net? And who defends their interests?

'''--- The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL)'''

The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL) sticks up for the interests of digital citizens. If a new digital society is on the horizon, then we want it to be a democratic one. That it may offer chances to every citizen, not merely to government and commerce. Information and communication technology must not just be a toy for a technical or a powerful elite. We would rather not leave the form of the new digital society over to those who possess the means and the power. We want to help think about what is happening and in which direction it should go. We want to help think and help make decisions about which digital techniques are to be placed on offer, and the accessibility and use of these techniques. Whether we're asked to or not.

That is necessary, because the public and politicians are hardly aware of what is happening now under everybody's nose and what is about to happen. DB.NL wishes to stimulate the debate about the chances and threats in the information society. DB.NL wants to follow national and European government subsidies and commercial investments critically to ensure that they used are in the public interest. DB.NL wants to come up with ideas. With advice. With suggestions for legislation. With test cases. What it comes down to is this: we want to use our collective creativity and knowledge to use the chances that information and communication technology offer to society to the full and to avert the threats.

DB.NL wants to book results with every aspect of this manifesto. In order to do that, we will form alliances locally, nationally and internationally with individuals, organisations, corporations and legislators who are concerned about the interests of the digital citizen and democracy. Everyone to whom this appeals is invited to join us!

'''Digital Democracy and Citizens' Rights'''

'''--- Freedom of speech'''

Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental guarantees of democracy. DB.NL wants this right of the citizen to remain intact on the Net. This means that monopolies a la Berlusconi have to be avoided. The Net-company that owns (part of) the digital infrastructure or offers digital data transport may not have a monopoly in the services which are developed on it. Users/producers must be able to decide for themselves which information they offer, not the company that runs the network. It should be discussed whether Net providers should be subject to a mandate similar to that which the telecommunications company was in the Netherlands: everybody within a certain geographical area should be connected for the same fee.

'''--- Privacy, privacy of letters, encryption'''

At different locations information junctions appear with masses of data on people and businesses. By laying links between these data sources enormous possibilities are created to organise society more efficiently, but also a great danger of abuse of technology for detailed control of unexpecting citizens. Net users must be protected against abuse of their personal information for commercial means. It must be possible to send E-mail securely. Citizens must have the right to control information about themsleves which is stored in databases. We must further define in which cases the right to access should be accompanied with a right to correct, ammend and delete data. Traditional telephone and post may be used in companies for trade union activities. This communication is thanks to privacy regulations further protected against intrusion by an employer. This extra protection must also be the case for digital communication, such as e-mail over the company network.
A balance must be found between the repressive application of information and communication technology, for example for law enforcement and detection of fraud, and protection of citizens' rights. The efficency strived for in detective work must never undermine the rights of society as a whole.

News: DB.NL is against the mandatory inclusion of chips that allow the preventative tapping of all digital communication equipment, such as the case may become in the United states and Norway.

Information and communication technology has up until now been considered Big Brother, as privacy's greatest threat. The moment has now come where that very same technology can be used to protect personal privacy, for example with certain forms of encryption. Encryption also allows the use of digital money and the placing of an authentic electronic signature. DB.NL advocates therefore public use of encryption in order to allow personal and commercial communication and transactions to be executed safely.

News: DB.NL is against the bill of spring 1994 in which citizens and corprations are required to apply for a permit in order to use encryption te secure their own communications.

'''--- Protection of intellectual property: the legal status of e-mail'''

In the electronic world no one can tell the difference between a copy and the original. That is favourable for a free and unrestricted flow of information. This must, however, not mean that everybody can copy and use work created by someone else without paying for it. Just as in the analogue world intellectual property must be protected in the digital world. DB.NL wishes to discuss the question of where the limits lie and what the effective control measures are. Maybe here too technology (software) offers solutions to protection of copyright rather than the usual method of legislation.

If digital communication wishes to become a medium in it's own right, then the legal status of electronic messages must be clearly defined. A signature in an e-mail message must be just as legally binding as a genuine signature under a handwritten contract.

'''--- Renewing government and politics'''

Our political system dates from the time of steam engines and is behind on the newest developments. The relationship between citizens and government, between governers and the governed, is definitely not ideal. Information and communication technology kan possibly assist in modernising politics. It can allow citizens and their organisations to exercise more influence upon the way their life is filled in for them. Exercising more influence from the bottom up. Having a say in the decisions concerning their environment. Democracy is active involvement in decision making, following the course of events, thinking along with the decision makers, isn't it? On all levels: in the neighbourhood, regional, national, international. Assisted by tele-referendums and tele-opinion polls politicians can be better informed of the wishes of their supporters. How that will be possible and under which conditions, remains to be seen. DB.NL is helping to search for the possibilities of information and communication technology in r enewing democracy. DB.NL strives for an equal bi-directional interactive philosophy rather than a one-directional consumer culture.
Go back to top of page

'''--- Electronic access to public information'''

De digital presence of databases with "public" information is good for the availability of government information and the clarity of government policy. If citizens wish to increase their involvment in and their influence upon political decisions local, regional and national then the availability of information is a prerequisite, thus also electronic access. De digital version is often the most up to date and the most concise, and is the easiest to come by. At the same time it is easier to discover digital information and to search through it. That is especially important to campaigners who would gladly be equipped with such information as they contest government plans. DB.NL advocates therefore that all information which can be tagged "public" under which catagory many government databases fall, such as tax regulations, acts of parliament, ministerial and parliamentary public information services be placed on the Net and offered to the public free of charge.

Currently many of the databases which have been payed for with public funds, such as legislation, are sold by the government to commercial publishers, who may henceforth call these laws their "property" and charge money for their reference and use. DB.NL is severely critical of this practice.

News: DB.NL will enter a bill in parliament in which the electronic availability of information from government and semi-governmental authorities (local, regional and national) will be made mandatory.

'''--- Avoiding the information divide'''

DB.NL wants to avoid a division between the information haves and have-nots. As long as there is not a computer ot interactive TV in every living room, DB.NL advocates the placing of public terminals in locations such as community centres, libraries, town halls etc. This allows every citizen access to the Net. Libraries have a special task in making information available to a large public. They will also have to fulfil this task in the digital age. News: DB.NL is against the bill in parliament spring 1994 in which libraries are forbidden to lend digital information.
The division is already apparent on the subject of sex. The Net has up until now been largely developed and used by men. DB.NL wishes to stimulate the use of the new possibilities offered by information and communication technology by women.

'''--- Protection against unwelcome behaviour'''

Digital communication has the advantage that aspects such looks and age are not known when people make contact with each other, and therefore don't count in any further communication. That can be very refreshing. There are also new disadvantages, which must be tackled. The Net users must be protected against unwelcome behaviour from salesmen and consumers, such as intrusive advertisements and (sexual) harassment.
Go back to top of page

'''An Accessible and Affordable Public Network'''

DB.NL advocates the development of a digital infrastructure (also known as Digital or Information (Super) Highway) that is accessible and affordable for every citizen, just as the telephone network is now. Just as water, the sewer system and the postal system became accessible to everyone around the turn of the century, now that must happen with electronic information, communication and public services in one public network. There already are diverse (part)networks for digital communication between citizens, corporations, governments and research institutes. The internet , the world-wide network of networks, could, in our view, function as the nucleus of this new Net. It has the open structure which satisfies our requirements: bottom-up design, low threshhold, to be used by everyone, connected computers. In the long run it must not be important if the connections are made via (tv)cable, telephone line or satellite, if that connection is made with your PC, the tv or another device. As long as the apparatus an d transport have enough capacity and are user friendly (amongst other things a graphical user interface) and fully interactive. This last item means: information must not only be transmitted in one direction to the user, such as was normal up until now, but also from a user to others. This infrastructure can be used for bi-directional communication and services between citizens, corporations and government.

Citizens must not only be able to send text via the Net, but also (moving) images and sound. Only then can applications and services be developed that are user friendly and and that contain all the communication and information media. The Net must also be "open", so that more than one company can develop hardware and software. That is favourable for competition, keeps the prices down an stimulates innovation. Every user must be able to plug in from home, irrespective of the technology they are using if they are using a computer or a television set, via the ether or cable.

'''--- User friendly access'''

Information and communication technology must be accessible and understandable for all citizens. The use of information and communication technology must not be reserved for a small, technically educated, well informed and rich elite. DB.NL stimulates developments toward a user friendly (equipped with a graphical user interface) communications system, so that everyone can work without any problems and can bear the fruits of it. DB.NL wishes to bring the aspect of accessibility and improving the quality of the Net to the attention of the producers (Net providers, producers of software and harware, government).

'''--- Space for non-commercial applications'''

On the Net commercial and non-commercial applications will be developed. That is no problem as long as more space (bandwidth) is and remains available for the non-commercial applications. As long as socially valuable services can be available alongside the wave of games, porno and pulp. There is no negotiation on that point as far as DB.NL is concerned. Digital exchange of information and opinions can allow citizens to organise themselves faster and more easily, with less barriers such as distance and time. This can be the case for a school club or a group of activists against sonic pollution in their neighbourhood or a patient administration. In this way information and communication technology can assist in the creation of "virtual societies", where citizens with the same interests or points of view kan meet each other and where new forms of "neighbourhood" are developed.

'''--- Giving the non-profit sector a digital profile'''

The traditional sharp division between passive consumers and active producers is archaic. Everyone now can become an information or service provider on the Net. This gives enormous chances to citizens and and their organisations to intensify their contacts with their members and employees and inform themselves about their wishes, ideas and needs. DB.NL advocates low threshhold, affordable, user friendly possibilities to the connection of citizens and their organisations to the Net and helping giving them a profile. Extra effort must be put into connecting the non-profit sector education, social care, health care, social organisations, social work, social movements and local government to the Net. DB.NL advocates educational projects which help citizens and their organisations learn to work with information and communication technology. Projects such as 'De Digitale Stad' (The Digital City) in Amsterdam, that help close the divide between the public, technology and politics, deserve support and followers.

We do not only consider this a task for the government. Also commerce must have an eye open for such "public affairs", even if they are commercially less interesting. In that way commercial organisations can show their involvment with the society for which and wherein they function.

'''--- Telecommuting'''

More and more labour in the Netherlands is becoming knowledge-intensive. More and more work is done on the PC. That makes it possible for employees and self-employed workers to do a part of their work (usually the thinking and writing work) at home in front of the computer and fax. The traditional requirement of visible presence behind a desk is becoming less and less important for a number of professions and functions. Telecommuting means in the long term a reduction in the levels of commuter traffic, in the total time spent travelling to and from work and in the discharge of exhaust gases from motor vehicles. That saves the environment. Statistics show that telecommuting increases a worker's productivity and job satisfaction for employee and employer alike. It makes it easier to combine work and doing the household chores and/or looking after the children. In addition to that it gives enormous chances to handicapped people to do payed work.

It can be expected that the Net will be used increasingly for telecommuting. In all probability this will bring about great changes in the organisation of labour and in the conditions of contract. It is not yet possible to say whether these changes will be positive or negative. On the one hand, there are certainly chances to come to more flexible forms of labour and to do work which is more satisfying. On the other hand that flexibility could swing around to the unjust. DB.NL wants to prevent this. Telecommuting must become a win-win situation for both parties. DB.NL advocates a policy in which employees whose function allows this, have a right to telecommuting, as long as this is voluntary. There may be no question of compulsion.

------------
One last remark. Perhaps it is not always necessary to call on the tried and tested method of "legislation". Maybe the Net-societies can solve a number of digital problems themselves. This would be entirely in the spirit of the (interactive) citizen. And of this manifesto.

== '''Contexto''' ==

01-10-1994 het Digitaal Manifest, de beginselverklaring van DB.NL bij de officiële oprichting in oktober 1994
10-01-1994 el Manifiesto Digital, la declaración de principios de DB.NL en el establecimiento oficial en octubre de 1994
https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/Verleden.html

DB.NL se disolvió el 19 de noviembre de 1999.
https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/

Digitale Burgerbeweging NederLand or short DB.NL strives for:

1. digital democracy (civil liberties such as freedom of expression, protection of privacy, citizen's participation)
2. publicly useful applications of information and communications technology
3. an accessible and user-friendly public digital network

https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/index.html

An excerpt of the Bylaws of the Digital Citizens Foundation Netherlands (DB-NL)
https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/Bylaws.html

DB.NL quiere fortalecer la función de información y comunicación en la red para la gente común ('ciudadanos digitales') defendiendo el derecho a la libertad de expresión y la autodeterminación informativa (骿 decide por ti mismo qué información recibiré o no recibiré.. .) para centralizar. La teledemocracia ("ciudadanos en control"...) es también una pauta para DB.NL.

Conviértase en un participante de la fundación DB.NL. Cuesta veinticinco dólares, pero por eso eres inmediatamente parte de una organización pionera teledemocrática. También puedes apuntarte a la iniciativa teledemocrática Pnyx-ParleNet.

https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/

Traducido con Google translator

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20180512215617/https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Derechos digitales]]
[[Categoría:The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement]]

1994 - Digital Manifesto - The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement

2022-05-27T22:19:35Z

Paz:

[[Archivo:Digitalmovement.png|miniaturadeimagen|derecha|https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html copia de 12-05-2018]]

== '''Texto''' ==

'''CONTENTS'''

The Digital Revolution

-- The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL)

Digital Democracy and Citizens' Rights

-- Freedom of speech

-- Privacy, privacy of letters, encryption

-- Protection of intellectual property: the legal status of e-mail

-- Renewing government and politics

-- Electronic access to public information

-- Avoiding the information divide

-- Protection against unwelcome behaviour

An Accessible and Affordable Public Network

-- User friendly access

-- Space for non-commercial applications

-- Giving the non-profit sector a digital profile

-- Telecommuting

'''The Digital Revolution'''

A digital revolution is taking place in the Netherlands. A new, digital world is being created, one which runs parallel to the one that we've always known. This digital world, let's refer to it as the Net, is expanding rapidly. Computers are being used in more and more places. In offices and at home. Billions are invested in corporate networks. These computers and computer networks are being attached to each other more and more. PC and TV are growing gradually into one. De phone lines are no longer just being used to make telephone calls. Not only television programmes are being broadcast via cable. Ever increasing amounts of computer data are being transmitted along it, with which information and entertainment are being offered in all sorts of ways, think of Videotex, Teletext, Internet. On this digital infrastructure different kinds of services are being developed which will define the society of the future: telecommuting, teleshopping, video on demand and many more.
The mass use of information and communication technology will have great effect on the way we work and live. It will change the manner in which we have contact with each other, pay bills and place orders. It will change the way we do our job, gain information, make decisions and fill our spare time. It will change the way we govern and are governed. International borders fade away with the use of international digital communications systems. The foundation on which the idea of national legislation is based was never prepared for an international manifestation such as the Net. Existing regulations and prohibitions were never designed for the new digital world. The new world requires new rules and etiquette. And that requires ideas, creativity and knowledge. Chances and threats in the information society

The chances are there for the grabbing. New forms of communication and contact between individuals and corporations. New forms of work opportunity and new services. Better informed citizens. Less distance between the public and politicians. But the threats are present as well. Haunting images appear of 24 hour police patrols on the Net, watertight government legislation, and of monopolies in the telecommunications industry a la Berlusconi. What about democracy on the Net? Do citizens get a say in the many decisions, small and large, made in the back rooms of government buildings? Do they have a say in the investments of the government and the commercial sector which will pave the way to the information society of tomorrow? Can everybody profit from this information society or just a small elite? What is the situation with traditional citizens' rights such as freedom of speech, protection of privacy, involvement by citizens in policy making?. What is the situation with access to public information? Is there s pace for community services on the Net? In other words, what are a citizens' rights and responsibilities on the Net? And who defends their interests?

'''--- The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL)'''

The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL) sticks up for the interests of digital citizens. If a new digital society is on the horizon, then we want it to be a democratic one. That it may offer chances to every citizen, not merely to government and commerce. Information and communication technology must not just be a toy for a technical or a powerful elite. We would rather not leave the form of the new digital society over to those who possess the means and the power. We want to help think about what is happening and in which direction it should go. We want to help think and help make decisions about which digital techniques are to be placed on offer, and the accessibility and use of these techniques. Whether we're asked to or not.

That is necessary, because the public and politicians are hardly aware of what is happening now under everybody's nose and what is about to happen. DB.NL wishes to stimulate the debate about the chances and threats in the information society. DB.NL wants to follow national and European government subsidies and commercial investments critically to ensure that they used are in the public interest. DB.NL wants to come up with ideas. With advice. With suggestions for legislation. With test cases. What it comes down to is this: we want to use our collective creativity and knowledge to use the chances that information and communication technology offer to society to the full and to avert the threats.

DB.NL wants to book results with every aspect of this manifesto. In order to do that, we will form alliances locally, nationally and internationally with individuals, organisations, corporations and legislators who are concerned about the interests of the digital citizen and democracy. Everyone to whom this appeals is invited to join us!

'''Digital Democracy and Citizens' Rights'''

'''--- Freedom of speech'''

Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental guarantees of democracy. DB.NL wants this right of the citizen to remain intact on the Net. This means that monopolies a la Berlusconi have to be avoided. The Net-company that owns (part of) the digital infrastructure or offers digital data transport may not have a monopoly in the services which are developed on it. Users/producers must be able to decide for themselves which information they offer, not the company that runs the network. It should be discussed whether Net providers should be subject to a mandate similar to that which the telecommunications company was in the Netherlands: everybody within a certain geographical area should be connected for the same fee.

'''--- Privacy, privacy of letters, encryption'''

At different locations information junctions appear with masses of data on people and businesses. By laying links between these data sources enormous possibilities are created to organise society more efficiently, but also a great danger of abuse of technology for detailed control of unexpecting citizens. Net users must be protected against abuse of their personal information for commercial means. It must be possible to send E-mail securely. Citizens must have the right to control information about themsleves which is stored in databases. We must further define in which cases the right to access should be accompanied with a right to correct, ammend and delete data. Traditional telephone and post may be used in companies for trade union activities. This communication is thanks to privacy regulations further protected against intrusion by an employer. This extra protection must also be the case for digital communication, such as e-mail over the company network.
A balance must be found between the repressive application of information and communication technology, for example for law enforcement and detection of fraud, and protection of citizens' rights. The efficency strived for in detective work must never undermine the rights of society as a whole.

News: DB.NL is against the mandatory inclusion of chips that allow the preventative tapping of all digital communication equipment, such as the case may become in the United states and Norway.

Information and communication technology has up until now been considered Big Brother, as privacy's greatest threat. The moment has now come where that very same technology can be used to protect personal privacy, for example with certain forms of encryption. Encryption also allows the use of digital money and the placing of an authentic electronic signature. DB.NL advocates therefore public use of encryption in order to allow personal and commercial communication and transactions to be executed safely.

News: DB.NL is against the bill of spring 1994 in which citizens and corprations are required to apply for a permit in order to use encryption te secure their own communications.

'''--- Protection of intellectual property: the legal status of e-mail'''

In the electronic world no one can tell the difference between a copy and the original. That is favourable for a free and unrestricted flow of information. This must, however, not mean that everybody can copy and use work created by someone else without paying for it. Just as in the analogue world intellectual property must be protected in the digital world. DB.NL wishes to discuss the question of where the limits lie and what the effective control measures are. Maybe here too technology (software) offers solutions to protection of copyright rather than the usual method of legislation.

If digital communication wishes to become a medium in it's own right, then the legal status of electronic messages must be clearly defined. A signature in an e-mail message must be just as legally binding as a genuine signature under a handwritten contract.

'''--- Renewing government and politics'''

Our political system dates from the time of steam engines and is behind on the newest developments. The relationship between citizens and government, between governers and the governed, is definitely not ideal. Information and communication technology kan possibly assist in modernising politics. It can allow citizens and their organisations to exercise more influence upon the way their life is filled in for them. Exercising more influence from the bottom up. Having a say in the decisions concerning their environment. Democracy is active involvement in decision making, following the course of events, thinking along with the decision makers, isn't it? On all levels: in the neighbourhood, regional, national, international. Assisted by tele-referendums and tele-opinion polls politicians can be better informed of the wishes of their supporters. How that will be possible and under which conditions, remains to be seen. DB.NL is helping to search for the possibilities of information and communication technology in r enewing democracy. DB.NL strives for an equal bi-directional interactive philosophy rather than a one-directional consumer culture.
Go back to top of page

'''--- Electronic access to public information'''

De digital presence of databases with "public" information is good for the availability of government information and the clarity of government policy. If citizens wish to increase their involvment in and their influence upon political decisions local, regional and national then the availability of information is a prerequisite, thus also electronic access. De digital version is often the most up to date and the most concise, and is the easiest to come by. At the same time it is easier to discover digital information and to search through it. That is especially important to campaigners who would gladly be equipped with such information as they contest government plans. DB.NL advocates therefore that all information which can be tagged "public" under which catagory many government databases fall, such as tax regulations, acts of parliament, ministerial and parliamentary public information services be placed on the Net and offered to the public free of charge.

Currently many of the databases which have been payed for with public funds, such as legislation, are sold by the government to commercial publishers, who may henceforth call these laws their "property" and charge money for their reference and use. DB.NL is severely critical of this practice.

News: DB.NL will enter a bill in parliament in which the electronic availability of information from government and semi-governmental authorities (local, regional and national) will be made mandatory.

'''--- Avoiding the information divide'''

DB.NL wants to avoid a division between the information haves and have-nots. As long as there is not a computer ot interactive TV in every living room, DB.NL advocates the placing of public terminals in locations such as community centres, libraries, town halls etc. This allows every citizen access to the Net. Libraries have a special task in making information available to a large public. They will also have to fulfil this task in the digital age. News: DB.NL is against the bill in parliament spring 1994 in which libraries are forbidden to lend digital information.
The division is already apparent on the subject of sex. The Net has up until now been largely developed and used by men. DB.NL wishes to stimulate the use of the new possibilities offered by information and communication technology by women.

'''--- Protection against unwelcome behaviour'''

Digital communication has the advantage that aspects such looks and age are not known when people make contact with each other, and therefore don't count in any further communication. That can be very refreshing. There are also new disadvantages, which must be tackled. The Net users must be protected against unwelcome behaviour from salesmen and consumers, such as intrusive advertisements and (sexual) harassment.
Go back to top of page

'''An Accessible and Affordable Public Network'''

DB.NL advocates the development of a digital infrastructure (also known as Digital or Information (Super) Highway) that is accessible and affordable for every citizen, just as the telephone network is now. Just as water, the sewer system and the postal system became accessible to everyone around the turn of the century, now that must happen with electronic information, communication and public services in one public network. There already are diverse (part)networks for digital communication between citizens, corporations, governments and research institutes. The internet , the world-wide network of networks, could, in our view, function as the nucleus of this new Net. It has the open structure which satisfies our requirements: bottom-up design, low threshhold, to be used by everyone, connected computers. In the long run it must not be important if the connections are made via (tv)cable, telephone line or satellite, if that connection is made with your PC, the tv or another device. As long as the apparatus an d transport have enough capacity and are user friendly (amongst other things a graphical user interface) and fully interactive. This last item means: information must not only be transmitted in one direction to the user, such as was normal up until now, but also from a user to others. This infrastructure can be used for bi-directional communication and services between citizens, corporations and government.

Citizens must not only be able to send text via the Net, but also (moving) images and sound. Only then can applications and services be developed that are user friendly and and that contain all the communication and information media. The Net must also be "open", so that more than one company can develop hardware and software. That is favourable for competition, keeps the prices down an stimulates innovation. Every user must be able to plug in from home, irrespective of the technology they are using if they are using a computer or a television set, via the ether or cable.

'''--- User friendly access'''

Information and communication technology must be accessible and understandable for all citizens. The use of information and communication technology must not be reserved for a small, technically educated, well informed and rich elite. DB.NL stimulates developments toward a user friendly (equipped with a graphical user interface) communications system, so that everyone can work without any problems and can bear the fruits of it. DB.NL wishes to bring the aspect of accessibility and improving the quality of the Net to the attention of the producers (Net providers, producers of software and harware, government).

'''--- Space for non-commercial applications'''

On the Net commercial and non-commercial applications will be developed. That is no problem as long as more space (bandwidth) is and remains available for the non-commercial applications. As long as socially valuable services can be available alongside the wave of games, porno and pulp. There is no negotiation on that point as far as DB.NL is concerned. Digital exchange of information and opinions can allow citizens to organise themselves faster and more easily, with less barriers such as distance and time. This can be the case for a school club or a group of activists against sonic pollution in their neighbourhood or a patient administration. In this way information and communication technology can assist in the creation of "virtual societies", where citizens with the same interests or points of view kan meet each other and where new forms of "neighbourhood" are developed.

'''--- Giving the non-profit sector a digital profile'''

The traditional sharp division between passive consumers and active producers is archaic. Everyone now can become an information or service provider on the Net. This gives enormous chances to citizens and and their organisations to intensify their contacts with their members and employees and inform themselves about their wishes, ideas and needs. DB.NL advocates low threshhold, affordable, user friendly possibilities to the connection of citizens and their organisations to the Net and helping giving them a profile. Extra effort must be put into connecting the non-profit sector education, social care, health care, social organisations, social work, social movements and local government to the Net. DB.NL advocates educational projects which help citizens and their organisations learn to work with information and communication technology. Projects such as 'De Digitale Stad' (The Digital City) in Amsterdam, that help close the divide between the public, technology and politics, deserve support and followers.

We do not only consider this a task for the government. Also commerce must have an eye open for such "public affairs", even if they are commercially less interesting. In that way commercial organisations can show their involvment with the society for which and wherein they function.

'''--- Telecommuting'''

More and more labour in the Netherlands is becoming knowledge-intensive. More and more work is done on the PC. That makes it possible for employees and self-employed workers to do a part of their work (usually the thinking and writing work) at home in front of the computer and fax. The traditional requirement of visible presence behind a desk is becoming less and less important for a number of professions and functions. Telecommuting means in the long term a reduction in the levels of commuter traffic, in the total time spent travelling to and from work and in the discharge of exhaust gases from motor vehicles. That saves the environment. Statistics show that telecommuting increases a worker's productivity and job satisfaction for employee and employer alike. It makes it easier to combine work and doing the household chores and/or looking after the children. In addition to that it gives enormous chances to handicapped people to do payed work.

It can be expected that the Net will be used increasingly for telecommuting. In all probability this will bring about great changes in the organisation of labour and in the conditions of contract. It is not yet possible to say whether these changes will be positive or negative. On the one hand, there are certainly chances to come to more flexible forms of labour and to do work which is more satisfying. On the other hand that flexibility could swing around to the unjust. DB.NL wants to prevent this. Telecommuting must become a win-win situation for both parties. DB.NL advocates a policy in which employees whose function allows this, have a right to telecommuting, as long as this is voluntary. There may be no question of compulsion.

------------
One last remark. Perhaps it is not always necessary to call on the tried and tested method of "legislation". Maybe the Net-societies can solve a number of digital problems themselves. This would be entirely in the spirit of the (interactive) citizen. And of this manifesto.

== '''Contexto''' ==

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20180512215617/https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Derechos digitales]]
[[Categoría:The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement]]

1994 - Digital Manifesto - The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement

2022-05-27T22:18:30Z

Paz: /* Texto */

[[Archivo:Digitalmovement.png|miniaturadeimagen|derecha|https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html copia de 12-05-2018]]

== '''Texto''' ==

'''CONTENTS'''

The Digital Revolution

-- The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL)

Digital Democracy and Citizens' Rights

-- Freedom of speech

-- Privacy, privacy of letters, encryption

-- Protection of intellectual property: the legal status of e-mail

-- Renewing government and politics

-- Electronic access to public information

-- Avoiding the information divide

-- Protection against unwelcome behaviour

An Accessible and Affordable Public Network

-- User friendly access

-- Space for non-commercial applications

-- Giving the non-profit sector a digital profile

-- Telecommuting

'''The Digital Revolution'''

A digital revolution is taking place in the Netherlands. A new, digital world is being created, one which runs parallel to the one that we've always known. This digital world, let's refer to it as the Net, is expanding rapidly. Computers are being used in more and more places. In offices and at home. Billions are invested in corporate networks. These computers and computer networks are being attached to each other more and more. PC and TV are growing gradually into one. De phone lines are no longer just being used to make telephone calls. Not only television programmes are being broadcast via cable. Ever increasing amounts of computer data are being transmitted along it, with which information and entertainment are being offered in all sorts of ways, think of Videotex, Teletext, Internet. On this digital infrastructure different kinds of services are being developed which will define the society of the future: telecommuting, teleshopping, video on demand and many more.
The mass use of information and communication technology will have great effect on the way we work and live. It will change the manner in which we have contact with each other, pay bills and place orders. It will change the way we do our job, gain information, make decisions and fill our spare time. It will change the way we govern and are governed. International borders fade away with the use of international digital communications systems. The foundation on which the idea of national legislation is based was never prepared for an international manifestation such as the Net. Existing regulations and prohibitions were never designed for the new digital world. The new world requires new rules and etiquette. And that requires ideas, creativity and knowledge. Chances and threats in the information society

The chances are there for the grabbing. New forms of communication and contact between individuals and corporations. New forms of work opportunity and new services. Better informed citizens. Less distance between the public and politicians. But the threats are present as well. Haunting images appear of 24 hour police patrols on the Net, watertight government legislation, and of monopolies in the telecommunications industry a la Berlusconi. What about democracy on the Net? Do citizens get a say in the many decisions, small and large, made in the back rooms of government buildings? Do they have a say in the investments of the government and the commercial sector which will pave the way to the information society of tomorrow? Can everybody profit from this information society or just a small elite? What is the situation with traditional citizens' rights such as freedom of speech, protection of privacy, involvement by citizens in policy making?. What is the situation with access to public information? Is there s pace for community services on the Net? In other words, what are a citizens' rights and responsibilities on the Net? And who defends their interests?

'''--- The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL)'''

The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL) sticks up for the interests of digital citizens. If a new digital society is on the horizon, then we want it to be a democratic one. That it may offer chances to every citizen, not merely to government and commerce. Information and communication technology must not just be a toy for a technical or a powerful elite. We would rather not leave the form of the new digital society over to those who possess the means and the power. We want to help think about what is happening and in which direction it should go. We want to help think and help make decisions about which digital techniques are to be placed on offer, and the accessibility and use of these techniques. Whether we're asked to or not.

That is necessary, because the public and politicians are hardly aware of what is happening now under everybody's nose and what is about to happen. DB.NL wishes to stimulate the debate about the chances and threats in the information society. DB.NL wants to follow national and European government subsidies and commercial investments critically to ensure that they used are in the public interest. DB.NL wants to come up with ideas. With advice. With suggestions for legislation. With test cases. What it comes down to is this: we want to use our collective creativity and knowledge to use the chances that information and communication technology offer to society to the full and to avert the threats.

DB.NL wants to book results with every aspect of this manifesto. In order to do that, we will form alliances locally, nationally and internationally with individuals, organisations, corporations and legislators who are concerned about the interests of the digital citizen and democracy. Everyone to whom this appeals is invited to join us!

'''Digital Democracy and Citizens' Rights'''

'''--- Freedom of speech'''

Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental guarantees of democracy. DB.NL wants this right of the citizen to remain intact on the Net. This means that monopolies a la Berlusconi have to be avoided. The Net-company that owns (part of) the digital infrastructure or offers digital data transport may not have a monopoly in the services which are developed on it. Users/producers must be able to decide for themselves which information they offer, not the company that runs the network. It should be discussed whether Net providers should be subject to a mandate similar to that which the telecommunications company was in the Netherlands: everybody within a certain geographical area should be connected for the same fee.

'''--- Privacy, privacy of letters, encryption'''

At different locations information junctions appear with masses of data on people and businesses. By laying links between these data sources enormous possibilities are created to organise society more efficiently, but also a great danger of abuse of technology for detailed control of unexpecting citizens. Net users must be protected against abuse of their personal information for commercial means. It must be possible to send E-mail securely. Citizens must have the right to control information about themsleves which is stored in databases. We must further define in which cases the right to access should be accompanied with a right to correct, ammend and delete data. Traditional telephone and post may be used in companies for trade union activities. This communication is thanks to privacy regulations further protected against intrusion by an employer. This extra protection must also be the case for digital communication, such as e-mail over the company network.
A balance must be found between the repressive application of information and communication technology, for example for law enforcement and detection of fraud, and protection of citizens' rights. The efficency strived for in detective work must never undermine the rights of society as a whole.

News: DB.NL is against the mandatory inclusion of chips that allow the preventative tapping of all digital communication equipment, such as the case may become in the United states and Norway.

Information and communication technology has up until now been considered Big Brother, as privacy's greatest threat. The moment has now come where that very same technology can be used to protect personal privacy, for example with certain forms of encryption. Encryption also allows the use of digital money and the placing of an authentic electronic signature. DB.NL advocates therefore public use of encryption in order to allow personal and commercial communication and transactions to be executed safely.

News: DB.NL is against the bill of spring 1994 in which citizens and corprations are required to apply for a permit in order to use encryption te secure their own communications.

'''--- Protection of intellectual property: the legal status of e-mail'''

In the electronic world no one can tell the difference between a copy and the original. That is favourable for a free and unrestricted flow of information. This must, however, not mean that everybody can copy and use work created by someone else without paying for it. Just as in the analogue world intellectual property must be protected in the digital world. DB.NL wishes to discuss the question of where the limits lie and what the effective control measures are. Maybe here too technology (software) offers solutions to protection of copyright rather than the usual method of legislation.

If digital communication wishes to become a medium in it's own right, then the legal status of electronic messages must be clearly defined. A signature in an e-mail message must be just as legally binding as a genuine signature under a handwritten contract.

'''--- Renewing government and politics'''

Our political system dates from the time of steam engines and is behind on the newest developments. The relationship between citizens and government, between governers and the governed, is definitely not ideal. Information and communication technology kan possibly assist in modernising politics. It can allow citizens and their organisations to exercise more influence upon the way their life is filled in for them. Exercising more influence from the bottom up. Having a say in the decisions concerning their environment. Democracy is active involvement in decision making, following the course of events, thinking along with the decision makers, isn't it? On all levels: in the neighbourhood, regional, national, international. Assisted by tele-referendums and tele-opinion polls politicians can be better informed of the wishes of their supporters. How that will be possible and under which conditions, remains to be seen. DB.NL is helping to search for the possibilities of information and communication technology in r enewing democracy. DB.NL strives for an equal bi-directional interactive philosophy rather than a one-directional consumer culture.
Go back to top of page

'''--- Electronic access to public information'''

De digital presence of databases with "public" information is good for the availability of government information and the clarity of government policy. If citizens wish to increase their involvment in and their influence upon political decisions local, regional and national then the availability of information is a prerequisite, thus also electronic access. De digital version is often the most up to date and the most concise, and is the easiest to come by. At the same time it is easier to discover digital information and to search through it. That is especially important to campaigners who would gladly be equipped with such information as they contest government plans. DB.NL advocates therefore that all information which can be tagged "public" under which catagory many government databases fall, such as tax regulations, acts of parliament, ministerial and parliamentary public information services be placed on the Net and offered to the public free of charge.

Currently many of the databases which have been payed for with public funds, such as legislation, are sold by the government to commercial publishers, who may henceforth call these laws their "property" and charge money for their reference and use. DB.NL is severely critical of this practice.

News: DB.NL will enter a bill in parliament in which the electronic availability of information from government and semi-governmental authorities (local, regional and national) will be made mandatory.

'''--- Avoiding the information divide'''

DB.NL wants to avoid a division between the information haves and have-nots. As long as there is not a computer ot interactive TV in every living room, DB.NL advocates the placing of public terminals in locations such as community centres, libraries, town halls etc. This allows every citizen access to the Net. Libraries have a special task in making information available to a large public. They will also have to fulfil this task in the digital age. News: DB.NL is against the bill in parliament spring 1994 in which libraries are forbidden to lend digital information.
The division is already apparent on the subject of sex. The Net has up until now been largely developed and used by men. DB.NL wishes to stimulate the use of the new possibilities offered by information and communication technology by women.

'''--- Protection against unwelcome behaviour'''

Digital communication has the advantage that aspects such looks and age are not known when people make contact with each other, and therefore don't count in any further communication. That can be very refreshing. There are also new disadvantages, which must be tackled. The Net users must be protected against unwelcome behaviour from salesmen and consumers, such as intrusive advertisements and (sexual) harassment.
Go back to top of page

'''An Accessible and Affordable Public Network'''

DB.NL advocates the development of a digital infrastructure (also known as Digital or Information (Super) Highway) that is accessible and affordable for every citizen, just as the telephone network is now. Just as water, the sewer system and the postal system became accessible to everyone around the turn of the century, now that must happen with electronic information, communication and public services in one public network. There already are diverse (part)networks for digital communication between citizens, corporations, governments and research institutes. The internet , the world-wide network of networks, could, in our view, function as the nucleus of this new Net. It has the open structure which satisfies our requirements: bottom-up design, low threshhold, to be used by everyone, connected computers. In the long run it must not be important if the connections are made via (tv)cable, telephone line or satellite, if that connection is made with your PC, the tv or another device. As long as the apparatus an d transport have enough capacity and are user friendly (amongst other things a graphical user interface) and fully interactive. This last item means: information must not only be transmitted in one direction to the user, such as was normal up until now, but also from a user to others. This infrastructure can be used for bi-directional communication and services between citizens, corporations and government.

Citizens must not only be able to send text via the Net, but also (moving) images and sound. Only then can applications and services be developed that are user friendly and and that contain all the communication and information media. The Net must also be "open", so that more than one company can develop hardware and software. That is favourable for competition, keeps the prices down an stimulates innovation. Every user must be able to plug in from home, irrespective of the technology they are using if they are using a computer or a television set, via the ether or cable.

'''--- User friendly access'''

Information and communication technology must be accessible and understandable for all citizens. The use of information and communication technology must not be reserved for a small, technically educated, well informed and rich elite. DB.NL stimulates developments toward a user friendly (equipped with a graphical user interface) communications system, so that everyone can work without any problems and can bear the fruits of it. DB.NL wishes to bring the aspect of accessibility and improving the quality of the Net to the attention of the producers (Net providers, producers of software and harware, government).

'''--- Space for non-commercial applications'''

On the Net commercial and non-commercial applications will be developed. That is no problem as long as more space (bandwidth) is and remains available for the non-commercial applications. As long as socially valuable services can be available alongside the wave of games, porno and pulp. There is no negotiation on that point as far as DB.NL is concerned. Digital exchange of information and opinions can allow citizens to organise themselves faster and more easily, with less barriers such as distance and time. This can be the case for a school club or a group of activists against sonic pollution in their neighbourhood or a patient administration. In this way information and communication technology can assist in the creation of "virtual societies", where citizens with the same interests or points of view kan meet each other and where new forms of "neighbourhood" are developed.

'''--- Giving the non-profit sector a digital profile'''

The traditional sharp division between passive consumers and active producers is archaic. Everyone now can become an information or service provider on the Net. This gives enormous chances to citizens and and their organisations to intensify their contacts with their members and employees and inform themselves about their wishes, ideas and needs. DB.NL advocates low threshhold, affordable, user friendly possibilities to the connection of citizens and their organisations to the Net and helping giving them a profile. Extra effort must be put into connecting the non-profit sector education, social care, health care, social organisations, social work, social movements and local government to the Net. DB.NL advocates educational projects which help citizens and their organisations learn to work with information and communication technology. Projects such as 'De Digitale Stad' (The Digital City) in Amsterdam, that help close the divide between the public, technology and politics, deserve support and followers.

We do not only consider this a task for the government. Also commerce must have an eye open for such "public affairs", even if they are commercially less interesting. In that way commercial organisations can show their involvment with the society for which and wherein they function.

'''--- Telecommuting'''

More and more labour in the Netherlands is becoming knowledge-intensive. More and more work is done on the PC. That makes it possible for employees and self-employed workers to do a part of their work (usually the thinking and writing work) at home in front of the computer and fax. The traditional requirement of visible presence behind a desk is becoming less and less important for a number of professions and functions. Telecommuting means in the long term a reduction in the levels of commuter traffic, in the total time spent travelling to and from work and in the discharge of exhaust gases from motor vehicles. That saves the environment. Statistics show that telecommuting increases a worker's productivity and job satisfaction for employee and employer alike. It makes it easier to combine work and doing the household chores and/or looking after the children. In addition to that it gives enormous chances to handicapped people to do payed work.

It can be expected that the Net will be used increasingly for telecommuting. In all probability this will bring about great changes in the organisation of labour and in the conditions of contract. It is not yet possible to say whether these changes will be positive or negative. On the one hand, there are certainly chances to come to more flexible forms of labour and to do work which is more satisfying. On the other hand that flexibility could swing around to the unjust. DB.NL wants to prevent this. Telecommuting must become a win-win situation for both parties. DB.NL advocates a policy in which employees whose function allows this, have a right to telecommuting, as long as this is voluntary. There may be no question of compulsion.

------------
One last remark. Perhaps it is not always necessary to call on the tried and tested method of "legislation". Maybe the Net-societies can solve a number of digital problems themselves. This would be entirely in the spirit of the (interactive) citizen. And of this manifesto.

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20180512215617/https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Derechos digitales]]
[[Categoría:The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement]]

1994 - Digital Manifesto - The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement

2022-05-27T22:17:59Z

Paz: /* Texto */

[[Archivo:Digitalmovement.png|miniaturadeimagen|derecha|https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html copia de 12-05-2018]]

== '''Texto''' ==

CONTENTS

The Digital Revolution

-- The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL)

Digital Democracy and Citizens' Rights

-- Freedom of speech

-- Privacy, privacy of letters, encryption

-- Protection of intellectual property: the legal status of e-mail

-- Renewing government and politics

-- Electronic access to public information

-- Avoiding the information divide

-- Protection against unwelcome behaviour

An Accessible and Affordable Public Network

-- User friendly access

-- Space for non-commercial applications

-- Giving the non-profit sector a digital profile

-- Telecommuting

'''The Digital Revolution'''

A digital revolution is taking place in the Netherlands. A new, digital world is being created, one which runs parallel to the one that we've always known. This digital world, let's refer to it as the Net, is expanding rapidly. Computers are being used in more and more places. In offices and at home. Billions are invested in corporate networks. These computers and computer networks are being attached to each other more and more. PC and TV are growing gradually into one. De phone lines are no longer just being used to make telephone calls. Not only television programmes are being broadcast via cable. Ever increasing amounts of computer data are being transmitted along it, with which information and entertainment are being offered in all sorts of ways, think of Videotex, Teletext, Internet. On this digital infrastructure different kinds of services are being developed which will define the society of the future: telecommuting, teleshopping, video on demand and many more.
The mass use of information and communication technology will have great effect on the way we work and live. It will change the manner in which we have contact with each other, pay bills and place orders. It will change the way we do our job, gain information, make decisions and fill our spare time. It will change the way we govern and are governed. International borders fade away with the use of international digital communications systems. The foundation on which the idea of national legislation is based was never prepared for an international manifestation such as the Net. Existing regulations and prohibitions were never designed for the new digital world. The new world requires new rules and etiquette. And that requires ideas, creativity and knowledge. Chances and threats in the information society

The chances are there for the grabbing. New forms of communication and contact between individuals and corporations. New forms of work opportunity and new services. Better informed citizens. Less distance between the public and politicians. But the threats are present as well. Haunting images appear of 24 hour police patrols on the Net, watertight government legislation, and of monopolies in the telecommunications industry a la Berlusconi. What about democracy on the Net? Do citizens get a say in the many decisions, small and large, made in the back rooms of government buildings? Do they have a say in the investments of the government and the commercial sector which will pave the way to the information society of tomorrow? Can everybody profit from this information society or just a small elite? What is the situation with traditional citizens' rights such as freedom of speech, protection of privacy, involvement by citizens in policy making?. What is the situation with access to public information? Is there s pace for community services on the Net? In other words, what are a citizens' rights and responsibilities on the Net? And who defends their interests?

'''--- The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL)'''

The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL) sticks up for the interests of digital citizens. If a new digital society is on the horizon, then we want it to be a democratic one. That it may offer chances to every citizen, not merely to government and commerce. Information and communication technology must not just be a toy for a technical or a powerful elite. We would rather not leave the form of the new digital society over to those who possess the means and the power. We want to help think about what is happening and in which direction it should go. We want to help think and help make decisions about which digital techniques are to be placed on offer, and the accessibility and use of these techniques. Whether we're asked to or not.

That is necessary, because the public and politicians are hardly aware of what is happening now under everybody's nose and what is about to happen. DB.NL wishes to stimulate the debate about the chances and threats in the information society. DB.NL wants to follow national and European government subsidies and commercial investments critically to ensure that they used are in the public interest. DB.NL wants to come up with ideas. With advice. With suggestions for legislation. With test cases. What it comes down to is this: we want to use our collective creativity and knowledge to use the chances that information and communication technology offer to society to the full and to avert the threats.

DB.NL wants to book results with every aspect of this manifesto. In order to do that, we will form alliances locally, nationally and internationally with individuals, organisations, corporations and legislators who are concerned about the interests of the digital citizen and democracy. Everyone to whom this appeals is invited to join us!

'''Digital Democracy and Citizens' Rights'''

'''--- Freedom of speech'''

Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental guarantees of democracy. DB.NL wants this right of the citizen to remain intact on the Net. This means that monopolies a la Berlusconi have to be avoided. The Net-company that owns (part of) the digital infrastructure or offers digital data transport may not have a monopoly in the services which are developed on it. Users/producers must be able to decide for themselves which information they offer, not the company that runs the network. It should be discussed whether Net providers should be subject to a mandate similar to that which the telecommunications company was in the Netherlands: everybody within a certain geographical area should be connected for the same fee.

'''--- Privacy, privacy of letters, encryption'''

At different locations information junctions appear with masses of data on people and businesses. By laying links between these data sources enormous possibilities are created to organise society more efficiently, but also a great danger of abuse of technology for detailed control of unexpecting citizens. Net users must be protected against abuse of their personal information for commercial means. It must be possible to send E-mail securely. Citizens must have the right to control information about themsleves which is stored in databases. We must further define in which cases the right to access should be accompanied with a right to correct, ammend and delete data. Traditional telephone and post may be used in companies for trade union activities. This communication is thanks to privacy regulations further protected against intrusion by an employer. This extra protection must also be the case for digital communication, such as e-mail over the company network.
A balance must be found between the repressive application of information and communication technology, for example for law enforcement and detection of fraud, and protection of citizens' rights. The efficency strived for in detective work must never undermine the rights of society as a whole.

News: DB.NL is against the mandatory inclusion of chips that allow the preventative tapping of all digital communication equipment, such as the case may become in the United states and Norway.

Information and communication technology has up until now been considered Big Brother, as privacy's greatest threat. The moment has now come where that very same technology can be used to protect personal privacy, for example with certain forms of encryption. Encryption also allows the use of digital money and the placing of an authentic electronic signature. DB.NL advocates therefore public use of encryption in order to allow personal and commercial communication and transactions to be executed safely.

News: DB.NL is against the bill of spring 1994 in which citizens and corprations are required to apply for a permit in order to use encryption te secure their own communications.

'''--- Protection of intellectual property: the legal status of e-mail'''

In the electronic world no one can tell the difference between a copy and the original. That is favourable for a free and unrestricted flow of information. This must, however, not mean that everybody can copy and use work created by someone else without paying for it. Just as in the analogue world intellectual property must be protected in the digital world. DB.NL wishes to discuss the question of where the limits lie and what the effective control measures are. Maybe here too technology (software) offers solutions to protection of copyright rather than the usual method of legislation.

If digital communication wishes to become a medium in it's own right, then the legal status of electronic messages must be clearly defined. A signature in an e-mail message must be just as legally binding as a genuine signature under a handwritten contract.

'''--- Renewing government and politics'''

Our political system dates from the time of steam engines and is behind on the newest developments. The relationship between citizens and government, between governers and the governed, is definitely not ideal. Information and communication technology kan possibly assist in modernising politics. It can allow citizens and their organisations to exercise more influence upon the way their life is filled in for them. Exercising more influence from the bottom up. Having a say in the decisions concerning their environment. Democracy is active involvement in decision making, following the course of events, thinking along with the decision makers, isn't it? On all levels: in the neighbourhood, regional, national, international. Assisted by tele-referendums and tele-opinion polls politicians can be better informed of the wishes of their supporters. How that will be possible and under which conditions, remains to be seen. DB.NL is helping to search for the possibilities of information and communication technology in r enewing democracy. DB.NL strives for an equal bi-directional interactive philosophy rather than a one-directional consumer culture.
Go back to top of page

'''--- Electronic access to public information'''

De digital presence of databases with "public" information is good for the availability of government information and the clarity of government policy. If citizens wish to increase their involvment in and their influence upon political decisions local, regional and national then the availability of information is a prerequisite, thus also electronic access. De digital version is often the most up to date and the most concise, and is the easiest to come by. At the same time it is easier to discover digital information and to search through it. That is especially important to campaigners who would gladly be equipped with such information as they contest government plans. DB.NL advocates therefore that all information which can be tagged "public" under which catagory many government databases fall, such as tax regulations, acts of parliament, ministerial and parliamentary public information services be placed on the Net and offered to the public free of charge.

Currently many of the databases which have been payed for with public funds, such as legislation, are sold by the government to commercial publishers, who may henceforth call these laws their "property" and charge money for their reference and use. DB.NL is severely critical of this practice.

News: DB.NL will enter a bill in parliament in which the electronic availability of information from government and semi-governmental authorities (local, regional and national) will be made mandatory.

'''--- Avoiding the information divide'''

DB.NL wants to avoid a division between the information haves and have-nots. As long as there is not a computer ot interactive TV in every living room, DB.NL advocates the placing of public terminals in locations such as community centres, libraries, town halls etc. This allows every citizen access to the Net. Libraries have a special task in making information available to a large public. They will also have to fulfil this task in the digital age. News: DB.NL is against the bill in parliament spring 1994 in which libraries are forbidden to lend digital information.
The division is already apparent on the subject of sex. The Net has up until now been largely developed and used by men. DB.NL wishes to stimulate the use of the new possibilities offered by information and communication technology by women.

'''--- Protection against unwelcome behaviour'''

Digital communication has the advantage that aspects such looks and age are not known when people make contact with each other, and therefore don't count in any further communication. That can be very refreshing. There are also new disadvantages, which must be tackled. The Net users must be protected against unwelcome behaviour from salesmen and consumers, such as intrusive advertisements and (sexual) harassment.
Go back to top of page

'''An Accessible and Affordable Public Network'''

DB.NL advocates the development of a digital infrastructure (also known as Digital or Information (Super) Highway) that is accessible and affordable for every citizen, just as the telephone network is now. Just as water, the sewer system and the postal system became accessible to everyone around the turn of the century, now that must happen with electronic information, communication and public services in one public network. There already are diverse (part)networks for digital communication between citizens, corporations, governments and research institutes. The internet , the world-wide network of networks, could, in our view, function as the nucleus of this new Net. It has the open structure which satisfies our requirements: bottom-up design, low threshhold, to be used by everyone, connected computers. In the long run it must not be important if the connections are made via (tv)cable, telephone line or satellite, if that connection is made with your PC, the tv or another device. As long as the apparatus an d transport have enough capacity and are user friendly (amongst other things a graphical user interface) and fully interactive. This last item means: information must not only be transmitted in one direction to the user, such as was normal up until now, but also from a user to others. This infrastructure can be used for bi-directional communication and services between citizens, corporations and government.

Citizens must not only be able to send text via the Net, but also (moving) images and sound. Only then can applications and services be developed that are user friendly and and that contain all the communication and information media. The Net must also be "open", so that more than one company can develop hardware and software. That is favourable for competition, keeps the prices down an stimulates innovation. Every user must be able to plug in from home, irrespective of the technology they are using if they are using a computer or a television set, via the ether or cable.

'''--- User friendly access'''

Information and communication technology must be accessible and understandable for all citizens. The use of information and communication technology must not be reserved for a small, technically educated, well informed and rich elite. DB.NL stimulates developments toward a user friendly (equipped with a graphical user interface) communications system, so that everyone can work without any problems and can bear the fruits of it. DB.NL wishes to bring the aspect of accessibility and improving the quality of the Net to the attention of the producers (Net providers, producers of software and harware, government).

'''--- Space for non-commercial applications'''

On the Net commercial and non-commercial applications will be developed. That is no problem as long as more space (bandwidth) is and remains available for the non-commercial applications. As long as socially valuable services can be available alongside the wave of games, porno and pulp. There is no negotiation on that point as far as DB.NL is concerned. Digital exchange of information and opinions can allow citizens to organise themselves faster and more easily, with less barriers such as distance and time. This can be the case for a school club or a group of activists against sonic pollution in their neighbourhood or a patient administration. In this way information and communication technology can assist in the creation of "virtual societies", where citizens with the same interests or points of view kan meet each other and where new forms of "neighbourhood" are developed.

'''--- Giving the non-profit sector a digital profile'''

The traditional sharp division between passive consumers and active producers is archaic. Everyone now can become an information or service provider on the Net. This gives enormous chances to citizens and and their organisations to intensify their contacts with their members and employees and inform themselves about their wishes, ideas and needs. DB.NL advocates low threshhold, affordable, user friendly possibilities to the connection of citizens and their organisations to the Net and helping giving them a profile. Extra effort must be put into connecting the non-profit sector education, social care, health care, social organisations, social work, social movements and local government to the Net. DB.NL advocates educational projects which help citizens and their organisations learn to work with information and communication technology. Projects such as 'De Digitale Stad' (The Digital City) in Amsterdam, that help close the divide between the public, technology and politics, deserve support and followers.

We do not only consider this a task for the government. Also commerce must have an eye open for such "public affairs", even if they are commercially less interesting. In that way commercial organisations can show their involvment with the society for which and wherein they function.

'''--- Telecommuting'''

More and more labour in the Netherlands is becoming knowledge-intensive. More and more work is done on the PC. That makes it possible for employees and self-employed workers to do a part of their work (usually the thinking and writing work) at home in front of the computer and fax. The traditional requirement of visible presence behind a desk is becoming less and less important for a number of professions and functions. Telecommuting means in the long term a reduction in the levels of commuter traffic, in the total time spent travelling to and from work and in the discharge of exhaust gases from motor vehicles. That saves the environment. Statistics show that telecommuting increases a worker's productivity and job satisfaction for employee and employer alike. It makes it easier to combine work and doing the household chores and/or looking after the children. In addition to that it gives enormous chances to handicapped people to do payed work.

It can be expected that the Net will be used increasingly for telecommuting. In all probability this will bring about great changes in the organisation of labour and in the conditions of contract. It is not yet possible to say whether these changes will be positive or negative. On the one hand, there are certainly chances to come to more flexible forms of labour and to do work which is more satisfying. On the other hand that flexibility could swing around to the unjust. DB.NL wants to prevent this. Telecommuting must become a win-win situation for both parties. DB.NL advocates a policy in which employees whose function allows this, have a right to telecommuting, as long as this is voluntary. There may be no question of compulsion.

------------
One last remark. Perhaps it is not always necessary to call on the tried and tested method of "legislation". Maybe the Net-societies can solve a number of digital problems themselves. This would be entirely in the spirit of the (interactive) citizen. And of this manifesto.

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20180512215617/https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Derechos digitales]]
[[Categoría:The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement]]

1994 - Digital Manifesto - The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement

2022-05-27T22:13:27Z

Paz: /* Texto */

[[Archivo:Digitalmovement.png|miniaturadeimagen|derecha|https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html copia de 12-05-2018]]

== '''Texto''' ==

The Digital Revolution

-- The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL)

Digital Democracy and Citizens' Rights

-- Freedom of speech

-- Privacy, privacy of letters, encryption

-- Protection of intellectual property: the legal status of e-mail

-- Renewing government and politics

-- Electronic access to public information

-- Avoiding the information divide

-- Protection against unwelcome behaviour

An Accessible and Affordable Public Network

-- User friendly access

-- Space for non-commercial applications

-- Giving the non-profit sector a digital profile

-- Telecommuting

'''The Digital Revolution'''

A digital revolution is taking place in the Netherlands. A new, digital world is being created, one which runs parallel to the one that we've always known. This digital world, let's refer to it as the Net, is expanding rapidly. Computers are being used in more and more places. In offices and at home. Billions are invested in corporate networks. These computers and computer networks are being attached to each other more and more. PC and TV are growing gradually into one. De phone lines are no longer just being used to make telephone calls. Not only television programmes are being broadcast via cable. Ever increasing amounts of computer data are being transmitted along it, with which information and entertainment are being offered in all sorts of ways, think of Videotex, Teletext, Internet. On this digital infrastructure different kinds of services are being developed which will define the society of the future: telecommuting, teleshopping, video on demand and many more.
The mass use of information and communication technology will have great effect on the way we work and live. It will change the manner in which we have contact with each other, pay bills and place orders. It will change the way we do our job, gain information, make decisions and fill our spare time. It will change the way we govern and are governed. International borders fade away with the use of international digital communications systems. The foundation on which the idea of national legislation is based was never prepared for an international manifestation such as the Net. Existing regulations and prohibitions were never designed for the new digital world. The new world requires new rules and etiquette. And that requires ideas, creativity and knowledge. Chances and threats in the information society

The chances are there for the grabbing. New forms of communication and contact between individuals and corporations. New forms of work opportunity and new services. Better informed citizens. Less distance between the public and politicians. But the threats are present as well. Haunting images appear of 24 hour police patrols on the Net, watertight government legislation, and of monopolies in the telecommunications industry a la Berlusconi. What about democracy on the Net? Do citizens get a say in the many decisions, small and large, made in the back rooms of government buildings? Do they have a say in the investments of the government and the commercial sector which will pave the way to the information society of tomorrow? Can everybody profit from this information society or just a small elite? What is the situation with traditional citizens' rights such as freedom of speech, protection of privacy, involvement by citizens in policy making?. What is the situation with access to public information? Is there s pace for community services on the Net? In other words, what are a citizens' rights and responsibilities on the Net? And who defends their interests?

'''-- The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL)'''

The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement (DB.NL) sticks up for the interests of digital citizens. If a new digital society is on the horizon, then we want it to be a democratic one. That it may offer chances to every citizen, not merely to government and commerce. Information and communication technology must not just be a toy for a technical or a powerful elite. We would rather not leave the form of the new digital society over to those who possess the means and the power. We want to help think about what is happening and in which direction it should go. We want to help think and help make decisions about which digital techniques are to be placed on offer, and the accessibility and use of these techniques. Whether we're asked to or not.

That is necessary, because the public and politicians are hardly aware of what is happening now under everybody's nose and what is about to happen. DB.NL wishes to stimulate the debate about the chances and threats in the information society. DB.NL wants to follow national and European government subsidies and commercial investments critically to ensure that they used are in the public interest. DB.NL wants to come up with ideas. With advice. With suggestions for legislation. With test cases. What it comes down to is this: we want to use our collective creativity and knowledge to use the chances that information and communication technology offer to society to the full and to avert the threats.

DB.NL wants to book results with every aspect of this manifesto. In order to do that, we will form alliances locally, nationally and internationally with individuals, organisations, corporations and legislators who are concerned about the interests of the digital citizen and democracy. Everyone to whom this appeals is invited to join us!

'''Digital Democracy and Citizens' Rights'''

Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental guarantees of democracy. DB.NL wants this right of the citizen to remain intact on the Net. This means that monopolies a la Berlusconi have to be avoided. The Net-company that owns (part of) the digital infrastructure or offers digital data transport may not have a monopoly in the services which are developed on it. Users/producers must be able to decide for themselves which information they offer, not the company that runs the network. It should be discussed whether Net providers should be subject to a mandate similar to that which the telecommunications company was in the Netherlands: everybody within a certain geographical area should be connected for the same fee.

Privacy, privacy of letters, encryption

At different locations information junctions appear with masses of data on people and businesses. By laying links between these data sources enormous possibilities are created to organise society more efficiently, but also a great danger of abuse of technology for detailed control of unexpecting citizens. Net users must be protected against abuse of their personal information for commercial means. It must be possible to send E-mail securely. Citizens must have the right to control information about themsleves which is stored in databases. We must further define in which cases the right to access should be accompanied with a right to correct, ammend and delete data. Traditional telephone and post may be used in companies for trade union activities. This communication is thanks to privacy regulations further protected against intrusion by an employer. This extra protection must also be the case for digital communication, such as e-mail over the company network.
A balance must be found between the repressive application of information and communication technology, for example for law enforcement and detection of fraud, and protection of citizens' rights. The efficency strived for in detective work must never undermine the rights of society as a whole.

News: DB.NL is against the mandatory inclusion of chips that allow the preventative tapping of all digital communication equipment, such as the case may become in the United states and Norway.

Information and communication technology has up until now been considered Big Brother, as privacy's greatest threat. The moment has now come where that very same technology can be used to protect personal privacy, for example with certain forms of encryption. Encryption also allows the use of digital money and the placing of an authentic electronic signature. DB.NL advocates therefore public use of encryption in order to allow personal and commercial communication and transactions to be executed safely.

News: DB.NL is against the bill of spring 1994 in which citizens and corprations are required to apply for a permit in order to use encryption te secure their own communications.

Protection of intellectual property: the legal status of e-mail
In the electronic world no one can tell the difference between a copy and the original. That is favourable for a free and unrestricted flow of information. This must, however, not mean that everybody can copy and use work created by someone else without paying for it. Just as in the analogue world intellectual property must be protected in the digital world. DB.NL wishes to discuss the question of where the limits lie and what the effective control measures are. Maybe here too technology (software) offers solutions to protection of copyright rather than the usual method of legislation.

If digital communication wishes to become a medium in it's own right, then the legal status of electronic messages must be clearly defined. A signature in an e-mail message must be just as legally binding as a genuine signature under a handwritten contract.

Renewing government and politics

Our political system dates from the time of steam engines and is behind on the newest developments. The relationship between citizens and government, between governers and the governed, is definitely not ideal. Information and communication technology kan possibly assist in modernising politics. It can allow citizens and their organisations to exercise more influence upon the way their life is filled in for them. Exercising more influence from the bottom up. Having a say in the decisions concerning their environment. Democracy is active involvement in decision making, following the course of events, thinking along with the decision makers, isn't it? On all levels: in the neighbourhood, regional, national, international. Assisted by tele-referendums and tele-opinion polls politicians can be better informed of the wishes of their supporters. How that will be possible and under which conditions, remains to be seen. DB.NL is helping to search for the possibilities of information and communication technology in r enewing democracy. DB.NL strives for an equal bi-directional interactive philosophy rather than a one-directional consumer culture.
Go back to top of page

Electronic access to public information

De digital presence of databases with "public" information is good for the availability of government information and the clarity of government policy. If citizens wish to increase their involvment in and their influence upon political decisions local, regional and national then the availability of information is a prerequisite, thus also electronic access. De digital version is often the most up to date and the most concise, and is the easiest to come by. At the same time it is easier to discover digital information and to search through it. That is especially important to campaigners who would gladly be equipped with such information as they contest government plans. DB.NL advocates therefore that all information which can be tagged "public" under which catagory many government databases fall, such as tax regulations, acts of parliament, ministerial and parliamentary public information services be placed on the Net and offered to the public free of charge.

Currently many of the databases which have been payed for with public funds, such as legislation, are sold by the government to commercial publishers, who may henceforth call these laws their "property" and charge money for their reference and use. DB.NL is severely critical of this practice.

News: DB.NL will enter a bill in parliament in which the electronic availability of information from government and semi-governmental authorities (local, regional and national) will be made mandatory.

Avoiding the information divide

DB.NL wants to avoid a division between the information haves and have-nots. As long as there is not a computer ot interactive TV in every living room, DB.NL advocates the placing of public terminals in locations such as community centres, libraries, town halls etc. This allows every citizen access to the Net. Libraries have a special task in making information available to a large public. They will also have to fulfil this task in the digital age. News: DB.NL is against the bill in parliament spring 1994 in which libraries are forbidden to lend digital information.
The division is already apparent on the subject of sex. The Net has up until now been largely developed and used by men. DB.NL wishes to stimulate the use of the new possibilities offered by information and communication technology by women.

Protection against unwelcome behaviour
Digital communication has the advantage that aspects such looks and age are not known when people make contact with each other, and therefore don't count in any further communication. That can be very refreshing. There are also new disadvantages, which must be tackled. The Net users must be protected against unwelcome behaviour from salesmen and consumers, such as intrusive advertisements and (sexual) harassment.
Go back to top of page

An Accessible and Affordable Public Network

DB.NL advocates the development of a digital infrastructure (also known as Digital or Information (Super) Highway) that is accessible and affordable for every citizen, just as the telephone network is now. Just as water, the sewer system and the postal system became accessible to everyone around the turn of the century, now that must happen with electronic information, communication and public services in one public network. There already are diverse (part)networks for digital communication between citizens, corporations, governments and research institutes. The internet , the world-wide network of networks, could, in our view, function as the nucleus of this new Net. It has the open structure which satisfies our requirements: bottom-up design, low threshhold, to be used by everyone, connected computers. In the long run it must not be important if the connections are made via (tv)cable, telephone line or satellite, if that connection is made with your PC, the tv or another device. As long as the apparatus an d transport have enough capacity and are user friendly (amongst other things a graphical user interface) and fully interactive. This last item means: information must not only be transmitted in one direction to the user, such as was normal up until now, but also from a user to others. This infrastructure can be used for bi-directional communication and services between citizens, corporations and government.

Citizens must not only be able to send text via the Net, but also (moving) images and sound. Only then can applications and services be developed that are user friendly and and that contain all the communication and information media. The Net must also be "open", so that more than one company can develop hardware and software. That is favourable for competition, keeps the prices down an stimulates innovation. Every user must be able to plug in from home, irrespective of the technology they are using if they are using a computer or a television set, via the ether or cable.

User friendly access

Information and communication technology must be accessible and understandable for all citizens. The use of information and communication technology must not be reserved for a small, technically educated, well informed and rich elite. DB.NL stimulates developments toward a user friendly (equipped with a graphical user interface) communications system, so that everyone can work without any problems and can bear the fruits of it. DB.NL wishes to bring the aspect of accessibility and improving the quality of the Net to the attention of the producers (Net providers, producers of software and harware, government).

Space for non-commercial applications

On the Net commercial and non-commercial applications will be developed. That is no problem as long as more space (bandwidth) is and remains available for the non-commercial applications. As long as socially valuable services can be available alongside the wave of games, porno and pulp. There is no negotiation on that point as far as DB.NL is concerned. Digital exchange of information and opinions can allow citizens to organise themselves faster and more easily, with less barriers such as distance and time. This can be the case for a school club or a group of activists against sonic pollution in their neighbourhood or a patient administration. In this way information and communication technology can assist in the creation of "virtual societies", where citizens with the same interests or points of view kan meet each other and where new forms of "neighbourhood" are developed.

Giving the non-profit sector a digital profile
The traditional sharp division between passive consumers and active producers is archaic. Everyone now can become an information or service provider on the Net. This gives enormous chances to citizens and and their organisations to intensify their contacts with their members and employees and inform themselves about their wishes, ideas and needs. DB.NL advocates low threshhold, affordable, user friendly possibilities to the connection of citizens and their organisations to the Net and helping giving them a profile. Extra effort must be put into connecting the non-profit sector education, social care, health care, social organisations, social work, social movements and local government to the Net. DB.NL advocates educational projects which help citizens and their organisations learn to work with information and communication technology. Projects such as 'De Digitale Stad' (The Digital City) in Amsterdam, that help close the divide between the public, technology and politics, deserve support and followers.
We do not only consider this a task for the government. Also commerce must have an eye open for such "public affairs", even if they are commercially less interesting. In that way commercial organisations can show their involvment with the society for which and wherein they function.

Telecommuting

More and more labour in the Netherlands is becoming knowledge-intensive. More and more work is done on the PC. That makes it possible for employees and self-employed workers to do a part of their work (usually the thinking and writing work) at home in front of the computer and fax. The traditional requirement of visible presence behind a desk is becoming less and less important for a number of professions and functions. Telecommuting means in the long term a reduction in the levels of commuter traffic, in the total time spent travelling to and from work and in the discharge of exhaust gases from motor vehicles. That saves the environment. Statistics show that telecommuting increases a worker's productivity and job satisfaction for employee and employer alike. It makes it easier to combine work and doing the household chores and/or looking after the children. In addition to that it gives enormous chances to handicapped people to do payed work.

It can be expected that the Net will be used increasingly for telecommuting. In all probability this will bring about great changes in the organisation of labour and in the conditions of contract. It is not yet possible to say whether these changes will be positive or negative. On the one hand, there are certainly chances to come to more flexible forms of labour and to do work which is more satisfying. On the other hand that flexibility could swing around to the unjust. DB.NL wants to prevent this. Telecommuting must become a win-win situation for both parties. DB.NL advocates a policy in which employees whose function allows this, have a right to telecommuting, as long as this is voluntary. There may be no question of compulsion.

One last remark. Perhaps it is not always necessary to call on the tried and tested method of "legislation". Maybe the Net-societies can solve a number of digital problems themselves. This would be entirely in the spirit of the (interactive) citizen. And of this manifesto.

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20180512215617/https://dbnl.bitstorm.org/english/manifeng.html

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Derechos digitales]]
[[Categoría:The Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement]]

2013 - Digital Detox Manifesto - Digital Detox

2022-05-27T22:09:23Z

Paz: /* Contexto */

== '''Texto''' ==

By creating healthy relationships with our devices, developing new positive social norms and etiquette, and by changing the ways in which we build and design our digital technologies, we will shift the course of human history.

Living in a generation of multi-task masters, we find it hard to simply sit and focus on one thing. In turn, our productivity levels lower as stress levels sky rocket. Internet use, dependency and forms of addiction are higher than we might like to admit. Many are realizing the affects on their personal life, family structures and society at large, and starting to question the role that screens play in their life.

Spending the majority of our waking lives experiencing reality through a screen, endlessly plugged into our devices, is taking it’s toll… and we’re realizing it’s not the answer. It’s time that the era of burnout, FOMO, multi-tasking, tech dependence, fatigue, ‘social media everything’ and information overload comes a close. This is a new chapter, an opportunity for us to redefine what our relationship with digital technology looks like, and in turn, how we experience life on this beautiful planet.

Disconnect to Reconnect® Human beings are incredible. The value of our ability to connect and share experiences is infinite.

We believe in living a life of freedom, balance and joy. We believe in a world where people are given permission, resources and the opportunities they need to feel alive, whole,complete and deeply connected to the beauty that is life. We believe in the power of play, mindfulness, integrity, intention, spontaneity, self expression, audacity, creativity,community, authenticity and vulnerability.

We believe that technologies should serve as tools to connect us to these tenants as we celebrate life, truly improving our unique existence, instead of distracting, disturbing or disrupting us. And we believe that these technologies should be created mindfully and ethically, for the benefit of and not at the cost of consumers and users. In fact, the relationship that grows between the creator and consumer should be truly symbiotic and honest.

We value smiles, DIY, nature and the great outdoors, long hugs, laughter, tears, good eye-contact and IRL (in real life) community experiences. Life is about about sharing moments with the people sitting around us on a bus ride to work, across from us at the dinner table, or walking by us on the street. It’s about creating a new code of ethics and etiquette where people and nature come first, amongst everything else.

We believe that it’s time to ask really big questions of the things we’ve taken for granted. To work really hard to remind ourselves of the simple things we’ve forgotten. And to take a big deep breath, pause and remember that we are all in this together.

So that someday, our grandchildren will look back on the choices we’ve made and say thank you.

== '''Contexto''' ==

La fecha de publicación es aproximada ya que la copia más antigua es de 2020 pero se menciona en un artículo de 2017 http://art511mag.com/2017/07/17/the-importance-of-digital-detox/ al hilo de artículos aparecidos en 2013, motivo por el cual se ha elegido ese año para la datación del manifiesto.

Aparece como The Original Digital Detox® Manifesto en Google.

Digital detoxis a relatively newconcept, appearing on websites around 2010.From 2013,the concept is included in theOxford dictionary https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/76333/3/DigitalDetox_Convergence_Enli.pdf

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' https://www.digitaldetox.com/manifesto

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20210508141521/https://www.digitaldetox.com/manifesto

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:2013]]
[[Categoría:Estados Unidos]]
[[Categoría:Digital Detox]]

2013 - Digital Detox Manifesto - Digital Detox

2022-05-27T20:05:18Z

Paz: Paz trasladó la página 0000 - Digital Detox Manifesto - Digital Detox a 2013 - Digital Detox Manifesto - Digital Detox sin dejar una redirección

== '''Texto''' ==

By creating healthy relationships with our devices, developing new positive social norms and etiquette, and by changing the ways in which we build and design our digital technologies, we will shift the course of human history.

Living in a generation of multi-task masters, we find it hard to simply sit and focus on one thing. In turn, our productivity levels lower as stress levels sky rocket. Internet use, dependency and forms of addiction are higher than we might like to admit. Many are realizing the affects on their personal life, family structures and society at large, and starting to question the role that screens play in their life.

Spending the majority of our waking lives experiencing reality through a screen, endlessly plugged into our devices, is taking it’s toll… and we’re realizing it’s not the answer. It’s time that the era of burnout, FOMO, multi-tasking, tech dependence, fatigue, ‘social media everything’ and information overload comes a close. This is a new chapter, an opportunity for us to redefine what our relationship with digital technology looks like, and in turn, how we experience life on this beautiful planet.

Disconnect to Reconnect® Human beings are incredible. The value of our ability to connect and share experiences is infinite.

We believe in living a life of freedom, balance and joy. We believe in a world where people are given permission, resources and the opportunities they need to feel alive, whole,complete and deeply connected to the beauty that is life. We believe in the power of play, mindfulness, integrity, intention, spontaneity, self expression, audacity, creativity,community, authenticity and vulnerability.

We believe that technologies should serve as tools to connect us to these tenants as we celebrate life, truly improving our unique existence, instead of distracting, disturbing or disrupting us. And we believe that these technologies should be created mindfully and ethically, for the benefit of and not at the cost of consumers and users. In fact, the relationship that grows between the creator and consumer should be truly symbiotic and honest.

We value smiles, DIY, nature and the great outdoors, long hugs, laughter, tears, good eye-contact and IRL (in real life) community experiences. Life is about about sharing moments with the people sitting around us on a bus ride to work, across from us at the dinner table, or walking by us on the street. It’s about creating a new code of ethics and etiquette where people and nature come first, amongst everything else.

We believe that it’s time to ask really big questions of the things we’ve taken for granted. To work really hard to remind ourselves of the simple things we’ve forgotten. And to take a big deep breath, pause and remember that we are all in this together.

So that someday, our grandchildren will look back on the choices we’ve made and say thank you.

== '''Contexto''' ==

La fecha de publicación es aproxiamda ya que la copia más antigua es de 2020 pero se menciona en un artículo de 2017 http://art511mag.com/2017/07/17/the-importance-of-digital-detox/ al hilo de artículos aparecidos en 2013, motivo por el cual se ha elegido ese año para la datación del manifiesto.

Aparece como The Original Digital Detox® Manifesto en Google.

Digital detoxis a relatively newconcept, appearing on websites around 2010.From 2013,the concept is included in theOxford dictionary https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/76333/3/DigitalDetox_Convergence_Enli.pdf

== '''Autoras''' ==

== '''Fuentes''' ==

== '''Enlaces''' ==

'''URL:''' https://www.digitaldetox.com/manifesto

'''Wayback Machine:''' http://web.archive.org/web/20210508141521/https://www.digitaldetox.com/manifesto

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:2013]]
[[Categoría:Estados Unidos]]
[[Categoría:Digital Detox]]