[Reader-list] digital inequalities

[Oli]

dear t.,
dear all,

yes, I am the author. This is a text I have written while being at sarai. 
It is intended for discussion, or a starting point of discussion. please 
feel free to comment...

-oli

--On Thursday, March 03, 2005 09:19:27 +0530 arisen silently 
<arisen.silently at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
> What is this for? Are you the author?
> t
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:06:30 +0100, Oli <oli at zeromail.org> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> here is a proposal of what could be called "digital inequalitities".
>>
>> Best, Oli Leistert
>>
>> ----
>>
>> Digital Inequalities
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>> The following text raises questions about digital dependencies and
>> inequalities. Most agendas of development work and computer literacy see
>> their goals in a distribution of computers and relating hardware.
>> « Computer » here is seen generally as a means for empowerment, as a
>> means to access resources of knowledge and as a means for building
>> networks. Left out, whether consciously or not, is a critical reflection
>> on the product « computer » and the accompaining regimes of computer
>> products. This text argues, that a distribution of computer products
>> such as Microsoft through multiplicators such as NGO's does not diminish
>> digital inequalities, but, in a way, extends them. With the distribution
>> of a black box, such as Microsoft Windows, a profound empowerment is
>> prevented, not inforced. The users of these software bundles are
>> strictly depending on the proprietary product. With this kind of
>> distribution of computers, the misleading and wrong equation « Computer
>> is Microsoft » is transported as a gospel, or ruling motto, into rural
>> areas.
>> The second issue this text discusses is the general accumulation of data
>> in a digitally connected environment, that confronts our everyday life
>> more and more.
>> This world of data is produced by us while we are acting the way we
>> always used to do. Our acting gets more and more translated and
>> transported as data into a  dataworld, mostly without that we know about
>> it. Wireless networks  connect everyday life (mobiles, smartcards in the
>> metro, payback cards while shopping) and produce a counterworld, that
>> consists of data, intangible and purely informational. This data then
>> feedbacks into the real world, into everyday life, structures what we do
>> and how we do it, sometimes even determines it.
>>
>> Digital inequalities belong to a world of patents, licences and copyright
>> protection
>>
>> The digital divide saga goes roughly like this: the poor on this planet
>> do not only have not enough to eat, no, (even worse) they they don't have
>> computers. And not having computers seems to be the reason, why they
>> don't have enough to eat. Other reasons of their poverty, or of poverty
>> in general, are not touched or even considered in this discourse, because
>> development aid is not about questioning the political agenda where it
>> gets its money from. The analytical gap is being replaced by a simple
>> equation: once the poor have computers, they have access to information
>> and with that, they have access to resources of knowledge that will help
>> them escape their poverty. This tale of progress through technology is
>> being used to implement new dependencies, dependencies that are of an
>> old kind, but with a new look. Digital dependencies emerge, when western
>> commercial products, such as Microsoft Windows, are being introduced as
>> bringing salvation in communities of the paupers. The dependency
>> consists of not more and not less than the usage of a commercial
>> product, including the introduction of such concepts as licenses,
>> copyright regimes and patents. And, maybe most important, the
>> introduction of what a computersystem is, or seems to be: a commercial
>> product. A deep rooted equal computer system would be one, that allows
>> full control over its usage, distribution and changing in any way,
>> including improovement. An equalitiy would allow free choice of
>> applications and the possibility to deny the usage of  some.
>>
>> So, digital inequalities can in part be seen as a result of a society,
>> that is shaped by commodities, where social interaction is replaced
>> through an exchange of commodities and of a society, where important
>> tools are « protected » by regimes of copyrights, patents and licenses
>> and where a huge political, juridical and police apparatus takes care of
>> this. These regimes successfully prevent any emancipation of the
>> consumer to a user controlling his/her means by her/himself. This is
>> applies to the west as to any other region (although, surely,  there are
>> big differences, the main line stays the same). A licence defines the
>> terms of usage. It prohibits that the user appropriates the products in
>> a way not being intended by the manufacturer of the product. The product
>> is not intended to become a thing amongst others, which is being
>> determined by the user. Licenses somehow guarantee the determination and
>> limitation of the user.
>>
>> A different example of digital inequalities is much deeper situated in
>> the logique of software products: no matter the customer is allowed to
>> use the product in a way different from the licence agreement, software
>> products (including the software running on mobiles) can hardly be
>> changed into appropriated means. The interface design is strictly
>> determining their usage. It is not open to any change. Also, the product
>> does not need to even inform the user about what else it does. By
>> offering the services mentioned in the licence, the product fullfills
>> its requirements the user has paid for. The contract between user and
>> manufacurer is not about any activities of the manufacturer, but solely
>> about the user's. So, the product may have interfaces and communication
>> channels to a third party, without even informing the user. The
>> SMS-channel provided by mobiles is such a case, where a channel,
>> initially made for technical services as checking remotely the
>> functionality of the mobile, has become popular means of communication,
>> sold seperately.
>>
>> Letting connected digital devices give feedbacks and transmit data, with
>> or without notifying the user, is the contempory challenge of the
>> majority of IT-companies. Their goal is to build an environment, an
>> ambient, that permantly transmits data about « events » in real time.
>> The Rfid-technology (link) is such a case, where little computers, that
>> transmit data, are being attached onto or implemented into any possible
>> thing surrounding an individuum, or carried by the individuum. A
>> different approach of bringing together offline and online worlds is
>> made by the consortium that tries to establish « Trusted Computing » .
>> They don't even try to hide their ambitions: a complete control over any
>> connected personal computer, including the possibility of remotely
>> deleting files, if « appropriate ». The history of these kind of plans
>> shows that totalitarian goals usually fail because they underestimate
>> the complexity of reality. But on the other side, if the transnationals
>> make a combined effort in a connected world, one should not
>> underestimate their will and power to solve the « problem » of pirated
>> media and what else they have on their agenda.
>>
>> With the emergence of a counterworld and its computational
>> infrastructure, everyday life is being more and more confronted with a
>> data accumulation innaccessible for most. A kingdom of information for
>> governments, authorities, companies, sales persons and so on, beyond any
>> legitimation.
>>
>> Everyday life produces a counterworld
>>
>> What follows is an example of RFID-technology, that shall serve to
>> explain the impact of a digital black box computer in everyday life.
>> The first part of the Delhi Metro is on service for a couple of months
>> now. This line goes from east to west, connecting the city devided by
>> the river Yukamo. The Delhi Metro has been equipped with a complete
>> computerized ticket system by french global player Thales. It offers to
>> types of « tickets »: one for the single or two-way passage, and one for
>> multiple passages. The ones for the single/two way passage are looking
>> like plastic coins, manufactured by Sony (CHECK), they go uner the
>> product name RC-S 890 and have a diameter of 30mm, are 3 mm thick, and
>> weight 2.7 gramm. They contain a small computer with an antenna. They
>> have themselves no power supply (a very important aspect of RFID-items),
>> but get their energy through field induction from a reader-device.
>>
>> Between the « Ticket » and the reader-device, that is integrated into the
>> barrier one has to pass to reach the platform, an intense data traffic
>> takes place:
>> the computer is activated by induced energy. Then, the reader reads the
>> data on the « ticket » that has been stored on it. The system now knows
>> which smart token has been purchased, for what passage and when. Possibly
>> the smart token stores data given by the reader: the reader might store
>> place and time of passing the reader on the « ticket ». The communication
>> between the two runs on 13.56 Mhz. Both, token and card are working
>> within a so called close coupling distance (distance from reader not
>> more than some centimeters). The smart token has a memory size of 576
>> bytes. This Eeprom-memory can be overwritten up to 50.000 times.
>>
>> These coins, which have to be placed near the barrier before every
>> passage, open, if valid, the barriers and the commuter can proceed to
>> the platform. After the passage, they are thrown into the barrier again.
>> And depending on the passage done and the one paid for, or better:
>> depending if the passage done is compatible to the one reserved for the
>> commuter by the system, the barriers open or don't open.
>> The traveller does not get any material proof of the passage, like the
>> paperticket in the old days. The tickets are bought at the ticket
>> counter, readily configured for the announced passage. A spontanous
>> prolongation of the passage is not possible without somehow embarrasing
>> procedures at final station. The ticket system notices the change of
>> passage and the yatri gets punished with high attention by the uniformed
>> employees.
>> Furthermore, only a limited timeslot is open for the passage. If the
>> yatri leaves the train in between and discusses with a fellow the pro's
>> and con's of the Delhi Metro and then continues the passage, the
>> timeslot will be closed and again the uniformed personal will pay high
>> attention to this yatri. This high attention mostly leads to a rising
>> deprivation of the yatri, She/he is now a disturbing subject, at least
>> disturbing the continuous flow of the other passengers at the gate.
>> With the total electronic control, no manual control and no spotting of
>> faredodger is necessary in the trains. This means less employees and the
>> end of a possible economy not fully in the hands of the Delhi Metro
>> Transport Corporation (DMTC). Supposedly, full control of metro usage is
>> done over two different stages: purchase of ticket at counter and
>> barrier/reader-device. As some uniformed employees always hang around at
>> the barriers, it is hard to jump over them - a sport of civil
>> disobedience very popular in several western old metro systems. It's
>> even harder, as two barriers have to be passed: at the beginning and the
>> end.
>> The uniformed employees are mere appendixes of the digital machine: they
>> are getting active when the machine tells them to, by sending off alarm
>> clock like sounds that changes the whole place into a location of
>> emergency.
>>
>> One detail, that arises from the fact, that the tickets are computers, is
>> the fine of RPs 100 one has to pay, if the « ticket » is not used for
>> travelling but taken away, removed out of the closed system of the
>> digital machine. It is not allowed to do this, because these « tickets »
>> are far too expensive. They cost far more than the prize for the
>> passage. A smart token ticket system only pays off, if each token is
>> used some hundred times. Only then it is cheaper than the classic paper
>> ticket system. To prevent « theft » of tickets, the DMTC has invented so
>> called « souvenir tokens », simple plastic coins without any computer
>> inside, for 4 rps, that can be taken home by fans of the metro. That it
>> does not contain a computer might not matter, as the computer is
>> invisible anyway. The contactless data traffic does not feel very
>> technical, more magic.
>> While purchasing a paper ticket in a classical metro system, it is still
>> the passengers decision to make the journey or not. In the case of the
>> RFID-System, the passenger has to do the passage or to give back the
>> ticket at the counter.
>>
>> The second type of ticket offered by the DMTC is a plastic card in the
>> size of creditcards. It is intended for those who commute frequently and
>> can be obtained for a deposit of one hundred rupees, which comes close
>> to the actual prize for the product on the market. This smartcard can be
>> charged with data that represents money, from 50 rps upwards. The usage
>> is identical to the usage of the tokens (but you keep it and don't throw
>> it into the slot). Some commuters have invented the practice to keep it
>> in the wallet or bag and to hold the wallet against the reader, which
>> works fine as long as the wallet or bag does not contain too much metal.
>> The value « on the card » will be shown each time the card is read. A
>> little discount is given for users of the smartcard, which means that
>> two classes of users are invented, token user and card user. Whoever has
>> enough money to pay the deposit and at least 50 rps gets rewarded with a
>> discount. Technically seen, the « metrocard » is more sophisticated than
>> the token. It is again a product by Sony, called FeLica, most reasonably
>> the type RC-S833, made out of PET-plastic. The Computer has an 8-bit
>> RISC CPU with 1.2 kbytes usermemory. The most important difference is
>> the Triple-DES Encryption Algorithm the CPU is equipped with. This
>> Encryption is used everytime the card gets read by the System. It
>> prevails the « illegitimate » charging of the card. The metrocard can be
>> used as an electronic wallet, and some shops in the metro stations
>> supposedly accept it (I haven't tried).
>>
>> Whether token or card, both are computers, and being a ticket is just one
>> possible application. It can also be said, that they simulate tickets.
>> The smart ticket system offers online statistics about the metro usage,
>> because every single passage is tracked by the system. This is a
>> manager's dream, a real-time analysis of such a complex company. The
>> possibility of real-time analysis lowers operational cost and increases
>> profits. Information is of big value for companies. Today, a lot of
>> products, from toothpaste to milk, have toll-free number printed on,
>> that can be called by consumers. « We want to know what you think about
>> this product! » Sure they want. And while this kind of feedback is based
>> on free will, other feedback channels have emerged which are much more
>> subtile and imperceptible: City Bank's PayBack card reports every item
>> purchased to the members of the Payback consortium. Customers Cards by
>> chains are a different example. They provide special offers or
>> discounts, which shows how high this kind of informations is valued by
>> the chains. But in all these cases, it initially was a decision by the
>> customer to be member of the « club ». This is different in the case of
>> the Delhi Metro. Every commuter is being reported in real time.
>>
>> > From the operator's perspective, the ticket system provides a complete
>> picture of the metro usage, from its first day of operation on. Every
>> token or card, that had been connected to the reader, gets storaged. So,
>> for exampe, no inspectors in the trains are needed anymore. Also, the
>> expansive and inexact counting of passengers, still seen in older metro
>> systems, is outdated. The system counts everything itself, or better: by
>> counting it works.
>>
>> Every metro station is connected via fibre cable or satellite dishes with
>> the central server. The metro operates its own, closed network, no local
>> business is envolved. The central database, run by a software system
>> thats main target is to eliminate costs (SAP, the neoliberal's dream),
>> contains each single passage: time, places, durage, which token or card
>> used (they all have unique numbers). The software generates daily
>> analysis of each stations usage, routes taken. The metrocards are not
>> personalized, but as video pictures from each station are also
>> transmitted to the headquarters, tracking of each single yatri is fairly
>> easy. The commuting behaviour of each metrocard can be visualized with a
>> mouse click.
>>
>> Okay, well, somehow interesting this, but tell me: what has this to do
>> with digital inequalities?
>>
>> Every yatri produces data during her/his voyage, without knowing about
>> it. No one informs the yatri about this, not during « ticket » «
>> purchase » or by a leaflet handed out. The signs in the stations inform
>> about video surveillance and not to touch unknown things.
>> It seems as if the data is not a matter of the yatri, who produces it.
>> This raises questions of ownership: whose data is this? Doesn't it
>> belong to the commuter? Or should not at least the commuter decide what
>> this data is used for?
>> In the case of the Delhi Metro, the yatri has no possibilities to
>> interfere into the production and usage of his/her data. The Metro
>> System needs the data to operate, so the data is an immanent part of the
>> metro. Any questioning of the data production means a questioning of the
>> whole metro system. The only possibility to avoid data production is not
>> using the metro, definitely not a good choice. The Delhi Metro has
>> implemented a data regime, that is immanently connected to the metros
>> functionality as a transport system - real world and virtual world fall
>> together.
>>
>> Digital inequalities consist in this of the asymmetric dataworld. No
>> influence possible on the data produced and the way it is used. The way
>> to any surveillance scenarios is paved. But even without this in mind,
>> the data production is highly questionable: who has legitimized the DMRC
>> to maintain a total data collection of their passengers? Can this be
>> legitimized by the system itself? A technology, that has implemented such
>> features as being necessary for operation is frightening. What if the
>> next generation cars only move, if a real time data stream is up and
>> running?
>>
>> In a wireless connected surrounding, the real, physical world of moving
>> objects produces a virtual, informational world, a distorted mirror.
>> Simultaneously and in synchronity this mirror is build. But while the
>> real world is fluid, passing, fading in its stream of time, the virtual
>> world is of very different character. It consists of incoherent, but
>> continuously generated data, that does not fade away in time. It is an
>> evergrowing accumulation of discrete « moments », that, as data, lack
>> the sense of time humans have. Data is omnipresent. The virtual world
>> collects passing moments and preserves them for signification at any
>> possible time in the future, in a reductionist way, as data never
>> represents the qualities of real life, the overwhelming number of
>> impressions and emotions one connects with moments passed. The virtual
>> world is a homogenized substratum, lacking any sense of time. It can
>> haunt the real world at any arbitrary moment by « prooving » long
>> forgotten situations or constellations. The temporal disconnection and,
>> with that, the shortage to an everlasting present is not only of
>> philosophical interest. Nothing less but everyday life is affected by it.
>>
>> The virtual world affects everyday life as an objective narrative
>>
>> Although much poorer in sensual qualities and details, which makes the
>> world surrounding us so interesting, the quality of total objectivity is
>> attributed to the virtual world. This total objectivity is also seen as
>> universal, meaning the same anywhere at anytime; the « pure truth ». This
>> authoritarian style data, being always correct, echoes the politics of
>> those who are building it: technicians, engineers, scientists, and
>> authorities of states and companies. White male's dreams of omnipotence
>> rule the data world. A well trained view from above, learned through
>> centuries of « neutral » science and thinking, a god's view. The data
>> world is independent of local bindings. It is a register of a divine
>> almanac, never to be questioned. This objectivity is unquestionable, as
>> there is no locality to question it from. It lies beyond the living
>> world, a dead(ly) objecitivity.
>> This doesn't mean that any data is evil or forever lost in bad politics.
>> But being in the hands of those, whose interest is control, government,
>> surveillance, optimization, cost reduction, the virtual world helps
>> generate images of the real world, that are reduced to parameters
>> belonging to such regimes. The output, the generated view on the real
>> world, always appears to be true and unquestionable, independent of how
>> contingent the meanings given to it are. While emotions and other not
>> quantifyable matters structure the signification of everyday moments,
>> and truth and objectivity are of secondary interest, this relation is
>> upside down in the virtual world. Data of total objectivity generate the
>> meanings of moments. The parameters used for these operations are
>> contingent, maybe even senseless and incomprehensible. They are set by
>> the operators of the system, by the managers, politicians: they generate
>> a world of theirs. The « real » world is being generated from scratch on
>> the basis of datasets, replayable in any contingent way, objectified by
>> computers. A good example is the weathershow on BBC World. A colourful
>> ball appears on the screen, that represents the « world weather » of,
>> say, the last 24 hours, and some gray spots hurry around it. We are
>> feeling comfortable with images like that and hardly notice, that the
>> picture shown by BBC World can not be seen by anyone on earth. It is
>> generated from the virtual world's data and narrates something about the
>> real world, that is computated out of billions of data sets. We are all
>> astronauts, aren't we?
>>
>> The virtual world acts normatively on the real world because of the
>> objectivity awarded to it. The power of the virtual world to generate
>> reductionistic perspectives, views, diagrams, cross-sections by any
>> possible criteria, that are always true, but never representing something
>> experienceable in this abstract and contextless way, alienates the real
>> world from it self step by step. Endless generating of « real » worlds by
>> the means of virtual worlds change every real world substantially. The
>> virtual world is a misguided mirror of the real world, in which the real
>> world never can regain itself. In its reduction to some few  parameters,
>> the virtual reduces the real, that bows to it, anddeclares its own
>> richness of images, imaginations, emotions more and more irrelevant. The
>> virtual objectivies the real.
>> The accumulation of data in a digitally connected world generates a
>> counterworld, immaterial, informational, of ruling objectivity. It
>> structures the real, it economises the real and sorts it by contingent,
>> undiscussed criterias, that reflect the thinking of those who have access
>> to it. To trace, to govern, to control, to collect, to calculate, to
>> divide. Quantifyable kingdoms, pure and clean. Classes, modules,
>> segments, parts.
>> Most of the time, we don't even notice the production of the
>> counterworld. The striking thing is, though, that it is us who produce
>> it. Without movements of objects, of transactions, of sounds and any
>> other dynamics, no data would be produced, at least no data of interest.
>> Our actions are connected only one way: into the virtual. The stream
>> goes unidirectional, away from us. It is only on special occasions that
>> we get an impression about the accumulation already done, about
>> datamountains and
>> informationrivers. We are kept away from the data we produce, as if they
>> had nothing to do with us and as if they would not feedback into our
>> worlds. It is an inequality of prominent kind, that our data are present
>> in an unaccessible counterworld, always about to interfere into our
>> lifes. Besieging our lifes with meanings generated by others, meanings
>> we only can react on, mostly helpless as the meanings comes in an
>> objectified form.
>>
>> Personalized data are suspected to be the most problematic data, as a
>> counterimage of a single person is made up with it. But personalisation
>> of data at least offers some advantages: a personal reaction is
>> possible, it is much easier to adress the problem of personal data
>> storage and ask for access to it. Unpersonaliszed data, however, are in
>> a way a much bigger challenge, as they  also feedback onto single lifes,
>> but on a different, bigger scale. It's much harder to comprehend and
>> critize their effects, as they act on whole segments of societies.
>>
>> An overwhelming case of building constant data flows into the counterwelt
>> is RFID-technology, pushed by huge transnational companies. They dream
>> of a permant data emission by individuals and their objects. Putting life
>> online. A doubled world of data.
>> Digital inequalities are basically productions of data, that are caused
>> without the consent and knowing of the individuum, that uses digital
>> devices such as Personal Computers or the Delhi metro « ticket ».
>> When Microsoft promotes the connection of every earthling to the net, in
>> collaboration with huge development agencies, their goal is not to fight
>> digital inequalities, but to gain control over its definition.
>> Unconnected people are not of interest to anyone, like unaccessible
>> islands. To connect them means to connect them with and to an unequal
>> digital world, like it is done with the wide distribution of MS Products
>> through NGO's. Connection is always  designed by third parties. In the
>> case of most NGO's, a connectivity and computer distribution is
>> promoted, that is designed by one of the largest companies in the world.
>> While the small tokens of the Delhi Metro are hardly to be recognized as
>> computers, the personal computer is the most significant incarnation of
>> a computer, and what is striking, always with some proprietary software
>> by a single company running on it. But this is without any proper
>> reason, as the GNU/Linux solution offers an open operating system free
>> of charge, completly controllable by the user and changeable in any
>> imaginable way. This is a setting, that reduces digital inequalities
>> from the ground. Once the technical knowledge is spread, the computer is
>> under control of those, who should have it under control: the users.
>> Meanwhile, every single newly distributed MS computer only reinforces the
>> reign of Redmond. As the information politics goes, new user even don't
>> get told about alternatives. The equation that MS is computer is being
>> passed on from generation to generation, like some religion.
>> Some argue, that MS is easy to use and that its desktop is the entry to
>> computer literacy. This is an interesting claim that internalizes an
>> element of IT-politics that has undoubtly successfully been brought into
>> people's mind: the problem of the difficult machine and how to solve it.
>> Computers are some of the most complex machines build by humans and their
>> power lies in their ability of calculate in such an enormous speed, that
>> the calculation can be used to generate representations as graphics,
>> sounds and so on. But this computational power has also produced fear
>> and anger at computers. To make them a mass product, it was necessary to
>> give them a human-touch look.
>>
>> The promise of simplicity
>>
>> Computers are of complex and difficult matter. 25 years ago, computers
>> were part of the world of experts. These experts were and are educated to
>> understand the processes inside the machine, to configure and programme
>> it. To operate such a computer was difficult and laymen had lots of
>> respect for these machines and their commanders. These were
>> understandable fears of contact with these modern, eerie machines.
>> Images of machines ruling human kind were born and entered the world of
>> science fiction.
>>
>> Today, the computer has become an everyday item for a lot of people and
>> it can be found in many offices and at home. Fear of contact has been
>> reduced and the computer has become an integral part of contempory life,
>> in many places of the world. Like radio and television, one can't think
>> about life without it. But still, computers are complex machines.
>> Nothing has changed for that. Still, their inner processes are only
>> understood by experts. What has changed and what made them such a big
>> success is their surface, or better: its design. With a little training,
>> one feels comfortable with this surface and one gets the impression to
>> understand a computer. Though, one has « only » become a user. Computers
>> with desktops such as Windows are made to look easy understandable at
>> the price of not letting anyone know what really happens inside. A
>> promise of simplicity is being given, that builds trust between a higly
>> complex machine and a layman. With this promise of simplicity, people
>> get initiated into a colourful world, that provides any means for the
>> consum of digital products. Through this simplicity, the computer as
>> become a mass product.
>> But behind the surface, the complex machines still operates in the same
>> way as 25 years before. And everytime the machines crashes, an event of
>> regularity, some window pops up that « tells » about errors that happened
>> in the most cryptical way. In this moment, the user is helpless and
>> experiences the fragiltiy of her/his relation to the machine.
>> In these cases, the computer proves its power over the user. But this is
>> only because it was build this way. Microsoft has no interest in any
>> other relation. Their software doesn't allow more than a superficial
>> knowledge of the machine. Errors are not to be solved by the user, but
>> by the hotline, an expensive service and integral part of the product.
>> The user's dependency on the manufacturer and other commercial services
>> is part of the game. The user's kingdom ends with changing the
>> background colour of the desktop.
>>
>> In this ambivalence of computer complexity and the politics, to connect
>> everyone to the internet through pretending computers are simple, a
>> digital inequality emerges. The prize for simplicity is a black box, a
>> product that treats the user like a child. The metaphor of the desktop
>> had helped to spread the equation MS is Computer.
>> The politics of making people using computers, whether they need them or
>> not, with the promise of simplicity, has the goal to reduce the number of
>> those, that have been left out of the computer world so far. In the west,
>> these are the older people, the last analog generation. As the market
>> reached its limit in the west, the targetted number of people had to be
>> increased. The retired people are mostly wealthy (they gained the fruits
>> of 60's and 70's social system), buy laptops and search the internet for
>> information on old age illnesses. In the computer courses they visit,
>> they learn how to make spreasheets with MS Excel and other weird things,
>> but no one tells them about Linux.
>>
>> The retired in the west  are the rural people in big parts of Asia. While
>> the cities and towns offers internet services in so called cybercafes,
>> NGO's try to bring the computerblessing to the countryside. Main reason
>> is the argument, that  computers increase knowledge exchange, that a
>> network of computers  also helps to build a network of humans, and
>> finally, computerliteracy is seen as empowerment. This all might be
>> true, even if the computer itself serves also as a fetish that makes
>> people move. The problem is the computer system the NGO's introduce, as
>> it is most of the time MS Windows. They introduce a western regime, that
>> finds its expression in the equation MS is computer. It would be an easy
>> task to qualify a person to administrate Linux machines. Doing this, the
>> network could easily add applications for free and change their own
>> system in any desired way. This autonomy is not intended, supposedly.
>> The agenda fighting the « digital divide » is not an agenda for digital
>> independence, including operating systems and applications. Moreover,
>> the goal is to redo what has been done in the west before.
>> The distribution of western products through NGO's might not be a
>> reflected part of their work. Having the same computers in their
>> offices, why should they distribute Linux to the rural people?
>> Multiplicators such as NGO's are the vehicles to promote the de facto
>> monopoly of one software company.
>>
>> The Desktop-metaphor was one of the most striking events to make the
>> computer a mass medium, followed, of course, by the internet. By
>> succesfully pretending that knowing how to move a mouse and clicking some
>> windows means being able to operate a computer, millions of computers
>> have been sold to people lacking any sense of the machine. But the
>> illusion soon gets into trouble when the first time one of those
>> well-known and weired messages appears, telling about something
>> happening deep down inside the machine, completely in cryptic language.
>> This is where the metaphor of the desktop ends and where the users
>> dependency begins. Knowing how to change the colour of the desktop's «
>> background » doesn't help here. Microsoft is not letting anyone
>> understand the inner states of the computer.
>>
>> Two kinds of PC's exists: unequal and equal ones. The unequal ones are
>> more popular, because they seem to fulfill the promise of simpleness.
>> But also because the unequal ones are being promoted by a huge apparatus
>> of politics, bureaucracy and administrations, not to mention economics.
>> The whole machinery of patents, copyright, commodities, licences, that
>> comes with an unequal computer, feeds the power of these promoting
>> agencies. The entertainment industry finally depends on a machine that
>> can not be controlled by users themselves. How heavily armed this
>> destructive apparatus of control and moneymaking is, shall be shown with
>> an example not entirely  realistic today, but very much in a couple of
>> years:
>> You switch on your comp and open, as every morning, your dairy, a file in
>> MS Word. At your surprise, a window pops up that announces some
>> irritating message:
>> « Your license to use this MS product has expired. To renew it, please
>> visit microsoft.com .» And the application closes. You think you are
>> smart and you start OpenOffice, an alternative some computer geek once
>> installed on your comp. OpenOffice can import doc. files, so what's the
>> problem. But instead of your dairyfile, again some message pops up:
>> « This file's license has expired. To renew it, please visit
>> microsoft.com » This time, you start feeling a bit worried. Not knowing
>> what your computer does and always living in a subliminal state of panic
>> to loose data while using it, is normal for you, but not having access
>> to some of your most personal data is a new chapter in your computer
>> dependency. You worry even more, in fact start being hectical, as the
>> same happens when you doubleclick your Phd-Thesis, that is almost
>> finished. Also every letter you have written is inaccessible. There
>> seems to be no other possibility but to « visit » the mentioned website
>> and hope for help.
>> This takes longer than a coffee break. You are being requested to submit
>> a whole bunch of personal data concerning your person, profession,
>> income, creditcard number and more of the kind that is absolutely
>> unnecessary to male your MS Word work again. After having gone through
>> this striptease process, you doubleclick a small « OK »button on the
>> website. To your surprise, an even more worrying text appears:
>> « According to the Trusted Computing guard, your computer system gives
>> host to the following applications without any licence and therefore
>> illegally. We remind you that computer piracy is a criminal act:
>>
>> MS Paint
>> Adobe Photoshop
>> QuarkExpress
>>
>> All data, that has been illegally generated with these applications has
>> been deleted from your computer. In case any other files carrying the
>> signature of these illegally used applications are circulating on the
>> Internet, they will be deleted successively, too. Also, the applications
>> themselves have been deleted.
>>
>> You have infringed copyrights and licenses of Microsoft and other
>> companies by installing and using these applications. It is possible
>> that you have caused severe financial losses for these companies in
>> doing so. Please expect a legal case taken against you.
>>
>> The renewal of your MS Word licence is valid 18 months. We will withdraw
>> $ 293 from your account in the next 24 hours. Thank you for using
>> Microsoft! »
>>
>> Paths to digital independence
>>
>> This scenario of expired dairies does not seem real since until today,
>> there has always been a way to use pirated software. But this time, the
>> past is not much helpful to evalute the near future of computers.
>> Cracking of programs and the old liberal times of the internet are about
>> to be replaced by strict regimes of control.
>> Since 11/9, nearly every government implemented laws and regimes to
>> control the flow of data. The authorities are prosecuting the sharing of
>> music files in the name of antiterrorism. And they monitor the data
>> streams. They store terra bytes of data. Automated filter software works
>> its way through myriads of information, sorting things out by any
>> criteria imaginable. The governments oblige internet service providers
>> to hand over log files without telling their customers; in some
>> countries, the authorities even have direct access to the ISP's internal
>> data. The governments are driven by the reduction of liberties on the
>> net. In a networked world, things have to regulated properly.  And it
>> does not take much manpower to do this, since data is processable by
>> computers easily, even such large quantitites as the daily internet
>> connections. This counterworld, being generated in the name of
>> counterterrorism, produces new suspects and delinquents en masse and en
>> passant. Computertechnology has began to tyrannize everyday life. Every
>> citizen is a possible bad guy.
>>
>> But it is not only governments, that have put the counterworld on their
>> agenda and make intensive use of it. The « Trusted Computing » consortium
>> is about to change the Personal Computer from an autonomous machine to a
>> mere appendix of software companies, content providers and entertainment
>> industries. Intel, Microsoft, HP and others invest huge sums to convert
>> the PC to a device, which they can trust. This has nothing to do with a
>> secure computer for the user. The trust is about total control of what
>> is running on a machine under conditions dictated by them. The biggest
>> inequalitiy so far in the digital domain. A sophisticated implementation
>> on hardware level of algorithmns, that ensure proper payment and
>> licensing, that will not be an easy case for crackers and hackers, if at
>> all. The goal is to define, what the user is allowed to do with her/his
>> comp. This control is only possible through a huge connected
>> infrastructure such as the internet. This computer is definitely not a
>> good place for storage of relevant personal data. This computer has
>> become an outlet of the transnational company.
>>
>> Today, the question is not to have or have not a computer. Today, the
>> question  is how a computer can be used, without being a data producer
>> for governments and companies. It's about the liberty to decide which
>> data one produces, where it goes and who can access it. It's about the
>> one's self-defined usage of a technology, that holds immense means of
>> empowerment by its huge range of applications, whereof email is the
>> killerapplication. If it is right, that a networking computer is a means
>> of empowerment, than all the big players involved are trying to take
>> control over this empowerment, cutting it down to dependencies and
>> consumerism. Microsoft does not wait until NGO's start to distribute
>> Linux computers. They take care of it themselves to explore new markets,
>> with the aid of agencies like UNESCO. A developing world that develops
>> with Linux is a a nightmare for the big players and would mean the end
>> of the neverending growth of their market shares. China, India, most
>> parts of Asia are about to be computerized. A huge market emerges. Every
>> engagement of Microsoft in Asia is part of a fight against national
>> IT-solutions and Linux. The WTO and other neoliberalist structuring
>> regimes are the instruments to fight any development in the IT-sector
>> that differs from the past ones.
>>
>> But digital inequalities are no natural laws. They are manmade and can be
>> changed by man. It is not advisable to seek help from governments,
>> companies or even NGO's. Digital independence is for the most part
>> selfmade and self empowerment. It doesn't matter to have the latest
>> Computer model. Linux runs on every old machine just perfect. And a
>> computer that has the « trusted computing » hardware implemented can't
>> be trusted much. As digital inequalities are not primarily depending on
>> levels of
>> « development », but on levels of self empowerment and consciousness,
>> digital inequalities are not only subject to the « developing  world ».
>> It doesn't cost much money to operate a comp that gets upgraded
>> regularely and is well documented. Only pay for the Hardware, never for
>> the Software, since Linux is free. Uncountable online-sites contain
>> helpful postings and discussions on technical problems. Most of the
>> times, people answer ones question very fast, because helping others to
>> empower themselves is fun. Linux supports willingness to help.
>>
>> It is pretty easy to encrypt your emails. Noone but you and your
>> communication partner will then be able to read it. The manuals for PGP
>> and GPG are all out there. To encrypt your email it comparable with the
>> usage of an envelope in classic mail. Any non encrypted email will
>> automatically be prossessed by huge keyword search machines, storaged in
>> databases and maintained for possible later use. It doesn't matter if
>> your mail contains secrets, poems or whatever, because it simply isn't
>> anyone's elses business to know the content. What would you say, if all
>> your paper mail letters arrive with an open envelope or if the postman
>> would tell you what your mail contains today?
>>
>> The payments by creditcards, bankcards or any other smart cards is being
>> pushed because it provides two simple advantages for companies: it is
>> cheaper, as cash is cost intensive and always a risk and it provides a
>> flow of data that enters into the counterworld. It is still fairly easy
>> to say no. Use cash where possible. Everytime you choose electronic
>> payment, you let a third party participate in your business and you
>> expose yourself to a situation in that you don't know what happens.
>>
>> A similar case are RFID chips, that emerges more and more in
>> everydaylife. They might be attached to products in the supermarket, to
>> CD's in music stores, and they have already been sewn into clothes. They
>> garnish medical products and are present in systems like the Delhi
>> Metro. Spare parts for cars or mobiles, printer cardridges and other
>> items are identified through their unique number and they have been used
>> to tag dead bodies after the tsunami in Thailand. RFID is a technology
>> for different purposes and usages and there is not one single way to
>> deal with them. They will appear more and more in very different
>> situations of our everyday life. Each specific usage needs its own
>> reflection. There is not a single solution for or against it. But what
>> they always do: they partake in the accumulation of data for the
>> counterworld.
>> In a world of data transmitting things, more and more problems arise for
>> people that want to decide about their data themselves. If companies make
>> it to introduce RFID more broadly in the human environment, we face a
>> counterworld, that can't be ignored by anyone. Through the huge
>> concentration in the food sector, the global players can easily do what
>> they want to. RFID is the effort to eliminate any self-defined data
>> environment. This won't be total, but still troubling enough.
>> To raise consciousness against any data transmitting environment is
>> still a good move, as the business has just started. And as long as the
>> promissary rhetoric of progress and a better living is being used by its
>> promoters, it is fairly easy to expose the myths. The intelligent
>> fridge, that notices a shortage on milk and orders two more litres is
>> not a picture that convinces anyone to switch to this technology. But
>> tracking of pets with GPS devices is a reasonable succesful attempt to
>> introduce a complete surveillance scenario into everyday life.
>> Improvement of security is the keyword of such interventions. But the
>> same actors that are responsible for the condition of everyday life are
>> not trustworthy at all.
>>
>> Some sources, that have been helpful writing this:
>>
>> A good introduction on the Trusted Computing project:
>> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html
>>
>> How Microsoft describes its engagement with NGO's itself:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/citizenship/report/digitalinclusion.mspx
>>
>> The wikipedia page about RFID:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID
>>
>> The GnuPG site, email encryption software:
>> http://gnupg.org/
>>
>> One big source of (coorporate) information on RFID
>> http://www.rfidjournal.com/
>>
>> _________________________________________
>> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>> Critiques & Collaborations
>> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
>> subscribe in the subject header. List archive:
>> <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>>
>
>