Lachlan Brown on Mon, 13 May 2002 07:08:26 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> Re: PUBLIC DOMAIN SCANNER [x2] |
Indeed, the distinction between assumed rights and legal guarantee of rights, public and private, resides in an interstitial state. Not a 'grey area' to be filled in between the public and private by new conditions for 'cyber' space, but a contest in which like a Venn Diagramme the public and private vie over the terrain they both occupy. Add to this the interests of several dozen States, thousands of public service institutions hundreds of thousands of companies and millions of users, well... . What would we call it? War? Wrestling? or Seduction? A Million times a million contests. Cultural confusion. I did a fair bit of research into the legalities as a part of my groundbreaking (and aparantly retro-gardist) PhD. First the question of aesthetics, then the question of policy, finally the question of the regualtory, governmental, legal terrain. What struck me about the legal terrain is how we are constructed as contractual subjects, the intersection of dozens of legal rights and obligations. These webs of the law are durable and have easy translation to the new media distributive terrain. Despite word play or administrative/bureaucratic assumptions of power. The really interesting fact is that States, institutions, companies, individuals, but not collectivities like artists, writers, coders, primary producers and so on, are beginning to 'stand-off' this terrain. We might, after all, consider a return to the question of the aesthetic, and then of policy, and then of law over several years. It will become clear as we do so that we NEED insitutions, new institutions perhaps, that are able to host the work you If anyone would like legal advice, advice on securities, advice on digital properties, I can help. Advice on the extent of the question? Always ready to oblige. I think it helped my cultural anthropology of a familiar/unfamiliar culture not to have any knowledge of'cyberpunk' fiction. I am now catching up on this, I see the parallels, but not the relevance to the broader cultural geographical terrain. I see where I fit in however. I mean, I see the Punks, I see the Cyber, I don't see enough fiction. I do not see enough Art or Criticism that relates to or makes a New England. Lachlan difference engine 00 cultural.knowbotics: the social shapes of technology March 1993 - May 2002 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 10:48:42 +0200 From: "knowbotic.research" <krcf@khm.de> Subject: Re: [rohrpost] PUBLIC DOMAIN SCANNER > >unitedwehack.ath.cx > >All 1549 scanned ports on (209.73.19.97) are: UNfiltered May 5 21:00:34 on open scanner: May 5 21:00:23 snd sshd[16010]: fatal: Read from socket failed: Connection reset by peer netname: CABLECOM-MAIN-NET descr: Cablecom GmbH descr: Zuerich May 5 21:00:34 snd sshd[16032]: Failed password for illegal user su from 217.162.194.136 port 1116 May 5 21:00:39 snd sshd[16032]: fatal: Read from socket failed: Connection reset by peer May 6 06:14:11 snd sshd[31593]: Did not receive identification string from 211.124.245.7 Hutchison Telecommunications (Hong Kong) Limited May 7 12:18:46 snd sshd[14426]: Did not receive identification string from 210.0.210.16 [Network Name] CWO-NET g. [Organization] City Wave Osaka Inc. May 7 19:03:56 snd sshd[28072]: Did not receive identification string from 211.124.245.7 Freie Universitaet Berlin May 7 19:26:24 snd sshd[31515]: Bad protocol version identification 'QUIT' from 160.45.155.53 May 7 19:27:27 snd sshd[31728]: Did not receive identification string from 160.45.155.53 netname: DOM-NET descr: digital online media Gmbh descr: Bismarckstr. 60 descr: D-50672 Koeln May 7 21:07:02 snd sshd[11961]: Bad protocol version identification '^D' from 194.77.86.7 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 17:27:40 +0200 From: "knowbotic.research" <krcf@khm.de> Subject: Re: <nettime> PUBLIC DOMAIN SCANNER >I've never received an email that has caused me quite so much concern, >indeed, terror. Yes, you are potentially right. Each network actor who does not follow the legal guidelines of the political logic of security immediately becomes a focus of concern. If we published the precise vulnerabilities of the public domain in the networks, the 18 U.S.C. 1030 Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers would make us hackers=terrorists. (see http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030_new.html and the new Amendments http://unitedwehack.ath.cx/infoPatriotAct.htm) In relation to our project PUBLIC DOMAIN SCANNER, minds of concern::breaking news this means concretely: A) if we used in this Public Domain Scanner the full range of a Security Scanner, i.e. enact also intrusive scans, B) and/or we published the adresses of the scanned servers and their vulnerabilities we would turn immediately illegal. Thats the dilemma: security becomes the leading principle of today's politics; if you dare to go in this political mousetrap (public domain is the zone of instability and contestation, and has nothing to do with the concept of security=regulating disorder by means of appeasement) and discuss, crisscoss, enact publicly/in networks the concept of security, the law forces you immediately to obscure the topic. We had hoped to raise these issues unobscured in an Art museum, but since Art Instutions are unwilling to enter this zone, even or maybe especially not in an 'Art Hacking' show, due to the ubiquitous paranoia and threat of getting sued, - the museum and the curators made it very clear to us that we as artists are 100% alone and private in any legal dispute -, we decided by ourselves to hide parts of the information on the scanner. >, but more importantly, <intently>who</intently> is behind it? The artist group Knowbotic Research, based on vulnerable site 194.95.163.253, part of a current show in NY New Museum called OPEN_SOURCE_ART_HACK. (netartcommons.walkerart.org) Lachlan, have a look at Critical Art Ensembles Book4: Digital Resistance: (chapter: 2 The Mythology of Terrorism on the Net http://www.critical-art.net) and i hope you will find out who uses tactics of near random paranoia, panic and (virtual) violence in order to define critical people als terrorists. The sovereign imposes an immanent threat on network actors of making them terrorists, or even become himself the cracker (see German interior minister Schily's state actions of cracking websites). We think the only way of escaping this spectacle of paranoia in networks demands new tactics and agencies inside the domain of the public. Such new ways of public acting cannot fall into the trap of the worn dichotomy of private and public but rather open new possibilities of public agency for domains of the commons which include tactics which were seen as inappropriate for the contextualization of the public domain in the modernist sense. Instead of referring only to the concepts of transparency, visibility and manifestation, we suggest to upgrade the public agencies with non-representational activities like encrypting, rendering invisible, disinforming, hiding, fleeting, tunnelling, disturbing, spoofing, and other camouflage tactics. knowbotics/christian ------------------------------ # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net Lachlan Brown T(416) 826 6937 VM (416) 822 1123 -- _______________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net