<nettime> ***SPAM*** Re: Hacked Team

[morlockelloi@yahoo.com]

I didn't have cryptography in mind, but the general centralization of
the control and data ownership mediated by the machines (computers
etc.), which then become enforcement tools, and the growing asymmetry
between those who build and operate those machines and those who are
subjected to them.

The shift I mentioned is the shift from being managed/herded by a
relatively large number of humans, to being managed/herded by a
large number of machines controlled by a small number of humans, and
the power pyramid becoming a very steep needle. How do you classify
builders of these power-multiplication machines?

Cryptography can help not being seen (consult "How Not To Be Seen"),
but it hardly changes the power equation. On the contrary, it enforces
the centralization paradigm: the number of people that benevolently
design cryptographic machines is miniscule. 10? 100? 500 (I doubt)? It
is trivial and cheap to subvert that whole ecosystem.

While, of course, "everyone should be free to study", it just
doesn't happen, and the asymmetry grows. Everyone just wants
to download. How many can understand and deploy the real
Voight-Kampff test (but designed for humans, and works faster:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.04441.pdf )?

But I agree, blaming the worker bees is futile, and the Luddites end
up badly. Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?



On 7/19/15 3:52 , Jaromil wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, morlockelloi@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > The cause of confusion may be that this (the last few decades) is
> > probably the first time that power apparatus' enforcement model is
> > making a big shift from thugs with guns to thugs with compilers.
> >
> > These are two completely different demographics, and while societies
> > had thousands years to learn about and deal with thugs with guns [...]
> > it is hard to project the same notion at the bright middle-class kids
> > that get stock options and catered food. It will take some time.
>
> I disagree on two points here, the first indirect (just to make sure)
> and the second more specific to your approach.


<...>





#  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: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org