[rohrpost] Re: Plug Pulled/tactical and legal bugs between minor/mass media

[knowbotic.research]

RE NYTIMES article: Sven Robert Hillman writes:
http://netartcommons.walkerart.org/article.pl?sid=3D02/05/14/0414200&mode=3D=
thread
Hey there,
Though, I'm based in Canada, I do keep a regular eye on the New York Times,=
=20
and I couldn't help but notice the article Matthew Mirapaul wrote, Museum's=
=20
Cyberpeeping Artwork Has Its Plug Pulled which outlined how this work had=20
been closed down by the New Museum.
I wondered if any of the artists, or in fact the curators (who I understand=
=20
were acting independently of the New Museum), would like to comment on this?
Christian H=FCbler of Knowbotic Research is quoted as saying that
"because when I work with the border as an artist, I want to know at least=
=20
what the border might be."
This comment made me wonder what kind of legal investigation had preceded=20
the installation of the work - on behalf of the artists, and the curators,=
=20
and in fact the museum?
As a native of Europe (I'm originally from Denmark), I couldn't help note=20
Mirapaul's comment, that "European digital artists are more politicized=20
than their American counterparts ...".
Aside from the fact that this is a fairly meaningless generalisation=20
(though not strictly 'artists' as such, one can't help reflecting on the=20
fact that RTMark are US based, as are the collective, RSG, who feature in=20
the exhibition with their 'cultural' version of the FBI software,=20
Carnivore), how do the curators view this comment? [See also Alex=20
Galloway's comments to this effect.--SD]
Is there a paucity of intellectual political debate in the public artistic=
=20
sphere, on issues around privacy, secuity, and open information?
If so, why is this the case?
As a colleague of mine pointed out to me as we read the Times this morning,=
=20
one can't help remembering the overwhelming array of US-based events and=20
movements which have promoted the open exchange of information, and have=20
highlighted the insecurity of electronic networks. To mention but a few,=20
the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was founded in the US, Phil=20
Zimmerman released his PGP book from there, PGP was invented there, the=20
free softwaee movement came from the US, the main PGP encryption=20
algorithims (RSA/Diffe Helman) were invented in the US to promote public=20
encryption, and the first big hacker cases were in the US.
These things have been major issues in the Public Domain. Have they not=20
impacted on art discourses in the States at all? And if so, why has this,=20
rather minor technical and legal issue come as such a surprise, causing=20
such a fracas? Is the new media artworld in the US so new/naive to these=20
discourses, that a minor activity such as port scanning could cause such a=
=20
controversy?
I'd be interested in the responses of both the artists, and the curators,=20
on these points.
Yours
Sven Robert Hillman
Winnipeg, Canada
svenrobert2@yahoo.ca

RE2: NYTIMES article: Alex Galloway (RSG [walkerart.org])
http://netartcommons.walkerart.org/article.pl?sid=3D02/05/14/0247243&mode=3D=
thread

more fun with the media...

 >European digital artists are more politicized than their >American=20
counterparts,
naw, this is too vague to mean anything. proof: Critical Art Ensemble and=20
Electronic Disturbance Theatre (who together invented the concept of=20
electronic civil disobedience), Paul Garrin, RSG, RTMark/Yes Men, Institute=
=20
for Applied Autonomy, BIT, etc, etc.
 >But "Minds of Concern" is also the only online work in the >exhibition to=
=20
operate in a legal gray area.
packet sniffing is definitely in a legal gray area. it is illegal when used=
=20
for covert surveillance. but like most technologies it's de facto legal for=
=20
private use ... plus legal for the FBI w/ a court order (under the 1986=20
Electronic Communications Privacy Act.) also CAE's performance was banned=20
from the show opening because it operates in a legal/lethal gray area=20
(Monsanto etc). in fact a judge in Georgia found port scanning to be=20
*legal* in 2000 (http://online.securityfocus.com/news/126=20
[securityfocus.com]).. not sure if the law has changed since then.. but=20
don't let 'em think that the Knowbots are the only outlaws ;)
+ http://1000journals.com/733/images/733bigs.jpg
-> Rhizome.org
RE:3 NYTIMES article: Knowbotic Research

Sven, Alex,
replying to:=20
http://netartcommons.walkerart.org/article.pl?sid=3D02/05/14/0414200&mode=3D=
thread
 > Is there a paucity of intellectual political debate in the public=20
artistic sphere, on issues around privacy, secuity, and open information?
Don't let us get into a 'i'm more illegal than you are' discussion. alex's=
=20
point is in a way valid, and it shows that mirapaul's article is imprecise,=
=20
but that is not a problem, so long as people don't start discuss the mass=20
medias truth value - the point of Mirapauls article (and of his questions)=
=20
was directed at the *news value* of the story.
if the discussion is supposed to go a for me challenging direction, it=20
needs to continue the analysis of the relationship between technology, art=
=20
and legality.
There was no real problem until now with the New Museum, they let our=20
project go to articulate the legal bug, it would have been a mistake not to=
=20
make the legal bug visible after we had met him. Therefore we decided not=20
to portscan from Europe after our legal US port
scanner was shut down. So here is the string i would like to suggest, let=20
us enact the legal bug:
Wendy Seltzer, http://openlaw.org
Your experience here is actually a very interesting part of the project. It=
=20
demonstrates how private parties can exert control of the public domain=20
well beyond what the law requires. Even with institutional support for your=
=20
installation, you are often at the mercy of other economic actors -- the=20
ISPs whom the museum and you depend on for connectivity, who in turn depend=
=20
upon higher-up ISPs to preserve their connections to the Internet. Any=20
player in this chain has the ability to break the connection and prevent=20
you from displaying and contributing to the public discussion, based on its=
=20
own feelings, contracts, and interpretations of the law, before any judge=20
is called in to determine whether the activity is legal.
Steve Dietz:
The fact that Minds of Concern is potentially undermined by the legal=20
system in the form of a standard or "shrinkwrap" license the New Museum has=
=20
with its ISP is not insignificant. It is precisely a legal bug and the=20
strategy by which so much of the public domain in the U.S., at least,=20
escapes Constitutional and other legal protections by entering into=20
[voluntarily?] contractual agreements that void and/or supercede these=20
supposed rights.
Commment Mailing List Lachlan Brown:
Indeed, the distinction between assumed rights and legal guarantee of=20
rights, public and private, residesin an interstitial state. Not a 'grey=20
area' to be filled in between the public and private by new conditions for=
=20
cyber' space, but a contest in which like a Venn Diagramme the public and=20
private vie over the terrain they both occupy.
Add to this the interests of several dozen States, thousands of public=20
service institutions hundreds of thousands of companies and millions of=20
users, well... . What would we call it? War? Wrestling? or Seduction? A=20
Million times a million contests. Cultural confusion.These webs of the law=
=20
are durable and have easy translation to the new media distributive=20
terrain. Despite word play or administrative/bureaucratic assumptions of=20
power. The really interesting fact is that States, institutions, companies,=
=20
individuals, but not collectivities like artists, writers, coders, primary=
=20
producers and so on, are beginning to 'stand-off' this terrain. We might,=20
after all, consider a return to the question of the aesthetic, and then of=
=20
policy, and thenof law over several years. It will become clear as we do so=
=20
that we NEED insitutions, new institutions perhaps, that are able to host=20
the work you do.

 >This comment made me wonder what kind of legal investigation had preceded=
=20
the installation of the work - on behalf of the artists, and the curators,=
=20
and in fact the museum?
I worked with Wendy Seltzer on the legality of the portscanning in the US=20
after the patriot act. The value of being legal as an artist in an art show=
=20
was set at highest priority from the curators of the Open_Source_Art_Hack=20
show and the New Museum and was the condition of being part of the show.=20
Critical Art Ensemble brought the legal letter from their lawyer to stay in=
=20
the show, Knowbotic resisted bringing this letter but we blocked=20
information in the net.publication of the analysed security lacks of the=20
NGO servers (we were displaying the security wholes, but we were hiding the=
=20
relating IP adresses). With this tactical step we coud make the Public=20
Domain Scanner going, and locate more precisely the dimensions of the=20
actual legal questionable dimensions of the net.public domain and thus hit=
=20
the legal(?) authority of private, economic actors (providers) . As you see=
=20
2 different artistic tactical styles inside the same museum show.
Let us look forward on the project of Critical Ensemble, the performance=20
scheduled on the last day of the exhibition.

kr/christian

projectpage http://unitedwehack.ath.cx
documenation http://www.krcf.org/krcfhome/1MoC.htm