textual metanoia

As the toolbox is to the carpenter, software engineering is to the modern programmer. But, unlike the carpenter, we now live in a post-Fordist and post-Taylorist world, and the modes of production of the last century no longer matter in the world of immaterial bits. Or so the story goes. By examining the history of a single, near-ubiquitous software production tool—the source code control/versioning system—this paper reveals old modes of production in new, distributed configurations.

As computers grew in popularity in the late 1950s, and software became physically removed from computing hardware, the need for trained software programmers expanded, until in 1968 it was declared that an answer to the “software crisis” was urgently required. Simultaneously, agitation and revolt against hierarchical technocracy grew, putting computing technology front and centre in the battle for democratic ways of being. The technocratic reply was to launch the field of software engineering, and within a year the first source code control tools were developed. By 1972, Marc Rochkind developed the Source Code Control system within Bell Labs and the modern mode of software production was practically cemented. The effect of these tools was similar to the effect of factory architecture, conveyor belts, and time studies to mechanical production from earlier in the 20^th century. In the late 20^th century these tools developed new networked capabilities, and prompted a new distributed and collaborative mode of production—first within local networks, and then globally as the Internet reached yet further beyond these new factory walls.

Email is important. Email has been and remains a “killer app” for personal and corporate correspondence. To date, no academic or exhaustive history of email exists, and likewise, very few authors have attempted to understand critical issues of email. This paper explores the history of email syntax: from its origins in time-sharing computers through Request for Comments (RFCs) standardization. In this historical capacity, this paper addresses several prevalent historical mistakes, but does not attempt an exhaustive historiography.  Further, as part of the rejection of “mainstream” historiographical methodologies this paper explores a critical theory of email syntax. It is argued that the ontology of email syntax is material, but contingent and obligatory—and in a techno–social assemblage. Email was instrumental in shifting computers from computation machines to text machines. Cryptography reappears throughout the theoretical and historical picture, as do love emails and postcards.

I will suggest that given the unlikeliness of capitalism disappearing, alienation can be reduced through radical copyright reform. Specifically, I suggest that a very broadly construed fair dealings exception would revitalize the user and his relationship to property, and therefore reduce alienation. Even with broadly construed fair dealings, however, the copyright regime is still a power institution bent on accumulating capital for the purpose of aggrandizing power. ...

It is a rare opportunity to see contemporary capitalism work in naked ways. The result of such honesty is often confusion, arising from entrenched narratives about capitalist processes that preclude these naked behaviours, such as the Internet sabotage of 2007 and 2008 by Media Defender. Media Defender is an anti-piracy company that performed Internet sabotage against consumers pirating music and movies on Bittorrent networks. In 2007, due to a series of counter attacks by an Internet hacker group, corporate email was leaked and put Media Defender’s business practices in the open. In 2008, Media Defender launched a cyber attack against Revision3, a small Internet media company. Why would Media Defender engage in Internet sabotage, and why would any company hire their services? Further, what role in contemporary society does Media Defender play?

At the heart of it, the question is “What are the grounds of existence for Media Defender?” Existing narratives are challenged to the breaking point in trying to answer this question.

I will demonstrate that controlled vocabularies ought to be used in combination with free or full text searching. The decision to use controlled or free indexing is not one of either/or—instead, because "representational predictability" is very low for general concepts, whereas individual concepts maintain high lexicality and require quick updating and precision—the choice should be to use both indexing methods. ...

With the advent of rapid telecommunications, new collection and aggregation technologies, and a hyper–capitalist economy seemingly based on only advertising dollars personal privacy can no longer be understood as being “left alone” or without “intrusion”. These pervasive communication technologies have been coupled with robust databases and push the envelope of privacy into a new realm. This new realm, at its worst, seeks “personal” information in exchange for goods and services—and consumers appear to be only too happy to provide this information. Yet, enabled by the technology and the economy in what Manuel Castells’ called the “network society”, the decentralized space of flows, privacy is being both diminished and invaded at an alarming rate. The mainstream philosophical theories of privacy are unable to deal with the qualitative shift in privacy issues. Normative theories do little to slow or stop these privacy concerns, but as vanguard theories for law they can establish the categories and limits of acceptable privacy policies and laws. The analytical independence of jurisprudence can look to the philosophers who point out the pitfalls in some conceptual thinking, which may help the judges articulate a cogent legal framework for privacy protection. The alternative is a technological fix, but while privacy enhancing technologies (PETs) tend to be effective technologically, they have historically done very little to protect privacy, and conceptually are unable to protect the most valuable category of privacy. ...

Suppose you are on vacation. On your return home you are stopped by an immigration agent, and being a year in the future, you hand over your new electronic passport (e–passport) for inspection. The immigration agent passes your e–passport through a specially designed reader, and seconds later your identity is flashed up on the agent's screen. Lo, it turns out there there is a mistake somewhere: the data on the immigration agent's screen is different than the biometric readings he is taking from you (perhaps your fingerprint or iris). Next, you are barred entry to your own country. You are no longer a citizen; a nomad without identity. What has happened here? Perhaps your identity was stolen—not by a malicious thief, but by an electronic doppelgänger, your new e–passport? ...

Privacy is closely associated yet distinct from the powers of liberty, freedom, and autonomy. The network society affects these powers in interesting ways, often causing public worry. Indeed, more people worry about the invasion of privacy online than in any other medium. When online we are told to accept and purchase privacy enhancing technologies ( PETs) in attempt to ensure privacy. What sort of privacy is afforded by these technologies? Can the world wide web be a private sphere? Is a private sphere necessary? ...