| Jennifer on Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:39:41 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> nettime-l Digest, Vol 134, Issue 49 "THERE IS NO PEACE WITHOUT DIGITAL PEACE" (Micosoft) |
Clearly the call for ethics of the internet is finally reaching out. Perhaps the single thing that Wannacry and Petya have brought us. Should we demand for Digital Peace? Yes, of course. Is non-violent conflict not (a necessary) part of striving for a peaceful, safe habitat? However, we should consider what costs we would allow for (Digital) Peace and what it should look like. The digital peace project of Microsoft (en co.) as well as Tim Berners-Lees global project prove that action is being taken. This mean we have to be alert and take action before we, again, are overrun by big techcompanies. I think it is safe to say that Microsoft, (if sincere) as a promotor is not necessarily a bad thing, but as a corporation it is not the one that should put a system in place single-handed, or even within a consortium. This clearly shows we need to think about what system could be in place, what values and commitments should be part of that, and how it can be sustainable. We have to broaden our view and bring ethical (local?) single-topic issues, like data sovereignity, environmental impact (of technology) and others (globally?) together and try to build a framework around that in which we can build. Should this be done globally? Locally? Both? Interesting discussion between Brad Smith and Tony Blair took place last week at the Websummit. Microsoft was present with a (not particularly large) booth with the single topic of signing for Digital Peace. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZCFHKPd6-U Jennifer ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 12:00 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send nettime-l mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. "THERE IS NO PEACE WITHOUT DIGITAL PEACE" (Micosoft) > (Geert Lovink) > > 2. Re: Nein, danke [was Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy] > (tbyfield) > > 3. Re: "THERE IS NO PEACE WITHOUT DIGITAL PEACE" (Micosoft) > (Morlock Elloi) > > 4. Re: "THERE IS NO PEACE WITHOUT DIGITAL PEACE" (Micosoft) > ([email protected]) > > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 20:02:38 +0100 > From: Geert Lovink [email protected] > To: a moderated mailing list for net criticism > [email protected] > Subject: <nettime> "THERE IS NO PEACE WITHOUT DIGITAL PEACE" > > (Micosoft) > > > Message-ID: [email protected] > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > https://digitalpeace.microsoft.com/ > > "We are digital citizens?members of a thriving online global society. We trust technology to help us do our jobs, create communities and connect us. As digital citizens, we also share responsibility to protect our interconnected space. > > We are more at risk than ever before from cyberwarfare. Governments are using technology as a weapon, which can devastate people, organizations, and entire countries. These attacks may start in the digital space but can quickly spread to the physical world. We must come together as digital citizens and call upon our world leaders to create rules of the road that protect our digital society. > > We must demand Digital Peace Now." > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dear nettimers, > > any comments on this? I find this pretty stunning. OK, 100 years after World War I, that?s pretty significant. "Make love, not war." Today there's conference in Paris. I am an anti-militarist, I am not on the side of the corporate-governmental (cyber)warfare promotors. But in general I am not against non-violent conflict. Should we demand digital conflict? Or digital ?struggle'? > > And what to make of the comments by US internet governance scholar Milton Mueller? > > https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/11/09/the-paris-igf-convergence-on-norms-or-grand-illusion/ https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/11/09/the-paris-igf-convergence-on-norms-or-grand-illusion/ > > "The theory of international regimes identifies norm development as the second step in a process of institutionalization. The first step involves agreement on principles; that is, foundational facts about the sector or domain to be governed. It is unfortunate, but true, to say that all of the international calls for cyber norms have skipped agreement on principles and are trying to promulgate norms despite a huge, gaping chasm in the way states understand their role in cyberspace. There will be no effective operationalization of norms until there is agreement on the status of cyberspace as a global commons, a non-sovereign space." > > Your messenger of peace, Geert > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://mx.kein.org/pipermail/nettime-l/attachments/20181112/1eab3893/attachment-0001.html > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 20:32:55 +0100 > From: tbyfield [email protected] > To: nettime [email protected] > Subject: Re: <nettime> Nein, danke [was Re: Inhabit: Instructions for > > Autonomy] > > > Message-ID: [email protected] > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > So far, the only parts of my initial message I'd retract is "that, I > think, was based on psychological modeling" and the word "bamboozle." > Aside from those mistakes ? which admittedly carry real freight ? my > analysis was precise and my conclusions were cautious. In particular, > the conspiratorial theories about how the site is 'really' alt.right > trolling is people wrestling with their own sloppy reading and straw > men. I went out of my way not to say things like that, which was easy > because I don't believe them. > > What I do believe is that looking carefully at projects like this site > is a good way to cut through the frontal PR and learn more about where > they came from (which is not reducible to who wrote them ? in part > because they aren't just texts). For example, the authors seem to be > plucking pictures from sites that sell college essays about police > corruption, and at some point there was a section called "Let them > hang..." (Bad combo, imo.) This is nothing more than the kind of > critical analysis you'd apply to any text you take seriously; but when > it's applied to visual and technical objects, text-fetishists throw > tantrums, condescend, etc. YOU'RE JUST OBSESSING OVER A FONT!!! No. The > font caught my attention and then I looked at the rest of the site. > > Brian's comments are most helpful ? not a very high bar, given Ian's > threats to take his radical manifestoes home with him and Nina's > 'splainy review of the last decade in Good German fashion. But even so, > it's a sorry state of affair when it takes a contentious thread to > arrive at conclusions like "violent leftist protest can backfire" and we > "should beware the consequences." Those should be starting points, not > conclusions. And if loud vices on the US radical left are drifting > toward the belief that they can light the match that'll spark a > conflagration of unicorn farts, then count me a moderate centrist. > > That's why I'm skeptical about explicit intentions. It's great that the > authors throw all the right gang signs in a sympathetic podcast, but why > is that the final word? If they talk about warm-fuzzies but devote half > the photos on their site to violent fantasies, that's worth knowing. And > if their aesthetic choices contribute to muddying basic distinctions > between left and right, does it really matter how 'good' their > intentions are? > > Cheers, > Ted > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:27:54 -0800 > From: Morlock Elloi [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: <nettime> "THERE IS NO PEACE WITHOUT DIGITAL PEACE" > > (Micosoft) > > > Message-ID: [email protected] > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > to create rules of the road that protect our digital society > > A comprehensive compiler control legislation is in order, including > total ban on assault compilers (C and Rust), and registration and > background check for all javascript VMs. > > This is the only way to make us feel safe, sheltered and protected. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 16:46:26 -0500 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Subject: Re: <nettime> "THERE IS NO PEACE WITHOUT DIGITAL PEACE" > > (Micosoft) > > > Message-ID: [email protected] > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Geert: > > The 1998 Microsoft antitrust case effectively "wedded" the company to the Pentagon -- it was not run out of DoJ but rather the "intelligence community" (with me playing a minor role) -- so it is no surprise to find Microsoft speaking on behalf of that contingent today. > > There is a widespread effort to develop "norms" by these folks -- driven by the recognition that China, Russia &al have other plans -- most emphatically coming out of the recent "Five Eyes" (i.e. the actual "Deep State") meeting in Australia. Alas the communique, which initially appeared at www.homeaffairs.gov.au has now been taken down, but can be found by Googling "countering illicit use of online spaces" and then reading Google's cache for the page. > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geert Lovink [email protected] > To: a moderated mailing list for net criticism [email protected] > Sent: Mon, Nov 12, 2018 2:03 pm > Subject: <nettime> "THERE IS NO PEACE WITHOUT DIGITAL PEACE" (Micosoft) > > https://digitalpeace.microsoft.com/ > "We are digital citizens?members of a thriving online global society. We trust technology to help us do our jobs, create communities and connect us. As digital citizens, we also share responsibility to protect our interconnected space. > We are more at risk than ever before from cyberwarfare. Governments are using technology as a weapon, which can devastate people, organizations, and entire countries. These attacks may start in the digital space but can quickly spread to the physical world. We must come together as digital citizens and call upon our world leaders to create rules of the road that protect our digital society. > We must demand Digital Peace Now." > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dear nettimers, > > any comments on this? I find this pretty stunning. OK, 100 years after World War I, that?s pretty significant. "Make love, not war." Today there's conference in Paris. I am an anti-militarist, I am not on the side of the corporate-governmental (cyber)warfare promotors. But in general I am not against non-violent conflict. Should we demand digital conflict? Or digital ?struggle'? > > And what to make of the comments by US internet governance scholar Milton Mueller? > > https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/11/09/the-paris-igf-convergence-on-norms-or-grand-illusion/ > > "The theory of international regimes identifies norm development as the second step in a process of institutionalization. The first step involves agreement on principles; that is, foundational facts about the sector or domain to be governed. It is unfortunate, but true, to say that all of the international calls for cyber norms have skipped agreement on principles and are trying to promulgate norms despite a huge, gaping chasm in the way states understand their role in cyberspace. There will be no effective operationalization of norms until there is agreement on the status of cyberspace as a global commons, a non-sovereign space." > > Your messenger of peace, Geert > > 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: [email protected] > > ========================================================== > > @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > > =============================================================== > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://mx.kein.org/pipermail/nettime-l/attachments/20181112/7d0e91da/attachment-0001.html > > -- > > 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 > > ========================================================= > > End of nettime-l Digest, Vol 134, Issue 49 # 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: [email protected] # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: