Archive for the 'Anonymity' Category

Blacky

Lucas Hassle April 12th, 2010

The Black Bloc

A Black Bloc is when a number of people gather who are all wearing black clothes and masks to cover their faces. The tactic is most commonly used during demonstrations. The participants cover their faces and identities from police repression when they act as a single bloc. The participants normally use more controversial tactics than other protesters, such as property destruction or attacking the police. The Black Bloc is not an organisation, it is a group of people working together during a demonstration and it has no central leadership.

There exist a lot of myths and misunderstandings about the tactic. Both in the activist scene and in the media a line has been drawn between the more violent Black Bloc participants and the rest of the more peaceful protesters. The Black Bloc tactic was developed by German Autonomen and anti-nuclear activists during the eighties.  The method got its major breakthrough during evictions of squatted houses in Germany. (katisiaficas)

In December 1980, a demonstration was held to support the squatters and about twenty thousands protesters came to the streets of Berlin. Some of the protesters were wearing black clothes while attacking big businesses, and the media later named this group as Der Schwarze Block (“The Black Bloc”). Georgy Katsiaficas writes about the Autonomen in Germany, and states that: “black became the color of the political void – of the withdrawal of allegiance to parties, government and nations”. (Katsiaficas, sd 90) This night of protest in Berlin is now referred to as The Black Friday.

The Black Bloc has a loose structure, if any structure at all. The participants are normally organized within smaller affinity groups. An affinity group is a faction of people who have decided to work together for the duration of a protest. (anarkistisk organisering)

The participants in an affinity group also discuss the methods they wish to use during the demonstration, for instance they might choose to participate passively, only wearing black clothes and masks. A majority of the participants in a Black Bloc do not take part in property destruction or other actions, but by wearing the same clothes they support the other individuals who chose to take more assertive action. By wearing the same attrite they protect and create anonymity for the more militant or violent demonstrators in the Bloc.  Stellan Vinthagen argues that the autonomous (a term he utilizes in his essay Motståndets globalisering to describe the participants in a Black Bloc) try to create a picture of themselves as being the ones victimised. He states that: “They use a small amount of violence while waiting until they get attacked or stopped by the police. When they are only trying to get to summit (but get stopped by the police) and destroys the property of major businesses (but are driven away by the police) they can try to describe the police actions as attacks on their militant politic, not their political tactics”.(Vinthagen pg 13) (note, the translation of Vinthagens quote is mine) Brian Martin, an Australian anaqrchist and social activist, argues in his book Uprooting war that the focus for change needs to be on the sickness (capitalism, state) instead of the symptoms (poverty, violence). (Brian Martin) He argues in much the same way as The Black Bloc participants who also have a non-reformist approach to social change. He writes that: “The problems due to capitalism will not be overcome by convincing capitalists to behave differently. Rather the focus be challenging and altering the patterns of social interaction on which capitalism is based, such as the position of the worker as hired labour rather than equal co-producer. “ (Brian Martin, pg 5)

Peter Gelderloos. How nonviolence protects the state South End Cross 2007

Georgy Katsiaficas The subersion of politics AK Press 2006

Tadzio Mueller What´s really under those cobblestones 2004

Stellan Vinthagen Motståndets Globalisering 2002

Brian Martin Uprooting war Freedom  Press 1984

“Pirate Resistance” and File Sharing

Stellan Vinthagen February 12th, 2009

Dear resistance friends,

on Monday the trial begins against one of the worlds’ biggest file sharing sites, The Pirate Bay (http://thepiratebay.org/). And today the Pirate Party of Sweden will present their form of resistance and views on file sharing at the Gothenburg Resistance Studies Seminar (se “Seminars”). A collection of material relevant for understanding this form of “digital resistance” you can find at: http://razor.azoff.se/fun/PirateResistance.html

The judicial situation for The Pirate Bay seems bleak, but their political optimism is strong as usual, an optimism which is only surpassed by their technical skills in Information Communication Technology (ICT). So, I think it will be one thing to punish the (present) organisational form of file sharing (“The Pirate Bay”), and a completly other (and much more difficult) thing to stop file sharing…

For those of you who want to see where in the world file sharing is happening right now, we are now blessed with a real time world map: see,  http://geo.keff.org/

When I checked today at 11:15 CET, it was most downloaders in the US, Europe and Latin America.

Probably file sharing is the biggest resistance movement in the world, counted in terms of active participants (but not counted on politically aware resisters…).

We will see what happens, welcome to the seminar in which we will debate the issues.

Google encouraged to resist Court order

jj July 4th, 2008

A federal judge in New York has ordered Google to turn over to Viacom a database linking users of YouTube, the Web’s largest video site by far, with every clip they have watched there.

Eric Schonfeld writes on TechCrunch that if Google doesn’t appeal or refuse the order to hand over data on YouTube users to Viacom they should apply in such a way that the receivers may regret: Print out the 12 Terrabytes they asked for. The court did not specify in what FORM the data should be delivered. That would be an amount of paper that is equal to some of the world largest libraries.

Does any of you have other examples where orders have been obeyed in similar ways; that is to make the fulfilment a nightmare for those who gave the order?

I would be interested in other examples for a coming article.

A Resistance Wiki (The relaunch)

Stellan Vinthagen April 21st, 2008

Your help is needed! Resistance Studies Network is trying to collect the collective intelligence and collaboration around information, thoughts and resources on “resistance” through our own Wiki. A wiki is a collective platform for editing texts which makes everyone who has logged in able to change, add and start new texts.

The purpose of the Resistance Studies Wiki (click on the link above: “Wiki”, or directly here) is to collect views, theories and references concerning “resistance” and its different sub-headings; like e.g. Definitions of resistance, types of resistance, terrorism, revolution or collecting information on resistance novels, films, websites, etc.

You are all welcome to add to the Resistance Wiki. Please help out making it to THE resource for resistance studies.

PS: The Wiki was launched more than a year ago at the same time as this webpage went online but we had problems with so much spam that we had to close it. This time you need to create your own login in order to edit, but it is easy and you do it yourself.

Facebooked organization of protests

Christopher Kullenberg January 23rd, 2008

One aspect of Resistance studies is to look into the infrastructure of the social organization of practice. In 2007 Facebook became one of the largest Internet communities in the world, and now has more than 30 million users. One of the interesting features of this new “social utility” is the function of creating “events”. Demonstrations and protests are naturally events, and this function can thus be used very instrumentally. For example, on Saturday there is in Gothenburg a demonstration against the Israeli occupation of Gaza. A screenshot will say more than words:

bild-1.png

This of course makes it easier to bring your friends and it is both cheaper and more convenient than posters, flyers and even text messages. It is also the perfect utility for an authoritarian State to know the names of every person taking to the streets…

Seminar on resistance in the digital age

Christopher Kullenberg October 31st, 2007

Next thursday (8/11) Christopher Kullenberg will introduce a paper on the conditions and possibilities for resistance in the digital age (download the Swedish text here). The seminar will be a discussion with only a short presentation of the text, focusing mostly on the text itself but also on the general topics of surveillance, resistance and technology. 

The role of Technology in Resistance

Christopher Kullenberg September 30th, 2007

Burma. In some cases of resistance, if not in all, the flow of information and disinformation is imperative. This friday many Swedes wore red shirts displaying political support for the pro-democracy protests in Burma, and in order to understand this spatiality of resistance in relation to world opinions, we need to understand the important role of technology.

Reporters Without Borders tell the story of the Internet being disconnected in Burma, along with newspapers and TV-stations being shut down. The official story is one of a technological failure in an underwater cable, however, hardly anyone buys such a coincidence. What is at stake is how to control a multiplicity of recording and transmitting devices. Anyone who owns a mobile phone with video recording capabilities is able to broadcast live actions, and the only way of controlling the flow of small video clips is to cut the cables leaving the country. Similarly, with video sharing sites such as Youtube (clip 1, 2, 3), the Internet must be blocked on a national top level in order to keep the lid tightly screwed. However, in the case of Burma, and  other similar ones, the task is not resolved only by controlling what pieces of information that leave the country, but also what enters it. Thus satellite dishes are prohibited, not so much to stop ‘foreign’ propaganda, but to prevent people to see what happens inside their own country.

How can heterogenous technological systems be controlled then? I may be argued that there are no worries in this struggle. Soon everyone will have a mobile phone and a Youtube account, and wherever there is oppression we will know about it. In a very technical sense this naive story is quite right. The rise of Internet technologies have paved a way for de-centralized systems which are quite hard to control compared to the old paradigmatic technologies of Television-Radio-Newspapers. Instead information flows horizontally, instantly and without central and critical points. However, this is only true in theory and not in practice. In the case of Burma, the Internet could be switched off directly, just like any other medium such as television, snail-mail or radio-antennas.

We may argue then, in defense of Western liberal democracies, that this kind of control only exists in authoritarian states, such as Burma, China, Iran… However, this is only true when it comes to the figurative shape of control, and not control as such. If authoritarian states use an old model where the State controls the flow of information the hard way, that is, by physically being able to switch things on and off, ‘Western’ societies use what Gilles Deleuze in his famous essay Post-script on the Societies of Control thinks as a second order of control. “[W]hat counts is not the barrier but the computer that tracks each person’s position – licit or illicit – and effects a universal modulation”. In the case of Burma we have the physical barrier being put to work, but in the post 9/11-order there are no barriers in the west, but rather there are tracking devices; Facebook, Gmail and Google all store data which map our spatial movements (through IP-numbers), and scan through whatever we read or write when using those services, through data-mining. There is nothing ‘wrong’ about it, since we have accepted an end-of-user licence agreement. Moreover, intelligence agencies are fighting the ‘war on terrorism’, and are soon to legitimately monitor all Internet-traffic. Instead of shutting down the barrier, all barriers are torn down. The Internet appears to be a smooth space, however, just like a ship at sea, our GPS coordinates are stored, analyzed and may potentially be used against us.

 

Read more (en): Sunday Times, BBC

Read more (sv): DN, IDG

Cyber-resistance?

Christopher Kullenberg August 13th, 2007

Yesterday the personal web page of Ban Ki-moon at the United Nations was hacked by people whose identities are still unknown. The message posted was:

”Hacked By kerem125 M0sted and Gsy That is CyberProtest Hey Ýsrail and Usa dont kill children and other people Peace for ever No war”.  (click here for screenshot)

With cyber-resistance, if one could use this term, it is rather difficult to know what to do with it. Usually the people behind the attacks on internet infrastructure remain anonymous, probably both because it is possible and since the penalties are usually high. In Sweden we have quite a tradition of cyber-resistance. As the Pirate Bay was raided by the police in 2006, the web sites of the Swedish government and the police were “sabotaged” through Denial of service attacks, however the actors who performed remain unknown. Another interesting feature is the close relationship with technology in this kind of attacks. The UN web site was poorly secured, and therefore it could be hacked this time. And as we rely more and more on internet technologies, authorities and organizations, not to mention corporations, become more vulnerable simoultaneously as surveillance and control makes resistance a dangerous maneuver.

 

The Pirate Bay to be shut down.

Christopher Kullenberg July 7th, 2007

The Pirate Bay is the worlds largest bittorrent tracker, which means that it only stores meta-data that helps people download files from other people’s harddrives. Since people who join this network often share music, videos and software which is copyrighted, many actors are trying to shut it down. Last year the police raided the servers of the Pirate Bay, however it took only a few days before it was up an running again, thanks to the portability of internet communication.

Last time the argument for shutting down this infrastructure was the violation of copyrights. This time the argument is child pornography. According to the police, The Pirate Bay is a way of spreading illegal pornography, and thus the site has been added to a special list which blocks thepiratebay.org for ordinary users. Of course, this has nothing to do with child pornography. Other infrastructures that probably spread more is Google, MSN, and other ways of connecting computers on the net.

It is interesting to see what it takes to promote censorship. Two good stratagies are either to call it terrorism or child pornography. Both of them have made the legislators go crazy, from such abnormalities as the Patriot act, to the ISP block lists for sites that are considered to host illegal porn.

However, if I know the Pirate Bay correctly, there will probably be an interesting and creative solution to this problem. Just like last time!

Read more (Swedish):

Copyriot

Oscar Swartz

Surveillance Camera Players statement

jj May 20th, 2007

Surveillance Camera Players statement on NYPD surveillance during the 2004 Republican National Congress

Of course, we are not at all surprised that — during the course of its truly extensive surveillance of political activists who intended and/or actually managed to protest against the cynical decision to hold the 2004 Republic National Convention (RNC) in New York City, just three years after the September 11th 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center — the New York Police Department (NYPD) paid a fair amount of attention to us.

We are mentioned a total of five times in the surveillance reports that were assembled by the NYPD’s “Intelligence Division” between 3 October 2003 and 4 September 2004, and finally released to the public on 16 May 2007 due to a court order that the NYPD decided not to appeal. Two of these references, which can be located under “Key Findings” for 13 February 2004 and in a report by the “Research and Analysis Squad” for 11 March 2004, are substantive. Brought together, but without changing a word, these reports[1] say that:

The Surveillance Camera Players (SCP) is a self-described anarchist group founded in NYC in 1996. It primary focus is to protest the use of surveillance cameras in public places. The group is apolitical, aligning itself with no political party, citing the belief that democracy should be direct, not “representative.”

The total membership is unknown, but SCP encourages others to perform the acts as they do without necessarily recruiting them, so the actual number of persons involved in this sort of activity can be significantly greater than actual membership.

SCP conducts walking tours of Manhattan to point out the locations of surveillance cameras, demonstrating how these cameras “infringe on the Constitutional rights” of New Yorkers who are unaware that they are being filmed. The group has conducted these tours in security-sensitive locations such as the United Nations and City Hall. These events, which are publicized on the Internet have usually attracted up to 15 participants. As of this date, these events have occurred without incidents. In one such tour, it was suggested by a group member that wires necessary to operate a particular surveillance device was easily accessible, and therefore vulnerable.

The group also conducts and encourages others to conduct “Surveillance Camera Theater.” This entails performing short plays in front of security cameras, generally lasting two minutes.

SCP maintains a website, www.notbored.com, that includes their beliefs, past and future activities, and information about similar groups worldwide. On their website, the group encourages performers to disperse at the order of a police officer and avoid arrest, but adds “only get arrested when you want to get arrested.” The site also includes a page that lists the military and governmental visitors to the site, which SCP pledges to keep updated as the RNC approaches.

Information from the group’s website indicates that it will be active during the RNC. The site contains a map with camera locations in the general vicinity of the RNC site. The area detailed on the site encompasses 11th Avenue to 6th Avenue from W 32d to W 38th Streets. SCP has organized the cameras into groups according to who they think is maintaining them (NYPD, Traffic, Private, etc.), along with the number of devices maintained. The legend reads as follows: Private surveillance cameras, 217; Government Surveillance cameras, 12; New York City or NYPD cameras, 5; Traffic surveillance cameras, 3; Elevated surveillance cameras, 2. The total number of cameras mapped by SCP is 239.

The group plans the following actions during the convention: update and distribute its map; “inform” protestors, RNC delegates and the media about the level of surveillance they will face when they come to New York City; perform in front of publicly installed surveillance cameras (the times and places will be announced forehand, presumably via their site); a walking tour of the convention area each day that the RNC is in session (meeting times and locations announced beforehand).

The page on their site dedicated to the RNC reiterates their claim that the group does not condone criminal acts nor does it intend for any information it shares on the site to be taken as an encouragement to commit crimes.

There are remarkably few errors here, certainly much fewer than in the articles published about us in such newspapers as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, etc. etc. Just because we are not part of the two-party electoral spectacle does not make us “apolitical”; our walking tours have “attracted” as many as 25 people; our website is not “www.notbored.com” but “www.notbored.org/the-scp.html.” But these are insignificant errors, hardly worth correcting. This much should be clear to all: these reports were certainly not written by “average” cops: they were written by highly educated people who are trained writers. That is to say, by professionals, by professional intelligence analysts.

As we have said, we were not at all surprised. Our political activity in part directly concerns the NYPD[2]; as early as December 2001 we had surmised that the NYPD was aware of our existence and had been issued orders on how to deal with us[3]; and, as the NYPD’s own report(s) indicate, for many years prior to the RNC we had used a few simple procedures to determine and list “the military and governmental visitors to the site.”[4] Not only was the NYPD keeping tabs on us, but so were the FBI, the NSA, the NRO, the Executive Office of the POTUS, the US military, et al (no doubt they all still are keeping and updating these “tabs”).

But what does surprise us — it even disgusts and outrages us — is the fact that, despite our reiterated position on violence and the complete absence of any “incidents” during our performances and walking tours, the NYPD has dared to mention us at some length in the document it has published on the www.nyc.gov website[5] to defend itself against various allegations made by, among others, the New York Civil Liberties Union, that such surveillance was in fact unnecessary and in violation of the law. Under “Republican National Convention Open Source Threat” — which claims to document “excerpts from and descriptions of the various websites, chat-rooms, and other forums in which the planning for various violent or illegal civil disobedience activity was undertaken” [emphasis added] — the NYPD spin-control team repeats the following information about us:

“Surveillance Camera Players” (SCP), an anarchist group founded in 1996, operated a website (www.notbored.com) with a map detailing the locations of all identified surveillance equipment in the general vicinity of the RNC, including: private surveillance cameras: 217, Government surveillance cameras: 12, New York City or NYPD cameras: 5, Traffic surveillance cameras: 3, Elevated surveillance cameras: 2, Total number of cameras: 239.

In one such tour, it was suggested by a group member that the wires necessary to operate a particular surveillance device were easily accessible and therefore vulnerable.[6]

The very fact that we — who have no connection to nor involvement in any part whatsoever of what the NYPD calls the “three-part co-mingled threat” of “terrorism, anarchist violence and unlawful civil disobedience” — are mentioned in this spin-control document proves that the NYPD is dead wrong (mistaken or deliberately lying) when they say that their “information gathering . . . was not political surveillance.” Our presence in this list of “threat-related activity” in fact proves that the NYPD were not “indifferent to the political views of any attendees at any activity — protest or otherwise — in New York City,” and that the NYPD’s information gathering did in fact address “political opinions.” As a result, the department’s “Intelligence Division” should be held accountable for their criminal activity, that is, their illegal surveillance of Constitutionally protected free speech.

Surveillance Camera Players
19 May 2007

[1] See http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html.

[2] The NYPD made extensive use of video surveillance cameras at the RNC. See http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/15.html.

[3] See http://www.notbored.org/21dec01.html.

[4] See http://www.notbored.org/army.html.

[5] See http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/dcpi/nypd_rnc_overview.html.

[6] Let’s get this matter cleared up: the camera in question is an NYPD camera installed directly in front of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan. It has long been our contention that, there being no crime at this location (that is, not counting the crimes committed inside the church by the representatives of the Vatican), this camera is there simply purely and simply to spy on the political activists who have used this precise location to protest against the Church’s positions on contraceptives, abortion, homosexuality, etc. Furthermore, we are not to blame for calling attention to the obvious fact that this precise camera (this “security” device) is in fact almost comically insecure. No: the people who are to blame for 1) dangling an ISDN box from this camera, 2) writing the letters “ISDN” on it, and 3) writing part of the phone number that can be used to access this ISDN box, and thus the camera itself, are in fact the camera’s installers and operators: the NYPD itself.

Resisting history

Stellan Vinthagen May 14th, 2007

Everytime someone experience oppression somekind of trace, damage or traumatic experience is created. That is then an effect of the destructive power relation that sort of “lives” on, maybe many years after. If that person then learns how to live with that experience, to go on with a life afterwards, with the help other peoples care, theraputic treatment, own healing, forgeting or phsycological surpression – then, arguably, that is possible to understand as “resistance”. Resistance against an oppressive experience, against the continuation of that domination over ones own life and everyday. By learning how to live with or heal, to overcome the physical, social, emotional or pshycological damage of oppression we might actually do resistance, resistance against the continuing effects of the oppression.

If that is correct, then it is possible to do resistance even to that power relation which no longer is a relation, which no longer exists, as long as the effects of it exists, as long as power is remembered, relived in our lives and surivive in its social consequences. Power is only power as long as it is treated as power, remembered, feared, refered to. And, even when it did win, did dominate and oppress - it might, still, be defeated, undermined, destabilised, deconstructed or abolished, even “after the battle”.

Thus, it is never to late to overcome oppression, to conquer the seemingly victorious and powerful power. Well, that, if something, gives hope. History is not yet completed. 

Egyptian blogger sentenced to 4 years in prison

Christopher Kullenberg February 23rd, 2007

Writing under the pseudonym “Kareem Amer” Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman was sentenced to four years imprisonment for “inciting hatred of Islam” and “insulting” president Hosni Mubarak on his blog (read the complete story at Reporters without borders). This is of course a fundamental violation of freedom of speech, but put in context of technological change there is both pessimism and optimism. First of all, the very ground for non-hierarchical (mass) communication, has made the world read and notice this event. The voice of dissent would never have made it through regular mass media, which in Egypt hardly is autonomous to the state-apparatus. But, I can not help thinking about the current events in Sweden, where Internet traffic will be under total and real-time surveillance if the National Defence Radio Establishment will be allowed to plug in to all bits and bytes passing the borders. Karem Amer posted his blog on blogspot.com and therefore every utterance left Egypt and entered back when read by Egyptians. What is the future of resistance and democracy when states in matters of milliseconds find not only the content of dissent, but also their geographical location (through IP-numbers)? Maybe future bloggers can be silenced even before pressing the publish-button.

Cities of surveillance pt. 2

Christopher Kullenberg January 25th, 2007

When visiting a city, there is always an excellent opportunity to investigate how public security policy has been affected in the post-9/11 era. As I have argued elsewhere, the use of cameras and other recording equipment does constitute important civil functions, for example when the abuse of power needs to be unveiled. Also, there are complex side-effects of a total surveillance through the use of street cameras and ever-present monitoring. This weekend it was time to put Madrid on trial. As the left picture indicates, heavy use of cameras is deployed. And shooting the central station, which has a beautiful modernist-futurist architecture, was a short-lived enterprise, since I only managed to make this single picture (right) before I was approached by policemen. They were very friendly and polite, but since my spanish is non-existent, I only recognized the words “security”, “terrorist” and “permission”.

pict0036.jpg

pict0099.jpg

Popular support for surveillance?

Christopher Kullenberg January 12th, 2007

According to yet another Statistics Sweden survey, about 80% of the Swedish population is in favour of an increased level of surveillance (cameras, tapped phones, Internet monitoring) in order to fight terrorism and organized crime. Also, even more interesting, is a 51% support for a complete DNA database of the Swedish population, and a 97% support for camera surveillance of public places. (Read the full article here).

A crash course in social scientific epistemology of course renders surveys like this quite problematic. If the question goes: “To fight terrorism, is it okay to put cameras in public places?”, it is hard to say no. But if you would ask: “Is it OK for you, that everytime you go shopping you will be recorded on camera?”, a survey would probably give different numbers.

Nevertheless, surveys like this raise critical questions. When public discourse is ordered in clear-cut categories such as “terrorism” and “organized crime”, and these are purified from their historicity, public opinion can be very distinct. In a society which never has encountered terrorism, but where the very notion of it produces a popular opinion, we must ask where the foundations of this strong reaction resides. How can something that we only watch on the news suffice to sacrifice our integrity?

Cities of surveillance

Christopher Kullenberg January 6th, 2007

The urban landscape is very multi-layered. Two layers are of special importance – its territoriality and how it negotiates the line between private and public. Both of these are dynamic and contingent, thus subjected to global politics and technological change. Recently I was on a trip to London, and I was walking the streets like an everyday tourist with a special interest in the disposition of the streets, buildings and people. Peacefully I shot this picture with my digital camera:

bildbibliotek-4003.jpg

However, within seconds I was approached by a security guard telling me not only not to make pictures of this particular building, but also that I ought to watch out for “the” security cameras, one like this (which I shot five minutes later):
bildbibliotek-3947.jpg

Not only had I been corrected by a human-in-the-flesh, but I was part of a high-tech network of surveillance that had re-negotiated the trenches of territoriality and extended the green line of private/public in favour of (the very political) private sphere. I became aware that my cognitive map of central London had failed to recognize new lines of law-enforcing (counter-terrorism?) artefacts. And also my tacit feelings of what counted as a public space, was highly incompatible with a new logic of practice.

My vacational photography is not much more than an anthropological study. But which are the consequences when someone wants to whistleblow what some corporation or authority is up to inside that skyscraper, or when people would like to demonstrate in context of real-time surveillance?

Languages of resistance

Christopher Kullenberg December 28th, 2006

Linguistics teach us the genealogy of languages through history and territory. However, it has traditionally been a science of the great imperial languages. But when we look outside the grand structures of language families, which are either tree-structured (deriving from a singular proto-language) or mixed up (results of creolization), we find a strange hybrid:
Leet-speak is maybe not qualitatively different from other languages in its development (I am really not a linguist), but has for certain rapidly mutated and at some point been a language of resistance. It has developed in the midst of technological change and thus renders a clear emergence. Leet-speak originates from the old Bulletin Board Systems that predated the Internet, and initially functioned as a way of shortening communications (saving time and bandwidth while typing). But soon the potential for writing in cipher was discovered, in order for a more narrow social circle to understand what was written. And even more interesting is how this “ciphering” was used against machine-agency. Administrators often use certain filters to stop content in order for words like “porn”, “revolution”, “freedom”, and “hacker” to be scanned and filtered – unless a creative use of language instead wrote “pr0n”, “r3v0|u710n”, “fr33d0m”, “h4xx0r”. This might sound a bit out-dated, but in fact such content filters are quite common, for example the Great Firewall of China, and in Iran, Myanmar, Uzbekistan, Syria among many others (read more at Amnesty International’s campaign).Yiddish

Today, leet-speak has been both consumed by popular culture, and is regarded as rather geeky, being far from a language of the opressed. However, languages go through many transformations, and can at some stages probably function as a way of empowering the disempowered. For no particular reason, we may (maybe) even look at this 15th-century german- latin- hebrew- yiddish dictionary. Being based upon german but written with hebrew letters, maybe yiddish is the proto-leet-speak, although there is probably no genealogical connection.

Anonymous Protest

klang December 15th, 2006

Most people have heard of the Zen koan “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” The purpose of the koan is not to have an answer but rather to be a point of departure for deeper reflection. Unfortunately for most of us with a western education we tend to attempt to answer the question with a yes or no – therefore defeating the purpose. My question of the day is a variation of the koan: If a protest is not heard – does it make a sound?

The ability to communicate in particular mass communicate is becoming easier. With all due respect to the numerous digital divides (age, knowledge, access, infrastructure etc) the ability to communicate via the internet is still growing. The question is whether this technology will serve the purpose of those attempting to conduct resistance or protest actions. The drawback with mass communication is that the communicator is all too easily identified and can be punished by those she is protesting or communicating against.

So there is a need to both be able to conduct mass communication via the internet and to remain anonymous. There is (thankfully) a growing number of relatively user friendly methods, in addition to tips and tricks, which the anonymous protester can use.

Many of these are to be found in the following guides:

As part of our research work the RSN is preparing a research application within this field. More information to follow.