Re: [liberationtech] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google
Benjamin Bratton has posted a reply that hardly says anything concrete and does not question any of the facts. Let's look at this intelligent article again, knowing that Germany-based news has the privilege of freedom to tell the truth when necesary and still pay their authors for it. From a hacker's point of view this all makes sense, while Mr Brattons blabber doesn't. But for anyone who doesn't like to hear, Mr Bratton just perfectly doesn't even challenge the facts provided here. It's a classic example of a straw-man argumentation strategy. Something very normal to do in PR and lobbyism.. or when you honestly do not understand what the counterpart is saying. On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 08:40:50AM -0700, Yosem Companys wrote: 30.04.2014 Dark Google We witness the rise of a new absolute power. Google transfers its radical politics from cyberspace to reality. It will earn its money by knowing, manipulating, controlling the reality and cutting it into the tiniest pieces. What does it mean, when a conservative mainstream media newspaper sends such a dramatic message? You better should get started thinking about it, if you haven't already. FAZ does not play on alarmism, it sells newspapers for decades and doesn't need to go cheap. Von SHOSHANA ZUBOFF Recall those fabled frogs happy in the magic pond. Playful. Distracted. The water temperature slowly rises, but the frogs don???t notice. By the time it reaches the boiling point, it???s too late to leap to safety. We are as frogs in the digital waters, and Springer CEO Mathias Dopfner has just become our frog town crier. Mr. Dopfner???s Why We Fear Google http://www.faz.net/-gsf-7oid8 (a response to Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt???s open letter, A Chance for Growth http://www.faz.net/-gsf-7o8dh) warns of danger on the move: The temperatures are rising fast.??? If his cry of alarm scares you, that???s good. Why? First, because there is a dawning awareness that Google is forging a new kingdom on the strength of a different kind of power ?? ubiquitous, hidden, and unaccountable. If successful, the dominion of this kingdom will exceed anything the world has known. The water is close to boiling, because Google understands this statement more profoundly than we do. From a hacker's perspective, ubiquitous isn't just that everybody is currently using Google Search, but that there hardly are any relevant web sites out that that do not make use of any embedded Google features. Scripts, fonts, analytics, you name it. The Internet is soaked in Google and gladly conveys all its usage patterns to the network's central intelligence agency. Interestingly, this aspect hasn't been discussed much anywhere. Even political websites frequently contain Google wiretaps. No surprise, the NSA's search engines make intense use of the pervasive presence of Google cookies to connect the dots between websurfing activities, even when using Tor. Second, because accessing the Web and the wider Internet have become essential for effective social participation across much of the world. A BBC poll conducted in 2010 found that 79% of people in 26 countries considered access to the Internet to be a fundamental human right. We rely on Google???s tools as we search, learn, connect, communicate, and transact. The chilling irony is that we???ve become dependent on the Internet to enhance our lives, but the very tools we use there threaten to remake society in ways that we do not understand and have not chosen. By moving on from paper to electronic they gave up the fundamental right for Secrecy of Correspondence, just there.. by mistake. In the beginning at least it wasn't all going to a single monitoring entity. But that is over twenty years ago. Something new and dangerous If there is a single word to describe Google, it is absolute. The Britannica defines absolutism as a system in which the ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other agency. In ordinary affairs, absolutism is a moral attitude in which values and principles are regarded as unchallengeable and universal. There is no relativism, context-dependence, or openness to change. Six years ago I asked Eric Schmidt what corporate innovations Google was putting in place to ensure that its interests were aligned with its end users. Would it betray their trust? Back then his answer Which is funny to even try, since CEOs usually only have as much political power as they are able to drive the dividends up. All politically correct action they can take is counter-balanced by the damage they make by driving in revenue. So the possible political correctness is always inferior to the needs of making a business, which is never for free. Society always pays for it in one way or another. It's in the architecture, so no-one is to blame for this. stunned me. He and Google???s founders control the super-voting class B stock. This allows them, he
Re: [liberationtech] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google
Shoshana Zuboff begins: We witness the rise of a new absolute power. Google transfers its radical politics from cyberspace to reality. It will earn its money by knowing, manipulating, controlling the reality and cutting it into the tiniest pieces. The exaggerated claim of absolute power sets a tone of hysteria, making it hard to take the author seriously. Recall those fabled frogs happy in the magic pond. Playful. Distracted. The water temperature slowly rises, but the frogs don’t notice. By the time it reaches the boiling point, it’s too late ... With this, I lose all confidence in the author. If Google is doing anything wrong, then (speaking for myself) I'll await a more sober report of it. carlo von lynX defends: What does it mean, when a conservative mainstream media newspaper sends such a dramatic message? You better should get started thinking about it, if you haven't already. FAZ does not play on alarmism, it sells newspapers for decades and doesn't need to go cheap. At best, it means they goofed. Even an invasion from Mars wouldn't warrant such an hysterical intro. (Sorry to disagree.) -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ -- Liberationtech is public archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
Re: [liberationtech] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google
Oh my god the sky must be falling!. Then I gather if some how we all manage to work togetherwe might mange to hold it up!... As for my credentials.. you ask...well I did study with Chicken Little...clearly one of the greatest minds of his time! _peter On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote: Shoshana Zuboff begins: We witness the rise of a new absolute power. Google transfers its radical politics from cyberspace to reality. It will earn its money by knowing, manipulating, controlling the reality and cutting it into the tiniest pieces. The exaggerated claim of absolute power sets a tone of hysteria, making it hard to take the author seriously. Recall those fabled frogs happy in the magic pond. Playful. Distracted. The water temperature slowly rises, but the frogs don’t notice. By the time it reaches the boiling point, it’s too late ... With this, I lose all confidence in the author. If Google is doing anything wrong, then (speaking for myself) I'll await a more sober report of it. carlo von lynX defends: What does it mean, when a conservative mainstream media newspaper sends such a dramatic message? You better should get started thinking about it, if you haven't already. FAZ does not play on alarmism, it sells newspapers for decades and doesn't need to go cheap. At best, it means they goofed. Even an invasion from Mars wouldn't warrant such an hysterical intro. (Sorry to disagree.) -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ -- Liberationtech is public archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu. -- Liberationtech is public archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
[liberationtech] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google
30.04.2014 Dark Google We witness the rise of a new absolute power. Google transfers its radical politics from cyberspace to reality. It will earn its money by knowing, manipulating, controlling the reality and cutting it into the tiniest pieces. Von SHOSHANA ZUBOFF Recall those fabled frogs happy in the magic pond. Playful. Distracted. The water temperature slowly rises, but the frogs don’t notice. By the time it reaches the boiling point, it’s too late to leap to safety. We are as frogs in the digital waters, and Springer CEO Mathias Dopfner has just become our frog town crier. Mr. Dopfner’s Why We Fear Google http://www.faz.net/-gsf-7oid8 (a response to Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt’s open letter, A Chance for Growth http://www.faz.net/-gsf-7o8dh) warns of danger on the move: The temperatures are rising fast.” If his cry of alarm scares you, that’s good. Why? First, because there is a dawning awareness that Google is forging a new kingdom on the strength of a different kind of power –– ubiquitous, hidden, and unaccountable. If successful, the dominion of this kingdom will exceed anything the world has known. The water is close to boiling, because Google understands this statement more profoundly than we do. Second, because accessing the Web and the wider Internet have become essential for effective social participation across much of the world. A BBC poll conducted in 2010 found that 79% of people in 26 countries considered access to the Internet to be a fundamental human right. We rely on Google’s tools as we search, learn, connect, communicate, and transact. The chilling irony is that we’ve become dependent on the Internet to enhance our lives, but the very tools we use there threaten to remake society in ways that we do not understand and have not chosen. Something new and dangerous If there is a single word to describe Google, it is absolute. The Britannica defines absolutism as a system in which the ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other agency. In ordinary affairs, absolutism is a moral attitude in which values and principles are regarded as unchallengeable and universal. There is no relativism, context-dependence, or openness to change. Six years ago I asked Eric Schmidt what corporate innovations Google was putting in place to ensure that its interests were aligned with its end users. Would it betray their trust? Back then his answer stunned me. He and Google’s founders control the super-voting class B stock. This allows them, he explained, to make decisions without regard to short-term pressure from Wall Street. Of course, it also insulates them from every other kind of influence. There was no wrestling with the creation of an inclusive, trustworthy, and transparent governance system. There was no struggle to institutionalize scrutiny and feedback. Instead Schmidt’s answer was the quintessence of absolutism: trust me; I know best. At that moment I knew I was in the presence of something new and dangerous whose effects reached beyond narrow economic contests and into the heart of everyday life. Google kills Innovation Mr. Schmidt’s open letter to Europe shows evidence of such absolutism. Democratic oversight is characterized as heavy-handed regulation. The Internet, Web, and Google are referenced interchangeably, as if Goggle’s interests stand for the entire Web and Internet. That’s a magician’s sleight of hand intended to distract from the real issue. Google’s absolutist pursuit of its interests is now regarded by many as responsible for the Web’s fading prospects as an open information platform in which participants can agree on rules, rights, and choice. Schmidt warns that were the E.U. to oppose Google’s practices, Europe risks becoming an innovation desert. Just the opposite is more likely true. Thanks in part to Google’s exquisite genius in the science of surveillance, the audacity with which it has expropriated users’ rights to privacy, and the aggressive tactics of the NSA, people are losing trust in the entire digital medium. It is this loss of trust that stands to kill innovation. To make some sense of our predicament, let’s take a fresh look at how we got here, the nature of the threats we face, and the stakes for the future. Google Colonizes a Blank Area and the NSA Follows In his extended essay, The Loneliness of the Dying, the sociologist Norbert Elias observes that dying is at present a largely unformed situation, a blank area on the social map. Such blanks occur when earlier meanings and practices no longer apply, but new ones have yet to be created. Google’s rapid rise to power was possible because it ventured into this kind of blank area. It colonized the blank space at high speed without challenge or impediment. Google did not ask permission, seek consensus, elicit opinion, or even make visible its rules and ramparts. How did this occur? Breaking the Rules of the Old World The first key ingredient was
Re: [liberationtech] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 there's a 'reply' by Benjamin Bratton making the rounds on fb: (https://www.facebook.com/benjaminbratton/posts/10152082644097966?stream_ref=10) This piece by Shoshanna Zubof is just bad in multiple dimensions at once. For that it neatly summarizes the warble of several of the weakest and sickest old dogs within Google Studies. There are literally a million reasons that the geopolitics of Google needs to be front-and-center debate, bloody and relentless. Articles like this do nothing but cheapen that debate with ignorance, sloppy and fearful analogies, and tired conventional platitudes calling themselves courage. A Top 12 of useless tropes, in rough order of their appearance in Zubof’s article. (1) Taking what Eric Schmidt says in Op-Ed's at face value as representing Google's strategy, or worse as representing Google's geopolitical and geoeconomic significance, power, or danger. (2) Insisting that the author's self-pronounced confusion as to the history or mutability of the Internet is proof of its insidiousness, unaccountability and over-determination by current actors. (3) Using a mish-mash of trigger words like 'colonize' and 'self-determination' without any need to link these to the presumed contexts, and one assumes, giving no real thought to how (quote) “the whole topography of cyberspace” does and does not resemble other kinds of social, political, economic or cultural geography, let alone their contentious histories. (4) Utter misrepresentation of the relationship between Google and the USA Federal Gov't, especially the NSA, including taking quotes out of context to ventriloquize inverted meaning (the McConnell quote here was about China hacking Google's servers to track dissidents, not PRISM). Including patently absurd links between disparate events (such as Street View inadvertent capture of public wi-fi addresses = NSA hacking patrol because Google reported Chinese hacking to the NSA in 2010). Or how about this one: NSA tracked users with some insidious new secret technique called “cookies,” a weird new trick they learned in conspiracy with Google. (5) Blaming the disillusionment and disenchantment of their own earlier naive and shallow presumptions about some intrinsically liberating nature of the Internet on Google's data and advertising business model. (6) Conflating Google with all other Cloud platforms, especially Facebook, as one big entity with apparently deliberate ignorance of or disinterest in significant distinctions. (7) Insisting that things we do know about Google and PRISM (such as their continuing pushback and resistance to court orders, their subsidized development of user tools to directly circumvent government surveillance, such as uproxy and google dns) are meaningless, but indicating the opacity of all things we don’t know about any possible dirty dealings is demonstrable proof of their abyssal darkness. (8) Conflating user feedback and pushback regarding strange and disturbing new forms of data transparency with some deliberate and explicitly criminal mischief on Google’s part. Including misrepresentation of what practices were and are secret and which are merely unusual and controversial. (9) Demanding that the author’s confusion about the ambiguous social logics of secrecy and privacy in a network society is proof of an innocence not merely disenchanted but one deliberately stolen by bad actors. Demanding that the author’s inability to articulate a coherent a political description of Cloud-based social systems is demonstrable proof, not just of a general confusion, but once again of Google’s willful violence. (10) Offering laughably obvious predictions about Google’s future intensions, including “data mining” (whoa, no way) and linking “online” services with “offline” physical systems (like cars, robotics, and houses) …(um, no shit). Demanding that because the exact terms of the future are not known, then it must prove “secrecy” (in this case ‘bad secrecy’) darkness and danger. (11) Conflating Google with all of neoliberalism. (12) Demanding that the only way to adjudicate these new Googly conundrums is with new language and analytical tools. Next 5 sentences then repeat the oldest and most conventional calls for general well-being through measured oversight. - -- hc voigt kellerabteil.org :: twitter.com/kellerabteil :: +43 699 19586738 :: kellerabt...@jabber.org :: kellerabteil.org/0D31AC6E.asc :: 13EA 7E87 C4DB 04CF 50C2 8BAF CC8A 6F31 0D31 AC6E :: sozialebewegungen.org :: alternative-medien-akademie.at :: Yosem Companys schrieb: 30.04.2014 Dark Google We witness the rise of a new absolute power. Google transfers its radical politics from cyberspace to reality. It will earn its money by knowing, manipulating, controlling the reality and cutting it into the tiniest pieces. Von SHOSHANA ZUBOFF Recall those fabled frogs happy in the magic pond. Playful. Distracted. The water
