OK - hello lizvlx, It was meanwhile pointed out to me whom I was talking to - pardon my misconception about Uebermorgen, it was simply not clear to me who I was talking to..
You are entirely justified to point out any issues in the text you do not agree with. Thank you for that, it helps to see a broader context and any possible misconceptions that might be there. I have answered your questions as concise as I could in my previous mail - nothing to add. You are supposing all kinds of things in my text and answers that aren’t there. I leave it to the reader to make up their own mind. -e. > On 8 Oct 2020, at 23:53, lizvlx <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello ‘lizvix’ - don’t know who this is - the ‘Hans’ of Übermorgen? > > Ahhh — Are you trying to be rude or are you really not aware that Ubermorgen > consists not only of one man? I find that quite amusing :D - you are funny > man. > > So to clear that up, I am lizvlx, the lizvlx of Ubermorgen. > > Why do you use so many words! > You are hard for me to understand. > > Anyway. > > Let me rephrase & comment (after all we do want to discuss this right): > > 1. What do you mean the freedom of assembly has been suspended? > (Not true in Kenya, Nigeria, Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, USA, - I > am only citing countries that are coming to my mind right now) > > 2. How can you refer to “no particular” country - that is illogical when you > are trying to make a point on legal issues which are always decided locally. > There is a huuuuge amount of democratic countries on this planet, on all > continents. I am quite perplexed that you seem to think that a nice > Eurocentric position will explain the Covid rules and changes in let’s say - > Taiwan, Uganda or Columbia. > > 3. Thank you for your answer to question 3 - even tho you really use many > many words, but then, that is a male trait that maybe is to be not to made > fun of. > Are you not concerned that your views on public health might come across as > proto-fascist and medically-naive? > > 4. Data - as much as I appreciate the academic thought on this - btw I > usually use a Samsung, which unfortunately just broke down - but there is not > A (1) corona app, but there are many. And they vary in their technology. But > summa summarum, most are sharing less data then your average datamining > gaming app. So from a programmer’s perspective I cannot see anything relevant > added to the again huuuuuge data fields of the 21th century. > > Cheers > > lizvlx > > Ps: why are you talking about the weather? I don’t understand the relevance > to your above points. > > > >>> 1. what do u mean by (mass) gatherings have been suspended? >> >> I wrote “The freedom of assembly has been suspended.” - under corona rules >> virtually anywhere now only limited amounts of people are allowed to >> assemble, which in effect means that this basic freedom is suspended. Mass >> gatherings still happen, as I explained in some length in the piece, but >> they are then in violation of these rules. > > >> >>> 2. What countries r u referring to? >> >> Not any country in particular, but the countries that have or pretend to >> have some form of basic ‘democratic’ or civic governance (neoliberal >> phantasy or not). Probably we must assume that ‘democratic rights’ are >> always under threat / pressure, but with the covid-19 crisis I feel there is >> a qualitatively different situation. >> >>> 3. do u have an issue with a lockdown per se or is this coz u don’t think >>> the pandemic necessitates such a thing? >> >> I am writing in the essay about the question of ‘public space’ and the >> erosion of ‘publicness’ and ’the public’ not about the politics of the >> lockdowns. >> >> My private opinion, which is outside the scope of this essay, is that in >> some initial stage of the pandemic the lockdowns were maybe necessary, given >> the overburdened care system, but in essence they are counter-productive. >> The virus will not go away, it will stay around like the flu and mutate >> regularly. Thus any vaccine will need to be updated regularly and we will >> have to get it like the flu shot, or even in a cocktail, probably annually. >> >> It is necessary to build up a certain measure of biological resistance in >> the general population, but this can only be done in a responsible way by >> radically extending the care system to protect vulnerable sections of the >> population - and the main argument against that is staggering costs - so the >> lockdown has been the preferred option. Problem is once you end it the virus >> starts circulating like before again, which is what we now see. >> >> Hoping that a vaccine is the silver bullet is to me exactly that: hope and >> as a Russian saying says so beautifully: Hope dies last. >> >>> 4. what specifically doch deem privacy infringing with corona apps as most >>> either collect a lotta less data than Facebook or don’t collect any data on >>> a central server? Which app r u referring to? >> >> That is the misconception I’m trying to address with this text. The app >> seems not so bad in comparison to all the other data draining techniques >> from the social media swamp, or simply from mobile / ‘smart’ phone users >> (i.e. more or less all of us, you replied from an iphone and I use that >> thing as well - though not for mailing lists..). >> >> It is the correlation of data from all these apps, the integration into the >> operating systems as a default, in combination with the radical expansion of >> somatic sensing technologies built into these mobile / wearable devices that >> creates an unprecedented level of scrutiny wherever we take these devices, >> i.e. that thing formerly designated as ‘public space’, but this condition is >> exactly what renders the necessary conditions for publicness null and void. >> I find that a troubling situation and I think it needs to be reversed. >> >>> 5. again, what parts of the world r u thinking of when u wrote this text? >> >> I answered that question already. >> >> Enjoy the evening! >> (though weather here in NL is terrible at the moment, maybe it is better >> wherever you are..?) >> >> -Eric >> >> >>> CHEERS! LIZ! Vote! >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 06.10.2020, at 13:31, Eric Kluitenberg <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> dear nettimers, please note: >>>> >>>> This for me rather unusually opinionated text has just been published on >>>> the Open! platform. The essay explores the insistent somatic turn in >>>> technologically enabled scrutiny of public spaces and its acceleration in >>>> response to the COVID-19 crisis. It argues that the very core of public >>>> space and the public domain is under threat as it is anonymity that allows >>>> a collection of individuals to transform into 'a public', One of the most >>>> vital corner stones of open and democratic civic governance is thus under >>>> imminent threat. >>>> >>>> An edited and slightly shortened version of this text has been published >>>> on the Open! platform for art, culture and the public domain (September >>>> 18, 2020), and can be found here: >>>> https://www.onlineopen.org/the-zombie-public >>>> <https://www.onlineopen.org/the-zombie-public> >>>> >>>> –––––––––– >>>> >>>> The Zombie Public >>>> >>>> Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic. >>>> >>>> Our media channels have been flooded with projections about possible >>>> futures, with or without ‘the virus’. [1] Not surprising given the >>>> unprecedented 2020 lockdown across large parts of the planet. In both >>>> dystopian and utopian accounts, as well as more level-headed attempts at >>>> taking stock and extrapolating future scenarios, a recurrent motive is the >>>> attempt to describe a possible future in definite terms based on a set of >>>> extreme contingencies that essentially preclude a clear judgement – given >>>> the tide of uncertainties such predictions are up against. Rather than >>>> simply writing these accounts off as nonsensical they should be understood >>>> as what they are, ideological projections that attempt to shape rather >>>> than predict possible futures. As such traditional questions can then be >>>> asked: Who is ‘shaping’? Under what prerogative? In service of which >>>> ideological a-priori? Serving which material (political / economic) >>>> interests? >>>> >>>> Any critical reader can fill in this ‘questionnaire’ for themselves, and >>>> answers will undoubtedly overlap and to some extent be predictable. It >>>> may, however, yet be more productive to shift away from these predicted >>>> (contingent) futures altogether and focus instead on that what has already >>>> happened. We can then ask ourselves the question what can be done right >>>> now to thwart the ‘shapers’ endeavours? How can we open up this contingent >>>> future to the public interest, that is to say to that which concerns us >>>> all and which should be subject of an open, critical, and truly public >>>> debate, rather than the object of flawed and illegitimate attempts at >>>> social engineering. Another way of stating the same would be to say, >>>> let’s trace the associations of all the agents involved in determining >>>> these contingent futures (human and non-human), and try to establish the >>>> most beneficial forms of living together in a continuous feedback loop of >>>> ‘composing the good common world’ (Latour, 2004). [2] >>>> >>>> Given the complexity of this question it is clear that such an undertaking >>>> needs to be a collective effort, comprised of an infinite assemblage of >>>> individual actions, not necessarily at all points coherent, nor even >>>> commensurable. Rather, it involves an explication of an unending >>>> succession of ‘matters of concern’ that bring us together exactly because >>>> they divide us (Latour, 2005). As such this essay is not an attempt at >>>> (another) comprehensive analysis. I will focus here on an interrogation of >>>> the shifting spatial dynamics and regimes of urban space, as they pertain >>>> in particular to a specific ‘matter of concern’; the demise of public >>>> space and the zombie-status of ‘the public’ that still tries to inhabit >>>> this ‘disassembled’ space. The shifting spatial dynamics I am referring to >>>> have been underway for a long time, but have been greatly intensified and >>>> accelerated by the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the (state and >>>> corporate) policy responses towards the ‘global pandemic’. >>>> >>>> The shifting spatial dynamics and the potentially lethal effects they >>>> have, amplifying the demise of public space, result from the increasing >>>> entanglement of physical (urban) space, digital networks, and the >>>> biological body, and the ways in which these dynamics are operationalised >>>> politically. In the context of Open! we have already investigated >>>> different aspects of this dynamic in depth, mostly through our successive >>>> engagements with the emerging ‘techno-sensuous spatial order’ of Affect >>>> Space.[3] But what must be emphasised more decidedly here is the >>>> increasing shift towards the somatic, the tendency to bind the biological >>>> body ever more tightly into this emerging spatial order, which also >>>> connects this exploration more or less directly to the current Open! >>>> research on touch and feel in the digital age. >>>> >>>> The lockdown in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic might >>>> seem at first to contradict everything that we had so far theorised about >>>> Affect Space. One of our crucial areas of attention had been the increased >>>> densification of urban public spaces as they become overlaid with mobile >>>> media and digital communications and media networks (3G, 4G, 5G). These >>>> new types of urban densities, simultaneously directly embodied and >>>> electronically mediated, produce a constant sense of being overwhelmed by >>>> unceasing flows of information and sensation. This ‘overflow’ (Mackenzie, >>>> 2010) privileges affective relations (in urban space) over more >>>> deliberative forms of social interaction. Such interaction at the >>>> affective level is characterised by a highly non-linear and unpredictable >>>> dynamic, we found. But in no way are these interactions arbitrary. Thus we >>>> could understand more of the erratic collective behaviours we had observed >>>> in urban (public) spaces at moments of grave political and social tension. >>>> All these ideas, it seemed, were now contradicted and apparently declared >>>> obsolete by the international lockdown and the remarkable absence of >>>> public protest against it. >>>> >>>> The most recent turn of events, however, has revealed the continued >>>> vitality of Affect Space – its unpredictable but in no way arbitrary >>>> non-linear dynamics that generate the capacity for exponentially growing >>>> collective actions that seem to appear as if ‘out of nowhere’. Fuelled by >>>> an urgent political issue, a divisive, and through that divisiveness, >>>> assembling matter of concern, the affect-driven dynamic of these >>>> collective actions quickly exceeds the original issue at stake – meanwhile >>>> drawing in a multitude of previously unrelated actors. Here, quite >>>> obviously, I am referring to the suffocation of an unarmed >>>> (Black-American) citizen by Minneapolis’ police officers and the >>>> subsequent outpouring of anger and frustration, evolving into a global >>>> chain of protest gatherings in (previously locked down) urban public >>>> spaces around systemic racism and police violence. Suddenly not the >>>> dynamics of Affect Space, but the lockdown and social distancing policies >>>> themselves were declared obsolete overnight. >>>> >>>> Still this recent turn of cards does not relay our worries about the >>>> demise of public space as a result of the technologised politics of touch >>>> and feel in urban space. Nor does it account for the sudden transnational >>>> mobilisations, which are even more remarkable than the international >>>> lockdown they transcended, and the initial lack of public contestation. >>>> The question here is if the analysis of Affect Space can help to elucidate >>>> some of these contradictory dynamics? >>>> >>>> What has happened already? >>>> >>>> So, what has already happened? Let’s remind ourselves briefly of what we >>>> all already know. Most important, with the lockdown the freedom of >>>> assembly has been suspended. This freedom has been curtailed by limits on >>>> the amount of people allowed to gather in public space - in the most >>>> severe cases down to 0, but in all cases limited by the scale of open >>>> spaces and the regulations of social distancing that determine how many >>>> people can occupy any given open space legally. Mass gatherings have thus >>>> been rendered illegal (what the recent anti-racist protests showed is that >>>> they are not impossible, but they are in violation of the legal >>>> framework). Local regulation is translated into national laws, and serious >>>> concerns have been raised about the supposedly temporary nature of this >>>> often hastily compiled legislation.[4] >>>> >>>> Borders have been closed, also within the European Schengen Zone designed >>>> to enable freedom of movement in and between its signatory states. In >>>> general the response to the looming COVOD-19 pandemic has been a return to >>>> the archaic nation state[5], which is deeply unsuited to deal with a >>>> paradigmatically transnational calamity. >>>> >>>> The most problematic response has been te announcement and deployment of >>>> mobile and wireless tracing technologies that trace every movement of >>>> individuals in public space. The pretext for developing and deploying >>>> these technologies is to enable authorities to trace and isolate contacts >>>> of a contaminated individual to contain spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. >>>> While the effectiveness of this intrusive measure is still very much under >>>> debate, what the technology does is to identify every individual in public >>>> space, all their movements, and their interactions with others. With that >>>> anonymity in public space is eradicated. It is however exactly this >>>> anonymity in public space that allows a collection of individuals to >>>> transform into a ‘public’. What these technologies thus translate into is >>>> the abolishment of public space altogether. >>>> >>>> Open access to public space has always and ever been only one aspect of >>>> the publicness of that space. It is the ability to act collectively, as a >>>> ‘public’, i.e. untraceable as individuals, that constitutes the vital >>>> democratic function of public space. It is exactly this public political >>>> function >>>> that counterbalances the expansion of private, corporate and state control >>>> of the public domain. This vital political function of public space is at >>>> the edge of extinction. >>>> >>>> From Affect Space to Somatic Space >>>> >>>> The concept of Affect Space was first proposed in a long-read essay >>>> written specifically for the Open! platform and published in 2015 >>>> (Kluitenberg, 2015). In this essay the contours of a model were suggested >>>> that builds on three constitutive elements: >>>> >>>> A technological component: Interconnected communication networks, in >>>> particular internet, mobile media and wireless networks perform a crucial >>>> function to mobilise large groups of people around ever changing ‘issues >>>> at stake’. >>>> >>>> An affective component: A recurrent characteristic is the affective >>>> intensity generated and exchanged in these mobilisation / activation >>>> processes in overlapping mediated and urban public spaces — instantiated >>>> in the body of the physical actors at the screens and in the streets. >>>> Reasoned arguments seem to play much less of a role here than affective >>>> images, aphoristic and suggestive slogans and embodied collective rituals. >>>> >>>> A spatial component: The affective intensities generated in the activation >>>> process cannot be shared effectively in disembodied online interactions at >>>> the screen. This lack stimulates the desire for physical encounter, which >>>> can only happen in a physical spatial context — paradigmatically in >>>> (urban) public space, where mobile media then feed the action in the >>>> streets immediately back into the media networks. >>>> >>>> This model was then used as a conceptual starting point for the public >>>> research trajectory Technology / Affect / Space (2016-2017), which >>>> resulted in a series of public gatherings and commissioned essays, >>>> including the follow up long-read essay (Re-)Designing Affect Space, which >>>> detailed the conceptual model of Affect Space based on the findings in our >>>> public research trajectory. >>>> >>>> What we diagnosed at the time was that the increasing densification of >>>> urban spaces, resulting from the massive presence of a great diversity of >>>> people, skills, knowledges, and economic and political functions, >>>> intensified by the growing presence of mobile media and communications >>>> devices and dense wireless communication networks, introduces the >>>> principle of an affective threshold: Once connections in these urban >>>> concentration zones exceeded a critical density the overwhelming sensory >>>> exposure produces a shift from deliberative towards primarily affective >>>> relations in public space. >>>> >>>> Crucially, the passing of the affective threshold is not only determined >>>> by a spatial densification, but also by a temporal intensification. >>>> Intense events, protests, calamities, collective shock, violent >>>> confrontations (military, police violence, violent mobs), many distributed >>>> in near real-time, all contribute to an acceleration of communicative >>>> exchanges (post, tweets, live-feeds, text messaging, photo and video >>>> sharing, televised reports) that quickly overwhelm the human capacities >>>> for cognitive processing. Within the new constellation of mobile and >>>> wireless media both production and reception of these messages happen >>>> simultaneously on site and remotely, where all these message streams feed >>>> into each other, unleashing an autocatalytic intensification that can only >>>> be felt but no longer qualified. >>>> >>>> Group formation under these conditions determined by the primacy of >>>> affect, tends to coalesce around shared affects rather than around shared >>>> socio-political issues (‘matters of concern’ - Latour, 2005), or shared >>>> beliefs. The density of connections allows for a very rapid activation / >>>> mobilisation of previously unrelated social actors - accounting for the >>>> impression that such massive gatherings, as we have seen over and over >>>> again since at least 2011, and most recently in the mobilisations around >>>> the Black Lives Matter movement, seem to appear ‘out of nowhere’. The >>>> dynamic of these gatherings is indeed highly nonlinear and unpredictable, >>>> yet in no way arbitrary. >>>> >>>> Philosopher Brian Massumi, whose approach to affect informed this >>>> research, observed about this dynamic that there may still be an issue or >>>> a specific event that produces a suspense resulting in a collectively >>>> shared affect. The massive protests in response to the Charlie Hebdo >>>> terrorist attack in Paris in 2015 are a clear example. The event is >>>> experienced collectively based on the suspension of narrative continuity >>>> that the Hebdo attack produced and the intensity of the attack itself and >>>> its mediated representations. However, what then unfolds from this shared >>>> affect, expressed in the Hebdo case in spontaneous massive public >>>> gatherings in several European cities, depends entirely on the capacities >>>> and tendencies with which each individual enters these collective >>>> situations – it unfolds differentially from there. Narrative coherence or >>>> ‘sameness of affect’ does not exist in these situations. There is only >>>> affective difference according to Massumi. He qualifies these situations >>>> as a process of ‘collective individuation’. (Massumi, 2015, 109-110). As a >>>> result the original issue / matter of concern is quickly surpassed and >>>> what remains is the intensity of the collective event (the shared affect) >>>> and its differential unfolding. >>>> >>>> The Somatic Deficit >>>> >>>> It was clear from the outset that this dynamic of affective activation / >>>> mobilisation would not go away with the lockdown that was implemented >>>> (with varying degrees of strictness) across many countries and regions in >>>> response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Particularly not because mediated >>>> online connections became the primary replacement for embodied encounters >>>> under the lockdown conditions of social separation. >>>> >>>> The combination of social separation and density of mediated connections >>>> inevitably produces an affective gap, an experiential lack of physical >>>> connection to the events witnessed on the screen. In our previous research >>>> we observed that there is quite obviously an enormous difference between >>>> witnessing an event, particularly intense events, physically up close or >>>> instead mediated from afar: >>>> >>>> “Both types of experience may be charged with intensity, but the mediated >>>> experience is necessarily characterized by delimitation, a lack of >>>> physical cues or proximity, an absence of participation in full. The more >>>> dramatic the witnessed action, the more anaemic the mediated experience >>>> feels. It is this tension between a charged event witnessed from afar and >>>> its intensity unfolding in the immediacy of embodied space that fuels the >>>> desire for physical encounter.” (Kluitenberg, 2017) >>>> >>>> This experiential and affective gap between the embodied and mediated >>>> experience can be called the Somatic Deficit. The paradoxical situation >>>> many of us, billions in effect worldwide, found ourselves in, mediated up >>>> close and physically distanced, produced a massive collective somatic >>>> deficit. Not the sudden emanation of public protests ignoring and >>>> transcending the lockdown measures came as a surprise, but much rather the >>>> long period of apparent lack of contestation against the rushed measures >>>> imposed to curtail the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 >>>> disease it can cause. However, this delayed response may account for a >>>> gradual build up of intensity, an intensified somatic deficit that could >>>> ultimately not be contained. >>>> >>>> Rather than eliminating the dynamics of Affect Space, the lockdown may >>>> well have laid the foundations for these dynamics to reinstate themselves >>>> with unprecedented vigour. That the new wave of public gatherings in >>>> dissent manifested themselves through massive protests against >>>> institutional racism and police violence towards singled-out ethnic groups >>>> – a long overdue outpouring of collective indignation – might first and >>>> foremost have provided a focal point for the expression of this somatic >>>> deficit. The implication to take from this is that the somatic deficit >>>> might henceforth express itself in and through a variety of ‘matters of >>>> concern’ and thus constitute a continuous factor of political and societal >>>> instability, but it also indicates a potential for change. >>>> >>>> Contact Tracing: Some technologies should simply not be developed >>>> >>>> Though perhaps not exactly in the terms as employed above, it is clear >>>> that authorities around the planet, both in supposedly democratic and more >>>> authoritarian political constellations, are keenly aware of these >>>> conditions and the unsustainable nature of the lockdown measures. We might >>>> conceive of the global lockdowns, slightly tongue-in-cheek as ‘Temporary >>>> Strategic Zones’ with a limited life-span. Therefore new control >>>> mechanisms needed to be implemented under the intense time-pressure >>>> exerted by a growing collective somatic deficit. The extraordinary but not >>>> entirely unpredicted conditions of a rapidly spreading global pandemic >>>> provided the tactical momentum (likely desired for a long time) to push >>>> through new legislative and technological interventions that would >>>> otherwise be immediately dismissed under justified public outrage. >>>> >>>> The inherently authoritarian response to the pandemic has been to increase >>>> the scrutiny of public space in an attempt to create the conditions for a >>>> complete traceability of the actors operating in that (formerly public) >>>> space. It is important to emphasise that the SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 crisis >>>> has not so much ‘created’ these new tendencies in the control and >>>> extermination of public space, as that it has accelerated and intensified >>>> a set of existing tendencies around the scrutiny and control of urban >>>> space. >>>> >>>> There has long been a relentless drive to use personal communications >>>> media to trace individual and collective movements in public / urban space >>>> - to render as it were this space entirely transparent. This tendency by >>>> now exceeds by far the mere capture of people’s sentiments and views, or >>>> their movements and associations in (public) space. With the new >>>> technological capabilities of always-on networked devices and new sensor >>>> technologies, combined with machine learning based automated pattern >>>> recognition techniques and high capacity wireless data-networks (5G), the >>>> attempt is made to encapsulate as many as possible somatic markers into >>>> this system of continuous and pervasive surveillance. >>>> >>>> Part of these new wireless and network enabled sensing devices come in >>>> mundane guises: fitness trackers and their immediate link up with online >>>> dashboards where movements, heart rate, temperature, breathing patterns >>>> can be analysed in real-time as well as after the act (usually some >>>> sportive activity or exercise). Smart watches fitted with increasingly >>>> sophisticated sensor technologies as well as optional add-ons that can >>>> monitor virtually every aspect of our bodily functions. Part of this >>>> locates itself in the mundane practices of every day life, while others >>>> are linked to inconspicuous health platforms.[6] With the integration of >>>> these technological capabilities in health apps installed by default in >>>> most smartphones these types of meticulous somatic self-surveillance >>>> become pervasive and truly ubiquitous. >>>> >>>> This trend is taken to an altogether other dimension, however, by the >>>> development and deployment of so-called contact tracing apps that monitor >>>> person to person associations and proximities of an a-priori limitless >>>> number of actors (devices / bodies) operating in urban (public) space. >>>> While the apps are introduced as voluntary, using device-based wireless >>>> networks (bluetooth) and anonymised data stored exclusively on the device, >>>> there is absolutely no guarantee that the apps, once tried and tested, be >>>> made mandatory (for instance to be allowed to enter public transport, >>>> public buildings, the workplace, etc.), or that the data are retroactively >>>> de-anonymised. Indeed as a leaked UK government memo published in The >>>> Guardian newspaper of April 13, 2020 revealed, “ministers might be given >>>> the ability to order “de-anonymisation” to identify people from their >>>> smartphones.”[7] >>>> >>>> The partnership of Apple and Google to jointly develop COVID-19 contact >>>> tracing technology emphasises the focus on user privacy, and intends to >>>> certify this by allowing only storage of contact data on the individual >>>> device and not via an online database or platform.[8] This, however, can >>>> also give no guarantee that these companies will not be simply ordered by >>>> various governments in countries where the technology is deployed to make >>>> these data accessible for relevant health and policing authorities. >>>> >>>> Furthermore, once in operation it will become very simple and attractive >>>> to link the contact tracing technology to the somatic sensing technologies >>>> discussed earlier, as both are integrated into the same devices and >>>> so-called eco-systems (combinations of integrated hardware and software). >>>> Thus, textual, auditory, visual and audiovisual exchanges, as well as >>>> physical movements, shared spaces, the number of contact moments with one >>>> or more identified actors, heart rate, breathing patterns, body >>>> temperature, blood pressure, (changes in) galvanic skin resistance, the >>>> number of steps taken, the periods of inactivity, hormonal cycles, >>>> respiration levels, and many other somatic functions can be rendered >>>> entirely transparent. Meanwhile identity can be verified by voice >>>> analysis, retina scans, facial recognition, finger print scans and other >>>> bodily markers. >>>> >>>> Once in place all these different data points can be correlated by any >>>> government or authority that is willing to deploy these technologies for >>>> such uses, which is to say by any and all authorities, regardless of their >>>> political signature. The only option to avoid this scenario is not to >>>> develop these technologies and reverse them where they have already been >>>> deployed. The step by Apple and Google to integrate these contact tracing >>>> technologies into their respective operating systems means, however, that >>>> they have become in effect virtually unavoidable for all users of smart >>>> phones based on the iOS and Android platforms, which is the vast >>>> majority of citizens in the more developed economies. >>>> >>>> The proposition that there could be such a thing as a privacy sensitive >>>> tracing app is preposterous. The tracing process facilitated by the >>>> technology, even if applied voluntarily, negates the essence of the very >>>> idea of privacy. The public discourse surrounding these tracing >>>> technologies is entirely disingenuous. It should be made very clear that >>>> there is only one choice: the choice between traceability versus privacy - >>>> both notions are mutually exclusive. >>>> >>>> The extermination of public space results exactly from this drive to >>>> render the actors in that space entirely transparent and traceable - with >>>> it the possibility of entering public space and the public domain >>>> anonymously is eradicated. It is however the very possibility of anonymity >>>> in public space and the public domain that allows a collection of >>>> individuals to transform into ‘a public’. With it any idea of democracy or >>>> of open governance is lost as it depends on collective action that is not >>>> reducible to an individual act. >>>> >>>> Sociologist Noortje Marres has argued concisely in the Open Journal >>>> (Marres, 2006) for the requirement of the public being untraceable, as >>>> part of the investigation into public agency in hybrid space conducted >>>> here in 2006: >>>> >>>> Marres: “(..) the agency of the public derives in part from the fact that >>>> this entity is not fully traceable. That is, the force of the public has >>>> to do with the impossibility of knowing its exact potential. And this for >>>> the following reason: when a thing is publicized in the media, whether a >>>> person, an object or an event, this involves the radical multiplication of >>>> the potential relations that this entity can enter into with other things >>>> and people. Thus, when something starts circulating in public media, this >>>> brings along the possibility, and indeed the threat, of an open-ended set >>>> of actors stepping in to support this entity, and to make it strong. The >>>> fact that the public cannot be definitively traced back to a limited >>>> number of identifiable sources is thus crucial to the effectiveness of the >>>> public: this is what endows publics with a dangerous kind of agency. >>>> This also makes it clear why the wish to concretize the public, to boil it >>>> down to the real actors that constitute it, involves a misunderstanding of >>>> the public.” >>>> >>>> The citizen assemblies post-2011, the so-called ‘movement(s) of the >>>> squares’ have demonstrated the importance of physical encounter with the >>>> unknown other as the fundamental ‘basis’ for civic sovereignty and open >>>> civic / democratic politics. It is exactly this principle of not knowing >>>> who is assembling that enables a multiplicity of different people to enter >>>> into a new social relation. The drive for absolute transparency and >>>> traceability of public space and the public domain renders this function >>>> impossible. The failure of the ‘movements of the squares’, their lack of >>>> political efficacy, has been their inability to translate these insights >>>> and experiences into effective forms of civic governance. However, this >>>> has in no way invalidated the importance of such open, impromptu forms of >>>> citizen assemblies for establishing new forms of pluralistic civic >>>> governance. >>>> >>>> Another Post-COVID-19 World is Possible >>>> >>>> Finally it is important to emphasise that the problem of traceability of >>>> the (former) public is not technological, and that the problem of the >>>> COVID-19 pandemic (or others that are certain to follow given the >>>> excessive human demographic pressures on this planet), is not medical. >>>> Both are political problems that rely on political choices that need to be >>>> made and were necessary reversed or redirected – with Latour we might say >>>> ‘redesigned’ (Latour, 2008). >>>> >>>> A few necessary and concrete steps can be proposed here: >>>> >>>> 1) All restrictions on the right to freedom of assembly must be suspended >>>> as soon as possible. >>>> >>>> 2) The further development of tracing technologies and their deployment in >>>> public space must be aborted. The technology is too dangerous. Its adverse >>>> effects far outweigh any possible benefit. >>>> >>>> 3) The right to disconnect must be enshrined in law - as a constitutional >>>> right.[9] >>>> >>>> 4) All eventual SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 vaccines must reside in the public >>>> domain so that the vaccine(s) can be efficiently reproduced by local >>>> producers and made available to an as broad as possible share of the >>>> global population. >>>> Private actors who may be deemed essential to this efforts can receive a >>>> reasonable retribution for their efforts and investments - the allocation >>>> of which is a political decision (i.e. what is ‘reasonable’ given specific >>>> local conditions?). >>>> >>>> 5) In the absence of a vaccine or effective treatment the capacities of >>>> care systems must be dramatically increased. Testing capacities must be >>>> scaled up, as well as traditional forms of contact tracing by health >>>> agencies. Protective measures for vulnerable sections of the global >>>> population must be radically extended. >>>> >>>> 6) These measures must be sustained for as long as required. The absence >>>> of a vaccine and / or treatment cannot be an excuse for the suspension of >>>> democratic and civil rights and principles, including anonymous acces to >>>> public space and freedom of assembly. >>>> >>>> 7) The primacy of public interest over private interest in political >>>> decision making must be asserted. >>>> >>>> >>>> NOTES: >>>> >>>> 1 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/ >>>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/> >>>> 2 - See also: http://modesofexistence.org/ <http://modesofexistence.org/> >>>> 3 - See the two previous long-read essays: >>>> Affect Space - Witnessing the ‘Movement(s) of the Squares’ (2015) >>>> https://www.onlineopen.org/affect-space >>>> <https://www.onlineopen.org/affect-space> >>>> (Re-)Designing Affect Space (2017) >>>> https://www.onlineopen.org/re-designing-affect-space >>>> <https://www.onlineopen.org/re-designing-affect-space> >>>> 4 - See the advice of the Netherlands Council of State of June 10, 2020, >>>> on the “Tweede Verzamelspoedwet COVID-19” (Dutch only): >>>> https://www.raadvanstate.nl/adviezen/@121311/w05-20-0168/ >>>> <https://www.raadvanstate.nl/adviezen/@121311/w05-20-0168/> >>>> 5 - Also Bruno Latour observed this in his column for Le Monde and >>>> Critical Inquiry “Is This a Dress Rehearsal?” >>>> https://critinq.wordpress.com/2020/03/26/is-this-a-dress-rehearsal/ >>>> <https://critinq.wordpress.com/2020/03/26/is-this-a-dress-rehearsal/> >>>> 6 - A good example of such health applications are Apple’s HealthKit, >>>> ResearchKit, and CareKit. >>>> See: https://developer.apple.com/health-fitness/ >>>> <https://developer.apple.com/health-fitness/> >>>> 7 - The Guardian, April 13, 2020: “NHS coronavirus app: memo discussed >>>> giving ministers power to 'de-anonymise' users “ - >>>> >>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users >>>> >>>> <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users> >>>> >>>> 8 - Press release, April 10,2020: Apple and Google partner on COVID-19 >>>> contact tracing technology >>>> >>>> https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/04/apple-and-google-partner-on-covid-19-contact-tracing-technology/ >>>> >>>> <https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/04/apple-and-google-partner-on-covid-19-contact-tracing-technology/> >>>> 9 - See also: Howard Rheingold & Eric Kluitenberg (2006): Mindful >>>> Disconnection- Counter powering the Panopticon from the Inside. >>>> https://www.onlineopen.org/mindful-disconnection >>>> <https://www.onlineopen.org/mindful-disconnection> >>>> >>>> >>>> REFERENCES: >>>> >>>> Kluitenberg, Eric (2015): Affect Space - Witnessing the ‘Movement(s) of >>>> the Squares’, published March 10, 2015 by Open! Platform for Art, Culture, >>>> and the Public Domain: >>>> http://www.onlineopen.org/affect-space >>>> <http://www.onlineopen.org/affect-space> >>>> >>>> Kluitenberg, Eric (2017): (Re-) Designing Affect Space, published >>>> September 19, 2017 by Open! Platform for Art, Culture, and the Public >>>> Domain: >>>> http://www.onlineopen.org/re-designing-affect-space >>>> <http://www.onlineopen.org/re-designing-affect-space> >>>> >>>> Latour, Bruno (2004): The Politics of Nature, Harvard University Press, >>>> Cambridge, MA. >>>> >>>> Latour Bruno (2005): From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or How to Make Things >>>> Public, in: Latour, Bruno & Weibel, Peter eds. (2005): Making Things >>>> Public, Atmosphere of Democracy, ZKM / MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. >>>> >>>> Latour, Bruno (2008): A Cautious Prometheus ? A Few Steps Toward a >>>> Philosophy of Design: (With Special Attention to Peter Sloterdijk), >>>> lecture, in: In Fiona Hackne, Jonathn Glynne and Viv Minto (editors) >>>> Proceedings of the 2008 Annual International Conference of the Design >>>> History Society – Falmouth, 3-6 September 2009, e-books, Universal >>>> Publishers, pp. 2-10. >>>> http://www.bruno-latour.fr/node/69 <http://www.bruno-latour.fr/node/69> >>>> >>>> Mackenzie, Adrian (2010): Wirelessness - Radical Empiricism in Network >>>> Cultures, MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.). >>>> >>>> Marres, Noortje (2006): Public (Im)potence, in: Kluitenberg, Eric & >>>> Seijdel, Jorinde (eds.) Hybrid Space, Open!, Amsterdam, 2006. >>>> https://onlineopen.org/public-im-potence >>>> >>>> Massumi, Brian (2015): Politics of Affect, Polity, Cambridge (UK) / Maiden >>>> (Mass.). >>>> >>>> Rheingold, Howard & Kluitenberg, Eric (2006): Mindful Disconnection – >>>> Counter powering the Panopticon from the Inside, in: in: Kluitenberg, Eric >>>> & Seijdel, Jorinde (eds.) Hybrid Space, Open!, Amsterdam, 2006. >>>> https://onlineopen.org/mindful-disconnection >>>> >>>> # 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: >>> >>> # 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 >>> <http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l> >>> # archive: http://www.nettime.org <http://www.nettime.org/> contact: >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: >> >> >> # 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 >> <http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l> >> # archive: http://www.nettime.org <http://www.nettime.org/> contact: >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > > # 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:
# 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:
