Re: [silk] Hackers as political animals

[Gabriella Coleman]

Thanks for sharing. It is interesting, Malcolm Gladwell just published a
piece on Snowden, concluding he was *not* a whistleblower but a hacker
technocrat. He used part of my work to make the point, which was
frustrating as the whole point of a lot of my recent work is to think about
how hackers have exceeded a narrow and technological politics. Oi vey.
Cherry picking is so frustrating.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/19/daniel-ellsberg-edward-snowden-and-the-modern-whistle-blower

Here is his piece and my attempt to call it out
https://twitter.com/BiellaColeman/status/808839709740777472

Comments welcome as this is a short piece that can be certainly expanded!
Take care,
Biella


On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Udhay Shankar N  wrote:

> Biella Coleman (one of our list.lurkers) is uniquely qualified to write
> about the anthropology of the hacking underground. In her current paper,
> she asks an interesting question: why are hackers/crackers so much more
> political than people in other lines of work?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Udhay
>
> http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/688697
>
> 
>
> Hackers and their projects have become routine, authoritative, and public
> participants in our daily geopolitical goings-on. There are no obvious,
> much less given, explanations as to why a socially and economically
> privileged group of actors, once primarily defined by obscure tinkering and
> technical exploration, is now so willing to engage in popular media
> advocacy, traditional policy- and law-making, political tool building, and
> especially forms of direct action and civil disobedience so risky that
> scores of hackers are currently in jail or exile for their willingness to
> expose wrongdoing. Why and how have hackers managed to preserve pockets of
> autonomy? What historical, cultural, and sociological conditions have
> facilitated their passage into the political arena, especially in such
> large numbers? Why do a smaller but still notable fraction risk their
> privilege with acts of civil disobedience? These are questions that beg for
> nuanced answers—beyond the blind celebration or denigration offered by
> popular characterizations of hacker politics. In this article I will
> provide an introductory inventory—a basic outline of the sociocultural
> attributes and corollary historical conditions—responsible for the
> intensification of hacker politics during the last 5 years.
>
> 
>
> --
>
> ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
>

Re: [silk] Hackers as political animals

[Heather Madrone]

Udhay Shankar N wrote:

Biella Coleman (one of our list.lurkers) is uniquely qualified to write
about the anthropology of the hacking underground. In her current paper,
she asks an interesting question: why are hackers/crackers so much more
political than people in other lines of work?

Thoughts?


It's interesting to talk about the ways in which technology changes the 
scope and methods of activism, but I'd need some cold, hard evidence 
before I agreed that techies are more likely to enter the political fray 
than lawyers, doctors, professors, teachers, journalists, social 
workers, psychologists, and librarians.


Most politicians and judges are lawyers by trade. Lawyers are often at 
the forefront of civil disobedience and social change. It makes no sense 
to me to claim that hackers are more politically active than lawyers. 
Other professions also have a long history of political activism.


Hactivists have been around for a long time now. In number, they are a 
tiny fraction of the techies serving the whims of moneyed interests. 
It's my own perception that techies tend to be less politically active 
than most other types of professionals. It's frustrating to me 
personally that so very many techies are content to stay within their 
privileged bubbles rather than turning their attention to the social and 
economic ills that they are helping to perpetrate.


For me, the dark horses in terms of activism have been the librarians. 
Who knew that the mild-mannered keepers of books would morph into major 
champions of privacy and intellectual freedom as well as political, 
social, and economic justice?


--hmm