[16 retratos]

Okay. Have been spending the whole day reading about censorship and surveilance and about regulation of the internet. Still trying to cull something from more than 8000 words to 3000 words. Sigh..

Let me attempt to summarise what I’ve learnt here, and figure out my key argument for the M’sian case (which is the weak point of the paper right now).

ONI’s thesis on censorship, 3 levels:
1) “Brute” and overt. Static, easily noticed and increasingly easy to be circumvented. I.e. filtering (and data retention) at choke points (ISPs) on keywords and blacklists. E.g. “Great firewall of China”
2) Random and covert – happens at critical moments in the country’s political context (e.g. elections). Just in time. a) Technical – DDos attacks, hiring of patriotic hackers, harder to trace, harder to circumvent. Looks like normal network error. Dynamic b) Laws & norms – Use of norms and punitive measures to create a culture of self-censorship. Laws are used to enforce norms. Not necessarily ICT related laws (e.g. defamation, libel etc – sounds familiar?)
3) Subtle and discursive – using tactics of confusion, misinformation and information overload (not “credible” but adds to the discourse) to disable mobilising power of ICTs. I.e. using its nature to shape the discourse, the information. To see “cyberspace” as a military resource, and to invest in its development the same way as e.g. weapons. Back full circle it seems hey? With a bit of KGB thrown in. Also international coorperation and surveillance techniques (always aided by technologies – Lessig, Code 2.0) critical in its successful deployment (also applies in 2)

Heike’s thesis:
1) The nation-state is an imaginary concept of cohesive and mutually referencing identity. The role of the nation-state is to police this boundary, to maintain its rigidity (note to self: imperviousity: virus, migration, dirt and civilisation, imageries and symbols). Gendered order (heterosexual, hegemonic masculinity, race, body) is critical in the construction of these binaries
2) Web 2.0 – interactive, everyone is producer of discourse, self-authorship, everyone is potential receiver. Potential to disrupt gender order through transgressive sexualities – pornography, consumption, erotica (nts: Foucault – madness and civilisation, punishment – spectacle. Butler – performativity). Policing is critical. (WHY)
3) Censorship when understood through a woman’s reality, is much more about social censorship (violence, norms, economic inequalities – first set of barriers) than state censorship (second set of barrier). I.e. by principle, focussing on just the state is at minimum, epistemelogically unsound. Second, it explains a lot about ONI level 2 & 3 censorship phases even works. (STILL WHY)

Lessig Code 2.0:
1) Programming (code) is an important determinant of C & S (or the kind of “free and open” or “closely regulated” internet we have) – TCP/IP’s simplicity and openness (invisible man – anonymity) was designed, and commercial interests have layered all kinds of technology on this both app-based and infrastructure-based to show that it is really right now, a very regulate-able space.

2) Anonymity shattered:

a) Who – IP > ISP. Identity layer on TCP/IP designed by M$ (like the black box, “wallet” format idea being developed by EU to “protect privacy” – is M$ a partner in this?)
b) What – packet inspection. Now also packet inspection. Cookies.
c) Where – IP geo-tracing

Malaysia research (WHO and WHERE and WHAT and HOW)

Here’s where it gets tricky. Only now I’ve figured out what the M’sian research needs to answer.

1) CONTEXTUALISING (or proving?) WHY: The primary role of race relations in shaping all layers of the idea of nation. And race relations is often defined through marriage (where forcible change of identity is not just enacted by norms, but also by law). Sexuality at the core of this. Who, how many, when do you get put in jail for it etc. Policing of sexuality gets hysterical responses when transgressions threaten (lelaki lembut, Fatine, polygamy). Transgressive sexuality also used as a political weapon to discredit and dismantle – Anwar, Soil Leck, Eli etc. (is there an increase since Anwar?). Point: making the link/proof between sexuality, gendered hierarchies, ideas of citizenship (hierarchised) and the nation.

2) ROLE OF C & S IN THIS (HOW?): – Censorship is the platform for this to happen? Regulation of speech, information, bodies? Has it changed since mass adoption of the internet? What does it take? What has been used? Examples. Also reverberates with ONI’s level 2 – explains it?

3) WHERE: Challenges ideas of privacy. What kinds of spaces or debates when this kicks off – March 8 GE, Perak takeover, Katagender Fatwa project – all involved with sexuality, race relations, religion, citizenship – all tied together. Technology’s role in this. What is censored, how is it done, what is the role of technology in this, and the role of law, include surveillance. What about women’s rights sites being taken down? Subtle – not sure how it happens. Not helped by social censorship – technical know-how divested externally.

4) NATION VS INTERNATIONAL: Additional construction of self through orientalisation|mirrorisation of the “global other”. Malaysia truly Asia. Mahathir’s West vs Asian. Mahathirs’ “Vision 2020″ MSC rooted firmly in the developing world as a leader, whilst bending over backwards in subsidiaries and concession to court international expertise (temporary only understand?) and investment. This is a play of hegemonic masculinities. My prick may be small now, but it will be bigger than yours in a few winks. Why? Cause we can control our women better than you can! So we have better morals! Fuck this shit.

5) C & S (WHAT): It polices sexual boundaries. Sexual boundaries polices gendered boundaries. Gendered boundaries polices hegemonic masculinities. Hegemonic masculinities polices the nation state. The nation state policies idea of the “global”.

The “SO WHAT”? I don’t know la. Can’t think anymore. But I think I should have enough to hammer it out… esok.

the internet has turned me into a one-click activist. all i need is connectivity, a kind of name, an email address. i don’t have to leave my room, i don’t even have to get up from my chair, i don’t have to experience or touch or smell. all i need to do is see through an interface, read and have a split second think. then insert my name and click.

today, i received an email that called for a petition to boycott an artist – Guillermo Vargas “Habacuc”- from representing his country at the Bienal Centroamericana Honduras 2008. I’m not sure what the event is, apart from being some kind of art exhibition.

he definitely caught a stray dog from the streets, leashed it with a rope inside a gallery in nicaragua last year as his art piece for an exhibition entitled ‘Eres Lo Que Lees’ – ‘You Are What You Read’. The title is written on the wall with dog biscuits while the stray dog walks nearby, just out of reach, tied with a rope around his neck.

it caused outrage, understandably, and pictures were released and sent over the internet that showed the dog gradually starving to death. the gallery owner insists that the dog escaped and it was only tied for 3 hours during the exhibition, before which the artist fed the dog with food he brought himself. other petition sites pulled quotes from him here and there and concluded that he admitted to starve the dog to death.

whichever way the truth, there are currently more than 2 million signatures in support of the move to boycott this “animal-hating” artist.

on the flipside, the “One Million Signatures” campaign organised by Iranian women’s rights activists since 2006, demanding for changes in laws that discriminate against women has to date only managed to get slightly more than 7 thousand signatures.

so let’s see. artist drags stray dog to be exhibited as art, disputed intentions and conclusion of actual death, 2 million supporters. whole populations of women and men in a country facing clearly documented discrimination, violence and suppression, 7 thousand odd supporters.

so the one-click activist is not only lazy in terms of activism, but also lazy in terms of analysis.

give me some pictures, clear visuals of a starving dog, easy to understand terms, and i’ll give you my name.

give me an actual complex reality of shit happening in the world, where i have to actually do some search because even information is clamped down, campaign sites filtered and blocked, people struggling to get some small measure of truth out in the open, i just can’t be bothered.

too difficult. time is passing on too fast. hyperlinks are waiting, and only those dished out ready to be served with cute buttons and easy navigation.

give me a story, full of drama, heart-rending pictures, moral outrage and digestible ethics. i’ll give you my name.

*click*

I just got my own handphone phone. It was quite an exciting period. Mobile phones weren’t super cheap then, or subscription rates affordable. Pre-paid was only starting to be introduced. But I had a number to my name, and a device that meant anyone could get in touch with me, and me back, without having to go through ‘gatekeepers’. I grew up in a pretty dense household. Grandparents, god parents, another aunt, 5 cousins, 1 brother, kids that my grandma and godma used to take care of for extra income, neighbours… there was always people around and simultaneous conversations making a kind of comforting background noise.

The only telephone in the house was next to the television, and the television was right next to the main door in the living room. There was almost zero-chance of having a private conversation.

So now, with my very own handphone, I could have a heart-to-heart with a friend even when I was having a pee. It felt really liberating. My own space carved through a rectangular, flip-cover, plastic black Ericsson.

I got an SMS one day. By a number I didn’t recognise.

How strange. Who is this person? What does s/he mean? A friend I forgot to key into my phone?

What the fuck? I’m starting to feel a little creeped out. Who is this person? How the hell did he (no mistake now) get my phone number? Heard from where? From who? Suddenly, I didn’t feel alone anymore, safe to shape my world, my space. Everyone I could have encountered became instantly dangerous, carrying a risk of ripping apart the skin I have made between myself and people I trust. I couldn’t take it. I needed to know who this person was. I needed to establish some kind of knowledge, identity, name, space, context, something i can identify and remember. My handphone became a strange object, rattling with quiet fear. It took me some time, but I finally decided to reply.

Now I am angry. Pissed off beyond belief. How dare you intrude my phone, intrude my space, intrude my life, insinuate all kinds of shit, solicit me for sex, hide behind the cowardice of anonymity, spoil my beautiful day, my awesome week!!

It was the first time anyone I knew had ever encountered this. I didn’t know how to respond to it. I didn’t know what I could do. How palpable is the danger? Is this person stalking me? Is it someone I know? Is someone watching me when I am not looking? Am I going to be raped? What is happening?

I was working in a domestic violence shelter at that time. I answered counselling calls, and I knew the law. There were no laws against sexual harassment or stalking, and there still isn’t. Even if there was a law, it doesn’t mean I will be protected. I know how toothless laws can be. How full of gaps and decay. But I’m still not taking this. I refuse to have one fuckwit spoil my experience and what having a handphone has meant to me. And if there is one thing I can’t stand, it’s assholes who choose to exert their power through sex. I spent 2 years of my life in primary school terrified of this guy who was threatening to rape my best friend – and me by proxy – for some unknown reason. Hanging out near our school, coming to the canteen when no one was around and saying the same disgusting things over and over. I had nightmares about him for years, dreaming of his death so the threat would end. I still remember his face. I’m not a child anymore. I should have told someone, made a report, kicked his balls. Done something. Anything. No more. I refuse to be paralysed by fear and shrink my already small space any smaller.

And they simply stopped. I still have his number, and phone numbers of all other similar stalkers who have made dodgy sms to my friends. I’m saving them up for a class action suit one day!

technorati tags: takebackthetech

kek cawan ku yang begitu manja
marilah bersantai bersama-sama
ke hujung, ke akhir, riwayat kita
kek cawan, ku janji, ku bukan gila.

+++++

someone has opened a can of worms. it is crawling all over cyberspace. every corner i turn, i sight that wriggling creature making itself known. many learned people are trying to name it, but it’s stubbornly slippery. all that’s left behind is a slightly sticky trail of wetness. no one is claiming it yet, so it continues to squirm and tunnel through concrete layers of self-assurances built from years of back patting. the can opener has withdrawn to silence. smirking uncertainly for a job well done, or maybe done too well. i’m going to keep my eye on this worm.