Readings From Week 6

The Temporary Autonomous Zone: The Net & The Web by Hakim Bey

1.) "The TAZ has a temporary but actual location in time and a temporary but actual location in space." He also mentions that the TAZ has a instantaneous and virtual place in the web. These lines confuse me. What does the author mean by this? Does the TAZ change over time and depending on where it is used? Then where is the actual TAZ? 

2.) Why is the Universal Control-system impossible? Is it because there needs to be chaos so there can be order? I find that interesting, then, that hackers and viruses and all the annoying road bumps on the web are actually necessary for its growth and continuance. 

3.) Of the two attitudes about technological internet advances "(1) what we might call the Fifth Estate/Neo-Paleolithic Post-Situ Ultra-Green position, which construes itself as a luddite argument against mediation and against the Net; and (2) the Cyberpunk utopianists, futuro-libertarians, Reality Hackers and their allies who see the Net as a step forward in evolution, and who assume that any possible ill effects of mediation can be overcome--at least, once we've liberated the means of production.".....which category do you/most people fall in? I wonder if the majority sees the internet in a positive or negative light.

Goldhaber, M.H., 1997. The Attention Economy and the Net. First Monday, 2(3). 
1.) What does he mean by "economies are governed by what is scarce?" How can attention govern an economy? Does this relate to when you have someone's attention, you  have a sort of power over them?

2.) I really like that he asks us to question if  when he is speaking aloud we are paying attention to him, or his words, or his outfit, the people around us, or the setting... it makes me wonder when I am listening to a speech, what am I really paying attention to?

3.) If we are intrinsically wired to pay attention and crave attention, (as babies we cry when we need people to pay attention to us) why is it so dang hard for us to pay attention? Currently, I am reading this article, listening to music, writing on my blog, and texting all at the same time... Multitasking is like the opposite of attention and that is the main thing our society does today.. is the inability to pay attention as fully going to negatively affect the economy in the future?

Readings from Week 5

Coleman, G., 2012 The Ethics of digital direct action. Al Jazeera. 
1. I understand that "...chaos on the internet is unacceptable," but is being an activist or protester enough cause for an arrest? What about freedom of speech?

2.  If people are being arrested for creating "chaos" on the internet, does planning a protest online count as chaos? We have learned that technology and social media have been a huge part of new activist movements and this was a big leap forward in society... This article makes it seem like a bad thing instead of technological progress.

3. How is something that a hacker posts on the Internet a bigger threat than the slander we read EVERY DAY online? I am just confused on who is in trouble and who isn't.. The internet is already in chaos and people can write anything they want, we just have to hope people are intelligent enough to believe the truth. Why should this be any different when the anonymous groups are doing it versus people who do the same things but are brave enough to use their names?

Coleman, G., 2012. Our Weirdness is Free. May, (9). 
1. We live in such an active and changing time, why do activists and advocates choose to hide behind the anonymous name instead of their own? Especially with the mediocre reputation and long history sometimes associated with that name might not always shed positive light.

2. Why did Anonymous change from the prankster/"lulz" users to more serious and concerned activist users? 

3. I think it is very interesting and confusing that "Anonymous" was named Times' number 4 person of the year in the people's choice poll.. Did this happen because people relate to the anonymity that this name brings or because they respect their actions or what? 


Libicki, M., 2009. Cyberdeterence and Cyberwar. (Summary) 

1. If cyberattacks are only possible because systems have flaws, why do we continue to manufacture flawed computers? Why don't we use the same high-tech tools we use on governmental computers on everyday computers so everyone's data is safe?

2. I know we read in earlier articles that technology and cyberspace can be very unpredictable, so why are we choosing to put so much effort and focus on this aspect of warfare? (especially if the results are only temporary and short-term)

3. If "cyberattacks are cheap and cyberdefense is expensive" then shouldn't we always be on the offense and using this tactic often, since we expect no/minimal retaliation?