privacy

davos 2016: privacy and secrecy

Sorry for the delay on these post. Just cleaning out my drafts folder.

Commonality = priveldge information = value which we trade .

Sharing of nuggets of information . goverenments engage in surveillance and espionage

Should government be allowed to read someones emails?

NO (sort of) / Yes (with a caveat) / YES (sometime) / Yes (with a caveat) / NO

Best answer... YES (caveat)... if he/she (sic) can read the govenments emails.

livestream.com/accounts/1909571/events/4588218/videos/110036549/player?autoPlay=false&height=360&mute=false&width=640

screen-shot-2017-04-26-at-9-11-55-am.png
Screen Shot 2017-04-26 at 9.07.35 am
Screen Shot 2017-04-26 at 9.07.35 am

Twitter feeds and glass castles

img_1256.png

Twitter feeds are not normally subjected to artistic and/or aesthetic citique but when that feed belongs to one of the most scrutinised females in the western world, it is no surprise that a deeper psychological anlaysis of how individuals view the world around them and how our choices of what we post and share not only become a reflective representation of our existence but also acts as an identifying gesture that marks us. In reading a 'critique' of Melania Trump's twitter feed by Kate Imbach I tried to removed my anthropological microscope from the writing and instead viewed it as an interesting way to approach a critical discourse around the images we create. As always, the comments fascinate me as they reflect the way that social media and similar platforms allow individuals to go on their own divisive 'rants and raves'. Of course we are entitled to our own opinion and observations, and it is not surprising to me that the fractured responses expose our inherently binary attitudes that possibly mirror our ideological 'core-values'. But more fascinating to me is the role that the image plays within the larger discourse of the 'image-world' we live in and what its trajectory might be into a potentially 'post-image' reality, where the boundaries of fact and fiction are now easily manipulated, crafted and composed as new technologies, virtual/augmented realities, "projected 3D images that are beamed straight into our eyes" [source] are about to become the new normal and where 'image' might be/mean something else in the near future.

Imbach treats our very public need for 'display' as a 'body of work' (works of art/artist/performer?) which exposes the network-image of our 'post-truth' capitalist 'value-saturated' environments to a kind of critique that normally we reserve to the white-cube. Here the image which we might dismiss as 'snap-shots' has had its status elevated to 'public-performative' where its association has allowed it to migrate off the mantle piece, the bedside table, fridge or those weird multi-matted-overly-framed-picture-holder-things (sorry don't now how else to describe them) – and to inhabit a networked reality where our senses are trying to adjust to a world of information that puts the image in tension with our subjective relationship with the here and now. Its worth a read and you can find a link in the image below (... more on that later).

https://medium.com/@kate8/fairytale-prisoner-by-choice-the-photographic-eye-of-melania-trump-f1f7b97fff29

Kate Imbach is an American fiction writer and visual artist living in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. She is an MFA candidate at New York University has an MPA from Suffolk University. She directed the documentary short films The Taxi Composer (2012), The Mayor of Noe Valley (2013), The Last Video Store (2014), and Partners (2015), which premiered at the 2016 San Francisco International Film Festival. Her fiction has been published in Passages North, Word Riot and Map Literary, among others.

http://www.kateimbach.com

" johoka shakai "

Screen Shot 2014-11-20 at 11.25.35 am.png

Truth and the information society.

On May 14th the New York Times ran a story on a ruling by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to grant users the right to remove links about themselves. This case was prompted by a Spanish lawyer who wanted past records of his misconduct removed from search results. The “so-called right to be forgotten, or erasure” ruling poses some difficult outcomes and has some far reaching implications in terms of privacy, rights to knowledge and the miss-representation of our identities. While writing “from code to cortex to cognition” I went back to the link to check the reference but I was unable to find the original document. The link lead me to a different article where the content, title and authors had been changed. It seems content on the internet is forever changeable and it raises questions around the validity and authenticity of information and exposes some wider concerns around issues of confidence and trust.

What we leave behind is just as important as what we engage with in the present. The digital sphere forgets nothing, traditionally our sources of information were printed with ink, on machines made of steel and iron on substrates made from trees and organic matter, “the essence of objects”. The fragility of all those elements in synchronicity expressing the ideas and thoughts of humanity are vulnerable. The information society is vulnerable too, but to a different type of fragility, of being forgotten or being wiped away by the elements of nature, rather we are vulnerable not only to the dissemination of data, but also to how it is used and who controls these flows.