February 2011 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

A survey about some sociological issues related to copyright in the digital age
by M. Fioretti 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

Greetings, thanks in advance for forwarding this request from Simone Aliprandi to whoever it may concern: Object: A survey about some sociological issues related to copyright in the digital age By this message I would like to introduce a survey that I recently created in order to go more in depth with the study of some sociological issues on the topic "Copyright in the digital age: attitudes, social perception and level of awareness". The questionnaire takes approximately 15 minutes to complete; it is online and completely anonymous (we do not ask your name and we do not record your IP address; so please relax and answer sincerly to the questions). The results of this research will be included in my Ph.D. thesis and made available with an open access/copyleft approach. Each person's attendance is important in order to accomplish my research, so I hope that you will be able to dedicate the time to answer the survey. It would also be very useful and appreciated if you could share this announcement with your friends and collegues. HERE IS THE WEBPAGE FOR THE SURVEY: http://www.aliprandi.org/en/survey Thanks. Simone Aliprandi – Ph.D. candidate at Centro Qua_SI of Bicocca University of Milan.

2 1

Fwd: [fcforum] Students for free culture conference at New York City Febreary 19th-20th 2011
by Michel Bauwens 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Fuster, Mayo <Mayo.Fuster(a)eui.eu> Date: Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:30 PM Subject: [fcforum] Students for free culture conference at New York City Febreary 19th-20th 2011 To: "fcforum(a)list.fcforum.net" <fcforum(a)list.fcforum.net> Hi! The Students for Free Culture network will celebrate its annual conference in New York City February 19th-20th (More details at: http://conf11.freeculture.org) I am part of this network and attended the conference of 2008 in Berkeley; it was a very good conference. It is a great occasion to expread the Fcforum process (2009 Charter, 2010 work on sustainability etc) and build USA connexions. I was wondering if there is someone else from the e-list who is planning to attend the conference or/and would be willing to attend it and help to contribute connexions with the Fcforum process. There is a possibility to apply for funding. The dates are a bit short in time to arrenge it, but if there is someone availeble please say it. Cheers! Mayo «·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·» «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·» «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·» Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info Ph.D European University Institute Postdoctoral Researcher. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona. Visiting scholar. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. Open University of Catalonia (UOC). Visiting researcher (2008). School of information. University of California, Berkeley. Phone Italy: 0039-3312805010 or 0039-0558409982 Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748 E-mail: mayo.fuster(a)eui.eu Skype: mayoneti Postal address: EUI - Badia Fiesolana Via dei Roccettini 9, I-50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) - Italy ----- + info http://list.fcforum.net/wws/info/fcforum ------- -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Net Delusion review
by Michel Bauwens 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/01/delusions-aside-the-n… Zeynep: “But I disagree that the reason online protests do not work is that they are online, or they are easy. The reality, at this juncture in history, is that nothing really works. The Internet is not the problem; global citizen disempowerement is. It’s not the technology that is failing politics but it is our politics that has failed. … Political activism is not failing because people are too busy watching cat videos online, but because of a fundamental collapse of citizen leverage on institutions of power like governments and corporations. I find it ironic that, after correctly warning about the dangers of an Internet-centric worldview in which everything is perceived through the prism of the Net, Morozov himself is caught in a net-centric analysis of political activism’s decline. If surveillance, censorship and propaganda are the three pillars of authoritarianism, information, organization and leverage are the counter-pillars of citizen power. And the Internet provides the best and most appropriate infrastructure for strengthening all three. Morozov correctly claims that it does not do so in an unmitigated manner but unmitigated is not the same as ineffective or irrelevant. In this regard, the Internet is the greatest antidote to anti-communitarian forces. Frankly, I find even the most mindless lolcat sites on the Internet to be an improvement over canned-laughter-filled sitcoms. The point of lolcats is not the lolcats themselves, but to share them with friends, comment on them, make more of them, and enter the community via the joke. It’s the community, not the cat, that matters. (If you doubt this, try selling a book of lolcats and see how well it does.) I write this review in the aftermath of an atrocity; the assassination attempt in Arizona on a Congresswoman that claimed the lives of six others including a child. Every Internet community I am part of is roiled and there is widespread discussion on most of them about the event. Fifteen years ago, we’d all be watching TV, not communicating with each other.”

1 0

social media revolution
by Michel Bauwens 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003(a)yahoo.com> Date: Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:10 PM Subject: blog update, social revolution part 2 To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> http://gigaom.com/2011/01/29/twitter-facebook-egypt-tunisia/ By Mathew Ingram: " is anyone really arguing that Twitter and Facebook caused the revolutions in Tunisia or Egypt, or even the earlier public uprisings in Moldova or Iran for that matter? Maybe cyber-utopians somewhere are doing this, but I haven’t seen or heard of any. Theargument I have tried to make is simply that they and other social media tools can be incredibly powerful, both for spreading the word — which can give moral or emotional support to others in a country, as well as generating external support — as well as for organizational purposes, thanks to the power of the network. As Jared Cohen of Google Ideas put it, social media may not be a cause, but it can be a powerful “accelerant.”Did Twitter or Facebook cause the Tunisian revolt? No. But they did spread the news, and many Tunisian revolutionaries gave them a lot of credit for helping with the process. Did Twitter cause the revolts in Egypt? No. But they did help activists such as WikiLeaks supporter Jacob Appelbaum (known on Twitter as @ioerror) and others as they organized the dialup and satellite phone connections that created an ad-hoc Internet after Egypt turned the real one off — which, of course, it did in large part to try and prevent demonstrators from using Internet-based tools to foment unrest. As Cory Doctorow notedin his review of Evgeny Morozov’s book, even if Twitter and Facebook are just used to replace the process of stapling pieces of paper to telephone poles and sending out hundreds of emails, they are still a huge benefit to social activism of all kinds. But open-network advocate Dave Winer made the key point: it’s the Internet that is the really powerful tool here, not any of the specific services such as Twitter and Facebook that run on top of it, which Winer compares to brands like NBC. They have power because lots of people use them, and — in the case of Twitter — because they have open protocols so that apps can still access the network even when the company’s website is taken down by repressive governments (athough they didn’t mention Egypt or Tunisia by name, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone and general counsel Alexander Macgillivray wrote a post about the company’s desire to “keep the information flowing). In the end, the real weapon is the power of networked communication itself. In previous revolutions it was the fax, or the pamphlet, or the cellphone — now it is SMS and Twitter and Facebook. Obviously none of these things cause revolutions, but to ignore or downplay their growing importance is also a mistake." -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

update to zeynep's views on the role of social media in uprisings, the 'dictators dilemma'
by Michel Bauwens 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

http://technosociology.org/?p=286 In another blog, Zeynep examines the internet's potential from the regime's point of view, i.e. the 'dictator's dilemma': "1- The capacities of the Internet that are most threatening to authoritarian regimes are not necessarily those pertaining to spreading of censored information but rather its ability to support the formation of a counter-public that is outside the control of the state. In other words, it is not that people are waiting for that key piece of information to start their revolt–and that information just happens to be behind the wall of censorship–but that they are isolated, unsure of the power of the regime, unsure of their position and potential. 2- Dissent is not just about knowing what you think but about the formation of a public. A public is not just about what you know. Publics form through knowing that other people know what you know–and also knowing that they know what you know. (This point was developed through a Twitter discussion with Dave Parry). Yes, all those parts of the Web that are ridiculed by some of the critics of Internet’s potential–the LOLcats, Facebook, the three million baby pictures, the slapstick, talking about the weather, the food and the trials and tribulations of life–are exactly the backbone of community, and ultimately the creation of public(s). 3- Thus, social media can be the most threatening part of the Internet to an authoritarian regime through its capacity to create a public(ish) sphere that is integrated into everyday life of millions of people and is outside the direct control of the state partly because it is so widespread and partly because it is not solely focused on politics. How do you censor five million Facebook accounts in real time except to shut them all down? 4- The capacity to selectively filter the Internet is inversely proportional to the scale and strength of the dissent. In other words, regimes which employ widespread legitimacy may be able to continue to selectively filter the Internet. However, this is going to break down as dissent and unhappiness spreads. As anyone who has been to a country with selective filtering knows, most everyone (who is motivated enough) knows how to get around the censors. For example, in Turkey, YouTube occasionally gets blocked because of material that some courts have deemed as offensive to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founding father of Turkey. I have yet to meet anyone in Turkey who did not know how to get to YouTube through proxies. 5- Thus, the effect of selective filtering is not to keep out information out of the hands of a determined public, but to allow the majority of ordinary people to continue to be able to operate without confronting information that might create cognitive dissonance between their existing support for the regime and the fact that they, along with many others, also have issues. Meanwhile, the elites go about business as if there was no censorship as they all know how to use work-arounds. This creates a safety-valve as it is quite likely that it is portions of the elite groups that would be most hindered by the censorship and most unhappy with it. (In fact, I have not seen any evidence that China is trying to actively and strongly shut down the work-arounds.) 6- Social media is not going to create dissent where there is none. The apparent strength of the regime in China should not be understood solely through its success in censorship. (And this is the kind of Net-centrism Morozov warns against but that I think he sometimes falls into himself). China has undergone one of the most amazing transformations in human history. Whatever else you may say about the brutality of the regime, there is a reason for its continuing legitimacy in the eyes of most of its people. I believe that the Chinese people are no less interested in freedom and autonomy than any other people on the planet but I can also understand why they have, for the most part, appear to have support for the status-quo even as they continue to have further aspirations and desires. 7- Finally, during times of strong upheaval, as in Egypt, dictator’s dilemma roars. The ability to ensure that their struggle and their efforts are not buried in a deep pit of censorship, the ability to continue to have an honest conversation, the ability to know that others know what one knows all combine to create a cycle furthering dissent and upheaval. Citizen-journalism matters most in these scenarios as there cannot be reporters everywhere something is happening; however, wherever something is happening there are people with cell phone cameras. Combined with Al-Jazeera re-broadcasting the fruits of people-powered journalism, it all comes down to how much force the authoritarian state is willing and able to deploy – which in turn, depends on the willingness of the security apparatus. Here, too, social media matters because, like everyone else, they too are watching the footage on Al-Jazeera. Their choice is made more stark by the fact that they know that history will judge them by their actions–actions which will likely be recorded, broadcast and be viewed by their citizens, their neighbors and their children and grandchildren." -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

social media and political action
by Michel Bauwens 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

http://technosociology.org/?p=263 A debate has been raging on the role social media—especially Facebook and Twitter— played in the apparently successful uprising in Tunisia. Most of the discussion seems to be centered around the use of the term “Twitter Revolution.” Zeynep: "people will be using social media tools as an integral part of politics during those times that politics takes to the frontstage like uprisings and elections. Evgeny Morozov’s argument is that these tools are not the best suited for promoting democracy, especially in authoritarian regimes, because they also strengthen the surveillance, propaganda and censorship. As I argued in many places, however, they also strengthen capacity for political action through multiple means:1- Social media lower barriers to collective action by providing channels of organization that are intermeshed with mundane social interaction and thus are harder to censor. 2- Social media can help create a public(ish) sphere in authoritarian regimes, thereby lowering the problem of society-level prisoner’s dilemma in which everyone knows that many people are unhappy but the extent to which this is the case remains hidden as official media is completely censored. 3- Social media helps strengthen communities as it is the antidote to isolating technologies (like suburbs and like televison) and community strength is key to political action. 4- Social media seems to have been key allowing the expatriate and exiled community to mobilize and act as key links between rest of the Arab sphere as well as Francophone parts of Europe and ultimately the rest of the world 5- Social media can be a key tool for disseminating information during a crisis. As we saw in the case of Iran, Burma, Moldova, Tunisia and others, the world had a strong sense of what was happening not because there were many reporters on the ground covering the events but because thousands of citizens armed with basic cell phones could record and transmit in real-time the situation on the ground. Yes, such reports are inevitably chaotic, and yes, the ability to disseminate information is not a sufficient cause for success, but it is surely a necessary one. In that sense, I respect Jillian’s sensitivity to any wording that seems to take the credit away from the accomplishment of the Tunisian people that came at a great human cost. However, as a material cause, as a key part of the media and information substrate in which the events took place, it seems clear to me that social media was crucial. About 20 percent of Tunisians have Facebook accounts which remained uncensored throughout the crisis. I find it hard to believe that the ability to disseminate news, videos, tidbits, information, links, outside messages that easily, transparently and without censorship reached one in five persons (and thus their immediate social networks) within a country that otherwise suffered from heavy censorship was without a significant impact. To say that social-media was a key part of the revolution does not necessarily mean that people used GPS-enabled phones to coordinate demonstrations; that is simplistic and misses the point in which social media shapes the environment in general. What it means is that the people acted in a world where they had more means of expressing themselves to each other and the world, being more assured that their plight would not be buried by the deep pit of censorship, and a little more confidence that their extended families, their neighbors, their fellow citizens were similarly fed up." -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Fwd: social media and social revolution
by Michel Bauwens 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003(a)yahoo.com> Date: Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:26 PM Subject: social media blog update, use as blockquote To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> http://www.opendemocracy.net/openeconomy/tony-curzon-price/cupids-freedom-h… Tony Curzon Price: " How does the Net affect the leap of faith? Not, as the Net Utopians whom Morozov rightly criticises might have it, by making truth and transparency by themselves powerful and indisputable agents. Rather, they make the leap of faith easier and less risky by providing a ground where alternatives can become commonly accepted. The Facebook groups, the Wikileaks cables, the blogs all show that any one person is not alone in a particular set of beliefs about the regime. Another form of common knowledge is allowed to take hold. It is not indubitable, and it may have been infiltrated, manipulated and it may in time be switched off - as has happened in Egypt. But the reality of the critique of the regime is believed to be commonly shared. That moment of catching someone's eye and deciding it is OK to act as if you are in the presence of a common soul has been moved online. In just the same way as dating sites have transformed the world of love, so social media have transformed politics: through the greater ease of making common knowledge." -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Fwd: for sepp: open web book
by Michel Bauwens 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

hi Sepp, thanks for looking into this open web book! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003(a)yahoo.com> Date: Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:48 PM Subject: for sepp To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> http://www.transmediale.de/content/open-web -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Anonymous Hacktivism and the Discourse of Human Rights
by Kevin Flanagan 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

In what sense are "the radical politics of Hardt and Negri or Agamben (for instance) are inimical to traditional human rights"? http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2011/02/03/anonymous-hacktivism-the-dis… Article by Illan rua Wall http://ssl.brookes.ac.uk/about/staff/prof.asp?ID=423 In the last months, we have seen the emergence of ‘Anonymous’. In particular, in the days after the widespread attack on Wikileaks (following their publication of leaked US diplomatic memos) they emerged with a fairly credible threat to take down major global internet presences (belonging to both states and corporations). They have continued to post a variety of curious videos to YouTube that threaten corporations and regimes alike (see for general information here and here, on Operation Payback see here, on Algeria; here, and on Egypt; here). In general, these messages seem to coalesce around the demand to stop attacks on free speech particularly through the internet. This ‘movement’ is strange to the ears of those associated with human rights as it seems to mix postmodern cosmopolitan demands for human rights with a radical political philosophy of the multitude. This is an uncomfortable mix on the face of it because the radical politics of Hardt and Negri or Agamben (for instance) are inimical to traditional human rights. I want to argue that this is not such a fundamental contradiction. What Anonymous seem to see is the radical democratic potential of human rights – this would be a potential quite distinct from the conventional renderings. The first point to note is that while Anonymous make statements and undertake actions they are not a unity. As Jean-Luc Nancy might say they are always instatu nascendi (always in the state of being born, always becoming, but never closed, finished or completed). They are a multitude in the sense that they lack a sovereign power that gathers them into a unified entity. They are certainly not an institution, or for that matter an organization in the sense of an IGO or NGO. They are not a ‘community’ in the traditional human rights language because they do not share the common bonds of place, ethnicity, or however we are defining community – if they are a community you can be sure that it is entirely inoperative. They appear much closer to the civil disobedients of civil rights movements than the Amnesty letter writing campaigns whose action is the raising of a pen and the licking of a stamp. However, they are also distinctive from traditional human rights characters. What is distinctive seems to be the lack of a leadership responsible for tactics or strategy and the lack of founding documents that would constitute an authoritative pre-constituted guide and identity. Some from within this multitude assert ‘founding values’ but none are authorized, precisely because such an authorisation would be a nonsense. The irony of this lies in many of their ‘communications’, not least the letter to Glenn Beck. There ‘they’ say; You see, Mr. Beck, we are not an organization. We have no leaders. We have no official spokesperson. We have no age, race, ethnicity, color, nationality, or gender. Anyone who claims to speak for all of us is, quite frankly, a liar. To be clear, the gentleman known as Coldblood was not sanctioned by anyone but himself to speak on our behalf. Of course the signature – Anonymous – that ends the letter is itself undercut, it is by its very signature demonstrating its own impossibility (think of Derrida’s Declarations of Independence). If no one is authorized to speak for the group – if they are legion and multitudinous – then there could be no hand entitled to sign. But this is all a little academic, let me get back to the human rights question. A fairly traditional rendering of human rights posits a utopia where every state respects and protects its properly constituted juridical subjects (see the preambles of the UDHR or ICCPR/ICESCR). Those who subscribe to this idea of human rights imagine Anonymous’s (impossible) declarations along the lines of Thomas Clarkson, Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi, albeit on a less significant scale. Anonymous say ‘We will take sides. We will support people who strive for freedom of speech, assembly and communication,’ and in this the human rights lawyer hears a human rights defender. However, Anonymous does not simply fit such a characterisation precisely because of the simple multiplicity at their heart. I suggest that to understand Anonymous we should look to the idea of singularity as discussed by Jean-Luc Nancy and Giorgio Agamben. I’m not saying that this is the only way of approaching the question, however, it does put their statements in a different light. Nancy and Agamben use singularity in various ways, but one of the most important ideas is as an attack on the concept of the individual. The problem with the individual is that it posits a possessive subject, distinct from each other individual. The properties of this possessive subject must be protected by the state (See Locke Second Treatise). To this enclosed subject it is then necessary to add context, history and relation. However, a singularity is always both common and unique – I share language, for instance, but at the same time craft it on my own tongue. Singularity is unique, but not absolutely unique (to be absolutely unique would be to be unique in being unique). Rather each singularity ‘cannot exist through consisting by itself and in itself alone’ (Nancy The Sense of the World p71). The uniqueness of singularity is constituted by its very being-with-others. It is a differential uniqueness. This interrupts any reduction to the individual. Singularity ‘is not a matter of adding to a postulation of individuality or autonomy a certain number of relations and interdependencies, no matter what importance one may attach to such an addenda’ (Ibid. p71). The singular is always a play of the unique and the common, but this ‘play’ is itself different each time. Each singularity is different from the next, while maintaining the sharing of the in-common. Perhaps most importantly for my purposes here, singularity is not reducible to an identity, nor is capable of being represented (be that politically or juridically). A singularity is singular, it is not defined by a common property, by its ‘being red, being French, being Muslim… but only in its being such as it is’ (Agamben The Coming Community p1, see also p85-7). If a singularity cannot be represented then it resists the reduction to its functions (eating, talking, associating, living, drinking). However, this is precisely the reduction necessary in human rights, which claim an authority because they represent the essence, nature, dignity or function the human. The human speaks, eats, lives, sleeps, drinks, associates and so has right to these which must be protected by an overarching state. The politics of singularity resist traditional human rights methods of representing the victimhood of an individual to a ‘higher authority’ in order to seek redress. This brings me back to Anonymous, because, most of the time, they do not seek to represent either themselves or others. They talk about human rights, but theirs is a much more radical action. As multitude they are not good juridical subjects dutifully applying (or helping others to apply) to a state’s tribunal to vindicate its rights. There is no half-hearted request to consider the case before a toothless international tribunal. Anonymous seem to see themselves as protector of ‘the people’ from the intensive state power of surveillance, censorship and discipline. They demand the right to speech and association of others, they seem to want to facilitate resistant democratic action rather than patriarchically protect the possessive individual. This is direct action for human rights, certainly, but it is also anti-statist and even anti-sovereign, in the sense that it strikes against any state or corporation that it sees infringing on free speech or association. What is more, it seems to me that the human rights they claim are not the end of the story, they are a strategy. If association and speech can be facilitated, Anonymous seem to hope that people will overturn the existing political relations. This is why they attacked so spectacularly those who targeted Wikileaks. This is why they have since supported the Algerians and Egyptians. It seems to me that Anonymous understand their role as facilitating political action by generating and defending spaces of contestation and organisation. With this, they go beyond the traditional radical political critique of human rights. Many have argued that the danger of human rights is that they evacuate extensive demands for social justice and replace them with demands for minimal reform (see for instance Brown States of Injury or my interview with her here). Take for instance the rights to food, shelter or health. These were once the very stuff of socialist utopia. In human rights, at most, they become the possibility of irregular bread or flour, the prohibition of the demolition of a slum or the freedom from toxic sludge being dumped in your back garden. While these are indeed laudable goals, the critique continues that they cannot be substituted for extensive demands for social justice. When these demands are translated into rights they are pacified by being brought within the gift of the government and judiciary. However, this is precisely what Anonymous seem to avoid. It is in their multiplicity, their inability to be represented, their refusal to just become another neatly organised NGO, and their refusal to evacuate the political through rights that makes them interesting. The rights they claim are traditional, however, through their a-legal actions they seem to generate a different sense for human rights. Theirs seems to be an interest in rights for world-creation: ‘whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse… to rebellion…’.

1 0

p2p lending via mobile phone
by Michel Bauwens 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

hi sepp, thanks for having a look: http://www.wiseclerk.com/group-news/countries/germany-what-is-fidorpay-and-… -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0