188 lines
9.8 KiB
Markdown
188 lines
9.8 KiB
Markdown
![]() |
# Who Backup Whom?
|
||
|
|
||
|
> @published 2019/07/03, 13:00 {.published}
|
||
|
|
||
|
Among publishers and readers is common to heard about “digital
|
||
|
copies.” This implies that ebooks tend to be seen as backups
|
||
|
of printed books. How the former became a copy of the original---even
|
||
|
tough you first need a digital file in order to print---goes
|
||
|
something like this:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. Digital files (+++DF+++s) with appropiate maintenance could
|
||
|
have higher probabilities to last longer that its material
|
||
|
peer.
|
||
|
2. Physical files (+++PF+++s) are limited due geopolitical
|
||
|
issues, like cultural policies updates, or due random events,
|
||
|
like environment changes or accidents.
|
||
|
3. _Therefore_, +++DF+++s are backups of +++PF+++s because _in
|
||
|
theory_ its dependence is just technical.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The famous digital copies arise as a right of private copy. What
|
||
|
if one day our printed books are ban or burn? Or maybe some rain
|
||
|
or coffee spill fuck our books collection. Who knows, +++DF+++s
|
||
|
seem more reliable.
|
||
|
|
||
|
But there are a couple suppositions in this argument. (1) The
|
||
|
technology behind +++DF+++s in one way or the other will always
|
||
|
make data flow. Maybe this is because (2) one characteristic---part
|
||
|
of its “nature”---of information is that nobody can stop its
|
||
|
spread. This could also implies that (3) technology can always
|
||
|
destroy any kind of digital rights management system.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Certanly some dudes are gonna be able to hack the locks but at
|
||
|
a high cost: every time each [cipher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher)
|
||
|
is revealed, another more complex is on the way---_Barlow [dixit](https://www.wired.com/1994/03/economy-ideas/)_.
|
||
|
We cannot trust that our digital infraestructure would be designed
|
||
|
with the idea of free share in mind… Also, how can we probe information
|
||
|
wants to be free without relying in its “nature” or making it
|
||
|
some kind of autonomous subject?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Besides those issues, the dynamic between copies and originals
|
||
|
creates an hierarchical order. Every +++DF+++ is in a secondary
|
||
|
position because it is a copy. In a world full of things, materiality
|
||
|
is and important feature for commons and goods; for several people
|
||
|
+++PF+++s are gonna be preferred because, well, you can grasp
|
||
|
them.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Ebook market shows that the hierarchy is at least shading. For
|
||
|
some ereaders +++DF+++s are now in the top of the pyramid. We
|
||
|
could say so by the follow argument:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. +++DF+++s are way more flexible and easy to share.
|
||
|
2. +++PF+++s are very static and not easy to access.
|
||
|
3. _Therefore_, +++DF+++s are more suitable for use than +++PF+++s.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Suddenly, +++PF+++s become hard copies that are gonna store data
|
||
|
as it was published. Its information is in disposition to be
|
||
|
extracted and processed if need it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Yeah, we also have a couple assumptions here. Again (1) we rely
|
||
|
on the stability of our digital infraestructure that it would
|
||
|
allow us to have access to +++DF+++s no matter how old they are.
|
||
|
(2) Reader's priorities are over files use, not on its preservation
|
||
|
and reproduction (+++P&R+++). (3) The argument presume that backups
|
||
|
are motionless information, where bookshelves are fridges for
|
||
|
later-to-use books.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The optimism about our digital infraestructure is too damn high.
|
||
|
Commonly we see it as a technology that give us access to zillions
|
||
|
of files and not as a +++P&R+++ machinery. This could be problematic
|
||
|
because some times file formats intented for use aren't the most
|
||
|
suitable for +++P&R+++. For example, the use of +++PDF+++s as
|
||
|
some kind of ebook. Giving to much importance to reader's priorities
|
||
|
could lead us to a situation where the only way to process data
|
||
|
is by extracting it again from hard copies. When we do that we
|
||
|
also have an other headache: fixes on the content have to be
|
||
|
add to the last available hard copy edition. But, can you guess
|
||
|
where are all the fixes? Probably not. Maybe we should start
|
||
|
to think about backups as some sort of _rolling update_.
|
||
|
|
||
|
![Programando Libreros while she scans books which +++DF+++s are not suitable for +++P&R+++ or are simply nonexistent; can you see how it is not necessary to have a fucking nice scanner?](../../../img/p004_i001.jpg)
|
||
|
|
||
|
As we imagine---and started to live in---scenarios of highly
|
||
|
controlled data transfer, we have to picture a situation where
|
||
|
for some reason our electric power is off or running low. In
|
||
|
that context all the strenghts of +++DF+++s become pointless.
|
||
|
They may not be used. They may not spread. Right now for us is
|
||
|
hard to imagine. Generation after generation the storaged +++DF+++s
|
||
|
in +++HDD+++s would be inherit with the hope of being used again.
|
||
|
But over time those devices with our cultural heritage would
|
||
|
become in rare objects without any apparent utility.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The aspects of +++DF+++s that made us see the fragility of +++PF+++s
|
||
|
would dissapear in its concealment. Can we still talk about information
|
||
|
if it is just potential information---we know the data is there,
|
||
|
but it is inaccessible because we don't have the means for view
|
||
|
them? Or does information already implies the technical resources
|
||
|
for its access---i.e. there is not information without a subject
|
||
|
with technical skills to extract, process and use the data?
|
||
|
|
||
|
When we usually talk about information we already suppose is
|
||
|
there, but many times is not accessible. So the idea of potential
|
||
|
information could be counterintuitive. If the information isn't
|
||
|
actual we just consider that it doesn't exist, not that it is
|
||
|
on some potential stage.
|
||
|
|
||
|
As our technology is developing we assume that we would always
|
||
|
have _the possibility_ of better ways to extract or undestand
|
||
|
data. Thus, that there are bigger chances to get new kinds of
|
||
|
information---and take a profit from it. Preservation of data
|
||
|
relies between those possibilities, as we usually backup files
|
||
|
with the idea that we could need it and go back again.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Our world become more complex by new things forthcoming to us,
|
||
|
most of the times as new characteristics of things we already
|
||
|
know. Preservation policies implies an epistemic optimism and
|
||
|
not only a desire to keep alive or incorrupt our heritage. We
|
||
|
wouldn't backup data if we don't already belive we could need
|
||
|
it in the future.
|
||
|
|
||
|
With this exercise could be clear a potentially paradox of +++DF+++s.
|
||
|
(1) More accessibility tends to require more technical infrastructure.
|
||
|
This (2) could imply major technical dependence that subordinate
|
||
|
accessibility of information to the disposition of technical
|
||
|
means. _Therefore_, we achive a situation where (3) more accesibility
|
||
|
is equal to more technical infrastructure and---as we see nowadays---dependence.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Open access to knowledge involves at least some minimum technical
|
||
|
means. Without that, we can't really talk about accessibility
|
||
|
of information. Contemporary open access possibilities are restricted
|
||
|
to an already technical dependence because we given a lot of
|
||
|
attention in the flexibility that +++DF+++s offer us for _its
|
||
|
use_. In a world without electric power, this kind of accessibility
|
||
|
becomes narrow and an useless effort.
|
||
|
|
||
|
![Programando Libreros and Hackblib while they work on a project intended to +++P&R+++ old Latin American cifi books; sometimes a V-shape scanner is required when books are very fragile.](../../../img/p004_i002.jpg)
|
||
|
|
||
|
So, _who backup whom?_ In our actual world, where geopolitics
|
||
|
and technical means restrics the flow of data and people at the
|
||
|
same time it defends internet access as a human right---some
|
||
|
sort of neo-Enlightenment discourse---, +++DF+++s are lifesavers
|
||
|
in a condition where we don't have more ways to move around or
|
||
|
scape. Let's nor forget that open access of data can be a course
|
||
|
of action to improve as species but also a method to perpetuate
|
||
|
social conditions.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Not a lot of people are as privilege as us when we talk about
|
||
|
access to technical means. Even more concerning, they are hommies
|
||
|
with disabilities that made very hard for them to access information
|
||
|
albeit they have those means. Isn't it funny that our ideas as
|
||
|
file contents can move more “freely” than us? I desire more technological
|
||
|
developments for freedom of +++P&R+++ and not just for use as
|
||
|
enjoyment---no matter is for intelectual or consumption motives.
|
||
|
I want us to be free. But sometimes use of data, +++P&R+++ of
|
||
|
information and people mobility freedoms don't get along.
|
||
|
|
||
|
With +++DF+++s we achive more independence in file use because
|
||
|
once it is save, it could spread. It doesn't matter we have religious
|
||
|
or political barries; the battle take place mainly in technical
|
||
|
grounds. But this doesn't made +++DF+++s more autonomous in its
|
||
|
+++P&R+++. Neither implies we can archive personal or comunity
|
||
|
freedoms. They are objects. _They are tools_ and whoever use
|
||
|
them better, whoever owns them, have more power.
|
||
|
|
||
|
With +++PF+++s we can have more +++P&R+++ accessibility. We can
|
||
|
do whatever we want with them: extract their data, process it
|
||
|
and let it free. But only if we are their owners. Often that
|
||
|
is not the case, so +++PF+++s tend to have more restricted access
|
||
|
for its use. And, again, this doesn't mean we can be free. There
|
||
|
is not any cause and effect between what object made possible
|
||
|
and how much subjects want to be free. They are tools, they are
|
||
|
not master or slaves, just means for whoever use them.
|
||
|
|
||
|
We need +++DF++s and +++PF+++s as backups and as everyday objects
|
||
|
of use. The act of backup is a dynamic category. Backed up files
|
||
|
are not inert and they aren't only a substrate waiting to be
|
||
|
use. Sometimes we are going to use +++PF+++s because +++DF+++s
|
||
|
have been corrupted or its technical infrastructure has been
|
||
|
dissapear. In other occasions we would use +++DF+++s when +++PF+++s
|
||
|
have been destoyed or limited.
|
||
|
|
||
|
So the struggle about backups it is not around the “incorporeal”
|
||
|
realm of information, nor on the tecnhinal means that made data
|
||
|
possible, neither in the laws that transform production into
|
||
|
property. The way we backup things shows a lot about how we see
|
||
|
us. Make backups it isn't an ordinary monotonous process.
|
||
|
|
||
|
![Due restringed access to +++PF+++s, sometimes is neccesary a portable V-shape scanner; this model allows us to handle damaged books while we can also storage it in a bagpack.](../../../img/p004_i003.jpg)
|