Arreglo de erratas y fin del artículo
This commit is contained in:
parent
7b2c0d106e
commit
ad4d5adbb2
|
@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ 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
|
||||
1. Digital files (+++DF+++s) with appropriate maintenance could
|
||||
have higher probabilities to last longer that its material
|
||||
peer.
|
||||
2. Physical files (+++PF+++s) are limited due geopolitical
|
||||
|
@ -18,21 +18,21 @@ something like this:
|
|||
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
|
||||
if one day our printed books get ban or burn? Or maybe some rain
|
||||
or coffee spill could 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.
|
||||
spread. This could also implies that (3) hackers 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)
|
||||
Certainly 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
|
||||
We cannot trust that our digital infrastructure 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?
|
||||
|
@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ is and important feature for commons and goods; for several people
|
|||
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
|
||||
some readers +++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.
|
||||
|
@ -57,44 +57,46 @@ 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
|
||||
on the stability of our digital infrastructure 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.
|
||||
(2) Reader's priorities are over files use---if not merely consumption---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.
|
||||
The optimism about our digital infrastructure 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
|
||||
because some times file formats intended 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_.
|
||||
also have another 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)
|
||||
![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.
|
||||
that context all the strengths of +++DF+++s become pointless.
|
||||
They may not be accessible. 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 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
|
||||
would disappear in its concealment. Can we still talk about information
|
||||
if it is 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
|
||||
|
@ -104,62 +106,70 @@ 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
|
||||
have _the possibility_ of better ways to extract or understand
|
||||
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.
|
||||
with the idea that we could need to 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.
|
||||
wouldn't backup data if we don't already believe we could need
|
||||
it in a future where we can still use it.
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
||||
More accessibility tends to require more technical infrastructure.
|
||||
This 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.
|
||||
means. _Therefore_, we achieve a situation where more accessibility
|
||||
is equal to more technical infrastructure and---as we experience
|
||||
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.
|
||||
to an already technical dependence because we give 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)
|
||||
![Programando Libreros and Hacklib while they work on a project
|
||||
intended to +++P&R+++ old Latin American SciFi 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
|
||||
and technical means restricts 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
|
||||
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.
|
||||
scape---not only from border to border, but also on cyberspace:
|
||||
it is becoming a common place the need to sign up and give your
|
||||
identity in order to use web services. Let's not forget that
|
||||
open access of data can be a course of action to improve as community
|
||||
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.
|
||||
file contents can move more “freely” than us---your memes can
|
||||
reach web platform where you are not allow to sign in?
|
||||
|
||||
With +++DF+++s we achive more independence in file use because
|
||||
I desire more technological developments for freedom of +++P&R+++
|
||||
and not just for use as enjoyment---no matter is for intellectual
|
||||
or consumption purposes. 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 achieve 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
|
||||
or political barriers; 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
|
||||
+++P&R+++. Neither implies we can archive personal or community
|
||||
freedoms. They are objects. _They are tools_ and whoever use
|
||||
them better, whoever owns them, have more power.
|
||||
them better, whoever owns them, would 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
|
||||
|
@ -167,21 +177,46 @@ 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.
|
||||
and how subjects want to be free. They are tools, they are not
|
||||
master or slaves, just means for whoever use them… but for which
|
||||
ends?
|
||||
|
||||
We need +++DF++s and +++PF+++s as backups and as everyday objects
|
||||
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.
|
||||
shut down. In other occasions we would use +++DF+++s when +++PF+++s
|
||||
have been destroyed or restricted.
|
||||
|
||||
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 restricted access to +++PF+++s, sometimes it is necessary
|
||||
a portable V-shape scanner; this model allows us to handle damaged
|
||||
books while we can also storage it in a backpack.](../../../img/p004_i003.jpg)
|
||||
|
||||
![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)
|
||||
So the struggle about backups---and all that shit about “freedom”
|
||||
on +++FOSS+++ communities---it is not only around the “incorporeal”
|
||||
realm of information. Nor on the technical means that made digital
|
||||
data possible. Neither in the laws that transform production
|
||||
into property. We have others battle fronts against the monopoly
|
||||
of the cyberspace---or as Lingel [says](http://culturedigitally.org/2019/03/the-gentrification-of-the-internet/):
|
||||
the gentrification of the internet.
|
||||
|
||||
It is not just about software, hardware, privacy, information
|
||||
or laws. It is about us: how we build communities and how technology
|
||||
constitutes us as subjects. _We need more theory_. But a very
|
||||
diversified one because being on internet it is not the same
|
||||
for an scholar, a publisher, a woman, a kid, a refugee, a non-white,
|
||||
a poor or an old person. This space it is not neutral, homogeneous
|
||||
and two-dimensional. It has wires, it has servers, it has exploited
|
||||
employees, it has buildings, _it has power_ and it has, well,
|
||||
all that things the “real world” has. Not because you use a device
|
||||
to access means that you can always decide if you are online
|
||||
or not: you are always online as an user as a consumer or as
|
||||
data.
|
||||
|
||||
_Who backup whom?_ As internet is changing us as printed text
|
||||
did, backed up files it isn't the storage of data, but _the memory
|
||||
of our world_. Is it still a good idea to leave the work of +++P&R+++
|
||||
to a couple of hardware and software companies? Are we now allow
|
||||
to say that the act of backup implies files but something else
|
||||
too?
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue