From ad4d5adbb2df9c287a2147586c1f0b9d9b881a19 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nika Zhenya Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:41:48 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Arreglo=20de=20erratas=20y=20fin=20del=20art?= =?UTF-8?q?=C3=ADculo?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- content/md/004_backup.md | 175 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 105 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/md/004_backup.md b/content/md/004_backup.md index 2abfaa7..a7edbeb 100644 --- a/content/md/004_backup.md +++ b/content/md/004_backup.md @@ -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?