Correct links in the summary of the original language version, now with copied files, because linking from other language version did not work

or/SUMMARY.md

@@ -1,30 +1,30 @@
 # Soberanía tecnológica, vol. 2.
 
- * [Prefacio](../es/content/01prefacio.md)
- * [Introducción](../es/content/02intro.md)
+ * [Prefacio](content/01prefacio.md)
+ * [Introducción](content/02intro.md)
 
 ## Parte 1: Iniciativas de soberanía tecnológica
 
- * [Algoritmos que no destruyen vs. armas de destruccion matematicas](../fr/content/03algos.md)
- * [Gamification](../en/content/04gamification.md)
- * [Keeping technological sovereignty: The case of Internet Relay Chat](../en/content/05irc.md)
- * [Cooperativas de soberania tecnologica](../en/content/06cooperatives.md)
- * [Tecnologías apropiadas](../es/content/07rats.md)
+ * [Algoritmos que no destruyen vs. armas de destruccion matematicas](content/03algos.md)
+ * [Gamification](content/04gamification.md)
+ * [Keeping technological sovereignty: The case of Internet Relay Chat](content/05irc.md)
+ * [Cooperativas de soberania tecnologica](content/06cooperatives.md)
+ * [Tecnologías apropiadas](content/07rats.md)
 
 ## Parte 2: Ahondando en características de la soberanía tecnológica
 
- * [A seed sprouts when it is sown in fertile soil](../es/content/08rizo.md)
- * [COATI: Traduccion simultanea usando radio frecuencias](../en/content/09coati.md)
- * [Plataformas de leaks](../en/content/10leaks.md)
- * [Encrypting mails with usable tools: The mass adoption of encryption technologies](../en/content/11leap.md)
- * [Collectif d’Hébergeurs Alternatifs, Transparents, Ouverts, Neutres et Solidaires](../fr/content/07chatons.md)
+ * [A seed sprouts when it is sown in fertile soil](content/08rizo.md)
+ * [COATI: Traduccion simultanea usando radio frecuencias](content/09coati.md)
+ * [Plataformas de leaks](content/10leaks.md)
+ * [Encrypting mails with usable tools: The mass adoption of encryption technologies](content/11leap.md)
+ * [Collectif d’Hébergeurs Alternatifs, Transparents, Ouverts, Neutres et Solidaires](content/07chatons.md)
 
 ## Contribuciones
 
- * [Contribuciones](../es/content/13creditos.md)
+ * [Contribuciones](content/13creditos.md)
 
 * * *
 
- * [Contraportada](../es/content/14back.md)
+ * [Contraportada](content/14back.md)
  
 

or/content/01prefacio.md

@@ -0,0 +1,334 @@
+# Soberanía tecnológica: ¿De qué estamos hablando?
+
+***Margarita Padilla***
+
+![](../../contrib/gfx/illustrations/prefacio-halfsize.png)
+
+## Qué es
+
+Querido lector/a, queremos conversar sobre la soberanía tecnológica, un
+concepto que quizás, todavía, no te diga nada.
+
+Dice la Wikipedia que la «soberanía» es el poder político supremo y que
+es soberano quien tiene el poder de decisión, el poder de dar las leyes
+sin recibirlas de otro. También dice que es imposible adentrarse en este
+concepto sin tener en cuenta las luchas por el poder. Y que la historia
+va dibujando el devenir del sujeto de la soberanía. ¿Quién, en cada
+momento, es soberano?
+
+Trasladando la cuestión de la soberanía a las tecnologías, la pregunta
+sobre la que queremos conversar es quién tiene poder de decisión sobre
+ellas, sobre su desarrollo y su uso, sobre su acceso y su distribución,
+sobre su oferta y su consumo, sobre su prestigio y su capacidad de
+fascinación…
+
+Creo que en asuntos de poder no hay respuestas sencillas. Pero, sí que
+hay horizontes deseables y deseados. Con esta publicación queremos
+pararnos a pensar sobre cuál horizonte tecnológico estamos proyectando,
+para aplicarle un juicio crítico y, sobre todo, para compartirlo.
+
+En conversaciones informales sobre tecnologías, a menudo, las amigas me
+dicen cosas como «Es que yo de esto no entiendo», «Es que yo soy muy
+torpe con esto»... Entonces, yo intento desplazar un poco la cuestión
+hacia otro terreno un poco más, político ya que creo firmemente que lo
+que una persona «suelta» sepa o no, en realidad no es tan significativo
+en un planteamiento global sobre tecnologías.
+
+Este desplazamiento ya lo estamos aplicando en otros ámbitos. Por
+ejemplo, no necesito, yo personalmente, entender de química para «saber»
+que el aire está contaminado. Y digo «saber» entre comillas porque, en
+realidad, no lo sé, en el sentido científico de la palabra, pues nunca
+he hecho un análisis de contaminación atmosférica por mis propios
+medios. Pero, sí que lo «sé» en términos sociales, pues hay muchas
+personas y grupos, en los que confío, que me lo han dicho. Para mí, la
+creencia de que el aire está contaminado es una verdad social.
+
+Algo parecido ocurre con la alimentación ecológica. No necesito ir a
+cada huerto de cada productor/a ecológico a hacer análisis químicos
+sobre el valor alimentario de sus productos. Hay una cadena, un circuito
+de confianza, que hace insignificante lo que yo, personalmente, pueda
+saber o no saber. Me apoyo en el saber colectivo y en lo que ese saber
+compartido enuncia como verdades sociales.
+
+De la misma manera, mi horizonte de soberanía tecnológica no está
+poblado por individualidades autosuficientes que controlan hasta el
+último detalle de sus dispositivos o de sus programas de ordenador o de
+móvil. No se trata de un individualismo tecnológico (yo entiendo, yo sé,
+yo, yo, yo...). No creo que el sujeto de la soberanía tecnológica sea el
+individuo (ya sabes, ese hombre joven, guapo, blanco, inteligente,
+exitosos... más que nada porque no existe).
+
+## Dónde se hace
+
+Como todas las otras, la soberanía tecnológica se hace, sobre todo, en
+comunidades.
+
+Las comunidades existen. Están por todas partes, haciéndose y
+rehaciéndose sin parar. El piso compartido, el barrio, las amigas, las
+compañeras de trabajo, las redes profesionales, la familia extensa...
+Hay comunidades por todas partes.
+
+Como toda construcción simbólica, las comunidades no se pueden ver con
+los ojos de la cara. Tienen que verse con los ojos de la mente. Y sentir
+su vínculo con los ojos del corazón.
+
+Esta dificultad hace que en una misma situación una comunidad pueda ser
+una realidad muy presente y activa para algunas personas, y a la vez
+algo totalmente invisible para otras. Y esto es un verdadero problema
+porque si no ves por dónde andan las comunidades, corres el riesgo de
+pisotearlas. Aunque, con frecuencia, a lo que aspira la industria de las
+tecnologías no es a pisotearlas, sino a controlarlas.
+
+Para las personas que luchamos por la soberanía tecnológica, las
+comunidades son una realidad palpable. Están ahí, las vemos y las
+sentimos. Aunque el estereotipo relacione tecnologías con consumismo,
+elitismo, pijadas, individualismo aislado... Esto es sólo la visión que
+dibujan la industria y el mercado. Un mercado que quiere consumidores
+aislados y que ofusca la realidad.
+
+Todas las tecnologías se desarrollan en comunidades, que pueden ser, más
+o menos, autónomas o pueden estar, más o menos, controladas por las
+corporaciones. En la lucha por la soberanía, la cosa va de comunidades.
+Nadie inventa, construye o programa en solitario, sencillamente porque
+la complejidad de la tarea es tal que eso resultaría imposible.
+
+La premisa de una comunidad que aspira a ser soberana es que el
+conocimiento debe ser compartido y los desarrollos individuales deben
+ser devueltos al común. El conocimiento crece con la cooperación. La
+inteligencia es colectiva y privatizar el conocimiento es matar la
+comunidad. La comunidad es garante de la libertad, es decir, de la
+soberanía.
+
+La relación entre comunidades y conocimiento viene de lejos, no nace con
+las nuevas tecnologías. Por ejemplo, en una cultura en la que las
+mujeres sean las encargadas de atender los partos de otras mujeres,
+conservar y transmitir el conocimiento sobre la asistencia a los partos
+es fundamental para la reproducción de la vida. Esto hará que, más o
+menos, formal o informal, haya una comunidad de mujeres asistentas de
+partos o, dicho de otra manera, entre las mujeres que asisten partos se
+darán relaciones comunitarias que tienen que ver con la preservación de
+los conocimientos prácticos. Si algún poder se plantea destruir esa
+comunidad (esa soberanía), una de las maneras de hacerlo es «destruir»
+el conocimiento que custodia la comunidad, haciendo que de repente
+aparezca como inservible, ridículo o anticuado. Y esto podrá hacerlo con
+políticas que «muevan» ese conocimiento a los hospitales y la medicina
+convencional. Si las parturientas van al hospital y son atendidas por
+médicos, la comunidad de mujeres se debilita o desaparece (pierde
+soberanía).
+
+Dicho brevemente: la comunidad, en su versión radical, se autoorganiza y
+se autorregula con autonomía y es la garante de la soberanía. Si tienes
+comunidad tendrás libertad y soberanía. O más aún: sólo dentro de las
+comunidades podemos ser personas libres y soberanas.
+
+Y entonces dirás «Pero yo, pobre de mí, que no tengo tiempo, que no
+tengo dinero, que de esto no entiendo nada, que ya tengo miles de
+problemas para salir adelante con mi vida... ¿Cómo voy a meterme en una
+comunidad para hacer tecnologías?»
+
+«Meterse» en una comunidad no significa necesariamente saber programar
+ni ir a reuniones ni tener responsabilidades. Las comunidades son
+generosas. Permiten distintos grados de pertenencia y ofrecen distintos
+tipos de contribución.
+
+Este libro intenta dar pistas sobre cosas que puedes hacer, y más abajo
+sugeriremos algunas de ellas. Pero, hay una que es la más importante. No
+requiere tiempo, ni dinero, ni conocimientos. Sólo voluntad.
+
+Puedes colocarte en el ángulo desde el que se contempla todo el valor.
+
+Siguiendo con el ejemplo, destruir la comunidad de mujeres que asisten
+partos supone que la percepción social sea de que ese conocimiento no
+tiene valor. El poder que quiera desarticular la comunidad de mujeres
+deberá hacer propaganda para desvalorizar el conocimiento de la
+comunidad y valorizar el conocimiento de los doctores del hospital. Y de
+la percepción social del valor, de lo valioso que es algo, participamos
+todas. Porque la decisión individual de una partera sobre ir al hospital
+y ser atendida por un doctor o parir en casa con la asistencia de otra
+mujer se toma en un contexto social que «juzgará» (valorizará) una u
+otra decisión como la más «buena».
+
+Estamos hablando no del valor económico, instrumental, empresarial o de
+marca, sino del valor social. Si contemplas el valor, estás dando y
+tomando valor.
+
+Por ejemplo, aunque los hombres nunca vayan a parir, su visión sobre el
+valor de la comunidad de mujeres que se asisten mutuamente es muy
+importante. Si se colocan en el ángulo desde donde se ve el valor, están
+haciendo que la comunidad tenga más legitimidad, más soberanía.
+
+Por eso, además de todas las cosas prácticas que puedas hacer, tu visión
+puede hacer que las comunidades sean más fuertes. Y ya estás
+contribuyendo.
+
+## Por qué es importante
+
+Dice Antonio Rodríguez de las Heras que la tecnología es a la cultura lo
+que el cuerpo es a la vida.
+
+Al igual que el cuerpo humano protege la vida genética (la «primera»
+vida), la tecnología protege la cultura, vida cultural que surge con el
+ser humano (la «segunda» vida).
+
+Si el cuerpo humano, con su maravillosa complejidad, es una
+impresionante aventura de miles de millones de años que se inicia cuando
+una pequeña membrana, en la charca primordial, empieza a proteger el
+mensaje genético en los entornos más cambiantes, de la misma manera la
+tecnología se desarrolla y complejiza para proteger ese otro mensaje
+vital que nace con el ser humano: el de la cultura.
+
+La tecnología, desde el fuego o la piedra de sílex hasta las prodigiosas
+construcciones que usamos, casi sin reparar en ello, por todas partes,
+es el cuerpo de la cultura. Sin tecnología no habría cultura.
+
+La relación con la tecnología es paradójica. Te permite hacer más cosas
+(autonomía), pero dependes de ella (dependencia).
+
+Dependes de quienes la desarrollan y distribuyen, de sus planes de
+negocio o de sus contribuciones al valor social. Y cambias con ella. ¿No
+está cambiado Whatsapp o Telegram la cultura relacional? ¿No está
+cambiando Wikipedia la cultura enciclopédica? Y también la cambias a
+ella.
+
+Por eso, es tan importante sostener abierta la pregunta colectiva sobre
+qué horizonte tecnológico deseamos y cómo lo estamos construyendo.
+
+## Cómo valorarla
+
+En el boom de las crisis financieras y de una cultura del emprendimiento
+obligatorio, la industria de las tecnologías, a la que no se le escapa
+la potencia de las comunidades, empieza a utilizar arquitecturas de
+participación para aprovecharse de la inteligencia colectiva y obtener
+valor de mercado.
+
+Estas ofertas de mercado están todo el tiempo lidiando con otros estilos
+de cooperación, en un hervidero de tendencias que marca los episodios de
+la lucha por la soberanía tecnológica.
+
+La industria de las tecnologías quiere naturalizar tus elecciones.
+Quiere que te adhieras a sus productos-servicios sin hacerte preguntas.
+
+Así que, para resistir a la sumisión tecnológica te propongo que, en tus
+elecciones, valores:
+
+Que la comodidad no sea el único criterio. Es más cómodo no separar las
+basuras. Es más cómodo coger el coche para ir a la vuelta de la esquina
+(siempre que tengas aparcamiento, claro). Es más cómodo comer comida
+rápida... Pero, no siempre lo hacemos, porque la comodidad no siempre es
+el mejor criterio. Pues, con las tecnologías, lo mismo.
+
+Que la gratuidad no sea el único coste. Está bien que haya servicios
+públicos gratuitos, que es una manera de decir que están costeados por
+todo el mundo, en un fondo común. También, está muy bien intercambiar
+regalos, gratuitamente, que costeamos como un modo de mostrar
+agradecimiento y amor. Pero, cuando hablamos de la industria de las
+tecnologías, la gratuidad es solamente una estrategia para conseguir
+mayores beneficios por otras vías. Esa gratuidad tiene un altísimo coste
+no sólo en términos de pérdida de soberanía (ya que nos quedamos al
+albur de lo que la industria nos quiera «regalar» en cada momento), sino
+en términos medioambientales y sociales. Guardar una foto en la nube,
+sin ir más lejos, tiene costes medioambientales y sociales, ya que para
+guardarla tiene que haber un servidor en marcha todo el tiempo, cuyos
+«motores» consumen energía eléctrica, etc., etc. Un servidor que quizás
+pertenezca a una empresa que no paga impuestos en el lugar en donde esa
+persona subió la foto, y por tanto, extrae valor sin contribuir al
+común, etc., etc. Todo cuesta algo. Por eso, quizás deberíamos pensar en
+ese tipo de «gratuidad» como un coste que estallará por otro lado.
+
+## Qué puedes hacer
+
+Nadie vive en una soberanía tecnológica absoluta. La soberanía es un
+camino. Pero, no podemos aceptar eso de que, como no podemos hacerlo
+todo, no hagamos nada.
+
+Hay muchas cosas que se pueden hacer. Por supuesto, puedes usar más
+software libre. En esta publicación encontrarás muchas propuestas de
+programas libres que funcionan perfectamente. También puedes participar
+activamente en alguna comunidad. Sin embargo, hay muchas más cosas que
+se pueden hacer:
+
+Si tienes inquietudes respecto a tus prácticas tecnológicas,
+socialízalas, convérsalas, hazlas circular. Las prácticas tecnológicas
+no son asuntos individuales. Tienen una dimensión social que debemos
+problematizar. Las tecnologías tienen que estar en la agenda común,
+tanto como la salud, el trabajo o la participación política. Hay que
+hablar de tecnologías.
+
+Si participas en un grupo, no des por hecho que las demás personas están
+dispuestas a utilizar todos los programas de ordenador o todos los
+servicios de Internet que tú utilizas. Cuando participo en un grupo y,
+sin mediar más conversación, alguien propone hacer un Skype o un
+Hangout, me doy cuenta de que quien propone eso no tiene en
+consideración que pueda haber personas que no quieren abrir una cuenta
+en Skype o en Gmail. Es como si quisiéramos obligar a las personas
+vegetarianas a comer carne, porque para las carnívoras es más cómodo (o
+más barato, o más algo...) hacer un plato único con los criterios de una
+mayoría acrítica. Pero, eso sería inaceptable, ¿no? Pues, de la misma
+manera, alguien puede negarse a usar (o ser usada por) determinados
+servicios. Está en su derecho. La decisión sobre qué tecnologías usar no
+es solamente práctica. También es ética.
+
+Si eres educadora, transmite los valores del software libre. ¿Por qué
+tenemos que piratear lo que las comunidades ya nos ofrecen para
+compartir libremente? El software libre es el software que practica y
+defiende los valores de la comunidad. Si nos gusta la escuela pública,
+porque es la común, ¿no debería gustarnos que en la escuela pública sólo
+se usen programas de ordenador públicos, sin costes de licencia y sin
+mecanismo de privatización? Público no es lo mismo que gratis.
+
+Si tienes capacidad de contratación (por ejemplo, la web de tu
+asociación), busca empresas en la economía social que estén
+contribuyendo en las comunidades. El dinero que gastas en tecnologías
+ponlo en circulación dentro de los circuitos sociales comunitarios. En
+este libro encontrarás un capítulo dedicado a las cooperativas que
+recombinan la economía social y solidaria con la soberanía tecnológica.
+Esas cooperativas se agrupan en redes de economía social o en mercados
+sociales locales. Y esas agrupaciones tienen webs en las que puedes
+encontrar empresas cooperativas a las que encargar un trabajo.
+
+Si puedes programar actividades (en tu asociación, en el centro social,
+en el AMPA...), organiza charlas de sensibilización o talleres de
+formación sobre soberanía tecnológica. Esto es una tarea sin fin, que
+debe sostenerse en el tiempo, pues nadie nace enseñada. Si no sabes
+quién podría encargarse de dar esas charlas o talleres, acude a las
+empresas cooperativas. Ellas conocerán quien pueda hacerlo. Como hemos
+dicho antes, hay que hablar de tecnologías.
+
+Si tienes prestigio o influencia, haz que la soberanía tecnológica sea
+un asunto relevante en las agendas políticas y críticas. Y si no los
+tienes, ponte al día leyendo las secciones que muchos periódicos ya
+tienen sobre tecnologías. Comenta con otras personas lo que has leído.
+Problematiza. Busca una perspectiva crítica y reflexiva. No se trata de
+perseguir la última tendencia del mercado, sino de estar al día en los
+debates políticos y sociales sobre soberanía tecnológica, que son muchos
+y constantes.
+
+Si tienes energía o capacidad de liderazgo, promueve la creación de
+grupos para cacharrear, intercambiar conocimientos y disfrutar de lo
+tecnológico en compañía. Las tecnologías también son fuente de alegría y
+placer. Hay grupos que se reúnen para reparar juguetes electrónicos o
+pequeños electrodomésticos. Otras se juntan para hacer costura con
+componentes de hardware libre (electrónica). Otras hacen programación
+creativa... Las tecnologías no sólo sirven para trabajar duro o para
+aislar a las personas. Como hemos dicho antes, son el cuerpo de la
+cultura. Y cultura es mucho más que trabajo.
+
+Si eres mujer, busca a otras para preguntar, en común, cómo la
+construcción de género nos está separando de una relación activa,
+creativa y de liderazgo con las tecnologías. La presencia activa de las
+mujeres en la construcción de soberanía tecnológica es escasa. Ahí hay
+mucho trabajo por hacer. En este dossier encontrarás algunas
+referencias, en las mujeres que han escrito algunos de sus capítulos.
+
+Y, si no sabes por dónde tirar, busca ayuda. Además, de toda la gente
+que conoces personalmente, hoy en día, podemos entrar en comunicación
+con personas que no conocemos. Si ves un vídeo que te interesa o lees un
+artículo que quieres profundizar, seguro que puedes enviar un correo a
+su autor/a. Aunque no nos conozcamos, nos podemos ayudar.
+
+Hemos editado esta publicación con la intención de indagar en la
+diversidad, riqueza y situación actual de la soberanía tecnológica
+alrededor del mundo, para presentar sus potencialidades y dificultades.
+
+Esperamos que te resulte interesante, que te la tomes en sentido
+crítico, y que nos ayudes a mejorarla y a difundirla.

or/content/02intro.md

@@ -0,0 +1,330 @@
+# Soberanía tecnológica para volver a querer las máquinas
+
+***Alex Haché***
+
+![](../../contrib/gfx/illustrations/intro-halfsize.png)
+
+> La gran bola de terciopelo responde a las necesidades de un barrio o
+> una comunidad: es rosa y muy amable pero no tiene piedad. Las personas
+> piensan que la pelota no reconoce a las malas y que se van a salvar,
+> pero ella sabe muy bien. Ella la inventó. La bola rueda con rrrrruido.
+> Ella lo inventó. [^1]
+
+Las narrativas de ciencia ficción construyen acerca de lo que podría
+ser el futuro, los *multiversos* y, por lo general, hilan acerca de lo
+que (aún) no es. Cada vez que una «persona activista se imagina el mundo
+por el cual lucha: un mundo sin violencia, sin capitalismo, sin racismo,
+sin sexismo, sin prisiones, etc. está desarrollando una ficción
+especulativa» [^2]. Narrativas que nos unen dentro de nuestros
+círculos de afinidades y resistencia. Narrativas que nos permiten
+asaltar «la máquina» [^3] y emprender un éxodo dentro de ella.
+Ejercer nuestra capacidad de especular sobre nuevos mundos en modo
+utópico es una propuesta para repensar juntas *evil_electrónica*,
+*evil_internet*, *evil_telefonía móvil*, *evil_satélites*. *
+
+Grandes bolas de terciopelo rosa que ya no puedes ignorar.  Descubrir otras
+formas, nombrarlas, soñar con otras tecnologías posibles. La soberanía
+tecnológica avanza porque es al mismo tiempo deseo, ficción especulativa y
+realidades alternativas.
+
+Un padre de 45 y su hijo de 20 años. Parecen tener buena relación. El
+hijo le pide a su padre que le grabe con su móvil haciendo algo en el
+mar. Una, dos, tres, cuatro veces. Su padre no lo consigue; su hijo se
+muestra paciente pero sorprendido por su incompetencia. De repente, el
+padre explota. La playa se queda silenciosa.
+
+Una conversación a gritos sobre la quiebra de las relaciones de
+confianza, el asco y miedo a los móviles y a Facebook. El hijo promete
+acompañarlo mejor para que deje de ser un inexperto y se transforme en
+un alienígena que teclea con sus diez dedos. Generaciones analógicas con
+ramificaciones cerebrales especificas, experimentación y conocimiento
+situado en tres dimensiones. Esa conversación me hizo sentir sola,
+quería meterme en ella, quería que estas explosiones de ira se dieran
+más a menudo, quería ver a más personas armadas con bolas de petanca
+reventando los iphones de todos los *apple store* [^4].
+
+Deberíamos contar con otras tecnologías, algo mejor que lo que hoy en
+día llamamos «Tecnologías deIinformación y Comunicación» (TIC). Un móvil
+que es un ordenador, un ordenador que ya está obsoleto, unas tabletas de
+pantallas oscuras, unos relojes conectados a Internet que te cuantifican
+mientras corres, menstrúas y follas. Unos dispositivos poblados por
+*apps* y «servicios» que nos menosprecian. «Viva el mal, viva el
+capital.» La Bruja Avería [^5] como encarnación del síndrome de
+Cassandra. [^6]
+
+Hay que afrontar las conversaciones que tienden al nivel cero de la
+comprensión de lo escalofriante que resulta un devenir donde las
+máquinas han alcanzado su singularidad [^7]. Luchar contra los argumentos
+esgrimidos en nuestras comunidades y colectivos; por amigas; en redes de
+confianza y en los parques, comedores y escuelas; en los servicios
+sociales y hospitales: «tan práctico y cómodo», «no hay alternativa»,
+«no tengo nada que esconder» y «qué importa si nos controlan, está todo
+fatal de todos modos».
+
+La falta de originalidad nutre los lugares comunes paridos por las
+narrativas neoliberales que acompañan cada nueva tecnología comercial
+mientras colonizan nuestras mentes y deseos.
+
+Necesitamos hablar mucho más, aquí y ahora, de los costes psicológicos,
+sociales, políticos, ecológicos y económicos de estas tecnologías. No
+hablamos de la libertad de hacerse *selfies* en los centros comerciales
+de Google, Amazon [^8], Facebook, Microsoft y Apple y subir otra foto más
+en una cuenta de *instasheet*. Hablamos de la represión, el control, la
+vigilancia; de la cuantificación, la discretización de la vida y los
+recursos. Para tener esta conversación convocamos a las personas que hay
+que explotar, llevar a la locura o al suicidio [^9], que hay que matar en
+los feminicidios de las fronteras y zonas económicas especiales para
+alimentar un ecosistema tecnológico global distópico.
+
+* * *
+
+La ST que nos gusta es la que diseña, desarrolla, distribuye y sueña
+tecnologías que brindan bienestar y buen vivir, las que no perpetúan o
+crean más injusticia. Versionar la revolución ética y política en pos de
+la soberanía alimentaria, crear y consumir productos justos y de
+cercanía. Lo que podemos aprender de esta analogía, soberanía
+alimentaria vs. soberanía tecnológica, fue de lo que tratamos en el
+precedente primer tomo.
+
+En este dossier, seguimos presentando ejemplos de la ST entendida como
+ficción especulativa aplicada y situada que genera transformación social
+y política. Las distintas contribuciones exponen las tensiones
+inherentes que existen entre autonomía y soberanía, contribución y
+sostenibilidad, apropiación por el capitalismo vs. devenir, tecnologías
+apropiadas y feministas.
+
+Por el camino se nos perdieron dos contribuciones importantes.
+
+Un artículo sobre la autogestión ex-céntrica de la salud, la
+descolonización de los cuerpos y el campo de experimentación alrededor
+de las tecnologías de la salud, sexualidades y cuidados: la ST no puede
+ser sólo software o hardware, si no que también debe ser *wetware* como
+espacio de resistencia [^10] frente al imperio fármaco-médico-industrial.
+
+También queríamos ahondar en la historia poco conocida de varios
+visionarios de la ST. Desde la curiosidad y la rebelión han conseguido
+hacer llegar Internet a donde no se quería que llegara, desafiar el
+estado de apartheid reforzando las comunicaciones clandestinas, mostrar
+que se pueden crear tecnologías bellas y adaptadas a su entorno. Voja
+Antonic [^11] (Yugoslavia), Roberto Verzola [^12] (Filipinas), Onno
+Purb [^13] (Indonesia) y Tim Jenkin [^14] (Sudáfrica ) se han mostrado
+generosos con nosotras compartiendo acerca de sus condiciones,
+motivaciones e inspiraciones. Y éstas nos han mostrado que la ST está
+compuesta por capas, filiaciones e imaginarios varios.
+
+Respecto a cómo ha evolucionado el panorama de la ST desde el último
+libro destacamos lo siguiente:
+
+Hoy en día, todo el mundo usa código abierto, incluyendo varias empresas
+listadas en *Fortune 500*. Compartir, en lugar de crear código
+propietario, resulta más barato, más fácil y más eficiente \ [...\] La
+mayoría de nosotras damos por supuesto la apertura de una aplicación de
+software, de la misma forma en que tomamos por sentado que las luces se
+enciendan. No pensamos en el capital humano necesario para que esto
+suceda.
+
+Esta investigación intitulada *Carreteras y puentes* [^16] resalta cómo
+las grandes empresas están tomando ventaja de los comunes digitales sin
+devolver nada, o muy poco, a cambio.
+
+En el precedente tomo ya habíamos indicado que ser parte del mundo del
+software libre/código abierto no era suficiente para ser parte de la ST.
+De la misma manera, ser parte de la ST no significa necesariamente que
+todas las participantes estén trabajando juntas en desarrollar
+tecnologías liberadoras. Las iniciativas de ST también necesitan
+comunidades más sostenibles y justas en las cuales todas sus
+participantes sepan trabajar desde la diversidad y la inclusión, así
+como desde la comprensión de sus privilegios y roles de poder.
+
+*Coconut revolution [^17] y la ecología de la libertad según Murray
+Bookchin* nos recuerda que las tecnologías apropiadas son las que se
+desarrollan en una comunidad que elige el nivel, o el grado de
+tecnologías, que necesita y que toma en cuenta las maneras y los
+procesos de desarrollo para poder caminar hacia tecnologías liberadoras.
+
+A estas ambiciones, destacamos nuevos contextos en los cuales el
+concepto de ST se ha popularizado. Por ejemplo, en Francia la asociación
+Framasoft desarrolla un plan de acción ambicioso para
+*desgooglizar* [^18] internet y su libro *Digital: retomar el
+control* [^19] relata prácticas de resistencia que combinan soberanía,
+autonomía y nuevas formas de colaboración. En Cataluña se cuenta con la
+celebración de los congresos de Soberanía Tecnológica [^20], el *Anti
+Mobile Congress* [^21] y el *Social Mobile Congress* [^22]. Todos ellos
+eventos que generan conciencia y redes de acción para desarrollar
+tecnologías desde otros paradigmas.
+
+El concepto de ST también ha sido retomado por algunas instituciones
+publicas relacionadas con los «ayuntamientos rebeldes» [^23]. Fomentar
+formatos híbridos público-sociedad civil que brinden mas apoyo a las
+iniciativas de ST podría hacer saltar las alarmas o ser motivo de
+celebración.
+
+Imaginemos que se libere dinero público para mantener nuestras
+infraestructuras digitales y ofrecer, para dar un ejemplo, servicios
+alternativos a Google desde una perspectiva no comercial, alojando los
+datos de manera descentralizada en arquitecturas que incorporan en su
+diseño el derecho a la privacidad y el cifrado por defecto. Ésta podría
+ser una posible línea de acción donde lo público y lo civil podrían
+apoyarse mutuamente.
+
+Para ello, haría falta brindar más apoyo a las pequeñas y medianas
+comunidades que desarrollan tecnologías apropiadas y ST para que puedan
+seguir proveyendo las tecnologías que esos territorios y comunidades
+necesitan. Tecnologías bellas y singulares como mariposas multicolores.
+El trabajo desarrollado por Atelier Paysan [^24] («el taller campesino»)
+donde una red de agricultores lleva años diseñando máquinas para
+trabajar el campo y la tierra, intercambiando sus diseños y
+conocimientos, es un potente ejemplo de ello.
+
+En cualquier caso, para que estas alianzas funcionen, las instituciones
+deberán perder el menosprecio que sienten hacia las pequeñas iniciativas
+que desarrollan ST desde la base para la base. Para conseguir ST
+necesitaremos implicar y convocar todos los niveles: el micro, el medio
+y el macro.
+
+La que se avecina pinta muy mal y por ello creemos que la ST también nos
+puede ayudar a contrarrestar el individualismo fomentado por el
+capitalismo global.
+
+Que nadie se sienta sola. Que nadie sienta que lo está pasando sola. Las
+amigas tienen más miedo, las angustias se disparan, los espacios de
+libertad se reducen. Al mismo tiempo, convergen personas desconectadas
+en un lugar gris y frío, apoyando una iniciativa para una informática de
+cercanía. Quieren entender qué pasa, sentarse con nosotras a hablar de
+tecnologías, compartir sus prácticas, formular sus preguntas, exorcizar
+sus miedos. En muchos lugares eso occurre.
+
+Llegan, cada vez más, peticiones para encontrar vías de sobrepasar las
+violencias conectadas. Me han tumbado la página, censurado los
+contenidos, acosado, insultado, chantajeado... Los ataques son
+incesantes, aburridos, peligrosos, creativos. En Internet ya no hay
+libertad de expresión, sólo grados de privilegios a la hora de poder
+gritar, más o menos, fuerte.
+
+Todo esto, nos decíamos hace unos meses con unas queridas compañeras
+pensando en cómo abordar juntas el tema de las tecnologías apropiadas
+como eco resonante de ese horizonte utópico hacia el cual queremos
+caminar. Seguimos con ganas de ir a ese lugar donde se hablan idiomas
+desconocidos, vocabularios que no existen, gramáticas que no encajan.
+
+Poder nombrar esos fenómenos que aún no están entre nosotras, pero que
+ya nos prefiguran y, a menudo, nos transfiguran. Nuestras narrativas se
+vuelven ficción especulativa, y éstas generan ideas y memes que viajan a
+través el tiempo/espacio para volverse un ecosistema tecnológico
+alternativo en el cual no tengamos que sacrificar nuestros derechos
+fundamentales: libertad, privacidad, seguridad, comunicación,
+información, expresión, cooperación, solidaridad, amor.
+
+«*Una profecía autocumplida o autorrealizada es una predicción que, una
+vez hecha, es en sí misma la causa de que se haga realidad*.»
+
+Nos alimentan con futuros distópicos: noticias, series, pelis, libros de
+la sociedad del espectáculo. Estos nos atraviesan y paralizan, sólo
+vemos imágenes borrosas de tecnologías *gadgets*. El contexto del futuro
+de mierda ya es ahora, implica que nos creamos que sólo queda la vía del
+sacrificio de nuestras libertades al alimento de una maquinaria
+tecnológica que nos habla de innovación, creatividad y participación
+para mejorar su potencia en cuantificarnos y volvernos unidades
+singulares, partes de grupos sociales dentro de patrones que ya nadie
+entiende. Algoritmos cerrados procesan dentro de cajas negras
+propietarias; y estos crecientemente muestran su capacidad de
+influencia.
+
+Lo distópico es fácil y su perversidad radica en su falta de
+imaginación, así como en su potencial para crear cultura y
+representaciones del futuro basadas en *loops* negativos: más
+discriminación, más singularidad de las máquinas, más injusticia basada
+en algoritmos, estas nuevas *armas de destrucción matemática* [^25]. Lo
+distópico nos encierra en un grácil bucle de cinismo y creencia, en que
+las tecnologías son lo que son y que no podemos hacer nada para tener
+otras. Son narrativas autoproféticas y está más que comprobado que si
+llamamos a Terminator [^26] este acabará por venir.
+
+El Internet se está muriendo, la *world wide web* se contrae, en mi
+ficción utópica autoprofética existen mundos que se reconectan gracias
+al espectro electromagnético, ondas que vibran a nuestro alrededor y son
+parte de los comunes. Las personas repiensan las infraestructuras
+tecnológicas que les hacen falta, luego las desarrollan, auditan,
+testean, mantienen, transforman y mejoran.
+
+Me levanto por la mañana, el *smartphone* ya no duerme a mi lado, casi
+no hay ondas wifi atravesando mi casa. La máquina de café y el
+frigorífico están libres del *internet de las cosas*, ya no se conectan
+a Starfucks + Monosanto para mandar mis datos de consumo. Encima de la
+mesa hay una tableta fabricada para durar toda la vida. Todos los
+dispositivos están encriptados por defecto y provienen de una fábrica
+local ubicada a pocos kilómetros.
+
+Hace unos años, unas *biohackers* popularizaron el uso de bacterias y
+oligoelementos para almacenar información digital. La ley de Moore se
+quebró. Se consiguió ilegalizar la obsolescencia programada. Los ciclos
+de guerra, hambre e injusticia generados por la extracción de minerales,
+así como la producción masiva de tecnologías, fueron desapareciendo. En
+la escuela nos generamos llaves de cifrado: en primaria usando
+tecnologías anticuadas como GPG, más tarde utilizando procesos basados
+en el análisis de nuestra huella sonora al tener orgasmos.
+
+Puedo configurar mi propio agente algorítmico para que sólo comparta mis
+datos con quien me interesa. Las amigas de mis amigas conforman una red
+de redes de confianza y afinidades; las ideas, recursos y necesidades se
+cubren entre todas más a menudo. Activo mis captores de viento, luz y
+agua para generar toda la energía limpia que puedo. Este estilo de vida
+requiere de mi presencia frecuente fuera de la pantalla; no estoy
+siempre conectada. Ya no hay tecnofóbicas o tecnolofílicas, porque ya
+nadie da demasiada importancia a las tecnologías. Estas han vuelto al
+lugar de donde no habrían tenido que salir.
+
+Quedan tantos mundos por crear. Para tumbar al capitalismo alienígena
+tenemos que poder imaginar futuros que no sean distópicos, futuros en
+los que jugar a construir nuestras tecnologías apropiadas sea común y
+felizmente banal.
+
+[^1]: Taller de escritura especulativa sobre tecnologías feministas, organizado por Cooptecniques durante la edición *2017 Hack the Earth* en Calafou: http://cooptecniques.net/taller-de-escritura-especulativa-tecnologias-feministas/
+
+[^2]: Walidah Imarisha y adrienne maree brown: *Octavia's Brood: Science Fiction Stories from Social Justice Movements*.
+
+[^3]: Sergio Legaz, autor y Miguel Brieva, dibujante y miembro del consejo editorial de *Libros en acción*: *Sal de la máquina: Superar la adicción a las nuevas tecnologías*.
+
+[^4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNWAFApQDIc
+
+[^5]: La Bruja Avería es un personaje del programa infantil La bola de cristal, emitido por Televisión Española en los años ochenta.
+
+[^6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jFpPN2xmSI
+
+[^7]: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularidad_tecnol%C3%B3gica
+
+[^8]: Amazonians hablan de .amazon: https://bestbits.net/amazon/
+
+[^9]: Foxconn: The Machine is Your Lord and Your Master: https://agone.org/centmillesignes/lamachineesttonseigneurettonmaitre/
+
+[^10]: https://gynepunk.hotglue.me/
+
+[^11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voja_Antoni%C4%87 • https://archive.org/details/20140418VojaAntonicTalkHackTheBiblioCalafou • https://hackaday.io/projects/hacker/65061 • https://twitter.com/voja_antonic?lang=es
+
+[^12]: https://rverzola.wordpress.com/ • https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Roberto_Verzola
+
+[^13]: http://www.eldiario.es/hojaderouter/internet/Onno_W-_Purbo-wokbolic-wajanbolic-internet-wifi_0_520048966.html • https://twitter.com/onnowpurbo • Wokbolik, what's that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_7c_XDmySw
+
+[^14]: Tim Jenkin: *Talking to Vula: The Story of the Secret Underground Communications Network of Operation Vula,* 1995. *The Vula Connection*, documental, 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSOTVfNe54A • *Escape from Pretoria* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WyeAaYjlxE
+
+[^16]: Nadia Eghbal: *Road and Bridges – The Unseen Labor Behind Our Digital Infrastructure*, Ford Foundation, 2016: https://fordfoundcontent.blob.core.windows.net/media/2976/roads-and-bridges-the-unseen-labor-behind-our-digital-infrastructure.pdf
+
+[^17]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coconut_Revolution
+
+[^18]: https://degooglisons-internet.org
+
+[^19]: https://framabook.org/docs/NRC/Numerique_ReprendreLeControle_CC-By_impress.pdf
+
+[^20]: http://sobtec.cat/
+
+[^21]: http://antimwc.alscarrers.org/
+
+[^22]: http://www.setem.org/blog/cat/catalunya/mobile-social-congress-2017-28-de-febrer-i-1-de-marc
+
+[^23]: https://bits.city/
+
+[^24]: http://latelierpaysan.org/Plans-et-Tutoriels
+
+[^25]: Cathy O'Neil: *Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy*, 2016.
+
+[^26]: http://terminatorstudies.org/map/

or/content/03algos.md

@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+# Le code est politique, les algorithmes sont des armes mathématiques de destruction [^1]
+
+***Benjamin Cadon***
+
+![](../../contrib/gfx/illustrations/algoritmos-halfsize.png)
+
+On en entend beaucoup parler, on ne les voit jamais, que sont ces algorithmes, ces bêtes invisibles et insaisissables qui se faufilent dans nos cerveaux et habitent nos poches? Quels desseins les animent?
+
+D’un point de vu formel, un algorithme n’est qu’une inoffensive suite d’opérations alimentée par des données qui produit un résultat. Néanmoins, ils automatisent la résolution d’un ensemble de problèmes complexes[^2] et certains sont ainsi devenus des Intelligences Artificielles élevées, grâce à des entreprises qui les gavent des données qu’on a bien voulu leur donner gratuitement.
+
+## Un bestiaire[^3] d’algorithmes
+
+Rien de tel que de savoir de quoi ils se nourrissent pour mieux les cerner et comprendre leur rôle dans la société des humains informatisés. Ils ne sont pas nés d’une étincelle d’électricité au dessus d’un océan de sulfureuses données. Leurs géniteurs sont des êtres humains qui écrivent des lignes de code pour réaliser un programme porteur d’un projet politique et sociétal dicté par un commanditaire privé ou public. Ces algorithmes ne sont jamais « neutres » et impartiaux et vont s’attacher à mener la mission qui leur a été assignée, souvent par des Occidentaux de genre masculin issus des classes supérieures bercées par le capitalisme.
+
+Il faut aussi dire qu’un algorithme bête nourri avec beaucoup de bonnes données réussira toujours mieux qu’une intelligence artificielle affamée, et ce, même si elle a les griffes acérées.
+
+Comment ne pas citer ces ogres américains que sont les GAFAM (pour Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon et Microsoft)ou BATX pour leurs alter-égos de l’autre coté du Pacifique (les géants du Web chinois Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent et Xiaomi). Leur métabolisme est basé sur le fait de collecter, avec notre aide, un maximum de données sur nos moindres faits et gestes en « augmentant » notre quotidien avec pléthore d’applications mobiles et d’objets connectés supposés nous le rendre plus facile à vivre.
+
+### Qui mangent des données personnelles 
+
+Les algorithmes qui en résulte sont polymorphes. Ils ont tout d’abord grandi en nous regardant de loin, scrutant notre activité sur le réseau, les endroits que nous fréquentions le plus. Ils se sont ensuite élevés au-dessus de nos interactions afin de mieux déterminer qui faisait autorité, passant de la logique du vote populaire à celle du classement méritocratique. Dans un troisième mouvement, ils sont rentrés dans notre intimité numérique en analysant la qualité et la fréquence de nos échanges afin d'évaluer notre réputation et de traquer nos affinités. Enfin, ils se sont cachés au-dessous de notre regard pour mieux prédire le moindre de nos désirs, tout en œuvrant à les conditionner.
+
+| _                     | **A côté**                | **Au-dessus**                | **Dans**                   | **Au-dessous**             |
+|-----------------------|---------------------------|------------------------------|----------------------------|----------------------------|
+| **Exemples**          | Médiamétrie, Google Analytics, affichage publicitaire | PageRank de Google, Digg, Wikipédia | Nombre d’amis Facebook, Retweet de Twitter, notes et avis | Recommandations Amazon, publicités comportementales |
+| **Données**           | Vues | Liens | Likes | Traces |
+| **Population**        | Échantillon représentatif | Vote censitaire, communautés | Réseau social, affinitaire, déclaratif | Comportements individuels implicites |
+| **Forme de calcul**   | Vote | Classement méritocratique | Benchmark | Machine Learning |
+| **Principe**          | Popularité | Autorité | Réputation | Prédiction |
+
+*D’après Dominique Cardon, « À quoi rêvent les algorithmes »* [^4]
+
+Ces différentes générations d’algorithmes continuent à cohabiter et sont facilement reconnaissables car ils se montrent très efficaces pour nous rendre de nombreux services, si tenté que l’on paye notre « dividende numérique » [^5], parce qu'ils discrétisent notre existence, la coupant en tranches aussi fines que possible pour en extraire toute information [^6] monétisable.
+
+Chaque État materne un ogre terrifiant qui œuvre dans le renseignement. Celui ci croise souvent ses intérêts avec ceux de ses amis ogres commerçants, en allant piocher sans vergogne dans leurs gardes-manger, et ce avec leur assentiment [^7]. Son appétit insatiable le conduit à se tapir souvent là où transitent le plus de données. Supposé trouver un terroriste dans une botte de foin, il souffre pourtant souvent de myopie et d’obésité ,le rendant plus efficace pour chaparder des secrets des politiques et des industriels que pour cerner les méchants avant qu'ils ne passent a l'action.
+
+### Qui mangent des données publiques 
+
+Les différentes strates administratives de la force publique cultivent également des jardins florissants de données aux saveurs multiples: biométriques, fiscales, environnementales, urbaines, professionnelles ou encore liées à la santé.
+
+D’apparence neutres et objectives, les bêtes algorithmiques publiques seraient la solution aux inégalités de traitement face au libre arbitre de certains fonctionnaires. Elles peuvent néanmoins métamorphoser des familles entières en insectes kafkaïens accrochés à la machine à écrire du film *Brazil* [^8]. Ce sont elles en effet qui déterminent désormais où votre enfant doit aller à l’école, si vous pouvez bénéficier d’aides sociales, à quel travail vous devriez postuler, si votre cycle menstruel est prêt pour procréer.
+
+Les commerçants de la donnée personnelle proposent bien volontiers leur aide aux collectivités publiques pour numériser et cloner les plus belles plantes du jardin public, qu’il s’agisse de fleurs culturelles ou d’herbes médicinales. Tous comme les commerçants, la force publique est passée de l’observation à la prédiction, elle peut non seulement optimiser le ramassage des poubelles, mais aussi envoyer ses forces de police là où un délit à le plus de chances de se dérouler grâce à ses algochiens PredPol CompStat ou encore HunchLab [^9].
+
+### Qui mangent de l’argent 
+
+Thomas Peterffy est un financier qui s’est attaché à remplacer les courtiers et leurs opérations manuelles par des machines automatisées. En 1987, constatant que le nombre d’ordres passés par Peterffy était étonnamment élevé, les responsables des marchés envoient un inspecteur qui, là où il s’attendait à voir une salle des marchés remplie d’hommes blancs vociférants et suants, ne trouve qu’un ordinateur IBM relié au seul terminal officiel du Nasdaq [^10]. Ainsi, en 1987, les algorithmes sont lâchés sur les marchés financiers.
+
+Aujourd’hui, l’algotrading est généralisé, les clignotements algorithmiques feutrés des réseaux informatiques ont remplacé les traders hystériques, mais ces bêtes numériques de la finance se font déjà dépasser par les algotraders à hautes fréquences. Ces derniers se déplacent à la vitesse de la lumière, bâtissent des chemins pour arriver à l’ordre d’achat et de vente plus vite que les autres [^11], engrangeant un bénéfice à chaque opération. Ils trouvent désormais abris dans les nombreux « dark pools » que les banques ont pu créer grâce à l’assouplissement paradoxal des réglementations. Dans ce confort lucratif qui connaît parfois tout de même des « Flash Crashs » [^12], la diversité des espèces algorithmiques s’accroît (Blast, Stealth, Sniffer, Iceberg, Shark, Sumo, … [^13]) de pair avec la complexité de leurs stratégies, rendant encore plus illisibles et incontrôlables les « marchés » pourtant supposés se réguler à grand coup de mains invisibles.
+
+Tout ça impacte bien évidemment ce que l’on appelle « l’économie réelle » , c'est-à-dire la vie des gens. Par exemple, lorsque des pirates syriens compromettent le compte Twitter de la Maison Blanche et y postent un Tweet alarmiste qui est immédiatement lu par les robots algotraders, faisant ainsi plonger la bourse d’un seul élan de 136 Milliards de dollars en 3 minutes [^14].
+
+Dans la jungle de la finance, une nouvelle bête algorithmique est apparue sous la forme d’un ver qui se duplique dans tous les ordinateurs accueillants et qui grossit au gré de son utilisation, dévorant au passage une quantité impressionnante d’électricité [^15]. On l’appelle la « blockchain » [^16] et elle s’est fait connaître via le « bitcoin », la première crypto-monnaie dématérialisée qui se passe d’organisme bancaire central attaché à un Etat. Le bitcoin pèse aujourd’hui 28 Milliards de dollars [^17].
+
+Heureusement, des initiatives comme Ethereum [^18] ont permis aux vers de muter pour ne plus seulement enregistrer que des transactions mais aussi véhiculer des bases de données et des applications « intelligentes » (les « smart contracts »). Cela donne des projets comme la DAO [^19] (Decentralized Autonomous Organisation), un fonds d‘investissement décentralisé sans directoire où chacun prend part aux décisions en fonction de son capital. Ce fonds s’est vite retrouvé garni par de multiples investisseurs, pour un montant de 150 millions de dollars. Néanmoins, un malicieux plaisantin a réussi à en soustraire un tiers en exploitant une faille (une fonctionnalité dit-il) du code qui est irrémédiablement gravé dans le corps du ver DAO hébergé par Ethereum. Faut-il couper les anneaux du ver malade ou le tuer pour en créer un nouveau ? C’est la deuxième solution qui a été adoptée pour que les investisseurs récupèrent leur pécule, après moultes discussions « politiques », alors qu’ils partaient du principe libertarien selon lequel « le code fait loi ». Ce qui soulève des questions juridiques importantes, notamment pour définir les responsabilités dans un réseau distribué [^20] ou encore imaginer des formes de gouvernance de ce « code » qui supplante les lois des États dans certains domaines.
+
+D’autres bêtes algorithmiques sont friandes d’argent et cherchent à remplacer les humains au travail, maximisant la productivité et les coûts, et contribuant ainsi à une plus grande concentration des capitaux. Les grandes entreprises l’ont bien compris et c'est ainsi que Foxconn annonce remplacer la quasi totalité de ses salariés par un millions de robots [^21] ou que le cabinet d’avocats BakerHostetler embauche l’intelligence artificielle ROSS pour étudier plus rapidement les complexes dossiers juridiques [^22]. La « mort du travail » est annoncée [^23] mais le régime économique et social supposé le remplacer peine à poindre à l’horizon.
+
+### Qui mangent des cerveaux humains 
+
+Dernières familles identifiées dans notre bestiaire algorithmique, celles dont le fond de commerce est de remplir le cerveau humain et celles qui se chargent au contraire de l’aspirer pour mieux le remplacer. Les intelligences artificielles doivent se nourrir de bonnes données pour pouvoir supplanter les humaines dans un plus grand nombre de processus. C’est notamment ce que fait Google avec le projet reCAPTCHA [^24],ces images illisibles qu’il faut décrypter et transcrire pour faire comprendre au serveur que nous ne sommes pas des robots mais bien des humains, on passe ainsi le test de Turing à l’envers [^25]. La grande innovation avec reCAPTCHA, c’est que le fruit de vos réponses nourrit directement les intelligences artificielles en suivant l’évolution des programmes de Google: décryptage de texte pour améliorer la numérisation des livres, identification des numéros de bâtiments pour affiner la cartographie et maintenant identification des images contenant des animaux ou panneaux de signalisation pour rendre le pilote automatique de la voiture moins myope. Cumulés, les résultats sont de plus en plus pertinents et représentent des millions d’heures de travail humain [^26].
+
+Quant à l’algorithme qui contribue à nourrir notre cerveau, il est, comme son collègue collecteur de données personnelles, de plus en plus élaboré et subtil. On alimente son cerveau quotidiennement à l’aide d’un moteur de recherche qui va nous indiquer le lien le plus pertinent, l’information la plus juste, la vidéo la plus emblématique. Début 2017, dans 92,8 % des cas cela sera Google. Cela en fait un dictateur culturel dans une position hégémonique tout à fait originale (mais que font les autorités de la concurrence !?). Ne pas apparaître dès la première page de résultat, c’est comme ne pas exister. Pourtant, l’algorithme de recherche de Google est jalousement gardé en tant que secret industriel et peut juste se voir opposer un droit à l’oubli [^27].
+
+Depuis la surréaliste expérience des chercheurs du laboratoire de Facebook [^28], réalisée en 2010 sur 61 millions d’utilisateurs, pendant les élections du congrès US, on sait que le contrôle des messages de mobilisation politique a une influence directe sur le vote des personnes cobayes à leur insu, ainsi que sur celui de leurs amis et amis d’amis. Depuis, les fausses nouvelles ont abondamment chassé les bonnes sur les réseaux sociaux, venant grossir le flot de la post-vérité. De quel bord politique sont les algorithmes qui président l’affichage du contenu sur nos « murs »? Si l’on y associe trop rapidement la problématique des discours d’incitation à la haine et de harcèlement sur ces plateformes, cela place les algorithmes et leurs dresseurs en position d’ordonnateur moral d’une bonne partie de la société.
+
+On pourrait croire que pour atteindre plus rapidement le point de singularité technologique [^29], nos bêtes numériques tapies dans l’ombre s’ingénient à nous rendre serviles.
+
+La gouvernementalité algorithmique [^30] serait ce nouveau mode de gouvernement des conduites, fruit de glissements dans notre rapport à l’autre, au groupe, au monde, au sens même des choses, qui ont, grâce ou à cause, du tournant numérique, des répercussions fondamentales sur la façon dont les normes se fabriquent et fabriquent l’obéissance [^31].
+
+Quand un algorithme mange du cerveau humain, cela peut aussi provoquer la mort clinique de l’humain en question. Que dire des algorithmes qui pré-définissent des proies pour les drones tueurs, encore pilotés par des hommes et des femmes? Comment les algorithmes d’une voiture sans pilote choisissent le moindre mal / nombre de morts lorsqu’ils sont impliqués dans un accident qui va de toute façon en provoquer ? La cyberguerre plane sur nos prises réseaux, chaque pays affûte ses algorithmes pour être toujours plus sournoisement mortifère que l’ennemi.
+
+## Comment peut-on savoir si un algorithme est méchant ou gentil?
+
+Méchant algorithme que celui qui a transformé des caméras de surveillance en armada de botnets sanguinaires qui se précipitent en masse pour étrangler les serveurs? Gentil algorithme celui qui me rappelle l’anniversaire de mes amis? Pas si simple de formuler des critères considérant l’interdépendance entre l’algorithme, ses données et les intentions qui l’animent. Néanmoins, on pourrait espérer qu’un algorithme sympathique répondent à ceux-ci:
+
+-   être « auditable » et donc constitué d’un code source ouvert et documenté
+-   être « ouverts » et donc manger exclusivement des jeux de données ouverts (« open data »), complets et « moissonables » par d’autres, dont on pourrait idéalement discriminer l’accès pour rendre payant certains usages commerciaux
+-   être « loyal et équitable », n’ayant pas la capacité de provoquer des discriminations ou des injustices (d’origine sociale[^32], de genre[^33], ...), de porter atteinte aux êtres humains [^34]
+-   être « transparent [^35] » et capable de réaliser des comptes-rendus systématiques de ses opérations et évolutions s’il est doté de capacités d’apprentissage ou de prédiction, être en mesure de subir des contrôles citoyens
+-   être « altérable » et pouvoir se prêter de façon légitime à des réclamations qui peuvent engendrer des modifications dans le fonctionnement de l’algorithme.
+
+Dans cette quête de moralité algorithmique, il faut aussi évoquer les « portes », les API (pour *Application Programming Interface*), qui permettent à ces bêtes numériques d’aller chasser des données sur d’autres serveurs et services que les leurs, ou au contraire d’aller y poser des contenus, des appâts.. On peut considérer que ces APIs sont les pendants des brevets pour l’industrie, nouvelle forme de brevet logiciel anti open-source. Ces portes peuvent s’ouvrir et se fermer au gré des humeurs stratégiques de leur tenancier, ou se voir greffer un péage si le trafic d’un algo devient trop abondant, si cette monétisation devient opportune.
+
+Dans la sphère publique et celle de la société civile, on peut imaginer que les critères antérieurement introduits d´ouverture, transparence, responsabilité, modificabilite soient respectés un jour. C’est plus compliqué à imaginer dans la sphère privée / lucrative, la donnée et les algos qui la consomme étant considérés comme « le pétrole de demain » [^36] …
+
+Ainsi, un groupe de chercheurs américains et des « gros » du numérique ont tenté de formuler des « principes pour des algorithmes responsables » [^37] et se sont aussi réunis pour initier un partenariat sur l’éthique des Intelligences artificielles [^38], très bonne manière de dire aux élus et citoyens préoccupés qu’ils « anticipent et gèrent » très bien cette complexité et qu’il n’est surtout pas utile de légiférer.
+
+Pourtant, l’enjeu n’est pas d’exiger la transparence du code des algorithmes, mais celle de leurs finalités. Tant qu’elles ne se réduisent pas à de la communication commerciale, passer par la loi reste un moyen de coercition indispensable à déployer [^39].Pour se réconforter, on notera le débat participatif en France, dans le cadre de la « Loi sur la république numérique » qui a conduit à instituer un devoir de transparence pour les algorithmes utilisés par la force publique [^40], ou encore l’initiative « TransAlgo » [^41] de l’INRIA qui vise à évaluer la responsabilité et la transparence des robots logiciels.
+
+## Futurutopies algorithmiques souveraines
+
+Alors comment passer d’une bête algorithmique que l’on subit à un animal de compagnie que l’on nourrit? Compostons quelques lombrics pour dessiner les ramifications biotechnologiques qui conduiront les hommes et la technologie à vivre dans une harmonie de silice. Ou comment peut on reprendre en main nos destinées, notre autonomie mentale, notre souveraineté technologique aujourd’hui algopropulsées au firmament du contrôle social?
+
+Le code est un objet politique, tout comme ce monde « numérique » grouillant d’algobots qui s’incarnent bien dans nos réalités.
+
+En tant qu’objet politique, on peut donc s’y attaquer avec des outils classiques: militantisme et lobbying didactique auprès des pouvoirs publics, tentatives pour infléchir et abonder le processus réglementaire, valorisation d’initiatives concourant à donner plus d’autonomie et de bonheur aux êtres humains. Il peut également être opportun de revendiquer une place plus importante pour la société civile dans les instances de régulation et de normalisation de l’Internet, l’adoption d’un standard pour une technologie du réseau [^42] étant par exemple l’équivalent d’un article dans la constitution d’un pays.
+
+Au niveau individuel , il faut sans nul doute « dégoogliser » Internet [^43], c’est à dire, à l’instar de ce que propose l’association Framasoft, s’appuyer sur des hébergeurs de services autonomes, transparents, ouverts, neutres et solidaires (cf. initiative CHATONS [^44]), ou pourquoi pas s’autohéberger [^45] sur un mini-serveur peu gourmand. On peut aussi tenter de se camoufler en utilisant le chiffrement de bout en bout, ce qui n’est pas toujours simplement adaptable et adoptable (PGP et les mails…) selon les cas de figure, on peut alors avoir recours au brouillage en tentant de noyer la « vraie » donnée dans des données factices mais crédibles qu’un algorithme complice nous fournirait en abondance.
+
+Du coté des pouvoirs publics, il y a du travail, la voie de la transparence éthique est ouverte, il ne reste plus qu’à les y pousser fermement. Il faut certes adopter aujourd’hui une coupe de cheveux et un maquillage [^46] bien étrange pour échapper aux systèmes de reconnaissance faciale [^47], au fichage biométrique, à la mise en relation des bases de données publiques, et les dérives numériques de l’état d’urgence désormais permanent nous invitent à ne pas mettre tous nos octets dans le même panier.
+
+On peut aussi tout à fait prendre le parti de nourrir ces algoIAs avec des étrons, à l’instar de ces utilisateurs de Twitter qui ont réussi en moins d’une journée à transformer l’IA de Microsoft TAY en sauvageonne sexiste, raciste pro-Hitler [^48] … Imaginons plutôt élever de petits algoponeys qui viendrait déclamer, d’une ondulation de leur crinière arc-en-ciel sur fond de prairies verdoyantes de données, que « l’amitié c’est magique! ».
+
+Mièvreries mises à part, il faut peut-être également intercaler un intermédiaire informatique, un « proxy » entre nous, nos données, et les acteurs publics et privés qui les accueillent. Cet intermédiaire pourrait héberger confortablement Eliza [^49], mon intelligence artificielle strictement personnelle qui se nourrit de mon activités et de mes préférences pour m’aider au mieux à partager mes données et contenus, en les anonymisant, en les donnant à des organismes publics dans une logique d’intérêt général, en les chiffrant ou les brouillant pour échanger avec mes amis qui n’arrivent pas à quitter les réseaux sociaux commerciaux. Distribuées dans la poche de chacun, les IA personnelles pourraient rentrer en symbiose, avec l’accord de leurs tuteurs, pour raconter à l’humanité des micro-fictions adaptées au contexte politique et culturel, afin de construire des réalités harmonieuses où cohabiteront en paix les algorithmes, les humains, la nature et le monde inorganique.
+
+[^1]: Ce titre fais référence au livre de Cathy O’Neil. *Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy*. Crown, 6 septembre 2016.
+
+[^2]: In this Isaac Asimov futuristic novel, the United States has converted to an "electronic democracy" where the computer Multivac selects a single person to answer a number of questions. Multivac will then use the answers and other data to determine what the results of an election would be, avoiding the need for an actual election to be held. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_%28short_story%29
+
+[^3]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestiaire
+
+[^4]: Cardon, Dominique: *A quoi rêvent les algorithmes: Nos vies à l’heure des big data*. Le Seuil, 2015.
+
+[^5]: Morozov, Evgeny, et Pascale Haas. *Le mirage numérique: Pour une politique du Big Data*. Les Prairies Ordinaires, 2015.
+
+[^6]: https://centenaire-shannon.cnrs.fr/chapter/la-theorie-de-information
+
+[^7]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28programme_de_surveillance%29
+
+[^8]: Terry Gilliam: *Brazil* (1985) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/
+
+[^9]: Cathy O’Neil. *Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy*. Crown, 6 septembre 2016
+
+[^10]: Quelques jours après, il stipule à Peterfly que les ordres doivent être impérativement saisis sur le clavier du terminal et lui donne une semaine pour débrancher l’IBM. Dans ce laps de temps, celui-ci va embaucher des ingénieurs et construire un oeil-caméra qui lit l’écran, envoie les informations au cerveau IBM auquel on a greffé des mains électromécaniques qui peuvent saisir les ordres sur le clavier du terminal Nasdaq.
+
+[^11]: Sniper In Mahwah: Anthropology, market structure & the nature of exchanges. https://sniperinmahwah.wordpress.com/
+
+[^12]: Le Flash Crash du 6 mai 2010 analysé par Nanex: http://www.nanex.net/20100506/FlashCrashAnalysis_Intro.html et https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1xqSZy9_4I
+
+[^13]: Laumonier Alexandre. 5/6. Zones Sensibles Editions, 2014. http://www.zones-sensibles.org/livres/6-5/
+
+[^14]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/04/23/syrian-hackersclaim-ap-hack-that-tipped-stock-market-by-136-billion-is-it-terrorism/
+
+[^15]: Cette bête est tellement gourmande (une opération lui demande autant d’électricité qu’un foyer américain moyen pendant un jour et demi), qu’elle vit principalement en Chine et est maintenant très lente. https://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-is-unsustainable
+
+[^16]: https://marmelab.com/blog/2016/04/28/blockchain-for-web-developers-thetheory.html
+
+[^17]: Capitalisation et mouvements quotidiens des crypto-monnaies. https://coinmarketcap.com/
+
+[^18]: https://www.ethereum.org/
+
+[^19]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_%28organization%29
+
+[^20]: Ethereum: Freenet or Skynet? Primavera De Filippi, Berkman Center Fellow. https://cyber.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2014/04/difilippi
+
+[^21]: https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/30/14128870/foxconn-robots-automation-appleiphone-china-manufacturing
+
+[^22]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/05/16/meet-ross-thenewly-hired-legal-robot/
+
+[^23]: Bernard Stiegler. *La Société automatique. L'avenir du travail*. Fayard, 2015. http://www.philomag.com/les-livres/fiche-de-lecture/la-societe-automatique-1lavenir-du-travail-11454
+
+[^24]: https://www.google.com/recaptcha/intro/index.html
+
+[^25]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
+
+[^26]: https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/techflash/2015/01/massachusettswomans-lawsuit-accuses-google-of.html
+
+[^27]: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf
+
+[^28]: A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3834737/
+
+[^29]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularit%C3%A9_technologique
+
+[^30]: Antoinette Rouvroy et Thomas Berns. "Gouvernementalité algorithmique et perspectives d'émancipation: le disparate comme condition d'individuation par la relation?" Politique des algorithmes. Les métriques du web. *RESEAUX*, Vol.31, n.177, pp. 163-196 (2013). https://works.bepress.com/antoinette_rouvroy/47/
+
+[^31]: ifapa.me est un collectif dédié à la recherche et la subversion des effets de la mathématisation et de la quantification de la vie quotidienne dans les sociétés nécrocapitalistes. http://www.ifapa.me/
+
+[^32]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/big-data-may-be-reinforcing-racialbias-in-the-criminal-justice-system/2017/02/10/d63de518-ee3a-11e6-9973c5efb7ccfb0d_story.html?utm_term=.b7f5ab5df1f9
+
+[^33]: https://www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/algorithmic-discrimination-andfeminist-politics
+
+[^34]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trois_lois_de_la_robotique
+
+[^35]: http://internetactu.blog.lemonde.fr/2017/01/21/peut-on-armer-la-transparencede-linformation/
+
+[^36]: Documentaire « Le secret des 7 soeurs ». https://secretdes7soeurs.blogspot.fr/
+
+[^37]: https://www.fatml.org/resources/principles-for-accountable-algorithms
+
+[^38]: https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2016/09/28/intelligence-artificielleles-geants-du-web-lancent-un-partenariat-sur-l-ethique_5005123_4408996.html
+
+[^39]: https://www.internetactu.net/2016/03/16/algorithmes-et-responsabilites/
+
+[^40]: https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/actualites/A11502
+
+[^41]: https://www-direction.inria.fr/actualite/actualites-inria/transalgo
+
+[^42]: The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF®) https://www.ietf.org/
+
+[^43]: https://degooglisons-internet.org/
+
+[^44]: https://chatons.org/
+
+[^45]: https://yunohost.org/
+
+[^46]: https://cvdazzle.com/
+
+[^47]: https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2016/10/19/inquietudes-autour-de-lareconnaissance-faciale-aux-etats-unis_5016364_4408996.html
+
+[^48]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/24/tay-microsofts-ai-chatbotgets-a-crash-course-in-racism-from-twitter
+
+[^49]: http://elizagen.org/
+

or/content/04gamification.md

@@ -0,0 +1,362 @@
+
+# Digital governance
+
+**Ippolita**
+
+![](../../contrib/gfx/illustrations/digital-governance-halfsize.png)
+
+## Once upon a time...
+
+There was a city on the shores of a mountain lake.  The city was very dirty
+because people threw the waste in the streets; the water ended up in the lake,
+which became polluted and smelly.  More stringent laws were enacted, but
+nothing happened despite reprimands and fines; even jail proved
+ineffective.  The people had become accustomed to malpractice, they had become
+addicted to the stench of open sewers and toxic fumes of burning garbage
+heaps.  Every remedy miserably failed.  Those who could not bear the situation
+any more had packed up and run – others were simply resigned.  After all, they
+thought, that even if they would act as they should, as the others would
+continue to misbehave, it was not worth doing anything.
+
+Then, one day, a manager arrived in town.  He proposed to help solve the
+situation, but only if the city government entrusted him full powers in the
+matter.  If something went wrong, if citizenship complained, they would give
+him the heave-ho.  So he obtained a total delegation.  The manager turned
+entrepreneur and his technical people put many trash baskets in place and
+announced a fantastic waste collection game.  Anyone could participate: just
+follow the rules for separate waste collection and you could win amazing
+prizes.
+
+It worked so well that after a few months the city was clean.  But now public
+transport was in crisis.  Wild parking.  Unsafe roads.  And there was no public
+money available.  The manager turned entrepreneur and obtained carte blanche to
+handle the other sectors in difficulty.  He had the citizens registered with
+full name and address on his social platform.  On it they accounted word for
+word what they were doing, and what their friends and acquaintances did, and
+people around them.   These and many other actions allowed to enter special
+ranks; players who distinguished themselves could level up, and gain access to
+new exciting rewards thanks to their statuses.  A sophisticated system made
+that you could accumulate credits in the form of digital currency on accounts
+managed by the entrepreneur's various companies.  The list of wrongful actions
+was continuously updated.  Reporting an illegal action by a neighbour, for
+example, entitled the informer to three minutes of free shopping at one of the
+entrepreneur's supermarkets; five minutes if it was an information about a
+first-time offender.  Digital currency credits replaced traditional money
+within the city.  Every interaction could be quantified based on credit, that
+you could buy and sell: the entrepreneur's bank took only a small percentage
+of each exchange.
+
+The city government was dissolved.  In its place came a technical governance by
+the manager, run as a private organization, which resulted in a great saving
+in terms of time, money and energy.  The city quickly became a model for the
+whole world.  Professionals came from far away to study the miracle.  Everyone
+agreed on the most notable feature of the set-up – the true realization of
+heaven on earth – that there was no need to think or to choose, since a
+magnificent system of notifications was continuously informing all the players
+about the next moves to be made in order to gain a reputation.  The few
+dissident voices claimed that the players were acting like automatically
+pre-programmed machines, but as an initially sceptical citizen confessed, he
+finally really felt free for the first time in his life.  No one wanted to go
+back to a time when they were in the grip of uncertainty and doubt about what
+they should choose.
+
+And so everyone was trained and lived happy thereafter.
+
+## Gamification
+
+This story is meant to illustrate the main elements of “gamification”, one of
+the implementation formats of digital governance systems.  Its basic mechanism
+is very simple: everything that can be described as a problem is converted
+into a game, or, rather, in a game pattern.  Repeating an action deemed correct
+is encouraged by way of rewards, credits, access to a higher (hierarchical)
+level, publication in charts or records.  Seen from a regulatory point of view,
+this means that instead of sanctioning infractions, compliance with the rules
+is rewarded.  The outcome is a system of norms which is self-conforming and
+positive, with no ethical dimension, since the valuation of any behaviour, its
+axiology, is determined by the system, and not by a personal and/or collective
+reflection on the action itself.  Gamification stands for the society of
+performance [^1].
+
+Loyalty incentives, such as fidelity programs for consumers, for voters, for
+subjects, have been known for centuries.  However, the pervasiveness of
+interactive digital connection systems opens new scenarios for mass training
+techniques.  With it, cognitive delegation morphs into the delegation of social
+organization.  Automated interaction procedures are refined by capitalizing on
+the way users handle their personal digital tools.  Invidiously, participation
+in the construction of shared worlds turns into behavioural drill.
+
+Our intention is obviously not to argue for a return to repressive
+systems.   Prohibition and ensuing repression typically triggers a deepening of
+the desire for transgression and therefore amounts to a negative reinforcement
+mechanism.  Prohibition never works.  Yet, conversely, not all that glitters is
+gold with a positive reinforcement system.  Anyone who has dealt with children
+knows that rewards are more effective than “teaching them a lesson”.   But then
+one often comes to realize that once the kid gets “hooked” to the award they
+will want an ever bigger prize, and that there's no way anything is going to
+happen unless an even greater accolade can be anticipated.  So often a positive
+reinforcement system reverts into a punitive system, which reveals itself as
+being merely the opposite of an equivalent system based on rewards.
+
+But education in itself has preciously little to do with compliance with a
+given rules, and is has also nothing to do with obedience.  The same old
+Socrates, in wanting to educate young people for citizenship by example, did
+not only break the rules, but he invited others to be disobedient and follow
+their own “Daimon” (daemon, the “inner voice”).  Algorithmic “education” is
+nothing else than drill training, and leads to servitude.  Although in
+appearance it can produce good results in terms of measurable performance, it
+certainly does not induce independence, autonomy or responsibility.
+
+
+## Pleasure
+
+The line between learning and training is razor thin.  The main factor comes
+down to the organic chemical which plays a central role in learning and
+responding to positive reinforcement stimuli: dopamine (or more technically
+“3,4-dihydroxyphenethylamine”), a neurotransmitter that runs through the
+neural paths of our brain.  To simplify what is an extremely complex mechanism,
+we can say that the sense of gratification and reward we experience when we
+manage to learn something is connected to a release of dopamine.  In general,
+the performance of enjoyable activities in the psycho-physiological realm
+(drinking, eating, having sex, getting appreciation, empathy, etc.)
+corresponds to an increased concentration of this neurotransmitter.  The same
+applies, by the way, to the use of drugs.
+
+Learning in all its forms, even in physiological activities, requires effort,
+care and attention.  Reading is tiresome, just as is assimilating any new
+skill.  To attain a satisfactory level with psycho-physiological activities
+requires effort.  The simplest and less costly way to raise the levels of
+dopamine and hence to experience pleasure is to complete a task, or to perform
+a given procedure, again and again.  Repetition, iteration of a given behaviour
+is the formula.  It works as a short-cut.
+
+The emotional development processes take place in the limbic system, the
+central and oldest part of the brain.  It indicates the presence or the
+prospect of rewards or punishments to promote the activation of motor
+programmes aimed at giving pleasure or avoid pain.  Addictive drugs operate
+exactly the same way and in the same brain region, causing feelings of
+pleasure.  Once established neuronal connections get increasingly strengthened,
+thereby losing in plasticity.  This kind of connective stiffening corresponds
+to a decreased ability to relax the state of pleasant neuronal excitation
+caused by dopamine: in more technical terms, it occurs by way of a long-term
+impairment of the synaptic pathways that connect neurons.  Such trails become
+like paved roads in our brains, and it takes truckloads of dopamine to feel
+pleasure.  At each step, the necessary dose has to be increased.  This explains
+why drill is so effective, and why it generates addiction.  The desire for
+pleasure related to an automatism, which amounts to compulsive behaviour,
+makes us enter into a repetitive loop getting out of which becomes
+increasingly difficult because the neural pathways that are always excited,
+will not be able to do anything else but get more and more powerful with the
+passage of time: beat-rhythm-repetition.
+
+The user touches the device.  Not once, but many times.  From all the touches -
+every touch is a beat - comes the rhythm, which is repeated in many
+interactions with the device.  Habitual behaviour is manifested in a cycle.
+
+
+
+## Give us our game back!
+
+We need to approach the concept of cognitive ergonomics (from ancient Greek
+“ergon – nomos”, “rules of the labor”): thanks to the digital media, we can
+lower our cognitive load and, for example, and delegate to some device the
+task of remembering all the dates and numbers of our agenda.  A very useful
+support, kind of indispensable - almost.  We did not need any tuition to be
+able to use the phone directory in print.  Or even our telephone for that
+matter, or how to manage our contacts on a social platform.  Maybe we had at
+times to ask some geek type among our friends.  We probably don't have a clue
+how all this stuff works, but the main thing is that we are able to do with it
+what we want.  And to do this, we will have to perform a series of repetitive
+actions, or retrace a procedure.  We go by what is in the interface and follow
+the obvious traces of the algorithmic procedure laid down by others for us.
+
+The organization of our cognitive system is mainly based on intuitive
+faculties and reasoning.  Entrusting ourselves to intuition, we only interpret
+a context through mental schemes that are already part of our non-conscious
+mnemonic luggage.  Cognitive and computational effort is minimal, since we do
+not think about what we're doing.  We act automatically.  Reasoning instead
+requires substantial cognitive effort, we must dwell on a problem, make
+hypotheses, follow a sequence which requires a slow pace and full
+involvement.  Intuition allows us to act and to use a tool without being able
+to explain its operation, while the reasoning can make us able to explain
+exactly how something works without necessary being able to use it.  A virtuosa
+violin player may have no idea how her muscles work, but she can use them to
+perfection.  Conversely, we may be able to describe the steps to drive a
+tractor theoretically by reading a manual, without being able to actually
+drive it.
+
+Declarative memory (knowing what, knowing something) is distinct from
+procedural memory (knowing how, knowing a procedure).  All the activities we
+carry out automatically involve procedural memory.  When we act intuitively we
+refer to the procedures we learned in the past, acting out the strategy which
+seems the most appropriate for the successful completion of the task at
+hand.  We do not need to think.  It is a question of ecology of resources, like
+not wasting valuable computational energy to think about how to ride a bike if
+you already know how to ride it.  But when there is no match with our previous
+experiences, we must refer to reason and analyze environmental conditions
+before acting: if a tire is flat, we try to take it apart and fix it.  But if
+we can't manage, we have to ask for help, or tinker with it otherwise, and
+create a fresh, not yet applied procedure.
+
+In general, using a digital medium, e.g.  a web interface, on an ongoing, daily
+basis, means to gradually learn to use it automatically.  And as these
+interfaces are designed to give the most user-friendly, intuitive
+“experience”, it is easy to see how, through the creation of mental patterns,
+one can say that we use them “without thinking”.  Even if we switch to a
+different make of cellphone while using the same applications, suffices to
+identify its icons to go back to the automatic mode, and type in without
+looking at the keypad.
+
+Once trained, the mind is able to repeat one the particular, earlier internal
+simulations of the action that we want to complete: intuitive ability is
+therefore the ability to simulate a known procedure and acting it out
+automatically.  This automatism coincides with the execution of the
+procedure.  From there springs most of the apparent misunderstandings regarding
+the educational benefits of the use of digital devices, and about cognitive
+differences allegedly existing between “digital natives” and later adopters.  A
+good illustration is provided by the fact that smartphones and tablets are
+used in the rehabilitation of patients suffering from neuro-degenerative
+afflictions such as semantic dementia.  In their case, since procedural memory
+is the only kind of memory left to them, patients are able to master several
+functions and use the devices on a daily basis without problems even though
+they are otherwise unable to remember very simple notions.
+
+“Digital natives” is in itself not a very valid concept, people born in the
+television age also can become proficient computer users, interact socially
+and engage in interpersonal relationships mediated by digital devices, and
+find experiencing and participating in multimedia interconnected realities
+more interesting than the “disconnected” everyday life.  All moderately
+intelligent human beings can become “digital natives”.  A human brain is very
+plastic and it modifies itself very quickly when learning procedures, and this
+is especially the case with gamification related procedures.  But then, this
+does not mean that people are consequently able to comprehend, interpret,
+analyze, rewrite or teach the procedural mechanisms they themselves repeat
+routinely!
+
+The more or less deep dive into a virtual reality penetrating our organic body
+through the optic nerves generates a detachment to our environment and a
+selective inattention to non-visual stimuli, as well as being addictive.  And
+breaking away from the screen, after passing hours that have seemed to be
+minutes, can be felt as a real ache.  Give us the game back, even for a moment,
+just a moment, it was so fun! It is such a cool separation from the body.
+Here, it is the passage of time which constitutes the fundamental parameter to
+identify the different types of interaction.  When we are not aware the passing
+of time, we are probably in a phase of flow [^2], of procedural immersion.  We
+are living in a current, immediate cycle of interaction, an extremely
+addictive experience, which we would like never to end.  When on the contrary
+time is perceived as linear, with experiential stages we are aware of, and
+which we are able to stratify, to store and to recall later, we find ourselves
+in a time of sequential learning and of applying declarative memory.
+
+By now, video games have become a fundamental part of the life of millions of
+people, who together spend billions of hours playing on or off-line.  In terms
+of turn-over, the video game industry has overtaken all other branches of the
+entertainment industry: developing a successful video game, for instance a
+MMOG (Massively Multiplayer Online Game), in which participants connect
+simultaneously to play in a world that they create together, can be more
+expensive, and then turn out to be more profitable, than to produce a
+Hollywood blockbuster.  Of course video games are not all the same but the vast
+majority are designed to induce flow.  Besides bolstering the dopamine circuit,
+they can act on the release of oxytocin, which modulate fear and anxiety and
+induces prosocial behaviour, and has an effect on many other neurotransmitters
+and hormones.
+
+Many video games are made following the prescriptions of behaviourism, and in
+particular the format of the Skinner box game, designed by the American
+psychologist Burrhus Frederic Skinner [^3] in his experiments with rats and
+pigeons in the 1930s.  Skinner developed a method of learning called operant
+conditioning.  A particular type of behaviour will be prompted more
+successfully, even in the case of humans, by way of rewards granted in a
+non-automatic way.  Thus, a rat will receives food if it presses a button, but
+not always.  Training is more effective in that buttons will be pressed down
+more frequently if the positive reinforcement is not automatic, but possible
+or probable.  A common example with humans is provided by gamblers at slot
+machines almost everywhere: players know that they will not always win, if
+ever, yet they continue to chip in, because the operant conditioning (“I can
+win”) is more powerful than immediate frustration (“I did not win this
+time”).  Behavioural training is perhaps the greatest deceit in gamification,
+and it is standard to video games and in fact, any other type of game.
+
+The interaction with digital media needs not necessarily to be limited to a
+mere self-training, an exercise in procedural memory and simultaneous
+intelligence or intuition.  Hacking, the art to “put your hands on”, to take
+over the operation of a complex operating system (hard- or software), to tweak
+it and alter its functioning at will certainly also appeals to the senses.  Yet
+remaining dazed and (not) confused in front of a screen for a classic and self
+destructive “flying to Australia” session of 24 hours or more, until the
+body/mind collapses of exhaustion is a typical example of system-induced
+self-destructive behaviour abusing the self-reinforcing dopamine cycle making
+people forget their own organic body.
+
+Thus we strongly aim to and advocate to a conscious and balanced back and
+forth between various forms of intelligence and memory.  Care of the self
+starts with a careful observation of personal interactions, with listening to
+personal inclinations, this with the aim to be able to find the pace to suit
+us, and to be able to set our own rules.  In other words, to create our own
+interactive “liturgy”.
+
+## From self-defense to hacker convivial pedagogy
+
+We do not want to give up on the game, to give up the pleasure of playing
+together.  Indeed, we think that learning by playing is one of the finest ways
+to genuinely layer our experiences, to make them part of us.  “Hands on” be our
+motto: for the pleasure of tinkering with machines, tweaking devices and
+systems, and doing it together, this is is the real joy.  This activity in the
+first person, this pleasant interaction (some erotic thrill must be part of
+the game!) is a pre-condition of happiness for a hacker playing with
+technological tools.
+
+In the course of our “s-gamificazione” workshops (de-gamification) we have
+developed a simple methodology to move towards a convivial pedagogy, playing
+with the machines we like.  But then, we first have to get rid of the
+automatisms that reduce us to mere cogs of the corporate megamachines.  To us,
+digital self-defense means above all to drop the habit of re-acting to
+gamification stimuli.   As a start we have to change our habits in a conscious
+way.
+
+It is not possible here to give an account of a typical workshop, because
+there is no such thing as a typical workshop.  In our experience every group of
+people and every situation turns out to be radically different from any
+other.  Also, very personal issues frequently come to the fore, and it is
+essential to keep these within the protected area of the group, away from the
+limelight.  Thus we have tried to abstract the basic steps and elements of our
+workshops in order to give an account that runs as one and the same story, yet
+retold in many different ways.
+
+The first step is to acknowledge the fact that we are immersed in interactive
+environments shaped by automatic devices we did not choose and which do not
+necessarily make us feel good.
+
+The second step is to observe ourselves acting as if we were strangers, with
+weird habits – to look at ourselves in the shape of strange animals waiting
+anxiously for that message, getting irritated if it doesn't appear, getting
+elated by a like, bouncing when a notification pops up ...
+
+Once we have identified the automatism (stimulus-response) that make us behave
+in a certain way, we focus the attention on the emotional changes that result
+from them.  Anger, joy, sadness, excitement, impatience, envy, fear and many
+other emotions manifest themselves constantly, often in combination.  There
+obviously exists an interactive design of emotion of which we are unaware.
+
+The third step is to tell others, to people we trust, what we have discovered
+about ourselves, about our behaviours.  This way we are not disclosing facts
+about ourselves on public notice boards owned by multinational corporation.  On
+the contrary, we choose our own dedicated spaces and times to bring out the
+masks that enliven our personal interactive liturgy.  The bundles of emotions
+which makes us take the character of an undecided person, or of a braggart, or
+of a shy individual, of a competent expert, and of many other possible types
+represents what has settled down in our individuality - without us
+noticing.  Up to that point the positions “we answer like that” and “we act
+like this” - show us how much we have become enslaved to our own induced
+behaviors.
+
+Finally, the fourth step is to compare our stories with those of others.  Very
+often we find that our compulsive habits are very much similar to those of our
+peers, but we also discover that there exists a great many ways to make a
+change – as long as we do really want it.
+
+[^1]: “The Performance Society”, in Ippolita, In the Facebook Aquarium, INC, Amsterdam, 2015, p.  23.
+
+[^2]: Flow, or in the zone / in the groove.  See Mihály Csíkszentmihály, Flow: the Psychology of optimal experience, Harper & Row, New York 1990.
+
+[^3]: A brief introduction can be found in S. A. McLeod: Skinner: Operant Conditioning. 2015. https://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html The classic work is B. F. Skinner: Science and human behavior. 1953. http://www.bfskinner.org/newtestsite/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ScienceHumanBehavior.pdf
+

or/content/05irc.md

@@ -0,0 +1,423 @@
+# Keeping technological sovereignty
+
+## The case of Internet Relay Chat
+
+![](../../contrib/gfx/illustrations/irc-halfsize.png)
+
+***Maxigas***
+
+**New technologies sometimes manifest a critique of the existing
+conditions, but their empowering affordances are often lost as their
+features are progressively integrated to the requirements of capitalism
+during their subsequent development.** The history of chat devices is a
+textbook example of critique and recuperation in technological cycles.
+However, the social history and contemporary use of IRC (Internet Relay
+Chat) proves that such historical logic can be – and *is* – resisted in
+some exceptional cases. This case study does *not* necessarily recommend
+IRC as a medium of communication for activists, but rather seeks to put
+forward some theses on the history of technology that could be found
+useful in certain situations. [^1]
+
+*The systematic study of historical cases may contribute to the
+refinement of a taste for critical technology adoption practices in
+communities who wish to keep control over the technologies that mediate
+their social relations.* An appreciation of critique and recuperation in
+technological cycles may help to further technological sovereignty
+(Haché 2014) over longer time frames, where local efforts could
+potentially become part of capitalist regimes of oppression and
+exploitation over time. A corollary observation is that technical
+features may result in crucially different technological affordances
+depending on their context of use: this shows that pure techniques
+should never be promoted or rejected in themselves.
+
+Internet Relay Chat
+===================
+
+**Internet Relay Chat is a very basic but very flexible protocol for
+real time written conversations.** It has been first implemented in
+1988, one year before the World Wide Web. IRC reached the height of its
+popularity as a general purpose social media during the first Gulf War
+and the siege of Sarajevo (1992-1996). At this time it performed various
+functions that were later fulfilled by specialised programs and
+platforms, such as dating, following friends or file sharing. *As the
+population of the Internet grew and market consolidation set it on the
+turn of the millennium, IRC faded from the public view.*
+
+However, it is known from seminal studies of contemporary peer
+production communities that **FLOSS [^2] developers** (Coleman 2012),
+**hackerspace members** (Maxigas 2015), **Wikipedia editors** (Broughton
+2008) and **Anonymous hacktivists** (Dagdelen 2012) use primarily IRC
+for everyday backstage communication. While the first group has always
+been on IRC, the latter three adopted it after the apparent demise of
+the medium. **“Why these contemporary user groups – widely considered as
+disruptive innovators and early adopters – stick to a museological chat
+technology despite its obvious limitations within the current
+technological landscape?”** Currently popular social networking
+platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, offer similar features and
+appear to be a more obvious choice. *I propose that while IRC use can
+seem retrograde, it is actually a critical technology adoption practice
+that empirically evades, and analytically highlights the pitfalls of
+mainstream social media monopolies.*
+
+Recuperation
+============
+
+*Critique and recuperation in technological cycles* is a process of
+integrating societal demands into the capitalist system. New
+technologies sometimes embody a demand for a better society and a
+critique of the existing conditions. While such demands are typically
+addressed by subsequent versions of the same technology, the same
+technology is also made to conform to the two main requirements of the
+capitalist system. These latter two are *the preservation of social
+peace (i.e. repression), and the intensification of exploitation (i.e.
+capital accumulation)*. It often happens that the implementation of
+these two requirements neutralises the societal gains from the demand
+originally associated with the technology.
+
+One aspect or form of recuperation is *commodification*. Commodification
+is when something at some point becomes a commodity to be brought and
+sold on the market. Commodification targets *authentic* things, which
+are often already perceived to be valuable – for instance as a moral
+good – but not yet recognised as an object of monetary exchange. The
+loss of authenticity through commodification produces *anxiety* in
+consumers, which can be diagnosed as the affective trace of capital’s
+violence.
+
+<!-- To summarise, *critique* addresses a social problem as a demand.  *Recuperation* is the implementation of the demand, but in the same movement also the transformation of the technological context in a way that neutralises the critique.  The requirements that the implementation of the demand has to paradoxically fulfil are (a.) keeping *social peace* (repression) constant while (b.) increasing *exploitation* (capital accumulation).  *Commodification* is an aspect or mode of recuperation that often happens in technological cycles.  Commodification targets *authentic* goods which are outside of the market, and integrates them into the circulation of commodities.  *Anxiety* is the byproduct of commodification as the affective trace of capital’s violence. -->
+Histories
+=========
+
+**Recuperation as a historical logic can be seen at work in a wide range
+of technologies, from the history of chat to the development of personal
+computing.** The personal computer was the material expression – or
+functional implementation – of countercultural ideals of personal
+freedom in the 1970s (Markoff 2005; Turner 2006; Zandbergen 2011). The
+first PCs were constructed by hobbyists, most famously around the
+Homebrew Computer Club, but just as well by their counterparts in less
+hyped places such as Yugoslavia by people like Voja Antonić (Antonić
+2014). Their ideal of *general computing* for everybody was realised to
+a considerable extent in rich countries, where PCs became available on
+the civilian market as household goods in the 1980s. Companies whose
+CEOs sometimes grew up in the Homebrew scene, such as Apple Inc. and the
+Microsoft Corporation lead this transformation, with considerable
+support from governments who were convinced by the revolutionary myth of
+computing legitimised by counterculturalist visions. PCs were
+interconnected through open standards to form the Internet. While in the
+1990s few users built their own hardware any more, FLOSS allowed full
+control over their software.
+
+The history of the next cycle of personal communication devices – the
+mobile phones – is in contrast a purely corporate history, culminating
+in the smartphone. The smartphone, in turn, is far removed from the
+ideal of user-controlled general computing. Mobile networks are based on
+protocols whose details are trade secrets; SIM cards which run an
+operating system remotely controlled by the vendor, and even the popular
+Android FLOSS ecosystem is tightly coupled to Google Inc. services.
+While mobiles reach 100% of the global population and thus realised the
+demand of personal computing for everyone (IANS 2013), the ideals of
+general computing and user control that provided the rationale for
+personal computing have been inversed (Doctorow 2011).
+
+**Chat devices** answered a basic human need to discuss arbitrary topics
+informally in a real time environment, in a coffee-house public manner
+where strangers can band together but there is also possibility for
+one-to-one private conversations. After a long and parallel history of
+chat devices, in the 1990s they consolidated into IRC. The next
+generation of chat devices were *Instant Messengers* (Maxigas 2014). On
+the backend (Stalder 2013), IMs used proprietary protocols and
+centralised infrastructures, instead of the community defined protocols
+of IRC and its federated model. On the frontend (Stalder 2013), IMs were
+organised around private conversations, in stark contrast with IRC’s
+concept of topical channels (itself taken from Citizens’ Band – CB –
+radio). Later, as the World Wide Web took off, chat features were
+integrated into Web 2.0 *social media platforms*.
+
+Eventually, *surveillance* came to be the key means for both maintaining
+social peace and deepening exploitation on social media platforms. [^3]
+Everyday, informal, even intimate gestures are captured and stored,
+sorted and mined for the purposes of both targeted advertising and
+targeted repression. Such revenue is indispensable to the capital
+accumulation mechanisms of a growing section of capital, while the
+intelligence gained by authorities who share access to the information
+flows is essential to the maintenance of social order in both
+dictatorships *and* democracies. For instance, surveillance –
+technically based on the analysis of log files – accounted for 89% of
+Google’s profit in 2014 (Griffith 2015). [^4] All this hinges on
+successful *platformisation*: the ability of a vendor to install
+themselves as an obligatory passage point for generally mundane and
+often minuscule social interactions (Gillespie 2010). The kind of
+digital milieus where average Internet users chit-chat nowadays have
+been variously described by scholars as *enclosures*, *walled gardens*
+and *social media monopolies* (Lovink and Rasch 2013).
+
+The anxiety experienced by users stems from the fact that a supposedly
+informal space of social interaction is mediated by capital and overseen
+by the state, through mechanisms that seem obscure, arbitrary and
+partial from below. One can remember that the two defining
+characteristics of a healthy *civil society* that can support
+technological sovereignty are its independence from capital and
+separation from the state (Haché 2014). It is *privacy* in a structural
+and collective sense that can be reclaimed through technological
+sovereignty initiatives, but only through the continuous struggle of
+users for taking the technological mediation of their social life into
+their own hands.
+
+Notably, neither chat (Latzko-Toth 2010) nor personal computing (Levy
+1984) were “inventions” in the sense that a good idea was implemented
+and socialised through commodity circulation. Both found a foothold in
+the market only after a relatively long period where fringe elements
+fought for them, often breaking existing laws, regulations and social
+norms. Society then slowly tamed these technologies – and now they are
+used to pacify society itself.
+
+Backlogs
+========
+
+**Logs are consecutive lines of texts that record events and
+interactions, from logging in a service to a piece of conversation
+between hitting the Send button.**
+
+As a Human-Computer Interaction limitation
+------------------------------------------
+
+*IRC is different from many other chat devices in that users can only
+follow conversations as long as they are logged in.* If a particular
+user is not online, there is no way to contact her. Conversely, when a
+user logs back to a channel, she has no idea what she missed while she
+was offline. Due to the flexibility of the medium, there are many
+workarounds for the lack of backlogs, but the fundamental fact remains
+that solving this problem is out of scope of the IRC protocol. Network
+operators could solve the problem if they wanted, but in practice users
+are – literally – left to their own devices.
+
+As a classic affordance
+-----------------------
+
+When IRC was conceived (1988), the lack of backlogs was not a
+particularly unique property of IRC. The feature was absent from several
+other chat devices. However, by the end of the decade it took on a
+particular significance. **The lack of backlogs allowed IRC to keep up
+with the radical increase of Internet users and *become a mass media of
+its own***. In the 1990s IRC was the most popular dating application
+before dating websites went online, music sharing software before the
+rise and fall of Napster, [^5] and micro-blogging service before Twitter
+cashed in on hashtags. Users saw nothing geeky or techie in IRC: it was
+as quotidian as the ubiquitous GeoCities [^6] home pages.
+
+In the beginning of the 1990s it was usual practice for the Internet
+community to run popular services on a volunteer basis, or for
+institutions to contribute to the running costs of public
+infrastructures. However, by the end of the decade the dot-com
+bubble [^7] was in full swing and users flooded the networks, so that
+operating media comparable to the popularity of IRC was serious
+business. While purveyors of various other services had to look for a
+business model in order to ensure the sustainability of their
+operations, IRC operators did not need to commodify their services. Why?
+
+Because keeping track of backlogs for each user would mean that resource
+utilisation scaled exponentially with the number of users, whereas if
+the server only broadcasts new lines as they arrive and then forgets
+about them, connecting more users results in little overhead. This is
+more or less true for both processing power and storage capacity: the
+two essential computing costs to be taken into account when operating
+services. Similarly, keeping backlogs would increase the complexity of
+server software, translating into increased costs in terms of
+development and administration work hours.
+
+How these factors played out historically was that workers at Internet
+Service Providers or academic outlets could just let a spare server
+running in the corner, without having to justify the expenses to funders
+or answering too many questions from their superiors. Under-the-counter
+IRC hosting can be thought of as the détournement of fixed capital by
+users, rather than the recuperation of users’ demands by capital.
+
+An anecdote illustrates the relationship of IRC to the burgeoning IT
+industry. It was already 1996 when Microsoft included an IRC client in the
+default installation of its popular Windows operating system, taking note of
+IRC’s mainstream appeal. (Kurlander, Skelly, and Salesin 1996) In the first
+major attempt to recuperate IRC, the software was developed by the company’s
+Artificial Intelligence research unit, and the application connected
+automatically to the company’s own IRC servers. (Latzko-Toth 2010) Ironically,
+the Comic Chat IRC interface was never popular with users, and the only
+artifact that went down in history from the whole enterprise was the Comic
+Sans font, which is still the laughing stock of Internet users. Microsoft
+never figured out how to make money from the largest online chat phenomena of
+the time.
+
+IRC networks have no corporate overlords. Instead, they are made up of
+federated servers run by otherwise unconnected actors, from individual
+geeks through academic institutions to IT companies or even criminal
+organisations. So much so, that upon logging in to a mainstream IRC
+network today, it is actually hard to find out who is sponsoring the
+resources behind the server. The model of Internet-wise, community-run,
+community-policed and community-developed communication resources may
+seem atavistic today, when even starry-eyed activists think that it is
+impossible to change the world without becoming entrepreneurs and
+finding a “sustainable” business model. However, running the
+infrastructure as a commons works for IRC just as well as in the 1990s.
+It allows users to understand and control the media they use to share
+and collaborate: an essential condition for nurturing *technological
+sovereignty*.
+
+As a modern affordance
+----------------------
+
+**The same feature that allowed IRC to become a mass media in the 1990s
+actually *prevents its from mainstream adoption in the 2010s***. Users
+dropping into a channel, asking a question, then leaving in frustration
+20 minutes later are a case in point. These *lamers* living in the age
+of mobile connectivity cannot keep their IRC clients logged in for hours
+on end, like the owners of desktop computers once did, and IRC users who
+have access to always-on servers do today. Now, only relatively
+sophisticated users get the full IRC experience, and feel part of the
+chat channels community. Such elitism excludes less motivated users, but
+keeps the conversation within active members of peer production
+communities.
+
+FLOSS developers, Anonymous hacktivists, Wikipedia editors and
+hackerspace members adopted IRC as their backstage communication
+channels. By now it is the only contemporary chat device on the Internet
+that allows informal, largely public, topic-centric discussions in a
+non-commercial environment free of state oversight and corporate
+exploitation. These criteria are paramount to groups that work together
+to produce for the common good and which deal with sensitive topics. Of
+course, topical, public, informal discussions were the original demand
+behind the popularity of chat devices.
+
+However, through three cycles, features and affordances shifted towards
+personal conversations with people that you already know, while even
+group chat features came to be tightly coupled to surveillance. Chat
+devices are available for all today, yet historical changes undermined
+the original demands and the social critique that saw chat as a place
+for congregation and collaboration free from the interference of the
+state and capital. In light of these developments, the lack of backlogs
+– that makes surveillance technically complicated – came to mean a very
+different thing: it still protected the *technological sovereignty* of
+user groups, but only those that invested time and energy to hold on to
+it.
+
+<!-- user groups! -->
+Conclusions
+===========
+
+**It seems that technical deficiencies can have positive social
+consequences**. The same limitation – the lack of backlogs – that
+allowed IRC to become a mass media in the 1990s, prevents its mass
+adoption in the 2010s. However, it also poses problems for data mining
+and surveillance, which eventually forestalls its recuperation. As a
+user-controlled technology, it now plays an important part in the media
+ecology of the Internet, as the everyday backstage communication
+platform for peer production communities.
+
+These relatively sophisticated user groups benefit from the simplicity,
+flexibility and open architecture of the medium, which allows them to
+customise it to their needs. Conversely, most Internet users are used to
+be served by corporate social media platforms that cater to their needs
+effortlessly. The contrast between the two approaches to technology
+adoption begs the question **whether it is more desirable to work for
+the democratisation of knowledge or merely the democratisation of
+technology**.
+
+*The lack of backlogs helped to build technological sovereignty for
+Internet users for a decade and later sheltered peer producers from the
+capitalist requirements of exploitation and repression.* Those who care
+about IRC had to navigate a terrain of changing social conditions –
+including rifts in the technological landscape and paradigm shifts in
+political economy – which recontextualised the significance of technical
+features and limitations. The contemporary use of IRC is based on
+properties and patterns of the medium that were commonplace in the 1990s
+but were superseded by more capitalist media since then. Therefore, it
+can be conceptualised as a *time machine* which brings past
+technological and political conditions to the present, with surprising
+consequences. [^8]
+
+Bibliography
+============
+
+Antonić, Voja. 2014. “Voja Antonic in Calafou.” Talk at Calafou.  https://calafou.org/en/content/voja-antonic-calafou>.
+
+
+Bango, Rey. 2013. “IRC Is Back: Here’s Your Starter Guide.” Online tutorial.  <https://code.tutsplus.com/tutorials/irc-is-back-heres-your-starter-guide--net-31369>.
+
+
+Beritelli, Laura, ed. 2017. *+Kaos: Ten Years Hacking and Media Activism*. Amsterdam: Institute for Network Cultures.  <https://networkcultures.org/blog/publication/kaos-ten-years-of-hacking-and-media-activism/>.
+
+
+Broughton, John. 2008. *Wikipedia: The Missing Manual*. 1st ed. O’Reilly Media.
+
+
+Coleman, Gabriella. 2012. *Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking*. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
+
+
+Dagdelen, Demet. 2012. “Anonymous, Wikileaks and Operation Payback: A Path to Political Action Through Irc and Twitter.” Paper presented at the IPP2012: Big Data, Big Challenges?, Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford, UK.  <http://ipp.oii.ox.ac.uk/sites/ipp.oii.ox.ac.uk/files/documents/Dagdelen2.pdf>.
+
+
+Doctorow, Cory. 2011. “The Coming War on General Computation.” Talk at 29C3, The 29th Chaos Communication Congress.  <http://events.ccc.de/congress/2011/Fahrplan/events/4848.en.html>.
+
+
+Fuchs, Christian. 2012. “Google Capitalism.” *TripleC: Cognition, Communication, Co-Operation* 10 (1): 42–48.
+
+
+Gillespie, Tarleton. 2010. “The Politics of ‘Platforms’.” *New Media & Society* 12 (3): 347–364.  doi:[10.1177/1461444809342738](https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738).
+
+
+Griffith, Erin. 2015. “Bad News for Google Parent Alphabet: The ‘G’ Will Still Foot the Bill.” Article in Forbes Magazine.  <http://fortune.com/2015/08/10/google-ads-money/>.
+
+
+Haché, Alex. 2014. “Technological Sovereignty.” *Passarelle* 11 (11): 165–171. <http://www.coredem.info/rubrique48.html>.
+
+
+IANS. 2013. “There Will Be More Mobile Phones Than People by 2014: ITU.”  News article in the Deccan Herald.  <http://www.deccanherald.com/content/332274/there-more-mobile-phones-people.html>.
+
+
+Internet Archive. 2009. “GeoCities Special Collection 2009: Saving a Historical Record of Geocities.” Web page.  <https://archive.org/web/geocities.php>.
+
+
+Ippolita. 2015. *The Facebook Aquarium: The Resistible Rise of Anarcho-Capitalism*. Revised and updated English edition. 15. Amsterdam: Institute for Network Cultures.  <http://networkcultures.org/blog/publication/no-15-in-the-facebook-aquarium-the-resistible-rise-of-anarcho-capitalism-ippolita/>.
+
+
+Kurlander, David, Tim Skelly, and David Salesin. 1996. “Comic Chat.” In *SIGGRAPH ’96: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques*, ed by. John Fujii, 225–236. New York: ACM; ACM.  doi:[10.1145/237170.237260](https://doi.org/10.1145/237170.237260).  <https://sci-hub.io/10.1145/237170.237260>.
+
+
+Latzko-Toth, Guillaume. 2010. “Metaphors of Synchrony: Emergence Differentiation of Online Chat Devices.” *Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society* 30 (5): 362–374.  doi:[10.1177/0270467610380005](https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380005).  <http://bst.sagepub.com/content/30/5/362.short>.
+
+
+Levy, Steven. 1984. *Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution*. Anchor Press, Doubleday.
+
+
+Lovink, Geert, and Miriam Rasch. 2013. *Unlike Us Reader: Social Media Monopolies and Their Alternatives*. INC Reader \#8. Institute of Network Cultures.  <http://networkcultures.org/blog/publication/unlike-us-reader-social-media-monopolies-and-their-alternatives/>.
+
+
+Markoff, John. 2005. *What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counter Culture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry*. London: Penguin.  <http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=631E8A3A67AB0EA19ECD3DB0E689ADA1>.
+
+
+Maxigas. 2014. “History of Real Time Chat Protocols.” *Relay\#70 Panel F* (February).  <http://relay70.metatron.ai/history-of-real-time-chat-protocols.html>.
+
+
+———. 2015. “Peer Production of Open Hardware: Unfinished Artefacts and Architectures in the Hackerspaces.” Doctoral dissertation, Barcelona: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Internet Interdisciplinary Institute.  <https://relay70.metatron.ai/maxigas_dissertation.pdf>.
+
+
+Stalder, Felix. 2013. “Between Democracy and Spectacle: The Front and the Back of the Social Web.” In *Unlike Us Reader: Social Media Monopolies and Their Alternatives*, ed by. Geert Lovink and Miriam Rasch. INC Reader \#8. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.  <http://felix.openflows.com/node/223>.
+
+
+Turner, Fred. 2006. *From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism*. First edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  <http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=6916B53A2F276602174090943602E3F2>.
+
+
+Zandbergen, Dorien. 2011. “New Edge: Technology and Spirituality in the San Francisco Bay Area.” Dissertation, Leiden: University of Leiden.  <https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/17671>.
+
+
+[^1]: A gentle introduction is Bango (2013), while activists may find Beritelli (2017) useful for a jump start.
+
+[^2]: Free and Open Source Software.
+
+[^3]: “The legacy of the 20th century has accustomed us to think that social control pertains only to the political, but it has long since become primarily an economic question of commercial implications. It is no coincidence that the NSA has made use of the collaboration with Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Apple and so on, to obtain data for the surveillance program PRISM.” (Ippolita 2015, 7)
+
+[^4]: “Google is a profit-oriented, advertising-financed moneymaking machine that turns users and their data into a commodity.” (Fuchs 2012, 47)
+
+[^5]: The software and company that brought peer-to-peer file sharing into the limelight and folded after a much publicised copyright controversy (1999-2002).
+
+[^6]: Popular free web hosting service (1994-2009) that allowed users to upload their own websites: “an important outlet for personal expression on the Web for almost 15 years” according to the Internet Archive (2009).
+
+[^7]: A speculative investment bubble (1996-2001) inflated by the growth of the World Wide Web and burst because it was not clear how companies offering online services could turn a profit on traffic.
+
+[^8]: With the support of a postdoctoral grant from the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) and the sponsorship of the Central European University Foundation, Budapest (CEUBPF) for a fellowship at the Center for Media, Data and Society in the School of Public Policy.

or/content/06cooperatives.md

@@ -0,0 +1,281 @@
+
+# Hacklabs to technological cooperatives
+
+***Carolina***
+
+![](../../contrib/gfx/illustrations/hacktocoops-halfsize.png)
+
+Techno-political collectives mix technical and political concerns.  A perfect
+example is Riseup which defines its mission as a provider of “online
+communication tools for people and groups working on liberatory social change.
+We are a project to create democratic alternatives and practice
+self-determination by controlling our own secure means of communications”.
+Nowadays the field is composed by very different types of organizations
+ranging from loose and informal networks of hacktivists, free software
+communities, formal organisations such as foundations, start-ups invested in
+the so-called civic tech and even public institutions and council towns.
+
+Some years ago, technological sovereignty meant the development of free
+technologies [^0] by and for the civil society.  Empowering society by
+developing tools, hardware, services and infrastructure that meet social needs
+based on the ethics of free software and self-management.  Nowadays, with the
+transition to open source things have become messy as big corporations
+promoting open source software basically for their own benefit have broken the
+relation between technological development and social responsibility.
+
+In this text I will rethink what role cooperatives have, or could have, as
+economic and social actors in reclaiming this relationship.  To do so, I will
+depart from the broad galaxy of techno-political collectives [^1], and then
+focus on the format of technological cooperatives as they have been deployed
+in Spain.
+
+## A galaxy of initiatives
+
+We find foundations which can be committed to create open source and free
+software solutions and services (FSF, Mozilla, Blender, etc.) and/or to
+protect and defend digital rights (Electronic Frontier Foundation, La
+Quadrature du Net, X-net) mobilizing and pulling economic resources to make
+those project run in the mid and long term.  People can support foundations as
+a donor, volunteer, intern.  They normally look for experienced and qualified
+professionals and count with formal and legal structures when many
+techno-political collectives are based on informal groups and communities.
+
+Another weird aspect of the current scene consists in local government
+initiatives which are working towards openness and transparency based on
+citizen participation.  Many “rebellious” council towns located in Spain are
+supporting the development of free software tools focused on citizen driven
+political participation [^2], and behind those developments, freelancers, small
+companies and cooperatives are working on setting up viable, robust and
+trustful systems to promote open democracy.
+
+Technological cooperatives can be found at the intersection of both previous
+options as they have an economical goal aiming towards sustainability and also
+a political and social approach to technology.  Besides, as most of their
+clients come from the third sector (non‐profit oriented, such as NGOs,
+associations, collectives ) they can help build products based on their
+specific needs and desires.  Examples include [^3] Candela (Amnesty’s activist
+management app), GONG (project/budget manager for NGOs), Oigame (online
+petition platform), Nolotiro (platform to exchange things), Mecambio
+(repository of energetic, financing and connectivity alternatives).
+
+## Creating a coop...
+  
+From now on, I will focus on the particular story of how we founded a free
+software cooperative, Dabne, in Spain – but simultaneously others were doing
+the same [^4].  In the 90’s, when Internet started to be accessible, several
+projects [^5] wonder what it meant to escape from established identities,
+self-organize online transgressing borders, create a collective brain.
+Hacklabs, in squats or association offices, were places to experiment, learn
+about things that were not easily available as not everyone had an Internet
+access yet, nor a computer.  Until then hackers were barely visible and
+hacklabs became that meeting point where “isolated” hackers came in contact
+with social movements.  A passionate hybrid came out of that, it knock a
+strong free/libre software community which had a high impact on society’s
+approach to free technology.
+
+Spain has quite a long tradition of agricultural and industrial cooperatives
+and at some point, some of us started thinking that our hobby could turn
+through cooperativism into a way of living.  As each cooperative have their
+own agreements regarding work and labour, I will share the terms under which we
+founded our own:
+
+ * We wanted to make a living but not at all costs.
+ * We wanted a shared decision making process.
+ * We wanted transparency.
+ * We wanted to define our goals, and change them when needed.
+ * We wanted everybody to be treated equal and in a fair way.
+ * We wanted to continue learning, have fun and promote free software.
+ * We didn’t want to be slaves of our work but work with others in a
+   collaborative and cooperative way.
+
+With that in mind, we analysed how the “enterprise world” worked and wonder if
+we could become “business people” doing something that until then we did for
+free.  A key element lied in the belief that we were going to found companies
+and step into “the market”, that thing governed by capitalist rules which we
+were deeply against.  Vertigo.  There were no previous references of free
+technology cooperatives neither money to invest (we needed 250€ each).  There
+was a strong determination and will to not work for big capitalist companies
+that make you uniform, dull and slave to their rules.  The libre/free software
+community was there so we were not alone, we had our computers and skills, our
+beliefs that free technologies empower society, that free software brings
+sovereignty and that the digital era should make knowledge accessible, open
+doors to people and bring democratic alternatives to societies.  We were
+choosing a way of living not just a job.
+
+Dabne was founded in 2005 and it took us one year to understand what it meant
+to create a company, to manage a business and to decide a legal form that
+would favour our values of collaboration, transparency and responsibility.  We
+went to workshops, talks, trainings, wrote business plans, attend appointments
+at the Chamber of Commerce.  It seemed endless but little by little things
+began to take shape.
+
+Becoming a coop happens in a specific environment of cooperatives advisers
+which is by far more friendly and easy to ask than in the start up world for
+instance.  Mantras like “success”, “fame”, “competitiveness”,“big profit” are
+not part of their vocabulary.  They gave us a social approach, an
+understanding of how to address our impact and empower social organisations in
+the technical aspect.
+
+Our friends xsto.info had founded one year before a free software cooperative
+in Madrid, they were a small group of sysadmins, web developers, wireless
+experts also committed to the free software community.  Their experience
+helped us, we could share our doubts, difficulties, and see how others had
+gone through similar situations.
+
+All in all, we managed to set up the company, and one good thing about
+software is that to start up, you basically need nothing but knowledge, a
+laptop and Internet access which means that costs are minimum – but the first
+challenge is to get the first clients.  Through friends and contacts, we
+started our way, then the word spread mouth to mouth and slowly we had our
+group of clients.
+
+Our mainly technical profile made us look for alliances like with noez.org
+focused on design and innovation centred on people.  With them we could share
+different perspectives of technologies and made our work more understandable.
+Then Dabne became in an unplanned way a women's free software cooperative.  So
+far we do not know of any other women’s software development cooperative in
+Spain.  This led Dabne to IT counselling: as active listeners we could make
+technologies comprehensible to non-technical people, adjust projects rhythms,
+be honest and able to say no when we cannot do it. 
+ 
+## Building a multi-verse of communities and networks
+
+Cooperatives are most of the times fragile.  But by working together, building
+and taking part in existing communities, creating and nurturing networks, they
+can strengthen their resilience and sustainability over time.
+
+Through a cooperatives’ platform (UMCTA) we got in contact with environmental,
+agroecology, social work and social adviser cooperatives willing to share
+their longer experience and knowledge.  To become a coop also meant to enter
+the social and solidarity economy community [^6].  At that time Coop57-Madrid,
+an ethical financial service cooperative was founded and its goal has been to
+finance social and solidarity economy projects thanks to investments from
+civil society.  Red de economía alternativa y solidaria (REAS) and the social
+market are networks for the production and distribution of goods and services
+based on the principles of social and solidarity economy.  Among those we
+found ones concerned with social transformation, environmental sustainability,
+commons, gender equality, transparency, participation, self-organization,
+internal democracy.
+
+Interestingly, most social and solidarity economy networks share a lack of
+interest towards techno-political issues, making difficult to include the
+concerns of free software cooperatives in their agenda.  Because of this, in
+2007 technical cooperatives set up the initiative “Software libre y ONGs”,
+dedicated to promoting the use of free software and free technologies.  A call
+for breakfasts while having short talks complemented with a conference focused
+on Free/Libre software and Third sector organizations.  At a bigger scale, in
+2008, the Federal Association of Free software companies (Asolif) and other
+platforms [^7] were created for promoting free software, create new business
+models and achieve responsible wealth.
+
+On the other hand, communities were built around each specific technology,
+programming language, content management system, operating system distribution
+or hardware, in order to advance knowledge, share good practices, come up with
+improvements, and welcome newbies.  A small cooperative uses several
+technologies, so the best option would be to participate in the different
+technical communities and attend their events (conferences, meet-ups, etc).
+But being able to take part of IT community events requires people, time and
+money, which is very difficult to handle in a small cooperative with limited
+resources...
+
+Yet, time has shown that new people are founding cooperatives and collectives
+[^8] around free technology, so the wheel keeps rolling.
+
+## SWOT for coop
+
+I will recap dimensions introduced previously using a Strength Weakness
+Opportunities Threats (SWOT) analysis where:
+
+**Strengths** refers to characteristics and internal factors of the cooperative or
+project that give it an advantage over others:
+
+ * Small team can change and adapt quickly
+ * Flexible working environment (home, office, client’s office)
+ * Ability to make decisions and define company goals
+ * No initial capital needed
+ * Define own timing
+ * Good corporate image
+ * Creativity
+ * Curiosity
+ * Have fun
+
+**Weaknesses** refers to characteristics of the cooperative or project that puts
+it at a disadvantage relative to others:
+
+ * Strain of working
+ * 24/7 involvement
+ * No business management experience
+ * No specialized profiles
+ * Difficulty to grow
+ * Communication
+ * No financial cushion
+ * No legal counselling
+
+**Opportunities** refers to external factors of the environment that the
+cooperative or project could exploit to its advantage:
+
+ * Able to develop own ideas & projects
+ * Ability to chose partners & projects
+ * Be part of different networks & communities
+ * Capacity to respond to concrete and uncommon needs and desires
+
+**Threats** are external elements in the environment that could cause trouble for
+the cooperative or project:
+
+ * Exhaustion and burn out
+ * Uncertainty about future
+ * No update on technical issues
+ * Price reduction
+
+## Now some open questions remain
+
+Cooperatives can make possible the building of new autonomous zones while
+responding to many challenges:
+
+ * **Economy**: how to shape an economy of the commons, social and supportive?
+
+ * **Self-organization**: how to be sustainable in a long term run, while
+   questioning unquestionable truths like, consensus, horizontality,
+   participation, leadership?
+
+ * **Technological freedom**: how to fight for free software, digital rights,
+   open knowledge and copyleft?
+
+As years pass by, technological cooperatives still looks like a small field
+based on strong personal relationships, which are key to building trust and
+assuming new challenges, but that can be also a limitation when there is a
+need to scale up.  Besides, the precarious and uncertain economic situation
+makes it difficult to integrate new people.  However, there is always a moment
+when the project grows and with it, should the team grow, how … or not?
+
+Then who should be part of the cooperative?  Should they have specific
+technical skills?  Should they have a versatile profile?  Are technical skills
+always needed?  Is it affordable and ethical to have apprenticeships?
+
+And what about decision making processes?  Cooperativism is about sharing the
+decision making process but experience shows that not everyone wants to take
+part of it – should they be excluded from the cooperative?  Is the ability to
+make decisions key to be part of a cooperative?  Should all decisions be taken
+in common?
+
+These challenges give a comprehensible vision of the times to come, and the
+creation of these autonomous zones opens possibilities to different ways of
+understanding work, the commons, sustainability and economy.
+
+[^0]: As a reminder, free technologies, in a nutshell, are the technologies and services based on the freedom given by free/libre software and it’s philosophy.  **Freedom 0**: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.  **Freedom 1**: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.  **Freedom 2**: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so you can help your neighbour.  **Freedom 3**: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
+
+[^1]: Rise Up: https://riseup.net/ (USA) • Autistici: https://autistici.org/ (ITA) • Free: https://www.free.de/ (GER) • So36: https://so36.net/ (GER) • BOUM: https://www.boum.org/ (FR)  • Nodo50: http://nodo50.org/ (ESP) • Pangea: https://pangea.org/ (ESP) • Immerda: https://www.immerda.ch/ (CH) • Mayfirst/People Link: https://mayfirst.org/ (USA)
+
+[^2]: Consul: https://github.com/AyuntamientoMadrid/consul • Decidim: https://github.com/AjuntamentdeBarcelona/decidim
+
+[^3]: Candela: https://github.com/amnesty/candela • Gong: https://gong.org.es/projects/gor • Oigame: https://github.com/alabs/oigame • Nolotiro: https://github.com/alabs/nolotiro.org • Mecambio: https://www.mecambio.net/
+
+[^4]: Dabne: https://dabne.net/ • Xsto.info: https://xsto.info/ • aLabs: https://alabs.org/ • Semilla del software libre: https://semillasl.net/ • Enreda: https://enreda.coop/ • Gnoxys: https://gnoxys.net/ • Cooperativa Jamgo: https://jamgo.coop/
+
+[^5]: **Quelques projets**: Sindominio: https://sindominio.net/ (ES) • Autistici: https://autistici.org/ (IT) • Samizdat: https://samizdat.net/ (FR) • Espora: https://espora.org/ (MX) • Thing: https://thing.net/ (USA)
+
+[^6]: Redes Cooperativa: https://redescooperativa.com/intervencion-social/ • REAS: https://www.economiasolidaria.org/red_redes • Coop 57: https://coop57.coop/ • Economia Solidaria: https://www.economiasolidaria.org • Madrid Mercado Social: https://madrid.mercadosocial.net/ • Tangente coop: https://tangente.coop/
+
+[^7]: Asolif: https://www.asolif.es/ • Esle: https://esle.eus/ • Olatukoop: https://olatukoop.net
+
+[^8]: **Some other cooperatives, groups or initiatives working around free/libre technologies:** • Deconstruyendo: https://deconstruyendo.net/ • Interzonas: https://interzonas.info • Talaios: https://talaios.net/ • Shareweb: https://shareweb.es • Reciclanet: https://www.reciclanet.org • Buenaventura; https://www.buenaventura.cc/ • Itaca: https://www.itacaswl.com • Saregune: https://www.saregune.net • Cooptecniques: https://cooptecniques.net/ • **Latin America**: Kefir: https://kefir.red/ • Vedetas: vedetas.org • Tierra comun: https://tierracomun.org/ • Técnicas rudas: https://www.tecnicasrudas.org/

or/content/07rats.md

@@ -0,0 +1,432 @@
+# De las tecnologías apropiadas a las Tecnologías Re-Apropiadas [^0]
+
+***Elleflâne***
+
+![](../../contrib/gfx/illustrations/tecnoaprop-halfsize.png)
+
+La inversión de recursos en el desarrollo de conocimientos orientados
+directamente a la producción o desarrollo de nuevos procesos y
+productos, convierte a la tecnología actual que consumimos, en un bien
+comercial. Su adquisición, transmisión y transferencia deja de ser un
+proceso informal del procomún, convirtiéndose en uno formal, sometido a
+las leyes e intereses del mercado, las patentes y los registros de
+propiedad intelectual. Por todo ello, se desarrolla mayoritariamente en
+grandes empresas, corporaciones, estados y gobiernos; y sus frutos son
+una mecanización excesiva, que promueve el desplazamiento humano
+obligatorio, desbasta los recursos e incrementa el absoluto
+desapoderamiento y conocimiento social sobre las tecnologías por quien
+las está usando..
+
+La ausencia de capacidades científicas y tecnológicas, la falta de
+condiciones económicas propicias para el desarrollo de innovaciones, y
+el uso de un proceso inadecuado de introducción de tecnologías en los
+aparatos productivos, genera cambios económicos en las realidades y
+prioridades de los países y así también ineficiencias en la utilización
+de los recursos. El desbalance en el comercio de conocimientos provoca
+una gran diferencia entre países e individuos y pone en desventaja en
+las relaciones de intercambio económico, a aquellos que son netos
+importadores de tecnología o simplemente consumidores. La situación de
+dependencia y desigualdad en el desarrollo se observa cuando la fuente
+principal de tecnología de un país se ubica en el exterior, y cuando no
+se dispone de una capacidad local para generar y adaptar tecnologías
+propias. La importación de tecnología en sí misma no es forzosamente
+desventajosa, todos los países lo hacen, lo malo es la ausencia de
+políticas correctas de transferencia de los conocimientos asociados y
+las dependencias asociadas que se generan.
+
+La introducción de una tecnología inadecuada, que no se comprende, en
+una comunidad o su adopción por un individuo, genera una dependencia
+tecnológica viciosa y una evolución económica incompatible con las
+necesidades sociales, convirtiendo esta dependencia en una causa,
+síntoma y consecuencia de la falta de autonomía. La evolución y el
+cambio técnico en las economías de los países del mal llamado «sur
+global» es sustancialmente diferente a lo observado en los países del
+norte o bloque occidental.
+
+Las desigualdades, sobre todo el desequilibrio tecnológico que introduce
+el capitalismo puede mostrarse clave para incentivar la creatividad y
+cubriendo las necesidades a través del uso y el desarrollo de las
+tecnologías apropiadas, hacemos que la situación se vuelva reversible y
+que se generen nuevos procesos de autonomía imparables. Al fin y al
+cabo, ¿qué comunidad no necesita que una tecnología sea eficiente, se
+comprenda y se adapte a su contexto medioambiental, cultural y económico
+propio?
+
+## Conceptos que se entrelazan
+
+Una Tecnología Apropiada (*Appropiated Technology* [^1]), significa una
+tecnología adecuada y también apropiada, copiada, obtenida. Las
+tecnologías apropiadas pueden ser *high* o *low* *tech*, se construyen y
+distribuyen con licencias libres, GNU GPL, software libre y de código
+abierto y pueden darse en campos de acción variados desde la
+agricultura, permacultura, jardinería, y construcción hasta la
+comunicación, salud y educación,
+
+El término originalmente surge del movimiento medioambiental anglosajón
+durante la crisis energética de 1973. En el libro *Small is beautifull*
+[^2] el economista británico, E.F. Schumacher, promueve el valor de la
+tecnología como salud, belleza y permanencia. En ese sentido, una
+tecnología apropiada describe aquella tecnología que mejor se adecua a
+situaciones medioambientales, culturales y económicas, requiere pocos
+recursos, implica menos costos, tiene un bajo impacto ambiental, no
+requiere altos niveles de mantenimiento, se genera con destrezas,
+herramientas y materiales de la zona y puede ser localmente reparada,
+modificada y transformada.
+
+El término apropiado, como sinónimo de adecuado puede generar confusión.
+Una tecnología costosa puede ser la más adecuada en las comunidades
+saludables, con capacidad de pagar por su mantenimiento, activando de
+esta manera el flujo económico y concentrándolo sólo en reforzar la
+dirección de quien más poder tiene.
+
+En cuanto a Tecnologías Intermedias, éstas pueden ser también
+apropiadas, y suelen describir una tecnología mucho menos costosa que la
+prevaleciente, construida utilizando materiales y conocimiento
+disponibles de forma local, fácilmente comprada y usada por gente con
+escasos recursos, los cuales pueden liderar aumentos productivos
+mientras minimizan su dislocación social.
+
+El «*Slow Design»* [^25] es un enfoque holístico del diseño que tiene
+en cuenta la mayor gama de factores materiales y sociales, más los
+impactos relevantes a corto y largo plazo. En *Slow Design*, un
+paradigma para vivir de manera «sostenible», Alistair Fuad-Lucas,
+desarrolla un diseño sostenible, equilibrando al individuo y sus
+necesidades socioculturales y ambientales. El concepto se aplica a
+experiencias, procesos, servicios y organizaciones. Es un camino hacia
+la desmaterialización necesaria para la sostenibilidad a largo plazo,
+busca el bienestar humano y las sinergias positivas entre los elementos
+de un sistema, celebra la diversidad y el regionalismo.
+
+Las Tecnologías Re-apropiadas significan volver a dotarnos de la
+tecnología que necesitamos desde un posicionamiento político. Se trata
+de colocar la tecnología en el centro de la vida, dentro de un eje
+transversal donde se encuentran otras disciplinas como la ética, los
+problemas sociales, el medioambiente, y busca integrarlas todas en un
+conjunto, con una finalidad, la de preservar y defender la vida frente
+al poder, para que ésta no se quede oprimida. Cuando ponemos la
+tecnología en el centro no construimos forzosamente un mundo tecnológico
+como el actual, lleno de dependencias, frustraciones, y ataduras que
+desbalanzan el equilibrio entre el poder y los oprimidos.
+
+Si nuestro deseo es realizar un cambio hacia una sociedad más
+sostenible, colectiva, comunitaria y no puramente mercantil, debemos
+cambiar los medios, los recursos y las relaciones que actualmente
+sustentan una sociedad basada en intereses económicos, y devolvernos a
+nosotras, individuos y comunidades, mujeres y pueblos la parte
+expropiada de nuestro empoderamiento tecnológico, generando una
+tecnología y una ciencia, y una comprensión y divulgación de ellas que
+se enfoque hacia la vida, tal y como acontecía antes de la Revolución
+Industrial. Será necesario cambiar las estructuras, y sobre todo
+aquellas que sustentan el conocimiento, porque si cambia todo el sistema
+y los procesos, pero no cambian las estructuras y las relaciones que se
+dan entre nosotras, entonces no cambia nada.
+
+Una Tecnología Re-apropiada tiene una determinación política que sirve
+como grieta polar para fragmentar el sistema capitalista, privilegiando
+la creación de núcleos y pequeñas comunidades descentralizadas que
+favorecen los entornos de autogestión y en equidad ayudan a desarrollar
+una sociedad y una vida menos alienante y más integrada con los procesos
+naturales.
+
+Las Tecnologías Re-apropiadas se implantan por los propios individuos y
+comunidades, no por gobiernos, quienes no pueden diseñar políticas sin
+ir al territorio y su trabajo es sólo desde las decisiones gestoras de
+los despachos. Nosotras, necesitamos una Tecnología Re-apropiada a la
+industrialización, que incorpore a nuestras tecnologías, técnicas y
+cotidianidad, nuestras tradiciones ancestrales que inherentemente ya
+tienen una base medioambiental, sostenible y holística. Tecnologías para
+crear bienestar, belleza y comunidad.
+
+## Las Tecnologías Re-apropiadas desde la experiencia personal
+
+En los últimos diez años, he intentado llevar la teoría a la práctica,
+he ido adaptándome y cambiando de forma, he creado protocolos y
+licencias libres que defienden nuestras Tecnologías Re-Apropiadas, he
+intentado generar talleres colectivos donde se intercambiasen
+experiencias y habilidades; y se pudiera crear una actividad productiva
+que cubriera las necesidades básicas y dotara de riqueza a las
+comunidades.
+
+He descubierto un nicho de mercado existente para las Tecnologías
+Re-Apropiadas, un ejemplo para describirlo seria «para ser productivo y
+sostenible un productor ecológico de nueces o almendras, no tiene
+ninguna solución intermedia entre el cascanueces y la supermáquina de
+miles de euros. Las tecnologías re-apropiadas ocuparían este espacio,
+adaptadas al usuario y su entorno».
+
+En la sociedad y la mayoría de movimientos sociales no se ha defendido
+la tecnología, la ciencia y la soberanía tecnológica como práctica
+social, ni en lo individual ni en lo colectivo. El debate se vuelve
+minoritario y, poco a poco, se introducen en nuestra cotidianidad nuevas
+tecnologías que nos hacen más dependientes y muy poco tienen que ver con
+las cuatro libertades. Por suerte siempre hay un grupo minoritario que
+lo revierte o lo cuestiona.
+
+Todavía en la mayoría de los espacios tecnológicos, el grueso de
+participantes pertenece al género masculino patriarcal. La situación no
+se ha revertido aún y el machismo muchas veces se vuelve más feroz,
+porque no sólo se da en los contenidos, sino en las formas, en el trato,
+en el ambiente de trabajo que se crea de competitividad y de egos que no
+pueden ser tocados a riesgo de ser extremadamente victimizados. Ese
+machismo resulta más incidente porque partimos de un escenario donde
+existe un conocimiento sobre los trabajos de género. Simplemente no se
+quieren cambiar los privilegios, o da miedo replanteárselos porque a
+veces resulta más fácil defenderse que trabajarse interiormente. Relato
+a continuación, a modo de ejemplo, dos anécdotas que me han pasado con
+guístas:
+
+**Situación A:** Habíamos terminado de construir un remolque oxigenador
+y tenían que llevárselo en grúa. Aparece un señor. Le coloca unas
+cinchas que al ser apretadas marcan un pequeño bollo la chapa del
+remolque que es de policarbonato celular. Le digo:
+
+> – Disculpa, mejor le ponemos un trapo detrás de las cinchas para que no se
+> marque, así llega perfecto a mi cliente.
+
+> – No te preocupes, esto ya está bien. ¡Esto ya está bien! – me dice sin escucharme. Me doy treinta segundos para contestarle.
+
+> — Oye, poner un trapo no cuesta nada.
+
+> – ¡Qué va!, ya verás como te lo bollarán los del ferry, esto no es nada. –
+> Sigue sin escucharme.
+
+> Un minuto de respiración, bueno a ver... reflexiono, soy la clienta, si le
+> digo que ponga el trapo pues lo tiene que poner. ¿Por qué tanta cabezonería?
+
+> – Disculpa, mejor le ponemos un trapo. Finalmente a regañadientes lo hace.
+
+**Situación B:** Se me estropeó el coche en medio de la montaña con un
+frío tremendo y estuve esperando a que llegara la grúa. Apareció una
+chica gruísta, y dijo que mi avería se podía reparar si extraíamos un
+manguito. Ella no podía sacarlo porque se le congelaban las manos,
+entonces mi mano inconscientemente avanzó para ayudar a la suya. ¡Ok!
+Perfecto, no se asustó, no dijo que la estaba entorpeciendo, simplemente
+me dio las gracias e intentamos sacarlo juntas.
+
+La actitud inmovilista de la situación A no sucede en todos los hombres,
+ni la contraria en todas las mujeres. Las actitudes competitivas
+desarraigadas, inmovilistas, opresoras, desiguales, pertenecen al
+patriarcado y de ellas somos víctimas personas de cualquier género. La
+tecnología y la ciencia al ser una herramienta al servicio del poder,
+avanzan según las directrices del patriarcado y la sociedad capitalista.
+
+Por lo tanto, las Tecnologías Re-apropiadas deberían ser algo más que
+los objetos tecnológicos y las ciencias en sí mismas; y ser también el
+conjunto de relaciones que se dan entorno a estos objetos. ¿Podría estar
+fabricando Tecnologías Re-apropiadas en un taller con un ambiente y una
+formas totalmente patriarcales? Yo creo que no, carece de sentido.
+
+Para ello es necesario poner la tecnología en el centro de la vida,
+hablar de los pistones y las bielas, como hablamos de las recetas de
+cocina. Esto es lo que hace la Jineology [^33], no separa el objeto del
+sujeto, los mezcla dentro de una relación sana, no como algo externo,
+sino como algo siempre mejorable y mutable.
+
+Otro matiz de las Tecnologías Re-apropiadas radica en que cómo éstas se
+aplican. Si utilizamos símiles de ejemplos cotidianos, por ejemplo,
+podemos hacer nuestra cama simplemente o sacudir las mantas en la
+ventana, dejarlas aireadas al sol, cepillar el colchón para eliminar los
+roínes. Detrás de todos estos pasos hay técnicas para la mejora de la
+vida. Otro ejemplo sería al aplicar una crema hidratante, una cosa es
+darse una pasada con la mano. Otra cosa bien distinta es aplicarla con
+pequeñas instrucciones, los efectos son mucho mayores.
+
+Lo mismo sucede con todo, todo tiene su técnica y ciencia detrás.
+Aprender estos pequeños hábitos no cuesta tanto. Llegar a incorporar las
+ciencias que mejoran la vida como hábito, no es necesario solo hacer,
+sino saber porque lo hacemos así...
+
+## Nombrando algunas Tecnologías Re-Apropiadas
+
+En el campo de la Construcción existe una amplia diversidad de técnicas,
+el Adobe, Súper Adobe, la Tierra Clavada, el Ladrillo Holandés y la
+Mazorca, entre otras. Todas se elaboran con materiales *in situ*,
+relativamente baratos. Arquitectura para la humanidad [^10] sigue
+principios consistentes con la tecnología apropiada, orientando a
+personas afectadas por desastres naturales.
+
+En el ámbito de la energía, el término «energía suave» (*soft energy*)
+de Amory Lovins [^12], describe energía renovable y apropiada. Éstas
+suelen introducirse en comunidades aisladas y lugares con pequeñas
+necesidades de energía. Existen los diseños *off-grid *[^11], no
+conectados a la red eléctrica. Los altos costos de inversión inicial y
+la formación sobre su mantenimiento deben tenerse en cuenta. Se utilizan
+placas solares, caras inicialmente, pero simples, aerogeneradores o
+microturbinas en los saltos de agua, y esta energía es almacenada en
+baterías. Biobutanol, biodiesel y el aceite vegetal pueden ser
+apropiados en áreas donde exista aceite vegetal y sea más económico que
+los combustibles fósiles. El Biogas es otra fuente potencial de energía,
+particularmente donde existe un abundante suministro de desperdicio de
+materia orgánica.
+
+En Iluminación, la Light Up World Foundation [^13] utiliza LED y las
+fuentes de energía renovables, como celdas solares, para proveer de luz
+a personas con pocos recursos en áreas remotas, sustituyendo las
+peligrosas lámparas de queroseno. La Lámpara de Botella Segura [^14] es
+una lámpara de queroseno diseñada en Sri Lanka, que cuenta con una tapa
+de metal y dos lados planos, para evitar que ruede en caso de ser
+golpeada.
+
+En la Preparación de Comida, para reducir la labor requerida comparada
+con los métodos tradicionales, se utilizan tecnologías intermedias por
+ejemplo la Peladora de Maní en Malasia. En Cocina, las cocinas justas,
+los reductores de humo y las estufas eficientes, producen ahorro de
+tiempo, evitan la deforestación y generan beneficios para la salud.
+*Briquette* [^15], desarrollados por la fundación Legacy [^16], pueden
+transformar la basura orgánica en combustible. Las cocinas solares son
+apropiadas para algunas zonas, dependiendo del clima y del estilo
+culinario.
+
+En Refrigeración, el Refrigerador pot-in-pot [^17] es una invención
+africana que permite mantener las cosas frías sin electricidad por mucho
+más tiempo. Esto supone un gran beneficio para las familias que la
+utilizan , por ejemplo, las chicas que venden conchas frescas en el
+mercado pueden ir al colegio dejando las conchas en el aparato y después
+ir al mercado.
+
+En Agua, el *Hippo Water Roller* [^18], permite cargar más agua con
+menos esfuerzo. El Cosechador de Agua de Lluvia, requiere un método
+apropiado de almacenamiento, especialmente en áreas secas, y el Colector
+de Niebla, es excelente para zonas donde la lluvia es escasa. En el
+Tratamiento de Agua, se requieren altos estándares cuando ésta necesita
+ser purificada antes de su uso. El agua silvestre puede ser lo
+suficientemente limpia, dependiendo de la profundidad y de la distancia
+de las fuentes de contaminación como las letrinas; el agua de lluvia
+puede estar limpia, si la zona de caída se encuentra libre de
+desperdicios, aún así es recomendable tratarla para remover cualquier
+posible contaminación. Los principales procesos son: filtración,
+biofilm, sedimentación, calor, luz ultravioleta, y la desinfección
+química, usando lejía.
+
+Los filtros suaves de arena, proveen una alta calidad de agua tratada
+con una simple operación, usados tanto en naciones saludables como en
+comunidades pobres. Las semillas aplastadas de Moringa oleifera o
+*Strychnos potatorum* pueden ser utilizadas como fluctuantes, las
+impurezas son fácilmente removidas por sedimentación y filtración. El
+filtro de cerámica elaborado con arcilla mezclada con materia orgánica
+como el café, se encuentra en muchos hogares de Sudamérica. El
+*LifeStraw* [^19] es un pequeño dispositivo que permite al usuario
+beber directamente agua sucia. Los filtros de ropa o la desinfección
+solar son precisos para su uso en pequeña escala, se requieren pocas
+jarras o botellas.
+
+En Accesibilidad, la silla de ruedas *Whirlwind* [^23] provee la
+movilidad deseable para personas que no pueden comprar las sillas usadas
+en los países desarrollados. En el ámbito de Sanidad, BiPu [^20] es un
+sistema portátil de letrina apropiado para desastres. El proyecto Orange
+Pilot [^21] fue una solución para la crisis sanitaria de barrios
+urbanos, el bajo costo de letrinas desarrolladas en las villas de
+Bangladesh, combatieron los problemas de salud ocasionados por la
+defecación abierta. Así también las camas Reed [^22] para purificar las
+aguas residuales. La sanidad ecológica, se ocupa de los desechos
+humanos, con el objetivo de proteger la salud humana y el medio
+ambiente, con el uso del agua para el lavado de manos (y anos),
+reciclando nutrientes que ayudan a reducir las necesidades de
+fertilizantes artificiales.
+
+Para el Cuidado de la Salud, el incubador de cambio de fase creado a
+finales de 1990, es una vía de bajo costo para generar muestras
+microbiológicas. Existen varias tecnologías apropiadas que benefician la
+salud pública; particularmente, en el uso de agua limpia en la sanidad.
+
+Finalmente, en el ámbito de las tecnologías de la información y
+comunicación, tenemos el 2B1 [^5] y el Simputer [^6] computadoras
+orientadas a países en desarrollo, su principal ventaja es el bajo
+costo, la resistencia al polvo, fidelidad y uso del lenguaje de destino.
+ILDIS OnDisc [^7] usa CDs y DVDs en áreas sin una conexión a Internet
+confiable ni dinero suficiente. Wind-up [^8] de Jhai Foundation, donde
+la radio, la computadora y el sistema de comunicación son autónomos. Los
+teléfonos móviles también pueden ser Tecnologías Re-apropiadas en
+lugares donde la infraestructura comercial no puede o no quiere asegurar
+una amplia cobertura. Loband [^9], web desarrollada por Aidworld, quita
+todas los contenidos intensivos de amplitudes de banda ancha y convierte
+a un simple texto; incrementa la velocidad del procesador y es apropiado
+para el uso de conexiones bajas de Internet.
+
+## Conclusiones
+
+No hay una tecnología adecuada en términos absolutos. Según la ONUDI
+[^26] se trata de «la tecnología que más contribuye a los objetivos
+económicos, sociales, y de preservación del medio ambiente, teniendo en
+cuenta las metas del desarrollo, los recursos y las condiciones de
+aplicación en cada territorio».
+
+La tecnología adecuada hace uso óptimo de los recursos disponibles en un
+territorio para el máximo bienestar social de su población. Sectores de
+la economía con características diferentes, hacen tecnología diferentes.
+Es deseable permitir un patrón de desarrollo equilibrado, donde los
+recursos extraídos puedan ir regenerándose paulatinamente en equilibrio
+. Se deben generar productos para los niveles de ingreso y para los
+diferentes estilos de vida que existen. Cubrir necesidades, no generar
+necesidades. La pequeña escala resulta preferible frente a la grande.
+
+La gestión adecuada se asocia a la generación, transferencia,
+adaptación, asimilación y difusión interna de la tecnología necesaria
+para lograr las metas sociales y económicas sin descuidar el equilibrio
+ecológico. Para alcanzarlas debe existir un consenso y una organización
+que logre integrar un proceso continuo de gestión tecnológico, guiado
+con una estrategia que armonice el funcionamiento del sistema
+científico-tecnológico con la transformación y desarrollo del sistema
+productivo, una organización que continuamente este en cuestionamiento y
+que haga especialmente en la divulgación y educación. Por ello, se debe
+partir desde la necesidades locales, en una estructura descentralizada,
+de pequeños núcleos y comunidades con redes de confianza y reciprocidad
+estables. Si existe una estructura de gestión mayor en los países, ésta
+deber recoger las necesidades de estos núcleos, de abajo a arriba. Los
+países e individuos pobres deben recordar que tienen la posibilidad de
+tener voz propia y la responsabilidad de hacer que se respete su poder
+de decisión en su evolución económica y social en un mundo
+interdependiente.
+
+[^0]: Está disponible una versión ampliada de este artículo en el siguiente enlace: http://elleflane.colectivizaciones.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Tecnologias_reapropiadas2017.pdf
+
+[^1]: Tecnología apropiada: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecnolog%C3%ADa_adecuada
+
+[^2]: E.F. Schumacher: *Small is beautiful*.
+
+[^5]: 2B1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B1_conference\
+
+[^6]: Simputer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simputer
+
+[^7]: ILDIS OnDis: http://books.google.es/books/about/The_Transfer_of_Technology_to_Developing.html
+
+[^8]: Wind-up radio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_power
+
+[^9]: Loband http://www.loband.org/loband/
+
+[^10]: Arquitectura para la humanidad: http://architectureforhumanity.org/
+
+[^11]: Diseño off-grid: http://www.off-grid.net/energy-design-service-questionnaire-spanish/\
+
+[^12]: Soft Energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_energy_technology
+
+[^13]: Light Up World Foundation: http://lutw.org/
+
+[^14]: Lámpara de botella segura: http://tecno.sostenibilidad.org\
+
+[^15]: Briquette: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_briquettes
+
+[^16]: Fundacion Legacy: http://www.legacyfound.org
+
+[^17]: Refrigerador pot-in-pot: http://www.mienergiagratis.com/energias/mucho-mas/mas-proyectos/item/66-p000028.html
+
+[^18]: Hippo Water Roller: http://www.hipporoller.org/
+
+[^19]: LifeStraw: http://eartheasy.com/lifestraw
+
+[^20]: BiPu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BiPu
+
+[^21]: Orange Pilot.
+
+[^22]: Camas Reed: http://www.wte-ltd.co.uk/reed_bed_sewage_treatment.html
+
+[^23]: Whirlwind: http://www.whirlwindwheelchair.org/
+
+[^24]: Cloth Filter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloth_filter
+
+[^25]: Slow design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_design
+
+[^26]: ONUDI, Organización de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo Industrial: http://unido.org
+
+[^33]:
+https://comitesolidaridadrojava.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/por-que-jineology-reconstruir-las-ciencias-hacia-una-vida-comunitaria-y-libre/

or/content/08rizo.md

@@ -0,0 +1,395 @@
+# Una semilla brota cuando se siembra en tierra fértil
+
+***Loreto Bravo***
+
+![](../../contrib/gfx/illustrations/rhyzomatica-halfsize.png)
+
+Esta es la historia de la telefonía celular autónoma y comunitaria de
+los pueblos originarios de Oaxaca, una tecno-semilla que habita un
+ecosistema comunal. Un puente ético-político entre la comunidad *hacker*
+del movimiento de software libre y las comunidades de pueblos
+originarios de Oaxaca, en el sureste mexicano. Un diálogo entre el
+concepto de soberanía tecnológica y los conceptos de autonomía y
+autodeterminación, donde el procomún y la decolonización se encuentran.
+Una versión de la historia del proyecto de telefonía celular autónoma y
+comunitaria que impulsó el colectivo Rhizomática, y que hoy gestiona la
+organización Telecomunicaciones Indígenas Comunitarias A.C.
+
+*Todo comenzó como un sueño que al nombrarse y compartirse se volvió
+realidad.*
+
+Recuerdo que hace tan sólo cinco años atrás, cuando hablábamos de la
+idea de crear una red de telefonía celular autónoma y comunitaria,
+nuestro círculo de amigos y amigas, habitantes de la ciudad, nos miraban
+con incredulidad. Sin embargo, cuando esa idea se conversó entre las
+montañas de la Sierra Juárez, en Oaxaca, en el seno de una radio
+comunitaria, todo comenzó a tener sentido.
+
+Toda historia es un viaje en el tiempo y el espacio; y el punto de
+partida de esta historia es un gran cartel de bienvenida que dice así:
+
+    En esta comunidad no existe la propiedad privada.
+
+    PROHIBIDA la compra-venta de terrenos comunales.
+
+    Atentamente El Comisariado de Bienes Comunales de Ixtlan de Juárez».
+
+## Antecedentes históricos acerca de Oaxaca [^1], los pueblos originarios y «la comunalidad»
+
+Oaxaca es el quinto estado más grande de México, con una población de 3
+millones 800 mil habitantes, de los cuales más de la mitad vive en localidades
+rurales de menos de 2 500 personas. De los 2 445 municipios que tiene México,
+570 se encuentran en territorio oaxaqueño, y 418 se rigen por el sistema de
+usos y costumbres [^2]. Es decir, en Oaxaca el 58% de la superficie total del
+territorio, es propiedad social de carácter comunal. En estas localidades, las
+autoridades están bajo el mando de la asamblea comunitaria, lo cual representa
+un ejercicio de democracia directa y participativa, y una forma de
+autogobierno reconocida por la constitución política mexicana. En esta región
+conviven 16 pueblos originarios, siendo también el estado con mayor diversidad
+étnica y lingüística del país.
+
+Además, Oaxaca es el estado con mayor biodiversidad, debido a que es una
+región geológica muy compleja, donde se cruzan tres cadenas montañosas
+extensas y profundas, la Sierra Madre Occidental, la Sierra Sur y la Sierra
+Norte, más conocida como Sierra Juárez. Debido a su accidentada geografía, los
+conquistadores europeos no pudieron someter completamente a estos pueblos,
+quienes pudieron conservar sus formas de autogobierno, que con el tiempo se
+han ido adaptando y reconfigurando al contexto actual.
+
+A mediados de los años setenta y principios de los ochenta, entre los pueblos
+originarios de Oaxaca y el sureste de México surgió un movimiento social en
+respuesta a las políticas desarrollistas impulsadas por el gobierno y frente a
+la necesidad de defenderse del despojo de tierras, saqueo de recursos y
+desplazamientos forzados.  Este movimiento demandó el respeto a sus formas de
+vida, sus idiomas y su espiritualidad. De esta forma construyeron y
+defendieron la autonomía y se construyó el concepto de «Comunalidad» como la
+forma de explicar la vida de estas localidades y pueblos. En aquellos años,
+constituyeron sus primeras empresas comunitarias de recursos forestales,
+embotelladoras de agua de manantial, proyectos de ecoturismo, comercialización
+y exportación de productos comestibles, además de una multitud de radios
+comunitarias. A día de hoy, este movimiento social continua luchando por la
+defensa del territoriocontra las empresas extractivistas mineras que quieren
+entrar en la región.
+
+Estas luchas dieron vida a lo que la antropóloga Elena Nava llama las «teorías
+analíticas-nativas construidas desde abajo» donde pensadores indígenas como
+Jaime Martinez Luna (Zapoteco) y Floriberto Díaz Gómez (Mixe) buscaron
+entender la vida en comunidad más allá de las definiciones académicas
+occidentales. Estos pensadores se preguntaron: ¿Qué es una comunidad para
+nosotros los indios? Se trata de un espacio territorial de propiedad comunal,
+una historia común de carácter oral, un idioma común, una forma de
+organización propia y un sistema comunitario de procuración de justicia. A
+esto le llamaron «Comunalidad» como forma de ser, vivir y sentir, considerando
+a la tierra como madre, practicando el consenso en asambleas como órgano
+máximo para la toma de decisiones, generando un sistema de cargos basado en el
+servicio gratuito, desarrollando trabajo colectivo como acto de solidaridad y
+reciprocidad; y la fiesta, los ritos y las ceremonias como expresiones de lo
+común.
+
+## Las radios comunitarias como empresas de comunicación comunal
+
+En 2006, Oaxaca vivió un levantamiento social detonado por la represión
+por parte del gobierno al movimiento de trabajadores de la educación.
+Este movimiento dio vida a la Asamblea Popular de Pueblos de Oaxaca [^4]
+y entre sus principales características fue la creación de varias radios
+comunitarias y la toma de los medios de comunicación estatales [^5].
+Algunas de éstas se convirtieron después en Empresas Comunales de
+Comunicación [^6] con el fin de reforzar la autonomía de las localidades
+y contribuir al alcance de los objetivos y visiones de vida de los
+pueblos originarios, es decir, su autodeterminación.
+
+En 2012, más de 30 autoridades municipales y comunidades indígenas
+hicieron una petición formal a la Secretaría de Comunicaciones y
+Transportes (SCT) para reclamar el acceso a la frecuencias
+correspondientes a la banda GSM [^3]. Sin embargo, la petición fue
+rechazada. El actual marco legal no obliga a las grandes compañías de
+telecomunicación a proporcionar servicios de comunicación en localidades
+rurales de menos de 5 000 personas, aunque el órgano regulador del
+estado sí se ve obligado a garantizar el servicio universal en entornos
+rurales.
+
+## La tecno-semilla
+
+La creación de una red de telefonía celular autónoma se viene cocinando
+desde hace varios años dentro de la comunidad *hacker* del movimiento de
+software libre y han existido varios intentos previos para hacerla
+realidad. Por ejemplo, en 2008 surgió la idea de utilizar los teléfonos
+celulares en defensa de los derechos humanos y ambientales, y para
+documentar los abusos que enfrentaban los pueblos originarios del sur de
+Nigeria. El desafío planteado de qué hacer con la documentación
+producida con los teléfonos celulares llevó a experimentar con un
+software (Serval Mesh) que permitía comunicarse sin pasar por la red de
+ninguna empresas de telefonía comercial. Esa tecnología no resultó
+adecuada para ese contexto. No obstante, esas inquietudes llevaron Peter
+Bloom, fundador de la organización Rhizomática, a querer probar con un
+sistema de telefonía celular cuando vino a colaborar con la organización
+Palabra Radio en Oaxaca [^7].
+
+A principios de 2011, Kino, un *hacker* con experiencia en tecnologías
+para comunidades indígenas en resistencia inicia una investigación
+acerca de las necesidades tecnológicas para poder crear estas redes. Al
+mismo tiempo, la artista mexicana Minerva Cuevas [^8], decide comprar un
+equipo pequeño a 3 000 dólares americanos para crear una intervención
+político-conceptual en Finlandia, con ayuda de Kino, y luego dona el
+equipo para hacer las primeras pruebas. Luego, el abogado Erick Huerta,
+especialista en telecomunicaciones y pueblos originarios, conoce a
+Rhizomática en un encuentro de comunicadores indígenas y se pone a
+investigar las implicaciones legales. En aquel momento, la organización
+Palabra Radio da soporte técnico a radios comunitarias, y es así como la
+idea llega a Keyla e Israel, participantes de la radio Dizha Kieru
+(Nuestra Palabra) ubicada en el poblado de Talea de Castro, donde en
+2013, nace finalmente la primera red de telefonía celular comunitaria.
+
+Antes del lanzamiento de la red, Erick Huerta entabló un diálogo con el
+órgano regulador del estado para revisar la asignación de espectro y
+encontró un rango de frecuencias para GSM que no se estaban usando y que
+nunca se había licitado o entregado a las grandes compañías. Esto
+permitió trabajar en un marco legal para que las comunidades pudieran
+operar sus propias redes de telecomunicaciones. En 2014, se obtuvo una
+licencia experimental por 2 años y en 2016 la organización de todas las
+comunidades que tienen redes de telefonía conformaron una asociación
+llamada "Telecomunicaciones Indígenas Comunitarias" (TIC A.C.), quien
+obtuvo una concesión social a 15 años para ser operadora en
+telecomunicaciones en 5 estados de México [^9]. La asociación
+Telecomunicaciones Indígenas Comunitarias A.C. está estructurada como
+una asamblea de comunidades. Ésta sentó precedentes importantes a nivel
+nacional e internacional al desafiar el modelo comercial hegemónico de
+hacer telecomunicaciones y al considerar los ciudadanos no como
+clientes-consumidores sino como sujetos de derechos fundamentales, entre
+los cuales se encuentra el derecho a la comunicación.
+
+Por lo tanto, estas redes de telefonía autónomas no explotan
+comercialmente los servicios que ofrecen y crean una cuota de
+recuperación para dotar la red de sostenibilidad. En la actualidad, esta
+cuota es de 40 pesos mexicanos (aproximadamente 2 dólares americanos)
+para cubrir los mensajes de texto y llamadas ilimitadas dentro de la
+localidad y las micro-regiones interconectadas. De esta cuota, 25 pesos
+mexicanos se quedan dentro de la economía local para solventar los
+gastos de inversión realizada por la comunidad y pagar al proveedor de
+Internet y los otros 15 se destinan a TIC A.C. para el mantenimiento de
+las redes y la realización de trámites legales.
+
+## ¿Cómo funciona la telefonía celular comunitaria?
+
+Una red de telefonía celular comunitaria es una red híbrida conformada
+por una infraestructura (software y hardware) y un servicio por internet
+que permiten que una comunidad pueda convertirse en prestadora de
+servicios de comunicación. El hardware consiste en un transceptor de
+señal GSM y un controlador o computadora operando con software libre
+conectada a la red de un proveedor de internet local y a la que se
+contrata un servicio de Voz por IP (VOIP). Gracias al trabajo de la
+comunidad *hacker* de software libre, Ciaby y Tele, dos hackers
+italianos, crearon los software (RCCN + RAI) que hacen que esta red
+funcione y cuente con una interfaz de administración sencilla.
+
+Una comunidad interesada en crear su propia red de telefonía necesita
+también haber llevado a cabo un proceso colectivo de toma de decisiones
+dentro de la asamblea comunitaria. Se elabora una acta que autoriza el
+proyecto y se nombra un comité de operación y administración de la red
+que recibe capacitación por parte de TIC A.C. que a su vez tiene la
+responsabilidad de apoyar a las comunidades en la importación,
+instalación, capacitación y acompañamiento en asuntos legales, así como
+de gestión de sus propias redes. La comunidad debe proporcionar el lugar
+donde se hará la instalación, e invertir alrededor de 7 500 dólares
+americanos en la compra del equipo, su instalación y la capacitación.
+Algunas comunidades utilizan fondos municipales, otras realizan una
+recolección de fondos entre las personas del pueblo o piden un préstamo.
+
+## Beneficios y desafíos
+
+Actualmente existen 15 redes [^10] que cubren alrededor de 50 poblados y
+cuentan entre 2 500 y 3 000 personas usuarias. Se observa un promedio de 1 300
+llamadas al día de las cuales el 60 % se dan dentro de la misma población o la
+región de la Sierra Juárez. Los principales beneficios de estas redes tienen
+que ver con facilitar la comunicación local entre residentes y a nivel
+micro-regional. Por otro lado, abarata la comunicación a nivel nacional e
+internacional gracias a un contrato con un proveedor de servicios de Voz sobre
+IP (VoIP), lo que disminuye los costos en un 60 % en comparación con lo que
+cobran las compañías. Debido a la regulación, no se cuenta con un sistema de
+numeración para cada dispositivo conectado, por lo tanto, se contrata un
+número público que recibe las llamadas de fuera y a partir de un menú de voz,
+que en algunos casos está en la lengua materna de la localidad, se teclea la
+extensión de la persona usuaria de la red.
+
+Desde el punto de vista de las personas y las familias, se observa mayor
+comunicación interpersonal, se facilita la organización de la vida comunitaria
+y el trabajo compartido, la convocatoria a asambleas y el cumplimiento de las
+labores del sistema de cargos. También facilita cuestiones de seguridad y
+vigilancia dentro del territorio. Es útil en emergencias de salud, o bien como
+sistema de prevención frente a los desastres naturales como plagas y
+tormentas. Finalmente, también facilita las relaciones comerciales y colabora
+en los procesos de producción al mejorar el acceso a más información y la
+comunicación con otras personas.
+
+En cuanto a desafíos encontramos nuevas y antiguas violencias de género que se
+pueden reproducir a través de estas tecnologías y que han llevado a la la
+creación de un nuevo mecanismo de atención de estas violencias.  Es ahí donde
+aparecen problemas ético-técnicos que van desde el almacenamiento hasta la
+entrega de información. La toma de decisiones respecto a estos problemas deben
+llevarse a debate dentro de la asamblea comunitaria y venir acompañados de un
+proceso participativo y de reflexión que tenga en cuenta perspectivas
+técnicas, políticas y éticas para que estos nuevos medios de comunicación
+puedan seguir existiendo sin perjudicar a las comunidades. Estas
+preocupaciones dieron pie a la creación del «Diplomado Comunitario para
+Personas Promotoras de Telecomunicaciones y Radiodifusión» y la creación de un
+Manual [^11] y un wiki [^12] para documentar la producción de conocimientos.
+
+## Soberanía Tecnológica y Autonomía
+
+Ahora que ya presentamos el proyecto de telefonía celular autónoma y
+comunitaria, quisiera adentrarme en la discusión ético-política que
+marca el ritmo del diálogo entre la comunidad *hacker* del movimiento de
+software libre y las comunidades de pueblos originarios en Oaxaca.
+Quiero reflexionar sobre la pertinencia del concepto de soberanía
+tecnológica como enfoque político para el análisis de este tipo de
+iniciativa. No cabe duda que el proyecto de telefonía comunitaria es
+resultado de la construcción de un puente entre estas dos comunidades,
+construido sobre unas bases compartidas: el procomún y la
+descolonización. Sin embargo, el encuentro y el diálogo entre ambos no
+es fácil ya que para la comunidad *hacker* el punto de partida es la
+defensa y descolonización del conocimiento como un procomún, mientras
+para las comunidades de pueblos originarios en Oaxaca, ese procomún es
+el territorio de propiedad comunal, que también requiere ser
+descolonizado.
+
+Descolonizar el territorio comunal implica entenderlo como un conjunto
+indisociable, que incluye al espectro radioeléctrico, ese bien común de
+dominio público, construido socialmente que permite a las comunidades
+fortalecer su autonomía. Para descolonizar el espectro radioeléctrico se
+requiere de tecnologías y de conocimiento. Es en ese punto donde se
+edifica el puente que encuentra a estas dos comunidades. Una vez que se
+encuentran comienza el diálogo y caemos en cuenta que el lenguaje
+también necesita ser descolonizado.
+
+Mientras construimos este diálogo hemos observado que la visión *hacker*
+busca el procomún desde el individuo mientras que la visión de las
+comunidades lo hacen desde lo comunal. Este es el punto de quiebre que
+hace que para algunos *hackers* que han llegado a este territorio
+oaxaqueño resulte complejo entender la falta de libertades individuales
+que existen en la vida comunal, debido a que las personas no son seres
+divorciados en su relación con el todo. También hemos aprendido que no
+todas las palabras resuenan igual. Hemos encontrado que un mismo signo
+tiene diferentes significados y es en este mismo sentido que quiero
+exponer lo que ocurre con el concepto de soberanía tecnológica que nos
+invitó a participar de este libro.
+
+Para que esta tecno-semilla brotara hubo que situarse en un terreno
+fértil con historia y memoria, un ecosistema comunal del sureste
+mexicano, un territorio que lleva siglos luchando por su autonomía y
+autodeterminación. Para los pueblos originarios de Oaxaca, el concepto
+de soberanía esta relacionado con la construcción del Estado-Nación que,
+a través de su constitución política (1917), buscó absorber a las
+figuras de autoridad comunales originarias, dentro de la estructura
+estatal, y en ese sentido repetía la experiencia colonial.
+
+Hasta 1992 el estado mexicano no reconoció el derecho de los pueblos
+originarios a regirse por «usos y costumbres». En 1994, cuando el
+movimiento neo-zapatista salió a la luz pública subvirtiendo la idea
+marxista de revolución nacional con una revolución por la autonomía, se
+reconoció a nivel mundial las reivindicaciones de autogobierno de los
+pueblos originarios del
+
+sureste mexicano con la creación y usos creativos y tácticos de las
+tecnologías de comunicación para estos fines. Para entender mejor esta
+última idea, volvamos al principio de esta historia, a nuestro cartel de
+bienvenida:
+
+    En esta comunidad no existe la propiedad privada.
+
+    PROHIBIDA la compra-venta de terrenos comunales.
+
+    Atentamente El Comisariado de Bienes Comunales de Ixtlan de Juárez.»
+
+No se trata de una declaración de soberanía sino de autonomía. Aquí la
+construcción del poder no es desde la soberanía del pueblo, sino que es
+un poder que emana del territorio, ese bien común, donde no cabe la
+propiedad privada y donde las tecnologías tienen el papel de fortalecer
+esa autonomía, ese es el único mandato que debe respetar y defender la
+asamblea comunitaria.
+
+Hasta aquí queda claro que nos estamos refiriendo al concepto clásico de
+soberanía y el significado que tiene en este rincón del mundo. Lejos
+estamos del concepto de soberanía tecnológica que postula el desarrollo
+de iniciativas propias, definidas por la vida en comunidad, como proceso
+de empoderamiento para la transformación social. En gran medida esta
+distancia se alimenta de la idea equívoca de querer fortalecer a las
+comunidades con tecnologías comerciales actuales para lograr una
+transformación social. Necesitamos seguir tejiendo saberes entre
+*hackers* y pueblos para descolonizar el concepto de soberanía
+tecnológica y ejercerlo desde la autonomía.
+
+Es por esta razón que, cuando la comunidad *hacker* del movimiento de
+software libre propone entender estas iniciativas desde el enfoque de la
+soberanía tecnológica, no encontramos el eco esperado porque el
+significado es diferente. Aparentemente se trata de un conflicto aunque
+en realidad es un punto de encuentro: necesitamos descolonizar el
+lenguaje. Y como bien dice Alex Hache: «Entonces, si la idea se puede
+contar, también significa que puede ir calando en el imaginario social,
+produciendo un efecto radical y transformador».
+
+Estamos en un buen momento de entablar un diálogo entre soberanía
+tecnológica y autonomía, entendida tal como se vive en este rincón del
+mundo, entre los pueblos originarios del sureste mexicano.
+
+[^1] https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaxaca
+
+[^2] https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistema_de_usos_y_costumbres
+
+[^3]
+https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistema_global_para_las_comunicaciones_m%C3%B3vile
+
+[^4]
+https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asamblea_Popular_de_los_Pueblos_de_Oaxaca
+
+[^5] Un poquito de tanta verdad:
+http://www.corrugate.org/un-poquito-de-tanta-verdad.html
+
+[^6] Loreto Bravo. Empresas Comunales de Comunicación: Un camino hacia
+la sostenibilidad. *Media Development*, 4/2015 WACC.
+http://www.waccglobal.org/articles/empresas-comunales-de-comunicacion-un-camino-hacia-la-sostenibilidad
+
+[^7] https://palabraradio.org/nosotras
+
+[^8] Minerva Cuevas: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerva_Cuevas
+
+[^9] Puebla, Guerrero, Tlaxcala, Veracruz y Oaxaca
+
+[^10] Lista de poblados que tienen redes de telefonía
+
+- Villa Talea de Castro (Sierra Juárez)
+
+- Santa María Yaviche (Sierra Juárez)
+
+- San Juan Yaee (Sierra Juárez)
+
+- San Idelfonso Villa Alta (Sierra Juárez)
+
+- San Juan Tabaa (Sierra Juárez)
+
+- Sector Cajonos: Santo Domingo Xagacia, San Pablo Yaganiza, San Pedro
+Cajonos, San Francisco Cajonos, San Miguel Cajonos, San Mateo Cajonos
+(Sierra Juárez)
+
+- San Bernardo Mixtepec (Valles Centrales)
+
+- Santa María Tlahuitoltepec (Mixe-Alto)
+
+- Santa María Alotepec (Mixe-Alto)
+
+- San Jerónimo Progreso (Mixteca)
+
+- Santiago Ayuquililla (Mixteca)
+
+- San Miguel Huautla (Mixteca)
+
+- Santa Inés de Zaragosa (Mixteca)
+
+- Santos Reyes Tepejillo (Mixteca)
+
+[^11]
+https://media.wix.com/ugd/68af39_c12ad319bb404b63bd9ab471824231b8.pdf
+
+[^12] http://wiki.rhizomatica.org/
+
+[^13]
+https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soberan%C3%ADa_Tecnol%C3%B3gica\#cite_note-1

or/content/09coati.md

@@ -0,0 +1,338 @@
+
+# COATI: Simultaneous interpreting using radio frequencies
+
+***Colectivo para la Autogestión de las Tecnologías de la Interpretación***
+
+![](../../contrib/gfx/illustrations/coati-halfsize.png)
+
+> *“International solidarity and global protest is nothing new. From the
+> European-wide revolutions of 1848, through the upheavals of 1917-18
+> following the Russian Revolution, to the lightning flashes of resistance
+> nearly everywhere in 1968, struggle has always been able to communicate and
+> mutually inspire globally. But what is perhaps unique to our times is the
+> speed and ease with which we can communicate between struggles and the fact
+> that globalisation has meant that many people living in very different
+> cultures across the world now share a common enemy.”* – Do or Die, Issue 8,
+> 1999
+
+> *“Our resistance is as transnational as capital”*<br/> – Slogan of the global day of action against capitalism, June 18, 1999
+
+As the economy has become increasingly transnational, so too has resistance to
+its devastating social and ecological consequences.  International resistance
+means coming together from different struggles and cultures to meet, share
+ideas and experiences, and coordinate actions.  Crossing borders and cultures
+in this way means communicating across language barriers, and language is
+about power.
+
+Many international gatherings take place in the more ‘international’
+languages, such as English, Spanish, Russian or French.  Many people speak
+these languages, but that is because they have long histories of imperialism:
+they were forcibly, and in many cases brutally, imposed on people from many
+different cultures, devouring local languages and eradicating cultural
+diversity.  They can help us communicate, but they are often not people's
+first language, and people participating in a foreign language may be unsure
+if they have understood everything correctly, or they may lack confidence
+about expressing themselves well.  Events are often dominated by people who
+feel comfortable with the majority language.  Thus, native speakers of
+colonial languages (particularly English) have dominated history and they
+continue to dominate our meetings.
+
+If we are committed to diversity, grassroots participation or consensus
+decision-making, we must raise awareness of these power dynamics and processes
+of inclusion and exclusion.  Increasing the equality of our communication and
+creating space for speakers of other languages is an important political
+struggle.  One valuable tool for dealing with this is providing interpreting
+between languages so that everyone can communicate in a language they are
+comfortable with.
+
+Interpreting between two languages is an art as ancient as languages
+themselves and requires no technology.  However, for interpreting to be
+practical in larger meetings in several languages it must be simultaneous.
+Multi-language, simultaneous interpreting cannot happen without technology.
+
+## A history of alternative interpreting technologies
+
+The first attempt to use technology to facilitate this type of interpreting
+seems to have been at the Nuremberg trials after the Second World War, using a
+system based on the telephone [^1].  Since then, the technology, usually based
+on infrared transmission, has developed alongside international organisations
+such as the UN and the EU.  It is now very advanced, but extremely expensive
+and out of reach for most activist spaces and social movements.  Even if an
+event can afford to hire some equipment, the costs soon become astronomical if
+you want to work at any kind of scale.
+
+The European and World Social Forums (ESF and WSF) that took place between
+2001 and 2010 were international events on a massive scale, with up to 100,000
+participants and hundreds of parallel meetings every day.  Initially,
+interpretation was very limited, due to costs, but some people quickly
+realised the importance of languages to the political process.  Babels, a
+network of volunteer interpreters, was born.
+
+Interpreting and interpreting technology became part of the political process.
+Interpreting is easiest in large plenary sessions, where a few people speak
+and most just listen.  Participatory organising requires working in small
+groups, where more people have the opportunity to contribute, but this
+multiplies the interpreting resources required, so decisions about
+interpreting affect the working dynamics of an event.  The prohibitive cost of
+commercial technology and interpreters limits available resources, and there
+is no such thing as a purely technical choice.  Even if there is money to pay
+for the service, it is a one-off thing: you give it to a commercial company
+and it is gone.  The alternative is to "Do it Yourself", invest in people and
+equipment and thus increase the capacities and autonomy of the movements.
+
+At the 2003 ESF in Paris, over 1000 volunteers took part in the
+interpretation, and every plenary and workshop took place in several
+languages.  However, the technology used was commercial, and the costs were
+astronomical.  Full-scale, commercial interpreting technology has never been
+used again in an event of that size.  This inspired the first experiments in
+alternative interpreting technology.  Initially, these were based on
+computers, but digitalisation introduced long delays that confused the
+interpreters and the audience alike.  At the 2004 WSF in Mumbai, India,
+computers were abandoned for more low-tech, analogue solutions, transmitting
+through cables and via FM radio.  In Greece, a collective known as ALIS
+(ALternative Interpreting Systems) was formed to provide interpreting
+technology for the 2006 Athens ESF.  Following the blueprints and building on
+the experiences of earlier groups using analogue interpreter consoles and FM
+radio transmission, they spent months building enough equipment to cover the
+entire event.
+
+Athens was the first (and, for Social Forums, sadly the only) time that a
+large political event fully recognised alternative interpreting technology as
+a political question in itself and gave it the space and resources necessary
+to carry out its mission.  The result was an unprecedented success.  Infrared
+receivers are extremely expensive devices, jealously guarded by their
+commercial owners who require participants to deposit a passport or credit
+card in exchange for their use.  In Athens, interpreting was made available to
+anyone with an FM receiver, and versions of that system are still being used
+by social movements today, allowing people access to interpreting through any
+household radio or smartphone.
+
+Nevertheless, despite the success of Athens, the experience of working with
+the Social Forums was generally that the best efforts of interpreters and
+technicians were rendered completely ineffective by inadequate political and
+technical support at the events.  Furthermore, there was no support at all
+between events, when equipment had to be bought or built, stored, transported,
+tested and repaired.  Unlike commercial equipment which you rent for the
+duration of an event, self-managed equipment remains with you between
+meetings, and in greater amounts than any particular event may need.  People
+have to be trained in how it works, logistical issues need to be solved and
+there are administrative loads to bear, all of which requires resources and
+dedication.  The Social Forum process refused to learn that lesson, but other
+movements have taken it on board.
+
+## COATI: The Collective for Autonomy in Interpreting Technology
+
+COATI was founded in Barcelona in 2009, bringing together people who had
+participated in anti-capitalist and anti-globalisation movements.  We had
+supported the peasant farmers of Via Campesina in the creation of the movement
+for Food Sovereignty.  We had volunteered as interpreters – sometimes in very
+precarious conditions – and seen the value of good alternative technology.  We
+had learnt to organise horizontally and by consensus in the Do-It-Yourself
+culture of anarchist and anti-capitalist social centres all over Europe.  We
+had built an understanding of technology in the squatted hacklabs and free
+software communities.  We learnt about sound systems running hardcore punk
+festivals, street parties and independent, community-based radio stations.  It
+was those experiences – and the values of those communities – that inspired
+the project.
+
+We invited someone from the original ALIS collective to come to Barcelona and
+train us in how their equipment worked, and we began to track down as much of
+the old alternative technology as we could find (most of it was piled up in
+warehouses, or in forgotten boxes in campaign offices, gathering dust).  Our
+commitment was to increasing linguistic diversity and our plan was to acquire
+and manage the equipment, so that each event didn't have to solve its
+technology problems from scratch.  However, we quickly learnt that increasing
+access to interpreting technology was going to require more than just
+administering the equipment and reducing the costs.
+
+### Making alternative technology work for people
+
+The first challenge was to overcome resistance to using alternative
+technologies, often born of bad experiences people had had with the equipment
+in the past.  Designed within the social movements, the system did not match
+the quality of commercial equipment.  It was built with the aim of drastically
+reducing costs, using cheap material not specifically designed for audio.  The
+interpreters and the audience alike could be plagued with an electronic
+buzzing noise that was exhausting to listen to for any length of time.
+
+An important part of the solution was simply treating the technology as an
+important issue.  We trained ourselves.  Wherever our equipment went, there
+was always a dedicated person responsible for operating it.  Many of the
+problems of the past were caused by alternative technology being treated as an
+afterthought so that no one had time to ensure it was working well.  We learnt
+as we went along.  We devoted a lot of time to identifying the causes of
+problems and modifying the equipment, adding small circuits to filter and
+boost signals, and improve the quality of the sound.
+
+The material built by the Greek collective came with no schematics, which was
+made this considerably harder.  Hours of reverse engineering were required
+before we could make modifications.  Now the equipment is almost 10 years old
+and we are beginning to face the challenge of designing and building new,
+open-source consoles from scratch.  We are very aware of the value of
+open-source design, and all of the electronic work we have done is fully
+documented and available online [^2].
+
+### Making people work with alternative technology
+
+Overcoming technological problems was not the only challenge we faced.  Some
+of the most difficult issues stemmed from the political and organising
+cultures of the movements themselves.  Many groups are based on relatively
+informal organising and people can be resistant to the discipline simultaneous
+interpreting requires: people must speak slowly and clearly; use microphones
+so that the signal reaches the interpreters; and people cannot interrupt each
+other.  Larger networks and NGOs may have more experience of working with
+interpreters, but they tend to treat it as a mere technical service that
+should be invisible and not as an important part of the political process.
+They get frustrated with the demands of solidarity interpreting and
+alternative technologies for enabling participation and political involvement.
+However smoothly the technology is working, just having interpreting does not
+automatically eradicate the power dynamics created by language, and it must be
+everybody's responsibility to create space for more minority languages.
+
+Another important part of the work done by COATI has therefore been working to
+promote the political culture that alternative interpreting technology needs
+to really work.
+
+### Volunteer interpreting
+
+Alternative technology can be used by commercial interpreters, and volunteer
+interpreters can work in commercial booths.  However, in practice the two
+processes have developed very closely, side by side, and a key element of
+organising an event is often finding volunteers with the necessary skills to
+meet the language needs.  You can deal with this by finding professional
+interpreters who are willing to work for free, either out of solidarity, or
+simply because they need work experience, or because travel and expenses will
+be covered to exotic places.  However, this relationship risks becoming one of
+cheap service provision, with volunteers having little interest in the
+political issues being discussed; and the resulting expenses can be high even
+if the work is done for free.
+
+A large part of our work is therefore helping movements to build the capacity
+for simultaneous interpreting within their own grassroots environment.  The
+larger an event is, the more complex this process becomes and a whole article
+could be written just on the political and technical questions involved.
+Suffice to say that it is a very important issue.  We have developed a two-day
+training for activists with language skills, and we always try to incorporate
+skill sharing in the interpreting teams we coordinate, putting experienced
+interpreters together with new activist volunteers in our booths.
+
+### Speaking for interpreters
+
+Another important part of changing the political culture has been to raise the
+profile of language diversity among participants in international events.
+Wherever we work we try to give a political and practical introduction to the
+equipment, and provide written guidelines on how to speak in multi-lingual
+meetings [^3].  We encourage people to actively think about the language they
+use.  For example, we ask participants not to speak the majority language
+during the meeting, even if they could, because it marginalises those who have
+to rely on the interpreting, leaving them feeling embarrassed, uncultured, and
+consequently, less inclined to take part.  We have experimented with
+subverting the invisible interpreting model, placing the booths centre-stage
+and having speakers speak from the floor, thus making everyone aware of the
+processes involved.
+
+### Designing flexible solutions to meet political needs
+
+Interpreting inevitably does impose limitations on what a meeting or gathering
+can do, and simultaneous interpreting is best suited to quite hierarchical
+forms of organising such as the traditional conference model.  However, we are
+committed to non-hierarchical organising.  We make it a priority to understand
+a group's methodologies, needs and resources in order to match them to the
+technological possibilities.
+
+There are two main parts of this process.  One is to work closely with event
+organisers to understand their political aims and help them to understand
+interpreting and interpreting technology and how they interact with different
+kinds of facilitation techniques and meeting dynamics.  The other is to take a
+creative approach to the equipment, building little hacks using mixers and
+splitters, and wiring (or sometimes gaffer-taping) devices together in
+unconventional ways to make them do what we need.
+
+We have built up a wealth of experience of pushing the boundaries of what can
+be done to break the mould of the typical meeting format, even in quite
+extreme circumstances.  At the Second Nyeleni Europe gathering in Cluj-Napoca,
+Romania in 2016 we organised interpreters and equipment to work with
+experimental participatory methodologies with over 400 participants in more
+than nine languages.  We are now working on a technical and political guide to
+facilitation with multiple languages.
+
+### The biggest challenge: Decentralisation
+
+Over the past seven years we have worked with many groups and movements to
+help solve the language requirements of their international events.  Very
+often this means us providing all the necessary technology and technicians, as
+well as coordinating the volunteer interpreters for the event.  However, we
+also collaborate in mixed solutions, and help organizations to develop or
+acquire their own equipment, and to build capacity to meet their interpreting
+needs.  We believe that real technological sovereignty means that groups don't
+have to rely on 'experts', but become empowered to meet their own
+technological needs.  One of our biggest projects has therefore been the
+development of simple, easy to use, build-your-own open-source hardware.
+
+## The Spider: An open-source hardware project
+
+The simplest form of interpreting technology is probably the “Spider”: a small
+box you plug a microphone into, with sockets for headphones to take the
+interpreting to the audience via cables, making it look like a big, lanky
+spider!
+
+Compared to FM radio or other wireless transmissions, Spiders are cheap and
+very easy to operate.  Spiders are a small-scale device, only really suitable
+for smaller meetings, although in extreme situations we have used them at
+events with hundreds of participants!  The real scalability of the project
+lies in the fact that any organisation can have a few, making them completely
+autonomous for many of their interpreting needs.
+
+Years of experience went into developing and producing our own open-source
+version of the Spider, with many improvements, such as modular extensions you
+can use to add listeners in groups of up to twelve.
+
+We build our Spiders by hand, for our own use and for sale.  We also sell
+make-your-own kits at cost price.  All the schematics, parts references and
+complete building instructions are published online [^2] under the GNU General
+Public License.
+
+## Training new tech collectives
+
+Since the Spider project went online, we have run a number of electronics
+workshops, training people to build their own spiders.  We also know of at
+least one group, in Ukraine, that has built Spiders without any contact with
+us.  We invite technicians from other groups to join us at large events and
+see how the technology works in the field.  We have taken part in a number of
+skill-sharing weekends, helping new groups to get started.  We have
+participated in the creation of new collectives using Spiders and inventing
+their own interpreting solutions in Romania [^4] and Poland [^5], as well as
+an international collective, Bla [^6], which has Spiders and small radio kits
+that travel to different events around Europe.
+
+## Conclusions
+
+Sovereignty in interpreting technology has come to mean many things to us.  In
+the first instance, in order to extend access to interpreting technologies to
+resistance movements, it was necessary to reduce the costs, and develop
+high-quality alternative solutions that really work and are sustainable in the
+long-term.  However, that was not the only challenge.  A lot of political work
+still needs to be done to overcome people's resistance to using interpreting
+technology to open our meetings and gatherings up for speakers of other
+languages to participate on an equal footing.  There is a need to share skills
+and knowledge about the technical aspects of interpreting and how those can
+interact with different kinds of facilitation dynamics.  Open-source research
+and development that aims to maximise technological sovereignty must be
+accompanied by capacity building and political mobilisation, in order to
+increase people's awareness of why and how they should use the technology, as
+well as to empower them to really control and create their own solutions.
+
+***For more information about COATI and the work we do please see:***
+https://coati.pimienta.org
+
+[^1]: http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-29/how-do-all-those-leaders-un-communicate-all-those-languages
+
+[^2]: All the modifications and schematics we use can be seen here: https://coati.pimienta.org/electronics
+
+[^3]: Our written guidelines can be consulted here: https://coati.pimienta.org/documents/
+
+[^4]: Grai Collective, Romania: grai@riseup.net
+
+[^5]: Klekta Collective, Poland: klekta@riseup.net
+
+[^6]: Bla Collective (international): https://bla.potager.org 

or/content/10leaks.md

@@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
+
+# Whistleblowing
+
+## A double edged sword
+
+***Claudio Agosti***
+
+![](../../contrib/gfx/illustrations/whistleblowing-halfsize.png)
+
+Whistleblowing is an ancient practice that has been called many names and is
+not ethically bound.  It can be the link between the source and the
+journalist, or between the snitch and the military.  In both cases, a reserved
+information goes in the hands of a person considered trustworthy, which
+transforms this information into an action.  Wikileaks and Snowden have made
+whistleblowing come back full powered, showing how digital communication can
+simplify the process and protect the integrity of communications between
+sources and recipients.  Anonymity and encrypted storage technologies have
+propelled this revolutionary framing.
+
+I say framing because whistleblowing does not have an ethical value per se,
+what identifies its nature is the political cause that motivates it.  So if
+you are a single person going up against a powerful organisation, like the US
+state department, the intelligence community, the financial system, or the
+Vatican, you might be remembered for your heroic behaviour, like Chelsea
+Manning [^1], Bill Binney [^2], Herve Falciani [^3], Paolo Gabriele and Claudio
+Sciarpelletti [^4].  Although becoming famous in this field often means you
+have been caught, denounced or that you are in the run, hopefully those
+outcomes do not apply to all whistleblowers, as we will see.
+
+Your informations can empower the citizen in understanding the power dynamics
+in play, but institutions themselves can also take advantage of those.  If the
+ultimate goal of whistleblowing is making society more transparent in the
+interest of society itself, this might sound fascinating if you want a
+revolution, but it can be also very irresponsible for other reasons.  Nobody
+really wants a society in which everyone can be a spy or an anonymous snitch.
+
+Such a society would just strengthen the currently established institutions in
+power.  Regimes in which a person can be economically rewarded for snitching
+on other citizens exemplify such misuse.  Added to that, any structure with
+some type of power, even your small NGO or political team, benefits from
+agreements and contracts which are kept private because they require some
+level of confidentiality.  No resistance would be possible without well kept
+secrets.
+
+Transparency for the State (or for “who has enough power to shape our
+reality”) and privacy for the rest of us?  This could work as a nice
+simplification, but then we should respect this separation in all our
+political actions and never, ever, expose any private information of other
+citizens.
+
+I worked with the globaleaks.org team on the creation of its software
+platform.  Our dream, was to create a “portable wikileaks” that could be
+unleashed in every city, media and public company.  After all, white collar
+crime and other corporate misbehaviour can’t be detected, neither understood,
+without an insider.  My experience comes from deploying it for different
+groups with different needs.  Departing from the made up story below, we will
+see how digital whistleblowing can enhance your political actions and what you
+should take into account when planning your leak initiative.
+
+## Once upon a time...
+
+There was a river getting heavily polluted.  Some facility operates nearby and
+it is clear they are disposing chemical waste.  There are rules, periodic
+checks, policies – but at the end of the day, flora and fauna are getting
+poisoned.  Someone inside must know, but you don’t know anybody who works at
+the facility.
+
+Your team creates a campaign and solicit sources, but criticism starts because
+your Wordpress blog for receiving the leaks is not very secure.  Therefore,
+you set-up a proper platform (SecureDrop or GlobaLeaks [^5]) that can guarantee
+anonymity for the source, and encryption for the information exchanged.  Even
+a seizure of the server can’t compromise the security of sources nor your
+active investigations.  This is a privacy by design setup.  However, despite
+the platform pick, you know that your initiative is shaking some established
+power and you fear retaliation.  You develop a mitigation plan based on
+splitting responsibilities among a larger group composed of environmental
+lawyers, local journalists and some foreign analyst who also receives the
+leaks.  This way, if a person get stopped, the initiative will keep running.
+However, despite all this security management, after two months you have
+received zero leaks.
+
+Sadly, we are closed in our bubble, our circles.  We try to communicate with
+our intended audience, but despite our efforts at the end of the day we talk
+only to persons similar to us.  So, nobody working at the facility was in your
+comfort zone.  You’ve to hunt these sources, advertise them personally or
+massively.  In the beginnings, nobody understands why your cause is important.
+Then you re-frame your message, making clear why it matters for the
+environment, why their role is important, and after some weeks, the first
+timid source might arrive.
+
+This is just the beginning and when the first article is published, you know
+this story will be read by facility employees because they talk about their
+company.  And then you explain again why their role matters, how they can send
+anonymous tip-offs, that they are not the first and can do it safely.
+Gradually, step by step, gaining trust from persons with different values and
+knowledge, you are getting the flow of information that might be transformed
+in political outrage, strength, actions.  After a while, society takes action
+and the facility has to take responsibility for its environmental impact.
+
+This example can take place in different contexts in which abuses happen.  But
+let's see if all the outcomes of leaking are positive and corrective or if
+they can be damaging as well? 
+
+## Practical steps
+
+Suppose you are lucky enough to receive an anonymous document detailing a
+lobbyist plan to influence the new policy about environmental preservation.
+The first urge might be to publish it immediately.  Let citizens make their
+own mind, and check if the information contained in the document fits their
+own knowledge.  Some readers might confirm, deny, or integrate new information
+within the original source.
+
+But this is not journalism and it is not information, it is just a naive
+action of unmediated radical transparency.  Ten years ago, WikiLeaks used to
+work that way.  It was a platform in which sources could upload documents and
+have other readers perform its analysis, investigation and publication.  In
+2007, it was a common way of doing things, until Buzzfeed [^6] does the same in
+2017, publishing an unvalidated report about Russians and Donald Trump.
+
+However, such release methods are dangerous and extra tempting if you are
+operating in the information ecosystem.  The speed of messages does not let
+people evaluate the information in its context, nor understand how much of it
+is plausible and which are the parties involved.  Nowadays only the title, the
+subtitle, and maybe a small percentage of the actual content is actually
+spread.  It is impossible to ask for a public revision and when unvalidated
+news goes viral, the effect is to split the audience into two polarized
+groups.
+
+Trust is key because a leak might not lead to changes.  It can be ignored,
+silenced, accepted as daily life.  An anonymous document should be published,
+but it is expected that a trustworthy person, such as a mainstream media
+journalist, a visible activist or human rights defender states: “I know the
+source, I vouch for the source, I’m protecting the source”.
+
+Leaks are information you might use as accountable tools for transparency.
+They can also be legitimate research tools for civil society.  Results can
+feed into scientific or political processes.  Change is not something that can
+be implemented by technology.  On top of technically defined properties, you
+need to implement your political and ethical values.
+
+## Whistleblowing powered campaigns as processes
+
+The best validation method we have seen so far is independent research.  If
+the investigation hasn’t lead anywhere, then the leak has to be considered
+unconfirmed.  You might also need to interact with the source in order to get
+leads.  Luckily, some platforms can keep sources in the loop in order to
+confirm their submission, request updates, or answer questions raised during
+the investigation.  On the one hand, you can ask for more details.  On the
+other, you will still have to evaluate the proofs, because you cannot rely
+only on the source.  Publishing leaks without understanding the agenda and
+motivations of the sources can mean being instrumentalised by them.  Keep in
+mind that leaking has been used many times for organising smear campaigns.
+
+Having trustworthy partners among the recipients also greatly helps the
+initiative.  It ensures that the revision, source management and outreach will
+not be done by only one group, but will be shared through partnerships with
+local lawyers, journalists, policy makers, researchers.  Then your group has
+to transform investigated and validated leaks into stories.  Passionate and
+understandable stories to engage people and create mass mobilization.  Think
+about the process applied to the Edward Snowden leaks where for three years
+now there is constant journalistic revision and gradual publications.
+
+One key factor for a successful campaign is to remain focused on a subject, a
+topic, a challenge.  Do not vaguely call for evidence about corruption at
+large.  Frame your specificities in your landing page and targeted towards
+your audience.  Confirmed content should be clearly marked and more visible.
+And every time you have the opportunity to write for the media, remind to the
+readers that a safe box for tip-offs is available, because articles are
+generally read by people involved in the issue.
+
+It is useful to measure what is happening as much as possible.  Keep track of
+the event and monitor its social media presence in order to understand how to
+improve your campaign based on results collected earlier.  By sharing these
+measurements, you will help other initiatives like yours.  Don’t be afraid of
+your enemy and keep building open data on how your organisation works.  Do not
+address the people, but the numbers, concentrate on the results, achievements
+and statistics.
+
+## Dangerous paths where you should be cautious
+
+An initiative has a time window of existence, it has to define what it is
+aiming for, what is its next milestone and how it is going.  Having
+unmaintained initiatives might confound future potential sources.  If your
+activity stops, make it very clear, because nothing sounds more sketchy and
+worrying than a whistleblowing initiative that accepts tips but fails to
+publish them.
+
+Putting a source at risk is irresponsible, and this can happen if a story
+contains too many identifiable details.  Files need to be sanitized and
+metadata need to be cleaned, but you also need to ask the source about how
+many other persons got access to the same information.  Depending on the
+amount (two, twenty or two-hundred) aware of the same secret, different
+justifications will need to be made up.
+
+It is easy, when you're part of a conflict and you are facing an adversary, to
+assume that all the persons collaborating with it are your adversaries too.
+That is a dangerous path.  Do not aim at leaking personal information about
+“low-rank” workers, for instance, because you might just expose innocents to
+responsibilities they don't own.  Just imagine if similar actions were used
+from an established power to treat a minority or a marginalised group.  If you
+are looking for social justice, spreading whistle-blowing as a way to solve
+political struggles might just backfire against your agenda.
+
+Attacking an individual is a fascist behaviour, and it has to be stigmatized
+despite the political reason sustaining the initiative.  What has to be
+exposed is the corruption of a system, not the misery of life.  Whoever does
+the release has the mission also to protect low ranked individuals from public
+exposure.  Otherwise, whistleblowing will just enable a "Kompromat" [^7], a set
+of information that might embarrass someone or be used for blackmailing
+individuals.  Every faction in play can make use of it, so it is better to
+share strong ethical values in order to judge the democratic quality of
+initiatives.
+
+In theory, a whistleblowing initiative is intended to empower a weak group to
+shed light ona secretive oppressive organisation.  But what defines power,
+oppression and secrets depends on contextual and subjective evaluations and
+thus can be rarely used as an assessment and evaluation criteria.
+
+As a conclusion, I really believe whistleblowing can address and make good use
+of lot of disgruntled employees and the ethical remorse that some ex-workers
+experience.  Being able to empower these voices and transform their stories
+into changes is a vector of leverage we have to explore, maybe now more than
+ever.
+
+## Successful cases of GlobaLeaks adoption
+
+Interesting experiments have been created by communities around the world.
+Since 2012, the GlobaLeaks team is keeping track of a list [^8] but some of the
+most notable are the submissions collected by WildLeaks, a platform against
+animal poaching [^9]; the Italian Investigative Reporting Project Italy
+collecting evidence of public officers on Couch-surfing raping their guests
+[^10].  I mention this just because there are so many corruption cases.  The
+Spanish X-Net [^11] was able to prove the complicity of bankrupt bankers and
+the state and made a theater play out of it.  PubLeaks, with the participation
+of the biggest Dutch media, made a book with all the revelations received in 4
+years, and MexicoLeaks [^12], was apparently so frightening that journalists
+were fired even before the leaks began to flow.  And now is up to you.  What’s
+the Pandora’s box you want to open?
+
+## References
+
+[^1]: The most inspiring whistleblower of the last years perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning
+
+[^2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)
+
+[^3]: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/27/hsbc-whistleblower-jailed-five-years-herve-falciani
+
+[^4]: In 2012, Paolo Gabriele and Claudio Sciarpelletti, working for the Pope, fed journalists with internal and reserved documents about the Vatican management.  This lead to Pope Benedict XVI to step down (an event that was not happening since 600 years).
+
+[^5]: GlobaLeaks https://globaleaks.org and SecureDrop https://securedrop.org
+
+[^6]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/10/buzzfeeds-ridiculous-rationale-for-publishing-the-trump-russia-dossier
+
+[^7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompromat
+
+[^8]: https://www.globaleaks.org/implementations
+
+[^9]: https://wildleaks.org/leaks-and-reports/
+
+[^10]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/29/couchsurfing-rapist-dino-maglio-italian-police-officer-rape-padua
+
+[^11]: https://www.thenation.com/article/simona-levi/
+
+[^12]: https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/3776-mexicoleaks-journalists-fired-after-joining-whistleblowing-alliance
+

or/content/11leap.md

@@ -0,0 +1,344 @@
+
+# Encrypting mails with usable tools
+
+## The mass adoption of encryption technologies
+
+***Kali Kaneko***
+
+![](../../contrib/gfx/illustrations/leap-halfsize.png)
+
+Encryption is the application of mathematics to ensure that our information is
+*only* accessible to the persons or machines we decide to share it with.
+Encryption has a long history.  Protocols for sending encrypted information
+without having previously agreed on a shared secret with the other party (for
+deciphering encrypted data) have been around for roughly 35 years.  The
+landmark Pretty Good Privacy program, often abbreviated as PGP, made strong
+email encryption with guarantees of confidentiality, authentication and
+integrity widely available to users and developers in 1991 [^0].
+
+The relative popularity of PGP and its subsequent standardization is often
+depicted as a victory for the cypherpunks (cryptography activists) during the
+First Crypto Wars [^1].  So, what are the issues that still prevent the
+adoption of email encryption by the critical and large masses?  Why couldn’t
+Greenwald, the respected journalist, encrypt an email when he was contacted by
+his source Snowden, the analyst working for the NSA [^2]?
+
+To answer that, we have to look first at the architecture of internet
+services, then the economy of surveillance, and finally some historical
+usability failures.
+
+## Email in the times of surveillance capitalism
+
+Email is an open, federated protocol that has been re-centralized by big
+service providers.  These companies exploit economies of scale that lead to
+the commoditization of email.  Negative externalities from the commoditization
+of email include the arms race that evolved to prevent the spam industry from
+sending a large amount of unsolicited and often fraudulent email to users.
+
+In the early days of the internet, anybody could run an email provider.  The
+past decade, however, has seen a drastic reduction in the number of email
+providers.  Not only few individuals and collectives run their own email
+servers, but less and less people know that it is even possible to do so.
+Email has become another example of technology that is “just supposed to be
+there”.  The message seems to be that vital infrastructure is not something
+that you run for fun.  Something similar is happening with Instant Messaging
+[^3].
+
+Losing the battle for open, federated architectures also means losing control
+over the communication infrastructures we use.  The increase in monopolistic
+practices leads to a lack of interoperability between providers that puts up a
+barrier of entry for new email service providers.
+
+Monoculture is an imperative for centralized control: it means that an
+adversary only needs the cooperation of a single player to compromise the
+private communications of millions.  Email is not only about messages: today
+it is one of the last technological lines of defence on the internet for
+privacy-aware and localised alternatives for Identity Provision.  Legitimate
+email service providers can still choose to allow their users anonymity or
+pseudonimity, refuse to track or sell their data, etc.
+
+We increasingly see how mobile devices, instead of email accounts, are
+required for bootstrapping communication with your contacts.  The phone has
+become the gateway to Facebook's walled gardens in many countries [^4].  The
+lawyer and privacy advocate Lawrence Lessig warned that the Big Regulatory
+Loop is closing between the Industry and the State [^5], a big feat for those
+“weary giants of flesh and steel” that we didn't use to fear.
+
+Governments and corporations race towards the deployment of pervasive
+surveillance.  When big powers invest so much effort into eroding the
+fundamental rights of individuals and communities to decide upon the scope of
+their communications, building - and using - privacy tools becomes a moral
+imperative.  The right to whisper is an irrevocable and fundamental right that
+is being taken away by force.  Its criminalisation and disappearance has a
+profound impact on our capacity to exert our human rights and shape democratic
+societies.
+
+## We failed to empower people to encrypt
+
+Strategically, email might seem an odd choice nowadays, in an ever changing
+technological landscape that leans more and more towards mobile applications,
+and where most users had their first experience on the internet already
+mediated by the Big Silos.  Email is often criticized as an obsolete
+technology, because its architecture makes it hard to encrypt messages in a
+way that hides who is writing to whom about what.
+
+Even if more interesting and attack-resistant technologies appear in the
+future [^6], email will stay around at least for a while.  Email is the
+asynchronous medium we have and that needs to be protected.  Millions of
+emails are still sent daily without encryption, and emails with unverified
+senders are still used for devastating phishing or ransomware attacks.
+
+It is hard to assess whether it is only a fundamental usability problem that
+we're dealing with, or if on the contrary we are facing a general loss of
+interest in: 1. email as a tool; 2. privacy and security in online
+communications; or 3. a combination of the above.
+
+Commercial-level storage is cheap, and providers that rely on the exploitation
+of silo data and metadata can afford to give it away “for free”.  It’s obvious
+that these providers do not have a real incentive for encryption, because it
+would undermine their revenue streams.  Even providers that support encryption
+profit from traffic analysis.
+
+It has been shown that users are willing to pay an extra cost for services or
+apps that respect their privacy [^7], yet privacy-aware email providers have
+to compete against the major market players who exploit economies of scale to
+offer a baseline of the 15GB of “free” storage, high standards of reliability,
+speed, etc.  In other words, there are many critical users who could
+contribute to the costs of privacy-aware email providers, but usability and
+operational costs add up to making it very hard to compete against the
+established monopolies.
+
+In this sense, any serious attempt to provide alternatives must address the
+sustainability of technopolitical projects such as privacy-aware email
+providers.
+
+## It's also a problem with tools for nerds
+
+The “scratch your itch” attitude of the Free Software community just doesn't
+cut it any more for mass adoption.  Self-discipline and quality are key for
+maintaining a sustainable community around pleasant, usable and effective
+software.
+
+Given the humongous amount of resources that Capital has invested in the
+cybernetic control of the masses, current user expectations about usability
+are high.  Interacting with digital tools should only require a very small
+amount of cognitive effort.  New technologies that defy too many conventions
+(visual language and best practices such as common metaphors, established
+interfaces, features such as multi-device syncing, mobile first design, etc.)
+erect barriers against their adoption.  The eternal request from users to
+developers for the well known “wall” or “like” features in new technologies
+shows that arbitrary signs have became normalized.
+
+Nonetheless, oversimplification at the cost of irrevocably hiding complexity
+from the user is not the only available option – and it often backfires.  One
+could dream of an interface that makes everyday tasks simple, but allows users
+to explore further possibilities as they learn more.
+
+Nerd-driven development also shifts focus whenever a new shiny technology
+emerges.  That might partly explain why some technology stacks just languish
+and rot.  We need to cultivate excellence even in pieces of technology that
+don't get the excitement associated with new developments.  If we want crypto
+to spread outside the techie ghetto, half-baked and unmaintained tools that
+are unusable should be abandoned.  Arrogance about what users need to know or
+do before accomplishing the most basic task must be held under control.
+
+One example of broken tech is the Web of Trust system used for identifying the
+keys associated with a given email address.  Didactic attempts to explain its
+necessity for safe encryption practices have failed along the years, perhaps
+because it was based on broken assumptions from its inception [^8].
+
+## Looking at possible solutions
+
+Many projects have blossomed in the post-Snowden era.  I mention here one I am
+contributing to, and others that I consider interesting, both in terms of
+working software and evolving protocols.  My focus is on initiatives that
+build interoperable solutions on the top of the existing email infrastructure
+using the OpenPGP standard [^15].  I also briefly mention
+some new silos that try to monetize on the crypto fuzz.
+
+### Bitmask and the LEAP Encryption Access Project
+
+LEAP aims to develop encrypted email services that are easy to deploy and
+clients that are simple to use [^9].  LEAP implements opportunistic email
+encryption, which is a transparent process that requires only a little
+cognitive effort from users, and low maintenance costs for providers.  LEAP
+software may enable many federated providers to enter the email provisioning
+space by lowering the technical and economical costs.
+
+On the server side, the LEAP Platform is a set of complementary software
+packages and recipes to automate the maintenance of LEAP services.  Its goal
+is to make it as painless as possible for sysadmins to deploy and maintain
+secure communication services, as well as to help providers manage
+registration and billing.
+
+On the client side, the Bitmask application runs in the background.  It acts
+as a proxy for the same email programs that users are already familiar with.
+Alternatively, another interface is available that runs in the browser
+(through a customised version of Pixelated [^16].  Bitmask finds the relevant
+encryption keys for email addresses automatically, and works across different
+devices.  All data (including the encryption key database and the email
+itself) is end-to-end encrypted, which means that service providers have no
+access to the contents.  As part of the Panoramix project [^17], anonymous
+routing capabilities defending against traffic analysis will be added too,
+providing a greater level of privacy.
+
+### Throw your metadata through the Memory Hole
+
+In an email, the data is the content: the letter that you write.  The metadata
+is everything that helps the content be routed to its intended recipient: it
+is equivalent to the stamp, the envelope and the addresses of the recipient
+and the sender in a traditional mail.
+
+Conventional email encryption technologies are only concerned with protecting
+the content of the message.  Therefore, the metadata remains visible in
+transit.  Intermediaries who act as postmen can see your address, the
+recipient, date, subject line and even the path the message took to its
+destination.
+
+The [Memory Hole project]() aims to fix this
+problem by stashing metadata in the contents of the e-mail in a standardized
+way.  This means to hide as much metadata as possible inside the “protected”
+envelope from intermediaries such as service providers or spy agencies.
+
+By implementing this proposed standard, Memory Hole compliant email programs
+can protect a good amount of metadata from snooping and modification in
+transit.  Look for this feature in the near future!
+
+### Autocrypt: Such crypto, much mail
+
+The [Autocrypt project]() develops email
+encryption that is convenient enough for mass adoption even if it cannot be as
+secure as traditional email encryption.
+
+The project is driven by a diverse group of mail app developers, hackers and
+researchers who are willing to take fresh approaches, learn from past
+mistakes, and thereby increase the overall adoption of encrypted email.  Some
+popular software such as K9 (mobile email app), Enigmail (encryption plugin
+for the Thunderbird mail reader) or Mailpile (a web interface for email)
+already support this protocol.
+
+Autocrypt uses regular email messages to exchange the information that allows
+the encryption of subsequent messages.  It adds metadata to the email that
+stores the encryption keys associated with users, as well as their relevant
+preferences about encryption behaviour.
+
+### The Webmail family: Modern email clients built on web technologies
+
+A webmail interface offers an intuitive user experience.  It runs in the
+browser that is available on any desktop computer.  In-browser apps pose some
+security problems (unverifiable code execution, secrets storage open to a very
+wide attack surface, etc.) but it also drastically lowers the barrier to
+adoption.
+
+Mailpile [^10] is a self-hosted email service.  Its user interface takes
+advantage of widely supported web standards such as HTML5 and JavaScript.  The
+interface connects to a backend that typically lives on the local device, but
+may also run on a server.  It supports end-to-end encryption via the
+traditional OpenPGP standard.  The interface emphasises searching and tagging,
+which makes it a bit similar to the popular Gmail web inferface and sets it
+apart from most other free software email programs.  The Mailpile initiative
+holds a lot of promise as a modern cross-platform mail client, especially
+since the Mozilla Foundation stopped supporting the development of its main
+alternative, the Thunderbird desktop mail reader.
+
+Another interesting open-system webmail approach was Whiteout, which closed in
+2015 with more than 10.000 users.  Their open source software implemented
+interoperable protocols.  In their post-mortem note they shared some
+calculations about what a viable market of encrypted messaging apps could look
+like [^11], although the lesson might well be that the model of startup
+companies is not suitable for tackling the surveillance problem.
+
+Mailvelope [^12] might be a suitable option when compromises have to be
+absolutely made.  It is a browser extension that allows you to use OpenPGP
+email encryption with mainstream webmail providers like Gmail, Yahoo, and
+Outlook.  Popular free software webmail applications like Roundcube (the
+webmail offered by projects like Riseup or Autistici) also support the
+Mailvelope plugin [^13].
+
+### Non-email messaging services
+
+Last, I’d like to mention several initiatives that are gaining traction among
+users that seek secure email providers, but that cannot be considered as
+interoperable and encrypted email services.  They usually support end-to-end
+encryption only between users of the same service, and fall back to
+unencrypted email for users of other providers.  Alternatively, some require
+that users across providers exchange a shared secret manually – which defeats
+the purpose of public key cryptography that is the big thing about the OpenPGP
+standard used by the other projects, and centralizes the ecosystem once again.
+
+Known examples of this category of centralized, non-email services are
+ProtonMail (a Swiss webmail app that only does encryption between its own
+users, sending unencrypted email to others) and Tutanota (a webmail interface
+and mobile app that requires external recipients to decrypt the message on the
+Tutanota website with a pre-shared secret).
+
+For in-depth reviews of other initiatives, and a nice overview of projects
+that support email encryption, an extensive comparison is available online
+[^14].
+
+## Some remaining challenges
+
+The quest for reducing the interception of our global communications is still
+ongoing.  The challenge is to collectively recover control over the email
+medium.  As shown above, some projects are making good progress.  They are
+adopting new strategies for achieving mass adoption of easy-to-use email
+encryption.
+
+The promise is that over the coming months better programs for email
+encryption can work together in a mostly automated way, demanding less user
+intervention while still ensuring that users can decide who can see their
+messages while they travel across the internet.
+
+But programs do not get written alone: I encourage you, especially, to try
+clients like K9, Enigmail, Mailpile and Bitmask.  Test them out.  Try more
+than one.  Try them with your friends, with your family.  Engage with their
+communities, join their mailing lists and IRC channels.  Learn more about
+their strengths and limitations.  Report problems when they break, try new
+versions, write or improve translations to your own language, start hosting a
+new email provider if you can and above all, continue contributing to the
+process of collective creation.  If you believe in the right to whisper,
+engage in the global conversation and raise your voice.
+
+Take care! I look forward to reading you securely in the intertubes.
+
+[^0]: There are several different properties that crytographic encryption solutions traditionally aspire to provide.  *Confidentiality* is obtained by encrypting messages, which in plain English means scrabbling them in order to avoid third parties (like a government, corporation or malicious person) to recover the content and read them.  *Authentication* is done by signing the content on one end and verifying the signatures on the other end to make sure that the message was really sent by the claimed author.  The way the encryption is done also allows to preserve content *integrity*, ensuring that no third party could change the message in transit.
+
+[^1]: In the Cold War, the USA and its allies developed an elaborate series of export control regulations designed to prevent a wide range of Western technology from falling into the hands of others, particularly the Soviet bloc.  Export controls on encryption became a matter of public debate with the introduction of the personal computer.  Zimmermann’s PGP and its distribution on the internet in 1991 was considered the first major ‘individual level’ challenge to cryptography export controls, although ultimately, the popularization of e-commerce probably did play a much bigger role in the outcome.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
+
+[^2]: When Snowden first tried to contact the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, cryptography hackers and privacy activists collectively experienced a harsh reality check that punched our little Web of Bubble: no security is effective without usability.  If an NSA analyst is forced to craft awful videos in order to teach a journalist how to install a tool called gpg4win, downloaded from an ugly website, do some scary copy/pastes and other such delights (shown in the 12 minute video: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/1094895.html ), we can strongly conclude that the usability, and general state of email encryption is *terribly broken*.  So, more than ten years after the seminal article, we can affirm that sadly, Johnny cannot yet encrypt: https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~tygar/papers/Why_Johnny_Cant_Encrypt/OReilly.pdf
+
+[^3]: In other words: the long death of Jabber/XMPP.  It’s frustrating how, over and over again, the fragmentation of an open ecosystem leads to centralized solutions.  One can understand Signal developer and crypto anarchist Moxie Marlinspike’s rants against federation only in terms of the desire of deploying updates to millions of users without waiting for the long tail and the distributed consensus to catch up.  In the mobile messaging world Signal is right now the best thing we have, but it still represents a failure of the technosocial processes that prevented the open federation of communication infrastructures from becoming a reality today.
+
+[^4]: And with the phone, the policy of mandatory real-name registration.  This practice is enforced by telecommuncations companies on behalf of states that pass anti-anonymity laws.
+
+[^5]: http://codev2.cc/download%2Bremix/Lessig-Codev2.pdf
+
+[^6]: Projects like Pond, Retroshare or Secushare might be good insights into what a post-email secure, distributed standard might look like. https://github.com/agl/pond • http://retroshare.us/ • http://secushare.org/ • Note that the Pond author recommends using the Signal app for practical purposes until his own software is more polished and reviewed.
+
+[^7]: See, for instance The Value of Online Privacy and What is Privacy Worth?: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2341311 • https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/docs/loewenstein/WhatPrivacyWorth.pdf
+
+[^8]: https://github.com/micahflee/trollwot
+
+[^9]: https://downloads.leap.se/publications/cans2016.pdf
+
+[^10]: https://mailpile.is
+
+[^11]: https://tankredhase.com/2015/12/01/whiteout-post-mortem/index.html
+
+[^12]: https://mailvelope.com
+ 
+[^13]: https://roundcube.net/news/2016/05/22/roundcube-webmail-1.2.0-released
+
+[^14]: https://github.com/OpenTechFund/secure-email
+
+[^15]: https://openpgp.org/
+
+[^16]: https://pixelated-project.org/
+
+[^17]: https://panoramix-project.eu/
+
+[^18]: https://modernpgp.org/
+
+[^19]: https://autocrypt.readthedocs.io/
+
+

or/content/12chatons.md

@@ -0,0 +1,387 @@
+# Let's develop peasant computing, let's breed “kittens”
+
+***Framasoft + AMIPO***
+
+![](../../contrib/gfx/illustrations/chatons-halfsize.png)
+
+## Introduction
+
+In recent years, we have witnessed the widespread concentration of internet
+practices among a very limited number of online service providers, represented
+by what is now known as GAFAM (Google Apple Facebook Amazon Microsoft).  This
+centralisation, which is totally contradictory to the origins of the Internet,
+which was conceived as decentralised and distributed [^1], led Tim Berners
+Lee, the creator of the web, to formulate proposals for the future [^2].  So,
+why should we be concerned about this?  Simply because data, and particularly
+our personal data, are the economic fuel of these major actors, and such an
+accumulation of information about us gives them immense power, turning us into
+“products” thanks to their “free” services.  The questions this raises are
+many and complex: generalised surveillance, artificial intelligences fed by
+“*big data”*, the end of anonymity and private life, brakes on freedom of
+expression and access to information, censorship or loss of data following the
+closure of a service…  Fortunately, a band of irascible Gauls, meeting
+around the Association Framasoft [^3] is bravely trying to “*de-googlize”* the
+Internet [^4] and extend this initiative so that we can “retake control” [^5].
+
+## The dangers
+
+### Spying
+
+These services track us everywhere, while claiming to give us a better “user
+experience”.  But our behaviour is under constant surveillance.  This
+information can be used to display targeted adverts, but the revelations of
+the Snowden case have also shown that Internet giants have been forced to
+communicate this data (sometimes extremely private: emails from Gmail, photos
+shared on Facebook, Skype conversations, smartphone locations, etc.) to the
+authorities.  Under the pretence of fighting terrorism, states are able to
+gather much more intelligence than “Big Brother” could ever have dreamed of.
+
+### Privacy
+
+Our data is an extension of ourselves.  It tells third-parties where we are,
+who we are with, our political and sexual orientations, sites we have visited,
+our favourite recipes, our favourite topics of interest, and so on.
+
+While a single data point is not always sensitive, the loss of large amounts
+of aggregated data can be dangerous (for example if you browse topics about
+cancer before subscribing to a life insurance). 
+
+Your private life is an essential part of your individuality, and in a world
+where everything has been digitized (e-books, TV, phones, music, social
+networks, etc.), it would only take a malicious hacker with access to your
+smartphone a few minutes to cause you serious harm (taking control of your
+identity on Facebook, consulting your professional or medical information,
+making purchases without your authorisation, etc.). 
+
+### Centralization
+
+The major actors of the Internet have become real giants: Google owns YouTube
+and Waze, Facebook has acquired WhatsApp and Instagram, Microsoft distributes
+Skype, etc.
+
+This concentration of actors creates multiple issues: what if Facebook were
+suddenly shut down?  And how could we browse the Web if Google went down? We
+rely more and more on services provided by a small group of suppliers.  For
+example, Apple (iPhone), Google (Android) and Microsoft (Windows Phone)
+dominate almost the entire mobile OS industry.
+
+Furthermore, the size of these actors impedes innovation: it’s hard to
+launch a startup that can match up to Apple or Google (the first and
+second worldwide market capitalisations, respectively).
+
+Finally, The lack of diversity of the giants means they can track many people
+who are unaware that there may be alternatives, and it can influence the kind
+of data you receive (a Google search will produce different results for the
+term “nuclear power” depending on whether Google considers you to be an
+environmentalist or pro-nuclear power). 
+
+### Termination
+
+Web services used on your computer, smartphone, tablets (and other devices)
+are usually hosted on the “cloud”: servers spread across the planet, that host
+not only your data (emails, pictures, files, etc.), but also the application
+code. 
+
+For your data, this raises the issue of sustainability (what would become of
+your files if Dropbox were to close tomorrow?) and of your ability to switch
+easily between services (how would you recover your data from Facebook or
+Picasa and import it, with all the adjoining comments, into another service?).
+
+For applications, this means that you are completely at the mercy of your
+service provider when it comes to proliferation of advertisements, changes
+to the user interface, etc., and that you have hardly any control over the way
+an application works.  It is a “black box” that can exhibit malicious
+behaviour (sending spam SMS without your knowledge, executing malicious code,
+and so on).
+
+In short, these companies trap us in gilded cages: gilded yes, but cages
+nonetheless!
+
+## “De-googlize” the Internet
+
+Framasoft, through the “de-googlize” the Internet initiative, wishes to
+counter these threats to our digital lives by offering free, ethical,
+decentralised, and solidarity-based services.  They are making a list of the
+most-used proprietary software, linking them to the corresponding free
+software they offer for those same services [^6].
+
+In 2017, around forty online services were offered free to internauts with a
+view to meeting a variety of needs: *cloud*-type personal file storage,
+calendars, contacts, collaborative document editing, video conferencing,
+cartography, mind mapping, meetings and surveys, distribution lists, social
+networks, online books, search engines, educational games, project management…
+the list is long, but “the way is free”.
+
+### Freedom
+
+The story of the Internet itself is one of free software, and this goes for
+standards as well as protocols.  Its potential and popularity are a cause for
+envy, and large companies would like nothing better than to control it by
+imposing closed-source, locked-down, and non-interoperable systems.
+
+For the Internet to stay true to its founding principles, those which have led
+to its success, users must be able to choose free software.  That is to say,
+software whose source code remains open and accessible and is covered by a
+free software license.
+
+### Ethics
+
+Framasoft is committed to only using software with “free” source code,
+promoting an internet that allows exchange and independence. 
+
+We oppose the exploitation, surveillance, censorship and the appropriation of
+data in favour of transparency (probity), clear presentation of a service’s
+terms of use and a rejection of discrimination. 
+
+Framasoft undertakes not to exploit its users’ data, and to promote a fair and
+open Web.
+
+### Solidarity
+
+Through the services we deploy, we promote an economic model based on sharing
+costs and resources, and providing widespread access. 
+
+This model also has an educational aspect because we believe that by
+documenting ways to setup services, many users will in turn be able to share
+these resources. 
+
+We think that, by not infantilizing users and by sharing responsibility for
+the use of services, it will be possible to regulate abuse. 
+
+Framasoft is thus committed to promoting respect and autonomy for its users
+(as long as this is reciprocated).
+
+### Decentralization
+
+Internet intelligence must remain with each individual player on the network,
+in a spirit of sharing among peers, to avoid creating Minitel 2.0 [^7] [^8].
+
+To ensure equality for all, whether citizens or businesses, not only is it
+essential to avoid monopolies, but large organizations must be prevented from
+grabbing personal or public data. 
+
+Using tutorials to explain how to increase the use of free solutions that will
+allow a fairer Internet, we help to distribute codes and diversify usage. 
+
+Framasoft is thus committed to facilitating self-hosting and interoperability,
+so that its users don’t get “locked in”.
+
+## The K.I.T.T.E.N.S. project[^9]
+
+In the light of the success of their “de-googlize” the Internet campaign,
+Framasoft has seen a vertiginous increase in the number of users of their
+online services, with a corresponding increase in the work needed to maintain
+and guarantee those services, without ceasing to propose new ones.  The
+Association, lead by five permanent members, relies largely on donations and
+does not want to grow beyond “human” size.
+
+To extend the dynamic and encourage the decentralisation of services,
+Framasoft therefore launched the KITTENS initiative, with the aim of bringing
+together different structures and initiatives hosting services, data and
+content in their own way, but respecting a common manifesto and charter [^10].
+Both documents are collectively written and modified by the members of the
+collective, to take into account the evolution of the different structures and
+the technical, social and legal context of data hosting in France.
+
+### General policy
+
+The KITTENS collective employs a model of governance directly inspired by Free
+Software.  Decisions concerning the evolution of the collective and the
+charter are taken in a collegiate fashion.  Like source code, the collective
+model can be duplicated and modified by whoever wants to adapt it, for
+example, to specific regional contexts.
+
+Each member is invited to participate in collective decision making by
+consensus, as far as is possible.  In the case of conflicts of opinion,
+decisions are made by a simple majority vote.
+
+The domain chatons.org is maintained and hosted by Framasoft (as long as that
+is possible and until the collective decides something else).  It is made up
+of a website, with a list of members, and also a distribution list that
+enables members to communicate and exchange.  They are invited to collaborate
+in the creation of public content for the site, to inform the public of
+information relating to KITTENS and its free hosting.
+
+KITTENS has no administrative statutes as it principally consists of a public
+list which determines the members and a set of documentation to facilitate the
+exchange of knowledge, capitalisation on good practice, and information
+sharing. 
+
+Any organisation that respects the principles of the current manifesto and the
+KITTENS charter can propose itself as a member.  In order to become a member,
+the collective must receive contact information for the organisation and at
+least one member of the organisation must be subscribed to the discussion
+list.  Apart from the discussion and possibly some advice, there may also be a
+vote by simple majority to decide on the the acceptance of a new organisation
+into the collective. 
+
+One or various members can reserve the right to request the expulsion of
+another member, so long as the following conditions are met:
+
+- the proposal must be supported by convincing arguments that are shared with
+    all the members;
+- it must be accepted by a collective vote, with or without counter arguments.
+
+In awareness of the fact that it is not possible to guarantee respect for all
+the points in the KITTENS charter without threatening the confidentiality of
+the personal data held in the member's systems, peer control will *de facto*
+be imperfect.  The collective therefore relies on trust and on the benevolence
+of the agreements reached between members.
+
+KITTENS should therefore meet among themselves, respecting each others’ points
+of view, and find good practices and rules for inclusion, for questioning or
+expelling a member, prioritising respect for fundamental freedoms and the
+private lives of the users of collective services.
+
+### Commitments
+
+Each member, referred to below as a "KITTEN", commits herself to obey the
+charter that defines the following principles:
+
+ * Transparency, non-discrimination and protection of personal data.
+
+ * Honesty is the watchword of these commitments, which seek to establish the
+reliability of the proposed services and build user trust.  The General Use
+Conditions should be perfectly clear, accessible and non-contradictory with
+the KITTENS charter.
+
+ * The host should implement a transparent user account management policy,
+without discrimination, whether access is free or paid for.  It must respect
+the jurisdiction of the country in question.
+
+ * The host commits to allow all users to recover their personal data, encrypted
+or not, except in the case of particular services based on the the momentary
+transfer of encrypted personal data. 
+
+#### Openness, economy, protection
+
+The services proposed should meet some technical requirements.  Notably,
+servers should be based on free software solutions.  Such software will make
+the reproducibility of the service possible, without generating additional
+developments in the structure of the server, or as a contribution to free
+software.
+
+The use of open formats is obligatory, at least for all data sent to users.
+This is a clear policy in favour of interoperability.  When the use of open
+formats is impossible, the data should be under a free license and be
+available for as many operating systems as possible.  The sources should be
+made accessible.
+
+Members of KITTENS commit to respecting the free licenses for the software
+that they use (which includes mentioning those licenses and referencing the
+sources). 
+
+In ethical terms, sponsoring is acceptable, as is patronage, donations, or
+having an economic model that consists of demanding payment for some functions
+or even for the entire service.  The economic model of each KITTEN should be
+clearly expressed on a dedicated page that is easy for users to consult and
+understand.  Evidently, the economic aspects of the activity of any KITTEN
+should strictly conform to the legislation of the country in question.
+
+On the other hand, no advertising coming from advertising agencies will be
+accepted.  Likewise, there should be no exploitation of personal data, there
+will be no monitoring of user activity except for legal and statistical ends,
+user addresses may not be used for anything other than administrative or
+technical ends.  Statistical tools should be free and meet the Collective's
+conditions.
+
+#### Solidarity and dissemination
+
+KITTENS members owe each other assistance and mutual aid, through a discussion
+list or any other means, including periodic meetings.  That is how KITTENS
+members can progress their services.  One of the most effective means for
+maintaining systematic mutual aid is by contributing to the development of
+free software tools.
+
+Nevertheless, members should not keep to themselves as that would only satisfy
+a limited number of people and would create discrimination in access to
+services.  On the contrary, all efforts at communication with the public are
+encouraged as a way of disseminating free hosting solutions and creating links
+around the principles defended by the collective.  The means should be shared,
+through trainings, public information sessions, stalls during demonstrations,
+speeches at conferences, the publication of leaflets, etc.
+
+#### Neutrality
+
+KITTENS services cannot be hosted by an actor who, by reputation, does not
+promote the neutrality of the Net.  Data packages should be transmitted by
+KITTENS services without discrimination, which means the content, source or
+destination should not be examined.  No communications protocol can be given
+priority in the way informaiton is distributed.  And no data can have its
+content arbitrarily altered.
+
+The neutrality of KITTENS is therefore a political neutrality, as the
+convictions of members will be neither examined nor sanctioned, so long as
+they keep within the framework of current applicable laws. 
+
+### AMIPO, an experience of a KITTENS construction in Orleans
+
+AMPIRO, (“L’Association de Maintien de l’Informatique Paysanne Orléanaises,”
+the Association for the Maintenance of Computing for Farmers in Orleans) is a
+part of the French “AMAP” (Association of Organic Agriculturists who provide
+their fruit and vegetables directly to subscribers), with the idea of finding
+good bytes in a local association, rather than on the American “supermarket”.
+A “farmer” is defined as anyone who works for self-sufficiency and contributes
+to developing the environment and the countryside…
+
+Signing up to a local KITTENS initiative starts with bringing together a group
+of people motivated by the idea of practical reflections about the *why* of
+the *how*.  From the first prototypes of services installed on recycled
+servers behind a decidedly asymmetrical internet uplink (with more download
+than sending capacity via ADSL [^11]), they aim to pass to the “production”
+phase on servers hosted with ethical providers in synchrony with our base
+values (Such as ARN [^12] in Alsace or Tetaneutral [^13] in Toulouse).
+
+That requires setting up a legal entity (in this case, a collegiate
+association [^14], without a president or head office); opening a bank
+account; organising a launch event to raise funds; creating content to raise
+awareness and setting up workshops for popular education; agreeing about the
+technologies used and the services proposed; deciding whether the welcome page
+of the website should be in http or https; creating the necessary
+communication and documentation tools; organising the installation and
+administration of the servers; making sure we are in accordance with the
+charter, particularly putting in place the necessary safeguards; proposing
+times and channels for communications in order to respond to user's questions…
+
+The main aim of AMPIRO is to offer a *personal cloud* service (based on
+NextCloud) that allows inventories of files, contacts and calendars, for free,
+with the possibility of having more space by joining the association.  The
+enthusiasm of the collective does not stop there, there may be a VPN (Virtual
+Private Network [^15]), or work on end-to-end encryption, so that we cannot
+read the data that are trusted to us, in order to be able to propose services
+to local associations or to accompany cooperative projects in the IT usage.
+
+With our calloused hands, as crude farmers in computing, we wish to plant as
+many seeds as possible in the heads of our fellows so that little pixelated
+*kittens* can run about on free and tree-lined roads. 
+
+[^1]: In the first instance, in order to convince CERN that a system of global hypertext was interesting enough for the research centre, this document foreshadows the World Wide Web as we know it today: https://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal-msw.html
+
+[^2]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/11/tim-berners-lee-web-inventor-save-internet
+
+[^3]: https://framasoft.org/
+
+[^4]: https://degooglisons-internet.org/
+
+[^5]: https://framabook.org/numerique-reprendre-le-controle/
+
+[^6]: https://degooglisons-internet.org/alternatives
+
+[^7]: Benjamin Bayart: Internet libre, ou Minitel 2.0?    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoRGoQ76PK8
+
+[^8]:  Translator's note: Minitel was a centralised pre-Internet videotext terminal and service in France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel
+
+[^9]: Translator's note: The French initiative is called “C.H.A.T.O.N.S.” (<https://chatons.org/>).  Chatons means “kittens” in French, and stands for “Collectif des Hébergeurs Alternatifs, Transparents, Ouverts, Neutres et Solidaires” (the Collective of Alternative, Transparent, Neutral and Solidarity-based Hosters).   This is translated into English as “K.I.T.T.E.N.S.” (Keen Internet Talented Teams Engaged in Network Service).  For more information see: https://framagit.org/framasoft/CHATONS/blob/master/docs/Charter-en.md
+
+[^10]: https://chatons.org/charte-et-manifeste
+
+[^11]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADSL
+
+[^12]: http://arn-fai.net/
+
+[^13]: https://tetaneutral.net/
+
+[^14]: http://www.passerelleco.info/article.php?id_article=103
+
+[^15]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9seau_priv%C3%A9_virtuel
+

or/content/13creditos.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+# Créditos
+
+**Edición**: Spideralex
+
+**Diseño y maquetación**: Foockinho
+
+**Repositorios Git:** Maxigas
+
+**Traducciones**:
+
+ * ***Castellano***: Ana A. Romero, Djaván Adler, Germán
+ * ***Francés***: Bruno Lakmeche, Lunar
+ * ***Inglés***: Kate Wilson
+
+**Revisión de traducciones**:
+
+ * ***Castellano***: Spideralex and Ana Lanita
+ * ***Francés***: Viviana Varin
+ * ***Inglés***: Maxigas
+
+**Revisión del artículo en inglés “Gobernanza digital”**:
+
+ * Patrice Riemens
+ 
+**Revisión del artículo en castellano “Soberanía tecnológica para volver a querer las máquinas”**:
+
+ * Ale Fernandez
+
+Querríamos asimismo agradecer a todas las autoras por su paciencia y maravilloso trabajo:
+
+ * Alex Hache
+ * Benjamin Cadon
+ * COATI
+ * Carolina
+ * Claudio Agosti
+ * Elleflâne
+ * Framasoft + AMIPO
+ * Ippolita
+ * Kali Kaneko
+ * Loreto Bravo
+ * Margarita Padilla
+ * Maxigas
+
+Por respaldar, estimular, inspirar e impulsar este libro, gracias a:
+
+ * Ritimo [^0]
+ * Erika Campelo
+ * Txema y Alejandro
+ * Sophie Toupin, Dhyta and Bobby por ponernos en contacto con los pioneros
+ * Jara Rocha, Paula Velez y Anamhoo por las conversaciones acerca de tecnologías apropiadas
+
+Y finalmente, un enorme agradecimiento a la comunidad de Calafou [^1].
+
+[^0]: https://www.ritimo.org/
+
+[^1]: https://www.calafou.org/