User:Laurier Rochon/notes/proposalv0.2: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(→Intro) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
''' | '''4 case studies''' | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
*3) [http://www.drunkmenworkhere.org/170 The self-referential aptitude test] (genius!) | *3) [http://www.drunkmenworkhere.org/170 The self-referential aptitude test] (genius!) | ||
---- | |||
*4) Alerting Infrastructure! by Jonah Brucker-Cohen | |||
{{#ev:youtube|GbPPNKMV2CA}} | |||
== Commonalities == | == Commonalities == | ||
Revision as of 01:33, 5 November 2011
Intro
4 case studies
- 1) Claude Shannon's Ultimate Machine
{{#ev:youtube|KxaWvJ-ziXA}}
- 2) A Tool to Deceive and Slaughter by Caleb Larsen
Every ten minutes the black box pings a server on the internet via the ethernet connection to check if it is for sale on the eBay. If its auction has ended or it has sold, it automatically creates a new auction of itself. If a person buys it on eBay, the current owner is required to send it to the new owner. The new owner must then plug it into ethernet, and the cycle repeats itself.
- 3) The self-referential aptitude test (genius!)
- 4) Alerting Infrastructure! by Jonah Brucker-Cohen
{{#ev:youtube|GbPPNKMV2CA}}
Commonalities
- The are very simple in their "output"
- They do one, and one thing only
- Nonetheless, they can be complex technically, and conceptually
- Most importantly : the final product is purposefully designed to destroy the agency this same product could have. They are basically created to cancel themselves out - their authors (makers) had a clear intention in making these pieces, knowing that the sole purpose of them would be to undo themselves..
What, how, why
So where am I going with this?
(we're only at v.0.2 - let's keep a few doors open still)
what
I would like to design a "system" (see "how") that has 2 main characteristics : the first one is that it is only capable of doing something bad/illegal/reprehensible/dodgy/unorthodox/strange/incomprehensible/senseless/disgusting/etc., and "knows" it very well. The architecture of this "system" would basically allow for a single, unambiguous use of it. And this use, which would assume one of the adjectives mentioned earlier, would repeat itself over and over and over regardless of the "damage" it inflicts. Given the nature of my past work and taking into account my interests, this action could be one of two things for the moment - although in reality, many many more would be possible - (why is discussed further down) For the time being...1)the collection of data packets, following a wireless network attack 2)the collection of personal data (a picture), triggered by an unsuspecting user himself. So one single use, which can only reflect the clear intention to cause damage. The second characteristic of this "system" would be that it gives the appearance of remorse, repent or guilt (if it does really, who knows?). After performing its "bad" action, it would give the impression of perhaps feeling remorse, communicate to the offended party that it is sorry for the damage (perhaps even promise to never do it again), and then carry on repeating itself immediately. In brief, a system that was designed purposefully to cause harm, to purposefully express remorse/demand to be excused for its actions, and deliberately repeats them in an infinite loop.
how
Since I have evoked the possibility of two discrete functions that my "system" could assume, they could also hypothetically assume two different forms (or not) as projects. In both cases, it should be made clear what the system does. Either by revealing clearly the mechanics in such a way that renders the system self-explanatory by simply looking at it. If not possible (and this might very well happen), visual cues should be provided that clearly detail the current actions under way. In the case of the picture taken, an observer could simply push a button, triggering the contraption, and without warning have this file uploaded to a public digital space. This process should be clear and just as unambiguous as the machine itself. In the case of wireless attacks, there should be a clear outline of what my system is currently doing - if it's trying to crack a password, running packets against a dictionary or something else. The second part of the system should also be communicated clearly. I can envision small speakers talking to the person targeted (which doesn't need to be present, there only needs to be somewhere there to witness the act, this ties into the "why"), asking for redemption. Since this sort of process is typically "human", I could imagine a somewhat "analog" process functioning more effectively in such a scenario.
why
Now let's imagine for a moment that this "system" already exists - let's call it "government". I certainly don't think that government is bad from one end to the other - even in certain countries, government has made considerable efforts to keep the Internet as open as possible, to democratize it, etc. Conversely, in many countries it also uses its power and reach to take advantage of technology built by industry to monitor unreasonably citizens. It does so very knowingly of the implications such actions have, yet carry on with these actions. It also often creates legislation to legitimize these actions, which is even worse. I believe that mimicking such a system could provide a critical jumping board to open us discussion on these kinds of practices. More to come...