The Haraway-ian cyborg, the blending, overlapping, the hybridization of the human and the machine-ic, specifically the information, cybernetic, algorithmic machines that are not extensions of human capabilities but partners/competitors of the human, companion species like the wolf/dog our best friends and worst mythic nightmares, that cyborg, as a matter of course, creates not only the architecture/space of the snail’s shell, the open fire warmed architecture of the cave, the intentionalized architecture/space of the hut, tent, cabin, cathedral, and split level suburban house, that cyborg also creates the Code Space of data based architecture-alized information interacting with the cascading contextualization/de-contextualizations, the cascading structure/ruin makings, of cascading algorithms that create in turn, companion, non-Euclidean spaces of curved surfaces and intersecting parallel lines enabling the fractal formation of discontinuous voids and firewalls that simultaneously house and expose the cyborg. Continue reading “Cyborgs in Space”
I read with interest about the May 14 decision by the European Court of Justice to apply a Spanish “right to be forgotten” law to Google. A number of European countries have such laws.
The test case privacy ruling by the European Union‘s court of justice against Google Spain was brought by a Spanish man, Mario Costeja González, after he failed to secure the deletion of an auction notice of his repossessed home dating from 1998 on the website of a mass circulation newspaper in Catalonia.
Costeja González argued that the matter, in which his house had been auctioned to recover his social security debts, had been resolved and should no longer be linked to him whenever his name was searched on Google. EU court backs ‘right to be forgotten’: Google must amend results on request The Guardian 5-13-14
The ruling creates a process for individuals to request search engines to delete posts. The SE would then consider the request weighing the individual’s concerns with the public’s right to know. An individual unhappy with the SE’s decision could appeal to the ECJ.
In the last installment of my review of Code/Space, I discussed Kitchin and Dodge’s ethics of forgetting as a way to address the Everyware nature of code. Their concern includes the internet, but also all coded objects, processes and structures. As I quoted them in my review they state:
One path…is to construct an ethics of forgetting in relation to pervasive computing….[T]echnologies that “store and manage a lifetime’s worth of everything” should always be complimented by forgetting…So rather than focus on the prescriptive [ethics], we envision necessary processes of forgetting…that should be built into code, ensuring a sufficient degree of imperfection, loss and error. 253 Code/Space (Kitchen and Dodge)
The ECJ decision highlights the issue they present and the prescriptive approach they identify as inadequate to the task. Various sources have identified all the challenges and dangers this ruling presents.
It’s possible, of course, that although the European regulation defines the right to be forgotten very broadly, it will be applied more narrowly. Europeans have a long tradition of declaring abstract privacy rights in theory that they fail to enforce in practice. And the regulation may be further refined over the next year or so, as the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers hammer out the details. But in announcing the regulation, Reding said she wanted it to be ambiguous so that it could accommodate new technologies in the future. “This regulation needs to stand for 30 years—it needs to be very clear but imprecise enough that changes in the markets or public opinion can be maneuvered in the regulation,” she declared ominously. Once the regulation is promulgated, moreover, it will instantly become law throughout the European Union, and if the E.U. withdraws from the safe harbor agreement that is currently in place, the European framework could be imposed on U.S. companies doing business in Europe as well. It’s hard to imagine that the Internet that results will be as free and open as it is now. The Right to Be Forgotten Jeffrey Rosen (Stanford Law Review)
K&D’s approach is hard to imagine in operation. Dueling discourses such as security/privacy, creativity/control, efficiency/accommodation illustrate the implications of all this. The problem with remembering has always been letting go. The problem with forgetting is never knowing what is forgotten. We think that there must be a way to manage this kind of thing, all we need is a system. I will follow the progress of this rulings effects with interest.
While a fine-grained focus characterizes much of Code/Space, the final chapter takes, at points, a panoramic vision. The accumulation of the specifics of coded applications becomes Everyware.
Everyware is the notion that computational power will soon be distributed and available at any point on the planet…With everyware, life unfolds enveloped within software-enabled environments. 216 Taken together, it is envisioned that these various forms of everyware will generate “ambient intelligence” — objects and spaces that are sensitive and responsive to presence of people or other coded objects. 221
K&D analyze this using cost/ benefit binaries such as surveillance vs empowerment. This enables them throughout the book to present codeness as a tool that we can use in either positive and negatives ways. This is different from the approach I outline in my Findable Cyborg posts Part 1 and Part 3 and imply in posting the DARPA video in Part 2. These posts discuss pervasively rationalized environments in the context of the technological understanding of being. Up to this final part of Code/Space, K&D deemphasize this kind of analysis preferring a mostly functional approach. While they do idenify code’s role in extending the negative aspects of neo-liberal capitalism, there is nothing up to this point like R Scott Bakker’s view:
Modern technological society constitutes a vast, species-wide attempt to become more mechanical, more efficiently integrated in nested levels of superordinate machinery. (You could say that the tyrant attempts to impose from without, capitalism kindles from within.) The Blind Mechanic II: Reza Negarestani and the Labour of Ghosts R. Scott Bakker
Yet something like this sentiment is there, in less explicit form.
Everyware promises new opportunities to monitor, link, and make sense of the interactions, transactions, and mobilities of people, goods and information at a spatial and temporal resolution previously impossible…to create a fine-grained net of automated management. 228
This anxiety becomes more explicit in their discussion of life-logging. These practices take typical practices of human self monitoring beyond augmentation by coded devices to a pervasive and ubiquitous part of living.
The aim of life-log developers is to provide a record of the past that includes every action, every event, every conversation and every material expression of an individual’s life. 230
The combination of pervasive automated management and life-logging “has the potential to create a society that never forgets…a detailed spatialization of the history of everything, everywhere.” K&D propose a solution that is both elegant and impossible, the converging of parallel lines of thought on the curved surface of code/space.
One path…is to construct an ethics of forgetting in relation to pervasive computing….[T]echnologies that “store and manage a lifetime’s worth of everything” should always be complimented by forgetting…So rather than focus on the prescriptive [ethics], we envision necessary processes of forgetting…that should be built into code, ensuring a sufficient degree of imperfection, loss and error. 253
Pervasive computing relentlessly increases the signal to noise, seeking to eliminate noise altogether. Forgetting is purposely generating noise to reconstitute the human in the face of the totalizing machine. Yet the machines must also be the agents of this forgetting, accepting as they become more and more powerful, “imperfection, loss and error.” Animal perception functions by filling in the gaps of its always incomplete sensory information. That is why the expression, “The whole is greater than the sum its parts” makes any sense. The perceived whole is always greater the parts we can perceive. Machine perception has the potential to vastly reduce the unperceived, unprocessed parts. In such a situation though, the idea of the whole itself becomes dispensable replaced by a stream of amorphous parts defined by their temporary function. Perhaps there would be hope for K&D’s strategy of forgetting if humans could first provide an example of accepting “imperfection, loss and error”. It remains though a measure of the predicament we find ourselves in, and this alone recommends Code/Space.
The next section of Kitichin & Dodge’s Code/Space I want to consider begins with chapter 5, Automated Management. I will use “govern” for any kind of management structure, both private and public.
Put simply, automated management is the regulation of people and objects through processes that are automated (technologically enacted), automatic (the technology performs the regulation without prompting of direction), and autonomous (regulation, discipline, and outcomes are enacted without human oversight) in nature…On the one hand, software is being used to create more effective systems of surveillance and, on the other, to create capture systems that actively reshape behavior by altering the performance of the task. Automated management thus works in a different way compared to other modes of governmentality, creating a situation where “code is law”.
K&D discuss how of all this is largely invisible to causal, and to some extent, focused scrutiny. It’s business as usual to the governed.
Those who govern, on the other hand, design highly formal (and consequential) rules they can modify at any time with no new visibility. Governance is therefore able to entice “people to desire [the systems of control] and willingly and voluntarily participate in their ideology and practice (rather than simply disciplining them into docile bodies)”. (90)
The capture and recording of people data is increasingly the default, excessive to the immediate task, embedded in “dumb” technologies, and shifting from intermittent to continuous, mobile and networked.
This is mostly acceptable to most people. K&D write, “It is quite difficult to argue that one wants to be less safe, less secure, less competitive, less productive of less empowered.” At the same time, these data practices are largely invisible to individuals who are therefore unable to choose whether or not to participate. The use of such data may harm both individuals and society.
For many, this leads to an instinctive wariness of such practices, while also feeling powerless to do anything about it. K&D note that such a situation “raises serious ethical concerns and political questions of equity pertaining to the development and widespread role of surveillance systems that have the ability to capture details about people’s lives in great detail.”
At the same time it is clear that code can contribute to creativity and empowerment for its users.
Our aim is to illustrate how software often works as a progressive force for personal and social change and to counter some of the more doom laden commentaries, as detailed in the previous chapter, which casts the work that software does in an almost universally negative light. (112)
K&D then consider examples in the arts (music and photography), academics, social media, mapping and political organization and engagement. They point to the tension between code’s ability to enable new possibilities for creative and political purposes while also enabling “greater state scrutiny and corporate monitoring”.
In the three following chapters, K&D consider in detail the construction of code/space in air travel, the home and the consumption of goods. Through these examples they concretize how code transmutes space and illustrate the positives and negatives of coded environments. These detailed and nuanced discussions are well worth the reading. For my purposes here, I will only point to them. As I mentioned previously, K&D’s website links to their papers leading up to Code/Space including those corresponding to these chapters.
I plan one more installment of this series/review to discuss their conclusions and how they propose to resolve the tension between code’s benefits and dangers.
Continuing my consideration of Kitchin & Dodge’s Code/Space I want to focus on their treatment of code. They describe how the scale and scope of code’s ability to process information makes a qualitative change from previous human tool bearing.
In common with earlier technological enhancement like mechanical tools or electrically powered motor, software enjoys all the usual machine-over man advantages in terms of speed of operation, repeatability and accuracy of operations over extended durations, cost efficiencies and ability to be replicated. Software thus quantitatively extends the processing capabilities of electromechanical technologies, but importantly it also qualitatively differs in its capacity to handle complex scenarios (evaluating capta, judging operations), taking variable actions, and having a degree of adaptability…. Software can also deal with feedback, or being able to adjust future conduct on the basis of past performance. Code/Space (39) Kitchin & Dodge
Code then possesses a degree of agency, the ability to “shape to varying degrees how people live their lives”. This agency is relational. It arises both from its interactions with objects and humans, and from its ability to adapt to evolving conditions to form a “technological unconscious”.
This relational sense of instrumentality combined with a vision of space itself produced by social relations and material practices creates code/space. Each element is necessary for its functioning.
When code and space are both present, but not intertwined the result is coded space. Here code provides an augmentation to the space’s functioning. The space retains its functionality (less efficiently perhaps) even if its coded objects stop coded operation.
Most homes in the developed world are coded spaces to some degree, but they still function as dwellings even if a coded coffee maker and all other coded objects in it fail. An airport is a code/space. “[Its] various coded infrastructures and process entangle and fold together to form a vast coded assemblage that defines the practices and experiences of air travel.”
Code/space then might be thought of in terms of the converging parallel lines I discussed in Part 1 of this series. The development of coded infrastructure and practices have achieved an informational mass, a gravity, that curves the space in which it occurs. This has enabled the lines of code and space to converge and interact as code/space.
This informational mass, K&D argue, result from a variety of “discursive regimes”, each underpinning a particular coded application. Such regimes include “safety, security, efficiency, antifraud, empowerment, productivity, reliability, flexibility, economic rationality, and competitive advantage.”
In the book, K&D discuss code interacting with all of these discourses in a variety of ways. In following posts I hope to sketch out at least some of them.
One of Euclid’s “Five Common Notions” forming the basis of his geometry is “The whole is greater than the part”. Euclid sought to develop his account of space based on ideas he could not prove, but seemed so obvious that no proof was needed. Indeed, a study published by the National Academy of Sciences about an Amazonian tribe suggested that geometric reasoning is innate.
Well almost. Euclid’s Fifth Postulate, asserts in effect that parallel lines don’t intersect. (Actually it describes how non-parallel lines do so.) Euclid’s contemporaries were suspicious of this idea and our Amazonian friends understood more frequently than Westerners that this is not true on curved surfaces. And of course, spactime does not conform to Euclid’s description which is functional only in local areas where curving spacetime, intense gravitational fields or the curvature of, say, a planet does not come into play.
Why am I writing about this?
I recently finished reading Code/Space by geographers Rob Kitchin and Martin Dodge (MIT Press) which discusses how applied software transduces space. (Their website links to many of their papers leading up to their book and some of the quotes I use will be from these rather than from the book.) This prompted me to meditate on space in general. Euclid seemed a good place to start.
K&D discuss how Euclidian geometry represents space as mere container of objects and processes. They write:
This absolute ontology of space is essentialist in formulation. It effectively reduces space to its geometric essence and depicts that essence as natural and given.
Recently, this viewpoint has been challenged by relational ontologies that understand space as being constituted and given meaning through human endeavor. Within these relational ontologies, space is not a given, neutral, and passive geometry but rather is produced through social relations. Space, it is posited, is not essential or objective in nature, but produced: ‘‘constituted through social relations and material social practices’’ Code and the Transduction of Space Dodge, Kitchin
They note that this allows one to think of space either as metaphor or container, social or apart from the social, outside of time or fundamentally temporal, always in a state of becoming. Reformulating this a bit, we can think of each set of these binaries as parallel lines, as local functionalities that apparently never intersect but in fact do. I find this an interesting way to think about binaries in general. Nature/culture; body/mind; subject/object each as a set of lines seemingly never meeting in a local, functional context, but that inevitably do.
Anyway, D&K explore the way coded objects and process (ie technicity) transduce space. In general, a transducer converts one form of energy into another. So as I understand it, D&K discuss how technicity converts one form of space into another.
From this perspective, society, space and time are co-constitutive – processes that are at once social, special and temporal in nature produce diverse spatialities. Software matters because it alters the conditions through which society, space and time, and thus spatiality, are produced. Code/Space
I hope in subsequent posts to further explore the ideas in this book.