/// from "Gallery 9 / Walker Art Centre", 01 jan 2001 ///
http://www.walkerart.org/gallery9/lifesharing

Data-Nudism An interview with 0100101110101101.ORG about life_sharing

Matthew Fuller matt@axia.demon.co.uk

+ + +

Q.: In your text describing the project, you mention that "A computer,
with the passing of time, ends up looking like its owner's brain." Do
you mean this in the way that any collection of objects of a certain
type (i.e., books; bathroom cupboards full of half-used and failed
rejuvenating cosmetics; boxes of toys; etc.) begins to provide material
from which ideas and generalizations about a person can be extrapolated?
Or, do you go further and suggest that in the augmentation of human by
computer, the particular collection of data objects provides at least
one of the means by which a person is "themselves"?

A.: A computer is less and less an instrument of work. With a computer
one shares time, one's space, one's memory, and one's projects, but most
of all one shares personal relationships. This flow of information
passes through the computer - all our culture is going to be digitized.
Getting free access to someone's computer is the same as getting access
to his or her culture. We are not interested in the fact that a user can
"study 0100101110101101.ORG's personality"; rather, in the sharing of
resources, it's a matter of politics more than of "psychology." With
life_sharing, 0100101110101101.ORG reveals its mechanism. It sets its
kernel free and all the functions that concern it, in the same way as a
programmer who frees the source code of their software. It is not only a
show. It's not like looking at Jennicam. The user can utilize what he
finds in our computer. Not only documents and software, but also the
mechanisms that rule and maintain 0100101110101101.ORG: the relations
with the Net; the strategies; the tactics and the tricks; the contacts
with institutions; access to funds; the flow of money that comes in and
goes out. All must be shared so that the user has a precedent to study.
From this learning, concrete knowledge - that normally is considered
"private" - can be transformed into a weapon, a tool that can be reused.

Q.: Following on from this, I/O/D has a slogan: "Stop the
Anthropomorphization of Humans by Computers." By this we mean that the
pattern of "personalization" that users effect on their computers are
pre-empted and formatted by software designers. The kind of person
allowed for by the personal computer is a rather limited version of what
we and computers might be. What do you think the consequences of
becoming networked are in this context?

A.: life_sharing is an evolution in comparison with the traditional
"Anthropomorphization of Humans by Computers." One of the ideas at the
roots of life_sharing is exactly the abolition of one of the levels of
simulation that separate one user from another: the website. A website,
except in rare cases, is an interface that simplifies the exchange
between users, making the contents "easier" to use. This trivialization
is called "user friendliness," and it is often inspired by paper: the
format of pages, indexes, and so on. life_sharing proposes a deeper
relation. It's like a "lower level language" that abolishes this
simulation, allowing the user to directly enter one's computer, to use
the data in their own time-space. The abolition of this particular
simulation opens many possibilities for using the data contained inside
the computer. However, it is naive to think that it is possible to
completely avoid simulation. Any language, for programming or not, is
symbolic. It exists to mediate, to communicate. Websites are only
periodically updated, generally via ftp. The bulk of the contents of the
Internet are not accessible in real time. There is a strong "delay" from
the time a file (a piece of news, an image, a sound) is "produced" to
the time when it is actually accessible from the Net: the time of
formatting and upload. life_sharing avoids this "delay," permitting
access in real time to its contents. The user can even get to know some
data (i.e., e-mails or logs) earlier than 0100101110101101.ORG, by
connecting to life_sharing while we aren't at the computer.

Q.: In comparison with the project to generate a mythopoesis about the
invented Serbian artist Darko Maver, pulling a multi-authored hoax on
the art world, this work seems to be a very gentle and beguilingly
simple intervention – which is very welcome. It clearly follows more
closely from your work duplicating the data from various internet art
sites but shifts, moving data from one context of availability into
another, but instead proffers up the data from your own computer. It
seems that these projects offer a form of work that is not concerned
with representation so much as directly creating new arrangements of
patterns of life, of the availability of data, and so on. What
possibilities does operating in this way open up?

A.: Until now, 0100101110101101.ORG has attacked what in general seemed
to be in open contradiction with the evolution of the Net, focusing on
cultural production and on the inaccessibility of information. The
websites involved were not targets for attack but instruments to
highlight some paradoxes of the Net. The duplication of hell.com, for
example, provoked a radical change in their approach, avoiding password
protection and the pay-per-view method. With life_sharing,
0100101110101101.ORG launches release 2.0. In other words, passes from a
critical position to a positive one. From this moment, we will propose
new ways for the production and distribution of culture, furnishing
alternative models to the current ones and bringing together the
cultural, political, and commercial aspects of life. life_sharing is not
the end. It is the means.

Q.: A clear implication of the life_sharing project is the breach of the
boundary between personal and public life and between personal and
public data. Is there any risk in this, or have you entirely sanitized,
or even fabricated the data you make available? What are the
consequences for the way you work, communicate, and live generated by
this openness of process?

A.: life_sharing is 0100101110101101.ORG. It is its hard disk entirely
published, visible and reproducible by anybody: public property.
0100101110101101.ORG will not produce material explicitly as "content,"
except where it is technically required. We will use the computer as we
have always done. Naturally, it is impossible to ignore that we are so
"opened." Any internal or external connection modifies the entire
structure, thus affecting the project itself – for example, in the
manner of acting and expressing. Consider the increasing tendency toward
intrusion in the private sphere – not only by big corporations – and
the consequent efforts of people trying to preserve their own privacy.
0100101110101101.ORG believes firmly that privacy is a barrier to
demolish. life_sharing must be considered a proof ad absurdo. The idea
of privacy itself is obsolete. A computer connected to the Net is an
instrument that allows the free flow of information. This is its aim.
Anything blocking this free flow shall be considered an obstacle to be
overcome. 0100101110101101.ORG solves the dualism between public and
private property. It proposes an empirical model that fosters the free
distribution of knowledge that grants, at the same time, its fruition.
From now on, the product of 0100101110101101.ORG will be its own
visibility. life_sharing is the root under which will come other
services, all directed to show to what degree our life can be monitored.
We want to show as many forms of data as possible on us: not only in the
transparency of the hard disk, but also by analyzing economic
transactions: the use of credit cards; physical movements; purchases.
0100101110101101.ORG will show the enormous amount of information that
is possible to find on a person in the present society.

Q.: Further in this vein, some of the material is relatively intimate
information – forms for the avoidance of national service, for
instance. How do these forms of personal information conflict with the
anonymous collective form of manifestation, which you adopt as a group?

A.: In all probability, by activating life_sharing our anonymity will
fade, since in our computer there are many documents, e-mails or
contracts, which contain our real identities. In any case, life_sharing
has the priority over anything else, anonymity as well. It is an
operative system under which an infinite number of other functions can
run, never compromising this one. The war of secrecy (cryptography,
anonymity, and so on) is unfortunately a losing battle. The big
corporations will always have at their disposal more sophisticated means
than the average user, more calculation capacity, more control through
satellites. It is possible to maintain anonymity only to a superficial
level. After a certain level it is no longer possible. Any economic
transaction, any purchase or sale, any human relationship, is based on
documentation. The more this society grows to depend on computers, the
more this process will be facilitated. 0100101110101101.ORG's real
strength is its visibility. The only way to avoid control is
data-overflow – to heap up and multiply data to the point that it
becomes extremely difficult to isolate and interpret. Any time you
switch on your computer, any key you type, any file you save, something
is automatically written somewhere in the maze of your computer.
Everything is logged. In systems like Linux this is visible. You only
have to look at the bash history or the access log. Each action is
potentially reconstructible with absolute precision. This must be
considered. 0100101110101101.ORG uses and makes visible the aesthetic of
this flow of data. The functionality of a computer is an aesthetic
quality: the beauty of configurations, the efficacy of software, the
security of system, the distribution of data, are all characteristics of
a new beauty. life_sharing is the result of aesthetic discipline applied
every day. It is the actualization of the idea of "total work of art" –
gesamtkunstwerk – in other words, the dream of modelling reality
through aesthetic canons.

Q.: Do you intend life_sharing to become an extensible system, one that
can be taken up by other people, or is it a one-off?

A.: The diffusion of life_sharing to anyone who wants to adopt it, as an
operative system, is surely one of its potentials. However, the total
sharing of one's computer is not, nowadays, easily achieved. To entirely
share your computer you need a server and extremely expensive fast
network connections. Some operating systems and software (i.e. MacOs9,
Napster, and Gnutella) are developing this sharing potential. At the
moment, the biggest technical problem is the cost of telephone lines. It
is predictable, however, that these costs will come to be more within
the reach of the average user. (As happened with the modem connection.)

Q.: In life_sharing, you invoke the GNU Public License (GPL) a
particular form of license for software developed by the Free Software
Foundation. This license allows users of a piece of code to make changes
to it, to adapt it for their own purposes, so long as they then make
those changes publicly available to other users and do not "close" the
code as it develops. The GPL is a document that has excited interest
outside of programming circles, providing a link to other takes on
collective or open authorship, redefinitions of copyright, intellectual
property, and so on. It is its particular status as a document that I'd
like to ask you to comment on. GPL seems to be formed at the meeting
point between two different dynamics which, in another context, Toni
Negri names "constituent power" and "constitutional power." The GPL is a
technical document that forms the basis of a particular range of working
practices. As a form of constituent power, it is both a manifestation of
the fecundity of collaboration and – at the present time – an
insurgent reinvention of the form of property. Equally, existing as it
does in the form of a license, a contract, GPL relies on the constituted
power of social stasis and normalization. It is based on an immediate
appeal to Law. It is this latter aspect of it which meshes so well with
the determination to treat software as simply another variant on
capitalist forms of property and GPL as simply a more useful means of
generating such property. Constituent power, on the other hand, is the
amorphous and ambivalent power of change, of the social in the process
of mutation. (This at once means that it also encompasses emergent
sections of the bourgeois, what is inventive and seductive in the
rhetorical figure of the "entrepreneur" deployed so much around
e-commerce, for instance.) For Negri there is no lasting accommodation
between constituent and constitutional power. There is no synthesis onto
a higher plane of compromise. I suspect that it is this sense that there
is more to it, that there's more coming, more mutation, more space for
profound invention that makes GPL and other systems like it attractive
to take up as models for development in other contexts. Given this, I'd
like to ask a couple of things. Firstly, is your use of GPL in the
description of the life_sharing project accurate, or (besides the
project's explicit use of software released under GPL or open-source
licenses) is it more along the lines of an allusion? If so, what is it
that you use GPL to point toward? What do you see lying beyond it? (In
the case of life_sharing and other projects, I suspect that although
they use GPL as a "model," they may actually do something rather
different, rather more. One of the ways this happens is that they do not
make an appeal to Law as a basic condition for their function. Here I
mean Law in both senses, that of "absolute right" in that GPL is somehow
seen as being transcendentally correct in some circles, rather than as
being something operating within a specific historical setting; and the
more direct sense that, as it exists in the form of a legal document, it
allows a route into this apparently "freely" constructed relationship
for the state.)

A.: The fact of adopting Linux as operating system and consequently the
GPL license, is absolutely not an allusion, but the result of political
choices, and for technical and legal reasons. First of all, it is
necessary to make some distinctions. life_sharing contains stuff
produced under three different licenses:

++ GPL: GNU General Public License. It is the general license created to
protect free software. All the software adopted in life_sharing is
covered by GPL. http://www.gnu.org – Copyright: applied only where
specified, on files not produced by 0100101110101101.ORG but protected
by traditional copyright, i.e., certain articles or texts – We are
working, together with a lawyer, to develop a license that we want to
apply to all the files in which no other license is specified. This
license is directly inspired by the GPL but will be extended to all
cultural products, granting the possibility of: – using the product –
modifying the product – distributing copies, modified or not, of the
product (freely or with payment) This license also prevents the addition
of any restrictions – avoiding the possibility of products covered by
this license being added to or combined with any other products under
any different form of license. Up until now, 0100101110101101.ORG has
not placed any of the things it did under copyright. First of all,
because 0100101110101101.ORG has never produced anything.
0100101110101101.ORG only moves packages of information, diverts their
flow, observes changes, and eventually profits from it. Visibility is
the real problem of the Net. If someone uses your music, your words, or
images, he is only doing you favor. Many people have spontaneously
reused 0100101110101101.ORG (www.plagiarist.org,
www.geocities.com/maxherman_2000/hell.html, www.message.sk/warped). If
someone else profits from 0100101110101101.ORG, it's because of their
own merit. In the end, it is doing the same as what we did: profit is
always inevitably mutual.

Q.: Yes, so this is this surplus, happening also in the economy of
visibility. Developing this, it seems there are two basic forms of
approach to the knot of problems pointed to by the terms
appropriation/plagiarism/anticopyright, etc. One is illustrated by Hegel
when he says, in Elements of the Philosophy of Right, "To appropriate
something means basically only to manifest the supremacy of my will in
relation to the thing." The other approach is the generation of contexts
in which the creation of dynamics of circulation and use that have
greater or lesser degrees of openness – not the imposition of will –
prevail. (A different formulation of this might be found in the
statements of anti/copyright commonly used in the underground and
radical media in Italy and elsewhere, where copyright is open to further
nonprofit users, or for participants in social movements, but closed to
proprietary reproduction. Thus, on the "inside" an open context is
created, but the proprietary weapon of copyright is still maintained for
use against for-profit use. The fiction of the will is used in this
sense as a legalistic shield in order, in essence, to dissolve it.) Do
these two forms correspond in some way to the two modes of operation
that you have spoken about?

A.: The fact that 0100101110101101.ORG is explicitly no-copyright is
surely strictly linked to commercialization, but not in the sense in
which it is often used. It is common to mistake "no-copyright" for
"no-profit." 0100101110101101.ORG is compatible with monetary
retribution, under different forms. life_sharing, being a project
financed by an institution, is one of these. "Free" software,
Negativland's music, Wu-Ming's books, are all examples of cultural
products that have been able to reconcile the no-copyright model with
commercialization. No-copyright is no longer solely an underground
practice, but a wider cultural "production standard." This means, in the
first place, being conscious that your own knowledge is not innate, but
that it is a synthesis of different cultural products. Recognizing this
means making our own knowledge shareable and thus usable not only by
ourselves but by anyone, even commercially, imposing simply that nobody
can subsequently restrict this possibility to others. The problem of
copyright is increasingly more important. It deals not only with
software, art, or music, but is invading every field of human life.
Let's consider, for example, the field of genetics. In 1987, in apparent
violation of the laws that govern the concession of patents on natural
discoveries, a revolutionary decree was made in which it was declared
that the components of human beings (genes, chromosomes, cells, and
tissues) could be patented and considered the intellectual property of
anybody who first isolates a length of DNA, describes its properties or
functions, proposes an application, and pays some money for a patent.
This implies that, for example, when a person wants to have a genetic
code test, they may have to pay a percentage to the company that holds
the copyright of one or more of their genes. "Manifest the supremacy of
my will in relation to the thing." This signifies that all the times
that it is necessary, every time we found ourselves in front of a
distance that doesn't belong to us, that we share a book, a film, an
idea, we can say: "It is mine! I did it!"

First published by Gallery 9 / Walker Art Centre for life_sharing by
0100101110101101.ORG http://www.walkerart.org/gallery9/lifesharing/

/// PROPAGANDA /// HTTP://WWW.0100101110101101.ORG ///

+ + +