Introduction

It was the summer of 2013, and two discrete events were making analogous waves.

First, Italy’s Minister for Integration, Cécile Kyenge was pushing for a change in the country’s citizenship laws. After a decades-long influx of immigrants from Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe, the country’s demographic identity had become multicultural. In the face of growing neo-nationalist fascist movements in Europe, Kyenge pushed for a redefinition of Italian citizenship. She asked the state to abandon its practice of jus sanguinis, or citizenship rights by blood, and to adopt a practice of jus soli, or citizenship rights by landed birth.

Second, Edward Snowden fled the United States and leaked to journalists hundreds of thousands of classified documents from the National Security Agency regarding its global surveillance and data mining programs. These materials unearthed the classified specifics of how billions of people’s data and personal details were being recorded and processed by an intergovernmental surveillant assemblage.

These two moments are connected by more than time. They are both making radical moves in debates around citizenship, though one is obvious while the other remains furtive. In Italy, this debate is heavily ethnicized and racialized. According to jus sanguinis, to be a legitimate part of the Italian body politic is to have Italian blood running in your veins. Italian meant white. Italian meant ethnic-Italian. Italian meant Catholic. By reshaping citizenship standards to practices of jus soli, Italian might also come to mean black, brown, Muslim or Hindu. Ultimately, in this case, either essence (sanguinis) or presence (soli) founds the two main competing theoretical orientations for how citizenship, or “the rights to have rights”, is allocated by the contemporary nation-state.

Cue the June 2013 Snowden NSA leaks, when the world learned of ubiquitous state surveillance being conducted on nearly all of the world’s Internet and telephony networks. And consider the subsequent concerns around privacy that such a wide-ranging surveillance practice would require. How could the NSA know, in exacting fashion, who was and was not a US citizen? The technicality of this is impossible. But rather than limit the scope of surveillance to acknowledge this impossibility, the NSA had a better idea: why not create a new conception of citizen?

And that’s what they did. The NSA decided to implement an algorithmic assessment that assigned foreignness (and by corollary, citizenship) on targeted Internet traffic, enabling legal surveillance if a data subject was deemed to be at least “51 percent foreigner” [1]. This mode of citizenship is what I call jus algoritmi. It’s a citizenship that, unlike its soli and sanguinis kin, is not ordained and stable. It’s a relationship to citizenship that is temporal and constantly evaluated. One day you might be a “citizen” of the US; another day you might be a “foreigner”. Jus algoritmi “citizenship” is a categorical assessment based on an interpretation of your data, not your lineage, birth certificate, or passport.

Methods

The key legal justification for all of these programs is importantly echoed in declarative emphasis by an NSA press statement following the first weeks of the Snowden leaks: “NSA's activities are focused and specifically deployed against — and only against — legitimate foreign intelligence targets… [and] all of NSA's analytic tools are limited to only those personnel who require access for their assigned tasks”[2].

While this is not the case for the entirety of the NSA surveillance suite (metadata, as famously argued over the past year, does not cleanly fit into existing US privacy law), the broad stroke by which the NSA attempted to assuage privacy invasion fears seems to always arrive with the mantra of “legitimate foreign targets”. The idea of the “legitimate foreigner” is endlessly used as both the justification as well as the deterrent of worry. It defends the programs’ mission by always pointing to the dark, brooding “legitimate foreigner”. And it seemingly maintains privacy for those of us who know we are not, and could never be conceived to be, foreign.

But there is no direct way to connect a computer’s IP address, MAC address, or even profile/email account verifiably to a sense of foreigner or citizenship. The “legitimacy” prefixed upon the foreigner seems to have become more and more pro forma. And so we arrive at the raison d’être for jus algoritmi. The NSA determines who is a “citizen” and who is a legitimate “foreigner”, in the words of the NSA, by “analysts who use the system from a Web portal at Fort Meade, Md., [to] key in “selectors,” or search terms, that are designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s “foreignness”[3].

The question of “how” this works begins in November 2013, when the New York Times revealed the NSA’s SIGINT Strategy for 2012-2016[4]. This document outlines the NSA’s plan for the “SIGINT battle space”. SIGINT, or signals intelligence, is spy speak for communication between individuals or data. A conversation is SIGINT; so is my email address. In even more layman speak, it’s the stuff that surveillance agents hoover up. And in this strategy memo the NSA felt it “must proactively position [itself] to dominate that environment across discovery, access, exploitation, analysis… The SIGINT system and our interaction therein must be as agile and dynamic as the information space we confront”.

Continuing even further, the memo states that “for SIGINT to be optimally effective, legal, policy, and process authorities must be as adaptive and dynamic as the technological and operational advances we seek to exploit”. Within this five-page document, several goals are declared to dynamically dominate the SIGINT battle space. For the purpose of this talk, two goals in particular should be noted:

“4.2. (U//FOUO) Build compliance into systems and tools to ensure the workforce operates within the law and without worry”

“5.2. (U//FOUO) Build into systems and tools, features that enable and automate end-to-end value-based assessment of SIGINT products and services”[5]

Point 4.2 focuses on in-system compliance, or the automation of NSA operations according to US privacy law. Point 5.2 focuses on automated appraisal of SIGINT products and services, or potentially the use of algorithms to evaluate how SIGINT is assessed. That is, to be “optimally effective” the NSA has to develop “adaptive and dynamic” “legal” processes to gather SIGINT. Across the databases of PRISM, Trafficthief, Pinwale, and MARINA, the NSA had moved to what Axel Arnbak calls “automated oversight”[6].    

How in the world would you be find out 51 percent confidence in a target’s foreignness? We can think about the algorithmic categorizations of gender, race, and class — of how Google takes your search history and determines your gender based on which words you’ve queried and which sites you’ve visited. Or how marketing companies can assess your race/ethnicity through wide-ranging surveillance of your browsing and purchasing habits. For these categorizations, queries, sites, and products gender and racialize one’s identity. So what “makes foreign” or “makes citizen” a data subject?

While unapparent at first glance, this process can be inferred a small bit in the leaked document “FAA Targeting Procedures A”[7]. Here we get a long list of factors producing a data subject’s “foreignness determination”, including: communication with an individual “reasonably believed to be associated with a foreign power or foreign territory”; presence on the “‘buddy list’ or address book” of someone “reasonably believed” to be “associated with a foreign power or foreign territory”; metadata records “acquired by lawful means” that reveals an individual to be “associated with a foreign power or foreign territory”; and even “IP ranges and/or specific electronic identifiers or signatures (e.g., specific types of cryptology or steganography)” that are used by foreign people. More incredulously, in other documentation leaked to Brazilian paper Jornal O Globo, language (like everything but English) used in emails can also be a variable that produces foreignness.

Results and Discussion

There are three key key components that arise from understanding citizenship in this way. One, we are always both citizen and foreigner. A target who is 51% foreigner is neither 100% foreigner nor 0% citizen. We are not either one or the other, but always concurrently both at the same time.

This differs radically from the soli and sanguinis variants of citizenship allocation because it is not binary. But, much unlike the theoretical citizenship standards of birth or blood, a non-binary description of citizenship might be more apropos. Think about the Arizona law SB1070 in 2010 and the ways that citizenship in the US is heavily racialized as white. A Latino US citizen might not be 100% citizen and 0% foreigner, but something in between.

Two, the valuations between these two are dynamic. As data subjects we constantly produce new information pieces, new inputs (new IP addresses and new social interactions), that are interpreted and valued as determinations for foreignness. Even language, search terms, and web sites visited have the portent to be influential in the output of our foreigner/citizen interpretations. One day the NSA might label me as 49% confidence foreigner; then I take my computer on a trip to Mexico, make a couple friends from Italy, add them onto my Gchat, and return to the US to find that I’m now more foreigner than citizen.

Three, with jus algoritmi the index of citizenship moves from a legal, static, enshrined category with historical precedent and juridical standing to a statistical assessment of commonality patterns. At first glance, with no hard-coded center to foreignness or citizen, the “right to have rights” sloshes recklessly across these 51% percentage measure thresholds. But at second glance, reconsider the NSA rubric for evaluating foreignness. Me, a citizen read as foreigner, becomes foreigner. Then, a friend of mine, a citizen read as citizen, talks to me. Eventually, that friend is read as foreigner because I am read as foreigner. It’s an incredibly slippery slope precisely because it is impossible to find an anchor holding onto the verifiable truth of one’s legal identity.

Conclusion

I am interested in the reframing of the concept of citizenship, a concept that we must think about in both offline, but now especially online, ways. For many of us who are US citizens, our mundane, offline relationships to citizenship is often assumed and unquestioned – it is passive, only activated when we return to the US from a trip overseas.

So what happens when that concept is shaken, removed from its givenness and now put into play? State and corporate surveillance is likely to be one of the most common encounters we have with the rights guaranteed by our US citizenship. Decisions on whether the NSA can spy on us or not is something that is being assessed every time we move, physically — our locations are being tracked by our cell phones, even when they are turned off — log onto our computers, or accept a contact request on GChat. Surveillance like this is surely a reduction of privacy. But it also is a formative redefinition of how citizenship itself can be understood in the future.

References and Notes

1. Gellman, Barton; Poitras, Laura. U.S., British Intelligence Mining Data from Nine U.S. Internet Companies in Broad Secret Program. The Washington Post 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html.
2. National Security Agency. 2013 Press Release - Press Statement on 30 July 2013. NSA, 2013, https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/30_july_2013.shtml.
3. Gellman, Barton; Poitras, Laura. U.S., British Intelligence Mining Data from Nine U.S. Internet Companies in Broad Secret Program. The Washington Post 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html.
4. National Security Agency. SIGINT Strategy 2012-2016. New York Times 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/23/us/politics/23nsa-sigint-strategy-document.html.
5. Ibid
6. Arnbak, Axel. NSA Strategy 2012-16: Outsourcing Compliance to Algorithms, and What to Do About It. Freedom to Tinker 2013, https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/axel/nsa-strategy-2012-16-outsourcing-compliance-to-algorithms-and-what-to-do-about-it.
7. National Security Agency. FAA Targeting Procedures. ACLU 2013, https://www.aclu.org/faa-targeting-procedures?redirect=national-security/faa-targeting-procedures.

Introduction

Capitalism is a production system established on the widening of commodity production. This means that it tries to transform everything possible into commodity forms and capital has an everlasting effort to succeed and render sustainable this transformation. Nowadays, what is happening in cultural production sphere indicates that capital has been expanded in this domain as well. Consequently, there is a widespread industry that mediates culture and posits it as a commodity. In order to understand this industry, it is necessary to comprehend the commodity production processes in it. This brings on an inevitable discussion on whether these cultural products and practices are commodities or not.

In this study, it is discussed whether the cultural products and practices we consume on daily basis, such as music we listen; news, articles and books we read; television dramas and movies we watch, are commodities or not.

The relationship between culture and commodity, shaped by the logic of capitalist production, is explored in the studies focusing on Marx’s theoretical and conceptual set. The initial works related to cultural production were produced in the early 20^th century by members of the Frankfurt School such as Walter Benjamin ([1936] 2010), Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer ([1947] 2002). In addition to these works, between the 1970s and 1990s, the issue was also discussed by British communication theorists such as Nicholas Garnham (1977; 1990), Graham Murdock and Peter Golding (1973), as well as by French scholar Bernard Miège (1979; 1989), from the perspective of political economy of communication. Nowadays, the subject is discussed in the recent studies of these theorists (Miège, 2011, Murdock, 2006; 2011, Garnham, 2000; 2011; Wayne, 2003) and in some other works (Louw, 2001; Mosco, 2009; Hesmondhalgh, 2011; Bolin, 2011).

In this discussion, Dallas Smythe’s thesis is important from several perspectives. Smythe (1977), a Canadian communication theorist who had a background of economist, broke the ground in the field with his influential thesis of “audience commodity”. The thesis has become the main discussion axis related to the subject since its appearance in the late 1970s. It sparked a vivid and important debate between Smythe (1978), Murdock (1978), Bill Livant (1979; 1982), Sut Jhally (1982) and Eileen R. Meehan (1984). Smythe’s audience commodity thesis continues to be the case today. Contemporary studies on the commodification processes in communication regularly make reference to Smythe’s work, as is the case in the works of Christian Fuchs (2012; 2013; 2015), Fernando Bermejo (2009), William H. J. Hebblewhite (2012), Brice Nixon (2014), Brett Caraway (2011), Micky Lee (2011), Philip M Napoli (2003), Robert Prey (2012), Earn Fisher (2012), Jernej A. Prodnik (2012).

It must be stressed that new technologies of communication have played an important role in the revival of the commodification discussion in the field given that activities of users in the Internet or in social networks are subjected to commodification. Together with this, new concepts are emerging such as prosumption or prosumer.

In this study, the commodification processes in communication will be investigated from a different perspective in order to contribute to the literature.

Commodity in Marx’s Theory

There is a valid reason to have this discussion in commodity framework. Above all, commodity is the mean of production of the “surplus value”, which is the anchor of the capitalist production system. Briefly, it can be said that accumulation in capitalist societies occurs with the transfer of a piece of this surplus value, which is acquired by means of commodity production and exchange, into production once again. Thus, it is extremely important for capitalism the commodity form of anything. In this framework, it is also essential whether cultural products and practices are commodities.

Given the importance of commodity, Marx (1992: 125) starts his analysis in the Capital with commodity. Just after mentioning the importance of commodity, Marx stresses the qualities of a commodity. Accordingly, a commodity has simultaneously a use value and a value in exchange. This quality is mentioned as the necessary feature of any single commodity without giving further details. So, it is difficult to understand why commodity has to have these values. However, in subsequent chapters, rendering various concepts comprehensible, Marx offers a comprehensive analysis of capitalist production process. Thus, it becomes clear why and how a commodity has this quality.

It must be noticed that Marx takes firstly a result of the capitalist production in the beginning of his analysis. In other words, commodity is the starting point in Marx’s analysis but is not more than a result in the general framework. Behind this stress on commodity, whole capitalist production system is standing. It can be said that Marx starts first and foremost from a result, which is commodity, and analysis comprehensively the mode of production which creates it. This is the reason why commodity can only be understood in the framework of capitalist mode of production and by considering the wholeness of this production.

In communication field, while discussing the commodity form of cultural products and practices, there is a general tendency that ignores this matter. In the literature, the wholeness of capitalist production, or the process that shapes “capitalist commodity”, is usually ignored. Rather, qualities acquired by things after their commodification is brought into the forefront, and the commodity character of cultural products and practices is analyzed from this perspective. In this kind of analysis, the problem is not addressing these qualities. As a matter of fact, these are necessary qualities of any single commodity has to have. The main problem is paying no attention to the fact why and how a commodity has gained these qualities in the capitalist production process. As a result of this, cultural products and practices, at the first glance, seems to be commodities to researchers but why and how they are transformed into commodities stay in obscurity. Therefore, it can lead us to wrong conclusions.

Given that commodity has more dimensions than it seems to have at the first glance, these kinds of conceptualizations must be addressed carefully. Hence, Marx (1992: 163) states that though commodity appears something that is easily comprehensible, a detailed analysis shows that it is more complex than it appears.

In the light of Marx’s analysis, we know that not all but some things can gain commodity form in capitalist societies. Why it is so? Marx (1992: 273) indicates certain necessary conditions to produce a product as a commodity. It is obvious that things can gain commodity form and have aforementioned qualities when some factors get together in the historical-social process of capitalist production. To determine these factors, we must first look at the whole capitalist production.

Let’s take Capital of Marx as an example of cultural product. While Marx was writing or producing Capital, any capitalist appropriated the value produced by him. As a matter of fact, Marx did not even produce a surplus value. He did not encounter a direct exploitation. His labor was qualitatively different; he was exerting an intellectual labor. Moreover, this intellectual labor was not commodified because it was not bought by a capitalist as a labor-power. At the same time, Capital was not the bearer of a surplus value, contrary to any commodity. From this perspective, instead of conceptualizing arbitrarily cultural products and practices in order to put them in commodity form, just like stretching them in “Procrustes bed”, it is wiser to analyze them in the context of the peculiarity of their producers and their own “uniqueness”.

In this study, following this way, we will explore firstly why and how things acquire commodity forms by paying attention to whole capitalist production. Then, based on this first analysis, we will try to determine whether cultural products and practices gain commodity forms according to their production processes in different production relations. If it is so, we will also try to explain why and how they gain this form.

Basically, it is argued that the idea of cultural products and practices as a commodity must be addressed cautiously. This is not a denial of the fact that they are commodities indeed. This is to say that not all but only some parts of this products and practices transform into commodities in some certain conditions. The reason of this is the production of these products and practices in very different relations of production and the fact that they are not general but special products and practices (Wayne, 2003: 21). Given that it is the main assumption of the study, this matter must be explained in detail.

Commodification of Cultural Products and Practices

Nowadays, cultural products and practices are mostly produced within cultural industry. First of all, we must consider these cultural products and practices produced in this industry through “content” and “medium” as a way of materialization and mediation for the content. In other words, the products and practices require certain type of medium for their production, distribution and consumption. For example, a piece of music can be listened with a radio or mp3 player; a television drama or movie can be watch with television or in a movie theater; news can be read on papers or internet; theatrical works are performed on stage that can be considered as a medium in that point.

Content and medium cannot be separated easily from each other in “essence” and in “form”. Content, which can exist in the absence of medium, can only transform into a general consumption object solely when it becomes “objectified” through medium. Similarly, medium can also exist in the absence of content but its transformation into a general consumption object requires content. Briefly, each one transforms the other into a consumption object by means of its existence; content provides internal object whereas medium constitutes external object of the consumption related to cultural products and practices.

The medium that offers a milieu for cultural products and practices is commodity. Diversification and variation that come with the commodification mostly result from the content. It can be said that cultural products and practices have two different dimensions; on the one hand there is content and on the other hand there is the combination of the content with the medium.

When we focus on content, commodity character of the majority of cultural products and practices is questionable. However, despite their differences they all become commodities peculiarly when they are combined with a medium, or a technology, that offers them a milieu. For instance, a piece of music turns into a commodity when it is finished by its composer and recorded afterwards on a CD or DVD. Likewise, a book becomes a commodity when it is send from the writer to the publisher to be published.

Here, we can indicate a “two step production”. In the study, this situation will be conceptualized as “dual production”. The first step is the materialization of the content. In this step, mainly intellectual or “creative” labor is performed. In the second step, there is the combination of the first step product with a technological medium, causing mainly a commodity production. My argument is that cultural products and practices gain their commodity form in the second step, and turn into cultural commodities. I also argue that, in cultural production, the integration of the ideological (content) and the economical (medium) is materialized in this second step.

If we take again the aforementioned example, the writing Capital corresponds to the first step. In this phase, the production process contains such a great diversity, to the point that we must have a Procrustean bed to qualify the end product as a commodity. However, the editorial process and the publication of Capital correspond to the second step. After this phase, there is no reason not to qualify the book as commodity. Notably, there is the production of use values in the first step and the production of exchange values in the second step.

Conclusion

This character of cultural products and practices underscores the reason why we must cautiously approach to the idea of cultural commodity. But it is important not to have a generalization on the issue. What is at stake here is just a general tendency. On the other hand, we must not consider the two steps of production as wholly separated and independent domains. In other words, it cannot be said that use values are always generated in the first step and their transformation into exchange values always happens in the second step. There can be other kind of transformations.

It is important to emphasize here that capital tries to commodify these products and practices despite of all differences they have.

References

Benjamin, W. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, London: Penguin Books, [1936] 2010.

Bermejo, F. “Audience manufacture in historical perspective: from broadcasting to Google”, New Media & Society, 2009, V. 11, No. 1-2, pp. 133-154.

Bolin, G. Value and the Media: Cultural Production and Consumption in Digital Markets, London: Ashgate Publishing, 2011.

Caraway, B. “Audience Labor in the New Media Environment: A Marxian Revisiting of the Audience Commodity”, Media, Culture & Society, 2011, V. 33, No. 5, pp. 693-708.

Fisher, E. "How Less Alienation Creates More Exploitation? Audience Labour on Social Network Sites", tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 171-183.

Fuchs, C. “Dallas Smythe Today - The Audience Commodity, the Digital Labour Debate, Marxist Political Economy and Critical Theory. Prolegomena to a Digital Labour Theory of Value”, tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 692-740.

Fuchs, C. Digital Labour and Karl Marx, New York: Routledge, 2013.

Fuchs, C. Culture and Economy in the Age of Social Media, New York: Routledge, 2015.

Garnham, N. “Towards a Political Economy of Culture”, New University Quarterly, 1977, V. 31, No. 3, pp. 341-357.

Garnham, N. Capitalism and Communication, London: SAGE Publications, 1990.

Garnham, N. Emancipation, the Media and Modernity: Arguments about the Media and Social Theory, Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2000.

Garnham, N. “The Political Economy of Communication Revisited”, in J. Wasko, G. Murdock and H. Sousa (eds.) The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2011, pp. 41-61.

Hebblewhite, H. J. W. “Means of Communication as Means of Production” Revisited”, tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 203-213.

Hesmondhalgh, D. The Cultural Industries, London: Sage, 2011.

Horkheimer, M., Adorno, W. T., Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, California: Standford University Press, [1947] 2002.

Jhally, S. “Probing The Blindspot: The Audience Commodity”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1982, V. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 204-210.

Lee, M. “Google Ads and the Blindspot Debate”, Media, Culture and Society, 2011, V. 33, No. 3, pp. 433-447.

Livant, B. “The Audience Commodity: On The ‘Blindspot’ Debate”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1979, V. 3, No. 1, pp. 91-106.

Livant, B. “Working At Watching: A Reply To Sut Jhally”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1982, V. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 211-215.

Louw, E. The Media and Cultural Production, London: SAGE Publication, 2001.

Marx, K. Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy, New York: Penguin Books, 1992.

Meehan, E. R. “Ratings and the institutional approach: A third answer to the Commodity Question”, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 1984, V. 1, No. 2, pp. 216-225.

Miège, B. “The Cultural Commodity”, Media Culture Society, 1979, V. 1, No. 3, pp. 297-311.

Miège, B. The Capitalization of Cultural Production, New York: International General, 1989.

Miège, B. “Principal Ongoing Mutations of Cultural and Informational Industries”, in D. Winseck and D. Y. Jin (eds.) The Political Economies of Media: The Transformation of the Global Media Industries, London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011, pp. 51-65.

Mosco, V. The Political Economy of Communication, Los Angeles: Sage, 2009.

Murdock, G. “Blindspot About Western Marxism: A Reply To Dallas Smythe”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1978, V. 2, No. 2, pp. 109-119.

Murdock, G. “Marx on Commodities, Contradictions and Globalisations Resources for a Critique of Marketised Culture”, E-Compós, 2006, V. 7, pp. 1-23.

Murdock, G. “Political Economies as Moral Economies: Commodities, Gifts and Public Goods”, in J. Wasko, G. Murdock and H. Sousa (eds.), The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2011, pp. 13-40.

Murdock, G., Golding, P. “For A Political Economy of Mass Communication”, The Socialist Register, 1973, V. 10, pp. 205-234.

Napoli, P. M. Audience Economics and the Audience Marketplace, New York: Columbia University Press, 2003.

Nixon, B. “Toward a Political Economy of ‘Audience Labour’ in the Digital Era”, tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2014, V. 12, No. 2, pp. 713-734.

Prey, R. “The Network’s Blindspot: Exclusion, Exploitation and Marx’s Process-Relational Ontology”, tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 253-273.

Prodnik, J. “A Note on the Ongoing Processes of Commodification: From the Audience Commodity to the Social Factory”, tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 274-301.

Smythe, D. W. “Communications: Blindspot Of Western Marxism.” Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1977, V. 1, No. 3, pp. 1-28.

Smythe, D. W. “Rejoinder To Graham Murdock”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1978, V. 2, No. 2, pp. 120-127.

Wayne, M., Marxism and Media Studies: Key Concepts and Contemporary Trends, London: Pluto Press, 2003.

Introduction

In academia and in civil society as a whole, there are two debates containing at least some emancipatory potential for democratic transformations. One is the somewhat elitist or technocratic debate on e-democracy and democratic innovations online. This debate concentrates on democratic reform, trying to counter the lacking participation but ultimately geared to stabilise the current capitalist system (Grunwald et al. 2006: 62 ff). The other debate is mostly led by civil rights activists and journalists concerned with freedom on the Internet. They counter the claim for real name policies online and defend online anonymity as democratic right to free participation (Ruesch/Märker 2012: 111f). This debate contains clear emancipatory potential, but remains defensive and is lacking a vision of democratic change. The arguments and ideas of both debates can be tracked back to the discussion on cyberdemocracy of the 1990s. In the context of the spread of internet access in Western societies ideas of new democratic utopias arose imagining cyberspace as a place free of domination (Poster 1995; Poster 1997; Rheingold 1993; Landow 1992; Holmes 1997; Tsagarousianou et al. 1998; Fang 1995). However, the Internet proved to be governed by private commercialisation, state censorship and the reproduction of social hierarchies of the “offline world”. In retrospect, the ideas of the democratic e-topias were soon perceived as naiv. The justified concerns and the criticism of hierarchy online incorporated the cyberdemocratic ideas as a moment of disciplination: E-topia could never be realised. This position, however, confines debates to defensive or conservative argumentation. Thus this research project picks up on the cyberdemocratic discourse and tries to renew these ideas from the perspective of current democratic movements online. First the discourse on cyberdemocracy will be revisited, then a social movements elaboration and renewal of these ideas will be developed by online document analysis and interviews with key activists. The goal is to make a theoretical contribution to the somewhat conservative debate on e-democracy and to further its emancipatory potential. A the same time I wish to contribute to clarifying the ideas of social movements concerned with freedom on the Internet and support them in boldly promoting ideas for democratic online participation.  

Methods

First the debate on cyberdemocracy is revisited. Literature containing the term “cyberdemocracy” is considered. In this first step the main arguments of the debate are identified. Then the argument that’s of most importance to this research project, the idea of flexible identity construction and anonymity online, is tracked further in the contemporary debates. After this, ideas of social movements for freedom on the Internet are examined. For this purpose two movements are selected, that are specifically concerned with online-identity/anonymity: Anonymous and Cyberfeminism. First the ideas of these movements concerning identity/anonymity are gathered by online document analysis. Second qualitative interviews with key activists in these movements are conducted. The analysis of the data is not aimed at identifying a political agenda representative for the respective movements, but at generating ideas concerning identity/anonymity online for democratic transformation.

Results and Discussion

The results of the study show a vibrant discussion of some ideas already debated under the term cyberdemocracy some twenty years ago. This is not to say, however, that these ideas haven’t changed and adapted. Anonymity is valued by some and seen as an essential part of democracy and democratic transformation. Anonymous activists criticise the production of fixed social identities as capitalist mode of hierarchisation and commodification. Thus the possibility of dissolving or hiding identity online means liberation, which is also an essential part of a democratic alternatives for the future. Some cyberfeminists agree and advocate concepts of disembodiment as means of leaving patriarchic and heteronormativ identities behind and engaging in free communication. As cyberfeminism is a heterogeneous movement representing all diversity of feminist discussions, many activists are sceptical of anonymity and stress the value of diversity. Nevertheless they advocate concepts of identity tourism for temporarily changing identity and creative processes of construction of the digital self. Activists of Anonymous and Cyberfeminism see great potential in flexible identity creation and/or anonymity online for democratic change. However, they are also sceptical of the possibilities of realising these potentials in the light of current commercialisation and surveillance on the Internet.

Conclusions

While current academic discussions on e-democracy declare democratic transformation by the means of ICTs as failed and work on reformist ideas, the renewal of cyberdemocratic thought by social movements reveals clear alternatives. Reforms that increase participation are steps in the right direction, but they should be percieved as part of a process of democratic transformation that implies systemic change. Hierarchies tied to social identity cannot be done away with by simply hiding them or making them flexible online. This can, however, temporarily counter social inequalities and demonstrate potentials for future alternatives.

References

Grunwald, Armin/Banse, Gerhard/Coenen, Christoph/Hennen, Leonhard (2006): Netzöffentlichkeit und digitale Demokratie – Tendenzen politischer Kommunikation im Internet, Berlin: edition sigma.

Fang, Nien-Hsuan (1995): The Internet as a Public Sphere – A Habermasian Approach, Dissertation, Buffalo: State University of New York.

Holmes, David (Hg.) (1997): Virtual Politics – Identity & Community in Cyberspace, London: Sage.

Landow, George (1992): Hypertext – The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Poster, Mark (1997): Cyberdemocracy – The Internet and the Public Sphere, in: Holmes, David (Hg.): Virtual Politics – Identity & Community in Cyberspace, London: Sage, 212-228.

Poster, Mark (1995): The Second Media Age, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Rheingold, Howard (1993): Virtual Community – Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, Boston: Addison Wesley.

Ruesch, Michelle Anna/Märker, Oliver (2012): Real Name Policy in E-Participation – The Case of Gütersloh’s Second Participatory Budget, in: Parycek, Peter/Edelmann, Noella (Hg.): CeDEM12 – Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, Donau-Universität Krems, 109-124.

Tsagarousianou, Roza/Tambini, Damian/Bryan, Cathy (1998): Electronic democracy and civic networking movement in context, in: Dies. (Hg.): Cyberdemocracy – Technology, Cities and Civic Networks, Lonond/New York: Routledge, 1-17.

The 3 advantages of Shannon’s theory are: (1) by excluding semiotic information to avoid the information complexity; (2) by limiting pragmatic information to remove the information complexity in the sense of axiology; (3) by quantitatively describing syntactic information based on statistics to provide quantitative method for communication technology. Meanwhile, however, which leads to 3 disadvantages should be conquered for the future of information science. The thesis from Wiener that Information is Information, not material and not energy which gives a breakthrough, that is, to abandon Mechanical Materialism and establish Dialectical Materialism for information times.

Wu Kun’s theory gives rise to the ontological question, on the one hand, given a challenge for classical description on being in Dialectical Materialism, on the other hand, insisted on the basic position of Dialectical Materialism which pointed out the objective world composes with material and information, the material is the first existence, the information is the second existence. Based on the ontological core, he build up his philosophy system as the response for information times. The finding of information also give a chance to Idealism which can be looked up in Wheeler’ information theory. What he mentioned about information can be treat as variant from the Absolute Spirit in Hegel’s thought. What the Wheeler’s theory advocated is Information monism and can be titled as informationism which is the reflection of Idealism in information times.

The core of dialectics is the law of the unity of opposites, Marx conquered Hegel’s Idealism by denied absolute spirit and built up Dialectics based on Materialism. However, he left another logic loophole, that is before the appearance of human spirit, material has no opposite side, and object is not following the law of the unity of opposites. It illustrates that the law of the unity of opposites is not a general rule, but a local one after spirit appearance. The finding about information and Wiener’s thesis represent that the original being in object world is the unity of opposites and therefore composed double meta-contradiction in universe, everything is generated from it. How do material and information keep the relation of unity of opposites before appearance of human spirit is the urgent and important question for materialistic dialectics.

Information science faces a huge opportunity. On the one hand, the world view based on above reveal a unity of opposites relationship between material and information, that will effect and leads to a theory development of information science. On the other hand, as the improvement of engineering, information science need to creat Necessity and Possibility by obtaining instruction from technology science and supporting experience to it. Such as dig bata which let us know that Shannon’s theory still follows Reductionism and belongs to microeconomics study for information phenomenon, lacking of the whole inspection about information in super system. To satisfy the actual requirement from complexity super system, we need to conquer Reductionism in information study.

Information study gives an effect on the whole development of science, not just limited in information science. It even gives a historical effect on the process of science system evolution, that is, turn simplify science to complexity science. Redefine the concept of Two dimensional science from Klir, we can affirm that the evolution of transform of system of science must be from one dimension to two. The simplify science is one dimension science which just focuses on matter and motion as well as energy transfer. Besides, the complexity science is two dimension science which proposals to take the combination of material and information into consideration.

In China, information research starts from 1960, it began with introduction and study on Shannon’s theory for the requests from development of communication technology. In 1980, depends on support by Qian Xuesen, this area welcome a climax. Generally speaking, the research by Zhong Yixin, Wu Kun and Yan Xueshan represent the academic level in modern China in this area. There are still a part of researchers raised various information topic and theory which represents the foreground of Chinese way of research. In order to smooth this way, the researcher need to explore a suitable way by knowing the situation in modern China, pointing at the modernization and leading by question. Chinese culture full of information cognition, the traditional Medical Sience, Agriculture, Architecture and Military Science all contain the information way of thinking. Inherited and Carried forward are necessary for the development of information science.

References and Notes

1. Wiener, N. Cybernetics, Or Control And Communication in the Animal And the Machine (In Chinese, Translated by Jiren Hao); Science Press: Beijing, China, 1962.
2. Wiener, N. The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics And Society (In Chinese, Translated by Bu Chen); The Commercial Press: Beijing, China, 1989.
3. Wheeler, J. A. At Home in the Universe (In Chinese, Translated by Song Tian & Meifang N.); Beijing Institute of Technology Press: Beijing, China, 2006.
4. Mayer-Shonberger, V.; Cukier, K. Big Data, A Revolution, That Will Transform How We Live, Work, And Think (In Chinese, Translated by Yangyan. S. & Tao Z.); Zhejiang People's Publishing House: Hangzhou, China, 2013.
5. Marx K.; Engels, F. Selected Works of Karl Marx And Friedrich Engels (Vol. 3); People's Publishing House: Beijing China, 1995.
6. Lenin V. Selected Works of Lenin (Vol. 2); People's Publishing House: Beijing China, 1972.
7. Kun W. Basic Problems of Philosophy And Essential Turning of Philosophy. Hebei Journal, 2011, 4.
8. Dongsheng M. On Wheeler’s Information Viewpoint, Journal of HUST 2008, 2.
9. Runsheng C. Entropy. Encyclopedia Knowledge 1982, 10.
10. Zhigong L. On the Two Attitudes of Information Research. Digest: Nature Science Abroad 1974, 2.
11. Shen L. The Debates about Concept of Information in Soviet Philosophy Circle. Social Science Abroad 1980, 7.
12. Huaizhen Z. Philosophical Analysis to Information Method, Philosophical Researches 1980, 9.
13. Huanjie Z. Information And Reflection, Philosophical Researches 1980, 12.
14. Dongsheng M. Restricted View on Complexity; Intellectual Property Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2014.
15. Chendong L. Understanding Red Mansions; China Archive Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2006.

Introduction

Karl Marx has predicted in his Communist Manifest the self-destruction of Capitalism. Although he himself has admired the achievements of bourgeoisie Capitalism, he at the same time predicted that the inherent internal contradictions of Capitalism will eventually bring it down.

Marx made this prediction around 1860, and since then, more than 150 years have passed. During this period Capitalism has suffered a few situations of massive crisis and indeed came close to self-destruct. Nonetheless, it has survived worldwide wars; major technological changes and massive shifts in fundamental paradigms of social, political and culture.

Furthermore, Capitalism was not brought down by any emancipatory agent, as predicted by Marx, neither has it brought about its own demise by self-destructing. It has indeed continued to be a powerful economic and political force, spreading its ideology to numerous countries, while using Neo-Liberal ideology and ICT technology, and thus implementing globalization as indeed, has been predicted by Karl Marx.

Methods

Capitalism, as we know it and as articulated by Karl Marx, is a political and economic production structure under which societies in the western world operate to produce goods and services. It is an based on free market ideology on one hand, and some level of state involvement on the other hand. Its emphasis is on Innovation and entrepreneurship. It is political in the sense that the balance between state and markets is determined by politician bodies and people. Its most striking characteristic is employment of workers who produce goods which are sold on the market for a profit, where the profits belong to the business owners. The forces of production together with the production relations, produce surplus value and thus profits to the owners. Capitalism is organized around businesses which produce products and services, investors, employers, employees, and state institutions such as the Federal Reserve. It is a "Complex System" as the term is defined in Biology in multi- cell organisms. It is the contention of this paper that its evolution approximates the rule of natural selection, namely: "The survival of the fittest". The system was able to protect itself over its 200 years of existence by adapting with each crisis to the new demands of reality (such as the level of state intervention) and recently, by adapting a modus operandi which unquestionably, require massive state intervention to cope with the crisis. Examples are the New Deal in 1932 and the creation of the welfare state in Europe, as well as the massive QE program by the state in the 2007-2009 near melt-down calamity.

Technology has a very substantial role in the development, evolution and progress of the Capitalistic system. As technology changes over time, we are witnessing a phenomenon which has no precedence. Capitalism adopts the most current available technology and uses it to improve productivity; to accelerate production; to shorten the time to market and to reduce dependability on human (worker) involvement. With the advance of ICT technology, Capitalism was able to effectively implement its neo-liberal ideology. Capitalism thus uses technology to produce more goods and services more efficiently (and by doing so it controls the "Supply Management"), and on the other hand it uses the same technology to execute "Demand Management" methods, thus, assuring that there will be enough clients to consume the products and services it produces. Examples are the use of the Smartphone to make consumption as easy and as available as possible, and the use of the Internet for faster movement of capital, goods and information required for the multi-site, global production of goods and services.

On one hand, the technology makes the “Complex System” operate faster. The movement of capital, human resources, and information is now at the fastest pace ever in the history of mankind and it continues to accelerate. This challenges the “Complex System” and may bring it down and destroy it as the speed increases to levels which are intolerable to the system itself and to the consumers. The speed with which the “Complex System" now operates put a tremendous stress on itself, and with stress it challenges its weak points. The higher the speed, the more bugs are bound to appear, as in any system which is being strained to its limit. The consumers are an absolute requirement of the Capitalist system for it to survive. On the other hand, the same technology provides Capitalism with tools to track, monitor and collect very private information about the consumer. Its privacy is heavily compromised by the Capitalistic system. For Capitalism this ability guarantees targeting is much more efficient and thus the system is more profitable. Capitalism continuously collects the data about the consumer behavior, and thus has very effective information about consumer tastes, wants and desires. It thus provides goods and services which meet consumer preferences everywhere in the world in the most effective way. For the state, this unprecedented ability to track and monitor user behavior, provides tools to identify critical forces and to control these forces at their very beginning, thus enforcing the "One Dimensionality" of the society, as articulated by Herbert Marcuse in his book. It appears that Capitalism has provided the Subject with a tradeoff which never existed before: "Sacrifice Privacy" in order to gain "Always on Connectivity"

Results and Discussion

It is the thesis of this paper, that Capitalism has developed over the years the ability to adapt and to mutate into different modes of Capitalism, while retaining its two most fundamental core values, namely that of maximizing profits and that of utilizing private work to generate this profit, namely retaining the core concept of oppressors and oppressed. This ability to mutate and adapt has been the key to the survival of Capitalism. Furthermore, Capitalism has strengthened and became a more powerful entity as it put to work the most modern network media in manipulating the subject and shaping the subjects' material needs. This system is moving forward as a Creative Destruction force. It destroys the previous version of itself, while retaining the core values and then proceeds to manifest itself as a "New Improved" system, more powerful and more efficient Capitalism.

Conclusions

To conclude, I need to address the question of whether Capitalism can ever be destroyed as a system. The question at hand is thus whether there are conditions under which the adaptability and mutability of Capitalism will not be sufficient and its ability to bend over shall not be sufficient to prevent its self-destruction.

As stated above, Capitalism has two components which govern it as a Complex System: Political and Economic. In the political arm which based on politicians who make the decisions, where the weakest point of the system can be observed. This is where Capitalism could tilt the crisis into an irreversible global melt down and thus bring about its own massive destruction. This is certainly the weak link which because it is predicated on human behavior, cannot be predicted with certainty and it is here where the true possibility of self- destruction lies. Even assuming that mankind usually strives to better its conditions of existence, this assumption is in strong conflict with dogmatic, free market, non- state intervention paradigm. As such, if the dogmatic forces prevail, it is very likely to lead to a total destruction of Capitalism as we know it today. In the potential clash between the Capitalist dogmatic fundamentalist forces and the forces required to save Capitalism from its own destruction (by sacrificing the very ideology of Free Market, no state intervention of Capitalism), there lies the possibility of the self-destruction of Capitalism, as it entails politicians making decisions which defy their long standing dogmatic thinking.

References and Notes

1. Marx, K.; The Communist Manifesto, 1840.
2. Marcuse, H.; One-Dimensional Man, 1960.
3. Morozov, E.; The Net Delusion, In Public Affairs USA, 2011.
4. Hassan, R.; Media, Politics and the network society, McGraw Hill House, Berkshire, UK, 2004.

Introduction: Electronic agora, escape velocity or agony of the real? – The intellectual controversy about the impacts of cyberspace

“The new source of power is not money in the hands of a few, but information in the hands of many.”
John Naisbitt [1]

After the collapse of the Cold War system and the establishment of the new global information society through the Internet, a controversial debate occurred among social scientists and philosophers about the impacts of the new and forthcoming digital world. The main focus of this debate was the question whether the new digital society would change or preserve the current socio-political situation of the current world society. The ‘mainstream’ of the Silicon Valley computer technology industries, who endorsed the so-called ‘dotcom neo-liberalism’ with its new characteristics of individualism, libertarianism combined with neo-liberal economy and techno-utopianism, were heavily criticised as the so-called ‘Californian Ideology’ by Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron [2]. Both authors characterised this new post-technological ideology as a strange mixture of ‘Hippie’-beliefs of the 1960ies (personal freedom) and the ‘Yuppie’-beliefs of the 1980ies (individual success). The core idea of the Californian Ideology is that the new information and communication technologies (ICTs) could establish a new kind of ‘Electronic Agora’, where its members would be able to promote and share their opinions without any fear, suppression or censorship. These new achievements would be able to undermine the current power structures and guarantee individual freedom for the people. Barbrook and Cameron were criticising that the current high-tech-elites were unable to articulate a clear socio-political position and that their promoted ‘Electronic Agora’ would also be insufficient to solve the problems of modern societies [3]. In fact, the ‘Electronic Agora’ would rather be replaced by an “electronic marketplace” of the new “virtual class” influenced by neo-liberal techno-determinism [4].

Barbrook’s and Cameron’s critique on the ‘Californian Ideology’ was not the only one. Mark Dery, a US-American author and cultural critic, and French post-structuralists like Paul Virilio or Jean Baudrillard have been criticising the new neo-liberal techno-determinism as well. Mark Dery was emphasising that the new cyberspace ideology that is existing since the beginning of the 1990s might be described as an “escape velocity”, which means a transcendental escape from terrestrial matter by high speed resulting in the wish for overcoming natural limits and death [5].

The French philosopher Paul Virilio referred to Albert Einstein, who was convinced in the early 1950s that the post-industrial society is threatened by three bombs: The first one is the atomic bomb, which has already been exploded; the second one is the information bomb and the third one is the world population bomb that will explode in the 21st century. Therefore, the information bomb is currently exploding. According to Einstein’s hypothesis, Paul Virilio comes to the conclusion that the explosion of the information bomb will result in the so-called “zero time”, which means that the time difference in between all events in cyberspace is becoming shorter and shorter caused by the high speed of information transmission. In other words, all events in cyberspace are happening at the same time and result in a paradoxical phenomenon, which Virilio has called “racing standstill” [6].

The French philosopher and post-structuralist Jean Baudrillard criticises that within cyberspace the “real” would be increasingly replaced by “simulation”, which means that within virtual worlds, any reference to reality would get lost. Furthermore, the simulation is tending to become a perfect copy of reality and a construction of illusion. He calls this phenomenon the “agony of the real” [7-8]. Achim Bühl has stressed another critique on the currently used cyber-terminology like “data highway“, “cyberspace“, “virtual community“, “global village“, “virtual marketplace“ or “city of bits“. In his analysis he comes to the conclusion that the “virtual society” is characterised by the partial substitution of real production, distribution and communication of reality, but in the end the real world cannot be completely replaced by virtualisation. The result of this transformation process would therefore be a virtual “parallel society” coexisting with reality [9].

Another interesting approach that accompanied the digital transformation process of the world society as well as the academic discussion since the beginning of the 90s was neo-Gramscianism that referred to Gramsci’s concept of “hegemony”. According to Gramsci’s classic approach, the dominant classes of a society would constitute “historical blocks”, which are able to convince the dominated class to share the cultural values and to universalise the common standards. Neo-Gramscianism tries to shift this concept of hegemony on a global scale and argues that currently the neo-liberal dominance tries to reach a global “cultural hegemony” according to Gramsci. The Neo-Gramscianists Robert W. Cox und Stephen Gill argue that currently the “transnational capitalist class” or the “transnational managerial class” represent the new “historical block”. Furthermore, the current cultural hegemony of neo-liberalism has failed and is based on enforcement since it has not reached a social consensus on its own values among civil society so far [10-11]. Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe have refined this neo-Gramscian concept of “cultural hegemony” towards a conception of “radical democracy” (a democracy based on the difference of entities and pluralism) that would be required to challenge the current dominance of neo-liberalism [12].

In this point of view, the digital information society can also be interpreted as challenging the dominance of the neo-liberal discourse of the ‘Californian Ideology’ and as a struggle for hegemony in cyberspace. In this sense, the civil society has become a battleground of the struggle for hegemony against the dominant political sphere of the world information society.

Struggling for hegemony and the future of the information society

After the establishment of the WWW and its enormous expansion during the 1990s, it was unclear for the Generation X whether the participation in the global information society by the new social movements was useful or harmful. Adherers of the ‘Californian Ideology’ and techno-eschatologists reinterpreted the well-known post-Maoist parole “long march through the institutions” by the APO (‘Außerparlamentarische Opposition’, German for extra-parliamentary opposition), spokesman Rudi Dutschke as a “long march through the cyberspace”. On the other hand, the techno-cultural pessimism of the French post-structuralists also influenced the sceptics among the new social movements. Apart from this controversial debate, many peace movements, NGOs and grassroots of the 1970s and 1980s have been attracted by the potentials that the WWW had to offer: It is basically flexible, open to many people and cheap as well to promote the intentions of small organisations, movements and grassroots, whose ideas and work have been commonly unknown to the public. In this respect, especially peace-related movements and institutions, most of them from the mid-1990s, tried to expose themselves through the Internet.

Most of the peace movements in the US and other countries have unionised in the Usenet (e.g. ‘alt.peace’ or ‘alt.peace-corps’), which was a parent communication platform of the so-called ‘Social Networks’. One of the first peace education related networks was ‘Communication for a Sustainable Future’ (CSF) at the University of Colorado. This network published a catalogue of all peace study programs worldwide. In Europe, ‘Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research’ (TFF) became one of the most important and independent information providers during the wars in former Yugoslavia or in the Caucasus. One of the first peace research institutions in Germany that joined the WWW was the ‘PRIF’ (‘Peace Research Institute Frankfurt’), which did not only promote its aims and perspectives, but also offered several publications to download (“PRIF report”, “Friedensgutachten”). In the UK it was the Department of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford which allowed the first Telnet access to their library catalogue. In 1996 the ‘Austrian Study Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution’ (ASPR) launched its first website, offering news and articles, research and conference reports, training course programmes and publication archives for the public. Its partner institution European Peace University, formerly called ‘European University Center for Peace Studies’ (EPU) was the first organisation in continental Europe, which presented an MA Programme in Peace and Conflict Studies to students from around the world. Later, in 2010, the EPU re-launched its website after becoming a private university and introduced a ‘Virtual Campus’ covering an online catalogue of the peace library, an intranet for the students and a huge publication archive of the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) Chair on Peace, Human Rights & Democracy. After the emergence of the so-called ‘Web 2.0’, most of the institutions mentioned above also joined the new Social Networks like Facebook or Twitter to connect with international peace movements.

Since the early beginning and establishment of the Internet, not only the global society has been in transition but also the Internet itself. The first version of the WWW was mainly a passive information medium, whose primary purpose was to inform the ‘information rich’ and an elite of technocrats. Although the digital divide still exists, the expansion of the net has meanwhile spread all around the world and the number of participants has been dramatically increasing. Furthermore, the ‘Web 2.0’ has also changed the quality of the net. By the establishment of the ‘Social Networks’ like Facebook, Twitter, Xing or Google+ that cover nearly one billion of participants, the Internet is no longer a passive information medium but it has become more flexible and mobile in terms of interactive communication and sharing of interests. The third stage of the net is the ‘Web 3.0’ that is also known as the so-called ‘Semantic Web’. This means that not only passive information or interactive communication and sharing will be provided in the future. ‘Semantic’ means furthermore that the ‘Web 3.0’ will be able to identify correlations and relationships of data, which have not been transparent before. This implies that passive databases will serve as multiple information clusters in the future. This circumstance has an enormous potential for civil society, especially for future peace and conflict studies. The ‘Semantic Web’ could be useful for conflict transformation, early warning systems, crisis prevention and new interdisciplinary peace and conflict research.

Conclusion

It is hard to predict how the information society will develop in the future. The web might be increasingly used for common goods of the world population like democratic participation, human rights, crisis management or political change. However, it might also be misused for monopolistic opinion leadership, information warfare, violating privacy, as well as for suppression, exclusion or censorship of the freedom of speech.

However, one thing is certain: the digital divide and the power monopoly of the US government, which both still exist, are symptomatic of the circumstance that the struggle for neo-Gramscian ‘Hegemony’ and the quest for ‘Radical Democracy’ within the information society are still going on and the net community with its ‘Netizens’ will remain the battleground of this struggle to overcome the current state of democracy in crisis.

References and Notes

1. Naisbitt, John. Megatrends. Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives. Warner Books: New York, 1982, 16.
2. Barbrook, Richard/Cameron, Andy. The Californian Ideology. Science as Culture. 6.1, 1995, 44-72.
3. Barbrook, Richard. Cyber-Communism. How The Americans Are Superseding Capitalism In Cyberspace. Science as Culture. 2000, 9, 5-40.
4. Die kalifornische Ideologie. February 5th 1997. http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/1/1007/1.html
5. Dery, Mark. Escape Velocity. Cyberculture at the End of the Century. Grove Press: New York, 1996.
6. Virilio, Paul. La Bombe Informatique, Galilée: Paris, 1998.
7. Baudrillard, Jean. Die Agonie des Realen. Merve-Verlag: Berlin, 1978.
8. Rötzer, Florian. Illusion, Verführung und Simulation. Florian Rötzer im Gespräch mit Jean Baudrillard. http://on1.zkm.de/zkm/discuss/msgReader$1072?mode=day
9. Bühl, Achim. Die virtuelle Gesellschaft. Ökonomie, Politik und Kultur im Zeichen des Cyberspace. In Soziologie des Internet. Handeln im elektronischen Web-Werk, Lorenz Gräf, Markus Krajewski; Eds.; Campus: Frankfurt/New York, 1997; pp. 39-59.
10. Cox, Robert W. Power, Production, and World Order. Columbia University Press: New York, 1987.
11. Gill, Stephen. American hegemony and the Trilateral Commission. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1990.
12. Laclau, Ernesto/Mouffe, Chantal. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. Verso: London, 1985.

As the new communication technologies have become an integral part of our daily transactions and one of the founding stones of modern social systems, the “way” we are engaged with them has become more of an issue. The Internet, which has unlimited potentials for construction of a better world (more equal, more democratic, more liberating and more just), can also turn into a tool for various authoritarian and totalitarian phantasies. “Critical New Media Literacy: Four Arts” will interrogate the role that could be played by critical new media literacy in transforming the society and the web. The four arts are critical for equipping citizens and collectivities with weapons that will help them to be a part political processes: the art of deconstruction, the art of defense, the art of connective action, and the art of emancipation. In short, the four arts will play vital role in realizing the ideal of active, participatory citizenship. Active citizenship stand as one of the most revolutionary ideas of our neo-liberal times which imposes the ideas, “democracy, but not too much”, “politics but not too much”, and “security, very much”. The neoliberal understanding of politics curb citizens’ will to have an influence on their and others’ lives.

Critical new media literacy as an art of deconstruction is about contextualizing, deconstructing and problematizing the supposed naturalness and transparency of media texts. The main question here is “to whose interest?”. This has two dimensions. On the one hand it is a discursive, semiological and ideological critique of media texts; which insists on the social construction of reality (as opposed to essentialist readings of the social) and the role of the media therein. Second, the critical new media literacy problematizes the political economy of the new media and focuses on the economic structure, labor processes and relations of exploitation in production of new media messages. Not only material labor, but also immaterial labor will be a major topic for critical new media literacy.

Critical new media literacy as an art of defense aims at equipping the citizens with skills to defend themselves from techniques of surveillance, monitoring and censorship. In authoritarian settings such as Turkey this skill is indispensable for increasing autonomy of individual citizens and of social movements. These technologies of course are not only owned and promoted by the state, also companies monitor and profile the citizens on the net for profit. Critical new media literacy as an art of defense, in this sense will be the weapon of the weak.

Critical new media literacy as an art of connective action equips citizens with insights to better organize, collaborate, act together, and organize in and through the net. It also pushes citizens to develop their creative and productive capacities through a focus on new media production strategies. As it was the case in many other settings, Turkey, during Gezi Protests realized the importance of the connective and creative potentialities of new media technologies. The mobile phones for instance has turned into alternative media outlets in the hands of citizen journalists. Social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter were actively used by protestors as conduits of organizing, deliberating and collective framing. Critical new media literacy as an art of connective action focuses on enriching this potential of new media technologies.

Finally, critical new media literacy as an art of emancipation stress the liberating potential and agenda of new media literacy. Thus, what we are dealing is not a pedagogical issue, put primarily a political one. Critical new media literacy is not something to be ‘thought’ by a ‘knowing’ teacher; but an emancipating intellectual journey in which the ‘ignorant schoolmaster’ (with reference to Jacques Ranciere’s The Ignorant Schoolmaster and The Emancipated Spectator) will act, transform, challenge, be challenged, and learn with/from the ‘students’. The life itself, the real new media users and new media spaces are where the traces of an emancipatory strategy (for critical new media literacies) can be found and followed. Breaking the pedagogical relationship and replacing it with a radical, revolutionary perspective will lie at the heart of critical new media literacy.

The four arts, their relevance for and place in a restricted internet setting (Turkey) will be discussed in details. In other words, the four arts of critical new media literacy are designed and thought specifically for Turkey setting. The major political goal of the four arts outlook is to contribute to halting the authoritarian turn in Turkish politics –keeping in mind the Internet is one of the prominent targets of authoritarian measures.

Introduction

According Caglar (see [2]) the new media oriented technology usage in education converts an information sharing classroom to a global information sharing classroom. In our contribution we would like to analyse some electronic supporting materials in selected learning management systems. We want to apply modern trends and means of using virtual laboratories in Informatics Education according the New Slovak State Educational Program ISCED 3 for secondary schools (see [4]).

Experiments play a key role in teaching technical subjects at the elementary, secondary schools and universities and have the potential to increase student´s interest in the study of technical subjects and motivate them in exploring and discovering the natural phenomena and laws around us. The importance of real experiments for informatics as a science as well as for teaching a subject is significant - not only allows for a perfect understanding of measuring characteristics, but also contributes significantly to the development of the personality of civilized man (see [6]).

Teachers of technical subjects should be open to modern technologies and should incorporate them into their teaching subjects. Otherwise there is a risk that the current preparation of students for the challenges of the future will be using the equipment and tools from the past (see [3]).

How can we generally define experiment? By what criteria can be physical experiments divided? In the book of Physics Education (see [5]) is regarded as a physical experiment storyline artificially induced, so as to ensure conditions that are important for its progress. In doing so, the point is that these conditions could be at retries maintained the same, or that they can be appropriately varied.

Methods and Results

Systematic education in computer science and use of its tools provide an equal opportunity for a productive and fulfilling life of the Slovak population in the information and knowledge society that we are building. It is necessary to focus on the study of basic universal tools that go beyond current technology. One of the new tools for informatics education are virtual laboratories. We think that virtual labs can increase the clarity of teaching informatics subjects, as reflected by the increased knowledge level of students in quantitatively and also qualitatively point of view. Possible research in this field will be discussed.

There are few experiments created at the Department of Experimental Physics Faculty of Science, Palacky University in Olomouc that were accessible on the website http://ictphysics.upol.cz/remotelab/. From this Web site, users can experiment remotely control and acquire (measured) data download to their computers.

Figure 1. Virtual lab (http://ictphysics.upol.cz/remotelab/)

(See the PDF version for the Figure).

This is the scientific method, in which the artificial induces a storyline with predetermined conditions so that it can be under the same conditions repeated. During an ongoing experiment objectively monitor measurements using instruments interdependence of physical quantities under the influence of the smallest number of distractions. Experiment is the means of knowledge and also a specific form of practice. The results generalize to form physical law (usually described mathematical model), while the other attempts to verify accuracy. (see [6])

Virtual laboratory as an educational technology provides an advanced individualized learning perfectly meets the educational needs and provides a high level of flexibility and freedom from constrains of time and place One of the most important features of virtual reality is the easily and continuous material update aiming to attain learning objectivity and interest (see [1]).

Conclusions

The mission of teaching informatics is to help students to understand the basic concepts, methods and techniques used for data handling and flow of information in computer systems. Builds the informatics culture the students are educated how to effectively use information resources with respect of the legal and ethical use of information technology and products. We can classify virtual labs in these categories:

1. Classical simulations which contain certain elements of laboratory experiments and are available locally (Simulations).
2. Classical simulations which contain certain elements of laboratory experiments are accessible on the Web (on-line) and are available as JAVA-Applets (or accessible with plug-ins) (Cyber Labs).
3. Simulations which attempt to represent laboratory experiments as closely as possible (Virtual Labs).
4. Simulations of lab experiments using virtual reality techniques (VR Labs).
5. Real experiments which are controlled via network / Internet (Remote Labs).

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by Grants KEGA 017-KU-4/2014 Progressive elements in materials of the First Teachers Institute in Slovakia and their applications for pedagogy and subjectual didactics in 21st century and KEGA 002UJS-4/2014 Interactive electronic learning materials to support implementation of modern technology in teaching mathematics and informatics.

References and Notes

1. Al-Shanak, K. & Doumi, H. Foundations of e-learning in science education. Amman, Jordan: Dar Wael for Publishing and Distribution, 2009
2. Caglar, E. The Integration of Innovative New Media Technologies into Education: A Comparison Study: FATIH Project in Turkey and ISTE-NETS*T. Future-Learning Proceedings. Istanbul: Istanbul University, 2012, 56-75.  
3. Dormido, S. Control Learning: Present and Future. Proceedings of the 15^th IFAC World Congress on Automatic Control. Barcelona, 2002
4. ISCED 3A – Vyššie sekundárne vzdelávanie. http://www.statpedu.sk/files/documents/svp/gymnazia/isced3_spu_uprava.pdf
5. Kašpar, E. et all. Didaktika fyziky. SPN, Praha,
6. Vybíral, B. Fundamentální experimenty ve fyzice. M-F-I, Vol. 15, 5, 2006. Prometheus, Praha, 274- 287

Fact judgment and value allocation are the two fundamental elements of contemporary public policy making, while knowledge, especially scientific and technological knowledge, is the basis of the former. In public policy making, the fact, which has multiple dimensions and is twinned with value, often arouses several different knowledge claims; however, only the ‘public knowledge’ should be taken as the fundaments of fact judgment in a rational public policy making [1-3]. As multiply consensual understandings of public decision relevant fact, public knowledge is scientifically rational, communally owned and politically legitimate [4]. Public knowledge, through the procedures of proposing, arguing, merging and legitimating, public knowledge is also the outcome of gaming among multiple social actors with certain ways of knowing and inclinations of value [5]. Therefore, it is a showing of knowledge democracy.

Knowledge democracy requires all the actors in a policy making have equal right to access, transmit, and use the relevant information of all the factors in the policy topic for proposing and arguing a knowledge claim. As the representation of the nature and existing state of a matter, information is the same to everyone, who is accessing, transmitting, and using it. Therefore, democracy is the natural requirement of information. To eliminate the technical and social privilege in the information acquisition, dissemination and utilization by perfect political system, is a guarantee of promoting knowledge democracy.

The production of public knowledge is a kind of social behavior highly institutionalized and organized, and has formed system in each functional society with respective characteristics. The Basis for the production of public knowledge is called by some scholars ‘the civic epistemology’^[6]. There are five factors shaping the democracy in the public knowledge production at least. They are the followings:

(1) The actors and their roles. Producers of public knowledge is not limited to natural and social scientists and technical experts, humanity scholars, businessmen, media workers, government officials and the ordinary citizens may become participants, played a variety of roles. Among them, the government officials play the core role, as the main demander and producer of public knowledge, and event organizer and arbiter of legitimacy of the public knowledge. Other actors could influence government officials’ decisions.

(2) The production process. Public knowledge production generally includes the following four basic stages: identifying knowledge needs, expressing knowledge claims, arguing and legitimating. Public knowledge production process and public decision-making process are closely intertwined. Knowledge needs are put forward in the public policy agenda-setting stage. Expressing knowledge claims takes place in the stage of programme development. Arguing of different claims is in decision-making stage. Actors exchange their ideas, defend their claims by debating others. As most of the actors reached a certain degree of consensus, public authority decides which knowledge claim is needed as the intellectual basis for decision-making, the decision process is advocated legalization of public knowledge.

(3) The production space. Being different from scientific and technological knowledge, which is produced within the scientific community, public knowledge is produced in the wider public domain. These public areas include a formal political space provided by the system, such as Parliament, the courts and administrative bodies, as well as squares, streets, citizens’ forum and other places for spontaneous public expression of knowledge. Public media and virtual network are very important platforms for public knowledge production.

(4) The production organization. Public knowledge production is a highly organized social activity. The organizations involved in the production and their organizational level are various. Governments, universities, research institutions, industrial organizations, civic societies and the public media are main organization types. Any one of the organizations takes its own part and cooperates with others in the public knowledge production. Usually the government plays the core role, others should focus their parts on the government.

(5) The public accountability. Accountability is united with authority, based on the logic of the corresponding responsibility must be held by power. As long as there is some kind of power accident, someone must take responsibility. Public knowledge production is a side of public policy making, a kind of political activity. If any technical mistake due to wrong fact judgment occurs, someone of the actors must bear the responsibility, because they hold the power in the public knowledge production. The accountability system of public knowledge production is similar to the accountability system of public administration. Government officials exercise the main public power, so there is no doubt that they must bear the responsibility, including moral responsibility, political responsibility, administrative responsibility and legal liability. Besides the government officials, the other actors, especially the knowledge experts shall assume the responsibilities also, whether how to hold them accountable, there is still considerable controversy, pending further study.

Information about the above five factors must be open to every actor in the public knowledge production, without any privilege and limit, so as to improve the knowledge democracy.

References

1. Gilpin, R and C. Wright Ed., Scientists and National Policy-making, New York: Columbia University Press,1964.
2. Smith, Bruce L., The Advisers: Scientists in the Policy Process, New York: Brookings Inst Press, 1992.
3. Roger A. Pielke, Jr., The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. London: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
4. Maasen, Sabine and P. Weingart, Democratization of Expertise: Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, New York: Springer-Verlag, 2007.
5. Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J.Ｒ., Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1990.
6. Jasanoff, Sheila, Designs on Nature, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Introduction

Ubiquitous computing is a topic in sciences for almost 3 decades and there are the very first application of ubiquitous computing in real life. People wish with ubiquitous computing to ease in work and allday routines, they hope for a rise of security and to extended their senses and memory. Every day objects would have sensors and/or RFID-tags. These sensors and RFID-tags can be read ubiquitously and personal data are inquired, computed and/or stored. Ubiquitous computing needs an infrastructure of ubiquitous surveillance.

In the future many participants, in constantly changing settings, with manifold goals in very different contexts will take part in ubiquitous computing. Systems will organize them selves, unnoticed by the ones affected, and mysterious for them.

Privacy laws of today hold for situations with few participants in their straight defined roles. They claim to establish transparency, attachments, needs, control abilities, and participation of the affected ones. But these laws are not made for situations with many participants, in a variaty of constantly changing rules, under different goals in each role. Privacy laws must accommodate to the needs of ubiquitous computing to realize a right to informational selfdetermination (9).

New Privacy Laws should address the following principles:

1. data should be fair and be computed law-abiding,
2. data should only computed on their purpose,
3. data should be appropriate, relevant and not excessive,
4. data should be precise and up-to-date,
5. data should remain as local as possible,
6. data shouldn’t be stored longer than necessary,
7. appropriate punishments must be possible (11).

To realize all this in ubiquitous computing, it is necessary to integrate privacy principles into the technology. In networks of sensors and RFID-Systems privacy is ment to the appropriate handling and transfer of the ubiquitous surveillance infrastructures they realize (9).

Surveillance has allways to faces. It is necessary and supportive for securety, crime prevention and crime detection. On the other hand surveillance changes behaviour, people fell unfree and inhibited (6,7). Because of the latter people will stay anonymous in public spaces (6, 11). Concepts like the principle of agreeing with the gethering, computing and storing of data, like we know it today, didn’t function in the context of ubiquitous surveillance. “If I couldn’t buy some thing to eat without surveillance, how can the acceptance be free?”(6). In future the Focus of privacy law should be more to the person than to the data. Privacy in ubiquitous computing and surveillance is more and more a problem of anonymity and untraceability. But anonymity of users and untraceability of each kind of “items of interest” would make a lot of applications of ubiquitos computing impossible. Though anonymity and untraceability are only senseless against attackers and not the legal users of surveillance. The legality of surveillance in ubiquitous computing and surveillance is to be ruled out in privacy law.

Anonymity

From the view of technology anonymity is the state of non identifiability within a set of subjects (e. g. people) the anonymity set. The anonymity set is a set of subjects which are able to trigger actions and/or which are addressed by actions. I. e. subjects are sender or receiver within a set of senders respectively a set of receivers. If a attacker is unable to identify the connection between a single user and a specific sender resepctively to receiver, then the user is anonymous. Anonymity is not the anonymity of senders and receivers, it’s the anonymity of users (8).

Welbourne et. al. have engineered tools for RFID-Systems with which users can delete the data the system has stored about them. The user can easily implement rules about who should read which data when, and which concatenations the system is allowed to do. With this it is possible to implement anonymity (“nobody is allowed to read personal data”), but the system functions nevertheless. Also the requirements of systems and authorities can be implemented and recorded. This is an example for technologies with which anonymity can be implemented in ubiquitous computing and ubiquitous surveillance (12).

Untraceability

Also untraceability is described from a technological view here. Therefore we define Data, Entities, Identities, Users, Objekts, Subjects, Services, Ressources, and so on, or instances of them as Items of Interest (IOI). IOI are „things“ which an attacker is interested in. IOI are untraceable, if an attacker is unable to see a relation between two or more IOI’s or to trace an IOI in a network. For instance if in a Car to Car Safety Message System there is a message exchange, then messages has to be untraceable to one of the car’s such that there is no possiblity to trace the track of the car (10,2,5,1,3,8).

The same holds when clothes have RFID-tag’s on it and when they pass different readers in a while (4).

Untraceability in this way can be implemented as follows (4):

1. the reader sends a messag to the tag with a nouce-identifier N_R.
2. the tag generates a new nouce-identifier N_T and sends this, the encrypted tag-ID h(ID) und the encrypted nouce-identifier pair h_(ID)(N_R,N_T) back to the reader. The reader passes that triple to the application system. The application system decodes with the key h and computes with the known nouce-identifier N_R the nouce-Identifier N_T. With this the application can verify the ID of the tag.
3. If the application system accepts the tag, it computes a new tag-ID. The tag also computes a new tag-ID with the same algorithm. The application system with new tag-ID generates the encrypted message h_(ID+1)(N_T,N_R) and send this to the tag.
4. The tag evaluates the message and the new ID. If the received ID is the same as the ID computed by the tag, the old ID and the nouce-Identifier N_T are erased from the tag-store.

For an attacker the tag is untraceable, because it changes its ID with each message transfer. Traceability of the tag by the applicationsystem is still possible (4).

The above examples presented for implementing anonymity and untraceability show the possibility to implement privacy in ubiquitous systems as it is required by Roßnagel (9). Needed are the legal frameworks to require such privacy features in ubiquitous systems. By defining this sort of legal framework there should be answers to the following questions:

1. Who is the owner of the data an RFID-Reader explores and an application system computes and stores?
2. Are there marking obligations for items with RFID-tags on it (e.g. clothing, food)?
3. Is it necessary to require offical approval for the installation of RFID-readers and sensors?

When CCTV in public places appeared in the 1990’iesth Gras (6) showed that it is much more difficult to regulate and rule the use of technologie when already installed, than before installation and use. Therefore it is important that legislation keeps pace with technological progress.

References and Notes

1. Arapinis, M.;Chothia, T.;Ritter, E.;Ryan, M.: Analysing Unlinkability and Anonymity Using the Applied Pi Calculus http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~tpc/Papers/csf10.pdf, visited 16.12.14
2. Blues Team: Unverkettbarkeit und Pseudonymität in der digitalen Welt, http://blues.inf.tu-dresden.de/prime/EUT_Tutorial_V0/german/german/Content/Unit2/dig.%20unlink.htm, visited 16.12.14
3. Brusó, M.; Chatzikokolakis, K.;Etalle, S.; Den Hartog, J.: Linking Unlinkability https://hal.inria.fr/hal-00760150/PDF/Unlinkability.pdf, besucht am 16.12.14
4. Dimitriou, T: A Lightweight RFID Protocol to protect against Traceability an cloning attacks, http://www.ait.gr/export/TDIM/various/RFID-securecomm05.pdf, visited 18.2.15
5. Fischer, L.: Measuring Unlinkability for Privacy Enhancing Technologies, http://tuprints.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/2367/1/lars_fischer_dissertation.pdf, visited 16.12.14
6. Gras, M. L.: The Legal Regulaiton of CCTV in Europe, http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/viewFile/3375/3338, visited 17.02.15
7. Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union: „Der Gerichtshof erklärt die Richtlinie über die Vorratsspeicherung von Daten für ungültig“, http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-04/cp140054de.pdf, visited 17.02.15
8. Pfitzmann, A.; Hansen, M.: Anonymity, Unlinkability, Unobservability, Pseudonymity, and Identity Management – A Consolidated Proposal for Terminology, http://freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/terminology.pdf, visited 16.12.14
9. Roßnagel, A.: Datenschutz in einem informatisierten Alltag, http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/stabsabteilung/04548.pdf, visited 19.11.14
10. Rost, M.; Pfitzmann, A.: Datenschutzziele, http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/814/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11623-009-0072-9.pdf?auth66=1416396902_c7935e6bcf15afa95108ffb192c1fd9f&ext=.pdf, visited 19.11.14
11. Taylor, N. : State Surveillance and the Right to Privacy, http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/viewFile/3394/3357, visited 17.02.15
12. Welbourne, E.; Battle, L.; Cole, G.; Gould, K.; Rector, K.; Raymer, S.; Balazinska, M.; Borriello, G.: Building the Internet of Things Using RFID, http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kyle_Rector/publication/220491250_Building_the_Internet_of_Things_Using_RFID_The_RFID_Ecosystem_Experience/links/0c960519d82721508d000000.pdf, visited 18.2.15