System.hack()

Multimedijalni institut / Multimedia InstituteSystem.hack()http://www.systemhack.org/

// System.hack() zapis poziva metodu hack nad objektom System.// if using System.hack() syntax in programming a method hack would be invoked on the object System

Table of Contentshttp://www.systemhack.org/

Multimedijalni institut / Multimedia Institute

3

vanje i tako u krug). U sluËaju kolektivnih paranoidnih fan-tazija, zastoje probijaju i reprogramiraju hakovi - momentiizvrsnosti nesebiËnog uvida u disfunkcionalnost krugovanepovjerenja u koje je druπtvo zapalo.

System.hack() izloæba u svom fokusu ima domenutehnologije gdje su mnoge invencije zbog disfunkcional-nog kruga nepovjerenja i potrebe za nadgledanjem, kon-trolom, te maksimizacijom pro∫ta zastale u imple-mentaciji koja prijeËi uvid, razumijevanje, reΩeksiju, slo-bodnu razmjenu informacija, te uslijed toga blokiradaljnji razvoj i inovacije na veÊ uspostavljenom.

Kao i pomak iz bilo kojeg drugog kompleksnog pro-blema, pomak iz takve blokirajuÊe tehnoloπke konstelaci-je Ëini hak ∞ apstrakciju u primjeni, izvrsnost u programi-ranju ∞ iznenaujuÊ, medijski atraktivan, lucidan u koriπ-tenju tehnike i tehnologije, duhovit i nenasilan.

Svaki System, koliko god nepovjerljiv prema okolinibio, ima karakteristiku, skrivenu metodu koja se na njegasamog moæe primijeniti: System.hack()

System.hack() otvara zatvorene sisteme, a otvoreneËini zauvijek dinamiËno promjenjivima.

Bilo koja speci∫Ëna instanca radnog i æivotnogokoliπa povoljno je suËelje za System.hack(). Iz tog razlo-ga izabranih πest System.hack()ova izlaæu se u reducira-nom suËelju svakodnevnog æivota, minimalnom zajedniË-kom nazivniku naπih potreba za stanovanjem, neutralnoj(sic!): hotelskoj sobi.

Velike inovacije avangarde uvijek iznova uspijevajuizokrenuti dominanto predstavljanje povijesti (umjetnos-ti) i kroz svoju formu i materiju ekstrahirati subalternitok povijest, osloboditi buduÊnost za tu povijest. Povijes-nim tokom tehnoloπke inovacije dominirali su veliki voj-ni, akademski, medijski i træiπni sustavi. System.hack()ovisu pokuπaj da se ekstrahira subalterna povijest inovacije,pokuπaj da se tehnologija otvori za buduÊnost, buduÊ-nost koja Êe ostati nepredstavljena. Apt-art je apstrakcijamuzeja kao stroja povijesti, a ovo je apstrakcija apstrak-cije: hotelska soba.

Rat svjetova, zvuËna kulisa izloæbe, stvara atmosferukoja uz samo trenutak koncentriranog sluπanja i Ëitanjabriπe granice izmeu stvarnosti i simulacije na naËin da“uniπtava Svijet [koji smo poznavali] pred naπim uπima”.

System.hack()

> Paranoja nikada ne pretpostavlja apsolutno nepovje-renje. U krajnjem sluËaju ona vjeruje u vjerovanje

kako nikome ne treba vjerovati. Paranoja, opaki stroj zakonstrukcije, moæe proizvesti predivne konzistentne tvo-revine, ne bi li u jednom trenutku ipak poklekla davajuÊipovjerenje onome kome ne bi trebala - samo kako bi sekrug zatvorio u potvrdi vjerovanja kako ipak nikome ne bitrebalo vjerovati.

Kada bi svaka paranoja za svoje polaziπte uzimala‘sumnju u samu sumnju’, kapacitet za konstrukciju predi-vnih konzistentnih tvorevina bi procvjetao. Bio bi to poËe-tak koji bi za svako netaknuto platno i Ëisti list papira evi-dentirao sve veÊ na njima sadræane prethodne kliπee i us-tanovljene obrasce, pa bi brisanjem, ËiπÊenjem, strugan-jem, paranjem, paljenjem..., omoguÊio da do nas iz kaosadopre povjetarac koji donosi viziju. (Gilles Deleuze i FelixGuattari, ©ta je ∫lozo∫ja, Sremski Karlovci, Novi Sad, Iz-davaËka knjiæarnica Zorana StojanoviÊa, 1995)

Sumnju u sumnju gotovo uvijek za paranoidnog ini-cira netko drugi (prijatelj, partner, terapeut, policajac, su-dac...), netko tko sa dovoljne distance evidentira, konfron-tira i eventualno reprogramira disfunkcionalnost kruganepovjerenja (beskonaËnog prelaza iz vjerovanja u djelo-

4

Simbioza trke za pro∫tom i zatvaranja informacijane dogaa se samo u virtualnom mreænom okruæenju.Znanost sve viπe otkriva upotrebljivi, operativni, program-abilni kod kojim moæemo opisati, a i stvarati æivot. Genet-ski inæenjering danas je samo jedno od polja razvoja u ko-jem se preslikavaju pozicije moÊi i dinamika borbe poz-nata iz svijeta softvera. Hakerske odgovore neki nazivaju‘bioloπkim graanskim neposluhom’, neki kulturnim te-rorizmom, a neki poËetkom hladnog rata izmeu korpo-racija koje proizvode genetski modi∫cirane biljke kojimahakeri suprostavljaju genetski modi∫cirani korov. “Natu-ral Reality SuperWeed Kit 1.0 (prev. Prirodna stvarnost - Setza superkorov 1.0) je ‘uradi sam’ set koji omoguÊuje da seproizvede genetski modi∫cirani superkorov, koji je na-pravljen da napada korporativne monokulture”. HeathBunting biotehnologiju naziva “novim ratiπtem na kojemse vodi bitka za kontrolu æivota i zemlje, ali i podruËjemna kojem se æivot sam rede∫nira. Bit svega krije se u kon-ceptima vlasniπtva i reprezentacije koji su na ovompopriπtu ozbiljno dovedeni u pitanje”.

Iako paralelno s proizvodnjom i industrijom vlasniË-kog softvera raste i razvija se proizvodnja slobodnog soft-vera, korporacije se nisu pomirile sa zateËenim stanjem.Uz proizvodnju novih restriktivnih zakonskih akata, kor-poracije razvijaju i tehnologije kontrole i zaπtite svojihproizvoda (npr. Digital Rights Management, trusted com-puting...). U isto vrijeme, hakerski duh ne miruje, svakiureaj s vremenom biva osloboen. Ponekad uz pomoÊosciloskopa i ‘reverse’ inæenjeringa (Linux na Xboxu), aponekad samo uz pomoÊ stvarËica nadohvat ruke poputvodootpornog Ωomastera ili stisnute tipke Shift. Tek takoda nas usput podsjeti kako je lako biti iznenaujuÊ, medi-jski atraktivan, lucidan u koriπtenju tehnike i tehnologije,duhovit i nenasilan.

Katalog opisa radova (u vaπim rukama) i eseja inspi-riranih izabranim System.hack()ovima napisan je kao‘Table of contents:’ izloæbe. Osvrnite se, System.hack()ovisu oko vas...

Happy hacking!

Svijet koji nakon prve uvjerljive simulacije prestaje bitiuvjerljiv i kojem se tek na trenutke vraÊamo sumnjajuÊi usumnju u njegovu vjerodostojnost.

U sluËaju da æelimo provjeriti vjerodostojnost nekogradio programa najlakπi naËin bio bi isti taj radio nazvatitelefonom. No, kompleksni sustav upravljanja telefon-skim pozivima takoer je medij za koji je teπko utvrditidovoljnu koliËinu povjerenja u pouzdanost i vjerodosto-jnost njegove funkcije. Sustav upravljanja pozivimapodreen je mjerljivosti vremena koriπtenja kako bi sebaπ svaka upotreba naplatila; pro∫tabilna ideja koja sejavila s vremenom, a danas (bez ikakvih sumnji) prihva-Êena kao jedini moguÊi modus operandi. Ipak, zatvorenisustavi upravljanja radoznalom duhu hakera otvaraju seveÊ pri fuÊkanju prave frekvencije (2600 Hz) u telefonskusluπalicu. Ako je joπ fuÊkaljku moguÊe kupiti u obliænjemmarketu na dnu pakovanja hrskavih, zaπeÊerenih kuku-ruznih i zobenih pahuljica, niπta lakπe.

Pred radoznalim hakerskim duhom koji najzanim-ljivija otkriÊa rado dijeli sa svim zainteresiranim nemo-guÊe je sakriti bilo πto. Tehnologija sakrivanja nikada nijedovoljno kreativna u zaπtiti novih tehnoloπkih kreacija(koliku god da pro∫tnu maræu oËekivali kao posljedicunovih tehnoloπkih kreacija). Za potrebu zaπtite pro∫ta izastarjelih poslovnih modela dræava mora sprovesti res-triktivnu zakonsku regulaciju intelektualnog vlasniπtva iautorskog prava. Restriktivna sprovedba moæe se upogo-niti i u suprotnom smjeru, u smjeru oslobaanja. Timeπto restriktivni sustav sve viπe inzistira na restriktivnosti udodiru s poljem osloboenog (unutar samog sebe), oninzistira i na sve viπe oslobaanja.

GNU OpÊa javna licenca (GNU GPL) Richarda Stallma-na posluæila je kao ishodiπna toËka na bazi koje je izgraenkoncept System.hack() izloæbe. GNU OpÊa javna licenca jeingeniozni hak R. Stallmana koji je tim Ëinom simboliËkikonstituirao zajednicu u za nju potpuno bizarnom prav-nom polju. Dvadesetak godina kasnije ne samo da se idejaslobode u svijetu ideja saËuvala, veÊ je na njoj sagraenaslobodna informacijska infrastruktura koja u svakom seg-mentu funkcionalnosti nudi alternativu vlasniËkim soft-verskim rjeπenjima. U podruËju druπtvenog razvoja idejaslobodne razmjene informacija nema alternative.

System.hack(1,“elektroniËki mediji”,“Orson Welles ∞ Rat svjetova”)System.hack(1,“broadcasting”, “Orson Welles ∞ War of the Worlds”)

System.hack(2,“telekom”, “Captain Crunch ∞ zviædaljka”)System.hack(2,“telecom”, “Captain Crunch ∞ whistle”)

System.hack(3,“zakon o autorskom pravu”,“Richard Stallman ∞ GNU OpÊa javna licenca”)System.hack(3,“copyright law”, “Richard Stallman ∞ GNU GPL”)

System.hack(4,“æivi svijet”,“Heath Bunting ∞ Superweed Kit 1.0")System.hack(4,“biota”,“Heath Bunting ∞ Superweed Kit 1.0")

System.hack(6,“zaπtita”, “Anonimni autor ∞ set za zaπtitu CD-a [marker / shift tipka]”)System.hack(6,“protection”, “Anonymous ∞ CD Protection Kit [marker / shift key]”)

System.hack(5,“zakljuËavanje”, “Michael Steil ∞ projekt Linux na Xboxu”)System.hack(5,“locking”, “Michael Steil ∞ Linux On Xbox”)

13

> Paranoia never implies absolute mistrust. In the lastinstance it believes in the belief that no one should

be believed. Paranoia, that mean construction machine,can produce wonderfully consistent constructs, only togive in at some moment by placing its trust into someoneit shouldn’t ∞ thus closing the circle with the con∫rma-tion of the belief that no one should be believed after all.

If every paranoia would start from ‘doubting thedoubt’, the capacity for constructing wonderful consist-ent constructs would Ωourish. It would be just a start, de-tecting for every pristine canvas and clean sheet of paperall the previous clichés and established patters alreadycontained in them, so that through the acts of erasing,cleansing, scraping, tearing, burning... a gentle, vision in-stilling breeze from the chaos could reach us. (Gilles De-leuze and Felix Guattari, What is Philosophy? ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York, 1995)

Doubting the doubt is for the paranoid almost al-ways induced by someone else (a friend, partner, thera-pist, policemen, judge...), by someone who is detachedenough to be able to detect, confront and maybe re-pro-gram the dysfunctionality of the cycle of mistrust (i.e. ofthe in∫nite passage from belief to act and back). And

System.hack()

when it comes to collective paranoid fantasies, the paraly-ses can be broken and reprogrammed by hacks ∞ momentsof excellence in the selΩess insight into the dysfuncionalityof closed cycles of mistrust that society has become boggeddown in.

The System.hack() exhibition focuses on the domain oftechnologies where many an innovation falls victim to thedysfunctional cycle of mistrust and need for surveillance,control and pro∫t-maximization, becoming paralyzed in animplementation precluding insight, understanding,reΩection, free exchange of information and thus effectivelyblocking up further development and innovation for thebene∫t of that which has been already achieved.

A step ahead in such a blocking technological conste-llation, just as a step ahead in any other complex problem,can be brought about by a hack ∞ an abstraction in applica-tion, excellence in programming ∞ surprising, mediagenic,lucid in employment of technology, funny and non-violent.

Every System, as mistrusting as it might be, has onefeature, a hidden method that can be applied to it, and itonly: System.hack().

System.hack() opens up closed systems, and makesopen ones permanently dynamic.

Every particular instance of working and living environ-ment can be an interface susceptible to a System.hack().This is the reason why the six System.hack()s selected forthis exhibition are displayed in a reduced environment ofeveryday life, minimal common denominator of all ourhousing needs, a neutral environment (sic!): a hotel room.

Great innovations of avant-garde manage over and overagain to overturn the dominant representation of (art) histo-ry and extract through their form and matter a subalterncourse of history, unleash the future unto the history. Thecourse of technological innovation similarly has been domi-nated by large systems of military, academia, media and mar-ket. System.hack()s are an attempt to extract a subaltern his-tory of innovation, open the technology unto its futures, fu-tures which shall stay unrepresented. Apt-art was an abstrac-tion from the museum as a machine of history. This is an ab-straction of an abstraction: a hotel room.

The War of the Worlds, the soundscape to the exhibition,creates an atmosphere where a moment of intense listening

14 15

and reading is enough to suspend the limits between realityand simulation, so that the world (as we know it) can be “an-nihilated before your ears”. The world which, after this ∫rsttrustworthy simulation, can no longer be trusted and which wecan only fall back onto in the moments when our doubt in itscredibility becomes suspended.

If we want to con∫rm the credibility of a radio broad-cast, the easiest way would be to use the telephone to callinto the show. However, the complex telephone relaying sys-tem is also a medium whose trustworthyness and credibilityof functioning require an inordinate amount of trust. Thetelephone relaying system was designed to accommodateprimarily the measurability of time, in order to make its eve-ry single use chargeable ∞ a pro∫t-driven idea whichemerged over time and has by now (without any doubt) be-come accepted as the only modus operandi. However, theclosed telephone relaying systems crack open as soon as theright frequency (2600 Hz) is whistled into the mouthpiece.And if the whistle with this frequency can be found in a boxof crunchy corn Ωakes in the supermarket next door, thisbecomes an easy task.

To hide something from a curious hacker spirit wholikes to share her discoveries with everyone interestedenough is impossible. The technology of concealment is ne-ver creative enough in the protection of technological inven-tions (no matter how big the pro∫t margin expected fromthese technological innovations). In order to protect thepro∫t and obsolete business models, the state must enforce arestrictive legal regime of intellectual property and copyright.The restrictive enforcement can be however put to use towork in the other way around. The more this restrictive re-gime insists on restricting when coming into contact withwhat has been freed (within its own domain), the more free-ing it unleashes.

Richard Stallman’s GNU General public license (GNUGPL) served as a starting point when creating the concept ofthe System.hack() exhibition. The GNU General public li-cense was an ingenious hack by R. Stallman that succeededto symbolically constitute a community by means complete-ly alien to it ∞ legal means. Twenty years down the line andthe idea of freedom in the world of ideas was not only pre-served, but has served to erect a free information infrastruc-

ture offering in its every segment an alternative to the pro-prietary software solutions. Within the domain of social de-velopment there’s no alternative to the idea of free ex-change of information.

The synergy of the race for pro∫t and hoarding of infor-mation takes place not only in the virtual network environ-ment. The science is more and more discovering the reusa-ble, manipulable and programmable code with which we candescribe, but also create life. The genetic engineering of to-day is one of many areas of development where positions ofpower and dynamics of struggle known from the software do-main are being replicated. Some call the hacker response here“biological civil disobedience”, some cultural terrorism, andothers the beginning of a cold war between the corporationsproducing genetically modi∫ed crops that hackers counterwith genetically modi∫ed weed. The Natural Reality Super-Weed Kit 1.0 is a “DIY kit capable of producing a geneticallymutant superweed, designed to attack corporate monocul-ture”. Heath Bunting calls biotechnology “not only the nextbattleground on which the control of life and land is fought,but also on which life itself is rede∫ned. It is essential thatthe concepts of property and representation in this arena areseriously challenged.”

As proprietary software production and industry grow,so does the development of free software. But the corpora-tions are not going to sit and watch. While continuing toproduce ever more restrictive legal instruments, corpora-tions are also developing the technologies of control andprotection of its products (technologies such as digitalrights management, trusted computing, etc.) But the hack-er spirit is restless too: given enough time, every machine isfreed. Be it with an oscilloscope or reverse engineering (as isthe case with Linux on Xbox), or sometimes with the thingsjust lying around such as a marker or pressed shift key. Onlyto remind us how easy it is to be surprising, mediagenic, lu-cid in employing technology, funny and non-violent.

This catalog (in your hands) with descriptions of exhib-its and essays inspired by the selected System.hack()s is aTable of Contents for the exhibiton. Look around,System.hack()s are all around...

Happy hacking!

16

syst

em.

hack

()

> MoguÊnost masovne manipulacije publikom kojudonose mediji moæda je tek postala oËita jednom od

”naj(ne)slavnijih zabuna u povijesti”. Dan prije NoÊi vjeπti-ca, 30. listopada 1938., milijuni Amerikanaca ukljuËili su seu popularni radio program Mercury Theatre on the Air koji jeemitirao radio drame u reæiji (a Ëesto i izvedbi) Orsona We-llesa. Te veËeri izvedena je adaptacija znanstveno fantastiË-nog romana Rat svjetova H.G. Wellsa o invaziji Marsovacana Zemlju. Meutim, u tu adaptaciju Welles je unio bitnunovinu: reæirao je dramu kao da je rijeË o revijalnom radi-jskom programu koji sve viπe postaje isprekidan izvjeπtava-njem uæivo o invaziji Marsovaca. Ovom tehnikom namjera-vao je pojaËati dramski uËinak. Gotovo polovina pedeseto-minutne radio drame osuvremenjeno je prepriËavanjedogaaja iz romana, transponiranih u dokumentarnu for-mu. Ovakav pristup radio drami nikada prije nije bio izve-

System.hack(1,“elektronskimediji”,“Orson Welles ∞ Ratsvjetova”)*

* Ovaj je Ëlanak objavljen podGNU Licencom za slobodnudokumentaciju. »lanak jebaziran na WikipedijinomËlanku The War of the Worlds(radio), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio).

den (barem ne s toliko uvjerljivosti), a inovativ-na forma bila je kljuËni faktor u pomutnji kojaje uslijedila.

Program, emitiran s 20-og kata zgrade nabroju 485 Avenije Madison u New Yorku, za-poËeo je kratkim uvodom u nakane vanzemal-jaca i istaknuo da je adaptacija smjeπtena u

4 5

Na kraju svega, CBS je izvijestio vlasti da su sluπateljibili upozoreni kroz emisiju da se radi samo o drami. Wellesi Mercury Theatre proπli su bez kazne, no ne i bez cenzure,pa je tako CBS morao obeÊati da viπe nikada neÊe koristitifrazu ”we interrupt this program” u dramske svrhe.

Studija Radio Project otkrila je da je veÊina ljudi zah-vaÊenih panikom Ëula da se radi o napadu Nijemaca (Ger-mans) ∞ a ne Marsovaca (Martians). Druge pak studijeiznose tezu da su razmjere panike napuhali tadaπnji mediji.

U novije vrijeme sugeriralo se da je emisija bilapsiholoπki ratni eksperiment. Dokumentarac iz 1999. Mas-ters of the Universe: The Secret Birth of the Federal Reserve,pisca Daniela Hopsickera tvrdi kako je Rockefeller Founda-tion u svrhu prouËavanja πirenja panike u stvari ∫nanciralaemisiju, te izradila izvjeπtaj koji je ostao dostupan samoodabranima.

U biogra∫ji Orsona Wellesa kriju se komiËni perfor-mansi iz televizijskog programa naslovljenog Orson’s Bag.Pretvorio bi se u lik Winstona Churchilla, uvjeæbavao likoveiz Moby Dicka. Vodio je svoj kratki πou uæivo u kojem jeugostio Muppete, Burta Reynoldsa, Angie Dickinson. Welle-sovi nerealizirani, nedovrπeni, neprikazani, otkazani ∫lmskiprojekti proteæu se Ëitavom njegovom ∫lmskom karijerom.Graanin Kane (Citizen Kane) priËa je za sebe ∞ znaËajem sesmjeπta u kontekst kinematogra∫je, ali i onaj kulturne pov-ijesti. VeliËina Wellesa i onoga πto se uz njega vezuje, ma πtose o tome mislilo, ipak se Ëini nerazdvojivom od prizvukagrandioznosti, epskih odlika u svemu. Ova krupna ∫gura sglasom diva iz crtanih ∫lmova sposobnog za iznimno suptil-nu interpretaciju odigrala je nevjerojatne ∫lmske role. Duh,sklon sanjarenju i utopijskim planovima, osmislio je radiodramu Rat svjetova koja je i danas predmet mnogih is-traæivanja i teorijskih analiza ∞ prvi i moæda najveÊimasmedijski hoax.

1939., a zatim se nastavio kao uobiËajeni zabavno-glazbeniprogram, povremeno prekidan kratkim vijestima. Prvavijest javila je o Ëudnim eksplozijama na Marsu. IduÊe vijes-ti javljaju o meteoritu ∞ kasnije se uspostavlja da je rijeË oMarsovskoj raketnoj kapsuli ∞ koji pada u New Jerseyu. Go-mila se okuplja na mjestu dogaanja, a reporter Carl Philipsprenosi dogaaje sve dok Marsovci toplinskim zrakama nespale znatiæeljne promatraËe. Kasniji Êe izvjeπtaji pokazatida su mnogi sluπatelji Ëuli samo ovaj dio programa, nakonËega su kontaktirali susjede ili obitelj da ih upute u vijesti, aovi su pak kontaktirali dalje druge, dovodeÊi tako do ubrza-nog πirenja glasina i pomutnje.

Marsovci masovno slijeÊu na Zemlju i nastavljaju ra-zaranja kroz Sjedinjene AmeriËke Dræave, uniπtavajuÊi mos-tove i æeljezniËke pruge, te ispuπtajuÊi otrovni plin u zrak.Jedan neimenovani ministar unutraπnjih poslova obraÊa senaciji. (Prvotno je bilo zamiπljeno da lik Ministra bude por-tret tadaπnjeg predsjednika Franklina Delanoa Roosevelta,ali je CBS inzistirao da se taj detalj izmijeni. U konaËnici jeipak zvuËao kao Roosevelt zahvaljujuÊi Wellesovoj reæijiglume Kennya Delmara). Vojne snage napadaju Marsovce,no nisu u moguÊnosti suprotstaviti im se.

Nakon prijenosa dogaanja priËa se prekida i nastavljakao pripovijedanje preæivjelog znanstvenika koji u svojdnevnik biljeæi posljedice kataklizme, ali i razrijeπenje priËe(koje je bilo istovjetno s krajem romana) ∞ Marsovci podli-jeæu zemaljskim bakcilima i bakterijama. Nakon πto priËazavrπi Welles izlazi iz uloge i podsjeÊa sluπatelje da je ova ra-dio drama samo izmiπljotina uoËi NoÊi vjeπtica i ekvivalentoblaËenju u plahte i glasanju poput duha ∞ buuu. Na ovomdodatku inzistirali su izvrπni urednici CBS-a svjesni panikekoju Êe emisija izazvati.

Mnogi sluπatelji nisu Ëuli ili su pak zaboravili najavuemisije, a u atmosferi rastuÊe tenzije i tjeskobe u danimanadolazeÊeg Drugog svjetskog rata, prihvatili su ovu radiodramu kao stvarno izvjeπtavanje. Tadaπnje novine izvjeπta-vale su o nastaloj panici, ljudima koji su se dali u bijeg i lju-dima koji su u zraku osjetili miris otrovnog plina ili su pakvidjeli bljeskove borbe u daljini. Kasnije studije pokazuju dase panika bitno manje raπirila od onoga na πto su upuÊivalinovinski izvjeπtaji. Ipak, ostaje jasno da su mnogi srnuli ∞ uovoj ili onoj mjeri ∞ u pomutnju koja je uslijedila.

6 7

TreÊe, sinkronost u samom Ëinurecepcije meu meusobno udalje-nim sluπateljima kakva prethodnonije mogla postojati meu meu-sobno udaljenim Ëitateljima. Radioje ipak bio medij efemernog preno-πenja poruke, a ne njenog pohranji-vanja kao πto su to bile novine.

»etvrto, telestezijsko skraÊivanjei objedinjavanje prostora u jedin-stveni prostor dogaanja. Sinkro-nost recepcije i telestezijsko objedi-njavanje prostora stvorit Êe jedin-stveni prostor i vrijeme dogaanjavelike politiËke zajednice ∞ nacije.

Peto, dominacija glasa kao auten-tiËnog iskaza i jamstva prisustva go-vornika bez njegove nazoËnosti. Iztog potencijala glasa doba radijastvorit Êe tako posve novi æanr politiË-kog govora ∞ obraÊanje naciji, gdjeÊe obraÊanje politiËkog autoritetasluæiti neodloæivoj afektivnoj mobi-lizaciji velike politiËke zajednice kaojedinstvenog subjekta.

©esto, prodor javnog govora u pri-vatni prostor sluπatelja, obiteljskiprostor okupljanja oko radijskog pri-jemnika, stvorit Êe novu vrstu pro-æimanja izmeu javne sfere i privatnesfere inicirajuÊi posve novu formaci-ju legitimacije javnog kroz privatno.Promjena socijalne forme recepci-je* promijenila je i demografskustrukturu legitimacije, ukljuËivπi uzajedniËki prostor i vrijeme jedin-stvenog politiËkog dogaanja one

dijelove populacije koji su prethod-no bili izostavljeni ∞ nepismene, ne-punoljetne, æene, starce itd. ∞ sveone koji su sjedili za obiteljskim radij-skim prijemnikom ∞ i stvorivπi timeπiroki pojam javnog mnijenja kakoga danas obiËavamo koristiti kadagovorimo o ispitivanjima miπljenjagraana, o Ëijim rezultatima danaπ-nje obnaπanje vlasti toliko ovisi.

Sve veÊem legitimacijskom znaËa-ju javnog mnijenja, koje ukljuËuje ione koji nisu prethodno bili politiË-ki pitani za miπljenje, pogodovat Êe,sedmo, promjena socijalne struk-ture recepcije. Radijsko doba obilje-æit Êe poËetno formiranje srednjeklase kao buduÊe noseÊe klase po-troπaËkih druπtava blagostanja.Uostalom, i sam radio je zapoËeokao potroπaËki proizvod ∞ prvi radi-jski programi veÊinom nisu bilikomercijalni, veÊ su sluæili kaosadræaj kojim su velike robne kuÊeprivlaËile kupce da kupe radijskenaprave ili kao programi kojima suvelike novinske kuÊe privlaËile Ëi-tatelje.

Gotovo tri desetljeÊa nakon poËe-taka emitiranja prvog radijskog pro-grama 1909., u “predveËerje” Dru-gog svjetskog rata i u predveËerjenoÊi vjeπtica 30. listopada 1938. CBSi Mercury Theater on the Air emitiraoje Rat svjetova H. G. Wellsa u radi-jskoj adaptaciji Orsona Wellesa. Kaoπto je dobro poznato, Wellesovo

* Premda je socijalna forma recepcije Ëesto zanemarivani aspekt u medijskoj teoriji, veÊ od Be-njamina previranje u socijalnoj formi do kojeg dolazi u tranziciji izmeu dvaju medija zapravopredstavlja auratski moment javljanja politiËke mase ∞ masovnu mediauru kako to naziva SamWeber. Koliko je za estetiku bitno iskustvo πoka koje kinematogra∫ja donosi s montaæom,toliko je bitno kolektivno iskustvo gledanja ∫lma u kinematografu.

medijem i nastaje zajedniËko vri-jeme i prostor moderne politiËke za-jednice. Poznato je, primjerice, da jeFrancuskoj revoluciji prethodila ek-splozija novina i Ëasopisa najrazli-Ëitijih vrsta. Meutim, potencijalnapotpuna integracija javnosti iz raz-loga relativne vremenske asinkro-nosti recepcije novinskog izvjeπtava-nja i socijalne limitacije pismenostineÊe se dogoditi prije radiodifuzije.

Radiodifuzija Êe stoga inaugurira-ti novu politiËku ontologiju teme-ljenu na Ëitavom nizu posebnostitog novog medija:

Prvo, prijenos u realnom vremenu∞ istodobnost slanja i kolektivnogprimanja poruke. Ta moguÊnostbrze recepcije uËinit Êe brzo izvjeπta-vanje o recentnim dogaanjima ∞vijesti ∞ politiËki formativnim obli-kom radijskog doba.

Drugo, uæivost dogaanja u nje-govoj medijskoj transpoziciji. Uuvjetima prijenosa u realnom vre-menu, uæivost Êe sluπateljima omo-guÊiti istinsku ukljuËenost u doga-anja unatoË ∫ziËkoj odsutnosti.Dogaaji njihovog vremena dogaatÊe se istodobno njima kao i nepo-srednim akterima, a recepcija Êepostati poseban oblik sudjelovanja,afektivne mobilizacije.

> Sada znamo da je ranih godinadvadesetog stoljeÊa u svoj po-

hod svijetom krenuo masovni med-ij drugaËiji od svih prethodnih. Ra-dio. Medij kojim zapoËinje doba ele-ktronskih medija, medij glasa,meutim, ostat Êe drugaËiji ne samood prethodnog medija pisma, veÊ ibuduÊeg medija slike. Medijsko do-ba glasa drugaËije ne samo od med-ijskog doba pisma, veÊ i od medij-skog doba slike.

U tim prvim dekadama dvadese-tog stoljeÊa svoje formiranje za-poËinje takoer socijalno-politiËkaorganizacija modernih druπtava,temeljena na jedinstvenoj politiËkojjavnosti integriranoj medijima sink-rone masovne recepcije i usponusrednje klase kao prethodnici potro-πaËkog druπtva druge polovice sto-ljeÊa. A u tom konstituiranju javnos-ti kroz medijsku realnost i potroπaË-ko druπtvo radio Êe odigrati prije-lomnu ulogu.

Moderno shvaÊena politiËka jav-nost konstituira se doduπe veÊ u pis-anoj kulturi rane graanske klase.Novine stvaraju javnost koja æivi u je-dinstvenoj svijesti o udaljenim do-gaanjima kao dogaanjima u za-jedniËkom vremenu i prostoru ∞zapravo, tek s tim prvim masovnim

System.hack(1,“elektroniËki mediji”,“Orson Welles — Rat svjetova”)

Uspon i pad medijskerealnosti u dobu radija

8

> Lik i djelo Johna T. Drapera obavijeno je zadahom ludi-la, situacijama koje nalikuju romanesknim zapletima i

kafkijanskom tonalitetu. Poznat je pod nadimkom CaptainCrunch kojeg je dobio po zviædaljci iz kukuruznih pahuljica.Joe Engressia, slijepi djeËak, otkrio je Johnu Draperu πto jemoguÊe napraviti sa zviædaljkom koja je u to vrijeme bilapoklon u kutiji Cap’n Crunch pahuljica. Zviædaljku se moglolako modi∫cirati da emitira zvuk na 2600 Hz ∞ frekvencijukoju su koristile AT&T-ove telefonske centrale za meumjes-ne pozive kako bi upozorile da je linija slobodna za novipoziv. To bi izazvalo prekid na jednom kraju linije, dopuπta-juÊi drugom, joπ uvijek spojenom kraju da pree u operator-ski modus. Eksperimentiranje s tom zviædaljkom inspirira-lo je Drapera da izgradi blue box ∞ elektroniËki ureaj sposo-ban za reproduciranje drugih tonova koje koriste telefonskekompanije kako bi pomoÊu njih mogao uspostavljati

System.hack(2,“telekom”,“Captain Crunch ∞zviædaljka”)*

* Ovaj je Ëlanak objavljen podGNU Licencom za slobodnudokumentaciju. »lanak jebaziran na WikipedijinomËlanku John Draper, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Draper.

pozive. Draper je zavrπavao tri puta u zatvoruzbog telefonskih prijevara i sliËnih optuæbi.UhiÊen je zbog optuæbe za telefonsku prijevaru1972. i osuen na pet godina uvjetno. Sredinom’70-ih svoje vjeπtine hakiranja telefona ∞ frikin-ga (engl. phreaking) ∞ prenio je i na Stevea Jobsai Stevea Wozniaka, koji su kasnije pokrenuli

∫ngirano izvjeπtavanje uæivo o inva-ziji Marsovaca na planet Zemljunatjeralo je mase uznemirenihsluπatelja, koji su, ukljuËivπi se na-knadno u emisiju, ∫kciju zamijeni-li za zbilju, da se paniËno daju u bi-jeg pred nadorom Marsovaca.

Welles je u toj najslavnijoj medij-skoj varci iskoristio dotad uglavnomneprimijeÊeno pomicanje graniceodnosa medija i referentne realnos-ti koje se dogodilo u radijskom do-bu. Povezao je moguÊnost simulira-nja faktiËnosti ∫ktivnih dogaanjapomoÊu vjeπtih konstrukcija tehni-ke prijenosa uæivo, prekidanja pri-jenosa vijestima, javljanjima, obra-Êanjima javnosti, i moÊ afektivnogmobiliziranja koje je nudio sugestiv-ni medij zvuka i glasa. Povezao je re-alnu prijetnju predstojeÊeg rata istrah pred stranim predstavljen van-zemaljskom invazijom. Sekretarunutarnjih poslova u radiodraminamjerno je zvuËao kao tadaπnjipredsjednik SAD-a Franklin DelanoRoosevelt, a mnogi su se sluπateljiuspaniËili Ëuvπi namjesto “Mar-tians” “Germans”.

Rat svjetova razotkrio je da je su-vremena politiËka dogaajonostkroz elektroniËke medije postalaΩuidna kategorija: afektivno oboje-ni svijet politike straha. Prijenos urealnom vremenu postao je velikapolitiËka zajednica u realnom vre-menu, prostor globalne mobilizaci-je nacija.

Meutim, spoznaja o medijskojposredovanosti politiËke realnostikoja je tim hoaxom uπla u opÊu svi-jest nosi u sebi paradoks koji do-bitak od te spoznaje Ëini neizvjes-nim. Naime, iako znamo da realnostzbog te medijske posredovanostijest podloæna hakiranju, mi uvijekiznova ne raspoznajemo simulaciju.Jer, πto je mediji vjerodostojniji real-nosti, to realnost postaje nevjero-dostojnija. Taj uvid o vjerodostojnojsimulaciji nevjerodostojne realnos-ti, saæet u odjavnim rijeËima Orso-na Wellesa “we have annihilated theworld before you ears ∞ uniπtili smosvijet pred Vaπim uπima”, nakonsvog roenja u doba radija napo-sljetku u doba televizijske slike pos-taje totalan.

> Tomislav Medak <

10 11

vanje nisu u upotrebi, no u vrijeme kada je Draper eksperi-mentirao mogao je otkriti sve vrste brojevnih intervala.

Draper bi podigao sluπalicu u javnoj govornici i zatimbi ‘isfrikirao’ poziv na drugi kraj svijeta. Bez plaÊanja, preus-mjeravao bi poziv preko razliËitih telefonskih ‘posluæitelja’u razliËitim zemljama kao πto su Japan, Rusija i Engleska.Jednom je posloæio poziv tako da ide preko deset zemalja.Zatim je ukucao broj javnog telefona pored sebe. Nekolikominuta kasnije telefon pored njega je zazvonio. Draper bineπto kazao u prvi telefon i nakon dosta sekundi zaËuo bisvoj glas jedva Ëujno na drugom telefonu. Ovo je samo jedanod primjera iz njegove karijere suludih istraæivanja.

Ubrzo nakon toga stvorio je jednostavniji blue box tepoËeo istraæivati na kojem principu rade interni kodovi tele-fonskih kompanija za meumjesne linije. Otkrio je da su in-terni kodovi za biranje bili drugaËiji od normalnih brojevakojim bi se sluæio telefonski pretplatnik.

PriËa o njegovom eksperimentu se proπirila, stigla donovinskih stranica, a zatim i do organa vlasti, razotkrivanjamreæe sudionika i konaËno do Draperovog zakonskogprocesuiranja. Eksperiment je izazvao golemu materijalnuπtetu koja je ukljuËivala troπkove nenaplativih telefonskihpoziva, redizajniranje linijskih protokola i ubrzanu zamje-nu opreme. A Cap’n Crunch zviædaljke, nakon πto su izaπle izupotrebe, postale su vrijedan kolekcionarski predmet.

kompaniju Apple Computer. Steve Wozniak se oduvijek di-vio Draperu. Upoznat s nacrtima za blue box, Wozniak ih jebitno poboljπao i poËeo prodavati po sveuËiliπnom kampu-su koristeÊi zaraeni novac za rad na onome πto Êe kasnijepostati Apple Computer. Draper je kratko vrijeme bio zapos-len u Appleu i osmislio je sklop telefonskog suËelja za AppleII. Sklop nije nikada izaπao na træiπte, i to dijelom zahvalju-juÊi Draperovu uhiÊenju i osudi zbog telekomunikacijskeprijevare 1977. »etveromjeseËnu kaznu odsluæio je u za-tvoru u Kaliforniji, gdje je napisao EasyWriter ∞ prvi tekstprocesor za Apple II.

Tijekom boravka u slabo Ëuvanom zatvoru dræao je pre-davanja o telefonskim hakovima i poduËavao je sve zainter-esirane na koje sve mogu naËine manipulirati komunikacij-skim tehnologijama. Jasno mu je ukazana Ëinjenica πto bise dogodilo ako odbije poduËavati u zatvoru te da svakakoizbjegne opasnost da postane ‘dojavljivaË’, pa je tako, kakobi preæivio kroz kazneni sustav, bio prisiljen dræati preda-vanja o stanovitim tehnologijama.

Slabosti sustava koje su Draper i ostali otkrili bile suograniËene na preusmjeravanje poziva na sklopkama kojese koristile unutarkanalnu signalizaciju (razmjena opera-torskih signala unutar istog kanala na kojem se odvija ipoziv), dok se novija oprema u potpunosti temelji na van-kanalnoj signalizaciji, upotrebi odvojenih kanala za prije-nos glasa i sprijenos ignala. Captain Crunch zviædaljkaproizvodila je ton na 2600 Hz koji na sustavu s unutarkanal-nom signalizacijom otvara meumjesnu liniju za novipoziv. Tada u akciju kreÊe blue box sa svojim dvofrekvenci-jskim kombinacijama, poznatim kao multifrekvencije iliMF, koje su sliËne tonskom biranju. Neki telefonski sustavirade i na jednoj frekvenciji.

Captain Crunch zviædaljka sa svojih 2600 Hz mogla jeuputiti Ëitav poziv. Jedan dugi zviæduk za uspostavljane lini-je, kratak za “1”, dva kratka za “2”, itd. Slijepi frikersavrπenog sluha Joe Engressia mogao je birati cijeli pozivzviædeÊi samo svojim ustima.

Nakon otkriÊa novih granica koje su otvorile blue boxes,Draper je mogao istraæivati Ëitav novi spektar brojeva. Ti subrojevi bili kodovi za biranje meumjesnih linija koje su ko-ristili operateri iz jednog grada kako bi uspostavili kontakt soperatorom iz drugog. Danas ti tzv. kodovi za preusmjera-

12 13

glasa ili da je razgovor stavljen naËekanje. Namjesto toga, AT&T seodluËio puπtati postojani ton E iz-nad srednjeg C ∞ 2600 Hz ∞ na svimfunkcionirajuÊim raspoloæivim lini-jama kako bi ostatku sistema signa-lizirao da je linija slobodna. Moæetesi ga predstaviti kao pozivni ton kojipostoji samo kada je svaki telefonpoklopljen. RijeË je o neËemu πtoËovjek nikada ne bi trebao Ëuti, asvakako o nemËemu πto Ëovjek nika-da ne bi trebao proizvesti.

IspoËetka upotreba 2600 Hz bilaje ekskluzivno znanje u vlasniπtvuinæenjera AT&T-a. Meutim, s vre-menom, objavljenim radovima ibrojnim sretnim pogreπkama, mno-gi su ljudi doπli do saznanja o tonuna 2600 Hz. Hakeri ∞ odnosno toËn-ije ‘djede’ danaπnjih hakera, pozna-ti kao phreakeri (kombinacija poj-mova phone freak i hacker) ∞ otkrilisu 2600 Hz. Iako nije jasno tko jetoËno u frikerskoj zajednici ‘otkrio’moguÊnosti upotrebe 2600 Hz za is-pitivanje sustava, hakerska predajazaslugu pripisuje Joeu Engressiji.

Engressia je roen slijep, obdarensavrπenim sluhom, a veÊinu svojeadolescencije i mlae dobi proveo jena telefonu. Ponekad bi zviædaokada je presluπavao ili ostavljao tele-fonske poruke. Legenda kaæe da je sosam godina Engressia otkrio da bi,kada zazviædi na 2600 Hz, bio ‘isklju-Ëen’ s telefonskih linija (premda bione zapravo samo utihle). S vreme-nom, istraæujuÊi telefonski sustav,on je otkrio toËno i zaπto.

Ako bi nazivatelj preko Bell/AT&T-eve telefonske mreæe uputio poziv

na besplatni, meumjesni 1-800broj ∞ ili na bilo koji broj udaljen viπeod pedeset milja ∞ telefonski pozivbio bi preusmjeren preko meu-mjesne linije ili tzv. “trunka”. Puπta-nje tona na 2600 Hz uvjerilo bi me-umjesnu liniju da je nazivatelj pok-lopio sluπalicu i da treba priËekatida netko drugi uputi poziv. Meu-mjesna linija bi se na brzinu odvoji-la i ponovno spojila procedurompoznatom kao “nadzorno poniπte-nje”. Proizvela bi kratak klik nakonkojeg bi uslijedila tiπina. Taj klik itiπina bili su zvuk kojim jedan krajmeumjesne linije signalizira dru-gom kraju ∞ vjerojatno drugom di-jelu telefonskog sustava ∞ da Ëeka nabrojeve za usmjeravanje poziva.OdaπiljuÊi odmah drugi ton poznatkao “kljuËni pulsni ton” i nakon to-ga niz brojki (bilo telefonski broj iliinterni kod telefonske kompanije)nazivatelj koji je poslao ton na 2600Hz mogao bi onda uputiti meu-mjesni poziv ili interni poziv unutartelefonske kompanije sa meu-mjesne linije. Zvao je besplatno.

Do sredine πezdesetih Engressiaje otkrio sve to i joπ mnogo toga. En-gressia je tako sretno proveo godinezviæduÊuÊi na svom putu do besplat-nih telefonskih poziva i dubljeg ra-zumijevanja svih dijelova ameriËkogi ranog globalnog telefonskog sus-tava ∞ do razine koja je nadmaπivalai veÊinu Bellovih inæenjera. A En-gressia nikako nije bio jedini. Narav-no, mnogi hakeri bez savrπenog slu-ha morali su pribjeÊi tehniËkimsredstvima da bi proizveli ton na2600 Hz. ImajuÊi upravo to na umu,

System.hack(2,“telekom”,“Captain Crunch — zviædaljka”)

Æitne pahuljice i unutar-kanalno signaliziranje

rjeËnikom kazano, zvuk koji proiz-vodi zrak kada titra sinusodiomfrekvencije 2600 Hz. Da bi se shvati-lo zaπto je zviædaljka koja proizvoditaj ton tako bitna hakerima potreb-no je uÊi u malo viπe tehniËkog ob-jaπnjavanja i malo viπe u povijest.

Sredinom dvadesetog stoljeÊa te-lefonski sustav Sjedinjenih AmeriË-kih Dræava bazirao se na “unutar-kanalnom signaliziranju”. To znaËida se same informacije o telefon-skoj vezi u osnovi prenose kao audiopodaci preko telefonske linije. Dru-gim rijeËima, telefonska opremaAT&T-a koristi Ëovjeku Ëujne signale(tj. πumove ili tonove) kako bi signa-lizirala sve podatke potrebne pri us-mjeravanju poziva i veza koje sustavkoristi za komuniciranje statusapojedinog poziva ili linije te adekvat-no koordiniranje radnji. I danaskada birate telefonski brojevi proiz-vode razliËite Ëujne piskove ∞ moæe-te zasvirati melodiju pritiπÊuÊi bro-jeve na telefonu. Ali pored pukog bi-ranja brojeva, AT&T je trebao iznaÊinaËin kako prepoznati da linijafunkcionira. Odsustvo bilo kakvogsignala Ëinilo bi se idealnim naËi-nom kako predstaviti slobodnu lini-ju, ali to bi moglo naprosto znaËitida je doπlo do stanke u prijenosu

> Proteklih pedeset godinaproizvoaËi æitnih pahuljica na

dno pakovanja hrskavih, zaπeÊe-renih kukuruznih i zobenih pahulji-ca skrivaju male poklone, takozvane“nagrade”. To “iznenaenje”, kakoga djeca Ëesto nazivaju, najËeπÊe jeplastiËna igraËka ukraπena imenomili logom proizvoaËa æitarica. Ti sunagradni predmeti uvijek jeftini ilomljivi. NaiÊi u zdjelici na igraËku iotkriti o Ëemu se ovog puta radi zadijete je gotovo redovito uzbudljivi-je no igrati se s njom.

Moæda najslavnija nagrada u pov-ijesti pahuljica ∞ ali svakako na-jslavnija nagrada meu hakerskomzajednicom ∞ bila je inaËe ni po Ëe-mu posebna zviædaljka koja se mo-gla naÊi na dnu pakovanja Cap’nCrunch æitarica u 1960-tima. Za ve-Êinu onih koji nisu hakeri ta zviæ-daljka bila je samo najobiËnija plas-tiËna zviædaljka ∞ velika veÊina tihzviædaljki odbaËena je i zanemarenaËim bi ih se dijeca zasitila. Kao kodsvih zviædaljki, puhneπ u nju i onaproizvede visokofrekvencijski πum.Kao kod mnogih drugih zviædaljki,ako zaËepiπ jednu od izlaznih rupi-ca, ton zviædaljke postane viπi. Tonsa zaËepljenom rupicom bio je Eiznad srednjeg C ∞ znanstvenim

14

> ZaËetnik pokreta za slobodni softver Richard Stallmandugi niz godina radio je u laboratoriju za umjetnu inte-

ligenciju na Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT).PrateÊi okolnosti razvoja raËunalnih programa te uvidjevπinedostatke i etiËke dileme nastale s uvoenjem vlasniËkogsoftvera, pokuπao je stvoriti alternativni sustav koji bi ih izb-jegao ∞ slobodni softver. U sijeËnju 1984. napustio je posaona MIT-u i zapoËeo raditi na slobodnom operativnom susta-vu. Rad na GNU Emacsu zapoËeo je u rujnu 1984., a veÊ po-Ëetkom 1985. poËetni sustav je poprimio upotrebljiv oblik.Do 1990. GNU sustav bio je gotovo dovrπen ∞ jedina vaænakomponenta koja je nedostajala bila je jezgra. Prvotna jezgrabuduÊeg operativnog sustava trebao je postati GNU HURD ∞jezgra koja se bazirala na mirko-jezgri Mach. Kako je GNUHURD kasnio s razvojem, razvoj GNU operativnog sustava us-porio je sve dok se nije pojavila druga raspoloæiva jezgra. Go-dine 1991. Linus Torvalds razvio je Unixu kompatibilnu jez-gru i nazvao je Linux, a kombiniranje Linuxa s GNU sustavomrezultiralo je cjelovitim slobodnim operativnim sustavom.ZahvaljujuÊi Linuxu danas moæemo koristiti GNU operativnisustav, koji se u toj kombinaciji naziva GNU/Linux.

GNU slobodni softver saËinjavaju programi koji su ob-javljeni pod uvjetima koji svakom omoguÊuju da ih prouËa-

System.hack(3,“zakon oautorskom pravu”,“Richard Stallman ∞GNU OpÊa javna licenca”)

Engressia je nazvao svog prijateljaJohna Drapera da mu kaæe o zanim-ljivoj karakteristici zviædaljke koju jenaπao u pakovanju Cap’n Crunchpahuljica.

A Draper ne samo da je upotri-jebio zviædaljku da bi zvao besplat-no, nego ju je upotrijebio za svojhakerski nadimak, tako da je i dandanas u hakerskoj i frikerskoj zaje-dnici poznatiji kao Captain Crunch.S vremenom Draper je uËinio frikingjednostavnijim, a tehnologiju pris-tupaËnijom ugradivπi ton na 2600Hz i druge tonove korisne za one kojisu bili zainteresirani za istraæivanjetelefonskih mreæa ili za besplatnemeumjesne pozive u specijalizira-ne ureaje poznate kao “blue boxes∞ plave kutije” ∞ nazvane tako jer jeprva takva kutija koju je Bellov sus-tav osiguranja kon∫scirao naena uplavoj plastiËnoj kutiji, a ne zato πtosu one redom ili veÊinom bile plave.

Captain Crunch je 1972. uhapπenna osnovu optuæbi za telefonskuprevaru i osuen na petogodiπnjuuvjetnu kaznu. U nekom trenutkusredinom 1970-tih poduËavao je iutemeljitelje kompanije AppleComputer, Stevea Jobsa i SteveaWozniaka, kako da izrade i prodajuvlastite plave kutije. U sukob sa za-konom doπao je ponovno 1977. zbogoptuæbe za telekomunikacijsku pre-varu i odsluæio je Ëetiri mjeseca uzatvoru. Nakon puπtanja na slobodunastavio je æivjeti kao softverski pro-gramer, napisavπi prvi tekst proce-

sor za Apple II. PoËetkom osamde-setih tehnologija na kojoj se zasni-vala telefonija uπla je u skupo i op-seæno preustrojavanje, dijelom kakobi blokirala tehnike koje je stvorio iproπirio Captain Crunch. Meutim,bitnije za Drapera, tehnologija os-obnih raËunala poËela je otvarativrata jednom sasvim novom svijetu∞ svijetu raËunala, softvera i mreæa∞ svijetu u kojem Êe frikeri brzopostati hakeri.

Danas je telefonska komutacija usvim zemljama Zapada i u veÊini os-talog svijeta postala digitalna ikoristi vankanalno signaliziranje.Captain Crunch zviædaljka i plavekutije ne ‘rade’ veÊ desetljeÊima. Za-nimljivim razvojem dogaaja pos-ljednjih godina, Voice over IP (VoIP)tehnologije, zajedno sa sve veÊomrasprostranjenoπÊu brzih internet-skih linija, omoguÊile su hakerimada se vrate korijenima trudeÊi se os-tvariti i ostvarujuÊi izvorni frikerskicilj besplatnog telefoniranja.

Njujorπki Ëasopis 2600 sebe nazi-va “Hakerskim tromjesjeËnikom”.On ostaje jedna od najdugovjeËnijihinstitucija hakera koji su spremniizazivati sigurnosne sustave i istraæi-vati. Lokalni 2600 sastanci diljemsvijeta nude vaæno mjesto za hakere,mlade i stare, da dijele struËno zna-nje, da uËe i da se druæe. Ime je, na-ravno, danas Ëesto zaboravljenareferenca na slavnu frekvenciju ijedan od najslavnijih hakova svihvremena.

> Benjamin Mako Hill <

16 17

— Sloboda poboljπavanja programa i ustupanje vaπihpoboljπanja javnosti, za blagodat cijele zajednice(sloboda 3). Pristup izvornom kodu je preduvjet za to.”U GNU projektu koristi se copyleft kako bi se te slobode

zaπtitile. Ali postoje i softveri koji su takoer slobodni, nonemaju copyleft klauzulu. Meutim, upravo je to svojstvoomoguÊilo slobodnom softveru da upregne kreativni naportisuÊa razvijatelja diljem svijeta u zajedniËki rad na razvojuslobodnog softvera bez straha da Êe taj njihov zajedniËkitrud netko moÊi prisvojiti ili da Êe netko napraviti napredakna temelju njega, a da taj napredak neÊe vratiti natrag udaljnji razvoj slobodnog softvera.

Richard Matthew Stallman utemeljitelj je pokreta zaslobodni softver, GNU projekta i Fondacije za slobodnisoftver. U njegova najveÊa dostignuÊa spadaju Emacs (i kas-niji GNU Emacs), GNU kompajler, GNU debugger (programza pronalaæenje pogreπaka). Autor je GNU OpÊe javne licen-ce (GNU General Public License ∞ GNU GPL), najπire prih-vaÊene slobodno-softverske licence, koja je probila put kon-ceptu copylefta. Od sredine 1990ih veÊinu aktivnosti usmje-rio je na politiËke kampanje, promicanje slobodnog soft-vera, kampanje protiv softverskih patenata i protiv proπiri-vanja pravnog reæima copyrighta.

va, mijenja i dalje dijeli bliænjima. Prednost GNU softvera jedakle njegova etiËka komponenta koja omoguÊuje koris-nicima suradnju i poπtuje njihove slobode. Da bi to postigaou okruæenju gdje je softver zaπtiÊen autorskim pravom, copy-rightom, i u vremenima kada se to pravo poËelo primjenjiva-ti ne bi li se softver pretvorio u privatno vlasniπtvo i proizvodza raËunalno træiπte, bilo je potrebno naÊi naËina da se isko-risti pravni okvir koji je postavljao copyright kako bi se spri-jeËilo pretvaranje GNU softvera u privatno vlasniπtvo. Meto-da kojoj je Richard Stallman pribjegao nazvana je “copyleft”.Bit copyrighta, autorskog prava, poput drugih sustava vlas-niËkog prava, krije se u moÊi da iskljuËuje. Vlasniku copy-righta pravno je dana moÊ da brani drugima kopiranje, dis-tribuiranje i modi∫ciranje djela. Copyleft se temelji na copy-rightu, ali izokreÊe njegov smisao: umjesto da znaËi priva-tizaciju softvera, on znaËi oËuvanje njegove slobode. Glavnismisao copylefta je prepuπtanje prava svakom korisniku daslobodno koristi program, kopira ga, izmjenjuje i dis-tribuira izmijenjene verzije, pod uvjetom da daljnjim koris-nicima ne nameÊe ograniËenja bilo kakve vrste, veÊ da gadalje dijeli, u izvornom ili izmijenjenom obliku, pod istimuvjetima pod kojima ga je primio. Kod GNU softvera copy-left, to izokretanje copyrighta iz alata privatizacije u alat di-jeljenja, implementiran je kroz GNU OpÊu javnu licencu ∞GNU General Public License, skraÊeno GNU GPL.

Kao πto kaæe de∫nicija slobodnog softvera (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.hr.html): “‘Slobodni softver’ jestvar slobode, a ne cijene. Za razumijevanje tog pojma, tre-bate shvatiti ‘slobodni’ u smislu ‘sloboda govora’, a ne usmislu ‘slobodan (besplatan) upad’.

Slobodni softver ukazuje na slobodu korisnika dapokreÊe, kopira, distribuira, prouËava, mijenja i poboljπavasoftver. Joπ odreenije, ukazuje na Ëetiri vrste sloboda zakorisnike softvera:— Sloboda pokretanja programa, u bilo koje svrhe

(sloboda 0).— Sloboda prouËavanja rada programa i njegovog

prilagoavanja vaπim potrebama (sloboda 1). Pristupizvornom kodu je preduvjet za to.

— Sloboda distribuiranja kopija, kako biste mogli pomoÊibliænjemu (sloboda 2).

18 19

svojih djela, stoga gube kontrolunad proizvodom svoga rada. KakoizdavaËi nakupljaju bogatstvo u ob-liku iskoristivih autorskih prava, le-gitimacija autorskog prava premjeπ-ta se s opÊeg interesa zajednice Ëita-telja na “ravnoteæu” interesa izme-u pisaca i Ëitatelja. Odnosno, izme-u izdavaËa i Ëitatelja. Dok je autor-sko pravo dopuπtalo privremenemonopole u interesu opÊeg dobra,novonastajuÊi reæim prava “intele-ktualnog vlasniπtva” πtiti interes iz-davaËa kao interes po sebi i za sebe.Moæda zapravo kao novi klasni in-teres ∞ onoga πto sam drugdje naz-vao ‘vetkoralistiËke klase’, klasekoja koristi pravni reæim intelektu-alnog vlasniπtva kao sredstvo konro-liranja proizvodnog procesa krozvlasniπtvo nad informacijom kaoprivatnim vlasniπtvom.

Konsolidiranje intelektualnogvlasniπtva kao neËeg bliskog apsolut-nom pravu privatnog vlasniπtvanaznaka je da se formira novi klasniinteres. Intelektualno vlasniπtvo nijekontinuitet, veÊ raskid sa starimpravnim formama. Ono πto je treba-lo opravdati pod autorskim pravombio je arti∫cijelni monopol, ono πtotreba opravdati pod intelektualnimvlasniπtvom jest opÊi interes. ©to seto, zapravo, dovodi u “ravnoteæu”? »i-tateljeva sloboda da Ëini πto god æelis informacijom ili Ëitateljev interesda se proizvodi viπe informacije? Podreæimom intelektualnog vlasniπtvasamo je ovo drugo “pravo”, a ne prvo.Jedino Ëitateljevo pravo je da kupiintelektualno vlasniπtvo.

»ak i ako prihvatimo dvojbenupretpostavku da intelektualno vlas-niπtvo maksimira proizvodnju, onoπto ono maksimira jest proizvodnjaneslobode. Izgubivπi pravo da plagi-raju, kooptiraju i prerauju djelakako æele, Ëitatelji su suoËeni s timda je njihovo jedino pravo u tome dakupuju djela od izdavaËa. IzdavaËi ∞vektoralna klasa ∞ tvrde da je sve πtoim smanjuje prodaju “piratstvo”.Kao πto je sama pankerska princeza,Courtney Love, jednom rekla, glaz-bena industrija je pirat ∞ ni autorinisu u niπta boljoj situaciji no Ëita-telji (ili sluπatelji ili gledatelji). Suo-Ëavaju se s vektoralistiËkom klasomkoja sada tvrdi da su njena pravanajviπi prioritet. OpÊe dobro valjamjeriti iskljuËivo i jedino maræamavektoralistiËkih industrija.

BuduÊi da je dosada uspijevala os-igurati svoja prava, vektoralistiËkaklasa sada zagovara potpuno zatva-ranje svakog aspekta informacije uograde vlasniπtva. Ona æeli πifriratiinformaciju, vezujuÊi je arti∫cijalnouz pojedinaËne materijalne pred-mete. Æeli kriminalne sankcije zasvakoga tko prekrπi to pravo sadaapsolutno privatnog vlasniπtva. Pa-tenti, kao πto Stallman istiËe, funk-cioniraju posve drugaËije od autor-skih prava, no naposljetku ishod jejednak ∞ osiguravanje informacijekao vlasniπtva koje ima ekvivalentavrijednost na apstraktnom terenukomodi∫kacije.

Za razliku od autorskih prava,patenti ne vaæe automatski, veÊ semoraju registrirati, kreirajuÊi timedugotrajnu lutriju za hakere koji

System.hack(3,“zakon o autorskom pravu”,“Richard Stallman — GNU OpÊajavna licenca”)

Richard Stallman— Hakiranje vlasniπtva

na. Naime, ako mu se neπto svia,onda on to æeli podijeliti. Slobodnisoftver se temelji na druπtvenojprednosti suradnje i etiËkoj predno-sti poπtivanja korisnikove slobode.On predstavlja iskorak prema svije-tu nakon oskudnosti. Stallman vidislobodni softver kao praktiËki idea-lizam koji πiri slobodu i suradnju.

Stallman razlikuje otvoreni kôd odslobodnog softvera. Otvoreni kôd jemetodologija razvoja, slobodni soft-ver je druπtveni pokret ∞ druπtvenihak. Stallman nadopunjuje svojapraktiËka nastojanja za πirenje slo-bodnog softvera pod OpÊom javnomlicencom kritikom onoga u πto sepretvorio sustav autorskog prava.Stallman inzistira na tome da je uSjedinjenim AmeriËkim Dræavamaautorsko pravo poËelo ne kao prirod-no pravo, nego kao umjetni monopol∞ prvotno na ograniËeno razdoblje.Autorsko pravo donosi koristi iz-davaËima i autorima ne radi njihsamih, veÊ radi opÊeg dobra. Ono jetrebalo biti poticajem da se viπe piπei objavljuje.

Meutim, pisci moraju prepusti-ti prava izdavaËima da bi ih se objav-ljivalo. Pisci uobiËajeno ne posjedu-ju sredstva za proizvodnju i dis-tribuciju da bi realizirali vrijednost

> Richard Stallman je arhetipskihaker koji je kroz vlastitu prak-

su na podruËju raËunarstva otkriopoveznicu izmeu informacije ivlasniπtva s kojom se danas suoËava-ju svi hakeri ∞ hakeri u najπirem smi-slu . Izazov Stallmanovog djela jestkako povezati sve te razliËite haker-ske prakse. Za Stallmana hakiranjeznaËi ispitivanje granica moguÊeg.Nakon uzorne karijere u hakiranjusoftvera Stallman se okrenuo haki-ranju informacijske politike.

Njegov pokret za slobodni softverosporava shvaÊanje da je autorskopravo prirodno pravo. On koristi za-kon o autorskom pravu protiv njegasamoga, kao instrument za stvara-nje provedive slobode, a ne zakoneintelektualnog vlasniπtva kao prove-divu neslobodu. Stallmanova OpÊajavna licenca inzistira ne samo natome da se ono πto se objavljuje podtom licencom moæe dijeliti, veÊ i dasve preraene verzije materijala kojije objavljen pod tom licencom mo-raju takoer biti slobodne.

Premda opetovano izjavljuje daon nije protiv biznisa, Stallmanpredlaæe posve drugaËije poimanjeinformacijske ekonomije. Za Stall-mana je umjetna oskudnost stvore-na prisvajanjem informacije neetiË-

20

> Velike korporacije sve viπe imaju moÊ odluËivanja ipro∫tiranja nad golemim podruËjima ljudskog posto-

janja. Svojedobno zajedniËka dobra poput zemlje, vode izraka danas se monopoliziraju. Tako je hrana zagaenaGMO-vima uvedenim bez znanja javnosti.

Geni kontroliraju kemijske poruke unutar stanice, kojepak odreuju oblik i funkciju same stanice, razliËitih organau organizmu i konaËno Ëitavog organizma. Ovi kodovi æivotasastavljeni su od Ëetiriju graevnih blokova organiziranih uparove, poredane poput stuba spiralnog stubiπta. MilijunirazliËitih kombinacija temeljnih kemijskih spojeva odreu-ju razliËite genetiËke strukture svake vrste organizma.

Genetski inæenjering skup je tehnika i procesa zamodi∫ciranje ovih genetski kodova koji se primjenjuju nabiljke, æivotinje, mikro-organizme, pa i ljudska biÊa. Kom-panije poput Monsanta koncentrirane su na inæenjeringsjemenja koje u svom sastavu ima pesticide i herbicide, ilipak sjemenja koje Ëini biljke otpornijima na pesticide pa ihse moæe πpricati u joπ veÊim koliËinama.

System.hack(4,“æivi svijet”,“Heath Bunting ∞ SuperweedKit 1.0”)*

ponekad nikako ne mogu znati tkodræi patent. To je manji teret za vek-toralistiËku klasu. Vektoralni bizni-si akumuliraju portfelje patenatakoje licenciraju meusobno jednidrugima, poboljπavajuÊi si meu-sobno gotovo monopolistiËku po-ziciju. Ishod zatvaranja informa-cije unutar okvira vlasniπtva nije os-kudnost inovacije, veÊ oskudnostsuradnje.

Kao πto Stallman ironiËno istiËe,tijekom hladnog rata i SSSR i SAD sukontrolirali informacije, ali pod raz-liËitim reæimima. SSSR je kontro-lirao informacije radi politiËkih ra-zloga, πto je prouzroËilo ekonomskukatastrofu. SAD koji je proizaπao izhladnog rada kontrolira informaci-je radi ekonomskih razloga ∞ i ishod

je politiËka katastrofa. Ono πto nas-taje pod kombiniranim teretom pa-tenata i autorskih prava je samo pro-πirenje komodi∫kacije same.

To je kontekst u kojem se Stall-manovu OpÊu javnu licencu dadeshvatiti kao istinski druπtveni hak.Ona je to u estetskom smislu te rije-Ëi utoliko πto se koristi dostupnommaterijom. Ona koristi zakon o au-torskom pravu protiv njega samog,kao naËin da zaπtiti ono neπto maloprostora za slobodu suradnju. Onanije program ili manifest, ona je ap-likacija. Stallman proπiruje haker-sku estetiku van sfere programira-nja u druπtvenu sferu, ali na tom no-vom i veÊem polju nastavlja praksuhakiranja na manje viπe isti naËin.To je njegov genij.

> McKenzie Wark <

* Temeljeno na priopÊenjuza javnost povodompredstavljanja projekta ulondonskom ICA-u usijeËnju 1999.

I pored stvarnih tehnologija zaπtite protivgenetskog kopiranja, korporacije bez oklijevanjaprovode svoja prava intelektualnog vlasniπtva nadgenetskim kodom, Ëak i ako zagauju usjeve uz-gajivaËa koji ne koriste njihovo sjemenje.

22 23

kontaminacija je nepovratna. Steve Kurtz iz Critical ArtEnsemblea naziva ovakav pristup “bioloπkim graanskimneposluhom” te ovakvu novu metodu protesta, koja joπnema Ëvrsta uporiπta u teoriji i strategijama, smatra kock-anjem reproduktivnim sistemima, ekosistemima i to na vi-soke uloge. Kurtz takoer kaæe da je njegova grupa otvorenaovom tipu akcija, no s prethodno ispitanim utjecajem i eti-kom. Usprkos kritikama, Bunting vjeruje da je Superweedsamo reakcija na postojeÊu realnost. Projekti poput ovogapodsjetnik su da su uËinci GM-a postali predmetom moral-ne debate za veÊinu svjetske populacije.

Umjetnik Heath Bunting, poznati haktivist, odgovoranje za subverzivne informacijske kampanje protiv kompanijakao πto su Glaxo, Nike i 7-Eleven prodavaonice, æivi i radi uBristolu u Velikoj Britaniji. Internacionalno je priznat kaojedan od pionira net.arta. Izlagao je i predavao po cijelomsvijetu, s projektima koji ukljuËuju gra∫te, performanse, in-tervencije, piratski radio. U jednom trenutku svoju djelat-nost je usmjerio na genetiku, prozvavπi je sljedeÊim ‘novimmedijem’. Natural Reality Superweed kit 1.0 je vaæan dopri-nos umjetniËkoj praksi koja predstavlja novo kreativnopolje na granici znanosti i umjetnosti. »lan je i osnivaËirational.org kolektiva. Njegov glavni cilj je pronaÊi put kakoda se svega odrekne i æivi vani kako je bog i zamislio.

Tradicionalna sredstva protesta uliËnim prosvjedima iputem sluæbenih kanala Ëine se neadekvatnima da bi doπlodo promjene u danaπnjoj opasnoj i nedemokratskoj situaciji.

Kulturni terorizam moæe se de∫nirati kao napad nadominantne sisteme moÊi i njihovu de∫niciju stvarnosti iprirode. Godine 1999. Michael Boorman iz Natural Realityjalansirao je “Natural Reality SuperWeed Kit 1.0 (Prirodnastvarnost ∞ Set za superkorov 1.0) ∞ uradi sam set koji omo-guÊuje da se proizvede genetski modi∫cirani superkorov,koji je napravljen da napada korporativne monokulture”.Heath Bunting i Rachel Baker utemeljitelji su Cultural Ter-rorist Agency koja je ∫nancirala SuperWeed Kit 1.0.

Michael Boorman smatra da genetska hakerska tehno-logija nudi sredstva za suprotstavljanje toj nesigurnoj, nepo-trebnoj i neprirodnoj tehnologiji genetskog modi∫ciranjaorganizama. Heath Bunting biotehnologiju naziva novimratiπtem na kojem se vodi bitka za kontrolu nad æivotom izemljom, ali i podruËjem na kojem se æivot sam rede∫nira.Bit svega krije se u konceptima vlasniπtva i reprezentacije,koji su na ovom popriπtu ozbiljno dovedeni u pitanje.

Natural Reality SuperWeed Kit 1.0 sadræi mjeπavinu pri-rodnih i genetski modi∫ciranih sjemena porodice Brassica(uljane repice, divlje rotkvice, æute gorËice, prave rusomaËe).Ako se tom sjemenju dopusti da nikne i meusobno kriæa,nastat Êe superkorov otporan na danaπnje herbicide kojipotencijalno ugroæava pro∫tabilnost GM usjeva, ali i proiz-vodnju i distribuciju herbicida.

Kako bi se suprotstavili prijetnji genetskog zagaenjakoje izazivaju biotehnoloπke ∫rme, ljudi se mogu suprot-staviti superkorovom sabotirajuÊi komercijalne genetskimodi∫cirane usjeve. RijeË je o prirodno selektiranom koro-vu koji omoguÊuje ometanje uzgoja genetski modi∫ciranihbiljaka zasijavanjem ‘superkorova’ koji je prirodno otporanna GM herbicide. U ovom su projektu, prvi puta predstavlje-nom u ICA-u u Londonu, a onda i πirom svijeta, kritiËari pre-poznali kljuËni susret suvremene umjetnosti i biotehnologi-je. ‘Superkorov’ posebno je aktualan sada, u vrijeme kada seformira javno mnijenje o tome pitanju, a vlade su u procesuodluËivanja o tome sluæe li znanstvena dostignuÊa u poljo-privrednoj proizvodnji uvijek dobrobiti ËovjeËanstva.

SuperWeed mogao bi uniπtiti pro∫tabilnost GM sjeme-nja, ali i onog konvencionalnog i organskog. Ova genetska

25

testi protiv takve hrane. Demonstra-cije u Genovi u Italiji u tamoπnjemMcDonaldsu03 dovele su do toga daje ta multinacionalna korporacijaobustavila nabavu GM sastojaka. Ne-davno je ispitivanje na laboratorij-skim πtakorima koji su hranjeni GMusjevima pokazalo da su se kod æiv-otinja razvile anomalije na organimai promijenila krvna slika.04 To je do-velo do obuhvatne zabrane GM pro-izvoda u Indiji. Kako se informacijeo rezultatima kao πto su ovi sve viπejavljaju diljem svijeta, tako raste i ot-por primjeni GM usjeva u svakod-nevnoj prehrani. NesluÊeni strahpred onime πto bi se joπ moglo poja-viti kao nuspojava konzumiranja tihproizvoda nadvladao je njihov poten-cijal da ponude odgovor na globalnuprehrambenu krizu.

Kao odgovor na zabrinutost GMprehrambenim proizvodima, rad bri-tanskog umjetnika Heatha Buntinga“SuperWeed ∞ Superkorov” bavi sepitanjem prijetnje koju ti usjevi dono-se kada uu u prehrambeni lanac ta-ko da ilustrira utjecaj tih usjeva na nji-hov neposredni okoliπ. Bunting je po-najprije pratio nekoliko mailing listao GM usjevima ne bi li saznao πtoljude brine kad je rijeË o poveÊanojupotrebi GM-a. Bunting objaπnjavakako je zapoËeo s projektom “Htiosam napraviti biotehnoloπku inter-

venciju, zbog Ëega sam mjesecimapratio nekoliko relevantnih mailinglista gdje se izmeu ostalog rasprav-ljalo i o superkorovima, pa sam sezbog toga dao u detaljnije istraæivan-je i odluËio napraviti svoj superkorov.”

Rezultat Buntingovih nastojanja“SuperWeed” “sadræi mjeπavinu pr-irodnih i genetski modi∫ciranih(GM) sjemena porodice Brassica (ul-jane repice, divlje rotkvice, æutegorËice, prave rusomaËe). Ako setom sjemenju dopusti da nikne imeusobno kriæa, nastat Êe super-korov otporan na danaπnje herbi-cide (kao πto je Roundup05) koji ugro-æava ne samo pro∫tabilnost konven-cionalnih i GM usjeva Brassice, veÊi proizvodnju i distribuciju herbi-cida.”06 S ovim projektom njegova jenakana bila zagovarati onaj tipbioloπkog terorizma gdje “[a]ko os-jeÊate da vlasti neÊe poπtivati voljuveÊine stanovniπtva za zabranomGM usjeva (trenutno je 77% za pot-punu zabranu), moæete odluËiti dauzgojite i oslobodite u okoliπ Super-Weed 1.0.”07 Iako se to moæda neki-ma Ëini antagonizirajuÊim pristu-pom, Bunting djeluje prema uspos-tavljanju ravnoteæe izmeu GM us-jeva i njihove prirodne sredine,buduÊi da prirodni korovi nemajuizgleda da utjeËu na danaπnje GMusjeve.

03 Organic Consumers Association, “Mass Protests Against Frankenfoods in Italy”,http://www.purefood.org/ge/italyprotest.cfm

04 “Food for thought: Report reveals risks of GM items”, Times of India, 4. lipnja 2005.,http://timeso∫ndia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1132155.cms

05 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/products/productivity/roundup/default.asp

06 “Rise of ‘Superweeds’ blamed on GM crops”: http://millennium-debate.org/ind5feb02.htm

07 Buntingova internetska stranica: http://www.irrational.org

gomilaju. Argumenti za takve usjevebaziraju se na porastu svjetske pop-ulacije i poveÊanoj potrebi za hra-nom. BuduÊi da je teπko zamisliti dabismo mogli obraivati viπe zemljeno πto to trenutno Ëinimo, potrebada se poluËi veÊi prinos po hektarupostaje bitna. GM usjevi omoguÊu-ju da doe do poveÊanja uroda jer:1) ti usjevi smanjuju poπast namet-nika na usjevima, πto zauzvrat pov-eÊava urod, 2) ti usjevi poluËuju veÊeprinose od tradicionalnih usjeva, 3)nema potrebe za koriπtenjem pesti-cida buduÊi da su biljke otpornije nanametnike. Argumenti protiv takvihbiljaka seæu od nepoznanica oko po-sljedica po zdravlje uslijed konzumi-ranja modi∫ciranih usjeva do nepo-znanica oko njihovog porijekla ∞ me-utim, nema dokaza da su one πtetnepo ljude. K tome, javna potroπnja GMusjeva veÊ je dosegla visoki udio kodveÊine prehrambenih preraevina,pogotovu temeljnih namirnica kaoπto su πeÊer i braπno.

Kako se svijest o GM usjevimapoËela πiriti, javili su se globalni pro-

01 News Target, “Genetically modi∫ed foods more common than many Americans think, surveyshows”, http://www.newstarget.com/006073.html

02 “Survey: Most folks unaware they have been eating biotech foods for years”, Associated Press,March 24, 2005, http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMG Article%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031781758183&path=!nationworld&s=1037645509161

System.hack(4,“æivi svijet”,“Heath Bunting — Superweed Kit 1.0”)

SuperWeed — UmjetniËkiprojekt Heatha Buntingahttp://www.irational.org/cta/superweed/

> Dvoslovni pre∫ks niËe sve ËeπÊeu razgovoru kada je rijeË o hrani.

“GM hrana” iliti genetski modi∫ci-rana hrana postala je standardni sa-stojak u veÊini prehrambenih prera-evina na træiπtu. Od grickalica kaoπto je Ëips preko slastica do pakiranehrane, “75 posto hrane kupljene uAmerici [i drugim zemljama] imagenetski promijenjene sastojke, [ipritom] promijenjene sastojke kojinisu navedeni na deklaraciji.”01 Zbogte nekonzistentnosti u deklariranjuizmeu mnogobrojnih proizvoda,postalo je nemoguÊe razluËiti πtosadræi GM usjeve, a πto ne. “Premapodacima proizvoaËa poljopri-vrednih namirnica, gotovo svi proiz-vodi koji imaju sastojke od kukuru-za ili soje, a i poneki koji imaju u sas-tavu repiËino ili pamukovo ulje, ima-ju barem neki GM sastojak.”02 Iakoto brzo postaje realnost, mnogo pi-tanja o usjevima i njihovom uËinkuna potroπaËe ostaju otvorena.

UnatoË pomutnji u javnosti okotoga koji usjevi sadræe promjene,argumenti za i protiv GM usjeva se

26 27

mona rasta, kao i njegove agresivnepravne i lobistiËke prakse uËinile suMonsanto primarnim ciljem anti-globalistiËkog pokreta i aktivistakoji se bore za okoliπ.”13 Primjerice,AmeriËka udruga potroπaËa organ-ske hrane (Organic Consumers Asso-ciation of America, skraÊeno OCA)pokrenula je peticiju pod motom“Milijuni protiv Monsanta” ohra-brujuÊi uzgajivaËe i potroπaËe nakampanju protiv te korporacije. Nji-hovi zahtjevi u peticiji glase: “1) pre-stanite zastraπivati male obiteljskeuzgajivaËe, 2) prestanite siliti potro-πaËe da konzumiraju neispitanu inedeklariranu genetski modi∫ci-ranu hranu, 3) prestanite koristitimilijarde dolara ameriËkih porez-nih obaveznika kako biste poticaligenetskim inæenjeringom modi∫-cirane usjeve ∞ pamuk, soju, kuku-ruz i repicu.”14

Iako se ti usjevi koriste u proiz-vodima brze prehrane i u prehram-benim preraevinama koje prosjeË-ni potroπaË Ëesto ne koristi, kom-panija je optuæivana da ne objavlju-je rezultate ispitivanja tih usjeva nalaboratorijskim æivotinjama. “Pre-ma londonskom dnevniku Indepen-dent, koji je priËu i iznion na svjetlodana, tajno istraæivanje koje je Mon-santo proveo pokazuje da su πtakorihranjeni modi∫ciranim kukuruzom

imali manje bubrege i oscilacije usastavu krvi.”15 Ti tipovi nalaza po-stavljaju pitanje o dugoroËnim uËin-cima koje Êe ti usjevi imati na ljudejednom kada u potpunosti budu in-tegrirani u prehrambeni lanac. Ta jerasprava tematiku GM hrane pre-tvorila u svjetsku problematiku.

Iako se Bunting svojim djelomprotivi GM usjevima, projekt ipakuvodi vlastiti oblik GM usjeva u pri-rodni okoliπ. Rezultat tog puπtanjau okoliπ mogao bi biti katastrofalanveÊ sam po sebi. Bunitingov super-korov mogao bi se teorijski kriæatistvarajuÊi time hibridnu GM biljku.Tako stvorena biljka mogla bi pred-stavljati Ëak i veÊu prijetnju od prvot-ne. UnatoË kritikama upuÊenimprojektu, Bunting smatra da je “Su-perweed” naprosto reakcija na veÊpostojeÊu stvarnost. OsvrÊuÊi se naËinjenicu da je njegov “Superweed”takoer GM biljka, on bez libljenjakaæe “Gerilsko ratovanje koristinaprijateljevo oruæje.”

Kako se debata oko GM usjeva za-huktava, tako se javlja i potreba dase preispita fundamentalna πirokaprimjena tih usjeva. Projekti poputBuntingovog “SuperWeeda” pod-sjeÊaju da su uËinci GM-a postalipredmetom etiËke debate za veÊi diosvjetske populacije. UnatoË Ëinjeni-ci da bi veÊina ljudi rekla da nikada

13 Wikipedia: “Monsanto, Genetically Modi∫ed Food” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto)

14 “Monsanto to Public: Ignore the Rats and Eat the GMO Corn

OCA Reacts to Monsanto’s Latest GMO Deception”, Organic Consumers Association: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.html

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/corn-study.cfm/7645509161

15 Ibid.

UnatoË tom naizgled krajnje tak-tiËkom pristupu, Bunting vjeruje udiplomaciju kao metodu da se kor-poracije obeshrabri od ulaganja uGM proizvode. Kao πto kaæe, “moæe-te se alternativno odluËiti da pokre-nete vlastitu propagandnu kampa-nju prijeteÊi biotehnoloπkim korpo-rativnim interesima tim genetskimoruæjem. ©to god da uËinili, prijetnjaje Ëesto podjednako uËinkovita kaoi primjena.”08 I Ëini se da takav pris-tup djeluje, kao πto pokazuje recent-ni Ëlanak o projektu “SuperWeed” uNew York Timesu gdje se prenosikako se istraæivaË s MIT-a Joe Davis,“otac ameriËke bioumjetnosti”09,oËitovao protiv “SuperWeeda” ka-zavπi: “Nije mi jasno zaπto [Bunting]nije bio uhapπen. Pretpostavimo dasam ja protiv benzinskih pumpi. Bili mi to davalo za pravo da se vrz-mam po njima s kutijom πibica u ru-kama?”10 Taj tip reakcije, iako naiz-gled negativne, indikator je trenut-nog hypea oko tih usjeva i toga ko-liko je daleko uznapredovala njiho-va integracija u popularnu kulturu.

Zaπto se onda upuπtati u takavprojekt? Bunting uzvraÊa: “GM jeopasan po zdravlje svih æivotinja ibiljaka.” On je uvjerenja da je na so-cijalnoj razini “GM primarno meh-anizam kolonizacije koju provodebogati kriminalci.” Ta pretpostavka

odnosi se na sklonost proizvoaËahrane da koriste GM usjeve kako biizbjegli skupe procese odvajanjanejestivih proizvoda od onih koje jevrijedno izbaciti na træiπte. TakoerGM urodi hipotetski donose viπepro∫ta, buduÊi da su GM usjevi tipiË-no obilniji i izdaπniji od usjeva kojinisu GM. Meutim, koliko donosena veliËini toliko oduzimaju na oku-su u usporedbi sa svojim precima.

Trenutno korporacije koriste GMusjeve kao naËin poveÊavanja godiπ-njeg uroda i time pro∫ta na uloæenasredstva. One takoer predlaæu GMusjeve kao metodu poboljπanja“hranidbenog sastava usjeva, kaoπto je proteinski sastav riæe ili krum-pira, ili poveÊanja otpornosti usjevana nepovoljne uvjete za rast, kao πtosu suπa ili nametnici.”11 Druge tvrd-nje, usmjerene na umirivanje nego-dovanja javnosti, glase “da [GM us-jevi] poboljπavaju Ëulna svojstva hra-ne, to jest okus i teksturu, [te tako-er] poboljπavaju preradbena svoj-stva ne bi li se umanjio udio otpad-nih sastojaka u hrani i minimaliziraotroπak pri prijevozu i skladiπtenju.”12

Korporacija koja predvodi razvojGM usjeva je Monsanto, koja jesmjeπtena u St. Louisu, saveznojdræavi Missouri. “Monsatov razvoj iizbacivanje na træiπte genetski mo-di∫ciranog sjemena i kravljeg hor-

08 Ibid.

09 [Preuzeto iz New York Timesa]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/arts/design/03kenn.html/ , 3. lipnja 2005., “The Artists inthe Hazmat Suits”, autor Randy Kennedy

10 Ibid.

11 http://library.thinkquest.org/C004033F/pros&cons_text.htm

12 Ibid.

28

“Zovem se Michael Steil i zakonski sam vlasnik Xboxa. U pot-punosti sam platio njegovu punu cijenu i posjedujem 6 orig-inalnih igara. Æivim u Evropskoj Uniji i nikada nisam pot-pisao nikakav Licencni ugovor s krajnjim korisnikom (EndUser License Agreement ∞ EULA) niti bilo kakve Uvjete usluge(naime, nisu doπli u paketu s Xboxom), pa tako nisamograniËen nikakvim ugovorom. Stoga Xbox smatram svojimosobnim vlasniπtvom. (Svjestan sam da bi Microsoft mogaopolagati prava na neka ograniËenja u Sjedinjenim Amer-iËkim Dræavama, no buduÊi da sam ja graanin EU, nastan-jen u EU, bilo kakva ograniËenja na upotrebu Xboxa opisanau bilo kakvom EULA-u nisu primjenljiva, kao niti njihovaupitna legalnost u SAD-u i πire. Samom upotrebom Xboxane znaËi da ja na njih i pristajem.) Takoer treba naglasitida moj Xbox nije ‘modi∫ciran’ ni na koji naËin.”— Michael Steil, 10. listopada 2003.

> Michael “mist” Steil æivi u Münchenu, bavi se raËunali-ma od svoje desete godine, zapoËeo je na Commodoreu

64 i oduvijek su ga zanimali mikroprocesori, ugraeni sus-tavi i operativni sustavi. Voditelj je projekata Xbox Linux iGameCube Linux. Gore citirani pasus njegov je javni protestzbog prepreka na koje je naiπao pri koriπtenju Xboxa. Steil je

System.hack(5,“zakljuËavanje”,“MichaelSteil ∞ Linux na Xboxu”)

nisu konzumirali GM hranu, stvar-nost je meutim ta da njena inte-gracija u komercijalne proizvode veÊpostaje πiroko rasprostranjena.Buntingovo djelo pokazuje da jepredmet te debate dovoljno ozbiljanda od nadleænih vlasti iziskuje ras-vjetljavanje izravnih posljedica usl-ijed dugotrajnog konzumiranja tihusjeva. Iako se Ëini da ti usjevi nema-ju potvrenih πtetnih posljedica,πiroko je rasprostranjeno podazre-

nje da ih se svjesno kuπa. U kontek-stu stalno novog integriranja tih us-jeva u prehrambeni lanac, projektipoput “SuperWeeda” podsjeÊaju daGM usjevi neÊe nestati i da se mi mo-ramo ili prilagoditi (ili reagirati) nanjih. UnatoË naπim brojnim protes-tima, mi veÊ imamo i mi veÊ konzu-miramo te usjeve. A uz postojaniporast globalne populacije ta Êerealnost postati sve prisutnija inepobitnija.

> Jonah Brucker-Cohen <

30 31

Kako bi se suprotstavilo nesagledivim posljedicamamasovnog uvoenja takvih sigurnosnih sustava u potroπaË-ku elektroniku, posljedicama s kakvima se danas veÊ suoËa-vamo u vidu razliËitih tehnoloπkih sustava zaπtite intelektu-alnog vlasniπtva, tzv. Digital Rights/Restrictions Managementsustava, a ujedno i iskoristila prilika da se doe do jeftinoghardvera za slobodni softver, Michael Robertson, direktoropen source kompanije Lindows, poËetkom 2003. raspisaoje nagrade od po 100.000 dolara za onoga tko prvi uspije in-stalirati GNU/Linux na Xbox uz hardversko modi∫ciranje iza onoga tko to prvi uspije bez hardverske modi∫kacije.Dugo vremena tzv. modËipovi bili su jedina opcija, no kas-nije se pokazalo da TSOP Ëip na kojemu se nalazi XboxovBIOS moæe biti obrisan. Naposljetku su slabosti otkrivene ujednoj igri omoguÊile da se GNU/Linux pokrene na Xboxubez hardverske intervencije. Upravo je to uspjelo SteilovomXbox Linux timu.

U meuvremenu viπe je takvih projekata koji iz svemoÊnijih ureaja potroπaËke elektronike nastoje instalaci-jom slobodnog softvera osloboditi snaæna raËunala koja sekriju iza zakljuËanog hardvera ∞ iPodLinux je danas vjerojat-no najpopularniji.

Krajem 2005. Microsoft je objavio novu generaciju svo-je igraËe konzole Xbox 360. PoËetkom 2006. pokrenut je pro-jekt njenog oslobaanja: Free60.

naime na Xbox instalirao GNU/Linux operativni sustav.Xbox je jednom prilikom «samoinicijativnofl ponudio mo-guÊnost upgradea, a Steil je nesmotrenim klikom pokrenuouËitavanje novije verzije nakon Ëega su njegovi podaci izGNU/Linux sustava instaliranog na Xboxu nestali. Ovakvuintervenciju izazvanu postavkama na Xboxu Steil je doæiviokao atak proizvoaËa na privatno vlasniπtvo, u ovom sluËajunjegovo vlasniπtvo i to ga je potaklo na reakciju.

Xbox je Microsoftova igraËa konzola. Kada je krajem2001. izaπao na træiπte, Xbox je u sebi krio za to vrijememoÊno osobno raËunalo s Intel Celeron procesorom na 733MHz, 8GB do 10GB tvrdog diska, 64MB RAM-a i 4 USB ulaza(Xboxovi kontrolni ulazi su samo varijacije standardnih USB1.1 ulaza). Microsoft je Xbox ponudio bitno ispod træiπne ci-jene takvog osobnog raËunala, raËunajuÊi da Êe gubitak na-doknaditi prodajom igara za konzolu i preuzimanjem prev-lasti na træiπtu igraËih konzola (dakle, prevlasti u de factostandardu) od Sonyevog PlayStationa.

Uvidjevπi moguÊnost da dou do jeftinog hardvera zapostojeÊi slobodni softver, Ëiju bi nabavku ∞ koje li ironije ∞dotirao upravo najveÊi protivnik slobodnog softvera ∞Microsoft, hakerska zajednica primila se zadatka da prila-godi GNU/Linux kako bi mogao raditi na Xboxu. Druπtveno-razvojni znaËaj jeftinog hardvera s besplatnim slobodnimsoftverom za siromaπne krajeve svijeta bio je oËigledan.Meutim, upravo da bi onemoguÊio pristup jeftinom hard-veru na svoj troπak i sprijeËio da jeftini hardver ugrozi træiπteosobnih raËunala, Microsoft je taj moÊni stroj onesposobioda ne bi mogao posluæiti bilo kojoj drugoj namjeni osimjedne ∞ igranju.

Xbox koristi klasiËni sigurnosni sustav zakljuËavanjagdje hardver prihvaÊa samo digitalno potpisani kod, u ovomsluËaju, naravno, Microsoftov digitalno potpisani kod.Takav tip sigurnosne tehnologije naziva se sigurnosno raËu-narstvo. I premda omoguÊuje mnoge sigurnosne primjeneu raËunarstvu, on korisniku oduzima moguÊnost kontrolenad njegovim vlastitim hardverom i pretvara ga, kako toRichard Stallman kaæe, u raËunalo u koje korisnik ne moæeimati sigurnosti. Upravo je takav sigurnosni sustav pobrisaopodatke GNU/Linux operativnog sustava na SteilovomXboxu i natjerao ga u bijes.

33

aËi stvaraju hrpu jeftinih dodatakaza PC, Ëime bitno poveÊavaju vrijed-nost investicije u sam PC (viπe o ovojekonomskoj strategiji poslije). Savbitni softver za CP/M izlazi u novimverzijama za DOS, i do kraja osam-desetih PC-ovi (IBM-ovi ili ne) nalazese u svakom uredu i πkoli. Otprilikeistodobno s pojavom PC-a otvara setreÊi veliki segment træiπta, kuÊnaraËunala, koji se razvija uglavnomnezavisno. Sredinom osamdesetihApple izbacuje Macintosh, prvo mi-kroraËunalo s gra∫Ëkim suËeljem.Potkraj osamdesetih træiπte igarapomalo prelazi na PC i DOS.

Microsoft 1992. izbacuje Win-dows 3.1 i objedinjuje sve segmentetræiπta mikrokompjutera, i prvi putna jednom te istom stroju moæeteraditi sve: pisati, crtati, raËunati,igrati se, a sve to uz pomoÊ gra∫ËkogsuËelja. Svi programi za DOS rade naWindowsima bez ikakvih interven-cija i ulaganja. A buduÊi da svi kup-ci sada trebaju manje-viπe sliËanstroj, kompjuteri konaËno postajujeftini, barem za æitelje ove stranedigitalnog jaza.

Od sredine devedesetih operativ-ni sustavi za osobna raËunala poma-lo prelaze na minikompjuterski mo-del, koji predvia pravi viπezadaÊnii viπekorisniËki rad te punu um-reæenost. Prvi je bio Microsoft 1993.(Windows NT, na arhitekturi naslije-enoj od VMS-a), zatim zajednicaslobodnog softvera sa svojom verzi-jom Unixa (GNU s kernelom Linux-om, efektivno krajem devedesetih),

a posljednji Apple (Mac OS X, 2001),takoer naslanjajuÊi se na Unix.

Druπtveni utjecajZa potrebe ove rasprave, druπtve-

no utjecajnom tehnologijom smat-rat Êemo onu koja zadovoljava dvakriterija: masovnost i novost. Obapojma su relativna: Apple II jest biodruπtveno utjecajan jer su se prijenjega kompjuterom sluæili samo in-æenjeri, bankari, vojska, te ponekiosobito spretni studenti informati-ke koji su svoje kompjutere izrai-vali sami; CP/M nije bio druπtvenoutjecajan jer se njime sluæila tekmanjina tajnica i knjigovoa, iako utehniËkom smislu jest bio novost.Windows 3.1 bili su druπtveno utje-cajni jer su svim segmentima træiπtaponudili ergonomski superiornogra∫Ëko suËelje,01 uz potpunu kom-patibilnost s DOS-om.

Gdje je na toj karti slobodni soft-ver? U biti, nigdje. Od 1983. do da-nas, slobodni softver s aspekta druπ-tvenog utjecaja (dakle masovnostplus novost) nije proizveo ni jedanjedini skok. Danas najrasprostra-njeniji slobodni softver Ëine progra-mi kao πto su web-server Apache i(prema zastupljenosti, u puno ma-njoj mjeri) Mozillin web-klijent Fire-fox. Iako je s procvatom Interneta,osobito weba, softver vezan za tajsegment upotrebe znatno dobio navaænosti, i Apache i Firefox druπtve-no su zapravo nevaæni. Zaπto? Zami-slite na Ëas da ih nema. ©to se promi-jenilo? Niπta. Isti broj ljudi manje-

prikazat Êemo u terminima komple-menata i supstituta. Pokazat Êemokako iza najuspjeπnijih proizvoda umladoj povijesti mikroraËunarstvastoje dobri hakovi, manipulacijekomplementima i supstitutima. Utom Êemo kontekstu zasebno pro-komentirati i smisao Xbox Linuxa.

NajkraÊa povijestmikrokompjutera ikadMikrokompjuteri su se od kraja se-

damdesetih razvijali na dva kolosije-ka upotrebe, kuÊnom i πkolskom, od-nosno poslovnom. Apple II (1977) po-stao je standardnom πkolskom opre-mom u Sjedinjenim Dræavama, aprogram za tabelarne izraËune Visi-Calc kasnije ga je pomalo uveo i upoduzeÊa. Tamo je raznorazne kom-pjutere (zajedniËki im je bio procesorZilog) pogonio operativni sustav CP/M (1976), prvi poslovni operativnisustav za mikorokompjutere. Za CP/M je napisano brdo poslovnog softve-ra, od revolucionarne baze podatakadBASE, preko jednako revolucionar-nog programa za obradu teksta Word-Star, do verzije VisiCalca za CP/M.

Na scenu 1981. ulazi IBM s otvore-nom PC-arhitekturom, Microsofto-vim klonom CP/M-a i Intelovim ja-Ëim procesorom. Nezavisni proizvo-

System.hack(5,“zakljuËavanje”,“Michael Steil — Linux na Xboxu”)

Kako prodati slobodu

> Otkad je zagovornika slobodesoftvera, svako toliko neki se

entuzijast upusti u nabrajanje vrli-na slobodnog softvera, u pravilu sciljem da pokaæe kako slobodasoftvera donosi mnoge prednosti zakorisnike, programere i tvrtke. Im-plicitno ili eksplicitno, takvi mani-festi gotovo beziznimno sadræeoËekivanje predstojeÊe softverskerevolucije, od koje nas dijeli tek ne-dovoljna osvijeπtenost masa koris-nika raËunala.

Ni u jednom takvom razmatranju,koliko mi je poznato, ne otvara seprethodno pitanje: zaπto, uza sve teprednosti, slobodni softver nijedruπtveno uspjeπniji, odnosno, za-πto je manje uspjeπan od neslobod-nog? Kao πto je poznato, najuspjeπ-niji informatiËki projekti u posljed-njih Ëetvrt stoljeÊa nisu bili slobod-ni, dapaËe nisu imali nikakve veze saslobodnim softverom. Slobodasoftvera u druπtvenom smislu jest ibila je relativno efemerna pojava.ImajuÊi u vidu komponentu soci-jalne organizacije u njegovom razvo-ju i ciljevima, to uopÊe nije samora-zumljiv ishod.

Druπtveni uspjeh de∫nirat Êemokao spoj masovnosti i inovacije, a di-namiku informatiËke ekonomije

01 Superiorno u odnosno na suËelje DOS-a, ne nuæno na druga gra∫Ëka suËelja koja nisu bilamasovno koriπtena.

34 35

nosno, πto su prepreke veÊoj masov-nosti i veÊoj razini inovacije u slo-bodnom softveru? Pokuπat Êemoodgovoriti na ta pitanja na osnovidvaju izvora problema: svojstava za-jednice korisnika/stvaralaca slobod-nog softvera, te speci∫Ënosti ekono-mije slobodnog softvera.

Tradicija, druπtvo, zajednicaZakoraËimo naËas u povijest nas-

tanka slobodnog softvera. RichardStallman, programer s uglednogMasaËusetskog instituta za tehnolo-giju (MIT), osmislio je projekt GNUtako da su obje mete (masovnostplus novost) veÊ u poËetku bile pro-maπene. GNU je, naime, teæio nado-mjestiti razvojnu okolinu postojeÊihneslobodnih Unix-sustava, a nestvoriti neπto novo. Drugo, Unix je bio(i ostao sve donedavno, do AppleovogMac OS X-a) operativni sustav nami-jenjen prvenstveno informatiËarimai drugim znanstvenicima viËnim in-formatici, a ne laicima. Razlika uodnosu na druπtveno utjecajna os-obna raËunala je oËita: Apple II seobraÊao uËenicima i uËiteljima,DOS raËunovoama i drugim ured-skim radnicima, a Windows igraËi-ma, likovnjacima, glazbenicima,govornicima i svima ostalima. Etossvijeta Unixa i svijeta osobnih raËu-nala se otpoËetka znatno razlikuje:uniksaπi cijene i oËekuju infor-matiËke vrline, a korisnici osobnihraËunala lakoÊu koriπtenja pri konk-retnim zadacima koji sami po sebinemaju nuæno veze s informatikom.

Osobito iskljuËiv stav prema in-formatiËkim laicima eksplicitno je

zauzeo ni manje ni viπe nego Stall-man, koji smatra da je koristiti nes-lobodni softver samo po sebi nemo-ralno. Time pred, recimo, umjetni-ka postavlja moralni zahtjev da ko-risti slobodni softver iako je prila-goen informatiËaru a ne umjetni-ku i time ga efektivno sputava (ilinaprosto treba zatomiti svoj darËekajuÊi da se pojavi odgovarajuÊisoftver). Osim πto je moralno upi-tan, jasno je da ovaj tip tehno-autiz-ma ne pridonosi komunikaciji s ko-risnicima obdarenim drugim talen-tima i manje zainteresiranima zatehnologiju kao takvu.

OpÊenito, tradicionalni korisnicislobodnog softvera njegovi su stva-raoci, bilo izravno, tako da ga koristesami autori, bilo neizravno, da odkorisnika oËekuju razinu informa-tiËkog znanja usporedivu s razinomznanja samog autora. To moæe bitiupravo sjajno: osobama koje pri-bliæno odgovaraju opisu idealnogkorisnika nekog slobodnog softve-ra, takav softver Ëesto savrπeno od-govara. Da ste programer Ëiji je pri-marni jezik LISP, moæete li i zamis-liti bolju radnu (i neradnu) okolinuod Emacsa, programa za rad sa svimoblicima teksta, koji je napisan ujednom dijalektu LISP-a i vama jepotpuno razumljiv, prilagodljiv iproπiriv. Onaj djeliÊ promila u uku-pnoj populaciji koji odgovara tomopisu u Emacsu se vjerojatno osjeÊakao u raju.

Kako odmiËemo od sretnog spo-ja programera, odnosno informa-tiËara, i primarnog korisnika, ovaideja se pomalo pretvara u noÊnu

viπe jednako pregledava isti brojweb-stranica koje se i dalje manje-viπe jednako posluæuju.02

Pravde i poπtenja radi, mislim dapostoji jedan druπtveno utjecajanslobodan softver: to je Wiki WardaCunninghama. Wiki je istinski ino-vativan i u ovih dvanaest godina viπenego masovno iskoriπten koncept,koji je doæivio nebrojene varijacije iponeke doista spektakularno utje-cajne primjene (npr. Wikipedia).03

Kako objasniti izostanak uspjehaslobodnog softvera u svjetlu Ëinjen-ice da sloboda softvera zaista dono-si velike potencijalne prednosti zakorisnika? Neslobodni softver je za-tvoreni „proizvod“ (izvrπni kod) kojije neËije intelektualno vlasniπtvo, avlasnik nas ovlaπÊuje da taj proizvodkoristimo pod uvjetima koje je pro-pisao ∞ to, naime, kupujemo kad ku-pujemo korisniËku. Naprotiv, licen-ca slobodnog softvera ne reguliranaËin upotrebe softvera pa s progra-mom moæemo raditi skoro sve πtopoæelimo. (U sluËaju softvera pod li-

cencom GPL, “skoro sve” znaËi “uzjedini uvjet da, ako distribuiramoizmijenjeni program, taj programtakoer ponudimo pod GPL-om”.04)

Za dobro rasprave, pretpostavimoda imamo jedan tipiËni vlasniËkisoftverski proizvod s jedne strane, as druge istovjetan slobodni pro-gram. Nadalje, pretpostavimo danas i jedan i drugi koπtaju isto.GledajuÊi samo na ovlaπtenja (dak-le, ako je sve ostalo jednako), slo-bodni program za korisnika uvijekima veÊu ili jednaku vrijednost.05

Jednaku vrijednost, naime, imali bijedino u sluËaju da sa slobodnimprogramom nikad ne poæelimouËiniti baπ niπta πto nam vlasnik iinaËe ne bi dopustio. U svim ostalimsluËajevima, slobodni softver je zakorisnika, dakle u upotrebnomsmislu, vredniji od istovjetnog ne-slobodnog softvera.06

Ako je, dakle, slobodni softvernaËelno vredniji, poæeljniji od ne-slobodnog, zaπto je druπtveno ma-nje uspjeπan od neslobodnog? Od-

02 Poznavatelji slobodnog softvera sad Êe protestirati ∞ programski kod Apachea i Firefoxa je idalje tu, slobodan za sve daljnje primjene, Ëak i da se fondacije Apache i Mozilla ugase. ©toviπe,to je znaËajni feature, a ne bug. Ali, ja æelim reÊi neπto drugo: Ëak i da sav taj kod odjednomnestane, ukljuËujuÊi i izvrπne programe, Ëak i da se magiËno izbriπu sva sjeÊanja na elementetih programa kod svih njegovih programera, svejedno se ne bi niπta dogodilo. Ni zamisao, niprva izvedba, ni neko revolucionarno unapreenje web-posluæitelja nisu nastali unutarprojekta Apache. Isto vrijedi i za Mozillin web-klijent.

03 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

04 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.hr.html

05 Ovdje izlaæemo argument iznesen na Usenet grupi hr.comp.gnu 19. prosinca 2002, u porucipod naslovom “SOK i MESO za velike kupce”.

06 U prilog slobodnog, odnosno open-source softvera, njegovi zagovornici obiËno se pozivaju nadruga dva kriterija. Zaklada za slobodu softvera (FSF), slijedeÊi misao Richarda Stallmana, tvrdida je slobodni softver jedini moralan softver, kako za stvaraoce tako i za korisnike. Inicijativaza otvoreni kod (OSI) pak tvrdi da je razvojni model svojstven slobodnom ili open-sourcesoftveru superioran razvojnim modelima vlasniËkog softvera. Smatramo da je prvi stavbesmislen, a drugi empirijski neosnovan.

36 37

©to mislite, koji Êe pristup koris-niku dovesti do veÊeg druπtvenog us-pjeha, popularizacije kompjuterskeobrade fotogra∫je?

Po naπem sudu, ni najjaËa ni naj-slabija toËka slobodnog softveranemaju puno veze s programira-njem. Glavna vrlina slobodnog soft-vera je druπtvena, a glavni dosegstvaranje zajednice korisnika/stva-ralaca slobodnog softvera. Glavniproblem je u onome πto programerine znaju ili ih jednostavno ne zani-ma. Za druπtveni uspjeh slobodnomsoftveru trebaju neprogrameri ineinformatiËari: dizajneri suËelja ipsiholozi koji Êe ga testirati; jeziko-slovci koji Êe napraviti poπten sustavza provjeru pravopisa i gramatike, apo moguÊnosti i bazu sinonima iantonima; i tako dalje. Njihov Êe do-prinos znaËajno pomoÊi da se laici-ma olakπa pristup slobodnomsoftveru. No, kako Êemo vidjeti, nisve to neÊe biti dovoljno dok slobod-ni softver na zadobije bolje ekonom-ske temelje.

Ekonomija slobodnog softveraNajveÊi dio ekonomije slobodnog

softvera, i dobar dio informatiËkeekonomije, vrti se oko pojmovakomplementa i supstituta, te proce-sa komodi∫kacije, odnosno pretva-ranja u robu.08 Veliki “hakovi” u IT-ekonomiji djeluju kao manipulaci-je s komplementarnim proizvodi-ma. Osnovni princip ekonomijekomplemenata je: πto su komple-

menti nekog proizvoda jeftiniji, toon moæe biti skuplji. Tako je IBM,kako smo napomenuli, PC-arhitek-turu uËinio otvorenom i tako otvo-rio træiπnu utakmicu za hardverskedodatke svim nezavisnim proizvo-aËima. DostupnoπÊu velikog brojaraznih kartica za PC sam je PC do-bio na vrijednosti. No, istodobno jeMicrosoft izveo joπ bolji πtos: IBM-unisu dali ekskluzivnu licencu naDOS, nego su je prodavali i konku-rentskim tvrtkama, kako bi spustilicijenu hardvera i time podigli vrijed-nost (svog) softvera.

I dok je igra komplemenata vaæansastojak u kuhanju najuspjeπnijihinformatiËkih proizvoda, za slobod-ni softver to je jedini raspoloæivi eko-nomski model. Bitno ograniËenjerestriktivnijih slobodnih licenci od-nosi se, naime, na strogo propisannaËin distribucije slobodnog softve-ra koji efektivno onemoguÊujestandardni poslovni model prodaje„licenci za krajnjeg korisnika“. Dru-gim rijeËima, za tvrtke kojima je pri-marni biznis proizvodnja softvera zamasovnu distribuciju, slobodnisoftver je neupotrebljiv, barem usvojim restriktivnijim licencamakao πto je GPL.

Stoga IBM i mnoge druge manjetvrtke danas pokuπavaju odigrati joπjednu varijantu trika s komplemen-tima ulaganjem u slobodni softver,prodajuÊi konzultantske, projektant-ske i druge struËne usluge temeljenena slobodnom softveru kao jeftinom

moru. Danas je slobodni softver to-liko razvijen da se njime moæenapraviti gotovo sve, pitanje je samotko i kako. Fotograf koji radi s nekimod specijaliziranih neslobodnihprograma za gra∫Ëku obradu, kadhoÊe eksperimentirati s dinamiËkimrasponom fotogra∫ja, moæe odabra-ti odgovarajuÊu stavku s izbornikaponuenih specijalnih efekata, i bez

#!/usr/bin/perl

open I, “> /tmp/hdr-in”;

for $f (@ARGV) {

$jh=‘jhead -c “$f”‘;

chop $jh;

if($jh=~/\(1\/(\d+)\) f\/([\d.]+)/) { $e=$1; $a=$2; }

if($e<2) {

$jh=‘jhead “$f” | grep “Exposure time”‘;

if($jh=~/:.*?([\d.]+).*?s/) { $e=1/$1; }

}

$n=‘basename “$f” .jpg‘; chop $n;

print I “$n.ppm $e $a 0 0\n”;

print “preparing $n (1/$e f/$a) ...\n”;

system “convert ‘$f’ -geometry 1024x1024 ‘/tmp/$n.ppm’”;

$d=‘dirname “$f”‘; chop $d;

}

close I;

system “cd /tmp; mkhdr -fptiff hdr-in $d/$n-HDR.tiff”;

system “pfsin $d/$n-HDR.tiff | pfstmo_fattal02 -b 0.85 | pfsgamma -g

2.2 | pfsout $d/$n-HDRfattal.jpg”;

system “pfsin $d/$n-HDR.tiff | pfstmo_drago03 | pfsgamma -g 2.2 |

pfsout $d/$n-HDRdrago.jpg”;

previπe poznavanja tehnologije is-probati æeljeni postupak. Korisnikslobodnog softvera postiÊi Êe sliËanrezultat tako da se podrobno in-formira o ∫zici i tehnologiji dinamiË-kog raspona u fotogra∫ji, ovlada os-novama nekog od skriptnih jezika,pronae odgovarajuÊe programËiÊei poveæe ih na æeljeni naËin, naprimjer ovako:07

07 Primjer nije izmiπljen, skripta je pod GPL-om i stvarno radi. Autor je ∫ziËar i fotograf DomjanSvilkoviÊ. Izvor: hr.rec.fotogra∫ja.digitalna, 21. travnja 2006, pod naslovom High DynamicRange.

08 Roba u ovom smislu je proizvod koji je pao na najniæu moguÊu, robnu cijenu. Viπe o tome uudæbeniËkom izlaganju programera, biznismena i pisca Joela Spolskog,v. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/printerFriendly/articles/StrategyLetterV.html.

38 39

zapravo posve bezopasan za Micro-soft. Postoji brdo naËina da se sas-tavi skoro jednako jeftin stroj zaLinux, koji Êe obiËno puno boljeodgovarati æeljenom zadatku od ex-Xboxa pa ne vjerujem da je imaloznaËajan broj ljudi kupio Xbox samokao Linux-stroj. Kao ciljna publikaXbox Linuxa tako ostaju samolinuksaπi koji su i igraËi, a oni Êeionako morati kupiti igre ako se æeleigrati na Xboxu. »emu je onda ima-lo sluæiti zakljuËavanje? U sluËajukonzola ∞ niËemu. To pokazuje XboxLinux, a joπ viπe Ëinjenica da je do-minantna tvrtka na træiπtu igraÊihkonzola, Sony, ionako sluæbeno po-dræala Linux za Playstation 2 pa zbogtoga nije prestala biti dominantna.

• ©to, kako i za koga

U svojoj dosadaπnjoj povijesti,raËunarstvo je donijelo golemepromjene u naËinu na koji uËimo,zabavljamo se, æivimo i radimo. No,tko smo to „mi“? Mi smo pripadni-ci onih 15% svjetske populacije kojiposjedujemo raËunalo i imamopristup Internetu. Drugim rijeËima,πaËica early-adoptera, beta-testerana kojima se tehnologija kali da bijednog dana moæda postala opÊepri-hvaÊena.

Inicijative kojima se pokuπavapremostiti „digitalni jaz“ i prodrijetido preostalih 85% potencijalnih ko-risnika usko su vezane za manipu-laciju komplementima. Prvi potezpovukao je 2005. MIT Media Labpredvoen Nicholasom Negropon-

teom, u vidu „Laptopa za stodolara“.09 Ideja je da hardver ∫nan-ciraju vlade i meunarodne organ-izacije, dok se za softver brine zajed-nica slobodnog softvera. I opet, slo-bodni softver ima ulogu komple-menta hardveru i politiËkoj volji.Godinu dana kasnije, Microsoftnudi platformu FlexGo, prilagoenoPC raËunalo pokretano verzijomWindowsa, po modelu izvedenom izmobilne telefonije. ZnaËi: ureaj sedaje u pola cijene, a ostatak se na-plaÊuje kroz cijenu razgovora,odnosno vrijeme upotrebe raËuna-la koje se doplaÊuje bonovima.

Taj koncept je zapravo prirodninastavak Microsoftovog tradicional-nog modela poslovanja u kojem sekomplement proizvoda, hardver,nastoji uËiniti πto pristupaËnijim,kako bi se softver uËinio za koris-nika vrednijim a za vlasnikapro∫tabilnijim. U jednoj moguÊojverziji FlexGo scenarija, osnovnihardver bi tako mogao biti bespla-tan ili skoro besplatan dok se softveruopÊe neÊe naplaÊivati „na komad“,nego Êe se iznajmljivati. To pakobeÊava joπ veÊe pro∫tne marginenego πto je to bio sluËaj s koris-niËkim licencama, ukoliko se dois-ta stekne velik broj novih korisnika∞ a govorimo o milijardama ljudikoji si ne mogu priuπtiti raËunalo abonove mogu.

Treba li uopÊe spomenuti da ÊeFlexGo kompjuteri biti zakljuËani?Epizodu s Xbox Linuxom stoga jemoæda najbolje shvatiti kao zagri-

odnosno besplatnom komplemen-tu. NajveÊi pro∫ter na slobodnomsoftveru je vjerojatno ipak Googlekoji πakom i kapom ulaæe u slobod-ni softver, koristeÊi ga u serverskoj, asve viπe i komplementarno, u klijent-skoj (preglednik Firefox) infrastruk-turi svog oglaπivaËkog carstva.

SudeÊi po ∫nancijskim izvjeπta-jima, takva strategija se isplati.Meutim, IBM-ove i Googleove muπ-terije su veliki poslovni sustavi od-nosno oglaπivaËi, a ne “mali potro-πaËi”. Za veÊinu korisnika softvera iveÊinu primjena, najbolji dostupnisoftver i dalje pripada kategoriji nes-lobodnog softvera. Iako stoji da sva-ko poboljπanje koje proizlazi izposlovanja sa slobodnim softveromdonosi neku korist cijeloj zajednici,obiËno nije rijeË o stvarima koje bise obraÊale masovnom træiπtu.

• Siva zona

Uspjeh u igri s komplementimanije zajamËen, osobito u standard-iziranom infrastrukturnom okruæe-nju, u kojem “sve radi sa svim”. Sto-ga si brojni proizvoaËi nastojeolakπati posao tako πto oteæavaju ko-risnicima upotrebu onoga, πto bitrebalo biti komplementarno nji-hovom i samo njihovom prima-rnom proizvodu, u korist neËeg ilinekog drugog.

Mobilni telefon je komplemen-taran upotrebi telekomunikacijskihusluga, pa telekomi redovito nudetelefone po viπestruko niæoj cijeniod maloprodajne. U Ëemu je kvaka?U tome πto su „njihovi“ ureaji zak-ljuËani na njihovu mreæu pa se ne

mogu iskoristiti kao komplement zausluge drugih operatera, iako su sveaktualne mreæe za mobilnu telefoni-ju potpuno standardizirane i svakiureaj izvorno moæe raditi u mreæibilo kojeg operatera.

ZakljuËavanje mobitela tek jejedan od vidljivijih oblika prljaveigre s komplementima. U kontekstuinformatiËke tehnologije, meuper∫dnijima je uvoenje posebnihvlasniËkih mreænih protokola, kaoπto su Microsoftov SMB ili svojedo-bno AppleTalk ili Novellov IPX. Ide-ja je sliËna: ako trebate povezati viπeraËunala u mreæu, bit Êe nam dragoudovoljiti vam. Pod uvjetom da zasvaku radnu stanicu kupite naπsoftver (Windows ili nekad Novell),ili joπ bolje, i naπ softver i naπ hard-ver (Macintosh i MacOS kod Apple-Talka). Sudbina ovakvih podvaladosad nije bila ruæiËasta: IPX i Ap-pleTalk su sreÊom propali, a SMBjoπ, naæalost, nije.

U svijetu igraÊih konzola, takvozakljuËavanje komplemenata jeposve normalna stvar. Nintendo,Sony i odnedavno Microsoft proda-ju relativno jeftine konzole da bizaradili na relativno skupim igrama.Analogno mobitelima, MicrosoftovXbox je tehniËki gledano standard-ni PC koji je zakljuËan za svakuprimjenu osim one koja kljuËarudonosi dobit. To, jest, bio je zak-ljuËan dok ga ekipa Xbox Linuxa nijeotkljuËala.

Osim kao gesta otpora Xbox-linuksaπa jednom obliku reketare-nja u informatiËkoj industriji, ovajprojekt je zanimljiv i po tome πto je 09 One Laptop per Child, laptop.media.mit.edu/

40 41

povoda optimizmu, naæalost nije iz-gledan u neposrednoj buduÊnosti.

Za izostanak druπtvenog uspjehaslobodnog softvera, dakle, postojeozbiljni ekonomski i socijalni razlo-zi, kako po kriteriju masovnosti takoi po kriteriju inovativnosti. Glavnuprepreku masovnijem koriπtenjuslobodnog softvera vidimo u neus-pjehu zajednice njegovih stvaralaca/korisnika da u svoje redove ukljuËiviπe informatiËkih laika. Na prvi po-gled, to izgleda kao zaËarani krug:korisnika Êe biti viπe kad ih budeviπe, ali nije sasvim tako. Meu in-formatiËkim laicima nalaze se struË-njaci na podruËjima koja su za ma-sovnu informatiku vaæna, kao πto sudizajneri, lingvisti, psiholozi i dru-

javanje pred veliku bitku za informa-tizaciju globalnog juga. Iako Êe Flex-Go kompjuteri biti zakljuËavanihardverski, Ëak na razini procesora,pred buduÊim FlexGo-linuksaπimaje moæda i lakπi dio posla. Od prvemilijarde ljudi, na pitanje „Æelite liplatiti vlasniËki softver ili besplatnokoristiti slobodni bez ikakvihograniËenja?“ golema veÊina je opti-rala za ono prvo, a preostali Êe dobi-ti joπ mnogo bolje ponude od vlas-nika softvera.

Izmeu ËekiÊa i nakovnjaGledano iz perspektive novosti,

naπeg drugog kriterija druπtvenoguspjeha, posredniËki model uposlovanju sa slobodnim softveromtek je uzgredno orijentiran inovaci-jama. No, problem s ekonomijominovacije u slobodnom softveru nijetek uzgredan, nego duboko struk-turni. U jednoj reËenici, svakasoftverska inovacija za koju ulagaËocijeni da mu moæe donijetistrateπku prednost bit Êe zatvorena(uopÊe se neÊe distribuirati, ili Êe sedistribuirati kao vlasniËki softver).

»ini se da iz tog πkripca nema izla-za. Najpro∫tabilniji „maloprodajni“(koji se obraÊa masovnom træiπtukorisnika) poslovni modeli u indus-triji softvera su distribucija koris-niËkih licenci vlasniËkog softvera iiznajmljivanje resursa. Stoga trebaoËekivati da Êe najpoæeljniji softverza masovnu upotrebu veÊinom i

dalje biti neslobodan. S druge stra-ne, inovacije, odnosno istraæivanjakoja su za njih potrebna, u slobod-nom se softveru mogu kapitaliziratijedino kroz komplementarne proiz-vode i nije jasno kakvom bi se eko-nomskom logikom taj problem mo-gao zaobiÊi.

Jedno moguÊe, barem djelomiË-no rjeπenje ponudio je NicholasCarr u Ëlanku IT nije bitan10 i nizukasnijih publikacija. Iako se Car-rovoj argumentaciji moæe πtoπtaprigovoriti,11 i priliËno je sigurno dateza u najradikalnijoj verziji nijeposve odræiva, Carr je pronaπaojedan moguÊi put druπtvenog uspje-ha slobodnog softvera.

Glavna Carrova teza je da cijelainformacijska tehnologija, dosegav-πi svoju zrelost, ubrzano gubistrateπku vaænost i od kompetitivnepostaje infrastrukturna tehnologija.Ako to barem djelomiËno stoji, to suizvrsne vijesti za slobodni softver.Svoje najveÊe uspjehe slobodni soft-ver je, naime, redovito doæivljavaoupravo u domeni mreænih servisa iprotokola, πto s prebacivanjemteæiπta na infrastrukturu dobiva narelativnoj vrijednosti. Drugo i zani-mljivije, narav infrastrukturnih ino-vacija je drukËija od onih kompeti-tivnih; infrastrukturnim inovacija-ma ne æeli se odskoËiti od konkuren-cije nego se uklopiti u postojeÊeokvire i proπiriti ih na dobrobit svi-ju. Takav razvoj dogaaja, iako daje

10 Nicholas G. Carr, „IT Doesn’t Matter“, Harvard Business Review, 81(5): 41∞49, (2003). V.takoer http://www.nicholasgcarr.com

11 Suzdræan osvrt na Carra i buduÊnost IT-a ponudili smo u kolumni „Gnoj i pakao“, Mreæa9(3): 21 (2006)

gi. No, nuæno je da i oni pronausmisao u upotrebi i stvaranju slo-bodnog softvera, dakle da osjete daih zajednica æeli i treba. »ini se dase ethos zajednice slobodnog soft-vera sve viπe mijenja u tom smjeru pamoæemo biti donekle optimistiËni.

Problem inovacije Ëini nam se uosnovi nerjeπiv u postojeÊim eko-nomskim okvirima kompetitivnogtræiπta. Ipak, moguÊe rjeπenje proiz-lazi iz promjene okvira u kojem seodvija informatiËka ekonomija iprebacivanja teæiπta na infrastruktu-ru. U tom sluËaju, za relativni uspjehslobodnog softvera u pogledu ino-vacija najzasluæniji bi bio neuspjehonog neslobodnog. Koliko Êe to do-bra donijeti u Velikoj shemi svihstvari, teπko je reÊi.

> Ognjen StrpiÊ <

43

samom reprodukcijom sadræaja nosaËa na ureajima krajn-jih korisnika.

Sustavi zaπtite protiv kopiranja CD-a koji ovise samo osoftveru pokazali su se trivijalnima za onesposobljavanje, aalternativne strategije koje modi∫ciraju format CD podata-ka neizostavno Êe izazvati prigovore javnosti zbog nekom-patibilnosti s legalnim playerima.

Doduπe, ranije generacije takvih zaπtitnih mjera od ko-piranja pokazale su se joπ trivijalnijima ∞ proslavile su se polakoÊi kojom ih se moglo probiti uz pomoÊ markera.

Sony je 2001. CD-ove opremio Key2Audio sustavom ∞tehnologijom koja spreËava kopiranje ili konvertiranje pje-sama u MP3 datoteke na osobnim raËunalima. Tehnoloπkemjere za zaπtitu glazbenih diskova poput Cactus Data Shield100/200 i Key2Audio mogu se probiti upotrebom najjednos-tavnijih pomagala poput markera i izolacijske trake. Na dis-kovima vanjski je rub vidljivog dijela audio podataka zaπti-Êen, πto onemoguÊuje kopiranje pa Ëak i sviranje na raËu-nalima. Prekrivanjem vanjskog ruba zaπtitu se moæe probitii osposobiti disk za normalnu upotrebu na raËunalima.

SunnComm Technologies je 2003. stvorio zaπtitu Medi-aMax CD3 dizajniranu da sprijeËi upravo neovlaπteno ko-piranje audio CD-ova pomoÊu osobnog raËunala. Diskoviproizvedeni tom tehnikom sadræe dvije verzije glazbe, svakuzaπtiÊenu na drugaËiji naËin. Jedan set pjesama su audio CDkompozicije koje sviraju na standardnim CD playerima, alina raËunalima se navodno ne bi trebale moÊi kopirati. Dru-gi set su komprimirane i πifrirane Windows Media datotekekoje upotrebljavaju tzv. DRM (Digital Rights/RestrictionsManagement) ∞ tehnoloπko upravljanje pravima/ograniËen-jima ∞ kako bi ograniËile moguÊnosti koriπtenja.

Ti sistemi zaπtite Ëine CD-ove nekompatibilnima s veÊi-nom raËunala. Iako je to sprijeËilo kopiranje na mnogim PCkon∫guracijama, takoer je dovelo i do nekompatibilnosti spojedinim DVD playerima, sistemima za video igre i auto-mobilskim CD playerima. Savrπena kompatibilnost moæe sepostiÊi jedino zadræavanjem standardnog audio CD seg-menta diska nezaπtiÊenim, pa stoga MediaMax koristi dru-gu metodu kako bi sprijeËila kopiranje na raËunalima.

John Halderman, student sveuËiliπta Princeton, nedu-go nakon objavljivanja prvog diska sa zaπtitom MediaMaxCD3 na svojoj je web stranici objavio znanstveni rad s uput-

System.hack(6,“zaπtita”,“Anonimni autor ∞ set zazaπtitu CD-a [marker /shift tipka]”)

> Hakeri su podijeljeni u dvije skupine po etiËkoj osnovi:prva skupina kreira patentne sustave i zaπtitne meha-

nizme, druga ih pokuπava zaobiÊi. Dok su prvi usmjereni nakorporativno djelovanje, drugi su socijalno angaæirani.Otkako su moguÊnosti kopiranja koje su donijele digitalnetehnologije stavile izazov pred regulaciju intelektualnogvlasniπtva, industrija glazbe, ∫lma i zabave uËinila je svekako bi pooπtrila zakonske mjere zaπtite, uvela tehnoloπkemjere zaπtite i kriminalizirala donedavno legitimno prouËa-vanje i zaobilaæenje takvih tehnoloπkih mjera zaπtite intele-ktualnog vlasniπtva. Znanje steËeno radoznaloπÊu da seprouËavaju tehnoloπki sustavi kontrole postalo je opasnoznanje, a hakeri su pretvoreni u opasne likove koji vladajuznanjima za koje bi dræavni aparat i kompanije htjele da ihdruπtvo æeli provjeriti samo dræavnom aparatu ikompanijama.

Tema ovog rada su sustavi zaπtite od kopiranja i um-naæanja CD-ova i DVD-ova, te trivijalne tehnike kojima ih semoæe zaobiÊi.

Tehnoloπki sustavi zaπtite protiv kopiranja CD/DVD-amehanizmi su koji prijeËe korisnicima da umnaæaju CD-oveili DVD-ove. Ti mehanizmi variraju, a tehnoloπke mjere nakojima poËivaju uËestalo znaju dovesti do problema i sa

44 45

System.hack(6,“zaπtita”,“Anonimni autor ∞ set za zaπtitu CD-a[marker / shift tipka]”)

Hakeri se mogu samo slatkonasmijati ;)

upotrijebiti u analizi i pokuπaju ra-zumijevanja hakerske zajednice ikulture. Kako je hakerskoj kulturizadnji u nizu tik do prvog u suprot-nom smjeru, træiπna logika (ipak)moæe posluæiti kao taj drugi instru-ment kojem Êe se u dijalektici i ne-gaciji prouËavanog ukazati neuhvat-ljivost i kompleksnost.

Da bi sveo hakersku kulturu na ra-zumljivu razinu usporedivosti s dru-gim kulturama koje danas pozna-jemo, Hollywood i ostatak medijskemaπinerije morao je izmisliti ‘hake-ra’ koji u trideset sekundi, za koje jevrijeme dodatno uzbuen felacijom,provaljuje u najËuvanije raËunalnesisteme ili ‘hakera’ koji (u Holly-woodu) popularnim zemaljskim pr-ijenosnim raËunalom i neπto manjepopularnim operativnim sustavomprovaljuje u raËunalni sustav vanze-maljaca. U sluËaju predstavljanjastvarne povijesti hakerske kulturescenarij je ponovno poznat i uspore-div: (zove se) Trijumf Nekolicine. Ne-kolicine træiπno najuspjeπnijih. U al-ternativnijem pristupu NekolicineegzotiËnijih voa (neËega) ili Ne-kolicine osuenih za cyber-kriminal.

Na sliËan naËin na koji træiπnalogika nema kapaciteta prikazatineku zajednicu, kulturu (ili u krajn-

> Druπtvo voli stvarati heroje, baπkao πto voli i naÊi nekoga koga

Êe stigmatizirati i time maknutifokus s traumatskih polja s kojimase ne moæe suoËiti. Hakeri su kaostvoreni za oboje.

Kada provala u tui vojni sistemmoæe posluæiti podizanju nacional-nog ponosa, klinac iz susjedstva (upravilu) s naoËalama brzo dobijesvojih petnaest minuta slave. U me-uvremenu hakera se treba bojati ikao takve (opasne) ih markirati, jerhakeri znaju i u moguÊnosti su kon-trolirati i uËiniti sve ono πto druπtvoinaËe dozvoljava samo obavjeπtaj-nim sluæbama i megakorporacija-ma. Obavjeπtajne sluæbe i megakor-poracije raËunamo uraËunljivim.Mit o hakerima podrazumijeva ge-nije zla i neuraËunljivost.

Takve mitove danaπnja kulturarazvija i odræava dominantnim in-strumentom interpretacije: træiπ-nom logikom. Træiπna logika podra-zumijeva reprezentaciju (brand, lo-go, slogan...), konkurentnost (kom-parativnu prednost, usporedi-vost...), materijalni interes kao pri-marni motiv (pro∫t) i na kraju sve-divost na mjeru (broj).

Træiπna logika zadnji je instru-ment (u nizu) koji bi netko trebao

stvima kako onesposobiti SunnCommovu mjeru zaπtite odkopiranja ∞ jednostavnim dræanjem shift tipke. Ovaj pos-tupak primijenio je na albumu Anthonyja Hamiltona kojegje izdao BMG.

Pod normalnim okolnostima, kad god bi se pokrenuoHamiltonov album na raËunalnom CD ËitaËu, odmah bi sena Windows strojevima podigao anti-piratski softver koji bisprijeËavao kopiranje ili konvertiranje u MP3 format.Meutim, dræanje shift tipke prilikom ubacivanja CD-aspreËava Windowsov sustav samopokretanja aplikacija dauËita softver za zaπtitu od kopiranja i glazbu se moæe kopira-ti.

Po objavljivanju znanstvenog rada SunnComm je podi-gao optuænicu protiv Haldermana, temeljenu na Digital Mil-lenium Copyright Actu ∞ Zakonu o autorskom pravu u digital-nom mileniju ∞ kojim je zabranjeno otkrivanje i obznan-jivanje naËina zaobilaæenja tehnoloπkih mjera zaπtite, odkoje je doduπe uskoro odustao.

Sony je krajem 2005. uveo sustav zaπtite CD-a ExtendedCopy Protection. Sustav je na raËunala korisnika bez upo-zorenja i dopuπtenja instalirao softver koji se lako mogaoiskoristiti i za upad u raËunalo pomoÊu virusa ili crva. Na-kon πto je Mark Russinovich na svom blogu obznanio anali-zu funkcioniranja Sonyevog ilegalnog softvera i upozorio nakrπenje prava privatnosti korisnika primjenom DRM-a,pionirska organizacija za zaπtitu kiber-prava Electronic Fron-tier Foundation pokrenula je kolektivnu tuæbu pred kojom jeSony posustao i ponudio mjere za otklanjanje tog softvera,povukao CD-e sa zaπtitom iz prodaje i nagodio se za odπtetu.

Najpoznatiji sluËaj zaobilaæenja zaπtite protiv kopiran-ja DVD-a raËunalni je program DeCSS kojim je mladinorveπki programer Jon Lech Johansen 1999. omoguÊio dase sadræaj komercijalnih DVD-a, zaπtiÊen Content-Scram-bling Systemom, moæe gledati na slobodnim operativnimsustavima kao πto su BSD ili GNU/Linux, na kojima se dotada DVD-i nisu mogli gledati. Meutim, da bi omoguÊiogledanje DVD-ova, DeCSS je morao zaobiÊi tehnoloπki sus-tav zaπtite Ëije tajne speci∫kacije dakako nisu bile dostupnezajednici za slobodni softver. Ubrzo nakon objavljivanjaDeCSS koda protiv Johansona tuæbu su pokrenuli DVD CopyControl Association i Motion Picture Association of America.Nakon 5 godina sudskih procesa optuæbe su odbaËene.

46 47

tragove utjecaja i fundamenata sva-ke tzv. ‘vrlo nove inovacije’, tj. uka-zivala bi na kolektivnu prirodu ljud-ske kreativnosti. U tom smislu ha-kerska zajednica je najbolji primjerkako ideja kolektivne prirode stva-ranja nimalo ne ugroæava jedin-stvenost i kreativnost svakog poje-dinca (hakera).

Hakerska kultura proizvodi kor-pus dijeljenog znanja koji za rezul-tat ima kreativne i inovativne ha-kere, a njihovi (neupuÊenom Ëestonevidljivi) inventivni hakovi Ëinecjelinu (npr. slobodni operativnisustav) moÊnijim, kreativnijim i in-ventivnim, te svojom otvorenoπÊuspremnijim za novu iteraciju inova-tivnih hakiranja.

Hakerska kultura je za razliku odkorporativne kulture (prvenstveno)ekosustav znanja, a ne ekonomskisustav roba. Zbog hibridne prirodeslobodnog softvera kao informaci-jske infrastrukture razvijeni su iposlovni modeli koji slobodni soft-ver tretiraju kao robu, no primarni(suradniËki) model produkcije osta-je u domeni proizvodnje i razmjeneznanja. Hakerska kultura, kakoegzistira u kompleksnom polju raz-voja i razmjene znanja, ne poznajemehanizme træiπta koji se grade naosnovu evidentiranja, proizvodnje iodræavanja oskudice.

Preduvjet distribucije i proizvod-nje znanja je suradnja, visoka pro-pusnost kolanja u svim smjerovima,te nesmetani, nediskriminatornipristup resursima znanja. Bolju po-jedinaËnu poziciju u hakerskoj kul-turi tako dobiva onaj koji proizvodi,

surauje i dijeli znanja (nova i stara)s ostalima u zajednici.

Prvi korak u hakerskoj proizvod-nji je proizvodnja problema. Konk-retno elegantno rjeπenje kompleks-nog problema tek je drugi korak (zakoji Ëak nije nuæno ni da se desi).Kompleksnim problemima uvijekse suprotstavlja apstrakcija (metafo-ra). Kompleksne apstrakcije traæerekurzivni pristup apstrahiranju i totako da se njima suprotstavljajunove (meta)apstrakcije.

Bilo koji zanimljiv kompleksnisustav koji se iz bilo kojeg razlogaopire apstrahiranju hakerska zajed-nica vrlo brzo Êe shakirati i podvrg-nuti daljnjem apstrahiranju, stvar-anju i dijeljenju znanja.

Takav tip permanentne reΩeksijepromiπljanog stvara kulturu koja seopire bilo kakvoj reprezentaciji, jer uËasu kad se reprezentacija pojavlju-je ona postaje samo novi okidaË (kaoi fokus) rekurzivne reΩeksije. Svestireprezentaciju hakerske kulture nareprezentativna imena je najveÊi mo-guÊi promaπaj iz perspektive haker-ske kulture. Dosadaπnji pokuπaji rep-rezentacije povijesti hakerske kul-ture u πirem kulturnom kontekstugotovo u pravilu su povijest proma-πaja tih istih pokuπaja.

Bilo πto u digitalnoj formi ili samopar koraka od digitalizacije u dome-ni je igre i apstrahiranja hakerskezajednice. Domenu digitalnog nitkone poznaje bolje od hakerske zajed-nice. Informacije i ideje ne mogubiti komodi∫cirane i u privatnomvlasniπtvu. Mogu biti skrivene, Ëu-vane i πifrirane, no ni taj pristup ne

jem sluËaju proizvod) bez branda,manekena i logoa, ona je podkapac-itirana i za evaluaciju i analizu kri-terija uspjeha iste te zajednice/kul-ture. Jedan od Ëestih kriterija vred-novanja hakerske zajednice je i koli-Ëina inovacija koju ona proizvodi.Taj kriterij naravno podrazumijevausporeivanje s nehakerskom, kor-porativnom kulturom.01

De∫nicija inovacije u svakoj Êe sediskusiji vrlo brzo pokazati kao di-rektna derivacija træiπne logike, te Êena kraju biti svediva na nekoliko po-jmova i brojeva: patentibilnost, brojpatenata, breakthrough...02 Jedin-stvenost i maksimalno razlikovanjeod svega u svojoj okolini preduvjet jeprepoznatljivosti i uspjeha na træiπtu.

Hakerska kultura, meutim, punoje bliæe harmoniËnom (ali i izuzetnodinamiËnom) ekosustavu u kojemsvaki novi organizam ima tenden-ciju naÊi svoju poziciju suradnje sokolinom, a jedinstvena funkcional-nost i novost koju organizam dono-si ekosustavu neodvojiva je od nje-govog kapaciteta suradnje. »ak i usluËaju gotovo oËite superiornosti iinovacije, ako rjeπenje/novi organi-zam traæi radikalnu prekon∫gu-raciju i repozicioniranje cijelog eko-sustava teπko da Êe takvo rjeπenjenaiÊi na odobravanje, prihvaÊanje i

prilagodbu sustava toj radikalnojinovaciji.03

Kriterij inovacije omeen i proiz-veden interpretativnim alatom træiπ-ne logike, a koji prije svega zavrπavau patentnoj potvrdi, gotovo je nep-rimjenjiv kao kriterij vrednovanjaproizvodnje unutar hakerske kul-ture. Uvjetovana træiπnom logikominovacija traæi jedan vrlo speci∫Ëantip formatiranja proizvoda ne bi li seproizvod (na træiπtu) prepoznao kaoinovativan. Hakerska zajednicapuno viπe proizvodi svima dostupnebiblioteke (eng. library) nego kon-aËne proizvode za krajnje korisnike,kako u tehniËkom tako i u metafor-iËkom smislu.

Mjera inovacija i inventivnosti ha-kerske kulture i/ili rezultata surad-niËkih modela proizvodnje (poputGNU/Linuxa, *BSD-a i drugih) mor-ala bi za poËetak biti promiπljenanovim interpretativnim alatima ukojima bi se træiπna logika vjerojat-no puno viπe vezala uz ekonomijupaænje, ali bi i kao takva Ëinila tekrubni i mali dio kompleksnog sagle-davanja inovacija i inventivnosti.Kada bi se maknuli od pritiska træiπ-ne logike i potrebe za stvaranjem je-dinstvenih pop zvijezdi u svakompolju ljudske kreativne produkcije,mjere inovacije sadræavale bi i jasne

01 U dijelovima teksta o inovaciji i proizvodnji unutar hakerske kulture, uglavnom Êu poistovjetitihakersku kulturu sa kulturom FLOSS (Free/Libre Open Source Software) pokreta, kao pokretakoji, po mom miπljenju, najbolje predstavlja hakersku kulturu u cjelini. To naravno ne znaËi daje hakerska kultura svediva na Pokret slobodnog softvera, a posebno ne vrijedi suprotno.

02 U Teslinom muzeju u Beogradu kao kljuËni izraz Tesline veliËine vodiËi Êe uvijek naglasiti brojpatenata, a rijeË inovacija (gotovo) uopÊe neÊe spomenuti.

03 Najbolji primjer takve novine je trnoviti put prihvaÊanja Reiser4 datoteËnog sustava u Linuxjezgru (eng. kernel).

48

moæe za njih (ideje i informacije)osigurati vjeËni veo tame.

Upravo ovaj moment pobjede ha-kerskog duha nad interesima (dræav-ne) kontrole i (korporativnog) pro∫tapokreÊe stvaranje mita o opasnimhakerima koji su u stanju razruπitisvijet (koji poznajemo). Udruæeni,dræava i kapital, napraviti Êe sve πtoje u njihovoj moÊi ne bi li proizveli πtoviπe straha, neizvjesnosti i sumnje04

oko ruπenja svijeta koji poznajemo.Daljnje odræavanje status quo-a, naveliku æalost korporacija, ne moguosigurati restrikcije ‘inventivnih’DRM (Digital Rights (sic!) Manage-ment) patenata, pa je dræava uskoËi-la u pomoÊ zakonskim regulativamapoput DMCA i/ili protuteroristiËkimzakonima.

Dræava je ugroæena najπirom raz-mjenom kompleksnih znanja o (ko-munikacijskim) tehnologijama ek-skluzivni pristup kojima joj je u pro-πlosti osiguravao neupitno i stabilnomjesto nadgledanja, kontrole i moÊi.Korporacije su ugroæene nedostat-kom inventivnosti u pronalaæenjunovih poslovnih modela, a koji se nezasnivaju na eksploataciji pozicijekreativnih proizvoaËa i nemoguÊ-nosti krajnjih korisnika da meu-sobno podijele proizvode zabave iinteresa. Stari poslovni modeli, izgra-eni na nekoÊ inventivnoj tehnolog-iji, desetljeÊima su, u suradnji s dræa-vom, blokirali prodor novih inven-

tivnih tehnologija. Danaπnjih danasve viπu siju strah i paniku.

Nesnalaæenje giganata kreativneindustrije (zabave) u novonastalojkonstelaciji tehnologije i (hakerske)kulture primat inventivne pro∫ta-bilne industrije danas prepuπtaspam i porno industriji. Hakeri se nato mogu samo slatko nasmijati ;)

Apsolutna mobilnost digitalnihinformacija, s tendencijom padatroπkova svake nove kopije premanuli, ima nesagledive prednosti zacjelokupnu ljudsku kulturu. Tihprednosti su danas svjesni svi (bar-em 90% korisnika raËunala) koji suikad uz par klikova miπem imalipristup ogromnoj koliËini digital-iziranih dostignuÊa ljudske intele-ktualne produkcije.

Dræava i træiπna logika globalnoharmoniziranom restriktivnom za-konskom regulativom nerazumi-jevanja (ne viπe tako novog) digital-nog svijeta πizofreno stavlja u pozic-iju kriminalaca sve one koji su seuvjerili u nesagledivost prednostihakerske kulture. SreÊom da protivnjenih inovativnih patentnih Goli-jata postoje hakovi zajednice anon-imnih, Hollywoodu neatraktivnihheroja, koji posezanjem za vodoot-pornim Ωomasterom ili shift tipkomtu cijelu farsu Ëine ridikuloznom izabavnom.

> Marcell Mars <

04 Poznata agresivna marketinπka strategija IBM-a iz 70-ih u kojoj je fokus poruke javnosti naproizvodnji straha, neizvjesnosti i sumnje (kratica FUD) o konkurentnom proizvodu (umjestopokuπaja da se svoj vlastiti proizvod prikaæe boljim od drugih). Takoer marketinπka strategijakoju je Microsoft intenzivno primijenjivao krajem 90-ih i poËetkom 00-ih u borbi protiv FLOSS-a (Free/Libre Open Source Software).

> The ability to confuse audiences en masse may have∫rst become obvious as a result of one of the most infa-

mous mistakes in history. It happened on the eve of Hallo-ween, on Oct. 30, 1938, when millions of Americans tunedin to a popular radio program Mercury Theatre on the Airthat featured radio plays directed by, and often starring,Orson Welles. The performance that evening was an adapta-tion of the science ∫ction novel, H. G. Wells’s The War of theWorlds, about a Martian invasion of the earth. But in adapt-ing the book for a radio play, Welles made an important in-novation: under his direction the play was written and per-formed so it would sound like a live newscast reporting an in-vasion from Mars, a technique that, presumably, was intend-ed to heighten the dramatic effect. Approximately one-half ofthe 50-minute play was a contemporary retelling of the eventsof the novel, presented in documentary style. This approachto radio drama had never been attempted before (at least not

System.hack(1,“broadcasting”,“OrsonWelles ∞ War of theWorlds”)*

* This article is licensed underthe GNU Free DocumentationLicense. It is based on theWikipedia article “The War ofthe Worlds (radio)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio)/.

with as much continued verisimilitude), and theinnovative format has been cited as a key factorin the confusion that would ensue.

The program, broadcast from the 20th Ωoorat 485 Madison Avenue, New York, started with ashort introduction to the intentions of the

50 51

could see the Ωashes of the ∫ghting in the distance. Laterstudies suggested this “panic” was far less widespread thannewspaper accounts suggested. However, it remains clearthat many people were caught up ∞ to one degree or another∞ in the confusion that followed.

In the aftermath of the reported ‘panic’, a public outcryarose, but CBS informed of∫cials that listeners were re-minded throughout the broadcast that it was only a per-formance. Welles and the Mercury Theatre escaped punish-ment, but not censure, and CBS had to promise never againto use the ‘we interrupt this program’ prompt for dramaticpurposes.

A study by the Radio Project discovered that most of thepeople who panicked assumed Germans ∞ not Martians ∞had invaded. Other studies have suggested that the extent ofthe panic was exaggerated by contemporary media.

It has been suggested in recent years that the War of theWorlds broadcast was actually a psychological warfare ex-periment. In the 1999 documentary, Masters of the Universe:The Secret Birth of the Federal Reserve, writer Daniel Hop-sicker claims that the Rockefeller Foundation actually fund-ed the broadcast, studied the ensuing panic, and compileda report that was only available to a chosen few.

The biography of Orson Welles reveals amusing per-formances he put on in his television show Orson’s Bag. Hewould transform himself into Winston Churchill, or wouldmimic the characters from Moby Dick, hosting the Muppets,Burt Reynolds, Angie Dickinson. Welles’s never ∫lmed, nev-er ∫nished, never shown ∫lm projects spawn throughout hiscareer. The Citizen Kane is a ∫lm apart ∞ signi∫cant not onlyin the context of cinema, but also in the context of culturalhistory. The signi∫cance of Welles and of all that is associat-ed with him cannot, whatever one might think, be imaginedwithout a tone of grandeur, of epic character of it all. Thisgiant ∫gure with the cartoon voice capable of subtle inter-pretation has delivered many memorable ∫lm performanc-es. Spirited, prone to musing and utopian plans, he con-ceived the radio drama The War of the Worlds, which to daypresent is subject to research and theoretical analyses ∞ this∫rst and arguably greatest media hoax ever.

aliens, and noted that the adaptation was set in 1939. Theprogram continued as an apparently ordinary music show,only occasionally interrupted by news Ωashes. Initially, thenews was of strange explosions sighted on Mars. The news re-ports grew more frequent and increasingly ominous after a“meteorite” ∞ later revealed as a Martian rocket capsule ∞lands in New Jersey. A crowd gathers at the landing site, andthe events are related by reporter Carl Philips up until theMartians incinerate curious onlookers with their heat rays.Later surveys indicate that many listeners heard only this por-tion of the show before contacting neighbors or family to in-quire about the broadcast. Many of these people contactedothers, in turn; leading to rumours and later confusion.

Martian ships land, and then proceed to wreak havocthroughout the United States, destroying bridges and rail-roads, and spraying a poison gas into the air. An unnamedSecretary of the Interior advises the nation on the growingconΩict. (The Secretary was originally intended to be a por-trayal of then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but CBSinsisted this detail, among others, be changed. The “Secre-tary” did, however, end up sounding very much like Roo-sevelt as the result of directions given to actor Kenny Del-mar by Welles. Military forces attack the Martians, but areunable to ∫ght them off.

After the live reporting of the events, the story breaksand continues as a narration of the survivor scientist record-ing in his diary the aftermath of the devastation and theconclusion of the story (whish ends in the same way as thenovel), with the Martians falling victim to earthly germs andbacteria. Following the conclusion of the play, Wellesbreaks character to remind listeners that the play was only aHalloween concoction, the equivalent of dressing up in asheet and saying “Boo” like a ghost; reportedly, this “dis-claimer” was added to the broadcast at the insistence ofCBS executives as they became aware of the panic inspiredby the program.

Many people missed or ignored the opening credits ofthe program, and in the atmosphere of growing tension andanxiety in the days leading up to World War II, took it to bean actual news broadcast. Contemporary newspapers re-ported on the panic that ensued, with people Ωeeing thearea, and others thinking they could smell the poison gas or

52 53

of their time and age as much as theimmediate actors, and the receptionwill attain a particular form of par-ticipation ∞ affective mobilization.

Third, the synchronous act recep-tion between remote listeners,which could not have been the casebetween remote readers. The radiowas after all a medium of ephemer-al passing of the message, and notits ∫xation as the newspaper was.

Fourth, the telesthetic contrac-tion and homogenization of spaceinto a unitary space of events. Syn-chronous reception and telesthetichomogenization of space will createa uni∫ed space and time of eventsfor the big political community ∞nation.

Fifth, the domination of voice asthe authentic statement and guar-antee of the speaker’s actual pres-ence in his physical absence. Thispotential of the voice in the radioage will create, for instance, a wholenew genre of political speech ∞ ad-dress to the nation, where the ad-dress by a political authority servesthe immediate affective mobiliza-tion of the general political commu-nity as a unitary subject.

Sixth, the intrusion of publicspeech into the listeners’ privatespace, family space of gatheringaround the radio receiver, will cre-ate a new kind of interlock betweenthe public and private sphere, there-

by initiating a completely new for-mation of legitimating the publicthrough the private. The transfor-mation of the social form of recep-tion* worked in turn to also trans-form the demographic structure oflegitimation, including into thecommon space and time of unitarypolitical event those parts of thepopulation who were previously ex-cluded ∞ illiterate, minors, women,elderly, etc. ∞ all those who werehuddling around the family’s radioreceiver ∞ creating thereby a wideconcept of public opinion we areused to today when speaking aboutpolls among public on the results ofwhich the governance of today is sodependent.

The increasing legitimationalimportance of public opinion,which began to include the prefer-ences of those who weren’t previ-ously asked for their political opin-ion, was additionally favored by, sev-enth, a transformation of the socialstructure of reception. The radio agewould become marked by the incip-ient formation of the middle classon its way of becoming a dominantclass of consumerist welfare socie-ties. Indeed, the radio itself beganits career as a consumer product ∞after all, the ∫rst radio programswere mostly non-commercial, whe-re the broadcast program primarilyserved as a tool for department

* Although the social form of reception is an aspect often ignored in media theory, since Ben-jamin it is the shift in the social form occurring in a transition between two media that is a gen-uine auratic moment where political masses emerge ∞ mass mediaura as Sam Weber has calledit. Accordingly, the collective experience of watching a ∫lm in a cinema theater is aestheticallyjust as signi∫cant as the experience of shock introduced by cinematographic editing.

a uni∫ed sense of remote events asevents taking place in their com-mon time and space ∞ indeed, it wasonly with this ∫rst mass mediumthat a common space and time ofmodern polity came about in the∫rst place. However, because of therelatively asynchronous way of re-ception of newspaper reporting andsocial limitations to literacy, a po-tential for a complete integration ofpublic sphere would not comeabout before the onset of radiobroadcasting.

Radio broadcasting will thus in-augurate a new political ontologybased on a number of qualities in-troduced by the new medium:

First, the real-time transmission ∞i.e. the coincidence of emitting andcollective reception of a message.With this potential for immediatereception of the undelayed reportingon recent events ∞ i.e. news reporting∞ will become a politically formativecharacteristic of the radio age.

Second, the liveness of events intheir transposition by media. Underthe condition of transmission inreal-time, the liveness will allow lis-teners to participate in the eventsregardless of their physical absence.They will become part of the events

System.hack(1,“broadcasting”,“Orson Welles ∞ War of the Worlds”)

The Rise and Fall of MediatizedReality in the Age of Radio

> We know now that in the earlyyears of the twentieth century a

mass medium different from allprecedent was conquering the world.Radio. The medium that ushered inthe age of broadcasting media, themedium of voice, will however re-main not only different from theprecedent medium of writing, butalso from the antecedent medium ofimage. And the age of the medium ofvoice will remain not only differentfrom the age of the medium of thewritten word, but also from the ageof the medium of the image.

In those early decades of the twen-tieth century a socio-political organ-ization of modern societies startedto form, based on a unitary politicalpublic sphere integrated throughmedia of synchronous receptionand the rise of the middle class asforerunner of the consumer societyof the latter part of the century. Andit is in this process of formation ofthe public through mediatized real-ity and consumer society that theradio will play a crucial role.

It is true that the modern politi-cal public sphere already begins toconstitute in the written word cul-ture of the early bourgeoisie. Thenewspapers create a public that has

54

> John T. Draper’s life is a frenzied one, with situationstaken straight from a novel full of kafkian atmosphere.

He’s more known as Captain Crunch, after a whistle fromthe cereal box. A blind friend named Joe Engressia in-formed him that a toy whistle that was, at the time, pack-aged in boxes of Cap’n Crunch cereal, could be easilymodi∫ed to emit a tone at precisely 2600 hertz ∞ the samefrequency that was used by AT&T long lines to indicate thata trunk line was ready and available to route a new call. Thiswould effectively disconnect one end of the trunk, allowingthe still connected side to enter an operator mode. Experi-menting with this whistle inspired Draper to build blue box-es: electronic devices capable of reproducing other tonesused by the phone company.

Draper was arrested three time on various wire fraudcharges. Convicted on toll fraud charges in 1972, he wassentenced to ∫ve years’ probation. In the mid 1970s he

System.hack(2,“telecom”,“Captain Crunch ∞ whistle”)*

* This article is licensed underthe GNU Free Documenta-tion License. It is based onthe Wikipedia article JohnDraper, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Draper.

taught his phone phreaking skills to Steve Jobsand Steve Wozniak, who later founded AppleComputer. He was brieΩy employed at Apple,where he created a telephone interface boardfor the Apple II personal computer. The boardwas never marketed, however, partially due to

stores to persuade buyers into pur-chasing radio receivers or as a toolfor large newspaper publishinghouses to attract readers.

Almost three decades after the∫rst radio program in 1909, on Oc-tober 30, 1938, on the “eve” of WorldWar II, the CBS and Mercury Theat-er on the Air aired as their Halloweenspecial Orson Welles’s radio adap-tation of H. G. Wells’s The War of theWorlds. As is well known, Welles’sfake live reporting of the Martianinvasion of the planet Earth scaredmasses of frightened listeners, whotuned in late only to confuse the ∫c-tion for reality, into Ωeeing theirhomes before the onslaught of Mar-ian troops.

In this most famous of all mediahoaxes, Welles made use of a shiftthat has come to pass between me-dia and their referential reality inthe radio age, which remainedmostly unnoticed until then. He hadmanaged to connect the potentialfor simulating factuality of ∫ctionalevents by means of skillful editingof live transmission, interruptingnews Ωashes, live reporting, ad-dresses to the public, with the powerof affective mobilization offered bythe suggestive medium of soundand voice. He had managed to con-nect a real threat of the coming warwith the fear before the alien as rep-resented by the extraterrestrial inva-sion. For instance, the Secretary of

Internal Affairs appearing in the ra-dio dramatization was intentional-ly made to sound like the US presi-dent at the time Franklin DelanoRoosevelt, while many listeners pan-icked only after confusing the word“Germans” for the word “Martians”.

What The War of the Worlds madeapparent was that the broadcastingmedia had made the contemporarypolitical event a Ωuid category: affec-tively colored world of the politics offear. The transmission in real-timetransformed into a general politicalcommunity in real-time, a space ofglobal mobilization of nations.

The realization that all politicalreality is a mediatized reality thathas become general knowledgethrough this hoax, brings, however,a very uncertain gain, as it is wro-ught by an internal paradox. That is,although we are aware that the me-diatization, mediatic mediation,makes this reality hackable, we overand over fail to recognize the simu-lation. The reason is: the more amedium becomes true to reality, thereality itself becomes less true. Andthis insight into the increasinglytrustworthy simulation of increas-ingly untrustworthy reality, empha-sized also in Orson Welles’s con-cluding words: “we have annihilat-ed the world before your ears”, afterits emergence in the age of radio,will become total come the age oftelevised image.

> Tomislav Medak <

56 57

As the story of his experiments spread and got intonewspapers, it also reached the authorities, leading to theinvestigation that exposed his accomplices and to Draper’sprosecution. The experiments with the whistle and blue boxlead to huge material expenses of sustaining the unbilledphone calls, the redesign of the line protocols and the accel-erated equipment replacement. Though they could no long-er serve practical use, the Cap’n Crunch whistles did beco-me valued collector’s items.

Draper’s arrest and conviction for wire fraud in 1977. Heserved his four-month sentence at the Federal CorrectionalInstitution, Lompoc, California, where he wrote EasyWriter,the ∫rst word processor for the Apple II.

“While serving time in minimum security prison I heldPhone hacker classes, and taught everyone who was interest-ed how to do anything they wanted with a phone. It was madeclear to me what would happen if I refused to provide this tu-toring service. Another thing that was made especially clearto me was to avoid being a “Snitch”. So, to survive the system,I was forced to offer classes on certain technology.”

The class of vulnerabities Draper and others discoveredwas limited to call routing switches that employed in-bandsignaling, whereas newer equipment relies almost exclu-sively on out-of-band signaling, the use of separate circuitsto transmit voice and signals. The Captain Crunch cerealwhistle could blow 2600Hz note and seize a phone line. Theblue box then took over with it’s dual frequency combina-tions known as ‘multfrequency’ or MF, similar to touch tonefrequencies. Some phone systems worked on SF, or SingleFrequency.

The 2600 Hz Captain Crunch whistle could make theentire call. One long whistle to seize the line, a short one fora “1”, two short ones for a “2”, etc. The blind phone phreak,Joe Engressia, could dial an entire call just by whistling itout of his own mouth.

“Once I discovered the new frontiers that blue boxes af-forded me, I was able to explore a whole new relm of num-bers. These numbers were inter-city dial codes that opera-tors from one city would use to reach operators in another.These were called routing codes, which are no longer used,but during the times I was experimenting, I was able to ∫ndout all sorts of internal numbers.”

Draper picked up a public phone, then proceeded to“phreak” his call around the world. At no charge, he routeda call through different phone “servers” in countries suchas Japan, Russia and England. Once he had set the call to gothrough tens of countries, he dialed the number of the pub-lic phone next to him. A few minutes later, the phone nextto him rang. Draper spoke into the ∫rst phone, and, afterquite a few seconds, he heard his own voice very faintly onthe other phone.

58 59

a conversation placed on mute. In-stead, AT&T chose to place a steadytone of the E above Middle C ∞2600Hz ∞ on all unused and availa-ble lines to signal to the rest of thesystem that the line was free. Youcan think of it like a dial tone thatonly exists when every phone ishung up. It’s not something that ahuman being should ever hear andit’s certainly not something that anyhuman being was ever supposed tomake.

At ∫rst, the use of 2600Hz was theproprietary knowledge of AT&T en-gineers. With time, with publica-tions, and with a number of happyaccidents, many people learned theabout the 2600Hz tone. Hackers ∞ ormore precisely, the ‘grandfathers’ ofmodern hackers known as “phreak-ers” (a combination of the termsfreak, phone, and hacker) ∞ discov-ered 2600Hz. It’s not clear who inthe phreaker community “discov-ered” the possibilities of using2600Hz to explore the system buthacker lore places the credit with JoeEngressia.

Engressia was born blind, wasblessed with perfect pitch, and spentmuch of his adolescence and youngadulthood on the telephone. Some-times, he whistled while he listenedto or made phone recordings. Leg-end says that at eight years old, En-gressia found out that by whistling2600Hz, he would be ‘disconnected’from phone lines (in fact, they wouldjust go silent). With time, and withexploration of the phone system, hediscovered out exactly why.

If the caller on the Bell/AT&T net-work placed a long distance tele-phone call to, for example, a toll-free, long distance, 1-800 number ∞or anything over ∫fty miles away ∞the phone call would be routed overa long distance line or “trunk.” Byplaying the 2600Hz tone, the trunkwould become convinced that thecaller has hung up and that it shouldwait for someone else to take it over.The trunk would quickly go off-hookand then back on-hook in what isknown as a “supervision Ωash.” Itwould make a short clicking noisefollowing by silence. This click andsilence was the sound of one end ofthe trunk signalling to the other end∞ presumably another part of thephone system ∞ that it is waiting forrouting digits. By following up withanother tone known as a “key pulse”and then with a set of digits (eithera phone number or an internalphone company code) the callerwho had played the 2600Hz tonecould then make long-distance orinternal phone company phonecalls from the trunk line. They couldcall for free.

By the mid-sixties, Engressia haddiscovered all of this and muchmore. In this way, Engressia happilyspent years whistling his way to bothfree phone calls and to a deep under-standing of the ins and outs of the USand early global phone systems ∞ toa degree that surpassed even mostBell Engineers. And by no means wasEngressia alone. Of course, manyhackers without perfect pitch had toresort to more technical means to

System.hack(2,“telecom”,“Captain Crunch ∞ whistle”)

Breakfast Cereal andIn-Band Signaling

dle C ∞ in scienti∫c terminology, thesound created by vibrations of air ina sine wave with a frequency of2600Hz. To understand why a whis-tle that makes this tone is sosigni∫cant to hackers requires botha little more technical explanationand a little more history.

In the middle of the twentiethcentury, the US phone systemworked with what is called “in-bandsignaling.” Basically, this meansthat information about the phoneconnection itself is transmitted asaudio data over the phone line. Inother words, AT&T phone hardwareused signals audible to humans (i.e.,noises or tones) to signal all of therouting and connection data usedby the system to communicate thestatus of a given call or line and tocoordinate actions accordingly.Phone numbers when you typethem today continue to make differ-ent audible beeps ∞ this is what al-lows you to play songs by pressingnumbers on the phone. But in addi-tion to just dialing numbers, AT&Tneeded a way to recognize if a linewas in use. No signal at all may seemlike an ideal way to represent anempty line but it might merely indi-cate a pause in a voice connection or

> For the last ∫fty years, breakfastcereal companies have includ-

ed little prizes, called “premiums”at the bottom of their boxes of toast-ed and sugared corn and oats. The“prize,” as it is frequently referred toby children, is most often a smallplastic toy emblazoned with thename or logo of the cereal compa-ny. These premiums are universallycheap and Ωimsy. For a child, ∫nd-ing the toy in his or her bowl, and∫nding out what it is this time, isalmost always more exciting thanactually playing with it.

Perhaps the most famous premi-um in the history of cereal ∞ certain-ly the most famous premium inhacker communities ∞ is an other-wise unnotable whistle found at thebottom of boxes of Cap’n Crunchcereal in in the 1960s. To most non-hackers, the whistle was just an or-dinary plastic whistle ∞ the vast ma-jority were put aside and tossedaway when children grew tired ofthem. Like all whistles, one blowsinto it and it makes a high-pitchednoise. Like many other whistles, ifone covers one of the output holes,the tone of the whistle raises inpitch. The tone, with one of theholes covered, was the E above Mid-

60

> Richard Stallman, the founder of the free softwaremovement, spent a number of years working at the MIT

Arti∫cial Intelligence Laboratory. Following the develop-ment of computer programing and seeing the shortcom-ings and ethical dilemmas that came with the rise of propri-etary software, he set out to create an alternative system toavoid them ∞ free software. In January 1984 he left his job atMIT and began working on a free operating system. Thework on GNU Emacs began in September 1984, and alreadyat the beginning of 1985, the system was already usabe. By1990, the GNU operating system was practically complete;its only missing component was the kernel. Initially, theGNU HURD kernel was to be used, based on the Mach mi-cro-kernel. As the development of the GNU HURD was be-hind schedule, the GNU operating system developmentstalled until another available kernel appeared. In 1991, Li-nus Torvalds developed the Unix compatible kernel andnamed it Linux. The combination of Linux with the GNUsystem resulted in an integral free operating system. Due toLinux today we can use the GNU operating system, calledthe GNU/Linux.

The GNU free software is comprised of programs pub-lished under conditions that allow anyone to study, modify

System.hack(3,“copyrightlaw”,“Richard Stallman ∞GNU GPL”)

create 2600Hz tones. It was with thisfact in mind that Engressia called hisfriend John Draper to tell him aboutthe interesting property of the whis-tle he had found in a box of Cap’nCrunch cereal.

Not only did Draper use the whis-tle to make free phone calls, he usedit as his hacker namesake and, tothis day, is more widely known in thehacking and phreaking communi-ties as “Captain Crunch”. Over timeDraper made phreaking easier andthe technology more accessible bybuilding the 2600Hz tone, and oth-er useful tones for those interestedin exploring the phone company’snetwork or in making free long dis-tance phone calls, into pieces of spe-cialized hardware known as “blueboxes” ∞ named so because the ∫rstsuch box con∫scated by Bell Sys-tems security was found in a blueplastic case and not because all, oreven most, were blue.

Captain Crunch was arrested onphone-related fraud charges in 1972and sentenced to ∫ve years proba-tion. At some point in the mid-1970s, he taught Apple Computerfounders Steve Jobs and Steve Woz-niak to make and sell their own blueboxes. He ran into trouble with thelaw again in 1977 for wire-fraud andserved four months in jail. Upon re-lease, he continued life as a softwareprogrammer writing the ∫rst wordprocessor for the Apple II. By theearly eighties, the technology that

ran the phone system was in an ex-pensive and extensive state of Ωux,in part to block the techniques cre-ated and propagated by CaptainCrunch. More importantly to Drap-er though, personal computer tech-nology had begun to open the doorto a whole new world ∞ the world ofcomputers, software, and networks∞ the world where phreakers wouldquickly become hackers.

Today, phone switching in allWestern Nations and in most of therest of the world has become digitaland uses out-of-band signalling. Thecaptain crunch whistle and blue box-es have not ‘worked’ for decades. Inan interesting turn of events over thelast several years, Voice over IP (VoIP)technologies, combined with in-creasingly widespread broadbandInternet connections, have allowedhackers to return to their roots bystriving for and achieving the origi-nal phreaker goal of free phone calls.

New York-based 2600 Magazinebills itself as “The Hacker Quarter-ly.” It remains one of the longestrunning institutions of hackers whoare willing to challenge security sys-tems and to explore. Local 2600meetings around the globe providean important venue for hackers,young and old, to share expertise, tolearn, and to socialize. The name, ofcourse, is a now often-forgotten ref-erence to the famous frequency andto one of the most famous hacks ofall time.

> Benjamin Mako Hill <

62 63

In the GNU project, we use “copyleft’’ to protect thesefreedoms legally for everyone. But non-copylefted free soft-ware also exists. It is precisely this feature that has allowedthe free software to harness the creative power of thousandsof developers world wide, allowing them to jointly work onthe development of free software without having to fear thattheir effort will be appropriated or used as a base for newdevelopment without that progress feeding back into thefurther development of free software.

Richard Matthew Stallman is the founder of the freesoftware movement, the GNU Project, and the Free SoftwareFoundation. His major accomplishments include Emacs(and the later GNU Emacs), the GNU C Compiler, and theGNU Debugger. He is also the author of the GNU GeneralPublic License (GNU GPL or GPL), the most widely-used freesoftware license, which pioneered the concept of the copy-left. Since the mid-1990s, Stallman has spent most of histime as a political campaigner, advocating free software andcampaigning against software idea patents and expansionsof copyright law.

and share it with their friends. The advantage of GNU soft-ware is its ethical component, enabling the users to collabo-rate while respecting their freedom. To achieve this in anenvironment where software is protected under copyrightand at a time when that copyright were beginning to be en-forced in order to transform the software into a privateproperty and a computer market commodity, it was neces-sary to ∫nd a way to use the legal framework of copyright toprevent GNU becoming private property. The method Rich-ard Stallman resorted to came to be known as copyleft. Theessence of copyright law is in it power to exclude. The copy-right owner has the legal power to forbid others to copy, dis-tribute and modify the work. Copyleft is based on copyright,but working in opposing direction: instead of privatizingsoftware, it enables it to preserve its freedoms. The mainidea behind copyleft is allowing each user the right to freelyuse, copy, modify and distribute altered versions of the soft-ware, as long as she doesn’t restrict in any way the freedomsof other users, but enables them to share it, in original ormodi∫ed form, under the same conditions. For GNU soft-ware, the means of transforming the copyright, a tool of pri-vatization, into a tool of sharing ∞ copyleft ∞ is the GNU Gen-eral Public License, or GNU GPL.

As The Free Software De∫nition states (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html): “‘Free software’ is a mat-ter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, youshould think of ‘free’ as in ‘free speech,’ not as in ‘free beer.’

Free software is a matter of the users’ freedom to run,copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the us-ers of the software:— The freedom to run the program, for any purpose

(freedom ø).— The freedom to study how the program works, and

adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the sourcecode is a precondition for this.

— The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help yourneighbor (freedom 2).

— The freedom to improve the program, and release yourimprovements to the public, so that the whole commu-nity bene∫ts (freedom 3). Access to the source code is aprecondition for this.”

64 65

over the product of their labor. Aspublishers accumulate wealth in theform of exploitable copyrights, thelegitimation of copyright shifts fromthe common interest of a commu-nity of readers to a ‘balance’ of in-terests between writers and readers.Or rather, between readers and pub-lishers. Where copyright licensedtemporary monopolies in the inter-ests of the common good, theemerging regime of ‘intellectualproperty’ rights protects the inter-ests of publishers as an interest inand of itself. Perhaps indeed as anew kind of class interest ∞ of what Ihave elsewhere called a ‘vectoralistclass’, a class which uses intellectu-al property law as a means of con-trolling the production processthrough the ownership of informa-tion as private property.

The consolidation of the intellec-tual property as something close toan absolute private property right isthe sign that a new class interest isforming. Intellectual property is nota continuity but a break with the oldlegal forms. What had to be justi∫edunder copyright was the arti∫cialmonopoly; what has to be justi∫edunder intellectual property is thecommon interest. What, in any case,is being ‘balanced’? The reader’sfreedom to do whatever she or hewants with information, or the read-er’s interest in the production ofmore of it? Under the intellectualproperty regime, only the latter is a‘right’, not the former. The reader’sright is the right to purchase intel-lectual property.

Even if we accept the questiona-ble assumption that intellectualproperty maximizes production,what it maximizes is the productionof unfreedom. Having lost the rightto plagiarize and co-opt and modifyworks as their please, readers ∫ndtheir only right is to purchase worksfrom publishers. Publishers ∞ thevectoral class ∞ then claims that an-ything that takes away its sales is ‘pi-racy’. As the punk princess herself,Courtney Love once said, it is therecord companies that are the pi-rates ∞ authors ∫nd themselves nobetter off than readers (or listenersor viewers). They confront a vectoral-ist class that now claims its rightsare paramount. The public good isto be measured by the margins ofthe vectoralist industries and bynothing else.

Having secured its interests thusfar, the vectoralist class then arguesfor complete enclosure within prop-erty of every aspect of information.They want to encrypt informationhowever they want and have thestate impose criminal sanctions foranyone else who breaches this nowabsolute private property right. Pat-ents, as Stallman points out, func-tion very differently to copyrights,and yet the end result is the same ∞the securing of information as prop-erty that has equivalent value on theabstract terrain of commodi∫ca-tion.

Unlike copyrights, patents are notautomatic but have to be appliedfor, producing a time consuminglottery for hackers who sometimes

System.hack(3,“copyright law”,“Richard Stallman ∞ GNU GPL”)

Richard Stallman ∞ HackingProperty

tion in unethical. If he likes some-thing, he wants to share it. Free soft-ware is based in the social advantageof cooperation and the ethical ad-vantage of respecting the user’s free-dom. It is explicitly a step towards apost-scarcity world. He sees freesoftware as a practical idealism thatspreads freedom and cooperation.

Stallman distinguishes Free Soft-ware from open source. OpenSource is a development methodol-ogy; Free Software is a social move-ment ∞ a social hack. Stallman com-plements his practical efforts tospread free software under the Gen-eral Public License with a critique ofwhat has become of the copyrightsystem. Stallman insists that in theUnited States copyright began not anatural right but an arti∫cial mo-nopoly ∞ originally for a limitedtime. Copyright provides bene∫ts topublishers and authors, not for theirown sake, but for the common good.It was supposed to be an incentiveto writing and publishing more.

However, writers usually cederights to publishers in order to getpublished. Writers usually do notown the means of production anddistribution to realize the value oftheir works, and so they lose control

> Richard Stallman is the arche-typal hacker, who discovered,

through his own practice in compu-ter science, the nexus between infor-mation and property as it confrontsall hackers ∞ in the broadest sense ∞today. The challenge of Stallman’swork is to connect these diversehacker practices. For Stallman,hacking means exploring the limitsof what is possible. After an exem-plary career in hacking software,Stallman turned to hacking thepolitics of information.

The Free Software movement thathe initiated challenges the notionthat copyright is a natural right. Heuses copyright law against itself, asit were, as the instrument for creat-ing an enforceable freedom, ratherthan an enforceable unfreedom.Stallman’s General Public Licenseinsists not only that what is releasedunder the license may be shared,but that modi∫ed versions that in-corporate material issued underthis license must also be free.

While Stallman repeatedly statesthat he is not against business, hestakes out a quite different under-standing of an economy of informa-tion. For Stallman, the arti∫cial scar-city created by hoarding informa-

66

> Big corporations increasingly decide over and pro∫t onvast dominions of human existence. Formerly common

things such as land, water, and air are being monopolised.Food is being polluted by GMOs introduced without anypublic knowledge.

Genes control the chemical messages within cells, theydetermine the form and functioning of the cell, the orga-nism’s various organs, and the whole organism. Thesecodes of life consist of four chemical building blocks, arran-ged in pairs, like the treads of a spiral staircase. Millions ofdifferent combinations of the basic chemicals determinethe different genetic make up of each kind of organism.

Genetic engineering is a set of techniques and process-es for altering these genetic codes. Our friends like Monsan-to have a tendency to concentrate a lot on engineering seedswhich incorporate both pesticides and herbicides, or seedswhich make plants more resistant to pesticides so you canspray lots more on.

Aside from the actual technology of genetic copy pro-tection, corporations are nevertheless vigorously enforcing

System.hack(4,“biota”,“Heath Bunting ∞ SuperWeedKit 1.0")*

never know who holds a patent onwhat. This is less of a burden for thevectoralist class. Vectoral business-es accumulate portfolios of patentsand cross license to each other, en-hancing each other’s quasi-monop-oly position. The result of the enclo-sure of information within propertyis not a scarcity of innovation, but ascarcity of cooperation.

As Stallman wryly points out, dur-ing the cold war the USSR and USAboth controlled information, butunder different regimes. The USSRcontrolled information for politicalreasons, producing an economicdisaster. The USA that emerged outof the cold war controls informationfor economic reasons ∞ and the re-sult is a political disaster. What is

produced under the combinedweight of patent and copyright ismerely the extension of commodi∫-cation itself.

This is the context in which Stall-man’s General Public License canbe understood as a genuine socialhack. It is a hack in the aestheticsenses of the word, in that it uses thematerials to hand. It uses the law ofproperty against itself, as a way ofprotecting some small space of freecooperation. It is not a program or amanifesto but an application. Stall-man extends the hacker aestheticbeyond the world of programminginto the social realm, but practiceshacking in this new and larger ter-rain in much the same way. This ishis genius.

> McKenzie Wark <

* Based on a press releaseannouncing the projectpresentation at the ICA in1999.

their intelectual property rights over geneticcode, even when they pollute the crops offarmers not using their seeds.

68 69

Heath Bunting, is a British artist and well known inter-net hacker activist responsible for information subversioncampaigns against organisations such as Glaxo, Nike and7-Eleven stores. He lives in Bristol, Great Britain. Internati-onlly he’s recognized as one of the pioneers of net.art. Hehas exhibited all over the world with projects includinggraphity, performance, intervention, pirate radio and otherforms. At some poing he ventured into the ∫eld of geneticsproclaiming it to be the next “new media”. ‘Natural RealitySuperweed kit 1.0’ is an important contribution to an artis-tic practice that is opening a new creative ∫eld between sci-ence and art. He is a founder and member of irational.orgcollective. His main ambition is to ∫nd a way to give it all upand live outside as god intended.

The traditional means of protesting through streetmanifestations and via formal channels seem inadequatefor invoking changes in the present dangerous and undem-ocratic situation.

Cultural terrorism can be de∫ned as an attack againstthe dominant systems of power and their attempt to de∫nereality and nature. In 1999, Michael Boorman of NaturalReality launched the ‘Natural Reality SuperWeed Kit 1.0 ∞ aDIY kit capable of producing a genetically mutant super-weed, designed to attack corporate monoculture’. HeathBunting and Rachel Baker are founders of The CulturalTerrorist Agency, that has ∫nanced SuperWeed Kit 1.0

Michael Boorman of Natural Reality said “Genetichacker technology gives us the means to oppose this unsafe,unnecessary and unnatural technology. To quote HeathBunting of irational.org: “Biotechnology is not only the nextbattleground on which the control of life and land is fought,but also on which life itself is rede∫ned. It is essential thatthe concepts of property and representation in this arenaare seriously challenged.”

The kit supposedly contains a mixture of naturally oc-curring and genetically mutated seeds of Brassica seeds(e.g. Oilseed Rape, Wild Radish, Yellow Mustard, Shepard’sPurse), which, if allowed to germinate and cross pollinate,would create a SuperWeed resistant to current herbicides,potentially threatening the pro∫tability of GM crops, butalso of herbicide production and distribution as well.

Steve Kurtz of the Critical Art Ensemble terms theIrational.org approach “biological civil disobedience.” Sucha new method of protest is “not well theorized or strate-gized,” he writes. “Playing with reproductive systems, eco-systems, and germ lines is a pretty high gamble.” Kurtz sayshis group is open to this type of action, but is still assessingthe impact and ethics. The members are now making a bac-teria-release machine. “It has similar potential, but in theend, like the SuperWeed, it’s more spectacle than sub-stance,” he says. “While there is a possibility of disaster, theprobability is exceptionally low.”

71

global protest against the foods. InMay 2000, a protest in Genoa, Italyat a local McDonalds03 resulted inthe multi-national corporation halt-ing its purchasing of GM ingredi-ents. Recently a study of laboratoryrats fed GM crops found that the an-imals developed organ abnormali-ties and changes in their bloodpro∫le.04 This has led to the wide-spread ban of G.M. crops in India.As information surrounding resultslike these proliferate around theglobe, the resistance to acceptingG.M, crops into everyday subsist-ence is growing. The unknown fearof what else might occur as a sideeffect of consuming the productshas taken over their potential as ananswer to the global food crisis.

Responding to the concern overG.M. foods, U.K. based artist, HeathBunting’s work, “SuperWeed”, ad-dresses the threat of the crops oncethey enter the food chain by illus-trating the crop’s inΩuence on theirimmediate surroundings. Buntinginitially monitored several G.M.crop related mailing lists to ∫nd outwhat was important to people aboutthe rise of GM use. Bunting explainshow he began the project, “I want-ed to make a bio tech interventionso I monitored several related mail-ing lists for months and the prob-

lem of super-weeds was discussedso I conducted further research andthen decided to make my own.”

As a result of his efforts, Bunting’s“SuperWeed” “contains a mixture ofnaturally occurring and geneticallymutated (GM) Brassica seeds(Oilseed Rape, Wild Radish, YellowMustard, Shepard’s Purse). If theseseeds are allowed to germinate andcross pollinate, a Super Weed will becreated that will be resistant to cur-rent herbicides (e.g. Roundup05),thus not only threatening the pro∫t-ability of conventional and GMBrassica crops, but also of herbicideproduction and distribution aswell.” 06 His intention with theproject is to advocate a type of bio-logic terrorism, where “If you feelthat the authorities are not going torespect the wishes of the majority ofthe population for a ban on GMcrops (currently 77% in favor of a to-tal ban), you could choose to culti-vate and release SuperWeed 1.0 intothe environment.” 07 Although thismay seem antagonistic to some,Bunting’s focus is to create equilib-rium between GM crops and theirnatural surroundings since natural-ly occurring weeds have no chanceof effecting current GM crops.

Despite this seemingly highly tac-tical approach, Bunting also be-

03 Organic Consumers Association, “Mass Protests Against Frankenfoods in Italy”, http://www.purefood.org/ge/italyprotest.cfm

04 “Food for thought: Report reveals risks of GM items”, Times of India, June 4, 2005,, http://timeso∫ndia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1132155.cms

05 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/products/productivity/roundup/default.asp

06 “Rise of ‘Superweeds’ blamed on GM crops”: http://millennium-debate.org/ind5feb02.htm

07 Buntingova internetska stranica: http://www.irrational.org

ments for the crops are based on theglobal population increase and theincreased need for food. Since thereis dif∫culty imagining cultivatingmore land than we are currently us-ing, the need to yield more per acrebecomes important. GM crops allowfor this yield to increase for the fol-lowing reasons: 1) The crops cutdown on pest infestation, which ul-timately increases the harvest, 2.)The crops produce more of theiryield than traditional crops, 3.) Noneed to apply pesticides since theplants are more resistant to pests.Arguments against the plants rangefrom confusion over the resultinghealth consequences of consumingthe modi∫ed crops to uncertainty oftheir origins; however there is noevidence they are harmful to hu-mans. In addition, public consump-tion of GM crops is already at a highlevel with most processed food, par-ticularly staples such as sugar andΩour.

As knowledge about GM cropsbegins to circulate, there has been

01 News Target, “Genetically modi∫ed foods more common than many Americans think, surveyshows”, http://www.newstarget.com/006073.html

02 “Survey: Most folks unaware they have been eating biotech foods for years”, Associated Press,March 24, 2005, http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031781758183&path=!nationworld&s=1037645509161

System.hack(4,“biota”,“Heath Bunting ∞ SuperWeed Kit 1.0")

SuperWeed ∞ An Art projectby Heath Buntinghttp://www.irational.org/cta/superweed/

> A two-letter pre∫x is beginningto crop up in conversations

about food. “G.M. food” or genetical-ly modi∫ed food has become astandard ingredient in most proc-essed products on the market. Fromsnack foods like potato chips to can-dy to other packaged foods, “75 per-cent of food bought in America [andother countries] has genetically al-tered ingredients, [with most of] thealterations not listed on labels.” 01

Because of this inconsistency in la-beling across many products, it hasbecome unclear what contains G.M.crops or not. “Nearly every productwith a corn or soy ingredient, andsome containing canola or cotton-seed oil, has a GM element, accord-ing to the grocery-manufacturersgroup.” 02 Although this is quicklybecoming a reality, there are stillmany questions about the crops andtheir effect on consumer’s health.

Despite public confusion on whatcrops may contain the modi∫ca-tions, arguments for and againstGM crops are building. The argu-

72 73

gressive legal and lobby practices havemade Monsanto a primary target ofthe anti-globalization movement andenvironmental activists.”13 For in-stance, the Organic Consumers Asso-ciation of America (OCA) has starteda “Millions Against Monsanto” peti-tion encouraging farmers and con-sumers to rally against the corpora-tion. Their goals with the petition areto “ 1) Stop intimidating small fami-ly farmers. 2) Stop force-feeding un-tested and unlabeled genetically en-gineered foods on consumers. 3)Stop using billions of dollars of U.S.taxpayers’ money to subsidize genet-ically engineered crops—cotton, soy-beans, corn, and canola.”14

Although most of these crops areused in fast-food items and proc-essed foodstuffs that are often dis-regarded by the average consumer,the company has been blamed fornot reporting results from studies ofthe crops on laboratory animals.“According to the London based In-dependent which broke the story,secret research carried out by Mon-santo shows that rats fed the modi-∫ed corn had smaller kidneys andvariations in the composition oftheir blood.”15 These types of ∫nd-ings bring into question the long-term effects on humans once thecrops are thoroughly integrated intothe food chain. This debate has

turned the topic of GM foods into aglobal concern.

Even though Bunting is rallyingagainst the crops with the work, theproject nevertheless introduces hisown form of GM crop into the natu-ral environment. The result of thisoutput might be disastrous in itself.Bunting’s Superweed could theoret-ically cross-pollinate and create ahybrid GM plant. This resulting cropmight pose even more of a threatthan the original. Despite this criti-cism for the project, Bunting be-lieves that the Superweed is merelya reaction to an existing reality. Hebluntly states, “Guerrilla warfaresteals the weapons of its enemy,”referring to the fact that his “Super-Weed” is a GM crop in itself.

As the debate over GM crops inten-si∫es, there is a need to question thefundamental widespread use ofthese plants. Projects like Bunting’sSuperWeed are reminders that theeffect of GM has become a moral de-bate to most of the world’s popula-tion. Despite the fact that most peo-ple would deny that they have everconsumed GM food, the reality isthat its integration into commercial-ly available products is already be-coming increasingly widespread.What Bunting’s work shows is thatthis debate is something seriousenough to need clari∫cation from

13 Wikipedia: “Monsanto, Genetically Modi∫ed Food” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto)

14 “Monsanto to Public: Ignore the Rats and Eat the GMO CornOCA Reacts to Monsanto’s Latest GMO Deception”, Organic Consumers Association: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.htmlhttp://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/corn-study.cfm/7645509161

15 Ibid.

lieves in diplomacy as a method fordiscouraging corporations to investin GM products. He states, “Alterna-tively you could choose to createyour own propaganda campaignthreatening biotech corporate inter-ests with this genetic weapon. What-ever you do, the threat is often as ef-fective as the execution.”08 This ap-proach seems to be working, as arecent article in the New York Timesabout the “SuperWeed” detailedhow MIT-based researcher Joe Dav-is, the so-called “father of Americanbio-Art” 09 spoke against “Super-Weed” when he said “I don’t under-stand why [Bunting] wasn’t arrest-ed. Suppose I’m against gas sta-tions. Does that give me the right towalk around them with a pack ofmatches?”10 This type of response,although seemingly negative, is anindicator of the current hype sur-rounding these crops and how fartheir integration into popular cul-ture has grown.

So why attempt this project?Bunting contends, “GM is danger-ous to health of all animals andplants.” On a social level, he believesthat “GM is primarily a mechanismof colonization by rich criminals.”This assumption pertains to theimpetus of food manufacturers touse G.M. crops in order to avoid the

costly process of ∫ltering out inedi-ble products for those worthy ofbringing to market. Also a GM yieldwill hypothetically bring a higherpro∫t since GM crops are typicallylarger and heartier than non-GMcrops. However, what they bring tosize, they often decrease in Ωavorfrom their predecessors.

Currently, corporations havebeen using GM crops as way to in-crease their yearly yield and thuspro∫t from the investment. Theyalso propose GM crops as a methodof “improving the nutrient compo-sition of crops, such as the proteincontent of rice or potatoes or to in-crease the tolerance of crops to ad-verse growing conditions, e.g.drought or pests.”11 Other claims in-tended to quell protests among thepublic are “that [GM crops] improvesensory attributes of food, e.g.Ωavor, texture [and also] improvethe processing characteristics so asto reduce wastage of food and mini-mize the cost during transport andstorage.”12

One corporation spearheadingthe development of GM crops is theMonsanto Corporation, based in St.Louis, Missouri. “Monsanto’s devel-opment and marketing of genetical-ly engineered seed and bovinegrowth hormone, as well as its ag-

08 Ibid.

09 [Preuzeto iz New York Timesa]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/arts/design/03kenn.html/ , June 3, 2005, “The Artists inthe Hazmat Suits”, autor Randy Kennedy

10 Ibid.

11 http://library.thinkquest.org/C004033F/pros&cons_text.htm

12 Ibid.

74

“My name is Michael Steil, I am a legitimate Xbox owner. Ihave fully paid the price for it, and I own 6 original games. Ilive in the European Union and I never signed any End UserLicense Agreement (EULA) or Terms Of Service (indeed, nonecame with the Xbox), thus I am not bound therefore to anyagreement or contract. Thus I regard the Xbox as my ownpersonal property. (I am aware that within the US certain re-strictions may be claimed by Microsoft, however as a citizenof the EU, residing wholly within the EU, any limitations ofthe usage of the Xbox described in any EULA would be inap-plicable, nor their questionable legitimacy in the US and fur-ther; just using the Xbox would not mean that I agree tothem.) It should also be noted that my Xbox is not ‘modded’in any way.”— Michael Steil, 10. October, 2003

> Michael “mist” Steil lives in Munich and has beeninvolved with computers since the age of ten. Starting on

the Commodore 64, he has always had an interest in micro-processors, embedded systems and operating systems. He isthe head of the Xbox Linux and GameCube Linux Projects.The above quote is his public protest against the privacy vio-lations he encountered while using the Xbox. Steil had in-

System.hack(5,“locking”,“Michael Steil ∞ Linux OnXbox”)

authorities as to the direct rami∫ca-tions of continued consumption ofthe crops. Although the crops appearto have no con∫rmed harmful sideeffects, the general wariness to con-sciously try them is widespread. Withtheir continual integration into thefood chain, projects like “Super-

weed” stand as reminders that GMcrops are here to stay and we mustadapt (or react) to them. Despite ourmany protests, we have or are alreadyconsuming the crops. As global pop-ulation steadily increases this realitywill become increasingly apparentand undeniable.

> Jonah Brucker-Cohen <

76 77

tems), and to use the opportunity to attain cheap hardwarefor free software, in 2003 Michael Robertson, the CEO of theopen source company Lindows, funded two $100.000 boun-ties for anyone ∫rst to install GNU/Linux on Xbox by usingany means available and later for anyone ∫rst to install itwithout a hardware modi∫cation. Originally, modchipswere the only option. However, it was later demonstratedthat the TSOP chip on which the Xbox’s BIOS is held may bereΩashed. Finally, a buffer overΩow found in one game al-lowed for the booting of a GNU/Linux loader without hard-ware intervention. This is what Steil’s Xbox Linux team suc-ceeded at doing.

In the meanwhile, there’s an increasing number ofsuch projects attempting to use the free software in order toset free powerful machines lying hidden behind hardwarelocks in contemporary user electronics ∞ the iPodLinux be-ing probably the most popular.

At the end of 2005 Microsoft unveiled the new genera-tion of its gaming console ∞ the Xbox 360. Beginning of 2006a project to set it free followed: Free60.

stalled the GNU/Linux operating system on his Xbox. One dayhe accidentally hit a menu item that initiated the update ofXbox software, and without a warning or consent it eraseddata from the GNU/Linux system on his machine. Steil sawthis intervention, the result of the Xbox settings, an intrusionof the manufacturer into private property, his own propertyin this case, and this provoked him to react.

The Xbox is Microsoft’s game console. When it debutedon the market in 2001, hidden within the Xbox was a reallypowerful PC, with a 733 MHz Intel Celeron processor, an8GB-10GB (formatted) hard drive, 64MB of RAM (althoughon all earlier boxes this is upgradeable to 128MB), and 4USB ports (the controller ports are just variations of stand-ard USB 1.1 ports). Microsoft offered the Xbox at a price wellbelow the market price of a comparable PC, counting tomake up for the loss with pro∫ts from sale of the games forthe console and by becoming the dominant player on thegaming console market (and thereby to establish a de factomarket standard), overpowering Sony PlayStation.

Seeing a possibility of getting their hands on somecheap hardware for existing free software, which would bealso subsidezed ∞ what an irony ∞ by the biggest opponent ofthe free software, Microsoft, the hacker community startedworking on porting GNU/Linux to run on the Xbox. The sig-ni∫cance of cheap hardware with free-of-charge free soft-ware in terms of social importance and development for thedeveloping world, was rather obvious. But, to prevent accessto cheap hardware at its expense, Microsoft had cippled thatpowerful machine for all uses but one ∞ gaming.

The Xbox uses a digital signature system to prevent thepublic from running unsigned code, accepting in this caseonly Microsoft’s digitally signed code. This type of technolo-gy is called trusted computing. Although it has many securi-ty applications, it deprives the user of the ability to controlher own hardware, turning it, as Richard Stallman says, in acomputer the user can’t trust. It is this trusted system thatdeleted the GNU/Linux operating system from Steil’s Xboxand infuriated him.

To confront the immeasurable consequences of massintroduction of this kind of trusted systems into user elec-tronics (the consequences we already face today in the formof different Digital Rights/Restrictions Management sys-

79

PC extensions, increasing the valueof consumer investment in a PC(more on this strategy later). All im-portant CP/M software comes outwith new DOS versions, and by thelate eighties PCs (IBM’s or not) arein every of∫ce and school. About thesame time the PC appeared, a thirdsegment of the market opens up,home computers, mostly developedindependently. In mid-eighties Ap-ple releases Macintosh, the ∫rst rel-atively popular graphic interfacemicrocomputer. By the end of eight-ies, the gaming market graduallymigrates to PC and DOS.

In 1992 Microsoft releases Win-dows 3.1, encompassing all seg-ments of the microcomputer mar-ket. On a single machine, with a uni-form graphic interface, the user cannow do it all: write, draw, calculate,play. All DOS applications run onWindows, requiring no modi∫ca-tions and zero investment. Andsince all users now need similarmachines, computers ∫nally be-come cheap, at least to those livingon the right side of the digital divide.

From the mid-eighties onward,operating systems gradually trans-form into the minicomputer model,designed for true multitasking andmulti-user networked operation.The ∫rst to break the ice was Micro-soft in 1993 (Windows NT, inherit-ing VMS OS architecture), thencame the free software communitywith its version of Unix (GNU withLinux kernel, effectively by late nine-

ties). The last to come was Apple(Mac OS X, 2001), also Unix-based.

Social successFor the purpose of this argument,

socially inΩuential technology byde∫nition meets two criteria: wide-spread use and innovation. Both arerelative: the Apple II was socially in-Ωuential because computers werepreviously used only by engineers,bankers, military and exceptionallyapt computer science students whobuilt their own machines; CP/M wasnot socially inΩuential because onlya minority of secretaries and book-keepers used it, although it was in-novation in technological sense.Windows 3.1 were socially inΩuentialbecause they offered an ergonomi-cally superior graphic interface to allsegments of the market,01 with fullDOS compatibility.

Where on this map lays free soft-ware? Nowhere, really. From 1983 topresent time, from the aspect of so-cial inΩuence (so, widespread useand innovation), free software hasnot made one single breakthrough.Today’s most widespread free soft-ware applications are network-relat-ed, e.g. web server Apache and (al-though, in terms of market share toa much lesser extent) Mozilla’s webbrowser Firefox. The ascent of theInternet, especially the World WideWeb, made network-related soft-ware signi∫cantly more important,but both Apache and Firefox are ac-tually socially irrelevant. Why? Im-

mentary and substitute goods. It willbe shown that behind most success-ful products in short history of micro-computing lie some good hacks,manipulations with complementsand substitutes. Xbox Linux will bediscussed in this context.

The shortest history ofmicrocomputers everFrom the late seventies, micro-

computers have developed on twoparallel tracks of use, home andschool or business use. The Apple II(1977) became standard schoolequipment in the US, its VisiCalcspreadsheet application later intro-duced it to companies. Differentcomputers that used the Zilog 80processor were powered by the CP/M operating system (1976), the ∫rstbusiness operating system for mi-crocomputers. Many business ap-plications were written for CP/M,from the revolutionary databasemanagement system dBASE, thealso revolutionary text processorWordStar, to VisiCalc for CP/M.

In 1981 IBM joins the game withopen PC architecture, a Microsoft’sCP/M clone and more powerful In-tel processor. Independent produc-ers begin creating a myriad of cheap

System.hack(5,“locking”,“Michael Steil ∞ Linux On Xbox”)

How to Sell Free

> For as long as there have beenadvocates of free software, eve-

ry once in a while an enthusiast em-barks on to listing the merits of freesoftware, usually with the goal ofshowing how free software bringsabout many advantages for the us-ers, developers and companies. Ei-ther implicitly or explicitly, almostwithout exception, such manifestoscontain the expectation of immi-nent revolution in software, not yetunderway just because conscious-ness of the masses of computer us-ers hasn’t yet reached desired levels.

Yet, I can’t recall any of these anal-yses to open the preceding question:why free software, having all thoseadvantages, isn’t socially more suc-cessful? None of the most inΩuen-tial computing projects in the lastquarter of a century were free ∞ infact, none had any connection tofree software. In social sense, freesoftware was and still is ephemeral.Considering its social emphasis,this is by no means an obviousoutcome.

In what follows, social success willbe de∫ned as a combination of massusage and innovation, while dynam-ics of IT economics will be present-ed in terms of economics of comple-

01 Superior to the DOS interface, not necessarily to other graphic interfaces that were not widelyused.

80 81

greater value for the user than theequivalent proprietary software.06

So, if free software is in principleof greater value for the user, and thusmore desirable, why is it less sociallysuccessful? Or, what impairs wideruse and higher level of innovation offree software? The problem stemsfrom two sources: the character ofthe free software user/developercommunity and the peculiarity of theeconomics of free software. Let’s tryto address them both.

Tradition, society, communityLet’s brieΩy look into the history

of the creation of free software. Ri-chard Stallman, a software develop-er from Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology (MIT), envisioned theGNU project in such a way that hemade sure that both targets (wide-spread use and innovation) wouldbe missed from the start. GNU at-tempted to replace the existing de-velopment environment of proprie-tary Unix systems, not to createsomething new. Second, Unix was(and remained until recently, untilthe Apple Mac OS) an operating sys-tem designed for IT experts and oth-er technologically savvy scientists,not for the laymen. The differencefrom socially inΩuential personalcomputers is evident: Apple IIturned to students and teachers,DOS to accountants and other of∫ceworkers, Windows to gamers, visu-al artists, musicians, public speak-ers and others. The ethos of the Unixworld and the personal computerworlds were different from the start:

Unix users value and expect IT mer-its, personal computer users valueease of use while solving tasks thatby themselves do not necessarilyhave to do anything with IT.

Stallman himself has taken an es-pecially exclusive stance towards ITlaymen by stating that all use of pro-prietary software is immoral. Thus heputs a moral imperative before, forexample, an artist to use free soft-ware that, although it is suitable foran IT expert but not for an artist, ef-fectively wasting her talent on solvingtechnical issues (or worse, suppress-ing it until more usable free softwarecomes along). Besides being moral-ly questionable, this type of techno-autism clearly doesn’t favor commu-nication with the users who have oth-er talents and those less interested intechnology as such.

In general, traditional free soft-ware users are its developers, eitherdirectly, when authors use their ownproducts, or in the case where au-thors expect users to have the levelof expertise comparable to theirown. This can work out marvelous-ly: persons approaching the descrip-tion of the ideal user usually ∫nd thesoftware perfectly ∫tting. If you werea developer whose primary languageis LISP, could you imagine a betterworking (and non-working) environ-ment than Emacs, an applicationdealing with all sorts of text, writtenin a dialect of LISP and thus perfect-ly comprehensible, adaptable andexpandable when in your hands. Forthe entire portion of the populationthat ∫ts this description (one hun-

agine for a moment that they didn’texist. What would change? Nothing.The same number of people wouldbrowse through a more or less samenumber of web-pages served in amore or less same way.02

In all honesty, I believe there actu-ally is one exception to this verdict:Ward Cunningham’s Wiki. Wiki istruly innovative and in twelve years ithas become a widely used conceptthrough uncountable variations, andsome spectacularly successful appli-cations (e.g. Wikipedia).03

How to make sense of this, havingin mind that software freedom doesbring great potential advantages tothe user? Proprietary software is aclosed source “product” (executablecode). The product is someoneelse’s intellectual property, and theowner allows users to use the prod-uct under terms prescribed ∞ thisuser-license is what we purchasewhen we purchase proprietary soft-ware. No free software license isuser-license. All they regulate is dis-

tribution, and we are free (i.e. al-lowed) to use the software, its sourceand executable form, in practicallyany way we see ∫t. (In the case of GPLlicensed software, “practically anyway” means “on the condition thatmodi∫ed versions shall also be pre-sented under the GPL, in case theyare to be distributed”.04)

For the sake of the argument, let’sassume we have one typical propri-etary software product on one sideand on the other an almost identi-cal free software product. Let’s thenassume they both cost the same.Taking into account only the valuefor the user, what software permitsus to do with it (everything else be-ing the same), the free software al-ways has equal or greater value.05

Both programs would be of equalvalue only in the case where wewould never want to do anythingwith the free software which theowner of the proprietary softwareproduct would not allow us to do. Inall other cases, free software has

02 Those familiar with free software will protest ∞ the source code of Apache and Firefox is stillhere, free to be used in other applications, even if Apache and Mozilla foundations cease to ex-ist. It is a feature, not a bug. But, I wish to say something else: even if all that code disappeared,including the executable programs, even if all the developers’ memories of the elements ofthose programs were to be magically erased, still nothing would happen. Neither the idea, nor∫rst implementation or any revolutionary advancement of web-server came about with theApache project. The same goes for Mozilla’s web browser.

03 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

04 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

05 This argument was ∫rst presented at news-group hr.comp.gnu, in a message titled „SOK iMESO za velike kupce“ on December 19th, 2002.

06 In favor of free, or open-source software, its advocates usually call upon two different criteria.The Free Software Foundation (FSF), following Richard Stallman, claim free software is theonly moral software, both for the developer and the user. The Open Source Initiative (OSI)claims, on the other hand, that the development model inherent to free or open-source soft-ware is superior to the development models of proprietary software. My view is that the ∫rstclaim is simply meaningless, while the second is empirically unfounded.

82 83

Which user approach do youthink will bring about greater socialsuccess and popularization of com-puter aided image processing?

In my opinion, the weakest link offree software has nothing to do withprogramming, the problem is inwhat the programmers do not knowor are simply not interested in. Toattain social success, free softwareneeds people who are not program-mers or IT workers: interface de-signers, usability experts and psy-chologists who will test it; languageexperts who will create proper spell-ing- and grammar-checking sys-tems, thesauri and so on.

Economics of free softwareMost of the free software econom-

ics, and much of software econom-ics in general, revolves around theconcepts of complements and sub-stitutes, with the underlying processof turning complements of a target-ed product into commodity.08 Thegreat “hacks” in IT economy are ma-nipulations with complementaryproducts. The basic principle of eco-nomics of complements amountsto: a product is more valuable to buy-ers (can be priced higher and/or soldin larger quantity) as its comple-ments get cheaper, ideally whenthey reach their lowest, commodityprice. IBM has made PC architec-ture open, and has thus started mar-ket competition for hardware devic-es by independent producers. The

availability of a large number of var-ious PC add-ons made the PC itselfmore valuable. At the same timeMicrosoft performed an even bettergimmick: they did not grant IBMexclusive license for DOS, but soldit also to other PC vendors, effective-ly lowering the price of hardwareand ∫nally making DOS-based soft-ware more valuable.

While the game of complementsis an important ingredient in hauteIT cuisine, for free software it is of-ten the only economic model avail-able. Crucial restriction of some ofthe most, well, restrictive free soft-ware licenses refers to strictly de-∫ned mode of distribution, effec-tively putting standard businessmodel of end-user licenses out ofthe game. In other words, for com-panies whose primary business isproducing software for mass mar-ket, free software is untenable, atleast GPL-ed free software.

These days, IBM and varioussmaller companies are attemptingon another variant of the same hackby investing in free software andselling consulting, design and oth-er specialized services, using freesoftware as a cheap complement.Probably the biggest pro∫t from freesoftware is made by Google, a com-pany that heavily invests into freesoftware, using it in the server, andmore and more, in the client (theFirefox browser) infrastructure of itsadvertising empire.

dred in a billion?) using Emacsprobably feels like heaven.

As we move away from the happymarriage of skilled developer or ITexpert and primary user combined inone person, this lovely idea turns intoa nightmare. For whatever you wantto do, there is probably some freesoftware available, it’s just not clearwho can use it and how. A photogra-pher working with any one of the spe-cialized proprietary software imageprocessing products and wishing toexperiment with a dynamic range of

#!/usr/bin/perl

open I, “> /tmp/hdr-in”;

for $f (@ARGV) {

$jh=‘jhead -c “$f”‘;

chop $jh;

if($jh=~/\(1\/(\d+)\) f\/([\d.]+)/) { $e=$1; $a=$2; }

if($e<2) {

$jh=‘jhead “$f” | grep “Exposure time”‘;

if($jh=~/:.*?([\d.]+).*?s/) { $e=1/$1; }

}

$n=‘basename “$f” .jpg‘; chop $n;

print I “$n.ppm $e $a 0 0\n”;

print “preparing $n (1/$e f/$a) ...\n”;

system “convert ‘$f’ -geometry 1024x1024 ‘/tmp/$n.ppm’”;

$d=‘dirname “$f”‘; chop $d;

}

close I;

system “cd /tmp; mkhdr -fptiff hdr-in $d/$n-HDR.tiff”;

system “pfsin $d/$n-HDR.tiff | pfstmo_fattal02 -b 0.85 | pfsgamma -g

2.2 | pfsout $d/$n-HDRfattal.jpg”;

system “pfsin $d/$n-HDR.tiff | pfstmo_drago03 | pfsgamma -g 2.2 |

pfsout $d/$n-HDRdrago.jpg”;

photographs, can choose the appro-priate item from the menu of availa-ble special effects, and try out a de-sired procedure without much know-ledge of underlying technology. Auser of a free software product willachieve the same result, should hebecome familiar with details of phys-ics and technology of the dynamicrange in photography, master thebasics of one or the other script lan-guage, and ∫nd the appropriate toolsto combine and manipulate. Likethis: 07

07 This example is not invented, the script is functional and licensed under GPL. The author is aphysicist and photographer Domjan SiloviÊ. Source: hr.rec.fotogra∫ja.digitalna, April 21st,2006, under the title High Dynamic Range.

08 More on this in the textbook exposition by developer, businessman and writer Joel Spolsky,see: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/printerFriendly/articles/StrategyLetterV.html

84 85

bought their Xboxes solely for thepurpose of running Linux. Thatleaves us with the target audience ofLinux users which are also consolegamers, and they will have to buy thegames anyway. What was the lock-ing in for, then? In the case of gam-ing consoles, it’s meaningless. Thatis demonstrated by Xbox Linux, buteven more by the fact that the dom-inant console gaming vendor, Sony,of∫cially supported Linux for Play-Station 2 and remained dominant.

• What, how, for whom

Computing has so far broughtabout enormous changes to theways we learn, have fun, live andwork. But, who are “we”? We belongto the 15% of global population whohave a computer connected to theInternet. In other words, we are alljust a handful of early adopters,beta-testers of a technology that mayone day become widespread.

Initiatives to bridge the “digitaldivide” and reach the remaining85% of potential users are closelytied to manipulation with comple-ment goods. The ∫rst to make amove was MIT Media Lab’s Nicho-las Negroponte in 2005, with the$100 dollar laptop project.09 Theidea is that governments and inter-national organizations ∫nancehardware, and the free softwarecommunity contributes with thesoftware. Once again, free softwarehas assumed a role of a complemen-tary good to hardware and political

will. One year later, Microsoft an-nounces FlexGo, a full-featured PCplatform running Windows OS, ∫-nanced like mobile phones, i.e thedevice if sold at half the retail price,the rest being paid through pre-paidor subscription time.

This concept is a rather naturalextension of Microsoft’s traditionalbusiness model where complementgoods, hardware, is made affordablein order to make software more val-uable for the user and more pro∫ta-ble for the owner. In one possibleFlexGo scenario, basic hardwarecould be free (as a beer) and softwareleased instead of selling user licens-es. This model promises even biggerpro∫t margins, if suf∫cient numberof new users join in ∞ remember,we’re talking billions of people whocan’t afford owning a computer butuse pre-paid mobile phones.

It goes without saying that FlexGocomputers will be locked. The XboxLinux episode should probably bebest understood as warming up be-fore the big battle for computeriza-tion of the global south. AlthoughFlexGo computers will be hardware-locked, apparently on the processorlevel, future FlexGo-Linux guys maybe facing the easier part of the job.When asked “Do you wish to pay forproprietary software or use free soft-ware as you please?”, the vast major-ity of the ∫rst billion opted for theformer clause. The rest is likely to begiven more appealing offers fromthe proprietors.

Looking at ∫nancial reports, wecan conclude this strategy pays. Still,IBM’s and Google’s customers arebig businesses and advertisers, notthe mass of “small scale consum-ers”. For most software users andmost uses, the best available soft-ware still belongs to the category ofproprietary software. Although it istrue that the improvements result-ing from business of free softwarecontribute to the whole communi-ty, many of them don’t address theconsumer market directly.

• The Gray zone

Pulling up this commoditize-your-complements trick isn’t easy,though, even less so in standardizedinfrastructural environment, where“everything works with everything”.Therefore, many vendors try tomake things easier for themselves,by making it harder for users to usewhat should be complementary tothe vendor’s product, in less desira-ble ways.

A mobile phone is complementa-ry to telecommunications services,so telecoms routinely offer phonesat the fraction of usual retail price.What’s the catch? The catch is that“their” devices are locked to theirnetwork, which renders them unus-able as a complement for services ofother operators, although all mod-ern networks in mobile telephonyare completely standardized so anydevice is originally fully operationalin every network.

Locking mobile phones is but oneof the more visible forms of playing

dirty in the game of complementa-ry goods. In the context of IT, reallynasty ones include introducing pro-prietary network protocols like Mi-crosoft’ SMB, or late AppleTalk andNovell IPX. The idea is similar,though: if you need to connect sev-eral machines into the network,we’ll be happy to oblige. Providedthat you buy, for each workstation,our software (Microsoft or Novell),or even better, both our softwareand our hardware (Macintosh withMac OS). Fortunately, such swin-dling rarely succeeds in the longrun, and IPX and AppleTalk aremostly abandoned by now, whileSMB is still alive and kicking, buthopefully not for long.

In the world of console gaming,locking of complementary productis considered perfectly normal. Nin-tendo, Sony, and recently Microsoftsell consoles relatively cheaply inorder to make money on relativelyexpensive games. Not unlike a mo-bile phone, Microsoft Xbox, techni-cally speaking, is a standard PClocked to applications pro∫table tothe locker, and locked out from allother uses. That is, it was locked be-fore Xbox Linux did their job.

Xbox Linux project is a show offof disobedience to one type of ITracket, but it’s also interesting be-cause it doesn’t really pose anythreat to Microsoft. There is a ton ofdifferent ways to put up an equallycheap Linux box, usually much bet-ter suited to task at hand than an ex-Xbox, so I’d be surprised if signi∫-cant number of people actually 09 One Laptop per Child, http://laptop.media.mit.edu/

86 87

nity wants and needs them. It seemsthe ethos of the free software com-munity is increasingly shifting in thatdirection, so we can be somewhatoptimistic in that respect.

The problem with innovationdoesn’t seem solvable within thecurrent economical framework ofcompetitive market. Still, one possi-ble solution may arise from the

Between a rock and a hard placeFrom the perspective of our sec-

ond criterion for social success, themiddle-man business model in freesoftware is only exceptionally orient-ed towards innovation. However,the problem of economics of inno-vation in free software is not just abyline, but a deeply structural one.Every software innovation that theinvestor estimates may provide stra-tegic advantage will be closed (willnot be distributed at all, or will bedistributed as proprietary software).

The most pro∫table retail busi-ness models in the software indus-try are distribution of user licensesof proprietary software and leasingresources. Therefore, the most de-sirable consumer software willprobably stay proprietary. On theother hand, it is extremely dif∫cultto capitalize of innovative free soft-ware and it is unclear what econom-ical logic could surpass this prob-lem.

One possible, if only partial, solu-tion was offered by Nicholas Carr inhis article IT Doesn’t Matter10 and aseries of later publications. Al-though Carr’s arguments do leavemuch to be desired,11 and his hy-pothesis in its most radical versionis most likely untenable, Carr hasfound a possible path of social suc-cess of free software.

Carr’s main hypothesis is that in-formation technology reached its

maturity and now rapidly loosesstrategic importance. Consequent-ly, IT ceases to be competitive andbecomes infrastructure technology.If this is even only partly true, this isgreat news for free software. Freesoftware has seen its biggest suc-cesses in the domain of web servic-es and protocols, and with the shiftof the market to infrastructure, itsrelative value will considerablygrow. Second, and more interesting,is that the nature of infrastructuralinnovation is different from thecompetitive; infrastructural innova-tion doesn’t seek to stand out fromits competition, but to blend intothe existing frame and widen it tothe bene∫t of all.

There are serious economical andsocial reasons for the absence of so-cial success of free software, both interms of widespread use and interms of innovation. The main obsta-cle to wider use of free software is thefailure of the community of its devel-opers/users to include in their ranksmore IT laymen. At ∫rst sight, itseems to be a vicious circle: there willbe more users when there will bemore of them, but it’s not really so.Among the IT laymen are experts in∫elds important for mass IT, expertslike visual designers, linguists, psy-chologists and others. But, it is nec-essary that they also ∫nd their motivefor the use and development of freesoftware, that they feel that commu-

10 Nicholas G. Carr, “IT Doesn’t Matter”, Harvard Business Review, 81(5): 41∞49, (2003). seealso: http://www.nicholasgcarr.com

11 See Hogwash Voodoo, my reserved op-ed on Carr and the future of IT (in Croatian, “Gnoj ipakao”, Mreæa 9(3): 21 (2006).

change in the framework of IT eco-nomics, namely from the shift toinfrastructure. In that case, themost signi∫cant contribution to arelative success of free software inthe ∫eld of innovation will be thefailure of the proprietary. As for howmuch good this will bring in theGrand scheme of things, I wouldn’tdare saying.

> Ognjen StrpiÊ <

89

DVDs. These systems vary, but the technologies which areemployed often break the basic functionality of end-userequipment to play the content stored on the medium. Thesoftware-only CD copy protection systems proved to be trivi-al to circumvent, while the alternative strategies modifyingthe CD data format inevitably lead to complaints from thepublic because incompatibilities with CD and DVD players.

However, the earlier generations of copy protectionmeasures proved to be even more trivial ∞ they became fa-mous for being easily circumvented with a marker pen, bydrawing a tangential line on the rim of the visible edge ofaudio data.

These systems rendered CDs incompatible with mostcomputers. Although this effectively prevented copying inmany PC con∫gurations, it also reportedly caused incom-patibility with some DVD players, video game systems, andcar CD players. Such perfect compatibility can only beachieved by leaving the standard CD audio portion of thedisc unprotected, so MediaMax uses another method toblock PC-based copying.

In 2001 Sony, for instance, applied to its CDs Key2Audiosystem a technology preventing the copying or ripping tracksinto MP3 ∫les on personal computers. Technological musicCD copy protection systems such as Key2Audio or CactusData Shield 100/200 can be defeated by a marker pen or stickytape. The rim of the visible edge of audio data is protecteddisabling the copying and playing on a PC. By covering thisouter edge the protection can be circumvented and the discenabled for normal use on computers.

In 2003 SunnComm created a system, called MediaMaxCD3, designed to prevent unauthorized copying of audioCD-s on a PC. Discs manufactured with SunnComm’s tech-nique included two versions of the music, each protected ina different way. One set of songs were CD audio tracks thatplay in standard CD players but were supposed to be dif∫-cult for computers to copy. The second set are compressed,encrypted Windows Media ∫les that employed digital rightsmanagement (DRM) ∞ technological means of enforcingcopyright ∞ to restrict how they are used.

These systems rendered CDs incompatible with mostcomputers. Although this effectively prevented copying inmany PC con∫gurations, it also reportedly caused incom-

System.hack(6,“protection”,“Anonymous∞ CD Protection Kit [marker/ shift key]”)

> Hackers can be placed into two groups with respect totheir ethics: while the ∫rst group creates patented sys-

tems and protection mechanisms, the other group tries tocircumvent them. While the ∫rst group is corporate-orient-ed, other group is activist. Ever since the potentials for copy-ing created by digital technologies have started to challengethe intellectual property regimes, the music, ∫lm and enter-tainment industries have gone to extreme lengths to makethe legal protection measures severe, to introduce techno-logical copy protection measures and to criminally prose-cute until recently legit practices of studying and circum-venting such technological means of controlling intellectu-al property. The knowledge driven by curiosity to explorethe technological systems of control has become outlawedknowledge, and the hackers have been ostracized as darkcharacters commanding the knowledge the state apparatusand companies would like the society to entrust only tostate apparatus and companies.

This exhibit deals with the CD/DVD copy protectionsystems and the trivial techniques that can be used to cir-cumvent them.

The technological CD/DVD copy protection systems aremechanisms preventing the users from copying CDs or

90 91

patibility with some DVD players, video game systems, andcar CD players. Such perfect compatibility can only beachieved by leaving the standard CD audio portion of thedisc unprotected, so MediaMax uses another method toblock PC-based copying.

Soon after the ∫rst disc with MediaMax CD3 protectionwas released, John Halderman, a graduate student fromPrinceton, published on his web site an academic paper an-alyzing SunnComm’s protection method and how easy itcan be circumvented ∞ by holding down the shift key. Thismethod was ∫rst applied on an Anthony Hamilton albumreleased by BMG.

Under usual circumstances, whenever the Hamilton al-bum would be played in a computer CD player on a Win-dows machine, it would auto-run the anti-pirating softwaredisabling copying or ripping into MP3 format. However,holding down the shift key when inserting the CD wouldprevent the Windows auto-run from running the copy pro-tection software, allowing for the music to be copied.

After Halderman published his paper, SunnCommpressed charges against him, citing the Digital MillenniumCopyright Act which prohibits exploring and publishing ofdigital rights management circumvention methods. Howev-er, SunnComm soon after droped the charges.

End of 2005 Sony introduced the Extended Copy Pro-tection, the infamous Rootkit, on its CD. The system would,without informing and seeking permission, install on theuser’s computer software which was vulnerable to wormsand trojans. After Mark Russinovich revealed on his blogthe analysis of Sony’s illegal software and drew attention touser privacy violation through the application of this DRM,the pioneer cyber-rights organization Electronic FrontierFoundation initiated a civil lawsuit and criminal investiga-tion forcing Sony to offer an uninstaller, and eventually torecall the CDs and bargain the settlement.

The most famous DVD copy protection circumventioncase was created by DeCSS, a software created in 1999 by theNorwegian hacker Jon Lech Johansen in order to enableplaying of commercial DVDs, copy protected through theContent-Scrambling System, on free operating systemssuch as BSDs or GNU/Linux, on which, prior to that, it hadbeen impossible to watch DVDs. But, in order to make it

possible to watch DVDs, DeCSS had to circumvent the pro-tection system used on DVDs, which didn’t have open speci-∫cations available to the free software community. Soon af-ter the DeCSS code was published, DVD Copy Control Asso-ciation and Motion Picture Association of America pressedcharges against Johansen. After 5 years of court litigation hewas acquitted.

92 93

were the most successful in the mar-ketplace. Or alternatively, of the Fewexotic leaders (of something) or ofthe Few convicted for cyber-crime.

Just as market logic has not beencapable of presenting a communi-ty, culture (or ultimately a product)without a brand, a model-∫gure ora logo, it is also under-capacitatedfor evaluating and analyzing the cri-teria of success of that community/culture. One frequently employedcriterion for evaluating the hackercommunity is the quantity of inno-vations it has produced. Naturally,the prerequisite for this criterion isa comparison with non-hacker, cor-porative culture.01

Every discussion on a de∫nitionof innovation will quickly demon-strate that it derives directly fromthe market logic and that the inno-vation is ultimately reducible to sev-eral concepts and numbers: patent-ability, number of patents, break-through...02 Uniqueness and maxi-mal differentiation from anythingsurrounding is a prerequisite forrecognizability and success in themarketplace.

Hacker culture is, however, muchcloser to a harmonious (yet highlydynamic) ecosystem where everynew organism tends to ∫nd its posi-

tion of collaboration with its envi-ronment, and unique functionalityand novelty that an organism intro-duces into an ecosystem is insepa-rable from its capacity for collabo-ration. Even in the case of apparentsuperiority and innovation, if thesolution/new organism seeks a rad-ical recon∫guration and reposition-ing of the entire ecosystem, it is un-likely that such a solution will meetwith the approval, acceptance andadaptation by the system of such aradical innovation.03

The innovation criterion is limit-ed and produced by the interpreta-tive tool of market logic, which pri-marily leads to a patent certi∫cate,is almost unappliable as an evalua-tion criterion for production withinhacker culture. Conditioned by mar-ket logic, an innovation requires avery speci∫c type of product format-ting in order for the product to berecognized (in the marketplace) asinnovative. The hacker communityproduces libraries available to eve-ryone, rather than ∫nal products forend users, both in the technical andmetaphoric sense.

Measuring innovativity and in-ventivity of hacker culture and/orresults of collaborative productionmodels (such as GNU/Linux, *BSDs

01 In parts of the text on innovation and production within hacker culture I will mostly equatehacker culture with the FLOSS (Free/Libre Open Source Software) movement culture, which, tome, represents the best of hacker culture as a whole. This is of course not to say that hacker cul-ture is reducible to the Free Software Movement, and particularly not the vice-versa.

02 At the Tesla Museum in Belgrade, to bear testament to Tesla’s greatness, the guides will alwaysstress the number of patents awarded, while (almost) never ever mentioning the word “innova-tion”.

03 The best example of such an innovation is the bumpy road the Reiser4 ∫le system had to passbefore it was included into the Linux kernel.

System.hack(6,“protection”,“Anonymous ∞ CD Protection Kit[marker / shift key]”)

Hackers can only laugh outloud ;)

Market logic is the last instru-ment (on the list) one should resortto when analyzing and trying to un-derstand the hacker communityand hacker culture. Just as hackerculture takes the last on the list tobe the nearest to the ∫rst in the op-posite direction, the market logiccan (after all) serve as that other in-strument to which ungraspabilityand complexity of the matter stud-ied, through its dialectics and nega-tion, can be demonstrated.

In order to reduce hacker cultureto a level where it becomes compa-rable to other cultures that we arefamiliar with today, Hollywood andthe rest of the media machine hadto invent the ‘hacker’ who can inmere thirty seconds, while at thesame time being additionallyaroused by fellatio, break into thebest protected computer systems orthe ‘hacker’ who (from a location inHollywood) can use a popular terres-trial portable computer and some-what less popular operating systemto break into the alien computer sys-tem. And when it comes to present-ing the actual history of hacker cul-ture the story is again a familiar andcomparable one: (it is called) theTriumph of the Few. Of the Few who

> Society likes to create heroes,just as it likes to ∫nd someone

to stigmatize in order to shift the fo-cus from the traumatic spots itdoesn’t want to face. Hackers arejust made for both.

When an intrusion into a foreignmilitary system can serve to raisenational pride, a (usually) eyeglass-es-wearing kid from the neighbor-hood is quick to receive his ∫fteenminutes of fame. But meanwhilehackers are to be feared and as such(meaning: as dangerous) to be stig-matized, because hackers knowhow to and are able to control anddo everything a society would usual-ly allow only its intelligence andmega-corporations. We considerintelligence and mega-corporationsaccountable. The myth of hackerassumes a genius of evil and an un-accountable one.

Such myths are fabricated and sus-tained in today’s culture by means ofdominant instrument of interpreta-tion: market logic. Market logic seesrepresentation (brand, logo, slo-gan,...), competitiveness (competi-tive advantage, comparability, ...),material interest as prime motive(pro∫t) and the ultimate reducibilityto the measurable (number).

94 95

ture to representative names is thebiggest mistake that can be madefrom the perspective of hacker cul-ture. All attempts so far to give a rep-resentation of the history of hackerculture in a larger cultural contexthave almost regularly been a historyof failures of all such attempts.

Anything that has a digital form oris only several steps away from be-ing digitized falls within the domainof tinkering and abstraction forhacker community. No one knowsbetter the digital domain than thehacker community. Informationand ideas cannot be commodi∫edand turned into private property.They can be hidden away, guardedand encrypted, but this cannot en-sure they (i.e. ideas and informa-tion) will stay under the veil of dark-ness forever.

It is this moment of victory ofhacker spirit over the interests of(state) control and (corporate) pro∫tthat fuels the creation of the mythabout dangerous hackers who arecapable of destroying the world (aswe know it). United, the state andthe capital, will do anything in theirpower in order to produce morefear, uncertainty and danger 04

around the destruction of the worldas we know it. The continued statusquo, to a great distress of corpora-tions, cannot be upheld by the re-strictions of innovative DRM (Digit-

al Rights (sic!) Management) pat-ents, so the state had to come to aidwith legislative restrictions such asDMCA and/or anti-terrorist laws.

The state ∫nds itself threatenedby the widespread exchange of com-plex knowledge on (communica-tion) technologies, the exclusive ac-cess to which had previously se-cured its undisputed and stable po-sition of supervision, control andpower. Corporations ∫nd them-selves threatened by the lack of in-ventiveness in discovering new busi-ness models that wouldn’t befounded on the exploitation of cre-ative producers and barring of endusers from sharing products of en-tertainment or of interest. Old busi-ness models, built on once innova-tive technologies, together with thestate, have now for decades been sti-Ωing the introduction of new inno-vative technologies. At present daythey are more and more spreadingfear and panic.

The failure of creative (entertain-ment) industry giants to ∫nd a newfooting in the emerging constella-tion of technology and (hacker) cul-ture, shifted the primacy in the in-novative pro∫t-making industry tospam and porno industries. Hackerscan only laugh out loud ;)

The absolute mobility of digitalinformation, where the price withevery additional copy being made is

04 This is a reference to a famous aggressive marketing strategy the IBM undertook in the 70s,where emphasis is placed on spreading fear, uncertainty and danger (FUD) about the compet-ing product (instead of trying to show own product as being better). This is also the marketingstrategy used intensively by Microsoft at the end of the 90s and beginning of 00s in its battleagainst FLOSS (Free/Libre Open Source Software).

or other projects) must, ∫rstly, be re-thought through new interpretivetools, where market logic would bemuch more related to attentioneconomy, but would even then ac-count for a marginal and small partof a complex reΩection on the inno-vation and inventiveness If wewould avoid the pressure of marketlogic and the need for creatingunique pop-stars in every ∫eld ofhuman creativity, measuring inno-vation would always have to accountfor traces of what inΩuenced a very‘recent innovation’ and what it wasbuilding upon, i.e. indicate the col-lective nature of human creativity. Inthis sense, the hacker community isthe best example how the idea of thecollective nature of creativity doesnot endanger uniqueness and crea-tivity of each individual (hacker).

Hacker culture produces a bodyof shared knowledge which resultsin creative and innovative hackers,whose innovative (yet for most un-noticeable) hacks make in turn thewhole (e.g. a free operating system)much more powerful, creative andinnovative, and in its opennessmore ready for a repeated iterationof innovative hacks.

Hacker culture is, unlike corpo-rate culture, (primarily) an ecosys-tem of knowledge and not an eco-nomic system of commodities. Dueto the hybrid nature of free softwareas information infrastructure, busi-ness models developed which treatfree software as commodity, but theprimary (collaborative) model ofproduction remains in the domain

of knowledge production and ex-change. Hacker culture, existing ina complex environment of knowl-edge development and exchange,knows no market mechanismswhich thrive on evidencing, produc-ing and sustaining scarcity.

The prerequisite for knowledgedistribution and production is col-laboration, high permeability to cir-culation in all directions, and unre-stricted, non-discriminatory accessto knowledge resources. A betterposition in hacker culture is given toone who produces, collaborates andshares knowledge (both new andold) with others in the community.

A ∫rst step in hacker productionis the production of a problem. Aconcrete elegant solution to a com-plex problem is only a second step(and not a necessary one). Complexproblems are always confrontedwith through employing an abstrac-tion (a metaphor). Complex abstrac-tions require a recursive approachto abstraction, where those are con-fronted with through employingnew (meta-)abstractions.

Every intriguing complex systemthat for any reason resists abstrac-tion is bound to be soon hacked bythe hacker community and submit-ted to further abstraction, creationand sharing of knowledge.

This kind of permanent reΩectionon the reΩected creates a culture re-sisting any representation, becauseas soon as a representation emergesit becomes merely a new trigger (andfocus) of recursive reΩection. Reduc-ing the representation of hacker cul-

96

tending towards zero, brings im-mense advantages for the entire hu-man culture. Everyone (or at least90% of computer users) who hasgone through those couple of mouseclicks to access that huge quantity ofhuman intellectual production isaware of those advantages today.

The state and market logic withtheir globally harmonized restric-tive legal regulation of miscompre-

hension of the (no longer so new)digital world, schizophrenicallycriminalize anyone who has experi-enced the immense advantage ofhacker culture. With their innova-tive patenting Goliaths, it is luckthat there are hacks by the commu-nity of anonymous, for Hollywooduninteresting heroes, who reach fora marker or a shift key to turn thisfarce into ridicule and fun.

> Marcell Mars <