McCommunism: Naomi Klein, The Olympics, and The Police State

August 19th, 2008 Adam || Tags: china, cisco, general electric, google, honeywell, naomi klein, olympics, privacy, surveillance

Naomi Klein wrote a poignant article recently about the ways in which the global surveillance market is being propped up by the Beijing Olympics.  Her article is entitled The Olympics: Unveiling Police State 2.0, and it details how the Beijing Olympics are being used as an excuse to sell high tech, police-grade surveillance equipment—security cameras, biometric identification, facial recognition software—to China, a transaction deemed illegal following the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.  The Olympics’ status as an international sporting event has seemingly created a backdoor through which such illegal transactions can take place, and they are further bolstered by investments from such American companies like General Electric, Cisco, and Google (yes, Google).  Klein goes on to mention how installation of surveillance equipment in China prior to the Beijing Olympics was a government mandated initiative and how this proved to be a ripe opportunity for American investors.  In 2001, when China was awarded the honor of hosting the Olympics, it was thought that in the time leading up to the games, international scrutiny would erode the perceived repressive walls of the Chinese state allowing for democracy to flow in, as it were.  Klein cites the irony in the events since then when she writes

Instead, the Olympics have opened up a backdoor for the regime to massively upgrade its systems of population control and repression. And remember when Western companies used to claim that by doing business in China, they were actually spreading freedom and democracy? We are now seeing the reverse: investment in surveillance and censorship gear is helping Beijing to actively repress a new generation of activists before it has the chance to network into a mass movement.

She worries that not only will the high tech surveillance equipment stay in China long after the games are over to keep a watchful eye on the Chinese population, but that after the Beijing Olympics are over and determined a success, “Police State 2.0 will be ready for export.” (my italics)

Below is Democracy Now! from August 15th, 2008 which features an interview with Naomi Klein.  You can fast forward to 41:40, about 2/3 of the way through, if you want to see it.  If you have the time, though, the entire show is worth watching.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

My new wheels (well, sorta)

August 18th, 2008 Adam || Tags: cycling, my life, serotta, transportation

Since I don’t have a fossil-fueled vehicle anymore (I’m in the process of selling my truck back home, so if you’re interested…) I thought it would be a good idea to start biking everywhere.  During our stay in Oceanside the past few months I was able to walk wherever I needed, but since we moved to Vista everything is a bit further away.  My brother has been toting around this steel Serotta frame for a while, not sure exactly what to do with it, so I asked him if we could build it up.  I’d rather not move anywhere in the near future that requires me to own an automobile, so putting some work into a bike that I can take with me wherever I go seems like a decent idea.  Don’t know much about bikes… guess it will be a good learning experience.  Supposedly steel frames are rare and characteristic of classic bike frames.  Aren’t I cool?

Don’t know if any of you are into the bike scene, but it’d be cool to have some input as I build her up.  I need a project right now.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Confidentiality of Anthropological Research Under Fire

August 14th, 2008 Adam || Tags: anthropology, DHS, law, patriot act, privacy, rant, research, traveling

I don’t know why I didn’t think about it before, when I heard about the United States Department of Homeland Security searching the computer contents of returning US citizens from abroad (1, 2). I originally thought it was ludicrous, of course, watching my rights dissolve as the myth of relentless and omnipresent terror seeped further into my (our) personal life. But for some reason it didn’t cross my mind that my future research as an anthropologist would be compromised by the unbridled fears, stoked by incessant media sensationalization, that have found their symbolic explanation in the specter of terrorism—a specter that places those fears in a meaningful, intelligible context (and is ripe for exploitation).

Anthropological research, as it was taught to me, is built first and foremost upon the foundations of trust between the anthropologist and her cultural informants (read: friends). Our intentions are not those of detached observers but engaged participants. It is in attempting to experience the lives of our friends from their point of view and on their own terms that anthropologists try to make well-informed interpretations about the human condition. With a healthy degree of relativism, systemic understanding, and holistic thinking, anthropology is indispensable in cultural analysis and the Orwellian stage set by the enforcement of the Patriot Act will only serve to undermine this effort and ultimately any attempt at understanding our brothers and sisters all over the world. Whereas anthropology is trying (or should be trying) to forge connections between the peoples of the world and increase cross-cultural awareness and understanding, the Patriot Act is breaking those connections to leave us festering in an isolationist cesspool, consuming ourselves under the (hollow) slogan of “freedom.” Fear mongering and xenophobia are anything but free, and they won’t be satisfied until we cannibalize every last bit of humanity we each have within us.  I mean, God forbid we attempt to understand “radical” Islam. (I’m sure this last sentence labels me a traitor since I don’t hate with blind furor what I don’t fully understand.)

The searching of computer contents is disturbing on many levels. From listening attentively to anthropologists I deeply respect, I’ve realized anthropological fieldwork isn’t always the most pleasurable experience, and that sometimes it can be absolutely viscerally disturbing. You may (and probably will) be confronted with conflicting cultural values and paradoxes around every corner that leave you feeling helpless and perhaps even hating yourself because you can’t reconcile the battle between your belief in some sense of cultural relativism on the one hand and your deeply held personal beliefs on the other. But the personal turmoil aside, most importantly you may also witness events that could prove dangerous to the people you 1) are indebted to and 2) took an oath to “do no harm” to if accounts of those events fell into the wrong hands without proper understanding. Government officials aren’t the only ones responsible for classified information, nor should they be. And, frankly, government officials without anthropological training shouldn’t be responsible for interpreting anthropological research. If we allow our government to treat us like misbehaving step-children we will be the architects of our own demise, not to mention doing so will stifle serious scientific research or any attempt at understanding the world around us for that matter.

If it sounds like I’m grandstanding, maybe I am. But I’m tired of ceding my rights to the policies of an administration that has consistently lied to us. Thoughts?

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Anthropological Theory Timeline

July 27th, 2008 Adam || Tags: anthropology, simile, theory, timeline

I’ve been trying to think of the best way to post this URL.  I can’t really post it on my website, and there’s no place in the sidebar of my blog to throw it, so a blog post will have to suffice.  A year ago, to help myself study for an anthropological theory course I was taking I decided to adopt the SIMILE platform and create a timeline of everything we covered in class (and then some).  I was having some difficulty placing people in their respective eras and organizing who wrote what and when.  I knew I needed to get it out of my head so I could visualize it.  I had daydreams about all the information being sent from a small integrated circuit implanted in my visual cortex that would stimulate my retina, producing a head-up display that I could then manipulate out in front of me with quick movements of my hands and fingers.  Since that couldn’t happen, I settled on SIMILE (it does look pretty sweet on a 50″ LCD TV, though).

I understand there are always discrepencies with dates, time periods, publications, and all that jazz.  I welcome any corrections or debate over information presented in the timeline.  It begins at 1200 and ends at 1992, so there’s more than 10 years that could be filled in.  To navigate by small intervals, click and drag the top portion of the timeline.  To navigate by larger intervals, click and drag the bottom portion.  Mouse-over the major paradigms/perspectives to get a brief explanation and links to some major figures.  Please, any discussion is more than welcomed.  When I get some more time I will experiment with communal editing possibilities so I can relinquish my position as “timeline master.”

check it out here: http://adambohannon.org/timeline.htm

Also anthro related.  If any of you are interested physical anthropology, my buddy Kambiz from Anthropology.net has made an awesome geographical timeline using google maps over at hominin.net, check it out!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

My Social Media Policy

July 26th, 2008 Adam || Tags: anthropology, community, policy, social media

On suggestion from a friend, I decided to take some time to reflect on my own values and beliefs as they pertain to social media use.  In response to a Bill of Rights for Users of the Social Web, created in 2007 by some of the most forefront tech evangelists, and the need for a social contract in this new terrain, she decided to draft up her own policy that others could steal, modify, and post according to their own personal social media policies.

This comes at just the right time as I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the mores and values of online communities and, by extension, adhocracies.  How they are established, enforced, negotiated, broken, and recreated.  Lately, in my little corner of the Twitterverse, there seems to be an upwelling of frustrations directed at various forms of user behavior.  The malcontent ranged from those fed up with the excessive posting of banal life details to those upset at the lack of humility possessed by some users complaining about sudden losses in their number of followers.

Observing all of this unfold, I began to analyze my own behavior.  Had I posted too many commonplace and, frankly, boring updates?  Was I not contributing enough value to the community?  Was I too concerned about broadcasting my message rather than communicating it?  Did I pay enough attention to the updates of others and take time to reply to them?

As an anthropology student, I’ve come to understand that one of the best ways to figure out the “rules” of a culture is to break them (which often happens unintentionally).  So, whether or not I was actually breaking the implicit rules of the Twitter community, I have no idea.  But apparently others were.  And as users communicated their grievances, I was (we were) able to watch the formation of a loose social contract take place, as amorphous and blobby as it is.

So here I am creating my own Social Media Policy to declare my own mores and values with regard to social media and, indeed, adhocracies in general.  If you are so inclined, feel free to take mine, change it, pass it on.  Appreciation goes to Melanie McBride for creating it and sharing it with all of us.

MY SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY

[a work in progress]

1. Connecting: Why do you want to connect?

I value collaboration and cooperation.  Having the ability to connect with so many people and learn from them is important to me and I would like to share whatever I know with others.  To invoke Kevin Kelly, I truly believe “no one is as smart as everyone.”  If we leverage the media together with a diverse yet common vision, I think we can do great things.

2. Follow, add, friending: Basic guidelines

I usually won’t turn down friend requests unless I discover or it’s apparent that your primary inspiration is for attention, popularity, advertising, spam, slander, or anything malicious.  With regard to following (e.g. Twitter), I like to follow people who I feel add value to my experience online and to my life.  If you are too prolific and your updates are dominating my feed, there’s a good chance I will stop following you.  This is a little different for FriendFeed.  On FriendFeed I tend to follow only people I am genuinely interested in.  This is borne of necessity since FriendFeed aggregates so much online behavior that it’s difficult not to be prolific.  As a result, I only follow a handful of people.

If I notice that you’ve begun following me, don’t be offended if I don’t reciprocate immediately.  I like to follow people whose interests at least slightly correlate with mine.  Same goes with adding/friend requesting.  If you turn down my add/friend request, I don’t expect an explanation, but it never hurts.  =)

3. Privacy and boundaries

I try not to share information that is too personal, however, I do talk about my personal life since it is part of my social media (esp. blogging) practice.  I feel social media helps highlight the common humanity in all of us, and I appreciate it when others share their happiness, excitement, fears, and embarrassments, but I don’t expect it.

Talking maliciously about another person I won’t tolerate, from myself or from others.  Your issues with other people should be handled between you and the person in question, not broadcast to your online community.  Included in this is the sharing of intimate details about another person (and esp. identifying that person).  Their privacy is and their boundaries are their own to determine, not yours.

4. Signal to noise

A nice balance of content is nice.  I don’t mind hearing about your personal life (within limits), but if your primary purpose of posting is to complain or merely broadcast the details of your own life, I might stop following you.

5. Warnings and communication

As many online communities have loose or nonexistent social contracts, if you perceive me or anyone else acting in a way which you disapprove of, please notify and politely inform them of your own policy and what you think they should change about their behavior.  I will do the same for you.  Problems can’t be fixed if we don’t communicate.  Sometimes we unwittingly break rules or rub people the wrong way - we need others to keep us in check from time to time.  If you receive a complaint about your behavior, please consider adjusting it for the better of the community.  Don’t take it personally. =) **Some insight from a friend has caused me to rethink this section of my policy**

5. Communication and awareness of fellow community members

As many online communities have loose or nonexistent social contracts, please try and be perceptive of your own behavior in relation to those in your community.  Wherever possible, familiarize yourself with the social media policies of others.  It’s inevitable that we will sometimes unwittingly offend others or break the “rules” - when in doubt, ask a friend about the “proper” behavior in your respective community.  It is up to us to communicate with one another in order to establish a social contract that will help us appropriately navigate the terrain of our online communities (which means it will probably need to be relatively fluid, rather than fixed).

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »