[Reader-list] digital inequalities

[Oli]

Dear all,

here is a proposal of what could be called "digital inequalitities".


Best, Oli Leistert

----


Digital Inequalities

Abstract

The following text raises questions about digital dependencies and 
inequalities. Most agendas of development work and computer literacy see 
their goals in a distribution of computers and relating hardware. 
« Computer » here is seen generally as a means for empowerment, as a means 
to access resources of knowledge and as a means for building networks. Left 
out, whether consciously or not, is a critical reflection on the product 
« computer » and the accompaining regimes of computer products. This text 
argues, that a distribution of computer products such as Microsoft through 
multiplicators such as NGO's does not diminish digital inequalities, but, 
in a way, extends them. With the distribution of a black box, such as 
Microsoft Windows, a profound empowerment is prevented, not inforced. The 
users of these software bundles are strictly depending on the proprietary 
product. With this kind of distribution of computers, the misleading and 
wrong equation « Computer is Microsoft » is transported as a gospel, or 
ruling motto, into rural areas.
The second issue this text discusses is the general accumulation of data in 
a digitally connected environment, that confronts our everyday life more 
and more.
This world of data is produced by us while we are acting the way we always 
used to do. Our acting gets more and more translated and transported as 
data into a  dataworld, mostly without that we know about it. Wireless 
networks  connect everyday life (mobiles, smartcards in the metro, payback 
cards while shopping) and produce a counterworld, that consists of data, 
intangible and purely informational. This data then feedbacks into the real 
world, into everyday life, structures what we do and how we do it, 
sometimes even determines it.


Digital inequalities belong to a world of patents, licences and copyright 
protection

The digital divide saga goes roughly like this: the poor on this planet do 
not only have not enough to eat, no, (even worse) they they don't have 
computers. And not having computers seems to be the reason, why they don't 
have enough to eat. Other reasons of their poverty, or of poverty in 
general, are not touched or even considered in this discourse, because 
development aid is not about questioning the political agenda where it gets 
its money from. The analytical gap is being replaced by a simple equation: 
once the poor have computers, they have access to information and with 
that, they have access to resources of knowledge that will help them escape 
their poverty. This tale of progress through technology is being used to 
implement new dependencies, dependencies that are of an old kind, but with 
a new look. Digital dependencies emerge, when western commercial products, 
such as Microsoft Windows, are being introduced as bringing salvation in 
communities of the paupers. The dependency consists of not more and not 
less than the usage of a commercial product, including the introduction of 
such concepts as licenses, copyright regimes and patents. And, maybe most 
important, the introduction of what a computersystem is, or seems to be: a 
commercial product. A deep rooted equal computer system would be one, that 
allows full control over its usage, distribution and changing in any way, 
including improovement. An equalitiy would allow free choice of 
applications and the possibility to deny the usage of  some.

So, digital inequalities can in part be seen as a result of a society, that 
is shaped by commodities, where social interaction is replaced through an 
exchange of commodities and of a society, where important tools are 
« protected » by regimes of copyrights, patents and licenses and where a 
huge political, juridical and police apparatus takes care of this. These 
regimes successfully prevent any emancipation of the consumer to a user 
controlling his/her means by her/himself. This is applies to the west as to 
any other region (although, surely,  there are big differences, the main 
line stays the same). A licence defines the terms of usage. It prohibits 
that the user appropriates the products in a way not being intended by the 
manufacturer of the product. The product is not intended to become a thing 
amongst others, which is being determined by the user. Licenses somehow 
guarantee the determination and limitation of the user.

A different example of digital inequalities is much deeper situated in the 
logique of software products: no matter the customer is allowed to use the 
product in a way different from the licence agreement, software products 
(including the software running on mobiles) can hardly be changed into 
appropriated means. The interface design is strictly determining their 
usage. It is not open to any change. Also, the product does not need to 
even inform the user about what else it does. By offering the services 
mentioned in the licence, the product fullfills its requirements the user 
has paid for. The contract between user and manufacurer is not about any 
activities of the manufacturer, but solely about the user's. So, the 
product may have interfaces and communication channels to a third party, 
without even informing the user. The  SMS-channel provided by mobiles is 
such a case, where a channel, initially made for technical services as 
checking remotely the functionality of the mobile, has become popular means 
of communication, sold seperately.

Letting connected digital devices give feedbacks and transmit data, with or 
without notifying the user, is the contempory challenge of the majority of 
IT-companies. Their goal is to build an environment, an ambient, that 
permantly transmits data about « events » in real time. The Rfid-technology 
(link) is such a case, where little computers, that transmit data, are 
being attached onto or implemented into any possible thing surrounding an 
individuum, or carried by the individuum. A different approach of bringing 
together offline and online worlds is made by the consortium that tries to 
establish « Trusted Computing » .  They don't even try to hide their 
ambitions: a complete control over any connected personal computer, 
including the possibility of remotely deleting files, if « appropriate ». 
The history of these kind of plans shows that totalitarian goals usually 
fail because they underestimate the complexity of reality. But on the other 
side, if the transnationals make a combined effort in a connected world, 
one should not underestimate their will and power to solve the « problem » 
of pirated media and what else they have on their agenda.

With the emergence of a counterworld and its computational infrastructure, 
everyday life is being more and more confronted with a data accumulation 
innaccessible for most. A kingdom of information for governments, 
authorities, companies, sales persons and so on, beyond any legitimation.

Everyday life produces a counterworld

What follows is an example of RFID-technology, that shall serve to explain 
the impact of a digital black box computer in everyday life.
The first part of the Delhi Metro is on service for a couple of months now. 
This line goes from east to west, connecting the city devided by the river 
Yukamo. The Delhi Metro has been equipped with a complete computerized 
ticket system by french global player Thales. It offers to types of 
« tickets »: one for the single or two-way passage, and one for multiple 
passages. The ones for the single/two way passage are looking like plastic 
coins, manufactured by Sony (CHECK), they go uner the product name RC-S 890 
and have a diameter of 30mm, are 3 mm thick, and weight 2.7 gramm. They 
contain a small computer with an antenna. They have themselves no power 
supply (a very important aspect of RFID-items), but get their energy 
through field induction from a reader-device.

Between the « Ticket » and the reader-device, that is integrated into the 
barrier one has to pass to reach the platform, an intense data traffic 
takes place:
the computer is activated by induced energy. Then, the reader reads the 
data on the « ticket » that has been stored on it. The system now knows 
which smart token has been purchased, for what passage and when. Possibly 
the smart token stores data given by the reader: the reader might store 
place and time of passing the reader on the « ticket ». The communication 
between the two runs on 13.56 Mhz. Both, token and card are working within 
a so called close coupling distance (distance from reader not more than 
some centimeters). The smart token has a memory size of 576 bytes. This 
Eeprom-memory can be overwritten up to 50.000 times.

These coins, which have to be placed near the barrier before every passage, 
open, if valid, the barriers and the commuter can proceed to the platform.
After the passage, they are thrown into the barrier again. And depending on 
the passage done and the one paid for, or better: depending if the passage 
done is compatible to the one reserved for the commuter by the system, the 
barriers open or don't open.
The traveller does not get any material proof of the passage, like the 
paperticket in the old days. The tickets are bought at the ticket counter, 
readily configured for the announced passage. A spontanous prolongation of 
the passage is not possible without somehow embarrasing procedures at final 
station. The ticket system notices the change of passage and the yatri gets 
punished with high attention by the uniformed employees.
Furthermore, only a limited timeslot is open for the passage. If the yatri 
leaves the train in between and discusses with a fellow the pro's and con's 
of the Delhi Metro and then continues the passage, the timeslot will be 
closed and again the uniformed personal will pay high attention to this 
yatri. This high attention mostly leads to a rising deprivation of the 
yatri, She/he is now a disturbing subject, at least disturbing the 
continuous flow of the other passengers at the gate.
With the total electronic control, no manual control and no spotting of 
faredodger is necessary in the trains. This means less employees and the 
end of a possible economy not fully in the hands of the Delhi Metro 
Transport Corporation (DMTC). Supposedly, full control of metro usage is 
done over two different stages: purchase of ticket at counter and 
barrier/reader-device. As some uniformed employees always hang around at 
the barriers, it is hard to jump over them - a sport of civil disobedience 
very popular in several western old metro systems. It's even harder, as two 
barriers have to be passed: at the beginning and the end.
The uniformed employees are mere appendixes of the digital machine: they 
are getting active when the machine tells them to, by sending off alarm 
clock like sounds that changes the whole place into a location of emergency.

One detail, that arises from the fact, that the tickets are computers, is 
the fine of RPs 100 one has to pay, if the « ticket » is not used for 
travelling but taken away, removed out of the closed system of the digital 
machine. It is not allowed to do this, because these « tickets » are far 
too expensive. They cost far more than the prize for the passage. A smart 
token ticket system only pays off, if each token is used some hundred 
times. Only then it is cheaper than the classic paper ticket system. To 
prevent « theft » of tickets, the DMTC has invented so called « souvenir 
tokens », simple plastic coins without any computer inside, for 4 rps, that 
can be taken home by fans of the metro. That it does not contain a computer 
might not matter, as the computer is invisible anyway. The contactless data 
traffic does not feel very technical, more magic.
While purchasing a paper ticket in a classical metro system, it is still 
the passengers decision to make the journey or not. In the case of the 
RFID-System, the passenger has to do the passage or to give back the ticket 
at the counter.

The second type of ticket offered by the DMTC is a plastic card in the size 
of creditcards. It is intended for those who commute frequently and can be 
obtained for a deposit of one hundred rupees, which comes close to the 
actual prize for the product on the market. This smartcard can be charged 
with data that represents money, from 50 rps upwards. The usage is 
identical to the usage of the tokens (but you keep it and don't throw it 
into the slot). Some commuters have invented the practice to keep it in the 
wallet or bag and to hold the wallet against the reader, which works fine 
as long as the wallet or bag does not contain too much metal. The value 
« on the card » will be shown each time the card is read. A little discount 
is given for users of the smartcard, which means that two classes of users 
are invented, token user and card user. Whoever has enough money to pay the 
deposit and at least 50 rps gets rewarded with a discount. Technically 
seen, the « metrocard » is more sophisticated than the token. It is again a 
product by Sony, called FeLica, most reasonably the type RC-S833, made out 
of PET-plastic. The Computer has an 8-bit RISC CPU with 1.2 kbytes 
usermemory. The most important difference is the Triple-DES Encryption 
Algorithm the CPU is equipped with. This Encryption is used everytime the 
card gets read by the System. It prevails the « illegitimate » charging of 
the card. The metrocard can be used as an electronic wallet, and some shops 
in the metro stations supposedly accept it (I haven't tried).

Whether token or card, both are computers, and being a ticket is just one 
possible application. It can also be said, that they simulate tickets. The 
smart ticket system offers online statistics about the metro usage, because 
every single passage is tracked by the system. This is a manager's dream, a 
real-time analysis of such a complex company. The possibility of real-time 
analysis lowers operational cost and increases profits. Information is of 
big value for companies. Today, a lot of products, from toothpaste to milk, 
have toll-free number printed on, that can be called by consumers. « We 
want to know what you think about this product! » Sure they want. And while 
this kind of feedback is based on free will, other feedback channels have 
emerged which are much more subtile and imperceptible: City Bank's PayBack 
card reports every item purchased to the members of the Payback consortium. 
Customers Cards by chains are a different example. They provide special 
offers or discounts, which shows how high this kind of informations is 
valued by the chains. But in all these cases, it initially was a decision 
by the customer to be member of the « club ». This is different in the case 
of the Delhi Metro. Every commuter is being reported in real time.

>From the operator's perspective, the ticket system provides a complete
picture of the metro usage, from its first day of operation on. Every token 
or card, that had been connected to the reader, gets storaged. So, for 
exampe, no inspectors in the trains are needed anymore. Also, the expansive 
and inexact counting of passengers, still seen in older metro systems, is 
outdated. The system counts everything itself, or better: by counting it 
works.

Every metro station is connected via fibre cable or satellite dishes with 
the central server. The metro operates its own, closed network, no local 
business is envolved. The central database, run by a software system thats 
main target is to eliminate costs (SAP, the neoliberal's dream), contains 
each single passage: time, places, durage, which token or card used (they 
all have unique numbers). The software generates daily analysis of each 
stations usage, routes taken. The metrocards are not personalized, but as 
video pictures from each station are also transmitted to the headquarters, 
tracking of each single yatri is fairly easy. The commuting behaviour of 
each metrocard can be visualized with a mouse click.

Okay, well, somehow interesting this, but tell me: what has this to do with 
digital inequalities?


Every yatri produces data during her/his voyage, without knowing about it. 
No one informs the yatri about this, not during « ticket » « purchase » or 
by a leaflet handed out. The signs in the stations inform about video 
surveillance and not to touch unknown things.
It seems as if the data is not a matter of the yatri, who produces it. This 
raises questions of ownership: whose data is this? Doesn't it belong to the 
commuter? Or should not at least the commuter decide what this data is used 
for?
In the case of the Delhi Metro, the yatri has no possibilities to interfere 
into the production and usage of his/her data. The Metro System needs the 
data to operate, so the data is an immanent part of the metro. Any 
questioning of the data production means a questioning of the whole metro 
system. The only possibility to avoid data production is not using the 
metro, definitely not a good choice. The Delhi Metro has implemented a data 
regime, that is immanently connected to the metros functionality as a 
transport system - real world and virtual world fall together.

Digital inequalities consist in this of the asymmetric dataworld. No 
influence possible on the data produced and the way it is used. The way to 
any surveillance scenarios is paved. But even without this in mind, the 
data production is highly questionable: who has legitimized the DMRC to 
maintain a total data collection of their passengers? Can this be 
legitimized by the system itself? A technology, that has implemented such 
features as being necessary for operation is frightening. What if the next 
generation cars only move, if a real time data stream is up and running?

In a wireless connected surrounding, the real, physical world of moving 
objects produces a virtual, informational world, a distorted mirror. 
Simultaneously and in synchronity this mirror is build. But while the real 
world is fluid, passing, fading in its stream of time, the virtual world is 
of very different character. It consists of incoherent, but continuously 
generated data, that does not fade away in time. It is an evergrowing 
accumulation of discrete « moments », that, as data, lack the sense of time 
humans have. Data is omnipresent. The virtual world collects passing 
moments and preserves them for signification at any possible time in the 
future, in a reductionist way, as data never represents the qualities of 
real life, the overwhelming number of impressions and emotions one connects 
with moments passed. The virtual world is a homogenized substratum, lacking 
any sense of time. It can haunt the real world at any arbitrary moment by 
« prooving » long forgotten situations or constellations. The temporal 
disconnection and, with that, the shortage to an everlasting present is not 
only of philosophical interest. Nothing less but everyday life is affected 
by it.

The virtual world affects everyday life as an objective narrative

Although much poorer in sensual qualities and details, which makes the 
world surrounding us so interesting, the quality of total objectivity is 
attributed to the virtual world. This total objectivity is also seen as 
universal, meaning the same anywhere at anytime; the « pure truth ». This 
authoritarian style data, being always correct, echoes the politics of 
those who are building it: technicians, engineers, scientists, and 
authorities of states and companies. White male's dreams of omnipotence 
rule the data world. A well trained view from above, learned through 
centuries of « neutral » science and thinking, a god's view. The data world 
is independent of local bindings. It is a register of a divine almanac, 
never to be questioned. This objectivity is unquestionable, as there is no 
locality to question it from. It lies beyond the living world, a dead(ly) 
objecitivity.
This doesn't mean that any data is evil or forever lost in bad politics. 
But being in the hands of those, whose interest is control, government, 
surveillance, optimization, cost reduction, the virtual world helps 
generate images of the real world, that are reduced to parameters belonging 
to such regimes. The output, the generated view on the real world, always 
appears to be true and unquestionable, independent of how contingent the 
meanings given to it are. While emotions and other not quantifyable matters 
structure the signification of everyday moments, and truth and objectivity 
are of secondary interest, this relation is upside down in the virtual 
world. Data of total objectivity generate the meanings of moments. The 
parameters used for these operations are contingent, maybe even senseless 
and incomprehensible. They are set by the operators of the system, by the 
managers, politicians: they generate a world of theirs. The « real » world 
is being generated from scratch on the basis of datasets, replayable in any 
contingent way, objectified by computers. A good example is the weathershow 
on BBC World. A colourful ball appears on the screen, that represents the 
« world weather » of, say, the last 24 hours, and some gray spots hurry 
around it. We are feeling comfortable with images like that and hardly 
notice, that the picture shown by BBC World can not be seen by anyone on 
earth. It is generated from the virtual world's data and narrates something 
about the real world, that is computated out of billions of data sets. We 
are all astronauts, aren't we?

The virtual world acts normatively on the real world because of the 
objectivity awarded to it. The power of the virtual world to generate 
reductionistic perspectives, views, diagrams, cross-sections by any 
possible criteria, that are always true, but never representing something 
experienceable in this abstract and contextless way, alienates the real 
world from it self step by step. Endless generating of « real » worlds by 
the means of virtual worlds change every real world substantially. The 
virtual world is a misguided mirror of the real world, in which the real 
world never can regain itself. In its reduction to some few  parameters, 
the virtual reduces the real, that bows to it, anddeclares its own richness 
of images, imaginations, emotions more and more irrelevant. The virtual 
objectivies the real.
The accumulation of data in a digitally connected world generates a 
counterworld, immaterial, informational, of ruling objectivity. It 
structures the real, it economises the real and sorts it by contingent, 
undiscussed criterias, that reflect the thinking of those who have access 
to it. To trace, to govern, to control, to collect, to calculate, to 
divide. Quantifyable kingdoms, pure and clean. Classes, modules, segments, 
parts.
Most of the time, we don't even notice the production of the counterworld. 
The striking thing is, though, that it is us who produce it. Without 
movements of objects, of transactions, of sounds and any other dynamics, no 
data would be produced, at least no data of interest. Our actions are 
connected only one way: into the virtual. The stream goes unidirectional, 
away from us. It is only on special occasions that we get an impression 
about the accumulation already done, about datamountains and 
informationrivers. We are kept away from the data we produce, as if they 
had nothing to do with us and as if they would not feedback into our 
worlds. It is an inequality of prominent kind, that our data are present in 
an unaccessible counterworld, always about to interfere into our lifes. 
Besieging our lifes with meanings generated by others, meanings we only can 
react on, mostly helpless as the meanings comes in an objectified form.

Personalized data are suspected to be the most problematic data, as a 
counterimage of a single person is made up with it. But personalisation of 
data at least offers some advantages: a personal reaction is possible, it 
is much easier to adress the problem of personal data storage and ask for 
access to it. Unpersonaliszed data, however, are in a way a much bigger 
challenge, as they  also feedback onto single lifes, but on a different, 
bigger scale. It's much harder to comprehend and critize their effects, as 
they act on whole segments of societies.

An overwhelming case of building constant data flows into the counterwelt 
is RFID-technology, pushed by huge transnational companies. They dream of a 
permant data emission by individuals and their objects. Putting life 
online. A doubled world of data.
Digital inequalities are basically productions of data, that are caused 
without the consent and knowing of the individuum, that uses digital 
devices such as Personal Computers or the Delhi metro « ticket ».
When Microsoft promotes the connection of every earthling to the net, in 
collaboration with huge development agencies, their goal is not to fight 
digital inequalities, but to gain control over its definition. Unconnected 
people are not of interest to anyone, like unaccessible islands. To connect 
them means to connect them with and to an unequal digital world, like it is 
done with the wide distribution of MS Products through NGO's. Connection is 
always  designed by third parties. In the case of most NGO's, a 
connectivity and computer distribution is promoted, that is designed by one 
of the largest companies in the world. While the small tokens of the Delhi 
Metro are hardly to be recognized as computers, the personal computer is 
the most significant incarnation of a computer, and what is striking, 
always with some proprietary software by a single company running on it. 
But this is without any proper reason, as the GNU/Linux solution offers an 
open operating system free of charge, completly controllable by the user 
and changeable in any imaginable way. This is a setting, that reduces 
digital inequalities from the ground. Once the technical knowledge is 
spread, the computer is under control of those, who should have it under 
control: the users.
Meanwhile, every single newly distributed MS computer only reinforces the 
reign of Redmond. As the information politics goes, new user even don't get 
told about alternatives. The equation that MS is computer is being passed 
on from generation to generation, like some religion.
Some argue, that MS is easy to use and that its desktop is the entry to 
computer literacy. This is an interesting claim that internalizes an 
element of IT-politics that has undoubtly successfully been brought into 
people's mind: the problem of the difficult machine and how to solve it. 
Computers are some of the most complex machines build by humans and their 
power lies in their ability of calculate in such an enormous speed, that 
the calculation can be used to generate representations as graphics, sounds 
and so on. But this computational power has also produced fear and anger at 
computers. To make them a mass product, it was necessary to give them a 
human-touch look.

The promise of simplicity

Computers are of complex and difficult matter. 25 years ago, computers were 
part of the world of experts. These experts were and are educated to 
understand the processes inside the machine, to configure and programme it. 
To operate such a computer was difficult and laymen had lots of respect for 
these machines and their commanders. These were understandable fears of 
contact with these modern, eerie machines. Images of machines ruling human 
kind were born and entered the world of science fiction.

Today, the computer has become an everyday item for a lot of people and it 
can be found in many offices and at home. Fear of contact has been reduced 
and the computer has become an integral part of contempory life, in many 
places of the world. Like radio and television, one can't think about life 
without it. But still, computers are complex machines. Nothing has changed 
for that. Still, their inner processes are only understood by experts. What 
has changed and what made them such a big success is their surface, or 
better: its design. With a little training, one feels comfortable with this 
surface and one gets the impression to understand a computer. Though, one 
has « only » become a user. Computers with desktops such as Windows are 
made to look easy understandable at the price of not letting anyone know 
what really happens inside. A promise of simplicity is being given, that 
builds trust between a higly complex machine and a layman. With this 
promise of simplicity, people get initiated into a colourful world, that 
provides any means for the consum of digital products. Through this 
simplicity, the computer as become a mass product.
But behind the surface, the complex machines still operates in the same way 
as 25 years before. And everytime the machines crashes, an event of 
regularity, some window pops up that « tells » about errors that happened 
in the most cryptical way. In this moment, the user is helpless and 
experiences the fragiltiy of her/his relation to the machine.
In these cases, the computer proves its power over the user. But this is 
only because it was build this way. Microsoft has no interest in any other 
relation. Their software doesn't allow more than a superficial knowledge of 
the machine. Errors are not to be solved by the user, but by the hotline, 
an expensive service and integral part of the product. The user's 
dependency on the manufacturer and other commercial services is part of the 
game. The user's kingdom ends with changing the background colour of the 
desktop.

In this ambivalence of computer complexity and the politics, to connect 
everyone to the internet through pretending computers are simple, a digital 
inequality emerges. The prize for simplicity is a black box, a product that 
treats the user like a child. The metaphor of the desktop had helped to 
spread the equation MS is Computer.
The politics of making people using computers, whether they need them or 
not, with the promise of simplicity, has the goal to reduce the number of 
those, that have been left out of the computer world so far. In the west, 
these are the older people, the last analog generation. As the market 
reached its limit in the west, the targetted number of people had to be 
increased. The retired people are mostly wealthy (they gained the fruits of 
60's and 70's social system), buy laptops and search the internet for 
information on old age illnesses. In the computer courses they visit, they 
learn how to make spreasheets with MS Excel and other weird things, but no 
one tells them about Linux.

The retired in the west  are the rural people in big parts of Asia. While 
the cities and towns offers internet services in so called cybercafes, 
NGO's try to bring the computerblessing to the countryside. Main reason is 
the argument, that  computers increase knowledge exchange, that a network 
of computers  also helps to build a network of humans, and finally, 
computerliteracy is seen as empowerment. This all might be true, even if 
the computer itself serves also as a fetish that makes people move. The 
problem is the computer system the NGO's introduce, as it is most of the 
time MS Windows. They introduce a western regime, that finds its expression 
in the equation MS is computer. It would be an easy task to qualify a 
person to administrate Linux machines. Doing this, the network could easily 
add applications for free and change their own system in any desired way. 
This autonomy is not intended, supposedly. The agenda fighting the 
« digital divide » is not an agenda for digital independence, including 
operating systems and applications. Moreover, the goal is to redo what has 
been done in the west before.
The distribution of western products through NGO's might not be a reflected 
part of their work. Having the same computers in their offices, why should 
they distribute Linux to the rural people? Multiplicators such as NGO's are 
the vehicles to promote the de facto monopoly of one software company.

The Desktop-metaphor was one of the most striking events to make the 
computer a mass medium, followed, of course, by the internet. By 
succesfully pretending that knowing how to move a mouse and clicking some 
windows means being able to operate a computer, millions of computers have 
been sold to people lacking any sense of the machine. But the illusion soon 
gets into trouble when the first time one of those well-known and weired 
messages appears, telling about something happening deep down inside the 
machine, completely in cryptic language. This is where the metaphor of the 
desktop ends and where the users dependency begins. Knowing how to change 
the colour of the desktop's « background » doesn't help here. Microsoft is 
not letting anyone understand the inner states of the computer.

Two kinds of PC's exists: unequal and equal ones. The unequal ones are more 
popular, because they seem to fulfill the promise of simpleness. But also 
because the unequal ones are being promoted by a huge apparatus of 
politics, bureaucracy and administrations, not to mention economics. The 
whole machinery of patents, copyright, commodities, licences, that comes 
with an unequal computer, feeds the power of these promoting agencies. The 
entertainment industry finally depends on a machine that can not be 
controlled by users themselves. How heavily armed this destructive 
apparatus of control and moneymaking is, shall be shown with an example not 
entirely  realistic today, but very much in a couple of years:
You switch on your comp and open, as every morning, your dairy, a file in 
MS Word. At your surprise, a window pops up that announces some irritating 
message:
« Your license to use this MS product has expired. To renew it, please 
visit microsoft.com .» And the application closes. You think you are smart 
and you start OpenOffice, an alternative some computer geek once installed 
on your comp. OpenOffice can import doc. files, so what's the problem. But 
instead of your dairyfile, again some message pops up:
« This file's license has expired. To renew it, please visit microsoft.com »
This time, you start feeling a bit worried. Not knowing what your computer 
does and always living in a subliminal state of panic to loose data while 
using it, is normal for you, but not having access to some of your most 
personal data is a new chapter in your computer dependency. You worry even 
more, in fact start being hectical, as the same happens when you 
doubleclick your Phd-Thesis, that is almost finished. Also every letter you 
have written is inaccessible. There seems to be no other possibility but to 
« visit » the mentioned website and hope for help.
This takes longer than a coffee break. You are being requested to submit a 
whole bunch of personal data concerning your person, profession, income, 
creditcard number and more of the kind that is absolutely unnecessary to 
male your MS Word work again. After having gone through this striptease 
process, you doubleclick a small « OK »button on the website. To your 
surprise, an even more worrying text appears:
« According to the Trusted Computing guard, your computer system gives host 
to the following applications without any licence and therefore illegally. 
We remind you that computer piracy is a criminal act:

MS Paint
Adobe Photoshop
QuarkExpress


All data, that has been illegally generated with these applications has 
been deleted from your computer. In case any other files carrying the 
signature of these illegally used applications are circulating on the 
Internet, they will be deleted successively, too. Also, the applications 
themselves have been deleted.

You have infringed copyrights and licenses of Microsoft and other companies 
by installing and using these applications. It is possible that you have 
caused severe financial losses for these companies in doing so. Please 
expect a legal case taken against you.

The renewal of your MS Word licence is valid 18 months. We will withdraw $ 
293 from your account in the next 24 hours. Thank you for using Microsoft! »


Paths to digital independence

This scenario of expired dairies does not seem real since until today, 
there has always been a way to use pirated software. But this time, the 
past is not much helpful to evalute the near future of computers. Cracking 
of programs and the old liberal times of the internet are about to be 
replaced by strict regimes of control.
Since 11/9, nearly every government implemented laws and regimes to control 
the flow of data. The authorities are prosecuting the sharing of music 
files in the name of antiterrorism. And they monitor the data streams. They 
store terra bytes of data. Automated filter software works its way through 
myriads of information, sorting things out by any criteria imaginable. The 
governments oblige internet service providers to hand over log files 
without telling their customers; in some countries, the authorities even 
have direct access to the ISP's internal data. The governments are driven 
by the reduction of liberties on the net. In a networked world, things have 
to regulated properly.  And it does not take much manpower to do this, 
since data is processable by computers easily, even such large quantitites 
as the daily internet connections. This counterworld, being generated in 
the name of counterterrorism, produces new suspects and delinquents en 
masse and en passant. Computertechnology has began to tyrannize everyday 
life. Every citizen is a possible bad guy.

But it is not only governments, that have put the counterworld on their 
agenda and make intensive use of it. The « Trusted Computing » consortium 
is about to change the Personal Computer from an autonomous machine to a 
mere appendix of software companies, content providers and entertainment 
industries. Intel, Microsoft, HP and others invest huge sums to convert the 
PC to a device, which they can trust. This has nothing to do with a secure 
computer for the user. The trust is about total control of what is running 
on a machine under conditions dictated by them. The biggest inequalitiy so 
far in the digital domain. A sophisticated implementation on hardware level 
of algorithmns, that ensure proper payment and licensing, that will not be 
an easy case for crackers and hackers, if at all. The goal is to define, 
what the user is allowed to do with her/his comp. This control is only 
possible through a huge connected infrastructure such as the internet. This 
computer is definitely not a good place for storage of relevant personal 
data. This computer has become an outlet of the transnational company.

Today, the question is not to have or have not a computer. Today, the 
question  is how a computer can be used, without being a data producer for 
governments and companies. It's about the liberty to decide which data one 
produces, where it goes and who can access it. It's about the one's 
self-defined usage of a technology, that holds immense means of empowerment 
by its huge range of applications, whereof email is the killerapplication. 
If it is right, that a networking computer is a means of empowerment, than 
all the big players involved are trying to take control over this 
empowerment, cutting it down to dependencies and consumerism. Microsoft 
does not wait until NGO's start to distribute Linux computers. They take 
care of it themselves to explore new markets, with the aid of agencies like 
UNESCO. A developing world that develops with Linux is a a nightmare for 
the big players and would mean the end of the neverending growth of their 
market shares. China, India, most parts of Asia are about to be 
computerized. A huge market emerges. Every engagement of Microsoft in Asia 
is part of a fight against national IT-solutions and Linux. The WTO and 
other neoliberalist structuring regimes are the instruments to fight any 
development in the IT-sector that differs from the past ones.

But digital inequalities are no natural laws. They are manmade and can be 
changed by man. It is not advisable to seek help from governments, 
companies or even NGO's. Digital independence is for the most part selfmade 
and self empowerment. It doesn't matter to have the latest Computer model. 
Linux runs on every old machine just perfect. And a computer that has the 
« trusted computing » hardware implemented can't be trusted much. As 
digital inequalities are not primarily depending on levels of 
« development », but on levels of self empowerment and consciousness, 
digital inequalities are not only subject to the « developing  world ».
It doesn't cost much money to operate a comp that gets upgraded regularely 
and is well documented. Only pay for the Hardware, never for the Software, 
since Linux is free. Uncountable online-sites contain helpful postings and 
discussions on technical problems. Most of the times, people answer ones 
question very fast, because helping others to empower themselves is fun. 
Linux supports willingness to help.

It is pretty easy to encrypt your emails. Noone but you and your 
communication partner will then be able to read it. The manuals for PGP and 
GPG are all out there. To encrypt your email it comparable with the usage 
of an envelope in classic mail. Any non encrypted email will automatically 
be prossessed by huge keyword search machines, storaged in databases and 
maintained for possible later use. It doesn't matter if your mail contains 
secrets, poems or whatever, because it simply isn't anyone's elses business 
to know the content. What would you say, if all your paper mail letters 
arrive with an open envelope or if the postman would tell you what your 
mail contains today?

The payments by creditcards, bankcards or any other smart cards is being 
pushed because it provides two simple advantages for companies: it is 
cheaper, as cash is cost intensive and always a risk and it provides a flow 
of data that enters into the counterworld. It is still fairly easy to say 
no. Use cash where possible. Everytime you choose electronic payment, you 
let a third party participate in your business and you expose yourself to a 
situation in that you don't know what happens.

A similar case are RFID chips, that emerges more and more in everydaylife. 
They might be attached to products in the supermarket, to CD's in music 
stores, and they have already been sewn into clothes. They garnish medical 
products and are present in systems like the Delhi Metro. Spare parts for 
cars or mobiles, printer cardridges and other items are identified through 
their unique number and they have been used to tag dead bodies after the 
tsunami in Thailand. RFID is a technology for different purposes and usages 
and there is not one single way to deal with them. They will appear more 
and more in very different situations of our everyday life. Each specific 
usage needs its own reflection. There is not a single solution for or 
against it. But what they always do: they partake in the accumulation of 
data for the counterworld.
In a world of data transmitting things, more and more problems arise for 
people that want to decide about their data themselves. If companies make 
it to introduce RFID more broadly in the human environment, we face a 
counterworld, that can't be ignored by anyone. Through the huge 
concentration in the food sector, the global players can easily do what 
they want to. RFID is the effort to eliminate any self-defined data 
environment. This won't be total, but still troubling enough.
To raise consciousness against any data transmitting environment is still a 
good move, as the business has just started. And as long as the promissary 
rhetoric of progress and a better living is being used by its promoters, it 
is fairly easy to expose the myths. The intelligent fridge, that notices a 
shortage on milk and orders two more litres is not a picture that convinces 
anyone to switch to this technology. But tracking of pets with GPS devices 
is a reasonable succesful attempt to introduce a complete surveillance 
scenario into everyday life. Improvement of security is the keyword of such 
interventions. But the same actors that are responsible for the condition 
of everyday life are not trustworthy at all.

Some sources, that have been helpful writing this:

A good introduction on the Trusted Computing project:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html

How Microsoft describes its engagement with NGO's itself:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/citizenship/report/digitalinclusion.mspx

The wikipedia page about RFID:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID

The GnuPG site, email encryption software:
http://gnupg.org/

One big source of (coorporate) information on RFID
http://www.rfidjournal.com/