. community —

Some thoughts on computer security and the living dead

Right-to-Life

The term "Virus" is meant to associate a dead thing (and not really dead having never been living) with a living biological body. A so-called computer virus is linked to biology in language (and in reality) only insofar as biology is made dependent on digital technology. The virus is not neutral, and is seen as an attack on supposed life systems which are widely viewed as, but are not either, neutral (techno culture). The CorporateState defines the virus (with help from lots of technophiles), while claiming that its own technology is a natural living organism with an inherent right-to-life. It is interesting to note the ongoing case in Florida involving a Husband's attempts to disconnect his wife's feeding tube. Jeb Bush, the State and other interests have stepped into the matter by declaring the case an issue of right-to-life vs. the so-called right-to-die interests. What is omnipresent, but largely invisible to mainstream debate (at least within the conservative bounds of mainstream media) is the tendency to naturalize medical technology itself. The technology itself becomes an invisible life force to which bodies must obey (or defy). The feeding machine is viewed as a neutral (and natural) necessity, and in the minds of right-to-lifers stands in for God itself. To cut the body from the machine, that in fact lives for the body, is seen as cutting the body itself. To kill the machine becomes confused with (and then practiced as) killing the body. Computers are not alive, they are not human, they cannot contract "viruses," they cannot be "attacked," "terrorized," or "infected," unless they are alive, unless they are human, unless their "infections," and "attacks" are indistinguishable from human infections, attacks, etc. Techno culture makes it possible for the murder of thousands of humans to be discussed in the language of "surgical strikes," and "smart bomb technology." Techno culture also makes it possible for the pentagon to use the language of "Terrorism" when speaking of a virtual sit-in!
, or sim
ple hacker prank.

Vampirism

"Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks." - Karl Marx

Computer networks are reproduced and modified continuously to work with and to facilitate the trading of information (Capital) to predefined and often highly secure locations. In this narrow system anything that slows the speed of supply and demand is perceived as an attack on the body of capital, therefore, dominance is needed, the body must be regulated to ensure the continuity of power relationships within the system. The blood supply must not be interrupted for vampires are relentless, don't die very easily, and often have very little sense of humor.

Sweden’s not a target

Technophobia is often described as an irrational fear of technology, and yet a hammer is technology. Technophilia is described (much less often) as an irrational adoration for technology, and yet a needle and thimble are technology. The fact that fears aroused by forks and spoons, or driving a car for that matter, are not spoken of as technophobia (any more than irrational love for these things are spoken of as technophilia) reveals a primary myth about technology: Namely, that technology acts independent from human social systems, that technology is “out there” working for us (or against us) toward some utopia (or dystopia). A hammer or needle and thread are pretty benign in their effects on global power structures, but if they were not we’d have reverse-hammer-engineers and needle hackers. A network "attack" is possible only when the power relationships guarding a network are so solidified, predictable and controlled that anything counter to it is defined as dangerous and alien. Dangerous? perhaps, alien no. Violent Domination and violent resistance always work hand-in-hand, which goes along way toward explaining why the U.S. is a primary target for terrorism and Sweden’s not, why the New York Times web site is a target for hackers and crackers “Joe’s homepage” is not.

Comments

Lewis LaCook July 29 2004 02:13Reply

Steve Kudlak July 29 2004 02:30Reply

Fun with words. Can I play?;) After one faux pas a couple more
would be fun. My thought it is that "virus" was a reasonable
way to look at it, but of course it stretches a whole lot.
Although the image is enticing. You have a piece of code that
carries instructions that has does act like a biological virus.
But in other ways it is vastly different. For example computer
viruses often have things like "mailing engines" thar allow it
to send out copies of itself and a variety of forms. Or in case
of some it can be dormant until activated. This is strange in
the bio-image. It is like having a mini-brain that would for example
if it existed in the biological world might act like this. Mark catches
a virus from Steve. It somehow already has a mini-brain in it that
gets mark to write a bunch of letters, sigh them in Steve's handwriting
and style or lack thereof;). It might even make Mark's memory
work better!

The interesting thought which comes into my mind when reading Mark's
essay is not whether I agree with it or not. It is the idea thar our
society has "electrotechnophilia" and "biotechophobia" . I can easily
plan to build all sorts of electronic devices that people interact
with and that could change their interactions with the world in all
sorts of ways. If I try to do this by some biological or chemical
mechanosm, even at a lowest level as we see with the CAE case I am
apt to have the authority of the state come down on me in a very
intense way. Heaven forbid I should grow certain species of fungi
and share them with friends. It is very odd that an embryo that is
created to a fertility clinic and will be thrown away anyway can't be
used for stem cell research on any piece of equipment that has been
bought with one cent of public monies.

Have Fun,
Sends Steve

setup


> Right-to-Life
>
> The term "Virus" is meant to associate a dead thing (and not really dead
> having never been living) with a living biological body. A so-called
> computer virus is linked to biology in language (and in reality) only
> insofar as biology is made dependent on digital technology. The virus is
> not neutral, and is seen as an attack on supposed life systems which are
> widely viewed as, but are not either, neutral (techno culture). The
> CorporateState defines the virus (with help from lots of technophiles),
> while claiming that its own technology is a natural living organism with
> an inherent right-to-life. It is interesting to note the ongoing case in
> Florida involving a Husband's attempts to disconnect his wife's feeding
> tube. Jeb Bush, the State and other interests have stepped into the
> matter by declaring the case an issue of right-to-life vs. the so-called
> right-to-die interests. What is omnipresent, but largely invisible to
> mainstream debate (at least within the conservative bound!
> s of mainstream media) is the tendency to naturalize medical technology
> itself. The technology itself becomes an invisible life force to which
> bodies must obey (or defy). The feeding machine is viewed as a neutral
> (and natural) necessity, and in the minds of right-to-lifers stands in
> for God itself. To cut the body from the machine, that in fact lives for
> the body, is seen as cutting the body itself. To kill the machine
> becomes confused with (and then practiced as) killing the body. Computers
> are not alive, they are not human, they cannot contract "viruses," they
> cannot be "attacked," "terrorized," or "infected," unless they are alive,
> unless they are human, unless their "infections," and "attacks" are
> indistinguishable from human infections, attacks, etc. Techno culture
> makes it possible for the murder of thousands of humans to be discussed
> in the language of "surgical strikes," and "smart bomb technology."
> Techno culture also makes it possible for the pentagon to use!
> the language of "Terrorism" when speaking of a virtual sit-in!
> , or sim
> ple hacker prank.
>
> Vampirism
>
> "Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living
> labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks." - Karl Marx
>
> Computer networks are reproduced and modified continuously to work with
> and to facilitate the trading of information (Capital) to predefined and
> often highly secure locations. In this narrow system anything that slows
> the speed of supply and demand is perceived as an attack on the body of
> capital, therefore, dominance is needed, the body must be regulated to
> ensure the continuity of power relationships within the system. The blood
> supply must not be interrupted for vampires are relentless, don't die very
> easily, and often have very little sense of humor.
>
> Sweden’s not a target
>
> Technophobia is often described as an irrational fear of technology, and
> yet a hammer is technology. Technophilia is described (much less often)
> as an irrational adoration for technology, and yet a needle and thimble
> are technology. The fact that fears aroused by forks and spoons, or
> driving a car for that matter, are not spoken of as technophobia (any more
> than irrational love for these things are spoken of as technophilia)
> reveals a primary myth about technology: Namely, that technology acts
> independent from human social systems, that technology is “out there”
> working for us (or against us) toward some utopia (or dystopia). A hammer
> or needle and thread are pretty benign in their effects on global power
> structures, but if they were not we’d have reverse-hammer-engineers and
> needle hackers. A network "attack" is possible only when the power
> relationships guarding a network are so solidified, predictable and
> controlled that anything counter to it is defined as dang!
> erous and alien. Dangerous? perhaps, alien no. Violent Domination and
> violent resistance always work hand-in-hand, which goes along way toward
> explaining why the U.S. is a primary target for terrorism and Sweden’s
> not, why the New York Times web site is a target for hackers and
> crackers “Joe’s homepage” is not.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

Lewis LaCook July 31 2004 02:33Reply

you know, it IS quite a strange schism, the way the authorities see bio vs electro experimentation===

but watch out for those fungi, my man…lol

bliss
l



Steve Kudlak wrote:

>
> Fun with words. Can I play?;) After one faux pas a couple more
> would be fun. My thought it is that "virus" was a reasonable
> way to look at it, but of course it stretches a whole lot.
> Although the image is enticing. You have a piece of code that
> carries instructions that has does act like a biological virus.
> But in other ways it is vastly different. For example computer
> viruses often have things like "mailing engines" thar allow it
> to send out copies of itself and a variety of forms. Or in case
> of some it can be dormant until activated. This is strange in
> the bio-image. It is like having a mini-brain that would for example
> if it existed in the biological world might act like this. Mark
> catches
> a virus from Steve. It somehow already has a mini-brain in it that
> gets mark to write a bunch of letters, sigh them in Steve's
> handwriting
> and style or lack thereof;). It might even make Mark's memory
> work better!
>
> The interesting thought which comes into my mind when reading Mark's
> essay is not whether I agree with it or not. It is the idea thar our
> society has "electrotechnophilia" and "biotechophobia" . I can easily
> plan to build all sorts of electronic devices that people interact
> with and that could change their interactions with the world in all
> sorts of ways. If I try to do this by some biological or chemical
> mechanosm, even at a lowest level as we see with the CAE case I am
> apt to have the authority of the state come down on me in a very
> intense way. Heaven forbid I should grow certain species of fungi
> and share them with friends. It is very odd that an embryo that is
> created to a fertility clinic and will be thrown away anyway can't be
> used for stem cell research on any piece of equipment that has been
> bought with one cent of public monies.
>
> Have Fun,
> Sends Steve
>
> setup
>
>
> > Right-to-Life
> >
> > The term "Virus" is meant to associate a dead thing (and not really
> dead
> > having never been living) with a living biological body. A
> so-called
> > computer virus is linked to biology in language (and in reality)
> only
> > insofar as biology is made dependent on digital technology. The
> virus is
> > not neutral, and is seen as an attack on supposed life systems which
> are
> > widely viewed as, but are not either, neutral (techno culture). The
> > CorporateState defines the virus (with help from lots of
> technophiles),
> > while claiming that its own technology is a natural living organism
> with
> > an inherent right-to-life. It is interesting to note the ongoing
> case in
> > Florida involving a Husband's attempts to disconnect his wife's
> feeding
> > tube. Jeb Bush, the State and other interests have stepped into the
> > matter by declaring the case an issue of right-to-life vs. the
> so-called
> > right-to-die interests. What is omnipresent, but largely invisible
> to
> > mainstream debate (at least within the conservative bound!
> > s of mainstream media) is the tendency to naturalize medical
> technology
> > itself. The technology itself becomes an invisible life force to
> which
> > bodies must obey (or defy). The feeding machine is viewed as a
> neutral
> > (and natural) necessity, and in the minds of right-to-lifers stands
> in
> > for God itself. To cut the body from the machine, that in fact
> lives for
> > the body, is seen as cutting the body itself. To kill the machine
> > becomes confused with (and then practiced as) killing the body.
> Computers
> > are not alive, they are not human, they cannot contract "viruses,"
> they
> > cannot be "attacked," "terrorized," or "infected," unless they are
> alive,
> > unless they are human, unless their "infections," and "attacks" are
> > indistinguishable from human infections, attacks, etc. Techno
> culture
> > makes it possible for the murder of thousands of humans to be
> discussed
> > in the language of "surgical strikes," and "smart bomb technology."
> > Techno culture also makes it possible for the pentagon to use!
> > the language of "Terrorism" when speaking of a virtual sit-in!
> > , or sim
> > ple hacker prank.
> >
> > Vampirism
> >
> > "Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking
> living
> > labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks." - Karl Marx
> >
> > Computer networks are reproduced and modified continuously to work
> with
> > and to facilitate the trading of information (Capital) to predefined
> and
> > often highly secure locations. In this narrow system anything that
> slows
> > the speed of supply and demand is perceived as an attack on the body
> of
> > capital, therefore, dominance is needed, the body must be regulated
> to
> > ensure the continuity of power relationships within the system. The
> blood
> > supply must not be interrupted for vampires are relentless, don't
> die very
> > easily, and often have very little sense of humor.
> >
> > Sweden’s not a target
> >
> > Technophobia is often described as an irrational fear of technology,
> and
> > yet a hammer is technology. Technophilia is described (much less
> often)
> > as an irrational adoration for technology, and yet a needle and
> thimble
> > are technology. The fact that fears aroused by forks and spoons, or
> > driving a car for that matter, are not spoken of as technophobia
> (any more
> > than irrational love for these things are spoken of as technophilia)
> > reveals a primary myth about technology: Namely, that technology
> acts
> > independent from human social systems, that technology is “out
> there”
> > working for us (or against us) toward some utopia (or dystopia). A
> hammer
> > or needle and thread are pretty benign in their effects on global
> power
> > structures, but if they were not we’d have
> reverse-hammer-engineers and
> > needle hackers. A network "attack" is possible only when the power
> > relationships guarding a network are so solidified, predictable and
> > controlled that anything counter to it is defined as dang!
> > erous and alien. Dangerous? perhaps, alien no. Violent Domination
> and
> > violent resistance always work hand-in-hand, which goes along way
> toward
> > explaining why the U.S. is a primary target for terrorism and
> Sweden’s
> > not, why the New York Times web site is a target for hackers and
> > crackers “Joe’s homepage” is not.
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
>
>