In the article "Oppositional Politics and the Internet" Kahn and Kellner remind us of the historical view of hackers as nerds online who can crack code. In recent years the view of hackers by the corporate media has become one of people who crack code to steel software --i.e. hackers partake in illegal activities that go against corporate interest. Kahn and Kellner also speak extensively of online activism. Hackers are activists posting evidence what our global corporate media would not want or allow coverage on.
This article is another example of reframing hackers as activists. The staff of wiki leaks has been successful in publishing evidence on the site that has everyone in the US government disturbed, including our current president.
The writer cites Steven levy who researched hackers in the 1980s and found two values hackers believe in:
(1) all information should be free;
(2) mistrust authority and promote decentralization
what I find interesting is the mainstream framing of wiki leaks. In the mainstream media wikileaks is framed as threatening our national security. My questions would be:
Do you agree that asking/demanding transparency of the government is a threat to our national security?
Do you personally share any of these values with the hackers? Should all information be free?
If not, how do we measure what is free and open to the public and what is not?
Also, the internet clearly has the potential for decentralization. Why would people ask for decentralization? And would that desire arise in response to global media control? Is that a reasonable response?
Enjoy the link!
http://www.thenation.com/article/154780/wikileaks-and-hacktivist-culture
I believe a (very) small amount of government and institutional information may threaten our national security. Although I also believe government institutions and other global and national institutions are not nearly transparent enough. I believe these institutions hide far too much pertinent information – information which would benefit the public and enable us to be far better decision-makers.
ReplyDeleteOne would hope asking for transparency would be all it takes to get informed, but given the birth and popularity of organizations and website like Wiki leaks, it seems asking is not enough. Demanding transparency might be a step, though it seems party-politics would step in the way of this happening.
Therefore, one would then hope the media would step in and deliver us the information we need and deserve. If the media is as Tsfait & Cohen refer to it - “an important social institution for democratic deliberation” - then should we not expect the media might strive to provide citizens with the information they deserve. But, again, this does not seem to happen given the proliferation of “hackativists” and various “media accuracy” organizations. Tsfait & Cohen suggest the media should garner public trust by “correcting perceptions of negative and biased coverage and of media power over society.” I believe this an important step in increasing public trust, especially in less democratic societies, though wouldn’t it just be easier to gain public trust by simply providing the public with the whole story. By letting investigative journalists do their jobs (freely and flexibly) news institutions may be able to better contribute to democracy. Reporting fair and balanced news is definitely about representing and voicing all groups and parties involved, although it is equally important that citizens have all pertinent information, and not just the news bites provided by the government or corporate institutions being showcased.