Introduction.
From Dr. Ralf Lankau: “Human values and personal autonomy versus mechanization and guidance through quantification and monitoring: that is the core contradiction since the Enlightenment (– but not the only one). (Nassehi, 2019) What stands at the middle point? The (single) person as individual and (substantive) personality, or their mission as executing a function in a mechanized, now digitized society and environment? Who must adapt to what or whom, whom are we serving? Is the person serving all current technologies and systems, and their developers or those offering them? Or are technical systems in the service of the person – who determines what is advisable for themselves, and for people (considered generally)?” [Translation by Edward Eggleston]
_________________________________________________________
„Humane Werte und Autonomie der Person versus Technisierung und Steuerung durch Quantifizierung und Vermessung: Das ist der Kernwiderspruch (nicht erst) seit der Aufklärung. (Nassehi 2019) Was steht im Mittelpunkt? Der (einzelne) Mensch als Individuum und Persönlichkeit oder seine Aufgabe als Funktionsträger einer technisierten, heute digitalisierten Gesellschaft und Umwelt? Wer muss sich an was oder wen anpassen, wer wem dienen? Dient der Mensch den jeweils aktuellen Techniken und Systemen und deren Entwicklern bzw. Anbietern? Oder stehen technische Systeme im Dienste des Menschen – und wer bestimmt, was dem Einzelnen und den Menschen dienlich ist?“ (p. 4)
From a lecture by Prof. dr. phil. Ralf Lankau: Der Mensch im Netz von Cyberspace, Big Data und KI. (Vortrag in der Auferstehungsgemeinde, Offenburg 15.10.2019)
Dr. Lankau stresses two areas, often in contradiction: one, the human center, and two, the area of current technologies and systems. By highlighting the contrast, he expresses strong concern about a radical problem of balance.
This balance reflects a meeting of two separate categories of thought, brought into an often complex relation: a pairing of the social term/area and technology term/area. We find this pairing also in the title of the article below: “Technological sovereignty”. The same pairing is found with the previous article titled “Decolonizing technologies”, recently presented on this site. (Full title: “Decolonizing communication media and information technologies”.)
Briefly put: this pairing of the social and technical terms/areas requires a special sensitivity, in general, to the idea of knowledge as required for both; and not a passing acquaintance. Three areas are involved then: and the third area of considered relations between the social and technical deserves a prominent place – that is, unless we allow ideas of autonomy and self-determination to be simply pushed aside with the growth of increasingly technical cities, public services, and libraries.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Technological Sovereignty: a Necessity and a Challenge.
By Patrice Riemens.
Source: For Free Information and Open Internet. Independent journalists, community media and hacktivists take action. Passarelle No. 11. (2014) www.coredm.info — published by www.ritimo.org. Ritimo.org license: creativecommons.org – by sa 2.0 en.
(Mentions légales. Conditions d’utilisation: La reproduction, la distribution et la communication au public des informations contenues dans ce site sont autorisées, selon les conditions suivantes : « Paternité – Partage des conditions initiales à l’identique ». Les termes de ce contrat de droits d’auteur sont définis dans la licence Creative Commons suivante : creativecommons.org – by sa 2.0 fr.)
_____________________________________________________
Technological Sovereignty (P. Riemens)
Who has not yet realized, after “Snowden” and his revelations, that our dear “cyberspace” is no longer in the hands of its users and, alas, has not been for a long time, but that it has become a high-risk space under heavy surveillance? Users, seemingly free to move about as they please and provided with countless facilities – often “for free” – have become captive subjects at once hostages, guinea pigs and suspects.
Control over the Internet by state or commercial powers (or, more frequently, a combination of both) seems totally unrestrained. And when vectors and platforms are “proprietary”, i.e., owned by players who prioritise their own interests, often at the expense of users, unrestrained is exactly what it is. While the impact of the Internet on our lives is becoming increasingly significant1, there is a need to raise awareness about these urgent issues and ask the critical question: how does the Internet work, and, more importantly, for whom?
Fortunately, this awareness does exist, and it existed long before the development of the Internet. But its impact is limited because it is still only shared by a relatively small number of individuals and groups, and because it is confronted with the aggressive lobbying of much stronger established powers. The flagship, so to speak, of this movement is free software and its many derivatives. Not only on a technical level, but also, and more importantly, for the ideals it represents: awareness, personal appropriation, autonomy and sovereignty. Indeed, not all is technology, and technology is not everything!
[1] As German essayist Sascha Lobo recently wrote: “In Germany there are two kinds of people: those whose lives have been transformed by the Internet, and those who do not realize that their lives have been transformed by the Internet.” (http://bit.ly/1h1bDy1).
It is essential to approach technological sovereignty from a much broader perspective than that of computer technology, or even just technology. Ignoring today’s intertwined environmental, political, and economic crises2, seeking to resolve them (either separately or together) by technology alone, is not an option. Clearly, technological sovereignty on its own will not divert us from our inexorable course … straight into the wall.
We cannot continue on a path of all-encompassing economic growth as we have been up until now. We need to stop here, and even deliberately initiate “degrowth”. Otherwise it will force itself on us in much more unpleasant conditions. We must also assess the various solutions put forward for (re)conquering the individual and collective autonomy which we have not only lost, but handed over to economic and political players who want us to believe they have our interests in mind and that their motives are benign, honest and legitimate.
Unfortunately, information and communication technology (ICT) developers – probably because they are still predominantly male – tend to work in isolation, without regard to their dependence on the countless human relationships and natural resources that make up our world and our society. “We need to re-invent the network”, said Tim Pritlove in his opening speech of the 30th Congress of the Chaos Computer Club, held in late December 2013. And he added, to a crowd of enthusiastic activists and hackers: “and you are the ones who can do it!”. He is probably right in both respects, but to leave it just at that would be to believe in a “nerd supremacy”3 focused on purely technological solutions.
There is no doubt that it has become indispensable to rebuild networks from scratch so that they serve the interests of the commons rather than those of exclusive groups or oppressors. We’re all for re-invention, but not just anyhow. We must go well beyond “technological fix” type solutions, which merely address the effects, not the causes. A dialectical – and dialogic – approach is needed to develop community-based, participatory technologies which allow their users to break away from dependence on commercial providers, as well as from general surveillance by state authorities obsessed with control and punishment. But what then is this technological sovereignty that we hope to build, and what does it consist of?
One possible approach would be to look at the sovereignty in our own daily live against the powers that try to control us. This nascent form of sovereignty could be interpreted as “the right to be left alone”4. Everyone knows that this right is systematically violated in the realm of information and communication technologies.
[2] Which French philosopher Paul Virilio calls “the integral accident“
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd
[4] In the United States, the concept of the ‘right to be left alone’ is seen as a foundation of the right to privacy; cf. Warren & Brandeis (1890). But caution is required: this ‘sovereignty in one’s own sphere of life’ was also conceptualised at about the same time in the Netherlands by Calvinist politician Abraham Kuyper – a political tradition which led straight to Apartheid in South Africa…
The article on “Technological Sovereignty”, edited by Alex Hache5, aims to take stock of the initiatives, methods and ways (non-proprietary and, wherever possible, self-managed) which help us to protect our “sphere of life” as much as possible. Autonomous servers, decentralized networks, encryption, pairing, digital alternative currencies, knowledge sharing, co-operative meeting and working spaces: there is a wide range of projects which already point the way towards technological sovereignty. The effectiveness of these alternatives greatly depends on the kind of practice(s) they promote.
In this respect, the following aspects should be taken into account:
- Temporality. “Taking your time” is essential. We must break free from of the logic of “ever more, ever faster”, the smoke and mirrors of commercial technology. One can expect “sovereign” technologies to be slower and perhaps even less efficient than commercial technologies, but this does not necessarily mean less satisfying.
- “We”. “Sovereign” technologies must be open, participatory, egalitarian, community-managed and cooperative. They are based on horizontal governance mechanisms among very diverse stakeholders. Closure, hierarchies (often described as “meritocracy”) and selfish individualism are lethal for them. The distinction between ‘experts’ and ‘users’ should vanish as much as possible.
- Responsibility. Achieving sovereignty requires a lot from those who share this objective. Each member of the group must take responsibility for the way he or she develops and uses tools. The famous questions “Who? What? Where? When? How? How much? And Why?”6 must be kept in mind at all times, and must be answered adequately.
- An exchange-based economy. The services “offered” by the Internet heavyweights are based on the principle “it’s free, so you’re the product”. Citizen initiatives, on the other hand, are often marginalised into the “gift economy” in the form of volunteering that is actually more or less forced. We must find models that offer fair compensation for “immaterial workers” and make users pay their fair share.
- Ecology and Environment. Technology sovereignty implies, of course, protecting the environment and using non-renewable resources sparingly. Few people realise how energy-intensive IT is, and how many raw materials it requires. These raw materials are often extracted and the devices often manufactured under appalling labour conditions7.
Thus, it is evident that sovereign technologies will be confronted with many limitations and that there is no silver bullet in this area. Even if successful, they will not provide us with a utopia. Which is not an invitation to give up. Quite the opposite. Modesty and lucidity, combined with reflection, can move mountains. It is up to you, dear reader, to reflect upon your own role and commit yourself to it, armed with intelligence and confidence. And who knows what unwavering and contagious enthusiasm can achieve…
[5] Article on Technological Sovereignty, coordinated by Alex Hache and Published by Ritimo. www.plateforme-echange.org
[6] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ws
[7] Fairphone, the ‘Fair’ cellular phone, could be seen as a first step in the area of mobile telecommunication. See: http://www.fairphone.com.
________________________________________________________________________________