[D-G] An Unmoderated Discussion List

[John Young]

Excellent observations. A couple of offerings:

Fencing of construction sites is directly related to complying with insurance
and liability requirements, similar to the necessity of hard hats, safety belts
and harnesses, licensed construction safety inspectors, and lawsuits.

Fencing first appeared as a barrier to thievery but that was surpassed by
the cost of insurance and its kissing cousin, bonding. No insurance and
bonding, no contract. These conditions were inherited from up the line,
property owners, design professionals and consultants were required to
comply with financial and legal obligations imposed by those who hired
them, and those came from higher up the line of fiduciary responsibility
and distributed CYA of all parties. Some 25-27 percent of construction
cost is attributable to multiple protection regimes fiercely armored against
legal attack from a host of interest groups who have historically been
harmed by dangerous construction practices and are now fully prepared
to push back, even take over the holdings of miscreants who try to evade
responsiblity for predatory practices.

Similarly the imposition of such regimes in digital world derives from
the growing enterprise of protection against attack, from hackers, from
thieves, from criminal companies, from governmental spies and
law enforcement. To wit, we must imposed these conditions to protect
your from you gullibility. The national military argument nearly ubiquitous
around the planet. Centralized, to be sure, national protection is guided
by a select few cleared for highest classified information.

There will eventually be levels of classified access to the Internet, presaged
by military and intelligence networks now in force, and coming soon
from Google and Verizon, and after them the deluge of market protection
against competitors.

It would be expected that the previously marginalized hacker will become
the key actor in these systems due to their fine granular knowledge of
how the systems work and their vulnerabilities, in particular their
vulnerability to social engineering of senior officials and bosses who
don't know squat beyond how to climb the career ladder.

Most interestingly, hackers are in many ways illiterate in the sense
of conventional language and literature. But they most certainly have
a language and literature of their own, a somewhat androidal mix
of verbiage and machinic intimacy, an intercourse of flesh and
materiality. If you can, observe a hacker in action (not being interviewed
which is always phony). Watch the ease with which they cross or
ignore borders, not only geographical and territorial, but against
logic, grammar, syntax and other prothesis of passing away
enlightenment, i.e., advanced education. There is a crumbling
of the legacy epistemology, still inebriated with text of the book.
Gutenbergian conceit can be sustained by scanning the world's
volumes, that is a delusion.

Finally, only hackers, that is, system administrators (not the bosses,
those who caress equipment with their imagination), know what
takes place in digital terrain where reason has no place.

At 03:33 PM 8/16/2010, you wrote:
>An unmoderated discussion list would serve to eliminate the glossing 
>over of the
>three-dimensional problem, which has been manifest on this list in 
>the past. The
>problem is defined as that which the moderator cannot know about the 
>poster of
>the message sent to this list. It's not a little matter, because 
>some of us have
>seen the slowly operating sanctions inside the American rhizome:
>deterritorializations are taking on new forms.
>
>An example is the fencing-in of construction sites in the U.S. Not many were
>paying attention, because this practice had already been part and 
>parcel of the
>American West. East of the Mississippi, however, this practice only began in
>intensity within the last decade. Therefore, capitalism and communism have at
>least this in common: the ground under one's feet is being reified 
>as it relates
>to the State. This would imply the concept of it being 'only support for the
>nomad,' as per D&G. But to admit one already has an email account 
>just to obtain
>another one places the scapegoat-victim in the sights of 
>fascism....a schizoid
>fascism: you the desirer of email did it to yourself, so the fascist 
>cannot be
>blamed.
>
>
>Now, fascist forces are taking advantage of this compromised schiz-flux and
>applying new rules: one cannot have an email acount without first 
>already having
>(another[italics]) email account. That is to say, the two email accounts the
>victim had before is being split so that emails bounce. The Cyberspace Pimp
>first got the masses addicted, and now they dance their victims like
>marionettes, because the split makes all the difference when emails start to
>bounce. The Pimp is now playing with the puppets in this way: by causing the
>alternate email to bounce. A very special delirium.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>Archives: www.driftline.org