| RE NYTIMES 
        article: Sven Robert Hillman writes:  
        
 Hey there,
 Though, I'm based in Canada, I do keep a regular eye on the New York Times, 
        and I couldn't help but notice the article Matthew Mirapaul wrote, Museum's 
        Cyberpeeping Artwork Has Its Plug Pulled which outlined how this work 
        had been closed down by the New Museum.
 I wondered if any of the artists, or in fact the curators (who I understand 
        were acting independently of the New Museum), would like to comment on 
        this?
 Christian Hübler of Knowbotic Research is quoted as saying that
 "because when I work with the border as an artist, I want to know 
        at least what the border might be."
 This comment made me wonder what kind of legal investigation had preceded 
        the installation of the work - on behalf of the artists, and the curators, 
        and in fact the museum?
 As a native of Europe (I'm originally from Denmark), I couldn't help note 
        Mirapaul's comment, that "European digital artists are more politicized 
        than their American counterparts ...".
 Aside from the fact that this is a fairly meaningless generalisation (though 
        not strictly 'artists' as such, one can't help reflecting on the fact 
        that RTMark are US based, as are the collective, RSG, who feature in the 
        exhibition with their 'cultural' version of the FBI software, Carnivore), 
        how do the curators view this comment? [See also Alex Galloway's comments 
        to this effect.--SD]
 Is there a paucity of intellectual political debate in the public artistic 
        sphere, on issues around privacy, secuity, and open information?
 If so, why is this the case?
 As a colleague of mine pointed out to me as we read the Times this morning, 
        one can't help remembering the overwhelming array of US-based events and 
        movements which have promoted the open exchange of information, and have 
        highlighted the insecurity of electronic networks. To mention but a few, 
        the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was founded in the US, Phil Zimmerman 
        released his PGP book from there, PGP was invented there, the free softwaee 
        movement came from the US, the main PGP encryption algorithims (RSA/Diffe 
        Helman) were invented in the US to promote public encryption, and the 
        first big hacker cases were in the US.
 These things have been major issues in the Public Domain. Have they not 
        impacted on art discourses in the States at all? And if so, why has this, 
        rather minor technical and legal issue come as such a surprise, causing 
        such a fracas? Is the new media artworld in the US so new/naive to these 
        discourses, that a minor activity such as port scanning could cause such 
        a controversy?
 I'd be interested in the responses of both the artists, and the curators, 
        on these points.
 Yours
 Sven Robert Hillman
 Winnipeg, Canada
 svenrobert2@yahoo.ca
 |   Location 
  On 
        the US legal bug 
  7.5.: 
        <nettime> 
        PDS 
  7.5.: 
        Re: <nettime> [L. Brown] 
  7.5.: 
        Re: 
        <nettime> 
        [F. Cramer] 
  8.5.:Re: 
        <nettime> KR 
  8.5.: 
        scan 
        reports 
  9.5.: 
        Server 
        Migration US 
  Port 
        scanning is legal in the US 
  10.5.: 
        provider vs kr CRACKED 
        ..Minds of concern::breakingnews...!!
 May 12,2002
 
  13.5.:New 
        York Times Article 
  RE2: 
        NYTIMES article 
  RE2: 
        NYTIMES article 
  RE:3 
        NYTIMES article: KR 
  15.5.: 
        wired article 
  [ 
        thing] review 
  19.5.: 
        Sonntagszeitung 
  13.6.: neural.it 
  14.6.:NZZ 
   
  
    (original 
        article)
 
   Invitation to the open source exhibition
  curated by Steve Dietz and Jenny Markatou (?)
 
 
   |