DPI: la revue électronique du Studio XX Electronic Review::
|
HOPE #6 : Hacking Mobility (and Gender?) :: Sophie Le-Phat Ho :: 6 October 2006
Résumé : HOPE #6 est une conférence de hackers qui a eu lieu du 21 au 23 juillet 2006 dans la ville de New York. Un des plus grands événements du genre en Amérique du Nord, regroupant quelques milliers de participants, une panoplie d’information y est partagé. Ce présent article s’intéresse plus particulièrement aux discours des hackers sur les technologies de la mobilité, mais s’interroge aussi sur la flagrante minorité d’intervenantes féminines lors du symposium, tant au niveau des présentations que celui du public en général. Avec informations (non) secrètes et extraits d’entrevue avec quelques femmes. Abstract : HOPE #6 is a hacker conference that took place from July 21st to 23 td 2006 in NYC. One of the major events of its kind in North America, gathering thousands of participants, a panoply of information is shared there. This article is particularly interested in the discourses on technologies of mobility from a hacker point of view, but also questions gender relations in hacking given the clear minority of women who were present at the conference, at the level of presentations and within the general public. This article includes non-secretive information and excerpts of interviews with some women. HOPE Number Six was held in New York City from July 21st to 23 td 2006, at Hotel Pennsylvania. (1) Organised by the 2600 folks � the ones responsible for the quarterly hacker (maga)zine 2600, founded in 1984 by Emmanuel Goldstein and others, it is the North American summit of all hackers and weirdos alike who gather once every two years or so to ferment revolution. It’s the perfect terrain, think about it: hacking, as Richard Stallman (1) (who spoke also at HOPE 6) said, is simply putting one’s curiosity and intelligence to pleasurable ends, and then to share it with everyone else (although probably not to the undercover agent lurking around the conference room in his geek attire). Indeed, three entire days (and nights) of geekdom and non-academic delight, with more than 2,000 participants (three large conference rooms, three humongous floors, including one dedicated to live webcast of the conference floor, as well as vendors, workshops, demos, public terminals and a segway track).
In fact, as my first experience of such conventions, I was pleasantly surprised at the openness of the definition of hacking that was promoted by the organisers. One could move from a workshop on lock-picking or retro-computing to a demonstration of coupon-hacking, to another one on hypnosis, to others on hacking culture, hacking graffiti, hacking food, hacking fashion, hacking sex (say what?), along with your classic panels on intelligence & spying, social engineering, (1) phone phreaking, (1) (online and offline) security devices, laws, and the list goes on (including a third tier put together by participants themselves on site). All in the joy of, well, showing off surely (as in any conference), but mostly sharing information of a hands-on nature, oftentimes stemming from personal experience (including prison for a few).
HOPE is therefore a perfect site to discover panoply of “strange knowledge” but also to find out about the latest inventions in technology (or rather, the uses of). While technology-enabled mobility is almost taken for granted nowadays, many of the panels gave new perspectives on the use of mobile devices, and for our purposes, on their links to art. Two examples I will delve on are open source hardware and RFID’s.
One could think that this broadness in definition of what hacking is stems from a desire to move away from the (often negative) popular hacker stereotype (in fact, this was mentioned during one of the panels on the 2600 meetings) as the misanthropic geek, sitting alone in front of the computer in his parents’ basement, causing all sorts of trouble. To what extent that stereotype was contradicted from attending HOPE I am not too sure of, sadly… To tell the truth, the vast majority of attendees were white and male, with a marked population of teenagers (while obviously all ages were represented in some way or another). On the other hand, it became clear that most hackers are not trouble-makers � unless your definition of a trouble-maker is someone who remains informed about the ways he or she is being completely ***ed by all sorts of powerful people and institutions, and does something creative about it as a response. Therefore, there does not seem to be any reason that would prevent an equal amount of women to attend such a conference � and in fact, this was the feeling of most of the few women that I met there. I will thus share some of their impressions here as well. But first, a little bit of tech-talk, considering that this current issue pertains to technologies of mobility – strangely enough, most involve women speakers (a definite minority at HOPE)...
Although I want to introduce the interesting phenomenon of open source hardware, I will start with something that is not open source at all: RFID’s (Radio Frequency Identifiers). These small devices implanted in one’s body are normally used for tracking, for example, your pet (“pet tags”), soldiers, immigrants (!), but now mostly, customers (e.g., type “RFID” and “Wal-Mart” in Google). In a talk entitled “How to Steal Someone’s Implanted RFID � And Why You’d Want To”, Annalee Newitz showed us pictures of her surgical operation where she was implanted an RFID in the upper arm, made possible by VeriChip, (1) a company that makes RFID’s for medical purposes (2004 FDA approved). With the help of her colleague who cloned her RFID, she exposed the security problems of the tags, but also mentioned their utilisation by artists, that is, a public use of RFID’s, which started in the late 90’s. The first public experiment said to have taken place was by bio-artists Eduardo Kac and Kevin Warwick. Forget mobile technologies; our own flesh is already mobile!
While one cannot easily defend oneself from RFID’s (although anti-RFID wallets, for instance, were being sold at the conference), there is a trend now to defend oneself from mobile technologies and/or defend oneself from technology with technology while being mobile. In “The Geeky, Personal, and Social Impact Sides of Creating Defensive Technology”, Mitch Altman presented his invention, TV-B-Gone, (2) a device able to shut down any annoying TV one finds along his or her path, “making our sociopathic dreams come true” as Altman said so well. In turn, artist/engineer Ladyada (3) presented her own hand-made RF (radio frequency) jammer, which disables intrusive cell phones and Wi-Fi networks at will – a device that is actually illegal as banned by the unpopular FCC (Federal Communications Commission ). Thus, “mobility” can now be culture-jammed, it has become a target for reclaiming one’s space. As Ladyada stated, this “social defence technology” has become necessary since the etiquette that comes with technology is not developing at the same rate as the technology itself. So devices are being designed to actually “hack reality.” Here, here.
Now the next (crucial) step is to make these designs open and available for people to copy and potentially improve. Enters “open source hardware.” In a different talk, Ladyada and MAKE magazine (5) senior editor Phillip Torrone introduced “Citizen Engineer � Consumer Electronics Hacking and Open Source Hardware” where they showed the public how consumers can hack what they buy (i.e., make cool gadgets). As they highlighted, building things ourselves used to be much more common back in the day. Torrone showed examples of shared plans like in the old 1960’s Popular Mechanics magazines, as well as Popular Electronics, Boy Mechanic, etc. Then around the 1980’s and 90’s, according to them, people stopped sharing plans and formulas, and started to buy more. However, with the emergence of web 2.0, where information is easily and instantaneously shared over the internet (e.g., wikis, flickr, etc.), open source hardware has resurged as well. So many recipes for customized, modified, mutated and combinatory devices are out there and downloadable at your convenience – showing that hackers are the ones that can make a piece of hardware do whatever they want it to. Pez mp3 player, Sony Walkman iPod case, megaphone helmet hat, vacuum robot, iPod linux, Altoid USB charger… something for everyone. This was explained by the presence of two factors: the increasing commoditization of (i.e., cheaper) hardware + free software. With cheap hardware, one can hack and break without high risks, making it a paradise for inventors. Whereas this phenomenon might seem like the new hobby for the rich white boy, the open source aspect makes it a political one at a global level (after all, this talk was entitled “Citizen Engineer”). Torrone talked about open source hardware in developing countries. For instance, he mentioned the making of a Mary-go-round that also serves as a water pump in South Africa. Other shared hardware how-to’s have involved devices like baby warmers, voting machine, water purification, public transport, etc., which stimulate the range of possibilities. In their own words, “just as computer hacking is closely tied to the open source movement, so can embedded gadget-hacking lead to an open source hardware movement.” Helpful links:
One of the main motivations for attending HOPE #6 for me arose when I scrolled their program online: I realised that 99% of the speakers were male, which I (perhaps naively) felt as surprising. So I decided to “see for myself” as they say. A couple of “incidents” which occurred during the convention did not encourage me much. For one, although the general spirit of the conference was very open and non-alienating (i.e., no academic jargon nor pretentiousness), it also came with an incisive “spectacle” aspect. Panellists acted as entertainers (stage and laughs provided) and funnelled their ideology into a captive and large public; not much space was left for group discussion other than brief Q&A’s at the very end when organisers were already unplugging the presenters’ laptops and when people were already getting up to move on to their next session. One example involved a very important figure, Richard Stallman, who gave one of the most popular keynote addresses. While I undoubtedly respect his ideas and his activism for free software, I was taken aback as I watched his speech on one of the three large screens along with many other attendees (live webcast on a different floor since the conference room was beyond full) and felt like I was experiencing what followers of Castro, Mao and the like might have: long live Stallman and his ideology! Listen to the screen; it has all the answers for you. Then again, I am not criticising Stallman’s message (in fact, I might order the DVD of the speech to take better notes), but rather its format – extremely hierarchical, authoritarian, monological, etc.
However, the following episode by far made me wonder seriously about the politics of such gatherings. This one involved Robert Steele, former marine as well as CIA officer, who gave a talk entitled “Bin Laden, National Intelligence and More” on something he calls open source intelligence and what he thinks governments ought to be doing (powerpoint of obscure graphs included). For a progressive Republican, Steele managed to rally a large and enthusiastic portion of the audience during his presentation – except for a rare few… During the Q&A, a young woman in the audience came up to the microphone to thank him, but also to ask him two honest questions with regards to his comments, which had to do respectively with women prostitutes (and the spread of disease) and Condy Rice (whom he called a “dumb white blond”). Steele’s response was immediately dismissive of the young woman, accusing her of trying to censor him and of also embarrassing herself. While the crowd booed the woman and cheered in support of Steele (someone even asked for “security”!?), he threatened to leave the room if someone else did not ask a question. Remaining courageous, the young woman replied to Steele asking if he was not the one embarrassing himself, and then stormed out of the room � after my (male) friend was able to let her know that at least some audience members supported her gesture (I wondered how many felt the same but remained silent). This unpleasant moment was an isolated one, but it was also sadly (and ironically) an expression of a latent immaturity, poverty of self-criticism and authoritarian politics that revolved around the whole conference.
Even The Geek Comedy Tour Show that was presented on one of the evenings showed some signs of the unfortunate by-products of an almost exclusive male underground culture. While it is an excellent idea to embrace comedy and irony during a conference, the skits were also reinforcing unflattering stereotypes of the ultimate “geek” who is socially awkward with women (which comes with no surprise if his idea of women comes from watching net porn everyday). Moving on to the vendor space, one could also indeed purchase DVD’s of “geeky girls” getting hot. Fortunately, a glimpse of hope arose when one of the members of the Prometheus Radio Project (6) was having a lot of success selling her silk-screened t-shirts that said “The Internet: A Series of Tubes” on top of fallopian tubes, in reference to Senator Ted Stevens’ now infamous statement. (7)
It is then no wonder that I wanted to know what the women at the conference thought about the relationship between hacking and gender. I noticed that a majority of the women were “the girlfriends” or “the wives.” Like Khrystal, who decided to volunteer as a security guard during HOPE #6 since her husband attends many of these types of conferences (e.g., DefCon, etc.). She agreed that being part of a couple helps tremendously in bringing more women to these conventions. She also noted that HOPE #6 welcomed a larger number of women than the previous HOPE, saying that increasingly “women seem to be more accepted an looked at as equals.” As for her, she was not interested in computer hacking as much as lock picking and social engineering. Indeed, it seemed like a general theme among the women I met: what attracted them to the conference was the diversity of the talks and of the information provided. This young woman, Serendipity, from New Jersey who considered herself as a geek was attending HOPE because of the mass amount of “weird and unique information” that was openly shared there, citing among other things cooking, exploring and graffiti: “HOPE offers a huge collection of strange knowledge and you can’t beat that.” Her impression also echoed that of an older woman who works in healthcare and who stated that one did not need to be a hardcore techie to find the content interesting and relevant. So although for these women male dominance was not an issue, their practical interests revolved around stereotypically female topics, that is, everything else that did not have to do with computers.
Another young woman, Ruby, had an interesting perspective on the possible reasons for the minority of women at geek gatherings. She believed that as many women as men probably are geeks but that the women tend to be more secret about their identity and protective of their privacy, as she said: “Because women, or people considered as, are singled out specifically and treated differently, but when online, become accustomed to having an identity that is genderless, coming to a conference like this, one becomes confronted to one’s gender identity… so many have the tendency not to do it.” When I asked her what made her want to confront her “gender identity”, she replied that it became a choice for her to identify as a woman, and thus it became her power, for it was not imposed. On the other hand, her friend Eric also believed that geek culture had become friendlier to women for the last 20 years or so, with increasing numbers of sci-fi women writers as well as characters. In the end, there seems to be so much more work to do still. As Ladyada who has gone to most HOPE conferences confirmed, things have not changed much, unfortunately. So what is at stake here? I believe there are probably two distinct aspects (which of course feed on each other). The first one is respect for women, regardless of whether they can or even want to be geeks. Being part of a subculture does not necessarily rhyme with being avant-garde, progressive or liberal. Individuals have to become more self-critical and ask themselves if some geek superstar is not manipulating them and whether their perception of women is completely off. The other aspect of course is getting women to feel more comfortable about exploring and questioning the technology that surrounds them – not because they are women (who somehow ridiculously need to be like men), but as Ladyada suggested, because they are simply people. Hacking can be politically progressive if it brings people to remain critical of ubiquitous technology, curious about power dynamics and creative about subversion. In fact, that was the definition of hacking given at the beginning of this piece. My hope is that it will actually live up to it in reality.
Photos: Sophie Le-Phat Ho
(1) http://www.hopenumbersix.net |
Dans ce numéro : .dpi no7 :: mobilité rigide :: Sophie Le-Phat Ho .dpi no7 :: hard mobility :: Sophie Le-Phat Ho HOPE #6 : Hacking Mobility (and Gender?) :: Sophie Le-Phat Ho New Ideas of North: Makrolab's Mission to Nunavut :: Michelle Kasprzak Gender Neutrality : Ladyada :: Sophie Le-Phat Ho Volumes: Sound and Space :: Diane Willow
Production Rédactrice en chef/ Editor-in-chief Coordination Comité de rédaction/ editorial team : Articles : Interview : Traduction/ translation Révision/ proofreading Webmestre/ webmistress : Illustration : Équipe de design/ design team :
|
(Mitch Altman and Ladyada)
