MachineMachine /stream - search for CCTV https://machinemachine.net/stream/feed en-us http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss LifePress therourke@gmail.com <![CDATA[What does the panopticon mean in the age of digital surveillance? | Technology | The Guardian]]> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/23/panopticon-digital-surveillance-jeremy-bentham

The parallel between Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon and CCTV may be clear, but what happens when you step into the world of data capture? The philosopher Jeremy Bentham famously requested in his will that his body be dissected and put on public display.

]]>
Sun, 26 Nov 2017 07:30:53 -0800 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/23/panopticon-digital-surveillance-jeremy-bentham
<![CDATA[What does the panopticon mean in the age of digital surveillance? | Technology | The Guardian]]> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/23/panopticon-digital-surveillance-jeremy-bentham

The parallel between Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon and CCTV may be clear, but what happens when you step into the world of data capture? The philosopher Jeremy Bentham famously requested in his will that his body be dissected and put on public display.

]]>
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:50:53 -0800 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/23/panopticon-digital-surveillance-jeremy-bentham
<![CDATA[Tate Series: Digital Thresholds: from Information to Agency (public event)]]> http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/courses-and-workshops/digital-thresholds-information-agency

I will deliver this 4-week public series at The Tate Modern throughout July 2016. Sign up! Thanks to Viktoria Ivanova for working with me to achieve this.

Data is the lifeblood of today’s economic and social systems. Drones, satellites and CCTV cameras capture digital images covertly, while smartphones we carry feed data packets into the cloud, fought over by corporations and governments. How are we to make sense of all this information? Who is to police and distribute it? And what kind of new uses can art put it to? This four-week series led by writer/artist Daniel Rourke will explore the politics and potential of big data through the lens of contemporary art and the social sciences. Participants will assess the impact the digital revolution has had on notions of value attached to the invisible, the territorial and the tangible. We will look at artists and art activists who tackle the conditions of resolution, algorithmic governance, digital colonialism and world-making in their work, with a focus on key news events yet to unfold in 2016. Session 1 Hito Steyerl: Poor Image Politics In this first session we will examine the politics of image and data resolution, with special attention to the work of artist Hito Steyerl represented in the Tate Collection. How do poor images influence the significance and value of the events they depict? What can online cultures that fetishise poor quality teach us about the economics and autonomy of information? Is being a low resolution event in a field of high resolutions an empowering proposition? Session 2 Morehshin Allahyari: Decolonising the Digital Archive 3D scanning and printing technologies are becoming common tools for archaeologists, archivists and historians. We will examine the work of art activists who question these technologies, connecting the dots from terroristic networks, through the price of crude oil, to artefacts being digitally colonised by Western institutions. Artist Morehshin Allahyari will join us via skype to talk about Material Speculation: ISIS – a series of artifacts destroyed by ISIS in 2015, which Allahyari then ‘recreated’ using digital tools and techniques. Session 3 Mishka Henner: Big Data and World Making In this session we will explore the work of artists who channel surveillance and big data into the poetic re-making of worlds. We will compare and contrast nefarious ‘deep web’ marketplaces with ‘real world’ auction houses selling artworks to a global elite. Artist Mishka Henner will join us via skype to talk about artistic appropriation, subversion and the importance of provocation. Session 4 Forensic Architecture: Blurring the Borders between Forensics, Law and Art The Forensic Architecture project uses analytical methods for reconstructing scenes of war and violence inscribed within spatial artefacts and environments. In this session we will look at their work to read and mobilise ‘ambient’ information gathered from satellites, mobile phones and CCTV/news footage. How are technical thresholds implicated in acts of war, terrorism and atrocity, and how can they be mobilised for resist and deter systemic violence?

]]>
Tue, 17 May 2016 07:23:50 -0700 http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/courses-and-workshops/digital-thresholds-information-agency
<![CDATA[GIFbites at بیت بر ثانیه / Bitrates]]> http://gifbites.com/exhibition

Shiraz Art House • Daralhokoomeh Project • May/June 2014 As part of Bitrates - an exhibition curated by Morehshin Allahyari and Mani Nilchiani at the Dar-ol-Hokoomeh Project, Shiraz, Iran – I asked 50 artists to create or curate an animated GIF with a short snippet of audio, to be looped together ad infinitum at GIFbites.com. For the opening of Bitrates on May 23rd a select version of this project will be displayed in the gallery, followed by a complete showcase of all the GIFs for the GIFbites exhibition, opening on May 30th in Shiraz Art House (Daralhokoomeh Project). GIFbites In an era of ubiquitous internet access and the extensive post-production of HD and 3D images, the animated GIF has an ironic status. Small in dimension and able to be squeezed through the slenderest of bandwidths, GIFs hark back to a World Wide Web designed for 640×480 pixel screens; a web of scrolling text, and not much else. Brought on – ironically – by their obsolescence the animated GIF has become a primary medium of communication on the contemporary net. The simplicity, freedom and openness of the medium allows even the most amateur web enthusiast to recuperate images plucked from TV, cinema, YouTube, CCTV footage, cartoons, videogames and elsewhere in their desire to communicate an idea or exclamation to the world. GIFbites is a mesmerising homage to brevity and the potential of poor, degraded images to speak beyond the apparent means of their bitrates. The results will hopefully navigate the web for many years to come, stimulating cut-and-paste conversations undefinable by Google’s search algorithms. GIFbites Project Page • بیت بر ثانیه / Bitrates Facebook Event Coming Soon: Bitrates/GIFbites Lp! Featuring the work of 50 artists

Morehshin Allahyari Mizaru/Kikazaru/Kyoungzaru Kim Asendorf & Ole Fach

Eltons Kuns Anthony Antonellis Lawrence Lek

LaTurbo Avedon Gretta Louw Jeremy Bailey

Sam Meech Alison Bennett Rosa Menkman

Emma Bennett A Bill Miller Benjamin Berg

Lorna Mills Hannah Black Shay Moradi

Andrew Blanton Nora O Murchú Nicolas Boillot

Alex Myers Tim Booth Peggy Nelson

Sid Branca David Panos Nick Briz

Eva Papamargariti elixirix Holly Pester

Jennifer Chan Antonio Roberts Theodore Darst

Daniel Rourke Angelina Fernandez Alfredo Salazar-Caro

Annabel Frearson Rafia Santana Carla Gannis

Jon Satrom Emilie Gervais Erica Scourti

Shawné Michaelain Holloway Krystal South Nathan Jones

Arjun Ram Srivatsa Nick Kegeyan Linda Stupart

Jimmy Kipple Sound Daniel Temkin

]]>
Mon, 19 May 2014 12:04:25 -0700 http://gifbites.com/exhibition
<![CDATA[A Bomb Won't Go Off Here]]> http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/05/a-bomb-wont-go-off-here.html

by Daniel Rourke  A bomb won't go off here... (Click to enlarge) Y: I like the use of the past tense. Saying “weeks before” sets up the seen* as a narrative. X: Oh yeah. Y: It’s almost like the story’s not ended, like we now are still part of the story. X: And that there’s people there all the time. Y: That they are always on this street. X: Yeah, in that little square. And they’ve always all got long, blondish hair. Shopping. Y: Does it mean that a bomb might go off somewhere else? X: That’s exactly what it means. It means that a bomb’s not going to go off here, but it is going to go off somewhere else. Y: Somewhere where people aren’t more suspicious? X: Not people: shoppers. Y: Somewhere where shoppers aren’t more suspicious. X: There’s no such thing as people – there’s just shoppers. Y: By reporting someone studying the CCTV cameras to the police the shopper didn’t become anything of greater value than a shopper. They managed to stay as a shopper and yet still act in a way which protected the rights of all shoppers everywhere. X: That is the best thing you can be for society. A citizen is secondary to a shopper. For the good of the country there is nothing better than a shopper who reports suspicious looking un-shoppers. If you’re an un-shopper, and you are in a shopping precinct, then you’re not there for the good of the country. * A play on the words ‘seen’ and ‘scene’ is alluded to here and for the remainder of the conversation. ------------------ Y: There’s a couple of things I’m a bit worried about in this seen. One is the location of the photographer who took this picture - and I’m not talking location in space, but actually location as a member of society. Nobody there is watching them. Nobody is aware of their identity as a photographer, giving them the perfect identity of the perfect terrorist. They are un-seen. They are in fact making the seen. There wouldn’t be a ‘seen’ without them. The other thing that I am worried about is the woman in pink on the left there. She looks a bit suspicious to me. She isn’t shopping. X: She is shopping! She’s a shopper. You don’t have to worry about her. Y: She doesn’t look like a shopper, she looks like a looker. She looks like a studier. She is studying the seen. X: Yeah, but she is looking at the seen with a sense of: “Yes, this is ours and we have to protect it.” Y: But do you not think that the location of the pink lady on the left is very similar to some of the shadowy figures that Salvador Dali placed within his works? Where the viewer – the shadow of the viewer – is located within the frame. X: [gasp] The pink lady is us! Y: The pink lady on the left is meant to be us, looking on the happy seen. X: The undisrupted – the un-bombed seen. Y: She’s thinking: “A bomb won’t go off here, because weeks before I reported a viewer – similar to myself – studying this seen.” X: Yeah. And it’s not just that that one ‘shopping in’ of one suspicious non-shopper protected the seen from that one occasion of being bombed – it has prevented that seen from ever being bombed. Y: A bomb will never go off here, because sometime before this photo was taken a shopper – perhaps the woman in pink on the left – reported someone studying the CCTV cameras, who wasn’t this photographer. X: No. Not this one. Y: This photographer is more interested in studying the shoppers than they are in studying the CCTV cameras. Although the CCTV cameras are in the seen. X: I am guessing that this suspicious person who was studying the CCTV cameras – and not shopping – was suspicious because they were just in the middle of town, in the middle of the day, on a week day. Why weren’t they at work? Y: Well they were. They were doing their job. Terror. X: This place, it’s a very pedestrianised, a very... Y: ...bland. X: A very bland town. A town where shoppers live. If this was a really beautiful city centre, like Bath Spa, if this was a beautiful Spa town, there would be people taking pictures all over the place of a nice Georgian building here, a nice Georgian building there. I am worried because how am I supposed to tell, when I next go shopping, who is taking pictures in a bad way and whose taking pictures in a good way? Y: It’s obvious that this seen suggests to us - the lady in pink on the left - that from now on one should shop in as bland locations as possible, in places which visually, aesthetically, have nothing going for them whatsoever. Because it’s only in a place like that that one can be absolutely sure that anybody taking photographs of or near CCTV cameras are doing so for terroristic purposes. X: Yeah. ------------------ Y: I’m a bit concerned about the notion of not relying on others. X: You can’t rely on other shoppers. They are only concerned about the next bargain, in the next shop. You - as the good shopper, who is so expert at shopping that you can get your shopping done and have time to notice what suspicious things are going on around you - you can only rely on yourself to do that. It’s up to you to protect everybody, but mainly yourself and your own shopping. Y: There is something about the notion of shopping that completely revolves around the individual. It’s that freedom that we get in a capitalistic society to choose what we want from a selection of identical goods in a series of identical shops, it’s being able to wander through the streets making the choices that define you. But there is something very much related to that in the action of the terrorist. Yeah, ok, every shopping centre, every CCTV camera is the same, but the terrorist has the right to choose which shopping centre or CCTV camera to bomb. They reduce the individual even further to a state of nothingness. There is the freedom to shop, but there is no freedom in being bombed. X: But there’s no freedom in not being bombed. We are not being bombed, and they are not being bombed, but the last thing they are is free. Y: They are not free from not being bombed. X: No. Y: They are trapped by the fact that... X: ...by the fact that they are not being bombed. But if they were bombed... Y: That would be true freedom. The London Metropolitan Police's new campaign is available online for all concerned citizens to study at their leisure: Counter Terrorism Posters. by Daniel Rourke

]]>
Sun, 17 May 2009 21:15:00 -0700 http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/05/a-bomb-wont-go-off-here.html