Friday, July 10. 2009Hadopi : Où s’arrêtera la surveillance ?Les agents assermentés de l’Hadopi pourront-ils accuser deux internautes pour avoir échangé, via mail, un fichier protégé par le droit d’auteur ? Et donc pourront-ils surveiller ce type d’échange ? La question est d’importance, et soulève les limites du contrôle et de la surveillance des communications sur Internet par la haute autorité administrative, ceci à la demande des ayants-droit. Lors de la publication du projet de loi relatif « à la protection pénale de la propriété littéraire et artistique sur Internet », on soulignait que l’article 3 prévoit de punir les infractions de contrefaçon commises « au moyen d’un service de communication au public en ligne ou de communications électroniques ». Or dans le Code des postes et communications électroniques, les « communications électroniques » sont décrites comme « les émissions, transmissions ou réceptions de signes, de signaux, d’écrits, d’images ou de sons, par voie électromagnétique ». En clair, cela peut concerner des échanges par mail, mais aussi par Skype ou MSN. Cette idée a déjà avancée par l’UMP Franck Riester dans le projet de loi Création et Internet. Mais, finalement Christine Albanel et Riester lui-même avaient donné un avis favorable aux amendements demandant sa suppression. Mais comme une mauvaise télénovela, la série Hadopi se répéte, l’idée est réapparue dans le nouveau texte adopté hier au Sénat. Et les sénateurs communistes de déposer un amendement, le 17, pour demander sa suppression, estimant que « cette disposition constitue une atteinte à la vie privée ». La sénatrice Brigitte Gonthier-Maurin (PC) a expliqué « que dans la mesure où les échanges de mails ont le statut de correspondance privée, comme la jurisprudence l’a établi, cet élargissement constitue une atteinte à la vie privée, atteinte interdite par l’article 9 du code civil français et l’article 12 de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme de 1948 ». Le sénateur UMP Michel Thiollière, faisant référence à la loi Davdsi, a répondu que « dans sa décision du 27 juillet 2006, le Conseil constitutionnel a considéré qu’il ne pouvait y avoir de rupture d’égalité injustifiée entre les auteurs d’atteintes à la propriété intellectuelle selon que ces atteintes seraient commises au moyen d’un logiciel de pair à pair ou un autre moyen de communication en ligne. ». En clair, que selon cette décision il serait contraire au principe d’égalité qu’un échange via les réseaux p2p soit sanctionné par une (simple) contravention, alors que les autres supports relèveraient eux du délit de contrefaçon. Le débat reprendra d’ici dix jours à l’Assemblée nationale. Ce matin, le député UMP Lionel Tardy a en effet annoncé qu’il déposera un amendement visant à son tour à faire supprimer l’expression de « communication électronique ». L’exposé des motifs de l’amendement, rapporté par PC Inpact, explique : « Ce texte vise les violations du droit d’auteur opérées par le biais des services de communications électroniques, c’est-à-dire par la messagerie. Cela implique, pour les détecter, d’ouvrir des correspondances privées, ce qui serait assurément inconstitutionnel. » Face à Lionel Tardy, ce matin, sur BFM, le rapporteur Franck Riester a répliqué que le téléchargement illégal ne se pratiquant pas uniquement par p2p : « on doit regarder sur Internet toutes ces techniques-là ». ----- Via Libération Personal comment: Dans le cadre du projet Globale Surveillance, intéressant de suivre le feuilleton de l'élaboration de la loi Hadopi en France. Evidemment, il est difficile de "surveiller" sans atteindre aux libertés individuelles... Monday, July 06. 2009Alternative Currencies: Is Small The New Big?A recent piece by Ben Block at Worldchanging suggests that alternative currencies seem to pop up in bad times, but may not have a real impact on local communities, even in the worst of times: [from Worldchanging: Bright Green: Local Currencies Grow During Economic Recession by Ben Bolt]
Obviously, if the goal is to, say, slowing the movement of money out of a community, you'd have to actually measure that to decide if the alternative currency was doing that. (For example, by RFID tracking of the money, if people would agree to that sort of surveillance). But this begs two questions:
Regarding the first question -- which I think of as "is small the new big" -- we have to return to what we know about social systems. The overwhelming majority of alternative currencies are associated with some alternative organization: like the Berkshares, Inc organization behind Berkshares. Although these groups are formed to do something other than what national governments do, they in effect are setting themselves up as a simulicrum of a government, or at least the part of the government that circulates money. And I think this is an impediment to the socialization of alt cash. I think that successful alt cash will have to take a strong stance on some issue, like putting a higher value on local economic resilience than maintaining a level playing field with national chains. In essence, I think successful alt cash will have to be almost subversive -- will have to be involved in a fight against something, a fight against specific forces -- and will have to drop any semblance of neutrality.
Alternatively, we could have personal money: social money. Imagine if there were an online (perhaps open source) mechanism to allow anyone to create money, backed by their own reserves, like that envisioned by the Open Money Development Group (to be reviewed in detail in a later post). I might create 1000 @stoweboyd bucks, and circulate them to those I know. Perhaps I have a personal cause, and the money is designed so that when someone takes it out of circulation by exchanging it for US dollars or Euros a small percentage is allocated to a fund, and then directed to the cause I care about. People that know me would be likely to accept this money from me -- especially if this practice were commonplace -- and could pass it along to others that know me. If this were taken up by celebrities, say Oprah or Al Gore, even retail chains would accept the money. This money could be printed out, with appropriate bar codes and other information, so that people could check that money is authentic, what it stands for, and who stands behind it. Cell phone pictures could be directed to the currency platform website, and all the info would bounce back to the phone in real time. Or the money could be purely digital, being passed via messages, or from cell to cell. Such an open money platform would have to support all varieties of tinkering: for example, I might opt for 'demurrage' on my @stoweboyd bucks, meaning that the value of the bucks decreases a little bit each month, incenting people to spend it quickly, or to convert it back into dollars. Also, others could accept these @stoweboyd bucks, and turn them into their own personal money, through the platform. I find it interesting that nothing like this has emerged, which is one of the reasons I am working on the Neo.org project. The second question is a bit more complex. I doubt that any value-neutral alt cash can make it. Even something apparently benign -- like support for a regional economy -- is decidedly political, as shown by Bruce Sterling's strong aversion to them in his recent interview on the future of money. Sterling stated baldly that these systems were anti-immigrant, suggesting that locally well-established families and businesses were in essence using the alt cash as a way to block other businesses from entering the economy. These new businesses could be corner stores run by Mexican immigrants or Walmart, but they are not 'locals'. I find his comments have merit, on reflection. And to generalize, I think that successful alt cash will have to take a strong stance on some issue, like putting a higher value on local economic resilience than maintaining a level playing field with national chains. In essence, I think successful alt cash will have to be almost subversive -- will have to be involved in a fight against something, a fight against specific forces -- and will have to drop any semblance of neutrality. This means that successful alt cash is not going to be used by all members of some locality, because it will have to be partisan. Those who don't agree with what the money stands for will not use it. Those that do use it will agree with the principles it stands for, and are opposed to the interests of those that the cash is designed to counter. Future philanthropy might come in the form of alt cash. Imagine if the Google twins decided to create Google bucks, a purely digital money backed by a few of their countless billions, where a penny per dollar would be diverted from every tenth exchange of cash, and directed toward better battery research. Every bithead and dweeb on the planet would stand in line to get this money, and they would ostentatiously try to use it at every opportunity. But people outside the tech world wouldn't care. Gates could create money that supported malaria prevention. Soros would mint his own cash, dedicated to the goals of the Open Society foundation. (Come to think of it, he should implement open money of the sort I suggest here.) ----- Via /Message (Stowe Boyd) Personal comment: Après les "micro-nations", la "micro-monnaie"? Une réflexion de Stowe Boyd sur la question, qui se développe vers des points de vue intéressants: une monnaie "open source"? Thursday, July 02. 2009Interactions interviewThe following “interview” with me appears in the July/August 2009 issue of Interactions magazine, the ACM’s journal on interaction design. I say “interview” because it’s basically an edit on the sprawling chat Tish Shute had with me for her site, back in February of this year; as we know, even minor editorial alterations can produce disproportionate shifts in tone and emphasis, and that’s certainly the case here. I should say from the outset that I don’t have much use for the ACM, and in particular greatly dislike their stance on access to publications, which flies in the face of my own conviction that the point (and power) of knowledge is to share it. Accordingly, I’m republishing the piece in its entirety here. For the sake of accuracy, I’ve left the editorial characterization of me and my work intact, but you should never, ever construe this as an endorsement of same. As ever, I hope you enjoy it. “At the end of the world, plant a tree” Adam Greenfield is Nokia’s head of design direction for service and user-interface design, and the author of Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing and the upcoming The City Is Here For You To Use. He is also an impactful speaker and articulate blogger, and has become a major authority in the thinking about the impact of future ubiquitous technologies on people and society.Interactions Magazine. In a lengthy interview with Tish Shute recently published on UgoTrade.com, Greenfield ranged over topics including augmented reality, Usman Haque’s Pachube project, the networked book, the networked city, and what to do at the end of the world. The interview is dense and rich, with many of the questions raised relevant to our audience. We asked Adam to expand on some of his answers for TS: The legal scholar Eben Moglen has identified three elements of privacy: anonymity, secrecy and most importantly autonomy. How do you see Moglen’s three elements being worked out in a ubiquitously networked world? Are there ways we could design ubiquitous systems that might support personal autonomy? AG: If we accept for the moment a definition of autonomy as a feeling of being master of one’s own fate, then absolutely yes. One thing I talk about a good deal is using ambient situational awareness to lower decision costs – that is, to lower the information costs associated with arriving at a choice presented to you, and at the same time mitigate the opportunity costs of having committed yourself to a course of action. When given some kind of real-time overview of all of the options available to you in a given time, place and context – and especially if that comes wrapped up in some kind of visualization that makes anomaly detection a matter of instantaneous gestalt, to be grasped in a single glance – your personal autonomy is tremendously enhanced. Tremendously enhanced. What do I mean by that? It’s really simple: you don’t head out to the bus stop until your phone tells you a bus is a minute away, and you don’t walk down the street where more than some threshold number of muggings happen – in fact, by default it doesn’t even show up on your maps – and you don’t eat at the restaurant whose forty-eight recent health code violations cause its name to flash red in your address book. And all these decisions are made possible because networked informatics have effectively rendered the obscure and the hidden transparent to inquiry. And there’s no doubt in my mind that life is thusly made just that little bit better. But there’s a cost – there’s always a cost. Serendipity, solitude, anonymity, most of what we now recognize as the makings of urban savoir faire: it all goes by the wayside. And yes, we’re richer and safer and maybe even happier with the advent of the services and systems I’m so interested in, but by the same token we’re that much poorer for the loss of these intangibles. It’s a complicated trade-off, and I believe in most places it’s one we’re making without really examining what’s at stake. So as to how this local autonomy could be deployed in Moglen’s more general terms, I don’t know, and I’m not sure anyone does. Because he’s absolutely right: Bernard Stiegler reminds us that the network constitutes a global mnemotechnics, a persistent memory store for planet Earth, and yet we’ve structured our systems of jurisprudence and our life practices and even our psyches around the idea that information about us eventually expires and leaves the world. Its failure to do so in the context of Facebook and Flickr and Twitter is clearly one of the ways in which the elaboration of our digital selves constrains our real-world behavior. Let just one picture of you grabbing a cardboard cutout’s breast or taking a bong hit leak onto the network, and see how the career options available to you shift in response. This is what’s behind Anne Galloway’s calls for a “forgetting machine.” An everyware that did that – that massively spoofed our traces in the world, that threw up enormous clouds of winnow and chaff to give us plausible deniability about our whereabouts and so on – might give us a fighting chance. TS: Early theorizing of a “calm,” “invisible” ubicomp seems out of synch with the present-day reality of services like Twitter and Facebook, where active, engaged, contact-driven users continually manage their networked identity. How will the processes of contact and identity-sharing that have seemingly captured the popular imagination be or not be part of the city that is Here For You To Use? AG: Let’s remember that ubicomp itself, as a discipline, has largely moved on from the Weiserian discourse of “calm technology”; Yvonne Rogers, for example, now speaks of “proactive systems for proactive people.” You can look at this as a necessary accommodation with the reality principle, which it is, or as kind of a shame – which it also happens to be, at least in my opinion. Either way, though, I don’t think anybody can credibly argue any longer that just because informatic systems pervade our lives, designers will be compelled to craft encalming interfaces to them. That notion of Mark Weiser’s was never particularly convincing, and as far as I’m concerned it’s been thoroughly refuted by the unfolding actuality of post-PC informatics. All the available evidence, on the contrary, supports the idea that we will have to actively fight for moments of calm and reflection, as individuals and as collectivities. And not only that, as it happens, but for spaces in which we’re able to engage with the Other on neutral turf, as it were, since the logic of “social media” seems to be producing Big Sort-like effects and echo chambers. When given the tools that allow us to do so, we seem to surround ourselves with people who look and think and consume like we do, and the result is that the tools allowing us to become involved with anything but the self, or selves that strongly resemble it, are atrophying. So when people complain about K-Mart and Starbucks and American Eagle Outfitters coming to Manhattan, and how it means the suburbanization of the city, I have to laugh. Because the real suburbanization is the smoothening-out of our social interaction until it only encompasses the congenial. A gated community where everyone looks and acts the same? That’s the suburbs, wherever and however it instantiates, and I don’t care how precious and edgy your tastes may be. Richard Sennett argued that what makes urbanity is precisely the quality of necessary, daily, cheek-by-jowl confrontation with a panoply of the different, and as far as I can tell he’s spot on. We have to devise platforms that accommodate and yet buffer that confrontation. We have to create the safe(r) spaces that allow us to negotiate that difference. The alternative to doing so is creating a world of ten million autistic, utterly atomic and mutually incomprehensible tribelets, each reinforced in the illusion of its own impeccable correctness: duller than dull, except at the flashpoints between. And those become murderous. Nope. Unacceptable outcome. TS: What new imaginings or possibilities do you see when pixels anywhere are linked to everyware? AG: Limitless opportunities for product placement. Commercial insertions and injections, mostly. Beyond that: one of the places where shallowly Weiserian logic breaks down is in thinking that the platforms we use now disappear from the world just because ubiquitous computing has arrived. We’ve still got radio, for example – OK, now it’s satellite radio and streaming Internet feeds, but the interaction metaphor isn’t any different. By the same token, we’re still going to be using reasonably conventional-looking laptops and desktop keyboard/display combos for a while yet. The form factor is pretty well optimized for the delivery of a certain class of services, it’s a convenient and well-assimilated interaction vocabulary, none of that’s going away just yet. And the same goes for billboards and “TV” screens. But all of those things become entirely different propositions in everyware world: more open, more modular, ever more conceived of as network resources with particular input and output affordances. We already see some signs of this with Microsoft’s recent “Social Desktop” prototype – which, mind you, is a very bad idea as it currently stands, especially as implemented on something with the kind of security record that Windows enjoys – and we’ll be seeing many more. If every display in the world has an IP address and a self-descriptor indicating what kind of protocols it’s capable of handling, then you begin to get into some really interesting and thorny territory. The first things to go away, off the top of my head, are screens for a certain class of mobile device – why power a screen off your battery when you can push the data to a nearby display that’s much bigger, much brighter, much more social? – and conventional projectors. Then we get into some very interesting issues around large, public interactive displays – who “drives” the display, and so forth. But here again, we’ll have to fight to keep these things sane. It’s past time for a public debate around these issues, because they’re unquestionably going to condition the everyday experience of walking down the street in most of our cities. And that’s difficult to do when times are hard and people have more pressing concerns on their mind. TS: The science-fiction writer David Brin sees two potential futures: in the first, the government watches everybody, and in the second everybody watches everybody. (The latter he calls sousveillance.) It has been suggested by the artificial-intelligence enthusiast Ben Goertzel that providing an artificial intelligence with access to a massive datastore fed by ubicomp is the first step toward effective sousveillance. What do you think the role of AI in ubicomp will be? Is it worth thinking about what the first important application of such technologies might be? AG: I don’t believe that artificial intelligence as the term is generally understood – which is to say, a self-aware, general-purpose intelligence of human capacity or greater – is likely to appear within my lifetime, or for a comfortably long time thereafter. Having said that, Goertzel seems to be making the titanic (and enormously difficult to justify) assumption that a self-aware artificial intelligence would share any perspectives, goals, priorities or values whatsoever with the human species, let alone with that fraction of the human species that could use a little help in countering watchfulness from above. “Hooking [an] AI up to a massive datastore fed by ubicomp” sounds to me more like the first step toward enslavement…if not outright digestion. Sousveillance – the term is Steve Mann’s, originally – doesn’t imply “everybody watching everybody” to me, anyway, so much as a consciously political act of turning infrastructures of observation and control back on those specific institutions most used to employing same toward their own prerogatives. Think Rodney King, think Oscar Grant. TS: You seem to be skeptical about the role everyware can play in sustainable living. And yet at the moment it seems that – in the hacker and business communities at least – the role of everyware in reducing carbon footprint/energy management, etc., is the great green hope. Will everyware enable or hinder fundamental changes at the level of culture and identity necessary to support the urgent global need “to consume less and redefine prosperity”? AG: I’m not skeptical about the potential of ubiquitous systems to meter energy use, and maybe even incentivize some reduction in that use – not at all. I’m simply not convinced that anything we do will make any difference. Look, I think we really, seriously screwed the pooch on this. We have fouled the nest so thoroughly and in so many ways that I would be absolutely shocked if humanity comes out the other end of this century with any level of organization above that of clans and villages. It’s not just carbon emissions and global warming, it’s depleted soil fertility, it’s synthetic estrogens bio-accumulating in the aquatic food chain, it’s our inability to stop using antibiotics in a way that gives rise to multiple drug resistance in microbes. Any one of these threats in isolation would pose a challenge to our ability to collectively identify and respond to it, as it’s clear anthropogenic global warming already does. Put all of these things together, assess the total threat they pose in the light of our societies’ willingness and/or capacity to reckon with them, and I think any moderately knowledgeable and intellectually honest person has to conclude that it’s more or less “game over, man” – that sometime in the next sixty years or so a convergence of Extremely Bad Circumstances is going to put an effective end to our ability to conduct highly ordered and highly energy-intensive civilization on this planet, for something on the order of thousands of years to come. So with all apologies to Bruce Sterling, I just don’t buy the idea that we’re going to consume our way to Ecotopia. Nor is any symbolic act of abjection on my part going to postpone the inevitable by so much as a second, nor would such a sacrifice do anything meaningful to improve anybody else’s outcomes. I’d rather live comfortably – hopefully not obscenely so – in the years we have remaining to us, use my skills as they are most valuable to people, and cherish each moment for what it uniquely offers. Maybe some people would find that prospect morbid, or nihilistic, but I find it kind of inspiring. It becomes even more crucial that we not waste the little time we do have on broken systems, broken ways of doing things. The primary question for the designers of urban informatics under such circumstances is to design systems that underwrite autonomy, that allow people to make the best and wisest and most resonant use of whatever time they have left on the planet. And who knows? That effort may bear fruit in ways we have no way of anticipating at the moment. As it says in the Qu’ran, gorgeously: “At the end of the world, plant a tree.” TS: The concept of autonomy is signaled clearly in the title you have chosen for your next book, The City Is Here For You To Use, and seems to be a consistent theme in your writing. While you have in the past (notably in Everyware) discussed the possible constraints to presentation of self and threats to a flexible identity posed by ubiquitous computing, your next book signals optimism. What are your key grounds for this optimism? AG: It’s not optimism so much as hope. Whether it’s well-founded or not is not for me to decide. I guess I just trust people to make reasonably good choices, when they’re both aware of the stakes and have been presented with sound, accurate decision-support material. Putting a fine point on it: I believe that most people don’t actually want to be dicks. We may have differing conceptions of the good, our choices may impinge on one another’s autonomy. But I think most of us, if confronted with the humanity of the Other and offered the ability to do so, would want to find some arrangement that lets everyone find some satisfaction in the world. And in its ability to assist us in signaling our needs and desires, in its potential to mediate the mutual fulfillment of same, in its promise to reduce the fear people face when confronted with the immediate necessity to make a decision on radically imperfect information, a properly-designed networked informatics could underwrite the most transformative expansions of people’s ability to determine the circumstances of their own lives. Now that’s epochal. If that isn’t cause for hope, then I don’t know what is. -----
Posted by Patrick Keller
in Architecture, Culture & society, Territory
at
08:32
Defined tags for this entry: architecture, culture & society, interaction design, territory, theory, ubiquitous, urbanism
Wednesday, July 01. 2009Successful Marriage Proposal on Twitter Today: We #blamedrewscancerDrew Olanoff, the Twitter user who started the #blamedrewscancer campaign after being diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma earlier this year, made a successful proposal of marriage to his girlfriend Sarah Cooley on Twitter today (here’s her “yes”). We later confirmed the story with Drew over IM. Of course, he “blamed Drew’s cancer” for the proposal, as the Tweets below attest. #blamedrewscancer is a Twitter movement that aims to raise money for charity by adding the hashtag to your Tweets, as the site explains:
Congratulations to Drew and Sarah on their engagement. See also: The 10 Most Extraordinary Twitter Updates, wherein we note three successful marriage proposals on Twitter.
Personal comment:
Digital life... Ce qui me fait penser à (et c'est moins drôle): comment gèrera-t-on la mort de tout ces utilisateurs quand cela commencera à arriver massivement (dans 30-40 ans)? ... Toutes ces données laissées sur les réseaus, toutes ces traces à l'abandon... Comment distinguera-t-on les profils des vivants de ceux des morts?
Posted by Patrick Keller
in Culture & society
at
10:17
Defined tags for this entry: culture & society, social
Facebook to Twannounce “Twivacy Changes” Twomorrow?Facebook is hosting a webcast for press tomorrow about “upcoming privacy changes” to the site: the announcement will likely outline Facebook’s transition toward becoming more public – some might say more Twitter-like. We already know change is on the way: last week Facebook announced that they’re beta testing a publishing feature (with a limited number of profiles) by which your Facebook status updates can optionally be made public. In short: you’ll be able to use Facebook just like Twitter, and broadcast public updates to the world. We also wrote about another interesting find last week: a new setting in Facebook that lets you receive an email when someone becomes a “fan” of your Facebook profile – not a friend, but actually someone who follows your personal Facebook page without you reciprocating. And a new Facebook Search is in testing too, allowing you to search updates from friends or all public publishers. Facebook, then, is moving to a model of public updates and Twitter-like followers. The question becomes: can Facebook, which built its brand on “real names” and true friendships, also become the leader in public sharing and updates? The MySpace EraThe tactic is certainly in contrast to Facebook’s early years: the network went beyond MySpace and its various clones by emphasizing real relationships and extreme privacy. Your Facebook profile was a representation of your real-life social graph, and when users tired of amassing thousands of fake MySpace friends and adding “bling” to their profiles, they flocked to Facebook’s cleaner, more controlled environment with a smaller number of high-value relationships. Facebook even limited networks of friends to 5000 people to prevent this high-volume friend adding, which threatened to devalue the meaning of a Facebook friend. The strategy served them well; MySpace became a ghost town. Then Twitter happened……and suddenly the press was in love with openness again, with our newfound ability to mine the public consciousness through Twitter search, with a new era in which there was more value to be had in sharing information than in keeping it private. Facebook’s gated community was a lot less useful when penning a news story about the Iranian elections, or the Hudson Plane Crash, or the public reaction to Michael Jackson’s death. Less useful, too, for conscientious brands looking for customer feedback. And less valuable for finding a new, spontaneous connection with that random Twitter user who happens to discuss the same topics as you. Twitter’s public updates – and more specifically, the mining of these updates through Twitter Search – provided a more complete database of the public consciousness than ever before, a source of untold insights.
So what do you do when you’re all about privacy, and your upstart competitor is doing the complete opposite? By making a complete about-face, Facebook would lose the faith of its 200 million+ users who value the privacy of the site most of all: it’s what the core userbase was sold on from the start. So Facebook is trying to find a middle road whereby privacy is maintained and public sharing is an optional extra. Over time, they surely hope, the number of Facebook “public” users will exceed the total number of Twitter users. At that point, Facebook would be a more valuable resource; it would become the larger hivemind. Who will win the race is anybody’s guess: Twitter has a singular focus and the right DNA. It has a culture of public sharing that was present from the start. Facebook has scale on its side, and would only need to convert some of its users to public sharing to maintain its lead. It’s a race that will define social networking for months and possibly years to come. And tomorrow Facebook will likely twannounce its next step.
Personal comment: Facebook vs Twitter vs Myspace: interesting strategies regarding "real time", privacy and networked status. We can definitely see where this all thing is going.
Posted by Patrick Keller
in Culture & society, Interaction design, Science & technology
at
10:01
Defined tags for this entry: culture & society, interaction design, privacy, science & technology, social
« previous page
(Page 2 of 2, totaling 10 entries)
|
fabric | rblgThis blog is the survey website of fabric | ch - studio for architecture, interaction and research. We curate and reblog articles, researches, writings, exhibitions and projects that we notice and find interesting during our everyday practice and readings. Most articles concern the intertwined fields of architecture, territory, art, interaction design, thinking and science. From time to time, we also publish documentation about our own work and research, immersed among these related resources and inspirations. This website is used by fabric | ch as archive, references and resources. It is shared with all those interested in the same topics as we are, in the hope that they will also find valuable references and content in it.
QuicksearchCategoriesCalendarSyndicate This BlogArchivesBlog Administration |