Today I was looking at GIS data that outlines the paths fiber optic cables take as they snake across the U.S. I found that this data is considered a secret (as a risk to so called critical infrastructure), and therefore redacted from U.S. DOJ filings, or made more general in terms of accuracy on individual transit vendors’ websites (usually in the ‘about’ section).

What I did find, however, is that given enough money, one *can* still buy this data. Some vendors, along with older maps, appear on the Atlas of Cyberspace site. Prices seemed to range from ~$3,000 for general data all the way up to $15,000 for the most accurate and extensive map. Interesting.

What’s more interesting is, 1) “where do they get their data?” and 2) “why can I still buy this if it’s supposedly a ’secret’ and a threat to national security?” It seems, once again, that availability of funds is being used as a way to filter out those who would “do bad” with this “sensitive” data, and those who want it for other more benign purposes. I want it for an art project. Terrorists may want it to “cripple the Internet”. Who do the vendors think has access to more funds–me or the terrorists?

I see these trucks from AT Systems in and around Pittsburgh almost daily. They have, on the side of them, the slogan: “AT Systems. The system is the solution.” Here’s a picture from Flickr (not mine, by the way).

The slogan got me thinking about security. I suppose in the security business, the one thing that is a “solution” is not to make it impossible to steal–for you can’t really (ever) do that. Instead, the solution is to provide a certain amount of “transparency” and documentation if/when theft does occur in order to catch the thief. I’m assuming that’s what their slogan refers to–the “system” or process of documentation/chain of responsibility they have being the solution to keeping valuables safe in the face of risk of theft.

I’ve been reading some “critical theory” and “media studies” books while here at Banff, and yesterday I decided to do some surfing on the Intermedianetweb about critical theory and postmodernism. Honestly, I wanted to learn more about the people and language cited/used, as I found it quite cumbersome (for me) to understand what people were talking about here. Instead of finding that, however, I noticed there is a big debate on its value and legitimacy. Richard Dawkins even gets in on the debate, and quite harshly takes sides.

I have to admit, for all the talk about Marxism, hegemony and power structures, the language of theory is quite a power structure itself. I’m finding it hard to tell what people here at Banff are actually talking about–I have to frequently remind myself that I’m an intelligent person; at times I just feel so stupid here. It’s as if people are speaking another language. I wonder why we can’t just talk about our ideas in plain English, to make them accessible to the “proletariat” of people like me who are not so blessed with the “wealth” of theory.

Reading Wikipedia, I read that philosophers such as Strauss intended to write esoterically in order to cause readers to stop and think; interpreting slowly instead of jumping to action. Perhaps the same use of cumbersome language continues today in theory, but I feel the whole field could be moved along much faster if it wasn’t so damn hard to understand what people are actually arguing! This goal of obfuscation is just so different from those I was taught in management and design: considering your audience, and coming to their level…

Today, I got to see two art projects at the Banff Centre. One was called “tracklines”, a project of the mobile media lab here at Banff. The other was called, “Dead In Iraq” by Joe DeLappe (who is also my roommate)

Tracklines is a “walkumentary” (their words) of the geology of the Hoodoo trail, delivered through a cellular phone and GPS receiver pair. I thought this was clearly technology for technology’s sake–what additional value did the cellular phone bring to the equation? Why not just use a map, paper cards or a cassette tape? The added value of the GPS (not being restricted to discrete, detectable waypoints on the trail) was totally unused–the map on the phone, for instance, didn’t show you where you were on the trail. Or how to get back on the trail if you got off. Honestly, I thought the project could have made better use of the technology, and delivered a better experience to the user if they would have user-tested this. It seems there are some glaring omissions.

Joe’s work is a critique of America’s Army, the US Army produced (and taxpayer funded!) videogame, distributed free on the Intermedianetweb. Joe systematically types in the names of the soldiers killed in Iraq into the game–much to the other player’s dismay. They often insult him or ask him to stop, providing interesting insight into the psychology of the typical AA player. Some tell him to keep going or thank him; there are people who recognize the real world isn’t a game. Anyway, check out his website for more.

Yesterday, we saw the movie “Brazil”. What a great movie! Honestly. It’s like a mix of Charles Dickens, Pink Floyd, 1984, The Matrix and probably others. Perhaps those works either influenced or were influenced by this movie? Totally great–I’ll have to see more of the director’s work…