fromCONCENTRATE

The (symbolic) importance of physically petitioning 10 Downing Street should not be underestimated.

If a citizen takes their petition to 10 Downing Street they are literally and symbolically banging on the ‘front door’ of government and demanding that their issue be given due care and consideration by the highest elected authority in the land.

Our friends, MySociety, facilitate their own online brand of this complaint process; the No 10 Petitions Website – How does this online experience compare?

If you have encountered No 10 Petitions Website it might well have been through receiving an invitation to sign a petition via email (something like) -

Protest the Pope, 10 Downing Street Petition

Petition the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown

Please sign:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ProtestthePope/

And, the Number 10 Petitions Website fosters this kind of signature-gathering-via-email approach, which appears to be a very efficient way to:

• gauge support for current issues
• raise the public profile of an issue
• bring an issue to the attention of central government

When I visited to the site today I noticed that there was a new petition there, campaigning for legislation regarding ‘Mosquito youth deterrent devices.’

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/MosquitoUse/

The petition was created by Howard Stapleton and reads:

‘We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Legislate
the use of the Mosquito device.’

I ’signed’ the petition, (since I strongly disagree with the use of these devices*) and it was pleasingly simple to do so.

Perhaps too simple?  Whilst the online petition is certainly an efficient delivery method, the process feels much more like making a mundane consumer complaint (rather than taking part in an engaged political action).  And that is not the only problem.

The No 10 Petitions Website operates, on one level, on a similar model to the previously mentioned FixMyStreet:

• “report-the-problem-to-the-relevant-authority Model”
  

Can reporting a pothole in need of repair (or reporting a broken traffic light in the DIY Democracy example) to a council department REALLY be equated with reporting bigger, less well defined, more complex issues to the Prime Minister?

*These totally unregulated ‘mosquito devices’ send out a high frequency pulsing sound which can only be heard by younger people, indiscriminately targeting them; making their lives unpleasant. The legal use of these devices has not yet been tested in the British Court, but it is widely believed that they are a violation of International Human Rights Law.

Downing Street image file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Brazil license.
Original image here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lula_and_Brown_1_April_2009.jpg

Sorta like this:

I received a link via email today (thanks Tom):

DIY DEMOCRACY – these guys have developed an iPhone App for… well… engaging in Democracy…

The ‘DIY DEMOCRACY’ App allows citizens to report back to government agencies when they encounter an ‘issue’ and it also gives immediate access to the written law – it even has a button to ‘challenge the law!

The logic of the App seems to be that, given the correct information, our elected government bodies will ‘fix’ society’s problems e.g. broken traffic lights

Here is some more from the App’s website (it’s currently only available for use in the US):

“FIX YOUR STATE”
“FIX YOUR CITY”
“DOCUMENT YOUR EVIDENCE”
“TAKE ACTION”
“SHARE YOUR ISSUES”
“CONTACT YOUR LEADERS”

The above are all really good ideas BTW – but really… with an App? – I’m a little skeptical…

In recent years, in-keeping with the web 2.0 ‘participation,’ ‘interactivity’ trends there have emerged a great number of websites and applications which seem to offer to act as ‘broker’ between disenfranchised citizens and political process.

In the UK, quite a few sites operate under the banner of the charity ‘MySociety.’

An example project is ‘FixMyStreet,’ a website which deals very sensibly with a constant problem – potholes – by putting pro-active citizens in the position of informal ‘monitors.’

If you spot a pothole then you can simply enter the location (postcode) into the site (or a geotagged photo if you like) and all of the necessary information is AUTOMAJICALLY reported to the SPECIFIC RELEVANT LOCAL AUTHORITY so that they can schedule a repair.

In crowdsourcing pothole reporting, FixMyStreet has a very modest and clear remit and I think the website works primarily because it takes a lot of the hassle out of the ‘civic duty’ of COMPLAINING.

The DIY DEMOCRACY App takes this notion of reporting ‘problems’ to a totally different extreme:

THE POWER OF CHANGE IS IN YOUR HAND

Its rhetoric is very seductive, and raises some questions:

Are all of societies inequalities and failings mere logistical ‘bugs’?

And, can we REALLY solve all of our POLITICAL issues by remote control?

There are a growing number of transparent democracy websites and below is a link to a comprehensive blogpost by Tom Steinberg (of MySociety) outlining various emerging trends and strands:

Nine is the number: The different flavours of transparency website in 2009

My Digital Media Research Masters Final Project will require a theoretical understanding of the alliances and interactions between law and digital technologies and it is my hope that this learning can be aided through discussion with both the designers, programmers and theorists resident in Culture Lab and also legal academics across at the Law School.

Tomorrow, at 2pm, I’ll be making a presentation to a PHD Research group at Newcastle Law School to introduce my research and thinking regarding areas where technology, art and law appear to intersect:

Title: Interfacing with Law

John O’Shea is working on an AHRC Research Project at Newcastle University’s Culture Lab proposing and prototyping new kinds of technological ‘interface’ between citizen and law.
The convergence of digital-media collaboration tools (such as wikis), G.P.S. enabled mobile devices, and ubiquitous social networking technologies present not only new challenges for legislation but also new possibilities for governments, corporations, communities and citizens to interact with legal frameworks.
John will present examples from his current avenues of research and open up a discussion regarding the implications of current technologies for citizens and the legal profession.

As well as discussing current examples of “Web 2.0″ technologically enabled initiatives between citizens, government and legislation I would also like to direct some focus onto instances where the two streams – technology and law  – seem to merge and hybridise instigating problematic scenarios brought about neither by citizen nor government BUT instead simply through the advancement and free proliferation of new technologies.

Real practical examples of these unanticipated pairings are often evidenced in the tabloid media:

Top: Recorded data in G.P.S. systems (potential evidence of wrong-doing) causing headaches for businesses and lawyers.
Below: Low unit cost of fingerprint scanners is enabling new, non governmental, identification schemes.
Bottom: To counter thieves, designers technologically ensure that mobile phone owners keep their device on their person at all times (again using G.P.S.)

In each of the three story examples, technological innovation is portrayed in an unswervingly positive light and, although each of these developments could have very obvious implications for the privacy of individuals involved, these concerns are not voiced.

In his ISEA2009 keynote, Clive Van Heerden of the Phillips Technology ‘Design Probes’ division discussed these kind of throwaway news articles and used the phrase ‘weak signals’ to liken them to a kind of cultural indicator.

This idea has parity with one of Marshall Mcluhan’s 1969 conceptions of the role of art and artists in relation to technology:

I think of art, at its most significant as a DEW line, a DISTANT EARLY WARNING system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it.

More info regarding DISTANT EARLY WARNING at this excellent site HERE!

Legal boundaries are often determined in respect of private ownership of land and property and are typically ascribed by the simultaneous use of physical boundaries – walls, fences, gates etc.

What happens if the physical boundary is removed or disappears or deteriorates?

The answer it would seem, is that the legal boundary, lacking its physical scaffold, is prone to demise, and the previously ‘private’ property risks falling into public domain. A simple strategy for combating this undesired collapse of law is to give notification of the established legal boundary whilst also making a symbolic gesture towards the previous physical boundary through the use of small markers.

In this way spaces can give the visible and physical impression of being ‘public’ whilst, at the same time, remaining psychologically, legally, economically and physically ‘private’.

The simple brass studs in the video above allude to the outline of a previous structure which, whilst no longer present, is still able to retain territorial supremacy by invoking law – in this case The Highways ACT 1959.

Regarding the Highways Act 1959 – the Office of Public Sector Information has no record of such an act in their 1959 archive. Further investigation reveals that the act was superseded and repealed with the introduction of the Highways Act 1980.

The situation above presents us with an imaginary building and a sign pointing to a vanished law.

In November 2009, television news reports from the day of the fall of the Berlin Wall returned to our screens, 20 years on, like retinal after images. The Berlin Wall had not been a mere boundary marker but a globally visible, physical, manifestation of a global scale political impasse. The transgression and fall of the wall are now seen as emblematic of the groundswell political changes sweeping Eastern Bloc countries at that time.

In advance of our trip to Berlin for Transmediale, I want to consider some contemporary boundaries and how they manifest.

What (if anything) might contemporary boundaries be symbolic manifestations of?

A couple of months ago I saved a link to a ‘Virtual Berlin Wall’ project but now that I return to the link it directs me to the ‘Google’ web search home page – this anomaly takes this blog post off at a tangent…

Virtual Berlin wall launched to commemorate walls http://tinyurl.com/ydl2oqp 3:47 AM Nov 9th from web

There are three possible reasons for this unexpected outcome:

1. – it is simply a dead link and ‘Google’ is the ‘in browser’ default
2. – this is a smartass conceptual art joke
3. – the ‘error’ is some kind of freudigital slip

I choose to believe all three of the above reasons to be correct.

Google is a kind of global digital interfacing membrane, which applies top secret filtration algorithms in order to control, administer and record the exchange of information on the internet.

Today’s withdrawal of Google from the Chinese ‘market’ on grounds of ongoing state censorship is seen by political commentators as a gesture towards a western democratic moral and political highground.

Despite Google’s seeming omnipotence, the vast majority of internet users seem to perceive Google, less as an oppressive ‘wall’ rather, as a benevolent ‘gateway’. For many, Google is a symbol of free, easy access to information and, as such, Google is more analogous in popular consciousness to the Brandenburg Gate than the Berlin Wall.

Brandenburg Gate image used under licence from Wikimedia Commons.

Links:

Google and China: a cynical ploy or a principled stand? – Charlie Beckett, Director POLIS

Google and China: What’s the real story, and where does it go from here? – Mac Slocum. O’Reilly Radar

Later this month I will be submitting my final project proposal and, having identified my research area – “Law as Art” I need to outline the territory I am going to explore and suggest a path through.  What are my aims? What specifically am I intending to do?

It is as a citizen first that I find this area of research immediately arresting – in the U.K., we are all subject to the rule of law, but what do we actually know about how laws are made?

Gulf between Citizen and Law

Every week, central government introduces new legislation regulating all aspects of our lives and we, as citizens, are in effect the end-users: consumers of law – What understanding do we have about the process from which law emerges?
Even the most commonplace of legal documentation, such as a Tenancy Agreement, is totally impenetrable for a majority of people – littered with seemingly contradictory technical terminology.  Legal documentation actually seems like an irrelevence – ‘non-working documents’ – which are completely unneeded until exactly when it is too late – when we come into contact with the law through abuse, accident and tragedy.  In a confused ‘car crash’ scenario we employ specialists to perform an autopsy on our paperwork.

2694 Humorists tell us there is no act of our lives which can be performed without breaking through some one of the many meshes of the law by which our rights are so carefully guarded; and those learned in the law, when they give advice without the usual fee, and in the confidence of friendship, generally say, ‘Pay, pay anything rather than go to law;’

Chapter on Legal Memoranda: Mrs Beeton’s Household Management, first published 1861.

There seems to be an insurmountable gulf between citizens and the specialised processes of law making and our legal architecture – the framework of rules which fences and underpins our culture.

I would like to investigate and suggest new ways for citizens to become engaged with law and ultimately to be involved in the formulation and enactment of law, in a real and creative sense.

…and power and co-ersion and compliance”

- Presentation within FACT’s “Climate for Change” Un-Conference.  The presentation can be watched in full at on FACT TV

Question: “Who is happy with the fact that their Police Force is operating in a subversive way with “Special Powers?”
(image credit: Andy Miah )