Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-political-05.txt

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Certainly some parts of the STS literature are in agreement about this 
issue. The fact that other, now less academically fashionable traditions 
reject the view, of course, does not tell us what is true. But the location 
of consensus would certainly help.

I _really_ like the approach of teasing out what "political" means in this 
discussion, however. I tried to make that point much less effectively the 
other day, so thank you for staying well and clearly what I barely managed 
to suggest. I haven't thought enough to say whether I think this taxonomy 
is complete, but it's certainly an excellent start.

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On September 23, 2019 12:11:47 Stéphane Couture <[e-mail]> 
wrote:
> Hi, This is a very interesting discussion. I wanted to jump in following 
> this last comment, to make a small contribution. Not sure if it is coherent 
> with IETF discussions, but I hope this helps.
>
> First, I agree with Niels that there is a near consensus in certain 
> academic fields (like STS and many works in philosophy of technology) that 
> technological forms (standards, protocols, machines, tools) are political. 
> Without making it as an argument of authority, I am wondering if it could 
> be helpful to simply better describe the "location" of this consensus, 
> instead of making sound like this is an absolute truth. This would avoid 
> the delicate process of verifying the claims of every authors, while also 
> informing the community that these scholarly work exists.
>
> Second, it might be worth having a section to explain what we mean by 
> "political" and "how" the politics of technologies have been articulated in 
> the literature. We have a section like this, but it's more like a 
> "conclusion" than a framework. I like for instance this characterization by 
> Darin Barney (following Andrew Feenberg) of the politics of technologies:
>
> -Technology as a *mean* of political activity : for instance, using a tool 
> (or protocol) to suppress freedom of expression or enhance citizenship 
> participation.
> -Technology as an *object* of political activity or deliberation: 
> discussions and social process in the making of technologies : who is 
> making the decision about protocols? Is it democratic and legitimate? Who 
> is excluded in these spaces of decision about protocols/standards? Who 
> should be included, and why?
>
> -As the *setting" of political activity : what are the constraints and 
> possibilities of our particular technological culture ? How is the history 
> of this technological culture affecting our choices today? Here you could, 
> I think, include discussions like the previous one on the impact of 
> historical standardization of time in our current technological choices 
> (why taking Greenwich as the reference point, and not Tashkent or Nairobi?).
> Stéphane
>
> Barney, D. (2007). One Nation Under Google. Hart Lecture.  
> http://darinbarneyresearch.mcgill.ca/Work/One_Nation_Under_Google.pdf
>
>
>
> Le lun. 23 sept. 2019 à 07:59, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> a 
> écrit :
> Niels,
>
> This post is a perfect example of one problem that I have been complaining
> about.  If everything that is ever touched upon by any politics is thereby
> itself "political", then your point is true (though, I submit, trivially
> so).  But you haven't actually shown that claim, and any time anyone
> objects to this point you simply trot out some authority to say, "But it is
> so true." But the argument is basically over whether those authors are
> right. So it's either begging the question or fallacious appeal to
> authority or both.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
>
> On September 23, 2019 05:44:33 Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/21/19 4:18 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Hiya,
>>>
>>> On 21/09/2019 15:13, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>>> Again, let's take the example of SSL, which was designed by Netscape
>>>> for its own market purposes and became a de facto standard because
>>>> Netscape had the dominant browser and people wanted to interoperate
>>>> with it. What's poltical about that process?
>>>
>>> To be fair, there was a lot of IETF politics around
>>> Netscape and Microsoft related to that and IIRC TLS
>>> was only called that as part of an explicit compromise.
>>>
>>> I think Eliot's examples (and NTP, which I raised)
>>> are maybe better examples of less/apolitical standards
>>> and protocols than SSL/TLS.
>>
>> Time, and its standardization, is a very political project. Going back to
>> Aristotle (Physics iv 10-14) there is the difference between Chronos and
>> Kairos, where Chronos became the number to measure motion (kinesis). There
>> have been many other perceptions and measurements of time, that were able
>> to exist next to each other, but as part of the colonial project, the
>> European concept of what time was, was made the universal standard. That is
>> why Greenwich Mean Time (in Great Britain) is used as a standard for the
>> whole world.
>>
>> There are also many stories about the development of timezones, and their
>> consequences, the way in which time helped shape labor, life, and how it
>> altered complete societies.
>>
>> I am not making a value judgment about this re-odering, but I am trying to
>> show that NTP, which helps synchronize to a specific time regime, on which
>> a lot of computing depends, helps promulgate a specific, and political,
>> ordering.
>>
>> This book on the topic is quite interesting:
>> https://www.amazon.com/Colonisation-Time-Studies-Imperialism/dp/0719082714
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Niels ten Oever
>> Researcher and PhD Candidate
>> DATACTIVE Research Group
>> University of Amsterdam
>>
>> PGP fingerprint   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
>>                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc