Data & Society Workshop: Environmental Impact of Data-Driven Technologies
On November 2, 2018, Data & Society will host a workshop in NYC on the environmental impact of data-driven technologies. The purpose of the D&S Workshop series is to enable deep dives with a broad community of interdisciplinary researchers into topics at the core of Data & Society’s concerns.
Environmental Impact of Data-Driven TechnologiesBy the end of 2018, Bitcoin will consume .05% of the world’s energy per year. This is equivalent to the energy consumption of Denmark. Major tech companies are working hard to make cloud services more energy efficient, but server farms still require tremendous power and water to function. Additionally, other parts of the “stack” (e.g., software development, usage patterns) do not take environmental impact into consideration. Likewise, financiers obsessed with blockchain and 5G are often ignoring the environmental impact of the proliferation of these new technologies. While some IoT chipmakers are competing on energy efficiency, cheap production still dominates that conversation at a moment in which data-oriented tech is being introduced into everything.
On the user end, people are streaming a billion hours of YouTube videos every day and loading countless hours of videos and images into online backup services where they are likely to be watched/viewed by humans only a handful of times. Gmail has normalized the idea that everyone should archive email in perpetuity, which means that Facebook notices indicating you have a new message that you received in 2007 are still using up energy.
Apple has been called out for slowing down its operating system when battery life declines to make the user experience more seamless, which, in effect, encourages users to buy more equipment. Yet, the environmental cost of new hardware is piling up – quite literally. Users of Amazon Web Services and Microsoft’s Azure are encouraged to spin up new machines when they are working with data; they experience no visceral understanding of the environmental impact of their decisions. Likewise, even though most older computer scientists obsessed over runtime efficiency of their algorithms, few who grab code from Github give much thought to the environmental cost of their inefficient code.
Much work is still needed to understand the environmental cost of technology. The purpose of this workshop is to bring together researchers who are examining these issues from different disciplinary and analytic perspectives. Relevant topics for this workshop might include:
- What is the environmental cost of blockchain, 5G, AI, and other hyped technologies?
- How do design concerns at different parts of the “stack” affect the environmental impact of whole systems?
- What would an environmental audit of artificial intelligence look like?
- How do/might software engineers or other practitioners integrate climate concerns into their practice?
- What is the relationship between privacy and energy-sensitive code?
- How do data centers affect water policies in different countries?
- How can decentralized engineering practices be made more environmentally responsible?
(March 14, 3PM )
D23 Everywhere Infrastructure: The Systems, Structures, and Ideologies of Big Tech
Chair: Andrea Zeffiro, McMaster University
Respondent: Rena Bivens, Carleton University
- Mél Hogan, University of Calgary, “Templating the Body, from Eugenics to Storing Digital Data onto DNA”
- Sophie Toupin, McGill University, “Preliminary Thoughts on African Hacking Practices”
- Sarah Roberts, University of California, Los Angeles, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Commercial Content Moderation (CCM) and Social Media’s Logic of Opacity as Infrastructure”
- Andrea Zeffiro, McMaster University, “A Methodology of Failure: Decoding the Data Infrastructural Regime”
TUESDAY APRIL 7 or 21 12:45pm tbc
by Heather Dewey-Hagborg (SAIC)
In this talk Dewey-Hagborg will discuss her artwork, her journey, and her current body of work/dissertation topic ‘Genetic Insecurities’ which examines DNA in terms of interpretation, identity and new forms of surveillance. The talk will focus on her projects Stranger Visions, DNA Spoofing and Invisible.
Heather Dewey-Hagborg is a transdisciplinary artist and educator who is interested in art as research and provocation. Heather has shown work internationally at events and venues including the Poland Mediations Bienniale, Ars Electronica, Transmediale, Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona, the Science Gallery Dublin, PS1 Moma, the New Museum, and Eyebeam Art and Technology Center in New York City. Her work has been widely discussed in the media, from the New York Times and the BBC to TED and Wired.
TUESDAY MARCH 3 12:45pm – Siegel Hall, IIT Humanities
TV, Wide Open: Developing Art for Networked Distribution
by Aymar Jean Christian
Aymar Jean Christian
Assistant Professor in the Media, Technology and Society program in the Department of Communication Studies at Northwestern University
This talk charts the beginnings of an experiment in developing community-based networked television. The Wide Open series, part of the Open TV network, empowers a diverse set of creative artists to tell original stories as part of an art-driven online anthology series. Blending elements of scripted entertainment, performing arts, and other creative practices, Wide Open is focused on under-represented artists and audiences — e.g. queer, black, Latin@, trans, femme, and others) — and seeks to evolve from an online anthology series into a fully-resourced multimedia platform providing under-served communities with a viable alternative to mainstream entertainment. This project is an intervention in television, film, online video and art industries, all of which undervalue the creative work of people of color and other marginalized workers. The persistent inequality of these creative economies has resulted not only in a stilted mainstream entertainment industry but also a rich, under-explored wealth of diverse artistry already moving forward in alternative spaces. By showcasing underrepresented arts and artists through more open platforms online, Wide Open seeks to build a broad, diverse and consistent audience for underrepresented and under-funded arts, television and film.
Aymar Jean “AJ” Christian is assistant professor in the Media, Technology and Society program in the Department of Communication Studies at Northwestern University and editor of Televisual. Dr. Christian researches new media and creative economy. As part of this research he documents the changing market for television across popular and academic publications, including Indiewire and academic journals Continuum, Transformative Works & Culture, First Monday, Cinema Journal and Communication, Culture and Critique. His book-length manuscript, Open TV: Innovation Beyond Networks, will be the first full study on the rise of web video, incorporating years of documenting and participating in this emerging art form and market.
TUESDAY FEB 10, 12:45pm – Siegel Hall, IIT Humanities
The Community of the Future and What it Means to You
by Ed Marszewski
Ed Marszewski will speak about his journey to Bridgeport, “the Community of the Future”. An overview of projects, publications, and other concerns that have informed his practice as an artist/developer, beer nerd, and socially engaged artivist will be shared via projected slideshow with commentary. Students, prepare to be recruited!
Ed Marszewski is the Co-Director of the Public Media Institute, a non profit corporation that programs the space, the Co-Prosperity Sphere; produces the annual Version Festival; and publishes Lumpen magazine, Proximity magazine, Mash Tun Journal and other titles. He is also co-owner of Maria’s Packaged Goods & Community Bar and is the President of Marz Community Brewing Co. He also makes work from time to time that focuses on housing rights issues and gentrification.
As part of my curatorial work at the MAL, I link artists to theorist for interviews on various media arts and media archaeology topics.
On Opposition, Tangibility, and Annihilation: An Interview with Hannah Leja Epstein by Alison Harvey
January 30, 2014
Hannah’s artistic practice is simultaneously fascinating and confounding, spanning analogue (including rug hooking) and digital media (such as digital games and video), and exploring themes that might seem on the surface surprisingly divergent, from cyborgs to intellectual property to prison exploitation films. We exchanged a series of emails delving into her visions, dreams, and praxis.
Alison Harvey: Who are you and what do you do?
Hannah Leja Epstein: I am a super cute chaos machine – light. I create middle-of-the-road mischief- <3 <3 <3.
AH: Where did you come from and where are you going?
HLE: I come from a kaleidoscopic multi-lens perspective, stemming from the divergent duality of a Latvian mother and Ashkenazi father. I believe that being cast in oppositional histories has directed me on a path of perpetual reconciliation. As such, I feel I am zooming towards a creative moment of concisely devastating action. Conceptual annihilation of division, that is if the forecast stays clear.
AH: Why are you so promiscuous in your use of media formats? What do your diverse platforms share and how do they differ? Do you have a favorite mode?
HLE: I am slutty in every aspect of my life.
I think that possessing a variety of creative avenues is a way of remaining flexible in uncertain times. I like to think that if one mode of expression were to take off then I would wholly devote myself to it but that is likely just wishful thinking as unpredictable behavior and interests is a characteristic of my self that I have come to accept and know, that managing it requires a lack of formal direction or containment in a single sphere.
I don’t know if my diverse platforms necessarily share anything except that I have access and proficiency with them.
On Feb 3, Joel will be discussing his current exhibition, “Left to Right, Top to Bottom” at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Denver, which explores various technologies of language, and their inherent eccentrics, glitches and failures. http://mcadenver.org/joelswanson.php
Desktop Screenshot Collections 1997 – today | compiled by Sakrowski (curatingyoutube.net)
The desktop is considered as one of the earliest metaphors for Graphical User Interfaces of personal computers. It has become an icon of graphical operating systems and their surfaces.
On November 4th, 2013, Dr. Andrea Zeffiro presented “Locative Praxis: Transborder Poetics & Locative Media” at the Brakhage Center for the Media Arts at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Zeffiro’s talk focused on mobile ‘artivist’ practices, and specifically on the manner in which artists have adopted mobile communication devices as instruments to facilitate political and cultural dissent. Zeffiro used the occasion of her talk at the BCMA to workshop the idea of ‘locative praxis’. Locative praxis, as she frames it, is a conceptual framework that articulates a politicized dimension of experimental and location-based media production. In her talk, she argues that the dialectic of practice and reflection can further an understanding of the spatial and socio-political dimensions of a space/place, at the intersection of social action and intent. A video of her talk is available here: https://vimeo.com/80934364 and was co-sponsored by the Media Archaeology Lab at CU Boulder. This follow-up interview provides additional context to her project and attempts to contextualize its potential in the current technological landscape.
Mél Hogan: Can you provide some background information about the Transborder Immigrant Tool (TBT). Who invented it and for what purposes? When and in what context?
Andrea Zeffiro: The TBT is a collaborative project that emerged from the b.a.n.g. lab and the Walkingtools.net Lab, at the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology, University of California San Diego. The aim of the project is to deposit GPS-enabled disposable phones – these phones are equipped with a GPS application, essentially a digital compass and an interactive map updated in “real time”- along the United States/Mexico border. The purpose of the project is to assist migrants to orient themselves and locate resources, such as water caches and safe locations, while traveling within the border region.
Brett Stalbaum, a founding member of The Walkingtools.net Lab with Cicero Silva of Universidade Federal de São Paulo, and a member of the b.a.n.g. lab, developed the Virtual Hiker program, an algorithm that translates geospatial terrain into a virtual trail or hike. Using GPS satellite signals, the algorithm identifies routes within a block of map data and creates a “bread crumb” trail showing the locations and distances traveled on a map. Intrigued by the capabilities of the Virtual Hiker, members of the b.a.n.g. lab in conjunction with Stalbaum began to explore how such a program might assist migrants crossing border zones.
In 2007, the EDT 2.0 released the first iteration of the Tool, which was initially prototyped on the Motorola i455 phone due to its economical cost — roughly $40 USD — and because its GPS functionality worked independently of a service plan. So long as the GPS function of the phone remains on, the device can maintain constant communication with satellites and therefore, receive directional cues via the user interface.
So, for migrants crossing the U.S./Mexico border, the tool provides support in the form of a navigational aid that supplies directional cues – toward water caches and safe locations – within what is otherwise a barren and harsh landscape. The mapping of water caches and safe zones was completed with the assistance from migrant aid NGOs: Border Angels and Water Station Inc.
The tool however, is not yet widely available –– the original device proved to be unreliable and the team continues to test for inexpensive mobile phones with hackable GPS — the aim is to refine the tool into a distributable prototype that can be circulated by migrant-aid organizations. The website ––walkingtools.net –– which is the site for Brett Stalbaum’s laboratory at UCSD, catalogs the development of the open-source code and offers a free download of the toolkit to encourage its take-up in other border regions around the world.
MH: Can you expand on why TBT and its researchers became aligned with transnational terrorist networks?
AZ: On September 1, 2010, Glenn Beck — on his former Fox News Channel program, The Glenn Beck Show — discussed the TBT, first describing how “employees at the University of California San Diego, are openly, and with the help of your hard earned dollars, aiding illegal aliens with the help of GPS cell phones”, then Beck pressed harder:
There was a time not long ago in this country we walked you through walls of fire to make sure we weren’t funding Hamas or Hezbollah. I have news for you. There are a lot of universities that are as dangerous with the indoctrination of the children as these terror groups are in Iran or North Korea. […] America, while you have been working hard, while you have been busting your butt, while you have thought that we all generally agree on things, we have been setting up reeducation camps. We call them universities.
So, Beck’s implication is that the TBT is akin to groups or nations that have been branded as extremist or terrorist. It’s fear mongering. Thousands of migrants have died from exposure to grueling temperatures or from dehydration while attempting to cross the US/Mexico border. The tool therefore, is aimed at saving lives and through non-violent means.
MH: You said, in your talk, that “what is compelling about the work is the poetics of the project that confront the fallacies of border spaces under global capitalism.” Can you elaborate on the idea of “poetics” and speak to its importance. Following this, how are art and activism connected in this project? What would activism, in this case, look without art, and vice versa?
AZ: I use ‘poetics’ as a way of opening up my analysis of the TBT to include the material and symbolic urgencies, consequences and potentialities of border spaces under global capitalism. The TBT is a cultural expression of border formations and experiences.
And, I’m not just talking about the actual border space/la frontera separating the United States and Mexico, but also the ways in which conceptualizations and perceptions of border spaces inform the ways in which one might come to define and/or reinscribe a set of binaries, like self/other, north/south, legal/illegal, citizen/alien. A project like the TBT challenges conceptions of ‘border spaces’ by pointing out the failures and consequences of these zones.
Border security is also a public performance: so long as the idea of the ‘border’ supersedes knowledge of the real consequences or inadequacies of border management, then the ‘border’ — as a thing, or concept — will continue to serve as a measure of safety and sovereignty. A project like the TBT starts to dissolve the illusion of both safety and sovereignty. One might start to ask: What are the circumstances that generate migrant populations? Why do migrants cross borders illegally? Who has the right to decide when and where one can enter legally? What are the dangers associated with illegal border crossings? For certain bodies, border spaces exist as passageways that separate one territory from another. For other(ed) bodies however, the border is a site of death, or detention, or a passageway where one’s unauthorized or illegal permeation signifies a life of anonymity or secrecy.
As for how the project confronts the fallacies of border spaces under global capitalism, in my talk, I used NAFTA as an example. When the U.S., Canada and Mexico signed the trade agreement in 1994, continental division blurred for trade, but certainly not for bodies. In fact, border control became increasingly more mechanized, and within the last 15 years, authorization to cross a border has come to depend not only on a passport, but the right kind of passport.
To fully understand the TBT, one must engage with the political and historical circumstances embedded in the project. So, as an intervention, the TBT is not simply a critical response to the manifestation of power, but also, a material consequence of it. It came into existence as a reaction to certain realities.
When viewed through the purview of political agency, the TBT is an artivist statement on the part of its developers. For Guisela Latorre, artivist aesthetics constitute “the convergence of creative expression, social activism and self-empowerment.” This definition fits the TBT well because it acknowledges both creative and political agency. The TBT is overtly political, and I think it can be described as a mode of electronic civil disobedience. Steven Wray positions electronic civil disobedience within the tradition of civil disobedience, which is a fundamental component of the American political experience. Wray connects the underpinnings of electronic civil disobedience to the political writings of Marx and Thoreau, as well as twentieth century social movements such as the Civil Rights in the 1960s, radical environmentalism and AIDS activism in the 1980s, and the anti-Gulf War protests in 1990s. The difference with electronic civil disobedience is that it is a brand of civil protest channeled through multiple and hybrid electronic and digital technologies and platforms. For instance, prior to the institution of the b.a.n.g. lab and the Walkingtools.net Lab and development of the TBT, Ricardo Dominguez and Brett Stalbaum, in addition to Stefan Wray and Carmin Karasic, co-founded the Electronic Disturbance Theatre (EDT) in 1997. One of the earliest acts of electronic civil disobedience orchestrated by the EDT was a virtual sit-in organized in solidarity with the Zapatista movement in Chiapas, Mexico. In 1998 the EDT released the Zapatista FloodNet – a Java applet that automatically reloads the pages of a target URL and this in turn, can slow a web site or bring it to a halt because of the flooding of requests – and it was launched to interrupt the website of the Mexican government as a means of protesting the oppression of the indigenous people in Chiapas. The EDT subsequently released FloodNet as open source software and the software was used at the height of anti-globalization movement against the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and World Economic Forum websites.
The TBT isn’t ‘artistic’ in any conventional sense, though I do think that its developers employed artistic and/or creative inquiry as a starting point for experimental locative media production. And without the activist impulse – that being, a concern for the dignity and value of migrant lives – the project would be something entirely different. The aim and intent of the project is what attracted me to it as a case study.
MH: What is a symbolic border and how important is it to imagining new spaces, political and physical?
AZ: A symbolic border is a conceptual border. It is the idea of the border. So in terms of border spaces, one’s conceptualization of the border space (i.e. one acts in a certain manner, one needs to have a passport and be prepared to disclose information) is based on one’s understanding of the border (i.e. as an intermediary space that determines who can and cannot enter). More importantly, justifications as to what transpires within border spaces are tied to safety and sovereignty. So people are questioned, detained, denied because they are deemed to be a threat in some capacity. As I mentioned, conceptualizations of border spaces then inform the ways in which one might come to define and/or reinscribe a set of binaries, like self/other, north/south, legal/illegal, citizen/alien.
The TBT puts forth the potential for a differential border space, and by ‘differential border space’, I’m not suggesting that the TBT literally creates a new physical space, rather it points toward the possibility of an alternative to contemporary border spaces. So, it reconceives or preconceives alternative realities for border spaces, as zones privilege bodies (i.e. human lives) over the flow capital and goods (i.e. trade agreements).
MH: Can you make a link from this innovative work to devices and applications, such as Foursquare or Map my Run, or smaller scale projects like Audio Mobile, that use geolocation to track a route? What are the privacy implications? What are the safety implications? Can these be remained/hacked to activist ends?
AZ: The TBT and the applications you mentioned are examples of locative media: a descriptive term that designates the use of an assemblage of mobile and location aware technologies — notably GPS and cellular telephony — in the production of site-specific experiences, performance pieces, interactive art works, and public installations. The term has been used to describe location-based services and commercial applications, which span fleet tracking and in-car navigation, and emergency services, to geotagging content through social networking platforms like Facebook and Twitter, and tracking and mapping applications that you mentioned. Central to the facilitation of both commercial services and applications and locative artistic and cultural works is the Global Positioning System (GPS): a worldwide satellite navigational system that was developed by the United States Department of Defense and maintained by the United States Air Force. Over the course of the last ten years, consumer grade GPS has transitioned from an external specialized device to an embedded (that is, out of site) component within mobile digital technologies, perhaps most strikingly with the seamless integration of GPS into mobile phones.
As you have suggested, there are personal privacy implications associated with mobile and location-based technologies. For instance, when on a network, a phone registers its position with cell towers every few minutes, whether the phone is being used or not. Tracking a cell phone reveals not simply locations, but larger patterns of behaviour of that cell phone user. And this matters because commercial applications and mobile carriers retain data on their users, and law enforcement agencies are able to use this information and have been known to track phones without obtaining a warrant or without probable cause. The NSA scandal of late has further proven how constitutional rights are completely disregarded in regards to digital information.
The TBT demonstrates how locative media – specifically mobile and location-based technologies – might be appropriated within activist formations, as tools not only for interaction, but also reaction, that is, as instruments to facilitate political and cultural activism and dissent. The appropriation of these technologies, and within initiatives invested in political and cultural activism, expands their range of use and adoption. Through a project like the TBT, one might be able to foresee innovative ways of adopting these technologies (i.e. hardware and software), not only in how these devices might be used, but also, and perhaps more importantly, by whom.
MH: How are you situated within this research, as an activist, practitioner, scholar, feminist…
AZ: The TBT first came on my radar in 2006, when I was a researcher on an interdisciplinary and multi-institutional mobile research project in Canada. I was involved in usability field trials, and in-situ prototyping with project engineers and designers, in addition to conducting background research focused on the take-up of mobile digital technologies across numerous cultural formations. There were many different projects and initiatives that I came across, and the TBT was for me, one of the more compelling ones. And it’s important to add such a qualifier because I’ve always been interested in experimental modes of media production that lean towards the political. And though I’ve followed it throughout the years, it’s only within the last few years that I’ve gone back and studied it more formally as a case study toward the refinement of locative praxis: a conceptual framework for understanding the ways in which experimental locative media might engage in political and cultural activism and dissent. So, to answer your question, I suppose I’m formally situated as a scholar, but I think my choices as to my objects of study and my theoretical leanings also speak to my activist and feminist roots, as well as my experiences working with technology in practice.
Originally posted: http://brakhagecenter.com/?p=1043
Andrea Zeffiro is a researcher and writer whose work intersects the cultural politics and practices of emerging technologies, contemporary media histories, feminist media studies, and multidisciplinary research methods. @AndreaZeffiro / andreazeffiro.com
Mél Hogan is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Colorado, Boulder and the organizer of the lunchtime series on Media Arts at the BCMA. @mel_hogan / melhogan.com