Some thoughts on computer security and the living dead

Published: Rhizome homepage 07/29/04
http://www.rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread=14058&text=26846#26846
Published: RHIZOME DIGEST: July 30, 2004

Right-to-Life

The term "Virus" is meant to associate a dead thing (and not really dead having never been living) with a living biological body.  A so-called computer virus is linked to biology in language (and in reality) only insofar as biology is made dependent on digital technology.  The virus is not neutral, and is seen as an attack on supposed life systems which are widely viewed as, but are not either, neutral (techno culture).  The CorporateState defines the virus (with help from lots of technophiles), while claiming that its own technology is a natural living organism with an inherent right-to-life.  It is interesting to note the ongoing case in Florida involving a Husband's attempts to disconnect his wife's feeding tube.  Jeb Bush, the State and other interests have stepped into the matter by declaring the case an issue of right-to-life vs. the so-called right-to-die interests. What is omnipresent, but largely invisible to mainstream debate (at least within the conservative bounds of mainstream media) is the tendency to naturalize medical technology itself.  The technology itself becomes an invisible life force to which bodies must obey (or defy). The feeding machine is viewed as a neutral (and natural) necessity, and in the minds of right-to-lifers stands in for God itself.  To cut the body from the machine, that in fact lives for the body, is seen as cutting the body itself.  To kill the machine becomes confused with (and then practiced as) killing the body. Computers are not alive, they are not human, they cannot contract "viruses," they cannot be "attacked," "terrorized," or "infected," unless they are alive, unless they are human, unless their "infections," and "attacks" are indistinguishable from human infections, attacks, etc.  Techno culture makes it possible for the murder of thousands of humans to be discussed in the language of "surgical strikes," and "smart bomb technology."  Techno culture also makes it possible for the pentagon to use the language of "Terrorism" when speaking of a virtual sit-in, or simple hacker prank. 

Vampirism

"Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks."  - Karl Marx

Computer networks are reproduced and modified continuously to work with and to facilitate the trading of information (Capital) to predefined and often highly secure locations.  In this narrow system anything that slows the speed of supply and demand is perceived as an attack on the body of capital, therefore, dominance is needed, the body must be regulated to ensure the continuity of power relationships within the system.  The blood supply must not be interrupted for vampires are relentless, don't die very easily, and often have very little sense of humor.

Sweden’s not a target

Technophobia is often described as an irrational fear of technology, and yet a hammer is technology.  Technophilia is described (much less often) as an irrational adoration for technology, and yet a needle and thimble are technology.  The fact that fears aroused by forks and spoons, or driving a car for that matter, are not spoken of as technophobia (any more than irrational love for these things are spoken of as technophilia) reveals a primary myth about technology: Namely, that technology acts independent from human social systems, that technology is “out there” working for us (or against us) toward some utopia (or dystopia).  A hammer or needle and thread are pretty benign in their effects on global power structures, but if they were not we’d have reverse-hammer-engineers and needle hackers.  A network "attack" is possible only when the power relationships guarding a network are so solidified, predictable and controlled that anything counter to it is defined as dangerous and alien.  Dangerous? perhaps, alien no.  Violent Domination and violent resistance always work hand-in-hand, which goes along way toward explaining why the U.S. is a primary target for terrorism and Sweden’s not,  why the New York Times web site is a target for hackers and “Joe’s homepage” is not.