Fast Forward - Art History, Curation and Practice after Media
|
|
Fast Forward - Art History, Curation and Practice after Media |
Fidele Vlavo, South Bank University, London, UK
The SWARM Case
Keywords: electronic civil disobedience, technology, online activism, art, cyberspace.
This paper examines the case of Electronic Disturbance Theater and the SWARM project, one of the first cases of electronic disobedience, presented during the 1998 Ars Electronica Festival. The principal aim is to outline and discuss some of the discordances in Electronic Civil Disobedience theory that seem to emerge with the rise of online political art practice.
On 22 December 1997, forty-five indigenous people were killed by a group of unidentified paramilitaries whilst attending a prayer meeting, in the small village of Acteal, Chiapas, Mexico. The victims belonged to the Tzotzil community. considered to be sympathisers of the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN). The Acteal Massacre, as it would later be known, is commonly accepted as the event that engendered the first practical manifestations of electronic civil disobedience.
The Zapatista National Liberation Army had previously risen against the Mexican authorities in 1994. Formed by indigenous Maya people from Chiapas, the movement entered into armed conflicts to mark their opposition to their constant exploitation by the Mexican federal government. The particularity of the Zapatista movement, and possibly its strength, resides in the charismatic figure of its main leader, Commandant Marcos, but also in its unprecedented approach and utilisation of communication technologies. Early on in its political campaign, the EZLN used the Internet and the World Wide Web, including mass emailing and web pages, to alert international communities to their living conditions. This unique strategic move had significant impact and the phenomenon spread worldwide to create Zapatismo, an online community in support of the uprising, which led commentators to acknowledge the Zapatistas as ‘the first informational guerrilla movement’. 1
In this context, but also in response to the Acteal Massacre, The Anonymous Digital Coalition, a Europe-based artistic collective, announced its intention to organise a series of virtual events that would disrupt Mexican corporate websites. Simultaneously, the group called for the development of an online disturbance movement to support the EZLN. The objective was to achieve a new form of political protest which would use the World Wide Web not only as a tool for communication but would also transform it into the actual space for protest. In response to the call, artist and activist Ricardo Dominguez formed the Electronic Disturbance Theater (EDT). Together with computer programmer Brett Stalbaum, computer designer Carmin Karasic and activism theorist Stephan Wray, the group developed FloodNet, a piece of programming that reproduced the traditional method of civil disobedience (CD) known as a ‘sit-in’. The sit-in, a non-violent form of demonstration, was commonly practiced in the 1960s during the anti-war and civil rights movements. The aim of FloodNet was to temporarily block access to selected websites, in the same way that activists would physically block access to buildings. The computer programme required a large number of people to repeatedly reload pages of the target website so that the hosting servers would considerably slow down or even crash. On 9 September 1998, as part of the Ars Electronica Festival, EDT activated FloodNet, launching the SWARM project, a virtual sit-in of the Mexican government and US Pentagon websites.
If the SWARM project is often referenced as the first practical case of electronic civil disobedience (ECD), the World Wide Web had already been used as a platform for socio-political activism before the Ars Electronica event. In his classification of online activism, Vegh 2 identifies the progressive steps of online activism, evolving from information posting and search, including calls for street demonstrations and email petitions, to the organisation of online direct action (such as web page defacement) which he refers to as hacktivism. According to Vegh, electronic civil disobedience, as a form of hacktivism, is a potentially powerful tool for socio-political protest that ought to be legitimised against media detraction. Activist and EDT member Stephan Wray also shares a similar view and defends the exploitation of the ‘internet infrastructure as both a channel for communication and a site for action.’ 3
These ideas are in direct relation with the vision of Critical Art Ensemble (CAE), the original theorists of ECD. In 1994, this American group of media theorists and artists coined the term with a text titled: Electronic Civil Disobedience. The idea behind ECD was to develop a new form of socio-political resistance that would take place in cyberspace. Arguing that previous models of protests could no longer succeed in the ‘physical’ world, CAE exposed its account of nomadic power and governance relocation in an attempt to justify the development of a virtual resistance: ‘As far as power is concerned, the streets are dead capital!’ 4 Following this logic, the techniques of civil disobedience as performed during the American civil rights and anti-war movements would be re-organised in cyberspace to disrupt governing bodies in their so-called virtual locations.
This was the theory, yet in practice, the SWARM project did not strictly adhere to CAE’s vision. The virtual protest organised by Electronic Disturbance Theater was striking against the website of Ernesto Zedillo the current Mexican president, the Frankfurt Stock Exchange and the US Department of Defense. To take part, online protesters had to download the FloodNet Java applet onto their computers. This small application was configured to request and download pages from the target websites every three seconds for the duration of the event. Whilst it was reported that the Mexican government website experienced a reduction of its activity during that period, there was no evidence that the server was at risk of shutting down at any point. The Frankfurt Stock Exchange did not report any delays or problems in their online services as these were set up to receive large amounts of online visitors. As for the virtual sit-in of the US pentagon website, the Department of Defense (DoD) actually retaliated by using a counter Java applet. The application Hostile was produced by programmers of the US DoD to counterattack FloodNet. Hostile responded to requests from FloodNet users with empty browser windows which allegedly disabled computers and forced protesters to restart the application. Consequently, members of Electronic Disturbance Theater acknowledged the DoD response as ‘the first offensive use of information war by a government against a civilian server’. 5 However, more importantly, this highlights some of the challenges and early conflicts emerging from the practical application of electronic civil disobedience.
According to CAE’s writings, the principle and success of any protest movement relies on opposition and disturbance and the belief that steady intrusion eventually creates a crisis which then forces a dialogue. Similarly, online activists need to generate distinctive modes of actions which can ‘disrupt the institutions to such an extent that the occupants become disempowered.’6 Yet, the practice of ECD did not achieve a level of tension that could lead towards some form of conciliation. None of the FloodNet virtual attacks created serious disturbance or alarmed the institutions through their websites. As such, the utterly symbolic nature of the SWARM project becomes obvious. In fact, EDT leader, Ricardo Dominguez eventually insisted that the project should be seen as a performance, a recombinant theatre. FloodNet is used to create a potential threat rather than engender any technological damage. ’If you ask the digitally correct hacktivist/hackers they will tell you quite quickly that FloodNet does not work as a “Denial of Service”, it is completely inefficient.’ 7
Wray also maintains that the notion of ECD can only be conceived symbolically. In his writings on extra-parliamentarian direct action Net politics, the EDT theorist characterises the use of ECD as a symbolic gesture by distinguishing electronic civil disobedience from politicised hacking. In this order, ECD constitutes the first level of transgression which realises and legitimises the Internet infrastructure as a site for direct political action. ’Each succeeding transgression moves the stance toward the Internet infrastructure further away from the public sphere model and casts it more as conflicted territory bordering on a war zone.’ 8 This distinction between a symbolic electronic civil disobedience and more radical actions such as the modification of websites HTML codes could be used as a framework for the examination of online activism. However, it would also be in radical opposition to the theoretical framework behind electronic civil disobedience as it is proposed by CAE.
The original vision of ECD as envisaged and conceptualised by CAE’s writings is mimetic to civil disobedience action: ‘Blocking information conduits is analogous to blocking physical locations; ... ECD is CD reinvigorated. What CD once was, ECD is now.’ 9 Considering the historical impact of Civil Disobedience, ECD should actually be remote from the notion of symbolic simulation. As a matter of fact, one would expect ECD theory to be rooted in and reflect upon the heritage of civil disobedience as a source of conceptual structure.
Most critics agree that the term civil disobedience appeared for the first time in a text written by Henry David Thoreau in 1849 (Thoreau was an American citizen who refused to pay his poll tax. in protest against the Mexican war and the government support of slavery). Ironically, Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience does not contain any definition of the term itself and this deficiency has partly fuelled debates around the concept of CD for several decades, particularly in relation to law obedience, the use of violence and the acceptation of judicial retribution.
However, ideas of CD have been developed and applied throughout the world, producing some highly influential and successful methods for socio-political protest. One of the most famous cases of civil disobedience, often cited as an exemplary practice, is the non-violent resistance of Mohandas Gandhi to British rule in India, which eventually lead India to independence in 1947. Another equally important example is that of Martin Luther King Jr, leader of the Civil Rights Movement in the US during the 1960s, whose tactic of peaceful marches and demonstrations led to changes in human rights legislation. Widely used in the evaluation of civil disobedience acts, these examples, amongst others, have helped reinforce and redefine civil disobedience in terms of its impact and appropriateness for socio-political protest. Yet, in producing Electronic Civil Disobedience, CAE have remained unclear about the relationship between electronic civil disobedience and civil disobedience praxis. Nonetheless, there is little doubt that CD questions discussed over the years are directly relevant and applicable to ECD, particularly in relation to public acts of disobedience, legal infringement or criminality legislations. Yet, Electronic Civil Disobedience does not produce an explicit definition of the term itself. Certainly, and as mentioned before, Thoreau’s seminal text did not provide a definition of civil disobedience. However, as Rosenwald points out in his analysis of Thoreau’s work, the production of Civil Disobedience was the direct consequence of an actual disobedient action. 10 Thoreau committed an act of civil disobedience and thereafter decided to explain and justify it in writing. In the case of Critical Art Ensemble, the theorisation of ECD preceded any practical application and the authors implicitly state this evidence: ‘this model of ECD although it seems so easy to grasp, is still science fiction.’ 11
It could be argued that this speculative stand is in fact central to the discordances between ECD theory and its practical application. CAE envisaged electronic civil disobedience as reinvigorated civil disobedience. However, its practice unravelled the challenges but also some of the theoretical contradictions. Technically, the SWARM project did not achieve its conceptual purpose. The target American and Mexican institutions did not appear to be disempowered or willing to engage in a settling dialogue. Instead, the US Pentagon sent a rather provocative response to the virtual attack. Yet, if online political action is to retain this symbolic, non-detrimental structure, it seems that the use of ECD in the development of significant activism could be questioned. Not only this, the argument that positions cyberspace as the only legitimate site for political protest would need to be rejected altogether.
At this point, it would be useful to consider some of the elements supporting the relocation of political activism in cyberspace. Electronic Civil Disobedience was originally written as part of a window installation for the New York City Anti-Work Show in spring 1994. It is in this text that CAE introduced its revolutionary concept of computer-based resistance and the idea of developing a new type of online political protest. The rationale for this proposal was rooted in the belief that power structures had recently shifted from their initially sedentary locations:
(Un)common sense tells us that we can follow the money to find power; however, since money has no point of origin but is part of a circular or spiralling flow, the best we can expect to find is the flow itself. Capital rarely takes a hard form; like power, it exists as an abstraction. An abstract form will probably be found in an abstract place or to be more specific, in cyberspace.12
This condensed and simplistic explanation is in fact an illustrative summary of Critical Art Ensemble’s extraordinary vision. A more detailed account of this power relocation theory can be found in an earlier text from 1994 entitled The Electronic Disturbance (TED). Although, not clearly mentioned in either text, the ideas of nomadology and rhizomatics can be trailed back to the work of French writers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. In the influential book, A Thousand Plateaus published in the 1980s, Deleuze and Guattari described their conceptions of nomadology and de-territorialisation, terms that have rapidly been re-appropriated and applied in Internet and cyberspace related theories.
In one of the last chapters of A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze and Guattari describe the formation of what they named ‘the war machine’: ‘The war machine is the invention of the nomads (insofar as it is exterior to the State apparatus and distinct from the military institution).’ 13 To explain the concept, the writers refer to the primary condition of the nomad, and early nomadic tribes, which could escape state control by constantly changing their physical location. As such, a nomadic lifestyle became a means of resistance and opposition to state authority.
This continuous movement within geographical and physical spaces produced a sense of fluidity which in turn enabled the formation of ‘smooth spaces’. The movement embedded representations of rhizomic, non-linear connections facilitating the extension of networks. Following discussions of these principles, Deleuze and Guattari also considered the counter effects of this condition:
One of the fundamental tasks of the State is to striate the space over which it reigns, or to utilize smooth spaces as a means of communication in the service of striated space. It is a vital concern of every State not only to vanquish nomadism but to control migrations and, more generally, to establish a zone of rights over an entire “exterior”, over all the flows traversing the ecumenon. If it can help it, the State does not dissociate itself from a process of capture of flows of all kinds, populations, commodities or commerce, money or capital, etc. 14
This is where CAE derives its conception of nomadic power. In the second chapter of TED, ‘Nomadic Power and Cultural Resistance’, CAE refers to the fluid and concealed power which has reappropriated the practices of ancient nomadic societies. This power finds in cyberspace a decentralised territory from which it can command and control. Accordingly, it is this new form of power and its cyberspace relocation that demands the emergence of an electronic form of resistance: ‘Nomadic power must be resisted in cyberspace rather than physical space.’ 15 In other words, at this point, CAE aims to devise a tactic that can enable the reappropriation of those fluid smooth spaces (in this case located in cyberspace) in order to recreate a sphere for opposition and resistance: that is, electronic civil disobedience.
If the theoretical framework of electronic civil disobedience is borrowed from Deleuze and Guattari, the practical organisation and performance of ECD undoubtedly echoes the earlier work of political writer and poet Hakim Bey (who clearly draws from A Thousand Plateaus himself). In his seminal text, The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism (commonly referred to as T. A. Z.) Bey reconfigures concepts of deterriorialisation and rhizomic nodes in relation to political activism, this time allowing direct reference to the Internet and the World Wide Web. In his writing, Bey enriches the vision and discursive construction of cyberspace as an autonomous sphere facilitating the development of strategic resistance:
The TAZ is like an uprising, which does not engage directly with the State, a guerrilla operation which liberates an area (of land, of time, of imagination) and then dissolves itself to re-form elsewhere/elsewhen, before the State can crush it. 16 In this context, political opposition is possible within a small, discreet (or more anonymous) but effective framework scale as ‘the 'nomadic war machine' conquers without being noticed and moves on before the map can be adjusted.’ 17
This is the exact position that CAE adopts for the structuring and performance of ECD actions:
A small but coordinated group of hackers could introduce electronic viruses, worms, and bombs, into data banks, programs, and networks of authority, possibly bringing the destructive force of inertia into the nomadic realm. 18
In summary, the central theme of Electronic Disturbance describes nomadic power and cyberspace relocation based on Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts. The subsequent work, Electronic Civil Disobedience CAE, uses Bey’s ideas to recreate possible narratives of technological resistance. However, when confronting accounts of ECD practical applications, it becomes clear that this seemingly straightforward theoretical synthesis contains some problematic contradictions.
An example of these latent tensions can be found in the ambiguous and twofold function given to electronic civil disobedience. On one hand, it seems that ECD practice ought to ensure that cyberspace remains an accessible and legitimate site for public socio-political protest (a task that CAE assigns to computer hackers) and on the other hand, as the only outstanding alternative, ECD should have the means to anonymously but consistently engender social and political changes.
In this context, it is hardly surprising that Critical Art Ensemble firmly rejects the practical applications of electronic civil disobedience that have followed. Although the authors do not directly refer to Electronic Disturbance Theatre and their SWARM project, the correlation is difficult to ignore:
(…) Some activists have come to use the web to produce hyperreal activist threats to fan the flames of corporate-state paranoia. Again, this is a media battle that will be lost. State panic and paranoia will be transformed through mass media into public paranoia, which will in turn only reinforce state power. 19
In fact, ECD actions such as SWARM are being criticised on several grounds. Not only is the simulated and symbolic nature of these movements problematic, but also their spectatorial and theatrical settings seem to be in direct contradiction with the concept of electronic civil disobedience, as suggested by the following comment:
CAE still believe that ECD is an underground activity that should be kept out of the public/ popular sphere (as in the hacker tradition) and the eye of the media, and that simulationist tactics as they are currently being used by resistant forces are only modestly effective if not counterproductive. 20
As such, the SWARM project did far more than simply conflicting with some aspects of ECD theory; it actually dismissed one of its main attributes. By locating the project in the Zapatista revolutionary movement and the resistance of the indigenous people of Chiapas, EDT refuted the belief that streets are ‘dead capital’. In fact, Ricardo Dominguez overtly expressed the importance of combining online and offline political actions. Virtual sit-ins and blockades should be coordinated with national or international protest or local street demonstrations. A similar position was adopted for the electronic civil disobedience actions organised against the World Trade Organisation. In November 1999, the artists collective Electrohippies directed a virtual sit-in of the WTO website whilst thousands of demonstrators marched on the streets of Seattle, against the Ministerial Conference. As such, the claim that cyberspace should be the only suitable site for socio-political protest certainly remains the most contested aspect of ECD theory.
The other highly contradictory aspect of ECD writings is related to participation and the principle of anonymous cell structures. Here again, CAE remains clear in its idealistic vision. Rejecting the belief that protests should rely on the greatest possible number of people taking part, the authors advocate for the construction of small cells of individuals (four to ten) who share similar political positions. By their very structure, these micro-groups would prove more efficient and organised in secretly undertaking socio-political actions:
Since the populist mass is divided by so many sociological variables- race/ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, class education, occupation, language etc. - it is readily apparent that viewing “the people” as a monolith of consensus is absurd. What fulfils the needs of one group can be repressive or oppressive to another. 21
This meaningful statement seems to concur with a declared desire to break away from old and outdated visions of socio-political protest. However, it also highlights the problem surrounding CAE’s belief that online activism can only be effectively performed if located in the traditions of computer hacking:
Avoid consensus through similar skills, since in order for the cell to be useful, different skills must be presented. Activist, theorist, artist, hacker, and even a lawyer would be a good combination of talents… 22
If the authors rightly acknowledge the increasing socio-cultural fragmentation of the population in relation to socio-political protest, they give no substantial reflection on the actual structure of their ideal cell. Indeed, these still seem to rely on hackers’ aptitude and therefore willingness to collaborate and support the cause. Although it could be argued that hackers cannot be seen as forming one single united population, they are nevertheless sited as the single source capable of affecting the Internet and its infrastructures. Whilst CAE acknowledges the issues surrounding hackers’ identity as ‘young white first world males’, the authors do not discuss or suggest alternative propositions. 23
Yet, challenges to the role given to hackers are emerging in response to the concerns voiced regarding the gender and race related inequalities occurring within cyberspace. 24 As an example, Sollfrank has been investigating hacking and gender for the past fifteen years. During the early stages of her research, Sollfrank discussed how she was consistently warned that virtually no female hackers excited:
(…) Hacking is a teenage-male voyeur-thrill power-trip activity. You don't find female computer intruders, any more than you find female voyeurs who are obsessed with catching glimpses of men's underwear. 25
Needless to say, Sollfrank eventually came across women who presented themselves as hackers. Some of them referred to the difficulty of evolving in a male-dominated environment (including having to disguise their gender to avoid harassment while using online bulletin boards). However, most seem to agree that the use and development of their computer hacking practice was located in socio-political concerns as opposed to purely technological or egocentric drives.
However, in all cases, the practical application of electronic civil disobedience, and accordingly the future of political activism, still lies in the hands of the hacking community It is perhaps in opposition to this ideology that FloodNet encouraged mass participation, refuting once more a key theoretical function of ECD.
For Electronic Disturbance Theater, the SWARM project ought to be seen as a ‘recombinant theatre’, ‘an example of conceptual net.art that empowers people through activist/artistic expression.’ 26 FloodNet was conceived for this purpose and therefore requested wide, symbolic participation. Although presented as a sensational and fierce act of protest, SWARM also bore a figurative and sadly poetic undertone. During the event, online protesters could enter the names of the Acteal victims in the search engine of the Mexican web site, thus seeking pages that did not exist. For instance, a search for Maria Luna Mendez, one of the victims, would return the following phrase ‘Maria Luna Mendez not found on this server’. In the same way, at the request of the word ‘justice’, the Mexican server would respond: ‘justice not found on this server’. More than a damaging electronic attack, the aim of the project was to produce a symbolic gesture of remembrance of the victims of the Acteal Massacre.
Under these circumstances, the practice of ECD as performed by EDT openly placed itself in the frame of contemporary art practice. As such, it was no coincidence that SWARM took place in one of the most prestigious electronic art events. Certainly this was one way of tackling the potential consequences and risks associated with computer hacking. In the context of global fear of technology, media commentators have eagerly amalgamated hacking activities, whether for criminal or socio-political purposes. In opposition, Critical Art Ensemble persistently avoided positioning The Electronic Disturbance and Electronic Civil Disobedience in a clearly distinct framework. The theoretical writings could be read in turn as artistic manifestos, socio-political propaganda or techno-future narratives. Indeed, as the concept of electronic protest evolved from the theoretical spheres to more practical applications, some of its complex and somehow utopian facets gradually came into view. These elements, along with emerging concerns related to legal aspects, will undoubtedly require further examination and discussions if indeed cyberspace is to become a predominant space for contemporary socio-political activism.
References
1. Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity Oxford: Blackwell Publishers p.79.
2. Vegh, S. (2003) ‘Classifying Forms of Online Activism: The Case of Cyberprotests against the World Bank’ Cyberactivism: online activism in theory and practice, McCaughey, M. & Ayers, M. D. (Eds) (2003) New York: Routledge pp. 71-95.
3. Wray, S. (1998), ‘Electronic civil disobedience and the World Wide Web of hacktivism: a mapping of extraparliamentarian direct action Net politics’, Switch, 2:4. http://switch.sjsu.edu/web/v4n2/stefan/ (21 September 2006).
4. Critical Art Ensemble. (1996), Electronic Civil Disobedience, New York: Automedia. p.11 http://www.critical-art.net/books/ecd/index.html (1 November 2006)
5. Bond, M. & Frank, R. (2004), Ricardo Dominguez, Artist and Electronic Civil Disobedience Pioneer, (interview). http://gothamist.com/2004/11/29/ricardo_dominguez_artist_and_electronic_civil_disobedience_pioneer.php (1 November 2006)
6. Critical Art Ensemble. (1996), Electronic Civil Disobedience, New York: Automedia. p.8 http://www.critical-art.net/books/ecd/index.html (1 November 2006)
7. Bond, M. & Frank, R. (2004), Ricardo Dominguez, Artist and Electronic Civil Disobedience Pioneer, (interview). http://gothamist.com/2004/11/29/ricardo_dominguez_artist_and_electronic_civil_disobedience_pioneer.php (1 November 2006)
8. Wray, S. (1998), ‘Electronic civil disobedience and the World Wide Web of hacktivism: a mapping of extraparliamentarian direct action Net politics’, Switch, 2:4. http://switch.sjsu.edu/web/v4n2/stefan/ (21 September 2006).
9. Critical Art Ensemble. (1996), Electronic Civil Disobedience, New York: Automedia. p.18 http://www.critical-art.net/books/ecd/index.html (1 November 2006)
10. Rosenwald, L. (2000) ‘The Theory, Practice, and Influence of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience’ A Historical Guide to Henry David Thoreau, Cain, E.W. (Ed). (2000) USA: Oxford University Press Inc. pp153-180
11. Critical Art Ensemble. (1996), Electronic Civil Disobedience, New York: Automedia. p.19 http://www.critical-art.net/books/ecd/index.html (1 November 2006)
12. Critical Art Ensemble. (1996), Electronic Civil Disobedience, New York: Automedia. p.12 http://www.critical-art.net/books/ecd/index.html (1 November 2006)
13. Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press. P.380
14. Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press. P.385- 386
15. Critical Art Ensemble. (1994), The Electronic Disturbance, New York: Automedia. p.25 http://www.critical-art.net/books/ted/index.html (1 November 2006)
16. Bey, Hakim (1991) T. A. Z. The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia. p.101
17. Bey, Hakim (1991) T. A. Z. The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia. p.102
18. Critical Art Ensemble. (1994), The Electronic Disturbance, New York: Automedia. p.25 http://www.critical-art.net/books/ted/index.html (1 November 2006)
19. Critical Art Ensemble. (2000), Digital Resistance, New York: Automedia. p.19
http://www.critical-art.net/books/digital/index.html (1 November 2006)
20. Critical Art Ensemble. (2000), Digital Resistance, New York: Automedia. p.14
http://www.critical-art.net/books/digital/index.html (1 November 2006)
21. Critical Art Ensemble. (1996), Electronic Civil Disobedience, New York: Automedia. p.20 http://www.critical-art.net/books/ecd/index.html (1 November 2006).
22. Critical Art Ensemble. (1996), Electronic Civil Disobedience, New York: Automedia. p.23 http://www.critical-art.net/books/ecd/index.html (1 November 2006)
23. Critical Art Ensemble. (1996), Electronic Civil Disobedience, New York: Automedia. p.22 http://www.critical-art.net/books/ecd/index.html (1 November 2006)
24. See the work of Lisa Nakamura on race in cyberspace and Kali Tal on gender in cyberspace.
25. Bruce Sterling cited in Sollfrank. C. (1999). Unauthorized Access--Hunting for women hackers http://www.obn.org/hackers/text2.htm (15 June 2006)
26. Bond, M. & Frank, R. (2004), Ricardo Dominguez, Artist and Electronic Civil Disobedience Pioneer, (interview). http://gothamist.com/2004/11/29/ricardo_dominguez_artist_and_electronic_civil_disobedience_pioneer.php (1 November 2006)