01/14

Metahavene-flux journal #37 Ñ september 2012 Ê Metahaven
Captives of the Cloud: Part I

Captives of the
Cloud: Part I

We are the voluntary prisoners of the cloud; weare being watched over by governments we did
not elect.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊWael Ghonim, Google's Egyptian executive,
said: ÒIf you want to liberate a society just givethem the internet.Ó1 But how does one liberate asociety that already has the internet? In a society
permanently connected through pervasive
broadband networks, the shared internet is, bitby bit and piece by piece, overshadowed by theÒcloud.ÓThe Coming of the Cloud
The cloud, as a planetary-scale infrastructure,
was first made possible by an incremental rise incomputing power, server space, and transcontinental fiber-optic connectivity. It is a byproduct and parallel iteration of the global(information) economy, enabling a digital (social)marketplace on a worldwide scale. Many of thecloudÕs most powerful companies no longer use
the shared internet, but build their own dark
fiber highways for convenience, resilience, andspeed.2 In the cloudÕs architecture of power, theearly internet is eclipsed.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊA nondescript diagram in a 1996 MIT
research paper titled ÒThe Self-governing
Internet: Coordination by Design,Ó showed aÒcloudÓ of networks situated between routers
linked up by Internet Protocol (IP).3 This was thefirst reported usage of the term ÒcloudÓ inrelation to the internet. The paper talked about aÒconfederationÓ of networks governed bycommon protocol. A 2001 New York Times article
reported that MicrosoftÕs .NET software
programs did not reside on any one computer,Òbut instead exist in the ÔcloudÕ of computersthat make up the internet.Ó4 But it wasnÕt until
2004 that the notion of Òcloud computingÓ was
defined by Google CEO Eric Schmidt:
I donÕt think people have really understood
how big this opportunity really is. It starts
with the premise that the data services andarchitecture should be on servers. We call it
cloud computing Ð they should be in aÒcloudÓ somewhere. And that if you havethe right kind of browser or the right kind ofaccess, it doesnÕt matter whether you havea PC or a Mac or a mobile phone or a
BlackBerry or what have you Ð or new
devices still to be developed Ð you can get
access to the cloud. There are a number ofcompanies that have benefited from that.
Obviously, Google, Yahoo!, eBay, Amazon
come to mind. The computation and thedata and so forth are in the servers.5
The internet can be compared to a patchwork ofcity-states, or an archipelago of islands. User

09.17.12 / 12:42:29 EDT

02/14A selection of the global US social media cloud, resorting under the Patriot Act.

09.17.12 / 12:42:29 EDT

If you think about the market that we're in,and more broadly just the enterprisesoftware market, the kind of transition
that's happening now from legacy systems
to the cloud is literally, by definition, a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. This isprobably going to happen at a larger scalethan any other technology transition we'veseen in the enterprise. Larger than client
servers. Larger than mainframes.8
Google, one of the worldÕs seven largest cloudcompanies, has recently compared itself to abank.9 That comparison is apt. If data in the
09.17.12 / 12:42:29 EDT

03/14

cloud is like money in the bank, what happens toit while it resides ÒconvenientlyÓ in the cloud?

e-flux journal #37 Ñ september 2012 Ê Metahaven
Captives of the Cloud: Part I

data and content materials are dispersed overdifferent servers, domains, and jurisdictions (i.e.,
different sovereign countries). The cloud is more
like BismarckÕs unification of Germany, sweeping
up formerly distinct elements, bringing themunder a central government. As with mosttechnology, there is a sense of abstraction fromprior experiences; in the cloud the user no longer
needs to understand how a software program
works or where his or her data really is. The
important thing is that it works.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn the early 1990s, a user would operate aÒpersonal home page,Ó hosted by an internet
Service Provider (ISP), usually located in the
country where that user lived. In the early 2000s,
free online services like Blogspot and video sites
like YouTube came to equal and surpass theservices of local providers. Instead of using a
paid-for local e-mail account, users would
switch to a service like Gmail. In the late 2000s
and the early 2010s this was complemented, if
not replaced, by Facebook and other social
media, which integrate e-mail, instantmessaging, FTP (File Transfer Protocol), financial
services, and other social interaction software
within their clouds. Cloud-based book sales,
shopping, and e-reading have brought about the
global dominance of Amazon, the worldÕs biggest
cloud storage provider and the ÒWalmart of theWeb.Ó6 By 2015, combined spending for public
and private cloud storage will be $22.6 billion
worldwide.7 Given this transition, it is no
exaggeration to proclaim an exodus from theinternet to the cloud. The internetÕs dispersed
architecture gives way to the cloudÕs central
model of data storage and management, handled
and owned by a handful of corporations.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe coming of the cloud is spelled out by
Aaron Levie, founder and CEO of Box, one of
Silicon Valley's fastest growing cloud storage
providers. As Levie states, the biggest driver ofthe cloud is the ever-expanding spectrum ofmobile devices Ð iPhones, iPads, Androids, andsuch Ð from which users tap into the cloud andflock around its server spine:

The US Cloud and the Patriot Act
Where and by whom sites are registered and data
is hosted matters a great deal in determining
who gains access to and control over the data.
For example, all data stored by US companies (ortheir subsidiaries) in non-US data centers falls
under the jurisdiction of the USA Patriot Act, ananti-terrorism law introduced in 2001.10 Thisemphatically includes the entire US cloud Ð
Facebook, Apple, Twitter, Dropbox, Google,
Amazon, Rackspace, Box, Microsoft, and manyothers. Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George
Washington University, has established that the
Patriot Act, rather than investigating potential
terrorists, is mostly used to spy on innocent
Americans.11 But the people being watched need
not even be Americans. Via the cloud, citizens
across the world are subject to the same Patriot
Act powers Ð which easily lend themselves tomisuse by authorities. Matthew Waxman of theCouncil on Foreign Relations outlines thesituation:
These kinds of surveillance powers havehistorically been prone to abuse. Some of
the legal restrictions on surveillance that
the Patriot Act was designed to roll backwere actually the direct product of abusesby the FBI, the CIA, and other government
agencies. During the 1960s and Ô70s,
national security intelligence powers wereused by government agents to spy onpolitical opposition [and] cast abusively
wide nets. That legacy of abuse has raised
a lot of concerns about whether there isadequate oversight with respect to these
new surveillance powers.12
The sociologist Saskia Sassen adds to thisperspective:
Through the Patriot Act [...] the government
has authorized official monitoring of
attorney-client conversations, wideranging secret searches and wiretaps, thecollection of Internet and e-mail addressing
data [...] All of this can be done without
probable cause about the guilt of thepeople searched Ð that is to say, the usual
threshold that must be passed before thegovernment may invade privacy has been
neutralized. This is an enormous accrual ofpowers in the administration, which has
found itself in the position of having toreassure the public that it can be 'trusted'
not to abuse these powers. But there havebeen abuses.13

04/14The Mubarak Òkill switchÓ which took Egypt off the internet in January, 2011.

09.17.12 / 12:42:29 EDT

Super-Jurisdiction
In Egypt, during the revolution, Facebook and09.17.12 / 12:42:29 EDT

05/14
e-flux journal #37 Ñ september 2012 Ê Metahaven
Captives of the Cloud: Part I

Microsoft was the first cloud company to publicly
confirm Patriot Act access to its data stored
outside the US.14 In August 2011, Google also
confirmed that its data stored overseas issubject to Òlawful accessÓ by the US
government.15 A 2012 white paper by the law andprivacy firm Hogan Lovells examined thesefindings, concluding that while the Patriot Act
does give the US government access to thecloud, many other governments enjoy similar
forms of access under their own laws Ð andfurther, that using the ÒlocationÓ of a cloudserver to determine legal protection was a
mistaken idea altogether.16 The paper noted thewidespread use of so-called Mutual Legal
Assistance Treaties (MLATs), which streamline
the exchange between countries of data needed
for investigative purposes. Apart from treatybacked requests, Òinformal relationships
between law enforcement agencies [É] allow forgovernmental access to data in the Ôpossession,custody, or controlÕ of cloud service providers
over whom the requesting country does nototherwise have jurisdiction.Ó The legality of suchinformal relationships was not examined by thestudy. Neither did it backlog any recorded abusesof the Patriot Act, or discuss reports by two US
Senators about a Òsecret interpretationÓ of thelaw, which would give the FBI far-reaching extra
surveillance powers that the public is unawareof.17ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊOne of the most powerful instruments the
US government uses to look into the so-calledÒnon-content informationÓ of ISPs and cloudproviders is the National Security Letter (NSL).
NSLs demand specific information about users
and are issued directly by the FBI. After the
Patriot Act was signed into law, the number ofletters issued rose exponentially: from 8,500 in2000 to 39,346 in 2003. An NSL automatically
includes a gag order that prohibits the recipientfrom notifying users about the request. The FBI
need only assert that the information sought isÒrelevantÓ to an investigation.18 The crucial
question in the Hogan Lovells report Ð ÒAregovernment orders to disclose customer data
subject to review by a judge?Ó Ð is answered withÒyesÓ in Australia, Canada, Denmark, France,
Germany, Ireland, Japan, Spain, the United
Kingdom, and the US. However, in the US thiscondition is only met if the cloud provider, after
receiving the NSL, first challenges its built-in gag
order. Only when the NSL is unsealed by a judge
can the cloud provider inform the user about theexistence of the letter. For the Hogan Lovells
report, this procedure counts as judicial review.

Twitter played the role of subversive,
uncensorable alternative media Ð in part
because the servers of these wildly popular
services were beyond the reach of local
authorities. Indeed, Hosni Mubarak's best bet tofend off the power of the internet was to switch it
off entirely. To do so, Òjust a few phone calls
probably sufficed.Ó19 While Mubarak's ultima
ratio as a sovereign ruler over Egyptian soil
proved sufficient to wall the country off from the
network, the violent crudeness of this act also
demonstrated the dictator's much more
substantial lack of power over the network's
larger infrastructure. Sovereign control over the
cloud, in contrast to authoritarian powermongering, is a sophisticated affair. One mightdraw a very different map here: the global spreadof the US cloud, for example, results in a kind ofÒsuper-jurisdictionÓ enjoyed by its host country.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊSuper-jurisdiction can be seen in action in
the 2012 seizure of Megaupload.com by the US
Department of Justice (DOJ). Megaupload.com
was a Hong Kong-based internet enterprisepaying loving tribute to all kinds of Hollywood
films (to say it politely). The site offered,according to its own self-description, Ònoregistration upload and sharing of files up to 1
gigabyte.Ó It was seized in January 2012 by the
DOJ and the FBI, backed by film industry
copyright claimants. Megaupload.com stands
accused of generating Òmore than $175 million incriminal proceedsÓ and causing Òmore than half abillion dollars in harm to copyright owners.Ó20ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe site's founder, thirty-seven-year-old
internet millionaire Kim Dotcom, and three of his
associates were brought to a New Zealand court
to face extradition to the US. TheyÕd been living
like self-styled oligarchs. In a gesture toward
transparency, they said they had Ònothing to
hide.Ó21 In particular, Dotcom himself embodies
the absurd saga of a contemporary, deeply selfparodying internet hooligan Ð a legal black holeturned persona, unprepared in every way to beÒfamous,Ó yet accepting the challenge
wholeheartedly. Megaupload.com was, at least in
its own self-imagination, nothing more than atechnical conduit between those who upload andthose who download, its content-indiscriminate
policy a typical example of laissez-faire anarchocapitalism. The US governmentÕs prosecution of
the site remains highly debated, because the
DOJ interpreted the siteÕs global user base as awillful conspiracy to break US law. As Jennifer
Granick at Stanford Law notes, the DOJ
referenced Òunknown partiesÓ (i.e., the users of
Megaupload.com) as members of a conspiracy toconduct a crime in the US. Granick notes thatsuch users Òwere located all over the world, andmay or may not have acted willfully.Ó Indeed, with
Megaupload.com, the government alleges Òan

06/14agreement to violate a US civil law, including by
many people who are not subject to US rules.Ó As
Granick then asks, ÒDoes the United States havejurisdiction over anyone who uses a hosting
provider in the Eastern District of Virginia? Whatabout over any company that uses PayPal?Ó22
Indeed, these are the sorts of questions
prompted by super-jurisdiction.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊSuper-jurisdiction means that the law of
one country can, through various forms ofcooperation and association implied by server
locations and network connections, be extended
into and enacted in another. The US, as a resultof its unique position in managing the internetÕs
core, also has jurisdiction over all so-called top
level domains, no matter where they are hosted
and by whom. All top-level domain names (dotcom, dot-org, dot-net, etc.) must be registeredthrough VeriSign, a Virginia-based company.
Using its jurisdiction over the domain nameregistry, in 2012 the DOJ seized Bodog.com, agambling website operated from Canada. A US
Customs Enforcement spokesperson confirmed
to Wired that the US had in a similar manner
seized 750 different domain names of sites it
believed committed intellectual property theft.23
Michael Geist, an internet law professor at the
University of Ottawa, observes that, indeed, ÒAllYour internets Belong to USÓ:authoritarian regimes Ð is now fast becoming the
global norm.Ó26 Indeed, if a lawsuit brought by
the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) against
AT&T is any indication, the US government seems
determined to expand its access to electronic
communication. The EFFÕs star witness in thecase was Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician
who claimed to have seen, in 2002, the creationand ongoing use of a dedicated private room
where the National Security Agency (NSA) hadÒset up a system that vacuumed up internet andphone-call data from ordinary Americans withthe cooperation of AT&T.Ó27 Klein said the systemallowed the government full surveillance of notjust the AT&T customer base, but that of sixteen
other companies as well.28 The US government
dismissed the case against the
telecommunications provider, asserting theprivilege of state secrets. The government has
also dismissed cases against itself and othertelecom companies that assisted with similar
endeavors, including Sprint, Nextel, andVerizon.29 If the allegations are true, according to
Access Controlled, Òthey show that the UnitedStates maintains the most sophisticated internet
surveillance regime.Ó30

The message from the [Bodog] case isclear: all dot-com, dot-net, and dot-org
domain names are subject to US
jurisdiction regardless of where they
operate or where they were registered. This
grants the US a form of Òsuper-jurisdictionÓ
over internet activities since most othercountries are limited to jurisdiction with areal and substantial connection. For theUS, the location of the domain nameregistry is good enough.24

Cloud Surveillance
The various technical components that enableglobal communication Ð server, network, andclient Ð all lend themselves to surveillance.
Access Controlled, a MIT Press handbook oninternet surveillance and censorship, states thatÒthe quest for information control is now beyond
denial.Ó25 It mentions the so-called Òsecurity
firstÓ norm, by which the combined threats ofterrorism and child pornography create amandate for the state to police the net without
restriction. As the authors assert in theirconclusion, ÒThe security-first norm aroundinternet governance can be seen, therefore, as
but another manifestation of these wider
developments. Internet censorship andsurveillance Ð once largely confined to
09.17.12 / 12:42:29 EDT

The first mention of the notion of the ÒcloudÓ was in a 1996 diagram in
an MIT research paper, redrawn here.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAs technologies expand, the governance,
legislation, and legalities of surveillance become
increasingly complicated. In May 2012, CNET
reported that the general counsel of the FBI had
drafted a proposed law that would requiresocial-networking sites, e-mail and voice-over-IP(VoIP) providers, as well as instant messaging
platforms, to provide a backdoor for surveillanceÐ a demand from the US government for cloudcompanies to Òalter their code to ensure theirproducts are wiretap-friendly.Ó31 In 2012, the UK
Government announced the installation Ð incollaboration with telecom companies and ISPs
Ð of so-called Òblack boxesÓ which would retrieve

07/14and decrypt communications from Gmail andother cloud services, storing the non-content
data from these communications.32 But thecloud is nothing like a national telephone
network. Whenever the cloud is Òwiretapped,Ó
authorities listen into a global
telecommunications oracle; the data of everyone
using that cloud, regardless of where and whothey are, and regardless of whether or not they
are the suspect of a crime, is at least in principle
at the disposal of law enforcement.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊMost journalism routinely criticizes (orpraises) the US government for its ability to spy
on ÒAmericans.Ó But something essential is not
mentioned here Ð the practical ability of the US
government to spy on everybody else. The
potential impact of surveillance of the US cloudis as vast as the impact of its services Ð whichhave already profoundly transformed the world.
An FBI representative told CNET about the gap
the agency perceives between the phone
network and advanced cloud communications forwhich it does not presently have sufficiently
intrusive technical capacity Ð the risk ofsurveillance Ògoing dark.Ó The representative
mentioned Ònational securityÓ to demonstrate
how badly it needs such cloud wiretapping,
inadvertently revealing that the state secrets

privilege Ð once a legal anomaly, now a routine Ð
will likely be invoked to shield such extensive
and increased surveillance powers from public
scrutiny.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊUsers' concerns about about internet
surveillance increased with the proposed Stop
Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which was introduced
into the US House of Representatives in late
2011. How the government would police SOPA
became a real worry, with the suspicion that theenforcement method of choice would bestandardized deep packet inspections (DPI)
deployed through usersÕ internet service
providers Ð a process by which the ÒpacketsÓ ofdata in the network are unpacked andinspected.33 Through DPI, law enforcement
would detect and identify illegal downloads. In
2010, before SOPA was even on the table, theObama Administration sought to enact federal
laws that would force communications providers
offering encryption (including e-mail and instantmessaging) to provide access by law
enforcement to unencrypted data.34 It is,however, worth noting that encryption is still
protected as Òfree speechÓ by the First
Amendment of the US Constitution Ð further
complicating, but not likely deterring, attempts
to break the code. One way of doing so consists

The seizure of Megaupload.com; using super-jurisdiction to allege a global conspiracy.

09.17.12 / 12:42:29 EDT

08/14of surrounding encryption with the insinuation ofillegality. The FBI in 2012 distributed flyers tointernet cafe business owners requesting to bewary of Òsuspicious behaviorÓ by guests,
including the Òuse of anonymizers, portals orother means to shield IP addressÓ andÒencryption or use of software to hide encrypted
data.Ó In small print, the FBI added that each ofthese ÒindicatorsÓ by themselves, however,constituted lawful conduct.35

The kind of naming policy that Facebook
and Google Plus have is actually a radical
departure from the way identity and speechinteract in the real world. They attach
identity more strongly to every act of online
speech than almost any real world situation
does.37
Cloud providers such as Amazon use real nameregistration as a mechanism for accountability.
Though Amazon still allows users to use a Òpenname,Ó the trademarked Òreal nameÓ attribution
is advertised as having the ability to Òpotentially
increase your reputation in the communityÓ as aretailer, seller, or reviewer.38 Some see the realname badge as a step towards Òfixing theirflawed [and] exploitable review systemÓ forreviewing books Ð a system notoriously
dominated by biased ÒanonymousÓ users, often
thought to be, and sometimes proven to be, otherauthors, their family members, or the booksÕ
publishers.39 Though AmazonÕs reasoning for
promoting the use of real names is more explicit
than that of Facebook and Google+, one canimagine the marketing benefits of a synchronizedreal name system between social media and09.17.12 / 12:42:29 EDT

e-flux journal #37 Ñ september 2012 Ê Metahaven
Captives of the Cloud: Part I

Coercive PaternalismÒReal nameÓ requirements by the cloud-basedsocial networking platforms Facebook and
Google+ expressly attack anonymity andpseudonymity online, affecting the fundamentsof political speech. Real name directives require
users to register with a service using the namethat is in their passport. The reasons given by
cloud services for such real name requirements
are vague Ð perhaps for fear of sounding too
directly authoritarian. The preferred route,instead, is that of fatherly advice. Facebook
claims that it has a real name policy Òso that you
always know who youÕre connecting with,Ó while
Google states that it requires real names so Òthat
the people you want to connect with can findyou.Ó36 These explanations gesture towards aconception of normative social arrangements Ðrequiring that your use the same name that youÕd
use among your friends, family, or coworkers.
Alexis Madrigal points out a certain irony in the
Google+ real name requirement:

retail websites Ð and the connection that such a
synchronicity might have with the government.
Such requirements can be seen as aligned withplans of the US government to introduce a
universal Òtrusted identityÓ or Òinternet IDÓ
system for US citizens, a commission the WhiteHouse granted to the US Commerce Department
in 2011. According to White House Cybersecurity
Coordinator Howard Schmidt, the effort entails
nothing less than creating an Òidentity
ecosystemÓ for the internet.40
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊCass Sunstein, the Obama AdministrationÕs
chief internet advisor, has recently argued forgovernment policy against the spread ofÒrumorsÓ on the internet; as noted by the New
Yorker, one of the most persistent of such rumors
was the theory that President Obama had beenborn in Kenya Ð and thus holds his presidency
illegally.41 Sunstein believes that certain
properties of the internet gear public speech
toward the uninformed forwarding andcirculation of rumors and conspiracy theories. InÒecho chambersÓ and through Òcybercascades,Ó
one-sided opinion would spread rapidly andwidely in the network without rebuttal.
Supposedly balanced reporting by professional
journalists in the mainstream media now has tocompete for attention with, and gets often
surpassed by, every other blog post, Facebook
update, or tweet. The effortless ability for all
Internet users to compose and live on a ÒDailyMeÓ Ð a news diet catered to fit and maintain an
individual, already established, self-referential
set of beliefs Ð would result in a fragmentation of
the general public into factions which no longer
expose themselves to views held by otherfactions. Sunstein claims that under suchfragmentation, Òdiverse speech communitiesÓ
are created Òwhose members talk and listen
mostly to one another.Ó And,
When society is fragmented in this way,
diverse groups will tend to polarize in a waythat can breed extremism and even hatredand violence. New technologies,
emphatically including the Internet, aredramatically increasing people's ability tohear echoes of their own voices and to wallthemselves off from others.42
Sunstein is concerned with how rumors may
impair the effectiveness of government, andundermine its legitimacy. Early 2008, he and aco-author published a paper on conspiracy
theories around the 9/11 attacks. In the paper,
Sunstein recommended that ÒGovernment
agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms,
online social networks, or even real-spacegroups and attempt to undermine percolating
conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their

Cloud as a Political Space
The increasing prominence which cloud-based
internet services, social media and VoIP
technologies now enjoy over legacy tools ofcommunication shows in how they enable new,virtually cost-free forms of organization. For

09/14

factual premises, causal logic or implications forpolitical action.Ó43ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊNowhere is the coercive government stancetoward online rumors as clear as in China. Beijing
put forth regulations requiring users to registeron social medial sites with their Òreal nameidentitiesÓ by March 2012 Ð regulationcomparable to policies already spontaneously
embraced by Facebook and Google. Sites
including Sina Weibo, one of the country's largest
microblogging sites, have begun implementing
these regulations, which also forbid users frommaking statements against the stateÕs honor orstatements that may disrupt civil obedience.44
Around the same time, social media sites acrossthe country flared up over the ouster of politicalleader Bo Xilai from the Communist Party. The
Chinese police swiftly detained six people andshut down sixteen websites over ÒrumorsÓ
surrounding the incident, including claims thatmilitary vehicles were entering Beijing.45

social movements relying on collective action,
this factor has proven to be key. Unsurprisingly,
when social media platforms are suddenlyÒswitched off,Ó their ability to organize can beseverely affected. Facebook, in the wake ofnationwide anti-austerity protests in the UK in
February 2011, deleted the profiles of dozens ofpolitical groups preparing to take part in further
protests. In doing so, Facebook effectively
disabled lawful political activism, which had, forobvious reasons, moved their coordination to thecloud. The reason for the purge is still not known
and likely never will be. All the social networking
behemoth could utter to justify its behavior was
cryptic technospeak. Profiles had Ònot beenregistered correctly,Ó as a Facebook
spokeswoman explained.46 In 2010, UK Prime
Minister David Cameron and other Conservative
politicians met in London with Facebook founderMark Zuckerberg. Their admiration was mutual.47
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊRebecca MacKinnon, a former CNN reporterand cofounder of the citizen media network
Global Voices, asserts in her book Consent of the
Networked that Òwe cannot understand how theinternet is used unless we first understand theways in which the internet itself has become ahighly contested political space.Ó48 This applies
equally, and equally urgently, to the cloud.

App neutrality? Apple's ban on two controversial iPhone apps in 2010 and 2012 shows a lack of network neutrality in the cloud.

09.17.12 / 12:42:29 EDT

10/14ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe combined rights to a free flow of
information, freedom of expession, and freedom
from censorship, have been described as acompound right to Òinternet freedom.Ó Indeed,
Google's Wael Ghonim at the beginning of thisstory suggested that unhindered access to, anduse of, the internet enables the liberation of asociety.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHere, the free flow of information is blocked
by clearly identifiable authoritarian despots. To
not have internet freedom, one must be under
the oppression of a shameless tyrant, or be living
in a Òclosed societyÓ where the free flow of
information is not sufficiently appreciated justyet. On January 21, 2010, US Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton delivered a speech on US foreign
policy and internet freedom, highlighting exactly
this view. Clinton assured her audience inWashington, D.C. that ÒAs I speak to you today,
government censors are working furiously toerase my words from the records of history.Ó49
Evgeny Morozov, a US-based, Belarusian-borninternet scholar rightly criticized Clinton'sÒanachronistic view of authoritarianism.Ó As
Morozov explained, ÒI didn't hear anything about
the evolving nature of internet control (e.g. that
controlling the internet now includes many otheractivities Ð propaganda, DDoS attacks, physicalintimidation of selected critics/activists). If wekeep framing this discussion only as acensorship issue, we are unlikely to solve it.Ó He
went on to criticize the double standards theState Department advertised with regard toonline anonymity:

airwaves and universal access to high-speed
internet.Ó52 The notion of net neutrality is as
relevant to internet freedom as it is to thestructure of the cloud, since the network's
management is in the hands of a patchwork ofgovernment agencies and private enterprises
who may (or may not) hold a bias toward certain
information on the network, or a bias toward one
another. Coined by the legal scholar Tim Wu in
2003, network neutrality was originally meant tobenchmark and promote the open nature of theinternet for the sake of innovation Ð an Òend-toendÓ infrastructure unbiased towards its
content. As Wu stated, ÒA communications
network like the internet can be seen as aplatform for a competition among application
developers. Email, the web, and streaming
applications are in a battle for the attention andinterest of end-users. It is therefore importantthat the platform be neutral to ensure thecompetition remains meritocratic.Ó53 Network
neutrality applies to a decentralizedarchitecture, with clearly divided roles between
ISPs, broadband service providers, content
providers, and services and applications on the
network. It justifies a de facto gentlemen's
agreement through a joint economic interest ininnovation and fair competition. Indeed, also
political speech can be considered part of acompetition Ð one of ideas on how to (not) govern
ourselves. Venture capitalist Joichi Ito expressed
this view in 2003, when he wrote that such acompetition of ideas Òrequires freedom ofspeech and the ability to criticize those in power
without fear of retribution.Ó54

On the one hand, they want to crack down
on intellectual property theft and terrorists;on the other hand, they want to protect
Iranian and the Chinese dissidents. Well,let me break the hard news: You can't haveit both ways and the sooner you get on with"anonymity for everyone" rhetoric, the more
you'll accomplish. I am very pessimistic on
the future of online anonymity in general Ð I
think there is a good chance it will beeliminated by 2015 Ð and this hesitance by
the State Department does not make me
feel any more optimistic.50
Still, the definition of internet freedom remains
relatively opaque. One example of this vaguenessis provided by Internetfreedom.org, a global
consortium, which aims to Òinform, connect, andempower the people in closed societies withinformation on a free internet.Ó51
Savetheinternet.com, a project of Free Press,
breaks down internet freedom into somewhat
more clearly defined categories Ð Ònet neutrality(wired and wireless), strong protections formobile phone users, public use of the public
09.17.12 / 12:42:29 EDTApple.gov: governmentality in the cloud.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊInsofar as the cloud's software services use
the shared internet, they can be consideredapplications run on the network. To this end,
network neutrality applies to the cloud (forexample, the cloud is expected to consume more
and more bandwidth in the network, possibly atthe material Apple deemed objectionablefrom Mr. Begley was nearly identical to thematerial available through The GuardianÕs
iPhone app. ItÕs unclear whether Apple istreating the two parties differently because
The Guardian is a well-known media
organization and Mr. Begley is not, or
whether the problem is that Mr. Begleychose to focus his app only on drone
strikes.57
One can endlessly ponder why Apple banned
Drones+ from its cloud but admitted The
Guardian, and one will never be finished
09.17.12 / 12:42:29 EDT

11/14

weighing the arguments. The point is that if its
cloud operated even under something remotely
looking like network neutrality, Apple could nothave reasonably rejected the app. The case also
brings to mind Evgeny Morozov's earlier warningthat government censorship of the network
nowadays is more sophisticated than a crude
Mubarak internet kill switch. As Rebecca
MacKinnon writes,
citizens are [É] vulnerable to abuse of theirrights to speech and assembly not only
from government but also from private
actors. In democracies, it follows thatcitizens must guard against violations of
their digital rights by governments andcorporations Ð or both acting in concert Ðregardless of whether the company
involved is censoring and discriminating on
its own initiative or acting under pressure
from authorities.58

e-flux journal #37 Ñ september 2012 Ê Metahaven
Captives of the Cloud: Part I

the cost of other applications and services). The
concept of network neutrality is more difficult toapply in the cloud, since some of the nominal
conditions to institute neutrality are absorbed by
the cloud's combination of hosting and software
services within a single black box. In the cloud,there is no more principled separation between
the hosting of data, software, and client-side
tools through which the data is handled andexperienced. Indeed, the enormous success ofthe cloud is that it provides for all of these things
at once.55
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe Terms of Service of any cloud-based
provider are a far cry from a binding agreement
to net neutrality; they allow plenty of space forÒcloudy bias.Ó For example, in August, 2012,
Apple banned ÒDrones+Ó from its App Store. Thisapp, developed by NYU student Josh Begley,
provides aggregated news on US drone strikes inPakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and it includes a
Google map on which the strikes are marked. Theapp also prompts the user whenever a new drone
strike has occurred, and says how many
casualties it had produced. Crucially, theinformation aggregated by the app is alreadycompletely public and freely available throughvarious other sources including The GuardianÕs
iPhone app. Apple demonstrated its cloudy
parody of network neutrality in the everchanging reasons it gave for rejecting Drones+.
Apple had problems with the Google logo
appearing on the Google map. In July, thecompany stated in an e-mail that ÒThe features
and/or content of your app were not useful orentertaining enough, or your app did not appeal
to a broad enough audience.Ó By August, Applechanged its mind. The app contained Òcontent
that many audiences would find objectionable,
which is not in compliance with the App Store
Review Guidelines.Ó Indeed, the company
eventually concluded that Drones+, which does
not show users any images of actual dronerelated bloodshed, was Òobjectionable andcrude.Ó56 The New York Times wondered how onearth it could be that

It is highly unlikely that Drones+ was banned
after direct government interference. But it isn't
difficult to imagine an informal, unstated, andrather intuitive constellation of interests
between Apple Ð universally praised by US
politicians on both sides of the aisle Ð and the
US Government. Shared interests and informalties between private enterprise and government,
based on mutual forms of ÒLike,Ó rather thanstrict separations by Law, may account for defacto forms of censorship in the cloud, without
the explicit order to enact it or the explicit
obligation to justify it. In December 2010, Apple
removed a WikiLeaks iPhone app from its store,
citing its developer guidelines: ÒAny app that isdefamatory, offensive, mean-spirited, or likely toplace the targeted individual or group in harms[sic] way will be rejected.Ó59 Simultaneous to the
WikiLeaks app being banned, other US cloudcompanies, including Amazon and PayPal,
stopped providing services to WikiLeaks.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe political, legal and jurisdictional
consequences of the cloud are slowly becoming
apparent Ð right at the time when we are unlikely
to withdraw from it. The cloud is just too good.
We won't stop using our iPhones, iPads, Androids
and Kindles. Paypal is still our frenemy. Happily
the captives of the cloud, we will tweet ourcritiques of it, and Facebook-broadcast ouroutcries over its government back doors. But thestory is not over yet. Will the anarcho-libertarianroots of the internet kick back at the cloud's
centralized architecture Ð or are they foreveroverrun by it? Has the cloud assumed its final
form, or is there still a time and a place forsurprises?
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ×
Written by Daniel van der Velden and Vinca Kruk. Researchassistant: Alysse Kushinski. Design assistant: Rasmus
Svensson. All images courtesy of Metahaven. Metahaven2012.

e-flux journal #37 Ñ september 2012 Ê Metahaven
Captives of the Cloud: Part I

12/14ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ→ To be continued in ÒCaptives of the Cloud:Part II.Ó

09.17.12 / 12:42:29 EDT

Metahaven is an Amsterdam-based design collectiveon the cutting blade between politics and aesthetics.
Founded by Vinca Kruk and Daniel van der Velden,
Metahaven's work Ð both commissioned and selfdirected Ð reflects political and social issues throughresearch-driven design, and design-driven research.
Research projects included the Sealand Identity
Project, and currently include Facestate, and Icelandas Method. Solo exhibitions include Affiche Fronti•re(CAPC musŽe d'art contemporain de Bordeaux, 2008)
and Stadtstaat (KŸnstlerhaus Stuttgart/Casco, 2009).
Group exhibitions include Forms of Inquiry (AA London,
2007, cat.), Manifesta8 (Murcia, 2010, cat.), theGwangju Design Biennale 2011 (Gwangju, Korea, cat.),Graphic Design: Now In Production (Walker Art Center,
Minneapolis, 2011, and Cooper-Hewitt National Design
Museum, New York, 2012, cat.) and The New Public(Museion, Bolzano, 2012, cat.). Metahaven's work was
published and discussed in The International Herald
Tribune, The New York Times, Huffington Post, Courrier
International, Icon, Domus, Dazed, The Verge,l'Architecture d'Aujourd'hui, and Mute, among otherpublications. Vinca Kruk is a Tutor of Editorial Design
and Design Critique at ArtEZ Academy of Arts in
Arhem. Daniel van der Velden is a Senior Critic at theGraphic Design MFA program at Yale University, and a
Tutor of Design at the Sandberg Instituut Amsterdam.
In 2010, Metahaven released Uncorporate Identity, adesign anthology for our dystopian age, published byLars MŸller.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ3
Sharon Gillett and Mitchell
Kapor, ÒThe Self-governing
Internet: Coordination by
Design,Ó presented at
Coordination and Administrationof the Internet Workshop at
Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, Boston, MA,
September 8Ð10, 1996. See
http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/CC
SWP197/ccswp197.html.

evel/2011/01/egypt-isp-shutdown/.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ11
Jeffrey Rosen, ÒToo Much
Power,Ó New York Times,
September 8, 2011. See
http://www.nytimes.com/roomf
ordebate/2011/09/07/do-we-st
ill-need-the-patriot-act/the patriot-act-gives-too-muchpower-to-law-enforcement.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ20
Claire Connelly and Lee Taylor,ÒFBI Shuts down
Megaupload.com, Anonymous
Shut down FBI,Ó News.com.au,
January 20, 2012. See
http://www.news.com.au/technology/fbi-shuts-down-megaupl
oadcom-charges-seven-with-on
line-piracy/story-e6frfro0-1
226249114650#ixzz1k8bkZU4v.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ12
Matthew C. Waxman, ÒExtending
Patriot Act Powers,Ó interview by
Jonathan Masters,www.cfr.org,ÊFebruary 22, 2012.
See
http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/extending-patriot-ac tpowers/p24174.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ21
Ibid.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ22
See Jennifer Granick,ÒMegaupload: A Lot Less Guilty
Than You Think,Ó Center forInternet and Society at Stanford
Law School, January 26, 2012.
SeeÊhttp://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6795.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ13
Saskia Sassen, Territory,
Authority, Rights. From Medieval
to Global Assemblages,
Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
University Press, 2006 (2008),
180.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ4
John Markoff, ÒAn Internet Critic
Who Is Not Shy About RufflingÊÊÊÊÊÊ14
the Big Names in High,Ó New
Paul Taylor, ÒPrivacy Concerns
York Times, April 9, 2001. See
Slow Cloud Adoption,Ó Financial
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/
Times, August 2, 2011. See
04/09/technology/09HAIL.html
http://news.softpedia.com/ne?ex=1230872400&en=5d156fc75d409335
ws/Google-Admits-Handing-ove&ei=5070.
r-European-User-Data-to-US-I
ntelligence-Agencies-215740.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ5
shtml.
Eric Schmidt, ÒConversation
with Eric Schmidt Hosted byÊÊÊÊÊÊ15
Danny Sullivan,Ó Search Engine
Lucian Constantin, ÒGoogle
Strategies Conference, August 9,
Admits Handing over European
2006. See
User Data to US Intelligence
http://www.google.com/press/
Agencies,Ó Softpedia, August 8,
podium/ses2006.html.
2011. See
http://www.hldataprotection.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ6
com/uploads/file/Hogan%20Lov
ÒAmazon: The Walmart of theells%20White%20Paper%20Gover
Web,Ó The Economist, October 1,
nment%20Access%20to%20Cloud%2011. See
20Data%20Paper%20(1).pdf.
http://www.economist.com/nod
e/21530980.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ16
Winston Maxwell, andÊÊÊÊÊÊ7
Christopher Wolf, ÒA Global
Nathan Eddy, ÒCloud Computing
Reality: Governmental Access toto Drive Storage Growth: IDC
Data in the Cloud,Ó A Hogan
Report,Ó eWeek, October 21,
Lovells White Paper, May 23,
2011. See
2012. See
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Clo
http://www.hldataprotection.
ud-Computing/Cloudcom/uploads/file/Hogan%20Lov
Computing -to-Drive-Storageells%20White%20Paper%20Gover
Growth-IDC -Report-193712/.
nment%20Access%20to%20Cloud%
20Data%20Paper%20(1).pdf.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ8
Nick Bilton, ÒData storage
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ17
server, and founder, move
Mike Masnick, ÒSenators Reveal
quickly.Ó International Herald
That Feds Have Secretly
Tribune, August 28, 2012.
Reinterpreted The PATRIOT Act,Ó
Techdirt, May 26, 2011. SeeÊÊÊÊÊÊ9
http://www.techdirt.com/arti
Barb Darrow, ÒAmazon Is No. 1.
cles/20110525/15411414434/seWhoÕs Next in Cloud
nators-reveal-that-feds-have Computing?,Ó GigaOM, March 14,
secretly-reinterpreted-patr iot2012. See
act.shtml.
http://gigaom.com/cloud/amaz
on-is-no-1-whos-next-in-clouÊÊÊÊÊÊ18
d-computing/.ÊCade Metz,
Kim Zetter, ÒUnknown TechÒGoogle: ÔWeÕre Like a Bank for
Company Defies FBI In MysteryYour Data,ÕÓ Wired, May 29, 2012.
Surveillance Case,Ó Wired, MarchSee
14, 2012.
http://www.wired.com/wiredenSeeÊhttp://www.wired.com/thr
terprise/?p=20996.
eatlevel/2012/03/mystery-nsl /.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ10
Zack Whittaker, ÒSummary:
ZDNetÕs USA PATRIOT Act
Series,Ó ZDNet, April 27, 2011.
See
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ig

13/14ÊÊÊÊÊÊ2
Brandon Teddler, ÒTo The
Cloud!,Ó Ezine Mark, February
20, 2012. See
http://cloud.ezinemark.com/t othe-cloud-7d3407dff%2043c.
html.

eneration/summary-zdnets-usa-patriot-act-series/9233.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ19
Ryan Singel, ÒEgypt Shut Down
Its Net With a Series of Phone
Calls.Ó Wired, January 28, 2011.
See
http://www.wired.com/threatl

09.17.12 / 12:42:29 EDTÊÊÊÊÊÊ23
David Kravats, ÒUncle Sam: If It
Ends in .Com, ItÕs .Seizable,ÓWired, March 6, 2012. See
http://www.wired.com/threatl
evel/2012/03/feds-seize-fore
ign-sites/.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ24
Michael Geist, ÒAll Your Internets
Belong to US, Continued: The
Bodog.com Case,Ó
michaelgeist.ca, March 6, 2012.
See
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/c
ontent/view/6359/135/.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ25
Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey,
Rafal Rohozinski, Jonathan
Zittrain (eds.), Access Controlled:
The Shaping of Power, Rights,
and Rule in Cyberspace(Cambridge, Massachusetts: The
MIT Press, 2010), 6.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ26
Ibid., 11.

e-flux journal #37 Ñ september 2012 Ê Metahaven
Captives of the Cloud: Part IÊÊÊÊÊÊ1
Wael Ghonim, cited in Rebecca
MacKinnon, Consent of the
Networked: The Worldwide
Struggle for Internet Freedom(New York City: Basic Books,2012), xx.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ27
Ellen Nakashima, ÒA Story ofSurveillance,Ó The Washington
Post, November 7, 2007. See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/200
7/11/07/AR2007110700006.html.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ28
Ibid.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ29
Dan Levine, ÒUS Court Upholds
Telecom Immunity for
Surveillance,Ó Thomson Reuters,
December 29, 2011. See
http://newsandinsight.thomso
nreuters.com/Legal/News/2011/12__December/U_S__court_up
holds_telecom_immunity_for_s
urveillance/.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ30
Ronald Deibert et. al., AccessControlled, 381.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ31
Declan McCullagh, ÒFBI: We
Need Wiretap-Ready Web Sites
Ð Now,Ó CNET, May 4, 2012. See
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10
09_3-57428067-83/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites-now /.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ32
Geoff White, ÒÔBlack BoxesÕ to
Monitor All Internet and Phone
Data,Ó Channel 4, June 29, 2012.
See
http://www.channel4.com/news/black-boxes-to-monitor-allinternet-and-phone-data.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ33
Alex Wawro, ÒWhat Is Deep
Packet Inspection?,Ó PC World,
February 1, 2012. See
http://www.pcworld.com/artic
le/249137/what_is_deep_packet_inspection.html.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ34
Declan McCullagh, ÒReport:
Feds to Push for Net Encryption
Backdoors,Ó CNET, September
27, 2010. See
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31
921_3-20017671-281.html.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ35
See http://publicintelligence.ne
t/fbi-suspicious-activity-re
porting-flyers/.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ36ÒFacebookÕs Name Policy ÐFacebook Help Center,Ó
facebook.com. See
http://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=112146705538576&in_context.ÒGoogle+
Page and Profile Names Ð
Google+ Help,Ó plus.google.com.
See
http://support.google.com/pl
us/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1228271.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ37
Alexis Madrigal, ÒWhy Facebook
and GoogleÕs Concept of ÔReal
NamesÕ Is Revolutionary,Ó The
Atlantic, August 5, 2011. See
http://www.theatlantic.com/t
echnology/archive/2011/08/wh
y-facebook-and-googles-conce
pt-of-real-names-is-revoluti
onary/243171/.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ38ÒAmazon.com Help: Pen Names
and Real Names,Ó amazon.com.
See
http://www.amazon.com/gp/hel
p/customer/display.html?ie=U
TF8&nodeId=14279641.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ39
Mark T. Kieczorek, ÒAmazon Real
Name Badge,Ó Maktaw, July 23,
2004. See
http://www.marktaw.com/technology/AmazonRealNameBadge.ht
ml. Amy Harmon, ÒAmazon Glitch
Unmasks War Of Reviewers,Ó
New York Times, February 14,
2004. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/
02/14/us/amazon-glitch-unmas
ks-war-of-reviewers.html?pag
ewanted=3&src=pm.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ40
Declan McCullagh, ÒObama to
Hand Commerce Dept. Authority
over Cybersecurity ID,Ó CNET,
January 7, 2011. See
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31
921_3-20027800-281.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ41
Elizabeth Kolbert, ÒThe Things
People Say,Ó The New Yorker,
November 2, 2009.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ43
Cass R. Sunstein, Adrian
Vermeule, ÒConspiracy
Theories.Ó Harvard University
Law School Public Law & Legal
Theory Research Paper Series,
Paper No. 199,ÊUniversity of
Chicago Law School, 2008, 22.
SeeÊhttp://papers.ssrn.com/s
ol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ44
Michael Kan, ÒBeijing to Require
Users on Twitter-like Services toRegister With Real Names,Ó PC
World, December 16, 2011. See
http://www.pcworld.com/busin
esscenter/article/246360/bei
jing_to_require_users_on_twi
tterlike_services_to_registe
r_with_real_names.html?tk=rel_news.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ45
Michael Bristow, ÒChina Arrests
Over Coup Rumours,Ó BBC News,
March 31, 2012. See
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/wo
rld-asia-china-17570005.ÊDav id
Eimer, ÒChina Arrests Six Over
Coup Rumours,Ó The Telegraph,
March 31, 2012. See
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/n
ews/worldnews/asia/china/917
7717/China-arrests-six-overcoup-rumours.html.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ46
Shiv Malik, ÒFacebook Accusedof Removing ActivistsÕ Pages,Ó
The Guardian, April 29, 2012. See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/29/facebook-accused-removing-activists pages.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ47
Tim Bradshaw, ÒMark
Zuckerberg Friends David
Cameron,Ó Financial Times, June21, 2012. See
http://blogs.ft.com/tech-blo
g/2010/06/mark-zuckerberg-fr
iends-david-cameron/#axzz1yC
7waUhe.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ48
MacKinnon, Consent of the
Networked, xxii.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ49
ÒInternet Freedom.Ó The
prepared text of U.S. of
Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton's speech,
delivered at the Newseum in
Washington, D.C. Foreign Policy,
January 21, 2010.
SeeÊhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/21/int
ernet_freedom?page=0,2.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ51
See
http://www.internetfreedom.org/.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ52
See
http://www.Savetheinternet.c
om/.

14/14

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ42
Cass R. Sunstein, Republic.com
2.0, (Princeton and Oxford,
Princeton University Press,
2007), 44.

r_cold_war.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ53
Tim Wu, ÒNetwork Neutrality,
Broadband
Discrimination.ÓÊJournal of
Telecommunications and HighTechnology Law, Vol. 2, p. 141,
2003. See
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=38886
3.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ54
Joichi Ito, ÒWeblogs andEmergent Democracy.Ó See
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=38886
3.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ55
On a related note, cyberlaw
professor Jonathan Zittrain in2008 wrote The Future Of The
Internet Ð And How To Stop It, abook focusing on the rise of the
web's Òtethered appliances,Ó
which, like North Korean radio
sets, can be attuned to exclude
or disregard certain content, andare designed not to be tinkeredwith by their users. Zittrainargued that such closed service
appliances Ð emphatically
including design icons like iPods
and iPhones, for example Ðwould in fact contribute to stifle
the generative and innovative
capacity of the web. See
Jonathan Zittrain, The Future Of
The Internet Ð And How To Stop
It, New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 2008.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ56
Christina Bonnington andSpencer Ackerman, ÒApple
Rejects App That Tracks U.S.
Drone Strikes.Ó Wired, August 30,
2012. See
http://www.wired.com/dangerr
oom/2012/08/drone-app/.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ57
Nick Wingfield, ÒApple Rejects
App Tracking Drone Strikes.Ó
New York Times Blog, August 30,
2012. See
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/apple-rejects-a
pp-tracking-drone-strikes/.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ58
MacKinnon, ibid., 119.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ59
Gregg Keizer, ÒApple boots
WikiLeaks app from iPhone
store.Ó Computerworld,
December 21, 2010. See
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9201920/Apple_boo
ts_WikiLeaks_app_from_iPhone_store.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ50
Evgeny Morozov, ÒIs Hillary
Clinton launching a cyber Cold
War?Ó Foreign Policy Net.Effect,
January 21, 2010. See
http://neteffect.foreignpoli
cy.com/posts/2010/01/21/cybe

09.17.12 / 12:42:29 EDT

e-flux journal #37 Ñ september 2012 Ê Metahaven
Captives of the Cloud: Part ISeeÊhttp://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/
02/091102crbo_books_kolbert?
currentPage=all.