Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Great "street" hacker

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Great "street" hacker

    Tagging and Taggers suck, just like Tweak, and Tweakers do.

    xor
    Just because you can doesn't mean you should. This applies to making babies, hacking, and youtube videos.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Great "street" hacker

      Originally posted by xor View Post
      Tagging and Taggers suck
      at what point does tagging cross the line and become real art?

      when it serves a political context to speak out against oppression? you see a lot of that in Argentina... a place where remaining distrustful of the government is a healthy thing, given what those in power have routinely done to their citizens down there. Here's an example of powerful Argentinian stencil art and another stencil art piece. And, of course, Postering... regarding Julio López

      How about beautiful and amazing street murals like this one in Amsterdam or this one in Vienna.

      Then there's the mosaic guy who puts smiley, winky icons on the occasional building.

      I'm not saying any one of them has more or less "right" to exist or be put up... just that there's a wide and rich range of what can be called "art" and it's a very grey line for me regarding what constitutes vandalism and has no redeeming value. (separate from legality, the definition of "art" stands alone.)
      "I'll admit I had an OiNK account and frequented it quite often… What made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world's greatest record store… iTunes kind of feels like Sam Goody to me. I don't feel cool when I go there. I'm tired of seeing John Mayer's face pop up. I feel like I'm being hustled when I visit there, and I don't think their product is that great. DRM, low bit rate, etc... OiNK it existed because it filled a void of what people want."
      - Trent Reznor

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Great "street" hacker

        Originally posted by Deviant Ollam View Post
        but the issue about which i'm theorizing (and not supporting outright, people... for me this is just a fun mental exercise, and i love hearing all the varied opinions) is defined very narrowly: what if the public had the right to alter or change commercial speech as long as they weren't destroying or damaging property in the process?
        It is an interesting line of inquiry. My first thought would be something along the lines of:
        Originally posted by Ellen View Post
        Knowing that ads could be defaced, companies would participate. Done.
        If no other controls existed, I expect companies would regularly paper over competitors' advertisements, and would have a lot more manpower & organization to do so than street activists. Public feedback would either be lost in the noise of an advertising arms war, or it would be the only sensible signal.

        Assuming companies, and individuals with financial incentives, could be prevented from acting, I expect what would happen is companies would be a lot more careful about what they advertise, and they would iterate strategies faster based on feedback.

        One possibility, perhaps remote, is that it would open up new dialogs about institutionalized prejudices in our society.
        If a society has inherit biases that are reflected in advertisement, then specific instances could be publicly pointed out & shamed.
        I think of these bubble project photos, for example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28348930@N07/2706369013/
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/28348930@N07/2706363953/

        You would also get a lot of political statements unrelated to the original ad, like:
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/28348930@N07/2706363871/
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/28348930@N07/2706369523/

        Or, related to the content of the ad:
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/28348930@N07/2707183878/


        What I can't decide is if the total volume of advertising would increase, or decrease. Would it increase in an attempt to out-shout the public? or decrease in an attempt to be non-invasive enough to avoid defacement?
        Last edited by YenTheFirst; March 16, 2010, 19:14. Reason: grammatical fixes
        It's not stupid, it's advanced.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Great "street" hacker

          I think if it enhances peoples lives, and doesn't cause problems then its ok within a reasonable boundary. sometimes we get caught up too much in the bureaucracy of life to just enjoy things. If it does harm, beyond just annoying then its different. People worry its a gateway for bad graffiti, well that'll happen regardless.

          It's vandalism, it's art. but both of them have definitions that allow the outcomes to be different, and thats what ultimately matters.

          Work out a common ground, lifes too short and we're bombarded by crappy adverts selling us junk we dont need or care about all over the place, its a nice change to see something thats just art for arts sake, if thats what it is.

          At the least its something to think about, other than do i need another 5 blades on a razor, or a tongue scraper
          - Null Space Labs

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Great "street" hacker

            Clearly his work has a political agenda. If he made legitimate within the "system" attempts to change the law, well then I might be a little more willing to accept this as an act of civil disobedience. What he is doing is artistic, is it art, I'm not qualified to make that call. Is it illegal, yes, and I am qualified to make that call. Making a statement at the expense of the public, I feel there are better ways to enact change. There is a cost to the public to clean up his work.

            xor

            If he is signing his work, he would seem to me to be looking for fame and fortune, at the expensive of the public and the cause he is promoting. If he isn't signing the work, than it would seem to me that it's a more sincere statement about the cause, and less about his personal advancement.

            I hate to be cynical(no, not really) but a quick scan of his website seems to reveal more about his work(aka self promotion), than the so called anti-car culture cause he is suppose to be all about. I like driving, and I love cars. Cars are freedom, to quote Captain Jack Sparrow "Not just the Spanish Main, luv. The entire ocean. The entire wo'ld. Wherever we want to go, we'll go. That's what a ship is, you know. It's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs but what a ship is... what the Black Pearl really is... is freedom." So if you can't find Roadsworth, look under my tires.

            Tagging and taggers was more a statement about the ugly dirty self serving side of graffiti.
            Last edited by xor; March 16, 2010, 20:43.
            Just because you can doesn't mean you should. This applies to making babies, hacking, and youtube videos.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Great "street" hacker

              Originally posted by theprez98 View Post
              is this really any different than defacing a website?
              Originally posted by Deviant Ollam View Post
              yes. to deface a web site you, by definition, have to access a private and restricted system and commit computer trespass (or drop in a highly well-crafted automated script worm or something to an ISP's email)

              something like the Bubble Project (or much of Banksy's work, etc) can be performed by persons who are standing on public ground and never touching or interacting with anything other than the corporate speech that they are seeking to alter.
              Commercial speech is not afforded the same First Amendment protections as political speech, but it is protected nonetheless. That being said, a lawfully placed billboard or advertisement is protected speech. There is, however (along with political speech), no right to be heard, of course.

              I should have been more clear. I fully recognize that there are technical differences between defacing a website and defacing a billboard (as an example).

              Perhaps my question should have been: in the end result, method of defacement notwithstanding, is there any difference between defacing a website and defacing a billboard?

              Your point seems to suggest that the method of defacement is the only important distinction. Clearly, it does matter, to some extent. But the end result is also important. If graffiti is illegal, then it doesn't matter if you're standing in the public square; it's still illegal.
              "\x74\x68\x65\x70\x72\x65\x7a\x39\x38";

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Great "street" hacker

                Sounds to me like the argument is:
                a) It's against the law
                b) But it's cool
                a) That doesn't matter it's against the law
                b) ... but.. IT'S COOL

                Unless there's some funky provision for 'its illegal unless its cool' .. I don't think there's much he can argue, having confessed to performing the acts. Jury of his peers should be able to determine what that means in terms of level of offense.

                It's an odd space, because the reason for the harsh line is to defend property whether privately or publicly funded. The public safety argument is a little bullshit in this case, but if not for the discerning artist where does the line fall and who decides what is cool, tasteful, or safely implemented enough to have not broken the spirit of the law?

                On an artistic level this is pretty badass.
                if it gets me nowhere, I'll go there proud; and I'm gonna go there free.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Great "street" hacker

                  Originally posted by theprez98 View Post
                  is this really any different than defacing a website?
                  Now your starting to get where I'm going with this :)
                  Defacement's of huge websites, simple things like modifying logo's or adding flowers to the borders of the page. . .
                  IS that hacking . . . the law says yes.
                  Did it hurt anything . . . no.
                  Should it be illegal?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Great "street" hacker

                    Originally posted by Pyr0 View Post
                    Now your starting to get where I'm going with this :)
                    Defacement's of huge websites, simple things like modifying logo's or adding flowers to the borders of the page. . .
                    IS that hacking . . . the law says yes.
                    Did it hurt anything . . . no.
                    Should it be illegal?
                    Yes, because the law doesn't draw a line as to whether or not it hurt anything. The intrusion upon a system is the actual law being broken. You don't need to make a change to anything, just intrude.

                    Any change that is made, on the surface may not 'hurt' anything, but the company that still has a loss. Time lost on repairing the damage, time lost on finding how they got in, time lost on meetings on how to mitigate further intrusions. Time and money lost on legal fees consulting with attorneys on possible charges being pressed.
                    A third party security audit is the IT equivalent of a colonoscopy. It's long, intrusive, very uncomfortable, and when it's done, you'll have seen things you really didn't want to see, and you'll never forget that you've had one.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X