Media and Communication (ISSN: 2183-2439)

2015, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 77-87

Doi: 10.17645/mac.v3i2.281

Article
The Role of Hackers in Countering Surveillance and Promoting Democracy
Sebastian Kubitschko
Centre for Media, Communication and Information Research, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany;
E-Mail: [email protected]

Submitted: 1 April 2015 | In Revised Form: 25 June 2015 | Accepted: 23 July 2015 |
Published: 30 September 2015

Abstract
Practices related to media technologies and infrastructures (MTI) are an increasingly important part of democratic con-
stellations in general and of surveillance tactics in particular. This article does not seek to discuss surveillance per se,
but instead to open a new line of inquiry by presenting qualitative research on the Chaos Computer Club (CCC)—one of
the world’s largest and Europe’s oldest hacker organizations. Despite the longstanding conception of hacking as infused
with political significance, the scope and style of hackers’ engagement with emerging issues related to surveillance re-
mains poorly understood. The rationale of this paper is to examine the CCC as a civil society organization that counter-acts
contemporary assemblages of surveillance in two ways: first, by de-constructing existing technology and by supporting,
building, maintaining and using alternative media technologies and infrastructures that enable more secure and anony-
mous communication; and second, by articulating their expertise related to contemporary MTI to a wide range of audi-
ences, publics and actors. Highlighting the significance of “privacy” for the health of democracy, I argue that the hacker or-
ganization is co-determining “interstitial spaces within information processing practices” (Cohen, 2012, p. 1931), and by
doing so is acting on indispensable structural features of contemporary democratic constellations.

Keywords
big data; civil society organization; counter-power; democracy; hacker; locative media; media technologies and
infrastructures; participatory media; privacy; surveillance

Issue
This article is part of the special issue "Surveillance: Critical Analysis and Current Challenges", edited by James Schwoch
(Northwestern University, USA), John Laprise (Independent Researcher) and Ivory Mills (Northwestern University, USA).

© 2015 by the author; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu-
tion 4.0 International License (CC BY).

1. Introduction: A Brief Outline of the Current networked technologies also enable a wide range of
Surveillance Scenario agencies and institutions to exercise control at a dis-
tance as well as to collect, sort, analyze and exploit the
Over the past decade, we have witnessed a drastic in- tremendous amounts of data that accumulate across
tensification of both the spread and use of media tech- mediated interactions. In many cases, this has resulted
nologies and infrastructures (MTI). Education, work, in a “collect everything” approach that is generally un-
politics, consumption, and socialization are but a few derstood as surveillance; which, for now, is broadly de-
central spheres of life that are deeply infiltrated by dig- fined as attention that is “purposeful, routine, system-
itization today. Practices related to or oriented towards atic and focused attention paid to personal details, for
MTI penetrate people’s daily habits and routines to an the sake of control, entitlement, management, influ-
unprecedented degree. This ongoing process has al- ence, or protection”(Murakami et al., 2006, p. 4). Sur-
tered and, in many cases, multiplied people’s ability to veillance, according to David Lyon, connotes any “collec-
connect with each other, and has had a tremendous in- tion or processing of personal data, whether identifiable
fluence on the way people engage with the world at or not, for the purposes of influencing or managing
large (Couldry, 2012; Hepp, 2012). At the same time, those whose data have been garnered” (2001, p. 2). One

Media and Communication, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 77-87 77

could look at the past decades and list both the benefi- relationship between surveillance, privacy and the
cial and the problematic effects of technology. Yet, the health of contemporary democratic constellations. I ar-
story I want to tell in this article is somewhat more com- gue that hacker organizations like the Chaos Computer
plicated and tries to avoid making overly sharp fraction- Club are one among a range of actors that counter-act
ations. Steering a middle ground in the current discus- contemporary assemblages of surveillance and by doing
sion on surveillance is by no means an easy task to so act on indispensable structural features of democratic
perform as the debate is (over)loaded with accusations, constellations. To develop this argument, the article is
idealizations, and a generous portion of ideology. This is divided into three sections. In the first, I discuss three el-
particularly the case since Edward Snowden’s revela- ements—popular online platforms, locative media and
tions have expanded the notion of surveillance beyond a big data—that I consider determinative for contempo-
rather small expert discourse, and have instead cata- rary surveillance contexts, and then analyze the increas-
pulted the issue into the mainstream by increasing the ingly symbiotic relationship between government agen-
level of media, public and political debate. cies and corporations when it comes to surveillance
An accessible way to begin this analysis is to think tactics and practices. In the second section, I focus on
about the spaces and places we experience surveil- the notion of privacy and why it matters for democracy
lance first hand. Here, one might diagnose surveillance at large. Finally, I use these concepts to examine a quali-
as a phenomenon that is most pressing in urban envi- tative case study of the Chaos Computer Club.
ronments, as it is in the city and its surroundings where
the highest number of surveillance forms and modes 2. Online Platforms, Locative Media and Big Data
come together—video surveillance, license plate scan-
ners, airports screenings, surveillance satellites and Let me start by illuminating three elements that have
drones, as well as a number of other remote sensing intensified since the early 2000s and that have lastingly
and processing devices. Due to the invention and use influenced both the way people experience surveil-
of complex technical systems, it is no longer impossible lance as well as the way it is practiced. First, popular
to track and assess the simultaneous movements of online platforms. The past years have seen an unprec-
tens of thousands of people through a major city. In edented triumphal march of a range of platforms that
fact, as scholars have argued convincingly, the ever- are often referred to as “social media” (see van Dijck,
increasing surveillance in publicly accessible spaces, 2013). Considering the ambivalent evolution of the
such as shopping malls, city streets and places for pub- term—coming out of a business background—and the
lic transport, changes the ways in which power is exer- possible interpretation that all other media might be
cised in urban space (Koskela, 2000). As a conse- non- or even anti-social, I consider it more appropriate
quence, surveillance contributes to the production of to use the term popular online platforms (see Gillespie,
the urban. The city is without a doubt a telling example 2010) instead of social media. The main purpose of
that demonstrates that the intensification of digitaliza- these platforms is to enable and simplify networking
tion often goes along with the amplification of surveil- practices via mediated communication. To accomplish
lance (see Graham, 2004). Yet, as the above reference to their goal, they heavily rely on personal data shared by
contemporary MTI indicates, the “track record” of sur- the user. In accordance with this procedure scholars
veillance goes far beyond spatial and physical bounda- consider online “social networking” as a set of practic-
ries like urban environments. This, to acknowledge the es that are inherently based on self-surveillance (Fuchs
history of the debate, is not necessarily a new observa- et al., 2012). In addition, corporations make explicit use
tion as such. In his book on the impact of electronic da- of online platforms to monitor and discuss strategies
ta processing on personal privacy in the late 1960s, for responding to activists’ initiatives (Uldam, 2014). In
Jeremy Rosenberg stated that, “With the advance of fact, popular online platforms have become part of
technology, centralized data accumulation becomes people’s daily routines to such an extent that they have
easier, the reward for intrusion is increased, and con- become an imminent component of and an ideal envi-
trol shifts to still fewer people” (Rosenberg, 1969, p. 1). ronment for surveillance. This is not least the case be-
Yet, times have changed drastically. In particular, the cause a small number of centralized communication
convergence and pervasiveness of MTI that have been platforms are much easier to browse, analyze and gain
developed and disseminated over the past two decades, access to than decentralized infrastructures.
enable surveillance attention to be continuous, widely Second, locative media. With the transformation of
distributed, and persistent. Considering today’s vast mobile media from a communication tool into a multi-
(largely automated) computer power and the quasi- modal device accompanied by global positioning sys-
omnipresence of digital devices, the surveillance appa- tems enabling users to share information about one’s
ratuses that are currently in place, as well as those that whereabouts, locative media play a critical role in
are emerging and spreading, are historically distinctive. emerging modes of surveillance (Hjorth, 2013). Geotag-
In the following section, I will explicate what exactly ging, location search and detection services amplified by
makes our times distinctive by highlighting the delicate portable and wearable devices like smartphones, tablet

Media and Communication, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 77-87 78

computers and smartwatches create new forms of co- from disconnected from each other, but do inseparably
presence that disrupt old binaries between online and interact with each other when it comes to surveillance.
offline (Schwartz & Halegoua, 2014). The potential to One can take popular online platforms as one example
create new levels of surveillance is further enhanced by to explicate this entanglement. Given the enormous
the fact that locative media intersect with online plat- amount of interactions related to and oriented towards
forms in many ways because a growing number of ser- popular online platforms across the globe, these plat-
vices harvest their users’ location information. Taking in- forms are for the most part big data-driven media envi-
to account that it is exactly the way people use devices, ronments. At the same time, platforms today are in-
platforms and services that create unprecedentedly creasingly accessed via location-based applications and
large data bodies, scholars have argued that surveillance devices. One can therefore conclude that surveillance
to a large extent has become participatory (Al- as such is a big data endeavor (see Andrejevic & Gates,
brechtslund, 2008). One can sharpen this line of thought 2014; Tufekci, 2014). While the intimate relationship
by pointing out that the rhetoric of the participatory between technologies and surveillance goes at least
turn actively exempts surveillance from legal and social back to evidence-producing tools like photography and
control, resulting in a model of surveillance that is light, telephone (Lauer, 2011), the pervasive embeddedness
politically nimble, relatively impervious to regulatory of media technologies and infrastructures in almost
constraint and even casts surveillance in an unambigu- any spectrum of human life has introduced both a
ously progressive light (Cohen, 2015/forthcoming). Iron- qualitative and quantitative difference. This observa-
ically, then, so-called participatory media are intimate- tion echoes the principle that Shoshana Zuboff has
ly connected with surveillance. convincingly outlined in her seminal writing on the Age
Third, “big data”. Big data—a notion that not only of the Smart Machine: Everything that can be auto-
describes the sheer amount of data but also denotes mated will be automated; everything that can be in-
automated, software-based data gathering, manage- formated will be informated; every digital application
ment and analytic capabilities—is best considered the that can be used for surveillance and control will be used
missing piece to the puzzle called surveillance. After all, for surveillance and control (Zuboff, 1988). To avoid mis-
that is what surveillance is all about: solving a puzzle by conceptions about this article’s argument, it is important
bringing the fitting pieces consisting of data material to stress that technology neither emerges out of no-
together. Contemporary MTI allow for massive, latent where nor does it exist in a vacuum (Garfinkel, 2001).
data collection and sophisticated computational mod- More to the point, technology by itself does not practice
eling (Tufekci, 2014). As Andrejevic and Gates write surveillance; it is the actor—individual, collective, organ-
about the correlations of big data and surveillance: izational, institutional—using particular technologies and
“Even if the underlying goal of capturing information the policies that set the legal frame that condition sur-
for the pursuit of some form of advantage, leverage, or veillance. Accordingly, it is important to note that tech-
control remains constant, conventional understandings nology also incorporates the potential for empowering
of the operation of surveillance and its social conse- citizens, making government transparent, and broaden-
quences are being reconfigured by the ‘big data’ para- ing information access (Howard, 2015). Then again, tak-
digm” (Andrejevic & Gates, 2014, p. 185). Due to the ing into consideration recent developments, this is not
need to interrogate vast quantities of data in very short exactly the way things appear to evolve.
times, surveillance tactics and strategies today neces- To start with, governmental surveillance and the
sarily rely on automated data collection, data analysis, objective to monitor citizens have a long history (Be-
and database management to correlate personal be- niger, 1986). Not least since 9/11 and the declaration
havior, carve out relevant patterns and to extract of the “war on terror”, the desire of governmental
metadata. Accordingly, big data is not only reliant on al- agencies to monitor every possible communication
gorithms but also expands their regulatory power (see channel has further intensified. Based on the argument
Beer, 2009; Bucher, 2012). While algorithms have been that national security is at risk (Monahan, 2006), gov-
part of computing since the days of Turing, what we are ernments go as far as trying to make it legally binding
currently witnessing is the marriage of (big) data and al- for the tech-industry to install backdoors in their soft-
gorithms. One consequence of this convergence is the ware and hardware. For the same apparent reason,
intrusion of algorithms in everyday life, which aim to an- some democratic governments even aim to explicitly
alyze incredibly detailed physical, transactional, and be- counter anonymizing and cryptography services. In ear-
havioral data about people (Pasquale, 2015). Overall, big ly 2015, Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, for
data play a critical role in turning many aspects of peo- example, asked rhetorically: “[I]n our country, do we
ple’s daily life into computerized data, thus enabling ac- want to allow a means of communication between
tors that have adequate resources to carry out surveil- people…that we cannot read?”. Most people in sup-
lance on an unprecedented scale. port of liberal democracy and who believe in the right
It is understood that all three elements—popular of free expression would answer this question in the
online platforms, locative media and big data—are far affirmative. Cameron in contrast stated: “My answer to

Media and Communication, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 77-87 79

that question is: No, we must not. The first duty of any Scholars refer to these conditions as “surveillance capi-
government is to keep our country and our people talism” (Zuboff, 2015) to underline the substantial
safe” (see Temperton, 2015). Interestingly enough, in scope of contemporary dynamics.
his crypto anarchist manifesto Tim May already indi- What is critical to note is that government agencies
cates that “the State will of course try to slow or halt are important secondary beneficiaries of surveillance
the spread of this technology, citing national security capitalism as they routinely access and exploit flows of
concerns” (May, 1992). Here it is worth noting that data for their own purpose. In many cases govern-
“cryptographic techniques have been providing se- ments directly offload the surveillance responsibility
crecy of message content for thousands of years” onto private-sector operators, as is the case in teleph-
(Chaum, 1981, p. 84). Governmental discourses, as Da- ony and internet providers’ legal obligation to store da-
vid Barnard-Wills (2012) argues in his investigation of ta for a minimum period of time. Overall, the borders
surveillance in the United Kingdom, tend to privilege between surveillance tactics that rely on government
surveillance as a response to social problems. Tellingly, practices and those that rely on corporate activities be-
“predictive policing”, for example, is turning crime come more and more obsolete, establishing a symbi-
problems into a data problem. Most prominently otic public-private surveillance partnership. Not only
three-letter agencies across the globe have been busy are both camps drawing from the same interface and
developing new methods and tactics to gain access to information, but their practices also augment each
as much valuable information as possible. It is under- other. Again popular online platforms are one promi-
stood that in many cases these agencies collaborate nent example for this tendency as they reveal how in-
across national boundaries. Interestingly, when it dividual, institutional, market-based, security and intel-
comes to surveillance, the often stark differences be- ligence forms of surveillance co-exist with each other
tween democratic and authoritarian governments be- on the same site (Trottier, 2012). Surveillance is often
come more or less negligible (Gomez, 2004). Consider- illustrated as both a benefit for the development of
ing the concrete practices resulting out of such Western capitalism and the modern nation-state (Mu-
strategies it can be said that institutionalized politics rakami et al., 2006). As the Iranian-Canadian author
makes use of surveillance amongst others to monitor, and blogger Hossein Derakhshan stated after being re-
censor, classify, constraining free speech and even to leased from a six years incarceration in Evin prison:
put people in danger worldwide (Schneier, 2015). One “Being watched is something we all eventually have to
might even go as far as to state that the government’s get used to and live with and, sadly, it has nothing to
control of informational infrastructures that make its do with the country of our residence. Ironically
territory and population legible has been a feature of enough, states that cooperate with Facebook and Twit-
the modern state since its birth (Beyer & McKelvey, ter know much more about their citizens than those,
2015). All the same, the state is no longer the only or like Iran, where the state has a tight grip on the Inter-
most powerful actor in the field of surveillance. During net but does not have legal access to social media
the 1970s and 1980s, the general assumption was that companies” (Derakhshan, 2015). Corporate and gov-
privacy problems stemmed from the centralized con- ernmental actors alike—each for their very own rea-
trol of personal information held by governments in sons—develop, maintain and exploit complex infra-
discrete data banks (Bennett, 2008). Over the past two structures for collecting, storing, evaluating and putting
decades, an increasing amount of personal information to use huge amounts of data to ultimately construct an
has moved into corporate hands (see Whitaker, 1999). absolute information awareness.
More recently, corporations involved in the manufac- As the Snowden revelations have shown, surveil-
turing and establishing of MTI have forcefully entered lance often takes place without consent or agreement.
the field of surveillance as they have realized the mon- At the same time, fitting the notion of participatory
etary opportunities of data gathering, sorting, and pro- surveillance, scholars have stressed that much of sur-
cessing. In fact, with the rise of the data-capture indus- veillance is voluntary. To circumvent legal obstacles,
try, surveillance is becoming more and more privatized like the Fourth Amendment in the United States and
and commercialized (see Ball & Snider, 2013). Cell the European Union Data Protection Regulation, the
phone providers track their customers’ location and data-capture industry relies on so-called voluntary dis-
know whom you with. In-store and online buying be- closure of personal data; written into the terms and
haviors are constantly documented, and expose if cus- conditions that users constantly agree to without read-
tomers are sick, unemployed, or pregnant. E-mail ing the incomprehensible, small-type, multiple page-
communication and text messaging reveal sexual ori- long lists of rules. People actively participate in corpo-
entation as well as intimate and casual friendships. rate surveillance because it promises convenience and
Based on estimated income level, interests, and pur- rewards (Andrejevic, 2007). Millions of people wish to
chase decisions, data broker corporations use surveil- have their purchases tracked—and even complain
lance for personalized advertisements, news articles, when credit or supermarket affinity card transactions
search results and persuasion (Couldry & Turow, 2014). are missed—to accumulate frequent-flyer miles, loyalty

Media and Communication, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 77-87 80

discounts and other forms of “reward”. People to a matters when we think of the existing correlations be-
large degree accept the routine collection of their data tween MTI and the health of democratic constellations.
for the convenience of paying for a meal by credit card,
or paying for a toll with an electronic tag mounted on 3. Privacy and Why It Matters for Democracy at Large
their car (Garfinkel, 2001). As Simson Garfinkel puts is:
“It’s a simple bargain, albeit a Faustian one” (2001, p. The surveillance strategies and practices discussed pre-
5). Similarly, people willingly submit to government viously put into question our deeply rooted sense of
surveillance because it promises protection (Schneier, privacy. According to critical voices, privacy and datafi-
2015). One informative case of continual voluntary cation simply appear to be incompatible (Lane et al.,
self-surveillance is the quantified-self movement. While 2014). Again, it is vital to stress that “privacy-invasive
the earnest and geeky initiation of the “movement” by a technology does not exist in a vacuum” (Garfinkel,
group of technology evangelists was seeking better living 2001, p. 6). Taking into account the shifting field of ac-
through personalized control of data, commercial pro- tors involved in surveillance, Lane and her colleagues
viders have increasingly entered the scene. The empha- emphasize that data on human beings today are “less
sis has therefore moved away from control over data often held by organizations with traditional knowledge
towards the minutely quantified, intensively monitored, about how to protect privacy” (Lane et al., 2014, p. xi).
feedback-driven trajectories of self-improvement of The lack of privacy can become life threatening, for ex-
health, diet, and fitness, as well as work habits, sex life, ample in the case of journalists working in non- or
sleep patterns, and so on (Cohen, 2015/forthcoming). In pseudo-democratic countries. More generally, the lack
2014, Kolibree introduced a toothbrush that measures of privacy puts into question the health of democracy
brushing patterns that transmit data to your per se. Aggressive and wide-ranging forms of surveil-
smartphone to enable self-control as well as allow par- lance preemptively decimate the possibility of a “right
ents to monitor their children’s brushing. Also in 2014, to be let alone”, as Gabriella Coleman (2014) has ar-
for example, Generali—a German holding company con- gued by referring back to Louis Warren and Samuel
sisting of about 20 insurance companies—introduced a Brandeis’ (1890) classical conception. Warren and
new rate that allows customers to use an application to Brandeis, who were among the first to consider the ba-
track their behavior, which transmits data to the insur- sis of privacy law, defined protection of the private
ance company. In return, customers who have a “health- realm as the foundation of (individual) freedom. “Pri-
ier” lifestyle according to the company’s algorithmic vacy” is by all means a deeply contested phenomenon,
evaluation receive special concessions. as the discourse and concerns about privacy have var-
Bringing the above-said together, it is reasonable to ied over time and definitions strongly depend on varying
diagnose a strong tendency towards increased surveil- interests and agendas. All the same, researchers agree
lance as well as the intersection of different forms and that current and emerging technological developments
modes of surveillance. Surveillance—and its attendant in data processing pose serious challenges to societies as
apparatus, devices and systems—has become a central they destabilize the delicate balance between privacy,
dispositif of our time (Bauman & Lyon, 2013; Gane et security, autonomy and democratic rights.
al., 2007). Today information flows and data monitor- In this context, a helpful conception of privacy is
ing on a mass scale produce a “surveillant assemblage” the approach that privacy is the “claim of individuals,
(Haggerty & Ericson, 2000, pp. 614-615) that predomi- groups, or institutions to determine for themselves
nately serves the interests of powerful entities, both when, how and to what extent information about them
private and public. Accordingly, contemporary tenden- is communicated to others” (Westin, 1967, p. 7). Priva-
cies complicate common conceptualizations of surveil- cy, in other words, is something that every human be-
lance as discipline and control. Linking contemporary ing is in need of to some degree. To avoid misconcep-
surveillance apparatuses with totalitarian political sys- tion, it is important to note that privacy here is not
tems has become an oversimplified equation to make. understood as a reinforcement of liberal individualism,
“[T]he surveillance society is better thought of as the but as a phenomenon critical for societal arrangements
outcome of modern organizational practices, business- as a whole. In other words, the question for the rele-
es, government and the military than as a covert con- vance of privacy is framed in social terms and concep-
spiracy” (Murakami et al., 2006, p. 1). Considering the tualized as an explicitly political issue. In this context,
way things have developed over the past decades, it is Julie Cohen’s (2012) article on what privacy is for con-
reasonable to assume that the coming years will see tributes a rich set of arguments to the discussion. As
governments and corporations expanding their already she puts it: “Privacy shelters dynamic, emergent sub-
effective assemblages of surveillance. Yet, as will be ar- jectivity from the efforts of commercial and govern-
gued in the third section of this article, this does not ex- ment actors to render individuals and communities
clude the fact that other actors like civil society organiza- fixed, transparent, and predictable. It protects the situ-
tions counter-act current tendencies. Before I will ated practices of boundary management through
explicate this aspect, I will outline why all this actually which the capacity for self-determination develops”

Media and Communication, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 77-87 81

(Cohen, 2012, p. 1905). Accordingly, for Cohen, “free- quality of monitoring have changed drastically over the
dom from surveillance, whether public or private, is past decades. One not only witnesses increasing sur-
foundational to the practice of informed and reflective veillance and decreasing privacy, but also that current
citizenship. Privacy therefore is an indispensable struc- and emerging surveillance assemblages have funda-
tural feature of liberal democratic political systems” mentally altered people’s experience of and interac-
(Cohen, 2012, p. 1905). Conditions of diminished priva- tions with MTI. It is further reasonable to assume that
cy seriously weaken practices of citizenship as the lack of privacy is harmful materially, psychological-
“privacy isn’t just about hiding things. It’s about self- ly, socially, and politically. After taking into account the
possession, autonomy, and integrity” (Garfinkel, 2001, arguments of the above-mentioned scholars, it be-
p. 4). Seen from this perspective, privacy incursions not comes clear that discussing surveillance is also an ex-
only harm individuals’ capacity for democratic self- amination about the health of democratic constella-
government, but also jeopardize the continuing vitality tions. On a more theoretical level, one can distill that
of political and intellectual culture at large (Cohen, as surveillance merges into a corporate/government
2012, p. 1906). Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the joint venture and shifts towards a participatory phe-
World Wide Web, recently stated that the extension of nomenon, established conceptualizations of surveil-
surveillance powers translate into a “destruction of lance as discipline and control appear obsolete. So far,
human rights” (Katz, 2012). Ultimately, as Cohen re- the array of actors that researchers and journalists alike
marks, “A society that permits the unchecked ascend- have focused on are the state and the corporate sector
ancy of surveillance infrastructures cannot hope to re- as well as their consolidation (Ball & Snider, 2013; Be-
main a liberal democracy” (Cohen, 2012, p. 1912). In niger, 1986). Similarly, the worrying correlations be-
more practical terms, privacy plays important functions tween participatory media and surveillance have also
within democratic constellations by promoting, gained considerable scholarly interest (Albrechtslund,
amongst other things, the freedom of association, 2008; Fuchs et al., 2012). Likewise, writings discussing
shielding scholarship and science from unnecessary in- the societal relevance of whistleblowing and activists’
terference by government, permitting and protecting data leaks—both aspects that are connected to priva-
secret ballots, and by serving as a shield for those ac- cy—have emerged recently (Brevini et al., 2013). What
tors that operate to keep government accountable has been much less noticed and investigated, however,
(Westin, 1967). All in all, the politics around privacy are is the role played by actors who counter surveillance.
critical for the constitution of democracy. This is all the more astonishing, considering the fact
Let me now bring this conception of privacy into di- that due to all-encompassing surveillance, the question
alogue with the earlier-discussed elements concerning asking who is acting “against” surveillance is ever more
the pervasiveness of contemporary MTI that co- pressing. In his seminal warning about the steady slide
determines both people’s practice of and the capacity toward the surveillance society, Lyon (2001, pp. 131-
for citizenship. A large portion of participatory MTI to- 135) has argued that sustaining privacy depends less
day aim to turn people into predictable citizen- on mechanisms devised and implemented by elites,
consumers whose preferred modes of self determina- and more on the extent to which resistance to surveil-
tion play out along revenue-generating trajectories lance practices are enacted through movements and
(Dean, 2009). Along with the spread of MTI, public and organizations in civil society (see Bennett, 2008). To
private regimes of surveillance have become an ordi- discuss exactly this issue is the aim of the following sec-
nary and mundane process that in many cases narrows tion. Throughout the third part of this article, I will
critical citizenship and opportunity for it to flourish. therefore present findings from qualitative research
“Imbuing our networked information technologies with that has been conducted on the Chaos Computer Club
a different politics will require both the vision to appre- (CCC)—Europe’s largest and one of the world’s oldest
ciate privacy’s dynamism and the will to think creatively hacker organizations—from 2011–2014. The data pre-
about preserving it” (Cohen, 2012, p. 1933). By implica- sented in this article is based on 40 face-to-face inter-
tion, the widespread—if not even omnipresent— views, numerous participant observations at public
construction of systematic surveillance apparatuses fun- gatherings, hackerspaces, hacker conventions and pri-
damentally changes conceptions of what it means to be vate get-togethers as well as on a media analysis that
“visible” or “in public” (Haggerty & Ericson, 2006). This is took into account self-mediation, practices, media cov-
particularly highlighted by scholars that explore the erage and different forms and styles of media access. I
ways that exposure within surveillance assemblages af- aim to make a convincing argument that the CCC coun-
fects both identity and resistance (Ball, 2009). Privacy ter-acts contemporary surveillance assemblages in two
prevents the absolute politicizing of life and protects the ways: first, by de-constructing existing technology and
ability of actors to develop their identity as well as to by supporting, building, maintaining and using alterna-
voice their concerns freely across media environments. tive media technologies and infrastructures that enable
In summary, the literature on surveillance leaves us more secure and anonymous communication; and sec-
with the convincing argument that the quantity and ond, by articulating their expertise related to contem-

Media and Communication, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 77-87 82

porary MTI to a wide range of audiences, publics and rived from the German Datenschutz, entered the vo-
actors. The hacker organization here stands represent- cabulary of European experts in the 1960s and 1970s at
atively for a growing network of activists that feel am- about the same time as the notion of informational or
bivalent and uncomfortable towards the affordances of data privacy arose. Germany, in other words, can gener-
MTI to be used as a surveillance apparatus. ally be considered a surveillance aware nation. The no-
tion of Informationsselbstbestimmung (informational
4. Counter-Acting Surveillance Assemblages self-determination), for example, has constitutional sta-
tus in Germany. This example shows that hacktivism, as
Since the year of its foundation in 1981, the CCC con- hackers’ political engagement is generally entitled (see
siders itself a non-governmental, non-partisan, and Jordan & Taylor, 2004), does indeed include digital direct
voluntary based organization that is involved in fram- action (Coleman, 2014). Hacking in the case of the Fed-
ing media technologies and infrastructures as political eral Trojan means acting as a watchdog of governmental
phenomena relevant to society at large. The hacker or- agencies by uncovering surveillance tactics and practic-
ganization explicitly conceptualizes MTI as being em- es. By deconstructing the abstractness of a given tech-
bedded in complex power dynamics and act according- nology—surveillance software in this case—the CCC ma-
ly (Kubitschko, 2015a). After a brief identification terializes its formerly unrecognized political quality.
stage, the collective registered as a nonprofit organiza- Another principal set of hacker practices to coun-
tion in 1984 and started to promote their political en- ter-act surveillance assemblages is the CCC’s financial,
deavor of advancing more secure communication and social and technical support of infrastructural projects
information infrastructures more explicitly. In addition, that establish alternative information and communica-
as a registered lobby group, the Club advocates for tion environments. That is to say, the CCC aims to con-
more transparency in government, communication as a tribute to create (more or less) uncontrolled spaces
human right, and free access to communication and in- where the regulation of the state and the interests of
formation infrastructures for everyone. Colin Bennett corporations cannot intrude. Developing anonymous
(2008) has referred to these kinds of actors as privacy communication spaces for citizens has been a project
advocates that resist the spread of surveillance and in deeply embedded in hacker cultures for some time.
fact explicitly lists the Chaos Computer Club as a priva- The reasons and ideologies of so-called crypto-
cy advocacy organization. Ever since the late 1990s, the warriors, for example, differ, but they align in the de-
Club has seen an exponential rise of membership that sire and development of tools that might ensure to en-
today figures around 5500 members. To explicate the hance privacy (see Greenberg, 2012). In practice, this
argument that the hacker organization is acting on in- means that besides critically engaging with technologi-
dispensable structural features of contemporary demo- cal artifacts the CCC puts a lot of effort into building,
cratic constellations, this article will focus on the Club’s supporting and maintaining alternative infrastructures
engagement since the early 2000s. Focusing on a specific that enable more secure and anonymous ways of
time frame also allows us to concentrate on an episode communicating outside the realm of data-hungry, prof-
when the three above-mentioned elements—popular it-oriented assemblages. During the 2008 Beijing
online platforms, locative media and big data—were Olympics, for example, the Club provided a manual and
coming to life ever more prominently. matching tools enabling journalists and other interest-
To start with, the CCC, of course, does what one ed users to circumvent online censorship and surveil-
might primarily expect from a hacker organization: hack- lance by allowing people free access to information
ing. Yet, it is worth emphasizing that hacking can take and communication. At the time of research, the hack-
many different forms. In the context of the research pre- er organization was operating five Tor servers and was
sented here, hacking is understood as critical, creative, running one of the most used XMPP servers in the
reflective and subversive use of technology that allows world. The Onion Router (Tor) is an overlay network
creating new meanings. This kind of engagement goes that has its roots David Chaum’s (1981) notion of mix
back to the early days of the CCC and has intensified networks and is best considered a privacy enhancing
over the past decade. One of the recent example is the technology. More concretely, it is a client software that
CCC’s so-called Federal Trojan hack in 2011. By disclosing enhances online anonymity by directing internet traffic
governmental surveillance software that was used (un- through a volunteer network of special-purpose serv-
constitutionally) by German police forces, the Club ini- ers scattered around the globe. The Extensible Messag-
tiated a heated political debate about the entangle- ing and Presence Protocol (XMPP), formerly known as
ments of technological developments and state Jabber, is an open technology that includes applica-
surveillance in Germany. This was two years before the tions like instant messaging, multi-party chat, voice and
issue of surveillance gained global currency owing to video calls. “The right to privacy includes the right to
Snowden’s revelations about the US National Security anonymity. The only way to protect this right is to ex-
Agency (see Möller & Mollen, 2014). Here it is helpful to ercise it” (Garfinkel, 2001, p. 172). The two systems are
note that the notion of “data protection”, which is de- designed to protect people’s anonymity while browsing

Media and Communication, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 77-87 83

the internet and to conceal information from unwant- ways. The examples of Tor and XMPP also underline
ed listeners. The design of Tor and XMPP makes it diffi- the notion that hacking is best conceptualized as criti-
cult—and potentially even impossible—for govern- cal, creative, reflective and subversive use of technolo-
ments to seize the content or to eavesdrop on the gy that allows creating new meanings. In other words,
interactions. It is important to mention that Tor and the hacker organization’s practices related to technol-
XMPP might be considered alternative MTIs, but this ogy demonstrate a constructive way of countering sur-
does not necessarily imply that they are autonomous in veillance. By doing this, the CCC is part of a global net-
an absolute sense, as they still depend on the commer- work of activists that enable a large variety of people
cial internet backbone like cables and internet ex- to act with and through more secure MTI.
change points. At the same time, these are initiatives To expand on this line of thought, it is also interest-
that constitute serious alternatives to existing profit- ing to note that CCC’s engagement in relation to en-
driven online services highlighting that cryptography cryption and anonymizing services is double-sided. On
can be a powerful tool for controlling the unwanted the one hand, members use alternative technologies
spread of personalized information. The Club’s aim is and infrastructures for inward-oriented communica-
to set limits on surveillance assemblages by making tion. Since many activities—like the above-mentioned
anonymous access as the standard mode of operation Federal Trojan hack—need to be coordinated and take
across the network’s architecture. place “in secrecy”, the Club cannot rely on commercial
Tor is amongst others widely used by journalists platforms or other readily accessible services. From this
and human rights activists who feel the need to con- perspective, privacy is fundamental for the Club to
ceal their identity due to the drastic penalties that their practice their political activities. On the other hand, the
publications might imply in their home country. Simi- CCC brings its idea of free and secure communication
larly, most aspects of whistleblowing today would be to life through developing, supporting and maintaining
unimaginable without anonymizing services. Encryp- the mentioned alternatives for the larger public. Tor
tion is an effective way of avoiding feeding surveillance and XMPP enable people to exercise anonymity and to
assemblages with data. Some cryptography enthusiasts handle data flows about themselves. Surveillance
go as far as arguing that the technology is a silver bullet might indeed be “structurally asymmetrical” (An-
for achieving universal privacy, solving virtually all of drejevic & Gates, 2014, p. 192) as it is generally availa-
the problems posed by contemporary surveillance as- ble only to actors with access to and control over data
semblages. Tim May explains in his manifesto, which collection, data analysis, and database management.
he read at the first cypherpunk founding meeting in All the same, as the case of the CCC underlines, there
1992 in Silicon Valley, and later posted to the group’s are efforts to consciously and purposefully advance the
electronic mailing list: “Computer technology is on the cause of privacy protection. Accordingly, by acting on
verge of providing the ability for individuals and groups digital self-determination and the right to information-
to communicate and interact with each other in a total- al privacy the hacker organization is co-determining the
ly anonymous manner” (May, 1992). According to May, balance of privacy, security, autonomy and democratic
“crypto anarchy” would, among other things, “alter rights. The Club acts on creating what Warren and
completely the nature of government regulation,…the Brandeis (1890) called a “right of privacy” and—in
ability to keep information secret, and will even alter many ways echoing the belief of the two Boston law-
the nature of trust and reputation” (May, 1992). Yet, it yers—refuses to believe that privacy has to die for
is important to note that cryptography does not neces- technology to flourish. As a side effect, so to say, the
sarily protect privacy, but also protects information case study presented in this article shows the human
(Garfinkel, 2001). What cryptography does in the first face of technology as it explicitly demonstrates that
place is to guarantee the confidentiality of a given not machines but individual and collective human ac-
transmission, which is why it is widely used in online tors establish and maintain particular technologies.
banking and other confidential transactions today. While the over-whelming majority of contemporary
Nonetheless, when it comes to people’s day-to-day media environments is set up to gather, collect and
communication and interactions across media envi- manage big data, the CCC supports, builds, maintains
ronments, encryption is far from being a mass phe- and uses alternative media technologies and infrastruc-
nomenon. It requires the use of specific services and tures that are set up to respect privacy and to honor
precautions on the side of the users to avoid acci- autonomy. The initiatives that Club members originate
dentally disclosing their true identity. So, this article is and encourage are “interstitial spaces within infor-
not trying to argue that cryptography is the single best mation processing practices” (Cohen, 2012, p. 1931)
or only tool to counter surveillance. All the same, creat- that provide “breathing room for personal boundary
ing, supporting and maintaining alternative infrastruc- management” (Cohen, 2012, p. 1932) outside the
tures that enable more secure and private communica- realm of routine surveillance. Acting on surveillance as-
tion means to establish conditions under which ideas semblages therefore is based on critical, creative, re-
can be expressed, exchanged and circulated in new flective and subversive engagements with technology

Media and Communication, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 77-87 84

that allow creating new meanings. crete terms, the Club is counter-acting surveillance as-
Taken together what has been outlined so far, the semblages through direct digital action—de-constructing
Club’s modes of engagement with MTI can be consid- existing technology and supporting, building, maintain-
ered largely technical; which is to say that they require ing and using alternative media technologies and infra-
a high level of expertise (skills, knowledge and experi- structures—as well as publicly thematizing and prob-
ence) related to technology per se (Kubitschko, 2015b). lematizing the issue. By merging technically oriented
The hackers’ contestation of surveillance assemblages, operations and discursive activities, the hacker organi-
however, goes beyond “activism gone electronic” (Jor- zation brings forward a twofold strategy: On the one
dan & Taylor, 2004, p. 1), since CCC members also ar- hand, the hackers open up the possibility for people to
ticulate their expertise related to contemporary MTI to use privacy enhancing technology, and on the other
a wide range of audiences, publics and actors. They do hand, the CCC spreads awareness and knowledge re-
so by means of public gatherings, self-mediation, cov- lated to surveillance and privacy. Instead of exclusively
erage by mainstream media outlets as well as by inter- relying on cryptography and the science of secret
acting with institutional politics. Ever since the early communication, the Club practices a form of activism
1980s the CCC has organized public gatherings like the that acknowledges the relevance of counter-acting sur-
annual Chaos Communication Congress, which today veillance assemblages on different layers. Accordingly,
attracts more than 6000 visitors. Self-mediation prac- in addition to co-creating interstitial spaces for personal
tices include running individual websites and personal boundary management within information and commu-
blogs, creating radio shows and podcasts, as well as nication landscapes (Cohen, 2012), the hacker organiza-
posting their views on popular online platform ac- tion also takes part in shaping discursive spaces that es-
counts. At the same time, mainstream media not only tablish exchanges of knowledge, flows of information
increasingly cover the Club’s activities but also grant and new levels of awareness. Taken together, this
individual members—in particular the organization’s demonstrates that the CCC’s interventions in the do-
spokespersons—access to their outlets. Articulating mains of technology can therefore be conceptualized as
their expertise across media environments not only interventions in social and political domains.
gives the CCC a voice that is heard by a large number of
people, it also enables the hackers to raise awareness 5. Conclusions
and spread knowledge related to surveillance and oth-
er related issues where politics and technology collide. Following the quasi-omnipresent spread of media
This facet of articulation is particularly important be- technologies and infrastructures, surveillance has
cause being able to act on a given issue first of all pre- turned into a mundane practice enacted by a wide
conditions that one is aware of the existence and rele- range of entities. The approach taken in this article is
vance of the issue at hand. Spreading awareness and not to discuss surveillance per se, but instead to exam-
knowledge, in other words, is a precondition to enable ine how one of the world’s largest (and Europe’s old-
other people’s engagement. In addition to interacting est) hacker organizations is countering contemporary
with different audiences and publics, the hackers also surveillance assemblages. To do so, I have first illumi-
carry their standpoint to the realm of traditional cen- nated the correlations between online platforms, loca-
ters of power through advising senior politicians, legis- tive media and big data—three elements that have
lators and the constitutional court in Germany. At the lastingly influenced the way people experience surveil-
same time, articulation also includes legal measures. In lance and the way surveillance is practiced. Subse-
2014, together with the International League of Human quently, the article has explicated the growing inter-
Rights, the CCC filed criminal complaints against the section of governmental and private-sector efforts
German Government for its violation of the right to related to surveillance. Taking these expanding assem-
privacy and obstruction of justice by bearing and coop- blages of surveillance (see Haggerty & Ericson, 2000) as
erating with the electronic surveillance of German citi- a starting point of discussion, the line of argumentation
zens by foreign secret services. As matters stand, the followed Cohen’s concept that “freedom from surveil-
court proceeding is still taking place. No matter what lance, whether public or private, is foundational to the
the actual outcome will be, the complaint raised the practice of informed and reflective citizenship” (Cohen,
public’s attention towards governmental surveillance 2012, p. 1905). By presenting qualitative research on
practices. In fact, making their voice heard in the do- the Chaos Computer Club, the article illustrates the
main of institutionalized politics and gaining recogni- ways in which the hacker organization is acting on “an
tion of mainstream media outlets are two dynamics indispensable structural feature of liberal democratic
that perpetuate each other in interesting ways. political systems” (Cohen, 2012, p. 1905). More con-
In the case of the CCC, acting on the notion of pri- cretely, it has made clear that counter-acting surveil-
vacy does not only refer to doing “stuff” with technol- lance assemblages and establishing new regimes of
ogy but also the ability to actively deal with both the privacy is taking place through bringing together direct
functions and effects of technology. Put in more con- digital action and different forms of articulation. That is

Media and Communication, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 77-87 85

to say, the Club deconstructs existing technology as Beniger, J. (1986). The control revolution: Technological
well as supports, builds, maintains and uses alternative and economic origins of the information society.
media technologies and infrastructures. At the same Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
time, CCC members also spread knowledge and create Bennett, C. (2008). The privacy advocates: Resisting the
awareness towards issues related to surveillance and spread of surveillance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
privacy by articulating their “technical” expertise to a Beyer, J., & McKelvey, F. (2015). You are not welcome
wide range of audiences, publics and actors. According- among us: Pirates and the State. International Jour-
ly, it is argued that hacker organizations like the CCC nal of Communication, 9, 890-908.
provide an exemplary case study for highlighting the Brevini, B., Hintz, A., & McCurdy, P. (2013). Beyond Wik-
efforts of civil society organizations to counter-act con- iLeaks: Implications for the future of communica-
temporary surveillance assemblages that infiltrate tions, journalism and society. London: Palgrave
people’s everyday-life. Following the reasoning that Macmillan.
privacy is critical for democratic citizenship to flourish, Bucher, T. (2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic
the Club’s engagement can be considered a contribu- power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook.
tion to the formation of indispensable structural fea- New Media & Society, 14(7), 1164-1180.
tures of contemporary democratic constellations. Chaum, D. L. (1981). Untraceable electronic mail, return
addresses, and digital pseudonyms. Communications
Acknowledgments of the ACM, 24(2), 84-88.
Cohen, J. (2012). What privacy is for. Harvard Law Re-
The author would like to thank the highly valuable view, 126(7), 1904-1933.
feedback provided by the reviewers of this article. The Cohen, J. (2015/forthcoming). The surveillance-innovation
research presented in this article was made possible by complex: The irony of the participatory turn. In D.
a scholarship from Goldsmiths’ Media and Communica- Barney, G. Coleman, C. Ross, J. Sterne, & T. Tembeck
tion Department and the University of Bremen’s Crea- (Eds.), The participatory condition. Minneapolis: Uni-
tive Unit “Communicative Figurations” (funded within versity of Minnesota Press.
the frame of the Excellence Initiative by the German Coleman, G. (2014). Hacker, hoaxer, whistleblower, spy:
Federal and State Governments). I would also like to The many faces of anonymous. London: Verso.
thank Corey Schultz at the University of Southampton Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory
for improving the readability of this article. and digital media practice. Cambridge: Polity.
Couldry, N., & Turow, J. (2014). Advertising, big data and
Conflict of Interests the clearance of the public realm. International Jour-
nal of Communication, 8, 1710-1726.
The author declares no conflict of interests. Dean, J. (2009). Democracy and other neoliberal fanta-
sies: Communicative capitalism and left politics.
References Durham: Duke University Press.
Derakhshan, H. (2015, July 14). The web we have to
Albrechtslund, A. (2008). Online social networking as save. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/
participatory surveillance. First Monday, 13(3). matter/the-web-we-have-to-save-2eb1fe15a426
Andrejevic, M. (2007). iSpy: Surveillance and power in Fuchs, C., Boersma, K., & Albrechtslund, A. (2012). Inter-
the interactive era. Lawrence: University Press of net and surveillance: The challenges of web 2.0 and
Kansas. social media. London: Routledge.
Andrejevic, M., & Gates, K. (2014). Big data surveillance: Gane, N., Venn, C., & Hand, M. (2007). Ubiquitous sur-
Introduction. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 185-196. veillance: Interview with Katherine Hayles. Theory,
Ball, K. (2009). Exposure: Exploring the subject of surveil- Culture & Society, 24(7–8), 349-358.
lance. Information, Communication & Society, 12(5), Garfinkel, S. (2001). Database nation: The death of pri-
639-657. vacy in the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: O’Reilly.
Ball, K., & Snider, L. (2013). The surveillance-industrial Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of “platforms”. New Me-
complex: A political economy of surveillance. New dia & Society, 12(3), 347-364.
York: Routledge. Gomez, J. (2004). Dumbing down democracy: Trends in
Barnard-Wills, D. (2012). Surveillance and identity: Dis- internet regulation, surveillance and control in Asia.
course, subjectivity and the state. Aldershot: Ash- Pacific Journalism Review, 10(2), 130-150.
gate. Graham, S. (2004). The cybercities reader. London:
Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid surveillance. Cam- Routledge.
bridge: Polity. Greenberg, A. (2012). This machine kills secrets: How
Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participa- WikiLeakers, Cyberphunks, and Hacktivists aim to
tory web cultures and the technological unconscious. free the world’s information. New York: Dutton
New Media & Society, 11(6), 985-1002. Adult.

Media and Communication, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 77-87 86

Haggerty, K., & Ericson, R. (2000). The surveillant assem- Monahan, T. (2006). Surveillance and security: Techno-
blage. British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605-622. logical politics and power in everyday life. New York:
Haggerty, K., & Ericson, R. (2006). The new politics of Routledge.
surveillance and visibility. Toronto: University of To- Murakami, D., Ball, K., Lyon, D., Raab, C., Graham, S., &
ronto Press. Norris, C. (2006). A report on the surveillance socie-
Hepp, A. (2012). Cultures of mediatization. Cambridge: ty. Report for the UK Information Commissioner’s Of-
Polity. fice. Wilmslow: Surveillance Studies Network.
Hjorth, L. (2013). Relocating the mobile: A case study of Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret al-
locative media in Seoul, South Korea. Convergence, gorithms that control money and information. Cam-
19(2), 1-13. bridge: Harvard University Press.
Howard, P. (2015). Pax Technica: How the Internet of Rosenberg, J. (1969). The death of privacy. New York:
things may set us free or lock us up. New Haven: Yale Random House.
University Press. Schneier, B. (2015). Data and Goliath: The hidden battles
Jordan, T., & Taylor, P. (2004). Hacktivism and cyberwars: to collect your data and control your world. New
Rebels with a cause? New York: Routledge. York: W.W. Norton.
Katz, I. (2012, April 17). Tim Berners-Lee urges govern- Schwartz, R., & Halegoua, G. (2014). The spatial self: Lo-
ment to stop the snooping bill. The Guardian. Re- cation-based identity performance on social media.
trieved from theguardian.com/technology/2012/ New Media & Society, online first.
apr/17/tim-berners-lee-monitoring-internet Temperton, J. (2015, July 15). No U-turn: David Cameron
Koskela, H. (2000). “The gaze without eyes”: Video- still wants to break encryption. Wired. Retrieved
surveillance and the changing nature of urban space. from http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-
Progress in Human Geography, 24(2), 243-265. 2007/2015/cameron-ban-encryption-u-turn
Kubitschko, S. (2015a). Hacking politics: Civic struggles to Trottier, D. (2012). Social media as surveillance: Rethink-
politicize technologies. In E. Gordon & P. Mihailidis ing visibility in a converging world. Aldershot: Ash-
(Eds.), The civic media reader. Cambridge: MIT Press. gate.
Kubitschko, S. (2015b). Hackers’ media practices: Tufekci, Z. (2014). Engineering the public: Big data, sur-
Demonstrating and articulating expertise as inter- veillance and computational politics. First Monday,
locking arrangements. Convergence, 21(3), 388-402. 19(7).
Lane, J., Stodden, V., Bender, S., & Nissenbaum, H. Uldam, J. (2014). Corporate management of visibility
(2014). Editors’ introduction. In J. Lane, V. Stodden, and the fantasy of the post-political: Social media
S. Bender, & H. Nissenbaum (Eds.), Privacy, big data, and surveillance. New Media & Society, online first.
and the public good: Frameworks for engagement Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical
(pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. history of social media. Oxford: Oxford University
Lauer, J. (2011). Surveillance history and the history of Press.
new media: An evidential paradigm. New Media & Warren, S., & Brandeis, L. (1890). The right to privacy.
Society, 14(4), 566-582. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193-220.
Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance society: Monitoring every- Westin, A. (1967). Privacy and freedom. New York: Ath-
day life. Philadelphia: Open University. eneum.
May, T. (1992, November 22). The crypto anarchist man- Whitaker, R. (1999). The end of privacy: How total sur-
ifesto [Electronic mailing list message]. Retrieved veillance is becoming a reality. New York: The New
from http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto- Press.
anarchy.html Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The
Möller, J., & Mollen, A. (2014). The NSA in the German future of work and power. New York: Basic Books.
quality press. Paper presented at Multi-method- Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and
designs in Transnational and Transcultural Compara- the prospects of an information civilization. Journal
tive Research Workshop, Bremen. of Information Technology, 30, 75-89.

About the Author

Dr. Sebastian Kubitschko
Sebastian Kubitschko is a post-doctoral researcher at the Centre for Media, Communication and In-
formation Research (ZeMKI), University of Bremen, where he is a member of the interdisciplinary
Communicative Figurations network. His research focus is on how hacker organizations gain legitima-
cy and the ways they politicize contemporary technology. Sebastian holds a PhD from Goldsmiths,
University of London, and is the European Editor of Arena Magazine. Together with Anne Kaun he is
currently editing a volume on emerging methods in media and communication research.

Media and Communication, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 77-87 87