From 3de742c662f4a6f605669015850eac11e47d4749 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Nicol=C3=A1s=20Reynolds?= Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:31:19 -0300 Subject: [PATCH] dedicado a @maxpowergit --- hacklabs-y-hackerspaces.markdown | 1146 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 1146 insertions(+) create mode 100644 hacklabs-y-hackerspaces.markdown diff --git a/hacklabs-y-hackerspaces.markdown b/hacklabs-y-hackerspaces.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a6804fb --- /dev/null +++ b/hacklabs-y-hackerspaces.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,1146 @@ +http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-2/peer-reviewed-papers/hacklabs-and-hackerspaces/ + +· Hacklabs and hackerspaces – tracing two genealogies + +**Maxigas** + +1. Introduction +--------------- + +It seems very promising to chart the genealogy of hackerspaces from the +point of view of hacklabs, since the relationship between these scenes +have seldom been discussed and largely remains unreflected. A +methodological examination will highlight many interesting differences +and connections that can be useful for practitioners who seek to foster +and spread the hackerspace culture, as well as for academics who seek to +conceptualise and understand it. In particular, hackerspaces proved to +be a viral phenomenon which may have reached the height of its +popularity, and while a new wave of fablabs spring up, people like +Grenzfurthner and Schneider (2009) have started asking questions about +the direction of these movements. I would like to contribute to this +debate about the political direction and the political potentials of +hacklabs and hackerspaces with a comparative, critical, +historiographical paper. I am mostly interested in how these intertwined +networks of institutions and communities can escape the the capitalist +apparatus of capture, and how these potentialities are conditioned by a +historical embeddedness in various scenes and histories. + +Hacklabs manifest some of the same traits as hackerspaces, and, indeed, +many communities who are registered on hackerspaces.org identify +themselves as “hacklabs” as well. Furthermore, some registered groups +would not be considered to be a “real” hackerspace by most of the +others. In fact, there is a rich spectrum of terms and places with a +family resemblance such as “coworking spaces”, “innovation +laboratories”, “media labs”, “fab labs”, “makerspaces”, and so on. Not +all of these are even based on an existing community, but have been +founded by actors of the formal educational system or commercial sector. +It is impossible to clarify everything in the scope of a short article. +I will therefore only consider community-led hacklabs and hackerspaces +here. + +Despite the fact that these spaces share the same cultural heritage, +some of their ideological and historical roots are indeed different. +This results in a slightly different adoption of technologies and a +subtle divergence in their organisational models. Historically speaking, +hacklabs started in the middle of the 1990s and became widespread in the +first half of the 2000s. Hackerspaces started in the late 1990s and +became widespread in the second half of the 2000s. Ideologically +speaking, most hacklabs have been explicitly politicised as part of the +broader anarchist/autonomist scene, while hackerspaces, developing in +the libertarian sphere of influence around the Chaos Computer Club, are +not necessarily defining themselves as overtly political. While +practitioners in both scenes would consider their own activities as +oriented towards the liberation of technological knowledge and related +practices, the interpretations of what is meant by “liberty” diverges. +One concrete example of how these historical and ideological divergences +show up is to be found in the legal status of the spaces: while hacklabs +are often located in squatted buildings, hackerspaces are generally +rented. + +This paper is comprised of three distinct sections. The first two +sections draw up the historical and ideological genealogy of hacklabs +and hackerspaces. The third section brings together these findings in +order to reflect on the differences from a contemporary point of view. +While the genealogical sections are descriptive, the evaluation in the +last section is normative, asking how the differences identified in the +paper play out strategically from the point of view of creating +postcapitalist spaces, subjects and technologies. + +Note that at the moment the terms “hacklab” and “hackerspace” are used +largely synonymously. Contrary to prevailing categorisation, I use +hacklabs in their older (1990s) historical sense, in order to highlight +historical and ideological differences that result in a somewhat +different approach to technology. This is not linguistic nitpicking but +meant to allow a more nuanced understanding of the environments and +practices under consideration. The evolving meaning of these terms, +reflecting the social changes that have taken place, is recorded on +Wikipedia. The Hacklab article was created in 2006 (Wikipedia +contributors, 2010a), the Hackerspace article in 2008 (Wikipedia +contributors, 2011). In 2010, the content of the Hacklab article was +merged into the Hackerspaces article. This merger was based on the +rationale given on the corresponding discussion page (Wikipedia +contributors, 2010). A user by the name “Anarkitekt” wrote that “I’ve +never heard or read anything implying that there is an ideological +difference between the terms hackerspace and hacklab” (Wikipedia +contributors, 2010b). Thus the treatment of the topic by Wikipedians +supports my claim that the proliferation of hackerspaces went hand in +hand with a forgetting of the history that I am setting out to +recapitulate here. + +![](http://peerproduction.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/figure1Maxigas8.jpg) + +Figure 1. Survey of domain registrations of the hacklabs list from +hacklabs.org + +2. Hacklabs +----------- + +The surge of hacklabs can be attributed to a number of factors. In order +to sketch out their genealogy, two contexts will be expanded on here: +the autonomous movement and media activism. A shortened and simplified +account of these two histories are given that emphasises elements that +are important from the point of view of the emergence of hacklabs. The +hacker culture, of no less importance, will be treated in the next +section in more detail. A definition from a seminal article by Simon +Yuill highlights the basic rationales behind these initiatives (2008): + +“Hacklabs are, mostly, voluntary-run spaces providing free public access +to computers and internet. They generally make use of reclaimed and +recycled machines running GNU/Linux, and alongside providing computer +access, most hacklabs run workshops in a range of topics from basic +computer use and installing GNU/Linux software, to programming, +electronics, and independent (or pirate) radio broadcast. The first +hacklabs developed in Europe, often coming out of the traditions of +squatted social centres and community media labs. In Italy they have +been connected with the autonomist social centres, and in Spain, +Germany, and the Netherlands with anarchist squatting movements.” + +The autonomous movement grew out of the “cultural shock” (Wallerstein, +2004) of 1968 which included a new wave of contestations against +capitalism, both in its welfare state form and in its Eastern +manifestation as “bureaucratic capitalism” (Debord [1970], 1977). It was +concurrently linked to the rise of youth subcultures. It was mainly +oriented towards mass direct action and the establishment of initiatives +that sought to provide an alternative to the institutions operated by +state and capital. Its crucial formal characteristic was +self-organisation emphasising the horizontal distribution of power. In +the 1970s, the autonomous movement played a role in the politics of +Italy, Germany and France (in order of importance) and to a lesser +extent in other European countries like Greece (Wright, 2002). The +theoretical basis is that the working class (and later the oppressed in +general) can be an independent historical actor in the face of state and +capital, building its own power structures through self-valorisation and +appropriation. It drew from orthodox Marxism, left-communism and +anarchism, both in theoretical terms and in terms of a historical +continuity and direct contact between these other movements. The rise +and fall of left wing terrorist organisations, which emerged from a +similar milieu (like the RAF in Germany or the Red Brigade in Italy), +has marked a break in the history of the autonomous movements. +Afterwards they became less coherent and more heterogenous. Two specific +practices that were established by autonomists are squatting and media +activism (Lotringer Marazzi, 2007). + +The reappropriation of physical places and real estate has a much longer +history than the autonomous movement. Sometimes, as in the case of the +pirate settlements described by Hakim Bey (1995,, 2003), these places +have evolved into sites for alternative “forms of life” (Agamben, 1998). +The housing shortage after the Second World War resulted in a wave of +occupations in the United Kingdom (Hinton, 1988) which necessarily took +on a political character and produced community experiences. However, +the specificity of squatting lay in the strategy of taking occupied +houses as a point of departure for the reinvention of all spheres of +life while confronting authorities and the “establishment” more +generally conceived. While many houses served as private homes, +concentrating on experimenting with alternative life styles or simply +satisfying basic needs, others opted to play a public role in urban +life. The latter are called “social centres”. A social centre would +provide space for initiatives that sought to establish an alternative to +official institutions. For example, the infoshop would be an alternative +information desk, library and archive, while the bicycle kitchen would +be an alternative to bike shops and bike repair shops. These two +examples show that among the various institutions to be replaced, both +those operated by state and capital were included. On the other hand, +both temporary and more or less permanently occupied spaces served as +bases, and sometimes as front lines, of an array of protest activities. + +With the onset of neoliberalism (Harvey, 2005; 2007), squatters had to +fight hard for their territory, resulting in the “squat wars” of the +90s. The stake of these clashes that often saw whole streets under +blockade was to force the state and capital to recognise squatting as a +more or less legitimate social practice. While trespassing and breaking +in to private property remained illegal, occupiers received at least +temporary legal protection and disputes had to be resolved in court, +often taking a long time to conclude. Squatting proliferated in the +resulting ”grey area”. Enforcement practices, squatting laws and +frameworks were established in the UK, Catalonia, Netherlands and +Germany. Some of the more powerful occupied social centres (like the EKH +in Vienna) and a handful of strong scenes in certain cities (like +Barcelona) managed to secure their existence into the first decade of +the 21^st^twenty first century. Recent years saw a series of crackdowns +on the last remaining popular squatting locations such as the +abolishment of laws protecting squatters in the Netherlands (Usher,, +2010) and discussion of the same in the UK (House of Commons,, 2010). + +Media activism developed along similar lines, building on a long +tradition of independent publishing. Adrian Jones (2009) argues for a +structural but also historical continuity in the pirate radio practices +of the 1960s and contemporary copyright conflicts epitomised by the +Pirate Bay. On the strictly activist front, one important early +contribution was Radio Alice (est., 1976) which emerged from the the +autonomist scene of Bologna (Berardi Mecchia, 2007). Pirate radio and +its reformist counterparts, community radio stations, flourished ever +since. Reclaiming the radio frequency was only the first step, however. +As Dee Dee Halleck explains, media activists soon made use of the +consumer electronic products such as camcorders that became available on +the market from the late 80s onwards. They organised production in +collectives such as Paper Tiger Television and distribution in +grassroots initiatives such as Deep Dish TV which focused on satellite +air time (Halleck, 1998). The next logical step was information and +communication technologies such as the personal computer — appearing on +the market at the same time. It was different from the camcorder in the +sense that it was a general purpose information processing tool. With +the combination of commercially available Internet access, it changed +the landscape of political advocacy and organising practices. At the +forefront of developing theory and practice around the new communication +technologies was the Critical Art Ensemble. It started with video works +in 1986, but then moved on to the use of other emerging technologies +(Critical Art Ensemble, 2000). Although they have published exclusively +Internet-based works like *Diseases of the Consciousness* (1997), their +*tactical media* approach emphasises the use of the right tool for the +right job. In 2002 they organised a workshop in New York’s Eyebeam, +which belongs to the wider hackerspace scene. New media activists played +an integral part in the emergence of the alterglobalisation movement, +establishing the Indymedia network. Indymedia is comprised of local +Independent Media Centres and a global infrastructure holding it +together (Morris 2004 gives a fair description). Focusing on open +publishing as an editorial principle, the initiative quickly united and +involved so many activists that it became one of the most recognised +brands of the alterglobalisation movement, only slowly falling into +irrelevance around the end of the decade. More or less in parallel with +this development, the telestreet movement was spearheaded by Franco +Berardi, also known as Bifo, who was also involved in Radio Alice, +mentioned above. OrfeoTv was started in 2002 and used modified +consumer-grade television receivers for pirate television broadcast (see +Telestreet, the Italian Media Jacking Movement, 2005). Although the +telestreet initiative happened on a much smaller scale than the other +developments outlined above, it is noteworthy because telestreet +operators reverse-engineered mass products in the same manner as +hardware hackers do. + +Taking a cue from Situationism with its principal idea of making +interventions in the communication flow as its point of departure, the +media activists sought to expand what they called “culture jamming” into +a popular practice by emphasising a folkloristic element (Critical Art +Ensemble, 2001). Similarly to the proletarian educational initiatives of +the classical workers’ movements (for example Burgmann 2005:8 on +Proletarian Schools), such an approach brought to the fore issues of +access, frequency regulations, popular education, editorial policies and +mass creativity, all of which pointed in the direction of lowering the +barriers of participation for cultural and technological production in +tandem with establishing a distributed communication infrastructure for +anticapitalist organising. Many media activists adhered to some version +of Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony, taking the stand that cultural +and educational work is as important as directly challenging property +relations. Indeed, this work was seen as in continuation with +overturning those property relations in the area of media, culture and +technology. This tendency to stress the importance of information for +the mechanism of social change was further strengthened by claims +popularised by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri that immaterial and +linguistic labour are the hegemonic mode of production in the +contemporary configuration of capitalism (2002, 2004). At the extreme +end of this spectrum, some argued that decisive elements of politics +depend on a performance of representation, often technologically +mediated, placing media activism at the centre of the struggle against +state and capitalism. Irrespectivly of these ideological beliefs, +however, what distinguished the media practitioners in terms of identity +is that they did not see themselves simply as outsiders or service +providers, but as an integral part of a social movement. As Söderberg +demonstrates (2011), political convictions of a user community can be an +often overlooked enabler of technological creativity. + +These two intertwined tendencies came together in the creation of +hacklabs. Squats, on the one hand, closely embedded in the urban flows +of life, had to use communication infrastructures such as Internet +access and public access to terminals. Media activists, on the other +hand, who are more often than not also grounded in a a local community, +needed venues to convene, produce, teach and learn. As Marion Hamm +observes when discussing how physical and virtual spaces enmeshed due to +the activists’ use of electronic media communication: “This practice is +not a virtual reality as it was imagined in the eighties as a graphical +simulation of reality. It takes place at the keyboard just as much as in +the technicians’ workshops, on the streets and in the temporary media +centres, in tents, in socio-cultural centres and squatted houses.” +(Translated by Aileen Derieg,, 2003). One example of how these lines +converge is the Ultralab in Forte Prenestino, an occupied fortress in +Rome which is also renowned for its autonomous politics in Italy. The +Ultralab is declared to be an “emergent pattern” on its website +(AvANa.net, 2005), bringing together various technological needs of the +communities supported by the Forte. The users of the social centre have +a shared need for a local area computer network that connects the +various spaces in the squat, for hosting server computers with the +websites and mailing lists of the local groups, for installing and +maintaining public access terminals, for having office space for the +graphics and press teams, and finally for having a gathering space for +the sharing of knowledge. The point of departure for this development +was the server room of AvANa, which started as a bulletin board system +(BBS), that is, a dial-in message board in 1994 (Bazichelli 2008:80-81). +As video activist Agnese Trocchi remembers, + +“AvANa BBS was spreading the concept of Subversive Thelematic: right to +anonymity, access for all and digital democracy. AvANa BBs was +physically located in Forte Prenestino the older and bigger squatted +space in Rome. So at the end of the 1990’s I found myself working with +technology and the imaginative space that it was opening in the young +and angry minds of communities of squatters, activist and ravers.” +(quoted in Willemsen, 2006) + +AvANa and Forte Prenestino connected to the European Counter Network +(now at ecn.org), which linked several occupied social centres in Italy, +providing secure communication channels and resilient electronic public +presence to antifascist groups, the Disobbedienti movement, and other +groups affiliated with the autonomous and squatting scenes. Locating the +nodes inside squats had their own drawbacks, but also provided a certain +level of physical and political protection from the authorities. + +Another, more recent example is the short lived Hackney Crack House, a +hacklab located on 195 Mare Street in London. This squat situated in an +early Georgian house was comprised of a theatre building, a bar, two +stores of living spaces and a basement that housed a bicycle workshop +and a studio space (see Foti, 2010). The hacklab provided a local area +network and a media server for the house, and served as a tinkering +space for the technologically inclined. During events like the Free +School, participants, including both absolute beginners and more +dedicated hobbyists, could learn to use free and open source +technologies, network security and penetration testing. Everyday +activities ranged from fixing broken electronics through building +large-scale mixed media installations to playing computer games. + +The descriptions given above serve to indicate how hacklabs grew out of +the needs and aspirations of squatters and media activists. This history +comes with a number of consequences. Firstly, that the hacklabs fitted +organically into the anti-institutional ethos cultivated by people in +the autonomous spaces. Secondly, they were embedded in the political +regime of these spaces, and were subject to the same forms of frail +political sovereignty that such projects develop. Both Forte Prenestino +and Mare Street had written and unwritten conducts of behaviour which +users were expected to follow. The latter squat had an actively +advertised Safer Places Policy, stating for instance that people who +exhibit sexist, racist, or authoritive behaviour should expect to be +challenged and, if necessary, excluded. Thirdly, the politicised logic +of squatting, and more specifically the ideology behind appropriative +anarchism, had its consequences too. A social centre is designated to be +a public institution whose legitimacy rests on serving its audience and +neighbourhood, if possibly better than the local authorities do, by +which the risk of eviction is somewhat reduced . Lastly, the state of +occupation fosters a milieu of complicity. Consequently, certain forms +of illegality are seen as at least necessary, or sometimes even as +desirable. These factors are crucial for understanding the differences +between hacklabs and hackerspaces, to be discussed in Section 3. + +A rudimentary survey based on website registrations (see Figure 1. in +the appendix), desktop research and interviews shows that the first +hacklabs were established in the decade around the turn of the +millennium (1995-2005). Their concentration to South Europe has been +underlined by the organisation of yearly Hackmeetings in Italy, starting +in 1998. The Hackmeeting is a gathering where practitioners can exchange +knowledge, present their work, and enjoy the company of each other. In +North Europe plug’n’politix, hosted first by Egocity (a squatted +Internet cafe in Zurich, Switzerland) provided a meeting point for +like-minded projects in 2001. A network by the same name was established +and a second meeting followed in 2004 in Barcelona. In the meantime, +Hacklabs.org (defunct since, 2006) was set up in 2002 to maintain a list +of hacklabs, dead or alive, and provide news and basic information about +the movement. A review of the advertised activities of hacklabs show +workshops organised around topics like free software development, +security and anonymity, electronic art and media production. + +The activities of Print, a hacklab located in a squat in Dijon which is +called Les Tanneries, show the kinds of contributions that came out of +these places. People active in Print have maintained a computer lab with +free Internet access for visitors to the social centre, and a collection +of old hardware parts that individuals could use to build their own +computers. They have organised events of various sizes (from a couple of +people to a thousand) related to free software, like a party for fixing +the last bugs in the upcoming release of the Debian GNU/Linux operating +system. Furthermore, they have provided network support and distributed +computers with Internet access at a European gathering of Peoples’ +Global Action, a world-wide gathering of grassroots activists connected +to the alterglobalisation movement. In a similar vein, they have staged +various protests in the city calling attention to issues related to +state surveillance and copyright legislations. These actions have built +on a tradition of setting up artistic installations in various places in +and around the building, the most striking example being the huge +graffiti on the firewall spelling out “apt-get install anarchism”. It is +a practical joke on how programs are set up on Debian systems, so +practical that it actually works. + +Another example from South Europe is Riereta in Barcelona, a hacklab +occupying a separate building that hosts a radio studio ran by women. +The activities there gravitate around the three axes of free software, +technology, and artistic creativity. However, as a testimony of the +influence from media activism, most projects and events are concentrated +on media production, such as real time audio and video processing, +broadcasting and campaigning against copyright and other restrictions to +free distribution of information. The list of examples could easily be +made longer, demonstrating that most hacklabs share similar ideas and +practicesand maintains links with alterglobalisation politics, occupied +spaces and (new) media activism. + +To summarise, due to their historical situatedness in anticapitalist +movements and the barriers of access to the contemporary communication +infrastructure, hacklabs tended to focus on the adoption of computer +networks and media technologies for political uses, spreading access to +dispossesed and championing folk creativity. + +3. Hackerspaces +--------------- + +It is probably safe to state that hackerspaces are at the height of +their popularity at the moment. As mentioned in the introduction, many +different institutions and initiatives are now calling themselves +“hackerspaces”. At least in Europe, there is a core of more or less +community-led projects that define themselves as hackerspaces. The case +of hacklabs have already been described, but it is merely one example +from the extreme end of the political spectrum. There are a number of +more variations populating the world, such as fablabs, makerlabs, +telecottages, medialabs, innovation labs and co-working spaces. What +distinguishes the last two from the others (and possibly also from +fablabs) is that they are set up in the context of an institution, be +that a university, a company or a foundation. More often than not , +their mission is to foster innovation. Such spaces tend to focus on +concrete results like research projects or commercial products. +Telecottages and telehouses occupy the middle of the range- They are +typically seeded from development funds to improve local social and +economic conditions through ICTs. Even makerlabs are sometimes +commercial ventures (like Fablab in Budapest, not to be confused with +the Hungarian Autonomous Centre for Knowledge mentioned above), based on +the idea of providing access to tools for companies and individuals as a +service. Fablabs may be the next generation of the hackerspace +evolution, focusing on manufacturing of custom built objects. It is +framed as a re-imagining of the factory with inspiration from the peer +production model (MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, 2007). What sets +hackerspaces apart — along with most fablabs — is that they are set up +by hackers for hackers with the principal mission of supporting hacking. + +This is therefore the right point in the paper to dwelve on the social +and historical phenomena of hacking. This is not to say that hacklabs — +as is indicated by their name — would be less involved in and inspired +by the hacker tradition. A separate study could be devoted to these two +movements’ embeddedness in the free software movement. However, since +both movements are contributing to an equal extent but in different +ways, this aspect will not be elaborated here at length as the contrast +would be more difficult to tease out. It is hence assumed that much of +what is said here about hacker culture and its influence on the +hackerspace movement applies equally to hacklabs. + +The beginnings of the hacker subculture are well-documented. +Interestingly, it also starts in the 1960s and spreads out in the 1970s, +much like the history of the autonomous movement. Indeed, in a sense it +can be considered as one of the youth subcultures which Wallerstein +attributes to the “cultural shock” of 1968 (2004). In order not to be +lost in the mythology, the story will be kept brief and schematic. One +hotbed seems to have been the university culture epitomised by the MIT +Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and cultivated in half a dozen other +research institutes around the USA. Another one was the phreaker scene +that found its expression in the Yippie spinoff magazine TAP. While the +former were working on engineering breakthroughs such as early computers +and operating systems, as well as on networks precursoring the Internet, +the latter were doing the opposite: reverse-engineering information and +communication technologies, which mainly meant telephone networks at the +time. In 1984 ATT was broken into smaller companies — the Baby Bells, +but not before important parts of the network had been shut down by +phreakers (Slatalla Quittner 1995, Sterling, 1992). The same year saw +the last issue of TAP and the first issue of the still active 2600 +magazine. The university culture was preserved in the *Jargon File* in +1975 which is still maintained (Steele Raymond, 1996). It was the +inventor of cyberpunk, William Gibson, popularised the term cyberspace +in his novel Neuromancer. He thus inspired the cyberpunk subculture +which gave a complete — if not “real” — Weltanschauung to hacker +culture. The idea of a dark future where freedom is found on the fringes +and corporations rule the world spoke to both the university hackers and +the phreakers. The stars of the phreaking underground had been +persecuted by law authorities for their pranks on the communication +giants, while Richard Stallman — “the last of the [first generation of] +true hackers” (Levy [1984], 2001) — invented free software in 1983 and +set out to fight the increasing privatisation of knowledge by +corporations, as could then be seen in the expansion of copyright claims +to software, the spread of non-disclosure agreements, and the +mushrooming of start-up companies. + +The history of the hacker movement in Europe has been less well +documented. An important instance is the Chaos Computer Club which was +founded in 1981 by Wau Holland and others sitting in the editorial room +of the taz paper in the building of Kommune I., a famous autonomous +squat (Anon, 2008:85). The Chaos Computer Club entered into the +limelight in 1984. Hackers belonging to the club had wired themselves +134,000 Deutsche Marks through the national videotex system, called +Bildschirmtext or BTX. The Post Office had practical monopoly on the +market with this obsolete product, and claimed to maintain a secure +network even after it had been notified about the exploit. The money was +returned the next day in front of the press. This began the Club’s +tumultuous relationship with the German government that lasts until +today. + +In their study of the hacker culture, Gabriella Coleman and Alex Golub +have argued that as far as it hangs together, this subculture manifests +an innovative yet historically determined version of liberalism, while +in its manifold trends it expresses and exploits some of the +contradictions inherent to the same political tradition (2008). They +concentrate on three currents of hacker practice: cryptofreedom, free +and open source software, and the hacker underground. However, they do +not claim that these categories would exhaust the richness of hacker +culture. On the contrary, in a review article in the Atlantic, Coleman +(2010) explicitly mentions that the information security scene has been +underrepresented in the literature about hackers. The three tendencies +identified in their text differ slightly from the classification I am +suggesting here. Stallman’s legal invention and technical project +cemented free software as one pillar of hackerdom for the coming +decades. The exploits of the phreakers opened a way for the hacker +underground where its initial playfulness developed in two directions, +towards profit or politics. + +In Europe, the stance of the Chaos Computer Club paved the way for +independent information security research. Admittedly, all of those +approaches concentrated on a specific interpretation of individual +freedom, one which understands freedom as a question of knowledge. +Moreover, this knowledge is understood to be produced and circulated in +a network of humans and computers — in direct contrast to the version of +liberalism associated with romantic individualism, as Coleman and Golub +observes. Therefore, this is a technologically informed antihumanist +liberalism. Hackers carve out different positions within these +parameters that sometimes complement and sometimes contradict each +other. The free software community sees the universal access to +knowledge as the essential condition of freedom. The hacker underground +wields knowledge to ensure the freedom of an individual or a faction. +“Gray hat” information security experts see full disclosure as the best +way to ensure the stability of the infrastructure, and thus the freedom +of communication. Full disclosure refers to the practice of releasing +information and tools revealing security flaws to the public. This idea +goes back to the tradition of 19th century locksmiths, who maintained +that the best locks are built on widely understood principles instead of +secrets: the only secret, to be kept private, should be the key itself +(Hobbs, Tomlinson Fenby [1853] 1868:2 cited in Blaze 2003 as well as +Cheswick, Bellovin Rubin 2003:120). The idea that freedom depends on +knowledge and, in turn, knowledge depends on freedom, is articulated in +the hackers aphorism attributed to Stewart Brand: “Information wants to +be free.” (Clarke, 2001). + +During the course of the 1990s the hacker world saw the setting up of +institutions that have been in place up until now. From all three +sub-traditions mentioned above have grown distinct industries, catering +to fully employed professionals, precarious workers, and enthusiasts +alike. The Electronic Frontier Foundation was established in 1990 in the +United States to defend and promote hacker values through legal support, +policy work and specific educational and research projects. It occupies +a position very different but comparable to the Chaos Computer Club in +Europe. Early EFF discourse like John Perry Barlow’s *A Declaration of +the Independence of Cyberspace* invokes the Western movie narrative of +an indigenous territory prone to be occupied by the civilising East. It +is littered withreferences to the Founding Fathers and the U.S. +Constitution (1996). Conferences, gatherings and camps addressing the +three tendencies above became extremely popular, similarly to how the +film industry increasingly relied on festivals. The Chaos Communication +Congress has run from 1984 and is now the most prominent event in +Europe, while in the USA H.O.P.E. was organised in 1994 by the people +around the 2600 magazine, and is still going strong. Hacker camping was +initiated by a series of events in Netherlands running since 1989. These +experiences solidified and popularised the hacker movement and the +desire for permanent hacker spaces was part of this development. + +As Nick Farr (2009) has pointed out, the first wave of pioneering +hackerspaces were founded in the 1990s, just as were hacklabs. L0pht +stated in 1992 in the Boston area as a membership based club that +offered shared physical and virtual infrastructure to select people. +Some other places were started in those years in the USA based on this +“covert” model. In Europe, C-base in Berlin started with a more public +profile in 1995, promoting free access to the Internet and serving as a +venue for various community groups. These second wave spaces “proved +that hackers could be perfectly open about their work, organise +officially, gain recognition from the government and respect from the +public by living and applying the Hacker ethic in their efforts” (Farr, +2009). However, it is with the current, third wave that the number of +hackerspaces begun to grow exponentially and it developed into a global +movement of sorts. I argue that the term hackerspaces was not widely +used before this point and the small number of hackerspaces that existed +were less consistent and did not yet develop the characteristics of a +movement. Notably, this is in constrast with narrative of the hacklabs +presented earlier which appeared as a more consistent political +movement. + +Several accounts (for example Anon, 2008) highlight a series of talks in +2007 and 2008 that inspired, and continue to inspire, the foundation of +new hackerspaces. Judging from registered hackerspaces, however, the +proliferation seems to have started earlier. In 2007 Farr organised a +project called Hackers on a Plane, which brought hackers from the USA to +the Chaos Communication Congress, and included a tour of hackerspaces in +the area. Ohlig and Weiler from the C4 hackerspace in Cologne gave a +ground-braking talk on the conference entitled *Building a Hackerspace* +(2007). The presentation defined the hackerspace design patterns, which +are written in the form of a catechism and provide solutions to common +problems that arise during the organisation of the hackerspace. More +importantly, it has canonised the concept of hackerspaces and put the +idea of setting up new ones all over the world on the agenda of the +hacker movement. When the USA delegation returned home, they presented +their experiences under the programmatic title *Building Hacker Spaces +Everywhere: Your Excuses are Invalid*. They argued that “four people can +start a sustainable hacker space”, and showed how to do it (Farr et al, +2008). The same year saw the launch of hackerspaces.org, in Europe with +*Building an international movement: hackerspaces.org* (Pettis et al, +2008), and also in August at the North American HOPE (Anon, 2008). While +the domain is registered since 2006, the Internet Archive saw the first +website there in 2008 listing 72 hackerspaces. Since then the +communication platforms provided by the portal became a vital element in +the hackerspaces movement, sporting the slogan “build! unite! multiply!” +(hackerspaces.org, 2011). A survey of the founding date of the 500 +registered hackerspaces show a growing trend from 2008 (see Figure 2). + +Notably, most of these developments focused on the formal +characteristics of hackerspaces, for instance how to manage problems and +grow a community. They emphasised an open membership model for +maintaining a common workspace that functions as a cooperative +socialising, learning and production environment. However, the content +of the activities going on in hackerspaces also shows great consistency. +The technologies used can be described as layers of sedimentation: newer +technologies take their place alongside older ones without it becoming +entirely obsolete. First of all, the fact that hackers collaborate in a +physical space meant a resurgence of work on electronics, which +conjoined with the established trend of tinkering with physical +computers. A rough outline of connected research areas could be (in +order of appearance): free software development, computer recycling, +wireless mesh networking, microelectronics, open hardware, 3D printing, +machine workshops and cooking. + +From this rudimentary time line, it is evident that activities in +hackerspaces have gravitated towards the physical. The individual +trajectories of all these technology areas could be unfolded, but here +the focus will be on microelectronics. This choice of focus is merited +because microelectronics played a key role in kickstarting hackerspaces, +as evidenced by the popularity of basic electronic classes and +programmable microcontroller workshops in the programme of young +hackerspaces. Physical computing was layed out by Igoe and O’Sullivan in +*Physical Computing: Sensing and Controlling the Physical World with +Computers* (2004), and had a great impact on the whole computing scene. +This new framework of human-machine interaction stressed the way people +behave in everyday situations using their whole body, and opened the way +for exploratory research through the construction of intelligent +appliances. The next year O’Reilly Media started to publish Make +Magazine which focuses on do-it-yourself technology, including +tutorials, recipes, and commentary. Among the authors one find many of +the celebrities of the hacker subculture. “The first magazine devoted to +digital projects, hardware hacks, and DIY inspiration. Kite aerial +photography, video cam stabiliser, magnetic stripe card reader, and much +more.” (Make Magazine, 2011) In Europe, Massimo Banzi and others started +to work on the invention of Arduino, a programmable microcontroller +board with an easy-to-use software interface. This amateur-friendly +microcontroller system became the staple of hackerspaces and artists’ +workshops and initiated a whole new generation into rapid prototyping +and electronics work. To put it together, physical computing provided a +theoretical area to be explored, and the Arduino became its killer +application, while Make magazine and similar media facilitated the +spread of research results. It is open to speculation how this trend +fits into the bigger picture of what seems to be a shift in +sensibilities in society at large. If the 1990s was marked by a +preoccupation with discourses and languages, preeminence is now given to +materialities and embodiedness. + +The Hungarian Autonomous Center for Knowledge in Budapest is a fairly +typical third wave hackerspace. It was founded in 2009 after a +presentation at the local new tech meetup, itself inspired by the +hackerspaces presentation in Berlin (Stef, 2009). The location is +comprised of a workspace, kitchen, chill-out room and terrace in an +inner city cultural centre which hosts ateliers for artists along with a +pub and some shops. The rent is covered by membership fees and donations +from individuals, companies and other organisations. Members are +entitled to a key, while visitors can look up when the space is open +thanks to a real time signal system called Hacksense. It displays the +status of the lab on the website, the twitter account and a database. +Thus, visitors are welcome any time, and especially at the announced +events that happen a few times every month. These include meetings and +community events, as well as practical workshops, presentations and +courses. In line with the hackerspaces design patterns, orientating +discussions happen weekly on Tuesdays, where decisions are made based on +a rough consensus. Hackathons are special events where several people +work on announced topics for six hours or a whole day. These events are +sometimes synchronised internationally with other hackspaces. However, +most of the activity happens on a more ad-hoc basis, depending on the +schedule and the whim of the participants. For this reason, the online +chat channel and the wiki website are heavily used for coordination, +documentation and socialisation. Projects usually belong to one or more +individual, but some projects are endorsed by almost everybody. + +Among the projects housed at Hungarian Autonomous Center for Knowledge, +some arepure software projects. A case in point isf33dme, a +browser-based feed reader. f33dme is a popular project in the +hackerspace and as more people adopt it for their needs, it gets more +robust and more features are added over time. Although this is nothing +new compared to the free software development model found elsewhere, the +fact that there is an embodied user community has contributed to its +success. There are also ‘hardware hacks’ like the SIDBox, which is built +from the music chip from an old Commodore C64 computer, adding USB input +and a mini-jack output. This enables the user to play music from a +contemporary computer using the chip as an external sound card. An ever +expanding ‘hardware corner’ with electronic parts, soldering iron and +multimeters facilitates this kind of work. There is also a 3D printer +and tools for physical work. The members are precarious ICT workers, +researchers at computer security companies, and/or students in related +fields. It is a significant aspect of the viability of the hackerspace +that quite a few core members work flexible hours or work only +occasionally, so at least during some periods they have time to dedicate +to the hackerspace. Some of the activities have a direct political +character, mostly concentrating on issues such as open data, +transparency and privacy. Noteworthy are the collaboration with groups +who campaign for information rights issues in the European Parliament +and in European countries, or helping journalists to harvest datasets +from publicly available databases. The hackerspace sends delegations +which represents it atevents in the global hackerspace movement, such as +the aforementioned Congress and the Chaos Communication Camp, and +smaller ones such as the Stadtflucht sojourn organised by Metalab, a +hackerspace in Vienna (Metalab, 2011). + +To conclude, the emergence of hackerspaces is in line with a larger +trajectory in the hacker movement, which gradually has gained more +institutional structures. The turn towards the physical (mainly through +utilising micro-controlers) marked the point when hackerspaces became +widespread, since development and collaboration on such projects is +greatly facilitated by having a shared space. While most discourse and +innovation in the community was focused on the organisational form +rather than the political content of hackerspaces, such less defined and +more liberal-leaning political content allowed the movement to spread +and forge connections in multiple directions without loosing its own +thrust: from companies through civil society to a general audience. + +![](http://peerproduction.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/figure3maxigas2.jpg) + +Figure 3. The two previous figures superimposed for the sake of +clarification. + +4. Hacklabs and Hackerspaces +---------------------------- + +Having outlined the parallel genealogies of hacklabs and hackerspaces, +it is now possible to contrast these ideal types with each other and +make some comparative observations. For the sake of brevity, only a few +points will be highlighted in this section. Hopefully, these will +further clarify the differences between labs and spaces and provide some +useful critierias for further research. + +An interesting occasion presented itself in 2010 for making a direct +comparison between the Hackney Crack House hacklab and the Hungarian +Autonomous Center for Knowledge hackerspace. I then had first hand +experience of the distinct ways in which the hacklab and the hackerspace +developed and presented one and the same artifact. The artifact in +question is called “Burnstation”. Even a brief sketch of the different +directions in which Burnstation was developed can serve to illuminate +some key points deriving from the conceptual and historical genealogies +put forth above. The Burnstation is a physical “kiosk” that enables the +user to browse, listen, select, burn to CD or copy to USB audio files +from a music database (Rama Cosentino platoniq, 2003). The original +Burnstation was invented in the riereta in Barcelona, which started as a +hacklab with a media focus in 2001 and became institutionalised in 2005, +when it received funding from the local authorities — which means it is +more of a hackerspace nowadays. Underlying this transformation, it is +also registered on hackerspaces.org. The many variations of Burnstation +have been displayed publicly in various exhibition contexts as well as +being widely used in hacklabs and hackerspaces. Snapshots of what the +original Burnstation and its two derivatives looked like at some point +in its ongoing development process can be seen in Figure 4 (Rama et al), +Figure 5 (HCH) and Figure 6 (H.A.C.K.). + +The most striking difference between the two recent reimplementations of +Burnstation is that in the version built by the hacklab people, the +original concept was altered so that the music collection includes +exclusively Creative Commons licensed material that can be freely +distributed to an anything-goes library, including many files which are +illegal to copy. The message was therefore changed radically from the +consumption and celebration of the fruits of a new kind of production +regime to one that emphasised piracy and transgression. The public +display of the installation was a statement against the Digital Economy +Act that just came into force in the United Kingdom. The act +criminalised file sharing and threatened to suspend Internet access in +cases where intellectual property rights were violated (Parliament of +the United Kingdom, 2010). Thus the installation was promoting illegal +activity in direct opposition to the existing state policies — which was +not as controversial as it sounds since the venues and exhibitions where +it was on show were themselves on a frail legal footing. In contrast, +the Burnstation developed by the hackerspace appeared in an exhibition +on the 300th birthday of copyright in a prestigious institution, +showcasing the alternative practices and legislative frameworks to the +traditional view of intellectual property rights. + +Another aspect of the difference between the two installations was +apparent in the solutions for user interaction. The hackerspace version +was based on an updated version of the original software and hardware: a +user-friendly web interface running behind a touch screen. The hacklab +version, on the other hand, reimplemented the software in a text-only +environment and had a painted keyboard, providing a more arcane +navigation experience. Moreover, the exhibited installation was placed +in a pirate-themed environment where the computer could only be +approached through a paddling pool. The two different approaches +correspond to the two broad trends in interface design: while one aims +at a transparent and smooth experience, the other sets up barriers to +emphasise the interface in a playful way. To conclude, the hackerspace +members created an alternative experience that fitted in more smoothly +into the hegemonic worldview of intellectual property and +user-friendliness, while the hacklab crew challenged the same hegemonic +notions, foregrounding freedom and desire. At the same time, it is plain +to see that many factors tie the two projects together. Both groups +carried out a collective project open for collaboration and built on +existing results of similar initiatives, using low-tech and recycled +components creatively. Ultimately, both projects marked a departure from +preconfigured and consumerist relations with technology. In different +ways, their interventions sought to put in question existing copyright +law. + +![](http://peerproduction.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/image1maxigas1.jpg) + +Figure 4. Burnstation (Rama Cosentino platoniq). Emerging Art Festival, +2011, Buenos Aires. Photo by Dianeth Medina. + +Generally speaking, technological choices made in the two types of +spaces described above seem to be conditioned by two factors: the +historical lineage and the political-cultural surrounding. Since the +hacklabs bloomed at a time when Internet access and even computers were +a scarce resource and desktop computing with free software was not +trivial, their contribution in the area of access and network +technologies was crucial. Moreover, their contribution to technological +development and political messages — for example in the case of the +Indymedia network — fitted into the pattern of the alterglobalisation +movement, while sharing some of the same defaults. Similarly, a few +years later, hackerspaces pushed the limits of currently available +technology by embracing and advancing microcontrollers and 3D printers. +At the time of writing, they are the only spaces where a general public +can freely access and learn about such devices, although it is not clear +whether these will become as ubiquitous in daily life as computers and +networks. The important difference is that the hackerspaces are not +embedded and consciously committed to an overtly political project or +idea. Of course this does not prevent political projects from being +undertaken in hackerspacesIn the best of cases, the absence of an openly +declared ideology will potentially lead to a wider diffusion of the +project. In the worst case, however, the lack of a political +conscioussness leads to the reproduction of dominant power structures +orientated towards white middle class tech-savvy males, a claim to be +investigated below. + +A more abstract issue to address in order to highlight the structural +differences between hacklabs and hackerspaces is their policy and +practices towards inclusion and exclusion. On the one hand, the +autonomous or anarchist orientation of hacklabscontrasts sharply with +the liberal or libertarian orientation of most hackerspaces. On the +other hand, since hacklabs are more integral to a wider political +movement, non-technological aspects play a bigger role in how they are +run. A concrete example is that while sexism and similarly +offensivebehaviours are mostly seen as legitimate reasons for excluding +an individual from hacklabs, in hackerspaces such issues are either +highly controversial and discussed at length to no avail (as in Metalab) +or simply a non-topic (as in H.A.C.K.). Still, a lecture and discussion +at the latest Chaos Communication Camp found that although hacker +culture is still overwhelmingly male-oriented, it has become more and +more welcoming to women and sexual minorities in the last decade +(Braybrooke, 2011). + +The different priorities of hacklabs and hackerspaces can be +demonstrated with their diverging policies on wheelchair accessibility. +While the hacklab in London described above was not wheelchair +accessible, a ramp has been built for the house itself to be so. +Discussions about open training sessions included the issue, and a +temporary computer room was planned on the ground floor. In a similar +vein, the hackerspace called Metalab in Vienna was made wheelchair +accessible, and even a wheelchair toilet was installed that a regular +visitor was using. However, with time it was decided that the darkroom +would take the place of the wheelchair toilet, practically excluding the +person from the space. A similar change occurred with the shower, which +was taken over by the expansion of the machine workshop (Anon, 2011). +This affected a more or less homeless person who most often came to the +hackerspace to play chess. These decisions show the reversal of an +exceptionally inclusive social and spatial arrangement because of a +prioritised focus on technology, coupled with the primacy assigned to +collective interests over minority needs. Hacklabs, especially if they +reside in occupied spaces, are less inclined to make such decisions, +partly because of the ethos of the public space that often comes with +occupations, and especially in social centres. However, it has to be +notes that while accessibility and non-discriminations are legitimate +grounds for debate in hacklabs but not necessarily in hackerspaces, as +the above example shows even hacklabs have made little practical +progress on the issue. + +![](http://peerproduction.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/image2maxigas1.jpg) + +Figure 5. Piratepond installation from Hackney Crack House at the +Temporary Autonomous Art exhibition in London, 2011, including a +Burnstation. Photo in the public domain. + +Finally I would like to make apoint about the political impact of these +diverging constellations, and ask to what extent and in which ways they +contribute to and support postcapitalist practices, movements and +subjectivities. The hacklabs gave a technological advantage to +grassroots political movements, pioneering access to information and +communication technologies and innovative solutions in an era where +access was not available to most people as a consumer service. On the +downside, those initiatives often got stuck in what has could be called +a “activist ghetto” or an “underground”, which meant that even the +Burnstation project described above was only available to a limited +social group. Through a process that Granzfurthner and Schneider +describe as the capitalist co-optation of the fertile resistance +inherent in such scenes ([2009]), the hackerspaces managed to go beyond +these historical limits and forged important connections. The latter +continue to have a lasting impact through the technological artifacts — +both abstract and physical — that they create, as well as the innovation +and most importantly the education that they practice. The case of 3D +printers, which according to Jakob Rigi can revolutionise production +processes and create the conditions for a society based on craftsmanship +rather than factories, is but one case in point ([2011]). Moreover, +thanks to their more open dynamics, hackerspaces can foster +collaboration between a wide range of social actors. For the hacker +culture that has managed to catapult itself to the front pages of +international newspapers in the last few years, it is of immense +significance to have acquired a global network of real workshop spaces +that provide an infrastructure. In the current global political +atmosphere dominated by an array of crises, this scene shows vitality +and direction. However, as the superuser command says, “With great power +comes great responsibility”. + +The appreciation of history is not about passing judgement on the old +and the dead, but it is there to inspire present efforts. As Théorie +Communiste argues, each cycle of struggle brings something new based on +what happened before, thereby expanding the historical limits of the +struggle (Endnotes, 2008). Perhaps the political potential of +hackerspaces lies precisely in the fact that they have not become a +social movement and therefore not limited by the conventions of social +movements. They stand at the intersection of the dystopian “geeky +workshop paradises” (Granzfurthner and Schneider [2009]) and the utopian +reality of genuinely contestant spaces that have wide impact. If more +hackers can combine the technological productivity of the “hands-on +imperative” (Levy [1968], 2001) and the wide possibilities of +transversal cross-pollination of hackerspaces with the social critique +of the hacklabs, there is a world to win. + +![](http://peerproduction.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/image3maxigas1.jpg) + +Figure 6. Burnstation from Hungarian Autonomous Center for Knowledge, +exhibited at KOPIRÁJT, OSA Archivum, 2010. Photo by eapo. License: CC +BY-NC. + +Cited works +----------- + +Agamben, G. (1998) *Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life*. +Standford, CA: Stanford University Press. + +Anon. (2008) *Hackerspaces: The Beginning*. [e-book] +http://blog.hackerspaces.org/2011/08/31/hackerspaces-the-beginning-the-book/ +[last checked 05/7 2011] + +. (2011) Interview on politics of hackerspaces. Vienna. + +AvANa.net. (2005) *Cronaca della nascita di un medialab al +forteprenestino*. http://avana.forteprenestino.net/index.htm [last +checked 5/7 2011] + +Barlow, J.P. (1996) *A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace*. +https://projects.eff.org/\~barlow/Declaration-Final.html [last checked +10/14 2011] + +Bazichelli, T. (2008) *Networking — The Net as Artwork*. Aarhus: Digital +Aesthetics Research Center. + +Berardi, F. (Bifo) Mecchia, G. (2007) ‘Technology and Knowledge in a +Universe of Indetermination’. *SubStance* 36(1): 56-74. + +Bey, H. (1995,, 2003) *Pirate Utopias: Moorish Corsairs and European +Renegadoes*. New York: Autonomedia. + +Blaze, M. (2003) ‘*Is it harmful to discuss security vulnerabilities?’* +http://www.crypto.com/hobbs.html [last checked 10/14 2011] + +Braybrooke, K. (2011) ‘She-Hackers: Millennials and Gender in European +F/LOSS Subcultures — A Presentation of Research and Invitation for +Debate’, talk at the 4th Chaos Communication Camp, Finowfurt airport, +8/10-14. + +Burgmann, V. (2005) ‘From Syndicalism to Seattle: Class and the Politics +of Identity’. *International Labor and Working-Class History* +67(Spring,, 2005): 1-21. + +Cheswick, W. R., Bellovin, S.M. and Rubin, A.D. (2003) *Firewalls and +Internet Security: Repelling the Wily Hacker*. Boston, MA: +Addison-Wesley (Pearson Education). + +Clarke, R. (2001) ‘*Information Wants to be Free …’*. +http://www.rogerclarke.com/II/IWtbF.html [last checked 10/14 2011] + +Coleman, G. and Golub, A. (2008) ‘Hacker Practice: Moral Genres and The +Cultural Articulation of Liberalism’. *Anthropological Theory* September +8(3): 255-277. + +​(2010) ‘The Anthropology of Hackers’, *The Atlantic*, +http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/09/the-anthropology-of-hackers/63308/ +[last checked 10/14 2011] + +Cosentino, R. platoniq. (2005). *Burnstation — Free Audio Culture*. +http://burnstation.net/indexnew.html [last checked 5/7 2011] + +Critical Art Ensemble. (2000) Critical Art Ensemble Timeline. *TDR*44(4, +Winter): 132-135. + +(2002). *Digital Resistance: Exploration in Tactical Media*, Autonomedia +and Critical Art Ensemble: New York. + +Debord, G. ([1967], 1977) *Society of the Spectacle*. s.l.: Black Red. + +Endnotes, eds. (2008) *Endnotes 1: Preliminary Materials for a Balance +Sheet of the 20th Century*. London: Endnotes. + +Farr, N. et al. (2008) ‘Building Hacker Spaces Everywhere: Your Excuses +are Invalid’, talk at The Last HOPE (Hackers On Planet Earth), Hotel +Pennsylvania, 7/18-20. + +Farr, N. (2009) ‘Respect the Past, Examine the Present, Build the +Future’. *Hackerspaces Flux**.* +http://blog.hackerspaces.org/2009/08/25/respect-the-past-examine-the-present-build-the-future/ +[last checked 10/14 2011] + +Foti, M. (2010) ‘*The New Lansdowne Club History of the building and 3D +reconstructions: The New Lansdowne Club in 2010′*. +http://www.newlansdowneclub3d.org.uk/ex4.html [last checked 10/13 2011] + +Grenzfurthner, J. and Schneider, F. A. (of monochrom). [2009] ‘*Hacking +the Spaces’*. http://www.monochrom.at/hacking-the-spaces/ [last checked +10/24 2011] + +hackerspaces.org. (2011) ‘*Hackerspaces | flux | About us’*. +http://blog.hackerspaces.org/about/ [last checked Oct 20 2011] + +Hamm, M. (2003) ‘A r/c tivism in Physical and Virtual Spaces’. +*Republicart* 9. +http://www.republicart.net/disc/realpublicspaces/hamm02\_en.htm [last +checked 10/13 2011] + +Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2002) *Empire*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard +University Press. + +​(2004) *Multitude*. New York: Penguin. + +Harvey, D. (2005,, 2007). *A Brief History of Neoliberalism.* Oxford, +New York: OUP. + +Hinton, J. (1988). ‘Self-Help and Socialism the Squatters’ Movement of +1946′. *History Workshop* 25(Spring): 100-126. + +Hobbs, A.C., Tomlinson, C. Fenby, J.B. [1853] (1868). *Locks and Safes: +The Construction of Locks*. London: Virtue Co. + +House of Commons. (2010). ‘Early day motion 1545: Squatting’. *Website +of the Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom*,. +http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-12/1545 [last checked 3/82010]. + +Igoe, T. O’Sullivan, D. (2004) *Physical Computing: Sensing and +Controlling the Physical World with Computers*. Boston, MA: Premier +Press. + +Immanuel, W. (2004) *World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction*. Durham +and London: Duke University Press. + +Johns, A. (2009) ‘Piracy as a Business Force’. *Culture Machine* 10. +http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/issue/view/21 [last checked +5/7 2012] + +Levy, S. [1968] (2001). *Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution*, +New York: Penguin. + +Lotringer, S. and Marazzi, C., eds. (2007). *Autonomia: Post-Political +Politics*. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e). + +Make Magazine (2011) *DIY Projects, Inspiration, How-tos, Hacks, Mods +More @ Makezine.com – Tweak Technology to Your Will*. +http://makezine.com/volumes/index.csp [last checked Oct 14 2011] + +Metalab (2011) ‘*Stadtflucht’*. https://metalab.at/wiki/Stadtflucht +[last checked 10/20 2011] + +MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms. (2007) ‘*The Fab Charter’.* +http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/charter/ [last checked 3/20 2012]. + +Morris, D. (2004) ‘Globalisation and Media Democracy: The Case of +Indymedia’. In Schuler, D. Day, P. (eds) *Shaping the Network Society: +The New Role of Civil Society in Cyberspace.* Massachusetts, MA: MIT +Press. + +Ohlig, J. and Weiler, L. (2007) ‘Building a Hackerspace’, talk at 24C3, +the 24th Chaos Communication Congress, Berliner Congress Center, +12/27-30. + +Pettis, B. et al. (2008) ‘Building an international movement: +hackerspaces.org’, talk at 25C3, the 25th Chaos Communication Congress, +Berliner Congress Center, 12/27-30. + +Parliament of the United Kingdom. (2010) *Digital Economy Act*. [act of +parliament] +http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/pdfs/ukpga\_20100024\_en.pdf +[last checked Oct 20 2011] + +Proudhon, P-J. (2007) [1840]. ‘Chapter I: Method Pursued In This Work — +The Idea of a Revolution’. In *What is Property?* Wikimedia Foundation. +http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/What\_is\_Property%3F/1 [last checked 5/7 +2011] + +Rigi, J. [2011] (unpublished). Peer to Peer Production and Advanced +Communism: The Alternative to Capitalism. + +Slatalla, M. and Quittner, J. (1995) *Masters of Deception: The Gang +that Rules Cyberspace*. New York: HarperCollins. + +Söderberg, J. (2011) ‘Free Space Optics in the Czech Wireless Community: +Shedding Some Light on the Role of Normativity for User-Initiated +Innovations ‘*. Science Technology Human Values*September 36: 423. + +Steele, G.L. Raymond, E.S. eds. (1996) *The New Hacker’s Dictionary* +(3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press. + +Stef. (2009) ‘WTF: hackerspace’, talk at New Tech Meetup, Dürer Kert, 06 +2009. + +Sterling, Bruce (1992) *The Hacker Crackdown*. New York: Bantam. + +Taylor, Charles (1989) *Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern +Identity*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. + +*Telestreet: The Italian Media Jacking Movement* (2005) Directed by And. +http://www.archive.org/details/telestreet2 [last checked 08 March 2011] + +Usher, S. (2010) ‘Amsterdam protest at new squatting laws’. *BBC News +Europe*, 10/2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11458225 [last +checked 3/8 2011] + +Willemsen, M. (2006) ‘Telestreet: Squatting Frequencies — Merel +Willemsen in conversation with Agnese Trocchi, co-founder of Candida +TV’. *Untitled Magazine* 37(Spring). +http://www.cascoprojects.org/?programme=allentryid=89 [last checked 5/7 +2011] + +Wright, S. (2002). *Storming Heaven: Class composition and struggle in +Italian Autonomist Marxism*. London: Pluto Press. + +Yuill, S. (2008) All Problems of Notation Will be Solved by the Masses, +*Mute — Politics and Culture after the +Net*http://www.metamute.org/en/All-Problems-of-Notation-Will-be-Solved-by-the-Masses +[last checked 5/7 2011] + +Wikipedia contributors (2010a) ‘*History: Hacklab’.* +http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hacklabaction=history [last +checked Oct 10 2011] + +(2010b) ‘*Talk: Hacklab’.* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hacklab +[last checked 10/10 2011] + +(2011). ‘*History: Hackerspace’.* +http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hacklabaction=history [last +checked 10/10 2011] + +- [About](http://peerproduction.net/about/) +- [Issues](http://peerproduction.net/issues/) +- [Peer Review](http://peerproduction.net/peer-review/) +- [News](http://peerproduction.net/news/) +- [Contact](http://peerproduction.net/contact/) + +Journal of Peer Production - ISSN: 2213-5316 \ + All the contents of this journal are in the **public domain**.