[00:39.780 --> 00:48.600] But anyway, I'm here to talk about the cartographic imaginations of cyberspace. [00:49.220 --> 00:52.920] And I'm going to be bringing sort of my own disciplinary background as a geographer [00:53.460 --> 00:58.220] to take us through some really sort of basic concepts about [00:59.760 --> 01:03.680] critically looking at cartographic representations of real world space [01:03.680 --> 01:10.260] and how some of those theoretical concerns might be brought to look at maps of cyberspace [01:10.260 --> 01:14.920] which of course have started to emerge in great numbers. [01:19.320 --> 01:27.120] So traditionally, geographers have defined themselves in large part as a group of people [01:27.120 --> 01:32.240] whose job it is to go out and make cartographic representations of space. [01:32.240 --> 01:39.820] And we have a long and sort of problematic history in my discipline [01:41.120 --> 01:51.020] of participation in things like the colonial project, military cartography, land and sea trade [01:52.240 --> 01:58.520] and basically supplying the navigational tools and surveys and graphical representations [01:58.780 --> 02:00.940] to make these things possible. [02:00.940 --> 02:04.860] And so when people say, oh, you know, I'm a geographer, [02:04.860 --> 02:08.060] often times people say, oh, well, you guys make maps, right? [02:08.420 --> 02:13.000] Well, I mean, that's sort of the traditional role of geographers, [02:13.000 --> 02:19.760] but we've changed a lot, especially since about the mid-20th century. [02:19.960 --> 02:23.600] And one of the more recent areas that we've started to explore [02:23.600 --> 02:28.360] is to actually sort of critically examine the practice of map making. [02:35.600 --> 02:38.800] So I'm going to follow from a guy named Jeremy Crampton, [02:38.800 --> 02:41.720] who wrote a book called The Political Mapping of Cyberspace. [02:41.720 --> 02:42.680] It's a good book. [02:43.380 --> 02:48.620] He talks about sort of a divergence in geography between theory and practice, [02:49.260 --> 02:53.100] meaning that there still persists a group of people in the discipline [02:53.100 --> 02:58.480] who still practice the job of graphically representing the Earth [02:58.480 --> 03:00.420] and are very good at it [03:00.420 --> 03:06.500] and increasingly use computers and computer technology to make those maps. [03:06.780 --> 03:10.240] But there's another group of us, of which I'm a part, [03:10.240 --> 03:13.460] who are a little bit more concerned with the theoretical implications [03:13.460 --> 03:16.440] of what those other people are doing. [03:18.500 --> 03:23.860] And I would say that this sort of theoretical or critical approach to cartography [03:24.620 --> 03:29.440] probably has its roots in the late 80s with the cultural turn in geography, [03:29.440 --> 03:34.300] and particularly with a book by a guy named Montmarnier in 1991 [03:34.300 --> 03:36.740] called How to Lie with Maps. [03:37.040 --> 03:41.340] Another interesting book with lots of interesting little factoids [03:41.340 --> 03:47.460] about why it is that maps don't necessarily realistically represent space. [03:48.560 --> 03:54.860] And the simple reason why we need to think about maps as representations [03:54.860 --> 04:03.180] rather than as actual realistic bases for reality [04:03.180 --> 04:08.340] is that basically maps are two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional space. [04:08.340 --> 04:13.760] So you've got a globe, the Earth, it's a complicated spherical object. [04:13.840 --> 04:19.620] There's an inherent challenge in taking that space and laying it out flat [04:19.620 --> 04:21.660] and depicting it for people. [04:21.660 --> 04:24.160] Computers might help solve some of those problems [04:24.160 --> 04:28.760] by enabling us to use 3D visualization, [04:28.760 --> 04:31.780] but we still face certain compromises and certain choices [04:31.780 --> 04:35.140] that these people who are interested in the practice of mapmaking [04:35.660 --> 04:39.160] consciously or unconsciously make when they're making maps. [04:39.800 --> 04:44.420] And as Montmarnier pointed out, they distort reality in very specific ways [04:45.040 --> 04:50.460] through their use of scale, their use of projection, and the use of symbols. [04:52.460 --> 04:56.840] So this is sort of a very traditional map of the Earth. [04:56.940 --> 04:58.840] It's the Mercator Projection. [04:59.000 --> 05:02.420] How many of you recognize this image from your high school textbooks [05:02.420 --> 05:04.740] or your elementary school geography textbooks? [05:04.940 --> 05:06.200] Yeah, quite a few. [05:06.200 --> 05:09.680] The Mercator Projection is a really commonly used map projection. [05:10.880 --> 05:14.320] But its original purpose wasn't necessarily to provide [05:14.320 --> 05:17.820] the most realistic view of the landmasses of the Earth. [05:17.820 --> 05:21.160] It was actually better suited as a sea navigational tool [05:21.680 --> 05:25.120] because it maintained accurate direction between two points [05:25.120 --> 05:27.060] when you're traveling at sea. [05:27.320 --> 05:32.120] But what happened was that it actually distorted the area of landmasses. [05:32.500 --> 05:35.260] So the shape of the continents that we've come to recognize [05:35.260 --> 05:38.140] from our high school textbooks in the Mercator Projection [05:38.140 --> 05:42.480] don't necessarily reflect the actual physical size of those features. [05:43.700 --> 05:48.140] So, keep an eye on South America and Africa, [05:48.140 --> 05:50.360] and I'm going to go forward one slide. [05:51.660 --> 05:56.280] This is an equal area world projection. [05:56.460 --> 05:58.800] This is very different from the Mercator Projection. [05:58.800 --> 06:02.580] Its goal is to preserve the area of the landmasses. [06:02.620 --> 06:05.800] So here it's not very useful as a navigational tool, [06:05.800 --> 06:08.760] but it gives a better idea of how much actual surface area is taken up [06:08.760 --> 06:10.340] by each of the continents. [06:10.340 --> 06:14.060] You notice the diminutive size of the United States and Europe. [06:14.320 --> 06:15.780] I'll flip back. [06:17.160 --> 06:21.780] You can see how different the two are, [06:21.780 --> 06:26.040] and what a different idea of the shape of the Earth each one provides. [06:28.820 --> 06:32.340] Now, the purpose of these equal area projections [06:32.340 --> 06:35.780] weren't just innocently trying to correct an error. [06:36.240 --> 06:39.940] There's a bit of a political motivation behind making these maps, [06:39.940 --> 06:44.420] and that is to kind of de-center the importance of Europe and North America. [06:44.420 --> 06:48.740] In the Mercator Projection, they seem to be very important, [06:48.740 --> 06:51.440] but in the Hobo Dyer, they're much smaller. [06:51.460 --> 06:54.300] I've even seen a Hobo Dyer map that's been turned upside down [06:54.300 --> 06:59.300] to further subvert the Euro-centrism of the Mercator Projection. [06:59.300 --> 07:02.720] So there's a kind of a political project going on here as well. [07:11.080 --> 07:15.600] But beyond altering the scale projection of maps, [07:15.600 --> 07:19.260] they can often serve more explicit ideological purposes. [07:19.600 --> 07:22.720] And in the series of the next few maps we're going to look at, [07:23.400 --> 07:30.160] they basically thematically focus on the theme of proximity to the Soviet Union. [07:30.160 --> 07:34.300] This was a theme that came up quite a bit in graphical representations of the Earth [07:34.300 --> 07:38.480] during the Cold War period, was the real proximity of the Soviet threat [07:38.480 --> 07:40.380] to Western interests. [07:40.500 --> 07:43.180] So here they've manipulated the orientation of the map, [07:43.180 --> 07:48.500] and this is a map that was originally published in Time Magazine in 1952. [07:48.500 --> 07:53.840] They've oriented it north-south, or rather, west-east. [07:55.600 --> 07:58.640] And it gives the idea that the Soviet Union is just sort of [07:58.640 --> 08:04.960] right next to Western Europe and about to conquer these territories. [08:05.740 --> 08:10.220] Obviously in the Cuban Missile Crisis, proximity was another important theme and issue. [08:10.220 --> 08:15.160] And this is a CIA map that shows the relative ranges of nuclear missiles [08:15.160 --> 08:16.960] from Cuba to the United States. [08:17.120 --> 08:22.640] And here the scale, the color, really give a sense of imminent threat. [08:23.740 --> 08:26.740] Here's a use of a planar polar projection. [08:27.700 --> 08:34.840] And in the context of the air war and the possibility that wars might be fought [08:34.840 --> 08:37.620] using missiles rather than actually land troops, [08:37.620 --> 08:40.800] these kinds of projections were very persuasive because they showed that [08:40.800 --> 08:44.880] actually Canada and the United States weren't so far from the Soviet Union at all [08:44.880 --> 08:46.780] if one went over the North Pole. [08:46.840 --> 08:50.840] So the planar projection was a subtle way to show politically [08:50.840 --> 08:56.140] how important things like spending on air defense budgets really were [08:56.140 --> 08:57.440] during the Cold War. [09:01.460 --> 09:04.700] An author, Gillian Rose, has brought our attention in geography [09:04.700 --> 09:07.820] to the possibility that race and gender relationships [09:07.820 --> 09:10.540] might also find their way onto the map sheet. [09:11.600 --> 09:15.580] And a good place to look for those kinds of power relations [09:15.580 --> 09:18.020] is in colonial maps of the world. [09:18.020 --> 09:20.820] Here's a map of Africa from 1771. [09:21.700 --> 09:24.480] I'm not sure if you can read what it says in the upper right-hand corner, [09:24.480 --> 09:25.760] so I'll read it out for you. [09:25.760 --> 09:29.540] It says, an accurate map of Africa from the latest improvements [09:29.540 --> 09:32.760] and regulated by astronomical observations. [09:32.760 --> 09:36.420] So they're purporting to have provided us the most accurate depiction [09:36.420 --> 09:39.140] of this continent possible. [09:40.180 --> 09:44.180] But of course, we know that it's really just a two-dimensional representation [09:44.180 --> 09:46.140] of a very complex space. [09:48.180 --> 09:52.180] Here's an example of how gender and race find their way onto these maps. [09:52.180 --> 09:57.400] Here's an artistic legend on another map of Africa in 1707. [09:58.960 --> 10:05.740] And essentially, depicting a bunch of imagined natives lounging around, [10:05.740 --> 10:09.800] burying their breasts and not doing a whole lot of work. [10:09.800 --> 10:17.060] This was supporting the European idea of racial superiority. [10:17.060 --> 10:21.560] So we can see how early colonial maps of Africa racialized, gendered, [10:21.560 --> 10:25.620] and even eroticized place through their representations, [10:25.620 --> 10:28.940] linking imaginary people to imagined places. [10:30.520 --> 10:34.440] Here's an example of the extension of colonial power onto the landscape [10:34.440 --> 10:36.040] in postage stamps. [10:36.320 --> 10:39.060] It was quite common up until the mid-20th century [10:39.060 --> 10:46.760] to put graphical depictions of figureheads on beautiful African landscapes, [10:46.760 --> 10:52.880] sort of cementing the European supremacy of these places. [10:56.070 --> 11:00.190] So what I'm proposing in my own work, and I'm really still in the preliminary phases [11:00.190 --> 11:02.490] of thinking this through, [11:04.170 --> 11:09.170] is to follow Crampton's challenge of really critically looking at [11:09.170 --> 11:11.430] what we do when we map. [11:12.430 --> 11:18.490] And really, to take apart this progressivist, objectivist treatment of maps [11:18.490 --> 11:20.310] as mirror images of reality. [11:20.310 --> 11:25.970] And to say, well, what really goes into the creation of these maps? [11:26.010 --> 11:31.810] What kinds of power relations are embedded in these representations? [11:32.170 --> 11:35.210] And replace that kind of understanding of cartography [11:35.210 --> 11:38.370] with one that's more historically contingent. [11:38.370 --> 11:43.890] And cognizant of the possibility that social relations and power relations [11:43.890 --> 11:44.850] are embedded in maps. [11:44.850 --> 11:48.490] And these can be racial, gendered, capitalist, nationalistic. [11:48.490 --> 11:49.990] The list goes on. [11:50.890 --> 11:55.630] So let's look at some maps of cyberspace, since that's what we're here for. [11:58.980 --> 12:04.720] So here's an early graphical representation of Usenet traffic in 1993. [12:04.800 --> 12:08.620] The next three images, by the way, are taken from Dodge and Kitchen's [12:08.620 --> 12:11.260] 2002 Atlas of Cyberspace. [12:11.260 --> 12:16.320] You can find it online, and it's also available by order for a hard copy. [12:16.320 --> 12:18.860] It's a very interesting book, lots of cool pictures. [12:18.860 --> 12:21.800] I picked out a few that I thought were really interesting and sort of iconic. [12:21.800 --> 12:25.420] This one's a depiction of Usenet traffic in 1993. [12:26.200 --> 12:28.020] And what I want to draw your attention to [12:28.020 --> 12:31.560] is sort of the difficulty that this mapmaker has had [12:31.560 --> 12:37.700] in trying to reconcile a real-world spatial geography [12:37.700 --> 12:40.520] that's outlined with the continents [12:40.520 --> 12:43.740] and this sort of new geography of cyberspace. [12:43.940 --> 12:47.160] It seems like the two don't necessarily fit very well together. [12:47.160 --> 12:50.000] On one hand, you have this sort of disembodied, [12:50.000 --> 12:54.140] diffuse, instantaneous network of telecommunications, [12:54.140 --> 12:59.020] and it's overlaid on top of a world of real spatial places [12:59.020 --> 13:02.280] and real bodies located in that space. [13:02.280 --> 13:05.840] But looking at this map, you get the impression that somebody in Santiago, Chile [13:05.840 --> 13:09.840] could instantaneously interact with somebody from New York City, [13:10.420 --> 13:12.660] even though there's thousands of miles [13:12.660 --> 13:15.560] and social difference between those two individuals. [13:15.560 --> 13:21.440] So the map sort of suggests this liberating possibility for this technology. [13:23.240 --> 13:25.840] A lot of people have probably seen this map. [13:25.840 --> 13:28.080] It's widely reproduced. [13:28.080 --> 13:31.240] It's a map of early NFS NAT traffic. [13:31.920 --> 13:33.460] As one observer noted, [13:33.460 --> 13:36.900] the ArcMap is one of the best examples of a representation of the net [13:36.900 --> 13:40.680] that goes beyond the practical and taps into a deeper aesthetic feel [13:40.680 --> 13:42.980] for what cyberspace looks like. [13:43.500 --> 13:46.480] So there's something iconic about this kind of depiction of the internet [13:46.480 --> 13:50.280] as a series of trails leading through the sky. [13:50.500 --> 13:55.660] This one, to its credit, [13:55.660 --> 13:57.520] and unlike the Mercator projection, [13:57.520 --> 14:00.460] seems to de-center Europe and the United States. [14:00.460 --> 14:03.760] Also, because in the original, the user was able to manipulate it [14:03.760 --> 14:06.980] and turn it around and zoom in on any portion of the map that they wanted. [14:06.980 --> 14:08.940] There wasn't a static representation here. [14:08.940 --> 14:11.440] It was user interactive. [14:12.200 --> 14:14.440] But nevertheless, what emerges from this picture [14:14.440 --> 14:20.240] is definitely a very clear example of the global digital divide. [14:20.240 --> 14:22.820] There are places that are completely dark, that are unplugged, [14:22.820 --> 14:27.980] that are not connected to the space of international money and culture flows. [14:27.980 --> 14:31.940] And there are spaces that are, that are very brightly lit on this map. [14:40.300 --> 14:43.620] Now, in a further development of mapping cyberspace, [14:43.620 --> 14:49.300] some cartographers have preferred to just drop the real world cartography altogether. [14:50.200 --> 14:54.940] And let it go in favor of focusing on the topological relationship between points. [14:54.940 --> 14:58.860] And just map out the arcs and nodes of the information backbone. [14:59.180 --> 15:04.100] So here's an example of a 3D visualization of skitter data from KEDA. [15:04.100 --> 15:10.000] And it kind of looks like a globe, but there's absolutely no real world geographical reference. [15:12.260 --> 15:19.680] So here what I would point out to you is the way that this is kind of almost aspatial. [15:19.820 --> 15:24.080] The distances and the actual places matter less than the connections [15:24.080 --> 15:26.880] and the network logic that links all these points together. [15:27.260 --> 15:31.060] There's a very intense sort of disembodied feeling [15:31.060 --> 15:33.340] that we get from looking at this kind of representation. [15:33.340 --> 15:42.540] And I'll argue in a few moments that this kind of disembodied, diffuse networks cartography of cyberspace [15:42.540 --> 15:45.740] has very specific political ramifications. [15:45.860 --> 15:47.580] Some good and some bad. [15:50.450 --> 15:54.570] Here's one that a lot of you have probably seen hanging out at conferences like this. [15:54.570 --> 16:00.070] I was reminded of one of these when I went to a security conference up in Canada. [16:00.830 --> 16:04.290] And it seems I've seen these around quite a few places. [16:04.290 --> 16:09.590] It's sort of a network security schematic that, again, de-territorializes cyberspace [16:09.590 --> 16:12.930] and represents it as a series of interconnected symbols. [16:13.030 --> 16:17.990] And here we get a sense of the blue, cool region of the corporate land [16:17.990 --> 16:25.490] being protected from the unknown exterior potential hacker. [16:26.390 --> 16:32.530] And this is a type of cartography as well, I would argue, even though it's abstracted. [16:33.110 --> 16:38.950] So what does it mean that we've progressed from trying to overlay cyberspatial cartography [16:38.950 --> 16:41.090] on top of real-world geography? [16:42.330 --> 16:47.990] Well, I would say that geographic imaginations of cyberspace have political and foreign policy implications. [16:47.990 --> 16:50.350] And we're starting to see some of those currently. [16:50.350 --> 16:53.810] And they've evolved, I think, since about the 1990s. [16:53.810 --> 17:01.270] One of them has been a focus on connection to the global network as both a source of security and threat. [17:01.270 --> 17:03.230] So what do I mean by that? [17:04.150 --> 17:11.550] Well, by security, I am thinking of the sense that connection to the global marketplace [17:13.250 --> 17:17.990] renders countries more amenable to, say, American foreign policy interests. [17:18.310 --> 17:23.570] I've heard the oft-quoted phrase that no two countries with McDonald's have ever gone to war with one another, [17:23.570 --> 17:25.570] and I'm sort of reminded of that here. [17:26.490 --> 17:30.750] Some researchers, Robert Secor and Spark, [17:30.750 --> 17:35.250] have argued that what's going on now in foreign policy circles in the United States [17:35.810 --> 17:41.110] is that certain parts of the world are being characterized as non-integrating. [17:41.110 --> 17:46.390] These are rogue regimes that have no interest at all in connecting up to the global flows of capital, [17:46.390 --> 17:48.950] and as such, they represent a threat. [17:49.570 --> 17:54.330] So in this new logic, it's disconnection from the network that is the real threat, [17:54.330 --> 17:55.970] not connection to it. [17:57.690 --> 18:02.730] But on the other hand, as we saw with the security schematic here, [18:02.730 --> 18:06.530] there's a sense that if we do connect ourselves up to this global network, [18:06.530 --> 18:08.570] this aspatial global network, [18:08.570 --> 18:12.330] that we open ourselves up to a whole bunch of unsavory possibilities. [18:13.170 --> 18:17.910] And definitely the global war on terror has assumed many of the same metaphors and symbols [18:17.910 --> 18:21.110] that are employed in the Internet security field. [18:21.830 --> 18:26.750] For example, the White House administration has repeatedly cited the diffused [18:26.750 --> 18:29.510] and networked architecture of terrorist organizations [18:29.990 --> 18:33.390] as support for the continued military aggression and restriction of movement [18:33.390 --> 18:35.990] by citizens into and outside of the country. [18:36.530 --> 18:40.270] Here's a map of the 9-11 hijackers, [18:40.270 --> 18:43.750] and it's laid out like an arc node map similar to ones that we've seen, [18:44.330 --> 18:46.430] the earlier cyberspatial maps that we've seen. [18:46.430 --> 18:49.510] So there's definitely a sort of rhetorical linkages, I think, [18:49.510 --> 18:52.970] between terrorist networks and electronic networks, [18:52.970 --> 18:54.750] which I think is very interesting. [18:58.390 --> 19:04.190] Actually, I've got an interesting quote. [19:04.190 --> 19:07.890] This is from a congressional testimony in 2003. [19:07.890 --> 19:11.210] This is a network security expert testifying before Congress [19:11.210 --> 19:20.670] about the threat that our nation's computers face when exposed to foreign hackers. [19:20.670 --> 19:21.950] He says, [19:21.950 --> 19:26.070] Many more malicious and widespread viruses are seen in the wild on the Internet [19:26.070 --> 19:27.590] on a daily basis. [19:27.610 --> 19:31.670] Many are written with Russian, Chinese, and other language comments in the code. [19:31.810 --> 19:35.330] Some have direct ties to organized crime, especially outside the U.S. [19:35.330 --> 19:38.510] Many are propagated from commonly known havens for virus writers [19:38.510 --> 19:40.710] where there's no fear of legal prosecution, [19:40.710 --> 19:42.970] or where the technical skills of the government to prosecute [19:42.970 --> 19:44.810] are minimal or non-existent. [19:46.230 --> 19:52.130] So, again, this is sort of reiterating the sense of cyberspace as a space of threat. [19:56.110 --> 20:00.030] What do I mean when I say that network architectures [20:00.030 --> 20:03.570] enable both territorialization and deterritorialization? [20:04.630 --> 20:08.150] Well, definitely, in the big Kaida jellyfish model of the Internet, [20:08.150 --> 20:10.450] there's an intense deterritorialization. [20:10.650 --> 20:13.710] There's a sense that the Internet frees us from our bodies, [20:13.710 --> 20:18.970] makes the cultural, social, and actual physical distances between us irrelevant, [20:18.970 --> 20:22.790] and renders physical space less important than this new virtual space. [20:23.410 --> 20:26.730] I think of that as a kind of deterritorialization. [20:27.050 --> 20:28.610] But I think that the Internet also enables [20:29.410 --> 20:32.330] various particular kinds of territorializations. [20:32.670 --> 20:36.850] One example is here in IP geocoding. [20:36.850 --> 20:38.610] I understand there's going to be somebody talking about that. [20:38.610 --> 20:40.310] I hope that I didn't miss their talk. [20:40.470 --> 20:42.550] I hope that's going to be in the coming days. [20:43.710 --> 20:49.050] But essentially, using people's IPs to grant them access [20:49.050 --> 20:51.810] or not grant them access based on the country in which they live. [20:51.810 --> 20:54.450] So now there's a re-linking of real-world geography [20:56.030 --> 20:57.830] to the cyberspatial geography [20:57.830 --> 21:00.390] that actually has real material physical outcomes. [21:00.390 --> 21:05.910] Here, this is a map of which countries were allowed to access www.georgebush.com [21:05.910 --> 21:07.970] prior to the 2004 election. [21:08.070 --> 21:10.910] And you can see that only Canada and the United States were granted access [21:10.910 --> 21:13.970] and successfully blocked everybody else. [21:14.410 --> 21:19.970] Actually citing terrorist and disruptive threats from foreign hackers. [21:23.410 --> 21:28.030] And definitely the Army, the United States Army, is interested in cyberspace. [21:28.910 --> 21:33.990] Here's a quote from a report by the Project for the New American Century [21:33.990 --> 21:36.630] writing on rebuilding America's defenses. [21:36.630 --> 21:39.790] And they consider cyberspace to be one of the key places [21:39.790 --> 21:42.510] where they want to extend their control. [21:43.150 --> 21:44.910] They say, much as control of the high seas [21:44.910 --> 21:47.190] and the protection of international commerce [21:47.650 --> 21:49.890] define global powers in the past, [21:49.890 --> 21:52.330] so will control of the new international commons [21:52.330 --> 21:55.010] be a key to world power in the future. [21:55.330 --> 21:57.570] An America incapable of protecting its interests [21:57.570 --> 22:00.090] or that of its allies in space or the infosphere [22:00.090 --> 22:03.690] will find it difficult to exert global political leadership. [22:04.630 --> 22:07.730] So there's a sense of militarizing [22:07.730 --> 22:11.370] and potentially territorializing cyberspace. [22:11.750 --> 22:16.730] And definitely .mil is becoming an increasing and growing presence online. [22:19.620 --> 22:24.320] So I don't have any really groundbreaking conclusions yet. [22:24.320 --> 22:26.760] I'm still in the process of writing all this up. [22:27.000 --> 22:30.240] But I think the issues that I've talked about [22:30.240 --> 22:34.340] raise a few concerns that might be relevant to us as an audience. [22:35.300 --> 22:38.360] And one is, again, to reiterate the question that we should think about. [22:38.360 --> 22:41.740] How are power relations that are implicated in real world maps [22:41.740 --> 22:46.640] also possibly implicated in the production of cyberspacial maps? [22:47.280 --> 22:49.500] How are hackers and other online groups [22:49.500 --> 22:52.500] impacted by this emerging war on cyber terror? [22:52.500 --> 22:56.040] And specifically, how do the graphical representations [22:56.040 --> 22:58.880] of the online space that accompany this war [22:58.880 --> 23:02.820] impact our freedom and our civil rights? [23:04.000 --> 23:07.240] What might alternative efforts to map cyberspace look like? [23:07.240 --> 23:08.560] Again, this is an important question. [23:08.680 --> 23:12.040] I'm going to leave open to everybody to either comment on now [23:12.040 --> 23:15.300] or hopefully come and talk to me later if you have any ideas. [23:16.320 --> 23:22.000] How can we potentially subvert these dominant maps of cyberspace [23:22.000 --> 23:24.280] and produce our own? Thank you. [23:31.190 --> 23:32.790] One second before I answer any questions. [23:32.790 --> 23:36.730] Is there a moderator around who can tell me if I've got enough time to do so? [23:36.730 --> 23:39.390] I've got eight minutes? [23:39.930 --> 23:42.050] Well, I'll answer some questions then. [24:19.850 --> 24:26.970] You're kind of imagining a real-world, old-style cartographic representation [24:26.970 --> 24:30.410] of relative internet freedom by country. [24:47.390 --> 24:49.670] Right, and you raise a very important point, [24:49.670 --> 24:51.730] one that I forgot to really underline in my talk, [24:51.730 --> 24:54.910] which is that on this jellyfish map, [24:54.910 --> 24:58.930] you don't see any potential barriers to connection. [24:58.930 --> 25:01.470] You only see the connections. You don't see the blockages. [25:06.400 --> 25:10.460] Yeah, that's a cool idea. [25:10.940 --> 25:12.020] Any other questions? [25:55.220 --> 25:57.240] Yeah, that's a really cool idea. I'd love to talk to you after [25:57.240 --> 25:59.280] and find out where I can access that to have a look at it. [25:59.280 --> 26:01.300] It sounds like a really interesting sort of political project. [26:01.460 --> 26:04.380] Similar to that hobo diary, you know, turning the world upside down. [26:04.420 --> 26:06.800] They're saying, well, you know, let's point out the fact [26:06.800 --> 26:09.160] that English is the dominantly spoken language online [26:09.160 --> 26:14.840] and that the United States gets most of the news coverage. [26:15.200 --> 26:16.220] Bad English, yeah. [26:18.100 --> 26:20.040] Any more questions? Yeah, in the back. [27:02.970 --> 27:04.430] All right, well, if there's no other questions, [27:04.430 --> 27:07.810] I look forward to talking to you guys one-on-one after the presentation. [27:07.970 --> 27:08.830] Thanks very much.