Suchergebnisse

On 11 February, the World Fought back against Mass Surveillance. See those capital letters? They denote Things that Matter – somehow. We don't necessarily know who 'We' are, what the 'World' is, nor whether the Mass Surveillance We're against is the big and sexy kind run by acronymized (foreign) government agencies that We all recently learned about through Edward Snowden or the everyday kind conducted by means of cookies, computer profiles and GPS data we all send to whomever is watching in the course of a normal day's activities, like checking Facebook, leaving the house to buy some bread or sending family pictures over the holidays via email. But 'We' 'Fought' 'Them', or maybe 'It'.

Given such phenomena as the dramatic leaks of the last decade, the vibrantand inflammatory discourse about 'cyberwar' and the conflation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement with the 'backbone of the European economy', regulation of what the Internet is supposed to be and what people are allowed to do in it is always and everywhere about security, whether users like it or not. And that regulation comes from people, special people we like to think of as experts.

Most face-to-face interaction with other IR types happens at conferences, and it's easy to break conferences down by profile and inclusiveness. The ISA annual conference is supposed to rate pretty highly on both, and almost everyone has been a few times by the end of their post-grad careers. Then there are the conferences that are high profile but less inclusive. APSA, BISA, the ISA regional conferences, and the newly constituted EISA are fairly high profile in that most IR professionals have heard of them, but they're less inclusive in that few of us would cross broad bodies of water and long customs lines to participate.

Live von der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz 2014 berichet Lisa KatharinaBogerts von der Gruppe MSK Verändern. Ebenfalls live kommentieren BenKamis und das SiPo-Team einige Panels.

Das PRIF Working Paper analysiert den Aufstieg und die Konnotationen der Metapher des Cyber War. Die Autoren gehen dabei der Frage nach, wie sich die Konstruktion und Etablierung souveräner Staatlichkeit in dem lange als gegenüber Staatlichkeit aversen Raum des Internets vollzieht. Hierfür untersuchen sie am Beispiel der Diskussionen in Deutschland, Estland und Ungarn die sprachlichen Implikationen, die mit der Behauptung von Gewalt und Kriegsgefahr im Netz einhergehen.