Surveillance Society

ОБЩЕСТВО ТОТАЛЬНОГО НАБЛЮДЕНИЯ

ПОСТ-ПАНОПТИКОН: ПУБЛИЧНОСТЬ И ПРИВАТНОСТЬ В ГОРОДЕ ТОТАЛЬНОГО НАДЗОРА

ИНСТИТУТ STRELKA

2015

SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY

INSTITUTE

POST-PANOPTICON: EXPOSURE AND PRIVACY IN THE CITY OF TOTAL SURVEILLANCE

ОБЩЕСТВО ТОТАЛЬНОГО НАБЛЮДЕНИЯ Из централизованного инструмента контроля скрытое наблюдение превратилось в неотъемлемый элемент повседневной жизни. Невидимая революция последнего десятилетия принесла в нашу жизнь миллионы камер и миллиарды сенсоров. Не задумываясь о последствиях, мы размещаем в открытом доступе терабайты личных данных. Сегодня рынок новой индустрии наблюдения, построенной на идее добровольного раскрытия данных, по всем показателям опережает рынок традиционных методов скрытого наблюдения. Мы находимся у самых истоков этой трансформации, но уже сейчас очевидно, что в ближайшем будущем объем информации, предоставляемой добровольно, станет практически всеобъемлющим. Эти новшества повлекут за собой не только фантастические возможности, но и тревожные последствия. Оптимисты описывают сценарий будущего, при котором технологии обеспечат более рациональное использование времени и пространства. Новые приложения создадут условия для повсеместного развития совместного потребления. Новые средства коммуникации создадут более рационально управляемое общество. Однако пессимисты рисуют другой мир, где не останется места близости и практически исчезнет право на частную тайну, где любая ошибка прошлого может быть использована против нас, а глобальные корпорации и государственные власти будут обладать неограниченными базами данных. Вместо того чтобы восхвалять или, напротив, подвергнуть критике один из этих распространенных сценариев, в данном проекте мы рассматриваем новый конфликт нашего времени — противоречие между потребностью в сохранении личной информации и стремлением к удобству. Выбор между этими новыми крайностями оказывает влияние не только на образ жизни отдельного человека, но и на устройство городов. Политика управления, построенная на принципах на свободолюбия и признании права на частную жизнь, будет нуждаться в абсолютно иной организации пространства, нежели та, что будет ставить во главу угла эффективность и удобство. СССР сыграл огромную роль в истории скрытого наблюдения: большинство советских граждан проживали жизнь с чувством непреходящего беспокойства. В своем проекте мы представляем вам новых москвичей — жителей бывшей советской столицы, стоящих перед непростым выбором между правом на личную жизнь и тайну и стремлением к обретению долгожданного комфорта и удобства. Результат этого выбора определит развитие Москвы в ближайшем будущем.

1

— Куба Снопек, куратор проекта

SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY From being a centralized instrument of control, surveillance imperceptibly became an inherent part of our daily lives. The crawling revolution of the last decade brought us millions of cameras and billions of sensors. We carelessly revealed terabytes of our sensible data to the world. The market of the new surveillance based on exposure has already surpassed the market of traditionally understood vigilance and supervision. We are just in the beginning of this transition, but the trend is already clear: in the near future everyone who wants will expose everything to anyone interested.

The opportunities this new world brings are as seductive as the threats are horrifying. The optimists present us a scenario, in which technologies organize our time and space more efficiently. Where the new software helps us save money by letting us share instead of buying. Where new tools of communication organize us better as a community. The pessimists draw an image of the world, where there is no place for intimacy and secrets. Where every mistake from the past can be used against you in any moment of your future. Where global corporations, governments and other suspicious organizations will know everything about everyone.

This project, instead of glorifying or condemning one of these futures, focuses on the core conflict: one between the wish for privacy and the desire of convenience. The choice between one and another will have a fundamental importance not only for the lives of individuals, but also for urban planning. City policies based on a love for freedom and privacy will produce a completely different urban condition than those praising efficiency and convenience.

The USSR played a key role in the history of surveillance; it was also a country of permanent personal discomfort. Therefore these are the Muscovites, dwellers of its ex-capital, which will choose between protection of privacy and trading exposure for a long-awaited convenience. And the vector of the next huge transformation of Moscow will depend on this very choice‌ — Kuba Snopek, tutor

2

SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY

3

While we fear being under surveillance, we are slipping into becoming a society careless of the exposure of personal data.

The border between private and public is thinning, reaching the critical point when the question “What remains private?� should be asked.

4

SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY

Definition of the Trend The city of today is dependent on the mechanism of every single action being watched and recorded. Our society is approaching the ultimate level of data precision: the era of perfect knowledge.

Already in 2015, humans’ understanding of the world covers a vast spectrum — from mapping the universe to personal genetics analysis. Soon everything that exists will be registered, decomposed and stored forever.

The initial Panopticon concept by British philosopher Jeremy Bentham was a prison design. It proposed a toolkit that could be applied to any institution where people need to be kept under supervision: whether a hospital, school or workplace. The basic principle is that a single inspector, who is placed in the central tower of a circular building, can discipline all the inmates by planting the idea of constant watch into their heads. The trick is that they are unable to know when they are being observed; therefore they behave all the time.

5

DEFINITION OF THE TREND

Provoked by the development of technologies making communications instant and global, the panopticon gaze* morphed into a multidirectional process.

Surveillance is hidden and dispersed among various actors and is not performed by one watchman anymore.

The decentralization of surveillance has multiplied the sources of influence. In a number of ways our world is post-panoptical.

* Panopticon gaze — a metaphor used

by Michel Foucault in ‘Discipline and Punish’ (1979) to explain the essence of disciplinary power in Western societies.

National Penitentiary Cuba, Isle of Pines. Many prisons claimed to reflect the “panoptic design”, but none of them followed the detailed drawings by Bentham. This one now serves as a museum and is declared a national monument.

6

SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY

Surveillance has spread beyond the walls of a penitentiary and has slowly infiltrated our daily routine. You can’t pass the border without your fingerprints being taken, you are a subject to periodical medical inspections, security checks at metro stations, shopping malls and even church.

New layers of surveillance are continuously introduced under the guise of security. We are all potentially sick, criminals or misbehaving kids.

On top of that, the embeddedness of surveillance technologies in our everyday life encourages selfcontrol. Our sleep cycle, spending behavior and even sex duration* are all subject to investigation, helping to optimize our behavior.

“For the first time, we can precisely We take no pleasure in map the behavior of large numbers having secrets if they of people as they go about their are not to be revealed to our benefit. In the daily lives.” Google meantime, this very sensitive information is leaked to unknown digital realms that we have no knowledge of.

We came to know what is now called surveillance through coherent terms and tendencies, such as crime prevention, discipline and punishment. Today we witness a shift of focus from imposed to voluntary surveillance in exchange for the promise of convenient life.

The desire to make life more understandable and efficient is making us reconsider the notion of privacy.

The antidote to the last stage of development of the surveillance society is the society of exposure, or the Post-Panopticon. It is a society where voluntary disclosure of personal information Surveillance is escaping the realm in exchange for benefits of menace and entering the market is a social norm. This of joy, where people are trading off new type of society has flourished without our privacy for a comfortable life. proper attention to it.

We submitted ourselves to a new political regime, without understanding its potential implications.

7

* “Lovely” is a recently launched wearable sex device. It “understands movement during sex” and gives tips to improve it.

DEFINITION OF THE TREND

Habidatum Friends of friends MTS

Tumblr Instagram

Wi-Fi Metro CCTV Light detectors Motion sensing

Friends

City Administration Police

iPhone

Speed cameras Jawbone

Twitter

Mac

Facebook

Parents

Strelka staff

Google engine Yardkeeper

Government CCTV Strelka security Employer

Medical check

The Post-Panopticon. Ever-expanding fluid surveillance network.

Post-Panopticon is driven by its active participants, willing to share their private information in exchange for benefits.

Surveillance is escaping the realm of menace and entering the market of joy, where people are trading off privacy for a comfortable life.

Self-surveillance Social Surveillance Environmenta Sur. Commercial Sur. Governmental Sur.

Surveillance, being a classic tool to penetrate and correct human behavior, will conquer new realms and switch to practical tools. Is it good or bad? The answer is yes.

8

SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY

Global Development The phenomenon of a surveillance society is full of contradictions: privacy concerns are rising, but people are willing to do very little about it; the quantity of accumulated information is growing, while we are not able to process it. The key to solving these paradoxes lies deep in human behavior.

The new social morphology that is shaping our world is a fluid network. According to Zigmunt Bauman, surveillance is also turning liquid, “responding to and reproducing liquidity”, creating a new organizational structure. “While the most powerful person in a hierarchy could be located at the top of a pyramid, the most powerful person in a network is a spider, the one to whom everybody has to relate, who knows everybody” (Castells, 1996).

The major protagonist of the most recent privacy breach scandals is the National Security Agency of the United States. Following the growth of the number of people who have access to internet from 26 million to 2.4 billion between 1995 and 2013 (Internet World Stats 2013), the possibility of tracking people with new means has expanded is expected to cover 5 billion people, or 65%

9

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT

of the whole world population by year 2020. Moreover, the industry of conventional surveillance itself (hardware, software and services) has been steadily growing.

The rise of surveillance is sustained by a variety of tendencies that seem unrelated. An overwhelming majority of those sub-trends are going up: digital data storage capacities, satellite industry profits, amount of user-generated content and smart city technologies development. They are actually contributing to the development of a database that makes monitoring of people’s everyday activities a simple task.

The amount of information available is constantly growing, but the possibility of knowing what is really happening is diminishing. The value of data is no longer in its amount, but in its interpretation, filtration and manipulation. It is increasingly difficult to orient, therefore we entrust the decision-making to consultancies, experts and Google Search.

* Dark Google – a name given

by Shoshanna Zuboff, explaining its absolutist nature.

Today, the new rising power — with exquisite possibilities of ‘pattern of life analysis’ — is ‘Dark Google’*. In 2010 NSA and Google established a partnership, which seems to be a natural alliance. As it turned out, the two share 500

The physical security market is expected to grow from $57.72 billion in 2014 to $87.95 billion by 2019.

google market capitalization

400

300

facebook market capitalization

200

100

global surveillance market cap (software | hardware | services)

instagram market cap vkontakte + yandex market cap surveillance market cap (Russia)

20 2000

‘01

‘02

‘03

‘04

‘05

‘06

‘07

‘08

‘09

‘10

‘11

‘12

‘13

‘14

‘15

‘16

‘17

‘18

‘19

2020

Hypothesis diagram. Even though the surveillance industry continues to grow, it is insignificant compared to the trend of exposure tools.

10

SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY

similar interests: “NSA already had a keen interest in all things Google. It struggled with the demands of tracking objects and discerning patterns in Internet time.” Never before in human history have so many people been so closely connected to surveillance structures as today.

The paradox of privacy is that people consider the right to be left alone a fundamental one, but do not bother to protect it in the digital dimension. Jill Lepore of The New Yorker raised an Never before in human history excellent point: “this have so many people been so has led, in our own time to the paradox of closely connected to surveillance an American culture structures as today. obsessed, at once, with being seen and with being hidden, a world in which the only thing more cherished than privacy is publicity.”

The dependence on being noticed on one hand, and on knowing anything, anywhere, any time on the other, is making us value immediacy more than intimity.

In 2011 Ai Weiwei, a Chinese contemporary artist and activist, was arrested and detained for 81 days in a tiny room with two guards watching him and restricting his movements all the time*. In the “Soon, your house could betray near future a similar you.” Rem Koolhaas situation will be commonly accepted and enjoyed: through voluntary smart home imprisonment.

Recently, Rem Koolhaas wrote: “While we still think of buildings as neutral spaces, our houses are assuming a degree of consciousness — the ‘intelligent’ building is an euphemism for an agent of intelligence. Soon, your house could betray you.” This might be the case, if the right to comfort outvalues the right to privacy in the physical reality too.

11

* S.A.C.R.E.D. — Ai Weiwei’s installation at Venice Biennale showed his life under the watchful eye of two guards during his detention.

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT

EXPOSURE

BIOMETRICS

WEARABLE CAMERAS

FACIAL RECOGNITION

DRONES

GEO-LOCATION

SURVEILLANCE

Many of the tool previously used for surveillance are now being repurposed for personal use.

12

SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY

The Russian Condition Popular research on the Panopticon concept links it to advances in Western societies. It dismisses one crucial fact: the Panopticon was created in absolutist Russia in the estate of Prince Potemkin.

Foucault defines Panopticon as “an idealized microcosm of nineteenth century society, where discipline has become institutionalized in schools, hospitals, prisons and asylums” (S. Werrett, 1999). He strictly distinguishes the “disciplinary society”, where power is exercised through mind, not body, and “ancient regimes” that rely on public executions to maintain order.

However, the Panopticon penitentiary was based upon an idea for a workers’ training facility by Jeremy’s younger brother, Samuel, It is safe to say that Russia is who was at the time the place where the conflict of working in Russia for Prince values privacy vs. exposure will Potemkin*. Jeremy later adapted this principle for be the most dramatic. his proposed prison, an “Inspection House”. The Panopticon idea, therefore, grew out of a distinct reality, which was absolutist Russia.

13

* The issue was explored within the Bentham Project by University College London.

RUSSIAN CONDITION

A communal apartment, as a core part of the Soviet Union housing policy, was just another smart device to introduce surveillance into Russian life. The boundaries between public and private spheres had to blur. The structure allowed for correction and standardization of behavior merely by keeping citizens very close to each other. In a ‘kommunalka’ privacy was an unattainable value: your neighbors knew exactly what you were eating by the smell in the kitchen, exactly what you were doing in your room through thin walls. Inmates were accustomed to ‘life on stage’.

Privatization of the 90s had extreme consequences: gated communities with giant fences for those who could afford it and everyone’s insatiable desire to show off. By virtue of these historical tensions, it is safe to say that Russia is the place where the conflict of values - privacy vs. exposure — will be the most dramatic.

In contrast to the fate of the Panopticon in England, which was never built, Samuel Bentham succeeded in building a “Panopticon School of Arts”, on the banks of the river Okhta in St. Petersburg.

14

SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY

In a “kommunalka” there was difficultly in hiding from constant observation.

15

RUSSIAN CONDITION

TECHNOLOGIES OF SURVEILLANCE: MOST SURVEILLED ZONES RADIATOR WINDOW GARBAGE CHUTE VENTILATING SHAFT THE RADIUS OF AUDIBILITY COMMUNAL PHONE

COMMUNAL APARTMENT AS APPARATUS OF SURVEILLANCE

16

SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY

Russian Trajectories The clash of future Russian generations is going to shape the surveillance trend in the state of digital sovereignty.

Given its big IT potential, Russia is duplicating the global technological trend: successfully copying or adapting digital products. There is a tendency to establish digital sovereignty, driven by the government — an attempt to institute state internet. In 2016 the country is planning to store all information on local servers. Even if it is impossible to keep the entire internet in-house, these restrictions potentially lead to increasingly sophisticated means of controlling the population.

Based on the Theory of generations*, people born in specific birth cohorts react differently to surveillance.

In its adaptation to Russian characteristics, the theory suggests that generation X (1963-1984), the last soviet generation, is using the tricks learnt previously to fight surveillance, by distinguishing “official public” and “hidden intimate”. The “radically transparent” generation Y (1985-2000) is going to accept the global trend of exposure, while Z (2001–2016) or “generation incognito” values privacy and, for instance, will often disable phone geolocation. In the next 50 years, our future is going to be defined by the interplay of these three.

17

* Theory of generations According to Karl Mannheim’s theory, people are significantly influenced by the socio-historical environment of their youth, and in turn became agents of change and give rise to events that shape future generations.

RUSSIAN TRAJECTORIES

DRIVERLESS CAR

SPOTIFY

FOOD DELIVERY

YANDEX MAPS

INSTAGRAM

The world of comfort is widely depicted in Russian fairytales.

18

SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY

MILLIONS 160000000

140000000

120000000

100000000

80000000

60000000

40000000

20000000

0

1963

1978

In 2037 generations X, Y and Z will be defining the reality of Russia.

19

1988

1998

RUSSIAN TRAJECTORIES

NOW

other GEN B GEN A

GEN Z

GEN Y

GEN X

2009

2015

2025

2035

2050

20

SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY

The Future Settlement In future Moscow, the main conflict of personal values was that between privacy and convenience.

It was the most dramatic in Russia, with a majority of people choosing comfort and benefits of exposure.

Those who refused privacy inhabited most of Moscow’s city space. They voluntarily and easily shared their private information and exchanged it for benefits offered by technology. The openness of people to new developments and the desire to live a comfortable and uncomplicated life allowed for faster development.

These parts of the city were full of advanced services, efficient infrastructure, safety and comfort; it was a smart space. It functioned almost smoothly, except for regular mistakes of artificial intelligence and machines.

Exposure meant a new approach to surveillance: faster and easier. While exposure of personal data contributed to convenience of life and ability to proceed with little effort, it made the citizens easy targets for control and manipulation. Loss of privacy stimulated loss of authenticity; the lifestyles of Muscovites were now somewhat standardized.

21

FUTURE SETTLEMENT

There were several districts that opposed the major trend: gated, restricted, inefficient, and under traditional surveillance. It was home to people that chose privacy.

It was important to them to be cautious about what they shared with others. They were more conservative and not that excited about technological innovations; it was simply too much for them. People were trying to preserve their personal space and stay away (behind fences, the wall and the river) from the districts of exposure.

Although citizens of this side refused to follow the main tendency, they could not escape ubiquitous surveillance.

22

SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY

5 bln Internet users worldwide texting by thinking

9/11

deaths from terrorism

terrorist attacks

google

total worldwide data

data breaches

90

2000

2010

The rise of surveillance is being constructed by a myriad of seemingly unrelated tendencies.

23

2015

2020

AI is widespread

EVENTS & FORECASTS

wireless implantable device, health monitoring

police forces automated

humans are merged with machines

drones dominating battle field

Internet users

Internet of things

global population

wearables devices

artificial intelligence satellite

Facebook Russian population robotics ind.

surveillance ind.

2040

2050

2060

2065

year 24

SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY

All Moscow districts will need to choose on which side they are in the future value conflict between privacy and exposure.

25

26

EXPERTS

HEADLINE PLEASE DIRECTORS Anastassia Smirnova, David Erixon TUTOR Kuba Snopek STUDENTS Paul Cetnarski, architect, Wroclaw, Poland; Elmira Kakabaeva, journalist and copywriter, Almaty, Kazakhstan; Yulia Popova, designer, Moscow; Natalia Shavkunova, foreign affairs analyst, Ekaterinburg EXTERNAL EXPERTS Konstantin Benyumov, Chief Editor, Meduza English; Konstantin Bochkarev, Legal Advisor, Wargaming; Nicholas Felton, infographic designer; Valentin Fetisov, media artist; Eduard Haiman, Habidatum; Dmitry Pobedash, Director of the Center for American Studies, Ural Federal University; David H. Price, anthropologist, University of Chicago; Katya Serova, Habidatum; Vadim Smakhtin, Habidatum; Nicolay Spesivtsev, media artist; McKenzie Wark, writer, Professor of ﾑ「lture and media, Parsons The New School; Paul Wolf, malware hunter; Zinaida Zhuk, media artist; Hans de Zwart, Bits of Freedom.

27

BIBLIOGRAPHY

KEY RESOURCES FOR THE RESEARCH OF CONTEMPORARY CITIES AND OF PEDAGOGY AAS, K.F. et al. (2008) Technologies of Insecurity: The Surveillance of Everyday Life, London: Taylor & Francis.

Bard, A. and Soderqvist, J. (2002) Netocracy: the New Power Elite and Life After Capitalism, London: Reuters.

BAUMAN, Z. AND LYON, D. (2013) Liquid Surveillance: A Conversation, Cambridge: Polity Press.

BELL, G. (2010) Your Life, Uploaded: The Digital Way to Better Memory, Health, and Productivity, New York: Plume Books.

CURRAY, A. (2015) “No, the NSA Isn’t Like the Stasi—And Comparing Them Is Treacherous”, January 2015, [unpublished, available online: http://www.wired.com/2015/01/nsa-stasicomparison/].

DE ZWART, H. (2014) “Ai Weiwei is Living in Our Future”, December 2014, [unpublished, available online: https://medium.com/@ hansdezwart/ai-weiwei-is-living-in-our-future474e5dd15e4f].

HOLM, N. (2009) “Theorizing Surveillance: Considering Modalities of Paranoia and Conspiracy in Surveillance Studies”, Surveillance & Society 7(1): 36-48.

KOOLHAAS, R, (2015) “Architects Underestimate “Potentially Sinister” SmartHome”, May 2015, [unpublished, available online: http://www.dezeen.com/2015/05/27/ rem-koolhaas-interview-technology-smartsystems-peoples-eagerness-sacrifice-privacytotally-astonishing/].

KOOLHAAS, R, (2015) “The Smart Landscape: Intelligent Architecture”, April 2015, [unpublished, available online: https://artforum.com/inprint/ issue=201504&id=50735].

LANIER, J. (2013) Who Owns the Future?

New York: Simon and Schuster.

LYON, D. (2003) “Surveillance Technology and Surveillance Society”, Modernity and Technology, ed. Thomas J. Misa et al., Cambridge: MIT Press.

DELEUZE, G. (1992) Postscript on the Societies of Control, Cambridge: MIT Press.

MCQUIRE, S. (2010) The Media City: Media, Architecture and Urban Space, London: SAGE Publications.

ERICSON, R. AND HAGGERTY, K. (2000) “The Surveillant Assemblage”, British Journal of Sociology, London: London School of Economics and Political Science.

MEYEROVICH, M. (2008) Nakazaniye Zhilishchem. Zhilishchnaya Politika v SSSR kak Sredstvo Upravleniya Lyud’mi, Moscow: ROSSPEN.

FOUCAULT, M. (1995) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage.

MOLOTCH, H. (2012) Against Security: How We Go Wrong at Airports, Subways, and Other Sites of Ambiguous Danger, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

FREEMAN, J. F. AND Daniel B. (2008) Paranoia: The Twenty-First Century Fear, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

GRAHAM, S. (2010) Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism, London: Verso.

POMERANTSEV, P. AND WEISS, M. (2014) “The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money”, November 2014, [unpublished, available online: http://www.interpretermag.com/ the-menace-of-unreality-how-the-kremlinweaponizes-information-culture-and-money/].

28

SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY

SCHNEIER, B. (2015) Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World, New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

SCHNEIER, B. (2015) “We Give Up Our Data Too Cheaply”, March 2015, [unpublished, available online: http://motherboard.vice.com/ read/we-give-up-our-data-too-cheaply].

SIFRY, M. (2014) The Big Disconnect. Why the Internet has not Transformed Politics (Yet), New York: O/R Books.

SOLOVE, D. (2008) Understanding Privacy, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

UTEKHIN, I. (2004) “Ocherki Kommunal’nogo Byta”, Moscow: OGI. VIRILIO, P. (2005) The Information Bomb, London: Verso.

WERRETT, S. (1999) Potemkin and the Panopticon: Samuel Bentham and the Architecture of Absolutism in Eighteenth Century Russia, London: Journal of Bentham Studies.

WOO, G. AND BRANDT, M. (2015) “Humans: The Next Platform”, March 2015, [unpublished, available online: http://techcrunch. com/2015/03/18/humans-the-nextplatform/].

YESIL, B. (2009) Video Surveillance: Power and Privacy in Everyday Life, El Paso: LFB Scholarly Publishing.

YURCHAK, A. (2014) Eto Bylo Navsegda, Poka Ne Konchilos’, Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie.

29

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, we would love to thank to our mentor Kuba Snopek ​for all his effort, ironic criticism and passionate creative work. Additionally, we are extremely grateful that we had an opportunity to work with all the tutors at Strelka Institute ​who helped us with our workflow and evaluation of our research. We would like to give a special mention to Anastassia Smirnova​for her amazing rationality and sharp comments that enhanced the scope of our research.

We cannot forget about David Erixon and Paul McCabe , who supervised our personal growth and enhanced our team work skills. Also we would love to acknowledge the whole staff at Strelka Institute a​ nd thank them f​ or making our educational programme possible.

Last but not least, we would like to thank all our experts who were essential in shaping our research findings; without them our work wouldn’t be so rich in detail, especially: Valentin Fetisov,​media artist Ekaterina Serova, Vadim Smakhtin,​Habidatum Zinaida Zhuk, Nicolay Spesivtsev,​media artists Konstantin Benyumov,​chief editor of Medusa in English Kostya Bochkarev​, Legal Advisor in Wargaming Dmitry Pobedash​, political theorist, non­proliferation of weapons of mass destruction expert McKenzie Wark,​Professor of Culture and Media in Parsons, The New School. Writer and scholar in media theory, critical theory and new media.

30