This article was published in Domus 948, June 2011
In the early days of the Internet, more than a decade before
Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks, two New York architects
with a successful design practice saw in the Internet a platform
for open exchange of information capable of fundamentally
altering the asymmetrical balance of power between people,
governments and corporations, and began publishing every
official document—classified or otherwise—they could lay their
hands on. In the last 15 years and 65,000 uploads, Cryptome.org
has survived dozens of corporate takedown orders and hacker
attacks, and Deborah Natsios and John Young are as convinced
as ever that all information must be free.
How did Cryptome begin?
Deborah: Our collaboration started some time late in 1993.
We went online in the Internet's early infancy, its seminal
moments. Quite quickly we became involved in these new
online environments and communities that were positioning
themselves on the front line of the politics of information.
John's involvement with the Cypherpunk Listserv was a
transformative moment—Cypherpunk was dealing with
issues of cryptography and freedom of information, and was
way more advanced than anything that architectural practice
was interested in at the time. For a long time we were the
only architects in a milieu of technologists, cryptographers,
hackers—we experienced a very peculiar kind of isolation in
those years.
John: Cypherpunk was completely different from anything
that existed at the time. It was all about taking over the world
by undermining institutions and authorities. Cypherpunk
did not have any interest in design, or had never heard of it, or
possibly just didn't care. On the other side, we were surrounded
by architects and designers who were not interested in
anything that might disturb the opportunity of getting
work, anything that might hinder their careers. It was then
that it started to dawn on us that the Internet was going to
become an advertising medium, as it has become for designers
and architects. Even today, there are thousands of websites
about getting work and showing portfolios, but nothing even
remotely disruptive. Cypherpunk was out to undermine
precisely that.
What made you perceive the disruptive potential of the
Internet in relation to the politics of information as
something necessary at that time?
Deborah: I think the politics of these "new technology" people
in the design world is very problematic. Architects are by and
large engaged in a kind of ornamental politics—a telegenic,
photogenic and glossy politics that is unerringly safe. They
won't put their careers on the line, they won't be visited by the
authorities, they won't be subpoenaed for a federal criminal
trial—all of which has happened to us. Is your work pulling
the tail of the tiger? Are the authorities appearing at your door
with warnings? Very few architects can say that. There is a
certain abdication of engagement in the circles of mainstream
production as tools of change—exhibitions, magazines and so
on play their own role in this game.
John:We are not aware of anyone else in the design world who
is engaged in the sort of practice we are engaged in. And even
if they were, you would never find out about them through the
architectural and design media—they would be too bizarre to
be associated with. What the architecture world does have is a
particular breed of architects who are highly practised at being
embraced for their "outsiderness". Being a professional outsider
as a promotional schtick: they are welcome and there are
budgets for them. So one option is to be mildly controversial,
and get invited to places to give talks and do museum shows.
The other is to actually do something that will really piss
people off, to the extent they will never want to invite you
again or have anything to do with you.
Open Source Design 01: The architects of information
The architecture of John Young and Deborah Natsios is made of information. Their portfolio: Cryptome.org, which hosts thousands of suppressed and classified documents.
View Article details
- Joseph Grima
- 18 June 2011
- New York
What have the consequences been? How have you been
attacked?
Deborah:The most common way is through copyright law.
When Cryptome was shut down by Microsoft last year, it
was on a proprietary claim that "copyrighted" material had
been published. It turned out that what had been published
was a series of documents drafted by major corporations,
Microsoft included, in response to new government directives
for situations in which corporations are obliged to share
user-data with law enforcement. All these companies were
asked to produce a manual instructing officials on how to
decode and interpret the confidential data residing in their
databases. Most of them were made public by the corporations
themselves so that the public would be aware that their data
could potentially be turned over to the FBI, no questions asked.
Microsoft's manual, however, had not been made public.
It was provided to us and we put it up on Cryptome.
As a consequence, Microsoft had the site taken down.
Three days later we were back up again.
What do you think about the emergence of an open-source
design culture? In many ways it seems to adhere to the
sort of non-proprietary attitude towards information and
knowledge that you have been advocating for many years.
Deborah: To pry open the privatised domain, the realm of
copyright interests, the not-public domain, the not-public
space of corporate interests—but there are private security
guards, global security mercenaries who patrol that boundary.
If you are really serious about open source you are going to
step on their toes and you will be exposed to the backlash. The push-back is very vigorous—the authorities, the corporate
interests, they are not gentle about it. And there is real
discomfort among those establishments in associating with
this kind of work, especially among academic practitioners
who are presumably on the cutting edge but who are actually
slaves to job security. As soon as they get a sense that
something could be too problematic for them in the academic
milieu, they back away.
John: We're great advocates of plagiarism and stealing, and
as a result we get ejected from places all the time. They say:
"You went too far." That's the marker: you went too far. You
can be impolite and controversial and so forth, so long as you
don't overstep the mark. A little storm in a teacup will be OK,
but if you go and join the Palestinians and attack the Israelis,
that's going too far. So being highly politicised is fine, so long
as you're careful not to lay it on too thick. Otherwise you are
asked: are you insane? It's professional suicide for an architect
to do this kind of thing. No one will ever hire you again! It's
much the same in the field of architectural design: you can't
go too far in taking community issues into account in your
designs, for example. But if you do, all sorts of explanations
are at the ready for why the project must be cancelled. And it's
the same with the media. We're often faced with journalists
weaseling out of publishing us—they say we couldn't do this,
couldn't publish that, it didn't make the cut, there wasn't
enough space, it didn't fit our format, there's been a change
since we last spoke.
What do you think about the unprecedented degree of
notoriety Wikileaks has achieved with the release of the US
diplomatic cables?
John: There are a number of information activists who are
concerned about whistle-blowing organisations going too
far, triggering a crackdown on journalism. They say we have
to be careful we don't really offend people or it will lead to a
crackdown. But if you go ahead and go too far, as WikiLeaks
discovered, it is all right; it turns out just fine and you can
capitalise on the attention the controversy attracts. It's a
strategy: go too far, get noticed, monetise having gone too far,
stop going too far, and repeat the process over and over. It's a
fairly well-known technique, and one Wikileaks is very familiar
with. The markup is phenomenal. That's why I consider all these
copycats of Wikileaks pretty obnoxious. They should go beyond
riding the coat-tails of the brand name and do something that
is truly, extraordinarily different. The reality is that there's big
business in branding dissent and whistle-blowing. There is
money to be made with these outsider stances, and they will
fight fiercely for it. Once you become aware of how insidious
it is, it is hard to stay clear of it. Advertising is one of the great
undermining forces out there—at least in the world of managing
information. We have been taunted about that: how would you
like to make money, to fill up your site with advertising? The
reality is that it's not that expensive to publish information. It
is very cheap, actually, until you need offices, lawyers, public
relations managers, your own advertising office and so on.
What about your architectural practice?
John: This is how we practise. In addition to Cryptome we run
a website called Cartome. Deborah is in charge of that one. It
deals with similar issues to Cryptome—privacy, cryptography,
the politics of information and so on—but from a spatialgeographic
perspective. We have thousands of collaborators
and clients around the world who help us with "construction
documents"—not the kind you would use for that term, but it'll
help you understand. Cryptome publishes them daily, dozens
of them a week. We are doing construction documents that
go well beyond simple buildings. It is a huge, collaborative
project, and one we've been invested in long before these other
high-profile initiatives came along. We've now got thousands
of collaborators, most of them anonymous, contributing and
helping us create these "construction documents". We give full
credit to all these collaborators—as much credit as they can
bear, in fact, but we also offer anonymity. And we don't claim
this work as ours—we simply publicise this material as the
work of a global network. We are anxious to get this out and
share it with others, but we won't ask for a grant from some
foundation to support us. That is a key point. We pay for this out
of our own pockets.
What do you see as most problematic in contemporary
architecture?
Deborah: We oppose the tele-visualisation and the
photogenicisation of the architectural object, product or
furniture, its glossy representation. Our interpretation of
the architect is as an architect of information—collecting,
annotating, combining troves of data, organising it and
indexing it. Architects have an extraordinary training in
handling complex team efforts. The degree to which they are
capable of coordinating huge teams of disparate disciplinary
archaeologies that are brought into some kind of a moment of
intersection is rarely acknowledged.
John: As far as we know, no global architect is doing anything
like this. Foreign policy people are, think-tanks are, but
architects have been beaten down into a narrow and
insignificant role of creating glossy projects for publication
in their own profession's magazines. The problem with the
architecture world is that most of its members will not talk
about the issues at stake here, and won't admit to being
associated with it. I have brought along some of our work in
this package: 65,000 files made of videos, drawings, maps,
some of them stolen, most of them contributed. It is a set of
construction documents that thousands of people have helped
us assemble. We don't claim it as our own, and we make it
available through DVDs and our website. It is all online and
it is there for people to use as they like. Cryptome publishes
five or six new files a day—sometimes a dozen—but we have
no architectural readers on our site. In the back of their minds
there is the fear that this kind of discourse might undermine
their relationship with their clientele.
You ran a successful design office that for many years was
involved in more conventional forms of practice. What
drives you to do this?
Deborah: I would turn the question round to you: what are
your thoughts about anonymity? What do you think about
Facebook being a beautiful surveillance device? What do you
think about the asymmetry of emergent social tools? They
are evidently onerous, but few people are stopping to notice
this—they're too busy exulting in the sociability of it all. In the
meantime, Amazon, with all its cloud services, now possesses
more information than any other single organisation, with the
possible exception of Google. What a sweet spot for people who
want to steal personal information.
How do you distribute your DVDs?
John: Regular mail, which is probably the safest means of
communication there is. Nothing online can be used for
communication if you want privacy, nothing digital for that
matter. We caution people: these are digital products, so
beware of what is on them. We don't really know what might
be in a document sent to us on DVD. This is a macroscopic
fallacy in any regulation intended to protect your privacy: it
won't work. Every privacy policy is deceptive, and is meant
to mislead you. Regulations are meant to mislead you.
Governments are meant to mislead you. We continually ask
ourselves: how do you explain this, how do you get it across
to the public when there is a huge industry out there peddling
the other version, the narrative of "trustworthiness"? They
say: we will pass a law, we will take care of this for you so
leave it to us. What they should be saying is that you have to
take care of yourself—that's our view. We state this clearly on
Cryptome: do not trust the Internet. Do not trust professionals.
Do not trust us, or anybody else.
Interview recorded in New York on May 10, 2011
If you are really serious about open source you are going to step on the toes of the global security mercenaries who defend corporate interests. They’re not at all gentle.