#identitfication

[intransheart]

There is power in being visible — but also power in simply existing safely and authentically, in whatever way you can.

Trans Joy Isn’t Declining — It’s Evolving

[privacy-identity]

QR Codes for the Masses

QR Codes for the Masses

QR Codes are soooo cooool!  But that fact is not sufficient enough to attract the folks who could benefit most from them because they don’t usually have a clue about how to get the app or use it.

This problem is common with so much smartphone and tablet technology today.

So here is a challenge for device manufacturers:  select a few really useful features like NFC, QR, and other vauable apps to…

View On WordPress

[m3x0]

Christoph Engemann: "What is in a name? Identity-Regimes from 1500 to the 2000s", 27.12.2011 @ 28c3.

The Powerpoint of the worthwhile talk is available for download as pdf. His main focus is on the media history of Identity-Regimes but the bottom line of his talk is the assumption: "To govern is to address". With this conclusion five theses or - as you will - general observations go along: 

Naming and identity regimes emerge in economic, military, colonial, social-welfare, migratory contexts.

Names are not a matter of choice, they are mandatory in any modern nation state.

The reference of the law ist he body. (Problem: Gap between the body and the document).

Identity is duplication – controlled duplication with registers. (Identity regimes are means of monopolizing the registers).

Identity systems are media systems changing as media change.

There is not much to criticize about the historic narrative he develops, yet in regard to digital culture the examples mentioned seem to be a little biased towards governmental Identity-Regimes. But of course, there was not enough time to dwell deeper into the pressing questions of contemporary digital culture. This leaves me wondering what might be the right balance between historical background and analysis of present day developments in media historic/media theoretic talks?