The MTTLR Blog

There is a growing trend of hobbyists and garage-entrepreneurs who experiment with genetic engineering.  Also known as “bio-hacking”, these enterprising individuals are able to buy biotech equipment very cheaply, usually from eBay or Craigslist to make their own makeshift labs complete with all the equipment necessary to tinker with the DNA of simple organisms.  These bio-hackers have a noble goal: to make the world a better place.  Synthetic DNA for a variety of organisms can be easily bought online, and bio-hackers are engaged in a wide range of activities, from trying to find a cure for cancer, to making harmless bacteria glow in the dark.

This amateur scientist community is thriving, and their blogs and experiences can be found on websites such as DIYbio.com, (which stands for do-it-yourself biology) an organization that helps amateurs and hobbyists share information regarding their bio-hacking pursuits.   However, there is a great deal of concern regarding this new brand of scientific experimentation.  An organism that is modified, even in a benign way, could severely disrupt the ecosystem if released into the environment.  At the moment, the oversight for this group of scientists is done through self-policing.  Many experts are concerned with the potential abuse of bio-engineering and the development of dangerous new pathogens and viruses.  Proponents of biohacking respond to security concerns by pointing out that hazardous DNA sequences are already public, whether it be Ebola, H5N1, and even the 1918 plague.

Organizations such as DIYbio argue that widespread, collaborative biohacking increases security by exposing lab work in a transparent public setting.  Furthermore, proponents of bio-hacking argue that their activities are aimed at making science more transparent, affordable, and beneficial for greater number of people. Regardless of these benefits, this type of amateur biology has security officials in the US very worried.  It will be interesting to see what steps the government will take, if any, to regulate these activities in the future.

by: Nancy Sims, MTTLR Blog Editor

The McCain campaign’s visual themes (i.e. the Optimum typeface, his simple star logo) have drawn positive comments for the strength and military experience they convey. But many commentators agree that the Obama “O” logo is a radical political innovation: “probably the only political campaign logo to have a visual theme in it”, “[a] true logo, one that is recognizable apart from the candidate’s name” and “the first sophisticated corporate-style identity to emerge from presidential politics”, “signals by design that Obama has a different message”, “perhaps one of the few conceptual logos in the history of presidential elections”, “[c]learly not the old standards of years past.”A few have pointed out that the Bush 2004 campaign’s “W” logo was similarly identifiable, but it did not convey the same level of conceptual information.

The “O” logo has been criticized as derivative of other logos, (although the same criticism has been leveled with similar plausibility at the McCain logo.) For any number of possible reasons (its innovation, its visual impact, its simplicity, basic political demographics) the “O” logo has become a favorite new theme of makers, hackers, crafters and other habitues of the DIY/maker/remix culture. (In an attempt to keep this post politically neutral, I searched extensively for McCain remixes. The closest match I found were these commercially available McCain logo cookies.) Despite plausible copyright and trademark claims to the art and product-identifying use of the logo, unauthorized reinterpretations have rapidly proliferated.

(For all of the following examples, click the thumbnail to see the image in its original context.)

It’s popular in food (particularly cookies):

CC-licensed by-nc-sa
	CC-licensed by-nc-sa	CC-licensed by-nc

Knitters and other textile and fabric crafters have also interpreted the logo:

	CC-licensed by-nc-nd

Several artisans have made their own “O” products:

CC-licensed by-nc-nd

Finally, a few of the reinterpreted “O” logos defy categorization. They include:

The Penn State S-Zone is transformed into the O-Zone: CC-licensed by

A bicycle wheel is transformed into a glowing “O”:

A pregnant supporter displays her own “O” logo:

Additionally, the logo seems clearly a motivating factor for the Barack O-Lanterns of non-campaign-affiliated Yes We Carve and other Obama O’Lanterns.

It is interesting to note all the different claims people are making as to “ownership” of their logo-derivatives. A number of images are Creative Commons licensed, but with varying levels of control asserted (from the very loose “attribution” license, to the more restrictive “attribution-noncommercial-noderivatives” license.) Several of the images on Flickr also display the traditional “all rights reserved” language, but since this is the Flickr default, it doesn’t necessarily mean a great deal. The creators of both the necklace and the earrings have their derivative images for sale on craft website Etsy – almost certainly a commercial use, although the necklace maker claims to be donating to the Obama campaign with every sale.

In the midst of an intense political campaign, the Obama camp’s interests may, in many ways, be opposite from those of most trademark and copyright owners. It is in the campaign’s interest for the mark to be distributed widely. Although using the language of trademarks – the Obama website refers to the “‘O’ Logomark” – this distinctive image does not appear to have been registered with the PTO (a TESS search for “obama” yielded 38 results, none of which appeared to be for this image.) In fact, they make the image freely downloadable in a variety of formats from the campaign website.

Given the limited utility of the mark once the election is over, there is little incentive for the campaign to police others’ uses of the mark, be they positive or negative. Without anyone having directly dedicated the “O” mark to the public domain, it appears to have become de facto public property.

by Nancy Sims, MTTLR Blog editor

“Void your warranty, violate a user agreement, fry a circuit, blow a fuse, poke your eye out…”

So exhorts a t-shirt on sale from Make magazine. They also sell shirts with slogans like “If you can’t open it, you don’t own it“, and “Permission to play“. Make is not remotely a unique phenomenon – Instructables, Evil Mad Scientist Laboratories, and a host of other sites provide how-tos and what-ifs for the growing population of hardware modders and hackers. Make’s sister publication, Craft, and sites like Etsy, and Craft Mafia, demonstrate that the sensibility isn’t limited purely to hardware. It’s remix culture applied to real-world, physical objects, and it’s a growing phenomenon.

Hacking, remixing, modifying – whatever you call it, messing with technology, even physical objects you own, raises a host of legal issues. First of all, just opening the case of most tech objects voids the warranty. It may also void other user agreements, and as more of the technology in our daily lives requires ongoing relationships with service providers, that can be a real problem. Physical or software hacks may also violate anti-hacking laws in various jurisdictions.

The DMCA’s Anti-Circumvention provisions may open tech remixers to civil or criminal liability if they bypass “access control devices” or “technological protection measures” to explore or modify their devices. While there is currently an administrative exception that allows individuals to modify cellphones to ensure compatibility with various service providers, the exception doesn’t cover telling other people how to make the same modifications. Similar worries about the “no telling people how to circumvent, either” provisions delayed publication of the book “Hacking the XBox”.

And yet, the community of hackers and modders continues to expand. The revolutionary, compelling, or just plain entertaining products that the maker/crafter/modder cultures produce, make it difficult to see how anyone could want to rein them in. A (very) few highlights:

• Physically “surfing” digital environments like Google Earth and World of Warcraft on the WiiFit Balance Board.
  
  Link from WiiFit Balance Board Blog
• Hacking Google to explore the first photos people take with their new cameras
• Adding LEDs to LEGO people
  
  (Image by Oskay)
• Gamer Cakes on Flickr – homemade cakes based on popular videogames and toys
• Chumby, a wi-fi device intended to be hacked and modified
  
  Chumby Bear, by miss_rogue
• For a slightly different definition of “hardware”, don’t miss Ikea Hacker!
• And, unquestionably the most exciting recent hacks, Johnny Lee’s low-cost WiiMote hacks to produce a $40 multi-touch digital whiteboard, and a personal 3D video display

To get a sense of the philosophies/worldviews of makers, hackers, crafters, and modders, take a look at:

• The Make Owner’s Manifesto/Maker’s Bill of Rights
• Free Software Foundation’s “Road to Hardware Free From Restrictions” paper
• Five Dangerous Things You Should Let Your Kids Do (video)

Explore the history of hacking:

• Homebrew Computer Club (Wikipedia entry)
• Tech Model Railroad Club (Wikipedia entry)
• The Story of Mel, from the Jargon File (note: detailed information about very early programming methods; may require some programming experience to enjoy)
• The MIT Gallery of Hacks (note: MIT has a local-culture definition of “hack” that only partially overlaps with more familiar meanings.)

So, what do you think? What are your favorite hacks and mods? What legal issues do you see?