 As you all know, it's been 33 years of the CCC, and the debate on technology and politics has held a special place. Our first talk today is called the Drei und Dreisig Jara-Rückblick, and it will be quite meta, as it will backtrack through the titles and abstracts from 1984 to today, analyze apparent patterns and turning points in the subjects. To do so, we have Maxi Gras, who has a PhD, four master's degrees and three bachelor's degrees. He's currently conducting postdoctoral research. He's interested in cybernetics in the intellectual trajectory and everyday practices of the human and natural sciences. Joining him is Mel, who has a background in computer science. A PhD in media studies works in research in the intersection of technology, education and the international development. A round of applause for Maxi Gras and Mel. Thank you. There was no introduction for us again, but we welcome you to the translation for the 33 years of the Drei und Dreisig Jara-Rückblick. It doesn't really make sense. We're Siri and Mr. Browns. We're always looking forward to feedback. We'll find ourselves on Twitter with the hashtag C3T. We didn't translate it a little bit. I'll just jump in. We wanted to see the relationship between politics and technology in the talks of the Congress. That's a talk about all the talks that took place, a meta-talk about talks. Why are we interested in that? Because there is always a green debate in the Congress between the hardcore techies and the activists. What kind of politics should be in Congress? What should be an interesting or long-term technical content? At the same time, that's also a classical question. A social-visual discipline, social and technology studies. The question of the relationship between technology, society and politics. What we did was that we read the whole title of the talks from the beginning, categorized it and tried to get some results that I could show you. On this trip, we found out that the first few years were very poorly documented. We went through various archives and found some funny artifacts. We would like to show you that with a video. Part of a TV report from 1985 by the second Congress. That will be in German. We won't translate that. Chaos Communication Contest 1985 in Hamburg. The European Hacker Party. The meeting for data travel. Passport for members. A trip for members of the 20s for private 30s, for press 50s, for commercial 100s. That didn't scare me. The controls were sharp. The enemy was everywhere. And here it says, the general is the post. From here, the telephone lines are used, which open the way to the digitized data networks and banks. A kind of data travel office. The Hacker movement is naturally information-friendly and produces a lot of printed data. Hacking is a hobby that has a lot of theoretical knowledge. The advanced computer technology, data networks and various data banks. It has to continue to build, because everything is in the data flow. The hacking center. Here it was allowed to be hacked. Legally, of course. The hacker needs a computer, a phone and a connection between both. An acoustic coupler or a modem. Now it can go into the data network. But many obstacles occur. The owners of data banks and large computers don't like to see it as natural, because strangers enter their systems and may also cause sharpness. They protect themselves with secrets and passwords. The overcoming of this obstacle is the actual goal of the hacker. The recognized secrets and passwords are the Hacker's precious treasure. Thanks to the central name of the Chaos Congress, a fairly organized process. Almost all events took place. And almost all of them were announced at a different time. Is it alright? International exchange of experiences. It was about the old question of the sense of human tuns. Here, the hackens. Vau says... We are not like announced 5 hackers from 6 countries. We are a few more. We think that nationality is meaningless. If we exchange ideas, the ideas are meaningless. We think that nationality is of no importance. If we exchange ideas... What a beautiful utopia. We saw Vau Holland at the end. One of the founders of the club. This is the word cloud with all the data sets. It looks like a lot of technical terms, but in context. The most typical way in which technical terms come into... These technical terms come into this full language. Over the 9th of March, on the left side. Over the years, we have seen how the relationships developed. What the internal dynamics of the Chaos Universe were. And maybe the European hacking scene. We were also interested in how these internal dynamics... Were transformed into bigger social transformations. For example, it is possible to see the Berlin Wall in the Congress content. So we chose a very obvious example for our first round of keyword search. And that was for keyword NSA. I don't know, you can probably not read the years. But it started in 2004, again in 2005. And then again in 2013. And from anecdotal evidence, I would have thought... That there is a sort of a... I told you, mentality that I have often heard... That we have always known and that has never been heard. At least that is from the Congress talks. And they are not accessible. As Max Rieger said, we were also interested in talking... To talk to people who were on fire talks. And to get more data and more evidence. Maybe that was visible in other areas. But maybe not on the Congress presentation. So where did we get the data? Before 1992. That was the most difficult. We first tried the Congress archive on the CCC website. That doesn't exist anymore. But we were lucky enough to find it in the Web Archive. Another archive was the Data Steward Archive. That unfortunately is also incomplete. There were a few scanned PDFs that we had to copy by hand. For example that is the Data Steward from 1984. A pretty complete schedule plan of the Congress. It was easy enough to copy. There was another one. That also shows your picture. There were other ones. Why is that? From 1991. That is even more difficult to read. But it was still possible. That doesn't look abstract. So it wasn't always easy to find out where the talk is going. We'll talk about that later. There were things like this one. That is a report from the Congress 1990. There was no schedule plan. What we did is that we read it and tried to get it out. Is that what people are talking about? Is it a talk or a workshop? Or is it just a topic that came up? We tried to get it together. To create an accurate schedule plan. After 1992. There was always the WWW. The WWW Rep. The progress of the Congress. There was also a human-readable format. So that we could search it automatically. To collect the talks and lectures. And of course we used the regular selection in this process. The first was an ASCII chart. That we could analyze directly. After 2002. There were machine-readable dams. In the I-Call format. And then there was XML. That was the most structured one. They have other problems than the previous ones. They have different encodings. Sometimes there is a whole abstract. And sometimes in some years the complete abstracts were missing. So there were still the problems we had to solve in the code. What we also used. The code that generated the original data. And all the codes we used are available in this repository. And we want to migrate it to an open science framework. Or to a similar website. So that you can work on a specific open science. Or open science research. As we said. We tried to decide. Which subject should be considered technologically. Which subject should be considered politically. And we used other categories. To sort the abstracts. We have here for example 2307 lectures. In a comma-sympathetic format. We asked three people to sort them. And we want to thank the people who helped us. We didn't use the categories that will be used in conference tracks today. They also changed over the years. And these categories don't reflect the research questions we asked. Of course we discussed the discussion. How we can distinguish technology from politics. And if you want to say that. We just assumed that everything that comes into the conference. Has something to do with technology. So we looked for a social influence. That wasn't only political. But certain laws. And also the laws that influenced society. What difficulties did we face? As we said before. There were a few lectures where we didn't have the abstracts. We didn't define them. There was a talk called THC++. We only had speculation about what the content was. But we didn't know if it was really technical or political. There were also a few non-talks. Like for example the Hackershipity. Or Radio Broadcast. Or Theater. Or DJ sets. We also excluded them from the tagging between technical and political. And they didn't make a contract. And then there were controversial lectures. To show that this discussion. The distinction is not always easy. A lecture, for example. If the software works for a coming revolution. It sounds technical at first. But in the description you see that it's more about. How the world can be changed. Or how you can change. How things are done. How you can influence the future of technology. So social and political content. We have a few. Prevailing results. Prevailing because there are only some data sets. We want to find more people. To sort the content. And bring the data sets together. So we can. In the previous data sets there are consistent data sets. Consistency. It's about 50-50. That's the comparison with technology and politics. A little more technical. At least from the first data set. That we divided. That's a bit technical. But there were also consistent data sets. For example 2007. You can see that the number of data sets goes down. And that was. There is no obvious reason where it comes from. At least it's not about the number of sink data sets. We don't know what it's about. If someone has an idea please tell us. That's the number of data sets over the years. And in the 88 and 87 I think I have. We didn't find any data sets. Only the announcement of the contest. And then of course there is this potential. Or things that we could read from the data. One example is that more participants don't mean. There are more lectures. What we could also find is that the data. Really show what is written in the reports. In 89 there was in the data set. A set that was less technical than social lectures. And you can see that here in the data. It's the first time that technology is overtaken by politics. That's the most comprehensive graph. We say that there will be. There will be adjustments if we look at the data sets. But here it looks like technical talks are much stronger. But politics is overtaken. Which one is which? The blue one is the technical graph. Technical data sets and the green one is for political data sets. What we want to decide now. Is asking you to ask us to help us. Or to improve the code. The talks to categorize. You can pull requests for a few talks. Or debate what is already there. You can also sit down. And for about 12 hours. To analyze a talk. And to add your opinion. You can also do something else. Unwork with the database. For example to Michenet. To compare the conferences in the United States. Which are more politically. And I wonder how it is going over the years. Because over there. We also want to talk about people. To find out a few archives. Apparently at some point there was an official congress paper. On the conference. And in 1989. There was also an electronic magazine. That circles. And in the data cache 34. There was also a legendary Chaos Archive. But it is impossible to find. And maybe to discuss with us. To continue the talk. In a more relaxed setting. There is a discussion. Tomorrow at 4. In room A2. If you want to talk about the early congresses. Or about politics and technology. Then you come there. As I said. We have to see. How these data sets work together. And then. We have three different opinions about each talk. We have a less subjective data set. With which we can work. We also have to get information. From the final year. But this stupid idea. To share the talks in technology and politics. Is just a first step. The first access to the problem. We actually want. The most time. The research projects on a qualitative side. With interviews. With focus groups and so on. The statistical. To have a consistent. A consistent starting point. For these questions. Then we can ask more interesting questions. For example. How ideas about politics. And ideas about politics. Together with technology. And how these two. Define each other. And thank you very much. You are our contact data. And the slides are also online. We are also quite timely. And we can also. The audience. The audience. The audience. We are very interested. About these days. We have very few written. Proofs over the years. Thank you for your applause. We have a few minutes for questions. So please step up to the microphones. If anybody has anything to ask. We have a few questions. If anybody wants. These grassroots categories. That can't be used. To categorize talks. That it's okay. But it would still be interesting to know. How these categories have changed over the years. Do you have any information about it? No. There were a lot of technical advantages. Those who criticized society. Or have a campaign. Or have a conflict between social groups. And of course. For example. If there is a contract for security. Then it will automatically be a technical contract. But at the same time there are advantages. There was a political track. That only told what the current laws are. The independent security research. And as long as there was only a overview. About the current laws. Without normative opinions. Or without reflection. What it means. In terms of peace. Or privacy. We categorized them as technical talks. Thank you. Microphone 3. I speak German. Any other questions? Any more?