Virtual Emotions

Kurzweil discussed the ideas of nanotechnology and molding ourselves with machines. The future, perhaps, involves us being like cyborgs, part human and part machine. This already sort of exists as we replace certain body parts with machines, such as limbs or pacemakers. However, a recent Japenese invention has created a machine that emulates kissing. Before, machines have been about aiding our bodies, but this is perhaps one of the first steps to using machines to please us emotionally.

The machine allows a person in one place to have their emulation of kissing transformed to another machine at another place. Kind of like the idea of the virtual workplace, you are experiencing another person without actually being together. This could easily be manipulated, as the article says, to fantasies where people are kissing someone like a celebrity (perhaps celebrities selling their “kissing” style). This explores the ethics of removing emotion from the physical.
(Extra Credit)

Twitter

A recent political event that has been covered extensively in the US media is the death of Osama Bin Laden. The event, which took place last week, became a national event that was announced by the president during a special speech. However, even before the president gave his speech, the event had been live-tweeted on Twitter by Sohaib Athar, a Twitter user in Abbottabad, where Osama was found. Unbeknownst to Athar, he tweeted about the capture of Osama when remarking about some sort of event going on near his home.

What this relates to is the idea of net neutrality, especially in terms of the freedom social networks provide. Athar was able to comment on the event happening in his town because of the freedom that the Internet allows for every person to have a profile on Twitter and the ability to post on it. People were able to understand this event in the way people in the town did thanks to the freedom Twitter allows. Twitter allowed Athar a voice, which has led to him having 104,589 followers and coverage on the national media. Without the freedom of the Internet, this likely would have never been possible.
(Extra Credit)

Net neutrality

This article talks about net neutrality and how if we continue to use net neutrality, the infrastructure would remain “dumb” because every website would have the same delivery rate; this means that no website would get more high speed internet for their website over other websites. If net neutrality were to be abolished, websites would get more privilege over other websites if they pay a certain fee for the high broadband internet service. There is not a bill the supports or does not support net neutrality in the United States, instead there are guideline rules that telecommunication services have to follow. These guidelines restrict certain websites having more privilege over others. Also, the internet is an important topic because the internet has always been open to everyone, which means that everyone has the same kind of access to the same content. Net neutrality has been receiving a lot more debate in the political world and Obama has campaigned for net neutrality while he was running for presidency, and he also still promotes and fights for net neutrality.

Panopticon

This article discusses the possibility that internet users may become more monitiored while they are online. This would mean that not only is their email being monitored, but their chat rooms, news posts, networks online, and possibly many other online activities would be monitored as well. The reasons that a panopticon is because there has been more need for security, especially since there is content on the internet such as pornography, how to make a bomb, hackers, viruses, and so on.
Having a panopticon on the internet might decrease undesirable behavior on the internet because internet users would not know if they were being watched or not. Not knowing if you are being watched would decrease undesirable behavior because the individuals using the undesirable websites, or doing undesirable things while on the internet, would know that there is a possibility that they would be caught doing the things they should not be doing, resulting in getting them in trouble.
Today, our actions are being tracked on the internet because information is being gathered through our internet searches. This is creating a daily me internet because the ads that will then pop up on the website that you are currently looking at will be similar to the information that you are searching for. This can be turned off to a certain extent by turning off your cookies in your web browser. Some websites will not allow you to use their website if you do not have your cookies on because they gather information from you to give to marketers.

Obama = Steve Jobs

“Is the distribution and dissemination of ideas sufficient to foster and create a social revolution?” “The Internet is nothing more than binary code”

Although the author of this article clearly understands that the Internet is important, he may be kicking himself today as he (and many, many others), were downright wrong as they underestimated in their predictions of what the internet was capable of. But besides the outdated techno information from this article, the principals remain the same, and it gives us a transformation identity that shows what we as people and users want to use the internet for.

“The ultimate corporate goal may be to develop a cultural structure that assists producers of products to know what consumers want before the consumers even know. When private groups take control of public institutions, individual constitutional rights no longer apply”

The important thing to note here is that the private institutions have taken control of the internet completely, and were able to do this because of the way they were able to convince the users. Facebook has convinced us that it is cool to have more friends, in turn addicting us to the site and giving us a base that we didn’t even know we needed- but everyone else is doing it. They are able to use all of our information and violate privacy because they simply don’t have any rules against it- we let them, but we didn’t really KNOW we let them. An article from Advertising Age explains some of the tricky practices that go on behind the scenes, that make us users think certain things are cool, or the new ‘trend,’ even though it’s skewed. http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-14565085/ALL-HAIL-OUR-DIGITAL-OVERLORDS.html When dealing with the new mobile apps, there is only one government overlord that owns the rights to everyones souls (aka their iphone)- Apple. An quote from Apple states, "Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or targeted group in harm's way," This sounds an awful lot like a governing rule, and it is. Any company or individual that wants to put out an app- must go through Apple. This structure seems to have taken over the government since this article. Although the government has some control, for example, Obama’s new internet governing law that was proposed in 2010- http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2022653,00.html Although this attempts to control the internet, it doesn’t hold a dime to the rest of the marketplace that is owned and controlled by Google, Apple, Facebook, Yahoo and other e-giants

Facebook Privacy

In the last ten years the internet has progressed from a little-known entity of the military to a growing world cultural phenomenon. With the use of the world wide web, people are able to connect, share, and have open communication with friends. One website that reveals personal information is facebook. Recently facebook changed their hypertext transport protocol from https:// to http://. This small change means that the webpage is no longer as secure and is more open with sharing information between clients and the servers. Facebook doesn't want to promote privacy settings or 'opt out' options because of the advertising money through a more unsecured network.
The S in the https stands for secure. When this appears in the browser link the website is no longer able to other people 'ease-drop' on your computers communication with the website. If you fill out any forms or submit any information about yourself on a non https:// webpage other people can be watching and collecting data allowing your information to be sent out anywhere on the internet. The main thing to remember about https:// websites is to never enter your credit card numbers or social security number on an unsecured site.
Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights are currently working on online privacy protection along with friends and people looking out for others by posting alerts. The well circulated facebook post began in February and got copied and pasted all over the net:
'While on facebook, look at your URL address; if you see http: instead of https: then you dont have a secure session and you can be hacked. Go to Account, Account Settings, Account Security and click change. Check at least the first setting, FB defaults to the non-secure setting.'

Big Brother or Big Sister?

The New Panopticon is interesting in that the author argued that there was a shift between the government monitoring individuals to the private sector monitoring individuals. I think that whoever, private or public, monitors someone elses information is spying on them in violation of the SPIRIT of the Right to Privacy. There was no way our fore-fathers could have known that such abuses would take place, so it is up to our generation to rectify this. Perhaps it is time for a constitutional convention.

What is really interesting to me about this is that Osama Bin Laden did not have the Internet or phone service hooked up to his Pakistani hideout. It is pretty obvious to me that he knew that are ways in which we are monitored everyday and by taking himself back into a time before the Internet he forced a surveillance industry that is based largely on technology to go back in time with him. Of course he hid with the Pakistani's help, but nonetheless I think the lack of the Internet and a phone helped him hide.

Power is going to be abused. In the 21st century they monitor our phones, our computers, and basically everything about us. The only way to escape it is to live somewhere remote literally disconnected from it all, but are those that do this hiding from something or are they just not wanting to be apart of the digital era?

There was obviously a mix here. http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110502/sc_livescience/hitechsurveillanceplusoldfashionedintelligenceworkfoundosamabinladen

Watching and Being Watched

The idea of the panopticon is exceedingly applicable in understanding the Internet and the relationship that the Internet has with our culture. A panopticon establishes social order because people are not positive whether or not they are being watched. In order to prevent embarrassment or reprimanding, people behave in the desired manner. As a society, we contemporarily view the Internet as a place of freedom, a place where we are not being watched. This, however, is not really the truth. More and more we, as a society, have helped the Internet evolve into a place where we are constantly being watched.
Early in the mass consumption of the Internet, many remember experiences of using screen names as our identity. There was nothing that necessarily identified that screen name to an offline identity. More commonly, however, we have evolved into creating an online identity that mirrors our actual self in some manner. Facebook, for example, uses a person’s actual name. Twitter allows for screen names but often has a person’s actual name below the screen name. As a group, we enjoy being able to identify the real life person behind the screen name. We encourage this sort of behavior. There can be many reasons, perhaps we just prefer to have a way to construct a reality of ourselves as we see fit. However, it does create an easy way for companies (especially social networking companies where we freely deliver information about ourselves) to watch us. This is the modern panopticon, we are being watched because we want to be watched.

Invasion of Privacy?

For the past 10 years, we have been worried about terrorist attacks and the age of the Internet has been up for debate if we should monitor emails and other private sectors to find those plotting against us. Not only this but other things that need to be monitored like pornography, hate groups, viruses, hackers, and other things that we are concerned about on the world wide web. “According to Miller, (1996) the FBI is using a program called Carnivore to randomly monitor all email. Carnivore could eventually be modified to allow individuals to monitor chat conversations, news posts, and peer-to-peer networks online.” They do this monitoring program by looking for keywords in the emails. Emails should be protected by our right to privacy, but the law passed in 1994 says that emails stored in the computer do not follow this. The military does have programs that are trained to find a terrorist threat within the Internet. Many people are against this kind of invasion of privacy. “According to the ACLU ‘to accept the FBI’s arguments in favor of Carnivore is to reject that core premise of the Fourth Amendment by giving the FBI carte blanche access to the communications of innocent people”’ Jeremy Benetham invented the Panopticon model to monitor cities, prisons and other types of dangerous areas. Is the Internet turning into this?

New Panopticism

New panopticism has been functioning in our society and can be seen through all new and emerging technologies, starting with email monitoring, and the increasing prevalence of technologies that also monitor us. A recent news item that has been a popular topic and one that can be seen in direct relation to panopticism is the realization and the finding that apple has been tracking every move that people have been making since June and making it somewhat easily available to find. I don't think it should be a surprise to anyone that apple and the iphone has been doing this, because all cellphones track where you are and through pinging get your information, but those are supposedly sent to towers and information centers that are supposed to keep that information private. Although I feel that all people are tracked and that if the government wants to, they can find that information through laws within the Patriot Act and other more controlling legislation, I feel that apple could possibly be storing this information in hopes of shaping business models through downloadable applications in which our information is sold and given to companies that we buy into by our digital button pressing agreements, and without reading the 32+ page privacy policies apple and some other software makers have. I realize that many applications currently are made just to advertise and to further track you, because why would applications ask you if they can use your current location? I am scared for more information to come out about these monitoring technologies, but I realize that cellphone technology and the use of the internet could be partially invented and marketed to better keep tabs on and track much of society.

Apple has recently "fixed" their bug and in a recent statement said "Apple is not tracking the location of your iPhone," the Apple said last month in its first response to privacy questions raised by the two researchers. "Apple has never done so and has no plans to ever do so." I don't really buy that this is true, because all apple would have had to say is that they are using the information in regards with their mobile me application which allows users to gps and track where there phone is if it is ever lost or stolen. In this regard they have to be tracking the location of your iphone and the fact that they are denying this makes me worrisome. Sometimes I wonder if it would be better and would make me less paranoid to live off the grid without use of technology, but I realize that this is nearly impossible in this day and age and would seem completely crazy to most.

Corporate Ambitions for an Online Panopticon

Tom Brignall discusses the economic and social dangers of the privatization of the Internet in his piece, The New Panopticon. Many of his concerns stem from many service providers such as America Online conglomerating into much larger corporations. This, he argues, lessens competition and gives more control to the select few. “When private groups take control of public institutions,” he writes, “individual constitutional rights no longer apply.” This is certainly true, as we have seen in the case of cable television. In that instance Rupert Murdoch has seized control of a considerable share of the entirety of the news spectrum. It is then possible for the elite members of society to institute their ideologies on the greater community. If this were to become the case with internet there would be a much greater watchdog presence, as companies and service providers aim to learn as much about their customers behaviors as possible. That is exactly what Brignall argues, and the argument holds weight. The Internet, he argues, is in danger of becoming a new age panopticon, where service providers could theoretically monitor all behaviors of their customers in order to protect them but also to sell to them. Brignall’s final thesis is that if the government drops federal funding toward the Internet and allows for privatization, it will become a marketing machine with no sense of ethical responsibility. All privacy will be lost and our online behaviors will reflect a corporate mission. In fact just last month the House of Representatives approved a bill that would overturn Net Neutrality. If such a measure were enforced the Internet would change as we know it and would reflect the fear that Mr. Brignall and several others have expressed.

Posted by: Mike Anderson

Why does Apple keep tabs on its users?

The panopticon is a concept that was first introduced to me back in high school in an English class when we read 1984 and how it was used on the citizens to monitor their behavior. It sounded like a really effective tool to make sure citizens never forgot that Big Brother was constantly watching their every move. The article about the The New Panopticon being used in relation to the Internet is an interesting idea. The thought of the Internet and people monitoring its use is something that I do not much think about, but the fact is that technology today constantly is being used to watch our every move especially when it has to do with media. Recently, there has been a fuss about the Apple iPhone tracking users, and the GPS function being put to good use in keeping tabs on where its users are going throughout their daily lives. It is hard to wrap my head around what exactly this could mean for us going forward. This article laid out the groundwork and details in a way that is easy to understand and answers common questions that people might have after learning about this news. Steve Jobs mentions that their is potential for hackers to infiltrate the Apple software and use this encrypted information for malicious reasons.

I think that this software is inherently good for most people including myself. I like being able to use the GPS function in relation to Google maps in order to find directions to places I seek to go. Obviously, bad scenarios can come into play, nothing is 100% fail safe. But, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages in my opinion. In the big picture sense of it, this will not affect me very much at all. I feel that if The Wire was still around, this issue might be used as a plot device in trying to bust criminals in the seedy streets of Baltimore. Hopefully, it would not be as easy as one of the drug dealers forgetting to turn off the location services on his iTouch, but it is certainly something that first comes to mind if implemented into the season narrative.

Isn't Corporational Control over Internet Better?

In Tom Bergmall III’s article about the New Panopticon, the author has predicted that a free Internet culture will in fact result in increased censorship-- “as experts for what is morally correct will be the chairs of companies who stand to profit from regulation of information.” I cannot deny that Internet in U.S. is completely censorship-free, however Bergmall’s prediction seems to fit more into what has happened in non-democratic societies than to democratic polity. In his essay, privatized Internet service is described as a threat to individual user’s privacy and freedom, because corporations will exercise the “New Ponopticon” over users they serve. In my opinion, corporation-controlled Internet, though exposes its user to data collection and excessive marketing information, is still more liberating than government-controlled information system and thus fits better in a democratic society, since that while corporations are driven by profits, government is driven by power maintenance. The “government” I am referring to here is a totalitarian government (like China).

Taking Facebook as an example, while it has been concerned and criticized because of its increasingly commercial orientation, Facebook in the U.S. still serves as a free speech platform. In China, however, the basic function of Facebook (free expression) is even questioned because the government considers online discourses as a crucial source of resistance. The most recent news suggests that Facebook’s evasion to China will comply with its strict censorship, which proves my point. According to the news, “When Facebook users outside China connect with users inside China, sources said they will need to click through a warning that any material visible to Chinese users may also be visible to the Chinese government.” This open claim ironically tells how closed and monitored the Internet is for Chinese users. While I don't support corporation utilizing Internet to collect personal information, the government-owned Internet service is clearly more coercive. 

The Internet Panopticon: A Breach of Privacy

The Panopticon, as proposed by Jeremy Bentham, is an effective prison model and neighborhood control that reinforces social control. In essence, it works by forming the belief that one is under constant inspection at any given time. Bentham’s theory is applied in journal article “The New Panopticon,” to make the argument that the panopticon is inherently similar to the Internet; however, a defining difference is that the Internet has no physical structure or permanent location. The article further argues that the Internet is used as a tool for governing bodies, such as corporations, to capture information of users. The flow of information online has led to the opportunity for corporations to collect details on consumers and maximize their profits.

Until recently, many network users were unaware of the tracking and surveillance of their information and location by network providers and corporations. There have been a number of lawsuits against corporations that claim tracking users information violates one’s privacy. This idea of violation of privacy by the panopticon model of the Internet to collect user data is also mentioned in the article. In recent news, Google faces a $50 million lawsuit over its Android location tracking. Clearly, many people were unhappy to discover that their information was being collected and used without them being aware of it. I would like to make my own argument that the difference with the Internet panopticon model is that it does not truly exist if the user is unaware of their tracking. It would be more accurate to apply a panopticon model, one where a user monitors his/her behavior because of the belief they are being watched, to the Verizon’s tracking model. Verizon’s plan to put location tracking warning stickers on their phones I argue follows a more traditional method of applying the panopticon model since the users are aware of their surveillance. Either way, it can be said that our privacy will decrease in the interactive digital word.

Net Neutrality and Municipal Governance

"The New Network Neutrality: Criteria for Internet Freedom" has proposed ten facets of a net neutrality info-structure criteria. One of the facets that I am particular interested in is that the business model of implementing net neutrality should also be “neutral” too. Municipalities, non-profits, public-private partnerships, as well as private corporations should all be allowed to compete for such service. In fact, as the author has pointed out, lack of competition over information transmission service providers can severely slow the development of affordable technologies, while in a democratic society that celebrates information freedom, it is a part of the providers’ social responsibility to make advancements and provide citizens with easy and affordable information access. Therefore, the vision of introducing players of different kind may be a good solution to corporation-monopolized networking service. City government and non-profit organization can be the optimum choice for Net Neutrality implementation because they are not driven by profits, and on a local basis it is not as likely to result in monopoly as the state government.

On the other hand, we should not forget the big ambitious municipalities had about becoming the single provider of Wi-Fi services in city areas. This has resulted in failure due to the great investment and risk whatever the infrastructure builder was carried on. Additionally, in a recent blog post from Joel Shurkin, it seems that not only the business model didn’t work out, but also some natures of the Wi-Fi technology do not permit such big installations. Same with the net neutrality issue, a question for municipalities to remember is the technological plausibility.

Net Neutrality and Media Conglomerates

Meinrath and Pickard’s article discusses an important issue that surrounds mobile society: net neutrality. Net neutrality is the fair treatment of all internet content in that it will move at the same speed over the network. Internet providers can’t favor certain internet information over others. In the United States, the FCC sets guidelines banning cable television and internet service providers from inhibiting user’s access to competitors or certain websites. In late December of 2010, the FCC approved plan to regulate the internet with a ruling that would prevent provider service companies from blocking or slowing broadband services to competitor websites. However, opponents of net neutrality feel that these recent regulations of the internet are a prediction of possible future regulations, such as shutting down sites similar to WikiLeaks.

Meinrath and Pickard continue to point out that network neutrality does not solve the existing telecommunications problems such as media conglomerization and the lack of diverse ownership. The authors continue to advocate for more competition and different perspectives within the broadband market. This topic reminds me of the ad-supported cable industry, also referred to as basic cable. The ad-supported cable networks industry is evolving as media conglomerates and new advancements are changing the traditional methods of programming distribution. The ad-supported cable industry mainly consists of several major companies owning a large percentage of the basic cable networks. Walt Disney, Time Warner, General Electric, Viacom, and News Corporation are some of the major players in the basic cable industry. This type of media outlet is also encountering problems concerning a lack of competition, diversity, and few large mega-media corporations, leaving little room for smaller companies to thrive.

Limiting Net Neutrality Influences the Digital Divide

In the article 'The New Network Neutrality: Criteria for Internet Freedom' by Meinrath and Pickard, the growing concern for net neutrality is examined. They begin by explaining net neutrality as, "The non-discriminatory interconnectedness among data communication networks that allows users to access the content, and run the services, applications, and devices of their choice." Basically, net neutrality does not give some companies or users privileges over others. A recent fear is that the government will not allow the FCC to regulate net neutrality. In fact, a bill was just passed in the House of Representatives that would end the FCC's ability to ensure net neutrality and if this bill is passed then net neutrality will end. The implications would be huge and the whole way our internet works would be a thing of the past. One way the internet would change would be that the companies who provide internet service would start offering it in tiers, similar to the way our cell phone plans work. A higher plan would mean more/better service and more access. It would also mean higher costs for the consumer. I believe this would widen the digital divide. The digital divide is the divide between those who have access to the internet and technology and those who do not. If only a certain group can afford to spend the money to have more access and better access to the internet then they are going to have more opportunities to engage in a democratic society. Net neutrality is important in a democratic society so we all have the same opportunities.

Media Conglomerates

The article about the 'new net neutrality' got me thinking about current events going on in the world. Last week the 'birther' issue was the topic of interest from every major news publication, but as on last night, the shift has changed to the killing of bin Laden.
The net, that is treated as a reliable source to many people, is often forgotten for what it actually is. The net is controlled by mega media magnates with a global interest in mind. The net used to its advantage the fact that this issue was gaining popularity and spun every storyline imaginable about the President and his birth certificate. One option for this is the the FCC licensees have been warned that damage to the President will be hard for their personal license and ability to make a profit in marketing and advertising.
Because of this it seems that the media has now merged into a uniformed system to protect Obama, especially after his praise for the recent killing of al qaeda leader.
After examining all of this, the bottom line is to question what the news and media conglomerates are telling us. It is wondering what we aren't being told when citizens are too busy worrying about whether or not a birth certificate is legitimate or not.

Blessing or a Curse?

Cell phones. Are they a blessing, or a curse? In most situations, many people would classify them as a blessing. Parents, on the other hand, may consider cell phones a curse when kids ignore them, text at dinner, or avoid face-to-face conversation. Cell phones have penetrated our culture so thoroughly that being without one puts an individual at a severe disadvantage. It’s almost gotten to the point where being without a cell phone capable of connecting to the Internet is a major inconvenience.

In today’s climate, cell phones are basically an extension of ourselves. They function as a form of communication, entertainment, gaming, and more. One function closely related to the content of Howard Rheingold’s Smart Mobs is the ability for phones to coordinate location and assemble meetings. We’ve recently seen the power of mobile technology in action when phones were predominantly used to organize the protests in Egypt.

In the article, Rheingold discusses Lovegety and p2p Journalism providing examples such as a “Mobile cupid service” and ImaHima. These examples are early versions of location-based social networking. As an avid user of social networking sites, I’ve seen a drastic rise in popularity and usage of location-based social networking services, most notably Foursquare and Facebook Places. Applications that at one point would be considered a clear invasion of ones privacy are now being used freely and frequently.

The impact, and potential power, of location-based social networking is already being displayed. As previously stated, the Egyptian protests are prime examples of these services in play, but there are many other practical usages to these social networks. From letting friends know where you’re at on a Saturday night to gaining coupons and other benefits from restaurants, there are plenty of uses for location-based social networking. Yet, it begs the question: in the future will applications like Foursquare and Facebook Places be seen as a blessing, or a curse?

Local Smart Mobs

Howard Rheingold discusses how innovative technologies, such as cell phones, have played a vital role in the formation and organization of demonstrations and inspiring overthrows and revolutions. Rheingold refers to this as “smart mobs” and touches on several instances in which successfully led to a government overthrow. This type of organizing by means of technology is growing. Although cell phones were prevalent among the cases Rheingold refers to, I feel today people are using social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. The protests in Egypt were ignited by Twitter and inspired further action and protests. These demonstrations were making a large impact in Egypt and causing a threat to government and were eventually shut down altogether. This is just one example of the power of technology and how ‘smart mobs’ are evolving and updating their communication mediums.
Locally, there have also been different forms of “smart mobs.” Before the voting on the 21 ordinance, several groups were organized through Facebook to attend City Council meeting that objected the ordinance. According to the Facebook event page, more than 400 members were attending and 430 were awaiting reply. Although not all 400 showed up at the city council meeting, the large numbers of response on the Facebook event page brought media attention and helped publicized students viewpoints on the ordinance. Overall, the event was still successful in that the city council had to turn people away from the doors because the meeting room was filled to capacity. Facebook continued to help groups advocating for both sides of the issue by organizing groups of support or against the ordinance which allowed organizers to plan other events as well. Although this type of organization wasn't to the same extent as the cases Rheingold refers to throughout the article, this shows smart mobs can exist in other forms. I think this type of mobilization will continue and grow as new forms of technology are introduced.

Is this really necessary?

I found the section on "Mobile Ad Hoc Social Networks" particularly interesting, but I was left with this overarching question of whether or not this is needed and if anyone will do it. Just because Bluetooth lets us do this I don't see why you would want to unless you are in a really boring conference somewhere and you don't want to speak with you friends verbally. They say there is a time and a place for everything, but is this technology going to hurt human interaction and communication? I think the jury is still out on this, but for the time being we need to focus on developing technologies that actually make a difference for people. Instead of worrying about BBM's, text messages, ad hoc social networks etc etc why not develop technology which allows for police officers to better monitor criminals using this technology or even a cure for cancer. We have the ability great, but do we need it? http://bimboom.blogspot.com/2011/04/too-much-technology-scripted-revit-bim.html

Power of Technology

Howard Rheingold writes about smart mobs, or groups of people that use technology as a device in order to organize an operation to take place. Rheingold gives us many examples of instances where cell phones were used to organize citizens of a country to overthrow their government. For example, on January 20, 2001, President Joseph Estrada of the Philippines became the first head of state to lose power to a smart mob. This overthrowing was done by citizens through text messaging.

After reading this article, I began to analyze how much society uses technology to communicate and how powerful it really is. It is amazing that we can use different forms of technology in order to overturn a government. The recent example of this is in Egypt. President Hosni Mubarak was forced from office due to the citizen’s revolution. How could a President be overthrown by citizens? It was all done by gathering people through social-networks online. Technology has created ways that a large number of people can communicate and at any moment they wish. These advancements help keep people up to date with what is going on. Text messaging helps people find out where people are located at all times.

Once I thought about how astounding it is that technology can have such a huge impact on people, I started to think about the other aspects of social mobs. There has also been social mobs that come together to interact with society in other ways than riots. For example, as I was reading this article, I began to think about the idea of flash mobs. Flash mobs are a group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual or pointless act for a certain period of time. After that time is up, the people then move off to wherever they were originally going and act like nothing just happened. The purpose of this mob is for entertainment. The way that flash mobs are created is through different types of media, such as texting, emails, social networks, etc. If we did not have all of these technology tools, people would not have the easy communication techniques to get the word out to people in a fast amount of time. These mobs would have a more difficult time being so powerful.

Cell Phones: Good or Bad?

Cell phones have come to be part of a movement in protesting the government, such as the Filipinos who SMSed to wear black to break down Estrada. Filipinos could not afford computers or other technologic devices, let alone call anyone, but text messages were so cheap that everyone could successfully organized the protest with the use of them. And yet, the Filipinos then could not stop texting after they succumbed to their cell phones. Before there was texting, people assembled in Manila, like the Battle of Seattle. The Internet as progressed these groups and they operate in small units, dispersed throughout so they can take control when needed. Since this article is a little older, it states that they were testing technologies with GPS systems in them that are mobile. Obviously, we have already seen this in smart phones. This article also says that although these technologies do great things, they can also organize groups that will do the opposite and create groups to destroy something good. Technologies have also been used to create silly things like when Tokyo produced “ImaHima” to alert people when their friends are around. A lot of the examples from the article were much like Apps being used on peoples telephone. This application was also apart of a GPS system. Text messaging has also saved lives, like in September 11^th, Alex LeVine texting people to evacuate the building, even though some of the cell phone services were down. Cell phones have done both good and bad for the 21st century.

The power of the mobile

In Howard Rheingold's chapter "Smart Mobs", he discusses how people have been able to connect and orchestrate large meetings or protests by using their cell phone. The cell phone gave people the opportunity to communicate quickly and somewhat discreetly so members of the group could be instantly notified of important information. This collaboration has led to many protests and uprisings, especially in the past two years. While this technology has been working in our favor is it possible that it could actually prevent these smart mobs? Even though the number of applications we can use to connect with other people is growing the technology and applications used for surveillance are also growing. Everything from our daily routine to our realationships, moods, health and calling habits can be examined. Not only is it monitoring these things but with help from computers they can also predict our future activities. They can also determine who are major influencers within our communities. Cell phones are the ideal technology to use for monitoring not only because they already track our every location (like the iPhones) but also because so many people own one. It is reported that nearly 3/4 of the worlds population owns a phone and with advancements in technology this number is sure to rise. Not only does a large population own phones but they take them everywhere and have integrated many of their other social devices in with their phones so they can have all of their information in one place. With the growing ability to be monitored it is more likely that smart mobs will be exposed before they have the chance to coordinate any large uprising or conflict.

Smart Mobs

"Smart Mobs" was a very interesting excerpt because things like this are happening today. People are using techonology more than ever to overthrow governments, or to get their beliefs across to a vast majority of people. Social networks like twitter and facebook do what was described in "Smart Mobs." People would use cell phones and text messaging to spread the word of the people. Cell phone and social networking sites are now able to get a huge group of people together in a short amount of time. This can be very difficult to regulate, but this sort of thing happened with the revolts in Egypt. The Egypt government had to stop access to these social networking sites because people were able to get together and organize too easily. Technology as it grows will become our worst own enemy because as it provides us with so many wonderful things, people will still be able to use it for evil. By using social networks and cell phones to connect and interact, people are able to get their ideas down in one big place. The good thing for the government though is that if they are looking for leaders of these groups, they can always just refer back to the social networking agent that was used. The records will always be there and it will be easier to find the people who are organizing these things. The goups formed will get people together quicker, but it can also backfire because nothing will be private. Officials will be able to find out where the people plan on going, what they are doing, and who is involved. This makes it very easy for the govrnment to prepare for a protest. The number will be greater because of the way word is able to spread, but the govrnment will be more ready for when these sort of things to happen.

The Power of "Mob Technology"

Howard Rheingold discusses how many mobile phones were used to overthrow governments between the 1990s as well as part of the early 2000s. This occurred in more than one country as Rheingold talks about. Rheingold touches on the “People Power II” demonstrations that took place in 2001 in the Philippines. The people of this country used text messages to spread jokes and rumors which turned to be very political. This particular form of communication made it possible to actually deteriorate and prove the people’s dislike towards the then current President Estrada. Through text messages they began to protest against the stop of the impeachment of Estrada. Over four days, more than a million people showed up just by hearing about it through text messages. As Rheingold points out this began the hallmark of early smart mob technology.

This reminds me a lot of what happened in Egypt recently. On January 25^th, protests started off in Egypt, which was inspired by other protests such as the one that was successful in Tunisia. These protests were the first to take place on this type of level since the 1970s. In response to this the government blocked certain social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Since many of the protesters found other ways around using Facebook and Twitter, the government actually had to block all internet services in the country, including texting. However after reading all of this did they really think it would make things better? Governments turn to these social networking sites and blocking them as if they are a privilege to use, however as seen in Egypt it only makes the people more upset and want to protest and go against the Government even more. This makes me wonder what would happen if something like this occurred in the United States, considering the fact that Twitter and Facebook originated in the U.S.

Informational Cascades

Thinking in class and further reading Cass Sunstein's Republic 2.0 I thought of the ways in which people give meaning to and believe false information because of the repetition of it and because they can always find an answer they agree with or one that aligns with their point of view. It also further interested me when I woke up and the first thing that popped up on my internet was an answer to the birther's questions and concerns over President Obama's birth certificate and the authenticity of the long form certificate. All of this concern sadly made me pay attention to the 20 minute or so speech Donald Trump gave today in which he touted himself as the reason the long form certificate was released and further seemed to claim information that had been cascaded and uncertain as the truth. He often said that "he has heard" or that people have told him sensational things and that all of todays problems "he heard" could be fixed easily if he was to run for and become President. If his claims are true that he is leading the polls at this stage in the next election, I feel bad for our country and feel that people must be as Cass Sunstein puts it being fragmented and led to believe whatever they want to. It also makes me wonder how Sunstein can even be optimistic or have a hope that the internet will become a deliberative ground and a powerful democratic force, when people are just finding others that are like-minded and creating and circulating news that may not even be true or authentic, and some just flat out false. It is sad to see masses of people gradually and somewhat quickly become dumber or misinformed as the internet continues to become the main source of information to most. While it is fast, massively distributed and disseminated these also are the problems with internet information. Now anything anyone says can be doubted and things that used to be counted as credible and true can be disputed with no deliberation. With media decadence and informational cascades, people continue to be misinformed and they all seem to be happy with it.

To change thoughts for a moment, I have been thinking constantly of Kurzweil's foreseen future of man and computer interfacing and merging, and the chapter in Sunstein's book about internet v-chips made me wonder if we could see a future like the creators of South Park did when they came out with the South Park movie. If v-chips are widely spread on computers could we eventually v-chip our children if they were connected to machines? The scene is all in jest, but it can paint a grim picture if you dwell on it for very long.

Smart Revolutions

Howard Rheingold’s Smart Mobs is a novel that discusses the power new technologies have had in organizing revolutions and overthrows. The smart mobs, he writes, are a network of people, operating through technologies such as computers, cell phones and other mobile devices. The efforts of these people can be both social and political. In the beginning of the chapter he writes of the Filipino takedown of President Joseph Estrada in 2001. This type of political influence has been felt over the last twenty years and has had remarkable results. Just this past year we have seen social revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, and Libya. Rheingold’s chapter defines a “network” as including nodes and links, using many possible paths to distribute information from any link to any other. This book was written almost ten years ago and was a precursor to the revolts we see today. These developing technologies are connecting people and orchestrating these revolts. Media theorist Clay Shirky commented on the recent “Twitter Revolution” in Tunisia. Shirky said that, “no one claims social media makes people angry enough to act [but] it helps angry people coordinate their actions.” Indeed these new forms of technologies lead to “smart mobs,” or coordination that was never before possible. In the case of Egypt it took thirty years for the people to overthrow Hosni Mubarak. This is mainly attributed to the overwhelming rallies, coordinated by digital technology. As Rheingold detailed, the network-structured communications hold great potential for enabling democratic forms of decision-making and collective action.

Posted by: Mike Anderson

Some Serious Social Networking

In Howard Rheingold’s “Smart Mobs”, he talks about how cell phones were used to organize demonstrations in order to overthrow governments in the 1990’s and early 2000’s in several different countries. More recently, this has happened in Egypt with social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. I think it’s crazy that text messages and social networking sites like Facebook can have such a huge impact to organizing a governmental overthrow. I get on Facebook multiple times a day to update my status, upload pictures, and to see what my friends are doing—petty reasons. Never would I have thought that it could have such a serious use, and never ever would I have thought that someone would name their baby “Facebook” because they were so happy that the protests in Egypt were made possible via this site.

In response to the January 25^th revolution in Egypt, the government took Internet and cell phone communication away. What I want to know is how the government thinks that by taking away Internet and cell phone usage, it is going to make the problem better? This to me seems like an easy way to make your citizens even angrier which leads to more burning of buildings, violence, and death of your own citizens. With the U.S. having one of the highest usages of social networking sites, it’s scary to think what would happen if a revolution started in our country.

External Forces of Smart Mobs

The journal article “Smart Mobs” by Howard Rheingold examines the transforming power of collective intellect and behavior of people derived from digital networks. In his argument he makes the claim that a conservative individual would not take action on his or her own against the government but only if many others were already committed to action. He furthers his argument in his claim, “mobile media that can augment the informal, mostly unconscious information exchanges that take place within the Interaction Order, or affect the size or location of exchanges, have the potential to change the threshold for collective action (pg. 175).” There are many global news examples of this seen today that support this idea of a threshold for collective action.

The recent democratic revolution in China is just one more example of a “smart mob” coming together collectively via Twitter and blogs to demonstrate against an authoritarian government. Social networking sites have allowed for people to come together as a powerful “force.” As with most political reform, there are always external forces that attempt to put down this force. China has recently arrested pro-democratic activists for their organizing of online mobs. As mentioned in the article, these minority activists triggered action of others to jump on the revolution bandwagon. By monitoring and censoring the Internet as well as arresting those initiating action, China has executed efforts to destroy collective behavior among citizens.

In democratic countries where censorship is not much of an issue (with the exception of controversy over WikiLeaks), there are many efforts on expanding collective community through the Internet. Google had recently announced Kansas City as the first place to get new ultrafast broadband Internet. Faster Internet means an even greater threshold for collective action. Google announced its site for “Fiber for Communities” program will “deliver Internet access more than 100 times faster than the home broadband connections. Smart mobs can be predicted to be even more widespread and effective as the spread of “Fiber for Communities” program is spread. This is another external force that plays a role in the development of smart mobs and their effectiveness.

Smart Mobs: Videos in Real Time

In this chapter of Smart Mobs, I think that the most fascinating thing to me is the ability to send videos in real time over the Internet. You think about the popular culture implications of YouTube and what a profound effect it has had on our society. Next to Facebook and Twitter, it is one of the most visited sites by people all around the world. YouTube is such a great tool that we can use in the classroom, to go back and view interviews from past Presidential elections or the infamous John Stewart interview on CrossFire. I have viewed this clip several times in my years here in the Communication Studies program and it is one of the funniest, insightful pieces of pop culture that we have to look at and point to as an influential moment in time. Stewart essentially hijacks the show and lets Tucker Carlson know that he is a hack and what he does is not conducive and a positive message to promote in our society.

The powerful technological tools enables individuals to be powerful nodes in the network of creation and I believe that YouTube will continue to be a huge part of our culture.

Should the Internet Be Restricted By V-chips?

In Chapter 9 of his book, Republic.com 2.0, Cass R Sunstein mentions the V-chip technology that was introduced to America after the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The V-chip is intended to block inappropriate programming for children on home television sets. With the technology, parents can set a level of acceptable viewing for their children and the V-chip decides whether that program is over that level or not based on ratings of sex, violence and language.

However, it is only television sets that have been sold since 2000 that are required to have the V-chip installed. Therefore, there are several families that don't have access to the technology because they haven't bought a new TV since 2000. Furthermore, many parents who have bought a new set do not realize it has a V-chip and so do not use it.

The V-chip has shown some success, however, in homes that utilize it and the debate now is whether computers and the Internet should be installed with the same kind of technology. Sunstein argues that computers shouldn't have the V-chip because websites have such a large "range and diversity" so the technology wouldn't "make sense". However, there has been some governmental push to initiate the V-chip in technologies other than the television. For example, in 2007, Mitt Romney proposed V-chips for Internet to stop children from stumbling upon pornography sites. However, as the blogger notes, this would be a very difficult task because the Internet is so big and democratic, and it seems that Romney's request comes from the fear and cluelessness about the Internet from the GOP.

It is clear that the concept of the V-chip could be affective for the Internet because there needs to be some form of restriction for parents and their children online. However, I think that this goes against the basic structure of the Internet, specifically in the US, where information is free, democratic and interactive on the Internet.

Celebrities And Their Spending Habits

In the beginning of Chapter 10 in Cass Sunstein’s “Republic.com 2.0,” he talks about the consumer and citizen. On page 216 he states, “The “consumption treadmill” means that for many products, people’s purchases of more and better goods will make them spend more, and possibly much more, without really making them happier or improving their lives.” Immediately after I read this quote, professional athletes and individuals in the entertainment industry popped into my head. We have all seen episodes of “Cribs” on MTV where rich professional athletes, actors, actresses, etc. live in mansions with all the luxuries an individual can think of: pools, game rooms, movie theaters, bowling alleys, basketball courts, a golf course, a recording studio, nice cars, and motorcycles. I can go on forever listing all the nice items these celebrities possess, but do they really need all of these “toys?” Sunstein and I do not think so. Sunstein does not think these material possessions are making these people happier or improving their lives because they are awesome to have at first, but the appeal of these objects wear off after awhile which makes these celebrities buy more and more “stuff.” Sooner or later, these celebrities declare for bankruptcy and their lives are turned completely upside down.

Sunstein states earlier on page 216 that “it seems natural to believe that the more people can “customize,” or individuate, their preferred products, the better things will be.” We see this with cars on almost every episode of “Cribs.” Celebrities own multiple cars, and they customize almost all of them, but is this making them happier inside? I don’t think so. It’s nice to own those nice cars, but how often do they even drive them? Buying more cars and putting thousands of dollars into each of them so they are customized to your liking, in my opinion, is making things worse rather than better for these celebrities.

Keeping With The Status Quo

I think that Sunstein brings up a good point to round out his ninth chapter, when he talks about the tyranny of the status quo. I believe that far too often people are concerned with what is wrong and pointing these things out instead of focusing on solutions to become better. In the section on the commodity of attention, the idea of bloggers including both sides of an argument in their blogrolls is an important way for us to advance in our ways of thinking. Like Sunstein says, it is unlikely to happen and it is noted that the First Amendment assures that a liberal blogger has the right to not provide a link to a topic presented by a conservative, but in all actuality this would be for the best. I think that broadening horizons for people is a good thing, and unfortunately I agree with Sunstein that this is probably a perfect Utopian idea that will never see the light of day, but if the idea is brought up enough perhaps sometime people will become fed up with the status quo and try to provide a new way of doing things, and main lining these proposals for how we might better regulate the internet to achieve our democratic goals.

The V Chip was mentioned in this chapter as well, and I found it interesting because I had not heard anything about this device for sometime. This article from 2001 shows that few parents used it back then and I would have to predict that it has dwindled considerably more since then. I suppose most televisions now have ways to block channels, I think you could when I was a kid, but my parents didn't use them but I know parents that did back in the day. I think that kids do need sheltering obviously when they are very young and beginning to learn how to use a remote, but after awhile it is important to teach kids lessons and programs on television are a valuable way to do that. Talking to kids about what they see on TV and what their feelings are is a healthy exercise in that it stimulates the mind rather just idly watching and not making a thoughtful and intelligent connection.

Group Think

On the Internet, we are allowed to pick and choose that communities we want to be involved in and most of those people will make the same choices as others, even in a wide range of people. In our 2.0 societies, there is an abundance of information, almost too much information, and people continue to stick to their own point of view and forget about the other information. If people pick their own type of entertainment and information, it might be harder for people to connect socially. Some of the websites are dedicated to hate groups, with over one hundred thousand visitors, and with some over a million. One of those groups is called the Unorganized Militia, “’which believes that the federal government is becoming increasingly dictatorial with its regulatory power over taxes, guns and land use.’” They have one main website with links to others on their viewpoints. Group polarization can become a problem within these groups. Group polarization is, “people are likely to move towards more extreme point in the direction to which the group’s members were originally inclined.” If people are discussing the same thing, they will all get to the same conclusion but in a very extreme form. This became part of the Unorganized Militia where they continued with racial hate groups, which probably wasn’t their intention. Two main explanations for group polarization are the role of persuasive arguments and social comparison, which are people who want to look favorably in the eyes of their peers. Group Polarization exists in the present day society as well.

Virtual Cubicle

In, “The Corporate Virtual Workspace” Steve Pruitt and Tom Barrett believe that, “cyber technology will be a primary driver towards new corporate architecture.” Corporations will economically succeed with this new structure. The first part is a future scenario of Austin Curry living in his house and working in his won home of the virtual workspace, projected on a screen in his office, it is a typical office building, making it seem like he is actually there. He can go down hallways, passing is colleagues, and look out the office window as though he is actually there and joins conference rooms for meeting and project purposes. He even has virtualized clothing. His “Daily chores” consist of checking his virtual mail; call up people to talk about assignments, and uses robots to help out with his other work. The reasons for the corporate workspace are that the evolution of software technology as it becomes easier to build and use. Also, economically, it is becoming harder to build large-scale software systems. You can take the best skilled people in the world and have them work for one company. This virtual workspace will also increase productivity. But one of the best reasons is, “cyberspace will free an individual from space and time constraints.” This will allow anyone to live anywhere is the world and work at the company of their choice. For the corporation, it is great because most of the information in the company is just knowledge related, so they don’t need to hire people based on there physical skills. They can also do all of their advertising via cyberspace, which is more affordable and parallel to their company. Companies are starting to experiment with the mobility of virtual workspaces.

Internet Regulation

In Chapter 7 of Cass Sunstein’s Republic 2.0 he discusses regulation of the Internet. In the chapter he argues that there shouldn’t be any Internet regulation because the Internet should be considered a public sphere, and the information is public space.

I find this argument to be severely flawed because the Internet is far from a public sphere. The only real thing that’s public about the Internet is the fact that anyone with access to it can generate content. Businesses, marketers, and advertisers have capitalized the Internet as a way of receiving enormous revenues. There’s an extreme barrier to entry for Internet access, most notably high subscription fees to service providers.

To me, a deregulated public sphere is akin to asking for blanket free speech protection. In order for a meeting, or public gathering (protest, etc) to be protected by free speech it has to be on public property. The Internet, which serves the private interests of businesses, is not public property, or a public sphere, and therefore should be regulated accordingly.

Deregulation and lack of oversight leads to severe problems. I respect freedom of speech protection, and as a journalism student I know its necessity. However, comprehensive deregulation of the Internet would cause far more problems than benefits. There certainly are areas where regulation, or government involvement is unnecessary. For example, the Library of Congress is archiving all tweets on Twitter. I find this to be extremely pointless and a colossal waste of time and resources.

All in all, there needs to be Internet regulation. Freedom of speech, and its protection, should remain as is, but a deregulated Internet is asking for problems. One needs to look no further than the 2008 financial crisis to know that deregulation is absolutely not the answer.

The Reclusive Society

I agree with Mr. Sunstein's assessment in chapter three that society can become reclusive and walled off by the Internet. What I find interesting is this idea that many of us were told in the early years of the Internet - don't trust it. Now everyone takes what they find on the Internet as solid fact but in reality I don't think much has changed. Sure there are more sources and people are more dependent on the Internet but there are still people out there engaging in National Enquirer activities. Furthermore, I think that the idea that people can wall themselves off and only use the Internet to live is stupid. There is obviously something going on to drive that person to withdrawal from society. And what happens if the Internet goes down? Do these people have panic attacks and major anxiety issues? We live in an era where it is not uncommon for the Internet to be down and yet more and more of our daily lives use the Internet. Like Mr. Sunstein I wonder if this is the best thing for our society. I think more caution is needed. My link shows what NE like places on the net can do for a person - panic!http://www.cultofmac.com/shock-national-enquirer-wrong-about-steve-jobs-death/89206

Is group polarization always bad?

In chapter 3 of Republic.com 2.0 Cass Sunstein talks about polarization on the internet. He explains that the internet allows groups of people that may not have the opportunity to interact to be able to talk and communicate with each other. He gives examples of terrorist and hate groups being formed and grown online. He believes this is dangerous because when individuals of similar thoughts and beliefs come together their opinions become more intense. He gives only a few situations when group polarization benefited groups and society. I think his approach to group polarization is too negative because it seems like he focuses mainly on the bad examples of it. One recent event that I feel like is a good example of this is the revolutions in the different counties such as Egypt. The citizens were able to form groups and set up protests all with the help of social networking and the internet. Most likely, they were also able to see that others had the same feelings that they shared which amplified the groups beliefs and pushed them to take action.