The Internet, sites such as Facebook and Twitter have made it very easy for the whole world to access personal information about friends or strangers. However there are a few who take it too far and post their friends personal information without their permission or knowledge. This happened to 18 year old Tyler Clementi from New Jersey who jumped of the George Washington Bridge because his privacy was breached on the World Wide Web. His roommate and his friend Molly put up secret web in his room and decided to record him when he had company over. He was caught having sexual relations with another male and these were then streamed and posted on the Internet. He was so embarrassed that he updated his Facebook status “Jumping off the gw bridge sorry.” Later his car , wallet and cell phone were found next to the bridge. The two university students have been charged with invasion of Privacy, one facing more than one account and five years in jail because he has breached Tyler Clementi privacy more than once without him knowing. There are so many different kinds and things one can do with technology in today’s world, anyone can post up anything. It’s very dangerous because some people use it very un responsibly and this can lead to their friends committing suicide. A joke is no longer just amongst friends its now shared worldwide and there is even proof live on the Internet of two people being intimate which is a very private activity. New Technology is getting out of hand and onto the wrong hands of some and becoming socially dangerous.
http://deskofbrian.com/2010/09/rutgers-university-student-jumps-off-george-washington-bridge-after-being-filmed-having-sex-with-a-man/
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Is big brother watching you ... through your web cam?
Someone watches me as I use the Atm. They watch me while I’m walking down the street, when I stop to get gas, whilst shop, when I’m dining at a restaurant and while I’m at work. They screen my emails, phone calls and text messages and track the web sites I visit. Who are these people? They are my employers, business owners, secret intelligence agencies and our Government who are always keeping an eye on us and watching.
The example may seem a little dramatised, however I’m sure we can all agree that this scenario isn’t exactly out of the ordinary and in actuality is normal for our times. Surveillance is something that we have all become accustomed to and believe this intrusion of privacy to be a necessary evil for our protection and safety. But you wouldn’t expect this kind of surveillance (or spying to be more precise) from your teachers’ right?
Seems far fetched and hard to believe but in the lower Marion school district of Philadelphia this was exactly the case! Mac notebooks were loaned to high school students that enabled teachers to spy on students in their homes through the webcam device which could be turned on by staff of the school. Maybe I’m being dramatic but this has really made me paranoid! The first thought that popped into my mind was “Big Brother is watching you.” My second thought got me thinking that maybe our society isn’t that different from ones shown in films like Eagle eye and Resident Evil where corporations and smart technologies go rogue to spy on their citizens! To be completely honest if this was headlined in the news tomorrow I’m not sure I would be completely surprised. So in the mean time folks cover up those webcam’s because you never know who could be watching on the other side.
Friendship in the Digital Age
Social network sites arise questions over the changing form and meaning of friendship. Do SNS encourage us to develop a narrow sense of friendship, to treat all friends the same way? Are we flattening friendships by essentially commodifying them? How many of our friends do we actually talk to on facebook or would we cross the road to talk to them in real life?
The Dunbar number 150 is the number of people one can have stable, cohesive social ties, this theory is disrupted now as we can have hundreds and thousands of friends on SNS. With facebook we can 'handle' having more friends beyond the number of friendships which actually matter significantly to us. Facebook has become more efficient in cultivating relationships in shorter space of time, but that doesn't mean the friendships are as meaningful, but are more likely to have weaker ties than strong ones as time and investment becomes an issue. The convenience of SNS helps make communication with different people easy and more fluid, but also to keep up with friends who live far away or are overseas. We can look at their status and photos to see what they are getting up to in their lives, this can make contacting friends more 'lazy' in a sense because instead of making an effort to contact them you can just click on their profile or check the newsfeed, depending on how actively engaged they are online and how often they update.
Judith Donath (2008) in her reading "Signals in Social Supernets" differentiates between strong ties which are close confidants who require a large commitment of time and attention and have frequent acts of contact while weak ties are distant acquaintances who whom one feels less responsibility to make contact with. No relationships means it is better than the other, just different and have new forms of opportunities. The strength in weak ties is that they are the ones to most likely gain new insights as there is a wider diversity of people than strong ties. Donath states that weaker ties are beneficial because it gives users the potential to expand their range of information sources; "Whether as a means for bolstering status, strengthening ties, or for showing one's esoteric knowledge, people use information strategically." This breaks us out of existence to modern citizens of the world which is not bad but essential for "social grooming." SNS can encourage us to waste time on people we won't ever be close to but that becomes the strength of them. SNS is a way of extending one's social network to ties outside of your offline existence and people who are just acquaintances or 'mutual friends' of your friends may become friends of value if an effort is made by both.
Judith Donath questions if SNS will shift people's social world from one focused on a few important relationships to one consisting of an immense number of weak relationships? While the term 'friend' has taken on new meanings now in social network platforms because of the ambiguity and nostalgia, in facebook we cannot list who are our close friends and who are mere acquaintances, but it is our interactions which determine this. I have people on my friends list who I wouldn't necessarily label a friend, nor would I cross the road to talk to them in real life, but facebook gets you, to some extent, caring and paying attention to everyone on your friends list and in return it is hoped that they also care about you, even if you may never contact them online or offline. So while SNS encourages people to extend their social networks to wider circle of acquaintances, it can also strengthen bonds already in place.
The Dunbar number 150 is the number of people one can have stable, cohesive social ties, this theory is disrupted now as we can have hundreds and thousands of friends on SNS. With facebook we can 'handle' having more friends beyond the number of friendships which actually matter significantly to us. Facebook has become more efficient in cultivating relationships in shorter space of time, but that doesn't mean the friendships are as meaningful, but are more likely to have weaker ties than strong ones as time and investment becomes an issue. The convenience of SNS helps make communication with different people easy and more fluid, but also to keep up with friends who live far away or are overseas. We can look at their status and photos to see what they are getting up to in their lives, this can make contacting friends more 'lazy' in a sense because instead of making an effort to contact them you can just click on their profile or check the newsfeed, depending on how actively engaged they are online and how often they update.
Judith Donath (2008) in her reading "Signals in Social Supernets" differentiates between strong ties which are close confidants who require a large commitment of time and attention and have frequent acts of contact while weak ties are distant acquaintances who whom one feels less responsibility to make contact with. No relationships means it is better than the other, just different and have new forms of opportunities. The strength in weak ties is that they are the ones to most likely gain new insights as there is a wider diversity of people than strong ties. Donath states that weaker ties are beneficial because it gives users the potential to expand their range of information sources; "Whether as a means for bolstering status, strengthening ties, or for showing one's esoteric knowledge, people use information strategically." This breaks us out of existence to modern citizens of the world which is not bad but essential for "social grooming." SNS can encourage us to waste time on people we won't ever be close to but that becomes the strength of them. SNS is a way of extending one's social network to ties outside of your offline existence and people who are just acquaintances or 'mutual friends' of your friends may become friends of value if an effort is made by both.
Judith Donath questions if SNS will shift people's social world from one focused on a few important relationships to one consisting of an immense number of weak relationships? While the term 'friend' has taken on new meanings now in social network platforms because of the ambiguity and nostalgia, in facebook we cannot list who are our close friends and who are mere acquaintances, but it is our interactions which determine this. I have people on my friends list who I wouldn't necessarily label a friend, nor would I cross the road to talk to them in real life, but facebook gets you, to some extent, caring and paying attention to everyone on your friends list and in return it is hoped that they also care about you, even if you may never contact them online or offline. So while SNS encourages people to extend their social networks to wider circle of acquaintances, it can also strengthen bonds already in place.
"Its not a laptop project. Its an education project".
I may have gotten beaten to it, but I am going to write about it anyway. That is, the topic of Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child Vision.
Nicholas Negroponte's endeavour to give every child a laptop has the enormous ability to polarise opinion. It can either be seen as a noble cause, or an equally unimpressive one.
In short, Negroponte makes the compelling case for the distribution of laptops to the world's poorest children in the aim that it will improve education and begin to close the increasingly large gap between the first and third world. On the websites (sickeningly sweet) mission statement, it is suggested that with the use of laptops, children may 'become connected to each other, to the world and to a brighter future'.
At first, it seems incomprehensible to think that a child without access to clean water and clothing could still enjoy a laptop that is engineered to be readable in direct sunlight. This is where most of the criticism lies.
However, Negroponte is at pains to point out that "This is not a laptop project. Its an education project".
And education, is vital to sustained and longer term poverty reduction. The project does not suggest that laptops are more essential then food, shelter and water. There are other efforts worldwide that endeavour to help out these important issues. The project is focused and specific in attempting to simply trying to make a better future- by improving education.
As new media and technology becomes more and more ubiquitous, digital natives will probably be more and more likely to make up the majority of the population. Already behind, equipping children in developing nations with laptops is also another way in which to ensure that the gap with the western world will not widen.
Before, I sound like Negroponte's biggest fan, I will say that I am undecided on whether the One Laptop Per Child vision is wholly beneficial and the best use of resources. There are many limitations and questions and issues that need to be addressed, such as how the success of the project is measured, the environmental effects of the laptops and the imposition of Western values.
However, I do applaud the project's moral intentions to make the world, and future, a better place, and most significantly, the integration of technology to effect these changes. The amount of thought and research that has gone into the project must be commended, and the determination and relative success should also be recognised. Considering how far $100 can get you these days, spending $100 on a laptop that may improve the education and life of a child does not seem like a bad way to part with money.
If you Wouldn't Steal Lady Gaga's Purse, Why Is It Ok To Steal Her Music?
The question has been raised as to weather it is ethically equivalent to illegally download the music of someone with the wealth and fame of say, Lady Gaga as it is to download the work of someone far less well known.
I believe that there are two, equally valid, ways of looking at this.
One way is to see all music piracy at the same level, I mean, your personal action is no different no matter whose music you are downloading. You are still knowingly making the decision to ‘steal’ somebody else’s intellectual property, with no intention of paying.
Weather or not the person or company needs the money, you are still stealing from them.
And this is illegal no matter how you look at it.
However, the fact cannot be ignored that it is easier to think of Lady Gaga or Britney Spears missing out on the twenty odd cents she would lose per stolen song than someone like Devonport local band, The Checks.
There is one other, ethical rather than legal, way of approaching this question though…
Perhaps the struggling local band could really use the exposure afforded by people, technically stealing their music but then sharing it around amongst their friends.
The only way to truly understand this would be to ask every struggling or up and coming band for their personal opinion and aside from that fact that this would be virtually impossible, you can be sure that the answers would differ hugely anyway.
I would imagine that there are even some wannabe musicians out there who illegally download music themselves.
The question really needing to be asked here is weather you feel personally justified in you illegal downloading endeavors…
Just remember though, weather you feel justified or not it is still an illegal act and also remember that they call it stealing because someone is being stolen from.
I believe that there are two, equally valid, ways of looking at this.
One way is to see all music piracy at the same level, I mean, your personal action is no different no matter whose music you are downloading. You are still knowingly making the decision to ‘steal’ somebody else’s intellectual property, with no intention of paying.
Weather or not the person or company needs the money, you are still stealing from them.
And this is illegal no matter how you look at it.
However, the fact cannot be ignored that it is easier to think of Lady Gaga or Britney Spears missing out on the twenty odd cents she would lose per stolen song than someone like Devonport local band, The Checks.
There is one other, ethical rather than legal, way of approaching this question though…
Perhaps the struggling local band could really use the exposure afforded by people, technically stealing their music but then sharing it around amongst their friends.
The only way to truly understand this would be to ask every struggling or up and coming band for their personal opinion and aside from that fact that this would be virtually impossible, you can be sure that the answers would differ hugely anyway.
I would imagine that there are even some wannabe musicians out there who illegally download music themselves.
The question really needing to be asked here is weather you feel personally justified in you illegal downloading endeavors…
Just remember though, weather you feel justified or not it is still an illegal act and also remember that they call it stealing because someone is being stolen from.
Boredom and Technology
Heidegger defined ‘human’ as ‘being-in-time’, and sitting through time allows one to engage in philosophic thought. But sitting is boring, and what a waste, when you could be watching tv. Heidegger, according to Leslie Paul Thiele, thought boredom was the evil mood of our technological age, because it stops one from thinking. Thiele suggests that technology is the cause of and the relief from boredom.
Thiele writes: “Modern technology assails time in its effort to speed through atomic, global, and cosmic space, and by accelerating daily routines and functions. This victory over time bears a price: humanity comes to relate to time as an obstacle and antagonist, as a recalcitrant force that demands harnessing. The effect of technological innovation, in other words, is not so much the saving of time as its conquest” (505).
Time is too valuable to waste. There is a relationship here to Marx’s idea of commodity fetishism which suggests that in our modern capitalist society everything is termed according to spending value, time included. Lefebvre also discusses the mastery over time as part of our conquest over space in his influential work, the Production of Space.
I think Thiele is onto something that Marx and Lefebvre missed. It isn’t that we are actively trying to lay claim to everything we see. Well maybe some people are. But the rest of us, normal calm and easy going people, we are just trying to make a living and have a little fun before kicking the bucket.
“Boredom becomes the habitual and hegemonic, which is to say unacknowledged and unchallenged, mood of the technological age” (512).
But Thiele is also wrong. Sure, we use technology to escape boredom. We can’t stand to be bored, we lack patience for it, and time is too valuable to waste. Yet Thiele’s argument puts people on the vulnerable-to-evil-technology side, which condescends to the audience and suggests that people don’t know what’s good for them. The hypodermic theory etc, but an interesting idea nonetheless.
see: Thiele, Leslie Paul. "Postmodernity and the Routinization of Novelty: Heidegger on Boredom and Technology." Polity
29.4 (Summer, 1997), pp. 489-517. Available on JSTOR
Thiele writes: “Modern technology assails time in its effort to speed through atomic, global, and cosmic space, and by accelerating daily routines and functions. This victory over time bears a price: humanity comes to relate to time as an obstacle and antagonist, as a recalcitrant force that demands harnessing. The effect of technological innovation, in other words, is not so much the saving of time as its conquest” (505).
Time is too valuable to waste. There is a relationship here to Marx’s idea of commodity fetishism which suggests that in our modern capitalist society everything is termed according to spending value, time included. Lefebvre also discusses the mastery over time as part of our conquest over space in his influential work, the Production of Space.
I think Thiele is onto something that Marx and Lefebvre missed. It isn’t that we are actively trying to lay claim to everything we see. Well maybe some people are. But the rest of us, normal calm and easy going people, we are just trying to make a living and have a little fun before kicking the bucket.
“Boredom becomes the habitual and hegemonic, which is to say unacknowledged and unchallenged, mood of the technological age” (512).
But Thiele is also wrong. Sure, we use technology to escape boredom. We can’t stand to be bored, we lack patience for it, and time is too valuable to waste. Yet Thiele’s argument puts people on the vulnerable-to-evil-technology side, which condescends to the audience and suggests that people don’t know what’s good for them. The hypodermic theory etc, but an interesting idea nonetheless.
see: Thiele, Leslie Paul. "Postmodernity and the Routinization of Novelty: Heidegger on Boredom and Technology." Polity
29.4 (Summer, 1997), pp. 489-517. Available on JSTOR
Music downloads - Paying and not paying with social capital
 |
| Image source: Author's photo |
For those who download music illegally, what is the value of a paid digital download? Recent studies seem to suggest a highly subjective moral value, but is that the same economic value we once attributed to CDs, cassettes and vinyl?
I've heard various people suggest that the experience of purchasing and listening to a physical album (discussions with record store employees, looking through the liner notes and artwork, listening with others) does not compare to a digital download. Yet there is a culture associated with downloads. People derive social capital from sharing music for download because others respond, discussion is generated, and people are exposed to new music.
The music industry isn't going to be able to turn the social capital of music into premium content, but could they monetise it? Ping, iTune's inbuilt social network, is Apple's attempt to derive sales from the social value of music. It doesn't introduce any new premium content, but it does provide a new arena for digital music culture to play out, one where social content is linked to legitimate downloads.
Because it doesn't eliminate illegal music sharing or introduce new premium digital content, Ping is not a premium paywall but a "paycorridor". The social capital generated by Ping users guides them away from illegal downloads and towards the iTunes store.
Importantly, artists (or at least their PR) are users of Ping. The point of connection betweens fans and artists is a potential site for future premium content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)