Jessica, Julita, Carly
Click below:
Author: j.gomez5
A Piece Of The Future Through My Eyes
What’s your own vision of the future of digital communications?
In the future, I see mass surveillance being taken to a different level. People may have video cameras installed in them that can watch and record everything you see and hear. An example of this is the episode of Black Mirror below: (good episode, btw!)
The reason for this is because Government agents and other security type personnel’s (like airport security, for example) would be able to rewind and see what you have been doing. This would be a way to watch the people even more. And people may be okay with it because they want the perks that would come with it, it can benefit them. In Black Mirror, you can delete what you please, but if this is made anything like the Internet, we know that nothing is permanently deleted.
In Mark Andrejevic’s article Surveillance and Alienation in the Online Economy, he speaks upon surveillance in the online economy so that corporations can advertise to us, make profit off us, and so fourth. But the idea of the paper still stands: surveillance is a form of power being sought out, and for those in power to control the people, like stated in this quote: “the paper emphasizes the importance of supplementing privacy critiques with approaches that identify the ways in which new forms of surveillance represent a form of power that seeks to manage and control consumer behavior” (1).
What present aspects of digital communications would you like to see continue and even expand?
I would love to see the language interpreter tool progress. There is such a thing as one, for example Systran, but is it accurate? Here is the site for Systran, and here is a blog from them.
There are many phrases and words that mean different things, varying on what languages they are, so an exact translation, word for word (like translation sites do, for example) would not help much. A communication technology that would translate words as sentences and phrases together would be better, if possible.
What aspects would you like to see change and what would be required to enact those changes (policy, technologies, norms, ethics, behavior, etc)?
I would like to see the violation of our privacy change. I think we should be entitled to privacy when using our phones or the Internet to send messages and make phone calls or video chats. The changes that would have to be enacted are changes in policies for websites and laws, change in norms and behavior as well. The Government will always try to make themselves seem to have a good reason for violating the privacy of the people.
Do you think if enough people protest and refuse to use certain sites, along with using a private browser, the Government and companies would stop watching us the way they do now?
A tool that translates language sounds great, but will it cause something terrible? Something like the death of learning a new language?
Not Reading The Terms & Conditions Seems To Be A “Human Thing”
This documentary was so interesting! I truly enjoyed it and will encourage people to watch it to learn more. I learned a lot of new things, along with refreshing my memory on what I already do know.
Where we shop and what we shop for matters, and that is a big link between the economic system and government control. When using a debit or credit card, whether we shop online or at a store in person, our shopping records are obviously recorded. This is great because we can see our purchase history and keep track of our expenses, but this comes with a price. Credit limits have been reduced and insurance quotas have gone up due to the information collected. This is insane and not a reliable way to judge people, but that is how the power system works.
Power is based on money of course, but also access of information. When you contain tons of information on users, like Google and Facebook do, you’re more powerful. Users of the internet and technology are unique numbers defined by the information we provide when doing our online activities. They have the power, but they receive it from us, with our “help”.
By accepting the terms and conditions we allow companies to become more powerful by collecting data from us, data that is used for surveillance and to make money. We need to be careful with our online activities because it can definitely come back to bite us. Information companies (like Google) receive from us, like what we search for example, can be misleading, I enjoyed the scene involving a guy who had searched photos of decapitated people, dead people, and even searched on how to kill your wife. It turned out that he was a writer, which was his reasoning for those searches. Seeing people type those things in though can be seen as more than someone being curious or simply doing research, it can be seen as a red flag, and that is something we must worry about since we are constantly under surveillance and information we search can become public one day, just like many other pieces of information have become. This surveillance can be used and indeed sometimes is used as a form of control, like Michel Foucault states “The disciplinary society, then, is a prison both within and without walls. One outcome of disciplinary action on this mass scale is ‘govern-mentality’, a new form of impersonal, rationalized, authoritarian rule” (211 – 212).
What are the three facts, stories, or scenes from the documentary that are surprising/shocking to you? What do they reveal?
-Our shopping habits (when using our debit/credit cards) can affect us in serious ways, like our credit limits being lowered because of judgments made, judgments that are based upon where we shop and what we shop for. I could not believe that so many people’s credit limits were reduced for no reasonable reason, just like the rich guy whose credit limit was reduced because he shopped at a place where people with poor credit histories make purchases! Another example that also shocked me was that buying lots of alcohol has affected people with their car insurance, making them more of a risk therefore having to pay more. The foundation that these judgments are made on are inaccurate and a violation of privacy.
-In the Netherlands, information provided from peoples’ GPS (like how fast they are driving) was collected to be given to the authorities so they can issue tickets to people. I don’t know how to feel about this, in a way it is making the streets safer, but at the same time it is shocking and a violation if people do not know about it.
-Facebook has more information than the CIA or FBI would have on an average person. This is insane, but I can see how it’s possible. On top of that, Facebook sends all kinds of information to third parties, so various companies have information on people/users. Companies keep sharing it with other companies, and then there are tons of companies (even companies we may not know) that have our information.
The terms and conditions to a site are made undesirable to the eye, therefore undesirable to read, like the following article by the NY Times states about terms and conditions, “Each is epically long, and despite a nagging feeling that you should have read it, you probably haven’t.” This is true, I do not read the terms and conditions, the most I have ever done is skim through it. Although, we do have some idea that information is being collected from us online, like Mark Andrejevic stated, “Most of us have some vague understanding that marketers are gathering information about us… but we have very little knowledge about what information is being gathered, who has access to it, and how it is being used” (7).
We should be aware of what we are “buying’ into when agreeing though. Facebook and Google for example may be “free” in regard to money, but not free in regard to labor and information we provide. Also, below is a funny video of a social experiment to show that people really do not read terms and conditions:
Questions:
Is there anything that can be done to make the terms and conditions easier to read?
Shouldn’t the Government and big companies know better than to judge people based on what they buy and where they shop? Do they not know that it is not an accurate way to assess a person?
No Such Thing As Privacy Today
Like Mark Andrejevic states, Google did not give free Internet to the U.S (starting with San Francisco) out of the kindness of their hearts (1), but they did so for advertisement profit. Google can see your location and gather other information from you, which is then used to bombard you with advertisements. Google makes money out of providing “free Internet”. Internet access is “free” because there is access to the Internet when you don’t need to pay, but you do pay in a sense, you pay by providing companies like Google with information about you so they can sell it to advertisers. On top of that, we still pay for Internet plans and web access on our smart devices, so we pretty much pay to see these advertisements. We are constantly being watched and monitored on cyberspace. “Most of us have some vague understanding that marketers are gathering information about us… but we have very little knowledge about what information is being gathered, who has access to it, and how it is being used” (7). Today, we need the internet, whether it be for school, our job, or personal use. The kinds of personal information that would be collected from me on the web is a good chunk since my Instagram and Facebook profiles are public. Information like my location, age, interests, and friends are few of the many things that companies have collected from my “consumer profile”. The web (Google definitely included), is very beneficial, but we must learn to use it as safely as possible. I don’t really mind my information being collected because I am media literate. If anything, we can use these advertisements and algorithms to our advantage to find cheaper prices, to learn about new innovations, and so fourth. The way to make these type of situations a little better is to in fact become media literate. If we are media literate, then ads should not affect us in the same way, and we should have a more in-depth understanding of it. I took a media literacy class before, and I think it is a course that should be given in high school and college, it teaches you about the media itself, how we are flooded with advertisements, and how to become literate when it comes to the media. Why is a Media Literacy class not a mandated one in today’s day and age? Do you think a Media Literacy class would benefit you?
Although I don’t mind my likes and public profile being watched, I do feel weird about my private information being watched as well. As humans in this day and age, we use technology to send all sorts of private information, which we assume are private. But if we are constantly under surveillance, is anything really private? As our generation grew up using the web, we were taught that nothing is fully private online, however the Government also monitors “offline” information, like phone records and so forth, which further invades our privacy. The statement “if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t worry about it” makes sense to a certain extent. Only because something is illegal does not mean it is wrong, and we have seen this with many of the laws in our society. This surveillance can be used and indeed sometimes is used as a form of control, like Michel Foucault states “The disciplinary society, then, is a prison both within and without walls. One outcome of disciplinary action on this mass scale is ‘govern-mentality’, a new form of impersonal, rationalized, authoritarian rule” (211 – 212).
I do not constantly keep in mind that I am being “watched”. We are entitled to private conversations that should not be monitored however. With all this being said, when I do my business online, the only time I do things differently have been when a party I am speaking with says that the conversation is better for “in person” and/or if I am looking to travel, I search in a private browser so prices do not increase. I don’t do anything “illegal” online anymore though, although I did use LimeWire before, watched free movies and shows online, etc. Many people are not aware of the surveillance they undergo when participating online, so surveillance alone would not be sufficient enough to stop crime, being caught is another story though.
This all reminds me of when Edward Snowden leaked classified information from the National Security Agency in 2013, many people did not even know about it. In the video below, Edward Snowden talks about the surveillance that occurs, how he feels about it, and why he leaked the classified information. You can learn more about the leaks and more from the following article.
Possibly A “Drug” For Some
Interview:
MY BEST FRIEND: ALICIA M. COLON
What social media platforms and apps have they used now and in the past?
Social Media- Now: Instagram and Snapchat ; Past: Facebook and Myspace
Apps- Now: Chase, Credit Karma, Gmail, SoundCloud, Shazam, Blackboard, and Dictionary ; Past: Uber (She has a car now)
Do they use their real name(s)? Have they ever used aliases or created fake accounts? Why?
She uses her first and middle name (Alicia May), not her last name. She never used any fake accounts or assumed a fake identity. She thinks it is a waste of time.
What different personas do they construct in each of these platforms and how do they relate to aspects of their experiences in life?
On social media, she exhibits a fun and outgoing persona, which is who she is. We all go to music festivals and other musical events, which in a way defines us.
Do the digital personas they construct help them cope with the problems they face or do they create new problems? In what ways?
She does not create any personas she is not. She is completely fine and confident with who she is. She is happy and does not feel the need to pretend to be someone else and if anything, she is more goofy in person than on social media. She rather have someone get to know her better in person rather than online. She only shows partially of who she is on social media, the other part of her is presented in real life.
———————-
For Turkle’s article I focused on Stewart and his experience with MUD. I would have to say that it is obvious that Alicia and Stewart are completely different people, except in age (they are both 23 years old). Unfortunately, Stewart is not healthy like Alicia is, therefore he cannot experience everything he would like to in the real world, and invests over 40 hours weekly in playing MUD, which Alicia would not. In Stewarts case, is it okay or reasonable to play and transport yourself to a virtual reality 40 hours a week?
Turkle states in his article: “It seems misleading to call what he does there [MUD] playing. He spends his time constructing a life that is more expansive than the one he lives in physical reality” (193). This shows how different Stewart and Alicia are. Stewart is not content or happy with his physical life, while Alicia is. Alicia goes out and does whatever she would like to experience and enjoy herself, while Stewart is limited, and because of that he depends on a virtual reality.
In chapter 5, Athique states: “In the distinctive out-of-body experience of online gaming, the body once again takes centre stage in a symbolic form” (pg. 73), this is what Stewart does. He transports himself to another reality, one where he is not limited by his physical abilities. Alicia would enjoy a game or virtual reality world where she could do anything, but she rather live it than live a life behind a screen. Athique also later states: On it [the Internet], people are able to build a self by cycling through many selves” (178), which is what Stewart is able to do and experience when playing MUD.
An article on virtual reality gaming got me thinking about how the gaming industry is booming, and has been for some time. Virtual reality games are seeping into the picture. 3D gaming is something that is cool in the industry, but as we always do, we take it further—we want a virtual reality as well. As our technology becomes more advanced, it seems we want to find more ways in which we can become devoured by our screens. Is it good? Is it bad? I would say for some. Like all technology, I would say it really depends on how you use it. It’s about how much technology can draw you in and consume you.
All this talk about virtual realities in games made me think of an episode of Law & Order: SVU (a clip of a scene below), where a couple became obsessed with video games, they would play all the time, so involved in it that they would disregard the real world. Gaming took over their lives. It got me thinking how video games and virtual realities are an addiction for some, so are video games and virtual realities possibly a technological drug?
Smart Glasses: the next big thing, or a disconnecting and privacy violating invention?
What are smart glasses? They are a device that are indeed glasses, but not your typical ones. The word “smart” says a lot considering we have labeled our phones and televisions as such. Like these devices, smart glasses are able to access the Internet, accomplish certain tasks, and run applications as well. Smart glasses do all that right in front of your eyes, right in your field of vision.
According to the following article, “The main purpose of smart glasses is to provide users with information and services relevant for their contexts and useful for the users to perform their tasks; in other words, such devices augment users’ senses. In addition, they allow users to do basic operations available on today common mobile devices such as reading, writing e-mails, writing text messages, making notes, and answering calls” (paragraph 5). This is incredible indeed, however an immediate question popped into my head when reading the article: Will this make human kind disconnected or even more disconnected? We already look at our screens all the time, whether it be on a smart phone, laptop, or a television screen; will having wearable glasses that do the same thing, would they on top of disconnecting us, cause less awareness and therefore become a safety hazard?
The author expresses that the potential problem with the glasses could be similar or the same concerns that surrounded camera phones when they first arrived. Privacy is a concern that the author of the article expresses, on top of the way the device would work, and how certain people would find it beneficial to their lives.
“As for technical characteristics, a gesture recognition system for HWD should ideally be very accurate, i.e. able to distinguish fine shapebased gestures, insensitive to daylight, as small as possible, consume low power, and be robust in noisy and cluttered environment that are typical conditions in everyday life scenarios. As far as user experience is concerned, the physical effort required to users to interact with the devices is relevant, as well as easiness of use and encumbrance of the device”, states the article, which brings me to another question: are we so technologically advanced, that one of the first concerns when a convenient and “hip” new innovation reaches the public, is how easy it is to use and how it can be used in ways that we do not use other technology already?
What’s missing from this paper is further analysis on the way the smart glasses can impact humans in a social setting. It briefly covers the concern of privacy and what method is most convenient to use the glasses.
In “What is New Media”, Lee Manovich goes over certain characteristics found in technological innovations: numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability, and transcoding. The smart glasses carry all of the characteristics, since the glasses are made to mimic a computer or smart phone in many ways. Modularity is found in smart glasses because each function is working like the web for instance, separately and jointly. Automation, which is a mix of modularity and numerical representation, is about mimicking human thought. If the glasses are to be handled in a body-gesture method or a hand-to-face method, then in a way, the smart glasses would be mimicking human thought, since they would have to be programmed to be able to read that nonverbal human language. Variability and transcoding are definitely characteristics since the smart glasses are an innovation that came about due to smart devices, so they are similar but represented differently physically. He further states, “To understand the logic of new media, we need to turn to computer science. It is there that we may expect to find the new terms, categories, and operations that characterize media that became programmable. From media studies, we move to something that can be called “software studies”–from media theory to software theory” (Pg 48).
Nick Couldry, in his introduction to “Digital Media and Social Theory”, states: “Media suffuse our sense—our various sense—of living in a world: a social world, an imaginative world, the world of global politics and confrontation” (Pg 1). This makes me think about the smart glasses, because they are stimulating not only our brains but our sense of vision of course (which helps us perceive the world around us on a large scale), since the glasses are literally right in front of our eyes. As if having the screens of our televisions, smart phones, and computers in our faces is not enough. Glasses in general hide you in a way, when one is wearing sun glasses for example, we cannot see their eyes which are a big form of communication and interaction. I believe that the smart glasses may be a big “hit”, but I do not believe that they will benefit us as social beings. Further more, the show Black Mirror makes me think about how technological advances can change our society completely, perhaps causing much negativity. Back to the concern from the author of the article I first mentioned, technological devices can indeed be a violation of privacy. The smart glasses remind me of an episode of Black Mirror. I posted the trailer of it below. If smart glasses can do so many things like other smart devices, would we lose our privacy if we have the ability to so conveniently and easily, record everything we see to play it back as a video/memory?
Our Digital Era, More Positive? Or More Negative?
While online for an hour of my time, I did the following:
-Spoke on the phone with my best friend
-Listened to music on YouTube
-Went through my newsfeed on Facebook and Instagram
-Looked for an apartment
The way we do things has definitely changed in our digital age. All the activities I did within that hour would have been done differently in another era.
Before phones were created you would have to send someone a handwritten letter to communicate with them, which would take days, even weeks, depending on how far away that person is. It is amazing that with just a phone, we are able to dial someone’s number and contact them, or better yet: even see them through video chat. With social media and technologies like cell phones, computers, etc, proximity is not an obstacle for most of us anymore.
There have been many inventions before listening to music online, like the record player, CD player, etc. Listening to music online though is the most convenient. You can listen to anything you desire, you just have to type in the name of the song and artist–incredible.
I go through my newsfeed on Facebook and Instagram like if it’s the morning paper. I read, skim, skip, and so forth. This activity definitely only occurs during a digital era. Before digital times, there was no way of getting to know someone or know what is going on with them without communicating with them or someone else, now you don’t have to. With Facebook and Instagram we can see the posts of friends and strangers with just a click. Social media brings people together.
I have been apartment hunting, and during that hour I did so online. Online is the best way now to find an apartment because you can see photos, know the details about the place, and know the area it is located as well. Before, you would just see signs around or look at the housing section of the newspaper, which is less productive because there are minimal details and no photos.
——————————————————————
Below, I have added a YouTube video. This magnificent video talks about many different things, but at some points, it does focus on the effect technology has had on human kind. It gets me thinking about all the things that technology has changed, which leads to the question of whether the changes are positive or negative
Have we become disconnected? Has technology along with media changed what we see as important? These questions can sway us to open our eyes to the possible negative side effects of technology/media.
Adrian Athique made me consider the questions above further with his statement/s: “In their youth, the baby boomers also became particularly enraptured by the transformation of popular culture that took place as they were growing up. With the massive expansion of the cultural marketplace and the rising purchase power of ordinary people, pop music, film, fashion, art and television were all newly accessible was taking place. These developments, by their very nature, touched those in all walks of life, but it was the youth demographic in the educated classes that came to demonstrate (quite literally) their impatience to take up the reins of steering the information age” (pg. 9 of Ch. 1). Technology is changing us. My generation grew up with the best of both worlds in a way, we had a childhood with little to no new media/advanced technology, and then as we grew to become teenagers and young adults, we saw the advancement of cell phones, computers, etc. The children now are so wrapped up in their tablets and phones; they do not have the same experience I had. Is that good or bad though? It goes back to how you use technology.
A question that arose in my head due to Nick Couldry’s statement/s: “There is no agreed starting point for answering the question: what is it to live ethically with, and through media? And yet the fact that our lives are supersaturated with media makes it increasingly difficult to be satisfied with an ethics that is not, in part, an ethics of media” (pg. 28), is if the changing of media platforms and the changes taking place in the era with new media are molded around the need to protect the environment? If we use more digital then we use less paper. However, we still waste resources on digital media, like electricity for example.
Digital media, technology, etc bring us both good and bad things. Like stated in an interesting article published at Dartmouth University, computers can improve anything, but at the same time come along with fallacies and failures. I agree. The question is not if media and technology is positive OR negative, because it’s both. The question should be, is it more positive or more negative?
Do the positive aspects of technology and new media overpower the negative or do the negative overpower the positive?
We have so much information at our disposal, but we many times do not use it how or as much as we should. However, I am a believer that technology has improved our lives for the better, but to a certain extent. That statement highly depends on how we use technology and how it affects the environment. We have come far with technology; the inventions are great and helpful, but human kind tends to never be satisfied. Our ambition (or greed) is probably one of the main contributions to why we have come so far, but we sometimes try to take things too far. We start trying to create and mess with things that should maybe not be messed with—It sometimes seems as if we are playing God on a planet that was not meant to have one.
With our creations of technologies and our ambition (or greed) to always have more, are we trying to play God?
Our responsibility is to try to make our use of technology and the media as positive as it can be, and if possible, the efforts of human kind should be in advancement toward cutting out the negative aspects of technology as much as we can, which we have done so already with some of our creations.