Automotive accidents happen when drivers least expect it. If you have ever been in a car accident or have witnessed one, you will see that the time needed to sort out all of the statements can take hours. The concept of the “black box” has been around for many years now and is no new innovation. It was just that not all manufacturers were integrating this piece of technology into their vehicles. But now it may be more likely that every new car that comes off the lot will come with one pre-installed from the factories. In the simplest terms the black box is essentially a data recorder. It records data such as speed, throttle position, whether seats belts were used, and the like.

Having the black boxes in new cars will definitely make settling insurance claims easier. There will be a more definite  decision towards who was in the right and who was in the wrong during accidents, with less greyness in between. However, privacy advocators believe that the black box could just be another way to invade our privacy. Sure the primary purpose of having these boxes are to monitor our behavior prior to the accident, but what if there were ulterior motives they were not mentioning. Perhaps the box could even monitor your location such as where you frequently travel to. This tid bit of information may not seem like much, but its enough to get a pattern of the neighborhoods you visit. Also one of the biggest concerns are the limits of the amount of data collected. Could audio also be recorded – your conversations, calls,  etc…? Does it stop there, or does the list go on? What if companies could even sell/share  your information to other agencies? Its still too early to say but we can see that  there are so many possibilities for firms to collect data ABOUT you without your consent.

What do you think about the black box? Do you believe it could do more good than harm? Also what do you think about this type of technology in general. Do you believe advocates of the black box wanted this technology to be implemented nation wide because drivers are inherently untrustworthy when it comes to speaking the truth after an accident (in order to protect their own self interests) ?

Source

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-advocates-say-car-black-boxes-could-become-a-privacy-nightmare-20130215,0,5120489.story

This is a video on trust in our society after all that has happened in the last few years in the form of a forum among a few of today’s leading thinkers. The video is an hour and thirty minutes long but I think the whole video is worth watching if nothing more than as background noise.

I marked two spots in the video that I thought was relatable to our class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sLCfkdrLsVA#t=432s

^ Richard Edelman gives a good overview of the trust issue at the above marker. He talks about how the general populous has lost trust in the government and business among other industries, but overall we have the highest trust in the technological industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sLCfkdrLsVA#t=1263s

^Here Edelman urges business to move away from a license to operate to a license to lead position because past practices have lead to a rise of skepticism towards major businesses;  they have forced us to find information from 2-3 different sources to assure its validity.

I thought this related to our reading since chapter two talked about the effects the internet has had on our trust in the media.

Have you lost trust in government and business industries after all that has transpired in the last couple of years? If so, do you think the internet played a role in facilitating your distrust?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lZzpNzoT6c

It’s a 30 minute video that’s pretty bland but it gives an idea of what Google has planned for the future. He touches on Google Glass, driver-less cars, Google Fiber, and the next generation of search among other things which I’m sure all of you have heard of. He also mentions that the FDA just approved a swallow-able chip in a pill (that can be read about through a simple search, this being the newest chip http://www.wired.com/design/2013/02/freescales-tiny-arm-chip/) which Google isn’t working on but I thought it was notable.

What I’d like to talk about is the rate and scope at which Google’s power and influence on our society is growing. At the 13:50 mark in the interview he mentions the next generation of search in which they may be able to “suggest what you should be searching for” which gets a small  chuckle from the interviewer and audience.

The things Google is/will be capable of doing are something straight out of science fiction. I’m not saying that any of what Google is doing is inherently bad, I believe quite the opposite, but it’s almost like opening Pandora’s box. I fear Google’s good intentions of progress and innovation is paving a road that is making for the possibility of an Orwellian society more of a reality.

So I’m asking

1. Do you think Google is becoming too large of an entity?
2. Do you think it’s a cause for concern that they, or anyone for that matter, have/will have these abilities?
3. Do you trust Google with this kind of power?
4. If not, would you trust anyone with this kind of power? If so, who?

not to tint your view on the matter but I found it fitting

< What Your Klout Score Really Means >

Klout score basically measures your “social media influence” based on your daily social media activities and depth of involvement. Number of friends you have on Facebook, number of “like” you get, # of tweets and retweets you receive and send, number of followers on Twitter and many other factors are used  to generate your scores. A higher score you have, stronger your voice and presence  on internet.

The interesting part is that this score starts to have a greater impact on your offline life. Marketers and companies will look over your Klout score, and distribute coupons or special discounts based on it. Job recruiters will review your Klout score, and won’t hire you if you have a low score. According to the article, Mr. Fiorella, who has 15 years of working experience in marketing field, didn’t get a job because his score is not high enough.

Honestly,I’m not a big fan of Klout Score for several reasons.I don’t think the score can be reliable because I doubt that “social influence” can be measured numerically. This social media ranking technology didn’t develop any standard mathematical or technological algorithm to rank people using their online activities. Justine Bieber has a higher Klout score than Obama. Also, I don’t want my online activities are monitored. But the scary part of Klout score is that, even though I don’t want to be on their profile, if one of my Facebook friends are using Klout score, I’m automatically on Klout database.

I think our social media system has been developed through our self-motivation. We’ve using social media because we like to create and share things. However, once we know that we will be discriminated, social media becomes an obligation. I believe everyone understands how it feels different when your post birthday pictures for homework and for your friends.

I think <Filter bubble> and Klout score share alot of similar issues on targeted advertising, discrimination based on online activity and privacy issues.

Please share your thoughts on this issue. If you find positive aspects of Klout score, I’d love to hear it !

I recently watched a documentary titled ‘Never Sorry’ on the life story of the outspoken, Chinese global art star, Ai Weiwei. It was an inspiring story on how one person, despite sounding totally crazy, uses art and technology to change and ‘push the boundaries of freedom in China’.

Ai Weiwei is a political artist and he tries to dissipate China’s strict regime by presenting underground exhibitions, publishing coverless books and posting regularly on his website, until the Chinese government took it down in 2008 and limited his work by setting cameras inside his house. But that did not stop Weiwei, he turned to twitter, and has not slowed down since then.

Eli Pariser explained in his Ted talk how the Internet was initially thought to be used for ‘great things’, how it would be a gateway to connect to the world, to introduce new ideas and most importantly to help democracy drive forward. And even if the web is looked upon as devilish, it rings a completely different tune in the East. Ai Weiwei uses the social media as a vehicle to his express himself and get justice in China. Weiwei urges his countrymen to use the social media and he himself has shamed and exposed many politicians via viral videos and tweets.. The point I am trying to make is that maybe the Internet is not doomed for failure after all. If the web is serving as a platform for these activist to vocalize themselves and bring to attention the corruption-fueled Chinese government, then there is still hope that the Internet is being used for a far greater purpose.

Here is a small clip where Ai Weiwei states his feeling and applauds the web stating that ‘the Internet and social media constantly puts the (Chinese) government on trial’. In the end, it boils down to the fact that the Internet CAN be used for far greater things, but it is up to the user to make that decision.

Ai Weiwei: The Internet vs. The Chinese Government

[ted id=187]

In this TedTalk, Lawrence Lessig speaks on the effects internet copyright laws have on creativity. I agree with Lessig as far as opposing rules and regulations that restrict the innocent use of media by the general public. But I also see the internet, as it is today, as a machine that curbs the creativity and thought process of the youth today.

I’ve spent most of my adolescent years on the internet. From dial-up AOL chatrooms to message boards and forums, I’ve seen the internet change from a free flowing creative community that was fueled purely by the love of individuals turn into a gateway for corporations to control and monetize the public. Youtube is one of the best examples I can think of that show this change.

When Youtube was starting out the majority of their content was user generated. Their most popular content were original comedy shorts or vlogs created by individuals that were just using the internet as an outlet to express themselves. A small community formed around these videos and the individuals. When Google bought Youtube, they started the partnership program and monetized the videos, the sense of community died soon after and it became a business. The most popular channels and videos on Youtube now are scripted big productions following a formula made to try and catch the essence of amateur videos of yesteryear.  This changed the way and reason why the average person makes a video or even a comment today.

I also think the internet today is so over saturated by media and things to do that it leaves no room for the youth today to be bored. Being bored plays an important role in our lives because I believe boredom breeds creativity, innovation, and most importantly introspection.

I’d like to share some videos that still hold some nostalgic value that are appropriate enough to post

This has mild vulgar language and slightly inappropriate content but I think he encapsulates the essence of what the internet was pre-youtube, pure unadulterated creativity.