Category Archives: Check This Out

Google’s Transparency/Subpoenas

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/google-transparency-report-2013_n_3163138.html

According to this article Google has been releasing transparency reports since 2010 to show the public how many times it has been given requests for censorship and by whom. This year has seen the most requests for removal of content and Google released a statement claiming that it was mostly due to the video titled “Innocence of Muslims” which caused a lot of tension in the Muslim world leading many countries with a large Muslim population to ask Google to either remove the video or Youtube itself. I think this transparency report is great and should encourage more transparency throughout the internet as the Filter Bubble’s last chapter suggested. What do you think about Google’s transparency reports and its agreement to work with governments to censor certain things in certain countries?

Under this article was a related video on the issue of subpoenas vs. warrants when it comes to law enforcement asking Google for access to our emails and even our Facebook messages and friends, which Google of course does not have access to. As of right now law enforcement agencies do not need to show probable cause to look through our emails, which means that they do not need warrants but simply subpoenas. Google is given the chance to deny the subpoenas and not hand over any information about you that it doesn’t want to. I find this troublesome but I am glad that Google is trying to push legislation that would change this practice of subpoenas and replace it with warrants. I also think that it is pretty ridiculous that certain law enforcement agencies would be ignorant enough to ask Google for your Facebook information. How do you feel about subpoenas vs. warrants when it comes to your Google accounts?

AugCog

I presented about AugCog, which was the monocle like device that woud be similar to an advanced version of Google Glass. OkCupid owner wanted to develop his own which would allow us to go into a bar and know which people are a good match for us. That sounds so fantastic we would not have to waste our time talking to the wrong person. However, maybe it is because we spoke to that wrong person we know how special the new person is. I think the more we eliminate gives us a lisser appreciation for the things we like. Also I had a previous post about searching the internet and how because we do less reading we are less intelligent. Knowing if you have a connection with someone else I don’t believe can be better achieved by a computer. We know what we like, we often get lazy and don’t want to spend time looking for it. Came across this article which reiterates some of the cues that are right out in front of us.

http://elitedaily.com/elite/2013/will-she-bang-you/

Yelp for the DMV?

There’s a great interview from last month’s Fortune Magazine with the Lieutenant Governor of California, Gavin Newsom.  He has taken his experience from the restaurant industry and wants to apply it to running a government.  More specifically, he discusses how Yelp changed the restaurant industry.  Restaurants went from serving customers how they wanted, to fearing bad reviews online.  This meant that the diners were now participants in the restaurants success, rather than the subjects of the restaurants desires.  Newsom thinks this is applicable to government because todays American citizen is more of a subject of government, not a participant in it.  He says that things are done to us, not for us.

I think this is a brilliant idea, but one that is difficult to implement.  It is smart because many Americans think that government can solve issues by throwing tax dollars at them.  This is not necessarily true, as some issues require better and smarter solutions, not gobs of money.  Also, there should be more accountability in government services, and it can be achieved in a “Yelp” like way.  For example, the DMV’s in the NYC area should all be reviewed online by users, and then rewards and punishments can be distributed accordingly.

The issue with this, is it is extremely hard to implement it on a large scale.  Sure, its easy to review the service at the DMV, or how clean your local county park is.  However, what happens if the president or congress get bad online reviews?  Do we just kick them out?  So in general, I think that Newsom’s idea is great for small government services, but far from revolutionary.  Thoughts?

Can you hear me now? Cellphone turns 40.

Did you know that the first cell phone call was made 40 years ago.  The first cell phone ever made was in 1984 and it cost about $4,000, it had an LED display and took 10 hours to charge. If you want to try a more vintage look get rid of your iPhone or Android and buy one here.  After people became tired of holding a brick, the next big cellphone invention was the flip phone, described by Motorola as “about as thick as a fat wallet at the earpiece while tapering down to half the thickness of a deck of cards at the mouthpiece.” And who can forget the Nokia ringtone, very well progressed during the years (listen here) a dub step version really? The next big thing after the flip phone was the camera phone, they weren’t sold until the year 2002 in the United States, Sony Ericsson’s T68i with its clip-on camera being amongst the first. Before the IPhone and Blackberry were top sellers, there was another phone that everyone had, I remember I got it as my first phone in pink, the Razr. Motorola’s slender, square Razr series, first launched in 2004, was such a runaway hit and sold 50 million phones in the first two years. After the average cell phone era had its run, the smartphone era took over, BlackBerry’s 5810, was the very first Blackberry device to get a cellular connection. The Palm TreoW, also a pocket assistant, was the first phone to run a Windows mobile operating system. These phones started to smudge the line between computer and phone. Last but not least, in 2007 came something that would reinvent a simple phone, the IPhone, an iPod, phone and internet communicator in one device.  Since then, flat, skinny smartphones from Nokia and Samsung and HTC  have reconfigured our expectations of a smartphone, and they are far from what was the first phone. So what do you think the next phone innovation is going to be? Assuming most of you have smartphones, how has it made your life easier/harder ? Could you live without it?

 

 

Congrats we are Behavioral Study Lab Rats!

http://vator.tv/news/2013-04-13-google-picks-up-behavioral-sensing-company-behavio

Yay!! so in order to upgrade and make Google glass practical, Google acquired the company Behavio…this is a company which uses peoples phone signals in order to track human behavior and then make an ‘educated determination’ to predict what we will do next. I used to think all this technology was in order to make our lives easier that was up until I realized what the hell is going on, I kinda want to escape from this world where Im feeling more like a game pawn and lab rat than a person with feelings, thoughts, and ideas. Seriously this Behavio company seems like they are going to make our Filter bubbles even more solid and impossible to break out of or anything new to break into them.

Thoughts anyone? Am I overreacting?

My digital identity after I die? You gotta be kidding…

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9238354/Google_lets_users_plan_their_digital_afterlife

“You can tell us what to do with your Gmail messages and data from several other Google services if your account becomes inactive for any reason.”

“We hope that this new feature will enable you to plan your digital afterlife — in a way that protects your privacy and security — and make life easier for your loved ones after you’re gone,”

 

Uhm ok, really? This really really got to me, its not enough that they want to control what we see what we buy and who sees us while were still kicking they want to control our ‘data’ after we die? This all seems a little absurd to me. Reading this article doesnt even make me feel human anymore, just another line of 0’s and 1’s int heir computers. What if I dont want anything to happen to my emails when I die, and I dont want there to be an automatic response sent to my friends, and family, my coworkers, my employer.

“Just in case you’re inactive and not actually dead, Google is set to send you a warning via an email to a secondary address, and a text message to your cellphone.”

How nice of them, in all honesty I would love to get a text from google saying “If you are alive please reply by texting “ALIVE” back to this number”…what if I am away and on a lengthy sabbatical for 9 months and change my number? Then according to Google i’m dead? woohoo good to know.

 

 

Anyone gonna use this feature? Does this actually make anyone happy to know google offers this?

Google,Samsung,Apple? Now, Soon, Later?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/04/14/phone-plan-google-now-samsung-soon-or-apple-later/?partner=yahootix

This article I came across seemed rather interesting, me being obsessed with my Samsung Note 2 I am not even remotely excited about any of the phones listed. When getting the Note 2 i saw the nexus and was not impressed, the samsung 4 that is coming out isnt all that crazy and seems like its open to alot of glitches, and finally the iphone is extremely played out. As a apple veteran I can honestly say the iphones no longer excite me, on the contrary since converting to Samsung I get easily irritated by the limited things that Apple offers. Anyway I thought this was interesting that the google phone wasnt selling as much and that people are waiting for the other two.

Thoughts? Would you wait for the Samsung 4, the iphone “5S”/”6”, or go with the google phone?

China Toughens Use of Internet

censorship

I recently read two articles Adding More Bricks to the Great Firewall of China and China Toughens Its Restrictions on Use of the Internet, from the New York Times, that covered China’s growing restrictions on the use of Internet. I was glad that Pariser mentioned this issue in his book, The Filter Bubble and criticized the Chinese government for openly removing a lot certain searches and blocking many leading services, just so as to control the flow of information and manipulate the content that reaches its citizens.

The Chinese government recently strengthened its Firewall, however the daily newspaper Global Times, which is affiliated with the Communist party labeled it as an upgrade; an upgrade that ‘blocks online searches of politically sensitive terms, smothers embarrassing news events, blocks online messages from dissidents and simply deletes any micro-blog posts that it dislikes.’ Pariser mentions similar incidents in his book with the Chinese Internet Police (seriously, one of a kind) vowed to maintain order in all online behavior, stating that the ‘Internet is not a place beyond law’, which is completely understandable in the case of hackers and online hoaxing. Just because you are anonymous online does not mean you have the right to do illegal things, however, since when is wanting to know more about the history of your country a crime? I am still baffled at the Chinese government wanting to stay on top of all these firewall issues and investing millions of dollars in trying to catch users online, while turning a completely blind eye at the growing problems regarding poverty, education and health in its remote areas.

 

 

“The online ad business is what we would call a ‘dark market'”

Are online advertisements a part of the “dark market?” And would companies go to any lengths to reach their online target audience? An article titled “U.S. Army, Target, others advertising on pirate sites” explores the efforts of putting ads on illegal websites, while the advertisers themselves continue to be the most trusted and respected firms and organizations in the world.

In this information age, online advertisements are one of the most effective ways to reach the right viewers. Connecting interests to displayed ads, pop-ups and sponsored search results are nothing new to us: we can guess what the company is trying to tell us and we are no longer questioning these occurrences, perceiving them to be normal part of the internet. Seeing an ad for a shoe company you often make purchases from or an offer for a magazine subscription you would be interested in doesn’t alarm us: we trust the firms being advertised. This article talks about the issue that comes up when this trust is no longer there.

Ads from reliable organizations such as the National Guard, Windows 8, Allstate, AT&T, Chevrolet, Neiman Marcus, Wal-Mart and consistently show up on illegal piracy websites. With lots of finger pointing going on, the culprit for this incidence wasn’t found. Maybe the Ad Council, responsible for ad distribution is to blame; maybe the firms themselves, attempting to make extra profit from reaching new customers on these websites. One thing is for certain, when you hear the Head of the Transparency Project aimed to eliminate ads on piracy sites exclaim that you don’t know “where the ads are coming from, where they’re going and how they’re accounted for,” you no longer even consider clicking on them.

Full Article: http://www.csoonline.com/article/730916/u.s.-army-target-others-advertising-on-pirate-sites

“Harlem shake” turns into “Suspension Date”

I know you all have heard of the “Harlem Shake” and at least has seen one or two videos of the dancing phenomena.. After what i am about to share with you i hope you have not made any yourself O.o.. According to Hayley Tsukayama of the Washington Post, 100 students around the United States have been suspended because they posted their own version of the Harlem Shake video on YouTube or other Social entities online. In her article, Harlem Shake’ videos lead to school suspensions,  these 100 students were suspended because some school districts believed that these videos showed inappropriate dancing. The National Coalition against Censorship (NCAC) found these suspensions ridiculous because these videos are just made for self-expression. Joan Bertin, NCAC Director,  says  “It seems a rather disproportionate response by educators to something that, at most, I would characterize as teenage hijinks.” In Eli Pariser’s book, Filter Bubble, this would be categorized as post-materialism at its best. As post-materialist we feel the urge to satisfy our self-image by expressing who we are through different behaviors and actions. Bertin also says “With more forms of expression, there are more reasons to engage in censorship if the people in charge are uncomfortable with forms of expression that younger generations are using,” which i find to be very true because the things that posted online are outrageous.

  1. Do you think the Harlem Shake video is really that bad?
  2. How do you feel about higher authority taking action against online content that people post?

Smart Technology: Intended Benefits or Unintended Misuses

This article is extremely relevant to what we discussed in class a couple of weeks ago.  When there is technological innovation, there are both intended and unintended consequences.  Do the acceptable benefits of a new technology outweigh the possible unintended misuses?  In this Wall Street Journal article, they use the example of the BinCam.  BinCam is an example of a new “smart” technology that includes sensors and cameras on everyday objects.  What BinCam does, is every time you close your kitchen garbage can, it snaps a photo.  This photo is then analyzed by a web service.  You are then given points for being “green” and recycling things you’re supposed to or having points deducted for disposing of recyclables in the trash.  Then the photo is posted on your Facebook account.  This sounds like something that is good for the environment, how could there be unintended misuses?

The author describes how these new “smart” technologies are going to become more invasive into our lives.  Soon, it will not be competing for recycling points against your Facebook friends.  There will be smart forks to tell us if we’re eating too fast, smart toothbrushes to tell us to brush more and smart kitchens to tell us that two ingredients don’t go together.  What is wrong with this?  The answer is out loss of autonomy.  Humans aren’t creative and responsible because we’re told what we “should” be doing by technology.  We are creative and responsible because we make mistakes, try new things, and generally enjoy doing things we shouldn’t do from time to time.

For now is smart technology like BinCam is mostly “good” smart.  That means that although the technology can deduct points, the user still has the option to disregard it all together.  But what happens when there are smart technologies that can’t be avoided?  The author describes these as “bad” smart.  Even though these bad smart technologies sometimes have good intentions, it completely removes the free will of a human user.  These choice removing technologies for now are driving sensors and facial recognition sensors.  However, there are endless possibilities in the future for technologies to be developed that remove the choice of a human, and the consequences won’t be so beneficial.

Would any of you use a “good” smart technology, such as BinCam, a scale that tweeted your weight to your followers, or a pill bottle that “pings” the pharmacy when your medication is low?

What other intended benefits or unintended misuses can you see coming from smart technology?

Using Facebook raises your chances of identity theft

People are always skeptical of new technology and especially unforeseen circumstances that come about. Frank Abagnale, a con-man who is now a security consultant is warning Facebook users that the more information is listed about them on social media, the easier it is for cyber criminals to steal their identity. Abagnale explains how easy it is to steal one’s identity and even easier when provided with a name, date of birth, and birthplace.

“If you tell me your date of birth and where you’re born [on Facebook], I’m 98 percent [of the way] to stealing your identity,” he said at an Advertising Week Europe conference on Wednesday. “Never state your date of birth and where you were born [on personal profiles], otherwise you are saying ‘come and steal my identity.'”

Facebook can also make users more exposed to being tracked. If your mobile device is linked to your profile, hackers can use programs to see your physical location, even if the website or app is not logged on.

Facial recognition software is also being linked with Facebook:

“Another program that is owned by Google has the ability to recognize faces and match them with profiles on social networking sites, such as Facebook. This can all be done “in just seven seconds,” Abagnale said. If someone were to snap an image on an iPhone of a passerby and upload that photo to an app, like PittPatt, that app could then be used to determine who that person is.”

With all this concern about our privacy being leaked and identity easily stolen, will there  ever be a way to still use social media without increasing our chances of personal harm?
Or will we all shift to profiles without pictures, using fake names and not being able to see upcoming birthdays of our friends?

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE ON RT.COM

 

 

The New Social Network

Facebook was in it prime when most of us were in middle school or highscool, and many of us left MySpace for the newer fad that was Facebook at the time. When talking to younger people I realize how “old” Facebook is becoming much like what MySpace was at our time. They seem to choose Instagram as their social network of choice, which makes sense because if you go to Instagram’s Popular page you’ll see teenage related pictures such as Spongebob “memes” or One Direction pictures. While checking Twitter I saw that many people and some celebrities were posting things on a new social network site called Pheed. Curious to learn more, I googled it and found this article about it. Pheed provides users with a platform for sharing all forms content which includes text, pictures, audio,voice notes, video, and live broadcast. Users can subscribe to other users’ channels and view their subscribed channels’ almost like what you would do in Youtube. Also, they can “love” or “heartache” specific pheeds, hashtag, pheedback as well as share content from other channels to their own via a feature called “remix” similar to a retweet. The app became #1 on the app store and it seems like it’s caught the attention of the demographic that Facebook is losing. It easy to see why people are so attracted to this new site, it has an edgier modern contemporary look and in a way it’s like all top social netwroking sites combined into one. So if you’re sick of the same old Facebook, consider giving Pheed a try.

Do you think this site has potential to have the same popularity as the top dogs of social networking? (ie. Facebook, Twitter)

 

 

Wi-Fi at Venues

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/the-49ers-plan-to-build-the-greatest-stadium-wi-fi-network-of-all-time/2/

 

The 49’ers, a NFL Football team in California, are proud to offer Wi-Fi access to each fan that is in the stadium. Apparently no stadium can currently support each and every fan on their Wi-Fi network. This came as news to me. When I attend large venues I often have problem getting cell phone reception on AT&T. Many people on Verizon do not have the same difficulties, as for the other networks I am unsure. I have season tickets to the New York Jets Football season and I almost never get cell phone reception. However, I have tremendous success with the Wi-Fi network. I realize that most fans most likely do not utilize the Wi-Fi all at the same time. Maybe all the fans will never need to be on the Wi-Fi all at once. In the past two years I have never had one problem with their Wi-Fi network. I have been very frustrated with the fact that AT&T will not provide better cell phone reception. Who do you think is more responsible at providing proper network connection, your current cell phone provider or the venue your currently at? Me personally I think the cell phone companies have to immediately strengthen their signals because if all venue soon have Wi-Fi than I will not need to pay for a cell phone bill.

Netflix Begins to “Swim” in Social Network Pool

As of mid-March Netflix has integrated its system with Facebook to improve customer relations. According to Hayley Tsukayama’s, journalist for the Washington Post, article “Netflix introduces ‘Netflix Social’ to display videos you watch on Facebook “ Facebook users are now able to share recent movies or tv shows that they have watched on Netflix with their friends on Facebook. This will allow Netflix customers to view more movies and tv shows defined by the amount of people that are in their social network who have watched and rated or shared them on Facebook. Since the system was normally running on recommendations to the different individual customers, which only allowed people to get streaming of a narrow margin of movies and shows, now the option of watching what friends are watching will supposedly enhance the customers experience.
I think this is a great move for Netflix because their competitor, Amazon prime, is starting to creep up into that top spot for streaming movies for a monthly profit while having great benefits for students and their online customers. Netflix convergence with Facebook will not be a definite profit builder, but it shows shareholders and its customers innovation and change towards their market structure.

  1. Will participate in sharing your Netflix information to your social network?
  2. Do you guys feel that this integration of Netflix and Facebook affects the relations in our “Filter Bubble?”

What is your name promoting?

You start typing one letter and within seconds, Google already comes up with a list of words or phrases it thinks you’re searching for. Some find it helpful or annoying, some amusing as the phrases might be completely bizarre and irrelevant to what you want. Beverly Stayart, a genealogy scholar from Wisconsin, found that once she typed her name Bev Stayart, Google automatically suggested “bev stayart levitra”. The search for the latter led to numerous ads of treatments for male erectile dysfunction. Stayart brought a lawsuit against Google in violating privacy and using her name to generate sales. The suit was dismissed.

In conclusion, the judge announced that this particular connection between her name and the product is purely incidental, it is NOT against the law “for Google to use someone’s name for the purpose of communicating information.” One doesn’t know what to think: whether it is too much for a woman to sue the search engine for an unintentional connection, or for Google to have full rights to use your name to connect to information it is probably going to undoubtedly assume relates to who you are.

Another fun fact making this lawsuit invalid is that Google doesn’t receive any value from connecting the woman’s name to a sponsored link. Sure, it may be a complete coincidence that the treatment products come up as a result, but Google still receives a percentage of profit from every time someone clicks on a sponsored source. There is still a connection between generating earnings and using someone’s name. This story just makes me wonder, is there no longer a way to protect your privacy from search engines, who are allowed to manipulate your name into any profiting scheme as long as it seems accidental? On the other hand, this particular woman may have just been unlucky with her name AND in court, as she previously attempted to sue Yahoo! and Various, Inc. for the same reasons. Both lawsuits unsuccessful.

 

Full story: http://gazettextra.com/news/2013/mar/08/elkhorn-woman-loses-internet-privacy-lawsuit-again/

Clapper vs Amnesty International

I’m not sure how I stumbled upon this link but the title caught my attention. As I read the article I couldn’t help but feel suspicious of the author’s intentions. His concerns about privacy and rights felt over sensationalized and his presentation yellow-journalistic. I did a Google search to see if I could find more information about the case to have a better understanding. I found several articles with all different view points including The Huffington Post, Forbes, and CNN. I also found Legal Information Institute associated with Cornell Law School and even an official pdf file of the opinions of the court(I didn’t know this was so easily accessible online). I was very interested in understanding what was really being decided so I thoroughly read through these items and found out that the courts were deciding on whether the plaintiffs had the right to sue the government for the right against future surveillance of their activities with international bodies using surveillance authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act with special concern of the amendments placed in 2008.

Now even though this supreme court case did have to do with our rights and privacy, it was not as horrible and detrimental to online privacy as my first source had made it out to be. I still feel that this ruling is harmful to us by the fact that it has made it harder for us to challenge new laws and regulations that we find dangerous and damaging until after the fact. As well as the implications that all online communication can be classified as being foreign can become a real problem.

I thought this related to our class because we have been talking about invasion of privacy by mostly corporations and online entities and have not touched on the government’s role in privacy as much. Also, due to my ‘filter bubble’ I was exposed to a more liberal opinion on the court’s decision instead of a less biased view. It also shows the importance of being able to tell what counts as a reputable source today.

How do you feel about this decision?

Do you trust your news sources, even well-regarded ones, to paint you a complete picture?

If you’re interested but don’t have a lot of time to invest in such frivolous reading, I think CNN’s summary highlights the most important points.

You are what you like. Or are you?

We’ve been discussing how Google forms an identity of you through your click signals, and how Facebook forms an identity of you through connections and sharing. What about what you like on Facebook?  Two British men have made a website and algorithm called YouAreWhatYouLike.  They claim that they can map your personality according to the things you’ve liked on Facebook, whether its musicians, politicians, movies, etc.  To do this, they divide the human personality into five areas; Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Stability, and Agreeableness.  Then using your likes on Facebook, they generate your specific personality in each of the five areas.

As we’ve seen in other places, my identity created through my Facebook Likes is inaccurate.  The one area of personality they got right for me is Extraversion.  I thought I would be the perfect candidate for this test because I Like hundreds of pages on Facebook.  I Like every musician that has ever had even one song I’ve liked, every place I’ve visited on vacation, and even my favorite hot sauce.  Maybe this mass of information made it harder for the test to get a solid image of my personality.  Is the test accurate for you?

One of the issues of this web site is the manner in which it is presented.  Pariser writes about how people are fluid, we change our personalities based on our mood and situation.  So, when YouAreWhatYouLike tells me that my Stability is “Calm and Relaxed,” the only answer is sometimes.  True, I am generally calm, yet there are plenty of times I get stressed.  This method of mapping a personality is like a horoscope,  it is full of truisms, or statements that everyone wants to believe are true.