Under the Amenities page on the “What is there now” page, I:

• Added the following tags for a faster search: Baruch College, CUNY, 25^th street, Plaza, Amenities, What is here now.
• Rearranged and rephrased the list of amenities in order of probable priority to the plaza visitors
• Rearranged the list of amenities before the photos for a quicker understanding of what is “there now” followed by illustrations.
• Took out photos that were too similar

Under the Policies page on the “What is there now” page, I:

• Added the following tags for a faster search: Baruch College, CUNY, 25^th street, Plaza, Policies, Prohibited, What is here now.
• Rephrased several sentences to better fit the topic of ‘restricted behavior’ and fixed minor spelling mistakes.

Under the Desired Amenities page on the “What is planned” page, I:

• Added the following tags for a faster search: Baruch College, CUNY, 25^th street, Plaza, Desired Amenities, What is planned.
• Added a short introduction phrase to the list
• Asked the following question to clarify one of the bullets: What exactly do you mean by “An artistic piece”?

In Sacramento there was a bill that passed the senate on a 37-0 vote. The bill is to protect kids under the ages of 18 and give these kids the right to “erase” content on social media sites (like Facebook) freely. The bill also bans the collection of minors personal information for the purpose of marketing or advertising products that minors cannot legally obtain. – So while tobacco companies cannot market cigarettes to minors, other products such video games can be marketed to these teens. In theory the bill seems like a good idea, since its primary goal is to protect children (and even our own children in the future) however, in reality this bill would not add much value to the privacy of teens/tweens. Once something is on the web, other users can download it, and re-post it to other sites like Reddit, also even if the bill bans collection of minors personal information for marketing certain products or services, wouldn’t parents want to ban the collection of their child’s information from all sites? If parents wanted to protect their children from advertising agencies and telemarketers, then it is most likely they want them kept out of the light of advertisers and information brokers.

All in all this bill seems like a minimalistic solution to an ever growing problem of privacy for children. Lets not also forget that kids can set their age to anything on Facebook and other social media sites with/or without the consent of their parents. What are your thoughts on this bill – Is it a positive solution, negative solution, or a temporary band-aid to solve the issues of privacy for individuals under 18?

Article:
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130505/ARTICLES/130509739/1036/business?p=1&tc=pg

April 15, 2013. Two bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon killing three people and injuring 282 people.

April 18, 2013. FBI after taking over the case, released photos of two suspects, asking assistance from the public to help identify them.

The media went frenzy, and the manhunt had begun. Stories started on social news site Reddit, with several users claiming on the forum that a Brown student, Sunil Tripathi was being sought by thousands of police and SWAT team officers over the attack. Different leading newspaper followed suit and wrongly printed stories on the student being one of the culprit. Within hours, the story gathered pace on social media, with tweets about Tripathi being retweeted more than 3,000 times, his Facebook page being attacked, and dozen news vans camping outside the family’s home in Radnor, Pennsylvania.Yet all chose to ignore the fact Tripathi had not been named by police as a suspect.

However, the student was no where to be found. He was already missing! And Police, on Tuesday found a body near the Providence River, Boston and thinks it is ‘very possible’ that it is Tripathi’s body. And beside Reddit, no other major media company that posted the story have come forward to apologize for their mistake.
Student Missing After Wrongly Accused in Boston Bombing

In the book, The Filter Bubble, Eli Pariser mentions the importance of companies being responsible for their actions in chapter, “Escape From the City of Ghettos”. He explains how online companies have to ‘recognize their public responsibility soon’ (pg229). People trust these huge companies to provide them with honest information, and these companies in return should honor that especially when they have so much power and strength in their hands. After all, ‘it is an institution invested with enormous power in the community, the power to affect thoughts and actions by the way it covers the news- the power to hurt or help the common good.’ Therefore these companies should take more time, put in more effort to find their new  sources then just blatantly post uncertain news they themselves are unsure of, just so as to increase traffic. This is a very serious matter, given that a small mistake of theirs could lead to some innocent person’s life.

I am pretty sure that we have all used the social networking site Yelp to get reviews of a certain place, or object, or just something you needed to see feedback on before you use it. Although it seems very helpful at times, there is also a downside to using these reviews. Downsides such as: false reviews, different perceptions and tastes vary by the people giving the reviews, and/or people’s ignorance to what what the specific “Yelped” item is really suppose to do. Journalist Lee Siegel of the NY times wrote an article about the social networking site Yelp. He criticizes how the information on this site can lead you down dangerous roads when it comes to trusting the reviews. In his article he illustrates a few bad experiences with this site including this one taken from the article, “Not long ago, a friend of mine, a dear man with exquisite taste, took me to dinner at Momofuku Má Pêche in Midtown Manhattan.If I had the same experience with a gastroenterologist I had chosen based on glowing Yelp evaluations as I did at Momofuku, I would be checking myself into the emergency room. My monkfish — a special favorite of the Yelp hordes — tasted like a pencil eraser. It was also so cold that it could not be described as cooked. It was deceased.” In this sense, we see that the reviews and feedback about this so called great dinner happened to be a handful of nonsense. I have some friends that use this site for almost everything, but i do not feel that i have to use it since i like to try things myself then ask questions later.

The article is very interesting and i find it funny as well. Here is the link> Go the Same Way, or Go the Wrong Way

1. How do you feel about Yelp in general?
2. Does this site help feed the “Filter Bubble?” or not?

As we all know, handheld cameras are being replaced by smartphones and tablets that are convenient. They are convenient since we are already have them on us we can easily use them to get a quick picture. What makes it even worse for camera developers is that these smartphones and tablets are getting higher and higher in quality as time goes on. In a recent article in the NY times, A Camera Takes On the Phones, journalist David Pogue shows us how camera developer Canon has made innovative pushes to make pocket camera relevant once again by coming out with the PowerShot N that is valued at $300. According to Pogue, there are three major differences that makes the Canon N standout from smartphones. First, it emphasizes the features that a smartphone can’t match, like a zoom lens. Second, it imitates the workings and design features of a smartphone. Third, it can transmit new photos to your phone for immediate sending or posting online.

Do you think people would try this new style camera or will they just ignore it and keep using their smartphones and tablets? Would you buy this camera?

Hello all!

I have made edits to three pages of our wiki project on the 25th street plaza.
The first page I worked on was Stakeholders under the Introduction folder. I added various images that correspond with the stakeholders of our project using HTML embedded code.
The second page I worked on was Current Policies under the What is there now folder. The page initially was blank, so I decided it would be nice to add an image and begin filling out the content that would relate to that page (the current rules that are in place in regards to the plaza).
The third page I worked on was Desired Uses under the What Should Be Planned folder. The page seems very well done, and there was a lot of uses that the author came up with, so instead of editing the page, I posed a question to the author in regards to uses of the plaza during the Fall and Winter semesters, as currently the uses on the page are for the warmer months.

Well, well!  I am not suprised, According to this article YouTube announced to Financial Times that it was “looking into creating a subscription platform that could bring even more great  content to YouTube for our users to enjoy and provide our creators with another  vehicle to generate revenue from their content, beyond the rental and  ad-supported models we offer”. Hm I love how everytime any social media site mentiones of their members to start paying for somethig, according to them it is all done for “our benefit”. YouTube was always humbling, because it was free. You can search for anything and enjoy limitless time throughout your day. They are saying that ” the subscription-only videos will include up to 50 YouTube channels”. For now it will be “only” 50 YouTube channels, in the blink of an eye it will broaden to a 1000 and before we know it the whole YouTube community will be functioning through paid subscriptions. Am I overdramatizing this situation? I personally don’t think so, but would love to hear your opinions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/instagram-gets-face-tagging-with-photos-of-you-feature/2013/05/03/8006c0d6-b34a-11e2-9fb1-62de9581c946_story.html

Usually most of my posts and comments consist of negativity towards anything and everything to do with technology but this article I was very happy with. Since I am an Instagram devotee, the new updates are very convenient and beneficial for me and my fellow Instagram addicts.  Instagram is adding face tagging! Since every other social network changes their features every other month, it is time for Instagram to add something fun and useful. Sure it is not a deal breaker for our universe, but I never realized that I actually enjoy the feeling of nostalgia towards technology updates ( well some ).

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/01/index-google-wallet/

Marc Freed-Finnegan and Jonathan, formal Google Wallet team launched a startup called “Index”. The main goal of Index is to help retailers to create a personalized shopping and improved customer service. It collects consumers’ spending habits and shopping preferences so that retailers can provide personalized shopping experience to their customers. Well,  up to this part, nothing is new. Whatever Index does has happened every time I shop online.

But, I started to feel little weird when I read this part. “Thanks to Index, the next time a salesperson greets you when you walk in to a store, they might be able to actually help you find the same pair of jeans you bought six months prior even if they didn’t work there when you bought them.”  If a stranger who knows my shopping history better than me comes up and say that I have to check some new products which perfectly meet my interests, I would feel really creepy and weird rather than welcomed.

I started to wonder what would happen if a web personalization involved more human to human interactions. And I realized that I actually cared less about any problem that the personalization caused when it’s done by computers. So, what if your search history is not handled by computers, but by actual people ? What if there are real people behind search engine system who decide which information will be shown to you ? Would you feel more upset or frightened when a personalization is done by a real person?

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/11/are-all-bloggers-journalists/we-need-a-broader-definition-of-journalist

The filter bubble changes the way we interact with new information. Because of problems of the filter bubble is causing (confirmation bias, stereotyping, and etc.) finding the unbiased and diverse information has become more important in this information society. In other words, having good and reliable news source could be the first step to escape the filter bubble. However, in these days, anyone can publish anything, at any time, thanks to technology. And we are facing numerous information in front of us, trying to figure out which information is reliable and transparent, especially when everyone can be journalists.

The article I linked basically asks “Can anyone be considered a journalist ?”. There are a lot of fascinating and distinguished blog posts or personal websites written by people whose jobs are not “journalists”. On the other hands, we see a lot of trashy and worthless works created by “journalists”. So whom can we call journalists in these days ?

While reading this article I began to think a lot about how it connects to the Filter Bubble. Polonetsky mentions that the most important issue to consider when it comes to customer privacy is “transparency.” If the data being aggregated by companies are used to benefit the users by some sort of improvement with the service offered, then users are completely ok with that. This is fascinating because while so much of society are trapped in a filter bubble, and may want to deviate away from its adverse effects, they willingly trapped themselves in there in the first place. Also when asked what the most overlooked issue is when it comes to businesses and customer privacy Polonetsky states that it is choosing passwords. I find his notion that users choosing poor passwords (ex: 1234, ABCDEF) are extremely vulnerable to hackers. And that using the same password for every site basically invites hackers into stealing your data. As Polonetsky mentions, strong consumer relationships are the determinants of success and I highly agree with him. If our relationships with companies are transparent, and companies are using our data responsibly with full disclosure, then this enables us the consumers to feel safe, but if otherwise, how can we truly trust the services we are using? Simply telling us that collecting our data to benefit us is not good enough of a reason to make users feel secure.

Article:
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/226519

We have had wiretapping laws for telephones for decades, and now a new proposal has been in place for the FBI to be able to wiretap the “Digital World.” If legislation for the FBI being able to screen and monitor the activities on certain sites such as Google and Facebook, then this could mean serious business. A wide majority of users are daily users of these two sites, and while the FBI claims that it is imperative to be able to wiretap into certain high traffic sites in order to “aid them” in solving crimes, I have to disagree with them. We have to ask ourselves, what is the point of monitoring a couple of sites and services and not all of them? If FBI wanted to catch criminals, would criminals really be using Gchat or Skype of Facebook to plan their mischief? They could be using the most rudimentary online chat programs like AIM, or Yahoo Messenger, as oppose to the major services like Gchat. I also believe if this proposal was to go through, then the meaning of the world privacy would go out the window, as all of our activity will be transparent. And while transparency of companies is a good thing, perhaps this is a bit overboard, especially since this proposal wont aim to help us solve the problem of the filter bubble or privacy, and instead will create turmoil amongst the users of the internet. What are your thoughts on this proposal?

Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/proposal-seeks-to-fine-tech-companies-for-noncompliance-with-wiretap-orders/2013/04/28/29e7d9d8-a83c-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story_1.html

I think that most of Eli Pariser’s solutions to get around the “Filter Bubble” aren’t practical or effective. I found the least practical solution in the section for what individuals can do. Pariser’s suggestion that each of us become more literate in algorithms does not seem like it would work for those that do not care for technology or perhaps aren’t even aware of the filter bubble to begin with. As he states “learning the basics of programming is even more rewarding than learning a foreign language”(228). While learning both has its rewards both take time and a lot of people either don’t have the time or the will to learn a new language either computer or foreign even if it’s just the basics.

I found the best solution to getting around the problem of personalization in the section on what companies can do. I think that filters “making their filtering systems more transparent to the public”(229) is a very good start to solving the problem. “Knowing what information the personalizers have on us” and explaining how the filters use the data they have on us is a good way to keep us involved in how the system works and how we can have it work for us rather than against us(232). I also think that the government should be involved in some kind of regulation of the filter bubble. The “do not track list” seems pretty ridiculous when it comes to the internet but there will come a point when the government will need to step in and give the people control over how the internet uses our information. Nobody should own our information and data but us.

In “the Filter Bubble,” Eli Pariser addresses how serious personalization of the internet has become by tackling many levels of the issue, in which he reveals how people implicitly and explicitly provide and receive information. People have learned to enjoy the benefits and convenience of the services that large internet giants have provided them; even Pariser himself admits that he enjoys using Pandora, Netflix, and Facebook daily (218). However, these internet companies have strategically implemented several methods that have placed a constraint on the type of information that an individual can acquire and confiscating the opportunity for that individual to diversify his or her knowledge of the world.   Sadly, the same people who are receiving these services are the ones suffering the consequences.  Fortunately, in chapter 8, Pariser introduces several solutions to the issue regarding personalization, which has crippled information society for many years. He suggests ideas of what individuals, companies, governments and citizens can do in efforts to work cohesively and repair the damage that has been done.

Although many of his solutions are sure to be effective, none of them seem realistic to me. No matter what, people will always want to access the sites that they wish to access (because that’s just human behavior), companies want to generate as much revenue as possible and increase their market share by any means, and governments want companies to make large sums of money in order to contribute to the growth of their economies. However, out of the many solutions that he mentions, I found his solution of what companies should do to be his strongest argument. Pariser suggests that “the new filterers can start by making their filter systems more transparent to the public, so that its possible to have a discussion about how their exercising their responsibilities in the first places” (229). Companies need to be more transparent about the data that they acquire from their users and what they do with that data so that people understand how the system works. On page 230 Pariser compares the number of searches conducted via Google and Bing. He says that, although Bings algorithms are highly competitive with Google’s, people still tend to use Google more because the extraordinary number of people that trust Google’s services. Because of this, Google has an obligation to it’s users, in that it should inform them of its filtering systems.

I believe Pariser’s weakest suggestion is the one that he suggests of what the individuals should do. He mentions that people should “stop being a mouse” (223), meaning that they should explore different avenues of the World Wide Web instead of constantly following the same path. This is much easier said than done. There are TOO many people out there are ill-informed of the filter bubble. Also, no matter how cautious a person is, the algorithms will always be there, in which case, it is up to the new generation of creators to change the way the internet influences information society.

I came across the article, “Underground Cellphone Service Expands, but Some Call for Quiet.” And I thought, well that’s strange, who wouldn’t be happy about this? I mean personally, I think this is great. If people are able to communicate underground it could increase security and lessen crime. People would be able to call 911 and potential theives/muggers/perverts would realize this as well. Secondly, if you need to get in contact with someone you can. In the past, I experienced forgetting to send a text or place a call, but it’s already too late once I’m already beyond the turnstiles. Also, if the train is delayed, people could let others know they will be running late. The list goes on and on.

Potential objectors to this new expansion might argue that the train rides will become even less pleasant with people able to talk on the phone now. But I think this is an easy fix, wear headphones. I mean, if you look for the solice of a quiet ride home on a busy train, that’s your mistake. Why should everyone else have to suffer? Expanding cellphone service benefits certainly outweigh the downsides. And quite frankly, I think it’s about time they do this. They keep increasing the fare so it’s nice to see some improvements. The United States has the money and capabaility to make these changes to the MTA. And we spend money on wars and on everything everywhere else so I think this improvement is long overdue.

Check out the link and let me know what you think. Does the good outweigh the bad, or not?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/nyregion/30-more-new-york-subway-stations-get-cellphone-service.html?ref=technology&_r=0

In Chapter 8 of the Filter Bubble, Pariser makes a strong idea when he says, “Meanwhile, in the city of ghettos, some people get trapped in the small world of a single subculture that really doesn’t represent who they are.” The idea of comparing a person’s online identity given by the internet based on history or what they may look at online, traps someone in that one specific subculture that makes it difficult to get out of, like a ghetto. He used references from Christopher Alexander’s book. Alexander’s book is about a new way of thinking and Pariser shown throughout his entire book that he is also a believer of new thinking. An idea Pariser and Alexander both share is the “Mosaic of Subculture.” This idea referenced a happy medium.  The medium represents a person fully happy when he receives support and values those around him as well as seeing the various choices of lifestyles before being satisfied in his own. Alexander uses this idea to compare the ghettos from upper class and middle class. However, Pariser relates this to the way people see themselves in their online world.  People are comfortable when they are in their small, protected spaces that make us feel at hone and some of the websites we use, take this knowledge and use to against us.

A weak idea used by Pariser is when he began to talk about Facebook ‘s power and privacy settings shifting and not being ideal for the average person. I don’t think he should’ve talked so poorly about a company then directly after mention, “Facebook’s PR department didn’t return my emails requesting and interview (perhaps because MoveOn’s critical view of Facebook’s privacy practices is well known).” This shows that all of his comments are based off his prejudice of them not talking to him and that the company that Pariser brought up in his first chapter. His ideas of giving people control and programming our devices cant be linked well to Facebook since he already mentioned that Facebook didn’t support him.

Chapter 8 of Eli Pariser’s The Filter Bubble focuses in on what can be done to eliminate, or at least reduce, the personalization of the internet. Suggestions of action are targeted towards three major groups; individuals, companies, and, governments & citizens. Some suggestions provided seem to be likely feasible and based on individual efforts, while some suggestions are near impossible due to conflicting interests, lack of incentive or absence of regulation.

The strongest idea that Pariser has for popping the filter bubble is “Stop being a mouse.” (P223) This suggestion is directed towards all individuals and can be successfully attained by the sole efforts of an individual. The mouse traps currently existent on the internet are very efficient, given the average user of the internet is interested in merely a handful of websites, sources, and, topics therefore putting themselves right in the “bubble” or mouse trap. This does not necessarily mean individuals are narrow-minded with few interests, that small loop of websites might be used for a purpose such as business processes, and in business time is money so there is no time to take the long route. Even on a personal interest level, “habits are hard to break” (P223) but extending interests into new territory, increases the playing field of your personalization algorithms and discourages being closed in a small filter-bubble.

The weakest idea that Pariser has for popping the filter bubble is the proposed idea of the FTC to create a Do Not Track list (P238). At some point on the internet we have all attempted “private browsing” or reject access to cookies, to realize that many websites and applications do not work as they should, or may deny access altogether. Ebay, Amazon, Facebook, Google Dashboard are not the same without personalization characteristics and are therefore a MUST to provide. The Do Not Track list would “offer a binary choice-either your in or you’re out” (P238). So now if we are members of the DNT list, seems like websites (that use personalization) will not work properly or not even at all. If Google no longer collects our personal info in exchange for free tools and email, will we have a monthly email subscription and pay-per-google-search? The Do Not Track idea works for phone numbers because there is no exchange going on, its eliminating the spam while maintaining functionality, but on the internet one cannot always expect something-for-nothing. In exchange for data, individuals do receive a lot of tools and convenience to make the internet what it is today.

In the Filter Bubble Pariser focuses on many of the problems that derive from personalization. The complexity of the internet makes it very difficult to even understand that information is being personalized and even more difficult to be able to control.

As Pariser mentions about defaults “If people will let defaults determine the fate of our friends who need lungs and hearts, we’ll certainly let them determine how we share information a lot of the time”(p.224). We are psychologically lazy and that gives internet companies the ability to take advantage of us. We will not go out of our way to attempt to be untraceable until it becomes an immediate problem in our lives. Pariser’s solution of online tracking is to delete or erase your cookies or only use websites that and transparent. That is not the default on our browsers and I still would not know how to go about deleting them. So to believe that the average person is going to research and learn how to accomplish this is not that logical.

The best solution that Pariser mentions in the Filter Bubble is the governments intervention in companies online presence. It took the government many years to develop regulations for news corporations. The Internet has not been around for that long but it is definitly time for governmental regulations. Pariser mentions that “the U.S. Federal Trade Commision is proposing a Do Not Track list, modeled after the highly successful Do Not Call list”. I remember the do not call list and I can confirm that it was successful. As I said before people are psychologically lazy. It was not difficult to add yourself to the list and it became automatic. If the same can be done for the Internet that will be a viable solution to some of the issues we face with our online presence.