Well, this is my last post.
It is a bittersweet ending and for me marks the conclusion of a chapter in an interesting foray into the world online. That is not to say I will stop using the internet (I don't think that would be possible), but it does mean my participation in this particular community is coming to a close. In a sense we have grown in our understanding and appreciation of the internet and now it is time to explore it further on our own. Gosh! That's perhaps all rather melodramatic isn't it.
All the same though, I have learnt a lot from this paper. It has given me a new perspective on my use of the internet as well as awoken my curiosity to the infinite amount of interest groups, information and procrastination tools present within the vast space of the world online. This paper has been different from any that I have done before. I have found the participation in an online community a very interesting experience and it is one i have enjoyed. Good luck to everyone in their exams. See you around,
Kat : )
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
ID Chip Me
ID chips are no longer a thing of sci-fi and futuristic movies and books. They are becoming a reality. I can see their benefits, it would mean that authorities would be able to monitor dangerous criminals after they were released from prison. People deemed a threat to society or conducting suspicious activities would be able to be tracked and prevented from acting illegally or to the harm of others. It could possibly make society safer.
However, in my opinion this is a massive violation of peoples freedom. It is also unnecessary. There is enough surveillance conducted by institutions as it is, I don't think authorities need to invade peoples lives anymore than they already do. In this day and age, authorities can already track down people's whereabouts if they really want to. China is one such example. I think that society is generally pretty safe and that ID chipping people would only serve to hinder and stunt societies progress. We may end up with a world of agoraphobics and that's not at all conducive to a productive and successful country and economy. I guess people would have to work and socialise entirely over the internet or with various digital devices, but if these are being monitored to would they do so freely? I'm guessing no. People would become reclusive and isolated. Human interaction is a basic need for most people, taking it away is just about the worst thing that could be done. ID chipping people is really not a way forward, perhaps technologically it is but socially it is a great step backwards and a form of oppression on a society that has begun to become more accepting and free. I really do not agree with ID chips, people are not dogs.
So would I ever get an ID chip?
The straight up and simple answer is no.
However, in my opinion this is a massive violation of peoples freedom. It is also unnecessary. There is enough surveillance conducted by institutions as it is, I don't think authorities need to invade peoples lives anymore than they already do. In this day and age, authorities can already track down people's whereabouts if they really want to. China is one such example. I think that society is generally pretty safe and that ID chipping people would only serve to hinder and stunt societies progress. We may end up with a world of agoraphobics and that's not at all conducive to a productive and successful country and economy. I guess people would have to work and socialise entirely over the internet or with various digital devices, but if these are being monitored to would they do so freely? I'm guessing no. People would become reclusive and isolated. Human interaction is a basic need for most people, taking it away is just about the worst thing that could be done. ID chipping people is really not a way forward, perhaps technologically it is but socially it is a great step backwards and a form of oppression on a society that has begun to become more accepting and free. I really do not agree with ID chips, people are not dogs.
So would I ever get an ID chip?
The straight up and simple answer is no.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Internet, here , there, everywhere.
The internet is increasingly converging with reality. It can be accessed from almost anywhere and it has been suggested that it could become like electricity- everywhere and always on in the background. The internet is already something people have come to rely on and depend upon in their everyday lives. Perhaps in the future it will even become as important as electricity.
I think the idea of a ubiquitous/invisible internet is great. I already like the fact that i can access it from the comfort of my couch (as i am doing now). It would be great to be able to connect anywhere at any time, from any of the technological gadgets I carry around with me. Attributing the internet to a physical object could potentially restrict these endless possibilities. Internet television, whilst a seemingly good idea demonstrates the restrictions that embodying a particular technology in a physical thing can impose. Ultimately technology will only be used if the physical object it is hosted in is also geared to the mindset of the user and the purpose of the technology. The internet is arguably a technology that embodies the ideal of freedom of information and expression, I think it should also have freedom of form, at the moment it's form is generally that of a laptop, computer or cellphone. It would be cool if ipods could access the internet, you could download songs whilst you were shopping for example and then listen to them immediately. Rather than downloading them on your computer, transferring them to you ipod and then being able to listen to them.
I think it is a definite possibly that the internet will eventually be able to be accessed from anywhere. It needs to be easily accessible, from a wide range of objects so that as many people as possible will make use of it. If specialised device is needed to access it, it may not be successful, if it is expensive. However, if it is affordable for the majority of the population then more people will use it.
The killer app of going moblie? I cannot answer that. But as far as my tipping point goes regarding the cost benefit equation, I think that the benefits need to be quite a lot larger than the costs. I need to feel that a great expense to myself initially will be worth it in the future for the benefits i will receive. Where exactly the line is drawn depends on a case by case basis.
I think convergence is a positive thing, but needs to be approached with an open mind to make the most of the possibilities.
I think the idea of a ubiquitous/invisible internet is great. I already like the fact that i can access it from the comfort of my couch (as i am doing now). It would be great to be able to connect anywhere at any time, from any of the technological gadgets I carry around with me. Attributing the internet to a physical object could potentially restrict these endless possibilities. Internet television, whilst a seemingly good idea demonstrates the restrictions that embodying a particular technology in a physical thing can impose. Ultimately technology will only be used if the physical object it is hosted in is also geared to the mindset of the user and the purpose of the technology. The internet is arguably a technology that embodies the ideal of freedom of information and expression, I think it should also have freedom of form, at the moment it's form is generally that of a laptop, computer or cellphone. It would be cool if ipods could access the internet, you could download songs whilst you were shopping for example and then listen to them immediately. Rather than downloading them on your computer, transferring them to you ipod and then being able to listen to them.
I think it is a definite possibly that the internet will eventually be able to be accessed from anywhere. It needs to be easily accessible, from a wide range of objects so that as many people as possible will make use of it. If specialised device is needed to access it, it may not be successful, if it is expensive. However, if it is affordable for the majority of the population then more people will use it.
The killer app of going moblie? I cannot answer that. But as far as my tipping point goes regarding the cost benefit equation, I think that the benefits need to be quite a lot larger than the costs. I need to feel that a great expense to myself initially will be worth it in the future for the benefits i will receive. Where exactly the line is drawn depends on a case by case basis.
I think convergence is a positive thing, but needs to be approached with an open mind to make the most of the possibilities.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Digitally Privileged... Can I survive without digital technology?
The digital divide is something I have been aware of, but never really thought about in great detail. I am part of the digitally privileged generation. I have grown up having access to computers, telephones, cell phones, the internet, ipods etc etc etc. They are part of my everyday life, I use these things all the time. My laptop is usually on, my cell phone's always somewhere handy and the internet is a readily available world i can access easily from the comfort of my own home. How much do i use these technologies? Daily- definitely, hourly- yep, minutely- may be not quite, but certainly not far off. For me the one I use the most would have to be my cell phone. It is my primary way of keeping in contact with my friends and family, email comes a close second. Its a way of communicating with friends around the country and the world, that is free and easy. Having pondered whether I could go without these things for a day, I think I could, but it would be hard, very hard. Any longer than a day and I would be getting a bit edgy I suspect. I am a technological dependent. This is interesting considering these things are a relatively recent edition to my life. Up until the age of 13 I didn't have a cell phone, if I wanted to communicate with my friends outside of school I would ring them at home. Nowadays this seems like a thing of the past.
I realise I am digitally privileged, but if I didn't know any better, for example, say I had grown up in a remote village that had none of these things, I don't think my life wouldn't be any less fulfilling. My priorities would be different, cooking dinner, looking after my brothers and sisters and community life and duties would be what my day was filled with. I have to say I think that in this day and age technology is important, but it is not necessarily essential. The 'essentialness' in participating in it depends on the society one lives in and whether a person wishes to remain a part of that society. I believe Porush's law is correct in that aspect.
Are laptops as important as food? I am for OLPC, I think it is a great intiative. Sure laptops don't replace food, but if making these children technologically aware and skilled helps leapfrog these countries that are sorely lagging behind the rest of the developed world into a position where they can begin to have a relationship with wealthy countries that doesn't just entail them getting aid, then surely this is a good thing! Food is important to live, but technology is important in getting the food. Like the proverb 'give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.' Giving these children technology will enable them to be on a more level playing field with those who are born digitally privileged. They will have greater opportunities in life and be able to provide for themselves. I know this is a very idealistic perspective, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.
I realise I am digitally privileged, but if I didn't know any better, for example, say I had grown up in a remote village that had none of these things, I don't think my life wouldn't be any less fulfilling. My priorities would be different, cooking dinner, looking after my brothers and sisters and community life and duties would be what my day was filled with. I have to say I think that in this day and age technology is important, but it is not necessarily essential. The 'essentialness' in participating in it depends on the society one lives in and whether a person wishes to remain a part of that society. I believe Porush's law is correct in that aspect.
Are laptops as important as food? I am for OLPC, I think it is a great intiative. Sure laptops don't replace food, but if making these children technologically aware and skilled helps leapfrog these countries that are sorely lagging behind the rest of the developed world into a position where they can begin to have a relationship with wealthy countries that doesn't just entail them getting aid, then surely this is a good thing! Food is important to live, but technology is important in getting the food. Like the proverb 'give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.' Giving these children technology will enable them to be on a more level playing field with those who are born digitally privileged. They will have greater opportunities in life and be able to provide for themselves. I know this is a very idealistic perspective, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Surveillance
Right now, as I type this post I could be (and in fact probably are) being watched. Its scary when it is put in those terms. Do I really want some agent of surveillance following my digital traces and reporting back to some person who will look at my activity and decide whether I pose a threat or not?
Of course I don't, but the reality is I don't have a choice, unless I decide to cut off all forms of digital communication with people (which I don't want to do). In this day and age, this is an extremely hard thing to do, especially as it is now how most people communicate with those not in their immediate proximity. I think surveillance is necessary to an extent, whether it be formal surveillance by the govt for the good of the nation or by employers in order to ensure the protection of trade secrets. Surveillance has a place in the current technological age. However, how far is too far? Is it acceptable for a govt or employer to read the private conversations between 2 people? I think not. There is a reason NZ has a piece of legislation called the Privacy Act. This Act sets down the rules by which an agent may collect personal information from an individual and in the broadest sense the guidelines involve doing so for a lawful purpose, directly from the individual, with the individuals knowledge, in a way that does not intrude upon an individuals affairs, protects the information from others, allows the individual access to it at all times and does not disclose it to another agent or person without good reason. It seems to me that govts and employers are in breach of the principles of the Privacy Act. I know that most employers get their employees to sign an IT policy form which does cover them for the most part. However, I still feel that the line between what is acceptable surveillance and what isn't has great potential to be blurred.
I was actually quite surprised to find that I was guilty of peer to peer surveillance. I have never thought of my activities like that. I think that surveillance is a necessary thing, but that it is perhaps abused. People have a right to privacy. Think of the consequences on freedom of speech if surveillance is taken too far. People will be afraid to speak out and public debates will be severely hindered. Democracy will be undermined and fundamental rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act will be violated. An opinion on the subject is all very well, but what can be done to stop unnecessary and right-infringing surveillance when people do not even know they are being watched???
Of course I don't, but the reality is I don't have a choice, unless I decide to cut off all forms of digital communication with people (which I don't want to do). In this day and age, this is an extremely hard thing to do, especially as it is now how most people communicate with those not in their immediate proximity. I think surveillance is necessary to an extent, whether it be formal surveillance by the govt for the good of the nation or by employers in order to ensure the protection of trade secrets. Surveillance has a place in the current technological age. However, how far is too far? Is it acceptable for a govt or employer to read the private conversations between 2 people? I think not. There is a reason NZ has a piece of legislation called the Privacy Act. This Act sets down the rules by which an agent may collect personal information from an individual and in the broadest sense the guidelines involve doing so for a lawful purpose, directly from the individual, with the individuals knowledge, in a way that does not intrude upon an individuals affairs, protects the information from others, allows the individual access to it at all times and does not disclose it to another agent or person without good reason. It seems to me that govts and employers are in breach of the principles of the Privacy Act. I know that most employers get their employees to sign an IT policy form which does cover them for the most part. However, I still feel that the line between what is acceptable surveillance and what isn't has great potential to be blurred.
I was actually quite surprised to find that I was guilty of peer to peer surveillance. I have never thought of my activities like that. I think that surveillance is a necessary thing, but that it is perhaps abused. People have a right to privacy. Think of the consequences on freedom of speech if surveillance is taken too far. People will be afraid to speak out and public debates will be severely hindered. Democracy will be undermined and fundamental rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act will be violated. An opinion on the subject is all very well, but what can be done to stop unnecessary and right-infringing surveillance when people do not even know they are being watched???
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Copyright or creative comments???
In a world where technology is constantly developing to make the transfer of information, ideas and commodities easier and more efficient the traditional notion of copyright is being challenged. Some may say it is even becoming invalid. How is it possible for a person to track every person who has downloaded or copied their idea or creation? This is near impossible in regards to the internet; and who really wants to invest all their time and money in going after those people when in reality it will not stop copyright infringements from occurring. Even the big corporations are unable to have much of an impact. I think copyright must give way in some shape or form. In my opinion copyright is still important, but perhaps it is not such an effective legal tool as it once was. It still does its job in some respects, as it protects ideas but the fact that the onus is on the creator to enforce copyright of their work makes it somewhat invalid when tracking offenders is such a difficult task.
This is where I like the idea of creative comments. Authors work is still protected but the fact that they can decide what it is used for arguably gives them more control over it than copyright does. I also like the fact that it would free up intellectual ideas. If someone is smart enough to come up with such a wonderful idea or piece of work, why not share it with the masses? I think freedom of information is an important thing in this day and age. I think it is important that the authors are recognised and don't think it would be unreasonable for them to profit from their ideas, especially if they are good ones. To me, the fact that record companies expect us to pay $30 for a cd that cost them all of about 20cents to make is ridiculous and I am fully in support of sharing music online. The reality is the die hard fans will probably go out and buy the cd anyway. So copyright or creative comments?
I think copyright still has it's place, but regarding the sharing of information online it is perhaps becoming outdated and this is where creative comments steps in to fill the gap.
This is where I like the idea of creative comments. Authors work is still protected but the fact that they can decide what it is used for arguably gives them more control over it than copyright does. I also like the fact that it would free up intellectual ideas. If someone is smart enough to come up with such a wonderful idea or piece of work, why not share it with the masses? I think freedom of information is an important thing in this day and age. I think it is important that the authors are recognised and don't think it would be unreasonable for them to profit from their ideas, especially if they are good ones. To me, the fact that record companies expect us to pay $30 for a cd that cost them all of about 20cents to make is ridiculous and I am fully in support of sharing music online. The reality is the die hard fans will probably go out and buy the cd anyway. So copyright or creative comments?
I think copyright still has it's place, but regarding the sharing of information online it is perhaps becoming outdated and this is where creative comments steps in to fill the gap.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
My Online Self
Todays lecture really got me thinking about my online self and whether it is in fact any different form my off line self. Having pondered this I have come to the conclusion that they are almost exactly the same. I am one of those people who are pretty truthful about themselves online. I could make up a new persona if I wanted to, but the reality is I'm happy with the one I've got. So when I pose as me online, you do pretty much get the 'real me', I do edit and omit certain things, but that is more for safety and security reasons.
I have heard of MMORPG's before and know a few people who are die-hard warhammer players. I have never actually played any of these games myself, they have just never held much of an interest for me. Although, I do think that if i got into them I would be hooked. I like the sound of second life, that is the type of MMORPG I probably would play. I do think that reality and virtual reality are becoming augmented, but I had no idea it was to such an extent or that virtual economies were so profitable. I have to say finding this fact out this morning did make me feel a little naive as to the world of virtual realities and communities out there. But I am learning and this paper has certainly opened my eyes to a whole new world accessible through my computer. I can definitely see why people become so involved in these games and if I were to use them it would be for socializing purposes, I guess playing the game would be a bonus. Anyways I'm off to discover more about this world I have been missing out on.
See you in class :)
I have heard of MMORPG's before and know a few people who are die-hard warhammer players. I have never actually played any of these games myself, they have just never held much of an interest for me. Although, I do think that if i got into them I would be hooked. I like the sound of second life, that is the type of MMORPG I probably would play. I do think that reality and virtual reality are becoming augmented, but I had no idea it was to such an extent or that virtual economies were so profitable. I have to say finding this fact out this morning did make me feel a little naive as to the world of virtual realities and communities out there. But I am learning and this paper has certainly opened my eyes to a whole new world accessible through my computer. I can definitely see why people become so involved in these games and if I were to use them it would be for socializing purposes, I guess playing the game would be a bonus. Anyways I'm off to discover more about this world I have been missing out on.
See you in class :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)