Digital Networks are still quite a confusing and difficult concept, but this week, I was blown away. The Internet of Things made my mind spin and I found myself wanting to learn more and more about the concept and what this could mean for technology in the future.
The idea that objects, INANIMATE objects, can be connected to the Internet with a sensory capacity, ability to store and process as well as independently initiate action is both exciting and terrifying at the same time. It would be reliant on sensors and this is the only way the Internet of Things would be successful. So when we look at the Internet of Things as the next big thing, it is important to acknowledge the importance of sensors and how they are different to just regular machines. The following video, similar to the ones showed in the lecture, demonstrates the possibilities of this kind of world where everyday things can control and assist you.
Do you think that this kind of world is going to occur in the near future? We are already heavily dependent on technology but this takes it to a whole new level.
Hackers. They have no face. They have no name. Yet they can gain access to information and obtain things that are seemingly impossible to obtain. The skills that these people have are incredible and can be used for good or evil. Most of the time, hackers use their abilities to share information that is confidential yet important to know. They argue that it is for the greater good, however, still suffer the harsh consequences when caught.
Hacker ethos is outlined in the lecture and makes their motives and intentions clear. They do not want to damage computer systems they break into or changing the information within these systems. Instead they aim to share information across the decentralised digital network to others.
The internet does not like deletion- it is set to record and keep. This is something everyone needs to remember when sharing content online, even if you think it is privately. Hackers know no boundaries.
In this week’s reading, Lulzsec explained that their intention was to gain attention, embarrass website owners and ridicule security measures. But by putting private information online, the group caused severe damage and many were arrested. It’s a tough price to pay to try and teach someone a lesson.
References:
Arthur, C (2013), ‘LulzSec: what they did, who they were and how they were caight’, The Guardian, May 17, 2013, accessed 15/10/2015, .
Whistleblowers and the sharers of confidential information. A government’s worst nightmare. The belief that it is providing important and necessary information to the public is the reasoning behind these ‘hacktivists’ and their consequential actions. One case study that was brought up in the lecture was that of Edward Snowden and the NSA files he leaked. I found this case extremely intriguing and decided to delve into how he ended up where he is now. To do this I created a Prezi timeline of his life before and during the leaks. I got all information from the Washington Post ‘A timeline of Edward Snowden’s Life’- https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/a-timeline-of-edward-snowdens-life/235/
I highly recommend you watch the embedded video at the end as it includes an interview with Edward Snowden and Jon Oliver, giving a humorous yet important insight into his motives and just how much control the government has with the Patriot Act.
At the beginning of the lecture this week, Ted stresses that the focus of this week’s topic is on social media rather than analysing the political aspect of revolutions around the world. This is important as if you are considering the differing political stances and their contribution to the circumstance, you fail to see social media as a factor in itself.
The majority of the world’s population is connected in some way. Social media has facilitated the erasing of boundaries in terms of social revolutions and activism. Protests are being organised and shared on social media platforms and this makes regulating and controlling these demonstrations extremely difficult and almost impossible.
Opposition leaders and activists in Moldova, for instance, have been using text messages, blogs and social networking sites to draw thousands of people to antigovernment demonstrations in the capital.
I created the following info graphic to visually display the popularity of Facebook in regards to other social media platforms being used in Moldova.
The use of hashtags and Facebook events means that people stay updated and can participate in these acts of protest if they wish to do so.
The following article is an interesting read about how Moldovan protesters use social media and texting to spread the word and continue to do so despite government action preventing this.
What do you think? Is traditional journalism coming to an end or can citizen media help revive and continue it? Or is citizen journalism the future of journalism full stop? Let me know what you think in the comments below.
Oh the Android vs IOS debate. Ongoing. Relentless. Controversial.
The population is divided and without a doubt, has a firm stance on the topic of discussion. Although I currently own iProducts, my stance is still very much on the fence as I acknowledge that both have promising potentials and will definitely reshape the future of technology and connectivity in numerous ways.
Jonathon Zittrain in‘The Future of the Internet and How to stop it ’highlights how Apple was once very similar to the open nature of Android. The Apple II, introduced in 1977, was a “blank slate” and“invited people to tinker with it”. Oh how things have changed! Nowadays, Apple could not be more closed if they tried. Steve Jobs stated at the iPhone launch in 2007:
We define everything that is on the phone . . .. You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers.
Closed devices ensure that the owner maintains complete control over the content, user and platform. This power enables them to ensure that there is a flow of content with no interference. But is this too controlling? It reminds me of parents who wrap their child in cotton wool and prevent them from making any mistakes of their own. This tight hold over users may protect them, however, it prevents any innovation or flexibility.
Closed android devices provide users with more freedom to do whatever they want. The idea seems pretty appealing. This does, however, come with some consequences, with users more vulnerable to viruses and hackers.
Zittrain also discusses this topic in this week’s reading ‘A fight over freedom at Apple’s core’, saying how if governments of the world needed to change code or content, they would simply have to demand these things from the gatekeeper of the device, Apple. “Users no longer own or control the apps they run- they merely rent them minute by minute (Zittrain 2010)”.
These differing digital networks will continue to cause friction between device users, but without this tension (as seen in the advertisement below), the competition and quality of these services would not be as strong and vital.
References:
Zittrain, J (2010), ‘A fight over freedom at Apple’s core’, Financial Times, 3 February 2010, accessed 2/10/15, .
The concept brought up in the lecture this week was feudalism and it’s connection to the systems of the web in today’s society. Ted brought up an interesting idea that was completely new to me. I had never heard of feudalism before so learning about the ways in which the feudal lords had control of the land despite the vassals paying for and using it was extremely interesting. Economy revolved around land in those days, but what happens when economy revolves around attention, information and the Internet?
It’s link to the way Facebook and other social media platforms have control over content is uncanny and made me rethink what content I was sharing on these platforms. Social media has so much control over our lives and like the vassals, we are only renting these spaces.
The differences between patents and copyright outlined in this week’s reading allow people to distinguish between the two forms of intellectual property and recognise how they influence feudalism. Patents apply to specific implementations of ideas. The idea is that no one can legally use the same idea, even if independently rediscovered, without the permission from the patent holder (Boldrin & Levine, 2007). Copyright has a narrower focus and is longer in duration. Both affect content online and have an enormous influence on the ways in which we interact and share content with others. Despite these, however, Facebook and other social media platforms have ownership of your content as soon as you post online. It’s a scary though but definitely needs to be considered.
This week we looked at the attention economy and the long tail effect. Below is my podcast on the topic, exploring the idea of why we need the long tail effect and comparing the attention economy to the so-called information economy of cyberspace.
The whole concept of travel without travel is also extremely relevant to people whom physically cannot travel. People with special needs and the elderly could benefit from these technologies significantly, as although they may not be able to see the world in real life, they can use these methods to experience them on a different level. Elderly people often suffer from vision deficiencies, hearing limitations, motor impairments and slight deterioration of their cognitive skills (Kamieth et al 2011). Research has shown that VR technologies would benefit the elderly by offering them possibilities to perform tasks and experience situations that they may have been limited to before. This is also the case for those with special needs. Breaking through the barriers of travel and giving them a realistic experience that is freakishly similar to the real thing.
The main advantage of VR is the possibility to create realistic environments, allowing the user to feel immersed in a virtual scenario that mimics a natural and real life environment. The possibility for this technology to benefit the elderly and people with special needs is exciting. Although it will never quite be as good as the real thing, the idea that one can experience the world from their home is something that is both terrifying and exhilarating.
In my previous blog post, I recounted my experience with different devices and platforms that allowed me to travel without actually travelling. Now it is time to analyse this experience and use the autoethnographic method of research to dissect it.
It was a lot of information to digest and it really got me thinking about the concept of travel as a whole. Reflecting on my experiences allowed me to take an Autoethnographic approach to the material and the research I began to conduct and analyse was influenced my perceptions and beliefs.
After each of these experiences, I found myself in awe at how technology has developed so dramatically and amazed at how I could be transported to another place so easily. It took me back to my younger years, when I would obsessively escape to alternate worlds and let my imagination run free. This time, technology did it for me and instead of alternate worlds; they were real life places around the world.
The experience also got me thinking about the definition of travel and what it really means. Ellis (2011) highlights that autoethnography focuses on epiphanies and how you come to those epiphanies through lived experiences. The main realization I had after experiencing these technologies was the revelation that this technology is real and can facilitate travel in a way that I never believed physically possible. Autoethnography, according to Ellis (2011), also requires me to explore why I thought this and what implications these thoughts and feelings have towards my development of knowledge.
What do I look for when I am travelling? It is an important question that must be asked when measuring the success of these devices in replacing physical travel. This is different for everyone. To analyse my experience in an Autoethnographic sense, I had to ask myself this question and relate it to my feelings towards travel without travel. I travel to meet new people. This unfortunately cannot be achieved through all of these technologies. Although virtual friends can be made, it is not the same as actually going out and meeting people in the flesh. This observation assisted me in figuring out why I was still uneasy about the thought of travel without travel. I long for physical interaction and this cannot be achieved fully through the online world and virtual reality domain.
Experiencing the sights. When I travel, I love to see things. Whether they are huge tourist attractions or subtle cultural differences, I love immersing myself in the culture and seeing monuments and attractions with my own two eyes. Through this experience, I was able to do this, although with some limitations. Being able to see these tourist places through videos, photos and virtual realities, I am able to understand and engage with these physical places, but I am left longing more. I want to feel, smell and hear the environment around me. Not to mention taste the cultural food! This may explain why I reacted the way I did to these experiences.
THIS DIGITAL AGE 