What Does Our Future Hold?

First of all… How cool is the video that Ted showed us about the Internet of Things! Here is another clip that hows what the technological future holds for us.

 I’m not a sci-fi fan but to think that all of this could be possible within our lifetime is an exciting, albeit daunting thought.

A recent blog on The Economist highlights issues with the infrastructure, privacy and the danger of a disastrous failure in an Internet of Things world. Perhaps the most pressing of concerns Schumpeter raises is that of who will end up owning and controlling the data from the Internet of Things.

We are rapidly proceeding to a point where the range of data being collected can literally be used to reconstruct a person’s life. The privacy issues brought about by the Internet of Things will make concerns about our interactions on social media giants such as Facebook seem trivial by comparison.

The Internet of Things can ultimately be used for the benefit or detriment of individuals and society as a whole. Although business will argue a whole raft of benefits that include increasing efficiency, safety and health, these need to be balanced by safeguards and controls.

I’m really interested to hear what you’re thoughts on how you think the ethics of mass connectivity will or should be developed, and the things that we must think about before we become fully reliant on a technological world. 

A Land of Contradictions

Ok, this might not be the best week for me to express my opinions because I am actually 100% impartial to the Apple vs Google war. My phone is an old 3315 Nokia (I like to say ‘vintage,’ it makes me seem cooler), and I have owned both a PC and a Mac laptop in my time, with no undying preference for one over the other (apart from the Mac’s battery power!).

I can see the pros and cons of each, and in order to create some kind of argument, I have decided to evaluate my technological usage of the two companies.

My chosen Internet server is Apple Safari, but my preferred search engine is Google. I am currently blogging via Google's Blogger, however I am accessing it on my Mac. I use Picasa to upload and edit pictures, but I usually take the pictures off my friend’s iPhone.

In this land of contradictions, the only conclusion I can come to is that they are both relatively evil corporations who make their technology become obsolete too quickly. I guess in the end each individual will chose what’s right for them!

Here’s an interesting graphic produced by GigaOM that shows Apple and Google squaring off in different areas. 

The Role of Social Networking

We all agree that the development of social networking sites has transformed the way we communicate, and perceptions of this are often negative. We all have those friends who feel the need to spread the word that they are hungry, ‘check in’ to their bed as they fall asleep each night, or even employ Facebook as their personal thought system, explaining how much they love their boyfriend or hate their job. But amongst this meaningless chatter, there are communities out there using social networks to create change.

In the MENA revolutions, social networks were used to broadcast pictures and stories, as well as coordinate protestor’s thoughts, demands, and actions. The power of social networks as a tool for change can best be clarified in two examples.

1. In January 2010 Londoner Ayman Najafi was sentenced to one month in jail followed by permanent expulsion from the UAE for sharing a greeting kiss on the cheek in Dubai. A Twitter campaign began with the hash tag #freeayman. In less than forty minutes from the first tweet from a desk in Doha, it was trending worldwide; with many people demanding (as Ayman holds an American passport) that the US authorities intervene. The US State Department was informed; contact with senior regime figures was reportedly made and a short time later Ayman was released.

2. I know Ted has already shown us this example, but I am still overwhelmed at the magnitude of it. Assmaa Mahfouz made a video calling for a protest in Tahrir Square on January 25 to fight for basic human rights. Her message spread virally over YouTube, recruiting over one million people to stand and fight for the cause. This shows that social media was a key driver and a game changer in Egypt, primarily because it bridged the gap between social classes, and for the first time, created a much larger united anti-government front that included rich and poor.

Tahrir Square on Jan 25th 2011

Social media has become an invaluable tool for many individuals and news organsations, constructing a way around restriction and censorship. It has also weakened the mainstream media’s role as gatekeepers as they now do not have exclusive control over stories covered.

All in all, the idea of social networking to do with revolutions and social and political change is fascinating and ever changing. I urge you to read further in to the amazing stories of how social networking has allowed ordinary citizens to create the much needed change in MENA, starting with this: http://newsgroup.ae/amir2011/amir-march-29.pdf

Em. 

The Ethics of Hacking

So what is a hacker? Do you automatically think of evil people who sift through your private and personal information in order to steal your money or identity? Or, as our political climate continues to change with the constant development of online technologies, are you starting to think of hackers as people who might be able to explore and make sense of the information withheld from us, mainstream society?

Ted Mitew discussed the difference between White and Black Hat Hackers, or good hackers vs evil hackers retrospectively, but the ethics of hacking still remains to be somewhat ambiguous with the line between the good and the bad being quite fine.

One example of the ‘White Hat’ good guys is Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is an organisation made up of volunteer hackers, whistleblowers and online activists, with the aim of reveal hidden information to society to make a point. By empowering the public with knowledge, this organisation gives the mainstream public a chance to understand information for themselves and create social change, instead of simply believing everything that Governments and politicians preach to us. As James Crabtree notes, "the political potential of the internet lies not in connecting people to politicians [but] in the possibility of bringing citizens together to help themselves." Does this kind of hacking fit within our moral beliefs, or should hackers like this be persecuted?

It is clear what major players like Governments and corporations think, with many of the major banks in the US blocking any forms of donations to WikiLeaks. Although there have been consistent attempts to stop the organisation from running from governments, the army and through litigation, none have been effective as of yet.

In keeping with the focus of ethics, I am going to sum up my queries and propose them to you. If we consider that we are now living as part of the information economy with privacy being a controversial leading issue, can hacking be ethical? If we can justify the actions of the White Hats enough to agree that yes, it can be ethical, then is it fair for hackers to be oppressed? And finally, should we be forcing Governments and organizations to become more transparent? In a previous post I discussed the sniffer worm and the fact that governments can easily track our day to day activities. Why is this not reciprocal?

I am looking forward in seeing what you have to say in regards to this.

The Twitter Debate

Will Twitter change the way we live? Social networking has certainly revolutionised the way we interact with one another, the way we procrastinate, and indeed the way we learn about and discuss news issues. With 200 million followers Twitter has shaken up traditional modes of journalism. The hashtag # and @ phenomenon have become a central part of the Twitter experience (Johnson), making it effortless for any user to follow a live feed concerning events and news worthy issues, while providing a platform to add to the discussion.

So, I think we can unquestionably agree that Twitter and other social networking sites are changing the traditional journalism landscape, but what does this mean? Is this beneficial to society or are we gradually destroying the respected art of the qualified journalist?

Alec Ross, Senior Advisor for the US Secretary of State, says that Twitter, and citizen journalism in general, heralds democratisation, however, also brings the threat of misinformation.

For example, citizen journalists used social media to organize protests and spread assurances of safety during the Arab Spring throughout the Middle East and northern Africa. Ted mentioned that "tiny chunks of content can form a coherent and dynamic narrative." When numerous users begin to Tweet about the same incidents, a “dynamic story” evolves from a variety of angles. Citizen journalism diminishes the power that traditional news sources used to have over the approach of a story.

However, social media can also spread misinformation just as rapidly. Fake tweets about a bombing in Mexico led to car crashes as thousands of panicked parents raced to their children's school. Examples like these highlight the problem of some users' inability to distinguish true from false journalistic posts, especially given the prevalence of anonymity on social media networks. It also underscores social media's potency, but more established practices may have to be developed around Twitter and Facebook to better gauge veracity.

From my micro world perspective? I am the first to admit, I am not a huge fan of the single sentence updates that Twitter is so well known for. Johnson says that “we don't think it at all moronic to start a phone call with a friend by asking how her day is going. Twitter gives you the same information without your even having to ask.” I am actually a huge advocate against social networking sites for this exact reason, but it drives home the point that Twitter is changing the way we live.

I believe that Twitter and social networks have both valuable and harmful aspects to the way we increasingly digitalise our lives. So I leave you with a debate. Twitter is changing the way we live. That’s a fact, not a question. The question is… for better or worse?

Anyone Can Edit... so?

Recent decades have seen the dual trend of increasing digitisation of content, and of growing access to tools that allow us to produce, manipulate, publish and distribute that content.

Advertising campaigns, like the iTunes ad below, openly encourage users to 'Rip. Mix. Burn.' and it has become part of our culture to share our thoughts and creations with the rest of cyberspace. The Internet has completely transformed the way we consume information, and the dominance of the traditional producer > publisher > distributor value chain has weakened. Marshall McLuhan's dictum 'everyone's a publisher' (McLuhan 1964) is on the verge of becoming a reality - and more to the point, as the Wikipedia proudly proclaims, 'anyone can edit.'

The effect of these changes is that users are becoming active producers of content in a variety of open and collaborative environments. Whether it be audience participation (such as user comments attached to news stories, personal blogs, photos or video footage captured from personal mobile cameras), full-fledged participatory news sites like OhmyNews, or collaborative and contributory media sites like Slashdot and Newsvine, internet users are now no longer producers or consumers, publishers or audiences, but both at the same time.

This ability to create content so easily has created an environment of abundance, although the ‘abundance of information leads to scarcity of attention’ (Kelly 2008). The internet offers free and easy access, no quality filters and little risk, creating a wealth of user generated information. Does this type of information-heavy community benefit users or does it just become a major problem for those wishing to gain attention and break through the clutter?

This conundrum is encapsulated well in Kelly’s statement, ‘when copies are super abundant, they become worthless. When copies are super abundant, stuff which can’t be copied becomes scarce and valuable’ (Kelly 2008). So should we spend more time valuing the scarce- also known as the traditional media, the shop fronts, and the content which can’t be made up by a twelve year old girl posing as a professor on Wikipedia? Or should we embrace the produser and the clutter that derives from it?

My personal view is that if we don’t embrace the produser we will never get the truths, creations and revolutions that do not get exposed through the typical publishing route. I say this with the thought of Asmaa Mahfouz fresh in my mind. Let me know your thoughts!

McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw Hill, 1964.

Kelly, K. (2008). Better Than Free.[URL: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly08/kelly08_index.html]

Our future...

According to Jenkins (2004), media convergence fundamentally outlines the process of content flow across media platforms, and the relationship between media technologies, industries and audiences.

Convergence is a vital aspect of life in the digital era. Our mobile phones have gone way past the basic function of calling and texting, they now serve as our cameras, GPS systems, and computers. The transportability and spreadability of this digital information has enormously affected the way we consume content and use our 'everyday' technologies. 

The idea of the "prosumer" or "produser" is another interesting aspect of our digital age. These terms describe how the internet can be a medium for both producing and consuming media content. Blogs, online magazines and youtube video channels have diminished the need for specializations in print, broadcast or online industries, requiring today's qualified media content producers to have a broad knowledge of a variety of media platforms. As Deuze (2007) notes, "the blurring of real or perceived boundaries between makers and users in an increasingly participatory media culture challenges consensual notions of what it means to work in the cultural industries."

So as production and distribution costs of content are lowered (Jenkins, 2004) and the amount of produser/prosumer content available online continually increases, what will happen to the professionalism of the media industry?

I know that many of my friends have stopped buying newspapers and magazines in order to get stories from online sources for free, both accredited and from produsers. Instead of watching television, a night might be spent searching for YouTube clips. Is this the path that new technologies and convergence is leading us down? I’ll be interested to hear any stories of how you think this might affect us and our careers in the future. 

Deuze, M. (2007) Convergence culture in the creative industries, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 10/2, 243-263.

Jenkins, H. (2004) The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7/1, 33-43.