Jucks, Regina. And Elisabeth Paus. “What Makes a Word Difficult? Insights into the Mental Representation of Technical Terms.” Metacognition and Learning 7, Jan. 2012: 91–111.
This article is by Regina Jucks and Elisabeth Paus who both contribute to higher academic institutions. While Jucks has a Ph.D. in Social Psychology in Teaching and Education, Paus is senior researcher in clinical medicine at the University of Oslo. Their combined knowledge and specializations make this study not only reliable but also comprehensive and helpful towards uncovering why some words are more difficult than others to understand. Their main thesis states that to understand and grasp a wider vocabulary a broader context of knowledge is required.
Jucks and Paus’ study is intended for academic researchers who could use their findings for their own research or for academic enthusiasts who are interesting in literacy. This study conducted to analyze what makes certain words more difficult to understand gives an in-depth analysis of words origins. The study presents theories about reading comprehension and the monitoring of personal knowledge and how it impacts ones learning process. This article is valuable for its detailed exposition on the origins of people’s difficulty with language and for demonstrating the theories in a detailed recapture of the study conducted to prove the feeling to knowing approach mentioned. Rather than focusing on the positive outcomes of the study, this text is indispensable because of its fair perspective on the results and holistic approach. This study will be especially useful for understanding how people understand words. This text could be easily incorporated into the decision of what types of words to include in the index.
Pardieck, Sherrie. C. “Using Visual Literacy to Teach Science Academic Language: Experiences from Three Preservice Teachers.” Action in Teacher Education 36, no. 3 (Fall 2014): 192–210.
This article is by Sherrie Pardieck, a professor at Bradley University specializing in the teaching of reading. Pardieck’s education provides a legitimate source of knowledge that will provide insightful points about how visuals enhance learning. The thesis of this article is that visuals undoubtedly enhance learning and word comprehension significantly.
This article argues that visual literacy is a corner stone of the learning process and significantly improves word comprehension. Pardieck details how visual tools are used to solve problems and help connect cognitive functions for an overall understanding of objects and words in relation to each other. This article projects the helpfulness of using visuals for learning and presents no downsides. There seems to be no bias or slant as the author is a knowledgeable professor with no reason to cover the detriments to visual literacy. There is also considerable supporting evidence for her claims. This article will be especially useful in demonstrating a need for the visual dictionary. The nature of this article suggests it is for academic purposes but the language used makes it accessible for college students. Pardieck’s article legitimizes the purpose of our product while supplying us with background information on the benefits our product will create.
Josh Rampton, the author of this article, is an entrepreneur who helps start-ups as the president of Adogy marketing agency. Rampton is extremely well recognized as an influential marketing strategist and has spoken at many business conferences; he is also a contributor on Forbes’ website. These credentials make Rampton a very reliable source when writing and gaining information about marketing. Rampton’s thesis is that marketing strategies have drastically changed after the millennial generation in attempt to target Generation Y, which is proving to be challenging.
The intended audiences for this article are those interested in marketing trends, and those who want a fuller understanding of todays marketing climate. This article is valuable for its current analysis of the marketing climate, accessible language and examples, which make the information applicable. While I cannot see a large bias in the article, there could be a more in depth explanation of the specific steps the companies profiled in the article took to redefine their marketing strategies for Generation Y. This article will be especially helpful for writing the marketing strategy for our product. With the examples of marketing strategies from companies dominating their respective markets, we are able to adopt similar practices to ensure an effective strategy.
The time has come to start college and a young and eager freshman takes their first steps into the university library. Overwhelmed, this student quickly sits down at a desk and starts on the first assigned university homework. The online databases are filled with countless e-books, academic articles, and scholarly texts all unknown to this student. How will this student succeed with an overwhelming academic article and grasp all of the necessary information? This is where PreviNote comes into play. PreviNote works with the university online databases to track the changes and annotations a previous reader has made, keeping them visible to any current reader. This way, while reading any given article a student can access insightful, helpful, and clarifying annotations in the PreviNote database. The new student struggling to understand their work is now being indirectly helped from peers before, being guided through the course work in a constructive manner. The purpose of this technology is to keep a large database of annotations and notes on scholarly articles for future access. This database will serve as a comprehensive resource for students who are seeking new insights and a helpful guide for their readings and studies. Students will be able to access the helpful annotations through online university catalogues after the University has installed the PreviNote application into their server. Once this has happened, students who acess PDF documents online will be prompted with the option to highlight, make a note, add an annotation, draw comparisons and contrasts in the text. After the reading students can then download that document with their own annotations and select annotations from previous readings they found helpful to remain on the document after saving. Readers will have the ability to turn off the visible annotations so as to not distract the reading process. However, PreviNote will encourage a close reading and rereading giving the student the opportunity to read once making their own notes and then going back to see what others have noted before hand.
With the widespread use projected for our product one of our key selling points about this product is the interactivity between students reading the same text. Not only will students be able to pull ideas and clarifications from students previous, they will be able to ask questions and answer inquiries made by others. Professors will also have access to this interface. And with students registered under their specific university professors will be able to mark points of interest, add in questions to help guide the reading and response to annotations. PreviNote provides an extremely interactive interface that truly allows students to excel in challenging academic reading.
In current education almost all scholarly work can now be accessed online as we are experiencing a “paradigm shift” to more digital technologies (Hayles 1). It is rare to see a student without a laptop, or without access to one. In addition, e-readers have become increasingly popular with the widespread usage of the Kindle, the Nook, Google Books and especially the iPad. The most common ways of reading are now through online books and PDF’s. PreviNote builds onto the existing reliance on technology for reading and adds an additional and user-friendly purpose. Current technology doesn’t allow you to seamlessly make notes and annotations that efficiently auto saves while you read online. With this new app PreviNote builds off existing technology to enhance productivity, a feature in society we are in danger of loosing. With PreviNote there is no need to “transition between a ‘view’ and ‘edit’ mode in order to make changes to the text”, as this technology, similar to Word Star, derives from the longhand form of composition (Kirshenbaum, 8). The demand for this product is already there as e-readers, laptops and iPads are widely used. Accessing this technology will be as simple logging into the university database website on a computer or smartphone app to complete readings on the go.
As Katherine Hayles addresses in her text “How We Think”, human attention is a precious resource and PreviNote works to grasp the readers attention in a way that will make texts much more accessible to the reader. PreviNote will address “hyper reading, which includes skimming, scanning, fragmenting and juxtaposing texts” as it will function as a “strategic response to an information-intensive environment, aiming to conserve attention by quickly identifying relevant information” with the various annotations markings in the text (Hayles, 12). PreviNote will also allow readers to practice “close reading” which “correlates with deep attention… that prefers a single information stream” but needs a “pedagogical [strategy] that recognizes the strengths and limitations of each cognitive mode” through a heightened attention to what each annotation means in the text (Hayles, 12). PreviNote thus allows readers to practice hyper reading and close reading at once while only using one visual mode on the screen to do so.
The added feature of the database here allows for the creation of a “special history” that will “[open] the door to new strategies that, rather than using narrative as their primary mode of explication, allow flexible interactions between different layers and overlays” (Hayles, 15). Thus the added database of annotations that PreviNote provides enhances the cognitive reading experience, as readers are now able to interact differently and creatively with the text.
The target audiences for this product vary, but the main audience will be all college students, teenagers and young adults from age’s 18 – 21, who might struggle with a difficult reading and would benefit from additional notes professors at these academic institutions. These are the society members who will be actively reading and writing who will benefit from previous annotations. Undergraduate students already have a knowledge of simple technology such as their online university catalogue, giving them very easy to PreviNote when they go to find an article.
This application will be manufactured virtually as the nature of the product is so. What will be needed is a program that allows students to modify PDF documents online and that is also capable of auto saving this information for future users. The PreviNote headquarters will need a large infrastructure for computer hard drives that will be used to remotely store all of the data. Our product will be simply distributed, as the application is virtual and can be downloaded on any computer. PreviNote will act as a plug in, similar to Zotero, the popular citation generator. Although PreviNote will be installed, ideally, on all university computers, students can download the plug in on their computer and register with their university so as to see the most effective annotations.
PreviNote seeks to enhance the learning and reading experience for college students and institutions worldwide. With our dynamic interface students will bring creativity to reading that has been missing. Collaborating will be made that much easier all with the help of PreviNote. Students who have a question or interesting thought will be prompted to just “make a PreviNOTE”!
Hayles, Katherine. How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2012. Print.
Kirschenbaum, Matthew. Track Changes, A Literary History of Word Processing. N.p.: Harvard UP, 2014. Print.
Given that the shift from using a type writer as a primary word processor to using a digital word processor was so significant given our current circumstances, do you think that witnessing and experiencing the shift to digital word-processing affected your writing process? Or affected you in any way? If so how?
With the advancement and widespread nature of technology for reading and writing is there a specific medium you prefer to write for or envision readers reading on? And is there a specific medium you prefer to read from?
In the case of George R.R Martin’s preference to use a computer with no access to the internet to write, do you think a machine like this would sell in this time period? Or is this just an isolated incidence?
As I continue to read Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake, more and more of me just wants to know what happened “before”, what happened to the relationship between Jimmy and Oryx and Jimmy and Crake, why isn’t the book called Oryx and Crake and Snowman? These questions about uncovering the backstory to Snowman’s life and the backstory to Jimmy’s life probe my further reading.
One aspect of this book that sticks out to me is the way that The Children of Crake were materialized, showing intense planning by Crake himself to eliminate functions of humans he deemed useful. I tweeted about how I thought the way they acted was very removed, they were built logically and thus their “human” instincts removed many of the evils we know today. This is most notably shown in the way Atwood describes how The Children of Crake have sex. Crake made many “adaptations” to the human brain and body and adapted many features of other animals, such as the transformation of blue skin to symbolize arousal from baboons. This manner in which sex was regarded was much more of an “athletic demonstration” (165). This new way of reproduction thus eliminated prostitution, sexual abuse of children, sex slaves and rape, all things that are prevalent today and are hard to prevent although many efforts are present.
This also gives us a little clue to how the world Atwood is describing was formed. Seemingly all known humanity was wiped away and Crake manufactured a new human race built from the ground up. Taking away the unwanted features of humans and adding in adaptations from other animals “As Crake used to say, Think of an adaptation, any adaptation, and some animal somewhere will have thought of it first” (164). These designer humans display the qualities of an idea human in Crake’s mind.
Professor Licastro responded probing that in this logic is creativity, humanity and passion lost? I believe so. The way Crake has manufactured these humans removes the expressive nature of human life we treasure today however it seems to eliminate many unnecessary evils. This begs the question of can a balance be struck between the two? Is it possible for humans to adapt a new way of living to progress and eliminate such things as rape and sexual abuse?
The way students engage in studying, I would venture to say, is less reliant upon reading actual books since much of the relevant information can be found online. As you have detailed that “the quest for book knowledge enlists all our sense”, does the quest for electronic knowledge lessen the experience of reading and retaining information, does the transformation of “programmable media” affect this in any way?
From looking at the different paradigms of design, reflective, visceral, and behavioral, can technology still be regarded as beautiful if it cannot be used? For example, “Norman’s so called ‘masochistic’ teapot” (76)
Do you think the relationship between form and content is one that should be explored further, as it was with Carlea Holl-Jensen’s book, or should technologies that work today be left unaltered? Why?
Joe Lipari, a well-known American comedian took to Facebook to share the frustrating experience he had at the Apple Store. Lipari, using Facebook as it was intended, responded to the prompt ‘What’s on your mind?’ and updated his status accordingly. Lipari posted an aggressive quote from the movie Fight Club targeted towards the Apple Store in an attempt to de-stress from his unsatisfying experience. Moments later an NYPD Swat team occupied his apartment, “their guns drawn” already starting to “tear the place apart”(Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). The authorities flagged the status and Lipari’s address was immediately retrieved prompting the instantaneous search of his apartment. Only after the fact did Lipari realize that this was in response to his aggressive Facebook status. This begs the question of personal privacy on the Internet.
The trust that we put on the Internet to protect our privacy should be diminishing as it is clear social media sites, most notably Facebook, do not have our best interest at heart. The continual breech of privacy is a sign that we are headed for a doom where there is no longer a notion of privacy. Users should not trust the Internet, and in an ideal situation not sign up for any form of social media for personal protection. While Facebook users believe the information they post is private, and only accessible according to their personal privacy settings, in reality it seems that no information put on the Internet is private at all.
While we brainlessly click through privacy settings and privacy policy agreements when we sign up for Facebook, users are missing the very important fine print. Trudy Howles, a professor of Computer Science at the Rochester Institute of Technology, cautions “privacy considerations become an issue as soon as any data are made public; one could argue that simply the collection and storage of the data presents some level of risk” (Data, Data Quality, and Ethical Use, 8). Upon the realization that personal data was being collected, I was strongly opposed as I had only intended for my information, pictures, and conversations to be shared with my friends. The mere motive to collect this data and store it implies a desire to use this information for an ulterior reason to why it was put online in the first place. The reason for data collection was one I was not even aware I was agreeing to until today, which makes me question if I would have even signed up for Facebook with this knowledge in the first place.
Derek S. Witte, a commercial litigator and eDiscovery lawyer, writes in Journal of Internet Law: Privacy Deleted, “once an individual posts information on Facebook, neither the courts, nor Facebook itself, can promise that the information will remain private and confidential” (19). My lack of trust with the Internet continues to diminish as more and more privacy violations surface through deeper research. For me, this is a worse case scenario as a Facebook user. Knowing the information is being harbored and not guaranteeing its security should be a red flag for any Facebook user. It seems to be a clear violation of privacy to use this information for reasons other than connecting with people, which is Facebook’s main goal.
Your personal information is up for grabs.
In its current Privacy Policy, Facebook promises law enforcement that they will respond to requests seeking information on any given profile in its database. Facebook’s privacy policy details that they “[do] not actually require any particular criminal subpoena or warrant simply provided that ‘we review each request for records individually’” (Witte, 18). It seems hard to believe that Facebook could deny access to a strong government organization. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks notes, “US Intelligence is able to bring legal and political pressure to Facebook”(Assange, Russia Today). As I dig deeper into the whole of Internet privacy the consequences of posting any information online seem much grater than the benefits. Now information is at risk of being accessed by any law enforcement or government organization. I would persuade readers to absorb this information and truly caution how you use Facebook.
I, among other users, was under the assumption that Facebook privacy settings could be altered to take full control on our online privacy. I felt that each aspect of the profile could be adjusted to my comfort level, which is totally private to people I am not friends with. In 2009 Facebook changed their privacy settings, and changed the defaults of sharing, without notifying its users in advance. Facebook “turned what was once private information into totally public information” overnight (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). The default setting was changed so that ‘everyone’ could view and search a given users information. Zuckerberg explained, “The way we’ve designed the site is that it’s a community thing. So people want to share with just there friends but a lot of people also want to share with the community around them”. However, Danah Boyd, Senior Research Manager rightfully states “the problem with defaults is that you get comfortable with whatever the default is” and “as time passed, more and more information was being shared by default”(Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). This is the true danger of Facebook in the first place. Before the rise of this social media site no one had thought to share this kind of private information about ones self until it became popularized by the website. Our sense of the need for privacy is being washed away as it now becomes acceptable to publicize information so freely without understanding the consequences.
Do you want “Everyone” to be able to see your Facebook posts? Didn’t think so.
Trusting Facebook with your information brings consequences that allow Facebook to take control of not only personal information but also personal being. In 2012 Facebook conducted a study that altered the content in news feeds to see whether different content would affect the emotional state of a Facebook user. This study caused tremendous backlash as Facebook was “deliberately manipulating emotions”, causing, in some sense, psychological damage (Dredge, The Guardian). Facebook specifically and maliciously altered the emotions of users, a very intrusive exploit. Sentiments of this intrusive study are echoed by “Jim Sheridan, a member of the Commons media select committee” who worries about “the ability of Facebook to manipulate people’s thoughts [in] other areas” outside of emotional attitudes (Booth, The Guardian). The fact that Facebook can make that large of an impact on a user is very concerning. Not only is Facebook now able to use personal information but also now my emotions are dictated by my Facebook news feed. Regardless if Facebook had notified me of this study, this brings to light the power Facebook has. The site is able to change the way I am feeling thus commanding my day-to-day life which is now controlled by a social media website.
Julian Assange believes that “Facebook in particular is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented”, and he is right (Assange, Russia Today). Assange’s assumptions coincide with the US department of homeland security’s statement that “Facebook has replaced almost every other CIA information gathering program since it was launched in 2004” (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). Christopher Startinsky, the Deputy Director of the CIA, claims that the widespread nature of Facebook “is truly a dream come true for the CIA… after years of secretly monitoring the public”; this information is voluntarily made accessible”(Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). Not only does this bring to light that even before Facebook the CIA was digging up details about civilians but that the CIA is actually delighted in the fact our information is so easily accessible. It brings them pleasure to see how naïve civilians set their privacy at their doorstep to be used freely.
This has created a great sense of inner anxiety within myself, the thought of being constantly watched, in a malicious sense, is a sense that is mimicked by the US supreme court as they “openly oppose the creation of an American “Big Brother” when “Big Brother” already exists in the guise of Google, Facebook and, now it seems, the NSA” (13). Even though the NSA claims they collect this data because it could be relevant to a terrorism investigation at some point in time” this preventative clause gives them one foot in the door (Witte, 13). With even preliminary access there is no telling what information they will dig deeper for, seen in the Joe Lipari case.
Is the CIA really behind Facebook? It wouldn’t be hard to believe if it were true…
their database even after it has been deleted. An Austrian law student took advantage of a law that allow citizens to access any information a given company has on them, including Facebook (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). The student delved deeper into his own Facebook catalogue and found that “if you hit the remove button, it just means it’s flagged as deleted. So you hide it, actually, from yourself. But anyone, like Facebook or any Government Agency that wants to look at it later can still retrieve it and get it back” (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). The data and information that I have put online lingers behind a screen that I cannot see waiting to be used to “prevent terrorism”. It waits for the opportunity to be used against you, otherwise why would government agencies feel the need to retain it?
I could argue that I do not care my personal life and personal information is being harbored, as I have nothing to hide. However, Zeynep Tufeki, Professor of Sociology at the University of Baltimore, responds to this question saying, “You have nothing to hide, until you do. And you are not necessarily going to know what you have to hide or not” (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply).
What is needed is a call to action for advanced Facebook and Internet privacy awareness. The information that we voluntarily put on Facebook is etched in stone the moment it is published. Belief in cyber privacy is fostering a greater trust in the invisible sphere of the Internet, despite acts of privacy violation around us. The recent iCloud hacking, exposing countless nude photos of female celebrities, and Snapchat hacking are proof that web content is an open target. The notion that there is a shred of privacy online contradicts Facebook’s whole purpose, to share information with others. In our technologically dependent world the reality that our whole lives will be online is a viable future. The doom that lies ahead is a society reliant on a technology that harbors our information, manipulates our emotions and gives away all of this data, relinquishing any shreds of privacy we thought we had left.
So… Do still you ‘Agree’?
Works Cited:
Willis, Lauren. “Why Not Privacy by Default?” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 29, no. 1 (Spring 2014): 61–134.
Witte, Derek. “Privacy Deleted: Is It Too Late to Protect Our Privacy Online?” Journal of Internet Law 17, no. 7 (January 2014): 1–28.
Howles, Trudy. “Data, Data Quality, and Ethical Use.” Software Quality Professional 16, no. 2 (March 2014): 4–12.
Joe Lipari, a well-known American comedian took to the extremely common social media site Facebook to share the frustrating experience he had at the Apple Store. Lipari, using Facebook as it was intended, responded to the prompt ‘What’s on your mind?’ and updated his status accordingly. Lipari posted an aggressive quote from the movie Fight Club targeted towards the Apple Store, in an attempt to de-stress from his unsatisfying experience. Moments later an NYPD Swat team occupied his apartment, “their guns drawn” already starting to “tear the place apart”(Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). Only after the fact did Lipari realize that this was in response to his aggressive Facebook status. The authorities flagged the status and Lipari’s address was immediately retrieved prompting the instantaneous search of his apartment. This begs the question of personal privacy on the Internet. While Facebook users believe the information they post is private, and only accessible according to their personal privacy settings, in reality it seems that no information put on the Internet is private at all.
Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook, the popular social media site, in 2004. Since then, the site has grown exponentially to be the world’s most popular social media site, used as a database for people’s personal information. Initially a benign web database for exclusive users with Harvard.edu email addresses, the site opened to the public and “people [began] willingly publiciz[ing] where they live, their religious and political views, an alphabetized list of all their friends, personal email addresses, phone numbers, hundreds of photos of themselves, and even status updates about what they were doing moment to moment” (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). Christopher Startinsky, the Deputy Director of the CIA claims this “is truly a dream come true for the CIA… after years of secretly monitoring the public”; this information is voluntarily made accessible. This begs the question of personal privacy. Taking a closer look at Facebook’s Terms and Agreements, users seem to not realize their diminishing privacy when they use Facebook as it was intended.
Is the CIA really behind Facebook? It wouldn’t be hard to believe if it were true…
While we brainlessly click through privacy settings and privacy policy agreements when we sign up for Facebook, users are missing the very important fine print. After years of operation, it is clear that Facebook now has the largest database of collected information on any given person. Trudy Howels, a professor of Computer Science at the Rochester Institute of Technology cautions “privacy considerations become an issue as soon as any data are made public; one could argue that simply the collection and storage of the data presents some level of risk” (Data, Data Quality, and Ethical Use, 8). Howels poses a very important point that once data is public, the modes that this information could be used are unforeseeable to the common Facebook user. Howels also points out that the mere storage of such data implies a desire to use this information for ulterior reasons to why it was put online in the first place. Derek S. Witte, a commercial litigator and eDiscovery lawyer, writes in Journal of Internet Law: Privacy Deleted, “once an individual posts information on Facebook, neither the courts, nor Facebook itself, can promise that the information will remain private and confidential” (19). In its current Privacy Policy, Facebook promises law enforcement that they would respond to requests seeking information on any given profile in its database. Facebook’s current privacy policy details that they “[do] not actually require any particular criminal subpoena or warrant simply provided that ‘we review each request for records individually’” (Witte, 18). Facebook could not essentially deny the NSA or CIA a request to access a profile as Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks notes, “US Intelligence is able to bring legal and political pressure to Facebook” (Facebook, Google, Yahoo are Spying Tools). The ease at which a person’s information from Facebook can be accessed is eye opening and should pose a red flag to all Facebook users.
Most users are under the assumption that they can altar their Facebook privacy settings giving them a greater sense of control on their privacy. Each aspect of the profile can be adjusted to the users comfort level, which is presumably totally private. In 2009 Facebook changed their privacy settings, and changed the defaults of sharing, without notifying its users in advance. Facebook “turned what was once private information into totally public information” overnight (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). The default setting was changed so that ‘everyone’ could view and search a given users information. Zuckerberg explained, “the way we’ve designed the site is that it’s a community thing. So people want to share with just there friends but a lot of people also want to share with the community around them”. However, Dana Boyd, Senior Research Manager rightfully states “the problem with defaults is that you get comfortable with whatever the default is” and “as time passed, more and more information was being shared by default”(Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). This desensitizes Facebook users on the whole notion of privacy and makes it acceptable to publicize this information so freely without understanding the consequences, later described in this article.
Do you want “Everyone” to be able to see your Facebook posts? Didn’t think so.
While it is understood that the mere collection of data posses a threat to personal privacy and security, more troubling is the way this data is used. Users should pay attention “not that data are collected and stored, often without knowledge or permission, but how the data stored and collected are used” (Howels, 7). Julian Assange sat down with Russia Today and explained that there is a blurred line between the interest of the state and the interest of commercial business in the West (Facebook, Google, Yahoo are Spying Tools). Assange believes that “Facebook in particular is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented” with “the worlds most comprehensive database about people… all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US intelligence” (Facebook, Google, Yahoo are Spying Tools).
This would only be an issue if US intelligence wanted to use this type of data, however it is a fact that they do. With this large amount of data, “according to the department of homeland security, Facebook has replaced almost every other CIA information gathering program since it was launched in 2004” (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). Derek S. Witte, a commercial litigator and eDiscovery lawyer, writes in Privacy Deleted, a Journal of Internet Law, “it is difficult to understand how Justices of the US Supreme Court can openly oppose the creation of an American “Big Brother” when “Big Brother” already exists in the guise of Google, Facebook and, now it seems, the NSA” (13). Whistle blower, Edward Snowden was the first to bring the NSA’s spying database to light, to which “the government responded to Snowden’s allegations by contending that Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows for this indiscriminate collection of data because it could be relevant to a terrorism investigation at some point in time” (Witte, 13). This preventative clause that gives the NSA cause to continuously monitor web and cell traffic, including Facebook activity, is not only a violation of privacy but is strongly misleading as seen in the Joe Lipari case.
As anxieties about the constant collection of data arise, “the NSA continues to justify its massive data collections by stressing that the majority of the data is only collected and never used” (Witte, 14). What Facebook users might do upon reading this information is delete all the information they find on their profile they no longer want accessible to the public or government organization. However, information put on Facebook stays in their database even after it has been deleted. Countries other than the US have laws that allow citizens to access any information a given company has on them, including Facebook (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). An Austrian law student delved deeper into his own Facebook catalogue and found that “if you hit the remove button, it just means it’s flagged as deleted. So you hide it, actually, from yourself. But anyone, like Facebook or any Government Agency that wants to look at it later can still retrieve it and get it back” (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply). Data and information put online lingers behind a screen that the general public can’t see. It waits for the opportunity to be used against you, otherwise why would government agencies feel the need to retain it? The consequences for trusting Mark Zuckerberg with, in essence, your whole life may be extremely detrimental, that is if you have something to hide.
“Zuck” or Mark Zuckerber: The man that you are “trusting” very personal information with.
Most could argue that they do not care their information is being harbored as they have nothing to hide. Zeynep Tufeki, Professor of Sociology at the University of Baltimore responds to this question saying, “You have nothing to hide, until you do. And you are not necessarily going to know what you have to hide or not” (Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply).
What Facebook really does, to the educated user, is manifest a sense of anxiety within society about never knowing what will be used against you. The information that is put on Facebook is etched in stone the moment you press Agree and Publish. The notion that there is a shred of privacy online contradicts Facebook’s whole purpose, to share information with others. Even now this technology has been valued as the most important database of information for the sole purpose of violating privacy in return for safety. But is this constant fear and anxiety really safe? It seems now that Facebook’s opaque privacy policy has turned transparent, displaying is complete lack of privacy for users.
Your personal information is up for grabs.
Works Cited:
Willis, Lauren E.1, lauren.willis@lls.edu. “Why Not Privacy by Default?” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 29, no. 1 (Spring 2014): 61–134.
Witte, Derek S.1. “Privacy Deleted: Is It Too Late to Protect Our Privacy Online?” Journal of Internet Law 17, no. 7 (January 2014): 1–28.
Howles, Trudy, tmh@cs.rit.edu. “Data, Data Quality, and Ethical Use.” Software Quality Professional 16, no. 2 (March 2014): 4–12.
Facebook, Google, Yahoo Are Spying Tools. Interview. Accessed October 13, 2014. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/assange-facebook-google-yahoo-spying-tools/.
Hoback, Cullen. Terms and Conditions May Apply. Documentary, 2013. http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70279201?trkid=13462100.
I found the Book Traces event to be a very interesting experience. I shifted through two shelves, approximately 40 books, and only found two that fit the criteria of what we were looking for. The actual experience of handling these very old books was very cool; some books that were not even a century old were already, to my surprise, falling apart. The texture of the pages was drastically different to what I am use to today and it almost made the book that much more precious. I wondered who would actually need any of these books? Some were stories, some biographies, some informational texts, but they were in the corner of this very large library in the dark. I still wonder how anyone would find any of those books relevant? I suppose this is the whole purpose of the book traces project, to seek out the books of value. I found two books, both with different inscriptions on the cover page. Unfortunately I do not have any images of these inscriptions, but both were written in what seemed to be an old-fashioned ink pen. I took these books out of a sea of many others, just because the inscription was there deemed the book more valuable than the others. This experience emphasized the importance and prevalence of historical archiving and data collection. What use is an abundance of information if no one is there to use it? The book traces event pointed out what can be done to remedy these situations as well as gave me an insightful look into past literature.
I would have like to hear what the final findings of this project were, but I could have stayed later to hear this. I thought the event coordinators could have helped participants understand their previous findings and give them a little more insight into what they had specifically found. After I submitted the books I was unsure what was going to become of the conclusion of the project. For future generation readers the books that were saved could be put on an online catalogue where the call number would be provided and the actual book would be available. I realize that is the concept of any library, but if a special section was dedicated to the books specifically drawn from the Book Traces event that could be helpful.
On a side note I thought the Columbia University campus was gorgeous, as evidenced by this photo. #newmedia
In Kevin Kelly’s book What Technology Wants, Kelly raises the interesting point of the power balance we face between technologies. This is something that I had never thought about, the “enormity and cleverness of our creation [to overwhelm our] ability to control or guide [the technium]” (239). From his descriptions of this potential future world, as humans we are capable of creating a technology that will then takes its own course posing the question if “the human mind [will be able to] master what the human mind has made?” (239). This idea that technology can take a mind of itself bares a very strong resemblance to the world that was described in E.M Forester’s The Machine Stops. Interestingly, technology will take on its own course regardless of human interaction especially “in [our] deeply connected world, [with] the accelerated pace of technological succession” (243). Due to this quicker pace of technological advancement, Kelly’s question of whether or not humans will be able to comprehend what technology will turn into is almost impossible to answer as “projecting what harm may come from technology before it ‘is’ is almost impossible” (244). The idea of creating a piece of technology, giving it to the public and watching it advance and develop into a piece more advanced than ever imagined is frightening but also holds many excitements for the future. These advancements in technology may not always be for the worst and just as technology evolves, humans evolve slowly as well. A problematic point I found with Kelly’s writings was his inclusion of The Precautionary Principle. I was questioning his choice of elaborating on this principle as it seemed counter to his previous points and it did not seem to be the most reliable principle. The principle states that “a technology must be shown to do no harm before it is embraced” however with Kelly’s theories on inevitability and his previous description of how technology is advancing at a rapid pace this seems to be an impossible feat (246). In addition, Kelly adds that “the predictivity of most things, [technology], is exceedingly low” therefor making it even more difficult to prove a piece of technology can do no harm before it is embraced. Kelly explains how many inventions were created without the intention of what its primary use would be today, such as the inventor of gunpowder not predicting the gun or its presence in our society today (245). This principle seems to contradict all of Kelly’s latter theories and explanations of technology and its life force.
My question for discussion is, to what extent can inventors of a product foresee its use in the future and how would an inventor foresee what the future use of his/her product will be?
New media is the transformation of old media into numerical data, to be stored, distributed and exhibited in a digital medium to a global audience. Equal to being exhibited to a global audience is the aspect that new media has the ability to be manipulated and reproduced in an unlimited amount of variations. From Lev Manovich’s theories about variability and modularity, new media is now the forefront of communication and distribution. With the variability of new media Henry Jenkins adds that “consumption [of new media happens] within a larger social and cultural context [where] consumers not only watch media; they also share media with one another” (68). While the New Media Institute defines new media as a “catchall term used to define all that is related to the internet and the interplay between technology, images and sound”, they neglect to acknowledge the important new sphere that new media creates in our world. Jussi Parikka, in his article The Geology of Media, details not only the invisible media sphere that connects devices and creates new media but also the physical one that will be left when devices have perished. Media is so wide spread that “we might also acknowledge that the Earth is a communicative object” (Parikka, 5). New media ultimately is a tool that is used everyday to create, destroy, and modify media using technology thus “allowing more people to create and circulate media” (Jenkins, 258). With the invisible communicative realm and the behind the screen transformation of data into new media, new media is ultimately a faster more accessible tool for distribution and creation of other forms of media.
Citations:
Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. London: The MIT Press, 2007. 10-61. Print.
Parikka, Jussi. “The Geology of Media”. TheAtlantic.com. The Atlantic Monthly Group, 11 Oct. 2013. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.
