iSpy Recap

iSpy was in many ways, very shocking for me. Not because I was learning things I didn't know already but because Andrejevic concisely recounted all the various ways our supposed freedom doesn't exactly exist. The concept of the digital enclosure finally put a name on an image that I had been slowly developing in my mind. One where walls were slowly being erected the more times I swiped that Shoppers Club card or drove through the E-Z Pass lane. iSpy forced me to reassess my place in that enclosure. And to determine, now that I know where those boundaries lie, what I'm going to do about it. Andrejevic presents his arguments to shock people into understanding but leaves it up to us, the "savvy citizen", to decide how we're going to change this culture of surveillance to one of democratic participation and potential.

Privacy and the Constitution

Bill of Rights - Amendments Related to Privacy

Amendment I (Privacy of Beliefs): Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment III (Privacy of the Home): No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV (Privacy of the Person and Possessions): The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX (General Protection): The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment XIV (Liberty Clause): No state shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Responses

About class on 9/18:

I forget who wrote this on their blog, but someone brought up the point that although the discussion was quite lively and enjoyable at times, it failed to actually discuss one point. There was no central argument. I believe that people learn more (and more effectively) if they are forced to investigate all sides of an issue and debate it rather than just saying anything that is even slightly related to the topic. I am not saying that the entire class was chaotic but it felt as though the central issues were constantly being ignored in favor of comments designed to evoke specific responses from classmates (with whom you may or may not agree with). 

Response to the class discussion and this blog and its comment.

Firstly, the post itself is contradictory. You initially state, "according to my interpretation of the constitution this taking of my information...is a breach of my personal privacy and should not be done." However, you continue to say that governmental monitoring policies such as the Patriot Act are acceptable because you feel that you have done nothing wrong. I understand that you may agree with the terms of the Patriot Act but to agree with it simply because you believe it does not apply to you is well, not good enough. The prevailing counter argument to both private and governmental monitoring in class has been exactly that. People have said that they agree or have no opinion on data mining because they believe it has no effect upon them. The "I have nothing to hide" argument. To every person who uses that argument, I have to say that any method that restricts personal freedoms (even if you personally are not directly affected) is WRONG. If people believe that the physical invasion of privacy is immoral then why is the technological equivalent acceptable? Why does the government need permission to go through the papers on your desk but the your files on the internet are fair game? It is the SAME THING. If you believe the internet is a completely open area and that you have nothing to hide then would you have a problem with anyone accessing your credit card numbers? bank account numbers? pictures of your children? Why is it okay for individuals, companies, governments to have access to the your most important data, the numbers ones that make up your IDENTITY?

WHY?

Digital Enclosure

He Who Enjoys Solitude Will Not Love Freedom pt 2

I did not immediately post on the initial readings for iSpy because I felt I needed to time to meditate (and frankly stew) over what I had read. While none of the overarching points made by Andrejevic came as a surprise, I was astonished as to the effect their condensed form had on me. I didn't really understand my feelings until after the class discussion. 

In all honesty, I was shocked at the majority of the class' response. Shocked that the same people who had, presumably, just read the same chapters I had, could act so blase when it came to their privacy (internet or otherwise). I am not one to stand on a soapbox and proclaim that "Big Brother is watching" and we all must rise against him, but I suppose I naively thought that people (especially politically aware students) would care more.

"Is being data mined really that bad?" Truth: the action of being data mined causes no direct effect or harm to your person. However, the data gathered whether it be shoe preferences or credit card numbers, could potentially used against you in the future. Sure those advertisements on the sides of your web browser don't pose a threat to your safety so much as an annoyance but they are merely the small visual reminders that anything and everything you do on the internet is being monitored. Maybe not directly but by recording everything from click streams to buying preferences the supposed "realm of free space" the internet is supposed to be quickly became one of the easiest platforms upo

n which to be surveilled. 

I was struck most when Prof. Dean had to resort to dramatic examples to make comparisons to internet surveillance that people could connect to. The thought of being followed around all day seemed preposterous to some but the idea of having every movement on the internet tracked was okay. Flipping through someone's planner to discover their future dates etc was an invasion of privacy but reading personal emails was not. I suppose I am lost as to why people fail to see the connection without making such obvious parallels. 

He Who Enjoys Solitude Will Not Love Freedom

Groups and Alliances and Coalitions...Oh My!

Whenever the issue concerning groups is posed to the entire class for comment, I feel as though we go 'round and 'round like dogs chasing our tails only to find out that at the end of the discussion we have neither caught the tail nor really discovered why we were chasing it in the first place. The quick success of the first group prompted many within the class to clamor for "groups all around" (not drinks for once). This led to an immediate separation between those who were eager for groups, those who absolutely hated the idea, and those trapped somewhere in the middle. The addition of more variables to the 'group conundrum' such as the distinction between basic course curriculum vs. final project and cohesive group (with singular blog) vs. loosely allied coalition made the issue that much broader and more difficult. From the conversation that arose from our forced groups from last class I have managed to distill the numerous possibilities to a few choice scenarios for group organization:

1. Cohesive group with 1 blog that everyone has access to where individual blogs are relinquished for the greater cause. (Just as the first group.)
2. Closely-knit group where personal blogs are obtained but access to group blog is available as well. 
3. Loosely arranged coalition where members have a "group blog" that is utilized in the same manor as Location F8, as a sounding board and general forum but all input is done via individual blogs. 
4. Tightly associated group of people who have no intention of working with other people.
   

These potential organizational designs would then have to be paired with one of the many various choices for content:

1. Daily work. Comment on class readings, class discussion, etc. Boring.
2. Daily work and some focused readings based on previously discussed topics of interest.
3. Daily work that is completely targeted to designated interest.
4. Final project only. May or may not be on previously discussed topics.
5. Final project and everything else. Spend the entire semester with small group. Yay?

So now all there is left to do is to come up with some winning combination. However, unlike the real lottery, the odds are better if you do play.

Troll

Buy a Helmet

"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me". 

As a child, I often chanted those words back at whatever bully was tormenting me on the playground. To respond to hurtful comments in kind felt, well, good. I may have returned home with confidence destroyed and self esteem in shambles but as long as I didn't let that bully see what he had done to me, I remained the victor. With age came maturity and the realization that such methods are not appropriate outside the playground. (Now one could endlessly debate that we never left the playground just moved to a bigger one and that such phrases are still used just in more carefully worded language...but I'm not here to pursue that.) However, since my entrance into the blogosphere I have come to see that for many, the Internet has been a means to return to the playground, a new and improved one at that. In this playground you can throw sand, steal toys and pull pigtails all without repercussion. The threat of "time out" is no longer enough to keep everyone playing nicely.

While the average person isn't likely to go wild with this new found freedom many have begun to take advantage of the fact that words are now the most powerful weapons in this playground. And given the anonymity, people are free to say whatever they want. Entire subcultures have been created upon mantra that words are just words and the belief the the problem only arises when you let that bully (troll) see his effect. Verbal harassment is all just part of the game. Trolls argue, "the willingness of trolling 'victims' to be hurt by words makes them complicit, and trolling will end as soon as we all get over it."(Schwartz) They think that as soon as people come to actually believe in the childhood rhyme I used to chant, trolling will no longer be effective. But until that time, trolls are going to continue to push the limits of social barriers. But the question is how far is too far? When trolling, a verbal attack, takes on a physical component (such as victims committing suicide)? Who knows?

Trolls contend that, "ultimately the power lies in the community to dictate its own standards."(Schwartz) If masses of individuals form associations where such malice is tolerated than it should be allowed to continue. Only when enough people begin to censor themselves and others will such blind hatred decrease. In free spaces such as the internet playground, when real world morals and societal norms are thrown out, there cannot possibly a security monitor to watch every person's actions. People must act on their own. How to accomplish this....."I'd say empathy is probably a factor." (Schwartz)

Oops

Upon reading the comment on my last post I realized I made a bit of an error regarding that question....I never really answered it! So thank you inconvenience. Therefore, in response to your question, I feel that it is neither a positive nor a negative thing to be so interconnected with daily technologies. If the technology (such as computers) became a crutch and one is entirely dependent upon it, then yes, I believe it would be detrimental. But it is not wrong for technologies such as writing to fuse with those who utilize them because, "writing is utterly invaluable and indeed essential for the realization of fuller, interior, human potentials." (Ong, 23)

To answer your second question: no, I do not feel defined by my technology. As stated in my previous post, I feel as though it is a part of me but not one easily distinguishable and not one that should play any role in defining me. 

You - Technology = ???

Do you feel that the technologies you use configure you or make you who you are?

To answer that question, I feel that one must attempt to judge themselves separate from the "technologies". They must imagine themselves removed  from any situation where the interaction might occur and compare that person to who they are now. I believe that unless one has existed in a preliterate society, it is impossible to completely determine to what extent daily technologies affect and configure you. To evaluate the magnitude of something in life, one must not only completely understand it (and its role in your life) but also be able to alienate themselves from it. "To live and to understand fully, we need not only proximity but also distance." (Ong, 23) Having been raised in a literate world, I am fundamentally biased and can imagine no such separation from technologies of any kind. "Technologies are not mere exterior aids by also interior transformations of consciousness." (Ong, 23) The sheer act of using a pencil or reading a book has already so altered my version of reality that there is no "going back", no way of imagining my world with out them. For, since the first time I began to use the technology of writing to express words, I could no longer think of words without picturing them, no longer be able to define one without using another. Ong uses the metaphor of the musician to illustrate this point. One is unable to separate a musician from his music. To succeed at his art the musician "has to have interiorized the technology, made the tool or machine a second nature, a psychological part of himself". (Ong, 24) In using technology I have internalized it and made it a part of me, so much so that it is impossible to ever be separated. "The use of a technology can enrich the human psyche, enlarge human spirit, (and) set it free..." (Ong, 24)

What's in a.....Face??

Does it matter if an interaction is face to face?

My gut reaction would be to say that yes, person-to-person, face-to-face interaction is crucial however the fundamental medium of this class (blogging) suggests otherwise. I don't believe that it is necessary for all conversations to take place face-to-face, however the paralanguage (non-verbal elements of conversation) is just as important for interpreting someone's meaning as the words they are saying. In his article, "What Can a Face Do?", Richard Ruston states that, "ultimately, the face is an instrument whose primary purpose is that of communicating; we cannot dissociate the face from the sender from the system of meaning implied by that face's messages being sent to a receiver."(p.221) While it is not impossible to have a conversation via text it is truly difficult to communicate and convey all aspects of the interaction.

Elements of description that simply cannot be determined via text such as age, sex, nationality (as determined by dialect) are also lost when interactions are no longer face to face.  Near true anonymity can be achieved when communications are reduced to text transfered via the internet. With that anonymity comes the perception of decreased personal risk. When having a face-to-face discussion with someone, you are personally responsible for what you say. You will have to deal with whatever reaction they might have. Therefore, in those situations, the majority of people are more apt to be more conservative and careful about what they say. Both one's reputation and physical body are at risk should you choose to make the "wrong" comment. However, in media such as blogs etc. neither of this risks are relevant. With nearly complete anonymity and the ability to converse with people on the other side of the world you (personally) don't have to be responsible or accountable for anything you say.

In this age where technology and communication play inescapable roles in our lives it is easy to see why such media (blogs etc) have become so extraordinarily popular. The ability to say what you want, when you want with no serious repercussions to essentially anyone, anywhere in the world is, well, incredible. 

Rules of the Game

Reflecting on the class:  Just as there are seven levels of grief, I had what felt like seven different successive reactions to the class. The first lasted the time it took me to pack my bag, leave the classroom and walk down the stairs. I think the best word to describe that emotion would be shock. But it was unlike any shock I've experienced before. It wasn't like the surprise you experience upon hearing some juicy piece of gossip or the reaction to a devastating story on the news. It was just as unique and alien to me as the class I had just left. It was not the method by which the class information was conveyed nor even the professor's conspicuous absence that surprised me most. (Strangely, I am not unfamiliar with professors leaving classes unattended.) It was the near total lack of direction that had the most effect upon me. Typically, when I enter a class for the first meeting of the semester I expect to be greeted with sylibi and course expectations, with strict guidelines and attendance policies. But upon entering the class, all we got was a brief introduction, a short list of books, and a discussion topic guideline. That was it. No welcome speech by the professor or a "lets go around the room and say your name". For the first 20 minutes of the class, it felt as though everyone was running through what was written desperately trying to find some concrete starting block for the class. It was as though we had all entered the game confident there would be some sort of stability once we got there but quickly discovered there were no rules, no referees, and no guidelines as to what was in or out and that it was up to us to figure out how to play it. 

Having had a day and a half to reflect on my initial experience, I realize how important it was that the professor was not there for the first class. Immediately, upon reading the first assignment, I understood why she was not there, what point she was trying to prove. But I did not consider what greater implications it had, how it forced some students into leadership roles and how because of that, we as a class, felt much more comfortable being told what to do rather than being asked what to do. When it was left up to us to decide what we wanted there was a general feeling of confusion, distrust, and agitation. We were upset that we were being asked to do something on our own, for ourselves. We had to converse with one another and discuss the topics for our own benefit, not to impress a professor or to get a grade. I think this last phase of reaction to the first day has had the greatest effect upon me. For being part of the generation that constantly feels the need to assert its individualism, one would think that we would exploit the chance to exercise and demonstrate that characteristic. But when given the chance (even in an academic setting), we shrink back and are more comfortable letting someone else take the reins and direct the majority. How true are our feelings if we tout these ideals yet aren't willing to live up to them?