I
think it is absolutely ridiculous and unconstitutional for someone to have the
power to disable my smartphone. The new patent technology that Apple has
released will give police officers or authority figures to remotely control
smartphones. They claim that it is helpful because it could prevent against
fraud, create more privacy, and control unstable situations; however, to me this looks like a
Big Brother situation. America is a free country, and controlling something so
personal and important to users such as their smart phones is a detrimental
idea. People will grow to detest their superiors like some sort of cruel dictatorship
where the people have no power. So much viral and groundbreaking media has come
from footage shot on smartphones, such as the UC Davis police pepper spray
attacks or even the Arab who got out of their car during a protest and was shot
on the spot. Smartphones give anyone the ability to be a journalist or news
reporter, and they give people the feeling that they are involved in making a
difference and that their voice matters. Not only that, but this patent can
take away phone-call abilities at certain times; who the heck would benefit
from this? If the police had the power to shut down cell phone usage during the
UC Davis protests, the world would never have had proof of the violence and unprofessional
tactics used by the officers and they could still be in positions of power
today. Smartphones give the user the world at their fingertips. With the push of a button, we are now more
powerful than we ever have been before. Taking this away from users is not only
a huge abuse of governmental power, but also takes away freedom, civil
liberties, and rights that we Americans take for granted. Nick
Pickles said it best, 'It’s been a fact that
modern phones are in reality tracking devices that let us make calls, but the
idea that awkward citizens might find their phone shut down at the behest of a
Government agency is a very worrying thought and not one that fits with democratic
principles.” This patent goes against
democracy as well as constitutional rights of freedom and I think it is a very
unwise decision to implement this technology.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Saturday, November 10, 2012
IT: Privacy and Security Questions (Group 6)
1.) What does the bank do with this private data after it's unnecessary or obsolete? How long can they keep it and/or who can they share this data with? Personally I am okay with the banks knowing my privacy information or my IP address if that means that my money is safer, but I don't want anyone else having access to that sensitive data...
2.) Whoa, the transparency grenade makes private governmental information public to everyone... Is this really a good idea? Leaking governmental information makes it easier for citizens and activists to be involved and aware, but it also makes it easier for people plotting against the US to gain information they would use in a negative way. I think there is a reason that the government keeps certain information private, and certain information public and I think it should be kept that way.
3.) What does the government (or anyone who's formerly private information is becoming public) have to say about the transparency grenade?
2.) Whoa, the transparency grenade makes private governmental information public to everyone... Is this really a good idea? Leaking governmental information makes it easier for citizens and activists to be involved and aware, but it also makes it easier for people plotting against the US to gain information they would use in a negative way. I think there is a reason that the government keeps certain information private, and certain information public and I think it should be kept that way.
3.) What does the government (or anyone who's formerly private information is becoming public) have to say about the transparency grenade?
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Readings From Week 6
The Temporary Autonomous Zone: The Net & The Web by Hakim Bey
3.) Of the two attitudes about technological internet advances "(1) what we might call the Fifth Estate/Neo-Paleolithic Post-Situ Ultra-Green position, which construes itself as a luddite argument against mediation and against the Net; and (2) the Cyberpunk utopianists, futuro-libertarians, Reality Hackers and their allies who see the Net as a step forward in evolution, and who assume that any possible ill effects of mediation can be overcome--at least, once we've liberated the means of production.".....which category do you/most people fall in? I wonder if the majority sees the internet in a positive or negative light.
Goldhaber, M.H., 1997. The Attention Economy and the Net. First Monday, 2(3).
1.) What does he mean by "economies are governed by what is scarce?" How can attention govern an economy? Does this relate to when you have someone's attention, you have a sort of power over them?
2.) I really like that he asks us to question if when he is speaking aloud we are paying attention to him, or his words, or his outfit, the people around us, or the setting... it makes me wonder when I am listening to a speech, what am I really paying attention to?
3.) If we are intrinsically wired to pay attention and crave attention, (as babies we cry when we need people to pay attention to us) why is it so dang hard for us to pay attention? Currently, I am reading this article, listening to music, writing on my blog, and texting all at the same time... Multitasking is like the opposite of attention and that is the main thing our society does today.. is the inability to pay attention as fully going to negatively affect the economy in the future?
1.) "The TAZ has a temporary but actual location in time and a temporary but actual location in space." He also mentions that the TAZ has a instantaneous and virtual place in the web. These lines confuse me. What does the author mean by this? Does the TAZ change over time and depending on where it is used? Then where is the actual TAZ?
2.) Why is the Universal Control-system impossible? Is it because there needs to be chaos so there can be order? I find that interesting, then, that hackers and viruses and all the annoying road bumps on the web are actually necessary for its growth and continuance. 3.) Of the two attitudes about technological internet advances "(1) what we might call the Fifth Estate/Neo-Paleolithic Post-Situ Ultra-Green position, which construes itself as a luddite argument against mediation and against the Net; and (2) the Cyberpunk utopianists, futuro-libertarians, Reality Hackers and their allies who see the Net as a step forward in evolution, and who assume that any possible ill effects of mediation can be overcome--at least, once we've liberated the means of production.".....which category do you/most people fall in? I wonder if the majority sees the internet in a positive or negative light.
Goldhaber, M.H., 1997. The Attention Economy and the Net. First Monday, 2(3).
1.) What does he mean by "economies are governed by what is scarce?" How can attention govern an economy? Does this relate to when you have someone's attention, you have a sort of power over them?
2.) I really like that he asks us to question if when he is speaking aloud we are paying attention to him, or his words, or his outfit, the people around us, or the setting... it makes me wonder when I am listening to a speech, what am I really paying attention to?
3.) If we are intrinsically wired to pay attention and crave attention, (as babies we cry when we need people to pay attention to us) why is it so dang hard for us to pay attention? Currently, I am reading this article, listening to music, writing on my blog, and texting all at the same time... Multitasking is like the opposite of attention and that is the main thing our society does today.. is the inability to pay attention as fully going to negatively affect the economy in the future?
Friday, September 21, 2012
Readings from Week 4
Rheingold, H., 2000. Tools for Thought: the history and future of mind-expanding technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapters 4, 5, & 6
1.) Maybe it's just me and my inexperience and limited knowledge of computers, but if Johny von Neumann was as brilliant as this article claims, why is he not one of the most prominent names we learn of in the technology field? (Like we hear of Babbage or Turig) Even though he can't get exact credit neccesarily, I still feel he deserves to be mentioned.
2.) Von Neumann said " he regarded the computer as a technical device functioning as an extension of its user; it would lead to an aggrandizement of the human brain, and von Neumann wanted to push this aggrandizement as far and as fast as possible" do you think that his regard of the computer is true today? Is the computer merely an extension of the brain making us smarter or is it used as a substitute for thinking on our own and using everyday brainpower?
3.) Why is it that it is human nature to fall into a state of entropy? How can chaos, confusion, and things falling apart be a natural and easy instinct? I don't see much positivity in that.
Hacker, B.C., 1993. Engineering a New Order: Military Institutions, Technical Education, and the Rise of the Industrial State. Technology and Culture, 34(1).
1.) Without the invention of guns and gunpowder, what would wars be like today? Would the "art of war" be the same?
2.) I find it scary how much our society evolves based on military weapons... Is each country's dominance or advancements established by their military intel? I am sure that there are weapons and ballistics beyond even my wildest dreams that we have created.. Why does our society find it so important to stress military advancements over all other areas of life such as economics, politics or education?
3.) If "Innovations in 19th century military technology mostly came from nonmilitary sources" what are these sources the article is discussing?
O’Regan, G., Chapter 6 - The Internet Revolution. In A Brief History of Computing.
1.) I feel like everything we do in our society today comes from the internet. Whether it be networking, communicating, art, or research, the internet plays an insanely vital role in everyday life. Where would we be today without the internet? Has the internet substituted real face to face communication or real field research?
2.) Bush had a visionary information management system called "the memex," which he believed would be a memory extender. This goes back to my previous question above... Do we think the internet and use of technology has extended our memory and expanded our full potential or has it hindered it and took the place of real brainpower?
3.) This article is a bit confusing for someone who has absolutely NO computer/technology background and had to look up a lot of the terminology used. (ARPANET, NSFNET...what?!) For someone of my circumstances, is there an easier or more simple article so I can understand the basics of information technology before I take a huge leap into these unknown territories?
1.) Maybe it's just me and my inexperience and limited knowledge of computers, but if Johny von Neumann was as brilliant as this article claims, why is he not one of the most prominent names we learn of in the technology field? (Like we hear of Babbage or Turig) Even though he can't get exact credit neccesarily, I still feel he deserves to be mentioned.
2.) Von Neumann said " he regarded the computer as a technical device functioning as an extension of its user; it would lead to an aggrandizement of the human brain, and von Neumann wanted to push this aggrandizement as far and as fast as possible" do you think that his regard of the computer is true today? Is the computer merely an extension of the brain making us smarter or is it used as a substitute for thinking on our own and using everyday brainpower?
3.) Why is it that it is human nature to fall into a state of entropy? How can chaos, confusion, and things falling apart be a natural and easy instinct? I don't see much positivity in that.
Hacker, B.C., 1993. Engineering a New Order: Military Institutions, Technical Education, and the Rise of the Industrial State. Technology and Culture, 34(1).
1.) Without the invention of guns and gunpowder, what would wars be like today? Would the "art of war" be the same?
2.) I find it scary how much our society evolves based on military weapons... Is each country's dominance or advancements established by their military intel? I am sure that there are weapons and ballistics beyond even my wildest dreams that we have created.. Why does our society find it so important to stress military advancements over all other areas of life such as economics, politics or education?
3.) If "Innovations in 19th century military technology mostly came from nonmilitary sources" what are these sources the article is discussing?
O’Regan, G., Chapter 6 - The Internet Revolution. In A Brief History of Computing.
1.) I feel like everything we do in our society today comes from the internet. Whether it be networking, communicating, art, or research, the internet plays an insanely vital role in everyday life. Where would we be today without the internet? Has the internet substituted real face to face communication or real field research?
2.) Bush had a visionary information management system called "the memex," which he believed would be a memory extender. This goes back to my previous question above... Do we think the internet and use of technology has extended our memory and expanded our full potential or has it hindered it and took the place of real brainpower?
3.) This article is a bit confusing for someone who has absolutely NO computer/technology background and had to look up a lot of the terminology used. (ARPANET, NSFNET...what?!) For someone of my circumstances, is there an easier or more simple article so I can understand the basics of information technology before I take a huge leap into these unknown territories?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)