Paranoid? This Won't Help (Extra)

In class we discussed the ways in which technology use keeps us constantly connected to large organizations, whether we like the association or not.  Cell phone companies have a detailed record of any conversational history.  Websites such as Google monitor our popular searches and accordingly rank information displayed.  ATM cash transactions and purchase receipts can be tracked across country.  The list goes on and on.  In the end,  its the government who can compile all these technological breadcrumbs and track anyone's trail regardless of the measures of secrecy they take. 

The question of escape from government surveillance prompted "Wired" magazine writer Evan Ratliff to try an experiment of his own.  In an article titled, "Gone Forever: What Does it Take to Really Disappear?" Ratliff first decribes the story that motivated him concerning a man named Matthew Sheppard.  Sheppard succeeded in faking his death and escaping from his family for a couple months, leaving misdirecting clues and convincing evidence behind him (Ratliff 5).  Yet after months hiding from the law he contacted his family to let them know he was alive and they carefully moved into a motel under an alias (5).  The family existed happily for a while but authorities were able to finally catch him despite his secrecy.  

"South Dakota-based federal agents pulled up an address for the family and contacted the landlord. “I rented to that guy,” he told them upon seeing Sheppard’s picture, “but his name is John Howard.” The alias led quickly to Howard’s very Sheppard-like rèsumè, still posted on Monster.com. Then, in a scene befitting Sheppard’s most paranoid fears, officers staked out the house, setting up in trees nearby, waiting for him to appear" (6). 

Although he took many precautions, Sheppard could not escape even the slightest of trails that was left behind.  After realizing what implications this story provided, Evan Ratliff decided to attempt his own escape.  He sent out a challenge in Wired announcing that he was officially going "off the grid" and that if anyone found him they would win $5,000 (6).  Participants were able to search from August until September to recieve the prize.  Sure enough, despite the drastic measures Ratliff took to hide, he was tracked down by the electronic records of receipts days before the deadline.  It just comes to show the basic, frightening fact that because of our electronic usage we are able to be constantly surveilled and captured if necessary.

   






http://www.wired.com/vanish/2009/08/gone-forever-what-does-it-take-to-really-disappear/2/

Remaining Anonymous (Extra)

I had never heard about the massive hacktivist group Anonymous until the other day in class.  We came to learn that these hacktivists hate censorship and want free-access to all information. As videos showing individuals in Guy-Fawkes masks dictate the groups agenda, the Anonymous initiative remains untouchable.  The group is composed of many, anonymous individuals working in unison toward a common goal; no apparent leader is present.  This way the blame cannot be put on any one individual.  That combined with the fact that what they are doing is nonviolent keeps Anonymous thriving and conjuring up more effective forms of hacktivism.

Hacktivism also is used to prevent any monopoly control of technology, something Anonymous definitely exhibits.  There have been videos by Anonymous where the group says it will make Facebook crash because it is growing too powerful, greedy, and commercialized.  One of these threatening takeovers was supposed to occur on November 5th, Guy Fawkes day, but as we know that date has passed and Facebook is still intact.  Recently, Facebook was attacked with spam on people's walls; the culprit was assumed to be Anonymous.  Pornographic and violent images were posted on user's accounts which people feared was the "Fawkes Virus" (Albanesius 1).  Yet an article by Chloe Albanesius states that the link to Anonymous is not credible.  The two threatening videos by Anonymous said that it would strike Facebook with a virus that "sends out malicious links and gains access to your account" but the takeover's stated deadline was never fulfilled (1).  The voiceover in the videos warned that "Anonymous would use the Fawkes Virus to tackle corruption and groups that oppose its organization. The video, however, did not discuss pornographic or violent images" (1).  One characteristic of Anonymous is that the group explicitly states what it is going to do.  The Facebook virus's goal was to completely destroy the website, not litter it with annoying, crude images. 

The popularity of Facebook is certainly a force to be reckoned with and Anonymous acknowledges that with a vengence.  As of now, the group is focusing on more critical movements such as Occupy Wall Street (2).  Once it aims it's complete focus on Facebook, the impact will be extremely severe.  Zuckerberg's be warned, Anonymous still has work to do.

Best Beware, "Smart Mobs" Are Everywhere

The next social revolution might be televised, but it will certainly be mobilized.  Society's current infatuation with cell phones and instant information continues to grow rapidly.  The work "Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution" by Howard Rheingold eerily predicts a massive technological shift that will impact all of society. Written in 2002, Rheingold explains that "smart mobs" of individuals will be the ones unknowingly facilitating the shift towards electronic dependence.

Rheingold states that smart mobs, "consist of people who are able to act in concert even if they don't know each other"(Rheingold 2).  These individuals carry mobile devices that connect them by telephone while at the same time providing them with information from various sources (2).  In addition, cheap microprocessors with the ability to communicate with one another inhabit an enormous amount of products and buildings (2).  Reasonable prices make these technologies accessible throughout the entire world.  Rheingold's prediction is that these technologies will develop until real-world objects and places combine with the vast power of the Internet (2).  In turn, this will transform mobile communication media into "remote-control" devices that impact the tangible world (3);  That one day we will be capable of and depend on daily interaction with the world through our phones. And this prediction is far from off.
 
Actually, all of Rheingold's predictions of what would occur in the next 8 years are shockingly accurate.  He talks about people using GPS, instant picture messaging, and organize business transactions on their phones (3).  Then this will lead to large amateur groups who are employing the new technology that old, established medias have not caught onto yet.  All of these new parties will cause competition and further the rapid growth of mobile technology. 

These predictions have been realized by the creation of smart phones such as the iPhone, Blackberry, or Android.  If one gets lost, they simply plug their destination into their phone producing a map.  Picture messaging allows friends to show each other what they are doing at any time. Even big business executives are constantly jabbering and fiddling with business exchanges.  10 years ago, the average consumer would have thought the availability of such devices to be near impossible.  Now, according to a recent survey conducted from July-September 2011, 87.4 million people in the U.S. alone own them (Rao 1).  These statistics were taken from the article, "As Smartphone Usage Increases, Android Gains U.S. Market Share" by Leena Rao.  As more apps and abilities become possible, certain companies like the Android have to improve their product in order to thrive. Rao's article shows proof of a competition between mobile phone companies along with the large profit that is generated by them.

With the emergence of these highly popular smartphones, Rheingold's idea of smart mobs can't be more real.  They are way more advanced than the basic phones he described which were only capable of making calls and sending text messages.  Current mobile phone technologies have grown to mingle with the capabilities of the Internet, and it will only get more advanced.  This is certainly wonderful in the many ways they make almost everything accessible at the drop of a hat; making life a whole lot easier.  Yet I warn, we must not become completely dependent on these devices or else societal values will wither away.

Goodbye Bullying, Hello Drama

Parents nowadays, though looking out for their child's best interests, cannot relate to much of the current adolescent terminology and as a result are unable to communicate with them effectively.  The term "drama" is a perfect example of this dissociation between the age groups.  When teens hear about drama, they automatically think of gossip and altercations between friends, enemies, etc.  When parents hear about drama, what often comes to mind is the idea of a TV show, movie, or play.  The term this older society is comfortable with using is "bullying."  Yet bullying and drama should not be confused because drama is something much deeper.  Bullying in its traditional sense is referring to the open, unrepentant act of forcibly stealing some one's possessions or inflicting harm on them (physically or emotionally through insults).  Drama is sneaky; it doesn't work in the open but rather bombards one's emotions in order to isolate and manipulate one's feelings.  Often, drama starts as a slight problem before snowballing over a period of time into something hurtful. 

In Dannah Boyd's article, "Bullying as True Drama," she says that teens use the term drama as a coping mechanism that "allows them to distance themselves from painful situations" (Boyd 2).  Dismissing hurtful conflicts as drama lets teens show that such concerns are petty and don't matter (2).  Students will not admit that they are being bullied in school because then that is admitting that they are weak and inhabit a lower social rung.  Bullying is often associated with childhood behavior and most teens would never want to damage their reputations.  Drama lets one feel that they are part of an important grand spectacle that only certain people are in on instead of realizing the truth behind their actions.  It is this hurtful reality that subtly continues until the person (or person's) targeted reach their breaking point.

The film that best exemplifies the act and impact of teen drama is the movie, "Mean Girls."  It demonstrates how fully drama can invade some one's life and impact their behavior for the worse.  The characters use sly, back-handed comments to insult and manipulate the others instead of employing full-on attacks.  The social hierarchy that drama depends on is shown during a lunchroom scene at the beginning of the film.  Boyd's "drama as a coping mechanism" is shown through the main characters' "burn book."  In this book, the popular group of girls create a book full of pictures of classmates and their corresponding insults.  This is how they justify their cruelty; because they aren't openly saying these things to people in school.  All this changes when the book is exposed and hatred floods the school.

It is important to note that the title of the film is, "Mean Girls" not "Mean Teens."  Female characters create all of the rumours and drama circulating around the school. The men are often the instigators of such drama but rarely get too involved.  I find this to be accurate in my social experiences yet not to the extent that this film shows.  We are all responsible for drama whether we like it or not.  If you don't admit it then you are part of the problem concerning us now: identifying the signs and consequences of drama before more are lost. Students must know the consequences of drama to correct poor social behaviors.  Cousenlors of older generations must update their definition of "bullying" in order to provide effective help.  Unless drama is recognized for what it truly is, more individuals will pointlessly fall victim to its wrath. 

"Don't Be Evil," Google

Where do I usually go when I need to research a topic for school?  Instead of the library, I seek out my Google search-bar and type in my subject.  What do I look to when I want more information about a certain writer or poet? Google guides me through a plethora of online encyclopedias and articles.  What about the recipe for a dinner to impress my new date?  Google's always an excellent wing man.  I've used Google at least 100 times in the last week alone, trying to locate information, music, videos, etc.  Just a moment ago, when I was trying to pull up this very website, I typed "blogger" on the google search-bar to bring forth the log in screen.  While habitually drinking from this fountain of knowledge called Google I ask myself, "How could any tool this helpful threaten me?"  As I've come to realize the threat is far more real than most would like to believe.

"Googlization" is a term coined by Siva Vaidhynathan, and it is both a gift and a curse.  What Vaidhynathan means by this is stated in an article: "Google puts previously unimaginable resources at our fingertips- huge libraries, archives, warehouses of government records, troves of goods, the comings and goings of whole swaths of humanity" (Vaidhynathan 2).  Today's society can easily access virtually anything they want using this search engine's easily-accessible, useful format.  With google-brand websites as popular as YouTube and Gmail, Google is proving to be one of the most influential online institutions.  As other google related sites' popularity increase, Google may very well become indistinguishable from the Web itself (3).  Googlization is definitely occurring, and it is not without a dark side.

Compared to other well developed and renowned institutions, Google is still in it's stage of infancy.  But what an influential infancy it is.  Once it grows to even a toddler, that Google will be much different from the Google we see now.  Who's to say how powerful it will become as an adolescent?  It is this power that Google already holds over us that I fear; the power that one day, every type of information and website will be sought out and monitored by Google.  This phenomenon is already scarily at play.  The Google browser is set up in a way that links caused by a search are ranked/ shown by popularity.  In this way, Google's biases are permitted entry into our subconscious minds.  Who is to stop Google from deciding what information the public is allowed to view?  No one; and that alone is a threat.

Google is dangerous, not due to a physical threat, but because society uses it constantly, recklessly, and faithfully while building dependence on it (4).  We are as desnsitized to the abilities of Google as we are to the modern car.  This was another invention that, though first seemingly innocuous, led to many unforseen consequences including the shaping of the modern world around it. 

If we as a society have developed a great dependence on Google, we have a critical addiction to cell phones; more importantly, smart phones.  Cell phones have made our world so much more connected yet simultaneously far more isolated.  By "connected", i'm referring to the ease at which people can contact each other.  It is the mobility aspect of the cell phone that makes the land-line phone obsolete. Yet this constant mobility, reflecting the frantic pace at which our daily lives progress, is what will isolate us in the end.  People are constantly on their smart phones any time of day texting, watching videos, playing a new game ("app"), etc.  As phone technologies are rapidly advancing, people are becoming addicted to the capabilities of their phones.  This will eventually result in the complete destruction of social interaction without a screen and keyboard.

Google and smart phones are related in the way that they are forcing our dependence on them.  The two are even combining with the capability of online internet via smart phones.  Sure it would be a much more difficult world without these innovations, yet it is reaching the point where our desensitization and reliance on them is hurting our culture.

Whatever the damage, i'm not going to end up throwing my smart phone away or cease using Google, so what am I suppossed to do?  There is no easy solution because we have already gone too far. The only thing we as a society can hope to prevent the dominance of Google is to recognize its influence over our daily lives.  Only then can we hope to set boundaries and rules to an autocratic institution. 

Don't Believe Their Hype!

Has your curiousity of a newfound artist ever prompted you to download their music on the internet?  I will bet money that anyone reading this has.  And I am just as certain that before seeing a movie, you've seen ads before it saying that online music downloading is stealing.  Images of violent robberies and hijackings equate the common music file sharer to an unrepentant criminal.  Do these advertisements' messages strike fear into its audience?  Slightly.  Does it accomplish it's goal to deter them from further music downloading?  Hardly at all.  Yet these threatening advertisements persist, not to protect the artists like they claim, but to protect the asses of giant recording corporations (and mind you, those are some LARGE behinds).  So I say download away!  As long as your not profitting off of someone else's work you're doing nothing to their career than providing them with sincere exposure.  The record industries are simply afraid of losing control over their artists when online music sharing is actually promoting their careers.

Professional musician Janis Ian sheds further light on this issue in an article that proclaims, "Online Music Sharing May Benefit Artists."  She begins with stating that, "The recording industry has objected to every new consumer recording technologies... but each new technology has ultimately helped artists by enabling more people to hear their work... The recording industry claims it is fighting online music to protect artists, but in reality it is fighting online music sharing in order to maintain its control over artists" (Ian 31).  A very bold statement, yet one I believe to be spot on.  People are always going to be able to share music no matter what and, in the end, it is those songs downloaded online that introduce artist and audience.  Who is gonna spend seventeen bucks on a cd of someone they've never heard? Maybe rich kids with their parents money but not the normal consumer.  Exposure such as this is gonna push audiences to see their favorite new artists in concert, or force talk shows to host the new talent.  This is where the big bucks are made.

If anyone knows about the big bucks behind this type of "free" music exposure, its the band Radiohead.  With seven albums and innovative achievements under their belt, the band cut ties with their original record label and independantly produced the album "In Rainbows."  They posted it on their website as an mp3 download and asked fans to pay whatever they felt necessary (the range being from $0.00 to $212.00; the final average being $2.26) (Pareles 2).  This was a drastic move by a major band; a highly strategic move that I completely respect.  In a New York Times article by Jon Pareles, lead singer Thom Yorke says, "The worst-case scenario would have been: Sign another deal, take a load of money, and then have the machinery waiting semi-patiently for you to deliver your product, which they can add to the list of products that make up the myth, la-la-la-la" (2).  Radiohead recognized its situation and refused to follow through with record label control.  They played off the label-threatening idea of music sharing (or in music industry terms, "piracy") and turned it into an amazing promotional feat for the band.


Taking Janis Ian's idea to heart, Radiohead ended up succeeding.  The $2.26 per customer average boosted the band's profit to far more than the record label would have given them while simultaneously boosting their public image.  Record labels be-damned, we can exist without you.  Bands such as Radiohead push people to strive for the purest form of enlightenment: the innate satisfaction of sharing creativity.

Beauty of "Boutique"

The PBS documentary, "Copyright Criminals" was extremely informative and interesting.  Though the music examples were outstanding, the part i enjoyed most was that the film neutrally approached the topic of music sampling without bias.  The was a great mix of sampling advocates along with music purists who viewed it as cheap theft.  I for one feel that proper music sampling can be used to create great new works.  Many influential hip-hop albums depended on countless samples to provide their rhythmic backbone.  These albums don't seem to be stealing another's work but rather pay homage and elaborate on other musician's past successes. 

They mention a Beastie Boys album called, "Paul's Boutique" and how it would be impossible to create today given the amount of sampling law restrictions.  Being one of my favorite hip hop albums, I went back to my room to listen to it after class.  The beats of this album are entirely crafted from samples!  I heard everything from the familiar screech of  the film "Psycho" to the "Funky Drummer" of Clyde Stubblefield.  Certainly the Beasties must have come into some trouble with their master art of sampling, so I decided to look up it's history.  Being their second album, The Beasties teamed up with famous sampling duo "The Dust Brothers" who produced it.  The Dust Brothers soon became known as sampling virtuosos and are heavily credited with introducing the style to hip hop.  In total, 105 songs were sampled on the album, including 24 individual samples on the last track alone.  Despite what many fans believe, the majority of samples were cleared before the album's release.  Yet the costs then were cheap and easy compared to the litigious face of the music industry today. 

"Boutique" was less commercially successful than the Beastie's debut album yet it's elaborate use of sampling and comical lyricism paved the way for subsequent hip hop artists.  Copyright laws are important in protecting creativity but had such laws existed in the late eighties, hip hop as we know it would be completely different.  The aspect of sampling is to the dj what the pen is to the poet; a crucial tool by which creativity can be expressed.  I believe in giving credit to the original artists whose samples are used in these songs because it is their original talent that led to the production of a new work of art. Yet when it truly comes down to it, can one person really own a sound?