Ever wonder how stuff gets to you?
Checkk it outt (Full Video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8
09 December 2012
08 December 2012
A Family’s Fight for Freedom: Lawyers Move to Block RFID Expulsion (Aside)
A Family’s Fight for Freedom: Lawyers Move to Block RFID Expulsion
"Under the “Smart ID” program, all 4,200 students are forced to wear an ID badge with an RFID tracking chip in it at all times to attend school"
"On the district’s Student Locator Project website, it notes that “Northside ISD is harnessing the power of radio frequency identification technology (RFID) to make schools safer, know where our students are while at school, increase revenues, and provide a general purpose ‘smart’ ID card.”
Video on the issue
After reading this, the only benefit I could see by using this would be safety and for attendance purposes. It also seemed that students wear these tags from school to home, but I am not sure of that.
If the school says that these tags are implemented for safety, then parents only should have the request to refuse the RFID tags. I do not think that a school, unless it is private, should be able to implement these on children against their parent's request. Overall, it should be a personal choice.
The fact that students can be tracked at home (if I am understanding correctly) is a complete intrusion of privacy. I understand that we are, for the most part, tracked all day. However, I think that subjecting children to this by a party outside of the parent is unethical. Yes, it could pose as a safety devise, but what extent does that serve once a child is inside the school parameters? Walking to and from school could pose a threat, and is the only reason I could see for the implementation of this RFID tag.
I also thought it was comical that, "all students are expected to comply with the Smart ID policy". This was comical in the sense that it is expected that everyone in this new technologically advanced society to simply comply with these implementations. The fact that the school did not consider anyone objecting to an intrusive deployment of these RFID chips is quite interesting in regard of our society.
Xbox team’s ‘consumer detector’ would dis-Kinect freeloading TV viewers (Aside)
Xbox team’s ‘consumer detector’ would dis-Kinect freeloading TV viewers
"In one scenario, the system would then charge for the television show or movie based on the number of viewers in the room. Or, if the number of viewers exceeds the limits laid out by a particular content license, the system would halt playback unless additional viewing rights were purchased".
The system could also take into account the age of viewers, limiting playback of mature content to adults, for example. This patent application doesn’t explain how that would work, but a separate Microsoft patent application last year described a system for using sensors to estimate age based on the proportions of their body.
The simple IDEA of this technology is baffling. Neglecting ways of tricking the system and avoidance (which would be inevitable), the fact that you would be watched in your own home, in your personal setting, is wrong. Forget privacy, as even if you are not being watched by a human, you are being detected by a computer who then is telling a human. The first scenario explained has many holes. However, this could possibly lead to people hiding in their own homes to simply watch television. The fact that people should be hiding in their own homes is ridiculous, especially because some money-hungry entity is only after profit. In the second scenario, any technology that measures the dimensions of your body and related that to your age is dumb as those proportions are arbitrary. Consider a little person or a small adult, would they be prevented from watching something that they've paid for, in their own setting, because some computer tells them they can't. If computers start telling us what we can and cannot due, arbitrary or not, can lead to some messed up problems down the line.
However, I do not seeing this technology being implemented in the slightest bit. The day Xbox uses this technology, is the day everyone switches to the console that doesn't use it. This far surpasses privacy issues and will undoubtedly anger many people, which is a compelling factor against its implication.
Apple patents technology that could remotely disable protesters' smartphones (Aside)
Apple patents technology that could remotely dosable smartphones
"This means that those with access to the technology could use it for 'preventing wireless devices from communicating with other wireless devices (such as in academic settings), and for forcing certain electronic devices to enter "sleep mode" when entering a sensitive area".
Video of police pepper-spraying UC Davis students.
This article has many holes. The author did a bad job of explaining what this new technology does exactly. I understand one could implement this technology in a zone where someone does not want service, but does it enter your phone and disable your phone completely? I know that one is able to take a picture or video without service, so how does that render someone from later posting this media? This technology could do, at most, postpone the upload of material from a protest stie. One problem I can see protestors facing are current updates, as with a twitter post. However, I do not see this technology cutting off videos and pictures from protests. I do see, however, this becoming a problem if governments use it against their citizens on a much larger scale. In the case of the Arab Springs and across the middle east, a dis-enabling of videos uploaded across a large region can prove as an effective measure against its citizens's protest. This could have prevented the fast-pace progression of the movement.
I also do not see Apple's standpoint when they claim, "Apple stresses that the function would be most likely used to prevent copyright theft, such as in cinemas, or to stop phone cameras being used in inappropriate places, like department store changing rooms". If I am interoperating this correctly, this technology must be able to acces one's phone if it disables you from doing these things. In the case of one putting their phone on 'airplane mode', would be able to record the footage and post it later. If this technology disables people from doing this, it must enter the phone and stop this which could pose privacy issues.
Also, I wonder if cellular providers would be able to dispute this at all? If there was any way for them to deny this technology, I wonder if they would?
"This means that those with access to the technology could use it for 'preventing wireless devices from communicating with other wireless devices (such as in academic settings), and for forcing certain electronic devices to enter "sleep mode" when entering a sensitive area".
Video of police pepper-spraying UC Davis students.
This article has many holes. The author did a bad job of explaining what this new technology does exactly. I understand one could implement this technology in a zone where someone does not want service, but does it enter your phone and disable your phone completely? I know that one is able to take a picture or video without service, so how does that render someone from later posting this media? This technology could do, at most, postpone the upload of material from a protest stie. One problem I can see protestors facing are current updates, as with a twitter post. However, I do not see this technology cutting off videos and pictures from protests. I do see, however, this becoming a problem if governments use it against their citizens on a much larger scale. In the case of the Arab Springs and across the middle east, a dis-enabling of videos uploaded across a large region can prove as an effective measure against its citizens's protest. This could have prevented the fast-pace progression of the movement.
I also do not see Apple's standpoint when they claim, "Apple stresses that the function would be most likely used to prevent copyright theft, such as in cinemas, or to stop phone cameras being used in inappropriate places, like department store changing rooms". If I am interoperating this correctly, this technology must be able to acces one's phone if it disables you from doing these things. In the case of one putting their phone on 'airplane mode', would be able to record the footage and post it later. If this technology disables people from doing this, it must enter the phone and stop this which could pose privacy issues.
Also, I wonder if cellular providers would be able to dispute this at all? If there was any way for them to deny this technology, I wonder if they would?
Remix Culture
Answer: What do you think of when you hear "Remix Culture"?
What I think of when I hear "Remix Culture" (before reading the article) is how our culture is being redefined by new technology and innovations.
"Think about how we’re taught in school. A student is not assessed upon what she reads—instead, she is graded upon the things she writes." I think this a good point the Author makes, the fact that we have been taught since day one to use others' work to form our own work.
"It is the method by which we have told stories and how we continue to relate our day-to-day experiences to each other." This is a great point, songs from generations ago have been plagiarized numerous times. However, without those chain of events, we would not have the stories we have today.
A question I pose is first, can people copyright things that have been produced before them? Say, on folktales or songs written long ago? Also, if they were able to do that, reproductions would dwindle and we would loose some of these old stories if people 'owned' them and stopped their production as supported by the text. "to keep it from atrophying and dying".
I would also like to know how copyright works elsewhere in the world.
Good Quote: "The folk process has been described by Katherine MacDonald (2005) as: “the process by which cultural artifacts are changed, whether minutely or in significant amounts, to form new cultural products” (p. 4). Musicologist Charles Seeger (the father of American folk singer Pete Seeger), used the term to describe not only how these artifacts are changed, but also how cultures are continually renewed and reborn. Our approaching digital culture will be an aural culture, a communal one".
What I think of when I hear "Remix Culture" (before reading the article) is how our culture is being redefined by new technology and innovations.
"Think about how we’re taught in school. A student is not assessed upon what she reads—instead, she is graded upon the things she writes." I think this a good point the Author makes, the fact that we have been taught since day one to use others' work to form our own work.
"It is the method by which we have told stories and how we continue to relate our day-to-day experiences to each other." This is a great point, songs from generations ago have been plagiarized numerous times. However, without those chain of events, we would not have the stories we have today.
A question I pose is first, can people copyright things that have been produced before them? Say, on folktales or songs written long ago? Also, if they were able to do that, reproductions would dwindle and we would loose some of these old stories if people 'owned' them and stopped their production as supported by the text. "to keep it from atrophying and dying".
I would also like to know how copyright works elsewhere in the world.
Good Quote: "The folk process has been described by Katherine MacDonald (2005) as: “the process by which cultural artifacts are changed, whether minutely or in significant amounts, to form new cultural products” (p. 4). Musicologist Charles Seeger (the father of American folk singer Pete Seeger), used the term to describe not only how these artifacts are changed, but also how cultures are continually renewed and reborn. Our approaching digital culture will be an aural culture, a communal one".
"If we look up ‘musicologist’ we see no author’s name on the main page. It’s true, you can find out who wrote and edited the article, but the main page is not about preserving intellectual property. It is not about venerating the author, nor even giving credit". Try telling that to a record company. Have any record companies commented on these angles and justifications?
I like the point that this is also a cultural shift, something that has been dont, across the globe, countless amounts of time.
The biggest effect of this remix culture is that it goes against capitalism. Record companies and huge conglomerates have a hold on this particular industry, and now our culture is shifting. These huge entities, who have made lucrative profits, are trying to hold onto what is being lost because of a cultural shift. I think that the most resistance to this culture shift will come from those entities, rather the public of whom has already accepted this change and is fueling it.
05 December 2012
Syrian internet cut-off (Aside)
Syrian internet cut-off
"In some countries, international access to data and telecommunications services is heavily regulated. There may be only one or two companies who hold official licenses to carry voice and Internet traffic to and from the outside world, and they are required by law to mediate access for everyone else".
Picture of world and country's risk of cut-off
As the world becomes more industrialized, there will be less and less fear about an internet cut-off or blackout. However, we do have a lot of developing countries where internet does not have as much as a foothold on their way of life. When they are dependent on the internet, as we are here in the United States, is when there will be no threat of a cut-off. However, I would like to know if there was a circumstance where a country cut-off internet for an extended amount of time, if other countries would be able to transmit it via satellites? If this is a possibility, then no countries would run the risk of being cut-off completely for long durations. This would change a lot in the heat of revolution if the internet, throughout Syria for example, could not be controlled by a government within its boundaries.
The fact that so many countries are inept to an internet blackout means they will always have the resource available, and thus connected in a way that our culture depends on. When secure internet does eventually travel to countries of high-risk blackouts, that simply means the governments of those areas loose power over that resource. This could lead to reform of governments across the globe, aided by the internet as seen in the Middle East.
Overall, it is inevitable that the internet will eventually travel across the globe as our technology improves. However, this can be seen as a good feat as more areas of the world will be heard on this platform, and be able to voice their concerns. Every day we are becoming more reliant on the internet, and receive more information from it (or at least have more information at our disposal). When those countries are able to voice their concerns without a threat of a cut-off, the rest of the world will be (hopefully) able and willing to lend a helping hand.
"In some countries, international access to data and telecommunications services is heavily regulated. There may be only one or two companies who hold official licenses to carry voice and Internet traffic to and from the outside world, and they are required by law to mediate access for everyone else".
Picture of world and country's risk of cut-off
As the world becomes more industrialized, there will be less and less fear about an internet cut-off or blackout. However, we do have a lot of developing countries where internet does not have as much as a foothold on their way of life. When they are dependent on the internet, as we are here in the United States, is when there will be no threat of a cut-off. However, I would like to know if there was a circumstance where a country cut-off internet for an extended amount of time, if other countries would be able to transmit it via satellites? If this is a possibility, then no countries would run the risk of being cut-off completely for long durations. This would change a lot in the heat of revolution if the internet, throughout Syria for example, could not be controlled by a government within its boundaries.
The fact that so many countries are inept to an internet blackout means they will always have the resource available, and thus connected in a way that our culture depends on. When secure internet does eventually travel to countries of high-risk blackouts, that simply means the governments of those areas loose power over that resource. This could lead to reform of governments across the globe, aided by the internet as seen in the Middle East.
Overall, it is inevitable that the internet will eventually travel across the globe as our technology improves. However, this can be seen as a good feat as more areas of the world will be heard on this platform, and be able to voice their concerns. Every day we are becoming more reliant on the internet, and receive more information from it (or at least have more information at our disposal). When those countries are able to voice their concerns without a threat of a cut-off, the rest of the world will be (hopefully) able and willing to lend a helping hand.
What is Intellectual property?
What is Intelectual Property?
Industrial Property includes patents for inventions, trademarks, industrial designs and geographical indications.
Copyright covers literary works (such as novels, poems and plays), films, music, artistic works (e.g., drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures) and architectural design. Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances, producers of phonograms in their recordings, and broadcasters in their radio and television programs.
Where are patents and copyrights going in, say, 20 years? We are having problems with them now, will these problems extrapolate? Also, do you think will the penalties get worse?
My personal feelings about intelectual property are a give and take feeling. I see re-creating music as a beneficial and creative means, however those who do that are subject to copyright infringement. I am also an advertising major, and would not find it acceptable for someone to take hard copy, such as print advertising, and re-create that. I feel there is a difference between tangible and non-tangible things that restricts someone from infringing on others' copyrights and intelectual property.
Girl Talk documentary synopsis, A Remix Manifesto
A Remix Manifesto trailer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)