No Privacy AND You're Busted. Thanks Facebook.

I grew up in the generation of 'Mean Girls.' And although the whole 'Mean Girls' movement that consists of rumors, bitchiness (yes that is a real word), and ‘secrets’ has existed long before I was born, the internet has created an entirely new playing field for social drama and ‘privacy’ invasion. Wikipedia defines internet privacy as “the ability to control what information one reveals about oneself over the Internet, and to control who can access that information.”

Where secrets were once whispered from ear to ear at school lunch tables, teenagers and young adults are now sharing personal information within a much larger public domain: the internet. The difference is simple: persistence, searchability, replicability, and invisible audiences (Boyd 2007). In high school cafeteria terms, say for instance you whispered to your best friend that you have a crush on a boy named John. The equivalent to this being on the internet would be like writing ‘I LIKE JOHN’ with a permanent sharpie on the cafeteria wall. (1) It is not going anywhere anytime soon (persistence). (2) It is not hard to find (searchability). (3) Your friends are taking pictures of it with their camera phones, to save and send to others (replicability). (4) It is written in a place where not only friends, but other students and faculty can also read of your little love affair (invisible audiences).

Clearly I want to focus on the social aspect of internet privacy rather than the many issues dealing with social security and credit card numbers. Being a girl, I’ve come to the conclusion that the only privacy you will ever have is with the relationship between yourself and… yourself. The only information that can ever remain entirely confidential is the information that never leaves your mouth, or in the case of the internet . . . your fingertips.

The ‘I Have a Crush on John’ explanation of the difference between the privacy with face to face disclosure and internet disclosure may seem elementary, but continue to use this example and think about it. If a rumor or secret is spread via word of mouth throughout your high school hallways, your instinct is to what? DENY IT, duh. Words are merely words, they are not tangible unless recorded (and I highly doubt your best friend would have a tape recorder out during lunch). However, when you post something on the internet it proves our recurring theme of COM125: that information is ‘alive’ on the internet. It is printable, which makes it tangible and if you find yourself in a position where you would for some reason need to contradict what you have posted (statements, pictures), you are going to find yourself in a hell of a predicament.

The need to possibly contradict or retract information that you have disclosed online brings me to my main point: audiences. “Of course, two audiences cause participants the greatest headaches: those who hold power over them and those who want to prey on them. The former primarily consists of parents, teachers, bosses, and other authorities.” (Boyd 2007) Basically, no one is invincible to the invisible audience.

A recent issue dealing with exactly that, the recent Facebook incident with University at Buffalo basketball player Andy Robinson hits a little too close to home here in our school community. In regards to Boyd’s classification of audiences, Robinson’s coach, and the University as a whole, was the audience who held power over him, and a fellow student was the audience who preyed on him. Robinson posted the following in a Facebook forum :

“I am paying anybody who have read the book ‘there are no children here’ by Alex Kotlowitz $30-40 which in some classes you have to read at UB (even more money if you have to read the book a little more!!) to write a 3-4 page paper, on a couple questions which was assigned.”

Upon spotting this post, a UB student turned in the information to The Spectrum, and Robinson was busted. Case in point, the internet can, and will, blow up anyone’s spot. So, don’t put yourself in that position!

Rodney McKissic wrote a short article concerning the issue on BuffaloNews.com. Here is the article:

No more Facebook

Don't expect any University at Buffalo basketball players with profiles on Facebook or MySpace anytime soon.

UB coach Reggie Witherspoon was clueless on how Facebook and MySpace works until last week when junior guard Andy Robinson solicted help for a reading assignement on his Facebook page. Robinson, who led the team in scoring last season, was suspended indefinitely.

Witherspoon held a meeting with his players and those who had either Facebook or MySpace pages had them removed.

"I didn't have to put in a policy, they all agreed to get rid of them," Witherspoon said. "They all thought the pages were private, but I was able to see all their profiles. Nothing's private on the Internet."

As for Robinson, Witherspoon said he's been contrite and has written a letter of apoligy to the entire UB student body.

"He understands that he's made a terrible mistake," Witherspoon said.

---Rodney McKissic

So, the reaction to the disaster was for every player to remove their social networking pages. To me, I think that was the best way to handle the situation. As mentioned in class, when talking about the exposure of celebrities and their rights to copyright (Arnold Schwarzenegger bobble head), the higher up you are socially the less privacy you tend to have. I mean, UB is not exactly that amazing of a basketball team, nor have they made the tournament in God knows how many years, but the point is that players are put on a pedestal within the school community, and the risks of using social networks like Facebook (especially the way that Robinson did) are even greater than the risks that an average student takes.

People will continue to post personal pictures and information on social networking sites, and I believe that Aquisti describes it perfectly: “People can’t make intelligent (privacy) choices. People realize there could be future costs, but they decide not to focus on those costs.” (Boyd 2007) All I can relate internet privacy to is that the internet and its social networks are like a miserably failed version of the Panopticon. Someone could always be watching, but we don’t necessarily care.

Sources:

Boyd, D. (2007). Social Networking Sites: Public, Private, or What? Retrieved 25 September, 2008, from Creative Commons Web site: http://www.danah.org/papers/KnowledgeTree.pdf

Sullivan, Bob. (2006, October). “Privacy Lost: Does Anybody Care?” Retrieved September 25, 2008 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221095/

Internet Privacy.” (2008, September). From Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, Retrieved September 25, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_privacy

McKissic, Rodney. (2008, April). "No More Facebook." Retrieved September 25, 2008 from http://buffalonews.typepad.com/campus/2008/04/no-more-faceboo.html#comments

Uh, RateMyProfessor is Getting Me Through College.

“She said you weren’t exchanging gifts . . . you believed her.” This is a quote off of one of our Keystone Light boxes (I know, I know, real classy). Point being, the Keystone Light motto is ‘Always smooth, even when you’re not,’ and the above quote made me laugh because every guy should know that they should never believe a girl when she says you aren’t exchanging gifts. Relationships are totally and completely centered on the expectation of reciprocation… instant reciprocation. Luckily, these are not the only types of relationships that one must participate in throughout life; thank God for gift and public goods economies online! Need information to make your life easier without the burden of having to immediately give back? The World Wide Web will be the best relationship you have ever committed to; it is the ideal boyfriend/girlfriend of the 21^st century. Turn them on or off at your convenience, get what you need and get the heck out . . . that is until the next time you need something. Okay, I realize I just made these economies seem like free prostitutes, but I just wanted to really highlight the positives.

Getting down to business, Peter Kollock highlights Rheingold’s idea that “interaction in one online community as consisting of a gift economy, in which help and information is offered without the expectation of any direct, immediate quid-pro-quid.” Think about it this way, just as we discussed how downloading music files is addicting (because it is fast and free), we actually obtain much more information from the web than we think. Can’t cook? Recipes.com. Need a definition? Search through Wikipedia or Dictionary.com. Internet users are constantly absorbing new and useful information everyday through gift economies.

After reading up on gift economies, the first example that immediately came to mind was RateMyProfessor.com. I can honestly say that I attribute almost all of my college success to this website. Because of the comments/warnings/encouragement of students who have experienced certain classes and teachers, I have been able to create an ideal schedule.

College isn’t easy. Taking a few minutes to read over a potential professor on this website saves me the time and energy of having to sign up for the class and later realize that ‘hey, I’m screwed!’ In college, your peers are prime resources for almost everything you do. In Healy293’s blog, when talking about his fraternity, he discusses that, “We have notes and past tests dating back to 2004 in which a current member can use them to study or help them in some way.” This is similar to how RateMyProfessor.com helps students, except since it is online it benefits much more people.

The convenience of online gift economies reduces coordination costs. Kollack brings up a good point in saying, “People can meet, plan, and discuss issues without regard to physical location or time.” This goes hand in hand with what I said about saving time and energy having to experience something for myself. I do not have to search around campus asking random people if they have ever had a certain teacher; the chances are also pretty slim considering UB has about 30,000 students.

Kollack concentrates much of his article on the issue of the motivation to reciprocate and not just take when using gift economies (no free information prostitutes… that’s just rude). He says that the motivation to share information with an online group is the anticipated reciprocity (Kollack 1993). In other words, when I use RateMyProfessor.com, if I add comments about my own professors, I do so in hopes of keeping the flow of information alive and up to date; therefore, when I log on next semester, I will be reciprocated when there are recent evaluations of the professors that I look up. It is all a give and take, it just is not always an instant give or an instant take. I can honestly say, as well as vouch for many of my friends (from all different universities) that because 'RateMyProfessor' has been so valuable to us, that it is motivation for us to help others in the same way.

Gift economies of information online give users a feeling of not being alone. We all need information, and we all need each other’s help and expertise; it makes life easier! Also, if there is a possibility for bonus points in this blog, I’ll be sure to give Lackaff a good write up, yet your resume is already looking pretty stacked : Professor Lackaff.

Resources:

Kollock, P. (1999, January). The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace. University of California, Los Angeles, Retrieved September 17, 2008, from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm

http://adamhirsch293.blogspot.com/2008/09/online-economies.html

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=926939&page=2

(sorry I still really need to take time and figure out how to properly cite, don't worry I'll get it)

Back to COM125

Conscious Kleptomaniacs and Technological Addicts

Illegally downloading music is an addiction. I know that clichés are not allowed, however, I am giving myself permission to blog metaphorically. There are many areas in the issue of copyright infringement that can be discussed, but we all know that music downloads are the most prevalent in the life of a college student. So what is the metaphor? Simple: we are all conscious kleptomaniacs and technological addicts. Any government law or corporation’s attempt to stop us from downloading is merely as unsuccessful as Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears taking a trip to rehab. Our generation has learned since probably the third grade that smoking causes cancer, yet millions of young adults still continue to smoke. Likewise, internet users and music fans will continue to download until there are absolutely no ways to beat the system (which there always are).

The goal of this assignment is for us to be creative and find a compromise that benefits creators/ artists and the public. Yet after reading all of the required material, as well as browsing the internet, I became so frustrated with trying to write this blog because I realized that I could not (pardon my informality and language), but I could not even bullshit an idea that included any laws, restrictions or technological vocabulary because I do not think that any plan of action will ever be truly effective in stopping the sharing/downloading of music files.

Exhibit A: My Roommate Mackenzie… (I recorded exact quotes… it was a sensitive subject)

Me: “Have you ever been accused of copyright infringement?”

Mackenzie: “Yes, I am a f-ing victim of having to spend hours of my precious time watching stupid videos and taking pointless tests on the consequences of illegally downloading music onto my computer.”

Me: “Who caught you?”

Mackenzie: “F-ing UB Micro. I was targeted because I purchased my computer through UB, and because I gave them my computer to fix a minor cosmetic problem, they took advantage of the situation by searching though my personal content and ‘stumbling’ across about 1,500 of my ‘illegally’ downloaded songs.”

Me: “With the number of music downloaders not only in our country, but internationally, why do you think that you were specifically targeted?”

Mackenzie: “At first I had no idea, but after watching the videos I actually learned that record companies have asked UB, who they consider an institution, to monitor any illegal downloading done on campus through their networks.”

Me: “What scared you the most about the situation?”

Mackenzie: “Depending on my next offense, and how many songs I am caught with, I could be charged anywhere from $25-$125 per song.”

Me: “So, have you stopped downloading music?”

Mackenzie: “I tried really hard to stop for a few months, but the music is at my fingertips (not to mention that it is free)! So, yes I still download music.”

Notice her last comment, she kind of sounds like a crack fiend, don’t you think? The internet basically dangles MP3 files in your face if you have even the slightest clue as to how to use the internet. I do not mean to come across as ignorant or pessimistic. I do realize that from a creator/artist’s perspective that they financially draw the shorter straw, yet I also believe that their exposure (whether or not it is downloaded for free) opens up even more opportunities for them. After everything I read about copyright infringement I should probably be rambling off statistics about declining CD sales or backing up intellectual property, but I can’t. In the musical aspect of sharing files, I believe that easy access is not about money, it is about sharing culture and art.

“Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution provides the basis for copyright and other forms of intellectual property law in the United States (Orvalle, 2005).” I mean, clearly it is important, yet not even the laws of our founding fathers can be preserved; the internet is too powerful, and people want to want to get their hands on everything.

I’d say threaten users with fees, but as my roommate has proven, that does not seem to be too effective. I’d say make CDs cheaper, but nothing will ever be as better than what is FREE. My only suggestion, which is pretty farfetched, would be to find a way to completely shut down all file sharing networks. Excuse me while I go listen to my iPod.

COM 125 Assignment 2 : Seeing Is Believing: JPEG images

In life, as is with the Internet, often the most simple, yet significant things are overlooked. Our generation has grown up in a judgmental society; we are never willing to fully take into consideration the words of another, whether it be a friend or a company, because for us, seeing is believing. This is especially true in the online world.
Where would the World Wide Web be today without photos? It would be lifeless. The Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) formed in 1986. The group issued a standard for photographic files in 1992, and it was approved in 1994 (Wikipedia, 1998).
The JPEG standard intertwines both a codec and a file format to produce images. A codec is "a device or program capable of encoding and/or decoding a digital data stream or signal. The word codec may be a combination of any of the following: 'compressor-decompressor', 'coder-decoder', or 'compression/decompression algorithm'"(Wikipedia, 2008).
JPEG compresses images into a stream of bytes and decompresses them back into an image, and then specifies the file format used to contain that stream (Wikipedia, 2008).
The most commonly used form of this process on the web is called lossy compression. As the name implies, a small portion of the data being compressed is lost, reducing some of the quality of the image. However, this loss of data is far from drastic, and it has proven to be the most popular and efficient way to transfer photos to the web.
Now that the basics of the technical and historical aspects of JPEGs have been discussed, I need you to truly think for a moment. I can say with confidence that if the web did not have photos, all of our lives would be drastically different. Photos on the web control both how we spend our time and how we present ourselves, whether we realize it or not.
Nothing has changed since we were children. Picture books have always been more fascinating than text, and likewise, images provided on the web serve the public more than any amount of words could possibly manage. The only difference: instead of flipping a page, we are now clicking a mouse. JPEG images are fast, simple, and truly define the web.
How much time would an average college student spend on Facebook if the only information they could retrieve were by means of text? That's right, no pictures means: no stalking, no casually 'browsing' for attractive others, and no visual evidence to see who was doing what last weekend. Excuse my informality in my writing, but wouldn't you say that kind of sucks the fun out of Facebook? As much as our generation would love to deny it, we are an insecure, and judgmental group of people. Photos on Facebook serve as a convenient personal resume without words. We not only present ourselves, but we compare friends to friends, and decide who are potential friends will be. As discussed in class, the web is alive. Sure, you can de-tag yourself in a picture if you feel it does not represent you well, but that picture is still consuming space on the web; it is not a physical medium that can be ripped up and thrown away. In a way, it is kind of scary, but extremely engaging and addicting at the same time.
Now, in a a business and marketing perspective, imagine Ebay or any online store for that matter, without photos. Online shopping would be almost nonexistent if it were not for the instant photo representation of products. Purchasing something online would be like walking into a store blindfolded and actually listening and believing everything that comes out of the sales person's mouth. Humans need at least some amount of visual aid to make decisions in life, especially when it comes to what they are spending their money on.
Lastly, the introduction of JPEG images to the World Wide Web has not only put images of friends and commercial products at our finger tips, but has also succeeded in bringing the world of pornography to the homes of whoever needs an instant 'sexual upper'.. if you will. Let's be honest, sex was everywhere before the World Wide Web was ever created, yet the web has provided a way for anyone to just browse or even view on a regular basis pornographic images. Quickly uploaded JPEG files have visually stimulated millions over the years. The fact that these images are so easily accessible and provide decent quality, viewers can look at images at their own leisure, and without the embarrassment of one may feel when buying a pornographic magazine from a store.
In essence, images on the web both consume and save our time, influence how we spend our money, and provide all kinds of stimulation and information without text. The JPEG standard may seem like a simple invention/technology, but it is this medium that truly brings the World Wide Web to life.

Back To Class Blog.