Archive
Digital Divide and Social Systems
“Digital Divide refers to the gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard both to their opportunities to access information and communications technologies (ICT’s) and to their use of the Internet for a wide variety of activities”[1]
It also talks about the importance of making sure that technologies are used and access equally by everyone no matter where they come from, where they live, what is their level of education, and what is their financial situation. But such fair access is not that simple.
Social Systems, cultures and the level of development in countries play a crucial part in making technology accessible and used properly by the people.
Just like the exmaple in the book, when technology was provided for the Irish population without educating them about its importance and why it is needed, not many people started using these technologies after three years of equipting the population with all the technology they need. Or do they need it really?
Technology has been created to make our life easier, but before starting to use it we should understand a very important thing. Technology is just a small part of the whole picture. The full picture includes people, tools and processes. There should be clear processes designed for everything we do in life starting from cleaning up your home, maintaining your car, managing the traffic in the streets to governing and properly ruling the world. Technology is just a tool that implements such a processes and methods to help make is easier and more efficient to proceed. Lastly, we need people who are educated, trained and skilled to use this technology and implement those processes. If any of these three is not considered then technology can simply be meaningless.
In Conclusion, the concept of digital divide should be extended and include all involved parts of the issue to be complete and successful.
——-
[1] http://www.apdip.net/publications/iespprimers/eprimer-egov.pdf
Globalization from a Different Perspective
In the book we discuss Globalization and arguments for and against the concept. But without looking at the professional view of the whole concept, thinking about Globalization as an individual who live on earth, do you see the move a globalization as a good or a bad step for the future?
As a concept it is a very interesting one which I believe would connect the whole world together, open new doors and opportunities for everyone around the world, help each part of our home earth bring what it is best at for everyone to share. But why are there many people against it?
Globalization has many advantages; it increased the competition and production from providers from all over the world, can improve unemployment in poorer countries, can help develop third world countries, and help reduce unrest and increase more stability.
What is really worrying and unclear is how much power the World Trade Organization (WTO) would over the whole world if Globalization is fully implemented?
One of the main problems complained about is how much power WTO would have where other governments should subordinate to the WTO. Based on the book, WTO also gets to make the rules for globalization without anybody electing them. If this becomes official and global then whole world would be controlled by WTO, which means that no country, government or party has any kind of independency or freedom of choice. If this is true, then the conspiracy theory of New World Order can become true. How can we avoid that? How can we change and improve the concept of globalization to benifit from it universally and give ourselves and souls for WTO to control the whole world? Where is our role as individuals to assure that this never happens?
Internet Addiction
Internet Addiction is a very critical subject that is becoming more and more crucial to study and understand with the increase use of technology in our every day life. Many Psychologists declare that Internet Addiction is as real as drug and alcohol addiction.
But is there any difference between such addiction and other kinds of addiction? Do we enable Internet Addiction with our unlimited and increasing dependency on technology in our everyday life?
Many people’s work depend on the internet if it is not internet based. In addition, software developers for example sometimes need to work 15-18 hours a day to finish a critical part of the code. Is this considered addiction too? Aren’t major companies (ex: Microsoft, enabling such extensive use of computers and the internet?
Many of those “addicted” users are actually the ones helped further all the technologies that we use today. So is it really a bad thing to stay online for long hours at a time? or is it a good useful thing for improving the world and the technologies used.
Michael Jackson and Anti-Gravity Shoes
Micheal Jackson was not only the King of Pop. He also an inventor. He invented the anti-gravity shoes that were used to shoot “Smooth Criminal” video. These shoes give you the illusion of anti-gravity.
This patent is a very interesting one and unlike usual ones that usual serve a certain issue or problem, or used a product to attract customers. This patent was intended for pure entertainment and illusion in the video clip.
Many fans recreated the shoes trying o imitate Michael jackson’s invention with hundreds of videos posted showing them dancing with the shoes and imitating the anti-gravity move. In this case, there were no sues against anyone duplicating the work as infringing the patent. Which is also interesting since we always hear about settlements and cases for patent infringements.
If you are interested to read more about how this invention works, please press on the link below:
Patents and the ridiculous path it is taking
Amazon, Apple, Paypal and Victoria’s secret have been sued for using the 1-click technology by Cordance corp claiming they own its patent[1]. Yet we also know that Amazon sued Apple and other companies for using the same technology declaring that
Patents is a very crucial system to give their creator of a certain technology the right to own it, but nowadays it feels like anything can be patented, whether it is worth it or not, and whether it is too simple of an idea to be patented or not.
In addition, many companies sue others for using patents they initial created or declared but never improved on the idea, worked on it or made it available for the public. Should’t there be some kind of limitation to patents? for example for forfeiting a patent if the initial owner of the patent does not work on his idea?
—–
[1] http://techland.time.com/2011/03/16/apple-paypal-amazon-sued-over-one-click-checkout-technology/
USA Patriot Act and its contreversy
The Book Discusses the USA Patriot Act and the intention of this act. This act has been developed after 9/11 for the purpose of protecting US citizens and to find terrorist to possible terror attacks that may take action in the USA.
This act has been abused by the FBI, US attornies and many more parties in the USA. It is a very controversial act. Many people objected to this act but it all has been ignored. Such act threats the privacy of individuals. Although it is declared to protect individuals, but isnt it harming them more than doing any good.
Even when the act was updated. It simply became more specific and detailed to give more power to the government over individuals. How can people change this, where is the democracy and freedom of opinion? Is this Big Brother becoming the reality of life? Was George Orwell right about what the world is coming to?
Microsoft Using Android As a Cash Cow!?
Based on the following Article, Microsoft is suing or requiring licensing fees from a large number of companies that make Android phones and tablets. Such companies are Samsung and HTC: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Microsoft+have+found+unlikely+cash+Android/5095399/story.html
Source: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Microsoft+have+found+unlikely+cash+Android/5095399/story.html
Is what Microsoft doing ethical? and why is it suing Google’s consumers and not Google itself? In the article they talk about how big companies do not sue eachother, but Isn’t better for google to settle some kind of licensing fee with Microsoft instead of enabling Microsoft to follow every company that tries to make Android products? Wouldn’t this actually affect Android production and sale more than having one clear and direct settlement between Google and Microsoft?
In addition, if they claim Android is using many of their patented technologies, then why aren’t they suing apple since Android OS is very similar to the iOS? or since they have some shares in Apple they are protecting their own personal gain?
Filter Bubbles
Mr. Eli Pariser on TED discusses the importance of having equal and uncensored or controlled access of information on the internet, nad the danger of letting comapnies like Google, facebook, yahoo, and many more control and tailor the information passed to us on our web. Please find below the link to the video:
Mr. Elie calls those tailored Web searches and information as Filter Bubbles. This is a very interesting way of percieving all those complicated algorithms that help individuals today customize their search, flow of information, and their internet habbits and lifestyle.
Today Google for example studies what kind of search you make, and what do you usually find interesting to filter out your search resuts for what they think “you want to see” or “you are looking for”. Is this a good or a bad move? is it really isolating us from all of the other information that we do not know about? is this disconnecting us from what is really going on? are we getting only part of the truth out there?
Mr. Praiser also states the importance of improving such algorithms to consider other factor that what we usually like to see. For example what is important, what is uncomfortable, what is challenging and many more perspectives. It also should have some kind of ethical understanding embedded in it. If this can be implemented then such algorithms can be come as intelligent as a human or even maybe more. Such intelligent Robots may solve the problem Mr. Praiser is discussing, but wouldn’t this raise a new problem? A problem that we have seen many times in movie and read about in Novels, where machines become much more intelligent than the human race and they start controlling our world? Is this possible? and if it is, is it a good or a bad thing?
Facebook Banning Google+ Advertisement
Based in this Article: http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/15/google-ad-on-facebook-is-banned/, Facebook is banning Google+ advertisements. Many people are complaining about that which makes you wonder, doesn’t Facebook has the right to do that? You never see advertisements on CBS for NBC, Adidas advertising Nike, or Coca-Cola promoting Pepsi. So why should Facebook be treated any differently? Google + explicitly declared that its challenging Facebook, which means the previous examples fit in the same category as Facebook vs. Google+.
In the class blog we are discussing if this is a net neutrality issue. Is it? Facebook is not blocking or deleting messages or wall posts sent by Facebook users to each other about Google+. People are even using Facebook to ask for Google+ invitations. If Facebook blocked or deleted such messages you would wonder if it is a net neutrality issue. Even if they do want to delete such messages, do you blame them? How would you feel if others are using your product to use another. This reminds me of a Banned commercial for Pepsi and Coca-Cola: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAP2yVsgI6c
Is this a proper use of ones product to get another? should we enable this or stop it?
Please Rob Me
In the Class, we were given an example of a website that gathers information from twitter posts about people outside of their homes and posts them to the website for everyone to see. The website is called “Please Rob Me”. The creators of this website declare that they have created it for awareness purposes. Should we respect their purpose and thank them for the awareness or should they be punished for publishing information about people without their permission? Or wait a minute! if someone tweets something that is accessible by anyone, can he declare later that it is private information?
Today many individuals share they current locations whether using phone GPS and services like “Latitude” from google, snapping pictures with their locations tagged to it, facebook updated, or tweets. There are many more ways they share such information. When someone creates a website like “Please Rob Me”, what is the propoer action to take?
Rules, regulations, rights, law, and morals are becoming more vague and mixed together every day. It is not easy to differentiate between what you are ought and not ought to do, what is legal and what is not, what are the rights of an individual and where it stops. So how can we improve this and help define it clearly? What is every individuals role in making our world a better and more secure place to live in?
Computers And Society 
