thursdays assignment

Do you guys want to split up the chapters for Thursday. Corey and I talked after class and thought since there was a substantial amount of reading that it would be a good idea to all take different chapters. I am not going to be in class on Thursday but I can e-mail everyone my notes if they post their email addresses they check most regularly on here. 

-Anna-

Andrejevic definitely writes from the grounds of persuasion and he definitely gives people some valuable information.  The perils of digital enclosure are scary for some and have probably served as a great wake up call for people who are scandalous web surfers.  Twenty pages of information held by a Dr. X type mystery character is way to much dirt for a corporate exec or rising student about to enter the job market.  iSpy acts to inform people about the free information they are providing and what exactly it becomes after companies get a hold of it.

After reading and strongly considering points of his, I still see no harm in what is going on.  There is little harm, I believe, in making my click stream visible to some computer spider somewhere in some magical eWorld.  I use YouTube, Google, HWS Webmail, Facebook, ESPN, and some various product websites for fun, information, and yes surveilling my friends.  You can find any song, sport, or home video complete with broken bones and ER visits on YouTube, but nothing that I have searched for will ever be held against me or slander-ous if others find out.  Google is also a service where anything is available but I doubt anything in "my file" is bad and harmful to my image.  I strongly stand by the fact that a free public internet is better than an expensive private internet, and that is our other alternative.  I'm sure Google and Facebook would gladly take our money instead of the ad agencies if they thought they could get it or they thought we would pay.  Most people would not.  Here digital enclosure comes in to play as well; as people ask why they can just take our information and sell it off.  A) They are not taking it, we're giving them everything they are using and B) it becomes their information as soon as we type it into their search engines.  In essence it is just useless information that somehow turns into millions in the eyes of corporations, I think.  

Also, Adrejevic stresses government surveillance as a negative.  I personally think it is awesome that the government can scan keywords and track electronics as it can.  Maybe this is because I believe the government to be good, unlike some others, who think it is a freedom ruining machine.  Does it scare me, hell yeah it does, but I don't have internet child porn affiliations, school bombing plans, or a quest to fly planes into buildings to worry about them uncovering.  If you don't either, then why not take a deep breath and start worrying about bigger things in life.

Who really cares if my clickstream shows that I went to Facebook, looked at some pics, posted on some walls, went to Google to find out how to make cocktails and what Lil Wayne got arrested for this week? Apparently Ticketmaster and Absolut Vodka do because that's what pops up on the sidebar...cool, iSay.

-Tom

Finishing Andrejevic

Finishing iSpy left me with a very new perspective of the world I live in. They way he was able to categorize everything of 'our present world' and put is so straight forward of whats been happening and who has been watching was very mind altering. He is able to restructure the present situation so that you can reexamine your current situation or at least bring awareness to it. The point that was not that clear to me was in the imdia, that prof Dean, covered later in class and really broke it down. The power of the point Andrejevic was trying to prove was some what lost on me until prof explained it. The way that we attach ourselves to things like crappy shows, and the appeal of being an insider keeps you hooked. I think overall Andrejevic was a little to wordy. The chapters could have been a little shorter, sometimes, like in iwar he becomes repetitive. Having finished this book, it has definetly changed my views on interactivity. I had no clue the level of depth that people are being tracked online and that they are selling that information only to target the individuals more. Also, the idea that in ordering online and "customizing" our products we are falling deeper into this digital enclosure. I would say my only complaint is that I don't think it is to much the consumers fault for letting this get to where we are today. I think that really the repsonsibility falls on the government. They have done a fantastic job and keeping this all quiet and spinning it in ways that could possible seem unimaginable. It is more than likely that the government uses the information gathered by companies only fueling the fire the keep this going. But overall I enjoyed the book and it has completely changed my perspective on digital enclosure.
Corey

"Loyal to crappy television, devoted to making garbage better"

    Today's discussion really helped me understand Andrejevic. Our class revolved around the issues Andrejevic raises in iMedia and to some degree iPolitics. iCulture was the chapter that I was 'responsible' for, for this past Tuesday and I admit  I got a little frustrated with his insistent talk about his example of Television Without Pity. I clearly missed his point about 'the savvy consumer' and our complacency of having knowledge, but not insisting change. To reiterate Professor Dean's point of , "We all like to be insiders " is something I can absolutely identify with. We have an attachment to our submission. 

  

   Andrejevic's claim about the sense of contributing to our demise may be too strong a criticism of America's citizens. A point that was brought up in class, by JD (correct me if I'm wrong) was, who cares if in my free time I go and watch a crappy television show and then review it online?Andrejevic seemed to be overly concerned with this phenomenon. I do however disagree with the statement that was made in class about how Andrejevic didn't have a standpoint. He absolutely does,  he is concerned but perhaps he is overly critical? What do others think?

-Anna-

Class thoughts

I both liked and disliked certain things about class this past Tuesday. I like when we break off into groups because I think smaller groups make it easier to learn from your peers. I thought writing on the chalkboard was beneficial because other people who were assigned the same chapter could compare and contrast. Especially if you didn't read the whole chapter or missed some main points. We should have done the count off system differently by having people of the same chapter assignment get together then find other numbers, this prevents people from constantly switching fours for fives fives for fours and on. Having class discussions not only keeps people constantly engaged but the times flies as well.

Last class as opposed to the one before

I really didn't enjoy our last class nearly as much as the one before. I thought the long discussion really got a lot of people involved and answered a lot of our questions. This "scanning" the blackboard for ideas and interests just did not work at all for me. I thought 2 classes ago was great. We really got into some good stuff thagt people were passionate about and I was quite dissapointed that we did not do that again. I bet that if we discussed each chapter as a group everyone would have learned WAY more...but thats just me
-Matt

Class Readings

Hey do we want to split the readings and post according to chapters? Or just everyone do your own?

Delete Cyberbullying

Cyberbullything... It's just like regular bullying, but with more transaction fees.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1831186

-Matt

Abe says...

I enjoyed this past class because everyone seemed engaged and participated. I like how we went outside the traditional class format with a teacher just lecturing and just had an all out class discussion. We learn from each other and contribute to each others learning experience this way. I think we should push the teaching day back a week so we can be more prepared. I still need to finish reading the book and the section that's the focus of my teaching.
The first three weeks of this class have been quite an adventure. Blogging has been such a positive experience because since I spend a good amount of my time on the internet, the coursework for this class has come easy to me so far. I'm glad we don't have a syllabus because it gives students a chance to learn from each other and it gives the teacher options and flexibility which I have enjoyed so far.

class discussion & organization

For me, Thursday's class discussion was a little bit  frustrating to me. I liked that we didn't just put the conversation we had previously been having  on Tuesday on the back burner, but a more structured atmosphere could potentially yield a better discussion. What do others think? These are extremely important issues, the question of public and private information on the internet, and it is hard to tell someone that their opinions and levels of comfort regarding privacy is wrong. We are obviously all raised differently and in different environments, so it is inevitable that people are going to have strong positions and feelings towards surveillance and issues of privatization. 

As for a new format to discussing such heated debates like we had on Thursday, everyone could come with something written regarding their position, providing a center for discussion rather than a free for all. What do others think?

-Anna-

privatization (public and private)

The idea of the privatization of information verses what is considered public information and the degree to which we are comfortable with that should be thought of on an individual level. Why are we asking others to justify our position on privacy?  Our discussion started out revolving around the issue of whether people cared whether companies data mined us, or those who felt it was an invasion of privacy. The point that was brought up was "who are you to tell someone that they can't feel uncomfortable with being data mined" and I completely agree with that. Some people feel there is nothing to hide (another point that was brought up in regard to the point-we do have something to hide. For example embarrassing Facebook pictures).  I have nothing to hide but I still don't want people knowing what I search on Google or any other search engine. An interesting point about searching was the degree of manipulation and interpretation that is involved when companies own your information. With the amount of advanced technology out there, the ways of manipulation is significantly easier. (for instance, Photoshop). This is rather terrifying for me. Something that I could be searching for to write a paper on terrorism, or white supremacy (examples from class) could be misconstrued, which could be catastrophic for the individual->again the example of the FBI coming to HWS.

 An interesting point that was raised was do we have a choice about whether we use Google. Of course we have a choice, but think about how hard it is not to?Maybe this shows we are complacent and dependent on the internet, but should we be penalized for this with our own identities? 

-Anna-

The limitless internet

The internet over the past fifteen years has grown from a small idea to an enormous, nearly limitless superhighway. A phrase I often heard while growing up in my adolescence years is having "anything at your fingertips". I believe America's greed has fueled this unstoppable force we know as the internet. In my opinion the internet takes this phrase too literally. A few clicks here and a few clicks there and boom! you can easily access a person's home address and phone number. Teenagers are the main people suffering from the internet's growth spurt. Just yesterday I was watching a automobile commercial and I liked the song I heard in the background, this prompted me to look it up and lo and behold I found it ten seconds! I don't believe there are any limits left because convenience overpowers censorship. This limitless cyberspace leaves me with several questions:
For a teenage student, whats the use of doing homework when you can get the answers online?

Why watch television shows and music videos when you can download them from Limewire and Bittorent?

Why even go to class when you can enroll in online classes?

I believe the limits that are left are within people's own judgment. For instance, if there's an artist you enjoy, you would rather support that artist and buy the album though you have the convenient option of downloading it in minutes. Same goes for college, I would rather physically be on a college campus and live, sweat and breathe the college experience. My main point is that if people limit themselves there are limits left, if they want the easy life then the world is realistically at your fingertips...

America and the Internet

Do you think that the majority of American have even the slightest clue they are being watched? I would highly doubt it. If the average American knew that companies have over 20 pages of information on them there would be an uprising. Even in class, I did not know that google reads your personal emails. If I ever had an issue with information on the internet and advertising, this is where I draw my line. To being reading what I assume almost everyone thought was personal, is a big deal to me and the privacy (I thought) it appears to the masses is very different.
Corey

When does your public information become private and vice versa

The line between what is ok for the internet community to know and what isn't ok is directly drawn by the person. If you don't want Google or Facebook to know about your life, then don't sign up and post your life details on their FREE pages. There is a reason why they can be free to us, and I bet you can guess what it is. They sell stuff. Google "does aol read email" and the results will be a lot different than the results for "does google read email." One is free and one is not.
Also, I don't think there is a huge difference between the internet community and a physical Geneva NY community. There are good guys and bad guys in both places, the internet just seems more secretive because its all faceless interaction. Those who are supposedly stalking you online are google employees and probably could care less about your emails to your wife or buddies about your weekend in Vegas. I think you are much more likely to run into a more dangerous stalker in the mall parking lot. And so what if they know where you live, that would be an easy thing to figure out anyway. Along the same lines, the school directory taken as a breach of privacy? Are you kidding? It's completely normal and should be treated that way.
One more thing, all this Patriot Act stuff from the government is for our own good and I don't buy the whole skeptical of the government movement. If they need to scan everything in order to find anything then thats fine with me. If you have forgotten, they happen to be on our side and are the most legit form of policing the internet has.

-Tom

Class Discussion 9/16

The discussion in class today was very strange for me to listen to. I didn't say much because I guess I have a very different outlook on privacy when compared to the general consensus of the class. It bothers me very little that people can data mine and gather harmless information like that about me. I feel that overall, it can only benefit me that they post advertisements of things that I seem to be interested in based on my searches and emails. This just means that I will have to waste less time searching for something I want or something that interests me that I wouldn't have seen otherwise. Also, I have nothing to hide, which could be a big reason that I'm not really concerned with companies, and even the government, getting ahold personal information.

Having discussed /b/tards and trolls, I can't honestly say that nothing worries me about privacy on the internet because the way they are able to obtain personal information is pretty impressive. The only real things that would cause me concern if it went public would be my SS# and my credit card info. 

-Mike

online antics and ethics

Today's class discussion on Andrejevic brought up thought-provoking and interesting questions that relate to us all. One of the overarching themes throughout Andrejevic's three chapters was the concept of "data mining" (collecting individual's information and making money off of it). The question that was raised among our smaller group, and then the class at large, was to what degree were we ok with being monitored online. 

Honestly, I did not think twice about entering credit cards online. How would they even have access to such personal information?I realize this was an extremely naive outlook on internet politics, especially after finding out specific facts about how the internet targets individuals.  For instance,  points that were brought up in class about Google and how they can go through those who have gmail (google mail), and not only read your personal emails, but target you with ad's concerning your email. This is a personal invasion of privacy. Though Google uses this "tool" to find potentially threats, hacking into someone's personal email account is too extreme a measure. 

Another issue that was raised during our class discussion was the question if we have nothing to hide, (which the majority of us don't) why can't online sites and corporations reveal to the general public what they do with the information. Let's face it, who is going to stop online shopping, or stop searching  for articles on Google just because they know someone is "digitally watching". Maybe that is why online stalking has gone so far, predators (identity thefts, companies) know that the internet is so intrinsically engrained in our culture, they will always have a constant stream of information and "digital people"playing into their hands. 

The relationship between companies (Andrejevic uses Nike) and sites (again using Google as an example) is not reciprocal or symbiotic in any way. Once a corporation has your information, there is no way to talk or communicate with them. A faceless demon? 

-Anna-

Thoughts on Chapter 3 "Ispy"

Chapter 3 in ispy most interested me because of the Taylor system which was gradually formed into a system in the workplace which used employees demographic information. I believe this system is positive and negative. It is positive because this helps many advertisers and other companies reach out and target the right audience: age, interests and stances. While at this radio station during the summer in New York City, I often talked with the sales manager there and he explained to me how the station targets its consumers. This happens mainly by using market research to determine who listens to the radio station and what their interests are, which will then help the station in deciding which advertisers to partner with.
The downside to this I believe are the credit card companies and telemarketers who hound people into getting an auto loan or try to sway them to take a survey in the wee hours of the night. Unfortunately, a new system I began to see rise are telemarketers contacting cell phone numbers which is even more annoying because most people use them primarily. Going back to the story, I believe the system is mainly positive because you usually have to take the good with the bad and hope the positive reigns supreme.

-Abe-

Thoughts about Chapter 3, "iManagement"

Mark Andrejevic’s iSpy discusses some very practical topics, especially in today’s business sector.  Andrejevic opens his piece with the Google, example, and how they have utilized the Internet to target their marketing efforts, more specifically in the San Francisco Bay area.  They benefited the city by providing free WiFi, and benefited themselves by receiving crucial market information.  They used this information for contextual advertising, “using the information it gathered about users’ locations within the city to bombard them time- and location-specific ads” (P. 1).  The Internet has changed the marketing atmosphere in extreme measures.

            In Chapter 3, “iManagement,” Andrejevic continues to discuss how marketers have used surveillance and scientific management.  The author walks through the “Taylor System,” which was one of the first modern day surveillance systems applied in the workplace.  Frederick Winslow Taylor created a system, which he used demographic information about his employees along with specific information gathered by monitoring their work habits.  Taylor claimed that his system was beneficial for both parties; because he would create percentage pay increases as a motivation for increased productivity. This system was introduced in the ladder 19^th century and applied in the early 20^th century.  Marketers have used similar systems as a more efficient way to target audiences.  Taylor’s system was predominately designed to increase profitability and productivity, with nothing else in mind. 

            When monitoring audiences, Andrejevic discusses the lack of threat involved, such as unemployment. Monitoring audiences has been turned greatly towards mass media.  The use of scientific management has allowed marketers to reach the right audiences with the right information.

-Jeff Colburn

iSpy sheds light

I think it is important for American’s to read Andrejevic’s iSpy. It provides information directly impacting internet users that has surprisingly gone unnoticed. Users would be interested to know how companies view the internet: as a data-gathering tool. Further, it would be beneficial for them to understand the potential advertising techniques such as the San Francisco contextual-advertising project that Andrejevic discusses. This ingeniously provides free wi-fi to the whole city while making money off of it. Since the wi-fi is free most will never oppose it since they see no reason to stop free wi-fi. Perhaps they would if they truly knew the information they were giving up: their exact locations. This would be a ridiculously invasive system that should be known to all, but isn't. Most users are in the dark about the advertising invasion; iSpy would shed some light on it.

iSpy

So far, iSpy is a very interesting book for me. In the first chapter, I was amazed to read that Google was targeting specific people with advertisements based on what they searched or viewed on the internet. Also, Google had a genius business plan to set up Wi-Fi around San Francisco so that they could post advertisements for local businesses for people who were in that immediate area. 

As great as this idea seems, however, it is very infringing on user's privacy that Google monitors Gmail in order to post ads for the specific things that are referred to in the emails. I don't like the idea that people monitor every little email you send when it should be private. On the other hand, I can see how it would be a very good source for national security in order to scan for potential terrorists. I don't know if anyone else read the book "Digital Fortress" by Dan Brown (if you haven't its great), but the book is based on the idea that the National Security Agency has a big code-breaking machine that can decipher all the different forms of code over the internet in order to uncover terrorists. 

Chapter 3 in iSpy was also a pretty interesting chapter that mostly discussed the pioneers in marketing and business efficiency. Frederick Taylor is considered one of the first people in management to really monitor employee efficiency. It was said that he would stand over his workers with a stopwatch so he could see how fast they were doing their tasks. Along with this, Taylor was also trying to get to know the background of the employees and what really drives them. The steel work who he called "Schmidt" is a great example in how he manipulated the workers into being more profitable and efficient for him. Schmidt was the type of person who really valued every dollar and Taylor took advantage of that. Schmidt increased his production by 400% while Taylor only gave him a raise of 60%, which was enough for the worker to be way more motivated. 

-Mike Suits

iSpy Interaction

In a world where everyone uses more and more technology, people seem to forget or even find out to begin with that others are following there every move. If its cell phones, dvr's, credit cards, or anything online, you can almost certainly bet you are being tracked. Andrejevic points this out with the help of his cousin who worked at one of the "largest datebase companies...But when she sent a copy of the information about her--including only the public record information and not the additional proprietary information (gathered from the commercial sector and law enforcement)--it was more than 20 pages long and included not only a list of all the palces she'd lived, but the names of all her former roomates and all the cars she'd owned. This was the lowest-resolution date image availible." This is extremely scary for some and for some they have had this idea of how intensive people having been following personal information. The chapter continues explaining how other companies like google have even gone to greater extents. The idea of what they did in San Fransico is pretty ingenious. The idea of setting up the wireless in the entire city, I am sure cost them a pretty penny, but with everyone using their internet they were able to pinpoint access within a three block radius. So when someone logged on, google could advertise for companies in that area directly to person logged. on. This kind of information at this rate is worth a lot of money. At the same time people feel more and more comfortable using the internet to buy things making it even easier for companies to track and catorgorize people. This can be traced to things like tivo, monitering what we watch and advertising accordingly. Basically it comes down to as much as we try and get more particular about what we shop for, look at online, and watch on tv, there are people watching us so they can be more specific to us as consumers so hopefully next time we are buying something they are trying to sell.
Corey

meeting

I am pretty sure we were definitely going to meet for our first meeting to establish if we could pull of the not ever assignment for the future, as well as figure out what were were going to do for monday. I was here and did not see anyone, and if I was the only one who thought we were supposed to meet, then who was supposed to put it all together. I thought that was me, but without meeting at least once that makes a shit load more work for me. I guess this will figure itself out in the next 24 hours whatever exactly did happen.
Corey

notes on iculture by anna

As the only  girl in the group Tesekkur ederim (thank you in Turkish, in case you were all wondering) I will admit perhaps half heartedly that online shopping is a hobby\borderline addiction. Businesses are  no longer  targeting mass groups, but individuals in new and interactive ways we could have never conceived of even ten-fifteen years ago. Ways we cannot resist. Mark Andrejevic's chapter on Three Dimensions of iCulture, exploits the positive and negative ramifications of the rapidly emerging and constantly evolving global market.

Adrejevic starts his chapter by discussing the marketing strategy of worldwide corporation, Nike, who launched an interactive campaign allowing customers to design their own sneakers (color, style, etc) which is rather ingenious. I'm a pretty serious shopper, it takes me a while to find things that I will actually wear more than once so if I were to find out that someone else had the same outfit as me, I would be disappointed needless to say. Nikes strategy avoids this problem of discontent. Whatever item the individual purchases is undoubtably and authentically theirs. Though the promise of individualization is encouraging in a world where products were mass-produced, privatization gives way to lack of community environment ."  . . . A third aspect of the promise of interactivity is the provocation of nostalgia for a lost sense of community retroactively associated with pre-mass media,"(24). In other words, face-to -face communication is gone. The consumer has become the producer.

One problem that is discussed that is discussed in relation to the subject of individualistic marketing and consumerism is the degree of limitations. For instance, when an individual wanted "sweatshop" customized on their sneakers, Nike intervened, saying they did not want that message associated with their company. The power does not completely rest with the people. 

'iCulture' is the promise of interactivity, cultural producers. Andrejevic uses the example of an online website where authors could contribute anonymously to a book of poetry (another example of this is Frank Warner's book of secrets). Both of these examples ,as well as others, think music mixes, self published websites, scrapbooks, etc, scream the message that creativity is more accessible than ever.

An issue that we have been discussing and one that Andrejevic addresses are the positive and negative affects of monitoring and surveillance. One if the most illuminating examples. Andrejevic exploits is the "Forget -Me-Not- Panties" hoax, where a father buys his daughter undergarments that allow him to follow her actions " . . . if we see her temperature rising too high, we intervene,"(33). This is an example of a phenomenon called "biometrics" or can be thought of as physical. In a post 9\11 world, surveillance has become essential to our security , but when parents are using GPS's in their children's cars and monitoring their relationships, surveillance has gone too far. Do we want to live in a world where we have no privacy, online or in our regular day-to-day lives?I would argue that it is not worth it. I like the idea of feeling safe, but online especially, where nobody is who you think they are, and trust does not exist. 

"

group organization and online ethics

Over the past several class periods, the topic of group organization as well as discussions of ethics regarding blogging have yielded some extremely diverse answers. Should we stick to the 'code of ethics' we adopt in the classroom, that of common courtesy and respect?Some seem to think that'anything goes' while online. For instance, if an individual disagrees with another's point about the reading, you are allowed to disagree using whatever means you want. This approach isn't something I necessarily agree with. There are other, more beneficial ways of proving a point than to be cruel. Why is it necessary to attack someone?

Another debated subject for the past few class periods has been group work. So far, group have been working well for us. It's nice to be able to divide up to work so it is not so overwhelming. We decided that meeting every week isn't essential, but that every once in a while (face to face) would prove to be more beneficial. We will be doing most of our communication through our own blog. 

-Anna-

hello everyone, this is our new group, we will soon become the newest favorite group