Blog

Social Networking Vlog – 2 minute Movie

Internet has made us global citizens but what is more exciting today is that it has given birth to the phenomenal social media. By 2020, social network users worldwide will reach over 2 billion users! If you are not on Social Media, right now would be the perfect time to catch up with a phenomenon that will be around for years to come. 

Below I have created a mini movie sharing my opinion on some outstanding statistics I came across.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Sources used for video:

Song Sources:
Aretes by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/…)
Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-…
Artist: http://incompetech.com/
Sunday Plans https://www.youtube.com/audiolibrary/…
Image Source:
http://www.freestockphotos.biz/stockp…
https://pixabay.com/en/ball-networks-…
https://pixabay.com/en/security-castl…
https://pixabay.com/en/download-succe…
Facts, Figures & Statistics:
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/8-tips-o…
https://www.sensis.com.au/assets/PDFd…
https://www.statista.com/

Week 9: Essay Submission – Do social networkers have a right to privacy? Is the notion of privacy dead?

The term Web 2.0 was “originally coined by Darcy DiNucci, an information architect consultant that wrote an article named Fragmented Future  in 1999” (O’Reilly, 2009). However, the concept was made popular by Tim O’Reilly and MediaLive International after a 2004 conference (O’Reilly, 2009). Web 2.0 can be described as the second phase of the World Wide Web: the move from static web pages to dynamic or user generated content, which eventually lead to the rise of social networks such as Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn (Grandison 2014, p.41-42). “The success of these websites depend to a large extent on the disclosure of personal data by their users, therefore concerns about privacy issues have been raised” (Custers, Van der Hof, and Schermer, 2014). This paper will analyse the rights of social networkers and whether the notion of privacy is dead. Social networkers place high value on privacy however the problem lies in their disinterest of reading and understanding privacy policies (Custers, Van der Hof, & Schermer, 2014).

Social network sites like Facebook and Google+ and user generated content sites such as YouTube and Wikipedia, by their very definition, collect data and content created by their users and are only economically feasible because of this data harvesting. Studies have shown that companies use “algorithms to sort their behaviour and user-generated content for economic benefits derived from big data” (Heyman, De Wolf, and Pierson, 2014) and “In the modern digital era, the quantity of information; the ability to collect, assemble, and analyse it; the ability to store it inexpensively; and the magnitude and rapidity of all aspects of how we approach, use, characterise, and manipulate information are continuously evolving.” (Sexton 2015, p. 2). Cote and Pybes (2007) have illustrated how users easily disclose personal information to maintain their online identities which can be exploited later for economic benefit (Heyman, De Wolf, & Pierson, 2014). In order to increase trust between parties, platforms typically publish written privacy policies which outline to users how their data is being collected and subsequently controlled and used. The storage of information is consensual as users must agree to the policies during registration, however many subjects automatically consent when greeted with a consent request (Böhme, Köpsell, 2010) and only a very small number of people actually read privacy policies, even when they are kept short and written in simple English (Malaga, 2014). There is a clear disconnect between a user’s privacy concerns and their actual desire to peruse website privacy policies. Users generally assume privacy policies are written in complex legal terms and do not attempt to click on their links; perhaps a new method of informing users of privacy practices is required (Malaga, 2014).

 

“The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose.” (Druckman, Maron, Onn, and Timor, 2005, p.12). The freedom of information age within the digital world has developed a number of platforms that require a possible redefinition of a users’ right to privacy (Druckman et al, 2005). This is because crossing another’s boundaries of privacy is only one click away, and technology is often misused by authorities and individuals (Druckman et al, 2005) to exploit this. Privacy violations are serious due to the “use of new technology, enabling aggregation of an enormous amount of information on an unlimited number of people” (Druckman et al 2005, p. 22-23) which can then reproduced at “minimal costs, transmitted and traded in a manner that does not involve costs of storage or transport” (Druckman et al 2005, p. 22-23). Data mining programs ensure easy categorisation to serve the economic purposes of social networking companies (Druckman et al, 2005). Due to the rapid development of technologies, it is impossible for users to stay aware and informed of their rights to privacy.

 

The internet belongs to “everyone” globally, and due to this it is very difficult to apply one law to protect the rights of users, however private bodies have developed technologies to protect their users’ privacy (Druckman et al, 2005). For example, LinkedIn allows for “predefined groups (colleagues, family) and then treat these groups differently” (Misra, Gaurav & Such, Jose 2016, p. 97). Facebook provides “default groups but also allow users to manage their own circles and lists per individual, more closely reflecting real-life relationships” (Misra, Gaurav & Such, Jose 2016, p. 97). Most social networking sites are developing socially aware privacy controls which proves the importance of privacy in the digital world (Misra, Gaurav & Such, Jose 2016, p. 98). The users right to privacy must be protected at all times, as privacy “encourages us to express ourselves freely” (Druckman et al, 2005). Users must be allowed to create their own content without fear of their information being disclosed. To ensure users are aware and informed companies must fulfil two responsibilities: the first is to keep the user aware of the data collection and the second is keeping the user informed as to how their data will be used and by whom (Malaga, 2014).

 

 Privacy, as a basic human right, has been and will remain important to users into the future, despite their unwillingness to read and understand privacy policies. What is required is a more flexible way for users to manage their privacy on different platforms in order to make abundantly clear the effects of their actions. Privacy is not dead “officially”, rather it is “effectively” dead. Users unwittingly engage and interact on social media platforms without considering the privacy of their data or lack thereof. Very few users invest the time to read and understand policies regarding their data, effectively rendering policies useless. The policy then in turn only protects the platform, not the user who has agreed to all conditions by default. A great deal of responsibility has been placed on the user. With future generations of technologies developing new privacy controls, it is important to maintain a balance between institutional and social privacy to protect users at both levels.

 

Reference List

Böhme, Rainer, Köpsell, Stefan. 2010, “Trained to accept?: a field experiment on consent dialogs”, ACM, , pp. 2403.

 Coté, Mark, Pybus, Jennifer, 2007, “Learning to immaterial labour 2.0: MySpace and social networks”,Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 88-106.

Custers, Bart, Van der Hof, Simone, Schermer, Bart, 2014, “Privacy Expectations of Social Media Users: The Role of Informed Consent in Privacy Policies: Privacy Expectations of Social Media Users”, Policy & Internet, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 268-295.

Druckman, Yaniv, Maron, Tamar, Onn, Yael, Timor, Rom, 2005, Privacy In The Digital Environment. 7th ed., ebook,  Haifa: The Haifa Centre of law & Technology, pp.12-35, Available at: https://books.google.com.au/books, Accessed 8 Sep. 2016.

Grandison, Tyrone, 2014, “Security and Privacy in Web 2.0 [Guest editor’s introduction]”, IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 41-42.

Heyman, Rob, De Wolf, Ralf, Pierson, Jo, 2014, “Evaluating social media privacy settings for personal and advertising purposes”, info, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 18-32.

Malaga, Ross, 2014, “DO WEB PRIVACY POLICIES STILL MATTER?”, Academy of Information and Management Sciences Journal, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 95.

Misra, Gaurav, Such, Jose, 2016, “How Socially Aware Are Social Media Privacy Controls?”,Computer, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 96-99.

O’Reilly, Tim, 2009, “What is Web 2.0” Google Books. Available at: https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NpEk_WFCMdIC&oi=fnd&pg=PT3&dq=web+2.0&ots=OYSCT8jCEW&sig=tcUQ8XSR7ts-HKadi-n43IffB_o#v=onepage&q=web%202.0&f=false, Accessed 9 Sep. 2016

Peterson, Dane, Meinert, David, Criswell, John, Crossland, Martin, 2007) Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 14. 4: 654-669

Sexton, Christopher, 2015, “The interweaving web of privacy and technology in the digital age: Perceived serious invasions of privacy in Australia”, Intellectual Property Forum: journal of the Intellectual and Industrial Property Society of Australia and New Zealand, no. 103, pp. 2-7.

Week 8: Research

brainstorm

Map above created at Bubbl.us

Researched Journal Articles: 

Coté, Mark, Pybus, Jennifer, 2007, “Learning to immaterial labour 2.0: MySpace and social networks”,Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 88-106.

Custers, Bart, Van der Hof, Simone, Schermer, Bart, 2014, “Privacy Expectations of Social Media Users: The Role of Informed Consent in Privacy Policies: Privacy Expectations of Social Media Users”, Policy & Internet, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 268-295.

Grandison, Tyrone, 2014, “Security and Privacy in Web 2.0 [Guest editor’s introduction]”, IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 41-42.

Heyman, Rob, De Wolf, Ralf, Pierson, Jo, 2014, “Evaluating social media privacy settings for personal and advertising purposes”, info, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 18-32.

Malaga, Ross, 2014, “DO WEB PRIVACY POLICIES STILL MATTER?”, Academy of Information and Management Sciences Journal, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 95.

Misra, Gaurav, Such, Jose, 2016, “How Socially Aware Are Social Media Privacy Controls?”,Computer, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 96-99.

Week 7: Essay Topic Approval

Essay topic selected:

With the advent of Web 2.0 came online social networks like Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn. These companies collect data about their users. Do social networkers have a right to privacy? Is the notion of privacy dead?

This was from one of the pre-approved questions that I selected.

Week 6: Politics and Internet

Capture

 Source: (Egan, 2016)

Where there are humans, there will be politics! I have decided to give my opinion on Anonymous. Specifically, whether the Anonymous hacktivist collective is global democracy in action or plain old cyber-terrorism?

“Cyberpolitics is the politics of the internet that exists predominantly on the internet” (Egan, 2016).

“And to me that was beautiful because it recognizes, again, that their ideological commitment wasn’t perfectly fulfilled, as it can’t be, and yet it wasn’t some utter failure in that there was some secret back room where everything was controlled” (Pangburn, 2011). Like Gabriella Coleman, I also think that Anonymous is flawed but I do not see them as failures. Anonymous’ involvement in cyberpolitics is refreshing as they stand up for the weak. The organisation is a modern day watchdog for the voiceless and a force that should exist in 2016. It is an ideology that truly needs to be around to protect the masses involved in cyberspace.

I will start off by outlining some important definitions.

Cyber-terrorism: “terrorist activities intended to damage or disrupt vital computer systems” (Source:  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cyberterrorism)

Global Democracy: “Global democracy is a field of academic study and political activism concerned with making the global political system more democratic” (Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/global-democracy/)

Hacktivist: “a person who hacks a computer system to bring attention to a political or social cause” (Egan, 2016).

Anonymous, the hacker collective dating back to 2004 (Politicalviolenceataglance.org, 2015) is a modern day ‘Robin Hood’ (Egan, 2016). Rather than an organisation, Anonymous has been described in terms of a subculture or series of relationships (The New Yorker, 2014) between people of differing religious upbringings, socio-economic backgrounds and ethnic affiliations (Politicalviolenceataglance.org, 2015). They are difficult to describe, there is no membership, no fixed charter, nor are they even a movement. They are simply a collective which for periods of time may all share the same goals and objectives and other times may fall into disagreement.

Anonymous has taken action against a number of targets, namely: al-Qaeda, ISIS, The Church of Scientology, the KKK.

While some attacks are unwelcome, there appears to be tacit acceptance of Anonymous’ attacks on militant Islamist groups which has alleviated the United States NSA fears of Anonymous attacks on home soil. Anonymous attacks targets without jurisdiction or UN resolutions and while the targets are chosen arbitrarily, Anonymous is self-regulating, libertarian, and is a force for good; a form of global democracy with no physical limitations.

 

Reference List

Egan, Elizabeth 2016, ‘Week 6 Lecture ‘Cyber Politics’, Griffith University, Brisbane, Semester 2, 2016.

Pangburn, D, 2011, Digital Activism From Anonymous to Occupy Wall Street: a Conversation With Gabriella Coleman, online, Deathandtaxesmag.com. Available at: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/157192/digital-activism-from-anonymous-to-occupy-wall-street-a-conversation-with-gabriella-coleman/ [Accessed 30 Aug. 2016]

Politicalviolenceataglance.org, 2015,  Virtual Vigilantes: “Anonymous” Cyber-Attacks Against the Islamic State. [online] Available at: https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2015/04/07/virtual-vigilantes-anonymous-cyber-attacks-against-the-islamic-state/ [Accessed 30 Aug. 2016]

The New Yorker, 2014, The Masked Avengers – The New Yorker. [online] Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/08/masked-avengers [Accessed 30 Aug. 2016]

 

Week 5: Is Social Media Destroying Society?

Egan (2016) defines Social Media as “Social media-groups of people who use the Internet”. I am currently registered with Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter, WordPress and Snapchat. I am only using Facebook and Snapchat on a daily basis. I use Facebook to keep up-to-date with what’s happening around the world, connect with family and online friends. I mostly use it as an entertainment tool and I do worry about my privacy. I do not share very personal details on Facebook nor do I rely on Facebook’s security measures, and I filter my posts myself. I have posted some photos and statements on Facebook previously and it has only resulted in regret. Facebook can be a very emotionally charged place and I feel like it creates a trance-like state for us humans. We do not think but just ‘do’ on social media sometimes. Notwithstanding the privacy issues, I do not agree that social media has destroyed society; if anything it has created opportunities that did not exist before. I like the fact that you can get instant updates from across the world, especially news that affects humans globally.

Customer retention is a valuable goal for any business. Khan (2010), outlines the idea of Churn customers, referring to them as the customers that leave your service or company over time. It discusses the algorithms companies use to retain current customers over new customers. Retaining current customers is less expensive as the company has all details of their behavior and can provide them with incentives if they opt to leave.  Along this line, social media has the power to collect personal details and provide these companies with audiences they can directly target. Facebook for example uses advertising to make millions of dollars and consumers such as myself do not realize that every click means something.

Is this destroying society by only exposing certain videos, images or articles to the user? Is it creating our personalized reality where we fail to see other people’s point of view? I was very interested in discovering if users of social media or Facebook check the reliability of the news they see. I discovered that 57.9% of surveyed persons checked the reliability of news they watched, and 42.1% did not. It is scary to think that so many people are not checking the authenticity of posts on Facebook.

sm2

When users of social media were asked if social media has destroyed society, 68.42% disagreed and 31.58 % agreed that it has. It shows that the majority of users are happy to use social media as it is and do not worry about its negative effect on society.

sm1

Social media users should be keenly aware of how they share their personal information and ensure they like a wide variety of perspectives and views. This will ensure they have a well-rounded perspective on topics of interest.

To see full results of the survey please click on the following link:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-QWYPCS3M/

 

Reference List

Egan, Elizabeth 2016, ‘Week 5 Lecture Is Social Media Destroy Society’, Griffith University, Brisbane, Semester 2, 2016.

Khan, A., Jamwal, S. and Sepehri, M 2010,  Applying Data Mining to Customer Churn Prediction in an Internet Service Provider. International Journal of Computer Applications, 9(7), pp.8-14

 

Week 4: Cyberspace, Cyberpunk & Timelines

Blade Runner, is a cyberpunk movie about a retired detective named Deckard and his mission is to find replicants on earth and kill them. Deckard eventually falls in love with a replicant named Rachel, unveiling the possible connection between a human and a robot. Is this possible in the future? Can robots eventually rule the world?

bladerunner

Rachel & Deckard Source: Blade Runner

“The power of computer users to simulate environments is central to much cyberpunk, with the computer user jacking into this virtual environment or cyberspace by some means: through spine, through eye sockets, through a chip in the head” (Butler, 2001).

With the creation of chips for humans now available in Australia, we could be moving towards a society in which we cannot differentiate between humans and cyborgs. To understand this further it is important to define Cybernetics, which is ‘a study of communication, command and control in living organisms, machines and organisations’ (Egan, 2016).

Lister (2009) states that the idea of cyborgs is not new, however it has different technological stages of development. He also suggests that life and technology has continuously converged and diverged, meaning that it will not disappear (Lister, 2009). It is here to stay. Although these concepts are quite difficult to come to terms with, it definitely is intriguing.

I understood that technology is forever developing and is part of my everyday life. I thought about Siri on my phone who can be witty, and even emotionally supportive. How is this even possible and how far can this go? It’s quite scary when I think of it.

I decided to look at the history of my iPhones over the years. Below I have a timeline of the advances Apple has made. The phones were fed to us slowly, with little improvements year by year. I accepted every technological development and didn’t think twice about Siri, and why she knows so much.

http://www.timetoast.com/flash/TimelineViewer.swf?passedTimelines=1322612

This was a very enlightening week and I now have a list of Cyber Punk movies to see over the holidays.

Reference List

Butler, AM 2001, Cyberpunk, Pocket Essentials, Harpenden, GB. Available from: ProQuest library. [ 28 August 2016].

Egan, Elizabeth 2016, ‘Week 4 Lecture ‘Cyber Space & Cyber Punk’, Griffith University, Brisbane, Semester 2, 2016.

Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, Ian., Kelly, Kieran., 2009, New Media: a critical introduction, London: Routledge, 237-42, 281-3

 

 

 

Week 2 & 3: History of Communication to Mind Control

Egan (2016) gave a history of computing from ancient times in Week 2. The history of communication reveals the existence of the Kish tablet originating from the ancient Sumerian city of Kish containing inscriptions considered by some to be the oldest forms of writing known to mankind (Nguyen, 2016). Similarly, Williams McGaughey (2011) marks the Sumerians as the first inventors of writing. Unlike Nguyen (2016) who only discusses communication until the 20th century, McGaughey (2011) covers the history of communication until the Apple iPad launch in 2008. This was a great backdrop to my own pondering of communication and what it has become today.

Today, I have been using the iPhone since it was launched in 2008. My community’s behavior, more specifically my family and friends’ use of Apple devices has established my loyalty to them too. The ease of iPhone free messaging to other Apple users and the interconnectedness of all devices has reinforced my desire to use it over other offerings.

I do worry about privacy issues as I am aware Google and Apple are tech giants who are in the business of information collection and analysis. However, the trust Google and Apple have instilled allows myself and others to share personal details easily through their applications and services. Halpern (2011) describes Google as “an algorithm, in essence, an editor, pulling up what it deems important, based on someone else’s understanding of what is important.” That is very far from what I believe an innocent search engine does. Google seemed like an intelligent tool that was created to serve humans. However as Halpern (2011) suggests, searches personalized and we are served Google believes is best for us. The idea of mind control and use of data to target advertisements towards consumers is very real when this knowledge is obtained. It no longer seems far fetched that humans may well be cyborgs soon and a thought may create an action one day; that’s if it hasn’t occurred already. I looked into some recent inventions and the handy Cicret Bracelet seems to be very useful. Again, it seems like I would be the consumer that will turn into a cyborg!

Reference List:

Egan, Elizabeth 2016, ‘Week 2 Lecture Brief History of Computing’, Griffith University, Brisbane, Semester 2, 2016.

Nguyen, Tuan, 2016, The Early History of Communication, online, Inventors.about.com, Available at: http://inventors.about.com/od/timelines/fl/The-Early-History-of-Communication.htm [Accessed 14 Aug. 2016]

McGaughey, Williams 2011, Some Dates in the History of Communication Technologies, online, Worldhistorysite.com, Available at: http://worldhistorysite.com/culttech.html [Accessed 16 Aug. 2016]

Halpern, Sue, 2011, Mind Control & the Internet, online, The New York Review of Books. Available at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/06/23/mind-control-and-internet/ [Accessed 18 Aug. 2016]

 

 

 

Week 1: Introduction Blog ‘My Augmented Reality’

My name is Mia and I am studying a Bachelor of Public Relations and Communication at Griffith University and currently undertaking the subject 1501LHS New Communications and Technology. Humans can use various communication media, and social media is a very popular tool in 2016.

Blogging is one of my personal interests as it allows me to express my views. Whether someone is reading or not, I will always be expressing what I think. In my opinion, blogging can be a great way to connect with like-minded individuals around the world.

I am studying New Communications and Technology because it is a great unit to gain skills for careers in Public Relations and Communication. My career goal is to be a content writer and public relations officer for a non-profit organisation.

‘Augmented Reality’ was introduced to the class this week, a concept previously unfamiliar to me. I am a typical consumer who uses technology for convenience without much thought regarding its history of future. The definition of augmented reality as stated by Elizabeth Egan (2016) is “A technology that superimposes a computer- generated image on a user’s view of the real world, thus providing a composite view”. I found it difficult to get my head around this idea because to me reality and technology do not merge at all. Unfortunately, I was quite wrong because in 2016 technology has made it possible to be able to see zombies inside your own room through your phone (Novumanalytics.com, 2016).  This game is called Night Terrors and through your phone virtual demons and zombies enter your home. It is a fight for survival (Novumanalytics.com, 2016). “The game uses your smartphone’s camera, GPS and accelerometer to build up a map of your home” (Novumanalytics.com, 2016). Now if you are scared of horror movies, I suggest you do not try this one out; I certainly wouldn’t. At this point, I have understood the blurred lines between reality and technology which is ‘augmented reality’.

This is quite far from where we started with few users able to access a microcomputer in Australia. The only users of microcomputers in the 1980’s were hobbyists who started programming and making games (Swalwell 2012, p. 63 – 77). “Given that some degree of coding was required to run on, a computer was not immediately usable: some saw this as a sign of uselessness, while others simply could not envisage how they might make use of a computer” (Swalwell 2012, p75). I can see similarities in how early consumers of microcomputers felt confused with new technology as I do with augmented reality. Just as there was a shift in attitudes and usage by early microcomputer skeptics, I feel augmented reality will become a part of everyday life. A good example of this is Pokemon Go, which honestly would be a waste of my time.

 

Reference List:

Swalwell, M 2012, ‘Questions about the usefulness of microcomputers in 1980s Australia, Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, vol. 143, pp. 63-77, viewed 9 August 2016, http://go.galegroup.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA294194531&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=griffith&it=r&p=EAIM&sw=w&asid=e44bab085d776427101c7468bd29ab50

Novumanalytics.com, 2016, Night Terrors, Novum, online, Available at: http://novumanalytics.com/night-terrors/ [Accessed 9 Aug. 2016]

Egan, Elizabeth 2016, ‘Week 1 Lecture Augmented Reality’, Griffith University, Brisbane, Semester 2, 2016.