Updates from “digital” academia

January 16th, 2009

* Tracy Mitrano, the January guest blogger for the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Wired Campus section, has been writing some good stuff. She doesn’t present us with ground-breaking discoveries, but her posts are soft and personal while managing to deal with some heavy topics. She also has a way of gently flicking questions in one’s direction, which I think is great because the role of a good academic is not only to inform, but also get one to think, and Tracy does just that. Here’s an interview I did with Tracy from last year, in which she talked about building a global university.

* Answering Prof. Charles Nesson’s request for a camera in the courtroom, Judge Nancy Gertner said she will allow Coutroom View Network, a New York-based company that webcasts trials in state courts, into a key hearing this coming Thursday that pits the US recording industry (RIAA) in the suit against BU grad student, Joel Tenenbaum. The court session will be broadcast live on the website of the Berkman Center. Nesson (and his team of students) is defending Tenenbaum for allegedly sharing seven songs illegally from Kazaa, peer-to-peer network.

*”Enhancing Child Safety & Online Technologies ” was released by the Berkman Center two days ago. This final report of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force summarizes a year-long investigation of tools and technologies to create a safer environment on the Internet for youth. It points out that: 1) Sexual predation on minors by adults is still a concern, 2) Bullying and harassment, most often by peers, are the most frequent threats that minors face, 3) The Internet increases the availability of harmful, problematic and illegal content, but does
not always increase minors’ exposure.

As expected, studies showed that these factors were not just problems in cyberspace, but were strongly linked with the offline world. I know people blame the education system (government) and technology (the Internet), but personally, I think so much could be improved by proper education at home, which seems so basic but is overlooked by so many parents. Bringing back the “traditional” values of family, love, and responsibility could solve so many problems…but perhaps my conservative views are not welcome in this era.

(cross-post on arcticpenguin)

Touchy touch-sensitive gadgets

January 14th, 2009

I have an LG Chocolate phone, an iPod,a laptop with a touchpad, and a Nintendo DS, all of which are touch-sensitive. But then the term “touch-sensitive” is misleading. The devices don’t want any kind of touch, they need to be touched (or stroked) in a specific area by a specific thing– most preferably, a human finger because these touch-sensitive gadgets only respond to objects with capacitance.

It’s hilarious that Apple came up with a patent for a glove that lets you peel back the tip of the finger. Silly, yes, but if you’ve ever taken a walk on a cold winter day, you’ll know why this is needed. My house is a 30-min. walk from work, so I often listen to music. Fast-forwarding, skipping tracks, and rewinding can be done with my gloves on, but I can’t turn the wheel. It’s the same with my phone. Both devices long for a human touch (or at least something that has a current running through it) It’s annoying. Sometimes, I try to scroll through tracks on my iPod using my lips instead of taking off my gloves. Yes, I have caught people looking at me in an odd way. They probably thought I was smooching my iPod.

Social networking in enterprises

January 13th, 2009

Andrew McAfee of HBS was the speaker at today’s Berkman luncheon series, talking about Enterprise 2.0, which he explains as being the phenomenon in which companies incorporate “community” features into their work. He said that based on connectivity, people’s networks can be categorized into strong ties, weak ties, potential ties, no ties. Citing Mark Granovetter, he said that weak ties may be stronger because people that are strong ties will not provide anything you don’t already know. (Interesting fact: Partners and future jobs are usually found through weak ties!) He said that corporate technologies do lousy jobs of connecting weak/potential ties, which could be done through social networking tools. [One thing that he grazed over was the value of people who convert ties into actual networks, which caught my attention because I fall into that category.]

He also talked about prediction markets (which fall into the “no ties” category) and how election trends were reflected in the Iowa Electronic Markets, which people seemed to be more interested in than his talk about implementing social networking tools in companies.

He gave a fairly standard argument, although he seemed to be an extreme optimist in terms of what in-house networking could do. Although I agree that in-house social networking can build a more positive corporate (social) culture and perhaps enhance productivity to some level, I believe that only those companies that strongly control this “sharing” actually see financial benefits. Also, the more successful in-house networking that I’ve seen were in companies that built their own programs versus companies who bought tweakable solutions because features had to be continuously updated to meet increasing demands. Obviously, this was expensive, and it only worked for companies that had strong financial incentives in sharing confidential data.

One point I found very disturbing was his comment on how Twitter and Facebook can be used to exploit weak networks. I really hate people who do this; especially those who are obviously digital narcissists trying to show off. Even worse are people who use 2.0 technology for 1.0 activities, in other words, those who seek feedback but never give others feedback. If people who are really “important” don’t have the time or don’t want to make the effort of replying to others, it means that all the feedback you get is from “unimportant” people. Of course, I suppose that doesn’t matter when you’re seeking advice like whether you should eat dimsum or tacos for lunch.

As always, David Weinberger live-blogged the whole session. Guess which was my question during the Q&A!

Content Ownership in the Age of Cloud Computing

January 11th, 2009

It really disturbs me that services like Google and Facebook are trying to own content hosted on their sites. Until a couple years ago, I didn’t see Google as a media company, despite its market share. It was a traffic director– and could easily be replaced by a better search engine, if one should arise. But now, the age of cloud computing, it is a content company, although its business structure is completely different from legacy media in that the content in user-generated…. For the user, it’s great to have free technology to store/publish content, but what will be the price when they claim entire ownership? For instance, Facebook is trying to hold back the content on its site, as can be seen in its scuffle with Power.com. This is just the beginning.

By using free services (or even paid services that are web-based) we are storing so much information in the web “cloud.” Most of my life in the past few years can be found somewhere in this cyber storage– email, blog(s), etc. All of this information about me is, this content, is mine, yet according to much of the terms of service of websites that offer free storage, it is not legally mine.

Information from my early life, however, are in the form of paper journals, VHS home video tapes, betamax video tapes, fading photographs, cassette tapes with recordings of phone conversations, home DJ-ing….

For babies born now, how much of their legacy will be analog? How much of myself am I “sacrificing” for web representation and how ironic is it that I have to give away more of myself in order to make a clearer definition of my identity?