What’s the deal with hilarious reviews?

Most reviews are mildly helpful. The problem is that if something is reviewed and it has less than 3/5 it’s interpreted as being bad. Like not even worthy of attention. And as we all know reviewers are biased. Or incompetent. Or they just look at stuff that isn’t important. I don’t mean individual reviewers. I am a reviewer on some sites. I mean as a collective. A… Wait! what is the collective noun for reviewer?? probably something boring… Anyway an embarrassment of reviewers are usually generally bad. Taken together we all hate different aspects of the same thing, making it less helpful for the reader to decide what it all means.

But there is one type of review that is fantastic and that is the snarky, hilarious review. Take for example this review for Veet for Men Hair Removal Gel Creme by A. Chappell:

Initially all went well and I applied the gel and stood waiting for something to happen. I didn’t have long to wait. At first there was a gentle warmth which in a matter of seconds was replaced by an intense burning and a feeling I can only describe as like being given a barbed wire wedgie by two people intent on hitting the ceiling with my head.

And the review just gets funnier and funnier.

Or what about this review for Haribo Gummi Candy Gold-Bears, 5-Pound Bag by Douglas Pope:

The animal noises broadcasting from my pelvis were an ominous warning of the violent acts that were to follow. I shouldered my way into the bathroom, clawing at my belt, moaning with pain. The smell came first. It started sweet, almost tangy. That was quickly overpowered by a cloying chemical perfume.

 And its not only on Amazon that people are creative. Tripadvisor has over 250 reviews for The Grand Budapest Hotel in The Republic of Zubrowka. Naturally neither the hotel, nor the republic exist as they are both fictional creations from a recent Wes Anderson movie called The Grand Budapest Hotel.
One of the reviews Singularly Charming! by Wendy J from North Carolina
Much of my enjoyment was due to the kind attention of M. Gustave, the heavily perfumed concierge. I was amazed that he seemed to be there ALL THE TIME, always ready and delighted to help me! Case in point: On the plane ride over from the States I somehow lost my front row isle seat to the opera ‘Toscana’. When I mentioned this to M. Gustave, he told me that he’d be able to get me another ticket with just one day’s notice. And he did. Incredible. That in and of itself was worth a million klubecks to me.
Coming across reviews like these makes me happy. But I also wonder – what kind of literature this is? Should this be seen as a type of fan fiction? Maybe this works for the hotel but for the gummi bears? So is it just humor writing? Journalism? It is definately creative writing! The what is it that drives people to spend time and energy writing wholly or partly fictional reviews? Or even reviews for things that do not exist?
Maybe this should be the basis of a small research project? Or maybe I should just enjoy reading what people write and not worry too much about the rationale.

Court supports Salaita; will organizations apologize?

Professor Steven Salaita was due to begin working at the University of Illinois. Days before he was scheduled to teach, he had quit his old job and put his house on the market. All in good faith that he had a job. He was fired for ‘Uncivil’ Tweets. The university argued that his position was still conditional on final approval and therefore he wasn’t actually fired – he was just never hired.

This created a lot of discussion. Individuals came down on both sides. In support of the university people argued that the tweets were just unacceptable and that the university was formally right. On the side of the professor was academic freedom, free speech, and that the university knew that he had relied upon their promises when he packed up and moved across the country.

Now a federal court has found in favor of Salaita and has allowed his lawsuit against the University of Illinois to proceed, and the chancellor who rescinded his appointment last year has resigned amid an ethics investigation.

This is good news. I make my position clear and I am happy that academic freedom and free speech are being valued highly.

My argument is not against those individuals who would disagree with me. I don’t mind or care that we are in disagreement. That is the whole point of free speech after all.

But I have a problem with the organizations. Academic groups who spoke out in favor of the University of Illinois. Many of their members were in agreement with them but many of their members were very angry with their organizations supporting the university over the individual academic freedom.

Now that the federal court has found support for Salaita and the concept of academic freedom and the need to protect speech – what are these organizations going to do? Isn’t it time that they apologized? No, they don’t need to apologize to Salaita (even though I think that would be a generous move that demonstrates growth) but I do feel that they should apologize to their members.

Take for example the letter from the American Sociological Association

We write as elected leaders of the American Sociological Association to express our support for your decision not to hire Dr. Steven G. Salaita as a faculty member at the University of Illinois. Although some sociologists disagree with your decision, as a previous letter indicated, we wanted you to know that some sociologists, including leaders of the American Sociological Association, support your decision. We personally feel if a job candidate openly disparages an entire minority group it is a good reason not to hire him or her as a new faculty member. Dr. Salaita’s public expressions of hatred and his public endorsement of violence have no place in the University of Illinois.

The problem is that the university HAD hired him. They were dismissing him. The rhetorical and legal loophole is fake. Most hires are subject to approval and if we were to wait for such approval then the hiring system would grind to a halt. The “elected leaders of the American Sociological Association” spoke for their organization and their members. Now the court has shown them the error of their ways: will they now finally apologizing to their members?

Academic organizations are there to raise awareness about the subject they represent and also to ensure that the academics who make up their organization can carry out their research and teaching without being harassed. They failed. They came down on the side of censorship and they should, at the very least, apologize to the people they claim to represent.

 

 

Draft Privacy Syllabus

This term I have been given free hands to design a privacy course for the Communication Department at UMass Boston – And I am VERY excited about it. Here is a first draft of the syllabus. If you are student at UMass and interested in taking the course please contact me.

WEEK 1: Privacy as Human Right Legislating Privacy (law & convention)

Wed, 9 Sep     Introduction

Fri, 11 Sep      Read Warren & Brandeis, ‘The Right to Privacy’, Harvard Law Review 1890-4(1), pp. 193-220.

Watch Glenn Greenwald: Why privacy matters (2014) TED Talk https://youtu.be/pcSlowAhvUk

Watch Alessandro Acquisti: Why privacy matters (2013) TED Talk https://youtu.be/H_pqhMO3ZSY

Write: Considering our technology use: Are W&B relevant today?

WEEK 2: Privacy vs Security

Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, said “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place”

Mon, 14 Sep   Discussion Why Privacy Matters

Wed, 16 Sep The Nothing to Hide Argument

Fri, 18 Sep      Watch The Hidden History of Privacy – Jill Lepore The New Yorker Festival 2013. https://youtu.be/zuth-_rppKM

Watch Daniel Solove: Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear? https://youtu.be/FqJ8EMwj7zY

Read: Solove, D. (2005) “The Digital Person and the Future of Privacy” in Privacy and Identity: The Promise and Perils of a Technological Age (Strandburg, ed.) http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Digital-Person/text/Digital-Person-CH3.pdf

Read: Schneier, B. (2009) “Is aviation security mostly for show?” CNN, December 29. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/29/schneier.air.travel.security.theater/

WEEK 3: Spatial Privacy

Mon, 21 Sep   Discussion Privacy & Security: Bentham, Foucault and theatre of the absurd.

Wed, 23 Sep Panopticon: Is surveillance a deterrent?

Fri, 25 Sep      Read: Who’s Watching? Video Camera Surveillance in New York City and the need for Public Oversight. A Special Report by the New York Civil Liberties Union FALL 2006 http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/surveillance_cams_report_121306.pdf

Write: There have been calls for police officers to carry body cameras. Discuss any privacy issues that could arise from this technology.

WEEK 4: Individual Rights and the Police

Mon, 28 Sep   Discussion: police surveillance

Wed, 30 Sep  Privacy and the 1st 4th & 5th amendments

Fri, 2 Oct         Read: Center for Constitutional Rights, Stop and Frisk – The Human Impact Report July 2012. http://stopandfrisk.org/the-human-impact-report.pdf

Read: Lippman, M. (2014) “Searches and Seizures”, Criminal Procedure 2nd ed. https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/53702_Lippman_Ch3.pdf

Read: You Have the Right to Remain Silent National Lawyer Guild https://www.nlg.org/sites/default/files/KYR-English-web1.pdf

Week 5: Surveillance Technologies in the wild

Ryan Calo “Robot-Sized gaps in surveillance law” in Rotenberg

Mon, 5 Oct      —

Wed, 7 Oct     From CCTV to Drones: Private Surveillance & Function creep

Fri, 9 Oct         Read: McNeal, G. Drones and Aerial Surveillance: Considerations For Legislators. November 2014. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2014/10/drones%20aerial%20surveillance%20legislators/Drones_Aerial_Surveillance_McNeal_FINAL.pdf

Read: Thompson, R. M. (2013) Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses CRS Report for Congress April 3. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42701.pdf

Write:

Week 6: Tracking Devices “its only metadata”

 Mon, 12 Oct   CLOSED

Wed, 14 Oct   End of Culture? What your library says about you. Smartphones & Tablets: Did you read the license?

Fri, 16 Oct      CLOSED

Watch: Malte Spitz “Your Phone Company is Watching” TED Talk http://www.ted.com/talks/malte_spitz_your_phone_company_is_watching?language=en

Week 7: The Internet, Web & Social Media

Mon, 19 Oct   Does the Internet Spell End of Privacy?

Wed, 21 Oct   Watch: Citizenfour (Poitras, 2014)

Fri, 23 Oct      Watch: “The NSA, Snowden, and Surveillance” (CRCS Lunch Seminar) – Bruce Schneier talk https://youtu.be/3apzxHAA8mI

Write:

Week 8: The Internet, Web & Social Media continued

Mon, 26 Oct   Watch: Last Week Tonight With John Oliver – Edward Snowden Interview https://youtu.be/0zg7_4AMXGs

Watch: Terms and Conditions May Apply (Hoback, 2013)

Wed, 28 Oct   Sleepwalking, Convenience and Terms of Service

Fri, 30 Oct      Watch Do Not Track is a personalized documentary series about privacy and the web economy. https://donottrack-doc.com/en/intro/

Week 9: The Right to Hide?

Mon, 2 Nov     Discussion: Social Media Privacy

Wed, 4 Nov    Anonymity & Pseudonymity: Encryption & Masked protest.

Fri, 6 Nov        Read: Coleman, G. (2013) Anonymous in Context: The Politics and Power behind the Mask CIGI Internet Governance Papers. https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/no3_8.pdf

Write:

Week 10: Identity, Privacy & the right to be forgotten?

 Mon, 9 Nov     Google vs Europe & the right to be forgotten

Wed, 11 Nov CLOSED

Fri, 13 Nov     Read: European Commission: Factsheet on the “Right to be Forgotten” ruling (C-131/12) https://youtu.be/r-ERajkMXw0

Read: European Commission: Myth-Busting The Court of Justice of the EU and the “Right to be Forgotten” http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_rtbf_mythbusting_en.pdf

Watch: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Right To Be Forgotten (HBO) https://youtu.be/r-ERajkMXw0

Watch: Viktor Mayer-Schönberger presents “Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age Berkman Center https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwxVA0UMwLY

Week 11: The Private Body: From fingerprints to DNA

Mon, 16 Nov Genetics and law enforcement

Wed, 18 Nov Is genetic privacy possible?

Fri, 20 Nov     Read: Stewart, J. & Thy Tran, D. (2007) “The Ethics of Genetic Screening” in The ethical imperative in the context of evolving technologies (Bassick ed)

http://www.ethicapublishing.com/ethical/3CH1.pdf

Read: Rothstein, M. “Keeping Your Genes Private”, Scientific American. September 2008. https://www.mcdb.ucla.edu/Research/Goldberg/HC70A_W12/pdf/keepyourgenesprivate.pdf

Read: Oscapella, E. (2012) Genetic Privacy and Discrimination: An Overview of Selected Major Issues. BC Civil Liberties Association https://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/2012-BCCLA-Report-Genetic-Privacy1.pdf

Read: Prabhakar, S. et al (2003) “Biometric Recognition: Security and Privacy Concerns”, IEEE Security & Privacy http://biometrics.cse.msu.edu/Publications/GeneralBiometrics/PrabhakarPankantiJain_BiometricSecurityPrivacy_SPM03.pdf

Watch: Whose DNA is it anyway? Wendy Bonython at TEDxCanberraWomen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLvtv2iYv4Y

Write:

Week 12: Bodies of technology

 Mon, 23 Nov  Selfies, Sexting, & Nonconsensual pornography (Revenge Porn)

Wed, 25 Nov  Gamification, Health apps, & User Data

Fri, 27 Nov     EXERCISE?

Week 13: Big data, algorithms & identity

 Mon, 30 Nov  Defining your identity: data or choice?

Wed, 2 Dec     Watch: Viktor Mayer-Schonberger and Kenneth Cukier, “BIG DATA: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYS_4CWu3y8

Fri, 4 Dec        Watch: Eli Pariser “The Filter Bubble” TED Talk http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles?language=en

Listen: Joseph Turow “How Companies Are ‘Defining Your Worth’ Online” Fresh Air. http://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147189154/how-companies-are-defining-your-worth-online

 Week 14: Looking elsewhere for solutions

Mon, 7 Dec     Subversion: Sousveillance, body cams, and masked demonstrators

Wed, 9 Dec     Privacy through Copyright

Fri, 11 Dec      Write: Are body cams a solution? Strengths & Weaknesses.

Week 15: The Future of Privacy

Mon, 14 Dec   Discussion – Where is privacy going?

Read Lee Rainie and Janna Anderson The Future of Privacy” Pew Research Center http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/12/18/future-of-privacy/

Keep Calm and Just Block

It doesn’t happen often but today it happened again. I was suckered into tweeting with someone on Twitter and the endless back and forth began. I recognized it early as baiting but I tried to continue a bit further, explain my views and be polite but clear in my points. I know it’s pointless but I tried.

When I finally had had enough I informed the other that I was stopping and thanked him (?) for the discussion. Predictably he continued to bait me by “calling out” my hypocrisy. I was going to reply (I know, I know – don’t feed the trolls). But I stopped myself and I checked his profile.

It was – unsurprisingly – yet another anonymous account. Active but unnamed. Nothing in the user name or the profile gave any clue about a real identity.

I am all for anonymity and psuedonymity online. And given the right circumstances I would have not minded a discussion. But when I attempt to politely withdraw and my interlocutor is both anonymous, persistent, and baiting. I get the impression its a troll. So I have created a rule for myself. If I am arguing with an anonymous person on Twitter and they will not let me leave the argument – then it is OK to block them.

While it is perfectly OK to be anonymous online. It is also OK for me not to invest my time and energy in someone who is anonymous and disrespectful of my time and opinions. We do not have to agree, but we do have to be respectful. In particular respect is important if you are attempting anonymity.

So far I have only blocked three accounts on Twitter based on these principles. And still it makes me feel like I am doing something wrong by preventing the free flow of discussion. But there is a time when arguing with anonymous accounts must stop. It’s just not fruitful.

Privacy and Surveillance in the Movies

In preparation for my course on privacy I asked the hive mind (mainly Twitter & Facebook) for recommendations of films that deal with privacy. I mostly wanted fictional stuff but most of the documentaries are too good not to include (even though I am sure I have missed a lot of documentaries).

The list is by no means complete so please add or send me anything I missed.

You only live once (Lang 1937) Joan Graham (Sylvia Sidney) works as the secretary to the public defender. Unfortunately, she’s fallen madly in love with a criminal by the name of Eddie Taylor (Henry Fonda). Convinced that Eddie is a good man with bad luck, she pulls some strings and gets Eddie released from prison early. The two get married, but while Eddie tries to fly right, he soon discovers he can’t change his nature. His past comes knocking at their door, and the couple is forced to go into hiding.

The Philadelphia Story (Cukor, 1940) This classic romantic comedy focuses on Tracy Lord (Katharine Hepburn), a Philadelphia socialite who has split from her husband, C.K. Dexter Haven (Cary Grant), due both to his drinking and to her overly demanding nature. As Tracy prepares to wed the wealthy George Kittredge (John Howard), she crosses paths with both Dexter and prying reporter Macaulay Connor (James Stewart). Unclear about her feelings for all three men, Tracy must decide whom she truly loves.

Rear Window (Hitchcock, 1954) Sitting in a wheelchair, his leg in a cast, a photographer (James Stewart) spies on courtyard neighbors and sees a murder.

The Conversation (Coppola, 1974) Surveillance expert Harry Caul (Gene Hackman) is hired by a mysterious client’s brusque aide (Harrison Ford) to tail a young couple, Mark (Frederic Forrest) and Ann (Cindy Williams). Tracking the pair through San Francisco’s Union Square, Caul and his associate Stan (John Cazale) manage to record a cryptic conversation between them. Tormented by memories of a previous case that ended badly, Caul becomes obsessed with the resulting tape, trying to determine if the couple are in danger.

All the President’s Men (Pakula, 1976) Two green reporters and rivals working for the Washington Post, Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman), research the botched 1972 burglary of the Democratic Party Headquarters at the Watergate apartment complex. With the help of a mysterious source, code-named Deep Throat (Hal Holbrook), the two reporters make a connection between the burglars and a White House staffer. Despite dire warnings about their safety, the duo follows the money all the way to the top.

Nineteen Eighty-Four (Radford, 1984) A man loses his identity while living under a repressive regime. In a story based on George Orwell’s classic novel, Winston Smith (John Hurt) is a government employee whose job involves the rewriting of history in a manner that casts his fictional country’s leaders in a charitable light. His trysts with Julia (Suzanna Hamilton) provide his only measure of enjoyment, but lawmakers frown on the relationship — and in this closely monitored society, there is no escape from Big Brother.

Brazil (Gilliam, 1985) Low-level bureaucrat Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce) escapes the monotony of his day-to-day life through a recurring daydream of himself as a virtuous hero saving a beautiful damsel. Investigating a case that led to the wrongful arrest and eventual death of an innocent man instead of wanted terrorist Harry Tuttle (Robert De Niro), he meets the woman from his daydream (Kim Greist), and in trying to help her gets caught in a web of mistaken identities, mindless bureaucracy and lies.

The Net (Winkler, 1995) Computer programmer Angela Bennett (Sandra Bullock) starts a new freelance gig and, strangely, all her colleagues start dying. Does it have something to do with the mysterious disc she was given? Her suspicions are raised when, during a trip to Mexico, she’s seduced by a handsome stranger (Jeremy Northam) intent on locating the same disc. Soon Angela is tangled up in a far-reaching conspiracy that leads to her identity being erased. Can she stop the same thing from happening to her life?

Gattaca (Niccol, 1997) Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke) has always fantasized about traveling into outer space, but is grounded by his status as a genetically inferior “in-valid.” He decides to fight his fate by purchasing the genes of Jerome Morrow (Jude Law), a laboratory-engineered “valid.” He assumes Jerome’s DNA identity and joins the Gattaca space program, where he falls in love with Irene (Uma Thurman). An investigation into the death of a Gattaca officer (Gore Vidal) complicates Vincent’s plans.

The End of Violence (Wenders, 1997) Producer Mike Max (Bill Pullman) has made a fortune through his gory action flicks, but his own capture at the hands of some thugs causes him to reexamine his role in violent productions. After escaping the crooks, he hides out with a group of gardeners, and eventually decides to drop out of Hollywood and stay with his new protectors. Meanwhile, government surveillance man Ray (Gabriel Byrne) uses a complex network of cameras to spy on Los Angeles, but he is disturbed by his superiors.

The Truman Show (Weir, 1998) He doesn’t know it, but everything in Truman Burbank’s (Jim Carrey) life is part of a massive TV set. Executive producer Christof (Ed Harris) orchestrates “The Truman Show,” a live broadcast of Truman’s every move captured by hidden cameras. Cristof tries to control Truman’s mind, even removing his true love, Sylvia (Natascha McElhone), from the show and replacing her with Meryl (Laura Linney). As Truman gradually discovers the truth, however, he must decide whether to act on it.

Enemy of the State (Scott, 1998) Corrupt National Security Agency official Thomas Reynolds (Jon Voight) has a congressman assassinated to assure the passage of expansive new surveillance legislation. When a videotape of the murder ends up in the hands of Robert Clayton Dean (Will Smith), a labor lawyer and dedicated family man, he is framed for murder. With the help of ex-intelligence agent Edward “Brill” Lyle (Gene Hackman), Dean attempts to throw Reynolds off his trail and prove his innocence.

Minority Report (Spielberg, 2002) Based on a story by famed science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, “Minority Report” is an action-detective thriller set in Washington D.C. in 2054, where police utilize a psychic technology to arrest and convict murderers before they commit their crime. Tom Cruise plays the head of this Precrime unit and is himself accused of the future murder of a man he hasn’t even met.

Dogville (von Trier, 2004) A barren soundstage is stylishly utilized to create a minimalist small-town setting in which a mysterious woman named Grace (Nicole Kidman) hides from the criminals who pursue her. The town is two-faced and offers to harbor Grace as long as she can make it worth their effort, so Grace works hard under the employ of various townspeople to win their favor. Tensions flare, however, and Grace’s status as a helpless outsider provokes vicious contempt and abuse from the citizens of Dogville.

Code 46 (Winterbottom, 2004) In a dystopian future, insurance fraud investigator William Gold (Tim Robbins) arrives in Shanghai to investigate a forgery ring for “papelles,” futuristic passports that record people’s identities and genetics. Gold falls for Maria Gonzalez (Samantha Morton), the woman in charge of the forgeries. After a passionate affair, Gold returns home, having named a coworker as the culprit. But when one of Gonzalez’s customers is found dead, Gold is sent back to Shanghai to complete the investigation.

Caché (Hidden) (Haneke, 2005) A Parisian couple terrorised by anonymous videos which hint at a long-kept secret.

The Lives of Others (Henckel von Donnersmarck, 2006) In 1983 East Berlin, dedicated Stasi officer Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich Mühe), doubting that a famous playwright (Sebastian Koch) is loyal to the Communist Party, receives approval to spy on the man and his actress-lover Christa-Maria (Martina Gedeck). Wiesler becomes unexpectedly sympathetic to the couple, then faces conflicting loyalties when his superior takes a liking to Christa-Maria and orders Wiesler to get the playwright out of the way.

Disturbia (Caruso, 2007) Ever since his father died, young Kale (Shia LaBeouf) has become increasingly sullen and withdrawn, until he finds himself under house arrest. With cabin fever setting in, he turns his attention to spying on his neighbors, becoming increasingly suspicious that one of them is a serial killer. However, he wonders if he is right, or if his overactive imagination is getting the better of him.

Look (Rifkin, 2007) Interconnected stories are told entirely through images captured on security cameras in storage rooms, police cars, parking lots, shopping malls and other locations. Store manager Tony (Hayes MacArthur) has affairs with the women who work under him, high schooler Sherri (Spencer Redford) schemes to seduce teacher Berry (Jamie McShane), a pedophile stalks his next victim at a mall food court and two thieves go on a killing spree that links to other tales witnessed by the unseen electronic eyes.

We Live in Public (Timoner, 2009) In 1999, Internet entrepreneur Josh Harris recruits dozens of young men and women who agree to live in underground apartments for weeks at a time while their every movement is broadcast online. Soon, Harris and his girlfriend embark on their own subterranean adventure, with cameras streaming live footage of their meals, arguments, bedroom activities and bathroom habits. This documentary explores the role of technology in our lives, as it charts the fragile nature of dot-com economy.

The Social Network (Fincher, 2010) In 2003, Harvard undergrad and computer genius Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) begins work on a new concept that eventually turns into the global social network known as Facebook. Six years later, he is one of the youngest billionaires ever, but Zuckerberg finds that his unprecedented success leads to both personal and legal complications when he ends up on the receiving end of two lawsuits, one involving his former friend (Andrew Garfield).

Erasing David (Bond & McDougall, 2010) Dramatized documentary (docufiction) film from the United Kingdom. Stating that as of today the UK is “one of the three most intrusive surveillance states in the world, after China and Russia”, director and performer David Bond tries to put the system to the test. After anonymously setting up private investigators Cerberus Investigations Limited to trace him, he tries to disappear.

Terms and Conditions May Apply (Hoback, 2013) Filmmaker Cullen Hoback exposes the erosion of online privacy and what information governments and corporations are legally taking from citizens each day.

Citizenfour (Poitras, 2014) After Laura Poitras received encrypted emails from someone with information on the government’s massive covert-surveillance programs, she and reporter Glenn Greenwald flew to Hong Kong to meet the sender, who turned out to be Edward Snowden.

Tragic hitchBOT and Camera Surveillance

The hitchhiking robot and social experiment called hitchBot came to an end in Philadelphia this week. It had survived crossing Canada and being in Germany and Italy. But it turns out the US was not friendly enough for it to survive. Message from the family:

hitchBOT’s trip came to an end last night in Philadelphia after having spent a little over two weeks hitchhiking and visiting sites in Boston, Salem, Gloucester, Marblehead, and New York City. Unfortunately, hitchBOT was vandalized overnight in Philadelphia; sometimes bad things happen to good robots.

The bot was a relatively simple device with a vaguely human shape – or more like a rough robot shape; two arms and two legs a torso and a screen for eyes.

The robot was able to carry on basic conversation and talk about factoids, and was designed to be a robotic travelling companion while in the vehicle of the driver who picked it up. It had a GPS device and a 3G connection which allowed researchers to track its location. It was equipped with a camera which took photographs periodically to document its journeys. Wikipedia

It’s sad that the robot was destroyed and it could probably have happened anywhere – even if it did happen in Philly. The interesting part for me is that a couple of days later this surfaces: Here’s Video of the Jerk Who Killed hitchBOT talk about surveillance society.

There is always a camera somewhere. The question is: are we doing anything that makes it worth the effort to find the footage?

The Importance of Being Blue

After switching from iPhone to HTC it is as I suspected. Perfectly fine. The world did not explode and I did not grow horns or facial warts. The technology is beautiful and works great. There are differences but hardly worth mentioning. Everything I could do on one device I can now do on the other device.

Except for one thing. I cannot appear in a blue bubble when I text an iPhone user. Since I am no longer part of the iPhone exclusives my texts appear in green. I am marked as an outsider. The appearance of a green bubble among a long line of blue users not only marks me as an outsider but it marks be as “the other”, not the norm.

Indeed this status of otherness needs to be interpreted by those who receive the message. There first thought seems to be whether or not the color appears in error – for surely he cannot have chosen to become “other”.

Some seem to ignore it, unfazed by this color, or at least seemingly uncommenting. Are they ignoring it out of disinterest or is there a touch of embarrassment/shame? In the same way as when a friend lets himself go, or falls on hard times… its easier to avert ones eyes – are they doing the same with my green bubble?

Anne Worner Communication cc by saAnne Worner Communication CC BY SA

What is the interpretation of the green bubble? How do we judge those not part of the apple universe? One of my friends expressed his astonishment that I could even consider leaving the iPhone universe. iMessage is one of the major lock-in factors that keeps people to Apple devices. It is a great system that (when it works) allows for great functionality.

It is also an interesting marker that signals something about a user, a contact, or a friend. What does it mean to be green? Why aren’t you blue?

Shooting Down Drones

A man in Kentucky man shot down drone that was hovering over his property. He has been arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first-degree wanton endangerment. News story here. The Kentucky man was quoted as saying:

“Our rights are being trampled daily,” he said, the station reported. “Not on a local level only — but on a state and federal level. We need to have some laws in place to handle these kind of things.”

So what is the position on drones? And in particular what is the position on preventing other people’s drones from entering private property?

The right to property does not include an unlimited right to the airspace above the property. Therefore flying objects are not violating your property when they fly above it. This makes a lot of sense in relation to airplanes and helicopters. It would be strange if they needed permission to fly above individuals property – also it would be very dangerous if individuals could take pot-shots at them for violating airspace.

Actually there are most probably several laws and ordinances that deal with shooting a firearm in an urban area. And also shooting at aircraft. But this isn’t the first time someone shot down a drone a New Jersey man was arrested and charged with “possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose and criminal mischief” for  shooting down his neighbor’s drone.

The FAA has guidelines in place for unmanned aircraft systems and has partnered with industry associations to promote Know Before You Fly. The latter has provisions about respecting privacy.

Being Passive Aggressive on Facebook

How do you know when you’ve made a faux pas on a social network? If you let slip a politically incorrect comment in real life you should be able to tell that you have crossed a line by the pained expressions and the nervous squirms – but how do people squirm on social media?

This social squirming is important. It is a way in which we are schooled and taught the social boundaries of our world. Naturally some overly boorish person may actually say “we don’t accept that behavior here” but this is really unnecessary. We are usually good at picking up cues, the squirms are enough.

So how do people squirm on Facebook? Well they do so in the most passive aggressive way. Rarely do you find the boorish reproachful comment. Most often what we are met with is silence. Sure, offscreen it silence is a passive aggressive strategy but online it is the most commonly used.

Try it! Say something incorrect on FB and you will be frozen out of the social circle. Keep it up and people may begin to block you. Of course this means that the time nobody liked your post… it could have been that you crossed a social line.