Dalis Collins

Ok, well I was kinda of interested in the topic of virtual worlds and opened the required reading, Avatars and their Creators, early. From our discussion in class, I was actually disgusted by the entire idea which naturally being an average American rather than deterring me from further exploration piqued my curiosity enough that I dived in. With obesity and the lack of real relationships a real problem in today’s society, this just seemed like fuel for the fire. Therefore, I was not surprised to find the picture of the teenager who was grossly obese and dropped out of school because of his obsession with the game.
However, I was surprised by the amount of good these activities had to offer. I was especially struck by the picture of the teenage on the respirator who explained that the game was his connection to the outside world. In the “real” world, people are often awkward around him or do not give him the respect and independence he craves because of his disability. The game gave him an opportunity to experience things that would otherwise be impossible and form meaningful relationships with other players that was not biased by his disability.
There were numerous other stories like this. From the guild members from all over the US that supported its other members after Katrina to the woman who conquered her inability to connect with people, it just goes to show that nothing is all bad. I still feel strongly against its excesses. It is addictive like gambling, but with proper moderation and restriction has a place in the world. I believe its uses for people with social anxiety, autism, and other disabilities and disorders needs to be investigated. This could be one of the strongest tools at our disposal that is currently underutilized because no one is doing the necessary research and education.
I have to admit I personally feel like for the average person investing too much time in “virtual” worlds is pathetic (strong word, I know). I would hate to see “virtual” hiking replace real hiking. I would hate to see “virtual” meetings replace real. I would hate to see the beauty of the world around us replaced by the insignificance contained in a 12” by 12” screen.

Blogs and Democracy

Lessig’s comments on free culture dealing with blogs and free speech via the internet was very interesting. I had never really considered the difference between news on television and news on the internet because when I search for news I generally go to one of the major channel’s websites and it’s the same thing you see on TV. However, there are many other types of news and information resources available over the internet, and these sources do have some advantages over TV. Mainstream media is profit-based and clearly biased. CNN, FOX, and NBC (among others) cater to their audiences and present news in an entertaining and interesting way that people will want to watch. On the other hand, internet bloggers and independent sources can give an almost unlimited number of perspectives on an event, allowing the viewer to form his or her own opinion based on the information rather than viewing the pre-fabricated opinion of a news network. While bloggers don’t have the same resources as professional reporters to do full investigative journalism, they offer perspectives that professionals simply cannot provide. Because bloggers are not motivated by profit, they can be much more liberal in their delivery and in the information that they present. Lessig compares bloggers to Olympic athletes, amateurs participating based on passion alone. He believes that this leads to a broad range of perspectives which lets readers “triangulate” to the truth. The most important facet of blogging is that there is no “gatekeeper” who controls the information that is presented. This allows more unlimited information and communication and is a proponent of democracy.

Second Life.. Out of Control

I had never heard of this concept of "Second Life" before the assigned reading for class. I was absolutely blown away by the idea in general, and when discussing further Second Life issues in class on Thursday, I couldn't believe the things I heard. First off, if you don't know exactly what Second Life is, it's an internet program in which you create an "avatar" (a person/animal that represents you in Second Life) and interact with other avatars online. It sounds like a fun chatroom right? Not exactly. Apparently, from what I gathered, users on Second Life go to dance clubs, create buildings, earn money, and pay real money (which I believe is called "Linden Dollars" after the creator of Second Life) to do various things. Furthermore, users can engage in sexual activity with others avatars.
In class, we read articles and discussed the problems and challenges people have with Second Life. For some, it's just a game to meet new people and chat on occasion. For others, it's a way of life. Some people spend hours on end on Second Life, treating it almost as their own real life. How is this healthy? Why don't these people just live out their own lives in the real world rather than have a fake one online?
Another topic that came up in class is Second Life relationships. We read two articles that discussed the sex aspect of Second Life. Would you break up with your girlfriend/boyfriend or even your spouse if you knew they were having a Second Life relationship? Why on earth would they choose to have a Second Life relationship in the first place? The first article we read discussed how there is an emotional intimacy attached to Second Life relationships. The next talked about couples who broke up with/divorced their significant others for their Second Life "cheating." I think all of this talk of relationships on Second Life is nonsense. I don't think an online relationship counts as true love to any extent.

The Pleasure Principle

After I listened to this radio link about homophily, I think it was interesting topic that to be discussed. Social scientist call "homophily" refer to the principle of ‘birds of a feather flock together’ means that benefit from the collective interest of a particular group. Ethan Zuckerman, blogger and internet theorist, has been trying to fight this natural force of human during online. He offers techniques for surprising and challenging readers with news that they didn't know they wanted.

I agree with him about homophily has something danger of making us stupid. For example, let's say, we want to watch video something about our study or course. Firstly, if we open YouTube website, we can see the most promoted or watch videos. Absolutely, we think more than one time whether we want to watch these videos or not. I'm really sure that fifty percent probability, we want to watch. There also the related videos those come out after our first watch or at the side of window. So, do you think we lost our time just for these related video. Of course, as Ethan said that probably there are benefits from this "flock" that related to the main topic and we can further known about something. Otherwise, I think that is not necessary for us to know all the events until we forget what are we suppose to do right now.

As we discussed in class about free speech and freedom, the Internet or reading material like newspaper provide us to give any different stuffs and points of views of any topic. People are free to promote these videos and give another link related to them. Back to the homophily habit, this is not an Internet problem but this is a human problem. We really enjoy so much about the fantastic and exciting stuffs rather than get to find something very useful for us. I think that we should concern about these freedom of free speech even through blogging or other social stuffs and only take the positive values from these freedom.

Fourth Amendment

Lessig’s commentary on the Fourth Amendment, the protection from indiscriminate searches and general warrants, is very interesting. Lessig provides three different views on the value protected by the Fourth Amendment. The first value he comments on is the protection from the unjustified burden on an indiscriminate search. The second value is the protection of an offense to dignity caused by such a search. The third value is constraining the power of the state to regulate. Lessig argues that digital surveillance does not violate the first value, the protection from an unjustified burden, because the surveillance occurs without any burden at all to the person being watched unless significant evidence is found. The second value, however, is clearly violated. Lessig writes that dignity is not harmed if the state has justification to search before it does so. I believe that this is a slippery slope, and I would imagine that there are plenty of cases where searches have been “justified” by the state without really enough evidence to do so. A digital search, while most likely accompanied by good intentions, could be a serious invasion of privacy when performed on an innocent person. The third value, protection from the state, is a very complicated issue. Many people believe that the state has too much power, especially after legislation like the Patriot Act. The ability for the government to listen in on personal phone calls, monitor your internet and correspondence, and track people with GPS seems like a clear invasion of privacy. However, events like 9/11 make it impossible to keep the citizens of our nation safe without using such drastic measures. It seems cliché to say that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about,” but in many senses its true. On the other hand, even though I’m not plotting any terrorist plans on my phone calls and over my emails (or anywhere for that matter), the thought that someone could be monitoring me at any time is definitely not a good feeling.

Lack of Privacy

Privacy and the internet are two luxuries that seem to be in clear conflict. Our readings and discussions about privacy on the internet makes me think of a story from a few summers ago back in Florida. A man was on trial for the murder of his wife in my town and the case became a national news story. It was a very strange case because, according to the man, he and his wife had been on the beach when someone mugged them at gunpoint, killing his wife and shooting him in the shoulder. The prosecutors, however, argued that the man either killed his wife himself and then shot himself, or that he hired someone to shoot both of them. The case was especially confounded because the man had taken out a very large life insurance policy on his wife only months before the incident. This story relates to our discussions about privacy because the deciding factor in the case, the evidence that led to the man’s conviction, was that an investigation of his internet history revealed that he had been researching gunshot wounds before the shooting. The prosecutors were able to convince the jury that he had planned the shooting and had been researching ways to survive the gunshot wound that he sustained either from himself or from another party. Now, I am not arguing that the man wasn’t guilty, and if he is guilty, then he got what he deserves. However, it seems iffy that a man’s internet history and the things he researches are admissible in court and could be the deciding factor for whether he spends the rest of his life in jail or not. Looking at phone logs and email history are somewhat understandable, even though many people argue that they are still an invasion of privacy. In most cases, I don’t think that the websites someone browses or the tv shows they download should be public property.

Head Space

I felt particular concerned when listen to radio story about "Head Space" because there was a billboard emits highly focused sound that resonates within the skulls of passerby. Currently, this device is invading the right of privacy in individual's mind. The billboard is flanked by devices that look like speakers but which direct highly focused sound at unsuspected persons who trigger a sensor by walking by. The sound is sent at a fixed frequency that can only be heard by them because the transmitter uses the skull as a speaker and so the sound resonates inside the head. The first think when I listen to how this unique device work is very unbelievable and been effective enough to scare even the person.

Clive Thompson who is technology writer explained that it's part of a wave a new device design on every person mind. He continued explained that this technology is part of a new legal area, ethical area that can called "the civil right of the mind". So how really this device legal to person's right? I'm very concern that as we discussed the new modern technology like wiretapping will violate the privacy of mankind. These technological innovations are eroding sanctify of our mind because they would be functioned as read what's on our mind. In fact, we no longer private and it can literally say that our head is not safe just for our own thoughts. So, is unfair for us to forced get technologies that can put things inside our head, like this one?

We're forced to hear useless voices and we can't cover our ears by headphone or even some paper towels. The way this technology works is that it's making our body resonate and become the device for making noise. I really concerned about the fact that creators developing technology faster than we're updating our legal and ethical ways of thinking about that because up until now, we're been think that these new technologies not really hundred percent invading our private. Unfortunately, I think more powerful technology will be created and out of expected by us regarding how it affects our privacy. Does our legal tradition or our Constitutional tradition that we already discussed in class have any answer for these types of technology? I would like to know it soon while I really hope that the creators think about mankind privacy before create some modern technology devices.