This is my informational blog about the laws that are used in today's media and how to interpret what they mean. I also will be sharing information that includes historical information about the technology we use today for media.
Today, I will be sharing with you all my relationship with technology and how the media has a role in my life. Additionally, I will share information about my digital footprint as well as my online presence.
Relationship Status: Complicated
My relationship with technology and media in itself is very complicated. I love it and hate it at the same time. I find so many positives with it, yet with those positives, I still find a good amount of negatives.
Here are some of the positives I found with technology:
- Reality Made Easier:
Everyone now has access to knowledge of everything at the tips of their fingers. Our phones provide us with information and technology we could only dream of 40 years ago. We no longer have to open up a dictionary or a book. Just type in what you are looking for into Google and it will find the answers for you.
- Medical Advancements:
Technology that helps with organ transplants, bionic limbs, gene editing, and 3D-printed organs and tissues are just to name a few amazing advancements. Years and years ago, we would have struggled to find solutions for amputees. Now, we can provide them with bionic arms that help them get back to their normal lives before they were impacted by their amputation.
- Impossible Made Possible:
We now have access to jobs through computers, and even our phones. Our world has self-driving cars and augmented realities. These are just some of the advancements we have made that no one thought could be remotely possible 20 years ago. Technology makes the impossible possible. Without technology, we would likely struggle to function in our everyday lives just because technology makes it so much easier.
Yet...we did function before technology. So, why do we need it so badly now? Have we just become reliant on it? Are we addicted to the ease that technology brings to us in our everyday lives?
Here are the negatives of technology that I found to be true:
- Social Media:
Social media has been a very controversial topic throughout the years since it was introduced. The idea of liking peoples content and commenting seems like a cute idea, no? However, the idea of getting likes and positive comments was something people were beginning to strive for; crave. When people's accounts do not reach a certain following or they do not get a certain amount of likes on their posts, that is when mental health is put in jeopardy. Because overall social standards have been raised to almost an unreachable bar, it is no wonder so many people on social media develop anxiety, depression, FOMO, and body image issues.
- Technology Takeover:
Technology as we know it is almost implemented in everything, especially when it comes to everyday lives. Microwave? Technology. Refrigerator? Technology. Washer and dryer? Technology. You want to ask a question? Resort to technology. Humans today rely so much on technology that there is no way anyone can imagine living without it. That is what our world has come to. We cannot function without our phones nearby us or in our hand or pocket. We have begun an overreliance on technology. We rely too heavily on calculators, spellcheck, GPS, and so many more things that were more than possible before the time of technology. People would use mental math and write out equations; people used dictionaries to check their spelling; people used paper or laminated maps to find where they were going. Our lives were doable then and they are doable now. However, the issue still remains where we rely so heavily on technology that we have begun not thinking for ourselves.
- Educational Concerns:
With our reliance on technology comes education and cognitive concerns. Between the years of 2000 and 2015, the average attention span of a teenager has gone from 28-42 minutes all the way down to just 8 seconds by 2024. That is alarming. It has decreased so severely due to constant notifications and multitasking, reducing the ability to focus deeply. With my phone around me while doing tasks or homework, I struggle to stay attentive in my work for more than 10 minutes without getting distracted by a notification.
Technology today is terrifying. It is everywhere, and is implemented in almost everything we know. What would we do without technology?
Relating to the Short Videos
In the final blog post prompt I have been following, I found that the dark side of technology video appealed the most to me. I see the dark side more than the light. I have never felt more left out and lonely when it comes to social media. Seeing posts about how perfect someone's life looks is very detrimental to my health and I have attempted at telling myself that I should never assume what someone is going through. While it may look perfect on the outside, who knows what is happening on the inside. I prefer to tell myself that there is a vulnerable side to everyone and everyone has their own conflicts like myself. That tends to help me feel less of the effects of FOMO because I can reflect on my own life.
For the videos I had discussed in other blog posts regarding privacy and online censorship, those are not nearly as thought-provoking for me as the dark side of social media and its effect on mental health. However, I do believe that technology allows the impossible to be possible, and that may not necessarily always be good. Technology may allow governments to surveil its citizens in a non-ethical way, like listening in on private conversations or spying on the actions of citizens, which is very concerning.
Conclusion
Overall, my relationship with technology is complicated. I struggle to find more good in it than bad, yet I use it every day. I am writing on a computer right now. That is both amazing and horrible at the same time. This just reasserts my opinion that we rely too heavily on technology for all our needs and wants. What happened to writing on paper?
Thank you so much for following along with me as I explored multiple different topics across all my blog posts concerning laws and media and both combined. I hope you enjoyed reading these as much as I enjoyed typing and compiling them!
In this blog post, I will be reflecting on information shared by my fellow peers from their "Each One, Teach One" presentation!
There were many topics shared from many different students, but there were a few topics that I personally took an interest in, and I will be discussing them down below!
Five Eyes
Before this presentation, I had no idea what "Five Eyes" was and had never heard of it before. Now, I am much more aware of what it is. Five Eyes is an intelligence sharing process between five different countries. It originated all the way back to WWII, where the US and the UK worked together to intercept enemy communication. They set up intelligence sharing between the two countries to stay in the know about the enemy and allied together to get ahead of the pack.
Today, Five Eyes still exists, and it mainly focuses on cyberthreats, geopolitical intelligence, and terrorism. Five Eyes only became apparent to the public once there were a bunch of data leaks from around the world. These leaks revealed extensive monitoring actions, which in return made citizens angry and upset about their governments spying on its own citizens.
Because of this outrage, there have been many who strive to completely eliminate Five Eyes and to discontinue its operations. While I completely understand why citizens would be outraged due to not being aware of the government's actions, I also understand why they had to keep that information under wraps. In order for them to catch criminals or conspirators, they had to go unseen by the public. However, I do believe honesty and transparency is the best policy.
Disinformation
I had heard the term of "disinformation" before, but never knew the full extent of its meaning. According to my classmate who presented on this topic, disinformation is information deliberately spread in order to influence public opinion or to obscure the truth.
My peer discussed both the negatives and the positives, as follows:
Positives:
- Unites people
- Removes shame
- Give feeling of power
- Confirm already believed thoughts
- Gives explanation to unexplained events
- Provides a release
Negatives:
- Takes away trust
- Can make you emotional
- Creates division
- Leaves you in uncertainty
- Can be dangerous
I have to say I completely agree with all of these positives and negatives, especially under "Positives," that it provides a release and gives feelings of power. Many people who deliberately spread false information want to feel that they have the power to influence those around them, and through disinformation, they are able to achieve that. In addition, under the "Negatives" list, it definitely takes away trust and leaves you in uncertainty. If you were to listen to everything someone says and find out that it is all false information, you would be left doubting everything you hear from someone else, regardless of whether it is actually true or false.
Within the presentation, it was mentioned that disinformation is mainly found on social media, happening through trolls, AI, hackers, and search history like recommended engines.
Ways to combat disinformation include:
- Looking at the author & where the source comes from
- Dig deeper on the topic to fully understand what is being discussed & so you are aware of what information is correct and what information may be false or incorrect
- Do a personal bias check; double check if the information is coming from someone who is biased
- Ask well-educated people about the information to ensure it is correct information
- Was the article with information done for satire? Was it serious?
**IMPORTANT: Disinformation is hard to spot!!!***
False Flags
The third topic I was interested in was the topic of false flags. False flags is a strategic operation put in place by the party at fault to pin the blame on another party. This is typically used in politics to paint one side as looking worse than the other. Countries also tend to use false flags to make their citizens lean on their own government for support rather than seeking out other countries. A perfect example is China. China tends to want to portray itself as elite and perfect to its citizens, hiding controversial events and using false flags to make other countries seem less appealing and look bad to their citizens.
Some positives of false flags include gaining tactical advantage in war, as well as possibly gaining public support.
On the downside, there are negatives of using false flags. For example, using false flags is essentially lying to the public, is unethical, and hurts international allies. For a country like China who does not really care about its reputation and its allies, the negatives do not really affect it. However, for countries like the USA and smaller countries with less military support who rely on having allies, using false flags can be very detrimental to their reputation and is usually avoided at all costs.
How False Flags Affect Society as a Whole
- Public loses trust
- Death of innocent people & destroying of their homes
- Affects who people vote for in the future
- Destroys social unity
- Protests & riots may rise
How it Affects Certain Groups
- Wealthier people tend to have more resources and power than people with less money
- Minorities are more likely to be targeted
Conclusion
To conclude, I really enjoyed listening to my peers' presentations; I feel I learned so much more than I expected to learn. There were so many more topics that I did not mention in my blog post that caught my attention and I learned many new things about our government and the actions it takes.
My next blog post will be my final post, so I am looking forward to seeing you join me in my last post on this platform! Thank you for reading, and see you next time!
Today in this blog post, I will be discussing the video I watched labeled "In the Age of AI," which discussed the positives and the negatives of AI in today's society. Additionally, I will be reflecting on the video and sharing my thoughts on AI.
"In the Age of AI" Video
From watching the video, what I learned that I did not know already was how many jobs are being taken over by AI. At the beginning of the second hour of the video, it shows what looks like a factory, but is labeled as a 'supermarket.' Personally, I cannot imagine why we need machines to do work that someone else could be getting paid to do. It really highlights the significance of how people are becoming less relevant and technology is becoming the new "thang." It is quite terrifying to me that in 20 years, or maybe even less than that, all jobs that humans have will be taken over by technology and AI. They are already exploring using robots in the military and in the medical fields, where robots will perform surgeries and perform other tasks that humans could easily do, but possibly better.
I struggle to understand why we as a society need AI to do tasks anyone could easily do with just a little sweat and tears. Is it because we have become lazy as a society and no longer feel the need to work for what we want?
Further into the video, it is mentioned that there are "millions of people who work in cashier positions" and in the next few years, it is likely that those jobs will be taken over by AI and technology. A perfect example of this already happening is in the Amazon Fresh grocery stores. I have one in my hometown and it is actually quite terrifying. You walk in, grab a cart, and everything you put into your cart is scanned and added to your virtual Amazon cart. Once you are done shopping, your Amazon account is charged for your groceries and you leave the store. There are no cashiers involved. Now that, to me, is very weird. Why is it that we do not feel the need to provide jobs to those who need them and instead of giving open jobs to people we choose robots? Or none at all, like at the Amazon Fresh store?
I understand the want for perfection and the want for everything to be easier and more, but isn't taking people out of the equation when it comes to jobs mean less human interaction and more reliance on technology?
Later in the video, it is mentioned that many businesses look at implementing technology and AI into their business due to the want for more efficiency. These businesses are looking for a way to use less workers and promote more productivity and efficiency, yet they are eliminating jobs that could be offered to those that need the money and networking.
One of the lines that stuck the most with me in the video was "And I do think that when we look at some of the studies about opportunity in this country, the likelihood that you won't be able to advance from where your parents were, I think that's...is very serious and gets to the heart of the way we like to think of America as the land of opportunity." While there is a very serious issue with inequality when it comes to the job field, how is technology going to make that any more fair? How will people be able to make a living if technology is doing everything for them.
One other issue I want to address is how we are so reliable on technology and we are no longer going to be able to function at a healthy, productive way. Our next generation needs to be sufficient in taking care of themselves and using their motor skills in order to keep our world functioning. Relying completely on technology to perform simple tasks like packing groceries into a bag or needing AI to write you an essay--when you should be able to do that on your own--will mean that we will never be able to function without technology and there is the possibility that an actual AI apocalypse could occur. God forbid AI becomes conscious and realizes humans are useless and are not needed.
Conclusion
Overall, my thoughts on AI vary. I love the idea of being able to do things that were once labeled impossible with the help of technology, but I hate the idea that humans will be pushed out of their jobs that keeps them active, attentive, challenges their critical thinking and problem solving skills, communication skills, and productivity, just for technology to take over for them. It does not make sense to employ AI into doing jobs that humans are perfectly capable of. In my opinion, it shows that we want to choose the easy way out.
Next week, I will be reflecting on information shared in the EOTO Presentations by my fellow peers! 'Til next time!
Today, I will be discussing the topic I chose to present on for my second EOTO presentation. I chose to talk about Citizen Journalism! If you have not heard of this term before, you definitely want to pay attention because it is a very important definition to understand.
What is Citizen Journalism?
Citizen journalism is where citizens participate in the action of collecting, reporting, analyzing, and spreading news. Some real life examples include:
- Black Lives Matter Movement
- The 2013 Turkish Protests
- John F. Kennedy Assassination
Pros & Cons of Citizen Journalism
Positives:
- Interaction with Media:
Citizen journalism allows for the average citizen to interact with media. Without citizen journalism, most citizens would not take part in interactions with the news media.
- Personal to Viewers:
Because it is average citizens involved in news coverage and journalism, this makes it more personal and appealing to others.
- Untouched by Media:
News media and other professional journalists tend to share news stories that are filtered or edited to fit their viewpoint or to fit the narrative. With citizens participating in sharing stories, they tend to stay unfiltered.
- Diverse Perspectives:
Anyone can participate in citizen journalism and because of this, more diverse stories can be shared rather than just the mainstream news anchors. All kinds of different topics can be shared and multiple different perspectives are viewed.
- Gives Minorities Voice:
Again, anyone can participate in citizen journalism. Because of this, people who are part of diverse minority groups can share their voice and opinions on different stories from around the world. Citizen journalism gives everyone a voice!
Negatives:
- Potential Misinformation:
With citizen journalism, anyone can share information. Because the average citizen can participate, there is the potential for misinformation since they may not do research to the fullest extent or they may intentionally leave information out to help their opinion spread.
- Lack of Professional Training:
As mentioned above, people who are participating in citizen journalism may not exactly have the same training and experience as other mainstream media personnel, which leads me into my next point.
- Credibility/Trust Issues:
People tend to trust those they see consistency from, like people on the mainstream media. With average citizens coming out and sharing information, it is much harder to garner audience trust and build credibility for yourself because of your possible lack of training or being an unknown individual.
Impact of Citizen Journalism
There are many positive impacts when it comes to citizen journalism.
The average citizen can easily practice their First Amendment: speech! They have the freedom to participate in sharing their opinions with the world. Citizen journalism helps to enhance the freedoms of America.
Additionally, it helps promote government transparency where citizens can hold the government accountable for potential withholding of information or false information intentionally spread to make the government look better.
To add on, it challenges traditional media that tends to follow a specific narrative. Citizen journalism promotes stories that are typically shutdown or hidden by the mainstream media because it does not fit their narrative.
And to conclude, citizen journalism empowers citizens to step up to their role as a citizen and inform all about what is going on in our nation.
Conclusion
Citizen journalism is extremely important to our nation. It allows stories that are ignored to be shared with everyone. It also supports patriotism and shows that our country works together to inform others of what is happening in the world. It brings people together where they have a safe space to share their thoughts and opinions. It can be concerning because it does put people in a vulnerable position to be criticized for their opinions or stories shared, but it does allow information to be spread that is unfiltered and untouched.
Next time, I will be sharing my thoughts on living in The Age of AI and how it impacts me. See you then!
Hello all! Today, I will be discussing the topic of the Diffusion Theory and how it relates to new innovations.
What is Diffusion of Innovations Theory?
The theory of diffusion of innovations is a theory that explains how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures. According to wikipedia, there are five different categories people fall under in this theory:
- Innovators (risk-takers, first adopters)
- Early Adopters (respected, opinion leaders)
- Early Majority (deliberate, before the average person)
- Late Majority (skeptical, adopt after the majority)
- Laggards (last to adopt, resistant to change)
Through these categories, it makes it easier for us to differentiate between different groups of people and their 'adopting' patterns when it comes to new innovations. How quickly do they jump on the bandwagon of different innovations, especially when it comes to technology and media?
Some Innovations that Caught On
TikTok
TikTok appealed to early adopters for its creativity and viral potential. It was a type of lo-effort, high-reward app, where all you had to do was make a video lip syncing or dancing or showing other talents and in return, you could go viral and earn money for your video views. The app was fast-paced in terms of the length of attention span required, and was formatted to feel familiar to the younger generation--especially Gen Z. Its spread was boosted by algorithms that made ordinary users go viral.
Smartphones
Smartphones like the iPhone and Android went viral due to several factors like how it had advantages over other technology. It was a phone, camera, GPS, and internet all combined into one. Additionally, you could bring it anywhere and everywhere you went, which made it stand out compatibility-wise. People became early adopters because it showed productivity and connectivity.
Why Do People Become Early Adopters?
People who become early adopters tend to want to be first because they are more "in the know" compared to others who are late adopters. It makes them seem cool that they know so much about a new innovation. To add, these types of people often enjoy new technology or innovations and want to explore new creations. Sometimes, early adopters are seen as influencers because they are more "in the know" than others, and many tend to feel they are trustworthy.
Why Are Some People Late Adopters or Non-Adopters?
Those who are late adopters or non-adopters are most likely just skeptical about the new innovation and are unsure of whether they trust the new technology, which is understandable. On top of that, some of them just do not have an appeal towards it, making them non-adopters. Maybe some of them are happy with what they have or the way things were before the new innovation and just are not interested in adopting the new technology. Many people often adopt once something becomes more popular and mainstream--once its in your face and practically unavoidable.
The Downsides of New Technology
I am a big fan of speaking about the downsides of new technology, especially when it comes to social media. Its impact on mental health is something that many people do not take into account. It causes anxiety and many people often struggle with body image issues because of social media. It can also cause FOMO, which may in turn, cause depression.
Privacy concerns are also a huge factor. The conspiracy or idea that Instagram or TikTok listens to you might be real just due to how these apps surveille us and hold onto and have access to our personal information.
Why Some Choose Not to be on Social Media
Like Dr. Dean, many may not choose social media because they are just as happy and content with the resources they already have. There also is the possibility that Dr. Dean and others would rather save themselves from mental health issues and the chance of their personal information being leaked somewhere or their data being sold. Furthermore, they may prefer different methods of communication like in-person relationships rather than over the phone or social media friendships--my personal preference.
What You Could Gain If You Did Join
If people like Dr. Dean joined social media, he could gain the ability to easily stay in touch and find people like him in communities, whereas that may be more difficult to do in person. He also could have access to new trends and opportunities like networking through LinkedIn. To conclude, he also could have a platform where he could practice self-expression and he can voice his opinions or interests with the world rather than through just word of mouth.
Conclusion
Today, I shared information about the Diffusion of Innovations Theory and what it is and how it applies to the real world. I also shared the different categories of people within the theory. I feel like I am one of those people who falls into the "early adopter" category. I tend to quickly jump on trends after seeing people who were adopters at the very beginning, like influencers.
Next week, I will be discussing my second Each One, Teach One presentation and the topic I chose--Citizen Journalism!
In my blog today, I will be writing about why the average citizen must seek out anti-war websites that share information from writers about anti-war arguments, and why it is that no one seems to hear about it in the mainstream media.
This first website, when visited pops up with a bunch of different topics surrounding war from around the world. The writings in this blogger website are all very strong...but why are we not hearing about the things discussed in these blogs on the news?
I believe that the reason behind why the average citizen is not viewing discussions surrounding topics of antiwar like on this website because the government wants to retain a certain image. If the news were to be talking about anti-war, people could begin siding with the idea that war is actually a horrible way to assert dominance by a government.
Since anti-war talk is so marginalized due to it not being discussed, the media figures it is not as important to discuss since it does not fit a certain 'narrative.' The media relies on tellings stories from major sources and huge political and economic interests. They tend to rely on official sources like government press briefings, defense department updates, and corporate PR. Since anti-war voices often challenge these sources (questioning military actions, questioning government actions, foreign policy, military spending, etc) they don't fit the typical narrative. For example, questioning or critiquing U.S. military actions or alliances like NATO might be seen as "unpatriotic," which can make editors of stories in the media nervous about including such perspectives.
Additionally, these websites usually are not found easily enough due to underfunding since many of these websites are created by small groups that, again, do not fit the typical narrative. Because they do not fit the narrative, many people view them as outcasts. They tend to rely on donations, which limits their ability to spread their message and views, and it especially makes it difficult for the mainstream media to pick up their stories or opinions and share it across media.
To conclude, as many of us know, things like war and conflict sell. People watch more news that has to do with shocking events and out-of-the-ordinary occurrences. While anti-war talk is out of the ordinary, the average citizen tends to crave something more dramatic and sensational, like war. News channels that report on things like war get more views which in turn earns them more money, while anti-war messages tend to be more subtle and reflective--view it as less sexy and appealing as war.
Conclusion
With the websites listed above, I had no knowledge of websites like these before discovering them. I did really think about the idea that there are groups out there who are strongly against war and try to spread their message around the nation and around the world. Because I am not of this, and I am sure many others are not, it only goes to show how the mainstream media picks and chooses its stories, and if they think it will not sell, they do not bother.
I believe that mainstream news should try to stray away from the typical narrative and share more nuanced stories like these. I know I would watch!
My next blog will be sharing information about the Diffusion Theory and my thoughts on it! See you next time!
In this blog post, I will be detailing some inventions that my peers shared in their "Each One, Teach One" presentations. Just like my blog post about the telegraph, this blog post will be sharing new information I discovered from other pieces of technology in history.
The History of the Carrier Pigeons
Many people know about carrier pigeons being one of the first ways to communicate across varying distances. Little did I know, however, the origin of carrier pigeons and where it started.
According to the research one of my classmates found, the first instances of carrier pigeons was likely in ancient Egypt. This was the fastest way to get a message from point A to point B. In addition, carrier pigeons were also used during the Roman Empire; there was quite a large usage of them at that time. Initially, carrier pigeons were used only for the wealthy who wanted to deliver their mail faster than on horseback. At the time, it was a privilege to have a carrier pigeon deliver your message.
Carrier pigeons were also regarded in the Middle East, and were help in high esteem, calling them "King's Angels". Again, as you can see, they were used primarily for the wealthiest of citizens.
A fun fact about carrier pigeons is that pigeon racing became an official sport in the 1900s! Who knew!
The Invention and History of Television
Television is both one of the greatest and most astonishing inventions when it comes to technology. Before the television, there was Paul Nipkow, who invented the electric telescope in 1884, which was a spinning disk system that could 'scan' things. After this invention, years later, Philo Farnsworth demonstrated the first electronic TV system in 1927. This was technically the first ever invention of the television, the earliest and closest thing to a TV like the ones we have today.
The television helped revolutionize communication and fostered shared cultural experiences. Once it became a worldwide invention, majority of the population eventually had one and could experience real time events with other countries at the same time, which positively impacted communication between countries. It helped unite the world and brought people together when it came to watching favorite shows or witnessing live television broadcasts.
Of course, there are negatives with every positive. Concerns over televised violence, particularly on children, became quite prominent. One way children would find entertainment was through the TV, but unfortunately, there were times when there was no perfect way to monitor whether violence would pop up on the television. In addition, it sparked debates on content regulation and parental supervision. The issue rose that parents should be supervising their children when watching TV to help diminish the possibility of violence being displayed.
Obviously, television made it a very long way and better ways to monitor children while watching TV has become very advanced. For example, Netflix has the feature that allows children to only view child-approved content. In addition, on cable, there are many different channels that promote only kids shows which helps diminish the impact of violence on children nowadays.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both the inventions that I chose to speak about are inventions that were necessary for technology to be as advanced as it is today. These inventions helped set in motion extraordinary creations that we could only have imagined back in the day.
My next blog post will detail The Progressive Era and I will be sharing my thoughts on antiwar voices.
In today's blog post, I will be reflecting on a few TEDTalk videos I watched that discuss how media platforms tend to invade our privacy with their technology. After watching four videos detailing how technology invades our privacy, I will be sharing my feelings about the overall arching idea of technology possibly being too powerful and actually having a more negative affect on our daily lives than we are knowledgable of.
Video 1: Juan Enriquez
In the first video, the speaker, Juan Enriquez, compares how platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Google, LinkedIn, cell phones, GPS, and many more are like "electronic tattoos": they provide as much information about who and what you are as any tattoo would. With that remark, he is raising a very strong point. There is such a thing as a digital footprint; things posted, liked, shared, and commented on stay with you throughout the rest of your life with these platforms, whether you like it to or not. Not only that, but the main point Enriquez is making is that these platforms have so much information on you that they could create an entire portfolio just with a few slivers of information. How scary is that?!
In addition, he gives examples of the advancement in facial recognition--almost 88% accurate most of the time--and how with a simple picture, facial recognition technology can recognize those faces in the photo and identify each and every person there. A company named "Face.com" was sold to Facebook, and it contained over 18 billion faces in its system from facial recognition. It is terrifying to think that my face is located somewhere in Facebook's database and how many people have access to seeing what I look like and can identify me across numerous different platforms.
Overall, Juan Enriquez creates the absolute perfect comparison of our presence on digital platforms: Electronic tattoos. His video teaches me to be more aware and cautious about my presence on social media platforms and to be careful with what information I share, because somewhere out there, someone has access to that information and can easily profile me.
Video 2: Catherine Crump
In the second video featuring the speaker Catherine Crump describes how GPS locations allow the government to basically have a detailed portrait of who you are, what you do, your interests, and how you function in everyday life--just based on where you go. Crump states that "thanks to modern technology, the government knows way too much about what happens behind closed doors and local police departments make decisions about who they think you are based on this information."
Something that I had not even thought of are the cameras spread across thousands of streets across the country that are capable of reading license plates. While I completely agree with Crump's idea that police departments know too much about us, I view it as a form of protection. Because police departments know this information, I feel safer knowing that they can make a profile of me, especially since I am not the type to do anything illegal. Maybe for some who prefer to keep their lives private or maybe even those that prefer to be anonymous in order to commit crimes may feel very uncomfortable and unsettled by this idea.
However, coming from someone who feels safe with majority of police departments, I have to say I disagree with the idea that it is an uncomfortable contract that we sign as citizens in the United States.
While I disagree with the main idea that it is "unlawful" for police departments to hold onto information about everyday citizens, I have to say that it does make me uncomfortable that they have information on me, despite me doing nothing wrong. However, I am the kind of person who does not like the idea of the government having that information when they are not the ones that technically enforce the law like police officers do. Yes, the government is the one enforcing laws, but I view police officers as everyday citizens like me and you, but they just have more power.
I cannot explain it well, but I view the government as a more controlling power and police officers more checking citizens and making sure they are following the laws. I have never viewed police officers in general as negative and if anything, I view them as keeping the streets safe and preventing and resolving crime. Unfortunately, there are those police officers that are corrupt and abuse their power to take advantage of and wrongly treat citizens.
In the end, I completely see where Catherine Crump is coming from and I do not like the idea of police departments having technology that powerful and them having the ability to store data about me in their systems, but I have to say I feel less threatened by it.
Video 3: Christopher Soghoian
The third video is with speaker Christopher Soghoian, who discusses how surveillance has happened for more than 100 years, supplied by telephone companies that can wiretap into phone calls. He describes how telephone companies have built surveillance features into the very core of their networks.
The idea of this is quite horrifying, and come to think of it, I have always thought about how unsettling that would be if it were to happen to me. I know that I definitely disagree with the idea that someone should be capable of listening in on a phone call that is happening in private, especially if it is about information that me or someone else does not want to be shared.
Soghoian makes a good point that it does not necessarily have to be someone you know; it could be your own government or a different government, or even someone like a hacker, criminal, or stalker. The thought of this makes me uneasy to think that information I want to discuss in private and I believe is private may not be after all.
His video takes a turn, where he begins listing how Apple and Facebook have created encryptions that make it extremely difficult for anyone to wiretap into messages, phone calls, and Facetime calls. And after more than 100 years, the government finally cannot access information through wiretapping, which Soghoian says they are not happy about. According to Soghoian, "what upsets them the most is that the tech companies have built encryption features into their products and turned them on by default. It's the default piece that matters. In short, the tech companies have democratized encryption. And so, government officials like British Prime Minister David Cameron, they believe that all communications--emails, texts, voice calls--all of these should be available to governments, and encryption is making that difficult." From this statement, I can conclude that Soghoian is making an inference that the government is upset and enraged that it cannot monitor its citizens, and this seems to be a world-wide belief.
He then makes the argument that everyone uses the exact same devices and that there is no such thing as a seperate device that the government can intercept. Now, majority of people want the safety of the government being able to track down and stop hackers, criminals, and other threats, but if they were able to do that, then everyone would be at risk of the government's ability to tap into their devices.
To conclude, there really is no winning with this. If we do not allow the government to tap into all devices and monitor what is going on, then we run the risk of criminals, terrorists, and other threats getting away with their cyber presence. But if we do let the government tap into our devices, then we run the risk of the government being able to spy on all its citizens, not just the bad ones.
Video 4: Darieth Chisolm (unable to link video here)
In the fourth and final video, Darieth Chisolm, the speaker in the video, discusses how the internet, because of how vast it is, can have content on it that is on display against your will. She was a victim of "revenge porn" or as she calls it, "digital domestic violence," and through talking about this trauma, she makes the argument that the government needs to put more laws in place that protect and defend against acts such as this. Unfortunately, only 40 states in the US have laws that somewhat fight against this issue, majority of which are misdemeanor charges. Because of the lack of attention this worldwide issue has gotten, there are little to no consequences for those who commit this heinous act, and there are no solutions to stop it currently--without it costing thousands of dollars and countless hours of waiting. Even then, there is no true solution to this yet.
However, if the government can put in place laws that actually help protect victims against this crime and allows punishments for those who commit the crime, there may be some resolution in this. It is terrifying to think that not only would someone be capable of committing an act like that, but the internet having that content and millions having the ability to view it. Even once it is deleted or removed from the internet, it really is never officially 'removed.' Just like a digital footprint, there is some data somewhere that contains that content, someone may have downloaded it and can share it from there, and the fact that the internet was even able to take in that content should be criticized and a solution should be found.
Reflection
Overall, all the issues mentioned in the videos have been issues that have crossed my mind, especially the idea of wiretapping into devices. As a Sci-Fi novel enthusiast, the idea that the government could have as much power as they did in the book 1984 by George Orwell is horrific to think of. In the novel, the government has surveillance everywhere and can hear every conversation of every citizen through every device. If the government were to approve a law that allows them to tap into devices, I know I personally would be very concerned about my privacy and the government invading it. I know such things as data being stored in all types of different platforms concerns me for my family and myself because god forbid something were to happen to their information and they face the problem of identity theft or other major crimes that could affect their lives heavily.
For all these issues, I believe that the government should make laws that prevent others from, for example, having information available to them from data stored on the internet, as well as having the ability to post content about others against their will. I believe for both of those, there needs to be some way to monitor that and prevent it from happening.
I believe some ways to protect ourselves would be to simply not share personal information on the internet, make accounts private to only you and people you know, as well as not sharing pictures that may put you in a vulnerable state unwillingly. To be honest, there really is no way to fully and completely protect ourselves from these issues due to the ability that technology has. If we were to stop using technology all together--especially the internet--that problem would likely be solved. But, to no surprise, that will likely never happen, and definitely not happen anytime soon. Perhaps in the future, there will be some sort of solution to all these issues mentioned, but until then, we have to try to survive with these problems.
Conclusion
To conclude, all the topics mentioned in the TEDTalk videos really opened my eyes to not only how vast the internet is and how vulnerable we are to it, but how much of our privacy we really have. Majority of the population on earth no longer has that full 'privacy' and pretty much anyone can find information about everyone. Technology is a scary thing...
Next week, I will be sharing information about some historic inventions that my peers did research on and I will be reflecting on it.
For the "Each One, Teach One" presentation project, I chose to present on the telegraph, an extremely influential invention that many have likely forgotten today. Without the telegraph, many inventions that we use daily and hold great importance to were invented with the telegraph being its starter point.
In this blog post, I will be discussing the history of the telegraph and how it came to be the invention we know today. In addition, I will be mentioning the impact of the telegraph on society back then and how it has affected society today with both positives and negatives.
Before the physical telegraph product was invented, it had to have been created in the mind, and the idea of the telegraph was invented in 1798. This idea was simply a rough system that was first used throughout France. After the idea was invented, many others seeking fame claimed to have come up with the invention themselves. However, the first one to formerly claim it was Samuel Morse, who created his version of the working telegraph by 1832. With this physical version of the telegraph, he was able to claim the title of the invention of the telegraph and from there, the ways in which humans communicated only evolved.
So...how exactly did the telegraph work?
Well, the telegraph converted messages into electric impulses that could travel by wire to long-distance receivers, then converted back to readable text. This became known as "Morse Code," named, of course, after the man who not only invented the telegraph, but invented morse code which was used as the first formal way of communicating across long distances quickly.
Morse Code
Morse Code--created by none other than Samuel Morse--was used as the official 'language' of the telegraph. Instead of words being used to communicate, combinations of short and long 'tones' were used, and each sound represented a letter of the alphabet. At the time, there was no effective way to communicate through voice over far distances, so Samuel Morse came up with the idea of conversing through sounds.
Morse code was later put into use with the telegraph, which made the telegraph one of the most advanced pieces of technology at the time.
Samuel Morse built a huge telegraph system from Washington D.C. all the way to Baltimore, Maryland in 1843. Years later, it eventually extended to New York. In May of 1844, the first message sent on the telegraph said, "What hath God wrought?" which was an amazing accomplishment on Morse's part.
Years later, in 1864, the top telegraph company, Western Union, operated on 44,000 miles of wire and was valued at $10 million, which increased to $21 million the next year. By 1866, 100,000 miles of wire were placed around the country and Western Union reached its capital stock value of $40 million.
Flash forward 50 years, by 1910, the Mann-Elkins Act was put in place, which granted Interstate Commerce Commission regulatory oversight of the telegraph rates. By 1934, the Communications Act was created, establishing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It regulated radio, telegraph, and telephone communications. Due to the advancement in technology at this time, the radio and telephone diminished the impact of the telegraph.
Impact of the Telegraph
The positives:
The telegraph had a pretty existential impact on the world, but before the telegraph, there was the printing press, which was invented in 1440. With the printing press, it took days, weeks, and sometimes even months to send messages across the country. However, with the telegraph, messages could be sent over long distances within minutes. This was a huge development in technology and advancement in how to easily communicate quickly.
The telegraph improved national and international news where countries could quickly spread news and information within minutes, which also helped contribute to world peace.
In addition, the telegraph made newspapers look like 'old news.' People found it less efficient to spread information through newspapers compared to quickly spreading information along telegraph lines. With that being said, the telegraph helped encourage the idea of 'instant messaging' and started the future creation of messages through phones.
The negatives:
Some of the negatives with the telegraph was the potential to spread misinformation due to rapid transmission of the messages sent. Those that sent and received messages had to know morse code like the back of their hand, and if you know how morse code is typically used, it is very quick and without lots of experience, it would be easy to miss the message or completely misunderstand it.
To add, telegraph lines that were placed were often placed in a manor that could disrupt the surrounding environment. It could displace habitats for animals and could potentially disrupt the living conditions of people.
Conclusion
Overall, it is clear to see that the telegraph was one of those inventions that helped start the snowball of technology as we know it today. It began the idea of the telephone, which eventually evolved into the cellphone, and finally into the iPhone. Without the telegraph, technology would not be as it is today.
Join me in my next discussion where I will be highlighting my views on the topic of 'Invasion of Privacy' and how I feel about some laws/rights having access to my private life.
In this next blog post, I will be reflecting on the Eight Values of Free Expression as how I personally view and interpret them.
According to the article published by Dr. Dean Smith on his Blogger profile, he lists out all eight of the free expressions as interpreted by different researchers: Discovery of Truth, Participation in Self-Government, Safety Valve, Self-Actualization, Watchdog Role, Promote Tolerance, Promote Innovation, and Protect Dissent. Dr. Dean Smith's blog post --> SPEECH THEORIES - Eight Values of Free Expression
From these, I will be going through each one and towards the end of the blog post, I will discuss which expression I resonate the most with, which one feels most important, which one feels the most personal to me, and which one I see in action today.
Discovery of Truth
The first of the eight values of free expression is "Discovery of Truth." A perfect way to explain this value would be through John Milton's interpretation, where he labels this value as the "Marketplace of Ideas." He suggested that when "truth and falsehood are allowed to freely grapple, truth will win out. And the grappling makes the truth even stronger." Milton made this argument when he was arguing "against requiring a license to print/publish" and wanted to make a point that truth will eventually come out and that needing a license to print or publish is unnecessary due to the idea that everyone will be able to discover the truth on their own and a license is not needed to help ensure that.
Participation in Self-Government
The second of the eight values of free expression is "Participation in Self-Government," the idea that people in society can self-govern themselves and do not need someone to govern them in their everyday lives. Alexander Meiklejohn's article titled Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government best explains his thoughts on this. According to Dr. Smith's article featuring Meiklejohn's work, people in society can govern themselves in everyday activities but need guidance and leadership when it comes to political decisions and they need someone who is well-informed in political issues to be involved in debates.
Safety Valve
The third of the eight values of free expression is "Safety Valve," which is best explained in Dr. Smith's blog post as stable change and how "it has been suggested that a society in which angry and alienated citizens are allowed to speak their mind, or 'vent,' will be more stable, as people will be less likely to resort to violence" to share their opinions or thoughts. Allowing those alienated groups to vent allows them to get their anger out, while also giving the government the ability to monitor those groups to keep track of potential threats or dangers within that group.
Self-Actualization
The fourth of the eight values of free expression is "Self-Actualization," or described by C. Edwin Baker in Dr. Smith's blog as "Individual Self-Fulfillment". According to Dr. Smith's blog, "[f]ree speech enables individuals to express themselves and thereby create their own identity--and, in the process perhaps, find kindred spirits. Freedom of speech thus becomes an aspect of human dignity, human agency and autonomy." From this, one can draw the conclusion that it is deemed appropriate to allow people in a society the ability to express themselves and their identity as however they deem fit. With this, it promotes a healthy, happy environment where people feel accepted for who they are.
Watchdog Role
The fifth of the eight values of free expression, "Watchdog Role" is also described as a "Check on Governmental Power," where people in a society feel stable and safe knowing that the press has freedom of speech and can spread information regarding a possible abuse of power from those in a governmental position. With that being said, the press and the public can technically 'check' the power of the government through this spread of information, ensuring that no one in governmental power violates the Constitution and does not cheat the system.
Promote Tolerance
The sixth of the eight values of free expression, "Promote Tolerance," discusses how the ability to freely speak allows people to build up a tolerance towards issues in society and "towards other aspects of life--and that a more tolerant society is a better society." Being able to gain tolerance towards, for example, hate speech allows citizens to learn "valuable lessons."
Promote Innovation
The seventh of the eight values of free expression, "Promote Innovation," highlights how "[a] community in which free speech is valued and protected is likely to be a more energized, creative, interesting society as its citizens actively fulfill themselves in many diverse and interesting ways." To add, the idea that promoting free speech allows for more innovation and creativity in people's makes sense. When people can use their creativity and skills openly without limit, they tend to feel fulfilled and content with that ability and due to this, can promote a better society as a whole.
Protect Dissent
Last--but certainly not the least--of the eight values of free expression is "Protect Dissent." This eighth value details how beliefs and views from minority groups are protected and therefore, if one disagrees with the government, their beliefs are protected. The government will not pursue you with determination to change your mind, but will acknowledge it due to the protection of dissent value.
My Reflection
Of all the eight values of free expression, the one that resonates the most with me would have to be the "Promote Innovation" value. I know that I really appreciate when I can be as creative as I like without limits and I personally can say that it does make my life not only interesting, but I tend to value it much more because I am allowed the ability to use my skills how I want. Without that power, I know much of my life would not be nearly as interesting as it is today.
The one that feels the most important would have to be the "Watchdog Role" or the "Check of Government Power" value. I love to read science fiction novels, like Fahrenheit 451 and 1984 opened my eyes to the possibility of the government abusing its power and its citizens being not knowledgable about such abuse. However, due to the ability of the press having freedom to publish any information it wants, it allows the public to view any supposed abuse of power according to the press and check the government for it, relieving the concern of any abuse of power being unnoticed and unacknowledged.
Again, the one that feels most personal to me would have to be the "Promote Innovation" value. As mentioned previously, I hold my ability to be openly creative as very valued and without it, I would not only be boring, but so would my life.
One of the values I see in action the most in today's society would be the "Self-Actualization" value. Especially with newer generations, the idea of expressing who you are and who you identify as has never been more encouraged and advocated for.
Conclusion
Before reading about the Eight Values of Free Expression, I will be completely honest--I had no idea what they were, which is crazy because these expressions are used in our everyday life. I am proud to say that I now have a better understanding of our freedom of speech and how I am able to express myself.
In my next blog, I will be sharing my findings for a project titled "Each One Teach One," where I display my findings on a specific piece of technology and how it impacted the world: The telegraph!
In this blog post, I highlight some interesting facts that I learned about the Supreme Court that I had no prior knowledge of before an educational video I watched.
I feel as though many people often forget how important the Supreme Court is in making decisions in cases that tend to be about major controversies or issues. I know I, for one, was never taught much about the Supreme Court except that they have final say in the cases they are given and are the most powerful branch in our judicial system. However, after watching a video about the history behind the Supreme Court and how it came to be the Supreme Court we know today, I can say I have acquired much information about the Supreme Court.
The History Behind the Supreme Court
According to the video I watched, the Supreme Court remains to this day the most powerful judicial body on earth. I was naturally surprised by the fact that it is the most powerful judicial body in the world because I would have thought that somewhere in the world, there would be some type of body that had more power than the Supreme Court, but I was wrong.
A fact that I did already know was that the Supreme Court interprets the constitution and making sure that liberty is still pursued and they strive to preserve the union and uphold the rule of law based on the constitution. In all of American history, there have been just over a hundred Supreme Court justices, serving an average of 16 years. Many remain on the bench twice that long, even decades after the president who appointed them has left office. I had no idea that justices served for that long so that was an interesting fact I learned.
The Process Behind Cases Given to the Supreme Court
One of the most interesting facts I learned from the video was the amount of cases the Supreme Court receives and reviews. According to the video, the Supreme Court receives more than a hundred new cases every week (about 7,000 a year). Most cases arrive as petitions for certiorari, written arguments attempting to persuade the court that a lower court ruling was incorrect. The court accepts very few of these cases for full consideration--only about a hundred a year.
Newly arrived petitions, along with written arguments in cases already accepted, are sent to the justices once a week. In their private office, each justice is assisted by a small staff of law clerks and secretaries to help review the cases. However, the justices themselves are expected to individually be responsible for deciding each case. From there, the justices meet weekly in their chambers to choose which cases the court will accept and decide, and to discuss and vote on cases which have already been argued.
Within a few days after hearing arguments, the justices gather in their conference room to vote on the case. In this room, the nine justices are alone. There are no law clerks or even a secretary. After the justices vote to decide a case in the conference room, one of the justices on the majority side is assigned to write an opinion explaining the legal reasons for the decision. From this information, the video explains that "opinion writing for the justices is the most time-consuming part of the justice's work."
Take-Away Points with the Supreme Court
One of the most important key takeaways about the Supreme Court--in my opinion--is the lengthy process of how the justices decide on a case that is brought to them. Before watching the video, I assumed that the court would take some time in processing the cases they received, but I find it extremely important that I now know the entire process behind cases being decided upon.
The most surprising thing I learned would have to be how long it takes justices to actually finish a first draft of the court's opinion in about four weeks. That was a surprising length of time to me; I honestly would have thought a draft would take a few hours.
Conclusion
After viewing the educational video about the Supreme Court, I have a completely different insight in how the Supreme Court functions. I believe the information I was able to collect from the video deeply helped be better understand our justice system, and with that understanding, I hope I can be a better American citizen in my understanding of our laws.
**If you would like to view the videos I watched, you can find their links here --> Part I & Part II **
In my next blog post, I will be discussing the Eight Values of Freedom!
