The Internet of things

Discourse suggests that the current trajectory of the Internet is heading towards an era where the most mundane items will be in some way connected to the flow of information, in that they will have the ability to perform tasks on demand, transferring us data, in a way never previously experienced before.

For example consider a mirror which with knowledge of your favourite colours and eye colour suggests different shades of eye shadow. Or a wardrobe that possesses knowledge of your web browsing history in terms of online shopping and suggests possible clothes that you might wish to purchase online. These are only ideas that I have made up but there are more tangible example of this concept such as those depicted in the image below.

Possibly perhaps in the future the information that is dormant in our mobile devices and computers may become part of our physical world. This has been described as the “Internet of things”. Essentially it revolves around the idea of world that can be programmed and once their are enough of these devices established a seemless system of information that can move will be facilitated. It is enemy of the internet which a peer to peer system in which each node has equal power. In contrast these informed objects will become a coordinated single machine hidden from view but still widely distributed.

This is still a dream, however and for this to become a reality more devices must appear onto the network, more processors in ordinary objects, more sensors and more wireless programmes to extract information from the already existing platforms. Devices must then become more reliable upon one another, so that they can coordinate actions without any human intervention. These connected devices must then become widespread and ubiquitous. A system which runs similar to a computer or an iPhone but on a more expansive scale. Essentially it could completely change the way we interact with one another. That line between the virtual and the everyday may become blurred. This may work to fight against the current saturation of devices that currently exist. Which I am happy about, I dislike this scary encroachment of technology on our lives, especially in a social context by automating devices we would usually use by hand.

A potential concern however is privacy. Though over sharing is a habit within the current digital ecology. If this were to extend to the physical world, objects could begin to capture more and more information about how we are doing. This threat is just a further representation of the issue of power which permeates every human society. Where power resides and the implications if it is used immorally. I will be staying positive however go objects!!!!

References

Mitew,T “The Internet of things” 2013, viewed 23/10/2014, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tFTNJwlpOg&gt;.

Image credit: Andrew Patterson, “The Internet of things”  viewed 23/10/2014 <https://iconewsblog.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/the-internet-of-things-what-is-it-and-what-does-it-mean-for-you/&gt;.

Leak in the System.

Cyberlibertarianism  which appears to have coincided with the early creation of the web, adhere’s to the libertarian worldview that emphasizes human rights, anti-authoritarianism and protection of privacy. It is a movement which “led to the rise of the hacker subculture” (Mitew) a subculture that detests any form of state censorship or surveillance of the internet, action’s which it perceives as a threat to a healthy exercise of democracy and injures the economic development of nations. It is this movement that has fed and encapsulates individuals and organisations such as Wikileaks, Anonymous, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. It has become a form of political protest that utilizes computers and computer programming. In many ways this subculture represents the gradual radicalization of the internet. As Julian Assange stated to Eric Schmidt in April “That’s the most optimistic thing that is happening – the rationalization of the Internet-educated youth, people who are receiving their values from the Internet,”

Early hacktivists of the 90’s such as Barlow viewed the internet with a strict ideological purity. With Barlow stating in “A declaration of the independence  Cyberspace” “We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies.” Written in 1996 Barlow in an interview later reflected “We all get older and smarter.”Newer populist movement have in many ways replaced these older civilized and more principled groups. For example 4chan’s no rules /b/ imageboard which became inundated and generated the hacker collective Anonymous. It was conceived following a series of 4chan-directed attacks on Scientology websites in 2008 and is made up of the politically motivated and trolls. It has employed Dos attacks and disruption to achieve its goals.

Many of the prominent hacktivists are small collectives of specialized and talented programmers, rather than large-scale political movements. They appears often at odds with traditional activism, in that a few individuals can create such a disproportional amount of havoc without having to navigate the internal politics that plague the older and larger movements.

Often the core ideals of the hacker subculture; the free exchange of ideas and the importance of individual privacy are injured by the very movement itself. Defamation, identity theft, publication of personal information and encroaching on an individual’s seclusion or solitude are all actions which have happened as a direct result of hacktivists.Total freedom of expression can in many cases become an oppressive force. The anonymity of the Internet in which online lives can be carefully maintained provides protection and enables bullies, such as those responsible for the “fappening” to violate peoples privacy.

Interestingly their exists, extremely skilled counter-hacktivists such as the Jester, a pro-US government hacktivist who claims to have served in the US military. In 2010 with varying success  he targeted Libyan media organisations, Jihadist websites, 4chan, Lulzsec, Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

When Edward Snowden went public, he alleged that he did so, in an effort to protect his own personal safety. With a public persona it would be much more difficult for the CIA to discretely rid themselves of Snowden. But in doing so, the focus shifted from the NSA and its illegal activity, to the persona of Edward Snowden, his personal history and background. People seemed to forget that not only was the NSA spying on ordinary citizens, they were making enemies out of  allies by surveilling countries on a global scale.

Snowden was largely demonized despite there being no real evidence that the NSA revelations had a substantial impact on safety in the US or that the NSA’s widespread surveillance of communications improved national security.In actuality the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, appointed by the President, conducted an in-depth investigation following Snowden’s allegations concluded that the mass surveillance program was ineffectual and should be concluded as it operated in direct opposition to human rights and civil liberties. The leaks only really conclusively tell us that without any judicial support the government seized the phone calls of Americans without authority and that the NSA tracks user data from sites. Snowden recently stated that, “these programs don’t make us more safe. They hurt our economy. They hurt our country. They limit our ability to speak, think, live, and to be creative.” Most importantly of all perhaps is that it violates the first amendment, as it violates freedom of speech in a very real way, as we have now all been labeled as guilty until proven innocent. The governments actions are not only illegal but they seen to provide no other benefit than to military contractors.

Now residing in Russia on a three year residency permit, its ironic that the country responsible for some of the greatest acts of espionage in the cold war Russia, is now providing asylum for an individual facing 30 years in jail for two counts of violating the Espionage act and theft of government property. Rather than fuelling further debate about the accountability of government in what should be the strongest democracy in the world, people have chosen instead to focus on the ethics of the individual himself. Yes Snowden did violate an oath of secrecy, but hasn’t the American government committed a greater crime against its own people.

The same can be said about Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Although he may be a raging narcissist from most accounts, debate was squarely centered on him as a figurehead rather than the institution that chose him as a face for the name. Collateral murder, the wikileak’s video that depicts the brute murder of civilians and civilian children was blunted by the personal politics and hero worship of Assange. Even when reading the blogs for this weeks readings, debate raged over the figureheads Assange and Snowden, rather than whether government accountability is more important than national security and the rise of the hacker subculture. Much of the outrage about what the leaks themselves revealed was muted. It is understandable why organisations such as Anonymous want none of the personal politics involved with such public scrutiny.

References

Khatchadourian, R. (2010) ‘No Secrets: Julian Assange’s mission for total transparency’ The New Yorker, June 7. [URL: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian%5D

Benkler, Y. (2011) ‘A free irresponsible press: Wikileaks and the battle over the soul of the networked fourth estate’, p. 1-33 [URL: http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wikileaks_current.pdf%5D

Sterling, B. (2010). The Blast Shack, https://medium.com/@bruces/the-blast-shack-f745f5fbeb1c

Sterling, B. (2013). The Ecuadorian Library or, The Blast Shack After Three Years, https://medium.com/@bruces/the-ecuadorian-library-a1ebd2b4a0e5

http://reason.com/archives/2004/08/01/john-perry-barlow-20

The Dark Side

“If there be light, then there is darkness; if cold, heat; if height, depth; if solid, fluid; if hard, soft; if rough, smooth; if calm, tempest; if prosperity, adversity; if life, death.”

― Pythagoras

When nodes where accorded the capacity to route, compute and distribute information across a network, of their own free will, the internet was heralded as an unregulated space, in which everything and anything was possible. This digital universe full of information also culminated in an unstable environment, that was increasingly difficult to regulate and control.  Any system that exists without regulations will be subject to those who are willing to take advantage of its structural vulnerabilities and the internet is no exception. Hackers who exploit weaknesses within digital networks can be motivated by a number of reasons, sometimes profit, activism, intellectual stimulation or boredom. In addition they may have a more benevolent focus. Malicious factions who violate computer safety for personal gain exist and they are “the epitome of all that the public fears in a computer criminal”. Coined Black hats or Crackers these programmers break into computer systems and destroy data or cause the network to become unusable for those who are authorised to view it. Although much of the digital resistance online has been a positive force, not all members of the hacker subculture prescribe to its ethos. The ideological purity of the hacktivists such as Assange and Snowden is not the prevailing manifesto nor is this movement permeated by a spirit of playfulness and exploration.

The idea of the internet as the final frontier, a digital “wildwest” is a fallacy. The majority of individuals, myself included enter this “game of shadows” through a portal, an Ifuedal, whether it be google, Facebook or twitter. A walled gardens who’s central employment is to spy and record our personal information for those who posses power. As an online user I have increasingly become aware of my own naivety, especially in the wake of this weeks discussion. Our governments have replaced the 007’s and the KGB with a more persuasive and effective form of surveillance. A machine that deletes nothing and records everything, an endless creation of data in which information never dies.

This “descent into darkness” becomes more expansive when we consider the implications of cyberwarfare. These battles are not played out in fields or deserts, in open water or remote jungles but in surbuban office buildings, quiet rooms, in the presence of blank computer screens. In addition this battle is being fount with with some of the most insidious digital weapons that have ever existed, capable of infecting power plants and banks, destroying water supplies and fundamentally ravaging the very infrastructure that once appeared unassailable.   One example is The discovery of Stuxnet, a 500-kilobyte computer worm that infected the software of at least 14 industrial sites in Iran, including a uranium-enrichment plant. Although a computer virus relies on an unwitting victim to install it, a worm spreads on its own, often over a computer network. This worm was an unprecedentedly masterful and malicious piece of code that attacked in three phases. First, it targeted Microsoft Windows machines and networks, repeatedly replicating itself. Then it sought out Siemens Step7 software, which is also Windows-based and used to program industrial control systems that operate equipment, such as centrifuges. Finally, it compromised the programmable logic controllers. The worm’s authors could thus spy on the industrial systems and even cause the fast-spinning centrifuges to tear themselves apart, unbeknownst to the human operators at the plant.

Although the authors of Stuxnet haven’t been officially identified, the size and sophistication of the worm have led experts to believe that it could have been created only with the sponsorship of a nation-state, and although no one’s owned up to it,  leaks from officials in the United States and Israel strongly suggest that those two countries did the deed. Since the discovery of Stuxnet, Schouwenberg and other computer-security engineers have been fighting off other weaponized viruses, such as Duqu, Flame, and Gauss, an onslaught that shows no signs of abating. This marked a turning point in geopolitical conflicts, when the apocalyptic scenarios once only imagined in Science fiction

When listening to this weeks lecture, I immediately thought of the old anti-piracy videos that you used to be forced to sit through if you rented a movie or a DVD. It had urgent death-metal-thrash techno music in the background, and the words on the screen popped up, informing you that you wouldn’t steal a car, or a handbag, or a television, or a movie. It then proceeded to to inform you that “downloading pirated movies is stealing” and wait for it, that “stealing was against the law” it ended with a rather a  bleak message that in fact “piracy was a crime”.

Most people would agree that stealing is wrong. Yet most people myself included would be guilty of downloading illegally. Why is this, maybe because we don’t appreciate online piracy as an illicit activity which is worth obeying. Ted discusses in the lecture how the social parameters and protocols of memory retention have been established by individuals. “You wouldn’t record somebody without their knowledge” “You wouldn’t record a personal conversation without someones permission”. Yet this is happening online in which everything is being recorded and you are completely unaware of who is the culprit. Their is no set of established protocol for online data retention. Much like their is no great sense of public outrage or censure of illegal downloading. . We have established gestures and protocols for memory retention. Social parameters associated with taking a photo, recording a conversation, taking a selfie. But nothing in the face of a machine which default setting is to filter nothing and collect everything.

I thought it was interesting how Ted stated that all totalitarian regimes have been characterised by persuasive surveillance. This realisation made me kind of sad. Primarily because I have always considered myself a strong believer in the transparency of my own democracy. The nanny states and the dictatorships had little to do with current political climate that I ascribed to. I even remember waking up at 3am to watch Barack Obama’s inaugural speech. I was so full of reinvigorated hope and belief that the world was capable of positive and powerful change. Not to say that this opportunity has now been lost.

However my impressions where radically different. I saw US and Australia as a strong ally, moving towards a greater protection of the rule of law, the protection of private information and the facilitation of free speech. I was in Yr 8 so this may explain my idealism however the election of the recent liberal government and the actions of George Brandis in trying to give unlimited power to spies and secret police has left me rather despondent.

References

Moore, Robert (2006). Cybercrime: Investigating High-Technology Computer Crime (1st ed.). Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing.

Mitew, T 2014, ‘Dark Fiber: hackers, botnets, cyberwar‘, DIGC202, Lecture, [online] <http://prezi.com/iiied2_aa8tc/digc202-dark-fiber-hackers-botnets-cyberwar/&gt; Viewed 17/10/14.

Slacktavism

Recently within the media their has been increased criticism in a new form of social media activism which has been coined “Slacktivism”. Unlike previous forms of political dissent, internet activism requires basic participation, with no cost or perceived expense to the individual.

On October 2010 Malcolm Gladwell wrote a piece in the New Yorker criticizing those who chose to draw comparisons between traditional activism and social media “revolutions”. He uses the example of the Greensboro sitin’s to illustrate that this form of high-risk activism which threatens the safety of individuals and entire communties cannot be compared to online participation.

As the historian Robert Darnton has written, “The marvels of communication technology in the present have produced a false consciousness about the past—even a sense that communication has no history, or had nothing of importance to consider before the days of television and the Internet.” But there is something else at work here, in the outsized enthusiasm for social media. Fifty years after one of the most extraordinary episodes of social upheaval in American history, we seem to have forgotten what activism is.”  (Gladwell 2010)

He claims that social media revolutions have weak ties and that this like and share form of activism is destroying real forms of social action. “The things that King needed in Birmingham – discipline and strategy – were things that online social media cannot provide.”(Gladwell 2010). According to Gladwell social networks are not hierarchical and that famous protests such as those in the civil rights movement cannot be organised over social media platforms.

Doubtless Gladwell is a talented writer, anyone who has had the privilege or reading his work is aware of this. However there are loud and persuasive voices who are critical against the idea that this form of social revolution lacks the motivation needed for effective change. Maria Popova in her article “Malcolm Gladwell is #wrong” states that its impossible for a person who does not use social media to weigh in on its value. “Malcolm Gladwell’s take on social media is like a nun’s likely review of the Kama Sutra — self-righteous and misguided by virtue of voluntary self-exclusion from the subject.”

In a landscape riddled with pessimists it is refreshing to find a voice amongst the masses willing to standup to the widespread criticism of clicktivism.

References

Popova, M. (2010) ‘Malcolm Gladwell Is #Wrong’ Change Observer, 10 June. http://changeobserver.designobserver.com/feature/malcolm-gladwell-is-wrong/19008/

Morozov, E. (2011) ‘ Facebook and Twitter are just places revolutionaries go’ The Guardian, 7 March. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/07/facebook-twitter-revolutionaries-cyber-utopians

Bohdanova, T. (2013) ‘How Internet Tools Turned Ukraine’s #Euromaidan Protests Into a Movement’, Global Voices, 9 December, http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/12/09/how-internet-tools-turned-euromaidan-protests-into-a-movement/

All the News that is NOT fit to print.

The audience which were previously the passive consumers of traditional media have now become the manufacturers of user generated content. With platforms such as WordPress and Twitter anyone can become part of the global conversation. Twitter although limited to less than 140 characters has had a profound impact on communication. Although one tweet in isolation has little impact, in combined with thousands of other tweets it becomes extremely powerful, a “suspension bridge made of pebbles.” (Johnson 2013)

Twitter has changed the way content was commonly consumed, disseminated and gathered.The NSA leaks broke first on twitter with the central media outlets only becoming aware hours later. As Steven Johnson discusses in his work “How twitter will change the way we live” although the basics of how we use twitter are relatively simple websites who once saw their traffic dominated by Google search inquires are seeing a number of new visitors coming from “passed links” from social networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook. In areas where their is no edition in print twitter has been integral in driving traffic to The guardian sites. When Edward Snowden revealed his identity on The Guardian website the site received its greatest traffic ever with 6.97 browsers. Twitter then futher enables global expansion for traditional media in that it facilitates access to previously unattainable markets.

In his article Johnson discusses a conference concerning education reform a large majority of participants created and responded to tweets, creating a lateral stream of coordinate commentary. Johnson discusses this particular example extending over five paragraphs to make his central point that twitter is substantially expanding the conversation.

Early in the article Johnson describes how, at a day-long conference held in Manhattan on the subject of education reform, a large cohort of participants sereptitiously wrote and responded to tweets, creating a parallel stream of interactive commentary.  Johnson uses this example, which he describes in five paragraphs, to support as argument that Twitter significantly enlarged the conversation:

“And it gave the event an afterlife on the Web.  Yes, it was built entirely out of 140-character messages, but the sum total of these tweets added up to something truly substantive, like a suspension bridge made of pebbles.”

He states that twitter is a suspension bridge that links society, transports its users to the future through its cabling system: the sweep of cables suspended between towers and the vertical suspender the sweep of cables suspended between towers and the vertical suspender cables. It carries the weight of the deck below

In Axel Burns paper “News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: New Directions for e-Journalism” he discusses the transition from previous traditional media to new forms of journalism, a transition from gatekeeping to gatewatching. “This gradual decline of industrial journalism as the dominant force in the public sphere can be linked directly with a broader shift from industrial to post- industrial paradigms”

Interestingly Al Jazeera’s coverage of unrest in the Arabic world, employs citizen journalism in its coverage of uprisings. It cultivates relationships  with important bloggers and citizen reporters on the ground. Riyaad Minty, Al Jazeera’s head of social media stated that “The key to getting in early is verifying information before the noise gets out,”identifyThey identify key internet contributors so that before the protests began they have access to information later and can act as citizen reporters on the ground. Essentially employing new media to engage with citizens in a more integral way.

References

Johnson, S. (2009). How Twitter Will Change The Way We Live. Time, http://individual.utoronto.ca/kreemy/proposal/04.pdf

Bruns, A. (2009) ‘News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: New Directions for e-Journalism’,

Click to access News%20Blogs%20and%20Citizen%20Journalism.pdf

The Garden of Android – Apple vs Google

Rarely is there seen such a pure personification of the ideological difference between open source and closed source systems, then what is epitomised in the clash between Android and IOS.  The open source philosophy is built on the fundamental ideal that everyone should be able to freely contribute. It is an ideal which is closely linked to Cyberlibertarianism and illustrates that within an open source ecology,  there exists no discrimination for those who wish to contribute to the code.  In contrast the closed source system is a walled system; code is not revealed and debugging is only available as a direct result of ownership of the software.

Defenders of the closed source system, however, believe that this open model creates disorders, maximises error and leads to lowest-common denominator design and usability. Freedom from centralised control, they say, results in an absence of standards or a profusion of competing ones, as well as a lack of discipline and accountability. Central control makes it easier to roll out features and keep a handle on errors, while proprietary standards allow developers to work faster and more efficiently, because they don’t have to support multiple formats or guess where the next upgrade patch is going to come from.

Despite criticism the development of open source software has enabled a greater level of innovation. By making software public, it has allowed programmers or testers to edit, modify, develop, share and create better quality code. Debugging has also become easier with potential issues being recognised as the are easily accessible. Ironically this open and free environment has also facilitated a greater feeling of competitive spirit within the software community. In this community there is nothing distinguishing user from programmer fostering an environment where each individual is attempting to outperform the other. Programmers can come together communicate ideas in this “bazaar” admire each others skill and be further inspired to develop. In addition they can recruit and identify individuals with potential talent.

In his work “The Cathedral and the Bazaar” Raymond states that “given enough eyeballs, all  are shallow” meaning the more widely available code is for testing,  the more rapidly all issues will be discovered. In the “Cathedral model” in which source code becomes available with with each release, but between releases is exclusive to developers, an inordinate amount of energy and time must be spent searching for issues and bugs. The working code is only available to a few developers whilst in the “Bazaar model” code is developed in view of the entirety of developers. This “Bazaar model”  or open system allows free access to and the right to modify  source code.  In its construction it grants not only developers but also all users, who are potential developers, the right to read and change its source code.

Developers, users, and user-turned- developers form a community of practice. A community of practice in which a group of people who are informally bounded by their common interest and practice in a common field. These members can regularly interact with each other for knowledge sharing and often collaborate  in pursuit of solutions to a common class of problems. Within an OSS project success is unlikely unless there is an accompanied community that can provides the platform for developers and users to collaborate with each other. Members of such communities are volunteers whose motivation to participate and contribute is of essential importance to the success of OSS projects.

We see these differing ideologies epitomised in the struggle between the two vastly different operating systems IOS and Android.  The transition in society from PC’s to mobile phone platforms has seen  internet use by users become a valuable commodity.  There currently exists 1.5 billion smartphones worldwide with Mobile devices accounted for 55% of Internet usage in the United States in January.Mobile devices accounted for 55% of Internet usage in the United States in January. Apps made up 47% of Internet traffic and 8% of traffic came from mobile browsersAlthough total Internet usage on mobile devices has previously exceeded that on PCs, this is the first time it’s happened for app usage alone. This is following a fall in PC sales which has suffered recently it’s worse decline in history.

The mobile platform and its importance as a pathway to the internet has seen Google focus primarily on this medium.  No longer are the wars of Microsoft and Netscape the dominant clashes within the global network. Rather the central clashes of this era of internet history will play out in the arena’s of the open sourced Android and the ‘Walled garden’ of Apple.

Whether you prescribe to a particular spectrum of this debate it appears that this competition has resulted in greater innovation and increased production by these two mobile platforms.  Android is a  virtual bazaar that runs on a linux based mobile system. Emulators are accepted on Android as is side loading, and you can receive apps and code from a variety of sources. Apple in contrast does not allow anything with downloadable code. When google first purchased Android, it purchased the first real potential competitor of the IOS platform. There edge, openness an creativity,  a potential edge that Apple lacked with their fixed stores and strict guidelines. Choice is the central idea that dominants the open source system. In this ecology users can customize more than on IOS models. There is no limit on app sources and individuals can alter the code to fit their individual needs.

IOS also has its own advantages in its protection against dangerous installations of unapproved software. This is connected to early ideas of feudalism with users sacrificing their information for security.  IOS limits the varied sources of applications by locking down the software and doing decrease malware problems and increases device security.

In the world of operating systems, this tension exists between Windows, which is seen as the embodiment of everything centralized and proprietary, and open solutions such as Ubuntu and (more recently) the Chrome OS from Google. In the mobile world, the biggest battle is Apple vs. Google: the latter has the open-source Android operating system, with a totally open app store and development process, while Apple not only controls the code behind the iPhone, but is also notoriously controlling when it comes to its app store, routinely rejecting apps without saying why, and restricting the features they can have — and even the kinds of content they can include.

The same tensions are being played out elsewhere. Facebook has become one of the world’s largest social networks, but not by being open — or at least, not as open as some other web services. Although it provides access to some of its features (such as Facebook Connect) via its API, and is happy to suck information into its service from wherever possible, it is notoriously reluctant to allow much information to flow in the other direction. It controls the terms of service and restrictions on games and other apps with an iron hand, and reserves the right to change its terms on a whim.

In the world of video, meanwhile, there’s a battle underway between Adobe, which controls Flash, the de facto video delivery standard for the web, and (ironically) Apple, which has refused to support Flash on either the iPhone or the iPad and instead has been pushing developers and media distributors towards the open-source HTML5 standard. Meanwhile, on the networking hardware side, Cisco, which has been a vendor using proprietary code for most of its life, has been struggling to find ways to deal with the appetite for open-source solutions in high-speed networking, video conferencing and voice-over-Internet services.

This tension between open and closed runs across many different sectors, and exposes issues that are crucial to the evolution of the technology industry. We hope you will join us in exploring them over the coming weeks

Open source means there are a lot of people working on the software. Plenty of individuals are making sure the code is solid and that the software is easy to use. Documentation is usually easy to find, and there are plenty of people out there writing “how-tos,” which make design and development easier and even fun. You can count on regular updates that are continually improving the product. Open source systems let you see what makes the software tick, and you can often change it to suit your needs. Use this to your advantage when it comes to differentiating yourself from the rest of the pack.

However, because of the popularity of open source systems, many people are familiar with open source code, which creates a higher risk for hacking. If you choose to design in an open source system, your development team is going to need to put time and work into preventing third-party tampering. This difficulty will scale based on many factors such as how many people need to have access to sensitive areas of the site (like the admin panel).

Closed source software usually equates to better security and support. For an ecommerce site, it isn’t necessarily more secure to go with a closed source system, but unlike open source systems, developers don’t have to spend as much time securing code. If a developer runs into any issues in a closed source software, providers are more than happy to offer you support. This is a convenience, because it cuts down on the development time and cost.

Unfortunately with closed source, the barrier to entry is a lot higher. A smaller community means less experience and collective knowledge. This usually equates with much higher costs across the board. You often have to pay for the software or service, and if your support package doesn’t include it, you end up having to pay someone else for their expertise.

References

Roth, D. (2008) ‘Google’s Open Source Android OS Will Free the Wireless Web’. Wired, June 23. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/16-07/ff_android

Zittrain, J. (2010) ‘A fight over freedom at Apple’s core’. Financial Times, February 3. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/fcabc720-10fb-11df-9a9e-00144feab49a.html

Raymond, E. (2001) The Cathedral and the Bazaar [pp.1-31],

Click to access CathBaz.pdf

http://philip.greenspun.com/ancient-history/managing-software-engineers

Click to access ICSE03.pdf

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/technology/pc-sales/?iid=EL

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/28/technology/mobile/mobile-apps-internet/

Digital Castles: Modern Feudalism in the contemporary world

Now when we reference the “Internet”, “networks” or “cyberspace we are referring to the devices who use them Macs or Smart phones and the massive stacks which define them “Amazon”, “Google”, “Microsoft”, “Facebook” and “Apple” .These providers take nothing from us except our allegiance, identity and the majority of our data. They are the modern equivalent of the feudal lords which ruled over serfs in the dark ages. We give them our loyalty, all they want is to be our sole provider of messaging, communication and megadata. They give us a space in which to exert our online existence even if they watch our every move. John Barlow once claimed that the internet was “A world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.”This appears contrary to the reality we now live in. The great rise of the cloud, means that we no longer have autonomy over our own data. Our photos email’s, calendars, address books and instant messaging are all accessible to the servers we prescribe too. The devices that we use we  have little control over, iPads, Smartphone, Mac are all subject to the control of the “Stacks” that own them. Contrasting with the previous traditional operating systems in that these “stacks” can limit the software that they run, the updates that result and the content that gets distributed. In addition we now exist in “walled gardens” where our servers can edit the content we are displayed in accordance with our own preferences, maybe to one day mediate your every interaction with your world. These “Stacks” are seamless, easy to use and simple. We can essentially transfer our entire online existence in an experience that feels almost natural. We become reliant on the hospitality of these mega-corporations much like serfs relying on their feudal lord for protection. The dynamic relationships between people are becoming more valuable than the internet itself. No longer are we living in a wild untracked and free environment such as the one depicted John Barlow declaration. Establishment of the internet coincided with a belief in the natural laws of internet, this belief that they would destroy barriers, spread freedom and empower the disenchanted. It was going to be a new world order, it was defined by anonymity and censorship appeared to be impossible. It allowed the smallest businesses to begin to compete with the mega-coporations and traditional media was going to be defeated by the ability for everyone to communicate.

The new Internet Fuedal Lords

However what has developed appears as vastly different to this Utopian dream. Power has become consolidated within a small number of business controlling the market. Unconventional Businesses such as Facebook, started by self-styled internet cowboys such as Steve Jobs vastly different from the suits of typical of American multinationals such GE  that once held much of the marketshare in our capitalist economy.   How how did this happen? Schneier has a good answer: The truth is that technology magnifies power in general, but the rates of adoption are different. The unorganized, the distributed, the marginal, the dissidents, the powerless, the criminal: they can make use of new technologies faster. And when those groups discovered the Internet, suddenly they had power. But when the already powerful big institutions finally figured out how to harness the Internet for their needs, they had more power to magnify. That’s the difference: the distributed were more nimble and were quicker to make use of their new power, while the institutional were slower but were able to use their power more effectively. Much like feudal lords the power that they exert is much beyond the user or internet serf. They also hold power and they exists in ubiquity. They sometimes fight with each other for power, but lack the blood wars epitomised by the ancient feudal lords. Why? because they each have their own monopoly and it is perverse in its wealth. We provide the raw material through our status updates or liking a funny meme. We toil Facebook’s soil so that Mark Zuckerberg can take our data and buy himself some more blue sweatshirts. Eventually war shall breakout and we our identities and our information will be the collateral damage. Their realistically must be change in this imbalance of power. Eventually medieval feudalism evolved to a constitutional monarchy and then to a conventional democracy and capitalist economy. Centralised government providing an autonomy and stability with a the rule of law. With Internet feudalism we have no choice to trust Amazon or Google or Facebook ruled by fuedal lords to who we provide allegiance to and gain no rights.We need a modern Magna Carta of sorts, something forced upon our feudal lords which forces them to stop acting arbitrarily with our interests. References Image:

References

Bruce Sterling at Webstock 2013, http://vimeo.com/63012862 [the relevant segment is at 9.30-21.00] On copyright and intellectual property as tools of permission culture:

Boldrin, M., and Levine, D.K. (2007). ‘Introduction’, In Against Intellectual Monopoly (pp. 1-15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/anew01.pdf

Lessig, L. (2004). ‘Creators’, In Free Culture: How Big Media uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Strangle Creativity (pp. 21-30). New York: Penguin http://www.authorama.com/free-culture- 4.html

Zittrain, J. (2008). ‘The Lessons of Wikipedia’, in The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It (pp. 127- 148). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/16

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/jacobs/internet-feudalism/http://www.theamericanconservative.com/jacobs/internet-feudalism/

What is this amateur hour?

There is currently a conflict between so called user generated conduct, individuals who create and produce blogs, videos and audio for consumption and the record labels, journalists, studios and the big corporations that back them. The likely outcome is a hybrid approach built around a new business model.Generated content encompasses blogs, forums, discussion boards and social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter. Increasingly professional institutions are betting on the longetivity of these platforms by purchasing them. Google has owned YouTube since late 2006.Amateur content may not always be favourably compared to its professionally produced counterpart, but it still has played a central role in public discourse. The Arab spring was supposed to have been aided by a citizen journalism that was reported using and disseminated by Facebook and Twitter.

The process of separating high-quality information from inferior content is a complicated process. User generated content is exceptionally broad and can cover a wide range of topics. What has a high level of reliability; a blog or a forum post, a sub-reddit or a tweet?. How do you define something as professional or amateur? Who are the individuals who make this decision? As Clay Shirky States “The question that mass amateurization poses to traditional media is ‘What happens when the costs of reproduction and distribution go away? What happens when there is nothing unique about publishing anymore because users can do it for themselves?’ We are now starting to see that question being answered.” (Shirky 2008)

Professional media itself struggles to establish a definition. Ironically the article ‘Revenge of the experts’ which discusses this paradigm references two amateur sites About.com and Maholo. (Dean 2011). It would appear that even established media is moving towards knowledgeable enthusiasts rather than professionals with traditional credentials. The central difference between these knowledgeable human filters and traditional media, is these consistent editorial guidelines that have categorized the hallmarks of good journalism.“As career journalists and managers we have entered a new era where what we know and what we traditionally do has finally found its value in the marketplace, and that value is about zero.”—(John Paton 2011)

Navigating this explosion of content is not straightforward. Often the line is blurred between what is amateur and what has the appearance of an expert authority. Before cyberspace user-generated content simply could not match the aggregation and distribution levels of global corporations. Now consumers must adapt to this changing environment with a greater filter for accuracy and authenticity.When everyone can contribute, it becomes an environment without filters, populated by amateurs. “Travelocity, doesn’t make everyone a travel agent, it undermines the value of being a travel agent. (Shirky)

This is reflected with the rise of Internet blogging. Weblogs by nature remove many of the barriers that have previously plagued traditional publishing. Everyone is suddenly able to communicate; everyone is suddenly able to produce. No longer are well seasoned editors critiquing  the work of other equally talented professionals. Not everyone is Ernest Hemingway or Jonathan Safran Foer.Unfortunately there exists no Internet equivalent of an experienced publisher.There is no automated Gertrude Stein who can inform the overzealous blogger; that they are not in fact the next Frank Moody and that maybe their skills lie elsewhere. This liquefied and electric communication between reader and writer has not resulted in greater direct opportunity for financial reward. Advertising and indirect forms of financial reward are the main meal ticket for the successful Internet blogger. It struck me how simultaneously whilst we all have an opportunity to participate, we devalue each other’s contributions.

Ted Mitew discusses in his lecture “The attention economy and the long tail effect”, how previously within legacy media channels there was a very high cost of entry. There were checks on quality of content and there was a substantial cost associated with the distribution and creation of content. (Mitew 2014) . HBO realizes Game of thrones at different times in different regions. There entire business model is built around distribution. However the current environment may be moving towards professionalism that is contrary to much of Shirky’s rhetoric. No doubt this is a reflection of a wish for a more reliable and authentic web.

No longer are consumers merely a passive audience subject to the usual limitations of distribution. We now exist within an environment where everyone can produce and create. Mass participation has changed and rearranged the paradigm of being a user, distributor and creator of content. Mass aggregation of content has seen “the value of software become proportional to the scale and dynamism of the data it helps to manage” – (Orielly 2005). Essentially meaning that the more people who use a service platform, the more valuable the platform and the content it manages becomes. Niche markets have begun to rise creating a long tail effect. With such large distribution of goods and content, previously unpopular markets has seen a gradual incline.

References

Anderson, C, 2004, The Long Tail. Wired, 12.10.viewed 29 August 2014,<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html&gt;.

Dean, S, 2011, Confidence Game, Columbian Journalism Review, viewed 30 August 2014, <http://www.cjr.org/essay/confidence_game.php?page=all&gt;.

Kelly, K, 2008, Better Than Free,Edge, viewed 30 August 2014, <http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly08/kelly08_index.html&gt;.

Mitew, T 2014, The attention economy and the long tail effect, lecture, DIGC202, Global Networks, University of Wollongong, viewed 30 August. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCnVnLYPoi0&list=PLiPp71qLKusXOU1bKxHVappCbRNN3-J-j&index=14&gt;.

O’Reilly, T, 2005,  ‘What is Web 2.0′ O’Reilly Media, viewed 30 August 2014,  <http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html&gt;.

Shirky, C, 2002, Weblogs and the Mass Amateurization of Publishing, viewed 28 August 2014,<http://shirky.com/writings/weblogs_publishing.html&gt;.

Image credit 

We know memes, What is this Amateur hour?, viewed 28 August 2014. <http://weknowmemes.com/2013/09/what-is-this-amateur-hour-gif/&gt;.

Working More and Getting Paid less – liquid labour and why we should all still be scared of sharks.

As opposed to previous periods where one’s vocation rarely if ever changed, contemporary capitalism has manifested itself according to Mark Deuze in a “portfolio lifestyle”. Life has become analogous with work a “liquid life” as Bauman states. With an increased decline in life long vocations and the idea of the managing multiple professions.

Interestingly it is this increased flexibility which has allowed a blurring between what constitutes non-work and work. The conventional nine to five lifestyle is dying and the loss of bureaucratic hours has created greater constraints upon our freedom. We essentially are working more hours at less conventional times and receiving less benefits. Work has become interconnected with other non-work related relationships.With greater variety comes greater convolution and adaption to changing technologies.Work is now replicated in many different forms, internships, casual or non casual, paid, voluntary. We must stay aware of this  whilst also adapting to a digital world that is constantly shifting and expanding.

The increased presence of women within the workforce and the “precariousness of labor” has had a substantial impact on other institutions which directly correlate to modernity. Not only has the concept  of “work” and “life” shifted but also the fundamental unit of society the “family”with the shift from home centered lifestyles to those based primarily on work. Catherine Hakim (2003) 

Increasingly knowledge and information has become the primary source of capital and we have become migratory beings. We can now change location, moving countries within days or weeks, deconstructing relationships with the ease of a simple click, moving from rented places to living spaces,sharing intimate moments and information within seconds with strangers. The only real constant in this constant flux, is that our world is permanently impermanent.

Although this new world may seem overwhelmingly incorporeal we have seen a rather tangible wake-up call in response to this impalpable world. This in the form of an ancient predator which once gave us increased fear within a different context. Google announced recently that the company will coat its trans-Pacific fiber-optic cables in a Kevlar-like material, usually reserved for making bulletproof vests. Sharks have been attacking underwater fiber-optic cabling. In 1987 sharks were blamed for at least four cable failures. In this “Liquid labor” impalpable world we view the internet as a constant and yet it is still susceptible to a predator that we have feared for centuries.

In today’s society life and work have become interconnected. Contrary to a developing a way of life based on our everyday efforts and energy, we are moving further towards a way of working and a way of being work. As work is becoming a lifestyle  our lifestyle is beginning to increasingly reflect characteristics of contemporary work. 

References 

Great white sharks are secretly plotting to take down the internet, says Google

The Third Wave

We are in the midst of the growth of a new age. Whether you are aware of it or not, history is being forged every time you reblog a Nicholas Cage meme.

“The global network, is a virtual community where race, age and gender transcends a border-less web of data and information.” Barlow

All one needs is a key, a computer to travel to another dimension.  The founding fathers of the internet created a Utopian cyberspace in which the cornerstones of our capitalist democracy shine bright. A virtual platform for our individualism.

In “Cyberspace and the American Dream” Dyson and colleagues discuss how our economy has evolved from farm then to massified labor and finally to a economy where the central resource is actionable knowledge. They state that with this shift comes a responsibility to use this shared knowledge for a common good. Difficulty arises however within this virtual community in defining personal freedom, privacy, a sense of community and the definition of property among a plethora of philosophical dilemmas.

State regulation within the global network has been a contentious area of discussion, with global surveillance becoming a widely canvassed issue especially following the NSA Leaks. The balance between information privacy and national security seems to be breaking down as intelligent agencies continue to record information domestically under the guise of espionage.

Although we perceive much of the data that we transmit on this global network as temporary i.e facebook messages, viewed pages, twitter updates. There in reality exists”cyber spacial” data warehouses that collect knowledge, images, information and misinformation in a digital form. With knowledge comes power and the potential for serious and widespread privacy abuses.

Orwell s 1984 depicts a dystopic society, in which one is monitored consistently by a big-brother state system. In this novel surveillance controls the citizenry.  Interestingly after it was publicized that the NSA has been secretly monitoring and storing global internet traffic, including the bulk data collection of email and phone call data. Sales of Nineteen Eighty-Four increased by up to 7 times within the first week of the 2013 mass surveillance links. The novel also discusses how mass media was a catalyst for the intensification of destructive emotions and violence. Since the 20th century news and other forms of media has been publicizing violence more.

These new technologies, have also decayed our logical sequences of time. With new biological reproductive technologies blurring life cycle patterns in conditions of parenting by slowing or speeding up the life cycle.

Flow of space implies that distances that are physical are proximate and close among organizations within society.  contrary to our logical concept of space. A hyperlink from a webpage brings a user from one location to another in a moment, collapsing a succession of knowledge. Castells  stated: “Space and Time, the material foundations of human experience, have been transformed, as the space of flows dominates the space of places, and timeless time supersedes clock time of the industrial era”.