- · Charles Arthur( Gurdian) VS apple watch
- · Rory Cellan jones (BBC)- glorious failure
For one thing, he warned men that Google Glass will do nothing for their sex appeal.
“When you look at the appeal of Google Glass … would you wear it on a date? Probably not. And, if you did, you probably wouldn’t get a second date,"
- · privacy issues - research NSA , wiki leaks
Dave Meinert, who runs the 5 Point Cafe in Seattle, said those wearing the spectacles will have to remove them if they want to come in.
He has put up a sign on the wall which reads: ‘Respect our customers’ privacy as we’d expect them to respect yours.’
The move comes after it emerged people wearing Google Glass could be banned from American cinemas, casinos and even parks because owners don’t want filming there.
The glasses, which cost $1,500 a pair (£980), are currently on limited release to 2,000 customers but will be more widely available later this year.
A camera next to the wearer’s eye, which can take photos or record video without a red light or a shutter sound to tell others that it is working, has caused concerns for privacy.
Casinos said the futuristic eyewear could help cheaters to win unfairly and cinemas said they could be used to illegally record films and sell pirate copies.
Lap dance clubs said that they would treat those wearing the Internet-connected specs the same as anyone caught filming a stripper with a cameraphone - and would kick them out.
- · How does this effect society? e.g. the impact of the internet
what is moral panic ?
http://www.wired.com/2012/11/st_opinion/
the articles talks about how technology has no effect on the audience that use them but rather is based upon 3 rules that effect a people and therefore create moral panic.
An instance of public anxiety or alarm in response to a problem regarded as threatening the moral standards of society(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/moral-panic)
http://www.wired.com/2012/11/st_opinion/
Genevieve Bell believes she’s cracked this puzzle. Bell, director of interaction and experience research at Intel, has long studied how everyday people incorporate new tech into their lives. In a 2011 interview with The Wall Street Journal‘s Tech Europe blog, she outlined an interesting argument: To provoke moral panic, a technology must satisfy three rules.
First, it has to change our relationship to time. Then it has to change our relationship to space. And, crucially, it has to change our relationship to one another. Individually, each of these transformations can be unsettling, but if you hit all three? Panic!
“How many times have we heard, ‘It’s the end of the American small town,’ ‘It’s the end of the American family,’ and ‘Oh, the young people of today’?” Bell asks.
TO PROVOKE MORAL PANIC, A TECHNOLOGY MUST SATISFY THREE RULES.
This cycle is very old. Indeed, it probably began almost 2,500 years ago, when the written word was on its way to unmooring knowledge from space and time and letting new combinations of people “speak” to one another. This satisfied all three rules—and it panicked Socrates, who warned that writing would destroy human memory and destroy the art of argument.
Socrates hadn’t seen anything yet, because the past 100 years or so have been a nearly nonstop spree of innovation and panic. Consider the telephone, which suddenly enabled us to talk across great spaces and at nearly any time to almost anyone. In a precursor to today’s social-media scares, pundits predicted it would kill face-to-face socializing. Mark Twain mocked the presumed triviality and disjointedness of telephonic conversation between women. (Oh, and about women: As Bell notes, you can reliably spot a moral panic when critics start muttering about the impact on ladies and delicate youth.)
But technologies that didn’t change all three things went mostly unprotested. The fax machine? It changed space and time, sure, but not social relations—so not many people lost their marbles over it, as Bell notes. I think the same explains the reaction to Square today.
Now, this is not to say the panics are always misguided. Centralized social networking really does create privacy problems; cyberpredation does occur, if rarely. But the bigger problem with panic-mongers is their insistence that each technological past was a golden age of civility and contemplation, when it was no such thing. And hilariously, many now rhapsodize nostalgically over tools that themselves were once demonized—as with modern complaints that the interwebs are killing that emotionally vibrant interaction, the telephone call.
Now, here’s the useful part: We can use Bell’s laws to deduce which new tools will provoke hand-wringing.
For example, I suspect geolocation, social book-reading, and the “Internet of things”—personal objects that talk to us and each other online—will all provoke widespread flip-outs. They all tinker with our sense of time, space, and one another. Indeed, they can even start to make me hyperventilate a little bit, as I ponder how governments and corporations will abuse them.
But I calm myself knowing that, like the Cassandras of the past, I’m wrong to panic.
- space
- time
- social relations
however although these are three factors that contribute in order to create a techno panic a minimum of two are applied before techno panic can occur. for example Google glass applies to both space and time as well as social relations the reason for this is because it allows data as well as information to be sent over a distance as well well in a short time time but social relations is one of the biggest issues with people using emotions more and more people can read emotions effectively as they once could. application have been developed in order to understand emotions of an individual this can help those who are disabled but also help people on a general basis however its arguable that the app was created due to people not being able to read emotions.
http://www.zdnet.com/photos-top-10-technology-induced-moral-panics-3040154616/#photo
"As part of a series of articles exploring the effect of IT on society, silicon.com examined humanity's fear of technology. In the last of the series, Natasha Lomas traces the history of technology-inspired moral panics.
Technology brings many things to our lives - superfast computations, downloadable apps, the perfect slice of toast.
It is, however, a change agent - and change makes a lot of people uneasy. Emerging technologies may be bursting with benefits but all too often they're overshadowed by neophobia: the fear of something new.
While modern technology - be it video games, social networking or even the internet itself - generates screeds of hand-wringing headlines accusing it of corrupting society each year, such fears are by no means new.
Almost from its very first instances, technology has inspired moral panics. Here, we take a look back at the history of technophobia."
Moral panic is something that has occurred with many significant point in history for example with the alphabet
Greek philosopher Socrates saw the advent of the written word as a massive threat to society - he feared it would undermine the oral culture of the time. Writing, Socrates argued, would "introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it", degrading humans' capacity to remember. He also feared writing would give students the appearance of wisdom without the actuality of intellect.
In Socrates' view, true knowledge could only be obtained through discourse - actual verbal dialogue between speakers - thus writing's mute marks were dumb in both senses, incapable of teaching humanity anything.
The internet is another example that has revolutionised the way the world now operates
Today's popular concerns include the amorphous fear that the internet somehow rots your brain. The internet is apparently destroying our ability to contemplate the deep and serious issues of the day. As a result of exposure to so much data, we're now mental channel-hoppers, only capable of laughing at cat videos and writing inane comments on YouTube.
- · always being online
- · What impact will this have on society? e.g. privacy
- · Economic- power of tech companies , value , revenue/profit
- · political-privacy, everyday interactions , need for legislation - examples privacy
- · moral panic- research - link to new tech examples
An instance of public anxiety or alarm in response to a problem regarded as threatening the moral standards of society(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/moral-panic)
http://www.wired.com/2012/11/st_opinion/
Genevieve Bell believes she’s cracked this puzzle. Bell, director of interaction and experience research at Intel, has long studied how everyday people incorporate new tech into their lives. In a 2011 interview with The Wall Street Journal‘s Tech Europe blog, she outlined an interesting argument: To provoke moral panic, a technology must satisfy three rules.
First, it has to change our relationship to time. Then it has to change our relationship to space. And, crucially, it has to change our relationship to one another. Individually, each of these transformations can be unsettling, but if you hit all three? Panic!
“How many times have we heard, ‘It’s the end of the American small town,’ ‘It’s the end of the American family,’ and ‘Oh, the young people of today’?” Bell asks.
TO PROVOKE MORAL PANIC, A TECHNOLOGY MUST SATISFY THREE RULES.
This cycle is very old. Indeed, it probably began almost 2,500 years ago, when the written word was on its way to unmooring knowledge from space and time and letting new combinations of people “speak” to one another. This satisfied all three rules—and it panicked Socrates, who warned that writing would destroy human memory and destroy the art of argument.
Socrates hadn’t seen anything yet, because the past 100 years or so have been a nearly nonstop spree of innovation and panic. Consider the telephone, which suddenly enabled us to talk across great spaces and at nearly any time to almost anyone. In a precursor to today’s social-media scares, pundits predicted it would kill face-to-face socializing. Mark Twain mocked the presumed triviality and disjointedness of telephonic conversation between women. (Oh, and about women: As Bell notes, you can reliably spot a moral panic when critics start muttering about the impact on ladies and delicate youth.)
But technologies that didn’t change all three things went mostly unprotested. The fax machine? It changed space and time, sure, but not social relations—so not many people lost their marbles over it, as Bell notes. I think the same explains the reaction to Square today.
Now, this is not to say the panics are always misguided. Centralized social networking really does create privacy problems; cyberpredation does occur, if rarely. But the bigger problem with panic-mongers is their insistence that each technological past was a golden age of civility and contemplation, when it was no such thing. And hilariously, many now rhapsodize nostalgically over tools that themselves were once demonized—as with modern complaints that the interwebs are killing that emotionally vibrant interaction, the telephone call.
Now, here’s the useful part: We can use Bell’s laws to deduce which new tools will provoke hand-wringing.
For example, I suspect geolocation, social book-reading, and the “Internet of things”—personal objects that talk to us and each other online—will all provoke widespread flip-outs. They all tinker with our sense of time, space, and one another. Indeed, they can even start to make me hyperventilate a little bit, as I ponder how governments and corporations will abuse them.
But I calm myself knowing that, like the Cassandras of the past, I’m wrong to panic.
- space
- time
- social relations
however although these are three factors that contribute in order to create a techno panic a minimum of two are applied before techno panic can occur. for example Google glass applies to both space and time as well as social relations the reason for this is because it allows data as well as information to be sent over a distance as well well in a short time time but social relations is one of the biggest issues with people using emotions more and more people can read emotions effectively as they once could. application have been developed in order to understand emotions of an individual this can help those who are disabled but also help people on a general basis however its arguable that the app was created due to people not being able to read emotions.
http://www.zdnet.com/photos-top-10-technology-induced-moral-panics-3040154616/#photo
"As part of a series of articles exploring the effect of IT on society, silicon.com examined humanity's fear of technology. In the last of the series, Natasha Lomas traces the history of technology-inspired moral panics.
Technology brings many things to our lives - superfast computations, downloadable apps, the perfect slice of toast.
It is, however, a change agent - and change makes a lot of people uneasy. Emerging technologies may be bursting with benefits but all too often they're overshadowed by neophobia: the fear of something new.
While modern technology - be it video games, social networking or even the internet itself - generates screeds of hand-wringing headlines accusing it of corrupting society each year, such fears are by no means new.
Almost from its very first instances, technology has inspired moral panics. Here, we take a look back at the history of technophobia."
Moral panic is something that has occurred with many significant point in history for example with the alphabet
Greek philosopher Socrates saw the advent of the written word as a massive threat to society - he feared it would undermine the oral culture of the time. Writing, Socrates argued, would "introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it", degrading humans' capacity to remember. He also feared writing would give students the appearance of wisdom without the actuality of intellect.
In Socrates' view, true knowledge could only be obtained through discourse - actual verbal dialogue between speakers - thus writing's mute marks were dumb in both senses, incapable of teaching humanity anything.
The internet is another example that has revolutionised the way the world now operates
Today's popular concerns include the amorphous fear that the internet somehow rots your brain. The internet is apparently destroying our ability to contemplate the deep and serious issues of the day. As a result of exposure to so much data, we're now mental channel-hoppers, only capable of laughing at cat videos and writing inane comments on YouTube.
- · audience theories- Uses and gratifications and internet addiction
- · Film - enemy of the state
primary text-enemy of the state
Accenture's policing and public safety business, "was to provide MPS with an unprecedented level of insight and intelligence to help them continue to reduce gang-related crimes in the city."
With analytics information in hand, the London Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) was able to assess the likelihood of known individuals re-offending.
Minority report is an example of how that even in 1998 the amount of power that government agencies such as FBI already had and how technology such as CCTV and hacking was used in order to attempt to cover up a murder.
Minority reinforces the fact that information we have can be dangerous not only for citizens but also for the large corporations.
Within minority report it shows how Ex-FBI agent is able to use his knowledge and experience in order to protect himself and was able to live under the “radar”. This therefore suggests that it is possible to be able to live under the radar away from government agencies.
I’Robot is an example of how technology can become so powerful and then we the human lay our protection on technology that is able to take advantage of what it is asked to do thus protecting the “creator”
I’robot shows that it is important to ensure that technology does not become something that everybody and everything is relied on. Through the film I am able to see that technology becomes the centre and that it is due to technology having too much power and control that created chaos.
- · check the guardian news on Google glass
what is moral panic ?
http://www.wired.com/2012/11/st_opinion/
An instance of public anxiety or alarm in response to a problem regarded as threatening the moral standards of society(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/moral-panic)
http://www.wired.com/2012/11/st_opinion/
Genevieve Bell believes she’s cracked this puzzle. Bell, director of interaction and experience research at Intel, has long studied how everyday people incorporate new tech into their lives. In a 2011 interview with The Wall Street Journal‘s Tech Europe blog, she outlined an interesting argument: To provoke moral panic, a technology must satisfy three rules.
First, it has to change our relationship to time. Then it has to change our relationship to space. And, crucially, it has to change our relationship to one another. Individually, each of these transformations can be unsettling, but if you hit all three? Panic!
“How many times have we heard, ‘It’s the end of the American small town,’ ‘It’s the end of the American family,’ and ‘Oh, the young people of today’?” Bell asks.
TO PROVOKE MORAL PANIC, A TECHNOLOGY MUST SATISFY THREE RULES.
This cycle is very old. Indeed, it probably began almost 2,500 years ago, when the written word was on its way to unmooring knowledge from space and time and letting new combinations of people “speak” to one another. This satisfied all three rules—and it panicked Socrates, who warned that writing would destroy human memory and destroy the art of argument.
Socrates hadn’t seen anything yet, because the past 100 years or so have been a nearly nonstop spree of innovation and panic. Consider the telephone, which suddenly enabled us to talk across great spaces and at nearly any time to almost anyone. In a precursor to today’s social-media scares, pundits predicted it would kill face-to-face socializing. Mark Twain mocked the presumed triviality and disjointedness of telephonic conversation between women. (Oh, and about women: As Bell notes, you can reliably spot a moral panic when critics start muttering about the impact on ladies and delicate youth.)
But technologies that didn’t change all three things went mostly unprotested. The fax machine? It changed space and time, sure, but not social relations—so not many people lost their marbles over it, as Bell notes. I think the same explains the reaction to Square today.
Now, this is not to say the panics are always misguided. Centralized social networking really does create privacy problems; cyberpredation does occur, if rarely. But the bigger problem with panic-mongers is their insistence that each technological past was a golden age of civility and contemplation, when it was no such thing. And hilariously, many now rhapsodize nostalgically over tools that themselves were once demonized—as with modern complaints that the interwebs are killing that emotionally vibrant interaction, the telephone call.
Now, here’s the useful part: We can use Bell’s laws to deduce which new tools will provoke hand-wringing.
For example, I suspect geolocation, social book-reading, and the “Internet of things”—personal objects that talk to us and each other online—will all provoke widespread flip-outs. They all tinker with our sense of time, space, and one another. Indeed, they can even start to make me hyperventilate a little bit, as I ponder how governments and corporations will abuse them.
But I calm myself knowing that, like the Cassandras of the past, I’m wrong to panic.
the articles talks about how technology has no effect on the audience that use them but rather is based upon 3 rules that effect a people and therefore create moral panic.
- space
- time
- social relations
however although these are three factors that contribute in order to create a techno panic a minimum of two are applied before techno panic can occur. for example Google glass applies to both space and time as well as social relations the reason for this is because it allows data as well as information to be sent over a distance as well well in a short time time but social relations is one of the biggest issues with people using emotions more and more people can read emotions effectively as they once could. application have been developed in order to understand emotions of an individual this can help those who are disabled but also help people on a general basis however its arguable that the app was created due to people not being able to read emotions.
http://www.zdnet.com/photos-top-10-technology-induced-moral-panics-3040154616/#photo
"As part of a series of articles exploring the effect of IT on society, silicon.com examined humanity's fear of technology. In the last of the series, Natasha Lomas traces the history of technology-inspired moral panics.
Technology brings many things to our lives - superfast computations, downloadable apps, the perfect slice of toast.
It is, however, a change agent - and change makes a lot of people uneasy. Emerging technologies may be bursting with benefits but all too often they're overshadowed by neophobia: the fear of something new.
While modern technology - be it video games, social networking or even the internet itself - generates screeds of hand-wringing headlines accusing it of corrupting society each year, such fears are by no means new.
Almost from its very first instances, technology has inspired moral panics. Here, we take a look back at the history of technophobia."
Moral panic is something that has occurred with many significant point in history for example with the alphabet
Greek philosopher Socrates saw the advent of the written word as a massive threat to society - he feared it would undermine the oral culture of the time. Writing, Socrates argued, would "introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it", degrading humans' capacity to remember. He also feared writing would give students the appearance of wisdom without the actuality of intellect.
In Socrates' view, true knowledge could only be obtained through discourse - actual verbal dialogue between speakers - thus writing's mute marks were dumb in both senses, incapable of teaching humanity anything.
The internet is another example that has revolutionised the way the world now operates
Today's popular concerns include the amorphous fear that the internet somehow rots your brain. The internet is apparently destroying our ability to contemplate the deep and serious issues of the day. As a result of exposure to so much data, we're now mental channel-hoppers, only capable of laughing at cat videos and writing inane comments on YouTube.
- · Academic- tech effects on society.
Media imperialism- the reason i believe this connects is because Google is using technology such as Google glass for surveillance amongst society. it allows sensitive information that would not be able to be found with previous types of research method in order to find information that would can be used by third party companies. it also can also be used against society my people and be used to suppress people. although media imperialism is aimed at weaker countries it can be argued that Google is a puppet used by larger organisation such as FBI in order to find information about society which i believe to be the equivalent of weaker countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment