New Media & Community - g45

It was rather overwhelming to look at the number of cameras that our class posted in such a confined area. In many of the areas, the cameras are not always easy to see. It is rather hard to tell if they are watching people or property. In regards to university cameras, I believe that they are only there to watch people because many are located on university telephones, which are a measure of public safety. On the other hand, it is hard to say that business surveillance are there to watch people or property because neither are mutually exclusive. If a business is monitoring their property, then they will be interested in each person who enters their property, making it difficult to distinguish between the two. However, cameras that are located to monitor the entrance to a business or public space seem to clearly monitor the people entering, not necessarily the space.

Regardless of what cameras are actually looking for, I do not believe that many people are aware that there are so many cameras watching them. Although the general population has either adapted to the fact that there are cameras everywhere or they do not actually know it, workers do tend to know where the cameras are located. While avoiding the rain, I stood under an overhang on 36th and Market. A lady was eating her lunch on the bench under the overhang; I asked her if she worked in the building that we were in front of and she said she did. I asked her whether or not she knew if there were any public surveillance cameras in her building or around the outside. She told me that recently she found out that the entrance had a camera because one of the people, who monitor the cameras all day, recognized her in the elevator and introduced himself. She told me that this was her seventh year working here, and she had only recently discovered that there was constant surveillance.

Multiple times I was asked by worker, mostly Penn’s facilities workers, what I was doing. Most of the Penn facilities workers helped me locate a camera. One of the workers after I asked him if there were any cameras where I was looking, but before I had told him what I was doing, he told me that there weren’t any. However, after I told him that I was conducting research for a project in a class, he announced that I had indeed found a camera. From that discussion I have taken the belief that workers feel protected by these cameras, if they know where they are, supporting Lyon’s idea of cameras make people feel safer instead of threatened. My first encounter, with the previous woman discussed, had worked in the same building for a number of years before realizing that there were cameras everywhere. She seemed to dislike the fact that she was constantly being watched.

One of the buildings that I marked on my sheet had three cameras, but the workers at each entrance told me that I could not take pictures of the cameras, which I noted on my sheet. This experience leads me to think about Mann’s idea of being watched while I took pictures, “sousveillance.” It made me uncomfortable with the idea that someone was wondering what I was doing; they even could have thought I was planning to break into the building for all I know. It also leads me to think about the study as a whole. I do feel that this study has made me more aware of my actions in public areas, but if a criminal was going to break in or commit a crime, aren’t we aiding him or her in that quest? We are basically making a graph of where each camera is located, so a criminal could use this information to know what cameras he or she must avoid or even destroy before committing the crime. In a way, if these cameras are there to protect buildings and people from crime, then aren’t we making it easier for the criminals? I do feel that knowing where cameras are may make crimes harder to trace for the police, since the police and the criminals know where the surveillance is.

After looking at the map on phillycrime.org, I do not feel that cameras stop people from committing crimes, especially if the cameras are difficult to find. Known cameras may decrease the number of crimes, but the current situation with the screwdriver rapist, lead me to believe otherwise. In the areas that the rapist committed his crimes, Penn security workers were supposed to be covering and watching the areas. Actual people that work as security guards should, in theory, diminish the number of crimes committed. In reality, this doesn’t seem to be the case because the presence of a security guard should be more effective then a camera, where crimes still happen to slip by.

As a regular viewer of the show Law and Order, I have come to the belief that cameras are everywhere and they help police find criminals. However, this notion of safety seems to be played up in television shows. If criminals are aware that there are cameras, then it is relatively easy to shield their face from the cameras. The cameras can not automatically create a picture of the criminal that would cater to the police; cameras merely serve to make criminals think about their crimes.

Finally, I work at the Penn Emergency Call Center, where I monitor ten of the cameras on campus. The cameras that I specifically watch only cover the garage entrances for Penn’s yellow-jacket security team. I do know that there is a room that contains all of the cameras on campus, which is always monitored by workers. In reality there are hundreds of cameras on campus, both inside buildings and outside. Even the security guards that work for Penn do not know where all of the cameras are hidden. This summer, the main garage where the bikes and equipment are kept for Penn’s security guards are kept, drug dealing was taking place. It took very little time for all of the dealers and buyers to be caught because of the security cameras inside. It was rather horrifying to discover that the people that protect the campus are actually drug dealers.

I have to admit that before sitting down to read this week’s readings, I had been at the gym wearing my customized Nike shoes. I had never thought about the Nike sweatshops in regards to my customized shoes, which I shamefully admit to having. In the first reading from Jonah Peretti, we learned about cultural jamming, memes, and media ecology. I found this article interesting because it demonstrates the power of the internet because of the internet’s ability to include multiple formats for the dissemination of information, which in turns sparks social transformations. Peretti was intelligent to study the effects that one email had, over time, on the rest of the world.

Peretti used cultural jamming to combat Nike’s campaign for their customized shoes. Peretti ordered a pair of customized running shoes with the word “sweatshop,” written on the shoe as her customized aspect. However, Nike refused to process her order, and Peretti emailed this event to her close friends. In a very short time period thousands if not millions of people had heard of this incident. Without the internet this meme would never have reached the power that it did. Peretti found herself at the center of a world-wide movement. The internet has powerful implications, especially as users learn to navigate the internet. The internet turned a personal email sent to a few friends, to a topic of discussion in the mass media. In this instance, the internet “provided a technical distribution network that overlays social networks.” I also found it interesting because this article serves as an example for the discussion of journalists and how they use the internet and blogs specifically to report the news. In this instance the internet gave an eager reporter a unique topic that mattered to the people, which was then picked up by other reporters, adding fuel to the fire.

This example provides solid evidence to the positive influence of the internet, a topic we have discussed relentlessly in this class. The internet proved to serve the public, providing a format to disseminate issues that were important to the public. This example goes further into the issue of agenda setting. Many topics that people receive information on, are chosen by a string of reporters and editors who must approve news before it is disseminated. The internet now disarms news outlets’ ability to set the agenda in the public sphere. The internet allows any type of movement or topic to gain support, outside of the controlled news rooms.

In the second article, Vegh argues that the government has framed the debate of the threat of hacking in order to persuade people to allow their rights to be violated. The government uses the public’s fear of hacking to try to control the internet and reinforce the power structure. With the internet controlled by the government, it is easier for the government to quiet anti-government activists by calling them cyber-terrorists. For more threatening movements then Peretti’s Nike sweatshop movement, the government is trying to silence these types of movements. It is not surprising that this power struggle has arisen; the internet is the easiest place for activists to find support, and it is the hardest medium for the government to regulate and control. It is difficult to always distinguish between cyber-terrorism, hacking, and harmless activists, especially with an inclusive form of media that is exponentially grown faster then we can adjust.

Questions: Is it alright for the government to censor or control the internet? Is it an issue of freedom of speech? Have many high profile memes influenced our government? Will memes have a roll in creating

When I was growing up my mother forbid us to play video games. By the time I was ten and could go freely to a friend’s house to play, I was no longer interested. I missed the time period where I could learn and be good at a game, making it much less interesting. Before writing this response, I was discussing my mother’s strict rules against video games with her. She believes in the negative affects of gaming, and she recalled giving us a choice when we were older if we wanted to get video games. Apparently, my sister and I were completely uninterested. She believe that it was important for children to reach an age to understand the positive and negative affects of gaming before becoming dependent on them as an outlet or entertainment source. I have to say that I am happy that I have no interest in video games because I do not spend countless hours playing the way I probably would have.

The articles from “Playing Video Games” discussed the intricacies of online gaming compared to the public’s traditional view of video games. One of the main differences between online gaming and the traditional notion of gaming lies in individual play and international play. The aspect of anyone playing the games allows for thousands of people to log on and play simultaneously. Games are not limited to a one or two person game, but the games can be complex, including many players playing against each other with multifaceted games. Chan and Vorderer point out a new aspect that is only found with online games, a player cannot just quit in interactive games nor can they save their game and continue at a later time. This leads to many people playing for a much longer time period, because they do not just want to leave and have their character killed. The aspect of controlling the fate of a character, only if you are present and playing the game, increases the chances of people attaching to their games. The impact on online gamer’s increases as the games become more complex, resulting in the gamer creating an attachment to a specific game. As a result of gamers spending hours online playing, gaming companies have found it difficult to attract the casual gamer who does not play for hours on end.

Gamers play these games for a variety of reasons, fulfilling certain needs. Chan and Vorderer determined categories for each type of gamer: the competitor, explorer, collector, achiever, joker, director, storyteller, performer and the craftsmen. Each of these types of players spends hours in front of the computer screen, fulfilling certain desires. Some players use the internet as an escape from the real world, especially in families that are rather traumatic. Depression also leads these people to find comfort in the video game world. Although there are many reasons that lead people to turn to video games, the testimony from the Columbine shootings raises a great point. We learned about the shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. The article focuses on the questioning of people and how they use the media, rather then how the media affects people. Many video games and movies encourage violent behavior and foster aggressive thoughts, but the effects of the media differs from person to person, which makes it difficult to just blame the media without consideration of what people do with the media. It is hard to distinguish between violent video games that are used solely to escape an awful reality, wasting time, and games used because of the attraction of the violence that they contain. Henry Jenkins testimony makes a great point: gaming may be an indicator of desires, especially negative ones.
The third article, “What Do We Know about Social and Psychological Effects of Computer Games?” discusses the impact that video games have. From violent behavior to aggressive thought, video games evoke emotions from its negative content. Although the debate continues about the relationship between the video content and its negative associations, this article presents the positive effects of video games as well. Some people believe that video games can be therapeutic, but they also improve recursive and proactive thinking, increase a person’s sociability, and improve interpretive skills. Although it is difficult to sort out the pros and cons of video games, it is important to remember that the effects vary from person to person, presenting a problem for some and helpful for others. I do not discount the positive effects of video games, but some games that deal with violent killings do not appear to me to be a positive influence. Video games are being continually developed to look more like reality, especially with the traditional games that use a remote swung around as a sword in the game, which in my mind promotes aggression.

The final reading by Dmitri Williams is based on a panel study that investigates the social and civic impact of video games. This article contradicts general notions of the negative effects of video games. Over half of the players studied played games with other players at least half of the time. The sense of community was not affected by video games. This article points to video games having less impact then the general population associates with gaming. It seems that only a small population of gamers is negatively affected by video games, which presents societal problem of how to combat negative effects for these problem people.

Questions: Are there specific characteristics in people who are more prone to the negative effects of gaming? Should parents be the ones to blame or the media? Is it the media’s job keep a check on people? Does desensitization as a result of gaming make our communities less safe since people are accustomed to the violence they see on their computer screens?

Everyday millions of people use Google to do just about anything. Two days ago I realized that I had lost my passport somewhere in my house. Realizing that my parents would be furious, I used Google to find out what I needed to do to replace my passport. I needed information on my parents, simple things like their date of birth, which I had pretty much no idea what year they were born in. By typing in their names, I was able to come up with all of the information that I needed. To find a picture of myself I searched in Google images which gave me links to photos that I was “tagged” in. Using my basic computer skills, I cut the photo down to the passport size and printed it. My final step to complete the paperwork was to show my citizenship, which I could use the copy of my lost passport that my father kept in his email, which was a safety net for my irresponsible ways. Even though I had his email password, I wondered how easy it would be for a hacker or a decent computer geek to get all of the information needed for a passport or anything else they would want. I have to thank Google in this instance since I avoided the responsibility talk and my mother ignoring me during Thanksgiving, but it is not difficult to see that Google has introduced a world where privacy is marginalized.

Google contains an array of tools for its users including: Google Desktop 3, Google Groups, Google Reader and Google Calendar. All of these tools, among others, diminish users’ privacy. Even if a user does not use these tools, Google still collects information about a user’s searches. Google keeps an eye on each user, and uses its information that it has collected to “personalize” your Google experience. By “personalize” Google would like us to believe that they are catering to you, but in reality Google is setting you up for the consumer world, while tracking your virtual movements using “cookies.” Cookies are used to track IP addresses and everything that a user doesn on the internet, and Google’s “cookies” do not even expire until 2038. Advertisers are drawn to Google because the “personalization” allows advertisements to be displayed according to the information that Google has gathered on a specific user, creating a perfect target audience for advertisers. This may seem great, a user only sees advertisements that are relevant to them, but on the flip side, this information has the possibility to be combined with spending habits and other information that Google may or may not have. Combining the vast amount of information that Google has built up for a person with other information such as medical and financial statements, tax returns, business records, present a serious issue. Would you search the same way if you had someone standing over you, watching you? Probably not.

Google Desktop 3 has hit the delete button on privacy. The concern of search information being combined with personal information is now a reality thanks to Google Desktop 3. This program extracts every detail of information from your personal computer and copies this information on to the Google system. It does allow a user to access content on multiple computers compiling your tax returns with a love letter you may have written. A user is able to search via Google for a document, email, or even web history to find what they are looking for. This may seem like a great feature, but then we must remember that the information doesn’t remain only on our computer. Google Desktop 3 compiles all of the data on an individual and stores it on its server. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation said, “Google can keep personal data on its servers for up to 30 days.”

With this sort of power and capability it is no wonder that the US Department of Justice is fighting Google for only one week’s worth of information. The Electronic Frontier Foundation said, “Google is battling US Department of Justice to force it to hand over data about what people are looking for.” While Google has not conceded the information, this debate exemplifies the issues with Google. The government wants to use this data and information that Google has collected, and eventually the government will get its hands on whatever it wants. While this data may be relevant in pedophile cases, is it fair for Google or the government to have its hands on all of your personal information? No, we are a country that is based on freedom and the right to privacy, something that is drastically being reduced.

For example, one year ago in a North Carolina strangulation-murder trial, prosecutors introduced a relatively new piece of evidence: “Google searches allegedly done by the defendant that included the words ‘neck’ and ‘snap.’” The data was claimed to be taken from the defendant’s computer, but it was unclear if it came from the computer or directly from Google. Although Google has its own privacy policy, it is possible through valid warrants or subpoena that Google turn over information that may be relevant in trials.

Gmail is another concern for the public in the privacy debate. Gmail is Google’s email, but with more power than any other email service. First of all, Gmail has a “content extraction” consent that their users agree to before creating their account. According to Google’s privacy policy, “We serve highly relevant ads and other information as part of the service using our unique content-targeting technology.” This means that they collect information from emails sent to Gmail accounts. As long as the Gmail users consent this is not a problem for them, but it does include emails that are sent to gmail accounts. Non-subscribers do not have a chance to consent or not consent to the “content extraction.” This means that data about other people and their emails sent to Gmail accounts can be monitored without their knowledge and a profile can be compiled about non-users of Gmail.

Second, Gmail offers its users indefinite storage of emails. This could sound good to anyone who doesn’t want to bother to delete an email, but this presents another problem with Gmail. Currently, Gmail says that it does not record the “concepts” extracted from e-mails that are saved by the system, but there is no requirement for Google to do this. The have the possibility to use information gathered in any email to create more in-depth profiles or to use the information in a negative way. Also after 180 Google decreases the security on Gmail data, making it much easier for a hacker, law enforcement or the government to access the information. This scary possibility may make Gmail easy to access by other people besides the user. Finally, Google states, “We reserve the right to transfer your personal information in the event of a transfer of ownership of Google, such as acquisition by or merger with another company.” This would allow Google to give up its data to a new company that may not value privacy at all, displaying the vast amount of information about users to the world. Google does not even require notice to its users if their policy is changed.

Gmail and Google Desktop 3 are just two of the many ways that Google has the ability to bypass privacy. Even Google acknowledges the privacy issues raised by its company, “We think this will be a very useful tool, but you will have to give up some of your privacy,” Marissa Mayer, Google’s vice president of search products and user experience commenting on content extraction. Many questions have arisen in my research about Google and privacy. If we are able to use Google Desktop 3 to access information on another one of our computers, then how far off is the use of Google Desktop 3 to access other peoples’ information on other computers (aka Hacking)? How do we know that Google doesn’t use our personal profiles that they generate for other purposes? Can the government hack into Google? Is there a way for privacy to exist online, or should we learn that the internet is a public space?

References:
1.BBC "Privacy Fears Hit Google Search"
2. www.bigbruin.com/reviews05/article.php?item=googledesktop&file=1
3. NPR "Google Copies Your Hard Drive"
4. Concurring opinions - "Googles empire, privacy, and government access to personal data"
5. www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com
6. BBC "Government pays for online search"
7.NPR "Google fights request to turn over search records"
8. NPR "Search Engines Records and How They Can be Used"
9. www.epic.org "Gmail privacy facts"

Today we live in a world where the lines of public and private spaces have been blurred by technology. We are constantly monitoring other people and we are constantly being monitored by others. It is hard to determine what information is private. Curry et al discuss the founding of the Emergency Response System in the US and transformations that it has taken with the onset of new technologies. The birth of the wireless cell phone drastically changed the Emergency Response System since it was now possible to track a cell phone call depending on the location of the cell base. This brought to light the concern of people being tracked and monitor for the wrong purposes, function creep. Tracking individuals’ location can also be used by mobile marketing systems, combining location data with past behavior, displaying the possibilities of how the combination of different sources could be used. The article provides many uses for the cell phone and location determinacy, but many of these are purely speculative and may not yet reflect reality.

Similarly, Lyon discusses surveillance through the combination of various forms of data. He discusses the possibilities of video surveillance images, including photographs and videos taken from CCTV in the public arena. Digital tabs can be kept on people by using the photographic information and combining it with personal data. Lyon does view surveillance as a means to promote public safety, regardless of the violations of privacy. On the other hand, Zetter presents the negative side of video and camera surveillance. As Lyon believes that surveillance is minimizing the public risk, Zetter discusses the intrusion of surveillance in regards to conference privacy surveilling the surveillance. They took pictures of cameras that were recording them to determine how they would respond to being monitored.

Green focuses his paper on the surveillance and monitoring between peers, employers, and between parents and their children. Green discusses the use of cell phones as a monitoring device for parents, who can now track their children’s exact whereabouts on their children’s cell phone. This article relates to our previous readings by Ling and Yttri and also by Ito and Okabe with parental monitoring via cell phones. Green also discusses the use of cell phones within the private, family sphere, in place of a landline that protects their conversation privacy. She presents the differing ideas about surveillance between parents and their children. Teenagers see cell phone surveillance as a way that their parents can monitor their activities. On the other hand, parents view cell phone monitoring as a means to protect the safety of their children.

Finally, Holson’s article from the New York Times is about Disney mobile, furthering our discussion about parental control. Disney mobile allows parents to control the amount of time their children have on their cell phones and it also provides parents with GPS technology to track their children. This technology allows parents to control the use of their children’s cell phones within the home, and also during other inappropriate times. By using this, parents can restrict their children from using a cell phone during family times. The GPS tracking aspect of the Disney mobile allows parents the intimate information about their children’s whereabouts. This prevents teenagers from lying about where they are going. This article does not present the negative aspects of this technology, which is vital in our full assessment of the technology.

Questions: How distant is a GPS tracking device in a cell phone that can also record the cell phone users that are closest to the cell phone? Thus, will technology dive further into our privacy by providing parents with the ability to know who exactly their children are with? Also, we have discussed the use of parental surveillance with cell phones, but how much information can the government extract from this technology? Will we eventually live in a world where there is no such thing as a private space?

Three years ago, after applying to Penn, I remember the first time I heard about, “Pennster.” I was shocked that there was one place where all of the incoming freshmen could view each other’s sites and talk to one another. Now as a junior, there are many different programs, from MySpace to Facebook, and the many others that fall in between. Today’s readings discuss the positive and negative aspects of these popular social networking sites as in MySpace and Facebook.

In the article, “Will Success Spoil MySpace.com,” by James Verini, discussed the affects on MySpace, from Rupert Murdoch buying out its parent company. The goal of this article was to examine the users of MySpace, and to understand how users use MySpace.com for similar but personal reasons. I found it very interesting that Verini discovered that MySpace is an entrance of a large sexual community. Verini found very important information in regards to sexual communities. It is bothersome that the site allows anyone over the age of 14 to access the site. The internet is infamous for sexual predators lying to coax people in, but a sight that so many young people use is extremely disturbing. I understand the importance placed on the parents of children under the age of 18 using the internet, but I believe that this monitoring can only go so far. The internet opens an endless range of topics and discussions that just about anyone can access. Monitoring time spent on the internet is becoming more difficult as adolescents find new ways around their rules. The creators of MySpace did not intend for the site to become a watering hole for sexual predators, and parental control can only do so much. It is an alarming concern, especially for adolescents, who do not understand the power that the internet carries.

Regardless of how disturbing Verini’s article seemed to be; Mark’s article discusses the alarming use of data collecting programs to monitor social sites, such as MySpace. It is becoming increasingly important to be aware of profiles and pictures that are posted on any social networking site, as they have begun to blur the lines between public and private once again. The monitoring of such programs has encouraged users to carefully monitor their information, to prevent it from being used against them.

On the other side of this, Ellison et al. point out that location-based communities keep people from misrepresenting themselves, but this may also increase stalking. There seems to be a very fine line between honest information and too much information that may present other issues. Gross and Acquisti also discuss the requirements of social networking sites, which seem to encourage accurate representation. Many of these sites require a school email address, making it more difficult to the sites dishonestly. Information kept on these sites seems not to hurt most people, but even seemingly innocent information can be destructive in certain situations. In this article, Gross and Acquisti demonstrate how easy it is to obtain a social security number, which we believe to be a fool proof method of security. We are relatively comfortable giving out our social security number online and our location as college students create another false sense of security.

Questions
As the internet increased the total rate of identity theft? Why is it easy for students to have more then one account on facebook or MySpace? Will hackers be able to use social networking sites to hack into personal files on personal computers?

In the United States, we live in a world where ten year old children now have cell phones and other media devices. Today’s articles move past the larger debate of social capital, and move toward the effects on individuals, specifically adolescents. Our readings thus far have focused mainly on the United States, but in Ling and Yttri’s study, they researched adolescents from Norway. Similarly, Ito and Okabe’s study researched adolescents from Japan, specifically from the Tokyo region. These studies found a few similarities that cross cultural boundaries, at least for first world nations. Ling and Yttri as well as Ito and Okabe found a high adoption rate of the cell phone medium in the adolescent age group. This finding is not surprising considering the relatively new medium that young people are drawn to. As with any new medium, people who have grown up around a certain medium do not know life with out it, for the most part. Therefore, it is not surprising to me that both of these studies found that adolescents take to cell phones more so then other age groups.

Both of these articles also discuss the power relationships that are impacted by the use of cell phones. The power relationship between parents and their children has been affected by the rise of mobile phones. Now, parents can choose to give their child a cell phone in order to have constant contact with their child, and they also control the time of day and the place. This provides parents with the control because adolescents are economically dependent on their parents. With such control over a device that adolescents want, it requires that children are dependent on their parents for the use of this device. This concept of monitoring a child may seem great at first, but it is a double edged sword. Parents can not control who their child is text messaging or calling, nor can they monitor the purpose, regardless of how strict they may be. In the larger picture of social capital, Ling and Yttri discuss the impact of the cell phones on family time. Adolescents with cell phones are distracted from time that was previously just for family, and now they are able to interact with their friends on their mobile device rather then focusing on their family. This influence on social interactions between family members is also dependent on the strictness of the parents regarding when their child can use their cell phone. I feel that this aspect of control varies from family to family making it difficult to standardize the expectations of adolescents with their mobile devices.

The other two articles discuss new media and its impact on adolescents. Farrell’s article dives into internet addiction and gaming, with a more in depth look at specific examples. This article is a strong supplement to Wieland’s article that we read about internet addiction. I found this intriguing because Wieland’s article set out the basic guidelines to understand what internet addiction was, but this article grabs the reader’s attention by taking a closer look. Wieland highlighted the symptoms of internet addiction, including academic failure. Farrell’s article supports this with an example of a student whose grades fell from a 3.6 to a .2. I found it interesting that college students are negatively affected by the internet even though it’s immediate consequences are far better then something like drinking.

The last article by Mesch and Talmud discusses the strength of adolescent social ties with regards to the internet. These authors found that adolescents do not feel as close to on-line friends as they do face-to-face friends. Part of the weakness in on-line ties is a result of the complex media and the tendency to discuss non-personal topics and everyday events and activities. This is interesting because we have read studies that concluded it is possible to create close friends on-line. I believe that the strength in ties depends on the user, going back to the article discussing introverts and extroverts.

Finally, I believe it is important to acknowledge the limitations of a few of the studies. First, the studies by Ling and Yttri as well as Ito and Okabe are conducted in first world countries. While some people like to believe that first world countries are the only places that matter, these studies cannot be generalized to the whole world. Also, Ito and Okabe’s study is only conducted in a portion of Tokyo, making it difficult to generalize for the rest of the nation. The sample size that Ito and Okabe used is also a matter of concern. Only 24 people were surveyed, far supporting that this survey cannot be generalized. Farrell’s article allows for self-reporting, which presents a problem. Many people blame the internet for different reasons, but I believe that issue could be deeper. My problem with Wieland’s article, from a previous week, was the feeling that many of the symptoms of internet addiction also crossed boundaries with other disorders. I believe that the examples that Farrell used may have been skewed by the self reporting nature of the study. An internet addict that may have something deeper that is fundamentally off probably would not report anything that is not readily apparent.

Questions: Farrell gives examples of extreme cases, are less extreme cases still supportive?
In third world countries there are large cities where cell phones are used, what is the effect of adolescent cell phone use in third world countries, (e.i. Kenya )?

The rise of technology, especially cell phones, PDA’s and laptop computers, has introduced us to a new form of etiquette. Everyday, millions of people pass through one of the many Starbucks Café across the nation. Today these once public spaces are bridging the gap between public and private spaces. As Goldberg discussed in his article, “Disconnected Urbanism,” technology has diffused our sense of private and public spaces into one. In a typical Starbucks Café, a person can access the internet, do work, make phone calls, meet friends, and just relax, all in the same place. My observations made at the 15th Street Starbucks supports this idea of a place that is multi-dimensional, combining the private and public sphere. At any given time, a person can find a small spot to work and an outlet to connect their personal computer to. At that point they have the option to cross physical boundaries by connecting to the internet and instant messaging their friends and family. At the same time, another person can get their caffeine fix and meet with a friend or colleague over lunch. With so many things happening in one place, it is not surprising that etiquette is continually evolving and adapting, to fulfill all of the purposes that people seek in a Starbucks Café.

Ling discussed many etiquette issues in his article, “The Social Juxtaposition of Mobile Telephone Conversations and Public Spaces.” His view was that cell phones disrupt public spaces. It is hard to deny that cell phones do not cause some sort of disturbance, but I did witness part of the evolving etiquette, especially of cell phones. A man that sat four stools over from me was a perfect example of what not to do. I can tell you all about him because I could always hear his conversations. Let’s see, he is an aspiring actor and singer, who focuses his vocal talent on gospel songs, and don’t worry, I even got to hear him hum. He just recently returned from California where he was spending time at his cousins recording studio. I could go on for quite some time, but the point is that not everyone has conformed to this rather new etiquette. However, I would have to disagree with Ling and his belief that cell phones are a disturbance in any public space. This loud cell phone user was only one of two people that I encountered that I would say their cell phone use was a disturbance. I believe that almost everyone who walked into that Starbucks had a cell phone, whether they were holding it in their hand or it was neatly clipped to their belt. A woman that was seated at a table five feet from me was impossible to eavesdrop on. In an attempt to hear what she was talking about, I even moved to the trash can directly next to her. It is not so much that cell phones are a disturbance in a public space such as Starbucks, but the level of activity and noise from the music provides a sort of white noise, allowing people to go undisturbed.

The article “Grande WiFi: Social Interaction in Wireless Coffee Shops,” places users into two categories, “true mobiles” and “place makers.” At the end of my first two and a half hour period, a lovely old man entered the Café. He chatted up everyone around him, and he didn’t even bother to bring a book to use as a prop. He was a perfect example of a “place maker,” someone who goes to a café for the social experience. Another great example was a regular; he came in and spent at least fifteen minutes discussing football with the male employee. The employee said, “That game was just bad, I get frustrated for them.” The regular responded, “Yeah me too, and the thing is they can’t keep letting their defense win games.” These two continued to talk for at least fifteen minutes, clearly enjoying their discussion.

On the other hand, I also saw a great example of a “true mobile,” a person who goes to a café to be more productive. A lady sat at the same table, without moving a single inch, for more then two and a half hours. When I arrived, she had already finished two drinks, and I never saw her eyes leave her computer screen, as she was clearly working diligently. In my opinion, there may be another type of person that could be found in cafes. I call this person an “egotistic addict;” the person is wrapped up only with their own world. He or she is constantly either on a cell phone or scrolling through a blackberry or PDA, and he or she never makes eye contact with another person in the café. These people are completely oblivious to the world going on around them because they are so wrapped up in whatever else they are doing.

The article “Capitalizing on the Net,” argues that the internet is a supplement to social interaction. In the context of the internet invading public spaces, I would say that I completely disagree. A man that sat in the corner on the last stool was completely immersed in what he was doing on the internet. He fired off emails as he searched the web. A few times his phone would ring and if it hadn’t been on vibrate, shaking the whole table, he probably would’ve forgotten to answer it. If he placed a call he would rattle off his cell phone number, 614-558-6122 and say, “I was hoping to up-sell some more stuff, but it seems to be an apple thing, they are using apple lets just put it that way and it’s a little disheartening,” with very little variation each time. Even when a young man plugged in his computer for him because it had fallen out of the socket, he didn’t make eye contact with the man. He uttered thanks and smiled at his computer screen with the Google search engine results for some church group. In private homes, I do agree that the internet is a supplement to social interaction and part of our everyday lives. Unfortunately, as the internet is entering our public sphere, it appears to distract us in social situations rather then help us.

In my observations, social interactions depended on the types of media devices used. There was very little, if any, interaction between two people both using some form of new media. These people were far too wrapped up in what was going on with their devices then they were with anything else around them. Also when only one of the two people was using a new media device, the issue was heightened. This was especially prevalent with cell phone users that continued to talk even when the cashier would ask them what they wanted. They would quickly spit the words out, as if it were part of their cell phone conversation. This also effected the employees’ interaction with customers, making it difficult for the employees to even get “thanks” from the customers. One male customer didn’t even remove his head phones, but I could hear his music when I was just standing next to him as he killed his eardrums. There were multiple examples of this sort of behavior, when two people interacted and one was using a new media device, as they ignored the person that was trying to interact with them. Many people on the receiving end were clearly irritated, especially when the person was a friend.

I also noticed that many times people also use cell phones as their props. In my five hours of observation, I did not see a single person read a magazine, and only a few people picked up a newspaper. Rarely, a person whose sole purpose is to get work done, would put their bags or coat in the seat closest to them. Books and computers are sometimes used as props, but the most interesting was the use of a cell phone. A cell phone contains many options from actually calling, to sending a text message, or even playing a game. It made me wonder how many of these people were actually doing something on their cell phones, and how many were actually just trying to seem busy.

Finally, just as we said that internet use depends on the person, the same principle applies for cafes. How different people use cafes depends solely on the individual. However, trends did seem to appear, especially relating to age and time of day. During the day, Starbucks is alive with activity. Hundreds of people go through those doors each hour. These people seem to be over the age of 30, and spend their days working, not in school. On the other hand, after all of the commotion, around 5:30 pm the café begins to quiet down. Surprisingly, the quiet people are young, mostly students that have come to do work in the café. At this point, the groups of people and long lines vanish, turning the café into a relaxing study hall.

In this week’s readings we return to the debate about the effects of the internet on community. Hampton and Wellman explore this concept in a real community in Toronto in their article, “Neighboring in Netville.” The authors consider every side of the debate, has the internet strengthened, transformed or weakened the way we interact. At the end of each argument, Hampton and Wellman provide data from their wired community. Overall, they found that the internet has transformed and enhanced the community feeling. They found that Netville’s connected residents led to greater involvement with other residents and increased the probability of knowing other residents. I do not feel that there were selection bias, however, I wonder what other aspects played a role in the connectivity. The internet is a vital component, but it is not the sole component that makes neighboring stronger in Netville. I wonder if having young kids played a role in creating stronger ties with their children’s community playmates. Other aspects including the amount of time spent at home, plays a role in allowing the internet to work effectively for the community. I also believe that the creation of a neighborhood list serve played a role in this. We are frequently connected to our close ties on-line because we have their email addresses and instant message names. The list serve provided the residents with the information needed to make the connections possible. This aspect of the study could be the factor that greatly enhances the results, or it may be another aspect that depends solely on how the participants use the internet.

In a future study I would like to examine how the wired community uses the internet, including their time spent on-line with their neighbors and time spent with outsiders. Also does this suburban study apply to other communities, especially communities that are densely populated in the cities? This question is important because different people inhabit the suburbs compared to those in the city; we must also consider the different environments of suburbs and cities to understand how the internet effects each specific environment. As we saw with the gated community, the usefulness of the internet in aiding community depends on the people and their environment. In Hampton’s second article, he addresses the conclusion drawn by himself and Wellman in their study. Basically, he explains that the results from Netville were in fact a result of the combination of specific characteristics, making my question of how a similar study would play out in another community more relevant.

Hampton and Wellman make a very good point in that neighbors do not have the tools for socialization as people do in other environments. The internet may be the tool that bridges the gap, making socialization for neighbors more important. However, Servon and Pinkett believe that community technological centers can help bridge the gap known as the “digital divide.” I believe that CTC may be helpful for communities that can not afford personal computers and wireless internet access, but I do not believe that CTC will drastically change the widening gap. CTC will help lower class people adapt to new technology, and provide access that wouldn’t otherwise have been possible. The key difference is in the fact that these people will not have computers in their homes. CTC will create communities within the larger community based on users and non-users, possibly providing less of a sense of community in places where community is what the people need most.

Hampton and Wellman’s study fits into our greater discussion of the effects of the internet in an interesting way. It appears to be concrete data supporting the idea that the internet does not in fact hurt the idea of community. Many of our readings have addressed broad generalizations, and it was refreshing to read a study that was specific and concrete. On the other hand Hampton’s second article addresses the conclusion that peoples’ social networks were decreasing. Hampton and Wellman present one side of the story, while Hampton went further in explaining the other side of the argument further complicating the debate.

Today cell phones are commonplace and they are rapidly changing our society. Putnam discussed the decline of social capital as a result of the Internet because of its effect on place. We cannot distinguish between private and public places because they have diffused into one. In “Disconnected Urbanism,” Goldberg discusses how cell phones have changed our sense of place, making it more difficult to draw the line between them. He believes that cell phones have privatized public space, and people miss out on shared social experiences that public spaces once provided. Putnam valued shared experiences, and cell phones are rapidly decreasing our shared experiences, decreasing our social capital. I would argue that while the cell phone is not allowing for new interactions, it does strength our pre-existing relationships. I agree with Goldberg’s main argument: private and public spaces are no longer distinguishable from one another. The cell phone places people in contact with virtually everyone else, creating a mobile social network. However, this social network that may be strengthened by the use of cell phones cannot replace the value of shared experiences and public space. We are narrowing our social network, making it more difficult to interact in public places.

Cell phones raised many etiquette issues that Ling discusses in his article, “The Social Juxtaposition of Mobile Telephone Conversations and Public Spaces.” It is true that cell phones disrupt public spaces for both the people around the cell phone and the user. Eavesdropping is a result of the introduction of technology into public spaces. Simple things such as eye contact between strangers is far more difficult because the cell phone users are completely engaged in his or hers conversation, but they disengage him or herself from the public space.

Ling’s first article is based on his observation; his second article, “One Can Talk about Manners!” is based on his research. He found that 75% of men used cell phones, while only 30% of women did. However, he used a very small sample size consisting of 34 men and 16 women. This sample is far too small to draw broad assumptions across the general population. I believe a more accurate study would show an even higher percentage of people that are cell phone users. Although the study appears flawed, the conclusions he draws are relevant. The disturbance of cell phones in restaurants is everywhere. Cell phones allow access to anyone at anytime, but the consequences appear for those who are around the cell phone user. Not only do cell phones affect the conversation at the restaurant, but it also affects the conversations of everyone around the user, forcing the user to choose between his or her cell phone conversation or the public conversation at the restaurant.

The article “Grande WiFi: Social Interaction in Wireless Coffee Shops,” categorizes WiFi users in coffee shops. The “true mobiles” are the people that go to the cafes to be more productive, spending their time on-line or working, not socially interacting. The second group is the “place makers.” These people go to the cafes for the social experience. It is hard to say that the “true mobiles” are actually doing work, or they may be connecting to a larger social network on-line. I believe that more research is required to examine how people use the internet in cafes.

Questions: Does the cell phone strengthen pre-existing ties?
Has cell phone etiquette increased, meaning, are cell phone users more aware of the disruptions of the cell phone? Are they taking action by placing their phones on silent in order to experience the public space?