New Media & Community - g45

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 )?

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?

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?

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"

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?