Facebook privacy and employer fishing

 As society encounters new technologies it is also in a constant process of creating new paradigms for the use and misuse of those technologies. It seems that with every positive use found, a negative use of the same technology is developed. Just as the telephone allowed us to connect with distant relatives and friends, it also enabled the proliferation of wiretapping and other surveillance methods by law enforcement or otherwise. As high powered cameras gain even greater ability to zoom into the dens of African lions so too do they enable paparazzi to zoom into celebrity backyards from greater distances, the unfortunate result is that the expectation of privacy in public and semi-public spaces becomes more muddled as technology has advanced. Given that U.S. citizens expect a certain amount of privacy and exhibit a certain amount of control over that privacy in real life, are those expectations and controls extended to the virtual world as well? The question of privacy and control over personal information may come into sharper focus when discussing means of getting and using that information which employers may apply to potential job candidates. Those means and uses have been criticized and debated in both the public arena and through the law. This paper will examine the current trends in Facebook (a popular social networking site) privacy controls and the ethical and legal uses of publicly available data with special emphasis on employer information fishing. Research will include an examination of popular privacy control tactics and practices potential employees may use when safeguarding personal information. Additional legal definitions of privacy and ethical considerations surrounding privacy will also be used to discuss the employers use of data publicly found on Facebook.

First let’s discuss a definition of privacy. Privacy is generally defined as the freedom to be secluded from company or observation as well as from unauthorized intrusion. Although not explicitly found in the Bill of Rights as an unalienable human right, the expectation of privacy in the United States has usually been inferred from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” – U.S. Const. amend. IV

In a later mocked opinion, Justice William O. Douglas found the right to privacy to be just in the shadows or the penumbra of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965).  But an expectation of privacy is well documented through case law and legal precedents establishing both boundaries and expectations of public and private spaces. In the landmark case of Katz v. United States (1967) a standard two-pronged analysis of subjective and objective expectations were used in order to test for a reasonable expectation of privacy. To pass the Katz test one must first have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and that expectation of privacy must then be one that society is (objectively) prepared to recognize as reasonable. These court precedents for the expectation of privacy are readily found with regard to the physical world but can they be extended to the virtual world as well? Further, does society recognize the publicly available information on the internet as having a reasonable expectation of privacy? Unfortunately current research is not clear or does not agree on the public’s perception of digital privacy and future research on these questions is needed before a determination can be made.

It should be noted that the philosophical idea of privacy does not necessarily extend across all cultures or even within a culture. According to Liptak (2010), the difference in European and American ideals of privacy often collide. For example, there is a philosophical difference in the belief of privacy as a fundamental human right (as Europeans see it) and the belief of privacy a consumer right (from the American viewpoint). This is evidenced in the American legal system’s emphasis on making legal decisions based on the protection of consumer rights against non-governmental searches and surveillance (Liptak, 2010).

Of interest for this paper, American Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, has been famously quoted for his cavalier attitude toward privacy. Beginning with his general philosophy for Facebook as “making the world more open and connected” (Grossman, 2010) and more recently extending to his statements regarding Facebook privacy settings, Zuckerberg claims that Facebook privacy is only an extension of societal norms evolving toward increased openness (Kirkpatrick, 2010).  Although society’s acceptance of Facebook’s privacy settings establishing an openness standard still remains to be seen and is currently hotly contested (Smith, 2010), the uses of the information that is publicly available has a many varied uses both positive and negative. Data phishing and data mining on Facebook has been made infinitely easier through the use of the publicly available FacebookAPI. The complex privacy controls, constant updates and increasingly prevalent applications requesting access to data are making it more difficult for time pressed users to manage their personal information. Although sites such as www.OpenBook.org and the “public preview” view on Facebook are attempting to increase awareness of publicly available information on individual’s Facebook pages. Facebook has received criticism that the privacy settings should default to be more closed and protective and not have the user opt in to higher privacy settings. This seems in direct contrast to founder Mark Zuckerberg’s general philosophy. Unfortunately for Zuckerberg, the Federal Trade Commission has raised issues challenging Zuckerberg’s tactics of pulling Facebook users kicking and screaming into his radically transparent world  view. The FTC has recently found Facebook to have engaged in “unfair and deceptive” practices regarding changes to its 2009 privacy settings (Kravets, 2011). The changes in question publicly exposed personal photos and information previously marked as private. As part of the settlement with the FTC, Facebook will now have to ask users permission before changing future security settings and as a precautionary measure Facebook will have to submit to external audits for the next 20 years (Kravets, 2011). Although one can assume that Facebook did not maliciously expose user data when making those changes, we might be able to consider the case of Facebook privacy settings as an extension of Zuckerberg’s cavalier attitude of begging for forgiveness later rather than asking for permission now. However, these constant changes in the Facebook privacy settings (which are infamously longer than the U.S. Constitution) are really only part of a reality of life in perpetual beta.

Information and/or data privacy policies are constantly being defined and redefined based on the relationship between society’s use of new technologies and the legal right to or expectation of privacy using those technologies. Technology is growing at a rapid pace and our inability to keep up with the arduous legislative changes required to manage never ending system changes is a first world hurdle which must be addressed.  This is especially true when dealing with the sharing and protection of personal data. The dichotomy between personal security and the use of new technology has been at the heart of the privacy argument since the historic Olmstead v. United States (1928) Supreme Court case where new telephone and wiretapping technologies were being put to the privacy rights test. Current issues surrounding personal privacy in the digital age usually revolve around data collection, data storage, ownership rights, sharing and access. Here we will only examine the issues of data collection and sharing as they directly relate to employers seeking publicly available information on Facebook for potential job candidates

As businesses become more familiar with the increasing availability of personal information through new technologies and systems, such as Facebook, the negative implications for retaining privacy becomes increasingly apparent. In the face of the volume of data that is now collected on each individual, it is surprising that more information is not publicly shared as there is no practical means of controlling access to all of our fragmented data. In some cases access to this data is assumed to be public as in the example of the Library of Congress’s recent announcement that it will be archiving all Twitter (a social networking and microblogging site) posts since 2006 (Rosen, 2010).

According to a survey conducted by Cross-Tab research and sponsored by Microsoft (2010), “the recruiters and HR professionals surveyed are not only checking online sources to learn about potential candidates, but they also report that their companies have made online screening a formal requirement of the hiring process.” Companies like Social Intelligence (www.socialintel.com) are now being outsourced to search the Facebook pages of potential job candidates and return volumes of synthesized data which are then categorized into positive and negative results (Preston, 2011). The FTC originally raised questions regarding Social Intelligence’s business practices but eventually found the company to be in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and upheld the company’s right to fish for public information on Facebook. This ruling sets a new precedent where companies like Social Intelligence can now be considered consumer reporting agencies.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C § 1681 et seq., 1970) is a United States federal law which protects consumers from employers receiving “too much information” and requires an employer to “clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer that an investigative consumer report including information as to his character, general reputation, personal characteristics and mode of living, whoever are applicable, may be made” (15 U.S.C. § 1681d, 1994).  Employers cannot undo what may be seen in an internet search or on an individual’s Facebook page but per FCRA employers may have to explain how that information did not enter into their hiring decision.

The idea of a radically transparent society and world is especially sexy to social networking sites and other networked sites. The “social capital” (Bourdieu, 1986) of the information that individuals collect and display on Facebook includes text, videos and photos (Cross-Tab, 2010) and allows individuals to increase one’s sense of community and reputation. In the Web 2.0 world this social capital is also used to better target content and personalize user experiences. Although some codes and laws like FCRA are available to protect consumer rights to privacy on the web, the most effective protection that consumers have is located between their ears. The long term impacts of the data trail that each individual leaves are still not yet known so job candidates and the general public  should proceed with caution when posting publicly available information. The public post from high school or college graduation shenanigans may have a longer shelf life than one may expect. Current and future job seekers must make some considerations when managing their online presence and privacy. Individuals searching for jobs are selling themselves as a one man business (i.e. selling yourself in an interview) and may benefit from some radical opacity (Dibbell, 2010) as opposed to the radical transparency (Beal and Strauss, 2998) of information that social networks encourage.

Privacy allows citizens protection of intellectual, political and religious freedoms and is closely linked with anonymity and security. As technology has advanced, so too have the tactics by which individuals protect their privacy. These tactics enable consumers to create radically opaque public profiles which would not cause any red flags to be raised in the investigative consumer reports that employers receive. A call to action is needed for all consumers to better manage their publicly available information and radical opacity may just be the answer potential job candidates need in order to present their best side during the increasingly competitive job hunting process.

References

1. Beal, A. & Strauss, J. (2008). Radically transparent: Monitoring and managing reputations online. Indianapolis, Indiana: Wiley Publishing, Inc.
2. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In Richardson, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-58). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
3. Cross-Tab. (2010). Online Reputation in a Connected World. Last retrieved December 13, 2011 from http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9709510
4. Dibbell, J. (September/October 2010). Radical Opacity. Technology Review, 16(16) 2. Last retrieved December 13, 2011 from http://www.technologyreview.com/web/25997/page1/
5. Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C 1681 et seq. (1970). Last retrieved December 13, 2011 from http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf
6. Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C 1681d (1994). Last retrieved December 13, 2011 from http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf
7. Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
8. Grossman, L. (2010). Person of the Year 2010: Mark Zuckerberg. Time. Last retrieved December 13, 2011 from http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_2037183_2037185-7,00.html
9. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
10. Kirkpatrick, M. (2010). Facebook’s Zuckerberg Says the Age of Privacy is Over. ReadWriteWeb.  Last retrieved December 13, 2011 from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php
11. Kravets, D. (2011). FTC Slaps Facebook’s Hand Over Privacy Deception. Wired. Last retrieved December 13, 2011 from http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/ftc-slaps-facebook-privacy/
12. Liptak, A. (February, 2010). When American and European Ideas of Privacy Collide. The New York Times, pp. WK1, New York edition. Last retrieved December 13, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28liptak.html
13. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
14. Preston, J. (2011). Social Media History Becomes a New Job Hurdle. New York Times. Last retrieved December 13, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/technology/social-media-history-becomes-a-new-job-hurdle.html?pagewanted=all
15. Rosen, J. (July 2010). The Web Means the End of Forgetting. The New York Times, pp. MM30, Sunday Magazine. Last retrieved December 13, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/magazine/25privacy-t2.html?_r=1&ref=technology
16. Smith, C. (2010). Delete Your Facebook Account: ‘Quit Facebook Day’ Wants Users to Leave. Huffington Post. Last retrieved December 13, 2011 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/15/delete-facebook-account-q_n_576956.html
17. U.S. Const. amend. IV

Title: Don’t take the bait…Facebook privacy and employer fishing

Thesis/Core Argument:  Given that individuals (ie – U.S. citizens) expect a certain amount of privacy and exhibit a certain amount of control over that privacy “in real life”, are those expectations and controls extended to the virtual world as well? The question of privacy and control over personal information may come into sharper focus when discussing means of getting and using that information which employers may apply to potential job candidates. Those means and uses have been criticized and debated in both the public arena and through the law. This paper will examine the current trends in Facebook privacy controls and the ethical and legal uses of that data with special emphasis on employer information fishing.

Research question: What tactics and tools do users have to protect their privacy? What are potential employees doing to safeguard their privacy and personal information? What are employers doing with public information they find on Facebook? What are the legal and ethical considerations that employers must use when fishing for public information on Facebook?

Summary/Outline

Privacy:

• Expectation of privacy on the internet and in the law
• Why worry about privacy? Privacy allows citizens to protect intellectual, political and religious freedoms
• M. Zuckerberg’s cavalier attitude toward privacy and his general Facebook philosophy – “making the world more open and connected”. Radically transparent open society and open world
• Individuals searching for jobs are selling themselves as a one man business (as in you are selling yourself in an interview) and may benefit from some radical opacity instead of radical transparency in social media

Data fishing and data mining on Facebook has been made infinitely easier through the use of the publicly available Facebook API. The complex privacy controls, constant updates and increasingly prevalent applications and games requesting access to use data are making it more difficult for the user to manage their privacy. Although sites such as YourOpenBook.org and the “public preview” view on Facebook are attempting to increase awareness of publicly available information on individual’s Facebook pages. Facebook has received criticism that the privacy settings should default to be more closed and protective and not have the user opt in to higher privacy settings. This seems in direct contrast to founder Mark Zuckerberg’s general philosophy but Zuckerberg may not be able to pull his user’s kicking and screaming into his radically transparent world view if the FTC has anything to say about it. In recent the developments, the FTC may sign off on a settlement requiring Facebook to get consent from users to make any dramatic changes to their current privacy settings. This may be a case of “it’s better to beg for forgiveness later than ask for permission now” on Zuckerberg’s part.

Employer’s use of Facebook:

• Companies are hired to search Facebook pages. Recent court case upheld the company’s right to fish for public information on Facebook. New legal precedent may be set in considering companies like this as consumer reporting agencies.
• Fair Credit Reporting Act position on employers receiving “too much information”. The employer cannot undo what they may have seen but per FCRA employers may have to explain how that information did not enter into their hiring decision.
• But it may not end there. Many employees have experienced backlash from posting negative or scurrolous comments.

Copyright may start as soon as you create the work but current law states no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with title 17 U.S.C. §411(a). According to current copyright laws, someone who creates a webpage does not necessarily gain copyright automatically and not just because they may not have registered the copyright but because the work just may not be creative in nature. Copyright protect “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, and not routine comments and mundane conversations. But where do Blogs, Tweets and YouTube mashups fit into this structure?

In the first 60 pages of his book Free Culture Lessig tells the reader to throw out their outmoded views of copyright, trademark and intellectual property and return to the free marketplace of ideas (read democracy). To Lessig, the current laws are balanced in the favor of big businesses who have the resources to actively pursue infringement (a requirement of copyright) and the lawyers who have the intellectual background to decipher the complexities of the law in  favor of big business.

What became apparent while reading this excerpt is that Lessig is espousing the ideals of the Chicago School of Thought (originally studied in sociology) – a realization that is solidified when I see that his first “academic” job was at the University of Chicago. Although the link above is to the sociology school of thought, not long after this came the Chicago School of Thought for media studies (~1930s) which followed along the same theoretical, ethical and epistemological path.

From Wikipedia – Chicago School

Though not yet named as such, media studies’ roots are in the Chicago School and thinkers such as John Dewey, Charles Cooley and George Mead. These authors saw American society on the cusp of positive social change toward pure democracy. Mead argued that for an ideal society to exist, a form of communication must be developed to allow the unique individual to appreciate the attitudes, viewpoints and positions of others unlike himself, and allow him to be understood by others as well. Mead believed that this “new media” would allow humans to empathize with others, and therefore moves toward an “ideal of human society.”[1] Where Mead sees an ideal society, Dewey names it the “Great Community,” and further asserts the assumption that humans are intelligent enough for self government, and that that knowledge is “a function of association and communication.”[2] Similarly, Cooley asserts that political communication makes public opinion possible, which in turn promotes democracy. Each of these authors represent the Chicago School’s attention to electronic communication as a facilitator of democracy, its faith in the informed electorate, and its focus on the individual as opposed to the mass.

What bloggers, YouTubers and Tweeters may be lacking is a universal code of conduct or a general mission statement for their existence in a wired democracy. I would also place citizen journalists in this category as well. Up until recently, there were no schools for bloggers to learn the craft much less schools for YouTubers and Tweeters so I can’t hold it against the general public that a “professional” code of conduct has not been formed. We should not really expect bloggers (for example) to have a general mission statement if the existence of the group was generally ignored or considered fringe to begin with. It is infinitely more difficult to form unions when you’re on the fringe.

Lessig starts this conversation by probing us to think about a world where copyright is secondary to the actual messages and its role in an informed citizenry. This point can be supported by the ideals of the Chicago School of thought and its mission statement may be a good starting place for just such a blogger/YouTuber/Tweeter manifesto. It will be interesting to see what schools come to use as their standard codes of conduct when teaching these crafts (see the new Web Design and Online Communication Masters Program offered through the College of Journalism and Communications - http://www.jou.ufl.edu/grad/webdesign/) in the future.

An example of a blogger’s manifesto (not supported by academia necessarily but the idea has good intentions):

Resources:

• Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin Press.
• Check out Lessig’s Blog
• Copyright laws - http://www.copyright.gov/laws/

I am a big fan of the RSAnimate series which take audio from interesting talks and add complimentary animations to visually represent the speaker’s story.

This RSAnimate video was “adapted from a talk in 2009 where Evgeny Morozov presents an alternative take on ‘cyber-utopianism’ – the seductive idea that the internet plays a largely emancipatory role in global politics.”

Evgeny Morozov was mentioned in 3 out of 3 of our (graduate) readings as a skeptic of the power of social media to elicit social change but this video really helps to highlight his criticisms of the “naive belief  in the emancipatory nature of online communication” [Pollock, J. (2011). Streetbook – How Egyptian and Tunisian youth hacked the Arab Spring. Technology Review, (September/October). Retrieved from http://www.technologyreview.com/web/38379/]

Women and Children Gamers

First, let’s quickly dispel some rumors that women are not interested in video games and buffer that with the intense interest that children have in gaming. As Taylor (2006) notes “women make up 39% of all active gamers in the United States” and this number is growing as more online browser-based gaming becomes available. This statistic includes all age levels but becomes even more astounding when we triangulate it with the statistics we have on children and video games. According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project (2008), 97 percent of America’s children ages 12 to 17 play computer, portable or console video games. A full 94 percent of the girls surveyed also stated that they played games at least every few weeks with 22 percent of the girls reporting daily game play. Today’s classrooms may have more computers and programs available to educate girls who are eagerly consuming electronic media, but this increase in availability and use may not directly correlate to an increase in the successful adoption (or development) of video games by girls.

Theoretical Framework

According to social learning theory, individuals learn through social modeling and reinforcement which can but may not always lead to behavioral changes (Bandura, 1986). Social learning theory emphasizes the role of observational learning by examining intrinsic social and environmental reinforcement factors. Expanding on social learning theory, social cognitive theory maintains that peoples cognitive processes influence and are influenced by behavioral associations (Bandura & Adams, 1977). The social cognitive theory also identifies a number of social processes which contribute to the modeling and development of gender-typed behavior (Bandura & Bussey, 1984). Role models and socializing agents, as well as perceptions of gender-appropriate behavior, are an important influence on an individual’s behavior and in turn an individual’s cognitive academic choices. By extension then, the role models and socializing agents in video games can also influence an individual’s behavior and motivation.

Self-Efficacy

Extending Bandura’s social cognitive theory the Expectancy-Value model (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) posits that knowledge can be acquired through observational learning and vicarious reinforcement when the individual expects to succeed and values the task at hand. This theory also emphasizes the role of self-efficacy in gender dependent behaviors. Girls are attentive to the behaviors that females in their culture engage in and thus feel efficacious in and model those behaviors. That is, if girls observe that women in their culture do not become engineers or scientists (or play and succeed in video games), they may believe that such careers (or behaviors) are outside the realm of possibility and feel anxious about and/or avoid these subjects. Social cognitive theory explains why girls make educational and career choices that fit society’s model (Else-Quest 2010). Modeling forms lasting connections which reinforce self-beliefs. These self-beliefs enable individuals to command control over their thoughts, feelings, and actions as “what people think, believe, and feel affects how they behave” (Bandura, 1986, p. 25). Self-efficacy beliefs affect the choices individuals make at “important decisional points which set the course of life paths” (Bandura, 2002).

Best in Class – Customization as Reward 

Customizing avatars may translate to an increase in value and possibly intrinsic motivation especially if the customizations were part of the reward system (Deci, 1999). Rewards given for good performance could include avatar adornments which demonstrate players competence in particular subjects without overtly announcing dominance. This covert competition is a strategy that may be more effective for girls than boys. According to Geist (2008), girls tend to look for many different ways to solve the same problem and more often use a cooperative approach over a competitive approach. Geist also claims that girls are less concerned with being “first” or “best” and more with being sure that the needs of their close friends are met as well as their own. This anthropomorphism of the avatar could equate to social presence indicating that the student can succeed in this experiential world and by extension the real world.

Conclusions

These anthropomorphized avatars and NPC characters could temporarily substitute for the lack of current women role models in these fields especially within the context of a game’s non-player character’s (NPC) reinforcement and modeling. These NPCs represent fictional characters inside of a video game that cannot be controlled by the player but which provide supporting roles in the game environment to progress the video game’s storyline or add comic relief. In addition to allowing NPC gender customization the effect of customizing the protagonists within games would good areas for future research as well. As Taylor (2006) succinctly notes, “it is clear that designers and their companies need to rethink not only who their users are but what is at stake in the artifacts they provide.” This blog suggested one method to account for various user wants and needs by providing players/students with artifacts that they can fashion and construct according to the their expectation of the game world and their concept of self (Taylor 2006)  and not be conformed by  the developers interpretation. This one change could make a world of difference in women’s interpretation of self-efficacy – at least until they grow up and become the role models themselves.

References

• Bandura, A. & Adams, N. (1977). Analysis of Self-Efficacy Theory of Behavioral Change.Cognitive Therapy and Research (1) 4, 287-310.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (2002). Social Cognitive Theory in Cultural Context. Applied Psychology: An International Review (51) 2, 269-290.
• Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1984). Influence of Gender Constancy and Social Power on Sex-Linked Modeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,(47) 6, 1292-1302.
• Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology (53) 109–132.
• Else-Quest, N., Linn, M. & Hyde, J. (2010). Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis. American Psychological Association Psychological Bulletin, (136) 1, 103–12. DOI: 10.1037/a0018053
• Geist, E. A., & King, M. (2008). Different, Not Better: Gender Differences in Mathematics Learning and Achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, (35)1, 43-52.
• Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2008). Teen & Parents Gaming and Civics Survey. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Teens-Video-Games-and-Civics.aspx on March 6, 2011.
• Taylor, TL. 2006. Play between worlds: Exploring online game culture. Chapter 4. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Movie trailer courtesy of Girls’ Club Entertainment. Highlights the disservice and misrepresentation (pun intended of course) our culture and, by extension, our media do to  young women and men. I may not agree with 100% of it but 99% is pretty spot on according to various media studies.

H. Marshall McLuhan was a prolific writer and interpretivist thinker whose works are often cited but rarely fully understood. I make no claim to fully understand McLuhan either but I will do my best to provide a good foundation for at least one of his favorite topics – media as an extension of our senses/bodies. I will first introduce the differences between positivist and interpretivist epistemological philosophies and use this to help explain why McLuhan may baffle “serious” media scholars. We will then look at McLuhan’s view of tribalization, the alphabet and the Gutenberg Galaxy. Some questions I am hoping to answer or to propose include:

• Why do media scholars scoff (or plainly ignore) the mention of McLuhan in “serious” academic settings?
• What are McLuhan’s interpretation of the ages of man leading to the global village?
• What technologies have we invented to extend our senses?
• What sense(s) do the computer, wii or eBook extend?
• Would McLuhan use YouTube or WordPress today?
• Would McLuhan even have an email address today?
• Anecdotal Question – Why is his book titled “The Medium is the Massage” when the actual phrase is the medium is the message? And what does that mean?

Stay Tuned – I will be updating this post with a book review once I finish “Marshall McLuhan: You Know Nothing of My Work” by Douglas Coupland (Links to Amazon).

Official Site: http://marshallmcluhan.com/

Link to Prezi in development: http://prezi.com/bg8fhj1fj6dd/historical-figure-mmcluhan/?auth_key=59d2cc6aa98aebd9bcebc2a52b7c86215f999776

“The more the data banks record about each one of us, the less we exist.” ~M. McLuhan

 

Everyday Uses of Google Maps and Google Earth

1. Relive Your Youth – Download and use Google Earth to plot your life path from your first neighborhood to now.

2. Scout Houses or List Your House – Opps! This was true just a few months ago but as of February 2011 Google has decided to forego their real estate feature originally announced in 2009. Read about it at the Google Lat Long blog. It all came down to low usage and the lack of resources (read money). But! Those tech savvy real estate agencies like Coldwell Banker can still use Google Maps to create customized maps of the houses in their portfolio. They have even paired up each map location with an accompanying YouTube video. Way to take ownership of your web presence CB!

3. Find Cheap Gas – Use the website at home or try out the Where app for your mobile phone. Where can also help you to find restaurants, hotels, grocery stores and theaters. It is available for “Free” for iOS, Android, Blackberry, webOS and Windows Phone.

4. Find RTS bus stops – Use the TransLoc Transit Visualization service at home or on your mobile to see real-time (synchronous) data of the current buses en route. Identifies bus stops (the little white dots) too.

5. Get Out of a Ticket - Use Google Maps to prove that there is no way that Police Officer could have seen you driving 60 mph in the 20 mph zone. How Google Maps got this guy out of a traffic ticket.

Creepy?
1. Find out exactly where your eBay package is going/coming from - I’m not saying that I’ve tried this…but I’m just saying…

2. Map your daily biking, jogging path and share with your friends – Try Wayfaring.com and create maps to share and collaborate on with your friends. I wouldn’t suggest making your morning constitution a public map though…that might invite the crazies.

Creepier?
Aggregate the geolocation information from your friend’s social networking posts with Creepy – Speaking of announcing your morning rituals…have you enabled automatic location identification when posting to your social networks? I am interested in how people use and interact with these tools. Who are the people that contribute to crowdsourcing? Are there people who are contributing to the crowdsourcing but don’t know that they are contributing?

What are the ethical concerns for the companies aggregating the data from these unknowing publics? What are the ethical concerns for researchers aggregating this data in order to better identify the pervasiveness of this issue? How much information are we giving away for free? How much functionality are we willing to give up in order to protect our information? On a related note, have you setup your Google circles or Facebook Friends lists? Is there an age threshold for those that use these security groups to protect their aggregate data (posts, location, etc…) and those that just “don’t have the time” or don’t otherwise find them useful?

What’s next?
Back in 2008, the UK government sent out an open RFP-like challenge asking the public to “Show Us A Better Way” to use the publicly available government information. Read about some of the winning ideas in The Guardian. This sounds like something our Florida Government-in-the-Sunshine people might be interested in looking at.

But here comes copyright crashing the party again: From “Check ‘I Agree’ to Continue – The Scary Yet Intriguing Truth about Web Mapping Terms of Service” by Adena Schutzberg

Once the winners were announced in October 2008, the OS [Ordinance Survey, creators of the OpenSpace mapping API] sent a document to local governments to help clarify their use of data derived from OS data. That document, suggests the Guardian, may put the contest winners’ solutions in jeopardy. The crux of the matter is found in the OpenSpace Developer Agreement and it pertains to what it calls “Derived Data.” The phrase refers to any data made based on OS data. If you geocode points using OS data, you’ve created Derived Data. If you draw a boundary on top of OS data, you’ve created Derived Data. Now, the thing about Derived Data, again, per the ToS, is that the OS owns the data. It says exactly that in the Developer Agreement: “In the event that You or any End user creates Derived Data, such Derived Data shall be owned by Us…”

Will the Democrats shut out the fourth largest state in the country? Well, they are sure trying….or, well, they are threatening if Florida doesn’t change the January 29th primary date. What does that mean? Florida has its local and state primary on the 29th for sure but it can (read: will need to) change the primary date for the presidential election from the January 29th date which is against the national democratic party rules. So, stay tuned…this is probably/hopefully a bullying tactic by the democrats to make Florida in compliance. However, if the date does not change, Florida does not get to vote for the democratic primary candidate. Yeesh!

Either way, Floridians should vote on January 29th for the local and state issues and again on whatever presidential primary date it chosen.

NPR- Listen to the story for more information

I know 2008 is technically the election year…but would you believe that some states actually have a Presidential primary in January. The nerve of them! This means we should be thinking about what we will do now and since I know we live in a bit/byte world…here’s a few bits, (pun intended) which offer a few more for your education arsenal.

I stand by the belief that everyone is entitled to have their own, just please place your beliefs in an educated mind. <Quote – Phun Chang>

www.votesmart.org

www.politicalwire.com

Presidential Candidate List

The lineup I am watching would include Ron Paul (R), Mike Bloomberg (R), Hillary Clinton (D), John Edwards (D), Bill Richardson (D), Barack Obama (D), Al Sharpton (D)

Edwards, Clinton and Obama at the debate.

Bloomberg and Sharpton

Presidential candidates (from left to right) Mitt Romney (R), Barack Obama (D), Sam Brownback (R), Bill Richardson (D) and Ron Paul
Which presidential candidate has the best website?