Apple snags ex-OLPC security chief

(Sorry, just can't stop!)
Apple snags ex-OLPC security chief

Former director of security architecture at One Laptop per Child (OLPC) Ivan Krstic has joined Apple to help thwart hacker attacks against the Mac operating system.

Krstic, a well-respected innovator who designed the Bitfrost security specification for the OLPC initiative, joined Cupertino this week and will work on core OS security. His hiring comes at a crucial time for a company that ties security to its marketing campaigns despite public knowledge that it’s rather trivial to launch exploits against the Mac.

More at http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3358

Reliability of Wikipedia

Hey all,

I just found this interesting blurb about how quickly information can be passed on in today's technological world. Unfortunately, it was deliberately falsified info that was entered on Wikipedia as a sociological experiment. Wikipedia removed the false quote quickly, but journalists used it anyway. Glorious. Whatever happened to fact checking? This is an interesting commentary on the weight that people tend to place on Wikipedia. Even the Wikipedia spokesman, Joe Walsh, stated: "We always tell people: If you see that quote on Wikipedia, find it somewhere else too...."

Hope everyone's papers are going well.

if you broadband it, they will come...

writing papers and stuff as i round out my final semester at UW, and i stumble upon this little gem that plays into a few of the topics from a while back:

Rural America not ready for broadband? Hogwash, say ISPs

given the documented evidence, it certainly seems like "Rural America is both hungry for broadband and anxious to use it." i (being a skeptical person) am skeptical since this information is coming from the actual service providers and other people who are going to be benefiting from getting this out there, but regardless of any of that, i am pretty much down with getting this broadband internet thing out to rural america so granma and granpa joad can set up their 4chan account asap.

Beyond Barbie® and Mortal Kombat: New Perspectives on Gender and Gaming

“The debate about gender and games has always operated at multiple levels: it was first a debate about how to ensure that young girls had access to the technologies that would shape their futures; it was also a debate about how more women could participate in the emerging digital industries; and it was also a debate about representation (about what kinds of stories and play experiences were going to circulate broadly in our culture).”
(12/13)

Beyond Barbie® and Mortal Kombat: New Perspectives on Gender and Gaming (MIT Press, 2008)
Edited by Yasmin B. Kafai, Carrie Heeter, Jill Denner and Jennifer Y. Sun

As a female who has spent significant time gaming (though I wouldn't call myself an actual gamer -- thus reflecting some ambivalence that I'm sure a lot of females might feel), I was really interested in seeing the conclusions and suggestions posed by this book, along with the hows and whys and trends of girls and women in gaming.

The book was published last year as a sort of update to a 2000 book called From Barbie to Mortal Combat. That book was co-edited by Justine Cassell, who contributes an essay to this book. Cassell's book took both an academic and industry view of gender and gaming. What IS the experience of girls in gaming? What SHOULD the experience be like? Do games targeted at girls merely reinforce the socialization of gender differences?

The editors of this book come from varied backgrounds, but it seems like they all share a focus on "serious games" -- those encouraging learning or behavior change, particularly in education and training (for all ages) and in the areas of health/social change. However, they did a pretty good job of selecting contributions that discuss perspectives in game design, gender research, etc. from outside academia.

Where Cassell's book focused on the inequality of playing time as a standard, this book looks more into the whys and hows of how females play and how gender is expressed and repressed within a game. The editors posit that it is still important to consider gender in the design, production and play of games.

Since 2000, the gaming world has changed dramatically. In particular, gaming has become more community-oriented and less arcade or single-player based. Many popular games offer a more flexible experience, including gender play thanks to anonymity of internet: In WoW (World of Warcraft), estimates say that half the female avatars are played by men. Participatory, player-generated content (e.g. Second Life) draws in both females and males. This can also lead to increased technological expertise and exploration (though the editors still point to this as a mostly-male phenomenon).

It's important to note that many games popular among females (so-called pink or purple games, along with serious games, puzzle games and card games) are still not considered "real" games by many in and around the gaming industry -- despite the fact that one survey listed females as the dominant presence in casual games and that females make up an equal or dominant presence in some MMOs (though they're still a mnority in most).

BUT… concern about huge development budgets leads to indie companies and games, thus hopefully leading to better opportunities for diversity thanks to lowered barriers to entry.

Based on this, the editors’ concept of the digital divide seems to be multifocal, as stated above – changed from playing time to expression of gender and more. In this way, the gender gap seems to be closing, with the advent of more flexible, player-customizable content.

My own concept of the digital divide is heavily based on the idea that other social constructs (e.g. poverty, education, etc.) influence the presence of a DD more than the other way around. To some degree, this is supported within this book, but it is not really addressed. The book focuses more on socially-based concepts like being considered an anomaly, etc. for being a female gamer.

Fair use? Copyright violation?

After reading and viewing the materials for Chris's book and presentation, I found an article on a new kind of pre-fab home, the i-house. The house is solar powered, bamboo flooring, catches rainwater, and has other green features. I'm not a fan of pre-fab homes (usually not very well built and can leak at the seams), but in addition to the green aspects, was I found intriguing was the name: i-house. The creators are admittedly big fans of Apple, but state that the i stands for innovation, inspiration, intelligence and integration. Do you think this will come back to bite them? Maybe Apple will not go after them because they are fans? It is not exactly fair use and the punctuation is different from how Apple markets their "i" products. It will be interesting to see what happens and I found the timing fortuitous.

Freedom of Expression® by Kembrew McLeod

i knew from the outset that my book Freedom of Expression® by Kembrew McLeod, was going to be something of a slight stretch to fit into the discussion of the digital/divide. i had never read the book before, but copyright law/fair use exemption/etc are of great interest to me, and i felt that the envelope was open to being stretched a little bit.

the basic premise of the book is to examine the ways that the copyright rich (generally corporate entities) are privatizing their copyrights beyond what the law allows, and thus harming the copyright poor (bloggers, youtubers(?), remixers, djs, students, documentary artists, etc, etc) who are more often than not simply using the languages of our society which are becoming increasingly based on these corporate entities.

through dozens of interesting and applicable examples from a wide array of disciplines, a hefty background in art history and semiotics, and a pranksters eye for pointed mischief, McLeod presents a reasoned case that the copyright rich among us, while attempting to protect their copyrighted content, are in fact potentially irreparably harming society on the whole and violating the wishes of the framers of the Constitution.

the stretching that i am trying to pull off here is to look at the gulf-like divide between these two currently warring entities (copyright holders and users), and address the ways that digital technology is changing the ways that people disseminate, use, abuse, and are in fact entitled to utilize the copyrighted works seeping into every aspect of the ways they live their lives and percieve themselves and the world around them.

i'm not sure whether the book was a primer for the documentary, or the other way around, but there is a documentary of the same name that plumbs very similar depths as the book, but it seems to have a more outward slant in favor of a tremendously cavalier attitude towards fair use:



the book, by comparison, has a wider ranging approach, focusing much on art, remix culture, and other easy examples that are ready, willing and able to be used to defend fair use as the cultural saving grace that's teetering on the verge of extinction in the face of corporate lobbyists, as well as spending many pages discussing the controversies of patenting genes, monsanto's terminator seeds, and what happens when a student applies for a patent for a biological product he invented on university time/equipment (initially he got three years of jail time spent on a chain gang) amongst other issues that are peripheral to the copyright cause.

the subjects addressed on the book, like the issues surrounding copyright, are vast and include everything from genetic trademarks, peer to peer software, sampling laws, the RIAA/MPAA lawsuits, documentary filmmakers, the length of time it takes for nitrate film to decay, and many other initially unrelated thing which upon reevaluation seem quite attached to the ideas of the book.

overall, i'm not certain how well the book fits into the class, and i definitely found myself doubting some of the stretching i did to try and twist it to fit into the framework of the class, but still absolutely agree that fair use and many of the other "open" movements discussed peripherally and indirectly in the book are on the side of bridging the divide (if it in fact possible to stand on either side of a divides bridge?).

of course, you don't have to take *my* word for it, the book is available as a creative commons licensed pdf so try (or remix or cite or collage or make it into a kindle ebook or almost a million other things) before you buy.

The Dumbest Generation

The main thesis of The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes our Future [Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30] by Mark Bauerlein (2008) is summarized by its title. Bauerlein is a professor of English at Emory University and was Director of Research and Analysis at the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Using studies done in between 2000 and 2007, including the 2004 NEA study "Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America," Bauerlein documents the decrease in leisure reading, participation in other fine arts, and the increase in online activities by young people. He then links these trends to the assessments of student reading, writing and other academic levels, which have either decreased or shown no improvement over the last few decades.
I chose this book in part because I plan on being a college Reference Librarian, and I thought that I might encounter other faculty with attitudes towards digital media and student achievement similar to Bauerlein’s. However, I was hoping for a more balanced portrayal of the arguments for and against online participation and learning. Bauerlein has very strong opinions, and he doesn’t hesitate to state them, to the point of not only using the term "the dumbest generation" in the title, but throughout the book. He uses very traditional student assessment tools to support his arguments. His thesis can be summarized with this statement: "Among the Millennials, intellectual life can't compete with social life, and if social life has no intellectual content, traditions wither and die. Books can't hold their own with screen images, and without help, high art always loses to low amusements." (p. 234). While I think Bauerlein made some interesting points, and as a librarian I couldn’t help relating to his love and support of books and reading, ultimately his perspective was too didactic and condescending to be persuasive.

Continued extistence of the digital divide

So just this morning, I was talking to some people on the bus after hearing about how they need to go to the library to have internet access to fill out job applications. Some of their comments really captured the essence of the divide issues we have discussing all semester. One person is having a hard time negotiating the various websites and forms necessary to find a job through an employment agency, which is a very good way to get a job these days. This will be his third attempt at submitting his application. Once submitted, he will have wait for an email, meaning more trips to the library to check. The agencies will not phone until after everything is set up online and via email. Another person knows how to fill out forms and navigate the internet, but does not have access at home because it is too expensive. She has access for a few months at a time, under a promotional pricing program, but then cancels, waits and sets it up again under new promotional pricing. She can only get one provider (Charter) and wants to go back to school, but is afraid of falling behind with several online courses she would have to take. Another person, a father, pays his internet bill every month with a credit card so that his children have access for school. So, on top of $50/month, he is accumulating interest and debt.

In just a short conversation with three people, I heard about the digital divide via education, access, and economics. This also addresses the changing nature of public libraries and the roles of librarians as tech support. This re-affirmed my belief that the divides are still active and relevant to many people. Two of the people believed that things could change through public funding, education, and support, but that is would take time. Then after speaking with them, I found this. There is a motion to only post legal notices online, rather than in newspapers.

Issues with multiple social networking identities

I stumbled across this article this morning (http://adage.com/digitalnext/post.php?article_id=136406) and I thought that it would fall into the digital divide abyss. The article explains the issues of managing multiple social networking accounts and how individuals can get themselves into trouble when their profiles, as a whole, do not align. The writer talks about recent Pew and Nielsen data from 2008 to show that the use of social networking has drastically increased. At the end of the article, the writer makes the claim:

"...our desire to participate in social networks is outpacing our ability to efficiently manage these profiles..."

Just something to start off your week.

Digital Divide

The readings as well as the discussion of this semester have clearly demonstrated that there is a digital divide, and though the definition and proposed solutions differ greatly, it is there. The arguments from the week on questioning the divide ring hollow and fail to adequately refute its existence. The digital divide is not a black and white issue with only haves and haves not, there are gradations of access and understanding as noted in Warschauer. For me the digital divide reflects a social, economic divide as well as access to technology and the knowledge to use it effectively. This new information or knowledge society demands certain skills and understanding related to technology and those who do not have access or have less access or fewer skills will be disadvantaged. Though I also don’t have a clear idea on how to bridge the gap, I feel that throwing technology at the problem without training or other support is not the answer. Warschauer in the introduction to Technology and Social Inclusion and many others we read clearly show that technology only solutions fall short of the claims that access is everything. I feel that Warschauer’s model of addressing many different resources as well as using the framework of social inclusion would be able to create sustainable, successful programs.

Sex Ed in Texts

Trying to use technology to teach, once again--interesting idea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/fashion/03sexed.html?_r=1&hp

Existence of the digital divide

Yes, there is a digital divide. As many others have pointed out, the divide isn't clear cut or even clearly defined. As such, there aren't any easy answers either. The obvious disparities, between those who have little to no access to technology, seem to be the ones that lawmakers, pundits, and the media choose to report on and emphasize. Those divides that are less visible, such as gender or ability divides, concern me even more sometimes. I don't have any real answers to the question of how to close these divides. I am hopeful that things can improve. It seems, at times, that the way our society has been structured will have to change radically for us to address it (I suppose it is rather fitting that I'm writing on May Day...hmmm. Not intentional, I swear). There seem to be psychological barriers, constructed around ideas of identity and who technology is "for"--and these are the parts of the digital divide I think we'll have the hardest time fixing. I'm hoping to address this and try to flesh out these ideas in my paper, particularly around themes of gender and cultural differences.

Is there a digital divide?

Yes. The strange feeling that I have is that the disparities seem so large (and technology changes so fast) that it's hard to think about where to start. I've taught in schools, and I'm in the pedagogy SLIS class this semester. One of the major educational techniques that teachers use is something called "scaffolding," where a complex topic or task is slowly rolled out so that the end goal is less confusing, less overwhelming. But where to begin with the digital divide? First, basic literacy needs to improve. If that divide isn't closed, then the digital divide stays.

There are some skills that I learned in school that I take for granted, like knowing how to type. When I look at a keyboard, I see its complexity, but I'm not anxious about it. Then I think about how tedious it is to fill out online job applications, to attach a resume, a cover letter, that sort of thing, wondering how I'll stand out. But when I think about going through this process with concerns about basic skills, then I can understand how the willingness to do something exceeds how frequently it gets done (which is one of the findings of the book that I read).

The reason I selected my book was that I thought it might more explicitly address the sense of hierarchy (or scaffolding) that goes into learning anything. I think that's necessary, a plan of action that builds upon previous steps, the way that many teachers build clear expectations into their lessons. I imagine school systems are doing this more because of the requirement to build standards according to certain ages. What should be first? What are the early skills that students should learn?

The state of Wisconsin lays it out like this. The thing to keep in mind when looking at this is how much explanation and education would need to go into each standard. The goals are ambitious and the skills already complex by grade 4. That's not a bad thing. But I think you can get a sense of how quickly a gap can grow when you imagine someone falling behind these initial steps, while another swath of students learns the skills.

wrapping it up

it's pretty clear that there are certain readily identifiable groups of people who are being disenfranchised as far as availability of technology. the specifics are varied and broad regarding the groups, and include gender/class/age/race/geographical location, and so on. also, the definition of technology/digital, as used in this class, is very broad, and encompasses many issues including cell phones, web design, email, and even the simplicity of availability of hardware.

identifying functional solutions to these problems is looking to be a very difficult task since there seems to be a certain amount of momentum involved with perpetuating the divides in question. there is also the question of whether in some instances, specifically with regard to broadband access, solutions are even needed.

having read and heard so much from this class, i have to admit that the future looks somewhat disheartening, what with America's school system consistently leaving our nations poor and minority children behind in almost every conceivable way. i am not giving up hope in the face of these overwhelming odds, but it seem like an almost complete overhaul of the way that we treat technology in schools and the home is needed to turn the numerous problems we're looking at around for our country, and even then there's no guarantee it's gonna work since it will be many decades until we see real evidence of the improvements across the board. anyway, i'm rambling a little bit, and will leave it at that.

Douglas Coupland, "Microserfs"

Coded messages

Several coded messages are included within the text:[12]

- On pages 104–105 there is an encoded binary message that reads, when decoded:

"I heart LiSA Computers
This is my computer. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My computer is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it, as I must master my life. Without me, my computer is useless. Without my computer, I am useless. I must use my computer true. I true. I must compute faster than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must outcompute him before he outcomputes me. I will. Before God, I swear this creed. My computer and myself are defenders of this country. We are masters of our enemy. We are the saviours of my life. So be it until there is no enemy, but peace. Amen.

Tinned Peaches Yttrium San Fran"

This message is an adapted version of the Rifleman's Creed.

- On pages 308–309, consonants appear on one page and vowels on the other. This text is taken from a letter written by Patty Hearst to her parents when she was kidnapped.

Final Thoughts

Is there a digital divide and what should be done about it?

I agree with Nardi and O'Day in their argument in Information Ecologies that there is a foundation of social construction of the electronic environment. And if we can agree that there are real and perpetuating social divisions along lines of race, class, gender, education, etc., then it follows that those divisions will be perpetuated in constructed online environments. So as long as there are fundamental social divisions, there will be a digital divide.

But as to what should be done about it? That's much harder. In many ways the discussion of digital divides is a discussion of the failures of the public education system. As such I think there needs to be recognition that a level educational playing field is a myth, and address the problem appropriately.

I think there is a great deal of value in investing in universal access technologies and paradigms. Both the iphone and screen readers have similar problems in rendering websites with poor compatibility standards. Mobile devices and people on dial-up also face similar constraints in terms of bandwidth. Designing a system that allows multiple types of access benefits not one user type, but many.

Digital Divide... duh!

After 15 weeks in LIS 640, I feel that it is safe to make the claim that the digital divide exists. Through each reading and discussion, I have found that technology can either create or prevent opportunity for individuals within the United States and also across the globe. I don't think that there is one specific "digital divide". Instead, I see the digital divide as a phenomenon that has the potential to occur in all forms of technology. Technology's context within a specific society and its application can either make or break how effective it is for users. But what about the individuals who cannot access technology due to socioeconomic factors? The issue of digital divides doesn't necessarily have to do with technology itself; rather, it also has to do with political barriers to entry (high or low) as well as economic standards. Overall, I think that it is hard to say that there is a specific "digital divide" that we, as students, can combat.

Do I have the specific answer to solve the issues stemming from the digital divide? No. However, I do feel that there are steps that our society needs to take in order to reduce the negative impact that technology may have on the lives of individuals, whether young or old, within the U.S.. The largest barrier, I feel, is that of simply purchasing technology in order to facilitate its use. In order to provide access to technology for all who wish to seek it, I believe that firms who are subsidizing the cost, such as the government, need to make sure that they are making smart purchases that will last over a long duration of time. Buying goods that will not be technologically sustainable, meaning that they will become obsolete quickly, does no good for those who purchase and those who use these goods.

A digital divide?

Now that there's a substantial amount of scholarship out on the digital divide, I feel that future progress in regard to the creation of theory and policy can only be had through an examination of other conceptual tools. Looking into Tichenor, Donohue and Olie's Knowledge Gap and other modes of analysis with help to show that the underlying concerns about a digital divide have been voiced in other areas and earlier eras.

There's definitely inequity in regard to access and use of ICTs throughout the world and between various groups of people. I believe that in order to address the underlying issues, we need to depart from categorizing people into groups like the information-haves and have-nots. While it may be just a point of semantics, I think that it creates an impression that there are specific methods/policies/etc. that can be universally enacted to ameliorate the digital divide. One of the many points that I gleaned from this class is that the diversity of human needs and experiences cannot be adequately addressed through linear methods.

I feel that grassroots activism is an effective way for people to address the information needs of their specific groups and communities. Education is always a key element in this process, but I worry (with good reason) that many of the humanitarian efforts made by corporations within the U.S. and other industrialized nations to help address information poverty are market-driven and not helping marginalized groups develop the skills and tools they need to make informed decisions about how they use ICTs in their lives.

Yes.

Yes, there is a digital divide. I have no argument with that, and while I have no one solution, I'm not defeated either. What should be done about the divide? Public schools and libraries work very hard to help narrow this particular divide locally. I am continually impressed by the librarians and teachers in my area and what they are able to do with what they have in regards to money, time, and training. I hope that the technology we have can help narrow other kinds of divides. If you have a moment, help locally by filling out and passing on the Public Service Commission broadband survey. More respondents are needed.

Digital Divide(s): Theory v. Praxis

Digital divides: a newer term, perhaps losing its vogue, for "social inequities" for the Information(alist) Age. This is the best explanation I can give for the concept we have been examining all semester. Arguing for or against their existence is an exercise without much merit, because digital divides are the differences in access and equity inherent to an increasingly networked world. The true debate, therefore, is in matter of degree and in examining divides in theory vs. praxis. In other words, a "Mercedes Divide" (with thanks to Michael Powell; this one never gets old) is still a divide.

As for theory v. praxis, the trouble with overwhelming issues of social injustice is that they are...overwhelming. Many people become bogged down in pointing out that other needs ought to take precedence over providing areas of the disconnected Fourth World (c.f. Castells) with ICT. Yet it seems to me that these things need not compete against each other and, in fact, that they are often so inextricably interrelated that to place them on a hierarchy often unreasonably and unrealistically simplifies them beyond meaning. Scholars such as Jeffrey James, for example, in responding to Compaine, Fink and Kenny, underscore the cumulative (exponential, perhaps) effect that IT innovations have in developing countries in the way they foment further innovations, research and discovery. This is just one way in which these issues form a complex relational web with each other, if we assume the inverse is also likely true.

To be sure, neoluddites who are wary of technology may reject technological engagement in the developing world (be that in the rural US or rural Namibia, to name just two examples) as a solution to sociopolitical ills, but I hazard a bet that the majority of such people are outsiders who frequently benefit from ICT in their own life, whether or not they recognize their own cultural engagement on a macro scale.

For people who are critical of technology developments being simply a means to "open a new market" to transnational corporate conglomerate interests for exploitation purposes, however, but are not against technological innovation wholesale on moral or other grounds, I do believe that there may be another way. My own understanding of these issues remains too lacking in sophistication to develop these thoughts without a great deal more precision (check back with me in about four years), but I do reject the notion put forth by some classmates in this thread that the globalized capitalist corporate monoculture is here to stay, and get used to it, full stop. It actually doesn't have to be that way. Human beings still have agency and still have control to manifest another vision of society in a manner that feels more palatable and more humane.

While some individual projects and programs designed to close/ford/bridge/insert-overused-metaphor-here the digital divide may reasonably seem to be so much tilting at windmills, they all don't have to be. Coupled with agitation and renewed efforts in other arenas to reform, rebuild and otherwise wrest back control into the hands of the people, these efforts can and will be successful and have meaning. Right now, for me, all of these discussions are largely academic. Will I become more disillusioned or enthused after my summer spent working on concrete, pragmatic policy initiatives designed to address some of these divides? Only time will tell. I am hoping that experience, as well as that of the reading of the few hundred books and articles on this subject that I suspect is just around the corner for me will elucidate these issues further. For now, I can say unequivocally that to ask if there is a divide is the wrong question. The right one is to ask what we, as global neighbors in the 21st century, intend to do about making our neighborhood a place we all would want to live. That, to me, is theory into praxis.