Online Review Three: Gender-swapping and Perception
Changing one’s gender on screen is easier and less painful than changing it in real life.
That said, swapping one’s gender on screen has implications that pass through the trouble of understanding the other gender. As Turkle (1995) examines, it is difficult to maintain this fictive figure. For instance, to pass for the other half of humankind, one must fully understand how gender inflects speech, conduct and the interpretation of experience. This can become an emotional roller coaster, because even in an online life, people respond to one’s gender as they would in real life.
Nevertheless, it can provide amusement, the expression of self and also allow one to develop self-knowledge. Swapping gender also enables the swapper to learn and experience the other him/her innate to their internal self.
The perceptions one has about oneself can extend when looking at the real world one is living in. As Baudrillard (1995) underlines, people experience amusement parks as recreation but in fact, in real life those people take part in recreations they constructed themselves. Baudrillard (1995) uses the example of Disneyworld, California which might be thought of as such a recreation. Conversely, it is Los Angeles that is the true reconstruction.
When things get tough, our perception about the real things in life can make us revert back to the unreal life. Unreal life often demands less haggling and draining organisation. In a simulation of life we define the parameters; in real life other factors and actors come into play that define our direction or demand our attention. To exemplify this, driving a Porsche on the highway at 200km/hr potentially gets you into trouble. But not in virtual life – who cares, right?
Gender-swapping may result in deception and falsification when one enters a virtual relationship of any kind with others on the Internet. By contrast, it can be amusing, experimental and may equally allow one to develop self-knowledge. It should not be taken too seriously though, more experiences online or offline can make a person better in how he/she conducts themselves, and how he/she perceives the world and disseminates this experience and knowledge to others.
Bibliography
Baudrillard, J. 1995. Simulacra and Simulation, Michigan, University of Michigan Press.
Turkle, S. 1995. Life on the screen: identity in the age of the Internet, New York, Simon & Schuster.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Online Review (8): Hypermediation
In this blogpost, I am highlighting the topic hypermediation with a link to capital gain over the Internet.
Web 2.0 has spiked hypermediation.
The main goal of media is to transfer experiences from one user to another, and due to the growing nature of intermediated tools – blogs, news aggregrators, community platforms, and more – this has now become easier than ever (Bolter & Grusin. 2000).
It is no longer the company who sells directly to consumers it is the middlemen who gain momentum. In fact, they are the ones that walk away with the money (Carr. 2010).
Sites such as eBay, Google, Yahoo play intermediary roles (Carr 2010). Online affiliate programs and intermediated media tools enable lay people to skim off money from companies by referring. They direct site visitors that are interested in a particular topic, item or thing to the purchasing site of the owner/seller, mostly using computer-mediated tools such as blogs, forums, and community platforms. The amount of traffic on sites, and the efficiency in which site visitors roam web sites and make transactions enables hypermediation to flourish. E-marketplaces are media as much for social interactions as they are for financial transactions. That is, who you are and what you are doing are as important as what you want to buy or what you want to sell. Your reputation on eBay is far more important than what you are attempting to either buy or sell (Rheingold 2002).
I found that the increasing power of e-marketplaces and affiliates will continue to flourish over the years, and thus enables intermediaries to gain a living by using the Internet. Furthermore, the virtual exposure of those selling and buying is becoming increasingly important when they aim to expand their online capital gain.
References:
Bolter, J.D. & Grusin, R. (2000). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge: MIT Press
Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York: Random House Inc.
Howard Rheingold (2002). Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. London: Perseus Publishing, 2002
Web 2.0 has spiked hypermediation.
The main goal of media is to transfer experiences from one user to another, and due to the growing nature of intermediated tools – blogs, news aggregrators, community platforms, and more – this has now become easier than ever (Bolter & Grusin. 2000).
It is no longer the company who sells directly to consumers it is the middlemen who gain momentum. In fact, they are the ones that walk away with the money (Carr. 2010).
Sites such as eBay, Google, Yahoo play intermediary roles (Carr 2010). Online affiliate programs and intermediated media tools enable lay people to skim off money from companies by referring. They direct site visitors that are interested in a particular topic, item or thing to the purchasing site of the owner/seller, mostly using computer-mediated tools such as blogs, forums, and community platforms. The amount of traffic on sites, and the efficiency in which site visitors roam web sites and make transactions enables hypermediation to flourish. E-marketplaces are media as much for social interactions as they are for financial transactions. That is, who you are and what you are doing are as important as what you want to buy or what you want to sell. Your reputation on eBay is far more important than what you are attempting to either buy or sell (Rheingold 2002).
I found that the increasing power of e-marketplaces and affiliates will continue to flourish over the years, and thus enables intermediaries to gain a living by using the Internet. Furthermore, the virtual exposure of those selling and buying is becoming increasingly important when they aim to expand their online capital gain.
References:
Bolter, J.D. & Grusin, R. (2000). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge: MIT Press
Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York: Random House Inc.
Howard Rheingold (2002). Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. London: Perseus Publishing, 2002
Online Review (7): Multiplayer games
Online Review Two: Multiplayer games
Multiplayer games are discussed in light of themes such as the panopticon, surveillance, remediation, real and surreal life and the blogosphere.
Multiplayer games, such as MUDs (also knows as Multi-User Dungeon), Second Life, and online poker are blurring the boundaries between the real and the unreal. Most virtual games are cyberconstructed – they link text, graphics, video, audio, blogs, and more – with computers from all over the world (Turkle, 1995). In this context, I will illustrate how virtual multiplayer games impact players.
Online poker games (e.g. poker games) are played in a virtual room in which anyone with access to a network connected computer or smartphone can join. Poker rooms accommodate all levels of game. Beginners can play for free (the so-called freerolls) and win play money at the same token, while more advanced players or experts often pay a tournament fee ranging from $5 up to $10,000 or more, granting them the opportunity to win prizes of up to $60,000 (Everest-Gaming, 2008). The majority of poker aficionados play at multiple tables in different poker rooms – from different software providers – at the same time. Hence, the use of several windows allows them to cycle through different poker rooms (Turkle, 1995).
Each player is able to create many characters (‘avatars’), the self being not only decentered but multiplied without limit. These experiences potentially facilitate self-knowledge and personal growth (Turkle, 1995). Poker rooms further accommodate Internet Relay Chat (IRC), a form of real-time text messaging (Turkle, 1995), drawing in players and allowing them to communicate with others. When players reach out through IRC, they virtually enter everything into the program’s log. They may at any point be confronted with the way in which they have constructed themselves (Turkle, 1995), but also the way they interacted with others.
Bots – inhabitants of virtual worlds such as artificial intelligences (Turkle, 1984) – are used too. They roam, create an ambience, fill up the empty seats, but can also create a sense of falsification (Turkle, 1995). Players may think they are playing against a real player, when in fact they are competing with bots initiated by the ‘software program’.
Once the players enter the room, the virtual room then functions as a round-the-clock surveillance machine (Foucault, 1975). The player does not see the ‘surveillance agent’ – so-called monitoring and auditing features of the software – and realise that he or she has been observed. The ‘auditing software’ protects players from unfair gaming, deceiving falsification by other players, unfair dumping of chips and other unbalancing elements. However, players also monitor their fellow players. Foucault (1977) refers to this type of circumstance as the greater the risk for fellow players of being surprised the greater the anxious awareness of being observed. Rheingold (2002) refers to ‘Smart Mobs’ which describe how people behave – and misbehave – within communities. Users have a certain tendency to penalize cheaters, even at some expense to themselves. These tendencies and the emotions that accompany them influence players to behave in ways that benefit the group (Rheingold, 2002). Centralised databases that software companies use provide a basis for an extended panopticon, a concept developed by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. This architectural machinery was set up to monitor prisoners without being seen from the outside (Bentham, 1995).
However, in poker games, once players cross the line, real and unreal life converges. The implications of the unreal life impact their real life. For example, collaboration among players is prohibited, and as such transferring money to fellow players, chip dumping and similar actions may impact players’ life offline. The players’ virtual poker account can immediately be blocked. This can extend to shutting down the players’ associated bank account in real life.
There is nothing unreal about this event. Many players reach out to the blogosphere, which is pivotal in the poker community in an attempt to reverse the damage.
What I examine here is that the blurring lines between the real and unreal life diminish once the line have been crossed. Badly chosen acts during online participations have a detrimental impact to offline participations. In addition, entering a poker room is similar to entering a panopticon. One is under surveillance at all times, and misbehaviour will not be tolerated. This is where the ‘surveillance agent’ has extended its power.
Bibliography
Baudrillard, J. 1995. Simulacra and Simulation, Michigan, University of Michigan Press.
Bentham, J. 1995. The Panopticon Writings [Online]. London: Verso. Available: http://cartome.org/panopticon2.htm [Accessed 18 October 2010].
Everest-Gaming. 2008. Everest Poker [Online]. Malta: Everest Poker. Available: http://www.everestpoker.com/en [Accessed 10 October 2010].
Foucault, M. 1975. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York, Random House Inc.
Foucault, M. 1977. Panopticism. In: KAPLAN, D. M. (ed.) Readings in the philosophy of technology (2004). Lanham. MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Turkle, S. 1984. The Second Self. Computers and the human spirit., New York, Simon & Schuster.
Turkle, S. 1995. Life on the screen: identity in the age of the Internet, New York, Simon & Schuster.
Multiplayer games are discussed in light of themes such as the panopticon, surveillance, remediation, real and surreal life and the blogosphere.
Multiplayer games, such as MUDs (also knows as Multi-User Dungeon), Second Life, and online poker are blurring the boundaries between the real and the unreal. Most virtual games are cyberconstructed – they link text, graphics, video, audio, blogs, and more – with computers from all over the world (Turkle, 1995). In this context, I will illustrate how virtual multiplayer games impact players.
Online poker games (e.g. poker games) are played in a virtual room in which anyone with access to a network connected computer or smartphone can join. Poker rooms accommodate all levels of game. Beginners can play for free (the so-called freerolls) and win play money at the same token, while more advanced players or experts often pay a tournament fee ranging from $5 up to $10,000 or more, granting them the opportunity to win prizes of up to $60,000 (Everest-Gaming, 2008). The majority of poker aficionados play at multiple tables in different poker rooms – from different software providers – at the same time. Hence, the use of several windows allows them to cycle through different poker rooms (Turkle, 1995).
Each player is able to create many characters (‘avatars’), the self being not only decentered but multiplied without limit. These experiences potentially facilitate self-knowledge and personal growth (Turkle, 1995). Poker rooms further accommodate Internet Relay Chat (IRC), a form of real-time text messaging (Turkle, 1995), drawing in players and allowing them to communicate with others. When players reach out through IRC, they virtually enter everything into the program’s log. They may at any point be confronted with the way in which they have constructed themselves (Turkle, 1995), but also the way they interacted with others.
Bots – inhabitants of virtual worlds such as artificial intelligences (Turkle, 1984) – are used too. They roam, create an ambience, fill up the empty seats, but can also create a sense of falsification (Turkle, 1995). Players may think they are playing against a real player, when in fact they are competing with bots initiated by the ‘software program’.
Once the players enter the room, the virtual room then functions as a round-the-clock surveillance machine (Foucault, 1975). The player does not see the ‘surveillance agent’ – so-called monitoring and auditing features of the software – and realise that he or she has been observed. The ‘auditing software’ protects players from unfair gaming, deceiving falsification by other players, unfair dumping of chips and other unbalancing elements. However, players also monitor their fellow players. Foucault (1977) refers to this type of circumstance as the greater the risk for fellow players of being surprised the greater the anxious awareness of being observed. Rheingold (2002) refers to ‘Smart Mobs’ which describe how people behave – and misbehave – within communities. Users have a certain tendency to penalize cheaters, even at some expense to themselves. These tendencies and the emotions that accompany them influence players to behave in ways that benefit the group (Rheingold, 2002). Centralised databases that software companies use provide a basis for an extended panopticon, a concept developed by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. This architectural machinery was set up to monitor prisoners without being seen from the outside (Bentham, 1995).
However, in poker games, once players cross the line, real and unreal life converges. The implications of the unreal life impact their real life. For example, collaboration among players is prohibited, and as such transferring money to fellow players, chip dumping and similar actions may impact players’ life offline. The players’ virtual poker account can immediately be blocked. This can extend to shutting down the players’ associated bank account in real life.
There is nothing unreal about this event. Many players reach out to the blogosphere, which is pivotal in the poker community in an attempt to reverse the damage.
What I examine here is that the blurring lines between the real and unreal life diminish once the line have been crossed. Badly chosen acts during online participations have a detrimental impact to offline participations. In addition, entering a poker room is similar to entering a panopticon. One is under surveillance at all times, and misbehaviour will not be tolerated. This is where the ‘surveillance agent’ has extended its power.
Bibliography
Baudrillard, J. 1995. Simulacra and Simulation, Michigan, University of Michigan Press.
Bentham, J. 1995. The Panopticon Writings [Online]. London: Verso. Available: http://cartome.org/panopticon2.htm [Accessed 18 October 2010].
Everest-Gaming. 2008. Everest Poker [Online]. Malta: Everest Poker. Available: http://www.everestpoker.com/en [Accessed 10 October 2010].
Foucault, M. 1975. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York, Random House Inc.
Foucault, M. 1977. Panopticism. In: KAPLAN, D. M. (ed.) Readings in the philosophy of technology (2004). Lanham. MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Turkle, S. 1984. The Second Self. Computers and the human spirit., New York, Simon & Schuster.
Turkle, S. 1995. Life on the screen: identity in the age of the Internet, New York, Simon & Schuster.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Online Review (6): Balkanization of the Internet
The envisioned dream of the Internet where everyone communicates electronically with anyone – globally, free-of-charge and without sovereignty – may remain a utopian. Although, parts of our dream have come true; we roam through parts of the world; interact with like-minded people (Rheingold); immerse in real and surreal lives (Turkle 1995); gather information; and repurpose it. The list of things we can do ought to be endless and borderless.
That being said, there are dark ‘clouds’ cascading over our global landscape. For instance, cloud computing has become more ubiquitous. Cloud computing is the use of virtual servers over the Internet (Pring. 2010). Critics even argue to extend this term by saying that anything outside the firewall is now in the cloud. It encompasses a subscription based or pay-per-use service that potentially extends Information Technology’s capabilities (2010). Here in, lies the crux. This means we have moved away from the utopian free-for-all use of the Internet.
We all need to be vigilant about who manages, controls and owns the ‘clouds’, and ultimately all our information. Governments are increasingly reasserting their sovereignty, the Economist (2010) argues. Examples include recent issues with Google in China; BlackBerry in Germany and India; Australia’s own censorship on adult videos, and so on. The Economist (2010) states that the Internet used to be controlled by a balkanized model. This is a model that consists of a collection of nation-state networks still linked by the internet protocol, but for many purposes act separately (Lessing 2004). This balkanized model has started to emerge again, the Financial Times (2008) argue.
This further underlines the demise of net neutrality, which at the onset of the Internet was one of the main objectives of the Internet. The term describes the way Internet users ought to have control over the content they add, view, use and the applications. All content, sites, and platforms should be treated equally, which allows the network to carry any kind of information and application, Wu (2008), Berners-Lee (2006) and Peha (2007) state. They also argue there should be no restrictions by one’s ISP. However, in reality it is a topic that has been much talked about, but not been practiced as intended.
Above image shows the governments in the listed countries that filtered content returned by Google (2009). This list of countries is not exhaustive, and constantly changing. Again, this shows in our borderless world, the idea of no sovereignty and net neutrality remain a utopian.
References:
‘Google lays out browser aims’, Financial Times, September 4, 2008
Knorr, E. and Gruman, G (2010) What cloud computing really means. InfoWorld, 19 July 2010, accessed on 7 September 2010, viewed from Infoworld: cloud-computing
Lessing, L (2004). The Balkanization of the Internet (Internet). Lessing 2.0 blog. August 17, 2004. Accessed on September 11, 2010 Viewed from Lessig's blog
Peha J.M., Lehr, WH, Wilkie, S. (2007). The State of the Debate on Network Neutrality. International Journal of Communication 1 (2007), 709-717
The Economist Newspaper (2010), The Future of the Internet: A virtual counter-revolution, 2 September 2010, New York: NY
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster
Rheingold, H. (2000). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Cambridge: MIT press.
Wu, Tim (2008). "Network Neutrality FAQ". 26 December 2008, accessed on 11 September 2010. Viewed from Network Neutrality
That being said, there are dark ‘clouds’ cascading over our global landscape. For instance, cloud computing has become more ubiquitous. Cloud computing is the use of virtual servers over the Internet (Pring. 2010). Critics even argue to extend this term by saying that anything outside the firewall is now in the cloud. It encompasses a subscription based or pay-per-use service that potentially extends Information Technology’s capabilities (2010). Here in, lies the crux. This means we have moved away from the utopian free-for-all use of the Internet.
We all need to be vigilant about who manages, controls and owns the ‘clouds’, and ultimately all our information. Governments are increasingly reasserting their sovereignty, the Economist (2010) argues. Examples include recent issues with Google in China; BlackBerry in Germany and India; Australia’s own censorship on adult videos, and so on. The Economist (2010) states that the Internet used to be controlled by a balkanized model. This is a model that consists of a collection of nation-state networks still linked by the internet protocol, but for many purposes act separately (Lessing 2004). This balkanized model has started to emerge again, the Financial Times (2008) argue.
This further underlines the demise of net neutrality, which at the onset of the Internet was one of the main objectives of the Internet. The term describes the way Internet users ought to have control over the content they add, view, use and the applications. All content, sites, and platforms should be treated equally, which allows the network to carry any kind of information and application, Wu (2008), Berners-Lee (2006) and Peha (2007) state. They also argue there should be no restrictions by one’s ISP. However, in reality it is a topic that has been much talked about, but not been practiced as intended.
Above image shows the governments in the listed countries that filtered content returned by Google (2009). This list of countries is not exhaustive, and constantly changing. Again, this shows in our borderless world, the idea of no sovereignty and net neutrality remain a utopian.
References:
‘Google lays out browser aims’, Financial Times, September 4, 2008
Knorr, E. and Gruman, G (2010) What cloud computing really means. InfoWorld, 19 July 2010, accessed on 7 September 2010, viewed from Infoworld: cloud-computing
Lessing, L (2004). The Balkanization of the Internet (Internet). Lessing 2.0 blog. August 17, 2004. Accessed on September 11, 2010 Viewed from Lessig's blog
Peha J.M., Lehr, WH, Wilkie, S. (2007). The State of the Debate on Network Neutrality. International Journal of Communication 1 (2007), 709-717
The Economist Newspaper (2010), The Future of the Internet: A virtual counter-revolution, 2 September 2010, New York: NY
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster
Rheingold, H. (2000). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Cambridge: MIT press.
Wu, Tim (2008). "Network Neutrality FAQ". 26 December 2008, accessed on 11 September 2010. Viewed from Network Neutrality
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Online Review: Augmented Reality
In this week topic, I would like to discuss the term Augmented Reality (AR), which is the display of real environment, augmented by means of virtual objects - the overlaying dynamic and context-specific information over the visual field of the user (Milgram 1994; Manovich. 2002).
AR merges the concept of real and virtual. Our virtual world and the associated virtual objects are synthesized by a computer or digital device, such as a smart phone (Milgram. 1994). Those virtual objects exist in essence and in order to experience them, they must be simulated. Real objects, on the other hand, have an actual presence. Hence, virtual is the illusion in which there are no real objects present (Porter. 1997).
AR works on the basis that we use a digital device, which is complemented with associated technology (e.g. RFID, computer vision and object recognition). In other words, the digital device must be able to read or recognize the associated technology. By the same token AR uses elements in our surroundings, such as billboards, postings, shop discount coupons, games scores in pubs, and so on to convert the information in our surroundings to digital information and in doing so allows the information to be communicated/broadcasted to a nearby device. It can then return new information to our digital device. This process has been known as cellspace technology, which delivers data to the mobile space dwellers (Manovich. 2002).
Below is an example used in logistics.
Another example of AR was recently set up by the city Washington DC that now provides its commuters with real-time, up-to-date bus information.
All bus stops in the area are provided with a 2D barcode, and anyone with a smart phone can scan the barcode to retrieve up-to-date bus traffic reports on their device.
The above example shows how AR has been used in conjunction with geo-spatial targeting, which could very well be used for retrieving the 2D barcode information.
Hence, scan the 2D barcode, and have the information sent back to your device.
I contemplate that AR will become a ubiquitous part of our world, and will make a greater significance on our lives by adding more convenience and efficiency in accomplishing our daily tasks.
It is projected that this market will rise to a $732 million by 2014, an increase of $2 million compared with 2010 (Juniper Research 2010). However, this may impact our privacy and security of personal data. It is no longer the video surveillance intrusion into our lives, but rather the Net- or wireless enabled device that continuously monitors our lives (Manovich 2002). The Australian Communications and Media Authority and other critics have also been vigilant about the imposing nature of AR, and the threat of unwanted public exposure of people’s information (e.g., political and personal preferences out in the open) (Sun. 2010).
The threat of privacy and security invasion is a concern that should be explored more. There is an apparent need for regulation, which might be difficult and tedious, because this involves cross-industry and discipline adherence to new policies (from technology companies, handheld device manufacturers, internet providers and so on).
I believe that AR will emerge as the next step towards our definition of reality, rather than that it appears to become a detriment in our society.
References:
Kirkpatrick, M. (2010), ‘Augmented Reality Coming to DC Bus Stops Today’, The New York Times, September 3, 2010, viewed from augmented reality
Knight, W (2005), Augmented reality brings maps to life, News Scientist, 19 July 2005, accessed on 5 September 2010, viewed from News Scientist
Manovich, L (2002), The Poetics of Augmented Space: Learning from Prada, London: MIT Press
Milgram, P. and A. F. Kishino, Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays, IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E77-D(12), pp. 1321-1329, 1994.
Porter, D. (1997), Internet Culture, New York: Routledge
Ramesh R., Welch, G. Fuchs, H. (1996), ‘Spatially Augmented Reality’, paper presented to the Department of Computer Science, Chapel Hill: NC, Sept 1998
Think Plank (2010), ‘Internet of Things & Augmented Reality: Conversation Starters’, Convergence conversations, 24 April 2010.
Sun, M (2010). ‘Tracking your life’, MX News, September 2, 2010
AR merges the concept of real and virtual. Our virtual world and the associated virtual objects are synthesized by a computer or digital device, such as a smart phone (Milgram. 1994). Those virtual objects exist in essence and in order to experience them, they must be simulated. Real objects, on the other hand, have an actual presence. Hence, virtual is the illusion in which there are no real objects present (Porter. 1997).
AR works on the basis that we use a digital device, which is complemented with associated technology (e.g. RFID, computer vision and object recognition). In other words, the digital device must be able to read or recognize the associated technology. By the same token AR uses elements in our surroundings, such as billboards, postings, shop discount coupons, games scores in pubs, and so on to convert the information in our surroundings to digital information and in doing so allows the information to be communicated/broadcasted to a nearby device. It can then return new information to our digital device. This process has been known as cellspace technology, which delivers data to the mobile space dwellers (Manovich. 2002).
Below is an example used in logistics.
Another example of AR was recently set up by the city Washington DC that now provides its commuters with real-time, up-to-date bus information.
All bus stops in the area are provided with a 2D barcode, and anyone with a smart phone can scan the barcode to retrieve up-to-date bus traffic reports on their device.
The above example shows how AR has been used in conjunction with geo-spatial targeting, which could very well be used for retrieving the 2D barcode information.
Hence, scan the 2D barcode, and have the information sent back to your device.
I contemplate that AR will become a ubiquitous part of our world, and will make a greater significance on our lives by adding more convenience and efficiency in accomplishing our daily tasks.
It is projected that this market will rise to a $732 million by 2014, an increase of $2 million compared with 2010 (Juniper Research 2010). However, this may impact our privacy and security of personal data. It is no longer the video surveillance intrusion into our lives, but rather the Net- or wireless enabled device that continuously monitors our lives (Manovich 2002). The Australian Communications and Media Authority and other critics have also been vigilant about the imposing nature of AR, and the threat of unwanted public exposure of people’s information (e.g., political and personal preferences out in the open) (Sun. 2010).
The threat of privacy and security invasion is a concern that should be explored more. There is an apparent need for regulation, which might be difficult and tedious, because this involves cross-industry and discipline adherence to new policies (from technology companies, handheld device manufacturers, internet providers and so on).
I believe that AR will emerge as the next step towards our definition of reality, rather than that it appears to become a detriment in our society.
References:
Kirkpatrick, M. (2010), ‘Augmented Reality Coming to DC Bus Stops Today’, The New York Times, September 3, 2010, viewed from augmented reality
Knight, W (2005), Augmented reality brings maps to life, News Scientist, 19 July 2005, accessed on 5 September 2010, viewed from News Scientist
Manovich, L (2002), The Poetics of Augmented Space: Learning from Prada, London: MIT Press
Milgram, P. and A. F. Kishino, Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays, IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E77-D(12), pp. 1321-1329, 1994.
Porter, D. (1997), Internet Culture, New York: Routledge
Ramesh R., Welch, G. Fuchs, H. (1996), ‘Spatially Augmented Reality’, paper presented to the Department of Computer Science, Chapel Hill: NC, Sept 1998
Think Plank (2010), ‘Internet of Things & Augmented Reality: Conversation Starters’, Convergence conversations, 24 April 2010.
Sun, M (2010). ‘Tracking your life’, MX News, September 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)