Schunk's Blog

In New Media Cultures , we’ve been discussing the negative connotations of advance technologies. One of particular interest to me being a Political Science student and a Democracy geek altogether, was brought in the form of a documentary called Hacking Democracy. Hacking Democracy documents American citizens investigating anomalies and irregularities with 'e-voting' systems that occurred during the 2000 and 2004 elections, with particular interest in Volusia County, Florida. The documentary investigates the defective reliability of electronic voting machines, predominantly those made by Diebold Election Systems (DES), and the film culminates in an on-camera hacking of the in-use / working Diebold election system in Leon County, Florida, using only the memory card (deemed impossible by Diebold engineers). This hack became renown inside the political arena – particularly to those activists skeptical of privatized voting companies.
The Hursti Hack, coined for its creator Harry Hursti, a Finnish computer expert, accomplished the task without being given any password and with the same level of access given thousands of poll workers across the USA. A variation of ballot box stuffing, Hursti pre-loaded the memory card giving one candidate 5 positive votes and one candidate 5 negative votes to create a true "zero report." This keeps the machine accurate in votes cast compared to number of voters. In a type of mock election, real paper ballots were used pre-printed with the following question: "Can the votes on this Diebold system be hacked using the memory card?" Then on video, with 8 voters present, 6 voted no and 2 yes. Therefore the election results should obviously read 6 no and 2 yes. The actual results produced by the Hursti Hack favored the yes’s to the no’s 7 to 1.
This an extremely dangerous exploit, because it changes votes in a one-step process that will not be detected in any normal investigative procedure, it requires just a single credit-card sized
memory card, any single individual with access to the memory cards can do it, and it requires only a small piece of equipment which can be purchased off the Internet for a few hundred dollars (easily purchasable/doable by party candidates, committees and supporters).
As a final note, this is particularly alarming. Until we can move from privatized corporate voting, how will we ever know if our votes actually count?

Posted by schun035 at 7:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Snappy Overview.

Cyberpunk derives from the science fiction genre known for its focus on “high tech and low life.” The term originates from a hodge-podge of cybernetics and punk coined by Minnesota man Bruce Bethke’s short story Cyberpunk. Cyberpunk featured advanced science and technology paired with a total breakdown of the normative social order.

Plots and Settings

Cyberpunk plots involve hackers (Hiro from Snow Crash), artificial intelligence (replicants;Blade Runner), mega-corporations and a near-future dystopia. Cyberpunk settings oft resemble the old-school Maltese Falcon-esque detective films, and in the case of the film Blade Runner the “hero” character is stylized by these films. Cities and society itself are ridden with postmodernist prose and prescribe the nihilist underground community of electronic societies. Other Cyberpunk works take place in cyberspace, blurring the borders between virtual reality and reality itself. Cyberpunk depicts the world as a dark, sinister place with networked computers dominating every aspect of life. Giant, multinational corporations have for the most part replaced governments as centers of political, economic, and even military power.

Examples in literature (Blade Runner and Snow Crash)

Blade Runner is cyberpunk. Earth is seen as a post-apocalyptic dystopia ran by one powerful corporation, Tyrell Corp. In the movie the weather is often rainy, stormy, and Earth is portrayed as a dark, dirty, forgotten world (resembling a Maltese Falcon-esque detective film noir). Artificial Intelligence abounds as everything is computerized from pets to people, and the humanoid machines have been deemed evil and corrupt.
Snow Crash’s cyberpunk genre begins from its setting in a near future post-industrial dystopia. It consists of a high tech, low culture pattern with computer hackers as the protagonists fighting evil forces. The Metaverse blurs the distinctions between reality and virtual reality and the result of this inability of distinction is this unfathomable computer /reality virus that distorts truth and emerges people into alternate realities.
And I hope this helps. Go out and read cyberpunk! I personally am not a fan of science-fiction in the George Lucas aspects, but the blend of retro film noir with realistic advanced technologies make this genre truly unique.

Posted by schun035 at 7:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Although our society tends to celebrate the coming of our technological era, we mustn't forget about the ever apparent gap between people with effective means of adequate access to digital and information technology and those with very limited or no access to it. (NMC Class) It's called the Digital Divide, and it doesn't just exclude those with low income who can't afford the technology (and these aren't your envision of poor, 55% of households that make less than 50K a year do not have access), but there's location (rural areas tend to have little to no access options) and age (those who weren't born into the technological era). Obviously those with access to this blog clearly do not possess this problem (unless you are at a digital hub, library, etc.) but those who recognize it, understand the serious consequences of the Digital Divide.
Consider it a divide between the rich and poor, rich being those with the ability to access information, and poor being those without the means (monetary, age or locality) do not. With the increasing demand for newspapers and other analogous sources to move online (by monetary pressures) what happens to those left in the divide's dust? The political and social impacts are huge. First, we've effectively cut out the middle class and further distanced the gap between rich and poor (aristocracy anyone?) but we've also limited the information that the poor have access to. If there is no information for the poor to make effective life decisions, how can we honestly ask them to vote on a president, understand current day affairs or go into an interview (that they couldn't find in the classifieds online) with little to no knowledge of the company at hand? Without a computer or knowledge of it (which you don't have if you haven't dinked around on it), how does one even get a job? Can politicians effectively run online-only campaigns (think Ron Paul here)? There is after all the idea of amateurism that must be solved in order for online campaigns to run effectively. Simply put, we are oppressing a huge side of society with this divide and without society as a whole there is no way to enhance social capital in a democracy.
Luckily, few have recognized this problem, and some cities are even testing out ways to close the gap. Minneapolis, for example, has a wireless initiative for city provided wireless (with a nominal charge) However this isn't without it's problems - People have to wait forever to get online, so they need to organize what to do in an effective amount of time and it minimizes the ability to apply for jobs or just surf the web. And of course it isn't free. There's a Community Dividend in which communities and hubs can apply for a grant (Digital Inclusion Fund), but even the amount we see with that is minimal, and can be expected to decrease with the given economic situation. There's programs like One Lap Top Per Child, and free classes at community centers. However the main issues with all of these, is that (prepare for bad analogy) like our big 3 car companies, they refuse to share their technology. Why can't programs like OLPC partner with communities to offer classes on how to work your computer?
All is not bleak, though. Yes the digital divide has proven to be a worthy opponent and yes we haven't found any one way to rectify the situation, but at least the problem is recognized, and there are stepping stones in place on how to resolve the crisis. The future holds a positive outlook as long as there is a willingness to cooperate.

Posted by schun035 at 7:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here 'globalization' entails a “reconfiguration of geography, so that social space is no longer mapped in terms of territorial places, distances and borders.” Deterritorialization (or delocalization) essentially destroys the face-to-face interactions in localities, by connecting people (usually through the internet) online world-wide. Think of it in terms of banking or retail. Prior to the web, face-to-face transactions were a thing of norm. Transfers, deposits, checks, even setting up accounts involved driving to the bank and meeting with a teller. For retail, you’d go to a mall or store, browse their goods, select what you want to purchase and give them to a cashier to check out. In both cases, there was a face-to-face transaction and a local social space at which this transaction occurred. However the rise of the web and its growing familiarity has brought forth a new definition of globalization by razing territories.
Banking today is done online, online statements, payments, transfers, etc. and the hub at which these events are done maybe in a different state. Shopping now consists of Amazon.com, Ebay or simply “insertyourfavoritestorehere.com”. The idea of territorial boundaries and local retail are diminishing for convenience. Now I can sit at my computer, not worry about what’s in stock and not have to deal with the always-cheery or always-bitchy cashiers. And my product is shipped from anywhere in the world, Japan, China, Russia, New York, there are endless possibilities. Online retail has essentially created a deterritorialized world.
But does delocalization have its social consequences? In creating a boundary-less world, we’ve also created a world that has to connect digitally in order to participate. How does this affect social behaviors?
During the past few weeks in our New Media Cultures class, we’ve discussed boundless worlds through online gaming, such as Second Life. Here we take retail to level of a virtual community, connecting people across the globe to one digital social space. Does this raise consequences on local socialities? Try as you may, local spaces will always be prevalent; most of us are employed locally, attend classes locally (although the online class trend may have its way) and socialize locally. However what happens if we make a trend towards complete boundless worlds that require a digital device to connect? A perfect example of a social consequence to deterritorialization that comes to mind is Minnesota’s virtual high school – although it has benefits for the mentally impaired, the socially awkward use it as a gateway to further deteriorate themselves from standard social procedures. All of us in our lives will indeed have to face another being in the flesh at some point, should we not be taught the correct social skills? What happens when we are forced to meet the deterritorialized in the real world? South Park’s episode of the dried up internet lays out a perfectly plausible outcome. When Stan’s little sister meets her online lover Amir at the Internet Refuge Camp, neither of them possess the social capacity to mutter the love-sayings they are so comfortable in expressing online. Even Disney’s bleak movie Wall-E supports this theory, that with a digital world, there is no need to socialize face-to-face. Is there a way to teach proper outside digital social skills? Or are we all doomed to be the human-like globs of Wall-E?

Posted by schun035 at 5:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Craigslist is one of two phenomena of the internet responsible for the slaughter of the newspaper industry. And although founder of Craigslist, Craig Newark, believes that this isn't so, the evidence is staggering. For those that aren't familiar with this site (and if you aren't I suggest you update yourself on the times) Craigslist is practically a classified ads site, where users can sell, buy, trade junk, find jobs and lovers (etc, etc) absolutely free. Craigslist, PER MONTH -- rakes in a hefty 5 billion paid views. This has an enormous impact on the newspaper industry, whose main revenue comes from traditional classified ads and advertising. Newark justifies his disbelief by suggesting that Craigslist doesn't exactly carry "traditional" classifieds, meaning you wouldn't normally find them in newspapers. However I find that extremely difficult to believe. I've seen ads for pets, cars, roommates on Craigslist, all of which would have been traditionally shown in newspapers (for a minimal fee of course).
Yet If this sheer slaughter wasn't bad enough, lets examine Huffington Post (and by Huffington Post, I refer to all "news hubs" [mediators of media information/hyperlinkers]). You may remember that I briefly discussed that a newspaper's main source of revenue comes from the classified ads and advertisement. While Craigslist has taken care of the classifieds, these aggregate mediums have taken from newspapers their advertisement. We have to keep in mind here that although readership in newspapers has declined, the need for news has increased, and people are turning to these instantaneous "clicky" sites more often for zero costs. Therefore these sites are becoming increasingly trafficked as our culture moves to a more liberal society offering the perfect breeding grounds for advertisers.
So we can't blame advertisers themselves, because c'mon, your advertisement accessible freely to millions of online users? They'd be fired for not gobbling up the steal. And we can't blame culture for exploiting the awesome free-ness and instantaneous-ness that is the internet. Where does this leave the newspaper? Six feet under.
Right now you might be thinking, so what? Who cares? Well you should. There are serious dangers that lie ahead if newspapers go under. Although there's been a decline in the readership of newspapers, they still remain the primary source of information for internet news hubs. Newspapers do the reporting. Google and yahoo don't, blogs sure the heck don't and the list continues. (If you don't believe me, believe the guy who said it -- John Carol ex-editor of the LA Times and now Harvard Professor). Face it technological world, despite a newspaper "obsolete" nature. they are the lone soldiers of professional, paid reporting subject to rigorous editing and ethics (and therefore the only trustworthy). It's really not rocket science, you can't get the story in Baghdad without paying the reporters to get there. Your precious free internet can't provide that (or at least refuses to at this time). Without newspapers, our society has no primary source of information, no source of trust and no way to effectively function as a social capital.
Now that we know what the problem is, and why is comes with a serious danger, what can we do about this? Luckily this very problem is being recognized and discussed. There appear to be three main solutions. One stems from Walter Isaacson and an idea of "Microcharges". Think Itunes but with newstories. Another we discussed in New Media and Culture is paying specific journalists to cover certain stories of the payers interest (but already you can see the problems that could arise with both of these). And third seems to be the most sensible, the aggregate news hubs should pay licensing fees to the newspaper industries that provide them their information.

Craigslist however, will continue to snatch traditional classifieds, because well, there is no solution to their contribution to the murder of the newspaper.

Posted by schun035 at 1:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When I think about a democracy, it consists of three main components: first we have a specific culture, secondly our culture is devised of social values and traditional values and lastly we have an economy. And currently our democracy (much thanks to the previous 8 years) is undergoing an era of participatory politics. Everyone wants a heard voice. People want to participate, be actively involved, and do whatever means necessary to regain trust in their democracy. Mainstream media is clearly the one aggregate between elites and the hardworking man, that allows us workin' folk to keep in check the politicians and CEOs.But in order for society to successfully USE media towards democracy, we have to establish some form of trust. Without the trust, society cannot fully commit itself to the watchdog functions of the media (nor the voice or any other form of functions). I understand this is a very liberal assessment of what a citizen needs to engage in our democracy, but these have become liberal times, my friend.
Along with this new era of participation has arisen the fad of internet, the ultimate global community. And more importantly, Web 2.0, updated user friendly virtual world, blank-slated and waiting for the anybody citizen to taint.
So what is so seductive about Web 2.0 in democratic terms? Easy, it's participatory. Media isn't just for those fat-cats of Washington, because finally an answer to our prayers of romantic journalism have arrived. No longer will the press be run by cash hungry political lobbyists -- no instead it will be ran by true romantics, out to protect and preserve our very democracy! This is the very white knight our democracy has so badly desired - nay, needed. Or is it?
This is where me and my buddy Keen come in.The answer in short? No. The internet (specifically Web 2.0) is not the answer to our prayers. It's merely a myriad of voices without a single person to hear them. Keen exemplifies this with his experiences of Camp FOO stating "Everyone was..broadcasting themselves, but no one was listening." Have we gone too far in participation that we've completely lost ourselves to it? Hilary Clinton put forth her nomination for presidency on Youtube, hoping to open with it an "open discussion" about what we "common folk" consider some of the greatest challenges we face. However her "discussion" merely became the subjection to an enormous amount of people hollering and bickering without actually engaging themselves in intelligent conversation. These people were so worried about their voices being heard that no one was ever actually listening to them. It seems our white knight has become, dare I say it, far too participatory overriding any hints of comprehendable engagement.
Before I go on, I should probably mention this Keen guy. Andrew Keen is an ex-"interneteur" who came to realize the flaws of Web 2.0 and now argues the premise that the internet (Web 2.0) will destroy our culture. His book The Cult of the Amateur describes this cult as a sea of amateurs who are endangering our most vital information gatherers of today's media and using Web 2.0 specifically as it's primary weapon. While reading this book, I felt it was truly well-debated and I couldn't help agree with him. (Although perhaps that makes me more of a prick than anything).
This "Cult of the Amateur" brings forth 2 very critical arguments in Keen's debate. First, bloggers and civil journalists are nothing more than broke amateurs. Monetary motivations may not seem ideal, but for most of us, financial commitments often rule our legitimacy toward work. Because our new founded liberal democracy relies heavily on citizen trust, how does the Web 2.0 fad continue to thrive? It's truly mind-blowing. Instead of trusting paid professionals who undergo thorough editing and input processes, we are immersed in this aforementioned sea of amateurs who can post and produce literally anything they want at little to no cost professionally. And with the mass amounts of this stuff popping up daily, the noise is beginning to become a little thick. The average citizen cannot decipher legitimacy from amateur, and online lovers are naive to think otherwise. Something that really exemplifies this, was the Clinton-Obama scandal, where the Clintonites decided to spread some lie about Obama. These Clintonoids purposely spread this, purposely played on the naive trust we have for the internet and were nearly successful in doing so. Yet still we consider this Web 2.0 to be the new face of media? Hardly.
Secondly, before we go to praise this new found source of information, think hard about where the bloggers and civil journalists get their information. The already deemed "obsolete" media. Newspapers and REAL journalists still provide a majority of the actual information given to our bias amateur friends and these online organizations are nothing more than a hub filled with opinion and backlash. These articles and blurbs of information are sliced and diced and stripped of any ethical grounding for our own cognitive dissonance. Where's the trust in that?
Look, its simple, until this Web 2.0 can find some type of ethical grounding, it's going to continue to destroy debate and further diminish the ability for people to intelligently participate in democracy. It's hindering us, not helping us. And I certainly hope that people do begin to realize that the internet and bloggers should be distinguished as more of the pub-op to the paid professionals doing the dirty work (and getting none of the credit).

Posted by schun035 at 10:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)