revisiting this semester...

While there are many things I've learned in this class this semester, one of the topics I find most surprising are RFID tags. I was familiar with this technology in stores as a means to discourage theft as well as way to protect valuables if lost or stolen (the technology has been used in automobiles and pets to track in case of theft). I was unfamiliar with the frightening prospects RFID technology provides.

Once again RFID (Radio Frequency IDentification) tags can be placed anywhere and carry a diversity of information. While in the past the technology has been utilized to somewhat harmless extensions, the future of how RFID tags is unclear. They could be used as a way to increase convenience for consumers and travelers. If everyone wore an RFID tag somewhere on/in their person their lives could be slightly quicker and personalized. Somewhat like the scene in "Minority Report" when consumers have news, advertising, communication and travel catered to them as they live out their routine, RFID tags promise this lifestyle. On the other hand, unconsciously transmitting your personal information to the world might not be as gloriously simple as many expect. What I found most disturbing during my research and contemplation on RFID tags was that anyone wearing an RFID tag would be susceptible to personal invasions of privacy at almost any time. Travelers might be warranted to less travel delays due to red tape and customs. However, techno-savvy thieves would be able to easily retrieve personal information such as addresses, phone and social security numbers simply by passing and scanning someone with an RFID tag.

Of the many interesting things I've learned in this class (and I mean that with absolute sincerity), RFID technology is by far one of the most interesting. I hope I will be techno-savvy enough to be informed on RFID developments.

The Futurism of Technology...

In a rapidly changing age, it is difficult to focus on anything but the immediate future. My generation is arguably the first to be totally immersed by technology. Literate in the vernacular of personal computing we are more than previous generations more comfortable with changing technologies. Following this pattern, you can expect that subsequent generations will be even more technology and media savvy and will expect their technology to keep up with them: make their lives more comfortable and convenience, which is after all what well made technology should do. Because we have grown up expecting prompt technological growth, it is of no surprise to me that Bill Joy mentions in his article "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us," that many major technology changes will be subtle and incremental, that it will not be jarring to us. I discuss futurism, I agree more with Ray Kurzweil's argument about 'The Singularity,' roughly that technology will only encourage longer life spans, encourage creativity and greater ease of life for most people.

While examining technology advances of the past, I am reaffirmed that I should not fear technology, but rather fear what we may do with technology. The practicality of the steam engine provided thousands with jobs world-wide and for the first time in history made transcontinental travel relatively easy and convenient. Technology that does what it should, serve humanity in the best possible way, making our lives easier. However, you should also examine innovation for war's sake. What might these upcoming advances in technology hold for humanity's ability to hurt? While I am a big fan of science fiction, and fear the opportunity for imposing technological integration/alteration, such as the borg in the 'Star Trek' universe. I must also persist to believe that some of humanity will endure to seek justice and an ethical way of life, much like the crew of the Enterprise. We subsequently should not fear technology (as rapid as those advances may be), we should only fear what we may do with technology.

Questioning the Turing Test

I think the Turing Test is NOT a reliable way to test intelligence, as intelligence is so much more than being able to respond to what someone is saying. As I learned when I was working with Python, it is easy to program a computer to respond to a set of commands. While it is impressive that some contemporary programs are able to adapt to different conversational prompts, the ability to communicate exclusively does not dictate how we measure intelligence. Several factors must be taken into consideration.

What classifies intelligence? I think the primary litmus test must be considering what makes humans intelligent. What makes us superior to animals? Besides the presence of opposable thumbs, the ability to create makes us intellectually superior to most animals. There will always be arguments to this assertion (like that elephant who paints). However, en masse, most animals have not proven the ability to create in the same way humans have. In addition, I believe some animals have displayed a less intellectual level of creativity and imagination. For example, I have four large dogs at home in Arizona. If you watch any of them sleep, you can see them act out their dreams: paws twitch, snouts growl and whimper, etc. As far as I know, no artificial intelligence has demonstrated an ability to create, dream, etc, an essential part of measuring intelligence in my opinion.

There is also something to be said for emotional intelligence. Sure the Turing Test measures a program's ability to respond and communicate with other humans, but can these programs emote? You could argue that there are plenty of bachelor's that cannot emote so surely this cannot be a measurement of intelligence. However all of humanity has emotional potential, the diversity of experiences in our lives is what determines how we maximize this potential. Computer programs on the other hand, do not have this kind of potential and therefore do not have emotional intelligence. Both emotional and creative intelligence must be acknowledged in determine what programs do or do not have intelligence.

Mash-Ups Favoritos

Internet mash-ups take the most innovative applications on the Internet and combine them into one surprising and new service. www.programmableweb.com features thousands of such websites.

One of my favorite Internet mash-ups is weatherbonk.com. It features API's from almost a dozen websites including information from Google Maps and Google AdWords, several Yahoo applications including Yahoo Traffic, NASA, and the NOAA Weather Service. Not only is the convenient and highly visual weather information relevant and interesting, allowing me to instantly to check the regional weather of San Francisco, my home state: Arizona, the East Coast and abroad, but it provides links and illustrates other information as well. I can easily define what web cams I want to use to report my weather service and by clicking on one tag I can view a detailed 7 - day weather.com report. Check out the link here: http://www.weatherbonk.com/weather/index.jsp .

Another cool site is liveplasma.com. While it only uses information from Amazon E-Commerce, it vividly illustrates a web of commerce. For example, if I type in my favorite band: No Doubt a large pink orb appears with three golden circles appear around the No Doubt orb to signify relevance. An intricate and colorful web of orbs representing related artists and bands with varying sizes appears next. The user is able to click on any orb to learn more about that artist or band, and a column on the left provides a direct link to that item's page at the Amazon.com store. You can also search by movie title, actor, director, and country. I like this website because it is a highly visual way to shop. It take a conventional experience and makes it feel new and cutting-edge. Check out the link here: http://www.liveplasma.com/ .

One of my favorite Internet Mash-Ups I discovered recently is called "If I dig a very deep hole, where do I stop?" Which of course proves to answer that age-old question. As it turns out, digging a hole through the earth's core doesn't quite take me to China. The website uses Google Maps technology to map the world. By clicking on your point of origin on the world map, the site calculates where a direct hole would emerge. A hole in my family's backyard in Paradise Valley, Arizona leads my to somewhere off the coast of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. I like the website because it's simple and illustrates an answer to a fascinating and fun question. Check out the link here: http://map.pequenopolis.com/ .

A User-Friendly Guide to File-Sharing...

The line between what is and is not ethical in regards to file sharing is not clear. I believe there are very few instances that can justify stealing or sharing music online because it is never necessary. It is easy to argue for stealing food or water if someone can’t afford to feed themselves or their family. It is an entirely different story however to steal music you never have the intention of actually buying.

Downloading a song you don't own from a major label artist.

I assume this means illegally downloading (as in not paying for the song via a service like itunes or napster). This is wrong and should be illegal. An artist (and even the chain of people who actually profit from their work) should be paid for their work. While it may seem impractical to some people to support everyone associated with one song or album despite having nothing to do with the music’s creative process, these people still have some work invested in this product. I totally support artist-user web access sites, or collectively shared access sites like the one suggested by the EFF.

Downloading a song you don't own from a struggling independent artist.

The same argument applies here, except now illegally downloading from independent artists seems more offensive because the fact that they support themselves is more transparent.

Downloading another copy of a song you already own.

I’m not sure exactly why someone would download another copy of a song they already own, however, if they have bought the song once, they should not need to buy it again. I consider digital music like a license, once you buy an album or song you have purchased the right to do with it what you see fit, within reason. This doesn’t entitle you to make multiple copies of a song to hand out, however, if you’re using a song or album for your own consumption in it’s purest form, then you should have every right to do that. There is something to be said then for supporting file-sharing networks that normally cater to illegally downloaded music in this situation. This should be avoided. If possible, just burn the CD or copy the digital files you already have.

Shoplifting a CD from a store.

This is totally illegal and inappropriate.

Downloading a song to "try it out" - if you like it enough, you'll buy the CD.

While I want to say this is acceptable, the easy of use to preview most songs online (via artist websites, last.fm, fan sites, and legal music downloading sites) doesn’t warrant illegal downloading in this situation.

Copying a CD from a friend.

Its one thing if a copied CD is a gift (although still probably not ethical), but to ask and copy a CD from a friend probably isn’t ethical. I would and have done this, but that doesn’t make it right.

Making your music available online to share with a couple of friends.

I am completely in support of sharing music, because unless you’re stealing the music, it is still somewhat remote and thus encourages legal music downloads to ensure portable music. You need to be on the same network as someone else, ie: you both need to be connected, unless you’re traveling together, you’re stuck in one physical space. Sharing music is a great way to broaden your musical paradigm. I have definitely listened to someone else’s music over a network and been motivate to pursue or purchase an artist’s music.

Making your music publicly available on the Internet, such as through KazAa or Limewire.

This I do not do and cannot agree with if it is encouraging massive illegal downloading. It’s one thing if you want to share original audio you created. However, you essentially bought the license, that doesn’t give you the right to distribute. If you want to share music with a friend who is not connected to the same network, you should find alternatives, or send them a link to the artist’s webpage.

the diversity of net neutrality

The fundamental issue underlying the net neutrality debate is the potential to privatize or eliminate the neutrality (free right to access the internet). If net neutrality is eliminated, several powerful internet service providers will be able to determine who has access to what. These ISP’s would have the potential to slow down service, or censor select emails and websites all together. Opponents of net neutrality claim that the privatization of the internet will encourage competition.

The Savetheinternet.com Coalition and the ACLU are two organizations that are openly in favor of net neutrality. The Savetheinternet.com Coalition claims that they are “made up of groups from across the political spectrum that have banded together to save the First Amendment of the Internet: network neutrality. No corporation or political party is funding our efforts.” On their website they have articles, a regularly updated blog, progress updates and ways for citizens to get involved in preserving the neutrality of the internet. Their stance is in support of the ‘the internet’s First Amendment,’ which they claim allows anyone to have equal access to the internet. As for the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), they are known for publicizing and lobbying on behalf of Americans’ civil liberties on many issues. In an article on cnet’s news.com, Caroline Fredrickson, the Director of the ACLU argues that: “the result [of privatizing the internet] is that fewer and fewer companies will have more and more control over what consumers see and do on the Internet. If the consumer does not like the services provided by his ISP, he or she will essentially have two choices: Take it or leave it.” Several other significant voices have emerged in favor of the net neutrality including Microsoft, MoveOn.org, in addition to several other media and consumer advocate groups.

On the other hand, several figures have emerged against net neutrality, including handsoff.org, and various government and corporate representatives including Richard Notebaert, CEO of Qwest Communications. Handsoff.org claims that “Hands Off The Internet is a nationwide coalition of Internet users united together in the belief that the Net's phenomenal growth over the past decade stems from the ability of entrepreneurs to expand consumer choices and opportunities without worrying about government regulation.” However, many of the member organizations sponsoring the organization happen to be the corporations and ISP’s that a have much to gain be the privatization of the internet including AT&T and Bell South. When I write ‘privatizing the internet’ what I mean is the introduction of a tiered internet access system by the major ISP’s. Notebaert publicly stated at the Voice on The Net Conference in San Jose last March that “he believes that network operators should have the option to charge content providers, such as Google or Amazon, higher rates for providing premium service over the Qwest network” (Marguerite Reardon for cnet’s news.com, http://news.com.com/Qwest+CEO+supports+tiered+Internet/2100-1034_3-6050109.html?tag=nl). As mentioned earlier, opponents of the neutrality of the internet claim that the way to ensure the healthy growth of the internet in America is to deregulate it and implement a more capitalist system to access the internet.

RFID Technology: A User-Friendly Guide to our next loss of privacy...

There is much controversy lately in regards to technology and privacy. The line between safety & convenience and privacy is becoming even blurrier because in many respects, it is too early to tell which technology is safe and which isn't. The discussion in regards to RFID technology is just heating up. RFID stands for radio frequency identification. Declan McCullagh writes on news.com: "RFID tags are miniscule microchips, which already have shrunk to half the size of a grain of sand. They listen for a radio query and respond by transmitting their unique ID code. Most RFID tags have no batteries: They use the power from the initial radio signal to transmit their response." Basically, these identification tags can be placed in or on just about anything and can be scanned to provide the scanner a variety of information. This information can be as simple as the price of an item about to be purchased in a department store, or as pertinent as the name, address, phone number, birthplace, and social security number from someone's passport. The technology promises a greater ease of use for consumers. However, it also allows for an even greater potential breach of privacy.

The benefits to consumers are numerous. Adopting RFID technology (although RFID tags are currently active in the marketplace in several forms) encourages a greater ease of use to consumers in several ways. First, adopting RFID tags to products consumers buy frequently could expedite the entire consumer process from keeping and tracking inventory to providing consumers the opportunity to check themselves out independently. In addition, if RFID tags were adopted in mass, such a practice could potentially decrease theft dramatically. Theft would decrease because RFID tags allows us to track whatever it is attached to. This is beneficial outside of the consumer world as well. The ability to easily track an item or being is a great opportunity to ensure the safety of people and animals. Applying an RFID tag to a pet, elderly person, child, or hospital patient ensures that if they are ever lost or kidnapped, locating them would be easy. My mother recently bought a puppy that came with a sensitive RFID tag already implanted beneath her skin. While it is reassuring to know that if she ever ran away we would be able to find her, the prospect of installing a microchip beneath the skin of an animal to be easily tracked is unnerving.

Which raises one of my biggest concerns with RFID technology. Call me old fashioned, progression-averse...whatever you may desire, but the ability to easily access information or locate a being make me uncomfortable. While I definitely appreciate the opportunity to reclaim my mother's lost puppy if need be, what if that was me? What happened to the luxury of anonymity? Privacy is a commodity that is increasingly less accessibly by the powers that be, ie: media saturation (online communities in particular) as well as government. It appears that with our fast technological sophistication, our society is being blurred to submission. This technology allows anyone to easily register information via a nearby scanner. While this is convenient for consumers, it provides a frightening loss of privacy. I don't think I want just about anyone to scan my passport or cell phone for my personal information. I would rather wait in a longer line waiting for US Customs than risk exposing my social security number and contact information. If RFID technology is applied in mass like many are predicting, I fear there is an opportunity for a severe loss of privacy and anonymity.