The Digital Age: Does Anyone Care About Privacy Anymore?

John Palfrey, author of "Born Digital" was interviewed about privacy concerns on “The Digital Age.” His research shows that the “Digital Natives” of the Millennial Generation are often not concerned about internet privacy – until it is too late.

He uses the analogy of getting a tattoo to describe the content that people put on the internet. Like a tattoo, people post content online in a moment when they have passion for it, without realizing that this is something they may not be able to get rid of later in life, even in they want to. Sort of a cyber-tattoo.

For instance, it is very simple for someone to take a picture with a Blackberry and instantly post the photo to their Facebook page. Once done, this picture may be picked up by any of their “friends” and posted elsewhere, perhaps distributed virally. One big difference, though, is that “friends” can’t force someone to get a real tattoo, but they can post content about someone else online, which may lead to a cyber-tattoo.

The reason this can happen so easily can be described with another analogy – it’s like people picking their noses in their cars. People perceive greater privacy online than they necessarily have. They perceive a certain level of privacy when posting online. They imagine an audience of a small group of friends. However, those friends have other friends, and friend-groups change and grow over time, so content becomes visible to more people than the user originally imagines.

It is not just young people who over-share online. The greatest risk-group are adults who use online dating sites. They share large amounts of very personal information about themselves on these sites.

On one side of the debate over online privacy are those who say – who cares? Maybe we just no longer prize privacy like we used to, and maybe it doesn’t really matter. Or, maybe it does matter and it is better to be more open and less private. Some who are anti-privacy regulations feel that sharing information fuels innovation.

However, others are very concerned about massive information sharing, and information storing. While they may be harmless in unconnected bits of data, many companies are now tying our information back together – linking our online and offline behaviors. When these bits are connected, they can show a large amount of information about us.

We know that companies want this information so that they can market to us well. However, other companies may use the information against us. For instance, insurance companies could raise our rates and credit companies could lower our scores based on assumptions made from our cyber-profiles. Check out this blog from choklatsoda - A New Type of Profiling

There is also the issue of true criminals. By allowing them to hold information about us, we are forced to “trust” these companies who are aggregating information about our lives. However, there are no regulations that they need to protect this information.

Who “owns” the information about us? Who should protect it?

Questions about Privacy

Why do people expect privacy when they post information online?
Why do people want privacy?
What do people think online privacy is?

Did people who “locked down” their Facebook/MySpace/Twitter expect an encrypted “portal” to their friends? Do they feel “tricked” that these sites are using their information for profit? Do they even know?

Do they feel like the personal information they willingly divulge is like their own “property” – that they can get information back after it’s been

Is this about friends versus foes?
Is it that we hate sales people? That we don’t want marketers “in our head,” figuring out ever-better ways to pry us away from our cash?
Or are we afraid of something bigger? Do people think that Gallup is going to stop taking opinion polls, and instead just use web analytics to judge how many people are against the War?

Or is this about our inherent problem with metadata – circumstantial evidence being used against us? Do we only want people to know what we tell them directly, and not what can be derived from our “stats” or linked to our behavior in another way?

Do we secretly like finding more out about people than they want us to know by tracing their online identity? Do we secretly like that they can learn about us this way too? Do you like it when you are googled? Do you like googling people? Do you go further – looking up real estate values and court records on people?

Is this about our thirst for genuine people – people who say it like it is and don’t have anything to hide? Or maybe about gathering near-perfect business data to further capitalism?

Are there bigger issues at stake than being “spied” on? Do the companies that store and sell personal information care about what would happen if it fell into the wrong hands? Is this a safety issue?

Is it worth it? Should we all stop posting and let Web 2.0 die? Or should we lie about our ages and hometowns and only blog about vanilla issues so that we won’t be targeted?
Is it a legal issue? Is there a middle ground?

More to mull:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/28/technology/29CYBERLAW.html?ex=1233982800&en=5556a18c088bfbe7&ei=5070
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/02/technology/02CYBERLAW.html?ex=1233982800&en=7e9844b14e6dd384&ei=5070

We Feel Fine

Ever heard of art imitating life?

“We feel fine” is data imitating art, imitating blog.

Most Web 2.0 communities rely on people to populate content, but this website uses an algorithm that requires no human involvement to create a sense of community. The software searches a multitude of popular blog sites for the terms “I feel” and “I am feeling.” Once it finds that catch phrase, it snags the entire sentence and any associated picture, and compiles the items. These feelings and images are presented in several artistic formats, resulting in a highly emotional, very personalized anthology.

In addition capturing to the sentence and picture, the program deduces other data elements to enhance empathy. The program attempts to determine the age, sex, and location of the author, and the tone of the emotion. With location and time, the program also determines the weather at the time the blog was posted. With this information, art is created. The “feelings” are presented in six different artistic movements.

Madness is a swarm of feelings, where color represents the tone of the emotion.

Murmurs presents each sentence as a gently scrolling list of feelings in reverse chronological order since their blog post.

Montage is centered on the pictures captured, with the feeling posted across the image. These can be saved and sent by clicking a link on the picture. Once saved or sent, the picture becomes part of the “gallery of montages,” where people’s favorites are displayed.

Mobs shows the feelings in representative blobs, to show a common thread. The gender, age, weather, and most-common feelings are displayed together.

Metrics shows the feelings grouped by deviation from a common population.

Mounds portrays all of the feelings recorded since inception in relative-sized mounds representing a particular feeling.

Finally, users can find feelings that represent themselves using the Panel. For instance, a user could explore depressed feelings of a 20-year old woman in San Francisco on a cloudy day.

“We feel fine” data has been collected every 3 minutes from several blog sites since 2006.

The authors of this website are Jonathan Harris, an anthropological story teller and computer scientist, and Sep Kamvar, a computational mathematician. They have collaborated on several projects that delve into peoples’ lives online.

See more about their online art:


See an even better video on Jonathan Harris, which includes his projects in Bhutan and a Whale Hunt.

TED: Ideas worth spreading

Most streaming videos can be summed up into two categories – YouTube and advertising. Perhaps entertaining, these videos are not particularly thought provoking, and are most often time wasters.

TED isn’t YouTube. This streaming media delivers lectures recorded at TED conferences around the world. They are all inspiring, sometimes funny, sometimes mind-blowing.

TED is run by a non-profit foundation, with the goal of spreading ideas that stir people’s perspectives. These talks allow people to cross-pollinate ideas with stories that inspire innovation and broaden the plane of understanding, encouraging “out of the box” thinking.

For instance, many lectures in the Art series demonstrate the innovation that occurs when art and science meet. In one story, an engineer was inspired by modern origami, and began to use computer programs to construct incredibly life-like origami creatures. Then, he became involved in applying the concepts of origami back to engineering in order to put big things into small packages, including air bags and space telescopes. (Robert Lang: Idea + square = origami)

TED Talks begin firmly in the real world. The TED foundation seeks out speakers to attend four-day conferences several times each year. These speakers include highly recognized thought leaders who have won Nobel and Pulitzer prizes, as well as emerging thinkers who have not hit the mainstream. The speakers are not paid, and the entire conference is recorded. Some of these recordings are posted online for free.

This is when TED.com goes Web2.0. People are highly encouraged to link, embed, email and show these lectures. The TED website allows comment threads on each video, and also has a tagging mechanism so that users can help rank and identify talks. Beyond basic users, those who become members of TED.com (for free) can upload profile information and connect with each other in the TED community.

The goal of TED.com is to spread ideas that help people better understand the world. Their hope is that this deeper and broader perspective will lead to new thoughts, more discussion, and perhaps a better world.

Interview with a GenX Snowboard Mom

KoNTRoLlED KhAoS is an avid snowboarder, tomato farmer, martini mixer, mom, and true friend. She’s a gadget geek, always near her blackberry and iPod. Like all Gen X’ers, KhAoS did not grow up blogging, but has become a frequent user of social sites over the last couple of years. This interview explores the allure of an online presence.

Q: Where did you post online first?
A: MySpace

Q: Why were you first interested in posting a MySpace page?
A: I started out while planning my 20-year high school reunion.
Many people had moved and changed their names, so I set up a personal space and a Chesapeake High School space so that people could find me easily.

Q: Which social media sites do you use now?
A: MySpace and Facebook, and I Blog on Reunion.com, Classmates.com, and my high school’s social site, chesapeakehighalumni.com.
Even a year after the Reunion, I still check all of them periodically. It has totally allowed me to keep in touch with people who I wouldn’t otherwise keep in touch with. Sometimes it’s tough to talk on the phone. The best thing about chatting online is you can’t hear my kids screaming in the background (grin).

Q: Between MySpace and Facebook, which do you like better?
A: I have preferences for both. MySpace is more fun because you can change the background, post music – it allows you to project your personality. Facebook is a more mature site. You don’t get all those bells and whistles. It seems there are more mature people on Facebook.

Q: Are your pages open or closed? Why?
A: Open. I have nothing to hide.

Q: Is there anything that scares you about having the open page?
A: No. I don’t post my kids’ names or my address. Nothing personal that would allow someone to find me. People can email me.

Q: Have you had contact from anyone you don’t want?
A: No. I’ve had people hit my page who were creepy, but you just don’t respond and they go away.

Q: How would you feel about your kids using social sites? A: My kids belong to Webkinz, which is a kid’s social site, but I only allow them to communicate with eachother. My daughter is also on Barbie.com, but I don’t let her communicate with other people on that.

Q: At what age would you allow them to use other social sites, unsupervised?
A: They would need to be 11 to 13 before they are able to use other sites. They will never be unsupervised. Too much crap can happen.

Q: Are there any particular sites you will disallow?
A: I don’t love YouTube because everything should be R and under, and they are too young for that.

Ok – the snow and wind have stopped, so it’s time for us to get back to riding the slopes!

Let’s Write a Sawng

Rivers Quomo, best known as the front man of Weezer, has studied the scientific process of songwriting, using himself as the subject of analytical experimentation. On NPR’s Fresh Air, he described this method, which may not seem to deviate much from what one would imagine a rock star’s creative process might be. However, Mr. Cuomo diligently recorded every step of his method, “intentionally varying individual elements to see what the result would be.”

One experiment went like this:
Step 1 – Take a Ritalin pill.
Step 2 – Take three shots of tequila.
Step 3 – Sit in a chair in the backyard.
Step 4 – Close your eyes and imagine the song.
The result of this particular routine was the song “Hashpipe.”



Rivers’s analytical approach to songwriting elaborates a process that most would consider a songwriter’s mystery – one that relies strictly on creative intuition. He has taken his methodological approach a step further by introducing his fan base to the process.

In March, 2008, Rivers Cuomo began posting instructions on YouTube, coaching his fans through the songwriting process to create a collaborative piece. He hopes Weezer will pick up the song for production in their seventh album, coming out next year. He estimates that at least 20 people will be listed in the credits for this collaborative song.
(NPR Fresh Air featuring Rivers Cuomo, 21-January, 2009 available at: http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=99636767&m=99646414)

Rivers Cuomo’s collaborative process is paraphrased below:

Step 1 & Step 2: Start with a general attitude: fun and “poppy” but tough at the same time. Create a song title.

Step 3: Create a chord progression that captures the “vibe of the outcast character” represented in the chosen song title, “80’s Radio.”

Step 3b: Second round of chord progression – faster tempos, 115 bpm at least.

Step 4: Develop arrangements – use a loop of the chord progression that brings in the “tough, fun spirit.”

Steps 5 & 6: Write lyrics, try to include the word “radio” in the lyrics, but it’s not necessary. Compose a tune over the musical track.

Step 7’b: Refine the materials – bring together the lyrics, melody, and music.

Step 8: Development – take the song to your instruments, come up with a bridge or solo, and finish the song out. Make the song “pick up energy as it goes along… make it rock!”

Step 9: Revise the chords in the chorus to start on a D chord.

Step 10: Revise the bridge lyrics from “Take this all the way” to something that says more.

Step 11: Tighten the track on the sound file so it has a steady beat and crisp sound.

Step 12: Polish – Gather the “wish list.” Tell me what you think would make this track better.

Step 13: Lengthen the chorus for “lyrical substance.”

Step 14: Revise the bridge lyrics again – use more background vocal, don’t use “turn it” in the bridge, and create a spontaneous message within the bridge.

Step 15: Update the chorus to eliminate cliché in “Let the Good Times Roll” and “Tell me Go To School.”

Step 16: Final cuts
The most recent version of the song is in Step 14, at about 2:50 minutes.


My final thoughts – this is a very fun, catchy tune. I think it’s better than most of what we hear on the radio. The most important thing to consider is that, while it was a collaborative work, it had an experienced, decisive producer in Rivers Cuomo. He chose the best of the best and gave it his edge.This leads me to the biggest question – Is this really our song? Or is it his?

There’s No One as Irish as Barak Obama.

Over the course of the campaigns for the US presidency, many satirical songs pop up around the globe. Although this is a long-lived tradition, social sites like YouTube fueled the fire in 2008.

A single example is the catchy tune written by The Corrigan Brothers from Limerick, Ireland, called “There’s No One more Irish than Barak Obama.” In an interview, band member Ger said “We put the song up on YouTube and it has gone from having 25 hits in its first week to well over five thousand hits now about a month later”
(http://www.nenaghguardian.ie/news/puckane-born-band-in-line-for-us-presidential-performance-1365192.html)
The version released on YouTube is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xkw8ip43Vk.

Adding to the popularity of the song was another advent of the “Open Source” age. Shay Black, who hosts the Irish Tunes session in Berkley, California, was allowed permission to add verses. His YouTube posting is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EADUQWKoVek.

Before Web 2.0, the process to release a pop song internationally, even a “one hit wonder,” involved agents, managers, recording contracts, tours, and quite a bit of time. I couldn’t find any albums released by this band, and their 2009 tour is entirely centered on this single song. This song was posted on YouTube in April, 2008. By Inauguration Day, only eight months later, the band was playing in the Presidential Inauguration Parade in Washington DC.

An MP3 download is now available on Amazon.com for $0.99. http://www.amazon.com/Theres-One-Irish-Barack-Obama/dp/B001NJUBBA/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1232729369&sr=8-1

What does this mean for the music industry?

Surely, Obama’s international popularity and ultimate election drove the media acceptance of the Corrigan Brother’s song. Also, Obama’s followers are largely known to be in the Web 2.0 space; his campaign used the social web to generate funds and spread information. This may mean that the success of the Corrigan Brothers was specific to this song, and the rest of the music industry has nothing to fear from Web 2.0.

There is great opportunity for artists online. The web space allows people to generate excitement, and to collaborate on projects. In the future, it may also mean less agency and management and more control (and more money) for artists.