Chillin


NY LAWMAKER HOPES TO BAN IPOD USE IN CROSSWALKSA New York state senator has announced his plan to introducelegislation that would ban the use of electronic devicessuch as iPods, BlackBerrys and cell phones while crossingstreets in major cities. State Sen. Carl Krueger claimedthat the phenomenon of "iPod oblivion" has led to a numberof fatal accidents on urban streets. The bill wouldeffectively make it illegal to use any kind of portableelectronic device while crossing the street in cities suchas New York, Albany and

This brings up an interesting issue that is the increasing use of portable technology that is currently permeating society. Clearly, the phenomenon has gotten to the level that state governments are starting to pay attention to it. A quick google search yielded several results of situations in which ipods where at least were claimed to have contributed to or caused directly serious injury or death. This woman was killed when she was riding a bike and listening to an ipod that she was "obsessed with."

Certainly, I can speak from experience that it makes communication a bit more difficult when people are tuned in to their electronic devices. I might be more reluctant to approach a stranger on the street to ask for directions if I thought they were jamming out to their favorite Pearl Jam tune. Likewise, I can see that there could be substantial backlash from the ipod community who so cherish their music.

This article talks about how the process for data deletion on the popular networking website Facebook has come under fire. Apparently data, including entire profiles which people have intended to delete has remained on the website. There is also the concern that the data which is posted by millions of people every day might be stored in some capacity even after it is supposedly permanently deleted. More disturbing than what is being done with accounts that are deleted, though is what is potentially being done with the information on the website which can be easily gleaned by creating a fake account. For example, though most users do not have administrative powers to access the information which facebook compiles and sells to advertisers, it is easy to access a large majority of profiles by simply browsing through the network of the user's choice. What this theoretically and really leads to is datamining--people attempting to compile databases of other people's information. Some of that information is intended to be private, or at least meant to not be part of someone else's private database. One obvious way that this might play out in the minds of the most paranoid privacy advocate is with biometric data. Ironically, rather than being forced into giving up picture and name identifications to the government or insurance companies, a rapidly increasing number of facebook users are offering up this information via their facebook profiles. The potential consequence are many and well documented in such fictional works or literature as 1984, the Giver, Minority Report, and the like.

This article shows that the methods and desire for hightened surveillance of all people are growing rapidly. Tracking fingerprints for all travellers sounds like a perfectly reasonable and secure way to keep terrrorists from attacking our precious transportation systems. However, increased surveillance worldwide lends plenty of creedence to those who consider it a slippery slope which will end in a nearly privacy-free world. Minority Reports, a movie from a few years ago demonstrates this "big brother" scenario in as realistic a way as any other movie or book I am aware of. In this movie, it is possible to read the minds of people as a way of crime prevention. This may seem like an impossible scenario to us now, but the more ways of tracking people the government has, the easier it is to "read minds" by predicting what someone is planning to do next. Of course, this is exactly the goals of law enforcement agencies, but it is not a reasonable solution to anyone who values their privacy.

This article is about the latest in a major battle between

Viacom and Google which stems from their discrepancy over
liability in cases of copyright violations by the users of
websites like youtube.  Clearly, Viacom doesn’t want to see
youtube profiting off of content that their company has
paid to create.  Youtube, meanwhile clearly doesn’t want
to admit that it is liable for guaranteeing the originality
of the programming which users are constantly adding to
their site.  Experts seem to agree that this one could be
headed for the courts considering the lack of clear rules
governing this sort of case.  One thing is clear with the
gathering of armies for these legal wars and the continual
advent of new, innovative ways to advertise is that there
is no clear winner and loser in the battle between
advertisers trying to get people to watch advertisements
and media consumers trying to avoid them.  Likely, the
powers that be will eventually find a compromise that
will allow them to continue to reap ridiculous profits.
It is hard to imagine that file sharing programs will
be able to continue to profit off of others creative
works by hiding behind firewalls or national borders in
perpetuity.  Certainly, the giants of these industries
will have some powerful weapons—once there is some
consensus on how much a movie, song, music video, or
television program ought to cost.