Final Paper (Part II)

Okay, so I'm back!!! I have gotten a lot of my paper done so far.. about four pages already, so that's a relief.  I just want to brain storm some more ideas on here that I may or may not include in the rest of my paper. While the green movement has definitely, without a doubt, picked up some momentum during the last few years, you have to question some of the motives behind some of these large companies. When you think about it, it just doesn't seem financially beneficial for many of the companies to encourage a green movement. Yeah, many companies have converted to using wind powered electricity where possible, others have installed solar power panels, and others have done small things like cut down on paper towel use and water waste by installing hand dryers and automatic faucets and toilets. But, in the interest of creating business and profits, smart companies will continue to promote the principals of what Giles Slade calls "obsolescence of desirability" and "conspicuous consumption".  Advertisers will continue to promote the fabricated dissatisfaction that many consumers somehow are hypnotized to believe about a product that they've had for a number of months or years. Companies may say that they are on a path to greener business practices but the truth is, it is not a practice that particularly benefits major corporations. Another large reason why America is not ready to become a leader in green technology and green practices is the fact that our government has failed to pass legislation that would eliminate e-waste and the contamination of our fresh water supply by manufacturers.  Our country is a fine example of what a great leader should be in many ways but the way we handle our waste problem is not one of them.  Until we create stricter laws and are tougher about enforcing them, America will have a hard time putting their over consumptive ways to rest. I know I sound very pessimistic, but I just don't see how we're going to break a vicious cycle that we've been headed towards since the past one hundred years.

Final Paper (Part I)

Well it was a tough decision that I have contemplated for a couple of days now, but I  have decided to choose the essay assignment on e-waste and Giles Slade's book, Made To Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America. I'm in the process of writing the beginning of my paper on America's product obsolescence and e-waste problem, and I figured I'd take a moment on here to reflect some of my ideas.  Giles Slade's book, Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America, is of real help to me in supporting my ideas on the United States' failure to end over consumption and electronic waste. Luckily, when I first read the book a couple of weeks ago, I highlighted and marked many of the important points made by Slade. I'm finding that referring back to my previous blogs on the book, "Made to Break,"  is also very beneficial for giving me ideas in my writing. We are on an inevitable path towards over consumption and disposal. The green movement will not gain enough momentum to have a global affect upon society. Our wasteful lifestyle has been engrained into every aspect of our lives. The effect of marketing and advertising from the last 100 years has changed the way Americans live. In the eyes of large corporations, the benefits of product obsolescence and conspicuous consumption far outweigh the consequences of e-waste.  Manufacturers would rather fill their wallets while at the same time fill our fresh water with toxins, than to pursue a green movement. It is just as beneficial to consumers as it is corporations in that consumers not only stay up to date with more evolved technology, but they come off to others as advanced and well off. Alright, well I think I have enough ideas for now to get this paper rolling. I'm going to go back to writing my paper before I forget some of the main concepts I just discussed. I'll be back with more ideas in a couple days!

Controversy Over New TSA Procedures in Airports

TechNewsWorld.com has published an article,  "Abandon Shame, All Ye Who Enters Airports,"  by Paul Hartsock, about the new backscatter scanning machines and TSA procedures in airports across the United States. It explains that with the coming of the holidays and the increase of travelers, comes stricter security and scanning implemented from TSA agents. In recent months and weeks, controversy has erupted because the backscatter scanners are said to produce pretty invasive pictures and the new TSA "pat downs" are considered to be a form of "groping." Although TSA argues that the scanned pictures cannot be saved and that the new pat downs are standard (no one will be singled out or excluded), many still believe that the new rules cross the lines and take away one's dignity. In the TSA's defense,  TSA administrator, John Pistole, explains that the new procedures not only help to protect us better but that they are still minimally invasive compared to many scanning procedures used in Europe and the rest of the world.  I don't believe that there is anything wrong with these new procedures. If we have the technology, we should implement it.  This technology could save lives and hey, if it doesn't actually increase the likelihood of catching terrorists, at least it psychologically puts one more at ease knowing there is "more security." People these days are so worried over every little thing or worried about being politically correct. Give me a break! At the end of the day, does it really matter? Even if TSA agents do have the ability to save scanned photos, your face and name aren't attached to those pictures, and I'm sure that the images are not nearly as vivid as the pornographic images found on the Internet. People claim that these new airport procedures invade people's privacy but then they have no problem posting the most personal information about themselves on Facebook for the whole world to track down. The other day, I was watching an entertainment news program on television which featured a story on Kim Kardashian complaining about the new TSA scans. Isn't this the same woman who released a "sex tape"  in order to achieve fame?

The following is the link to the article mentioned: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/71281.html

Thoughts on Internet Privacy and Third Party Trackers

According to a TechNewsWorld.com article, "Internet Explorer 9 to Let Privacy Minded Web Users Leave No Tracks," written by Rob Spiegel, Microsoft plans to include a new feature called "Tracking Protection" on their new release of Internet Explorer 9, which will be available in 2011. The new privacy feature will prevent third party websites from monitoring a person's web use at the discretion of the user. It is very similar to Internet Explorer's "InPrivate Browsing" control that is already in use except that it will allow for more privacy customizations at the user's decision. If Microsoft releases this feature, it is believed that it will replace the government's need for a "Do Not Track" regulation which the Federal Trade Commission may have had trouble enforcing to begin with. I believe that this is a great idea on the part of Microsoft because it not only eliminates the government from having to get involved, which can create a mess in itself, but it also eliminates third party companies from tracking websites that people have visited. Most often, companies who gather an individual's information are using it to compile personal profiles about that person.  A person's profile may then be sold to marketers who place advertisements that are tailored to that person's interests or needs on the websites that he or she visits. Now, this may not seem like a big deal to some, and in fact, many people may actually like receiving advertisements that are catered towards their interests, but to others, it is an invasion of privacy.  There is no reason not to include such a feature because the people who do not feel threatened, don't have to use the privacy control and the people who would like more privacy, can control their privacy to their heart's desire.  Personally, I would probably use the settings, just because you never truly know who is in control of your information these days. I know companies such as Facebook persuade people to share their information and encourage people to become more open on the web, but I just don't know if it's such a good idea. It is still too early in the years of the Internet and social networking to tell what the extent of damage will be by placing too much personal information on the web.  Since Microsoft is now just developing this feature for Internet Explorer, it is obvious that people are still concerned or are growing concerned over the issue of their privacy on the Internet.


The following is a link to the article referred to in my blog: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/71412.html

Critical Analysis- The Facebook Effect (Part III)

So, I have finally completed the book, The Facebook Effect, by David Kirkpatrick, and I must say that it was, by far, my most favorite book of our technology and culture course. I loved learning about the creation of Facebook, and I think that because the book is about something so current and relevant, it is all the more interesting. Facebook has had a huge impact upon the whole world, whether one participates on Facebook or not. Many businesses have now chosen to promote their goods and services through Facebook pages rather than their own websites. If a person wants up to date information on a current product, he is better off creating a Facebook account so he can visit that company's Facebook page rather than their websites. Not to say that a company's website won't be up to date or give you the information that you desire, but their Facebook page allows the consumer to become more interactive. Many fan pages created by businesses encourage consumers to provide feedback and ideas for new products. Facebook has realized this and has found a way to profit by placing ads on Facebook that allow users to "like" or comment on something. Because of the success of these types of ads, Facebook decided to completely do away with banner advertisements. Facebook has also found a way to profit by using Facebook as a platform for other applications that are created by companies other than themselves. When people use the applications on Facebook, they are essentially agreeing to allow third party companies to use their information. Facebook also has the right to gather user information posted on people's pages to compute data statistics and demographics to sell to other companies. It is even said that Facebook has access to more information about people in the United States than the government does. Now, as much as I feel that this is a sort of invasion of privacy and a policy of surveillance, it is very smart in the interests of Facebook since more people visit Facebook than any other place on the web. Facebook gives Google a run for its money. Google places advertisements according to what people search and are already interested in, but Facebook runs advertisements that create new desires for products by showing that their friends are also interested in the product as well. With that being said, I feel that Facebook is here to stay for a while. It has touched the lives of many across the world and has continued to provide a standard of practicality for everyone who uses it. MySpace is no longer a threat to Facebook, especially now that it's shifted its focus on media entertainment, and Twitter is not meant to provide the types of services that Facebook does.