I thought I was done with this blog, considering that I had more or less exhausted my ideas and my stash of articles.
Apparently I was wrong.
I stumbled upon this article just last night, and I feel the irresistible urge to post this one. I've reached a point where few things surprise me these days. This makes this article all the more shocking, as it has managed to shock me.
Article
Someone at this particular school thought it would be a hilarious prank to blindfold certain students, then have them make out with their opposite-sex parent. This person was clearly having a great day, because their brain said: "Hey, you know what would be EVEN funnier?". And thus these parents were NOT blindfolded. Yes, these parents willingly and knowingly made out with their child.
As the article points out, you actually do see a mother pull her son's hand down to grab her ass. You can see it at 0:28 in the video. What really gets me though, is how the video says, at the very end "Embarrassing, right?". I believe the word they were looking for was "disturbing".
On that note, I hope you enjoyed reading this blog as much as I enjoyed writing it.
Friday, 16 December 2011
Thursday, 15 December 2011
On the dangers of the internet and Scientology...
Here are a few articles I've found in the past few weeks.
Article 1
This first one is an article regarding the decapitation of a grocery store clerk. I find this particular article to be particularly stupid, considering that it barely makes any mention of video games, despite the fact that the title includes "...was keen online gamer". The mentions of video gaming felt more like an after-thought, as though the authors (or their superiors) decided to tack it on, either for the sake of sensationalism, or because they absolutely want to bash gaming.
Further down, they mention that the victim had played Assassin's Creed, and felt the need to mention that it included a decapitation scene, at which point they go on to mention that the police were only using the consoles to try and see who the victim had been playing with/against. Essentially, I feel that none of these comments were necessary, and simply reflect a bias against gaming.
Article 2
This next article simply demonstrates the dangers of the internet for small businesses. You need to be careful about what you put up on the internet, because you clearly never know who might be reading.
Article 3
This last one, if the story proves to be true, is by far the most disturbing of these three. Apparently, a woman was held captive aboard a Scientology cruise ship for more than a decade.
The big problem with this article, but especially with the story itself, is that we don't really know enough about the situation to be able to conclusively pick a side. On one hand, the woman's story is shocking and appalling, enough that we would want to sympathize with her, especially considering that the article focuses on her side of the story.
However, reading the statement made by the Church of Scientology, we get a completely different picture. Apparently, she was a volunteer crew member, and had even met her husband during this time. Said husband denies her allegations, and the statement argues that she took several extended trips to various countries, during which she passed through customs. Even assuming that customs would have records of her passage, we cannot be sure that she necessarily went willingly.
The big issue in this case is that it's the word of one woman versus the word of a powerful (and rich) organization, for whom keeping such things secret is in its best interests. Again, the article does not provide us with enough information to make an informed decision as to who we choose to believe.
Lastly, even if the whole story was indeed a fabrication, we need to ask ourselves: why would she make such allegations in the first place? What are her motives for doing so?
Article 1
This first one is an article regarding the decapitation of a grocery store clerk. I find this particular article to be particularly stupid, considering that it barely makes any mention of video games, despite the fact that the title includes "...was keen online gamer". The mentions of video gaming felt more like an after-thought, as though the authors (or their superiors) decided to tack it on, either for the sake of sensationalism, or because they absolutely want to bash gaming.
Further down, they mention that the victim had played Assassin's Creed, and felt the need to mention that it included a decapitation scene, at which point they go on to mention that the police were only using the consoles to try and see who the victim had been playing with/against. Essentially, I feel that none of these comments were necessary, and simply reflect a bias against gaming.
Article 2
This next article simply demonstrates the dangers of the internet for small businesses. You need to be careful about what you put up on the internet, because you clearly never know who might be reading.
Article 3
This last one, if the story proves to be true, is by far the most disturbing of these three. Apparently, a woman was held captive aboard a Scientology cruise ship for more than a decade.
The big problem with this article, but especially with the story itself, is that we don't really know enough about the situation to be able to conclusively pick a side. On one hand, the woman's story is shocking and appalling, enough that we would want to sympathize with her, especially considering that the article focuses on her side of the story.
However, reading the statement made by the Church of Scientology, we get a completely different picture. Apparently, she was a volunteer crew member, and had even met her husband during this time. Said husband denies her allegations, and the statement argues that she took several extended trips to various countries, during which she passed through customs. Even assuming that customs would have records of her passage, we cannot be sure that she necessarily went willingly.
The big issue in this case is that it's the word of one woman versus the word of a powerful (and rich) organization, for whom keeping such things secret is in its best interests. Again, the article does not provide us with enough information to make an informed decision as to who we choose to believe.
Lastly, even if the whole story was indeed a fabrication, we need to ask ourselves: why would she make such allegations in the first place? What are her motives for doing so?
Wednesday, 14 December 2011
From the mind of Fred
This particular post is going to be a compilation of several thoughts that came to me during the last few lectures of the semester. Though Kate has already heard them, I figured it would be nice to record them... for posterity. Most of them have to do with surveillance.
First, in class, Mel brought up the topic of washrooms. She told us how much she hates being able to hear the other women in the bathroom while they pee. When I heard this, it got me thinking. The dynamics of washrooms is completely different for men and women. Though women may be able to hear one another, at least they're separated by stalls. Most men's washrooms don't have any form of separation between urinals. Thus, there is that unwritten and unspoken code that men must avoid all eye-contact, and simply look straight ahead. This proximity also means that we can heard each other. Thus, men have the added factor of sight when conducting this particular business. A bit of extra surveillance (such as a guard) probably wouldn't hurt us nearly as much as it would the ladies. But then, am I saying that I would like to have surveillance even in washrooms? No. Never. It wouldn't be doing a favour to those with shy bladders.
The second thing that got me thinking was Jared's comment regarding God. He posited that with the disappearance of God in our societies (relatively speaking...), we have much less surveillance to put up with, since the eyes of God never leave you. As a result, the constant video surveillance we are under would constitute a downgrade of that, considering that these cameras (currently) do not cover every single location; you still have a good deal of privacy.
Though I don't quite know where Jared stands on this issue (I can guess though), I am an atheist, and I would disagree with his point. While I can agree that cameras may be a step down in terms of absolute surveillance, I do not agree that they are necessarily better, for two reasons. First, I never believed in God, even as a kid. Thus, I've never really felt the eyes of God on me, and never felt bound by that. This has never stopped me from trying to do what I think is right. Secondly, and more importantly, the footage captured by cameras is reviewed (or viewed, if live) by other humans like ourselves. God may be judging us based on our actions, but he is also omniscient, and probably doesn't care if you happen to pick your nose while you're at the mall. However, security guard #1 is probably laughing his ass off, and showing security guards #2 and 3. They may even have put it up on youtube. Thus, the problem with this type of surveillance is that although it is not absolute, the people doing the watching are just as fallible as we are, and you can be sure that they are casting hasty, uninformed judgements upon those they spy upon. Lastly, were it not for this type of surveillance, I would have even more privacy, given that I don't have God watching me, and I wouldn't have cameras recording my every move. Accepting cameras as a lesser evil to the surveillance of God would be like telling oneself that the Alberta Sterilization Act wasn't so bad, because at least we didn't kill any of the feeble-minded; we simply sterilized them.
This brings me to a point that Phil has made a few times, and that I have been mulling over. Phil claims that surveillance is only bad if you have done something wrong. I would argue that this is not the case. As I pointed out above, the people watching you through that camera are human, and prone to making fun of people. More importantly though, cameras actually RECORD what you do. Let's use a concrete example to illustrate my point: you're at a mall, in plain sight of a camera (though you probably haven't noticed it), and you sneeze without putting your hand in front of your mouth. Normally, if someone else had seen you do it, you'd have a chance to pass it off as something else, or otherwise redeem yourself in their eyes, by justifying yourself. However, that camera and its footage will not accept excuses, and won't be fooled by any of your attempts at saving face. Instead, that camera will remember what happened with completely clarity. More importantly, the person watching can access that footage. What happens if they post this footage on youtube? Next thing you know, you could be framed as a threat to public health, simply because of this, despite the fact that people everywhere are doing it all the time. Why you?
The problem with this kind of surveillance is that you are under much closer scrutiny than you otherwise would be, even surrounded by dozens of people. A camera will catch every single little thing you do, every slip up. Thus, with this kind of scrutiny, it is easy for people to become far more critical of one another, because we can more clearly see each other's flaws. We are all human, and we are all flawed (usually in much the same ways). However, we all have ways of hiding these flaws, or passing them off as something else. With cameras, these mechanisms cannot work, and so they are able to pierce this veil of perfection that we cast around ourselves. Thus, I would argue that constant surveillance can only lead to more problems, because we are being held to a much greater standard that none of us are capable of upholding.
First, in class, Mel brought up the topic of washrooms. She told us how much she hates being able to hear the other women in the bathroom while they pee. When I heard this, it got me thinking. The dynamics of washrooms is completely different for men and women. Though women may be able to hear one another, at least they're separated by stalls. Most men's washrooms don't have any form of separation between urinals. Thus, there is that unwritten and unspoken code that men must avoid all eye-contact, and simply look straight ahead. This proximity also means that we can heard each other. Thus, men have the added factor of sight when conducting this particular business. A bit of extra surveillance (such as a guard) probably wouldn't hurt us nearly as much as it would the ladies. But then, am I saying that I would like to have surveillance even in washrooms? No. Never. It wouldn't be doing a favour to those with shy bladders.
The second thing that got me thinking was Jared's comment regarding God. He posited that with the disappearance of God in our societies (relatively speaking...), we have much less surveillance to put up with, since the eyes of God never leave you. As a result, the constant video surveillance we are under would constitute a downgrade of that, considering that these cameras (currently) do not cover every single location; you still have a good deal of privacy.
Though I don't quite know where Jared stands on this issue (I can guess though), I am an atheist, and I would disagree with his point. While I can agree that cameras may be a step down in terms of absolute surveillance, I do not agree that they are necessarily better, for two reasons. First, I never believed in God, even as a kid. Thus, I've never really felt the eyes of God on me, and never felt bound by that. This has never stopped me from trying to do what I think is right. Secondly, and more importantly, the footage captured by cameras is reviewed (or viewed, if live) by other humans like ourselves. God may be judging us based on our actions, but he is also omniscient, and probably doesn't care if you happen to pick your nose while you're at the mall. However, security guard #1 is probably laughing his ass off, and showing security guards #2 and 3. They may even have put it up on youtube. Thus, the problem with this type of surveillance is that although it is not absolute, the people doing the watching are just as fallible as we are, and you can be sure that they are casting hasty, uninformed judgements upon those they spy upon. Lastly, were it not for this type of surveillance, I would have even more privacy, given that I don't have God watching me, and I wouldn't have cameras recording my every move. Accepting cameras as a lesser evil to the surveillance of God would be like telling oneself that the Alberta Sterilization Act wasn't so bad, because at least we didn't kill any of the feeble-minded; we simply sterilized them.
This brings me to a point that Phil has made a few times, and that I have been mulling over. Phil claims that surveillance is only bad if you have done something wrong. I would argue that this is not the case. As I pointed out above, the people watching you through that camera are human, and prone to making fun of people. More importantly though, cameras actually RECORD what you do. Let's use a concrete example to illustrate my point: you're at a mall, in plain sight of a camera (though you probably haven't noticed it), and you sneeze without putting your hand in front of your mouth. Normally, if someone else had seen you do it, you'd have a chance to pass it off as something else, or otherwise redeem yourself in their eyes, by justifying yourself. However, that camera and its footage will not accept excuses, and won't be fooled by any of your attempts at saving face. Instead, that camera will remember what happened with completely clarity. More importantly, the person watching can access that footage. What happens if they post this footage on youtube? Next thing you know, you could be framed as a threat to public health, simply because of this, despite the fact that people everywhere are doing it all the time. Why you?
The problem with this kind of surveillance is that you are under much closer scrutiny than you otherwise would be, even surrounded by dozens of people. A camera will catch every single little thing you do, every slip up. Thus, with this kind of scrutiny, it is easy for people to become far more critical of one another, because we can more clearly see each other's flaws. We are all human, and we are all flawed (usually in much the same ways). However, we all have ways of hiding these flaws, or passing them off as something else. With cameras, these mechanisms cannot work, and so they are able to pierce this veil of perfection that we cast around ourselves. Thus, I would argue that constant surveillance can only lead to more problems, because we are being held to a much greater standard that none of us are capable of upholding.
Thursday, 8 December 2011
V for Anonymous
A while back, I came across the following article while browsing an internet forum:
Article
Essentially, the Zetas, a particularly violent Mexican drug cartel, kidnapped a member of Anonymous during a street protest. Anonymous is an international group of hackers. In this case, Anonymous was threatening to reveal the identities and addresses of the cartel's associates. With such information, competing gangs would completely rip apart the Zetas.
As you can see in the video linked in the article (as well as one of the quotes in the article), Anonymous is making clever use of "V for Vendetta", not only by using V's mask to cover the speaker's identity, but also when he says "If anything happens to him, you sons of (expletive) will always remember this upcoming November 5". The article was posted around October 28, which happens to be quite close to November 5th.
This article in itself is very interesting, but it is even more so in the context of this class. After this article was linked, a discussion about the article began. One person was trying to argue that he did not believe that Anonymous actually had this kind of information beforehand, and that the whole thing had been a bluff. Others argued against him, but his bottomline message was that he did not fully accept what the article was saying.
This goes back to what we had talked about in class, when saying that we should always be careful when consuming media, because we are never getting the full story, and the full context. This is especially true of this article, considering that we have no clue why it was that the Zetas decided to kidnap this person. Could it be that they somehow knew that he was a member of Anonymous? If so, then what business would the Zetas have with/against Anonymous in the first place? This also begs the question: how did Anonymous even know about the kidnapping?
The problem with this article is that it does not give us enough information about the context in which this occurred; it merely reports this particular event without giving us an understanding of why this happened in the first place.
After all, context is very important:
A few days later, someone had posted a follow-up article on the matter:
Follow-up article
In the article, it is mentioned that the Zetas released their hostage, who was relatively unharmed. The Zetas had made a counter-threat, saying that releasing information about them would lead to retaliation against the family of the hostage, as well as the murder of 10 people for every name revealed.
Though we may have reason to doubt that Anonymous even has this information, there is no reason to believe that the Zetas wouldn't follow through with their threats. This case is a great example of the repercussions that one's actions online can have in real life. A single blog post could have resulted in the loss of untold lives.
In his article, Goldsmith talks about the impact of media technologies on policing. This case stretches that notion further, by talking about the impacts of these technologies on intelligence gathering in general, and how these technologies can empower groups like Anonymous. Conversely, it can also endanger the lives of those using them, as pointed out by the second article: "A budding domestic effort among Mexican Internet users to expose the cartels was crushed this summer when the mutilated bodies of two bloggers were found hanging from a highway overpass, and a third was found decapitated in a park".
Article
Essentially, the Zetas, a particularly violent Mexican drug cartel, kidnapped a member of Anonymous during a street protest. Anonymous is an international group of hackers. In this case, Anonymous was threatening to reveal the identities and addresses of the cartel's associates. With such information, competing gangs would completely rip apart the Zetas.
As you can see in the video linked in the article (as well as one of the quotes in the article), Anonymous is making clever use of "V for Vendetta", not only by using V's mask to cover the speaker's identity, but also when he says "If anything happens to him, you sons of (expletive) will always remember this upcoming November 5". The article was posted around October 28, which happens to be quite close to November 5th.
This article in itself is very interesting, but it is even more so in the context of this class. After this article was linked, a discussion about the article began. One person was trying to argue that he did not believe that Anonymous actually had this kind of information beforehand, and that the whole thing had been a bluff. Others argued against him, but his bottomline message was that he did not fully accept what the article was saying.
This goes back to what we had talked about in class, when saying that we should always be careful when consuming media, because we are never getting the full story, and the full context. This is especially true of this article, considering that we have no clue why it was that the Zetas decided to kidnap this person. Could it be that they somehow knew that he was a member of Anonymous? If so, then what business would the Zetas have with/against Anonymous in the first place? This also begs the question: how did Anonymous even know about the kidnapping?
The problem with this article is that it does not give us enough information about the context in which this occurred; it merely reports this particular event without giving us an understanding of why this happened in the first place.
After all, context is very important:
A few days later, someone had posted a follow-up article on the matter:
Follow-up article
In the article, it is mentioned that the Zetas released their hostage, who was relatively unharmed. The Zetas had made a counter-threat, saying that releasing information about them would lead to retaliation against the family of the hostage, as well as the murder of 10 people for every name revealed.
Though we may have reason to doubt that Anonymous even has this information, there is no reason to believe that the Zetas wouldn't follow through with their threats. This case is a great example of the repercussions that one's actions online can have in real life. A single blog post could have resulted in the loss of untold lives.
In his article, Goldsmith talks about the impact of media technologies on policing. This case stretches that notion further, by talking about the impacts of these technologies on intelligence gathering in general, and how these technologies can empower groups like Anonymous. Conversely, it can also endanger the lives of those using them, as pointed out by the second article: "A budding domestic effort among Mexican Internet users to expose the cartels was crushed this summer when the mutilated bodies of two bloggers were found hanging from a highway overpass, and a third was found decapitated in a park".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)