Forgot to mention that I found this site very interesting and useful. I will likely use it again in the future. The event I looked for was writing. I found this one and it sounds like a good one. For me, this is a tool to find actual events happing in our actual world rather than a virtual reality. Honestly, it scares me to think that one can do ANYTHING in Second Life that can be done in real life ... thoughts?
http://www.meetup.com/EastValleyWritingWorkshop/calendar/14865510/
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Social Media - eCommunication
I have to say that this week was a real challenge for me. I am not very comfortable with social media (e.g. i have had a Facebook account for a while, but rarely use much to my friends' annoyance). The videos, however, were interesting. After watching them i feel like I better get on board the social media train or I won't be able to catch up. As stated in an earlier post, Twitter is very new to me. I have learned about Foursquare, LinkedIn and other social media venues, but am not interested in participating (at least for now ... maybe time will change that). I can see the value of such networks in learning and sympathizing with others (as mentioned in the first two videos). To think that social media (though that isn't what the patients' site was aiming for) can change healthcare as we know it is fascinating. I suppose in a way I do subscribe to online "opinion" in regard to what people think about certain companies, doctors, treatments, drugs, etc. Social media will just be the way we even better communicate about these things.
Another very interesting thing I learned is that YouTube and other video-like venues are going to be the wave of the future. I can see the value of video -- like having personal experience -- but at the same time, so much of those videos are what I would call a waste of time. It seems anyone can put anything (video or otherwise) on the internet these days. What we need is a a way to sort (other than search--what if you don't know what you're looking for?) for the "best" and most accurate stuff available rather than the most popular information/entertainment.
Finally, I want to comment on my experience with something I did not want any part of ever: Second Life. I have read and heard so much about people who lose themselves entirely in virtual worlds like Second Life. I firmly believe we should always know the difference between reality and "virtuality" ... When I went into Second Life, I felt so lost. Clearly it is a world all of its own. The 3-D aspect was very cool and I can see how people can get wrapped up in it. People were eager to talk to me in there. I was hesitant, but wanted to understand the point. I found myself adding friends and chatting with people I didn't know at all. I tried to change my appearance, but found it didn't work the way I thought it did. I suppose I would have to spend much more than an hour in there to really learn my way around. I did go shopping and visit several different sims (first time I heard the term). Unbelievable to think that there are over 2000 sims in Second Life, and more are being built all the time. Crazy! What else is crazy is to know that some people spend and make real-life money through Second Life. So people are using these "fake" worlds to pursue business in this one. Wow! I must definitely be missing the point. In addition, it bugs me that the whole world is unreal -- even down to the last name, which is chosen for you! Yikes! What if someone really wanted to be themselves (heaven forbid) ... they don't even have the option.
I suppose I just don't get the point of such media. Perhaps if you have no real commitments or business in this world, such a world can be inviting. But for one like me who can hardly keep it together in this world sometimes (going here and there all the time), I find no purpose in "wasting" my precious time in virtual worlds. Perhaps I would feel differently about World of Warcraft, but I didn't have time to do both. Plus, from what I hear, Second Life is more amazing that WoW ... I'd love to hear your opinions on that.
As for application to PA, I think something like Second Life could add real stress to our world because people gain unrealistic relationships in these virtual worlds. Connections made there should correspond to relationships here, but I'm not sure they do. What about law suits inside Second Life (not sure they exist, but let's say they do). If real money can be spent/earned in Second Life, will the winnings of a suit be paid in real dollars? If so, that could cause great concern. Also, what about husbands who "cheat" on their wives in the virtual world? Is that cause for divorce? What is to stop these virtual worlds from overlapping further and further into the "real" world? To me, that's where issues for PAs come through - where do we draw the line? And why? Is it necessary? I personally think it is!
Another very interesting thing I learned is that YouTube and other video-like venues are going to be the wave of the future. I can see the value of video -- like having personal experience -- but at the same time, so much of those videos are what I would call a waste of time. It seems anyone can put anything (video or otherwise) on the internet these days. What we need is a a way to sort (other than search--what if you don't know what you're looking for?) for the "best" and most accurate stuff available rather than the most popular information/entertainment.
Finally, I want to comment on my experience with something I did not want any part of ever: Second Life. I have read and heard so much about people who lose themselves entirely in virtual worlds like Second Life. I firmly believe we should always know the difference between reality and "virtuality" ... When I went into Second Life, I felt so lost. Clearly it is a world all of its own. The 3-D aspect was very cool and I can see how people can get wrapped up in it. People were eager to talk to me in there. I was hesitant, but wanted to understand the point. I found myself adding friends and chatting with people I didn't know at all. I tried to change my appearance, but found it didn't work the way I thought it did. I suppose I would have to spend much more than an hour in there to really learn my way around. I did go shopping and visit several different sims (first time I heard the term). Unbelievable to think that there are over 2000 sims in Second Life, and more are being built all the time. Crazy! What else is crazy is to know that some people spend and make real-life money through Second Life. So people are using these "fake" worlds to pursue business in this one. Wow! I must definitely be missing the point. In addition, it bugs me that the whole world is unreal -- even down to the last name, which is chosen for you! Yikes! What if someone really wanted to be themselves (heaven forbid) ... they don't even have the option.
I suppose I just don't get the point of such media. Perhaps if you have no real commitments or business in this world, such a world can be inviting. But for one like me who can hardly keep it together in this world sometimes (going here and there all the time), I find no purpose in "wasting" my precious time in virtual worlds. Perhaps I would feel differently about World of Warcraft, but I didn't have time to do both. Plus, from what I hear, Second Life is more amazing that WoW ... I'd love to hear your opinions on that.
As for application to PA, I think something like Second Life could add real stress to our world because people gain unrealistic relationships in these virtual worlds. Connections made there should correspond to relationships here, but I'm not sure they do. What about law suits inside Second Life (not sure they exist, but let's say they do). If real money can be spent/earned in Second Life, will the winnings of a suit be paid in real dollars? If so, that could cause great concern. Also, what about husbands who "cheat" on their wives in the virtual world? Is that cause for divorce? What is to stop these virtual worlds from overlapping further and further into the "real" world? To me, that's where issues for PAs come through - where do we draw the line? And why? Is it necessary? I personally think it is!
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Lessig video: Laws that Choke Creativity
I really enjoyed the video. For one thing, it was good to put a face to the author of the book Code 2.0 we've been studying the past few weeks. Also, he just reiterated the points he made in his book about copyright and piracy. Just like laws needed to be modified/clarified when airplanes were said to trespass over farmland, laws now need to be updated/changed to distinguish between piracy and ability to re-create. In his book Code 2.0, Lessig asks the question of the balance between law and technology to control such issues (p. 200). He says that writers/authors/composers (basically creators) need to have a choice for how they let people use their protected ideas. But law is necessary to create/keep the balance and give "public some access, but not complete access" (Lessig, p. 185) to the creator's production. The other argument he makes is that people (children specifically) will be pirates otherwise, which is corrosive.
In terms of public administration, it will be important to make policies about conflicting issues such as these: piracy and copyright and (re)creativity. If we do not make such policies that balance out the issues (as Lessig describes), we will be dooming society to an underground network of re-creation and so-called piracy similar to the underground networks during Prohibition. The question will be how we can do this to make all parties satisfied. Not sure that is possible.
While my interest in public administration has little to do with making policies or casting judgement, I want to be a more informed and active citizen. As one who is familiar with re-creation (have seen it but have not done it myself), I can see the value in protecting one's right to do that. However, I can also understand the need to protect original work. It will be interesting to see what happens regarding legislation in this area.
In terms of public administration, it will be important to make policies about conflicting issues such as these: piracy and copyright and (re)creativity. If we do not make such policies that balance out the issues (as Lessig describes), we will be dooming society to an underground network of re-creation and so-called piracy similar to the underground networks during Prohibition. The question will be how we can do this to make all parties satisfied. Not sure that is possible.
While my interest in public administration has little to do with making policies or casting judgement, I want to be a more informed and active citizen. As one who is familiar with re-creation (have seen it but have not done it myself), I can see the value in protecting one's right to do that. However, I can also understand the need to protect original work. It will be interesting to see what happens regarding legislation in this area.
Article Analysis
After reading the many articles listed to analyze through the lens of chapter 7 in Code 2.0, I chose "And You Thought a Prescription was Private" by Milt Freudenheim. in this article, the problem is that a woman trying to conceive used various fertilization drugs and in vitro fertilization and is still receiving advertisements and other materials for those kinds of drugs. She thought her prescription information was private, but in reality, it wasn't. Most of her personal information (name, address, even social) were listed on the prescription and the pill bottle (just like any prescription). Third parties were able to get that information either directly from the pharmacy (buy/sell) or through hacking the system.
Since this issue affected anyone who bought prescription drugs, something had to be done to regulate who has access to personal health information. Under the new stimulus law enacted by President Obama earlier this year, selling personal health information is illegal except in the case of tracking trends (which isn't personal, just data) of illness like the flu.
Two things are in conflict here: protecting personal (health) information and personalized advertising (as Lessig describes in chapter 11 of Code 2.0: using such data "simply to make the market work more smoothly" p. 219). ) On the one hand, people want to be sure their information is private--only for them. But on the other hand, vendors and companies want to have some information to target specific audiences and promote sales.
In this case, law is the constraint on prescription information (health information). Perhaps a better solution would be to combine legal constraints with architectural constraints. While the pharmacies accused of selling personal health information (Walgreens, CVS) claim that "names of patients are removed or encrypted before data is sold, typically to drug manufacturers" (Freudenheim), obviously that encryption wasn't enough. Perhaps code should be made to further encrypt personal information--granted, i don't know the actual possibilities of that protecting information any better than before. Other than these two constraints, I can't see other ways of protecting information. That is, even if the market raised the price of information, it would still be sold. And, what kind of social norm would regulate the sale of personal information? Are people going to stop going to the drugstore? Likely no. So the best solution would be to add technology regulations to the legal regulations.
I suppose the conflict between using both architectural and legal constraints is that they are both already in use to some degree. With the recent legislation, both law and code protect prescription information. The problem is that perhaps more legislation and/or more code is necessary to really protect people's privacy the way they desire. Lessig would argue that there should be some way to give out data to promote market activity, while also protecting privacy (p. 219). This seems impossible, however, because how will marketers discriminate advertising without having the information that will allow them to do so? Perhaps the way to have "advertising ... go to those people for whom it would be useful information" (Lessig p. 219) is to make information accessible but only addresses (not names). So flyers could come to the house but not necessarily addressed specifically to you. And if you moved, then, those flyers wouldn't follow you. Most people would say this is still infringement on their privacy, but "people value privacy differently" (Lessig 228).
This was actually a difficult article to analyze. I would love to hear any comments or ideas you have on the subject.
Since this issue affected anyone who bought prescription drugs, something had to be done to regulate who has access to personal health information. Under the new stimulus law enacted by President Obama earlier this year, selling personal health information is illegal except in the case of tracking trends (which isn't personal, just data) of illness like the flu.
Two things are in conflict here: protecting personal (health) information and personalized advertising (as Lessig describes in chapter 11 of Code 2.0: using such data "simply to make the market work more smoothly" p. 219). ) On the one hand, people want to be sure their information is private--only for them. But on the other hand, vendors and companies want to have some information to target specific audiences and promote sales.
In this case, law is the constraint on prescription information (health information). Perhaps a better solution would be to combine legal constraints with architectural constraints. While the pharmacies accused of selling personal health information (Walgreens, CVS) claim that "names of patients are removed or encrypted before data is sold, typically to drug manufacturers" (Freudenheim), obviously that encryption wasn't enough. Perhaps code should be made to further encrypt personal information--granted, i don't know the actual possibilities of that protecting information any better than before. Other than these two constraints, I can't see other ways of protecting information. That is, even if the market raised the price of information, it would still be sold. And, what kind of social norm would regulate the sale of personal information? Are people going to stop going to the drugstore? Likely no. So the best solution would be to add technology regulations to the legal regulations.
I suppose the conflict between using both architectural and legal constraints is that they are both already in use to some degree. With the recent legislation, both law and code protect prescription information. The problem is that perhaps more legislation and/or more code is necessary to really protect people's privacy the way they desire. Lessig would argue that there should be some way to give out data to promote market activity, while also protecting privacy (p. 219). This seems impossible, however, because how will marketers discriminate advertising without having the information that will allow them to do so? Perhaps the way to have "advertising ... go to those people for whom it would be useful information" (Lessig p. 219) is to make information accessible but only addresses (not names). So flyers could come to the house but not necessarily addressed specifically to you. And if you moved, then, those flyers wouldn't follow you. Most people would say this is still infringement on their privacy, but "people value privacy differently" (Lessig 228).
This was actually a difficult article to analyze. I would love to hear any comments or ideas you have on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)