Defeating Homophily

In the transcript of the interview between Brooke Gladstone and Ethan Zuckerman, Zuckerman points out the before unseen consequences where a culture has access to 'diverse views, surprising voices, and news we need', yet is trending towards the proverb of 'birds of a feather flock together' and only following the news that fits within their own frame of mind. Zuckerman points out that this overload of information created from the digital media has the potential impact of making our society stupid, as "we have the ability to pick and choose whatever it is that we want to look at, [and] we've gone from a supply problem to a demand problem."Additionally, he poses the question of "how do we build an Internet that doesn't just show us what we want to see but also does a pretty good job of showing us what we need to see?" This question would lend itself to the solution that editorial overview is necessary in making sure that citizens of society are exposed to 'all of the news fit to print' to quote The New York Times in order to delay or impending stupidity.  However, this solution immediately leads to the new question of how we could force our citizens to analyze news that has been put forth by a large collection of biased (but ethical and reliable) journalists. Or, we could have the House of Representatives and Senate appoint a chief news editor who would create a daily print/online media source to be distributed in all public areas containing the top ten stories daily that are not being focused on by major media in order to create differentiated interest within the public. Granted, homophily would be created by the public all reading the same publication; hopefully, this publication would only serve as a stepping stone for the public to discover some of the other media on the Internet.

Response to Alali Dagogo

In response Alali Dagogo, he states that United States will continue to demote Free Speech every time a threat presents itself. Actually, free speech is vital for a democratic system of government. It also reflects a social commitment to the value of individual freedom and personal autonomy. Furthermore, it is flurrying that in the event of a threat, First Amendment rights are the first things to go. He also states that the purpose of agitation is just a method for the government to convince citizens to surrender our Fourth Amendment rights just as we surrender our First Amendment rights with the PATRIOT. Yes, it is true that the government may restrain only speech that is likely to motivate imminent unlawful action. The First Amendment protects even speech that calls for overrule of the government or lawless action. The government, may, nevertheless enforce reasonable limitations upon the time, place and manner in which speech is practiced in order to preserve public order and the smooth functioning of public organization.

Response to Sims' "Virtual World"

In response to Sims’ post I have to agree with Alali in the fact that the majority of people who spend countless hours creating a new version of themselves would not say that what they are doing is a video game. I think a good deal of these people have problems interacting with people in a face to face setting so they use the avatar and the internet as sort of a barrier to safely do things that they would never do in real life. Referring to Alali’s response again, I think Dateline is a perfect example of this. There have been psychologists on the show who have talked about how certain people, when they talk, blog, or post things online, they suddenly feel this power that they don’t have in real life and will say anything because they don’t fear the repercussions of their actions because of the shield of cyberspace.

Cheating in Virtual Worlds

It seemed like when we discussed the topic of virtual world relations and if they could in fact be considered cheating that the class was pretty evenly divided on both sides of the issue. However, I think that if someone is in a sexual relationship in a virtual world that it is the same as having one in the real world. Sure only the avatars are actually engaging in the elements of a real relationship, even if it is in cyber space, but the people behind them are the ones controlling the avatars. It seems from what we discussed in class that the avatars are meant to be an extension of oneself. The avatars are put in this virtual space that is almost free of limitations so that the person controlling the avatar can live out dreams not thought possible by them in reality. So if a person is engaging in a relationship with someone else in cyberspace they must have some desire to do so in the real world, they just happen to do it virtually. However, the desires are still there and the actions are still carried out by the physical person so I believe it to be cheating. How is engaging in a conversation, sexual or nonsexual, online any different than calling someone on the telephone. I think that a good deal of people would think that a married person having repeated phone sex with someone other than their partner would be considered cheating, and I don’t think that this situation is any different.

Response to Sims Frazier's Virtual World

In his analysis of our class discussion on virtual cheating, Sims expresses the viewpoint that creating an avatar that engages in adulterous behaviors does not necessarily translate to committing adultery in real life. I would love to agree with Sims but from personal experience I’ve found that the type of people who invest large amounts of time in creating virtual avatars and leading second lives are not normal people, to say the least. A disproportionately large number of these people are borderline sociopaths who need to the Internet to socialize. As a result, they create these new and improved versions of themselves online to attract companions. So while your significant other may swear up and down that that virtual kiss with McDreamy8787 meant nothing, chances are he/she is lying. There are thousands of people who “seem normal” who are not normal and use the Internet as a tool to practice their abnormal behaviors. If you don’t believe me, you might want to tune in to “To Catch A Predator” on MSNBC’s Dateline.

Freedom of Speech (Provided There Are No Threats)

Anthony Lewis, author of Freedom for the Thought We Hate, makes a judgment that the United States will continue to marginalize free speech every time a threat presents itself. The past examples he uses to support his hypothesis are the Sedition Act of 1786, the Red Scare, and the imprisonment of Japanese Americans during World War II. However, he finds the War on Terrorism different from the threats of the past. Since we have no concrete enemy to surrender, they may very well be no decisive end to this war, and therefore there may be no decisive end to the limits put on our First Amendment rights as a result. Like Lewis, I find it disconcerting that in the event of a threat, First Amendment rights are the first thing to go. We are a country of fear mongers. I believe the terror alerts at the airport illustrate this point. All this hullaballoo about red, orange, and yellow alerts is just a way for the government to convince citizens to surrender our Fourth Amendment rights just as we surrendered out First Amendment rights with the PATRIOT Act. The government and citizens refuse to learn from the past, though, as Lewis points out, we do a really good job of apologizing for our trespasses after the fact. Though there is protest, the majority of citizens view allowing the government to reduce their Constitutional protection as their civic duty during these unstable times. However, I believe that now more than ever, we need to fight to preserve our Constitutional rights. After all, how can we claim to be fighting terrorism to promote liberty abroad when we are reducing liberty at home?

Re: Amy's free speech blog

In response to Amy’s piece on freedom of speech, I agree with her points and believe they were thought out very well. As Amy indirectly suggests, people in countries with the right of free speech do not quite give that right the appreciation it deserves. For instance, in some foreign countries people cannot even google certain words because the government literally makes those topics disappear and not even appear when typed into google. This is unfair to those people being subjected to this censorship. People should have the right to learn about anything they want. I understand the motives behind blocking some websites but think that it is corrupt in nature. I just cannot imagine a life where I was told what I could learn about and also limiting the information I was allowed to know. In all, it seems that these limitations do nothing but hinder the capabilities of individuals in society. For our society to grow and become stronger, we must be allowed to learn.

Virtual World

In response to the class dedicated to the discussion of the virtual world and cheating. The idea of whether it is considered cheating to engage in activities in the virtual world is very interesting. It could be claimed that by someone creating an avatar, it is not actually the person behind the computer screen. In a sense, it is just like a video game. I feel like this form of the virtual world, where there are no feelings attached, is not considered cheating. I do not know all about the virtual world but the way I take it is that a character is created and moves around and lives a life like the Sims. I do not think this is cheating because it is exactly like a video game, as long as no feelings are involved. I would not get mad at a girlfriend if she had a character in the Sims that started kissing another character. The line of cheating becomes unclear as the person behind controlling the avatar becomes emotionally attached to the other avatar. This, in my opinion, could be considered cheating because the controller of the avatar clearly wants the person behind the other computer screen for more than what the video game is worth. Also, by someone becoming emotionally attached to the other person, it is basically saying that they want the qualities the other person has. This can be termed as “liking” someone else. By liking someone else, it has changed your way of thinking in your current life.

Blog for Free Speech

Free speech is one of the best ways to speak our ideas about something that is being restricted. It is like standpoints as well as our perspectives about the issues. We have the right to speak our views even though there are a few individuals that would not agree of what I have said. However, those people cannot arrest and stop me of what I have done. In addition, free speech enables us to make an evaluation of those matters. For instance, I can speak my views to the public of what my thoughts about the abuse of children. They (the children) should be protected from being abuse because they just like those who are innocent and immature. They should not have to face this rude expression, which is intended to offend and hurt them. Notwithstanding, there is a few countries that protect the free speech. That means that the public would not be given a chance to speak their opinions, they have to accept and ‘swallow’ the rules even they are not accord with the rules. This should not be applied because there would be a number of populations in that county would suffer and endure of being held by that rules. Free speech gives our right to speak freely about what our viewpoints of those issues, especially in relation of public issues and by doing this, we can come into agreement according to what the major said about those issues. You can say whatever you like, as long as it does not interfere with the government.

Resisting Google

In the transcript form On The Media titled "Resisting Google", Drake Bennett of the Boston Globe reports that Google is becoming more and more like Big Brother and argues that Google is unfairly representing information to the public and deciding (through unknown practices) in what information is ranked. However, I believe that this transcript unfairly argues that Google is violating our individual privacy. First of all, the individuals who use Google are freely choosing to use Google as their search engine. While Google may store my searches in order to alter the advertisement I am shown in my side paneling, I am willing to 'give up' that part of my privacy in order to to achieve superior search results. In addition, it honestly seems as if Google as a corporation is fully fighting to defend the privacy rights of their users. Were Google offering to sell my information at any moment to government databases, I would be genuinely concerned. But heck, Google was not even willing to reveal the search trends and popular search terms of those who regularly viewed child pornography over the internet. If Google is willing to toss the child pornographers a bone, then I am willing to strongly believe that they would have little to no interest in my searches for banana bread recipes, Nashville gas prices, and news articles about my younger brother's high school football team. I am thinking that I am safe (and after reviewing my searches today, fairly boring). Bottom line, if you don't like Google's policy of respecting your privacy while tailoring their products to you, then just don't use it. But honestly, I'm going to stick with what works and be content knowing that everyone at Google knows just how lame my search history is.

Head Space

In the transcript from the interview titled "Head Space", Clive Thompson reveals to Brooke Gladstone the issues with hypersonic sound projections. Hypersonic sound projections are targeted sound waves that are heard directly inside the head of a specified individual, but remain unheard by other surrounding individuals. In the case of this interview, Mr. Thompson is talking about a billboard on Prince Street in New York City where the television station A&E was promoting a new show on the paranormal experience. While in this case the sound being targeted at passerby's is 'just' a loud, disturbing noise, Mr. Thompson is quick to point out many of the issues that would come with increased technology, such as but not limited to hypersonic sound projections, that would essentially destroy the personal privacy that people have to their own thoughts and emotions. One of the more disturbing issues with this new technology is its ability to violate unassuming individuals and have knowledge of whether or not that individual was lying. As the example is given, large quantities of individuals could be analyzed in settings such as airports without their consent or even without notification that they are being subjected to such screening. While we as a society have been raised to believe lying is bad and that we should not partake in such behavior, we still should have the ability (and moral conscience) to control when, where, and to whom we lie to without being outed by airport security. Take for example the question of "Did you pack your own bags?" I assume this is a question that most business men commonly answer 'yes' to without even consciously thinking that it was actually their wives who packed their bags. Perhaps they would experience unknown 'mental anguish' before answering (how the lie is to be detected by infrared beams) and the airport security will potentially assume that each one of these business men is a common terrorist. More questions of how to safeguard our privacy need to be answered before public spaces can be used to infiltrate our head space.

Response to Consumer Panopticon

After I read this blog, it was quite hard for me to believe that the concept of Consumer Panopticon was actually developed for monitoring prisoners as Alali Dagogo said. The concept was to instill in the prisoners of such a building the feeling of being under surveillance 24 hours a day, without necessarily being watched the whole time. This system is more effective because less guard is required to monitor those prisoners. This would make their jobs easier and efficient as there is no need to spend their precious time with supervising those prisoners because they can supervise within long-distance. The same thing goes to Google and Google email because they use this concept to advertise when they want to display something that has been searched by all users. Google would choose the display items based on the search history. Therefore, the item that is going to be display depends to our search history. However, others can easily use our search history in order for bad purposes.

Comments on Intellectual Property.

In response to Sims Frazier’s blog, I definitely agree that the intellectual property is the significant concept in our life nowadays as this is the only concept and way that we have to prevent our ideas from being stealing by others. Is that worth for us to endure the loss of our ideas that we have spent a lot of time thinking about it when someone who is irresponsible take it away without our permission? No, it is absolutely not worth for us to neglect as well as ignore when someone thieve our ideas unlawfully. Therefore, this is the purpose of creating intellectual property rights, to preserve our ideas and also our efforts. Sims also states that it would not be fine with another person simply using him for his thoughts and works. I also support his idea when he said “we measure our success by our growth, without growth, our societies would stand still and not up-to-date.

Comments on Intellectual Property

In response to Dave’s blog, he said that the increase in intellectual property rights somehow can actually halter someone’s creativity. Yes, I agree with this statement because intellectual properties sometimes prevent others to modify and alter others work. In my opinion, there is no wrong to upgrade other works because in doing so, that is the only chance and opportunity that we have to attain our life to better and more comfortable. Therefore, why should we stop our life from being advanced and forward-looking by providing intellectual property rights? In fact, that has been studies that show that people are actually more productive and generative when they receive less protection for their ideas. Therefore, we have to confess and see-eye-to-eye that it is much easier to build off of something that has already started like Dave said. Notwithstanding, there is no person in this world to let their ideas from being stealing unlawfully as they have tried their best effort to create that.

Blog for Privacy

In our previous lesson, we learned copyright which the interests imperiled yet threatened are powerful and well organized compare to privacy, which the interests threatened are disseminate and disorganized. According to one meaning of Brandeis’s slogan, privacy is “the right to be left alone”. Once you got privacy, no one can disturb and distract you unless you allow a limited space in case there is an emergency case likely to occur. For instance, when you are involved in any particular group, your personal information are protected and kept as safe as can be from being known by others. Nowadays, as the digital technologies bombard efficiently, these technologies have changed these protections, from being protected to unprotected. Obviously, there is a negative effect of high-glitter of technology because the expectation of privacy in what is reasonably understood to be ‘private’ spaces remains unchallenged by new technologies. In addition, the new technologies that started to grow in our era are actually for our good purposes, it makes our works less difficult and more efficient. For example, the revolution of the internet makes our life easier as the information can be acquired within our fingertips. The same thing goes to e-mail, V-mail, Voice, Video and so forth. “Privacy here is simply the protection against unreasonable and burdensome intrusions, and this search, the second youth argued, was not as unreasonable and burdensome as to justify the fit of anger.” I believe that it is pretty difficult to admit that the digital surveillance sometimes disrupt our privacies because it is annoying to live a life when privacies no longer being protected and defended.

Blog for Intellectual Property

When property law gives me the exclusive right to use my house, there is a very good reason for it. If you used my house while I did, I would have less to use. When the law gives me an exclusive right to my apple that too makes sense. If you eat my apple, then I cannot. Your use of my property ordinarily interferes with my use of my property. Your consumption reduces mine. (Lessig pg.181). This statement proves that why private laws are compulsory yet mandatory for our good purposes. In reality, private laws produce some collective goods because if it is abusive and hurtful, then there is no reason to produce it. These private laws are primal and cardinal because these private laws give smashing gains to all members of society. Yes, it is true and I agree that even with ordinary property; property rights are never downright and out-and-out because there are a few probabilities that our belongings and properties need to be used for other purposes. For example, your land may be taken for constructing buildings and then you have to willingly give it no matter how worthy the land is. In addition, it is like a forced decision, you have to, even though your properties have specified value to you. However, somehow our properties are required to be protected and defended as these are the priceless belongings that we own throughout our life. We have to protect our properties as we have the rights to do so.

Response to Kelly's Intellectual Property

Kelly’s posting on intellectual property echoes my sentiments exactly. I fully agree with her point that the RIAA’s “war” on peer-to-peer file sharing is futile. Our generation started using computers at an early age, but the following generations are even more adept at computing than we are. At 8, I could barely type. Today’s 8 year-olds are not only typing, but also Facebooking and uploading videos to YouTube. If the RIAA and other organizations formed for the purpose of stopping our generation’s internet piracy failed, they will definitely have a hell of a time attempting to curb the next generation. They need a new approach. Obviously the threat of a lawsuit has not deterred anyone from downloading music and movies and programs illegally. I obtained my copy of Microsoft Office illegally. Hearing about the other people who have been prosecuted for similar activity did not deter me. Furthermore, I don’t even feel guilty. On the contrary, I am proud. Every time, I open Word or Excel, I feel accomplished, like I’m sticking it to the proverbial man.

Response to Sims Frazier's Intellectual Property

In his defense of intellectual property, Sims cites the protection of pharmaceutical companies’ patents. He says that “intellectual property protects people and does no harm to society.” With respect to pharmaceutical companies though, I beg to differ. While I do believe that the scientists that work to create these medicines to cure awful illnesses should be compensated generously, I cannot in good conscience say that the 10 year patent protection protects people and does no harm to society. Not to sound socialist or idealist, but the idea of profiting from sick people is despicable at best and sadistic at worst. In this case, the true victims of intellectual property are not those who came up with the ideas, but those whose need inspired the innovation. I believe that regardless of the existence of patents and copyrights and other similar government issued intellectual property protection, people will continue to innovate. People innovate to improve situations, not necessarily to turn profit.

Consumer Panopticon or Big Brother??

I find it very curious that the concept behind the "Consumer Panopticon" was developed for the purpose of monitoring prisoners. As we discussed in class, Jeremy Bentham believed this system would be more efficient, since it reduced the number of guards needed in a prison. One guard could monitor several prisoners without being seen by the prisoners. As a result, the prisoners were better behaved because they were never sure of who was watching them.

Advertisers want to use the concept of the pan-opticon to monitor consumer activity to better serve them. Google and Google mail already use a variety of this concept in their advertising. They use keywords from your searches and emails to select which ads to display. The panopticon would take this one step further. Rather than looking for keywords in my searches or inbox, it would use my search history to select which types of advertisements to show me. In order to do this well though, someone somewhere would have to be storing information about my Internet activity.

While this is all well and good as far as advertising goes, there are also some major concerns people should keep in mind. The fact that someone somewhere will have access to your internet activity history should raise major privacy concerns. For all we know Google could secretly be a government operation aimed at compiling a database of detailed information about every Internet user. While this idea is far-fetched, I would not rule it out completely. After all we did pass the PATRIOT Act, in which we gave the government permission to invade our privacy for the supposed greater good.

In Defense of Piracy

“But while writers with words have had the freedom to quote since time immemorial, ‘writers’ with digital technology have not yet earned this right.” In his article, Lessig addresses the over-protective nature of digital technology industries. As an example, he cites the work of the mash-up artist, Girl Talk. I personally am a huge Girl Talk fan. I believe he has amazing talent as a DJ (though he ardently claims not to be a DJ). While his work is inarguably derivative, the resulting whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Moreover, Greg Gillis (aka Girl Talk), does not claim to have produced the original songs he combines to make his mash-up hits. If anything, the original artists whose songs he samples should be honored. I believe that “piracy” should be considered legitimate if the so-called pirate successfully builds on the original work, or the pirate has no intentions of generating profit from their version. For example, Girl Talk should be required to acknowledge the original writers of the songs he samples. However, since his creations are obviously original in their own right, he should be in control of his own intellectual property. Those that sample the works of others without the desire to profit, on the other hand, should not be required to acknowledge the original owners at all. The Stephanie Lenzes of the world should be able to freely upload videos of their toddlers dancing to Prince songs without the living in fear of being prosecuted by the record companies’ hyperactive litigation teams.

Response to Sims Frazier's G Phone and Security

In his posting, Sims illustrates how the very advantages of the g phone may lead invasion of privacy. While the concerns Sims raises are very real, I believe that Google can prevent nefarious use of the information they gather. As we have discussed extensively this semester, code is the law as far as computers and the Internet are concerned. And Google’s employees are the best and brightest. If consumers are concerned about privacy invasion posed by their technology, they can write their code in such a way that the information they gather can only be used for the purpose of more efficient advertisement. The real ethical question is whether or not Google should be responsible for putting these roadblocks up in advance of consumer complaints. Since most computer users are not aware of the ethical and privacy issues, I believe that Google and other computer and Internet companies should include protecting the privacy of their users in their realm of corporate responsibility.

Intellectual Property

We’ve debated a lot in class about how the increase in intellectual property rights can actually hamper creativity. The “they say” is undoubtedly saying, no way, people only care about getting credit for what they thought of and couldn’t care less about everyone else trying to steal their idea. But according to Lessig there have been studies that show that people are actually more productive when they receive less protection for their ideas. So since it seems useless to try and debunk the “I say” that has been proven by science, I want to try and construct what I believe is the creators thought process when he decides to accomplish more and put forth more effort with the prospect of receiving less credit and ultimately less compensation for his or her idea. Because lets face it is seems totally contrary to human nature to willingly go along with this. Bill Gates did not start Microsoft with the intentions of creating the blueprints of his software and then just leaving them around for the world to look at, copy, and improve upon. I mean not everyone is UNICEF or another nonprofit, people want something and should receive something in return for their time. So again I come back to the question, then why are people apparently so willing to put forth effort for everyone to get a piece of the ultimate prize. Well, perhaps they are satisfied with receiving credit for the original idea. Or maybe they are so enthralled with the idea and they realize that it will never reach its full potential if they are the only person improving upon the idea. Personally, I think that the only reason that people are more productive with fewer restrictions is that it is much easier to build off of something that has already been started or that you find interesting than it is to start a brand new idea that has never been thought of before. I feel like this method of innovation is responsible for the majority of breakthroughs in society up to this point. Furthermore, I don’t mean just using initial ideas in one field to make an innovation in that same field but in other fields as well. For example, using a mathematical theorem to create a new methodology for writing music. But all of this mixing of ideas leads us to the sticky situation of, if everyone is pouring a little piece of themselves into this original idea, at what point does the improved idea become “our” or society’s idea and not his or her idea? And is this better for society, that not just one person is reaping the benefits of innovation but that society is making this person’s initial innovation better and everyone is receiving some utility from this innovation?

Response: Amy's Intellectual Property

In response to Amy’s piece on intellectual property, she proves a valid point that while copyright laws are completely necessary in order to protect the work of individuals, it is important to make concessions to these laws. For instance, education purposes allow individuals to quote the work of others as long as it is cited correctly giving the author credit. This idea should hold true for only educational purposes in my opinion. If taken into a larger context, I do not think it would be fair for a singer to take lyrics from any other singer’s song and quote them in some fashion. I feel that in this case the singer should have to get written permission from the other singer. In all, I think that the citing example should hold true as long as money is not being made. Most companies would want to infringe on a patent to make money, and for no other reason. Sure, they could say that they wanted to make a particular drug better for the people, but at the end of the day that company is still racking in revenue of some sort.

Response: Kelly's "Intellectual Property"

In response to Kelly’s blog on intellectual property, I second her opinion on the effects of growing technology. Kelly points out that many skeptics believed that advances in technology would steer youth away from innovative thinking. Instead, it has opened an entirely new world to the art of thinking by presenting inventions and creative ideas that are in a sense revolutionary to most of us. From a personal view, when I was younger and used a regular desktop computer, I never thought that one day there would be a computer that you could navigate by touching the screen. Apple is planning on releasing a complete computer that mimics the tasks performed by an iphone but on a larger scale. To think something as advanced as this has been produced in less than 10 years since the age of the normal desktop is amazing. This goes to show that advances in technology do not hinder people’s willingness to think outside the box with creative ideas, instead it shows people what is possible and encourages them to make a good technology even better.

Response: Alali's "Intellectual Property"

In response to Alali’s “Intellectual Property,” I feel that she makes a very good point about the Lessig reading and how it relates to human nature. As Alali points out, people are not willing to take initiative and invent if they have no laws protecting them from outsiders stealing their ideas. It is human nature to feel this way about something that a person created. This idea can be directly related to school life of all students. If I do my homework one night and leave it in a locker and someone steals my homework to copy it and turn it in as their own, it is going to upset me. I left the homework in my locker with the assumption that everyone acts honestly and abides by the rules set in place by the school. However, knowing that this is impossible in today’s world, I need some sort of system that helps protect me from someone stealing my homework. This idea is directly related to inventors in the real world. Inventors need laws that are set in place by the government that will prohibit outsiders from stealing a person’s idea or invention. This is common sense in my opinion, why would someone work for free?

G Phone and Security

As discussed in class, there is yet a new phone that will soon penetrate the market called the g phone. The g phone is attempting to rival the newest technology presented by the iPhone by presenting similar technology but at a much lower cost. The source of this reduced cost is the area of concern for many users. The g phone is able to lower the cost of the phone and the monthly subscriptions by allowing pop-ups while a user collects data from the g phone, and the money these advertisements raise will put a pretty penny in the user’s bank. The issue with allowing pop-ups is the increased security threat. The security threat relates to the idea of “consumer Panopticon.” By allowing outside companies to advertise on individual’s g phone, those companies will essentially be able to track users and collect a database of user preferences and gear the user’s g phone to meet their preferences in terms of advertisement. For example, if I search political parties many times on the g phone, I will eventually start to see pop-ups geared towards politics. In the beginning, this sounds like a good idea because it helps the user. But in a sense it is infringing on the user’s freedom and allows companies to literally follow and track where the user has been on the web. This may seem harmless but in reality this opens a user’s phone to many threats than just being tracked for preferences. For example, a company could potentially use their pop-ups to somehow break into your phone and steal valuable private information. This happened back in the day when China came to a convention in America and so nicely handed out free USB adapters. Some high government employees used these USB adapters and the Chinese had installed a program that was not seen by the user that could literally get into a person’s computer and break through their firewalls. The point to make here is that as technology increasingly becomes more sophisticated, people need to understand their private lives are at risk and they should minimize this risk by using a secure operating system as much as possible. Perhaps the iPhone is a better choice after all.

Lessig and Wood

As discussed in class, the Lessig reading can be closely related to the Wood reading in evaluating the past to the present. The idea from the past and the present that was explored deals with the concept of how individuals and groups kept others from intruding on property or private information. As Wood explains, in the past property was kept individualized by using fences to keep others out of the land. This idea can be related to nowadays where many companies use code and firewalls to keep others away from private information. The fences from the past can be seen as the code of the future. Code is used to make it hard for intruders to get a hold of copyrighted materials. Without this code, which more or less acts as a firewall, outsiders would simply come in and copy an idea and use it as their own. This idea relates to intellectual property rights in that those who have invented something have the right to keep it as their own without having to worry about others stealing the idea of invention. Code is simply a way for those inventors to make sure others are not infringing on their ideas. Companies and inventors have the right to their invention and the benefits that are associated with the invention. Whether these benefits are simply monetary or pride does not matter. In both cases, it is unfair for an outsider to come in and take an idea and reproduce it at a cheaper cost. For example, many drugs when first released could be replicated and produced at a much cheaper cost. But patent laws restrict this from happening to encourage inventors to keep inventing. At first, code is simply a term that many think is associated with computer jargon that allows a program to run. But it also serves as a barrier to outsiders who are trying to reproduce or steal ideas.

Intellectual Property

In response to Lessig's article "In Defense of Piracy" in the WSJ, I completely agree with his call to action to deregulate amateur remix, deregulate 'the copy', simplify, restore efficiency, and decriminalize Gen-X. However, I believe his most important point to be that "new technology is restoring the 'vocal chords' of millions. Although it was once popularly believed that this new technology would squash the creativity of a generation, it has instead inspired a generation to grow on the works of their peers in order to create something that is their own. The traditional mediums for Gen-X to express themselves creatively have gone far beyond anything that our parents generation could have imagined, and at the current pace of technology will have dramatically changed again before the end of the next decade. In order to continue encouraging this new type of creativity to flourish, Gen-X must be decriminalized as quickly as possible and the 'war' on peer-to-peer file sharing must be realized for what it is (a failure). While our generation has been constantly threatened with jail time and large fines for our inability to quit our addiction to instant access to music (i.e. piracy), the worst stories that we know of have happened to 'friends of my friends' second cousin twice removed' - therefore, not very personal. The corporations suing us (largely a group of unemployed minors) are failing to make headway in a battle they started nearly a decade ago. These corporations should realize they are are destroying the creativity of potential artists whom they could sign to corporate labels in hopes of capitalizing on the amateur artists creativity.

Intellectual Property

Lessig makes a very good point in pointing out that intellectual property is "nonrivalrous". Just because I'm singing a song you technically own does not stop you from being able to sing the song in any way. Some may argue that for this very reason, intellectual property should be open for all. However, I believe the fact that intellectual property is "nonrivalrous" is what makes is so difficult to deal with. As a result, it requires a much larger investment of effort. Since I feel nothing when you impinge on my intellectual property, in order to monitor it, I have to invest much more time and effort to detect intellectual trespassers.
Before reading Lessig’s work I never really thought about why intellectual property is protected by the government. Lessig so kindly explains that the government protects intellectual property to encourage more people to innovate. If people did not have the comfort of knowing that their ideas would be protected, they would not invest the time and effort in creating them. With real property, that dilemma does not exist. If I buy a house for example, I see it and I feel and I know that real estate has inherent value. With intellectual property, on the other hand, the government had to help create its value by giving exclusive rights for a certain amount of time to inventors. That was a temporary fix to the “nonrivalrous” dilemma. Then came the Internet. Now, pretty much anyone anywhere can send anything to anyone anywhere with very little effort. As a result, monitoring has become infinitely more difficult and people with ideas feel less and less in control of their intellectual property.

Intellectual Property

Intellectual property is an important concept that everyone has indirectly thought about at one point in his or her life. From a personal standpoint, I would not be fine with another person or organization simply using me for my thoughts and work and reaping all of the benefits. This personal view can be strengthened on a larger scale by looking at all individuals. As a society, we measure our success by our growth. Without growth, our society stands still. Growth is the most important thing our world needs because our world needs to be able to predict and prevent any sort of bad dilemma that may occur such as global warming. Back to intellectual property, our society cannot grow if individuals are not encouraged to invent things and try to think outside of the box. Intellectual property essentially gives inventors and thinkers a reason to keep inventing because they know that they will be compensated for their efforts in some way. Patents are a form of intellectual property that allows inventors to protect their invention from outsiders. In particular, there are ten-year patents on medications so that those who invent medicines can be compensated financially for the next 10 years without having to worry about a competitor swooping in and producing a cheaper version of the drug. On the whole, intellectual property protects people and does no harm to society. Sure, it could be argued that our society could be more efficient if people could take an invention and reproduce it a lower cost quickly. It comes down to the fact that there will be a few inventions if the inventors are not rewarded for their efforts in some way. 

Intellectual Property

“ There are special laws about the theft of automobiles, planes, and boats. There are no special laws about the theft of skyscrapers. Cars, planes, and boats need protection. Skyscrapers pretty much take care of themselves”(Lessig, 170). Based on the statement, there are a few reasons why these thing need to be protected and defended.
In this global, there are many things that being protected from being thieving unlawfully. This is a must because it is essential to preserve the intellectual property of something that has been created since the development and creation of intellectual property objects is time consuming and high-priced. Even though there are a few individuals feel that trying to preserve intellectual property protection is a fruitless and mistaken effort, they are absolutely wrong by the way they are thinking. This thought is absolutely wrong as well as amiss. Nowadays, these intellectual property objects can be protected and saved under exclusive right, named copyright laws. These laws, with different ways and varieties of method, protect work from being reproduced without the permission of the copyright holder. It also gives authors exclusive rights in their works, especially the right to make copies. Notwithstanding, the copyright protection has certain boundaries believed to be in the public concern, one such boundary is like a permit that enables a person to quote a small segment from original documents for effective purpose, mostly for educations and researches, not for making profit. Therefore, copyright law is necessary to enable the owners of the work to control who can make copy and also to share their creativities with others.

Division of White-Collar Labor

The division of labor has developed immensely since its origins in factory assembly lines. As Greenbaum states in "Windows on the Workplace",  "This was a decade of isolating people, tasks, and jobs essentially separating the 'head' of information work from the 'hands' of data processing. More and more tasks, particularly those in clerical areas and in the back offices were being treated like manual work. Data processing by definition dealt with information that had been coded and cut up into bits of data" (46). Having worked in the back office of an energy trading company over the summer, I completely agree with Greenbaum's analysis of the situation. When I first looked back at the bureaucratic structure, it was quite obvious that there was a division of labor in order to accomplish the work necessary to make sure the deals were completed in a timely manner. One group of traders were assisted by their own contracts group, profit and loss group, derivative settlements group, and physical settlements group. Within each of these groups, each worker was assigned a particular task in order to make each group run as efficiently as possible. For example, I was in charge of settling all second day option premiums, calculating daily price curves, and calculating present value to close out trades that had yet to expire. What I find most interesting about this division of labor, is that the job that I was working requires a college degree, and in order to advance to the position of manager of each individual group, most likely a masters in business administration. It is interesting that the division of labor can now be separated in areas that require higher level thinking, and points out the fact that every industry is susceptible to the breakdown of labor.

Tracking Trukers

In Chapter 8 of Baase, the author informs the reader that truck drivers have had tracking systems installed in their long-haul trucks. While Baase admits that these tracking systems have a number of advantages, he claims that the disadvantage of having such a system that intrudes on the trucker driver's privacy outweighs the potential advantages of increasing efficiency, saving money, and providing more detailed information about trucking routes. He continues by saying that when these devices were first introduced, truck drivers would wrap foil over the transmitter or parked under bridges in order to take naps on the side of the highway. If Baase wants to make a point that these devices are not necessary in managing drivers work schedules, he should most likely not use drivers taking naps during working hours an example of why truck drivers were upset that these systems were installed. It seems absurd to me that these drivers were upset that they could not take unscheduled naps just because their actions were now being tracked. Granted, I would never want to be a truck driver due to the long, monotonous hours, employees of these companies should not be upset that they can no longer sleep on the job. In addition, if I were a truck driver, I believe I would be happy that the company I worked for knew what was going on. I believe that not only is efficiency increased by knowing details about the truck and his load, but also personal safety for the driver. When the company has knowledge regarding the speed, upcoming road conditions, and mechanical defaults, I would feel much safer than if I was driving on somewhere in America with poor cell phone service and know one knew how to find me if my truck crashed. In fact, I believe most would agree with this notion of increased safety, as many Americans have opted to put programs like OnStar in their vehicles so that they can be tracked in case of an emergency. 

Response to Modern Times

Sims makes a very good point in his assessment of the privacy in the workplace issue. His assertion that people can avoid a lot of hassle by simply keeping their personal lives out of work is simple and succinct. For some reason, before reading Sims’ post, I never considered the fact that workers would have nothing to worry about at work if they were doing what they were supposed to be doing. If I knew I was doing nothing wrong, I would not be worried about my boss reading my emails or monitoring my keystrokes. But if I waste my days at work on Google Chat bad-mouthing the boss or recounting my debaucheries from the weekend before, I might have something to worry about. The fact that employers and required to inform employees about monitoring should be a sufficient enough warning for those who are prone to engaging in unproductive activities during the work day.

“Re: Lessig Reading: Shaping Our Lives”

In response to Sims’ post I would like to offer up alcohol as another example of what Lessig is talking about with smoking. The law requires you to be twenty-one in order to drink and there are certain qualifications needed for a bar or a liquor store to sell alcohol. It is also socially unacceptable to be plastered in a social setting, most of the time. I would like to try and figure out why alcohol is more socially welcome than smoking. One could make the argument that cigarettes are much more addicting than alcohol and that cigarettes destroy your body, but what about alcoholism and liver diseases. I am not bashing drinking, I am just presenting the surgeon general’s point of view. Also, outside of the United States it is not uncommon for children to have a drink with their parents at meals. In fact it seems like the United States is the strictest on alcohol out of most countries. Perhaps it is because there are much more antismoking campaigns and cigarette addiction is a much more glaring problem than alcoholism. Maybe it is like the breast cancer piece where domestic abuse is a much harder problem to solve than breast cancer.

“Re: Sweating out the Words”

In response to Alali’s posts I definitely agree that the current operations of some large businesses without unions show us exactly why unions are needed. The unfortunate situation is that as soon as unions start to form, the companies are already seeking out locations that are more desperate and that will ban labor unions. So as soon as the workers of an oppressive employer begin to demand their rights as workers they loose their jobs and are in the same desperate situation as before the company offered them a job. Perhaps some people would say, “why don’t the desperate countries not let these corporation is if they are so bad?” Well I think it is because of two reasons. On the one hand there is sort of a prisoner’s dilemma situation in if all the developing countries decide to ban large corporations they will continually worry about a country abandoning this pact so no one will ban these corporations. The other side is for the country to develop from within but these countries do not have the capital to do this and up to this point there is no goodwill source of capital. People are not machines as some corporations seem to think but as long as there is this nasty problem of hypermobile personal capital and a line of increasingly more desperate countries there will continue to be this endless cycle.

Re: Lessing Reading: Shaping Our Lives

I agree with Sims that there are certain instances in which it is appropriate for the government to intervene and create legislation that influences social norms. However, I believe that this is a slippery slope. No one disputes that government intervention is sometimes necessary, but the frequency of such intervention and their degree of influence on social norms can become worrisome. In America, the self-proclaimed “Land of the Free,” I think the government should make every effort not to influence public perception of social norms and allow citizens to arrive at their own conclusions individually. Sims uses the example of cigarettes. While cigarettes do have adverse side effects, I do not think it is the responsibility of the government to warn citizens against the dangers of cigarette smoking. One could similarly argue that the government should denounce tanning and it should be regarded as a shameful activity because it can lead to skin cancer. The fact that the tanning argument seems silly and outlandish is just further proof of the government’s influence on social norms. Tanning is acceptable even though it is dangerous, but smoking is not.

Re:Sweating out the words

In response to Alali Dagago, I also agree in properness. It is deserving other thing to operate in said country and hire employees so minuscule, they cannot provender themselves or educate their children so they are not cornered in the downward spiral of wage slavery. It refers to the similarities between owning and renting a person, and denotes a hierarchical in which a person chooses a job within a coerced set of choices, primarily working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or status diminution. There, a Mexican, most likely a young woman, stood by a table or hunched at a computer, handling your paperwork and earning as little as 80 cents an hour for her time. A generation ago such work was done within the country that generated the paperwork. Women in the United States did most of the keyboarding then, and many still do, for $7-$10 an hour. But in the late eighties, their jobs began emigrating as employers discovered satellites and other telecommunications technology. Before these innovations, a company interested in cheap Third World labor would have had to ship hard copy abroad at great expense in transport and turnaround time. Now, paper is optically scanned and the images zapped to computer screens thousands of miles away, where the relevant information is keyed in by foreign workers and the digitized material speedily returned to the home office.

Re:Branding Breast Cancer

In response to “Branding Breast Cancer”, let me define the breast cancer in general. Breast cancer is a cancer that starts in the cells of the breast in women and men. Worldwide, breast cancer is the second most common type of cancer after lung cancer. The breast is composed of identical tissues in males and females, breast cancer also occur in males. Incidences of breast cancer in men are approximately 100 times less common than in women, but men with breast cancer are considered to have the same statistical survival rates as women. I agree with Kellyeichman that all means necessary should be used in order to raise capital for breast cancer research in order to find cures and treatment for this disease that has many impacted the lives of so many. Nowadays, FEMARA is helping more women than ever before. An international, clinical trial showed that FEMARA is more effective than tamoxifen at reducing the risk of cancer coming back in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early stage breast cancer based on 24 months of treatment.

Windows on the Workplace

Windows on the Workplace talks about how computer systems were designed to peel away the high-tech sparkle surrounding such critical issues and toward a place where we can find ways to analyze change in order to make better options. Today we are perpetually told a prolongation of this tale which takes the form that the Internet will generate new high-tech jobs by creating new services in a new economy. Technology was held up as a model of progress and advancement. The Internet evolved over time, as people in a variety of occupations and places around the world worked to shake the bugs out of each type of hardware and each development in software. It also took time because there were many people and companies involved. We are anticipated to believe that technology comes along with an inevitable force, which is a sort of technological leap of faith. We need to reshape the debate in order to have a clear picture of the world around us. Office work and workplace social activities have carried meanings beyond the obvious need for income. I also found that windows is marketed to organizations that place it on computers in cubicles that lack windows that look out on the world. Apparently, workers who have had computers and other office technology plunked down on their desks have reason to believe that advances in technology have changed their working lives. Moreover, the changes in work and office technology take many shapes, often beginning with the redesign of a job so that pieces of it can be done faster and more cheaply.

Lessig Reading: Shaping our lives

In the Lessig reading, Lessig talks about how our lives can be monitored on a day to day basis. Lessig uses the example of smoking. Smoking is regulated by the market because of the price and quality/quantity of cigarettes available. The law regulates smoking by designating certain areas that are non-smoking and by making it illegal for people under 18 to buy cigarettes. Social norms regulate smoking too – it's not socially acceptable to smoke during meals, in someone's car without asking, etc. Architecture of cigarettes regulates smoking too (how they are designed and built – ex: nicotine makes them more addictive, putting a constraint on the smoker). It is interesting to see how something as simple as a cigarette is a way people can be monitored. This monitoring of our lives also changes who we are and shapes us into characters we might not want to be. Yes, the smoking laws are in place to help those in our society who are against smoking. But at the same time these laws are shaping our society and individuals in our society. The social norms are able to be changed from government intervention. Allowing the government to step in to regulate some activities such as smoking is important. However, there are also issues that do not need to be regulated by the government and should be left alone to let society dictate the outcomes. In all, Lessig addresses a very important point of how monitoring of people comes in all shapes and sizes. It is not just through a computer or wire tap, but can be done indirectly.

Windows on the Workplace

As we stand in the twenty-first century being bombarded with phrases like “thanks to advances in technology” or “with the advent of computers” it is almost as if we are expected to believe that technology comes along with an inevitable force. Windows on the Workplace takes us behind the news stories of the highly efficient, high-tech workplace and shows us the ways in which technologies such as computers, mobile phones, and the internet have been adapted by management to reshape the way work is done. In tracing the introduction of new technologies, organizations use them to benefit from both increased profits and more intense control over the workforce. Windows on the Workplace takes as its starting-point the experience of office workers and their own accounts of work. This also includes interviews with a wide range of workers, including young people entering workplaces in which the expectation of stable, long-term employment is no longer the norm. The purpose is to locate their experiences and expectations within broader social and economic patterns, and to show how these patterns are constantly changing. The ways that freelance, part-time, and temporary work is created, and the form it takes as management outsources jobs around the world. Technology alone also determines the way work is organized and outsourced. In exposing the myths about how technologies are really created, she gives readers some insight into alternatives. This updated edition offers ample evidence about how internet related jobs, skills and pay scales are not increasing as the media claims, as well as how work-time has expanded to fill work and home life.

"Modern Times"

“Modern times” is a movie that takes an old fashioned look at the current employee lifestyle in a business or company. The movie looks at a manager’s position and how it relates to the workers of a company. As the workers continuously fulfill a task on a conveyer belt, a manager stands there and watches until the worker makes a mistake or does something he or she is not suppose to do. This parallels to modern day managers who try to know their employees every move in the workplace. The fact that the manager in the movie was literally standing over top of the workers is referencing the idea that a manager’s eyes are literally your eyes in a sense. Everything you see and do so does your manager. This concept is directly related to computer monitoring is a company. When a person is employed, they can be monitored and videotaped without the worker’s consent. Most workers do not really know this. This is why it is a good idea to keep your private life private outside of the workplace and to also make sure that you do not write anything to anyone that you wouldn’t mind your boss reading. For instance, if you get a funny email from a friend and decide to forward it on to your best friend, you never know where it is going to end up after that. It could end up in your boss’ hands and he sees your email listing down the page and thinks you support the degrading of animals for example. In all, it is just best to understand how monitored you are in the workplace and to keep your private life out of the office.

Re: "Branding Breast Cancer"

In response to “Branding breast cancer,” I agree that the values behind the idea of advertising breast cancer awareness have been changed over the past couple of years. The idea of raising awareness for breast cancer is a smart thing to do and helps our society gain respect for the deadly disease that takes so many lives. However, many companies have taken it upon themselves to actually exploit people’s good nature and try to make money off of them. When a person hears about breast cancer, it takes a person with very low ethical values to not want to help those with the disease in some way. Whether this is giving money or sporting a ribbon to show your support. The fact that clothing companies have branded items that are associated with breast cancer awareness is a shady area. It is hard to say if these companies actually care about breast cancer awareness or they are just trying to make a few dollars. Maybe each company should donate all the profits from these shirts and clothing items to a charity supporting breast cancer awareness?

Re: "Sweating out the words"

In response to Alali’s “Sweating out the words,” I agree with the mindset and attitude Alali has towards fowl working conditions imposed on outsourced labor. I feel that many businesses have taken a turn for the worse and moved away from focusing on actual business practice. Instead, they try to become the most successful business by minimizing their total costs. To do this, businesses look for countries that can perform the same tasks but at a much lower cost. This type of business strategy is inhumane and treats humans as if they were animals or robots. It is unfair to take advantage of those in other countries by exploiting their low standards of living. Yes it is cheaper to use these people, but it takes jobs away from US citizens at the same time. In all, companies and large corporations need to take a look at themselves and re-evaluate their business strategies and ethical values. Are the slightly lower costs really that important that others should suffer their entire lives and generations to come also suffer?

“My former employment and Braverman”

I forget what class it was but I found the discussion based on for lack of a better word “crappy” jobs and if they offer the employed freedom. In response to this I would like to describe one of my former employments. One summer six years ago I found myself in need of my own source of income and having hardly any previous work experience I realized that my choices were mostly in either the service sector or in manual labor. This is when my father had the bright idea to volunteer my services to the landscaping company that trimmed our lawn. Not knowing what I was getting myself into and not having much of a choice, I agreed since the pay was not terrible and I would get the chance to be outside. Looking back on it I now realize how pertinent the idea of the division of labor and its profound effect on worker efficiency plays in all forms of business. Much like the film “Modern Times” film that we watched, each person had his own task to take care of and this prevented us from getting in each other’s way and prevented slacking. Furthermore, in accordance with Braverman’s perspective, the management, a skinny, scruff, reincarnation of Mick Jagger named Chuck, was mainly in charge of conceiving tasks, designing, and planning our route and what needed to be done to each property. This removed all thinking on our part except the minimal amount needed to accomplish our tasks. As workers, or what Braverman describes as non-professionals, our sole purpose was the execution of tasks. Fortunately or us workers, there was not the problem of management ignorance that Braverman touches upon since Chuck had been in lawn care most of his life. Finally, I suppose that technology aided our division into menial tasks as there have been various machines and mowers that are made for specific tasks.
As far as the level freedom in the lawn care industry, I will base my evaluation of freedom as my growth and my development of capacities. I feel like I gained very few skills that I did not already posses. So I suppose if I am to judge my freedom in this respect I was not very free. However, I did learn a great deal about myself and what lines of employment I knew that I never wanted to go into. I also gained a perspective on how fortunate I am to have opportunities to choose what profession I want to pursue rather than choose my profession by a lack of another alternative. So I guess that in my particular case I was free because I gained knowledge from my experiences and “grew” as a person. However, I do not think that my fellow co-workers were free, as they had no other viable alternative. I believe that this is why they often reminded me of how lucky I was and to take advantage of all of my opportunities.

“Categorizing Corruption in Capitalist system and evaluating prevention tactics”

For one of my blog posts I would like to comment on one of the ideas prompted by the last reading guide on Schweickart and Rosen. I would like to link what Schweickart says about technology and the hypermobility of capital to what Greenbaum says about technological developments increasing the mobility of capital. Sckweickart blames this hypermobility of capital on the fact that the majority of capital in a capitalist society belongs to private individuals. These individuals can choose to do what they want with this capital, investing it wherever they please or nowhere at all. Schweickart further states that advances in technology only enhance this hypermobility of capital. Therefore, Schweickart is addressing both sides of this situation of technology aiding the hypermobility of capital. On the one hand, technology is breaking tasks down into such simple assignments that it takes very little training to school an employee on the workings of the system. Therefore, this lack of value of the basic worker due to technology provides the privately owned capital an opportunity to easily cut all ties with their present situation to look for other attractive opportunities. Schweikart also approaches the idea of technologically aided hypermobility of capital in terms of technology making the transfer of money and investments incredibly easy to remote places of the world.
Greenbaum’s argument is very similar to Schweikart’s in the sense that he believes that “cutting the head from the hands” to lower the defenses of workers against managerial control strategies is a product of the advancement of technology. Greenbaum continues by saying, “To modern ears, Taylor’s principles of turning work into a series of cut-and-dried rationalized operations sound harsh and even unworkable. Yet the bulk of office tasks…follow procedures that take the form of Taylor’s recommendations. Indeed, today much of the work that has been outsourced on the basis of the work having first gone through the grinder of Taylor’s principles.”(p. 57)
Given the direct relation of technology and the hypermobility of capital, I think it is important to offer up possible solutions to this problem. I feel like the main problem that the whole world faces is the effect of the hypermobility of capital on third world countries. When I say this I mean the rapid improvement in third world countries that seems to abruptly stop once multinational corporations find places of cheaper labor. I think this can be improved by protectionism as Schweickart suggests. But also a third party organization could set standards for leaving the countries that the corporations are occupying such as a minimum amount of time of occupation. However, you can make the argument that this will only delay the inevitable rather than making the corporation plan for a long-term stay in a developing country. The problem could also be approached from the other side. A third party could set up temporary visas for a developing country’s entrepreneurs to come to a place like America to learn how to conduct the operations of a business. Therefore, if a company succeeds in a developing country, the chances of the company staying in its original country will be greater. Unfortunately, this route also requires a stable economic system and a government that is not only free from corruption but able to fund an investment like this which is highly unlikely in a developing country.

"Sweating Out the Words"

In “Sweating Out the Words” Debbie Nathan addresses the conditions in the contemporary sweatshop: the informatics sweatshop. Companies have begun to outsource data entry to ununionized countries with cheaper labor. The economic leaders of these countries love this practice, some even going as far as subsidizing the cheapness of the labor for American companies with taxes from the salaries of the underpaid workers. While I am a fan of cheap labor and operating with the lowest possible costs, I also believe in decency. It’s one thing to outsource labor to countries where the U.S. dollar is much stronger than the national currency, thus allowing companies to save money on wages without compromising quality of life of the worker. It’s a whole other thing to operate in said country and pay workers so little they cannot feed themselves or educate their children so they are not trapped in the downward spiral of wage slavery. For example, I find it clever that informatics companies have realized that people are more efficient at data entry in a language they do not speak. However, I find it cruelly ironic that women who spend all day typing words for EDM in Mexico cannot even afford books to read. Cheap labor does not necessitate poor worker conditions, yet for some reason these almost always go hand in hand. As capitalists, we always forget that operations are not a zero sum game. Someone does not have to lose in order for us to win. We seem to think that the worse off our workers are, the better the company must be doing. Oh, a man passed out from exhaustion and starvation? Great news, we are definitely maximizing his usefulness! Employers hate unions, but every time they are allowed to operate sans unionization, they never fail to remind everyone exactly why unions are necessary.

"Modern Times in Connection with Baase's "Employee Monitoring"

“Modern Times” uses comedy to expose the commoditization of the factory worker. Ironically, the same points of contention that workers held with management in the Chaplin era exist today. In “Employee Monitoring” Baase addresses privacy invasion. The scene in “Modern Times” where the company president, in a very Big Brother-esque fashion, catches Charlie Chaplin’s character smoking a cigarette in the bathroom parallels the modern instance of managers having access to employees’ computers in real time, thus allowing them to make sure the workers are actually doing what they appear to be doing. While these techniques were developed to increase the efficiency of the factory, they actually take a toll of the factory since they cause employee demoralization. At what point does employee monitoring become unethical or invasive? Since management’s goal in such an environment is to increase productivity, a person coming from a management standpoint might argue that no such demarcation exists. Such a person might argue that while at work, the worker is the property of the company who is paying them therefore is required not only to do work, but also to do work as efficiently as possible. On the other hand, a person from a more humanitarian standpoint might argue that though the workers are technically the property of the company while at work, they are still people. These workers are people first and foremost and cannot be expected to function like machines. The humanitarian would criticize management’s narrow focus on the trees of productivity causing them to miss the forest of employee satisfaction.

Branding Breast Cancer

"October is an awareness month for breast cancer and domestic violence. Yet media coverage shows we'd rather be aware of breasts, even sick ones, than talk about abuse." I must honestly admit that when I first read this subtitle, it made me a little sick; have we as a society actually reached a point where we make two causes of equal importance compete against one another (realistically, capitalism in its most extreme form)? I will admit reading Marshall's article exposing the connection between pink branding and advertising has reached a questionable level, especially as companies such as Ralph Lauren begin using 'sex' to advertise for breast cancer awareness, I cannot say that I am completely against such means. Having members of my family who have both passed from breast cancer, and others that are current breast cancer survivors, I completely believe that all means necessary should be used in order to raise capital for breast cancer research in order to find cures and treatment for this disease that has impacted the lives of so many.

In addition, while I do not agree that domestic violence should take the back seat in terms of awareness, I do understand, economically how it has. While Marshall's article points out that 967 women were killed by men they knew (with statistics from 2005), in 2007, 40,460 women were expected to die from breast cancer (http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/BCFF-Final.pdf). In simple terms of supply and demand, there are a far greater number of people demanding action in awareness of breast cancer than those demanding awareness for domestic violence, therefore a greater supply of awareness products for breast cancer are being produced by the capitalist machine. 

Marshall's article also points out that breasts are more marketable than black eyes; however, I believe that while this is due to the unreasonable stigma associated with speaking up against abuse, it also has to due with the fact that people can come together in order to unite against a cancer (non-human) invading and destroying another human's body much easier than they can unite against the deviant moral attitudes which allows some humans to abuse other humans. In general, we as a society tend to not wish to discuss anything considered taboo, which we should then characterize as a fault of us as individuals, as compared to blaming corporations for marketing the easier product.

The Omnivore's Dilemma

Response to "The Ingredients of a Shirt"

In response to Sims’ post, I definitely agree that if people stopped to think about the connections a product like a shirt has to the rest of the world, they may in fact not be in support of the actions taken to produce the shirt. However, I’d like to play the devil’s advocate on this one. Would people be in favor of child labor making the shirt that they wear if they knew that the little money the child receives is more than they would receive at any other occupation? I think that child exploitation is awful but in most cases these children want to work and would otherwise starve without the income they receive. I find it very interesting that several mainstream economists are actually willing to take the controversial position that sweatshops and cheap labor are actually necessary for a developing economy to progress.

Breast Cancer and Capitalism

In response to the audio clip that we listened to in Thursday’s class about the development of breast cancer awareness, I’d like to point out the capitalistic qualities that I noticed in this movement. Before I do that though, I would like to say that I am in no way against breast cancer awareness and I feel that women should be aware of the dangers of this disease. First I’d like to bring up M-C-M’, as that has come up several times in our discussions. For me, I found this M-C-M’ model to be evident in the breast cancer movement in the form of organizations pumping out pink merchandise. The breast cancer awareness organizations are taking in monetary donations, converting the donation into the pink mugs, shirts, etc., and then taking in more money from large companies who use the merchandise as a form of advertising. Next, I feel as though the woman being interviewed’s idea about how it is much more profitable to treat breast cancer than it is to cure it represented the planned obsolescence that we talked about on Thursday as well. Health companies are certainly in their line of work to help prevent and cure illnesses, but it is important to remember that they are still businesses looking to make profits. Why not create a new, safer way to have a mammogram or develop other kinds of testing to have repeat customers rather than a one-time customer who is cured? I would like to think that this idea of planned obsolescence cannot be applied to cancer research in general but I think there are some valid points to be made in favor of this argument. Perhaps the reason why cancer research has not progressed very far is because there are conflicting forces that have a good deal of influence. It may be sort of a stretch but I think you can equate the producers of the various cancer treatments to the oil companies that destroyed the Ford EV-1 cars. If cancer is cured these producers don’t stand to make any profits. Again I hope this is not the case, but I think these points must be examined.

Response to Libertarianism

Like many terms, the word 'libertarian' is used in a variety of ways. In it's broadest uses, it is often applied to political philosophy, as well as to various other, conflicting ideologies. The word “liberal” is a proper term which stood for one who defended rights and limited government -except that it never represented a fully consistent political philosophy. So historically, what started as liberalism gradually became modern liberalism. Similarly, some people today use "libertarian" to designate the pro-free enterprise position, but there are some modern liberals who call themselves libertarians as well. This stealing of terms with undefined connotations is so prevalent today that I simply do not use any of these words. This is one reason I prefer "pro-capitalist" to "conservative." When what is being disguised or destroyed is not exactly what you uphold, then drop the word and use another. But we must acknowledge that there are many reasons to support freedom and many paths people may take to get there. Some are better than others, but it doesn't necessarily make the others wrong.

Response to The Omnivore's Dilemma

I totally agree with Sims Frazier that everything around us is actually interconnected. They relate with each other no matter how complicated and hard it is. If we look with our naked eyes, maybe we are unable to see how they are related with each other. However, we can see how they are connected when we think outside the box. For instance, a chicken nugget, piles corn upon corn: what chicken it contains consists of corn, of course, but so do most of a nugget’s other constituents, including the modified corn starch that glues the thing together, the corn flour in the batter that coats it, and the corn oil in which it gets fried. Much less obviously, the leavenings and lecithin, the attractive golden coloring, and even the citric acid that keeps the nugget “fresh” can all be derived from corn. Moreover, to wash down your chicken nuggets with virtually any soft drink in the supermarket is to have some corn with your corn. Now, you realize how amazing the corn is? "Tell me what you eat," said the French gastronomist Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, "and I will tell you what you are." We're corn. Is eating all this corn good for us? Who knows? We think we've tamed nature, but we're just beginning to learn about all that we don't yet know. Ships were once provided with plenty of food, but sailors got scurvy because they needed vitamin C. We're sailing on the same sea, thinking we're eating well but still discovering nutrients in our food that we hadn't known were there -that we don't yet know we need.

The Problem with Libertarianism

According to Hospers, libertarian freedom ensures people the right to behave in any way they choose so long as their behavior does not prevent another person the same degree of freedom. Furthermore, the sole role of the government should be to enforce this freedom. In my opinion, libertarianism is about as practically possible as perpetual motion machinery (read: impossible).

The average person is not knowledgeable about enough things to function independently. The government's involvement in specific spheres allows this man to live as harmlessly as possible. For example, the government's involvement in money and the economy allows this man to put his money in a savings account at a given bank and expect a specific interest rate. This same interest rate set by the government provides the personal banker at this same institution the convenience of not having to negotiate interest rates with individual customers, which in turn saves the management of the bank the headache of keeping track of all the different interest rates for all the bank's customers.

If the government's only role was to ensure that personal freedom were not violated, we would have to rely too heavily on private firms to provide everyday infrastructure. The problem with private firms is that they work for the profit of the firm. While, the government's main goal is acting in accordance with the greater good, private industry's main goal is generating profit. (And we all know that when it comes to choosing between generating profit or acting in accordance with the greater good, the former almost always trumps the latter.)

In conclusion, while the idea of libertarianism is enticing in theory, I don't believe it is practical. It demands too much from the average person. Though our current system is far from perfect, it is good enough. It is a product humans, who by nature are imperfect beings, therefore it is unfair to judge it against standards of perfection.

Re: The Ingredients of A Shirt

Sims brilliantly uses something as simple as a shirt to show how heavily interconnected the world is. Decisions we make that we may feel only affect us rarely are as they appear. I agree that the government should strive to hold themselves to some sort of standard. Similar to corporate responsibility, there should be a self-imposed code of ethics regulating the actions of governmental bodies. However, in order for this to be effective, there needs to be a degree of shame involved in patronizing purveyors of tarnished goods. I wouldn't go as far as saying these standards should be law, but I do believe that the United States should act as the proverbial bigger person and be the first to adopt such a code of ethics. I believe that if we make the first move the rest of the world would follow; therefore, conditions in plants and factories worldwide would have to improve in order for them to remain viable.

Re: Imperialism 101

In response to Alali’s imperialism 101 critique, I think she has a great point and agree with her completely. As workers in this world, I feel that we are more than obligated to be held accountable for our actions that may affect others around the world. It is a bit ironic for a business person to think that because our victims are so far away we do not need to worry about them because isn’t a business person suppose to care about every market around the world? Because every market is a potential business opportunity. I feel that the business world has taken a turn for the worst and has become very corrupt and solely focused on the idea of making money by whatever means are necessary. It all goes back to the old saying of “Do to others as you would want done to you.” Basically saying do not ignore your “victims” around the world because you would not want that disrespect shown to you.

Re: Parenti "Democarcy for the Few" and Marx

I Agree with Dave’s writing on the Wheen tape for the most part. It is easy to say and show how there is many employees in this world that basically slave their lives away on a day to day basis without reaping many benefits. But I feel like when talking about employees that have a job that they sit in a 3 by 3 foot cubicle indicates they are well off by the world’s standards. It does seem unfair that the boss sits and watches his employees labor away while he becomes richer, but could society really function without this role? I think it is important to have the role of the boss and the higher ranked people in the labor force so employees constantly have something to work towards. Everyone wants to be the boss and enjoy all the money and power, and I feel that it is good people strive on a daily basis to become powerful in the company or business. This allows the level of production in our country to be constantly set to a higher standard.

Capitalism

Capitalism is a word coined by Schweickart. ``Capitalism´´ as the private ownership of means of production, as opposed to government ownership of those means of production in the name of the ``collective´´. Capitalism, as a phenomenon, is life itself. Those who fight Capitalism, the phenomenon, are actually seeking to destroy life itself. What is capital? Capital is any resource that has to be reserved in advance, so that production may take place that will only bear fruits later. It includes any tools and machinery, but also the resources needed to sustain the lives of the workers until production is successful. If capital is to be understood in a broader sense, as any material thing that one may possess, that will enable future production, then first capitalist was the first animal to keep food for next year, or even for next day. If we are to understand capital as productive material machinery, then the first capitalist man was the first tool owner, the first person to foresee the future utility of a tool and keep that solid stick or hard stone for a future use. The first capitalist was the first human. Human action is projection into the future. A capitalist is someone who looks into the future. A capitalist makes profit only in as much as he sees further than other people in the direction he's looking. Every consumer who buys goods ahead of consumption time is a capitalist. Every worker who has a savings plan, an insurance, a retirement plan, is a capitalist. Every student who studies now for his future career, every lover who courts a mate now for his future family, every parent who raises children for the future of his kin, is a capitalist.

The Ingredients of a Shirt

Throughout class discussion we have began to reference the idea that something as simple as the shirt we wear on our back has come from places more than just “polo” or some brand name store. For instance, a collared shirt that we may wear on a day to day basis started out with the simple ingredients that make the shirt. If your shirt is 100% cotton, then the shirt traces all the way back to the people that grew the cotton that in turn was sold to a manufacturer to make the shirt. I think that understanding how deeply rooted the process of making something as simple as a shirt allows people to realize that they may in fact be supporting some action that they would not feel comfortable being associated with. For instance, some shirts have come from manufacturers in China where child labor is a common thing due to the cheap wage rates. In my opinion, it is tough for one American to help prevent child labor in foreign countries but if America as a country did not support the importing of Chinese goods, we may be able to have some impact on this issue. Realistically, it would be tough for individual Americans to turn down the cheap prices of clothes and items produced in these countries simply because most people want to get the best deal possible in terms of money spent. On the whole, people need to realize that simple actions they make throughout their daily lives such as buying clothes from another country may have dramatic drawbacks that may outweigh the cheap prices they are paying.

The Omnivore's Dilemma

After reading the first part of Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, it has awoken me to the idea of how connected everything in this world really is. With the current situation of global warming and the environment issues, it is becoming more relevant of how intertwined our daily activates are with the evolving world around us. Pollan goes through his book describing how corn essentially drives the demand for all other products around the world. This concept is important to understand because while it may seem that something such as oil is in everything we use and buy, but corn is really a predecessor ingredient to these items. The idea of things being connected is relevant in today’s society due to the fact that as a society we need to move away from fossil fuels and find an alternative source of fuel. The reason for this is because our world’s high dependence on fossil fuels in the past has finally caught up with us and our world is paying the price with global warming. As Pollan suggests in his reading, as a society we need to be more conscious of the high usage of the resources that ultimately consume our everyday lives. It is possible that if our ancestors had been more conservative with their use of fossil fuels that this global warming issue would have been delayed for many years down the road. In all, it comes down to the historic fable of the tragedy of the commons. As people in this world we need to look out for the best for society and future generations and not assume others will handle the problems that will arise due to our current everyday actions.

Re: Libertarianism

In the article that is written by Hospers, Hospers defends two ideas central to libertarianisms:(1) Individuals own their own lives. They, therefore have the right to act as they choose unless their actions interfere with the liberty of others to act as they choose. (2) The only appropriate function of goverment is to protect human rights, understood as negative rights. Liberty is a paradigm of harmonic creation, not of destructive conflict. Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Those who believe in libertarianism are called libertarians. Yeah, it is true that no one is anyone else's master, and no one is anyone else's slave. . And it is liberty, not slavery that must be universal; because slavery cannot be universal — there will always be a master; and because liberty is life itself, and lack of liberty is death. Libertarians strive for the best of all worlds - a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same. Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others. Libertarians believe that this combination of personal and economic liberty produces abundance, peace, harmony, creativity, order, and safety. Indeed, that is one of the central lessons of world history. Virtually all the progress the human race has enjoyed during the past few centuries is due to the increasing acceptance of these principles. But we are still far from a truly libertarian world. Libertarians believe we would see far more progress, abundance and happiness if the ideas of liberty were fully accepted and allowed to work their miracles. Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these wonderful and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people.

Response to "Parenti 'Democracy for the Few' and Marx"

While I find Marx and Dave's arguments against capitalism compelling, I cannot agree with them. Even today, amid the quagmire that is the American economy, I still maintain that capitalism is the economic system that best aligns itself with liberty. With freedom comes responsibility. Though, I concede that the government should assist those in need, I believe this assistance should be strictly temporary.

Dave and Marx look and capitalism and see its shortcomings. They see the wealth disparities. I look at capitalism and see its genius. Capitalistic "greed" is positive as far as I'm concerned. Coveting your neighbors car leads to working harder and earning more money so you too can have a car worthy of covet. As a result, you get more money, a nicer car, and the car company makes money, which they spend on something else, which generates more money for someone else, and so on and so forth. Capitalism prevents contented comfort. There is always something bigger and better to pine after and work for.

Response to Re: Imperialism 101

In response to Alali’s post I too think that Parenti is on target when he exposes the realities of capitalism. Parenti is not torching America for its support of capitalism; he is trying to inform the general public of the inherent problems with capitalism. If anything he is trying to improve America through his critique. Studying economics has made me relatively aware of capitalism’s flaws and that rarely are there Pareto optimal situations (Pareto optimality refers to when no one is worse off and at least one person is better off). There are always losers to make winners in capitalism and I think that the Parenti passage brings this to our attention. Parenti is not attacking the United States, he is simply proving the age-old expression that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. As for the last two lines of Alali’s post, I feel like globalization and the growing interdependence of nations around the world is taking the blinders off the general public. Eventually no one will be too far away to forget about in this ever-shrinking world.

Parenti "Democarcy for the Few" and Marx

Since listening to the Wheen tape I have found Karl Marx’s analogy of capitalism and vampires very interesting. The imagery of a vampire’s thirst for blood encapsulates the exact relationship of the small percentage of extremely wealthy people (past labor) feeding off of the efforts of their employees (present labor). Parenti even makes mention of this relationship in the passage from “Democracy for the Few” that we read, but instead of vampires he chooses to describe the low level workers as slaves or serfs. Parenti states “Workers endure an exploitation of the labor as certainly as do slaves and serfs. The slave obviously toils for the enrichment of the master and receives only bare subsistence in return.” Personally, I like Marx’s ideas on the topic. I mean who hasn’t seen the scenario of the lowly employee slaving away in his 3 foot by 3 foot cubicle while his boss is smoking a big fat stogy, eating a huge steak, and all the while counting wads of money?
I believe this analogy that Marx has laid at our feet can be taken a step further. We all see the employee having his lifeblood sucked out of him, but what happens when his soul is drained leaving nothing but his proverbial shell? I’d like to equate this to the old pink slip, UNemployment. What happens to this capitalistic waste, this byproduct of cutbacks approved to trim the fat and make the company more agile in this ever-evolving corporate market? I propose that the unemployed become undead as well, not in the sense of vampires but more like zombies. These newly dead victims of capitalist society need something not just to get them by, but also to help them rebound. And what is going to help them? Why the tax dollars of their old co-workers in the form of welfare and food stamps. Aided by the government, the unemployed rip off the body parts of the employed that they need. Once the necessary body parts are acquired, which never happens, the unemployed rejoin the workforce (the reason why they are zombies and not vampires). So now the employed workers of the capitalist system find themselves smack in the middle of the horror movie of the century being attacked from both ends of the corporate ladder; all the while trying to amass enough funds to someday retire.

Re: Imperialism 101

Reading Parenti’s Imperialism 101 awoke a dormant resentment for capitalism within me. Don’t get me wrong, I love money and profits as much as the next person, but I find the degree to which we are removed from the realities of capitalism appalling. Though others may contend that Parenti is an anti-patriotic, flaming liberal, I cannot in good conscience dismiss him as such.
In fact, I think I can go as far as saying Parenti hits the nail right on the head. Reading his analysis of the manner in which historians portray capitalism’s leeching practices embarrassed me. I realized that I failed to think for myself, and rather allowed myself to be indoctrinated by European capitalism. I never questioned the underlying assumption that capitalism improves the standard of living in Third World countries. Though I have long found the belief that Western culture is somehow superior to the cultures of Asian, African, and South American suspect, I have never scrutinized the integrity of the economic endeavors of capitalist nations.
Parenti’s illustration of India pre- and post-imperialism completely debunks the myth that capitalism improves conditions for all. But more than that, it exposes capitalism as the take-no-prisoners juggernaut it is. Capitalism is not at all concerned with the interests of the perceived banana republics in its path.
I would love to say that Imperialism 101 has made an activist out of me. However, despite my new enlightenment regarding the sins of capitalism, I will almost definitely continue to patronize products that are the fruits of capitalism’s exploitation of Third World countries. As much as I sympathize with the victims of capitalism, I have to say that the mastermind behind capitalism created a watertight system. The clincher for the capitalist-imperialist system is that we are far away enough from our victims that we can pretend they do not exist. In this case, out of sight truly is out of mind.