Bookmarked

Arvind Narayanan discusses three papers investigating the ways in which smart TVs watch the user, while the user is watching it.
Bookmarked

On the back of Permanent Record, Edward Snowden reflects on some of the problems with smartphones, including the listening and tracking:

My point is not that you should use a smartphone like me, but that you *shouldn’t have to*. Privacy should not be a privilege, but because the legal system is broken, the average person today stands, at every stage of life, naked before the eyes of corporations and governments.

This system of predation has survived for so long because it occurs under the illusion of consent, but you were never asked your opinion in a way that could change the outcome. On the most consequential redistribution of power in modern life, you were never granted a vote.

The lie is that everything happening today is okay because ten years ago, you clicked a button that said “I agree.” But you didn’t agree to the 600 page contract: none of us read it. You were agreeing you needed a job; agreeing you needed directions, email, or even just a friend.

It wasn’t a choice, but the illusion of it. The consent you granted was never meaningful, because you never had an alternative. You clicked the button, or you lost the job. You clicked the button, or you were left behind. And the consequences were hidden for ten years.

I like Snowden’s point about consent. This was a part of my concern with mobile devices, although I did not capture it that well.

via Sebastian Greger

Replied to

In danah boyd’s book It’s Complicated, she argued that:

A central challenge in addressing the sexual victimization of children is that the public is not comfortable facing the harrowing reality that strangers are unlikely perpetrators. Most acts of sexual violence against children occur in their own homes by people that those children trust.Page 110

Replied to

The treatment of culture is something that really stood out when I visited New Zealand a few years ago.
Replied to

Personally, I think that we need to create structured spaces for students to learn to be in such spaces together, This is a better answer IMHO than running away from them. Plus, I think that social media can be positive, it is not all negative, right?
Replied to

This has me wondering about ‘what works’ and how this can be subjective. Uber may have disrupted the taxi industry, but it is yet to succeed in making a profit. The same goes for Netflix. I wonder if what works is platform cooperatives, rather platform capitalism?
Bookmarked

In this Twitter thread, Anand Giridharadas explains why he resigned as a juror for MIT’s Disobedience Award. He discusses why he originally agreed, but started questioning his participation when the associations between Joi Ito and Jeffrey Epstein were uncovered. He sort explaination from some of those within MIT, but instead of providing any clarity he was attacked. So he did the only thing he could do, resign.

Billionaires will make their money and turn universities into their intellectual man caves.

Pariahs with cash will redeem themselves through strategic and prestigious giving.

Institutions will take it, selling them reputational makeovers.

And women will continue to be trafficked and abused, and unjust plea deals will continue to be struck, and these universities and labs will continue to be run by men who don’t get it and don’t want to get it.

Unless people step up.

Replied to

This is such an important message Fiona. It reminds me of Austin Kleon’s message from Steal Like an Artist:

What a good artist understands is that nothing comes from nowhere. All creative work builds on what came before. Nothing is completely original.

We however forget about stealing from our past selves.

This is what I like about Song Exploder, where artists break down the birth of an idea.