Citation: Katina Michael speaks with Mariano Trevino, 18 June 2018, EducationHQ, https://au.educationhq.com/
Citation: Anna Doherty & Julia Zolkiewska, (June 17, 2018), "The Ethics and Advancing ICT", Video Filming, UOW.
Katina Michael with Nick Rheinberger, "Is encryption a human right?", ABC Illawarra: Mornings, May 18, 2018.
Katina Michael with Ally Crew, "Family Planning NSW Data Breach Financially Motivated", ABC Radio National Australia. May 14, 2018.
Thanks to executive producer Eleni Psaltis.
Citation: Katina Michael with Richa Sharma (WION), May 4, 2018, "Facial Recognition in Airports", WION: India's First Global Channel, http://www.wionews.com/
Assistant Producers Latika Chugh (WION); Neha Dan (WION):
TOPIC - Facial recognition at Airports
- --how will it help?
- --can it stops or help catch criminals?
- --how will it make the entire airport experience more efficient?
- --will it use biometrics?
- --will the biometrics be stored?
- --if the biometrics are being used...will the be saved.. or at risk of mis use?
In an Australian first telecommunication companies Vodafone and Telstra have been the first to offer unlimited data mobile packages, following the US. It has been labelled the telecom wars where consumers are set to cash in, however in the past telecom companies have been accused of false advertising for broadband plans by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), leaving the question how much should we trust these companies? The Daily was joined on the line by Dr Katina Michael from Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences at University of Wollongong to discuss how this will impact the consumer and the market.
For more information on consumer rights visit: https://accan.org.au
Citation: Katina Michael with Sean Britten, "Telecoms Wars: Unlimited Data Packages", 2SERFM.COM The Daily, https://2ser.com/telcom-wars-unlimited-data-packages/
NOTE: while reference was not made to the correspondence between myself and the producer, the story ran in The Telegraph, the dialogue seems to have been removed at the last stage. This is a common practice when the word length is limited.
>> Tinder, while not the first dating application by a long shot, was a first mover in the smartphone space to take advantage of the phone's swipe feature. Tinder has about 50 million active users on its system.
>> Facebook has over 1.2 billion active users, with WhatsApp at 700 million active monthly users. Clearly the size of the potential if Facebook gets the App right is humungous. Otherwise there will be subscribers who use both platforms and exploit different features in each.
>> Facebook today enables a subscriber to connect with people you know, while Tinder allows you to meet total strangers.
>> We have to consider the Tinder Plus users who are committed to continuing with the platform given the ease of use, and the Apps specificity.
>> Facebook has always been about social relationships. Do they have an advantage? Yes, because profiles are already available and they have access to 1/6 of the world's population. On the flip side they do not have permission just to share these profiles with people who wish to date.
>> Yes, already we are seeing a chilling effect take place when Facebook is mentioned in conversation. The CA scandal has meant that some people have deleted their Facebook accounts.
>> But the real issue is that most people on dating web sites do not realise a) that some of their data is already freely available; b) and their data is being used for non-dating purposes.
>> For now the CA scandal was a "blip" on the s-curve of Facebook services. It did raise awareness of what is possible, some people did delete their accounts, or did minimise their activity on Facebook as a result, but most went "now that it's out it is business as usual". The power to connect may seemingly override the power to keep one's "patterns of life" private. >> Facebook does not need to do this but it is trying to grow its market. Commercials in the US play, presently, with the slogan "together".
>> Facebook is trying to reach a different audience. It will provide a new revenue stream. It will also keep people on Facebook's platform longer to see more advertising. Mobile users that use services like Tinder, are willing to pay for services for connecting with NEW people, not just existing people you know (as in Facebook).
Citation: Katina Michael with Chris Graham, Overnight Producer, Commenting on Facebook Dating Service for The Telegraph UK.
I asked everyone from Facebook to data brokers to Stan for my information. It got messy
28 April 2018
By technology reporter Ariel Bogle
Brands I've never heard of have my details.
Deciphering your Facebook data can be like leafing through a corporate-owned teen diary.
In 2007, one of my first comments was telling a friend she had a "fashionable mullet", but my online data footprint has exploded since then.
I downloaded my data from Facebook in an effort to understand how brands target me with personalised advertising — an activity that accounted for 98 per cent of the social giant's 2017 revenue.
Your name, age and location are the least of it. Every like, link and interaction can add to your profile, whether it's an inferred political preference — are you liberal or conservative? — or an interest in board games.
But as Wired has detailed, Facebook's data download provides an incomplete picture.
To fix that, I asked for my personal data (you can too, thanks to the Privacy Act) from everyone from data brokers to advertisers.
What did I find? That understanding who knows what about you online is a sisyphean undertaking. One that takes dozens of emails and almost one month.
What do data brokers know?
Ever heard of a data broker? If you haven't, that's no mistake.
"They rarely have a public presence," said Sacha Molitorisz, a digital privacy researcher at the University of Technology Sydney.
"My guess is there is an intuition somewhere there, that what they're doing might not be palatable to customers."
Data brokers are companies that may gather online and offline information — census data, surveys and purchase histories, for example — to create consumer profiles that they serve to advertisers.
In the market for a new car? An expectant mother? These are the types of insights they look for.
If advertisers want to reach these people, they can source special audience information from data brokers and target ads to them on Facebook.
This is allowed under Facebook's Partner Categories program, but after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the company said it would be winding the option down.
A Facebook spokesperson said ad campaigns run this way would end by October 1, 2018.
For now, though, Facebook works with three providers in Australia: Quantium, Axciom and Experian.
I contacted all three and asked for my personal data. All three said they had nothing — but that's not the whole story.
How am I targeted?
Earlier this year I was served a Facebook ad for 100% Pure New Zealand. Facebook told me it was based on a dataset provided by the data analytics firm Quantium.
But if Quantium doesn't have my personal details, how does it target me?
The tourism ad was sent to two consumer segments — "outdoor enthusiasts" and "travellers" — a Quantium spokesperson said.
The company received de-identified purchase data, likely from Woolworths Rewards program, which was then used to create anonymous groups likely to purchase something based on their past shopping behaviour.
My de-identified data was probably in there. Then, apparently, Quantium matched it up with my de-identified data from Facebook.
"Publishers like Facebook de-identify their users' personal data utilising the same encryption algorithm used by Quantium," the Quantium spokesperson said.
"The de-identified data from both parties is passed into a secured anonymisation zone for matching purposes. This allows the two datasets to be matched without using any personal information."
In some cases, it gets more mysterious.
In Settings, Facebook lists the advertisers it says are running ads, using contact lists they uploaded to the platform.
Experian said it had no personal information about me, but Experian Data Quality is listed as having uploaded my contact information to Facebook.
A company spokesperson said it could not confirm why I was connected to Experian Data Quality.
"Based on the information you provided to us, we again confirm that Experian's Data Quality and Targeting (Marketing Services) in A/NZ does not hold any personal information on you," she wrote in an email.
Who else has your email?
Brands are only meant to upload contact lists to Facebook for advertising if they have permission to do so.
In the case of the video streaming service Stan, seeing its ad on Facebook made sense — I'm a subscriber, and apparently, I've watched the TV show Billions.
A Stan spokesperson said the ad I saw was intended to remind people "who may be fans of the show" that a new season was available.
It does this to highlight content the company thinks subscribers are interested in, using its internal analytics.
"We matched your encrypted email to data held by Facebook to facilitate the surfacing of that content," she added.
(I also asked for all my personal data from Stan, and the hours of television I've watched makes for a terrifying spreadsheet, by the way.)
The contact list mystery
But Stan is not the only brand that has my information.
As I write this article, there are more than 300 brands that Facebook lists as having my contact information — the majority of which I've never heard of.
There's a sushi restaurant in Perth, for example, called Tao Café. I've never visited.
I got in touch, and Tao Café office manager Annette Sparks was equally baffled about its appearance on my list.
But she said that the food delivery company Deliveroo ran ads on behalf of the company, and suggested that's how my contact details may have been bound up with the sushi venue.
So, onto Deliveroo.
While they couldn't discuss my personal situation, a spokesperson said Deliveroo does provide "marketing support" to its restaurant partners — essentially, it runs ads promoting them as part of the delivery service.
Did Deliveroo then share my email with cafes from Perth to Singapore? The company said no.
"Under no circumstances does Deliveroo share any customer details with restaurants or other third parties as part of these marketing campaigns," the spokesperson said.
I'm left none the wiser about why Tao Café was on the list — and there are other mysteries too.
According to Facebook's list, various American political candidates have my contact information.
As does the official Facebook page of the actress Kate Hudson.
What can I do?
Mark Zuckerberg has said Facebook users own their data, but it's an unusual kind of ownership.
Ownership feels largely meaningless when your data is scattered around the internet.
There is no one company to blame. The architecture of online advertising is set up this way.
"The issue is that in the digital space … personal data is very much sought after, and there are all [kinds of] different players who stand to benefit from access to that data," Mr Molitorisz said.
"There needs to be greater transparency with how our data is used."
This is the reality of surveillance capitalism, according to Professor Katina Michael, a privacy expert at the University of Wollongong.
Our data is a valuable commodity, and time is not on our side when it comes to understanding who wants it and where it's going.
"We don't measure it, we don't write it down like we do calorie-controlled diets," Professor Michael said.
"We don't realise how much we're giving away."
Ariel Bogle, April 28, 2018, "I asked everyone from Facebook to data brokers to Stan for my information. It got messy", ABC Radio National, http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2018-04-28/i-asked-everyone-from-facebook-to-data-brokers-to-stan-for-my-information-it-got-messy/1752610
Original source here
“The Future Of…” series asks a variety of UOW experts and researchers the same five questions, to provide insight into the potential future states of our lives, communities and world.
Katina Michael is a professor in the School of Computing and Information Technology at UOW. Katina is formerly the long standing IEEE Technology and Society Magazine editor-in-chief (2012-2017), and presently an IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine senior editor. Since 2008 she has been a board member of the Australian Privacy Foundation
Michael researches on the socio-ethical implications of emerging technologies. She has written and edited six books, guest edited numerous special issue journals on themes related to radio-frequency identification (RFID), supply chain management, location-based services, innovation, robotics and surveillance/uberveillance. In 2017, Katina was awarded the prestigious Brian M. O'Connell Award for Distinguished Service to the IEEE Society on the Social Implications of Technology (IEEESSIT).
What are you researching or working on in 2018?
At the heart of my research is the interplay of engineering, law, policy and society. Alongside MG Michael and my colleagues, I will continue to add to the research on uberveillance (exaggerated pervasive embedded surveillance) at the operational layer with respect to the internet of things, data protection and human rights. This extends to the ongoing two-factor authentication requirements with the aggressive rollout of biometrics - especially facial and behavioural recognition systems and also unauthorised and covert tracking technologies and notions of transparency. In the same vein, I will also investigate the use of wearable cameras and corresponding visual analytics for augmented reality capabilities in law enforcement.
I’ll continue to examine socio-ethical approaches to robotics and artificial intelligence developments and their implications for humans, as well as the risks of bio-implantables.
Blockchain registers and everyday transactional data flows in finance, education, and health are also something that interests me.
In regards to your field of study or expertise what are some of the most innovative or exciting things emerging over the next few years?
Advances within the health sector including devices and implantables, acting as the hub for body area networks allowing for precision medicine and read-write shares within a world built on the Internet of Things ideology. Solutions will be created that allows remote health systems to monitor your drug taking behaviours, daily exercise routines, and wander/fall-down alerts.
Human modification will continue to become popular with exoskeletons, transputation (humans opting for non-human parts), and the ability to do things that were once considered ‘superhuman’ (e.g. carrying 2-3 times one’s body weight, or extending human height through artificial limbs).
Brain to computer interfaces to help the disabled with basic accessibility of communications and everyday fundamental necessities (e.g. feeding oneself). However, breakthroughs in this space will quickly be adopted by industry for applications in a variety of areas, with the primary focus being entertainment and search services.
Personal Artificial Intelligence (AI) services that will be able to gather content and provide for you thought-specific level data when you need it will become available - your life as one long reality-TV episode, captured, ready for playback in visual or audio, adhering to private-public space differentials. Captured memories and spoken word will be admissible evidence in a future e-court.
In regards to your field of study or expertise what are some of the things readers should be cautious/wary of over the next few years?
The technology we are being promised will get very personal and trespass privacy rights. Whereby in 1984 we were assured that at least the contents of our brain were private, today behavioural biometrics alongside detailed transactional data flows, can provide some level of proactive profile of everyday consumers.
Retaining anonymity is difficult, some would say near impossible. We have surveillance cameras and smart phones and watches that track our every movement, smartTV’s and smart hub devices that watch and listen to us in our homes, IOT devices that monitor motion detection and human activity in private spaces, and social media that has the capacity to store instantaneous thoughts and multimedia across contexts. This loss of privacy will have psychological impacts and fallout, whether it be in increasing rates of mental illness, or in the personal space we require to develop and grow as human beings, that right to freedom to learn and reflect from our mistakes in private.
Technology will provide a false sense of security and impact on fundamental values of trust in human relationships. For some an over-reliance on wearable and implantable technologies will mean a dysfunctional life as they wrestle with what it means to be human and answer the fundamental question of who-ness.
Learning to live with technologies such as robots and AI will create paradigms that will take some getting used to - new laws, policies, and business models will need to be developed. Do robots have rights? And if so, do they ever supersede those of human rights? What will happen when ‘machines start to think’ and make decisions?
Where do you believe major opportunities lie for youth thinking about future career options?
This is pretty simple, although I am biased, it is ‘all things digital’. If I was doing a degree today, I would be heading into biomedical engineering, neuroethics and cybersecurity. On the flip-side of this, I see the huge importance of young people thinking about social services in the very ‘human’ sense.
While we are experimenting with brain implants for a variety of illnesses, including for the treatment of major depressive disorder, and DNA and brain scanning technologies for early detection, I would say the need for counsellors (e.g. genetic) and social workers will only continue to increase.
We need health professionals, psychologists and psychiatrists who get ‘digital’ problems: a sense of feeling overwhelmed with workloads and instantaneous communications. Humans are analog, computers are digital. This cross-road will cause individuals great anxiety. It is a paradox. We’ve never had it so good in terms of working conditions, and yet we seem to have no end to social welfare and mental health problems in our society.
As life expectancies continue to grow in most economic systems, pressures to find solutions to food security (e.g. fisheries), renewable energy sources, biodiversity and climate change will increase. What good is the most advanced and super networked world, when rising sea levels will inevitably cause significant losses? Today’s youth could more discerning to use our computing powers to model and predict changes to the earth to implement long term solutions.
In regards to your field of study or expertise, what is the best piece of advice you could offer to our readers?
The future is what we make of it. While computers are helping us to translate better and to advance once remote villages, I advocate for the preservation of culture and language, music and dance and belief systems. In diversity there is richness. Some might feel the things I’ve spoken about above are hype, others might advocate them as hope, and still others might say this is their future if they have anything to do with it.
Industry and government will dictate continual innovation as being in the best interest of any economy, and I don’t disagree with this basic premise. But innovation for what and for whom? We seem to be sold the promises of perpetual upgrades on our smartphones and likely soon our own brains through memory enhancement options.
It will be up to consumers to opt-out of the latest high tech gadgetry, and opt-in to a sustainable future. We should not be distracted by the development of our own creations, rather use them to ensure the preservation of our environment and healthier living. Many are calling for a re-evaluation of how we go about our daily lives. Is the goal to live forever on earth? Or is it to live the good life in all its facets? And this has to do with our human values, both collectively and individually.
For more from Professor Katina Michael you can visit her UOW Scholars profile, which links to her papers and publications.
You can also explore more of Katina's work and projects on her website here
A story featuring Katina titled 'Disconnected' also features in The Stand. View it here.
Citation: Carly Burns with Katina Michael, "The Future Of: The Technological Society", UOW Research Newsletter, https://www.uow.edu.au/research/newsletter/2018/UOW245398.html
伍倫貢大學（University of Wollongong）網路成癮專家邁克爾教授（Katina Michael）表示，科技公司精心設計了讓人上癮的應用程序，「他們實際上在竊取大腦，內容正在轉向洗腦，甚至可以在高度上癮的用戶肉體上看到痕迹，例如拇指和食指上的瘀傷，這種成癮可能隨時發生在任何人身上。」
Original source: http://www.exmoo.com/article/60967.html
PHONE-addicted Aussies are spending up to six hours a day glued to their devices amid fears they are sacrificing quality time with their loved ones.
New research provided to the Sunday Herald Sun shows some smartphone users unlocking their devices an astounding 216 times a day — equal to once every three minutes over 12 hours.
The average Australian spends nearly 2½ hours a day on their mobile phone, with women aged 56-65 the worst offenders. The figures provided by smartphone usage tracker AntiSocial show our phone addiction ranks among the highest worldwide. Only Russian, British and American users are hooked more.
Chris Eade, from tech firm Bugbean which developed AntiSocial, said most phone users underestimated their usage and were shocked to learn the reality.
“When you look at the data it’s crazy to see how much time we spend and what we do on our phones,” Mr Eade said.
The statistics — based on the phone usage of more than 130,000 AntiSocial users over two years — point to a worrying pattern of compulsive checking and social media use, according to experts.
Australians are launching mobile applications an average 101 times a day, with people aged 18-25 averaging 118 launches daily.
One AntiSocial user averaged 341 launches a day — opening Instagram 89 times and Snapchat on 103 occasions.
Social media apps take up the majority of Aussie users’ phone time with Facebook accounting for 20 per cent of total time spent “in app”. Dating applications averaged 40 daily launches, Mr Eade said.
University of Wollongong internet addiction expert Prof Katina Michael said technology companies were engineering applications to make them as addictive as possible.
“They are literally hacking the brain — the content is turning to brainwashing,” she said.
“We can even see physical signs on highly addicted users, things like bruises on thumbs and index fingers from excessive swiping. It (addiction) can happen to anyone, at any time.”
The University of Adelaide’s Daniel King, a specialist in behavioural addiction, said it was important not to paint addiction as black and white.
“An addictive disorder relates to a person’s ability to control their time spent and whether or not it’s impacting function,” he said.
“It’s not obvious that just using your phone is addictive, though it can facilitate addictive behaviours.” For those who think they have a problem, Mr Eade recommended leaving the phone off for the first and last 30 minutes of the day and tracking daily usage to self-regulate.
Turning social media notifications off or removing apps for extended periods of time could also help people feel less anxious about their phones. Mr Eade said: “More important is what you’re doing on your phone. We all need our phones, but things like aimlessly scrolling social media just isn’t productive.” Beaumaris mum Robyn Svojtka and her two daughters enjoy quality family time but admit mobile phones sometimes get in the way.
“I use my phone for absolutely everything,” Mrs Svojtka said. “We use it for talking, texting, online banking, social media, work, WhatsApp — everything.
“It’s a vital form of communication. I’ve got teenage daughters who are going to parties and friends’ houses — they’re independent. If I’m not contactable, I can feel nervous.” Mrs Svojtka said her biggest concern about phone usage in her family was her daughters missing out on opportunities to learn and excel in other areas of life because they were focused on their devices.
“They waste a lot of time looking at things that don’t matter, that they could spend on things like guitar practice. It bothers me a lot.’’ email@example.com
WORST AGE GROUP FOR DAILY PHONE USE
- WOMEN AGED 56-65 2:35:08 HOURS
- MEN AGED 14-17 2:24:49 HOURS
AGE GROUP WITH HIGHEST DAILY UNLOCKS
- WOMEN AGED 18-25 40.14 UNLOCKS
- MEN AGED 18-25 43.12 UNLOCKS
HOW AUSTRALIA’S DAILY PHONE USE RANKS WITH WORLD’S TOP USERS
1 USA 2:37:17 HOURS
- 2 RUSSIA 2:32:01 HOURS
- 3 CANADA 2:26:54 HOURS
- 4 UK 2:24:02 HOURS
- 5 AUSTRALIA 2:14:58 HOURS
- 1 USA 2:54:06 HOURS
- 2 UK 2:37:16 HOURS
- 3 AUSTRALIA 2:29:59 HOURS
- 4 CANADA 2:29:58 HOURS
- 5 RUSSIA 2:14:10 HOURS
APP LAUNCHES A DAY
- AGED 14-17 95.17 TIMES
- AGED 18-25 118.73 TIMES
- AGED 26-35 105.35 TIMES
- AGED 36-45 85.4 TIMES
- AGED 46-55 87.42 TIMES
- AGED 56-55 63.67 TIMES
- AGED 66-75 51.91 TIMES
HOW TO GET YOUR LIFE BACK
Don’t use your phone for the first 30 minutes of your day, or the last 30 minutes If there was important news to be heard, a friend would call you, so no need to check social media endlessly Be real, don’t use social media when with friends, and engage and live in the real world Turn off notifications from social media and turn off distractions Put your phone on silent during meals and put it somewhere so you aren’t tempted to look at it Try to have a phone-free morning once a week Delete social media apps from your phone and see how long you last. Be brave, you can do it!
Leave your phone in another room for one hour per day — you won’t actually miss anything
TAKE THE TEST ARE YOU A PHONE ADDICT?
Citation: Peter Batchelor, "Mobile phone addiction", Herald Sun, https://myaccount.news.com.au/sites/heraldsun/subscribe.html
SMARTPHONES are changing the way our brains work.
Emerging research suggests excessive mobile phone use can rewire neural pathways, increase anxiety and mimic the symptoms of autism and obsessive compulsive disorder.
Professor Katina Michael, from the University of Wollongong, has been researching phone and internet addiction for more than 20 years. She said obsessive compulsive-like behaviour on phones was having an enormous impact on society, particularly in younger generations.
“We have a whole generation of kids unable to identify mood from facial expressions,” Prof Michael said. “Addictions to social media like Facebook can mimic symptoms of autism in adolescents.” Prof Michael added that compulsive use of devices was hijacking the brain’s pleasure and reward centres.
“It creates an unending feedback loop in the brain,’’ she said. “The brain is never satisfied — no matter how many ‘likes’ you get or times you check your phone. That’s where the anxiety comes from.” Phones could also have an effect even when not in use.
A University of Chicago study found negative cognitive effects of mobile phone use remained even when the phone was off but nearby. Prof Michael said children needed classroom lessons on the addictive qualities of smartphones.
Citation: Peter Bateman, April 8, 2018, "Autism-like symptoms showing up", Herald-Sun, p. 27.
PHONE-addicted Aussies are spending up to six hours a day glued to their devices amid concern quality time with loved ones is being compromised.
Research shows some users unlock their devices an astounding 216 times a day – once every three minutes over a 12-hour period.
The average Australian spends nearly 2½ hours a day on their phone. Women aged 56-65 were the worst offenders.
The figures – from smartphone usage tracker AntiSocial – show Australia’s phone addiction ranks among the highest worldwide. Only Russia, the UK and US were worse.
Chris Eade, from tech firm Bugbean, which developed AntiSocial, said most phone users tended to underestimate their usage and were shocked to learn the reality.
“It’s crazy to see how much time we spend and what we do on our phones,” Mr Eade said.
The statistics – based on the phone usage of more than 130,000 AntiSocial users over two years – point to a worrying pattern of compulsive checking and social media use.
Australians launch mobile apps an average 101 times a day. Those aged 18-25 average 118.
Social media apps take up most user’s phone time, with Facebook accounting for 20 per cent of total “in app” time.
University of Wollongong internet addiction expert Prof Katina Michael said tech companies were engineering apps to be as addictive as possible.
“They are literally hacking the brain – the content is turning to brainwashing,” she said.
But University of Adelaide behavioural expert Daniel King said addiction was not black and white. “It’s not obvious that just using your phone is addictive,” he said. For those who think they have a problem, Mr Eade recommends leaving the phone off for the first and last 30 minutes of the day and tracking usage.
Citation: Peter Bateman, April 8, 2018, "Aussies are hung up on phones", The Advertiser, p. 7.
Stare Into The Lights My Pretties undersøker hvordan folk blir preget av det altoppslukende behovet for å være oppdatert og online.
Det er åpenbart at vi lever i en tid med radikale endringer i kulturell atferd og en voksende «lik, klikk og spill»-kultur. Denne dokumentaren spør hva de intellektuelle, cerebrale og nevrologiske konsekvensene av en slik kultur vil bli.
Ny verdensorden. Brown leverer en dyptpløyende dokumentarfilm om den «vidunderlige nye verden» som venter oss. Filmen åpner med å minne oss om den enorme forskjellen mellom kunnskap og informasjon. Kunnskap betyr å ha evne til å kontekstualisere og tolke biter av informasjon, utvikle ideer og begreper, og forbinde oppsamlet fakta og relatere disse til en aktuell situasjonskontekst. Disse grunnleggende evnene blir nå raskt svekket, og erstattes av knappe informasjonsbiter på internett – en flat, horisontal kommunikasjonslinje som mangler dybde og grundighet. Lærere blir stadig mer bekymret over at visse hjernefunksjoner vil slutte å utvikle seg. Evnen til å analysere fakta blir ikke lenger krevd eller lært bort.
Tilgang på «fakta» blir mer og mer avgrenset og samtidig viet større oppmerksomhet på nettet. Søkemotorer som Google, Yahoo, Facebook og andre tjenester tilbyr stadig mer «målrettet informasjon» som blir filtrert for å passe brukernes personlige interesser. Resultatet er en kommunikasjonsboble som fører til lukkede tankesett, og brukerne aner ikke hva nettet skjuler for dem. Innenfor «skjermkulturen» har selskaper gjennom teknologikonvergens ikke bare økt sin makt og innflytelse, men også utformet en sentral mekanisme for sosial kontroll. De gir seg ut for å tilby frihet og demokrati gjennom en «åpen kilde», men har i realiteten skapt et perfekt, gigantisk ekkokammer. Det du får, er ikke alternative, men bekreftende argumenter. Statistikk viser at 85 prosent av voksne i USA får nyhetene sine fra sosiale medier, 64 prosent fra bare én kilde.
Farvel privatliv. I dag blir internettbrukere overvåket på systematisk vis. Hvert klikk – inkludert dem knyttet til private helsemessige og seksuelle forhold – blir lagret og danner en database over potensielle forseelser og anklager gjennom politisk og religiøs profilering, som det er mulig å hente frem og bruke til å kriminalisere brukeren ved skiftende kulturelle og politiske vilkår. I boblen med utvalgt informasjon blir menneskelig atferd omformet og nye praksiser for tidsbruk etablert, som holder folk opptatt og online for spesifikke formål samtidig som forbruksmønstrene deres observeres.
Den nye dominansstrategien er ikke lenger å straffe, men å skape avhengighet. Gambler-syndromet er et av de mest åpenbare. Eksempler på Skinners behaviorisme-teori kan ses overalt. Uforutsigbarhet er essensielt for å forsterke spilleinteressen; den flytende «lik-kulturen» gir overraskelser hele tiden. Internett har utviklet seg til en hjemlig spillmaskin. «Tasting» har blitt et biologisk instinkt – det er det første man gjør om morgenen, det fyller hver pause, og det er en permanent invasjon av sinnet. Teknologifilosofen Lewis Mumford oppsummerer det slik: «Folk er lykkelige over å bli dominert, og tror de er i himmelen.»
Gamifisering og nano-monitorering er de to hovedstrategiene i mikroklikk-kulturen, som måler verdier i klikk. Tidligere Facebooksjef Sean Parker har uttalt at målet var å manipulere tankeprosessen med applikasjoner – med en sosial belønnings-feedback som går i loop – til å ustanselig legge beslag på brukerens tid: «Vi var dette bevisst, og vi gjorde det allikevel.»
BROWN BRUKER MANGE ULIKE PERSPEKTIVER FOR Å DEKRYPTERE DE KULTURELLE ENDRINGENE SOM FOREGÅR: TEKNIKERE, STATSVITERE, WEB-INGENIØRER, FILOSOFER OG PSYKOLOGER.
Vi blir teknologi. Brown bruker mange ulike perspektiver for å dekryptere de kulturelle endringene som foregår: teknikere, statsvitere og samfunnsfaglige eksperter, web-ingeniører, filosofer og psykologer. Kulturelle endringer inkluderer også det som skjer på de mest personlige plan. Vi kan se hvordan selvpresentasjonen på internett har forandret seg fra besynderlige, personliggjorte hjemmesider på 90-tallet via formgitte, men underlige portretter på Myspace-sider, til formatert og markedsvennlig tilstedeværelse på Facebook-sider – fra et kort, personlig og åpent uttrykk til en fullstendig markeds- og computervennlig konform side.
Skjermkulturen er ikke bare avhengighetsskapende, men i høy grad tvangsmessig avhengighetsskapende. Det er et alvorlig helseproblem man først nå er begynt å ta på alvor. Det kan allerede være for sent for neste generasjon å unngå å falle inn i etterlikningsmønstre. Nevrovitenskapsfolk som Nicholas Carr, Richard Watson og Sherry Turtle har i en rekke publikasjoner bekreftet at den menneskelige hjerne vil tilpasse seg klikk-informasjons-persepsjonen.
Dokumentaren avslutter med en nokså kynisk utopi som viser Katina Michael under en TEDx-konferanse i 2012, der hun slår fast: «Snart vil vi ikke snakke om teknologiens sosiale implikasjoner, men hvordan samfunnet er blitt teknologi» – altså hvordan datamaskinene i en ikke altfor fjern fremtid vil overta kroppene våre. Ekkokammereffekten er et første steg i den retningen: Dersom informasjonen som blir gitt oss er selektiv og bare forsterker allerede eksisterende oppfatninger, vil vi aldri bli utfordret til å tenke annerledes. Den kan dessuten gjøre at du kommer til den illusoriske konklusjonen at menneskene og det de har skapt, er den eneste virkeligheten som finnes.
Oppfatninger det ikke blir stilt spørsmål ved – som myten om en omfattende teknologi som en universell kraft – er de virkelige faktorene som dominerer samfunn. For elitesektorene – militæret, byråkratiet og mektige selskaper – fører antakelsen om at teknologien ikke kan stoppes, til en ganske nyttig følelse av maktesløst hykleri om at «teknologi» er konsekvensen av og opphavet til deres verdenssyn, behov og interesser, som Lelia Green, forsker og forfatter av Technoculture, understreker. Bare ved å knekke denne myten vil motstand fremdeles være mulig. Ellers vil teknologien overta verden gjennom å gi maskinene makt til å dominere.
Teknologien er avhengig av hvordan vi bruker den. Teknologien er ikke nøytral og kan bare brukes innenfor sitt designs rammer, basert på designernes kunnskaper og samfunnet de sosialiseres i.
Inviterer til diskusjon. I sin første dokumentarfilm leverer Brown en sterk og likefrem studie, full av utsagn fra et bemerkelsesverdig panorama av talere og vitner. Bildene illustrerer de talendes teorier og er hentet fra dokumentasjoner av hendelser, teknologiske scenarier og arkivmateriale.
Filmen er et nøkkeldokument som utgangspunkt for diskusjoner om dagens samfunn og gir rom for ekstreme tanker og radikal kritikk (kvaliteter som går tapt i klikk-kulturen), som av og til er polemiske, men aldri unyttige.
Filmen kan ses gratis her: https://stareintothelightsmypretties.jore.cc
Citation: Av Dieter Wieczorek, "Tankevekkende om klikk-kulturen", NY TID, https://www.nytid.no/tankevekkende-om-klikk-kulturen/
In English (Google Translate)
It is obvious that we live in a time of radical changes in cultural behavior and a growing "equal, click and play" culture. This documentary asks what the intellectual, cerebral and neurological consequences of such a culture will be.
New world order. Brown delivers a profound documentary about the "wonderful new world" that awaits us. The film opens to remind us of the huge difference between knowledge and information. Knowledge means having the ability to contextualise and interpret bits of information, develop ideas and concepts, and connect collected facts and relate them to a current context of context. These basic abilities are now rapidly weakened and replaced by scarce information bits on the Internet - a flat, horizontal communication line that lacks depth and thoroughness. Teachers are increasingly concerned that certain brain functions will stop developing. The ability to analyze facts is no longer required or learned.
Access to "facts" is becoming more and more limited and at the same time devoted more attention to the web. Search engines like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and other services offer ever more "targeted information" that is filtered to suit the personal interests of users. The result is a communication bubble that leads to closed mindset and users do not know what the network hides for them. Within the "screen culture" companies through technology convergence not only increased their power and influence but also designed a central mechanism for social control. They set out to offer freedom and democracy through an "open source", but in fact, have created a perfect, giant echocombe. What you get is not alternative but affirmative arguments. Statistics show that 85 percent of adults in the US get their news from social media, 64 percent from just one source.
Goodbye privacy. Today, internet users are monitored systematically. Each click - including those related to private health and sexual relationships - is stored and forms a database of potential offenses and prosecutions through political and religious profiling, as it is possible to bring forward and use to criminalize the user under changing cultural and political conditions. In the bubble of selected information, human behavior is transformed and new practices for time use established, keeping people busy and online for specific purposes while observing their patterns of consumption...
Professor Katina Michael is from the School of Computing and Information Technology at the University of Wollongong and she joins Nick and Trevor to talk about the ripples after the Cambridge Analytica scandal and how she’s quitting an app most of us are addicted to.
Citation: Katina Michael with Nick Bennett and Trevor Long, April 3, 2018, "Quitting Facebook after Cambridge Analytics", Talking Lifestyle: Talking Technology on Macquarie Media, https://www.talkinglifestyle.com.au/podcast/quitting-facebook-after-the-cambridge-analytica/
Citation: Katina Michael with Eric Gyors, March 28, 2018, "Is it the end of privacy?", EPISODE: Wednesday Drive – 4:00pm 28th Mar 2018, https://eastsidefm.org/episodes/wednesday-drive-400pm-28th-mar-2018/
"We're more connected than ever, always at the beck and call of our smart phones. But despite being constantly online, we're feeling isolated and anxious. We explore why social media is so addictive and what it's doing to our mental health."
A trailer to the documentary "In My Mind" looking at social media addiction. Directed and produced by AttitudeLive in New Zealand. This documentary centred on social media addiction, and the series focused on women's issues more broadly. It aired in Ausralia on March 26, 2018, recorded some time in mid July 2017.
Citation: Katina Michael in "In my Mind - Social Media Addiction", SBS OnDemand, screening March 26, 5pm-5.30pm, Sydney.
Jesse Mulligan found out the hard way how much data Facebook keeps on you when Kanoa Lloyd downloaded his and read it back to him on Three's The Project.
Facebook has come under fire recently after it was revealed Cambridge Analytica was using data from the site to influence elections in the United States and Africa.
- Political firm Cambridge Analytica accused of rigging elections worldwide
- UK investigating Cambridge Analytica, Facebook
The company was using data collected when users took part in online quizzes and managed to get from 200,000 users who completed the quizzes, to over 50 million users from their friend lists.
To illustrate just how much data Facebook keeps on you, The Project host Kanoa Lloyd downloaded all of Jesse Mulligan's and read it back to him live on air.
"This stack here shows me so much stuff and this is the kind of stuff that could potentially be getting shopped out to companies like Cambridge Analytica," she said.
Among some of the things she discovered was the day Jesse signed up to the site, the name of his father and the number of messages he had sent.
The message was to Jesse's flatmate in London, and he remarked it was really creepy that Kanoa was able to find that out so easily.
"I feel creeped out knowing this, I don't need to know this stuff and I definitely wouldn't want a company like Cambridge Analytica knowing this stuff about me either," she said.
Lloyd even managed to find the contents of his first ever Facebook message, but he wouldn't let her read it out on the show.
Katina Michael from the Australian Privacy Foundation says while you don't necessarily have to delete your Facebook it may be time to think twice about those innocuous looking quizzes.
"When you've got 2 billion subscribers and your whole model and whole business is built on advertising and micro-analysing consumers, people have become products and that's a bit evil," she said.
While it may be hard for users to understand the breach Dr Michael says they should be concerned about how their data is being used.
"People perhaps have cared about privacy but haven't realised the seriousness of the micro-analysis going on with our psychographics," she said.
"Everyone should care about their right to privacy and the intrusion of their privacy, how anyone is misusing their personal information."
Newshub Staff, March 23, 2018, "The secret file that tells you what data Facebook has on you", Newshub, http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/03/the-secret-file-that-tells-you-what-data-facebook-has-on-you.html