The "Informed" Cyberworld

We live in the age where the Internet is Big Brother –the all knowing and omnipresent. And it’s not just limited to Google. It's actually the social networking sites that feeds most of the netizens "information" at their clicking. In fact, according to Pew Research Center Facebook has become a driving force in the News arena - "Its role has evolved from a network for friends to share personal information to a way for people to share, recommend and link together all kinds of information, including news." The simple act of clicking "share" or "retweet" has made News into a social experience.

Image Source: http://www.journalism.org

However, with this clicking, re-tweeting, sharing (which has somehow become an auto-response programmed in the body of netizens worldwide) comes the issue of truth and authenticity of the things we read online. In today's fact paced world, most of us have been spoon-fed with too much information. We want things concise, brief and easy to digest. Just look at Twitter's 140-character limit! And with this compression comes misinformation. In her article, Lian Nami Buan, talked about the problem of spreading unverified news and points to some examples. She also points out that it is not difficult at all to verify online information and suggests that "the first step to achieving a properly-informed cyber world: Read More."

What does it mean to Read More? It's taking time to read the entire article rather than settling for more often than not hugely controversial headlines. It's learning the real issues and not getting caught up with hearsays of your social grapevine. It's being responsible in creating and sharing information on the web. 

Think before you click. Simple. Easy. Painless.

(You may read the complete article here:  Read More: Why you should really click this link )

------

Entry No. 16

Soleil Flores

[READ ALL OTHER ENTRIES]

The Google+ (Social Network) Project

In the age of social networking where Facebook and Twitter rule network relationships, multi-billion dollar conglomerate Google refuses to sit this one out.

Just last week I received an invite for Google+ project. My initial thought was, "It's like Facebook, only Google-fied!"

Photo from plus.google.com

While quite late it at, Google launched on June 28, the Google+ project --a social networking service aimed at "sharing the right stuff, with the right people" while integrating the wide range of Google products and services, such as GoogleBuzz (microblogging), Youtube (video hosting) and Picasa (photo sharing), just to name a few. Currently, the service is still in it's invite-only testing phase. It boasts of five features, generating mixed reactions from netizens all over:

• Circles -a place where you can sort out their contacts into respective groups via drag and drop method 
• Hangouts - a platform for Video Chats 
• Huddle - a communication tool for your circles (contacts); works like BBM groups or group IM chats 
• Instant Upload - for sharing pictures and videos directly from your mobile phone (Android only) 
• Sparks - a recommendation interface based on ones listed interests

It appears that this is just the beginning of grand plan to take over the social network business. It is reported that in the next six weeks, Google plans to rebrand Picasa and Blogger as "Google Photos" and "Google Blogs" respectively in order to tie it up with the major roll out of Google+.

Google+ indeed looks promising. However, it is highly unlikely that it would surpass Facebook's 11-year lead in the social networking game anytime soon. In terms of users and site use, Golden Sachs estimated that as of January 2011, Facebook has 600 million users. Furthermore, the features offered by Google+ is not new. In fact most of them are already contained in Facebook as well as other services albeit in a different setting.

Just looking at the odds, Google has a lot of convincing to do in order to lure users to switch sides. As Business Insider's Steve Kovach puts it, "A social network is no good unless your friends are on it too."

But then again, it's still early in the game. A lot of developments (and surprises!) can still take place considering that the site is still on beta testing and Facebook just might fight back. Let's just wait and see what happens when it finally gets mass released in the market.

For more information regarding the service, please visit the Google+ Homepage or watch the video below.

Sorry but I don't have invites. :)
3rd Entry
Soleil Flores

Digital Response to Japanese Disaster

The 8.9-magnitude earthquake and tsunami that happened in Japan before last week ended was so strong it moved the Nippon country nearer to the United States and even tilted the earth’s axis and shortened the day. That is taking the scientific point of view. In terms of ICT, well, the disaster also takes the spotlight.

THE TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES. A Sydney Morning Herald article sums it best: “Google Inc. has an online ‘person finder’ for people seeking information about a missing person. Microsoft Corp. is offering free technical support and temporary software licenses to companies affected by the earthquake. It has also pledged $250,000 in cash. Twitter is trying to help organize the flood of information flowing through its system. It is suggesting people use certain tags for general earthquake information, requests for rescue and other related topics. Amazon.com Inc. and Yahoo Inc. have links on their home pages encouraging people to donate to the relief efforts.” (Click here for article)

Of course, these companies have since also been offering digital ways to donate to Japan's efforts at recovery. “Apple has set up an option on its iTunes software to allow registered users to donate from $5 to $200 to the American Red Cross simply by clicking a button for the chosen amount. The Red Cross has also launched a campaign on Facebook through the social media giant's Causes function…” Also, “Twitter was updating by the second, continually refreshing information and advice as well as directing people to resources on the ground and offering ways to donate to help survivors.” (Click here for full article)

THE PEOPLE. But the response is not limited to the tech giants because ICT is also giving Japanese citizens and other people the chance to help and, well, speak out. Twitter users are sending infinite streams of messages of support to survivors of the quake-tsunami disaster. Messages commending (some criticizing) Japanese leaders also abound. Zynga gamers are asked to donate money through the purchase of virtual goods in CityVille, FrontierVille, FarmVille and its other games for its Save the Children's Japan Earthquake Tsunami Emergency Fund.

If all is to be named, this blog will go on non-stop. So let this be finished with a THANK YOU for the blessings of ICT. And of course, my prayers for Japan and its people.

- Phebean Belle A. Ramos, entry #17

Image Source: http://www.jokelibrary.net/xOtherNtoZ/plane-supp.html

Sources: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110314/ts_yblog_thelookout/japans-earthquake-shifted-balance-of-the-planet; http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/japanese-light-up-twitter-on-govt-quake-response-20110316-1bw5b.html; http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/tech-companies-pitch-in-on-earthquake-response-20110315-1but4.html; http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/digital-ways-to-donate-to-japan-disaster-relief-20110314-1bub2.html

Is The Internet Making Me Stoopid?*

Make your own memes featuring Starebert here.

Today I needed sample Taxation bar exam questions, a backgrounder on HBO's Cirque du Freak, and Supreme Court cases providing the "exception to the exception" of the doctrine of judicial courtesy. And I needed it fast. Google, as usual, did not disappoint.

It seems almost trite to say that technology has vastly simplified my life. But say it, I shall. Instead of having to go to school just to look for cases and books in the library, I can save money and time wasted on the long commute by staying home and searching for the answers online. I can email simple motions directly to my Supervising Lawyer and use the waiting time to finish my required hand-written digests to the sound of John C. Reilley and Salma Hayek arguing in the background.

My recent dependence on Google made me think of Nicholas Carr's controversial article, which offered what seems to be a compelling argument that the Internet has detrimental effects on human cognition. That is, our capacity for concentration and contemplation has greatly diminished because the Internet has allegedly transformed us into shallow, distracted subjects. He cites Richard Foreman and the latter's notion of "pancake people" -- "spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.” The way we think is changing at the same pace our medium of imbibing knowledge is changing. And these changes, according to Carr, might not be for the best. He writes:

The idea that our minds should operate as high-speed data-processing machines is not only built into the workings of the Internet, it is the network’s reigning business model as well. The faster we surf across the Web—the more links we click and pages we view—the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements. Most of the proprietors of the commercial Internet have a financial stake in collecting the crumbs of data we leave behind as we flit from link to link—the more crumbs, the better. The last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It’s in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.

Wikipedia reveals that Carr develops these arguments further in his recently released book, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. This made me think though -- without the Internet, Google wouldn't have had the space in which to operate. Without Google, I wouldn't have discovered Nicholas Carr or his article. I wouldn't have realized that the way I consume information over the Internet might pose terrible risks to my I.Q. Sure, Carr's premise may have triggered a bit of existentialist angst, but without it, what else could I have used to fuel this blog article? More importantly, of course, I wouldn't have finished my minor pleading for OLA on time. Is it possible, then, that Carr is just being the modern-day John Philip Sousa?

While this issue might need for further critical reflection on my end, this is what I do believe: The Internet is NOT making me stoopid. After all, it is elementary that distracted is NOT synonymous to stoopid.

*Title borrowed from Nicholas Carr's 2008 article Is Google Making Us Stoopid?

The Good, the Bad, and the Possibilities with the Google Book Scanning Deal

At its simplest, the Google-French Book Scanning deal involves Google scanning thousands of French books, usually out-of-print, and Google will have the rights to use these scanned documents commercially.

At one end, this is alarming to publishers who invoke copyright protection, with the exception of Hachette Livre (that’s Publisher No. 2 to you) have in fact sued Google in court for copyright violation, and have won.

On the other end, the Lyon Library welcomes this innovation. One of the first books scanned was a rare 16th century collection of doomsday predictions by Nostradamus himself. The Ministry of Culture cries cultural theft, but the Library remains optimistic with the project’s noble objective: the promotion of heritage and culture. The Director was quoted saying, “By putting them on the internet, much larger circles of society, including non-specialists, can read these works and enjoy them and find them useful”.

The French Government made an attempt to build its own scanning facility, aptly-named Gallica, but as of the moment, it is nowhere near Google’s capabilities.

If by some chance, Google offers a deal like this in-country, I think we should go through with it, despite any copyright debate that may arise.

In-country, the problem has never been copyright protection. Publishers, especially the foreign ones, are already amply protected thanks to their lobby. Our problem has always been access, and we have very little of it.

Imagine the possibilities if works were made available online, then every Juan, Jong-Jong and Jing-Jing with access to DOTA and Facebook to all this knowledge. This is in the hope that we will be able to create a culture of book-readers, which we have never been, because we seem to find local noon time shows more entertaining.

Googling me

Source: http://trendsupdates.com/good-ridance-arthur-levinson/

... or maybe sometimes I hope I'm being watched.

Once in a while, I google my name (I won't even bother hyperlinking google). Unlike most of the words and phrases i type into the google search bar, I type in my name (first name + maiden surname; nickname + maiden surname; maiden name only; first name + married surname ... i suppose you can imagine the succeeding permutations) and then click on 'search' to see what 'others' would see if they typed in my name. By 'others' I am referring to either and/or any of the following:

1) my exes who I'm either trying to avoid, guiltifying (the word actually exists in slang lingo), or "regrettifying" (poetic license employed here)
2) my exes' girlfriend or wife who I'm trying to "envify" (poetic license employed again)
3) future employers I'm still considering, especially those that are particular about doing background checks (e.g. the DFA, the NICA, etc.)
4) my parents, relatives and other conservative persons who I wouldn't want to learn about my "extra-curricular activities" (like being at the wrong place at the wrong time doing wrong things)
5) my friends/colleagues who I'd like to impress (especially high school classmates)

"As if", right?

The reason I do this is because I'm one of the persons listed above - although the other way around. Yes, I also type in the name of my exes, my exes' girlfiend/wife, my students, my parents and relatives, and my friends.

I hate it when their names are too common (too many hits).

I love it when I uncover gossipworthy info.

I hate it when I see bad stuff about my family (like when I had to contact one of my mom's students to delete a blog entry because of certain "classified" info in it).

I love it when I "cyber-get-to-know" people through blog links, exams passed, etc.

I get excited when impressive information about me appears (like passing the LAE haha)

I get paranoid when I realize that I've posted my contact information over the internet. Or information that tends to show a "dark" side of me. Like when I posted a copy of one of my hate letters (consumer complaint) in my blog that I actually sent earlier. After I deleted it, the letter can still be accessed through cache.

I'm actually paranoid about this class blog and this particular entry.

My name is not common. Any person who types in my name will be linked to either me, or to Salma Hayek. Wait, I'm not claiming to be as famous as Salma Hayek. She's famous, and links about her appear unless my name is placed between quotation marks.

I think googling myself in the net says a lot about my ego (and my state of mind). How common is it anyway?

*pauses to check Google, types in "google own name"...*

Yep. It's not uncommon (So this blog entry must be really boring. But it's almost done so I'll post it anyway.). Anyway, for related topics about googling one's own name, check out this blog entry.

Do you google your own name? If you haven't, maybe you should try it now.


Salma F. Angkaya
Entry #2

The Smartphone OS Slugfest

What is the best mobile OS (operating system) for the smartphone today?

To answer the question with a singular statement, without enumerating possible options and delineating their relative strengths and weaknesses, would do injustice to any answer worth reading. So in the interest of becoming an unbiased observer of all things digital, I shall remove traces of Google-inspired fan-boyishness (or at least attempt to) and sift through the major systems involved along with their obvious characteristics.

Apple’s iOS - For the aesthetically-inclined. If you enjoy the Mac, you’ll also love the simplicity of iPhone functionality. Because Apple built the first App Store, iOS has first-mover advantage and thus has more apps at present. It’s also carved a reputation for doling out windfalls to developers whose products make it to front page of the App Store. Juxtaposed with the latter scenario are apps that aren’t allowed into the Store at all - thus creating the “walled garden” monicker. As of a few days ago, Apple appears to be breaching its own “great wall” by becoming more transparent with its app approval process. On the other side of the coin, the system, now in its fourth version dubbed “iOS4,” also seeks to challenge extant handheld gaming platforms currently dominated by Sony and Nintendo. The current physical iteration of the iPhone is, unfortunately, plagued by the proximity sensor bug (rumored to be addressed in the latest update) and the notorious antenna-gate fiasco. Notwithstanding these deficiencies, the iOS platform is here to stay.

Google’s Android - Function first, beauty later. Android’s user interface has been described to be “linux-like,” meaning not as intuitive as iOS4; while it’s learning curve is said to be a little steeper than handling an iPhone. Because the system is free, updated frequently by Google, and open to tinkering to both manufacturer and telecom alike, Android, as an OS, is widely perceived to suffer from version, hardware and carrier fragmentation. This simply means that developers become inconvenienced since, instead of building for just one system, they have to consider the intricate nuances of (a) what version they’re building for, (b) what hardware will host their product and (c) how carriers have pre-customized the very-customizable Android OS. The current version of native Android is 2.2 which is also known as Froyo. The last one was Eclair v2.1 and the one prior thereto was Donut v1.6. Note the alphabetical listing of dessert names to determine the most recent version. Gingerbread v3.0 is said to be in the works to fix this oft-complained-of platform fragmentation. But for all it’s many flaws, Android doesn’t dictate the way a user does things and takes a freer hand in approving applications for its own Market. There is freedom here. And for this reason alone, I label it my preferred choice.

RIM’s Blackberry 6 - Marketed as ‘the business phone,’ the Blackberry once stood at the pinnacle of the smartphone world. Blackberry was king of e-mail, Microsoft Exchange integration, and synchronization. This period of Blackberry hegemony is also known to the layman as the pre-iPhone era. The very recent introduction of ‘Blackberry 6,’ as an OS to compete with the likes of Android and iOS4 has, sadly, failed to impress. This is not to say that ‘Blackberry 6’ is a bad system but rather that it’s failed to offer something better than the Google-Apple upstarts. Add to that is the distinct lack of third-party developers for the platform. The only good thing going for it is it’s remarkable security features which, even now, is at the brink of being compromised after having recently earned the ire of paranoid governments. Because of the aforementioned reasons, analysts predict a downward spiral of Blackberry’s share in the market in the coming years. The only question being, how fast (or how slow) it’s going to take for RIM to reach the end of its rope.

The rest of the mobile operating systems - Microsoft’s Windows 7, Nokia and Intel’s Meego, HP’s (formerly Palm’s) webOS 2.0, and Samsung’s Bada - have yet to show their true colors to the buying public but are already garnering attention. These big names are out to crown themselves the new Blackberry’s of the modern world. Unfortunately they face stiff competition from the reigning overlords, upstarts really, who have simply changed the smartphone game. The first, by making third-party apps marketable; the second, by making everything (including the operating system itself) customizable. As to which entity will come out with the best strategy for the long haul is anyone’s guess. One thing, however, is certain: in this world of cutthroat smartphone competition, the consumer wins in the end. So go forth ye smartphone makers, dealers and developers! Multiply, battle, and prosper so that us tech-starved netizens can see our money’s worth in a mobile melee that should last a lifetime.

IMHO: Choose to get acquired by Google, Yahoo, or Facebook if you still don't have that billion dollar baby

When Raina wrote her Billion Dollar Baby post, it got me thinking. This thing called the internet, manifested through this monitor in front of me, is the one of the richest sources of, well, riches. With all the apps being developed for social networking sites, with all the other social networking sites that sprouted and still are sprouting everywhere, and the million of dollars it can put in your bank account, a lot of people are thinking about the next big thing and we are all waiting for it.

Today, some people got richer. These are the owners of Slide which was acquired by Google for $182 million. At the other side of this story is Facebook acquiring $40-million worth of Social Networking Patents. Lesson is: If you can't create the next big thing just yet, create something that the present big thing/s might decide to acquire (and of course, it has to be from you).

Either that or you do something that will be considered viral that will catch the attention of online communities. Today, Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional and the Scribd account owner who posted the decision got the attention of the Scribd community. It is considered viral if it reaches 100,000 views within 24 hours. This year, some short films have caught the attention of Hollywood and gave them some $30 million-worth of contract. Not bad.

In my humble opinion, getting acquired and being viral are still a next-big-thing.

Paulyn Duman
Blog #10 (for August 20)

Almost Famous.

“Look me up, I’m actually famous.” – Random Stranger

How often do you meet someone who claims they're that well-known, I could Google them and definitely find something worthwhile?

Well, it happened to me once. I was in another country, all alone, travelling from one city to another with all my belongings in tow. This middle-aged guy walks up to me, and offers to help get my things off the train. Perhaps sensing my hesitation, he hurriedly introduces himself. He seemed harmless, I was desperate, WWJD? :)

Anyway, it made me wonder – who’s famous, who’s not? What would warrant a claim to fame, regardless of the industry you’re in?

I did look him up (www.vincentbove.com) and… This person may not be famous all over but he has done enough to warrant recognition. He turns out to be an acclaimed authority for preventing school and workplace violence. Wow. Impressive.

I do not doubt this person’s credibility because I’ve talked to him (at length) in person and we actually correspond now. But. It’s freaky how relatively easy it is to create bogus websites and present false information about one’s self. Or about anything. Check out the following sites.

Fame can definitely be fabricated.

Entry No. 07

Rachelle Mayuga

On Google and Googling

George Clooney on the last person he Google-d: “Everyone I meet. Before, I used to do it as soon as I got home. But now, I do it even while talking to them.” (People Magazine, 18 December 2009 issue)

1. Google as a verb. I’m also “guilty” of using this term loosely and with Google being adamant about proper usage and respect for their brand, how far would they go to protect their trademark? They can’t control it. Question is: will it ever be genericized? We wait and wonder.
2. Access to the WWW. From desktops to laptops to Blackberrys, we can now benefit from the wonders of Internet in a snap. From dial-up connections to broadband access to free wi-fi, the list goes on...
3. Accessible information. Some people don’t even know that there ARE tons of information about them available online. Yes, even real-life people. Try it: go Google your name and see what comes up :)

Entry No. 05

Rachelle Mayuga

IMHO: Google and other search engines should offer a remedy for offensive search results

You googled your name one boring day just to check what pages and links and pictures will show when your names is searched. To your sheer surprise, hate blogs and pages which you don't want possible employers see appear on top of the search results. You panic and you should. Can you ask Google to remove that result?

To illustrate: When you search the name Michelle Obama, you may be directed to a results page where there's a picture of her that was edited so that she would look like a monkey in formal attire.

I searched for Google Webmasters Guidelines and Google's Terms of Service just to check how one can ask for a remedy for results like this. In one website, it reads, "Google Buys Search Ad For Offensive Michelle Obama Image Result" and apologized for the offensive search results, to wit:

"Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page."

Google said, "We Don't Change Search Results For "Political Reasons", and it sure shouldn't but it really didn't offer remedies that a person may avail of when confronted with other reasons other than political. It didn't even direct the readers to a link where Google users can report. But should it? In my search for a remedy, I stumbled upon this Google site where you can report websites which you think is a spammer. You just have to fill out the form. You may also report through this websites that copy your content, photos, images, etc without proper attribution. But in the specified reasons for reporting, there is no option to report a website because the content is offensive. But then, what standards do you apply to this? Will hate legislation for example, which is implemented in some countries, be invoked to challenge the validity of a certain result pages? Will implementation be considered a curtailment of freedom of speech? Can you attack the algorithm used?

The anatomy of a search engine for me is complicated. Maybe because I don't understand algorithm too much. But when I think about the legal repercussions of this issue, I am tempted to research on it and make it a topic for my SLR, because in my humble opinion there should be a remedy--whether you are in the Philippines or in South Africa. But I have other topics to choose from. I will let Dean Carlota decide.


Tip: Before you go out on a date, google your suitor first.

Paulyn Duman
Blog#5

Other links:

Google Basic
How does Google know a website exists?

Other blogs:
IMHO: Digitized sins are forgiven
IMHO: UP College of Law should improve its cellphone signal reception
IMHO: Media diet is good for students and teachers
IMHO: Knowledge about technology and neurotransmitters can help improve your relationships

Google, Apple and Nokia

finding a connection between property, nations and laws

1996.

Nokia is the undisputed cellphone king of the world.

2007.

The iPhone is invented. The world goes crazy. Nokia thinks it’s more toy than phone.

2008.

The Android platform is unleashed by Google. Apple laughs. Nokia tries to innovate.

2010.

Nokia is still king... of a dying empire. Google and Apple head to war.

The narration of milestones above almost mimics the way nations have fought wars in the last millennia. Today, for the most part of the world anyway, the terrain and motives of conflict, have shifted: why invade a country when you can invade their pockets? For these giants, in particular, the field of competition isn’t just the volume of cellphone sales but rather the interesting notion of platform penetration. If the desktop has Windows, what should the cellphone have? And why should it matter to law and policy?

For now, let’s ignore the first question and let me attempt to answer the second. And the answer to this, I think, lies in the best invention that has graced mobile phones in the last decade: the App Market. Here, third-party developers, Tom, Juan, and Abdul, can make an app (shorthand for “application”), place it in the App Market, and have this purchased by willing buyers for their cellphones. The percentages vary according to platform but the developer usually gets a 60-70% share of the sale. Though the buying is, in a sense, local, the market is quite global. Let’s look at this ecosystem from a legalistic angle: the parties involved - buyer, telecom, developer, and market owner - stem from jurisdictions where laws will inevitably vary. Which one will govern? Will mere contract apply or should a model law exist for these kinds of international relationships?

These questions, already being asked in reference to online transactions, might be avoided if they were addressed early on. But practical reality dictates otherwise. The market has to develop and problems need to occur before regulators decide to enter the picture. As Apple and Google trade blows and Nokia starts to wonder whether it should side with one or whittle away into obscurity, one thing is becoming certain: local laws are no longer sufficient to deal with the status quo: particularly the importation and exportation of virtual goods which do not (and will not) respect territorial boundaries.