Unit7, Article 33: New Tech, Old Habits: Despite world class IT networks, Japanese and Korean workers are still chained to their desks.

Reaction:

Ihlwan, M., & Hall, K. (2007). New tech, old habits; Despite world-class IT networks, Japanese and Korean workers are still chained to their desks. . In P. De Palma (Ed.), Annual editions: Computers in society 10/11 (pp. 152-153). New York: McGraw Hill.

Summary:

In New Tech, Old Habits, Ihlwan and Hall briefly describe trends of telecommuting in Japan and Korea vs. the United States. They make the point that Japan and Korea have some of the best wireless and broadband networks in the world and then ask the question: are Japanese and Korean companies using this networking technology to their best advantage? Their answer is that these companies are not utilizing networks nearly as much as they could. Most, but not all, companies in Japan and Korea do not allow their employees to work from home or even to bring a laptop computer home when they need to work late. Reasons for this decision include a cultural expectation for workers in Asian companies to work together, face to face, on projects and a fear that many company executives have that their employees might lose valuable data if they take computers with them out of the office. According to the article, trends show that telecommuting in Japan and Korea may be on the rise as younger managers take over positions and companies find out how much money telecommuting can save them in overhead costs.

Reaction:

I do not find it surprising that Japanese and Korean companies are more hesitant to allow their employees to telecommute than American companies are. Their cultures are more formal and telecommuting (at least in America) seems like a more relaxed and informal way of doing business. Telecommuting is also much more individualized than Japanese and Korean companies may be used to. When telecommuting, employees are evaluated based on the amount of work and the quality of work that they are able to do, whereas in Japanese and Korean companies the time commitment make by employees for the company may be of more value to managers.

Unit 6, Article 29: Privacy Requires Security, Not Abstinence: Protecting an Inalienable Right in the Age of Facebook

Reference:

Garfinkel, S. (2009). Privacy requires security, not abstinence: Protecting an inalienable right in the age of facebook. In P. De Palma (Ed.), Annual editions, Computers in society 10/11 (pp. 128-133). New York: McGraw Hill.

Summary:

The author of this article is Simson Garfinkel, associate professor at the naval postgraduate school in Monterey, CA. In the article, the author expresses his views about the state of privacy Americans have as a result of modern technologies such as the computer, internet, and databases. As eluded to in the title, Garfinkel points out that whereas Americans could at one time abstain from letting others have too much of their personal information by paying in cash, having conversations face to face rather than over the phone, or driving a personal vehicle instead of flying, we are now faced with security cameras, online medical records, online bank records, and other similar things that make it impossible to live life apart from the web. All of us have personal information online; the question becomes not whether to abstain from technology or not, but how to make the systems we do use as secure as possible.

Garfinkel spends a majority of his article outlining the history of privacy acts in the United States. Basically, where privacy stands right now is that each online company or website that takes a user’s personal information is required to provide a privacy policy for users defining what that site can and can’t do with the user’s information. A company would only get in trouble if it used personal information in a way that violated its own policy.

Garfinkel points out that while the privacy laws that we have now are working out OK, there are still a lot of holes that we need to patch up in our system. One major problem with the internet is that there is no way of knowing when a person is really who they say they are. For example, if someone were to hack into your Gmail account and then change the password and settings so that you could not get back in – how would you prove that it was actually your account in the first place? Would you be able to get it back? Once they got into your account, they would have quite a bit of personal information about you including, most likely, passwords that had been emailed to you from other sites you use to do business online. Garfinkel is hoping that someday soon we can have an online security profile similar to that of a US passport – one identity that allows a person to sign into all of their sites online. He is hoping that a system like this would help prevent against most of the online identification problems that we are facing. A system like this, however, will cost quite a bit of money and will mean the government needs to make some big decisions about the policy surrounding it.

Reaction:

Reading this article reminded me that I should be more careful when entering my personal information online. A agree with the author that it is better for us to be online and aware of the potential privacy issues than to abstain from using the internet and/or modern technology and be marginalized by society. As consumers of technology we need to be careful of how we use it, what information we publish about ourselves online, and take purposeful steps to be informed about potential threats. I am not sure what I think about having a “digital passport” issued by the government for every person. While it would make it simpler to sign into websites and applications with just one ID, I’m not sure I want the government having the ability to track everything I do online. Having a universal, government-issued ID seems like it would protect my privacy in some ways, but violate it in others. Right now, someone can type in my passport number and see when I have left the country, where I went, and when I returned. What if someone could type in my online ID # and see what time I logged into my Facebook account, how often I check my online baking, and if I have ever used an online dating service?

Unit 5, Article 23: Archiving Writers’ Work in the Age of Email

Reference:

Kolowich, S. (2009). Archiving writers’ work in the age of e-mail. In P. De Palma (Ed.), Annual editions: Computers in sodity (pp. 105-107). New York: McGraw Hill.

Summary:

In this brief article Steve Kolowich describes some of the challenges that archivists are facing as data turns digital. For many years, the processes used by archivists for preserving data have been pretty much the same. They receive paper manuscripts from authors, they preserve the paper, and they keep the information organized and catalogued in a way that makes it easy for researchers to find information they are looking for. Now, as writers have begun to write on the computer and save their work electronically, archivists are challenged with designing a new system that preserves electronic data and keeps is in a format that is accessible as technology rapidly changes.

Archivists are also facing questions about ownership. For data that has been stored by someone on his or her computer hard drive or their personal floppy disks, it is easy to specify ownership. If an author or author’s family decides to donate her works to a library, they can give the library a laptop computer or a box of floppy disks. However, it is not clear how who owns much of the information that has been posted online. If an author created a blog or communicated frequently with colleagues via email or facebook messages the data might belong to the author or it may belong to the company that owns the servers where the data is being kept.

The author summarizes his article by pointing out that so far we have no manual on how to properly archive an author’s work in the present day. No one is sure how much information to keep, what the best way is to store the data, or where the funds will come from for reference libraries to purchase the new technology that will be necessary. The good news is that we have access to so much great technology and resources that it should not be too difficult to figure out a process.

Reaction:

I found this article interesting because it brought up topics that I have never considered before. The computer does give us a tremendous ability to store data about someone’s life and the opportunity to learn about what a person did on the computer from day to day. The computer stores so much information about us that it seems to me like it could be an invasion of someone’s privacy to look too deeply even after they are gone. Before the digital age, an author had a choice about which of their writings they wanted to be published and which they wanted to keep secrete. They had the power to throw a stack of old letters in the fire or to rip them up and throw them out. Now, most of a person’s correspondence done online by email, chat or social networking sites and stored on serves that they do not own. I suppose it is an exciting concept for scholars and researchers who want to have access to as much information as possible, but I can’t help but feeling like we are invading people’s privacy by tapping into their browser histories, email, and other life online.

Unit 4, Article 13: Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Reference:

Carr, N. (2008). Is Google making us stupid? What the internet is doing to our brains. . In P. De Palma (Ed.), Annual editions: Computers in society (pp. 59-62). New York: McGraw Hill.

Summary:

The main point of this article is that using the internet and search engines is changing the way people think and process information. The author, Nicholas Carr, believes that as a result of using the internet, he has a shorter attention span and prefers to seek information by skimming quickly over the results that pop up on a search engine rather than by reading a lengthy article on the subject. He claims that he was once a “voracious” book reader, but now starts loosing attention and falling asleep after two or three pages of text. The author also sites other people who claim to be having the same shift in the way that they think as a result of spending a lot of time around the computer.
Using search engines and the web to find information is not a bad thing in and of itself; the author is concerned that the way we seek information is actually changing the way our brains work and the way our culture values knowledge. Rather than spending the time to read deeply the writings of any one author, we are skimming the works of hundreds of authors and only getting the main point of what each are saying. Our concept of knowledge is shifting from one of depth to breadth.

Reaction:

I agree with the author’s observation that media is causing people to change the way they prefer to get information. However, I do not think all of this started with Google. I think that newspapers, magazines, and TV have also played a part. People were channel-surfing on TV before they were surfing the net with their computer. I also think the author is correct in suggesting that people need to cultivate the habit of thinking about things critically and learning about a topic deeply rather than always finding quick and easy information online.

Unit 3, Article 11: How Deep Can You Probe?

Zeidner, R. (2007). How deep can you probe? May employers are going online to check out job candidtaes. But does the practice carry hidden risks?. In P. De Palma (Ed.), Annual editions: Computers in society (pp. 49-51). New York: Mc Graw Hill.

Summary:

This article was published for the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) 2007 annual conference. The author, Rita Zeidner, talks about a practice that has become more and more common for HR departments and recruiters: checking into a potential candidate online before offering them a job. According to the 2007 article, about 20% of employers have eliminated a potential candidate because of information that they found online.

For some employers, it doesn’t seem like a big deal to research potential candidates online through web searches and/or social networking sites, but for others this practice is a huge breech of privacy. Employers who intend to do a criminal background check on potential hires are required to notify the person first, so should it be required that an employer notify a person before looking into them online. Information found online can be untrue and misleading. According to the sites’ terms of use, using social network sites such as MySpace and Facebook for commercial purposes may also be illegal.

The author concludes her article by pointing out that there are many ways that technology can be used legally by HR professionals and employers. Currently, online background checks are becoming more assessable and reducing the amount of time a company has to wait to get back results. There is also software being developed that can help HR professionals to quickly and efficiently do a background check, email references, and tabulate the results.

Reaction:

Personally, I feel that whatever a person publishes about themselves online is there for others to use as they wish. If you hire a person to work for and represent your company, you want them to be representing themselves in a respectable way the rest of the time. People need to realize that what they post online and on social networking sites is public information. They are marketing themselves by the way they appear online.

However, I also think that employers are responsible for making sure that the content they find online was actually posted there by the applicant themselves. There are a lot of people online with the same names, and it is easy for someone to create a false profile on behalf of someone else. When it is applicable to the job, employers should have the right to check into an applicant’s online activities as long as they let the applicant know beforehand. Applicants should have the opportunity to explain which online content they posted themselves and what may not be theirs.

Unit 2, Article 5: Great Wall of Facebook: The Social Network’s Plan to Dominate the Internet – and Keep Google Out

Vogelstein, F. (2009). Great wall of Facebook: the social network’s plan to dominate the internet – and keep Google out. In P. DePalma (Ed.), Annual Editions: Computers in Society (pp. 24-27). New York: McGraw Hill.

Summary:

This article was written by Fred Vogelstein and published in the July 2009 edition of Weird. The article discusses the history of two companies that have risen up in recent years to be huge presences on the World Wide Web. The two companies, Google and Facebook, are both extremely popular online destinations for web users which means that they have the capacity to generate quite a lot of profit through advertizing if they can just figure out the best way to do it. The two companies are currently racing to be the first to take over the online advertizing market and doing so in slightly different ways.

Google has been around for longer than facebook and is currently a larger company with a much larger profit margin. Google works by sending out “crawlers” over the web to bring back information. The crawlers assemble the information in Google’s servers. Google can then use the information collected for its search engines and to target advertizing to its users.

Facebook has its own servers which it has blocked so that the Google crawlers cannot access the information. Therefore, all the personal information that Facebook users have put into Facebook remains in the Facebook servers. Facebook can then use this personal information to target advertizing specifically to its users. This is the “Great Wall” of Facebook that Vogelstein refers to in his title.

One of the main points of the article is that the two companies are fighting to dominate the World Wide Web. Whichever company can gather the most information about the web’s users and figure out the most effective way to those users will come out on top. In time, we will find out who the winner will be.

Reaction:

I chose to read this article because I was surprised by the idea that Facebook would be trying to dominate the Internet. I see Facebook as an important part of my experience online – it is fun and entertaining – a good way to connect with friends and local businesses. However, Google seems like a much more integral part of my online experience. With Google, I can find more information – I can do research, and I can find out what is going on in the rest of the world. Facebook is full of other people’s Facebook pages, but Google search gives me access to websites, blogs, images, videos, and so much more. Google also has many powerful applications that I enjoy using such as Google calendar, Google documents, etc.

From my point of view, the products of both companies are useful and can be used interchangeably and simultaneously. I view my Facebook account by using Google Chrome. However, this article makes it sound like ultimately it is going to be one company or the other that comes out on top. I don’t see why the Internet cannot be big enough for the two companies to coexist.