Media technologies continue to necessitate themselves in our everyday lives. The majority of the developed world relies on digitalism 24/7. Emailing documents to your boss from your laptop via wifi. Confirming boardmeetings with your peers on your mobile phones. Paying for your dinner with your credit card via chip and pin. Listening to Mr Tambourine Man on your MP3 player. All these things and more depend on the transfer of information via digital networks.
The paradigm of our time, the internet. The information superhighway has fast become the personal information superhighway, where we are willingly displaying our private lives for all the online public to see. Not to mention the corporations buying, selling, and categorising our data to the best advertising bidder. In the last two years we have seen a massive increase in cases from the web spilling into our first life law courts. Online paedofilia, information vandalism and employees losing their jobs after superiors have an unannounced browse on their Facebook profiles, are all prime examples of how virtual world causes are having real world effects. Second Life is facing tax potential because it is possible to make serious First Life money from the online Linden Dollars.
Real world ramifications from virtual activities. As the fourth order simulacrum spills into the original model of the real we are faced with a big issue. Not simply how do we police the net - a problem our govenments are still nowhere near capable of. But where is the line drawn? How do we establish an online judicial system that is and will continue to inevitably seep into our actual one? What is the difference between online racism, plagiarism or extortion, is there one at all? If so, is it dealt with online, or in the real world? The answer is both. But how?
In a few generations time our children will see very little difference between existing in Second Life and online in general, and existing in tangible realtiy. This is not to say that they won't "know" or be able to define the inherent differences between the two but the way in which they distinguish the idea of living in one and the other and the social relationships between the two will be of such an advanced understanding that their perception of both will amalgamate so that they are intrinsicly linked and naturally considered synonymously.
Thursday, 10 April 2008
Monday, 7 April 2008
Terror Tactics: Binary words of warning
The more you read the news the more you realise that the news is reading you.
Not only do we have the issue that our own government is arrogant enough to gather all of our personal information in a central database that they claim can be made hack proof. Nothing is that secure, if it exists someone will find a way to break into it - end of. We've got ID cards and computer chipped passports. How invasive will it get, condoms with secret cameras?
Unfortunately we ourselves aren't that bright either. With the explosion of the blogosphere (yes i am aware of the irony here) and social networks we are creating a digital Big Brother. Facebook and Twitter, the social networking sites of the internet and mobile-scape are platforms on which anyone and everyone can communicate and share vast amounts of private data. Information is the most lucrative market of the 21st Century. Character profiles are sold to the highest bidder and the profession of data collector is an ever-expanding field.
In addition we have the regular passing of acts which allow police and parliament to detain terror suspects without any evidence but on suspicion alone. This law was under debate in the House of Commons to be extended to a length of 42 days. After 42 days of interrogation and potential torture people will admit to anything to bring an end to the ordeal. The public must not become complacent on these matters. Civil liberties are in jeopardy, basic freedom is highly threatened.
We've moved from an industrial society to an information society, the problem is that the digital model is a lot more vulnerable to manipulation and vandalism than the physical. But there's no point getting paranoid now, the information on you is already out there and there's very little we the poor lowly public can do to retrieve it. What you want to be asking yourself is this; how hard is it to disappear?
Not only do we have the issue that our own government is arrogant enough to gather all of our personal information in a central database that they claim can be made hack proof. Nothing is that secure, if it exists someone will find a way to break into it - end of. We've got ID cards and computer chipped passports. How invasive will it get, condoms with secret cameras?
Unfortunately we ourselves aren't that bright either. With the explosion of the blogosphere (yes i am aware of the irony here) and social networks we are creating a digital Big Brother. Facebook and Twitter, the social networking sites of the internet and mobile-scape are platforms on which anyone and everyone can communicate and share vast amounts of private data. Information is the most lucrative market of the 21st Century. Character profiles are sold to the highest bidder and the profession of data collector is an ever-expanding field.
In addition we have the regular passing of acts which allow police and parliament to detain terror suspects without any evidence but on suspicion alone. This law was under debate in the House of Commons to be extended to a length of 42 days. After 42 days of interrogation and potential torture people will admit to anything to bring an end to the ordeal. The public must not become complacent on these matters. Civil liberties are in jeopardy, basic freedom is highly threatened.
We've moved from an industrial society to an information society, the problem is that the digital model is a lot more vulnerable to manipulation and vandalism than the physical. But there's no point getting paranoid now, the information on you is already out there and there's very little we the poor lowly public can do to retrieve it. What you want to be asking yourself is this; how hard is it to disappear?
Monday, 31 March 2008
Buffy the Vampire Slayer's Philosophy
Only haters talk sh!t. Anyone who dismisses Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a prepubescent crotch tease of a show, has missed the point entirely. Not that a hot blonde staking vampires in graveyards isn't enticing, but the show is an onion with many layers that must be peeled to be understood. In the series of Buffy and Angel, collectively known as the Buffyverse, there is constant philosophical and religious symbolism. This book analyses such metaphors relating to classic theorists such as Plato, Kant and Nietzsche and dealing with ideas of reality, redemption, sacrifice, salvation and morality. Due to the inherent supernatural connotations the vampire, demon themed show has, this allows the producers flexibility to experiment with the subjects mentioned. I recommend the chapter that deals with Faith, the second slayer, a hedonistic nihilist who enjoys the violence and slaughter of the slayer lifestyle a little too much, and on killing a human she goes rogue and turns to the dark side. Greg Forster discusses this in relation to Christianity and Nietzsche.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)