Group items tagged

Very nice, this is seriously exciting. good post....

Interesting for several reasons: A MOOC with due dates, and yet only 15% get a certificate of accomplishment. Nearly half of the students watched less than a video a week, that is less than 60 minutes in ten week. Any class with this kind of record would be considered a failure in a traditional setting. Yet it seems, the "teachers" were more interested in the data they gathered on student interaction than on the success of their students. But it is good that you can glean this kind of information from the video - therefore: Good post.

I found this video really interesting. The attempt to emulate a one-on-one learning interaction through the structure of the videos was an interesting, emotionally engaging, concept. The actual completion rate of the particular MOOC discussed wasn't very high, but it would be interesting to look at it in the context of other similar MOOCs. Even though this video was interesting it went the way that many TED talks go. Very emotionally engaging, but left me with lots of questions and wanting more.

Awesome! Interesting and informative.

Excellent, thanks for this. The "nothing to hide" argument also rests on the absurd premise that the authorities all have pure motives and will not abuse their power with this level of access to private information. To assume that all authorities, everywhere, all have noble intentions and pure motives is absurd as assuming that all human being are perfect....

Even though it is a few years old, the topic is still relevant--and maybe even more so in the wake of Snowden. Although most of us do truly believe we have 'nothing to hide', we are all naively unaware of just how easily something innocent can be twisted to nefarious means. At the same time, if we are all being watched, are any of us really being watched? Something to ponder.

The big problem is the concept of privacy. In Brazilian law we have three kinds of personal information (data): public, private, and restricted. The difference between public and private information is matter of personal choice, in others words, each one may decide what is matter of the public or private information. The restricted informations are those that we are required by law to give the government, but the government cannot disclose without authorization. The privacy issue is respect for this choice between private and public data. When government or anybody disrespects this choice, we have a problem. I think in virtual ambience the users ignore those distinctions and make a big mess. If in one hand government and big players have been stealing our data, in other hand the users don't have necessary care about his own private information.

"Nothing to hide as at now" might be correct as a current status but not for the future. Human beings we always behave like we have control of our future. I may have nothing to hide as at now but in 10 years time when I ran for political office my past will surely halt me.

True, however our real name / our real identity, if used consistently across the variety of online audiences we engage with, permits Big Data to be aggregated, defining our activity as a distinct entity, giving it greater value in the analytics marketplace -- whether we have anything to hide or not ... What price do you wish to place on your digital self as an online product is the real question.

Makes a great point. I used to think that way, if I have nothing to hide I don't have to worry about what others find about me. But is true there is no need for everyone to have access to every single detail about you. And the point Kim and Philip made is really important, with more information available and more companies interested in making profit of it becomes more difficult to maintain control of who access your information and what it is used for.

The article raises two important points: (1) the right to know how information is being used and (2) the right to correct incorrect inferences being made from sometimes an incomplete information sets. I begin with the assumption that,despite how I take care to protect information, there are individuals and institutions that will find ways of dong so. So I want the right to appeal and set the record straight.

This would be a good addition to the next addition of our core reading list.

Thank you for sharing this. I can agree on that even though we have nothing to hide, it is matter of violating our right to keep it to our selves. However, I can say that it people's opinion for public-surveillance cameras in cities and towns may be different. The cameras may have good usage in order to solve or prevent crimes. It depends on how it is used I guess.

I like to differentiate 'privacy' which is a right every human should have, from 'privatisation' which is corporate mandates that suggest the right to hide or share information - mostly based in monetization. Technology has given us access to each other in ways never imagined, and until humanity reaches a higher order of compassion toward and consciousness with each other, this issue will eat at the very fabric of our society until our security obsessions destroy us.

Thanks for your sharing. The example of the government has installed millions of public-surveillance cameras in cities and towns, which are watched by officials via closed-circuit television in Britain makes me reflect on two aspects. Firstly, in my personal opinion, I think public-surveillance cameras provide citizens a better sense of security especially during nights. Secondly, the key point here is how the officials deal with the documentation of public-surveillance cameras, will citizens' privacy be exposed to public?

I think that is a really good point. I feel like sometime for myself,I don't really know whether the information that we have found online is true or not. There are tons information online and we can't filter them all out, instead i think we should have a better understand and sense of what we are searching online before we do research.

Very good information. Every child should be taught about this before project assignment given to them. Sothat they will concentrate on only positive results of search engine and ignore negative results

Good source, this actually has been practice for several years, almost all the publishers are engaging into digitized open publishing type, wherein the resource materials they are selling is actually publish electronically, so that buyers or interested clients may view it online; no need to go to their shop to ask what they are looking for.

Coincido con la reflexión de este artículo acerca de la necesidad de las casas editoras (publishers) de repensar sus modelos de negocios y de olvidarse (aferrase sería una palabra más precisa) del exclusivo modelo gutenberiano de producción editorial. Sin embargo, me parece que su enfoque adolece de varios problemas. El más notorio es que trata al mundo de las publicaciones como uno solo, cuando no hay forma de comparar las dinámicas, capitales (humanos, financieros y simbólicos) puestos en juego en la publicación académica (scholarly publishing) o en los libros de interés general (trade), guías turísticas, enciclopedias, libros religiosos, textos para niños, etc., para no mencionar la abismal distancia entre las revistas académicas (scholarly journals) y los libros o inclusivo las revistas generalistas (magazines). Concluir que las cosas van maravillosamente bien porque un montón de empresas, vinculadas a los medios masivos (un punto relevante en la argumentación, que se menciona como si fuera lo más normal del mundo) tienen emprendimientos exitosos es confundir peras con manzanas. También creo que usar el mantra de la época de la disruption (age of disruption) para todo aporta poco a la discusión (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-machine?currentPage=all)

I agree with the reflection of this article about the need for publishers to rethink their business models and forget the exclusive Gutenberian publishing model. However, I think his approach suffers from several limitations. The most notorious is treating the publishing world as one, when there is no way to compare the dynamics, capital (human, financial and symbolic) at stake in academic or scholarly publishing with books of general interest (trade), tour guides, encyclopedias, religious books, textbooks for children, etc., not to mention the abysmal gap between scholarly journals and books or inclusive commercial magazines. Conclude that things are going wonderfully well because a lot of companies, linked to the mass media (an important point in the argument, mentioned as if it were the most normal thing in the world) have successful ventures is to confuse the things. I also believe that using the mantra of the age of disruption for all contributes little to a seroius discussion (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-machine?currentPage = all)