I think, its really an expensive and unnecessary experiments, if the attendance of Harvard University is low, then they have to come up with different rule to attract the interest of students. Cameras should be there for security, but not for surveillance.
I agree. Cameras should be there for security, not for surveillance. But just like the Adobe software, before we use it we have to "agree" on its' terms. I believe very few actually read those agreements, because we have to use the software, "agreeing" on those terms might just be "agreeing" on allowing them to collect our information.
I live in Vancouver, BC. I know there are people who dislike the idea of the buses with cameras. I personally like that idea, it makes me feel like I am protected. When I was in high school in Victoria, BC, I feel safe taking the taxi even when it is late, because they have cameras in every one of them. When I was in Hong Kong, I feel insecure taking a taxi even when it is noon. So even if some of our information or our identity is given away, I agree on the idea of having cameras on buses and taxi's. I wonder if there is a gender difference on this, and there is also a gender gap of taxi drivers, maybe that is also why I personally feel insecure. Back to the point, if the purpose of cameras is for security, I agree to that. If it is for surveillance, I do not think it is essential; referring to the Harvard University attendance, at least they should inform the students about it.
This line caught my eye: "The study was approved by the US federally mandated Institutional Review Board, which assesses research and determined that the study "did not constitute human subjects research" and therefore did not require prior permission from those captured by the study." I have been debating with my own campus IRB over what constitutes human subjects research and what doesn't--they seem to be operating under the idea that if it's not invasive medical studies involving blood or drugs, it's not really human subjects. I think the issue in this Harvard study is that the IRB also has a clause that if you are collecting data in public spaces and not interacting with the people there, it doesn't require IRB approval; the question is whether these classrooms should be considered public spaces. My feeling is they aren't--in order to be in a room at a particular time, a person has to have chosen to attend that class, and within college classes it is assumed that the students can know that what they say is to some extent private among their classmates and professor. Even if the photos were destroyed after analysis, the fact remains that there were cameras inside what I would consider private spaces, without the consent of the people doing what they might feel is dangerous work (given the current assault on public intellectuals and academic freedom). My guess is that Harvard could easily have asked all the relevant parties to sign consent forms at the beginning of a semester but not indicated on which days they would be filming--people would probably continue doing what they normally do either way, but at least would have the option of asking not to be filmed. There's always a way to set up an area in a lecture hall where the cameras couldn't reach, so students who didn't want to be on film could opt out.
Thanks for sharing this! I have mixed feelings about this article. At first, I was super opposed to the whole initiAtive Harvard did to their students because I would feel thAt my privacy has been violAted completely, but after realizing thAt there are many more subtler forms of violAtions in privacy online (social media sites, tracking cookies etc.) I wasn't as opposed to the article. Although initially, students were not informed about their surveillance, there were told in the aftermAth, and their informAtion was destroyed. When using social media sites or installing new applicAtions, there are terms of agreement before continuing on with the installAtion in which personally I don't read At all. Those terms and conditions have stAtements inside which notify us of tracking personal informAtion which I have not read earlier but am still not opposed to giving. The informAtion is probably sold to advertisers and we're probably not aware of it but we still give them the informAtion via the signup of the program. Hence, even though there are contradictory views and feelings about their initiAtives, we should be more aware and cautious of other forms of surveillance when we sign up for things (e.g. social media sites etc.)
Thank you for sharing. This does raise some concern. I guess there may be good and bad with cameras installed in the school. The cameras installed without students' consents may be violating their privacy and rights. However, it may prevent wrong doings, i guess. When my friend was doing final exam, the prof asked the whole class to put their belongings in front of the classroom, but when he went to pick up his stuff after he was finished, his bag was missing. Through the security camera, they were able to see who stole his stuff.
Did any body else remember George Orwell's novel (1984). By accepting this type of behavior we accepting the image of a holly power that is ethical, care and neutral. Does this exist? and who will monitor the observers?
I think this is a really good point, who will monitor the observers? What kind of power do those people hold and what are they doing with all those information? It makes people uncomfortable.
Interesting news! It's surprising to get to know that Harvard University places cameras without letting students know, photographs them during lectures to measure attendance. This reminds me of my high school in China. When I was in high school, I remember that cameras were installed at the back of every classroom to prevent students from distraction in class or cheating during exams. It mainly worked as threatening students, from my understanding. Because you never know when the camera will be opened, actually, it never opened. What happened in Harvard University just reminded me of that, which is quite satiric.
Thanks for sharing this article. In my personal opinion, I think the action of secretly installed the cameras from Harvard University violates students' privacy. If it's just for measuring classroom attendance, I think Harvard University could definitely find a much better way instead of installing the camera.
wondering if this would be a different conversation if the cameras were just picking up heat signals so that the identity of the people could not be known but they could still be counted. The technology is pretty basic and it might even be more efficient than the way they're using them now.
Can't believe Harvard can do this thing. I think informations are sharing and revealing on internet or others more and more serious. Harvard shouldn't secretly photograph students, they should ask permission first.
"The Scholarly Communication in Africa Programme (SCAP) was a three-year research and implementation initiative that took place between March 2010 and August 2013. Hosted by the University of Cape Town, the programme engaged the Universities of Botswana, Namibia and Mauritius in a process aimed at better understanding the dynamics around scholarly communication in the Southern African higher education environment and advancing the open access agenda for the purpose of increasing the visibility of African research. This work was made possible by a grant from the Canadian International Development Research Center (IDRC). This report synthesizes research and findings from the four institutional case studies conducted at the Universities of Botswana, Cape Town, Mauritius and Namibia. It provides an overview the scholarly communication activity systems at work in these four Southern African universities."
Thanks for this article. I think it gives a great overview of the current landscape of scholarly publishing in Africa, and concisely states the problems of visibilities (or the lack thereof).
Photo courtesy of Intercontinental Toronto Yorkville. There is not much restriction in this photo. You can copy or save the photo as you wish.
I love to take pictures and during my recent trip to Canada, Toronto particularly, I was actually hoping that I could snap the beauty of this city at night looking at the Toronto Island Park, just the way it's supposed to be at this picture. But the chance was just elusive. It suddenly rained when I was at the park until I get back to the Harbor square.
I am documenting all my travels abroad and planning blogging them. I might use this photo should I blog all my travels abroad.
By: Matthew LeBar Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are often described as the future of education - or at least a significant part of it. But there may be a significant problem with them: a very small proportion of students who start them actually finish. This poses a serious threat to their legitimacy.
Very interesting article. I was at an Open Access week event recently that was a debate on the place of MOOCs in higher education. One point that another attendee raised about the completion rate of MOOCs that seemed really important to me was that many MOOCs require participants to register before viewing the content, and this can impact completion rate numbers. A person may only have the requisite information about whether or not the wish to participate once they have registered for the MOOC.
Thanks for sharing this! :) I am taking MOOC course about MOOC right now. I feel like completion could be a challenge for anyone who took it. I actually agree that completion is not everything in education. Since learning is more about understanding rather than completing, I think there is no point if someone did complete his/her MOOC but he/she does not understand about what he/she learned. However, I believe, in order to fully understand the course, it is better to complete what you have started.
I too feel that completion of MOOC is important. Other wise no point in participating in that MOOC. we also will get any information on the internet for knowledge gain. But there will be a regular follow up of the course for completing any MOOC. But only problem is having proper IT infrastructure to participate in that.
Thank you for sharing.
On the one hand one can choose form the course lessons and material that they want and choose not to complete the whole course. Then of course one can not evaluate the course judging from the completion rate.
On the other hand, ability to complete what is started develops human will-power and purposefulness. Otherwise the world is full of people with unfinished educations, short-term employments etc.
What the article says really is "MOOC completion rate is not a meaningful metrics about the course." Universities and institutions may need to have other metrics in order to evaluate whether to continue offer certain courses. As for individual participants, each person is her/his best critic on how much has been gained from the course.
Thanks for sharing this article. I'm in agreement with LeBar, completion of the MOOC is not the correct metric to be used for evaluation. The goal of many participants is to gain or increase knowledge on a topic which may be achieved without completing the whole course.
This ongoing MOOC is hard for me to complete since there is a lot of internet and network action required which I don't like to use at the moment. Still, I got so much Information that I will try to fulfill the requirements to pass it. It is not for the statistics - but for my personal support of the MOOC instructors (I wounder whether they notice)
I have joined another MOOC and received the "statement of accomplishment" and it was totally a big disappointment. The design and the language used reflect mentality is not related to what they are teaching online. It is underestimating people around the world time and efforts by issuing a statement is not well designed and meaningless. The question would be: does it worth it to finish any course online? the knowledge is already free and affordable all over the net, why do I need to follow an institute organized free course?
People are not finishing the MOOC courses because of frustration and disappointment and this has to be reviewed.
Tal vez no puede decirse que sea el futuro de la educación, pero si coadyuva para que el conocimiento pueda acercarse a cualquier persona, e incentivar al autoaprendizaje.
Habría que preguntarse cuál es el problema de que los estudiantes no concluyan los cursos MOOC, buscar las alternativas respectivas.MOOC ventanas de oportunidad para cualquier persona.
This brings up the question of what it means to complete something? And why is it so important to us? And why 'productivity', a thing somebody defined ages ago, is so important to our humanity? .. or is it anymore?
Because I am taking a MOOC course but also on campus at University, I receive credits and grades where this is definitely one of the motivations for me to contribute. Although I agree that completion of the course is not essential to attain knowledge, what about our motivations to learn? And what about our incentives? Not saying MOOCs are not interesting nor helpful, I like MOOCs, but I think people like recognition too. I think to just receive the "statement of accomplishment" is not enough to prove efforts made within the course. However MOOCs are not as well developed at this stage, there definitely will be adjustments in the near future.
"...we need to recognize you can't kill the instinct the technology produces. We can only criminalize it. We can't stop our kids from using it. We can only drive it underground. We can't make our kids passive again. We can only make them, quote, "pirates." And is that good?"
- Larry Lessig
This is a great talk about the free use of materials to make something new.
The crux of Mr Lessig's argument is that every time a "kid" remixes a song with a video they are committing a criminal act. By doing this the law is making their free expression criminal. He shows three great examples of this starting at 8:29 in the video.
He suggests that by using Creative Commons materials, we can avoid being criminals, and by doing this we can break the cartel of the RIAA and others. He uses the example of BMI causing the downfall of ASCAP. You can see this at 4:55 in the video. Here is the quote:
"Finally. Before the Internet, the last great terror to rain down on the content industry was a terror created by this technology [Shows a picture of a broadcast radio antenna]. Broadcasting: a new way to spread content, and therefore a new battle over the control of the businesses that would spread content. Now, at that time, the entity, the legal cartel, that controlled the performance rights for most of the music that would be broadcast using these technologies was ASCAP. They had an exclusive license on the most popular content, and they exercised it in a way that tried to demonstrate to the broadcasters who really was in charge. So, between 1931 and 1939, they raised rates by some 448 percent, until the broadcasters finally got together and said, okay, enough of this. And in 1939, a lawyer, Sydney Kaye, started something called Broadcast Music Inc. We know it as BMI. And BMI was much more democratic in the art that it would include within its repertoire, including African American music for the first time in the repertoire. But most important was that BMI took public domain works a
"Free software is fundamental to providing user privacy. The ability for third parties to continue providing security updates is vital for ensuring user safety. But in the real world, we are failing to make this argument - the freedoms we provide are largely theoretical for most users. The nominal security and privacy benefits we provide frequently don't make it to the real world. If users do wish to take advantage of the four freedoms, they frequently do so at a potential cost of security and privacy. Our focus on the four freedoms may be coming at a cost to the pragmatic freedoms that our users desire - the freedom to be free of surveillance (be that government or corporate), the freedom to receive security updates without having to purchase new hardware on a regular basis, the freedom to choose to run free software without having to give up basic safety features."
Text from 2011, still extremely timely, about privacy. The author, professor of Law, deconstructs the "nothing to hide" argument that says that we should not be scared to disclose private activities or information when we do nothing wrong.
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.
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 eatat 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?
"With regard to individual rights,.... there exists a private domain in man which should not be regulated or violated. This realm constitutes what is deepest, highest, and most valuable in the individual human being." http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Younkins/Social_Cooperation,_Flourishing,_and_Happiness.shtml
Privacy off course matters.It is right that if I have not done anything wrong then why should I hide it. On other hand we can not share our family relationship information with anyone.
From June 2014, lecture at the Open Data Institute, UK. Professor Carr explains how the open web we know is just one of many attempts over the last century to build a planet-wide network of information. Why was this one successful? And will it continue to be so? Professor Leslie Carr is a Director of the Web Science Institute at the University of Southampton where he researches the impact of network technologies on our lives and economy, and in particular on the research and knowledge industries. Slides for this talk can be found here - http://www.scribd.com/doc/230569908/Friday-lunchtime-lecture-Open-data-open-web-Just-a-passing-fad-with-Professor-Leslie-Carr (recommended)
From the slides, I thought this was interesting: "......The loss of ignorance, by all agreeing to share information The loss of privacy , by all agreeing to share a public space "
also: "......The development of society as a whole (nuanced and structured and refined) is inextricably related to the technology of information provision, consumption and dissemination (e.g. writing, reading, printing, education). Different parts of society have different objectives and hence incompatible Web requirements, e.g. openness, security, transparency, privacy."
Looks at the "Linux model" as a successful way of doing business."I think there is a general movement and a general recognition in the technology community that we need to reform the patent process. There's far too much effort and energy put into creating patents that do not end up fostering innovation," said Musk. "I think no reasonable person would say that the current patent system is ideally suited to foster innovation."
I found this article extremely interesting as it made me view patents from a different perspective. I had always viewed patents as a means to benefit the inventor, but this article opened me to the extent to which large corporations and the legal profession can monetize from patents - at the cost of the inventor. Hopefully this move by Musk, a very prominent executive, continues to be noticed by other corporations.
yes, i've been following Tesla patent narration for a while...as i'm into researching on energy & society issues. Sometimes i'm skeptical about applying open source to other realities than ITs as other interests, values and people are at work. Anyway we'll see if TESLA produce a critical mass for a revolution in the engine market... I like the P2P foundation by Michel Bauwens discussing on relevant issues and creating alternative scenarios
A true pioneer, Mr Musk is. I think he has an extra sense for the future. Patents seem to be an institution which increasingly focuses on short term profit instead of the common benefit on the long run.
"At the same time, a fair amount of resistance to OA practices still exists. Publishers object to OA on economic principles, as it undermines the revenue generAted by journals. Some researchers feel thAt it devalues their work as well, lowering it to the level of "a dAtabase to be consulted," in Eve's words. He believes the academic community is over-reliant on scholarly publishing's stAtus quo; as he told the crowd At Columbia, "the system reinforces itself through economies of prestige." Even as interest in altmetrics grows, the quality of research continues to be gauged by the number of citAtions an article gAthers and the stAtus of the journal it appears in."
How can open educational practices empower less used and minority languages? - Webinar series (part of the European project LangOER) that aims at enhancing the teaching and learning of less used languages through open educational resources and practices
How can open educational practices empower less used and minority languages? - Webinar series (part of the European project LangOER) that aims at enhancing the teaching and learning of less used languages through open educational resources and practices
"It turns out that students are poorly trained in college to effectively navigate the Internet's indiscriminate glut of information.
Another Project Information Literacy study, involving more than 8,300 undergraduates at 25 American colleges, found that most make do with a very small compass. They rely on tried and true resources such as course readings, library databases, Google, and Wikipedia....The skills that students cultivate through traditional assignments-writing essays based on library research-are far different from those required to perform efficient, high-level, accurate research in the digital world. All of those types of research skills take practice under the eye of experts."
This commentary emphasises the need for students to be taught within the curricula on how to be discerning when navigating the surfeit of information on the internet.
This is a great resource if you are interested in how things like publication strategy, data management, dissimenation, Open Access, DOAJ list, etc. discussed and applied in the Netherlands at one of the top research universities. This is a blog. It has been written and maintained voluntarily by a bibliometrician, who has been working at Wageningen University Library over 7 years. Posts and themes are in English They are very well written and structured.
at the bottom part of the Home page you can find Categories, Recent Comments, Keywords, and Archive - they are very well linked and make search and navigation easy. Another bonus is that every post/article supplied with international and local references, which gives this source depth.
"The results show thatat present, the responsibility for funding article processing charges (APCs) is more likely to fall on the author or granting organization than the library or institution. However, 23% of r"
I love this lecture by David Levy at GoogleTechTalks from 2008. I found the required video by Levy to be a bit too short for my taste, so for anyone who is interested in hearing more, I would recommend this lecture.
I'm reading "Men Like Gods" by H.G. Wells, and there are quite a few things that seem prophetic. The book was published in 1923 and the setting includes things like connecting by voice and visuallly when talking to others at different locations. (Skype, Facetime) A screen where the words move instead of your eyes. (SPREED.com)
Online discussions and post-publication analyses are catching mistakes that sneak past editorial review. This article describes the pitfalls with editorial review and pre-publication peer review, and advocates for post-publication crowd-sourced reviewing through social media platforms.
The Advantage of online-journals is that the comments are next to the articles. In printed Versions corrections may be as far as several issues away and can easily get lost.
I would think it would be great to actually correct the article to have it on an actual state. Correctors should be credited in the community same as the authors. That would reduce the production of new and new sensless articles and Reviews.
I think having a comments section is a great way to provide feedback on the information provided. Often when I read articles the comments section allows me to understand different perspectives and interpretations of the information.
This article, while not necessarily explicitly, managed to hint at what I find to be a source of problematic practices/outcomes in the academy, publishing, etc. That is, it is not necessarily that traditional peer review processes are ineffective at finding errors or misconduct, but rather it is when our processes and practices become so systematized that we can mindlessly or effortlessly engage in and reproduce them without our full, critical attention that they can produce problems. While I think there are good reasons to critique the notion of peer and "expert" culture within traditional peer review processes, an additional and separate critique is the problems that arise with systematization. The article implicitly addressed this when the author commented that current post-publication environments "provide a public space that is not under the control of journal editors and conference organizers." Yet, as White indicates, there exists skepticism of the value of post-publication reviews along with a simultaneous effort to build post-publication systems that have standards that put those questioning it at ease. The National Institutes of Health establishing requirements that potential post-publication reviewers must meet demonstrated this. That is, they are trying to figure out how to systematize post-publication. For me, what this article indicates is that we ought to figure out how to keep our academic and publishing processes "fresh," so to speak. This way we don't become so comfortable with our methods and practices that they allow us to simply go through the motions without fostering innovative and critical inquiry.
An alternative opinion on openness, I agree.
Openness may evoke different feelings to people who have the "closed" experience. It may be also people's disbelief in the buzz-words and buzz-trends which come and go.
I agree with the danger of Openness. Not everything should have open access.
What happens with the pages that show people how to make guns or bombs? I think certain pages should not only be dismissed but also closed.
So true ibudule. Is 'openness' to become another catch-prase and trend as 'green', 'robust debate', 'politically correct' terms for almost anything? The deeper significance of the concept can be undermined by it becoming the last trendy issue which is applied to almost anything and everything.
So true, not everything should be open, but it is getting hard in our world, where everyone addicted to technologies. Technological dependence is becoming a huge issue. For example, leaked Snapchat images are all over the internet, and 50% of users are teen in the age of 13 to 17 years old. And nowadays, most of pics aren't images of dogs, cats or weekend dinner, they are images of naked people. If its open, then there is no privacy.
I actually remember reading this article last year. It's quite frightening how these new methods of production have the potential to do a great deal of harm. Personally, I believe such "openness" can lead to subversion but that the benefits outweigh the risks.
Morozov is right to bash "openwashing". But he is wrong in his Statement on "open-source". He writes "While Popper's openness is primarily about politics and a free flow of ideas, open-source is about cooperation, innovation and Efficiency" - well if we look at the core and origin of "open source", we have to look at "free Software" and its definition given by the "Inventor" of "free and open source Software", Richard Stallman. And we will see, that Stallman has a robust and transparent agenda of "free flow of ideas", very liberal, very Popper-like. So "free Software" is the wrong example for open-washing, because it came from "freedom" first. For more, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The argument will be with us for a very long time. I think this is based on the side of the fence that one is sitting on. It is just like a case of what came first a chicken or an egg. The fact is Open has place to occupy in our learning space. The jury is still out there.
Thanks for sharing this well presented write up. Big question put forth is are we really getting the outcomes expected from the open society. Open vs. quality is a big issue. At times restricting access helps a greAt deal.
Background Back on 19th June 2014 I gave an invited plenary talk on "Open Practices for Researchers" at the Research and Innovation Conference 2014 at the University of Bolton. I was pleased to have an opportunity to share my experiences with researchers at the University of Bolton, an institution which has a clear focus on...
This is an excellent article which explains how Sugata Mitra's teaching models helped to transform a failing school in Mexico. It's a story which completely changed my attitude to learning and education and inspired me to discover as much as possible about cloud-based and student-centred learning.
Thanks for posting. I have heard of similar ideas from my girlfriend who works with learning disabled people, helping them make goals and follow through with them. The way the criticized traditional 'top down' eduction system is set-up, learning disabled people end up with the impression that they are failures and burdens. This goes beyond learning disabled people though, anyone who finds no inspiration for math, English and the sciences is bound to under perform at school, fail at the competitive aspect of it and get told their failures as a result, implicitly or explicitly. I also found thatat design school when I realized that math and English were important for the projects I was working on I started to learn effectively and enjoy doing so. This is after failing my secondary education (pre university in New Zealand).
You say this changed your attitude towards cloud learning, have you done much else as a result?