This happened a few days ago now, but I forgot to post it until I went to talk about it in my journal this week! From the article: "Over the course of three days in June, artist Kyle McDonald captured the faces of Apple patrons in two of the company's Manhattan stores. He did this by installing a program on computers in the stores, which automatically took an image every minute." His idea was that the photos constituted an art project about what people look like when they engage with technology. The Secret Service confiscated his computers after an Apple Store employee traced where the photos were being transferred to. I thought this was interesting because it's an example of visual surveillance of people's physical presence/actions in public spaces like Greenfield talks about, rather than surveillance of their digital actions, which so much of the literature focuses on. I definitely think the artist's project constitutes a violation of the privacy of the people whose photographs he took, but I can't help thinking it's also a really fascinating project that wouldn't work if people knew their photo was being taken in that moment.

The article I want to bring into the digital divide class discussion this week is about a project that is "creating Internet networks for eastern Afghanistan whose main components can be built out of trash" such as boards, wires, plastic tubs, and cans. Most importantly, the networks built "can be deployed by anyone anywhere where local infrastructure will not permit a conventional network" (they can even run "off-grid" via car-battery).

Another article found in my search for information about the "global digital divide." According to the article, last week, the United Nations released a report that "argued that disconnecting individuals from the Internet is a violation of human rights and goes against international law" and that all States should seek to ensure there is "as little restriction to online content as possible." The Atlantic points out, following Wired's Threat Level blog, that the UN report came "the same day that a monitoring firm found two-thirds of Syria's Internet access has been shut down without notice." While access isn't the only factor in the digital divide on a global or a national scale (disparities in information or new media literacy is also a huge factor, for example), I agree that the availability of unfettered access as a matter of government policy is the bare minimum.

I'm pretty sure if the focus of the report is that, as a matter of human rights, governments should not be disconnecting people from the internet and should not be censoring or blocking content as per the article, the answer is the latter.

I've been researching the "global digital divide" for my group project and one of the things that factors into a global digital divide is governments that control the flow of information and prevent access and use of technology. This is article provides a quick summary of government censorship tactics regarding social media and blogging under repressive regimes.

The Time Magazine Techland blog reports on theories behind why France banned mentions of Facebook and Twitter on French TV (unless the companies are being reported on specifically). Following French blogger Benoit Raphael (whose French-language blog is linked to in the article), they argue that "both social networks are so ubiquitious as to essentially count as public space."

Zizi Papacharissi is a professor and head of the communications department at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She has written a lot of really interesting stuff on social media and internet culture that she links to on the "research" page of her website. I've come across her stuff before and I think she's pretty cool!

In one of the videos we watched last week, Wesch mentioned how students can look at the discussion page for any article on Wikipedia to get a sense of how information is being interactively constructed and contested. This article discusses the issue of self-governance in online communities with a focus on how Wikipedia is edited and the community politics behind it. I think this article makes a really useful contribution to a discussion about authority and knowledge production on the Internet. There is also a related article about the relationship between Wikipedia contributions and identity construction here.