1) Why was Google Glass controversial?
Physical social interaction was a techno-panic highlighted as humans may become "less engaged" in conversations with each other as others become occupied with accessing the internet. Privacy issues were also raised in accordance to non-consented filming, location tracking and sound recording - all data which is supposedly accessible to 'Google agent' - a techno-panic highlighting the convergence Google encourages in all of their products being increasingly associated to people's personal lives and thus suggesting datamining as a privacy concern.
2) What are the positive elements to Globalisation that the article highlights?
Enrichment through increased choice of material and opportunities.
Access to information enhances democratic process.
Enables informed decisions on anything.
3) What are potential negatives to Globalisation?
Smaller organisations remain small while the minority possesses the majority of worldly wealth among themselves as a monopoly.
4) What is a techno-panic? How does it link to moral panics?
The idea of a moral panic is reinvented to adapt the development of technology as a potential threat which may concern society and trigger such concerns in the media in an elaborate way to be thus reinforced by the public.
5) What is your opinion on the privacy debate and major corporations being able to access large quantities of personal data?
My personal opinion is formed on the basis that major corporations simply cannot consistently track a mass audience of people, and it would be futile regardless. There aren't any legitimate repercussions which arise from the access of personal data belonging to Glass users, and one of the cautionary tips warranted by the use of such equipment is indubitably that users should (as ever) be weary of what is seen through the lenses. To a further extent, access to personal data could be useful in retrospect to solving crimes, and thus beneficial without much harm to privacy - safety first!
No comments:
Post a Comment