Is Public the New Private?

In February 2009, Katherine Evans, frustrated with a teacher, decided to do what is not uncommon for many students these days; she wrote a post on her Facebook page letting people know how she felt about Ms. Phelps, the teacher, and encouraged her fellow classmates to do the same. Katherine wrote, “To those select students who have had the displeasure of having Ms. Sarah Phelps, or simply knowing her and her insane antics: Here is the place to express your feelings of hatred,” (Gentile 1). Like many posts, it was short-lived, and Katherine deleted it a couple of days later, but unfortunately while it was gone, it was not forgotten. Two months later, Katherine was suspended for “cyberbullying” (Gentile 1).  Fearing for her school record, Katherine decided to sue the school for violating her right to free speech; the case went to the Supreme Court, where the ruling was made in her favor and other students who may face similar circumstances. It is not only the issue of free speech that should be considered in this particular situation, but the issue of privacy as well.

In choosing to vent on a public site, Katherine’s private thoughts were no longer her own; they became the property of anyone who came across them. While Katherine encouraged her fellow students to offer their input, it is doubtful that she expected teachers and school administrators to come across the post and use it against her. While she made her private thoughts public, she did it with the intention that only a select group of individuals would respond. It’s likely that she was hoping it would be private from anyone other than fellow students. Even though sheer hope didn’t protect Katherine’s thought, she’s not alone in assuming that private thoughts, pictures, and other representations of a person will be private in a certain way. The line between public and private is a very fuzzy one when it comes to the internet. With online communities, social networking sites, and various diary type outlets, from LiveJournal to Twitter, the definition of privacy is evolving every day.

According to Encarta English Dictionary, private has an array of meanings from, “kept secret or restricted; not for other people to see or know about,” to, “personal: belonging to, restricted to, or intended for an individual person,” and, “secluded: sufficiently secluded for people to be alone and not watched, heard or disturbed by others” (1). While in the physical world, what is private may be fairly easy to pin down, a locked diary, a journal hidden beneath a mattress, a box of condoms tucked away in a dresser drawer, a joint stuffed into a sock, a locked door, in the internet world, it’s not so simple. Pictures taken from a crazy night out can become the talk of Facebook the next day after a friend decides to post them, videos taken of a one night stand can go from a fuzzy memory to an internet phenomenon, thoughts about anything from a friend, to a first date, to a movie can be turned into something for public access when they’re put on Twitter. Almost anything can become public domain on the internet, from what a person may have done last night, to what books he decided to look at on Amazon; private is hard to define, as Siva Vaidhyanathan wrote in “The Chronicle of Higher Education,” “Privacy is an unfortunate term because it carries no sense of its own customizability and contingency,” (1). While privacy has often been a difficult term to define, the idea of it has transformed throughout history.

The idea of privacy has changed considerably over the years. In the 1890s, according to Randall Bezanson, privacy was, “rooted in rural values, representing an effort to maintain social organizations and values that were threatened by urbanization,” (1135). Privacy was about the individual needing space from others, free of “demands of the larger social order in which to develop beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral norms,” (Bezanson 1134). As Bezanson points out, privacy is now about the “individual’s control of information,” not “generalized social controls” (1135). People see privacy as the ability to have control, not about what society controls. In the 1960s, the idea of privacy as a right really began to take hold with Supreme Court cases like Katz v. United States,1967, Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, Loving v. Virginia, 1967, Stanley v. Georgia, 1969, and then in the 1970s with Roe v. Wade, 1972. All of these trials had to do with privacy in one way or another. From outlining what was lawful in search and seizure, to ending laws that saw birth control related to crime, from allowing interracial marriages, to the use of pornography in the home, and finally, abortion (Allen 1). People were given rights based on events in their private lives. It could be argued that today, the private rights people have are being challenged. The idea of privacy being compromised has gone beyond a phone call made during dinner by a company a person never gave her phone number to; it has gone beyond a telegram coming to the doorstep while listening to a family favorite radio show; it is no longer simply about a celebrity’s latest pursuit finding its way onto the cover of every tabloid. Now, it’s about a website being able to access what a person searches without that person realizing what’s happening, it’s about a friend putting an album up on MySpace that has incriminating photos of a person only for those photos to compromise that same person’s employment opportunities, it’s about a secret shared with millions of people through a veil of anonymity. Public has become the new private in the world of the internet.

When it comes to privacy and the internet, the ethics of it can be just as blurred as the definition. So much is left assumed. Students assume that teachers won’t look at pictures of them drinking, or if the teachers do, students assume the teachers won’t use these photos against them. People assume that if their secret is displayed on PostSecret, the secret won’t be connected back to them thanks to anonymity. It’s assumed that at times, the internet is one world and reality is another, very rarely do the two intermingle. Unfortunately, assumptions aren’t enough in the world of internet ethics. Robert Hauptman and Susan Motin, attempt to outline internet ethics, privacy among them. They write:

One of our major social problems is the attack on personal privacy. Do not disseminate data that could cause harm. Do not attempt to access classified or personal data that does  not concern you. Do not hack your way into closed subsystems. The Freedom of Information Act allows citizens to retrieve government information to which they have a right. The Privacy Protection Act proscribes the broadcasting of personal data (such as social security, financial, or medical information) that could harm the person to whom the material pertains (1).

In this instance, pieces of legislation are cited as means of support for ethical guidelines online. While these pieces of legislation may, in theory, protect a person from identity theft or someone else reading specified forms of personal information, it doesn’t touch on aspects of privacy relating to one’s personal life such as personal photos, blogs, and videos. In some instances, while these aspects of the internet may not be specifically referred to, the general internet ethics can apply. There are also cases where a distinction is made between privacy and confidentially, both of which have fuzzy boundaries online.

The Association of Computing Machinery outlines the ethics of online privacy and confidentiality, making a distinction between the two. In regards to privacy it puts responsibility on professionals to “maintain the privacy and integrity of data describing individuals,” (1). It encourages these same professionals to take precautions so that access to personal information cannot be achieved by accident or unauthorized individuals. It also puts power in the hands of the people, by encouraging businesses to allow individuals to have access to their own personal information. The Association of Computing Machinery makes references to personal forms of communication and privacy in writing, stating that personal information collected in a system, including e-mail, should be retained and disposed of in a designated period of time that needs to be enforced. There is only one instance in discussing internet privacy ethics that the organization encourages information be shared, “In cases where it is evidence for the violation of law, organizational regulations, or this Code. In these cases, the nature or contents of that information must be disclosed only to proper authorities,” (Anderson, et. Al. 1). In reference to confidentially The Association of Computing Machinery states:

The principle of honesty extends to issues of confidentiality of information whenever one has made an explicit promise to honor confidentiality or, implicitly, when private information not directly related to the performance of one’s duties becomes available. The  ethical concern is to respect all obligations of confidentiality to employers, clients, and users unless discharged from such obligations by requirements of the law or other principles of this Code (1).

The ethics surrounding confidentiality in this instance are left, more or less, in the hands of the user. While it specifically states that confidentiality connects to a “specific promise” being made, it could also be suggested that in some situations, a “specific promise” is not made, but more of an unspoken one. For example, while social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace do not have a specific code of conduct, it’s understood, by most people, that a person doesn’t tag or post a picture of someone else that he/she wouldn’t want posted of him/herself. In this instance, a person’s reputation, a private moment from this person’s life, is not released to the general public. It’s not set in stone, but it’s assumed. While the above codes of ethics in relation to privacy do offer greater insight, I believe they are lacking in some instances. Below are some of the additions I would make:

• Do not post incriminating photos of yourself or anyone else and allow them to be displayed to the public.
• Adjust your privacy settings so that only you and your friends can see these photos if you wish to display them.
• If an employer, coach, teacher, or other superior comes across incriminating photos that are public domain he/she should only utilize these photos if they relate to protecting the individual. For example, if a student posts a picture of him/herself doing illegal substances or harming oneself.
• If content is written in a blog that could indicate an individual doing harm to oneself or others, it should be used to protect the individual and/or others. Otherwise, content in blogs should be considered private and only the writer should have the ability to share what he/she wants with the public.
• If a person posts something anonymously and others somehow figure out that that person is attached to that particular post (picture, writing, video, etc.), unless the post is suggesting the individual harming him/herself or others, those who view it should allow this person to remain anonymous.
• Internet companies should not be allowed to use a person’s personal preferences to post advertisements which they believe appeal to that person unless the person has authorized such action.

In the online world, it’s important for people to try and maintain the same sort of respect they would have for a person in the “real” world. When a person chooses to share something with the public anonymously online, he/she is doing so for a reason. Unless it presents danger to others or that person, I don’t think there is a need to try and reveal who the individual is. The repercussions of private information becoming public can vary from one person to the next; with the unclear ethics, the consequences become ambiguous.

In 2006, Michael Guinn, a student at John Brown University, a private, Christian, liberal arts college in Arkansas, was expelled after photos of him dressed in drag were posted on Facebook. The university accused him of “violating campus conduct, which mandates that behavior must affirm and honor Scripture,” (Nealy 1). Whether Guinn posted these photos or not was irrelevant. Despite the photos depicting him doing something in his own private life, outside of school, once they became public, they became grounds for expulsion. What occurred to Guinn could be considered a violation of his online privacy by some, but it could also be argued that he did not do enough to protect his private life. Dr. Bogost, a professor at Georgia Institute of Technology believes that “students, by in large, are knowledgeable about the consequences inappropriate photos, videos or comments posted to social networking sites can have on their collegiate careers and beyond,” (Nealy 1). Given what occurred to Guinn as a result of his posting these pictures, it is obvious that there is not one, single definition of inappropriate that can be applied to all situations. In order to work for students, not against them, when it comes to what is public and what is private, some universities are incorporating online ethics into their codes of conduct.

At Stanford University, the digital world has been incorporated into their code of conduct. According to Nealy it, “mandates that students maintain respect for order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others” (1). While this may let the students know how they should respect one another, it fails to make them aware of what actions the school may take against them should they choose to make private elements of their life public. At Ithaca College, a Facebook task force has been created in order to figure out how the college can “maximize its own use of this burgeoning technology and educate its students on the pitfalls of social networks” (Nealy 1). Despite this examination, the college felt that their existing policies did a sufficient job of incorporating the electronic realm. In order to provide students with information about safe social networking, Ithaca College created a website devoted to “digital citizenship,” which, “encourages students to behave responsibly, respecting the rights of others on their computers, cell phones, and other digital communication tools” (Nealy 1). With these adjustments, schools are hoping students, if they haven’t already, will make the jump to considering online ethics as well. According to Bogost, Facebook has undergone a transformation, not just in its format, but also in its clientele. He believes that, “If you look closely, a lot of students have made the adjustment naturally. They realize that their moms and future employers are on the site” (Nealy 1). Students are learning how to work around the social networking system so that what they hope to keep private remains that way. This idea of privacy has not only been transformed with social networking sites, but can also be seen in blogging sites such as LiveJournal.

Diaries kept under lock and key are becoming a thing of the past; today, a password is protecting a person’s secrets, that and a handle. While some may think of blogs as academic outlets, or places where people share the mundane details of their daily lives, for many, blogs are places to vent, not unlike diaries; the difference is that blogs allow people to share their innermost secrets with the world. This idea of making private information public has become especially popular among teenagers. 57% of teenagers online have their own websites, a large amount of them being blogs (Cochrane 1). While some may like to think that a blog that can be seen may not be heard, 70% of teens say that they read the blogs of others (Harris 1). Blogs contain private ideas of a person’s life that can be seen by the public.

In 2005, a 16-year old Japanese girl was arrested after describing her attempt to poison her mother in an online blog (Cochrane 1). While most teens may not divulge information quite as graphic as this particular girl, they do share the trials and tribulations of their lives, which can put parents at unease.

In talking with one father, Cochrane discovered just how uneasy parents can feel from what they discover in their children’s posts. As one father explained, “”I couldn’t believe it when I found out what was on my son’s site. My daughter showed me and it included such private information. There was loads of stuff about me and his mother; rows we’d had … and I was terrified when I realized we had recently been talking about a colleague from work whom I can’t stand. Luckily he hadn’t put anything up about it -but if he had I could have been out of a job” (1). College students easily share private information as well. In scanning Livejournal blogs, I quickly came across one in which a college student from the UK (or so she says) wrote about her boyfriend saying, “I don’t believe in Mr. Perfect, but I don’t think I’ll get anywhere near as close as I am with Joe with another guy He makes my belly flip so easily still my heart goes crazy and I get this silly smile on my face all from him The sex was so intense, I felt so close to him…I never wanted it to end, to have to let go ” (jess_jesiqua Nov. 28, 2009). These examples show how the idea of privacy has changed considerably with the internet. Instead of talking to their friends at school about a fight their parents may have had the night before or about their relationships, students are now taking to the keyboard, sharing it with the world, possibly not realizing the impacts such information may have on the people they write about. It’s not surprising that this sudden public divulgence may cause parents to have a desire to snoop around for their kids’ blogs, but, as pointed out by Professor Sonia Livingstone, a psychologist at LSE, the “keep out” sign of the past is still symbolic in today’s digital society, “they’re very protective of the web space they share with friends … Most would see any intrusion into that space as a huge violation” (Cochrane 1). Again, the assumed ethics come into play with the online world. Despite the ease with which parents can google their child and discover a blog, such a thing is considered unethical and an invasion of privacy. Children assume that their parents won’t go looking for their online journal, even though the rest of the world may be reading it. Despite the public nature of sharing private information, what is it about blogging that makes people want to share?

For many, the idea of sharing intimate secrets with a group of strangers from around the globe would probably sound about as appealing as going grocery shopping in the nude, yet people share their private life details every day, why? According to Dr. John Suler, author of the online book, Psychology of Cyberspace, the revealing of private information in the digital world has to do with what he calls “the online disinhibition effect” (Jarvie 1). This effect relates to the idea of being physically invisible which can “tempt people to write things they wouldn’t dream of discussing face-to-face,” (Jarvie 1). Think of all of the e-mails, instant messages, and posts you’ve read, shocked that someone would write such a thing; blame it on the “online disinhibition effect.” Suler points out that such an effect is especially beneficial for people who want to share something without having to see the immediate reaction. Perfect for someone like Barney Powell, a 25 year old, London-based IT systems developer who decided to use his blog as a testing ground in order to see how people would react to him writing about wearing female clothing (Jarvie 1). Powell admits that he “didn’t quite know how to broach the subject with friends, family, the people I knew and could talk to in person,” (Jarvie 1). Instead, Powell turned to the online world where encouraging responses made him feel more confident with the idea of speaking openly about the topic. As Powell puts it, “The blog has given me the confidence to say ‘this is who I am.’ It levels the playing field,” (Jarvie 1). The other part that Powell favors about the blogging world is the power it gives him; he can decide when the blog starts and when it ends. While the positive feedback may have given Powell the courage to talk openly about his wardrobe choices, as with all things online, there is an ugly side to blogging known as “flaming.”

According to Suler flaming is not unlike the negative feedback people receive in the real world, “users attack an opposing view with a vehemence they would be unlikely to display in a face-to-face encounter, is particularly prevalent in newsgroups and chatrooms” (Jarvie 1). While the downsides to negative feedback are obvious, there is also a downside to the positive feedback; it can create a warped perception of your opinion and those who share it. If all an individual is receiving is positive feedback, it’s unlikely that he/she will be prepared for those who have an alternative viewpoint. The blogger may gain up the confidence to share something deeply personal only to have it backfire when shared with close friends and family. As with all things made public, blogging can also have an impact on a person’s everyday life.

People who choose to share intimate details about their personal lives are obviously taking a risk. Even though their identity may be somewhat anonymous, there’s always the risk that someone could put the pieces together of their story puzzle and find out who’s behind creating the big picture. When people choose to share details about not only their own lives, but others, the risk is even greater. Powell discovered this when he chose to mention a friend in his blog; she was upset at having been written about without permission. Another time, Powell had to make the decision to not share a family story, even though it was typed up and ready to go, because he realized it was too personal. Powell is well aware of the risks, “Some people are very cagey about their privacy. I felt like I’d really let someone down,” he said of the friend who was upset about her lack of consent (Jarvie 1). This error in judgment is a reflection of the lack of solid ethical guidelines that fail to be mentioned in the online world. It also reinforces how the definition of privacy for one person is different than that for another. Adrian Skinner, a clinical psychologist and secretary for the International Society for Mental Health Online believes that this absence of strict boundaries can be chalked up to the belief many people have of not being held accountable. As she puts it, “There’s a feeling that you can do or say what you want and it will never come back to you,” (Jarvie 1). In the past what a person said could easily be tied back to them, very rarely was a veil of anonymity protecting an individual from what happened. A person couldn’t test the waters of an action before it was performed; people oftentimes learned by doing. Maybe, the act of sharing anonymous thoughts or secrets is somewhat cathartic. That may explain the great popularity of sites like PostSecret.

PostSecret, an online community which features mailed secrets written on 4×6 inch postcards, not only attracts a great amount of viewers, but also a great amount of submissions. People are just as interested in reading the secrets as they are in sharing them. In a period of 4 years, the creator of PostSecret, Frank Warren, has received 300,000 postcards; 3 million people visit his website each month (Thilmony 1). The secrets shared on Warren’s site range from the inspirational “I realized the love of my life just might be my best friend. I’m happy with that,” to the funny, “Peeing: The noise from the height difference grosses me out,” to the sad, “I am terrified my dad will die before he can walk me down the aisle” (Warren). 10 new secrets are posted each Sunday and five books have been published featuring secrets connected to different themes. All PostSecret submitters remain anonymous when published. This secret sharing phenomenon is one that has led to various book tours, secret exhibits, and a large following. As with most online privacy exposures, it is believed that the idea of anonymity is one that really encourages people to submit.

Frank Warren thinks that PostSecret resonates with people because, “Everyone has secrets” (Thilmony 1). John Caughlin, an associate profession of communication at the University of Illinois said that, “Some of PostSecret’s draw may be because it’s a way of releasing secrets without facing negative consequences. Our society values openness, and some people may feel better getting their secrets out in the open,” (Thilmony 1). Caughlin’s perspective creates an interesting juxtaposition between the public and private. People value openness, but that openness has certain boundaries. Without their identity being revealed, people are more apt to share. People value those sharing the private, and those who share value their privacy. In a way, the online world allows the givers and the takers to both somehow end up on the receiving end. One person gets to release a secret, perhaps get a weight off of his/her chest, and another gets to read it, getting a glimpse into someone else’s life while possibly also feeling comforted by someone who shares similar beliefs, struggles, and ideas.

Like blogging, PostSecret gives viewers the opportunity to respond. If someone can relate to a secret or has a comment that needs to be shared, PostSecret allows a person to do so. In this sense, PostSecret can allow secret-sharers to feel a similar sort of encouragement and in turn, a newfound confidence, that Powell discovered through his blog. Caughlin notes that submitters to PostSecret can receive feedback that offers support, similar to what Powell felt through blogging. As Caughlin stated, “On PostSecret, the author might find support, especially in the form of e-mail responses sent to Warren and posted on the site throughout the week” (Thilmony 1). Much like blogging though, PostSecret can also be victim to “flaming.”

In February 2008, Frank Warren decided that he would post some of the negative e-mail responses he received about various secrets that had been posted. The comments contained insults to teachers, a soldier’s relative, and a woman not wanting to get pregnant (Wikipedia 1). As an avid Sunday reader of PostSecret, I have very rarely seen any sort of blatant negative comment to a secret posted. Oftentimes, the responses are supportive or coming from a person who believes he/she is a referent in the secret. Frank Warren’s decision to share the negative feedback in February demonstrates how not everyone is eager to offer encouragement to those who let us peek into their private lives. As for the great number of viewers, Caughlin believes that some of it has to do with curiosity and some of it has to do with boosting one’s ego. “Some followers may think, ‘At least I don’t have that problem,’” Caughlin stated (Thilmony 1). In this sense, the sharing may be therapeutic for all involved, the writers and the readers. Even those who don’t have access to the internet can jump on the PostSecret bandwagon. Some write secrets and slip them into library books or a back pocket of jeans in a clothing store, others write secrets and drop them in the mail to a friend or relative, and some may choose to simply buy the books. While technology isn’t essential to share the secrets with one person, it is essential to share them with millions. The internet has allowed things that are extremely private to become public, all with the security of a concealed identity. Knowing that they won’t be exposed, people willingly share, but what about when a person is unaware that some of their private online preferences are being used in the public domain?

Whenever I log onto Amazon, my most recent search preferences pop up. The site remembers that I browsed some movie board games for a friend of mine two weeks ago, that I looked for a wallet for my husband’s birthday back in October, and that I perused some chick lit over the summer; not only does it remember, but it reminds me and lets me know about the “recent items viewed.” I never asked Amazon to do this. I never released this information to them with consent, or did I? In using their website to search for things, I’ve allowed them to use my internet cookies and eat them too. They are able to track my information and store it for future use. There’s no limit to the personal data they collect either. If a person searches for a book on AIDS or the Karma Sutra, Amazon will remember. Amazon isn’t the only site that uses this private information to their advantage; many online retailers utilize personal information to tailor advertisements and products to specific individuals.

Those obnoxious Facebook advertisements that appear on the sidebar aren’t random; they’re strategically selected based on the individual’s interests. While the Facebook advertisements may be a little off the mark, I’m not interested in whether or not I have a Gerber baby because I don’t have a baby, and I don’t really care to try some new weight loss supplement, Facebook still tries their best to appeal to the consumer, and occasionally they succeed. My grandmother fell victim to a Facebook advertisement after reading about how a particular, all-natural supplement would help her to lose weight. She bought the pricey bottle of pills and started taking them. While she didn’t see the results she had bargained for and returned the pills a week later for her money back, Facebook was able to pique her interest through their ads., something that may have been less successful without the ability to track her internet footprint. People are being tracked every day, and they may not even realize it.

For some, this tracking has become slightly unsettling. According to an article in USA Today:

Tracking technology has advanced so much that everything from how long we linger over a product description to whether we are searching for sexual-dysfunction drugs can be collected and stored on individual profiles. Our profiles are numeric descriptions, not our real names, but in some cases, it’s not hard to determine personal information behind the numbers. Several privacy and consumer groups are urging Congress to enact laws on what can and can’t be collected and for how long (O’Donnell 1).

Despite the insecurities people may have about having their information tracked, it has proved beneficial to retailers. Aeropostale, a teen clothing store, experienced an 85% boost in online sales last year, thanks to the ability to be more in tune with their consumers’ interests (O’Donnell 1). Even larger retailers, such as Macy’s, feel that being able to hone in on what the customer wants will have a benefit. While Macy’s online sales only made up 6% of the retail income last year, they believe that with more monitoring, they will be able to increase this number (O’Donnell 1). It’s not only consumers’ spending habits that act as an indication of their lack of concern with tracking, but also a response to a survey given in November. The survey, given by the National Retail Federation, asked shoppers why they may not increase their online shopping, out of 2,600 individuals, only 0.1% cited “online tracking” as the biggest cause for concern; shipping snagged that title instead (O’Donnell 1). While some consumers may be concerned, others appreciate the benefits tracking provides.

Sherry Natoli of Tampa, FA, does all of her shopping online, with the exception of groceries. When she’s offered the option of being tracked, she takes it. She says that she has bought more from stores like Ann Taylor and Victoria’s Secret, which suggest other items she may be interested in based on their tracking feature. She also has opted to only receive e-mails from Ann Taylor when they have a sale, which allows her to plan her spending better (O’Donnell 1). It makes sense that Sherry would have an appreciation of this. Not only because of the $20 off coupons she’s receiving via e-mail from book stores, but also because she has an eBay store and could likely benefit from such a feature. Customers could be pulled into her store because of the information tracking picks up. Not all consumers feel the way Natoli does.

Victoria Thornton and her mother, of Dayton, OH, are both concerned about “personal information being stored and rerouted,” (O’Donnell 1). Dayton’s mother is “unnerved” by the thought of something not only documenting, but also anticipating her interests (O’Donnell 1). Apparently, they are not alone. Despite the information collected by the National Retail Federation, professors at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of California-Berkeley found in a survey of 1,000 consumers that almost 70% “were opposed to online behavioral tracking by advertisers, and even more were opposed after they were told how the tracking was done,” (O’Donnell 1). In an attempt to help ease some of this opposition, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issues voluntary guidelines for marketers. While these are simply suggestions and not required, it is possible that they may become mandatory, as the FTC is urging Congress to do (O’Donnell 1). For some, it’s not just what is being tracked, but how it’s being used that’s unsettling.

Oftentimes, I have been asked to put my information in at a website. They ask for my e-mail, my name, and occasionally, my interests. Oftentimes, I decline, not wanting to be bombarded with e-mails, but when I’m given the option to decline the e-mails, I do occasionally opt to share. Sometimes the information I provide is followed by a box that reassures me that my information won’t be disclosed, other times, this isn’t the case. In these instances, I realize that I’m not just sharing my private information with a company; I’m sharing it with that company and whatever other companies they choose to share it with. For me, this is a little disconcerting. I’m not in control. According to Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, the idea of shared data is a fair concern, as he put it, “We don’t know what data is being shared or sold” (O’Donnell 1). Retailers can collect personal information and share it with others in order to expand the network of consumers. Thankfully, many retailers are sharing more and more about what they are doing with the information; it’s due to government officials and privacy groups that I am able to know, on occasion, what is being done with my e-mail and my interests. The privacy is returning to the hands of the individual.

Privacy is a blurred definition. It has transformed considerably over the years. People are no longer keeping their personal thoughts, secrets, pictures, and stories to themselves. With the veil of anonymity, many of them have taken to the internet, starting blogs and becoming a part of online communities. There is no limit to what people are sharing: tales of their sex lives, strategies for eating disorders, information about their parents, and recipes for what they ate for dinner the night before. Regardless of what is being shared, the ethics surrounding it continue to be blurry. As with many components in the online world, the ethics surrounding privacy are not nearly as black and white as some may prefer. The information a person shares and how that information may be used by others is not cut and dried. For some, it can lead to cyber bullying. Ghyslain Raza, a 15 year old of Quebec, has become known as “the Star Wars Kid” thanks to some of his classmates who found a video of him in the school media room and decided to post it on Youtube. The video showed Raza swinging a golf club around and acting as though it was a light saber. Raza sued the classmates and left the school; the video has been viewed over 14 million times (New York Post 1). For others, sharing information can lead to identity theft, unwanted e-mails, discovery of secrets by those who may be friends or family, and tracking that is undesired by retailers. Making public the new private can also be beneficial. Individuals can test out ideas on strangers before they reveal them to their friends, they can release secrets that have been kept for years; they can receive online support when it’s needed the most. Retailers can tailor advertisements to people based on interests, streamlining the shopping process and increasing online revenue.

Ultimately, public is becoming the new private. As people start to share more and more information, greater rules and regulations will need to be implemented in order to make clear where the line is drawn between the two. Without a specific set of ethics, the information that is shared can be fair game to anyone, benefitting some while harming others. In a world without a lot of rules and boundaries, having personal information bouncing around can be dangerous. Even though a lot of things are changing with the influx of new technology, privacy should not be one of them. We should not have to look over our shoulders wondering who or what is watching us as we shop, blog, post, google, and twitter.

Works Cited

Allen, Anita. “Is Privacy Now Possible? A Brief History of an Obsession.” Social Research Magazine. (Spring 2001). 6 pp. Academic Search Elite. EBSCOhost. CSU Stanislaus Library, Turlock, CA. 29 Nov. 2009.           <Ahref=”http://ezproxy.lib.csustan.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezpr         xy.lib.csustan.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=4499252&site=ehostlive&scope=site”>Is Privacy Now Possible? A Brief History of an Obsession.</A>

Association for Computing Machinery. Ed. Ronald E. Anderson, et. Al. October 1992. 28 Nov.   2009. <http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics/#ack>

Bezanson, Randall P. “The Right to Privacy Revisited: Privacy, News, and Social Change, 1890 1990.” California Law Review 80.5 (1992): 1133. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO.   CSU Stanislaus Library, Turlock, CA. 29 Nov. 2009.  <http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.csustan.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=103&   d=1a1d29c2-8f08-4aa8-ba4e 92c7d0afda8f%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaRl#db=afh&AN=6769395>

Cochrane, Kira. “Dear Blog, Life’s So Unfair.” Sunday Times, London. (Nov. 2005). P. 11. Academic Search Elite. ProQuest. CSU Stanislaus Library, Turlock, CA. 01 Dec. 2009. <http://ezproxy.lib.csustan.edu:2048/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=9223039&Fmt=3&clientId=17873&RQT=309&VName=PQD>

Gentile, Carmen. “Student Fights Record of ‘Cyberbullying.’” The New York Times 07 Feb. 2009. 01 Dec. 2009. < http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/us/08cyberbully.html?_r=1>

Harris, Scott Duke. “More Teens Move Their Social Lives Online.” McClatchy-Tribune News Service (Dec. 2007). 1 pp. Academic Search Elite. ProQuest. CSU Stanislaus Library, Turlock, CA. 27 Nov. 2009.          <http://ezproxy.lib.csustan.edu:2048/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=141277131&Fmt=3&clientId=17873&RQT=309&VName=PQD>

Jarvie, Catherine. “Let Me Tell You About my Day and Other Great Offers: Why Would Anyone Want to Publish Their Personal Diary on the Internet? And Why Would We Want to Read About it?” The Independent Sunday: London. (Jun. 2003) 1 pp. Academic Search Elite. ProQuest.CSU Stanislaus Library, Turlock, CA. 29 Nov. 2009.  <http://ezproxy.lib.csustan.edu:2048/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=34319691&Fmt=3&clientId=17873&RQT=309&VName=PQD>

Jessiqua, Jess. “This Weekend.” Jess_jessiqua. 28 Nov. 2009. 01 Dec. 2009. < http://jess_jessiqua.livejournal.com/>

Nealy, Michelle J. “The New Rules of Engagement.” Diverse: Issues in Higher Education 26.3    (2009): 13. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. CSU Stanislaus Library, Turlock, CA 01 Dec. 2009.         <http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.csustan.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=103&   d=1a1d29c2-8f08-4aa8-ba4e 92c7d0afda8f%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1za Rl#db=afh&AN=37584844>

O’Donnell, Jane. “Are retailers going too far tracking our Web habits?:Stores use data to tailor    sales for specific shoppers.” USA Today. (Oct. 2009). p. B.1. Academic SearchElite. ProQuest. CSU Stanislaus Library, Turlock, CA. 01 Dec. 2009   http://ezproxy.lib.csustan.edu:2048/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=18           675991&Fmt=3&clientId=17873&RQT=309&VName=PQD>

“Privacy.” Encarta English Dictionary. North American Edition. 2009.

Thilmony, Meg. “Secrets Revealed: PostSecret Founder to Discuss Project at Foellinger   Auditorium.” News Gazette: Champaign. (Feb. 2009). p. C.1. Academic Search Elite. ProQuest.CSU Stanislaus Library, Turlock, CA. 29 Nov. 2009.        <http://ezproxy.lib.csustan.edu:2048/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=166162671&Fmt=3&clientId=17873&RQT=309&VName=PQD>

“Star Wars Kid Gets Revenge-Wins Big $ Lawsuit.” New York Post. (April 2006). p. 095.  Academic Search Elite. ProQuest. CSU Stanislaus Library, Turlock, CA. 27 Nov. 2009. <http://ezproxy.lib.csustan.edu:2048/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=108658271&Fmt=3&clientId=17873&RQT=309&VName=PQD>

Warren, Frank. PostSecret. 06 December 2009. 06 December 2009  <http://www.postsecret.blogspot.com>

Wikipedia: PostSecret. 08 December 2009. 28 November 2009. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostSecret>

Media Artifact: What a Picture is Really Worth

In November, 1946, amid the traditional upstate NY snow, my grandparents were married. During a 17- day delay en route, my grandfather, a member of the Airforce, decided that there was no time like then to tie the knot. The wedding was small and actually took place at my grandmother’s house, with a minister and a few friends and family members. At the reception, a sweet surprise awaited my grandparents-a wedding cake. Given the sugar shortage during the war, they hadn’t expected one, but their friends and relatives scrounged up enough to make a large cake. My grandfather cashed his most recent check the same day of the marriage so that the two of them could go on a honeymoon, which lasted two days and was cut short because of the snow. These memories are all that my grandfather, currently living on his own with a few pets for company, has from that day; these memories, and two 8×10 photographs which he gave to me before my wedding 3 months ago.

While these media artifacts may not hold much significance for anyone outside of my family, they are extremely significant to me. My grandmother passed away seven years ago, which only emphasizes the importance these photographs have to my grandfather. It is the importance they have for him that makes them so important to me, that and what they tell me about the people my grandparents were back then. I remember the first time I saw one of the pictures, blown up to poster size and displayed at their 50^th wedding anniversary party. This was the first time I had even seen it. I was fascinated by the people my grandparents were, by my grandfather in his Air Force uniform, by my grandmother with her auburn colored hair (it had always been ash-blonde to me). I couldn’t get over the way the color in the photograph was so different from the way it is today, from the way it looked as though someone had taken a fine paintbrush and drawn in my grandmother’s long eyelashes or colored by grandfather’s eyes a sky-blue, after the picture was taken. To me, the picture acted as a time capsule, as a glimpse at what life was like when they were married.  The picture not only showed me how much they had changed, but how much technology has changed.

Today, people are so used to the instant gratification the digital camera provides; they have become accustomed to the ability to see a picture before it’s even printed out onto paper. They are able to easily retake pictures if they aren’t satisfied and can effortlessly adjust positioning and facial expressions to get the result they’re looking for. In 1946, people did not have that luxury. The two pictures of my grandparents make me think about how they only had one pose and two pictures came out of that-one which is a close up, and one which is slightly farther away. In that era, time and resources were invaluable; a photographer could not spend all day snapping away at them like the paparazzi (my grandparents couldn’t have afforded it anyhow). There was no instant gratification for my grandparents; they had no idea what the pictures would look like until they picked them up. The importance of time and resources, as well as the limited financial means my grandparents had, can be seen in these pictures. Unlike weddings today where thousands of pictures are taken and videos are made, then, there were other things of greater importance. While some may argue that the sparseness of physical memories my grandparents have reflects an insignificance of the event, I believe it’s quite the opposite. For them, their wedding wasn’t about flashbulbs, bands, and a dress; it was about the two of them. They didn’t need an album filled with hundreds of pictures, they only needed each other to be reminded of how important that day in November was. With only two pictures to visually remember this day, I was in awe when my grandfather told me I could have them.

My grandfather has three sons and twelve grandchildren; he could have easily given the pictures to any of them, but he didn’t. Since my grandfather is slightly wary of technology, my mom offered to make copies of the pictures for him to provide me with, ensuring that the photographs would be very carefully handled; my grandfather didn’t take her up on her offer. He could have given me one picture and not both or kept the frame they were in which my grandmother gave to him, but he didn’t. It’s not only what my grandfather did that makes these media artifacts so important to me personally, but what he chose to not do.  It was his decision to give the pictures to me, to not give me copies, but the originals, to not take them out of the frame, but keep them exactly as they have been since 1946, that gives them so much significance.

For me, these pictures are not only a physical representation of the stories my grandfather has told me, they tell a story all their own. In looking at them I am able to see a piece of my own personal history. I am able to have a better understanding of where I come from, of what my grandparents looked like when they were younger than I am now. I am able to see the fashions of that time, the types of jewelry, hairstyles, and make-up that were popular for women, and the style of an Air Force uniform from WWII. I am able to see the ID bracelet my grandfather wore, the watch that delicately rested on my grandmother’s wrist, and the necklace which sat against her neck. These media artifacts are not just representative of how far we have come in the world of print media, they are representative of how far my family has come since then. They tell a story that will continue for as long as these photographs exist.

The Ups and Downs of Classroom Gaming

I grew up with the original Nintendo. I know it’s not as vintage as the Atari, but it’s the gaming system I first encountered. I played the original Mario Brothers, hoping to save Princess Peach, and avoiding those Venus Flytraps that popped out of pipes. I eventually moved onto Mario Kart and enjoy a game of Guitar Hero now and then, but beyond that, my video gaming experience is fairly limited. What is interesting to me is how much I remember about these video games, and how little I find myself remembering about the history I was taught in high-school. Both Gee and Squire bring up some interesting points about incorporating gaming into the classroom, but they don’t seem to consider or address any of the potential problems that could arise from such an introduction.

One of the points that I felt Gee emphasized was the sense of agency gaming provides players with. They have more control over what is going on, they have responsibility for tasks and they have opportunities to set and achieve goals that would be impossible in real life. Through simulation and modeling, players are no longer on the outside looking in; they are a part of the inside. I think this involvement would allow players to absorb more of what is going on and what they are learning. My brother-in-law, an avid gamer, could probably tell you more about Halo 3 (or whatever the most recent version is) than he could about his passion for history. Why? The game is more interesting to him than a textbook and even though he loves history, it’s not nearly as interactive. With gaming, he becomes emotionally involved, which, as Gee points out, helps individuals to store things in long-term memory. If this will provide students with the opportunity to learn and absorb knowledge, it may not be a bad thing to consider.

I found Gee’s point about gaming requiring people to learn other tasks, while also having their own specialized one, interesting. Having worked in a very collaborative academic office, it was interesting how little some of the woman knew about what others did. While they had an idea, if one person left, the rest of the staff struggled. As the receptionist, there were times when I missed work due to a doctor’s appointment or meeting outside of the office. When this occurred, even women who had worked there over twenty years were unable to answer all of the questions that came in. While I don’t think they would have relished in playing a video game that simulated each person’s tasks, I think the idea behind this is one that would be helpful to transcend into real life.

With Squire, I liked how the focus of history on dates and facts is not necessarily beneficial to students. In college, I took two history courses which focused on events surrounding WWII. Even though I came out of that class with a high grade, if you asked me questions about it now, I probably wouldn’t know the answer. Why? Because this information was not stored in my long-term memory. I remembered it for tests and after that it evaporated. I can’t help but wonder if with a game, I would remember more. Even with new media, I find that I retain more than with rote memory. For example, I recall “Schindler’s List” much better than Des Pres The Survivor, a book I read for a Holocaust Studies course I took.

One component of Squire’s article that I found a little concerning was the conversation that took place between two students about a game in which one student said, “I like killing easy people,” and “I want to kill Sadira too.” While I realize this is all in reference to the game, the student chose to use another’s student’s first name. In the current time, I could see this type of conversation being a giant red flag for many. This made me wonder, will students be able to understand the separation between a simulation and reality?

The idea of separating a video game and life probably seems pointless. Of course students can distinguish between the two, it’s not brain science! I can’t help but wonder if all players really do. For example, a friend of mine who is a fan of Call of Duty seems to think that this game is as close to a real war situation as a person can get. Occasionally, he’ll refer to scenes in it as though they’re actually occurring in Iraq. He doesn’t realize that one is just a game and another is life. Also, my brother-in-law, who plays on X-box live, will become so caught up in the games, that if a person doesn’t fulfill a certain task and causes his team to lose, he holds that person responsible, insulting him/her and allowing himself to become very emotionally worked up over something that is just a game. I realize that these two cases may be the exception to the rule, but in games where violence is occurring, at what point do players understand that this violence is just a part of the game?

In games where war type situations are reenacted, I don’t think they would be appropriate for elementary aged children. Much like movies beyond PG are not appropriate, video games with similar content probably would not work. How then would lessons about the civil war be incorporated? At what point do teachers decide that games are appropriate for children? How can teachers make sure that the type of language about killing another player can be avoided? How can teachers ensure that students understand that it is just a game and not reality? If students become so involved and wrapped up in games, how can teachers make sure that students are able to comprehend that it’s just a game?

There was a point in Gee’s articled that I did not agree with. The first was about how a failure in a video game is not viewed as the same as failure in school. Yes, a failure in a video game is seen as a learning experience and a player can start again, but how is that entirely different from failure in school? Students who fail tests or assignments have the opportunity to learn from the experiences and start fresh with the next test or assignment. While I realize that this type of failure has a more lasting impact than failure in a video game-a child’s grade may be negatively impacted for that year, it is more realistic. If a person fails in life, at a job task or at anything else, they are allowed to learn from it, but if they continue to make the same mistake, they will suffer the consequences, such as job loss. A person cannot start over with that task as many times as he or she chooses until it’s gotten right.

Ultimately, the same types of problems that arise with any introduction of technology into the classroom also come up with the introduction of video games. How will schools be able to afford this? How can teachers have the skills to utilize these tools in their classrooms? How can these tools enable teachers to meet state mandates and ensure that “no child is left behind”? How can teachers ensure that these games are used as learning tools and that children are retaining academic knowledge from them? If these types of games are introduced, will they push teachers out since the games will essentially be doing most of the teaching? How can teachers ensure that children understand that these games are just games and that the students do not transcend the “I’m going to kill _____” into real life situations? While video games may have a lot of benefits, there still remain many unanswered questions and challenges.

The Truth in Little Brother

George Orwell, meet Corey Doctorow. Although, in reading Doctorow’s piece, I found myself wondering how much of this stuff already exists and I just have no idea? How many gait trackers are there? Was that EZPass I used on the NYS thruway to pay my tolls really tracking my coming and going? Are there cameras in the toilet paper rolls? A part of me wonders if the story didn’t turn me into a paranoid person. If nothing else, this book made me realize what a presence technology has in our lives.

As I read this book, I thought about how it’s not so far fetched for the government to be targeting kids and teenagers when it comes to technology terrorism. After all, wouldn’t it make the most sense that a generation that has grown up with it, that has always had it in their lives, would know more than a generation that hasn’t? It was interesting because usually people assume that power is in the hands of adults, but as Marcus demonstrated, power can fall into the hands of high-school students who have an interest in technology and a desire to get around the system.

While I don’t know if there’s anything like the Schoolbook in the current school system, the blocking of various websites could be seen as slightly connected. It’s a demonstration of how “the man” is able to exert a certain amount of control. It’s amazing what can be tracked on a computer if someone has the right tools. In working as a receptionist, I was always curious about how much of my internet browsing time the computer technicians would be able to track. Would they be able to see that I looked at PostSecret Monday morning? If nothing else, the thought that someone might be able to track my internet movements made me wary in surfing whenever I found a lull in my workload. It’s that paranoia that got me.

The book got me thinking, how much can the government track, legally and how is the line drawn? Do people have to be made aware of what is being tracked and what isn’t? Since the internet and technology seems to rely so much and “assumed ethics,” I can’t help but wonder what the government may assume is okay when it comes to monitoring. Of course, government tracking can occasionally be seen as beneficial, anyone who has watched To Catch a Predator on MSNBC can support that. Anyone who has ever visited a website that lets them know where all of the sex offenders in the neighborhood are may also be able to attest to how the information technology provides can be seen as beneficial.

Ultimately, I think Doctorow’s book would be beneficial in a classroom and could be appropriately juxtaposed with Orwell’s 1984. Doctorow’s book opens up interesting ideas about what is acceptable for the government and what isn’t, about the potential technology has, and about the power that can lie in the hands of teenagers. I think students would learn a lot about technology, as I did in reading this book and would also be able to consider the impact technology has in everyday actions and lives.

Geek Squad to the Rescue

A blue screen of death. This is what my computer gave me after I attempted to chat with a friend in NYC via Skype. After five years filled with undergraduate papers, the beginning of a facebook profile, uploaded pictures and lots of music, my computer died. Of course, I discovered that there was no reviving it after heading into Best Buy in the hopes that Geek Squad could resuscitate it; they couldn’t, and of course, they told me that I might as well look into buying a new computer.

In the three days and countless hours I spent at the Geek Squad counter, hoping to revive my precious Gateway, I learned a few things about the computer purchasing and repair world. Whoever says the economy is in a recession has not been to the Best Buy Geek Squad section. Each day I was there, whether it was at 10:00 in the morning, 2:00 in the afternoon, or 6:30 at night, floods of people, waiting to get their computer fixed or pick up one they recently purchased, stood in line with the hopes that they would be next. I learned to bring my homework with me to maximize the time I waited. I also learned that new computers and computer repairs are not cheap.

I won’t disclose what I dropped on the new Asus my husband and I decided to purchase, but I will say that it was on the cheaper end. To get the information from both of our hard drives transferred, it cost $150, and the Geek Squad completely forgot to transfer one. Of course, it was the hard drive from my computer, but that’s a source of frustration I won’t delve into right now. If we had opted to have them upload Microsoft Office, it would have cost an additional $30, and for computer insurance, $250 for two years. Nothing was cheap to me!

In interacting with one Geek Squad member, I asked him how he learned all that he knows; did he go to college for this stuff? No, he didn’t. Six years of tinkering and experimenting taught him all he needed to know to understand hardware, and the software stuff? He learned that through working at Geek Squad. All I could think was, Eat your heart out, High-Tech High. Here was a guy, working hours on end, repairing computers, and he had never stepped inside a technology instruction classroom, except to be on the teaching end. Incredible.

Ultimately, this experience reminded me of our class, but it also made me think a little bit about the persona that surrounds those who choose to go into the world of computer repair: Geeks! I wish I could have asked these employees how they felt about working for a place that refers to them as “The Geek Squad.” I just think it’s interesting that even as these employees are saving information, repairing computers, and getting new ones ready, they’re still placed in a category that stereotypes them as being “uncool.” To be honest, I thought they were anything but geeky. They were fairly personable, not awkward, like most geeks are stereotyped as, and they were very helpful and offered great insight. Sure, they didn’t look like the stuff football quarterbacks or cheerleading captains are made of, but they were a lot more helpful than a football quarterback or cheerleading captain may be in this situation. Maybe, they’re transforming the definition of geek?

Just Because People are Talking, doesn’t Mean They will be Heard

Politics. While I would not consider myself to be entirely apathetic, you will not find me campaigning for any candidate, wearing that candidate’s face on my chest, or sporting a bumper sticker indicating my political views. In that same aspect, you will not find any blogging by me in which I proclaim my love for Obama or Bush, where I give my opinion on Universal Health Care, where I provide input about how I really feel about the possibility of GM being bailed out by the government…again. In fact, this paragraph is the closest I’ve ever come to sharing my political views with the public. I think I’m a pretty good example of what Hindman discusses in his article. The internet has not drastically democratized a whole lot of anything.

I liked how he points out that there is a distinction between speaking and being heard. I think that just because more people may be blogging about politics, that doesn’t necessarily mean that others are listening. If people are listening, how can anyone be sure what’s being read, heard, or seen is also being seriously considered? I think that when it comes down to it, people will still value the sources they have always turned to for political information. The sources they know are reliable, that they have trusted in the past. After all, it’s not like these people are looking to buy a book off of Amazon and seriously considering the reviews from anyone before they make the plunge; these people are voting for the President or considering a potential view that could seriously impact their lives. I hope they wouldn’t base their opinions solely off of what any Joe Shmo says.

Ultimately, I think people will look to shows like the O’Reilly Factor, Hard Ball, Face the Nation, and Larry King Live for their sources of information. They will look to magazines like Time, newspapers like The New York Times, and radio stations like NPR for political education. People know these are reliable, they know they can trust them, and they know that while the information may be somewhat bias, it is still, for the most part, accurate.

I also think Hindman makes a good point in discussing how people who are apathetic are not going to have a drastic revelation and become active members of politics just because of the internet. He also brings up the idea of the “digital-divide” on the internet, and this applies to areas of politics as well. The people who have access to the internet, who have the money for these sources and the time to use them, will be the ones who participate. It seems as though he tries to correct the misperception people have that there is a wide variety of internet users who are active in to online political community. From what I read, I got the impression that the people with the voices are the ones who have always had them and the others who don’t, are the ones who don’t have the resources to use them. Maybe it could be argued that the internet also limits participants. While speech is free, internet is not.

Scouting Report: Going Public with what is Private through New Media

Everyone has a secret. A personal thought, a small morsel of their life that they hold onto for themselves and never share with anyone else. It could be a painful truth, a horrible anonymous practical joke, or an affectionate confession; the possibilities are endless.  PostSecret is a blog which allows people to share these secrets. Rather than turning to a journal hidden under lock and key or beneath a bedroom mattress, people can now put their thoughts on a postcard and send them to Frank Warren in Germantown, Maryland. Frank publishes new secrets on the blog every Sunday and also publishes some secrets in books. His website demonstrates how the introduction of technology is opening up new possibilities for journal writing, secret sharing, and diary keeping. What was once kept private can be made public, anonymously. This changing definition of what is private and the varying forms of reflection would be useful things to consider in a composition and rhetoric class that focuses on journal writing. A course titled: From Under Lock and Key to Password Protected: The Public World of Private Writing.

This course would not only incorporate PostSecret, but also require students to keep their own “journal” or blog on Blogger.com. I chose Blogger.com because I have used it and am more familiar with it. As we discussed in class, I believe it’s important to be familiar with a digital tool before introducing to a group of students. PostSecret and Blogger.com are two websites that could be utilized in this class, which covers the idea of personal writing and how it transcends into public life; The use of the websites would enable students to see how not only the medium in which secrets and reflections are shared is changing, but also how the rhetorical style and discourse in journal writing has changed as well. It would increase their level of media literacy.

In my opinion, literacy is about understanding. In the world of technology, it’s about feeling comfortable with the idea of using technology, whether it be exploring the internet or creating a blog. Media literacy means that a person is aware of the potential technology has; the way it allows a person to create a video, song, or blog. The way it enables a person to stay connected with someone across the country without having to pay a penny in long distance. Media literacy is not just about being able to use what is available; it’s about being aware of what is available. A person who is not media literate has no idea what technology can provide. PostSecret would expose students to some of what is out there, including vlogs, a blog, and an online community in one website, while also enabling them to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of such a medium in comparison to more traditional journaling and secret sharing methods. It would demonstrate how a conversation between people from all areas of the world and life can begin. It would show them how what is considered as literacy is changing.

The bare bones definition of literacy is the ability to read and write. With the introduction of technology, the definition of literacy has evolved and taken on new forms beyond what is inked onto a page. A student who can write a paper but cannot use a blog may be considered literate, but not media literate. A person who reads the New York Times every Sunday, but cannot figure out how to read or locate that same newspaper online is literate, but not digitally literate. These people are limited in their creative outlets and ability to access others creative outlets.

People who are not able to keep up with new forms of media and use them with ease are left behind, as seen in Mark Presnky’s piece Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. It’s no longer about keeping up with the Jones’; it’s about keeping up with the newest gadget, website or social networking trend. Media literacy is constantly transforming due to the endless introduction of new forms of technology. A person who is familiar with Facebook but not MySpace, does not have the same level of media literacy as the person who is familiar with both. A person who uses MSWord to write a journal is not at the same level of media literacy as a person who uses Blogger.com. The use of Blogger.com in a course would familiarize students with a new medium of expression. Not only would they be able to type their thoughts, they have the opportunity to post pictures, movies, and provide links to what they find interesting, while also being able to receive feedback from people all over about what they’ve decided to share. Students who do this are in a more advanced stage of media literacy than students who do not. They have a better understanding of the value of technology.

I don’t think that new media should be put on a pedestal. It can be unstable, is constantly changing, and like most things, has its downsides. I do think that new media should be incorporated into the classroom. Without it, students will be at a disadvantage. Not only throughout their high-school and college careers, but more importantly, once they find themselves in the real world.

After graduating college, I worked as a receptionist for a year. Everything I did, from scheduling appointments to designing posters, from forwarding mail across the world, to ordering lunch was done with new media. Had I not been familiar with how to navigate the internet, how to search google for images, how to use e-mail or how to find out information through online searches, I doubt I would have lasted the year that I did. New media gave me an edge over other applicants; it put me a step above others, and allowed me to bring new ideas to the office I worked in. For these reasons, I believe that personally, new media should be valued, but it shouldn’t be worshipped. It’s an asset to those who use it responsibly and necessary in many occupations in order to be successful. Due to its unreliable and sometimes impersonal nature, I think it would be wrong for people to become dependent on it, to take it for granted and view it as a Godsend rather than what it really is-a toolbox filled with wonderful tools to be used when needed. In certain situations, the tools can’t always get the job done. Sometimes, a person needs to add a little elbow grease to be successful. It’s the same with new media, it can’t do it all, but it can do a lot.

Facebook vs. MySpace and the New Generation

Below is a link for an interesting story done on NPR about Facebook vs. MySpace and what the current generation thinks about it. It’s interesting to see how the different social networks are connected to different groups of people. High-school students from elite and low-income public schools are interviewed and offer their thoughts.

Facebook vs. MySpace

The Great Technology Divide

When my brother-in-law was in high-school, all he wanted to be was a video game designer or tester. Having logged many hours on his X-box 360 playing everything from Halo, to Call of Duty, to Rock Band, he believed he had discovered his passion-video games. Instead of opting for the traditional high-school curriculum with Math, English, Social Studies, and Science, he chose to attend a supplemental program which did not require him to take Math, English or Science. A supplemental program that claimed it would give him the skills to have an edge over other students pursuing jobs in the same field. He graduated from school in June and is now attending the local SUNY school (in NY), pursuing a degree in Agricultural Management. How did that happen?

Much like the article by Seiter, he discovered that the world of video game design and testing was not as promising as it seemed; the world of agricultural management had a greater guarantee behind it in the “real world.” He felt that the digital program had not given him the edge he had hoped for. While he did design some parts of video games, he learned more about HTML text and coding systems, the “boring” part of the computer world that many people don’t think exists, as Seiter points out. He abandoned his dream and went for something more realistic.

For my brother-in-law and most people, technology is on a pedestal much higher than it deserves. While it enhances many aspects of life, it is not accessible to everyone in the same way and it can’t replace the basic knowledge in core subjects that people have placed value on for years. I wrote in my last blog that technology does not discriminate; now, I want to retract that statement. Seiter made me realize that technology discriminates just as much as any other status symbol. Technology and computers are not unlike vehicles. Not everyone can afford them, and the types of cars people buy, the upkeep on them, generally reflects their class status. It’s the same with computers. There is a divide between the haves and have nots. I believe I saw this first hand during a visit to the Turlock library.

When I entered the Turlock library on a Thursday afternoon, every single computer was occupied. Unlike in the past, people weren’t using the computers for the library catalogue, there were special computers just for that purpose; people were using computers to check their e-mail, network, play games, and visit various websites. The computers weren’t occupied by white men in business suits or college students. They weren’t being utilized by women in skirts and high-heels, little kids in school uniforms, or teenagers. The computers were being used by mothers, trying to get in a few minutes to send a message, while keeping an eye on their kids in the children’s book section, by elderly, reading the newspaper in large print to keep up on the news, by minorities checking out Facebook while they had the chance. Their use was limited, they only had so much time to log, and they were restricted to the type of computer the library had; as Seiter pointed out, technology has barriers.

I think I take technology for granted. Instead of seeing it as something that exacerbates class divides, I saw it as the great equalizer, a chance for anyone to get on a networking site, for everyone to see the digital world, for all sorts of people to come together. Given the way my grandfather lives, I should have not allowed myself to become so blind with false optimism.

My grandfather (my dad’s dad) is 85 years old, his wife passed away 9 years ago and he lives alone in a double-wide trailer. He spends his days doing manual labor on his very small farm and occasionally picks up odd jobs caring for other people’s horses. He survives off of this small income and social security. He does not have a computer, I don’t know if he’s ever even used one, and I’m not sure he would know how to navigate the internet if he tried. His social class, his status, and his income are all barriers that are further exacerbated by technology. While Seiter’s article focuses solely on how technology creates a divide between younger generations, I think she fails to recognize that it does the same with older generations.

My grandmother is 65; she and my grandpa (my mom’s parents) live in a two story home set back in the woods. She retired a long time ago, and she and my grandpa live comfortably off of his retirement and off of the income he makes from restoring antique tractors. She entered the world of technology maybe 10 years ago, starting with a bulky desktop that she kept downstairs and used to play games like Canasta. Now, she has upgraded to a laptop, recently purchased a wireless mouse, and often sends me e-mails telling me how I should check out the new pictures she posted on Facebook, pictures taken with her digital camera and edited on Photoshop.

While she and my dad’s dad are from different generations, to me they fall into the same category-my grandparents. Both are over 60, and yet their income and class status have been further emphasized by technology. While my grandpa on my dad’s side fills his time with working to get by, my grandmother has the time to poke around on the internet and learn different tools; she has the money to upgrade her computer when she can and has the capital to invest in new technologies, like a digital camera.

While Seiter is right, there are many elements that play a role in technology access, one that she fails to consider is how age plays a part and how not only children in school experience the great technological divide, but the elderly do as well.

Wiping the Slate Clean: How New Identity Allows for the Abandonment of Misperceptions

When my younger sister received a Coach purse from her boyfriend last Christmas, she felt empowered. With a $500 accessory, she felt like people would respect her more, recognize her social standing more; she felt like she would have more control over situations when she brought it along. It was her secret superpower. It’s too bad she couldn’t have found empowerment through the internet; it would have saved her poor boyfriend a lot of money.

Empowerment doesn’t just come in the form of a Coach purse, online it’s everywhere, in an Avatar, a blog, or even a Facebook profile. Reading this article made me feel a little old in that it gave the impression that NDM is a key component of feeling empowered in today’s society. No longer do adolescents look to hooking up with the football captain or becoming homecoming queen as a means of validation, Facebook, Youtube, and even Second Life offer a nice alternative.

To me, the validation that comes from NDM is not quite the same as the type that comes from “real life.” If I posted a picture of myself online in a new outfit and people said they liked it, it wouldn’t have as much significance for me as wearing the new outfit out in public and receiving compliments. For me, there’s something about the personal reinforcement that has greater value than an online post. For example, when I have a birthday and all 80 of my Facebook friends write “Happy Birthday” on my wall, it doesn’t make me feel nearly as good as it would if all of them called or sent me a personal e-mail or a card. That personal connection is something I value a great deal more than the virtual one. Maybe that’s one of the things that separates me from the current up and coming generation, I don’t crave that instant reinforcement, but sometimes find that waiting for something makes it that much more valuable.

I agree with the authors that creating an identity requires social interaction, but to me, online interaction isn’t the same as social interaction. This goes along with the idea of deception, a person can be two differently people entirely online and in person. The interaction online isn’t as social to me because it can be deceptive. People can be deceptive in life of course, but that can be easier to read than online.

The article gave the impression that a lot of what’s in the online world as far as ethics and etiquette is assumed. In my opinion this is foolish. To assume anything is a risky endeavor. Students who assume their teachers won’t use their drunken MySpace pictures against them are about as smart as the college graduates who assume their future employers aren’t checking out their profiles to see if they enjoy recreational drugs or hard partying. I think people have to have a certain level of censorship online to protect themselves. If some sort of wall or guard isn’t put up, who’s to say what could happen?

As an English major, I think the changing definition of authorship is something I really need to recognize, especially since I eventually hope to work in academia. Authorship is no longer seen as a strictly individual thing, collaboration is often encouraged, and with the online world, who the author is exactly can sometimes be uncertain. I can see why people are confused in citing certain online sites. If a blog is written by LuckyLucy35 and that’s all you can find out about the author, is that who you should site? If you do site the author in that way, how credible will people view her as? It’s a conundrum that’s hard to solve.

If nothing else, this article really indicated to me the divide between new and old. The new generation needs instant access, regular reassurance, an open door to share their opinion, and a safety net in which to cast their potential identities, thoughts, and interests. I think the real appeal of the internet, especially to adolescents, is that it doesn’t discriminate. It doesn’t matter if you aren’t “popular,” if your parents can’t afford to buy you those jeans everyone else is wearing or if you’re not in shape enough to make the basketball team. On the internet it doesn’t matter if you failed your chemistry test, if your peers see you as a burn-out, if the boys think you’re a slut. It doesn’t matter if girls see you as a nerd, classmates see you as weird because you like poetry, or you feel like you’re hiding behind a cloud of perfume and a face of make-up. Regardless of what you may be like in “real life,” the internet offers the opportunity to be someone else, someone who is more than likely to find at least one other person who will accept you for who you are. The internet is a place that welcomes everyone with open arms.