Cloud Computing: Real or transcendental

[Note - the audio on the embedded video is not even]

Like every new innovation there will be naysayers. Also there will be the proponents who assume that the new innovation is the way froward and will laugh off the naysayers. Well, I am neither a proponent nor a naysayer. Rather I am interested and a little concerned, and a little skeptical. So, what is "cloud computing?"

Basically, as I understand it, cloud computing will eliminate the need to purchase software and some hardware. All the applications necessary will be online, in the cloud, and all the data created will be stored online, in the cloud.

Imagine you own a small restaurant and your books are stored in the cloud. Imagine you are a graduate student ready to turn in your thesis and it is stored in the cloud. Imagine all your photographs taken over your life are stored in the cloud. Imagine... you get the idea.

If the cloud is secure then we would have no issue I suppose. But how secure can this cloud be? As secure as a safe in your basement? As secure as your filing cabinet? As secure as the biscuit/cookie tin/jar that houses all your nostalgic photographs? Or perhaps the cloud is more secure or less secure? Which one is it? Do we really know? Are we ready to give our "life" to the custody of google and "the cloud." What are the implications for our privacy?

Not so long ago there was "a widespread cyber attack that overwhelmed government websites" and US officials are blaming North Korea. It is not definitive but the attacks were traced to Internet addresses in North Korea.

In another internet based hack Twitter was compromised to allow a hacker to access and share confidential files about "corporate and personal information of employees that was compromised, not users' Twitter accounts."

The Internet is fantastic. How would we live without it nowadays? It has become a part of our existence.

But will we float in a cloud? If the US government files can be compromised is any file safe? Does it really matter?

And if the day comes when the government(s) get behind this cloud(theory), and they are advocates for the cloud, and there are none to very few against the cloud - then be wary.

It is in the titanic audacity of safety that great tragedies are born. Let us not forget the titanic.



[The audio is not the best but this is worth viewing to get a "sense" of the views of cloud computing.]




Sources:

Baldor, L. C. (July 9, 2009). U.S. officials eye N. Korea in cyber attack. Marin Independent Journal, p.A8

Kopytoff, V. (July 16, 2009). Hacker snatches files from Twitter. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1-A11.

Skype Video Chat and People: Video meets humanity

"So I agreed to give video chat a try. We downloaded Skype and set a time to connect. They rang. I answered. My daughter waved. And then... we stared at each other. Short silences that seem natural on the phone become terribly awkward on video. Suddenly I understood why slumber-party confessions always came after lights were out, why children tend to admit the juicy stuff to the back of your head while you're driving, why psychoanalysts stay out of a patient's sightline. There is something exquisitely intimate about the disembodied voice" (Orenstein, 2009, P. 9).

I have friends who use Skype to video chat and I remember their realization that they needed to "dress" for the computer and that this was an inconvenience at 7 a.m. on a Sunday to talk to Ireland at 8 hours ahead. The ideas of new technology might seem great on first learning of the potential but as the quote above says, the romantic notions get destroyed fairly quickly.

Back in 1998 I was on line doing video chatting. The image was o.k. but the quality of the motion aesthetic was stunted and slow. However, it did serve a purpose. My 2 year old daughter was living 7,000 miles away from me and through this new technology we got to see each other more often than we would have without it. Also, she wasn't talking yet so the telephone was not the best medium for communication. So video chat allowed us to "be together" without the need to chat. It was useful at the time but our interactions (outside of visits) gravitated to the old telephone as she got a vocabulary together.

It seems that Orenstein's parents had a similar experience. They wanted to see their grandchild in real time on the screen. It seemed to be a great idea. It was suggested even to leave it on all the time so the grandparents could watch their grandchild grow up! She, Peggy Orenstein, on the other hand, was wary, "I did not, however, spend the bulk of my adult life perfecting the fine art of establishing boundaries only to have them toppled by the click of a mouse." Her parents while being optimistic about the possibilities of Skype for themselves and their grandchild were unaware of the impending awkward silences that are so easy on the telephone and so difficult when on video (Orenstein, 2009).

On returning to email and electronic photos the status quo was resumed. These individuals could once again finger through a magazine while listening on the phone, they could have moments of silence without worrying if they looked bored, etc. And they can always log on to Skype for the big occasions like birthdays, etc.

If there is one thing about new technology and new media that I believe in it is caution. I believe in the positive power of media - all of it. I also believe that media is not being used close to its positive potential. So many jump on the bandwagon of each new development and think it will change the world. It might but it probably won't.

Keeping it all in perspective is prudent. Pasting pieces of ourselves all over the web in places like LinkedIn, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Blogs, and where ever else will have implications going forward. We know now that potential employers are doing electronic (re)searches on potential employees. It is important to be aware of this notion.

It is important to represent yourself accurately and (hopefully) honestly. After all, if I am looking to employ someone to work in my family business I do want to know what you post on your Facebook page, I want to see your YouTube videos, I want to see your LinkedIn profile, and I want to know where and how your name comes up in the electronic world that is our "extended family... bringing us together or destroying boundaries" (Orenstein, 2009, p. 9).



Source for this blog:

Orenstein, P. (2009, June 28). The way we live now: The overextended family. Is Skype bringing us together or destroying boundaries. The New York Times Magazine, pp. 9-11.

Iran and the Media: Twitter, Blogger, YouTube

Twitter, Blog, YouTube - Where would we be without you?

Nico Pitney, speaking on The Rachel Maddow Show, got his 15 seconds of TV fame when he was interviewed about his blogging on the situation in Iran. Pitney blogs at Huffingtonpost.com. Rachel Maddow, said she uses his blog as a source for her own stories and insights into the Iran story.

This may seem fine on the surface but the hype that is surrounding the uses of "new media" for divulging information about Iran recently should be taken seriously. Call me a skeptic but any media tools that generate hype must be viewed soberly to get them in perspective.

Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow are singing the praises of new media for it's part in this Iranian "show of the people." But what is it that is so great about this media over the traditional media? The story becomes the instantaneousness of the new media. Pitney is blogging continuously (he says that he will be sleeping tonight) and is also claiming to confirm all his sources. "Or at least make sure that the information is from multiple sources."

How can instant media coverage be confirmed? How can any traditional media source be confirmed? Do you know what is not shown on the camera footage from YouTube and Blogger? These are the same questions that we ask of the traditional media. These questions should not disappear just because the footage is "obviously" amateur or because it is footage that happened seconds ago, or it is "forbidden" (by the Iranian authorities).

The State Department, according to many sources today, asked Twitter to postpone their scheduled maintenance shut-down so that the people in Iran could communicate with each other presumably to organize demonstrations. Could we interpret this meddling in the dealings of a media/social network as meddling in the fate of Iran? That is not to say that communication is a bad thing. It is a good thing to communicate.

But perhaps the US is assuming that Twitter had more to do with these democratic demonstrations than it did. Reports indicate that this kind of "revolutionary gathering of hundreds of thousands Iranians" has not happened since 1979. I assume that it did not take Twitter to make it happen in '79. Is the hype about "new media's" part in this all because the US is having difficulties with the Iranian administration?

Let us keep things in perspective. Yes I will view the amateur footage and be happy to see footage from Iran, but I will be aware that I am getting a particular opinion/view of the events. Yes I will watch and listen to Rachel Maddow but I am disappointed that she is using a blogger as a source. Yes I will listen and view many different media but I will never feel that I have the whole story. Yes I will watch Fox too (I did not manage to see their coverage of 'the new media and Iran' - I presume that they have covered it- although I did tune into Reilly and Hannity).

Lets not get carried away with the Twitterization of the world. Remember Twitter is trying to figure out a way to monetize their product. We are informed that media persons are not allowed free access to the inside of Iran. But the story will get out in the end. Twitter and Blogger and YouTube might be great instruments of the democratization of the media.

Let new media grow up and mature before we start expecting it to be the instrument of world change.

Let us calm down and get it all in perspective.

Twittering is bogus?

Listening to Armstrong and Getty on the AM radio this morning, I was amused to hear an idea that I have thought all along, that is since I heard of Twitter.

They were citing some study whicht said that 60% of twitterers stop twittering after a month. I can well believe this. It all sounds a little ridiculous to me. Following people's every move might be interesting to a small population who have voyeuristic tendencies or people interested in research of the media but I think it is a fad and will die out.

That whole escapade with Larry King and Aston Kutcher was amusing too but only just! So what if Aston could beat out CNN? He is a celebrity too. So, one celebrity wins against another. It was all very "reality TV".

"Amusing" is as much as I will give this whole thing. And I say it will die out like a fad that really never was.
I heard about twitter a year or so ago in Professor Marie Drennan's class in SFSU and it wasn't until the last couple of weeks that it got major mass media attention, thanks to Larry King, CNN and Aston Kutcher. Professor Marie Drennan beat the whole mass media to it. Maybe Aston proved that the media has potential to be democratized but we all knew that - right?

Whether democracy LIVES in and through the media is another matter and Larry or Aston or CNN are not helping that discussion along - IMHO.

Armstrong and Getty suggested that it will die out like the crazy fads of yesteryear. I am amused that they are saying it now. I said this a year ago and Professor Marie Drennan was talking about it long long before Larry or Aston.