The significance of LulzSec’s 50 days of mayhem

In May of 2011, LulzSec, six internet hackers formed out of the group Anonymous, began their 50 day period of mayhem in which they targeted a host of organisations around the world. In this 50 day period, LulzSec had alerted the public with high profile hacks, web page defacement and site takedowns which occurred every three to four days (Poeter 2011). Their intentions were purely to “gain attention, embarrass website owners and ridicule security measures” and in doing so they had posted personal information that they had secured online, causing hundreds and thousands of pounds in damages (Arthur 2013).

In this 50 day run, some of LulzSec’s high profile hacks were:
– Fox.com; releasing 73 000 profiles of X Factor contestants,
– PBS; posting fake stories stating that Tupac and Biggie Smalls were still alive and that they were living in    New Zealand,
– Gaming companies such as Nintendo, Bethesa Studios and the PlayStation Network where they stole    24.6 million customers’ data and also caused the network to shut down for three weeks
– The Sun newspaper, where they posted stories that Rupert Murdoch had died, as well
stealing information and also shutting the website down,
– The CIA and other FBI affiliated websites.

In this unbelievable period of cyber terror, LulzSec wanted to exemplify how vulnerable some organisations were by causing panic and overall, making organisations rethink their internet security (Levine 2011). Never had the internet experienced such cybercrime like this. Led by its leader with the alias of Sabu, in this 50 day period LulzSec really did take over the internet.

Dominating news headlines, both print and online, the discussion around the mayhem LulzSec caused was immense. In 50 days there were 38, 830 blog mentions, 24, 763 news mentions and an estimated total of 3111,160 tweets in relation to what LulzSec were doing (Levine 2011). In just 50 days of opening a Twitter account LulzSec had also attracted 285, 388 followers, highlighting the immediate popularity that this cybercrime was receiving. Nothing like this had been seen before and its impact changed the course of hacktivism.

Source: http://blog.sysomos.com/2011/06/30/lulzsec-takes-over-the-internet-in-only-50-days/

Source: http://blog.sysomos.com/2011/06/30/lulzsec-takes-over-the-internet-in-only-50-days/

The significance of the 50 days of mayhem that LulzSec had created online, made the organisations which were victimised and also many more, open their eyes to just how vulnerable their online security was. For hacktivism, this was a was an amazing period of events. Six members of Anonymous, some still in their teens, were able to pave the way for new methods in hacktivism.

As LulzSec had steemed from the online forums of Anonymous, when it was disbanded after the 50 days, its six members returned to Anonymous and in this, communicated with other members on the strategies and tactics which made them a hacking success (Poeter 2011). With this in mind, you could believe that the impact of LulzSec would be that they have generated new ways in hacktivism, and that its result may be that in the future we may see new generations of LulzSec forming out of Anonymous?

If anything we can take away from the significance of LulzSec is that authorities have now been warned of the threats which may be present in the future. Cybercrime very much has a future and LulzSec may just have been the first of what is to come. 
References

Arthur, C 2013, ‘LulzSec: what they did, who they were and how they were caught’, The Guardian, 17 May 2013, viewed 16 October 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/may/16/lulzsec-hacking-fbi-jail

Poeter, D 2011, ’50 Days of Mayhem: How LulzSec Changed Hacktivism Forever’, PC Mag, 28 June, viewed 16 October 2014, http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387716,00.asp

Levine, S 2011, LulzSec Takes Over the Internet… In only 50 Days, Sysomos Blog, blog post, 30 June, viewed 16 October, http://blog.sysomos.com/2011/06/30/lulzsec-takes-over-the-internet-in-only-50-days/

Anonymous: Freedom fighters or cyberterrorists?

In my research on this week’s topic of the ‘digital resistance’, focusing on the work of hacktivists, the story of Anonymous was too intriguing to not discuss. As I was reading some articles online about the hacking schemes of Anonymous, I came across a question in Tim Dowling’s (2013) article on The Guardian. The question he raised was in relation to the discussion of whether Anonymous, are believed to be ‘freedom-fighting group’ as they proclaim or a bunch of cyberterrorists?” (Dowling 2013). As I continue to read more on the work of Anonymous, it was only right to come here and compare the views for this blog post.

Anonymous live by the belief that they are legion – a legion where knowledge is free, where all members remain anonymous and they do not forgive or forget for anything that they deem as wrong in society. Anonymous is essentially a mass group of people coming together, that are unhappy with how we are being controlled by corporate organisations and law enforcement (Anonymous 2013). This hacktivist community does indeed deem themselves as a ‘freedom fighting group’. Why, because they state they are working for the good of society, due to their exhaustion of corporate interests controlling the internet; silencing people’s rights to spread information and also share information with one another (Stone 2014). Their actions are working towards stopping the violation of freedom of speech.

Despite Anonymous stating that they are a ‘freedom-fighting group’, the contrary view believes that they are a terrorist act working online. There is no doubt that media organisations, large corporations and government bodies label Anonymous, as a cyberterrorist group. Anonymous already have a long list of victims they have hacked as a result of their actions which they deemed as shady. A simple search on Google or YouTube and you will find a range of examples of where Anonymous has been at work, either shutting down websites such as the US Department of Justice or the FBI or hacking into media companies such as the Fox News example below, on top of organisations like the Church of Scientology, governments and many more. These organisations undoubtedly perceive Anonymous as a threat because of the power this hacktivist group has in exposing them.

Anonymous believe that they need to protect the perception of their group from being labelled as terrorists. They have even gone to lengths to even threaten video game company, Activision, because of their portrayal of Anonymous in Call of Duty: Black Ops 2. The game portrayed Anonymous as an enemy to the United States, ultimately painting them as terrorists (Kumar 2012). The perception of Anonymous is that crucial for the group, they want to ensure that they are seen as working for the good of society, as a ‘freedom-fighting group’.

Taking in mind the two contrasting views I have explained, your view of Anonymous, is purely up to you personal opinion. However when Anonymous is working towards exposing organisations for their shady actions, can we still label them as terrorists? If it is for the good of society, in stopping the violation of freedom of speech, can we argue against their actions? Nevertheless, Anonymous are here and they will continue to make headlines and create debate long into the future, despite our personal views.

References

Dowling, T 2013, ‘How Hackers Changed the World and Meet the Izzards – TV Review’, The Guardian, 21 February, viewed 9 October 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/feb/21/hackers-changed-world-meet-izzards

Stone, J 2014, ‘What Is Anonymous? ‘Hacktivist’ Involvement In Mike Brown Shooting Proves Vigilante Justice Is Now Routine’, International Business Times, 15 August, viewed 9 October 2014, http://www.ibtimes.com/what-anonymous-hacktivist-involvement-mike-brown-shooting-proves-vigilante-justice-now-1660052

Kumar, M 2012, Anonymous: We Are Not Terrorists but Fearless Freedom Fighters, The Hacker News, viewed 9 October 2014, http://thehackernews.com/2012/05/anonymous-we-are-not-terrorists-but.html

Anonymous 2012, Anonymous Live on CNN, YouTube video, 20 January, Anonymous, viewed 9 October 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i_J98RsTac

The social media revolution in Hong Kong

It is really undeniable how important social media has become in the political protests we are currently seeing today in places such as Ukraine and Hong Kong and what we have seen in the past such as the Arab Spring. Why I say that social media has become so important, is because of the role it plays in organising and sustaining protests (Bohdanova 2013) but also in creating a community for protesters to drive a movement. Due to this, we have seen Facebook and Twitter become some of the most powerful platforms of the internet because of their ability to connect people together, ‘coordinate protest activities and share information’ all through the power of a hashtag (Bohdanova 2013). It is quite remarkable to see how critical these social networking platforms have become the key figure to connect people and create a movement.

You have to look no further than in the video above from the The Guardian. In the current protests in Hong Kong led by the youth of its society, social media is integral in their political movement. The youth of Hong Kong are using various social media platforms through their smartphones and their other devices in order to connect, communicate, organise and sustain their protests.

In The Guardian’s video we see evidence of how social media is being used. The first interviewee states how his friend had recorded the violent actions of the law enforcement authorities against other protests and had uploaded it to Facebook in order to share it amongst the community to inform and motivate protesters. He states that this is becoming a trend one that has become far more important that calling “911” as he says for help. From examples such as as this it is clear just as it is stated in the video that this is a movement that has been “entirely coordinated on social media” (Guardian 2014).

While Facebook is being used in the Hong Kong protests as the main tool to communicate with others, draw information and upload photos or video recordings, this protest has integrated even more social media platforms than protests prior. In addition to Facebook and Twitter, protesters are using apps such as Telegram Messenger, HKGolden, Instagram, WhatsApp and FireChat. This proliferation of social media tools is creating new opportunities by giving Hong Kong’s protesters an edge in reach supporter “en masse” (Chen, Law & Purnell 2014). Through the various social media platforms, communication amongst Hong Kong’s youth continues to build and as these protests are still happening, social media will only become increasingly influential in this revolution.

When we look at the examples such as the political movement in Hong Kong, you cannot deny just how powerful social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have become. People have utilised the capabilities of Facebook and Twitter, amongst other social media, to connect people together in order to create a movement. These movements are like what we see in Hong Kong and social media is the integral force which has allowed the youth from all over the country to interact with each other, share information, upload photos and videos and organise protests. When we see just how powerful social media can be creating these movements, it has become inevitable now that for a revolution in society to happen, it must be created and sustained through social media.
References

Bohdanova, T 2013, How Internet Tools Turned Ukraine’s #Euromaidan Protests Into a Movement, Global Voices, viewed 28 September 2014, http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/12/09/how-internet-tools-turned-euromaidan-protests-into-a-movement/

Chen, T, Law, F & Purnell, N 2014, ‘Apps Speed Up, and Often Muddle, Hong Kong Protesters’ Messages’, Wall Street Journal, 9 October, viewed 28 September 2014, http://online.wsj.com/articles/whatsapp-key-to-quickly-rallying-protesters-in-hong-kong-but-groups-struggle-to-stay-on-message-1412878808

The Guardian, 2014, Hong Kong protest 2014: The social media revolution: Report #6, YouTube video, 6 October, The Guardian, viewed 28 September 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyPi0FYihjE

Citizen Journalism creating a change in the world.

In a digital world today, where we now have such a range of different ways to communicate with our family, friends, colleagues, communities and the general public, opportunities have been created in which they have empowered people to share stories with the world. It is this which has very much generated a transformation to the field of journalism, where the internet has become the agent in delivering communication on news and events without the need of proper mainstream journalism. As a result we now have citizen journalism, where the cost to publish news online comes at no cost, therefore providing ourselves with the opportunity to produce coverage on a range of news topics and events that may have been ignored or not given the depth of coverage priror by mainstream journalism.

Citizen journalism, as pointed out by Small World News director, Brian Conley (2012), is the future of journalism. Why this is so, is because citizen journalism provides an important service in the wider media and public sphere (Bruns 2009). This service is based on that;
– it builds on diverse participant bases,
– it adds broad multi-perspective analysis and commentary on news events,
– builds on committed interested communities,
– it is able to engage in a more ongoing, longitudinal fashion with key themes in the news and,
– that it employs a gatewatching model.                                 (Bruns 2009)

However on top of this we must remember that ‘not all citizen journalism is engaged in such high-stakes, global impact impacts, but that it also serves a purpose in providing a more in depth and insightful coverage of news areas that have been in the past traditionally neglected by mainstream media’ (Bruns 2009). This point is very much the basis of Brian Conley’s TED Talk (2012) ‘Citizen Journalism is Reshaping the World’.

In ‘Citizen Journalism is Reshaping the World’, Conley (2012), expresses this point emphatically, that the future of media is local rather than mobile. He believes this because through his experiences in dealing with struggling societies and people around the world, social media has given a voice to the people who were once voiceless, meaning that now today they have the platform to share their and also the stories of others to the world (Conley 2012). While in traditional media these stories would have not been given any recognition or coverage, today the voiceless now have this voice they have desired and it is because of the very fact that social media platforms like Twitter and YouTube, have created citizen journalism.

Conley (2012) believes that “everybody has a story and somebody wants to to listen to it”, and it is very clear with how social media has empowered people to share these stories, that citizen journalism is in fact the future of journalism. After watching Conley’s (2012) TED Talk, it was very hard to disagree with the statements he made. With the tools we are now given in this digital world, I believe it is clear that we can all be the producers of news content that can be far more critical than the traditional reporting of mainstream journalism. Citizen journalism is in fact, reshaping the world.

References

Bruns, A 2009, ‘New Blogs and Citizen Journalism: New Directions for E-Journalism’, viewed 17 September, https://moodle.uowplatform.edu.au/pluginfile.php/245673/mod_resource/content/1/Bruns%2C%20A.%20-%20News%20Blogs%20and%20Citizen%20Journalism.pdf

Conley, B 2012, Citizen Journalism is Reshaping the World: Brian Conley at TEDxMidAtlantic, Tedx Talks, 17 December, viewed 19 September 2014, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY-l9UQpf0Y>.

This era’s battle. Apple vs Google, iOS vs Android.

With the rise of mobile devices in the technological landscape, a unique battle has eventuated between two giants in technology; Apple and Google. It is a battle between two operating systems which has only recently begun and looks set to continue into the future. This battle as explained by Gustin (2012) is similar to the battles of ‘Microsoft Internet Explorer vs Netscape Navigator’ in the 1990s and ‘Google vs Yahoo’ in the 2000s. The similarities each of these battles share with the ‘Apple iOS vs Google’s Android’ battle today, is that each of these clashes have defined an era of the internet (Gustin 2012). It is definitely a high stakes battle which has divided many in regards to their allegiances to which operating system they prefer. The divide comes as to whether one prefers Apple’s iOS closed system or the freedom of open software that Google provide with the Android system.

Gustin (2012) believes that this battle is quite important because “Apple and Google are advancing radically different business models to the fight”. He continues to state that this war between two tech giants is based on “two fundamentally different visions for the future of computing (Gustin 2012). These two different visions are that of ‘closed vs open software’. Apple have the end to end control over their model, which includes the hardware and software of their mobile devices and as well as what is made available in the App Store. On the other hand, is Google who makes the Android code available to all; license and royalty free for any use (Wildstrom 2013). While Steve Jobs may believe that Google is ripping them off, Google’s model is based on distributing the Android system to developers (such as their partners like Samsung, HTC, LG) and letting these partners make this opportunity blossom (Gustin 2012).

Whether people are deciding or have already pledged allegiances to the debate of which operating system is better, I personally believe that in having both iOS and Android devices in my possession, the freedom that Google provides with their open system is essentially a greater experience. Since Apple introduced the iPhone I have had one ever since, however recently I purchased a Google Nexus tablet and I must say that I have been overwhelmed with how good the operating system. I have enjoyed the software that much that I have made the decision to never go back to Apple. While people may have reservations about making the switch from iOS to Android like I have done, Westaway (2014) in his CNET article, ‘Why iOS vs. Android no longer matters’, explains through his own experience of changing from iPhone to a number of Android smartphones that the freedom he, as the user, gained from Android was satisfying enough to not  convince to go back to Apple. While essentially it is anyone’s personal preference, as someone who is very much interested in technology like I am, the operating system of Android has won my love. Android have do so purely because of the opportunities I see that are more possible in terms of its software development than in comparison to that of Apple’s end to end control.

Closed vs open software you make the call but wouldn’t you see the benefit of freedom over comfort in which Google’s Android system gives you, the user. Despite what I believe there is no doubt that this battle has only just begun and it is clear that the future of the internet will most definitely be defined by this war of operating systems.
References

Westaway, L 2014, ‘Why iOS vs Android no longer matters’, CNET, 7 May, viewed 7 September, http://www.cnet.com/news/ios-vs-android-why-it-no-longer-matters/

Gustin, S 2012, Apple vs. Google Is the Most Important Battle in Tech, TIME Business, web blog, 12 October, viewed 7 September 2014, http://business.time.com/2012/10/12/why-apple-vs-google-is-the-most-important-battle-in-tech/

Wildstrom, S 2013, Apple vs. Android: The Open Factor, Tech.pinions, viewed 7 September 2014, http://techpinions.com/apple-vs-android-the-open-factor/17049

The data inside the walled gardens

In the walled gardens of the internet “everyone can freely distribute content online” (Mitew 2014). While this may seem as a positive aspect of what ‘Web 2.0’ has presented for us today, it has also come at a cost. It is now “cheaper to store content than to erase it” (Mitew 2014), therefore meaning that the walled gardens such as Google and Facebook can potentially know more about us than our friends do. These databases of the walled gardens, already have an abundance of data on us and so the more we add to it, the more valuable we become to them – although the more we are now at risk.

The Walled Gardens of the internet are such as Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft and I’m sure that most of us can say that we are consumers of their products and services. These walled gardens as Eisen (2012) puts it have become our feudal lords and in return we are becoming their vassals. Why, because we have either pledged an allegiance to one in particular like Google by having Android devices, Gmail accounts and Google+ or even by spreading our allegiances to have iPads and iPhones, iCloud, Windows, music and books through Amazon or Facebook. Through these allegiances we have created content which has produced an ongoing build up of data into the databases of these walled gardens. This data includes a record of all of our activity within these walls, thus presenting an issue of the security in ‘iFeudalism’.

Before we used to solely install anti-virus software and firewalls onto our PC’s however today this has changed because of these walled gardens. Due to the ‘developments of internet enabled devices like the iPad or Galaxy, where the vendor maintains more control over the hardware and software than we do and services, where the host such as Gmail or Hotmail maintains our data for us’, we ‘the users’ are left only with the option to trust the security of these walled gardens (Eisen 2012). Though despite this, we still opt to trust them because of their “convenience, redundancy, automation and shareability” (Eisen 2012). Ultimately what we have done is given it all up to our feudal lords hoping that the security of our data will be dealt with responsibly.

What is frightening though is how much these walled gardens know about us. James Ball (2012) conducted a search into how much Google really knew about him, his results were a “mountain of data”. While only being able to collect data from Google’s account activity report, what he found out was that Google had a record of 877 of his email contacts, a collection of 398 Google docs, all of the emails he has sent and received, a chat history of 500 conversations with 177 different people, a history of all the videos he has watched on YouTube, he’s most recent web and image searches and his ‘Maps’ history. On top of this, was the information on Google’s ad preference page which have used his cookies history in order to make assumptions about what his interests are to therefore tailor advertisements towards him. This was only the information which Ball himself had tried to retrieve, imagine the amount of data that Google actually have on him in that database of theirs.

Ball (2012) expresses his concerns that if he was able to retrieve this much information then in fact how much does Google know about him and even more so how much at risk is he if this data can be accessed by governments, law enforcement bodies or even hackers. He admits it is quite disturbing to know that this amount of data is available on him and is concerned for the security of this data.

It is quite concerning to know how we have very little control over this data. Within these walled gardens all we can do is trust that these feudal lords will act responsibly. However with no assurance of this how much can we trust that our data will be protected?

Schneier (2013) demands that in order to assure the security of our data there needs to be a balance of power to this relationship in which the feudal lords have responsibilities as well as rights. He believes that government intervention is the only way that this can happen, and I believe he is right. While you might argue that governments should not flex their power on the internet maybe for our protection they need too. The walled gardens of Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook have placed themselves as internet giants and frankly, the wealth of data they have on us quite frightening. An intervention needs to happen soon enough before these walled gardens knows more about us than we know ourselves.

References

Ball, J 2012, ‘Me and my data: how much do the internet giants really know?’, The Guardian, 22 April, viewed 5 September 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/22/me-and-my-data-internet-giants

Eisen, M 2012, ‘When It Comes to Security, We’re Back to Feudalism’, Wired, 26 November, viewed 5 September 2014, http://www.wired.com/2012/11/feudal-security/

Schneier, B 2013, You Have No Control Over Security on the Feudal Internet, HBR Blog Network, blog post, 6 June, viewed 5 September 2014, http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/06/you-have-no-control-over-s/

Mitew, T 2014, The Feudalisation of the Internet, lecture, DIGC202, Global Networks, University of Wollongong, delivered Sept 1 2014.

The internet is not just on the PC anymore

In O’Reilly’s (2005) ‘What is Web 2.0’, he discusses the changing landscape of the internet; where the ‘.com boom’ has now presented us with a new generation of software. In this article O’Reilly’s concept of ‘Web 2.0’ presents new design patterns for the internet, where they have inspired a new branch of business models which have created an evolution in relation to internet based software. These design patterns are;

1. The Long Tail
2. Data is the Next Intel Inside
3. Users Add Value
4. Network Effects by Default
5. Some Rights Reserved
6. The Perpetual Beta
7. Cooperate, Don’t Control
8. Software Above the Level of a Single Device

The design pattern which stood out to be me most while reading O’Reilly’s article was the last design pattern, ‘Software Above the Level of a Single Device’. What this means is that “the PC is no longer the only access device for internet applications, and applications that are limited to a single device are less valuable than those that are connected” (O’Reilly 2005). The implication of this is that internet applications today, should be designed so that they integrate services across a range of devices and servers not just solely from the PC (O’Reilly 2005). Why is this belief held? Because its obvious that today we do not just access the internet through a PC, we are now using tablets, smartphones, gaming consoles and a range of other devices to access the internet. An internet application today needs to integrate its services  across a host of devices if it wants to be perceived as valuable. This is all part of the customer experience that we demand from our internet software today and if an application fails to do so then we can deem it as a much less valuable.

This design pattern is evident when we look at media companies such as television networks, sports organisations and subscription on-demand media. Each of these are creating internet applications where you can stream television shows, documentaries, movies, events and live sports which are not solely for usage through a PC. These on-demand applications are available on a wide range of devices such as your smartphone, tablet, gaming console, smart TV, set top boxes and Blu-Ray players. Each of these devices have the capacity to stream this on-demand content and so the software is there for use to extend far beyond the PC.

The media devices which are compatible with Netflix.

Netflix are the perfect example of ‘Software Above the Level of a Single Device’. Netflix moved their online service from the PC and expanded its capabilities in responding with these ‘Web 2.0’ devices. In 2008 Netflix made it possible for their subscribers to stream their content through a host of devices and what this did was make the software valuable by the opportunity to access Netflix through, for example your iPad or Xbox (Auletta 2014). Delivering on O’Reilly’s ‘Web 2.0’ design pattern ‘Software Above the Level of a Single Device’, Netflix have altered the future of television and what we have seen is TV networks do the same such as Channel 9’s Jumpin or SBS’ SBS On Demand; sports organisations creating their own networks such as the NFL Network or NBA League Pass; and also competitor services to Netflix such as Hulu or Amazon Instant. What each of these applications have done is made their content available not just the single device of the PC but available on a range of devices.

In delivering on O’Reilly’s design pattern, ‘Software Above the Level of a Single Device’, what we have seen in the examples presented above is that these media companies are ‘creating internet applications where accessibility is possible through far more than the sole device, therefore giving leverage to the power of the web platform by making it a seamless, almost invisible part of their infrastructure’ (O’Reilly 2005).

References

Aueletta, K 2014, ‘Outside the Box: Netflix and the future of television’, The New Yorker, 3 February, viewed 27 August 2014, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/03/outside-the-box-2

Surowiecki, J 2010, ‘The Next Level: Failure of “category killer” chain stores’, The New Yorker, 18 October, viewed 27 August 2014, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/18/the-next-level

O’Reilly, T 2005, What is Web 2.0, O’Reilly, viewed 27 August 2014, http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1

Thank you technology. Work doesn’t happen in the office anymore.

“In the “always on”, networked, wireless world of the contemporary office, traditional labour and management claims based on formal working hours or the idea of full-time, part-time and casual employment find significant challenges. The trademark accessories of white collar work—the desktop, the file and the phone—are now easily available on mobile devices that are celebrated for bringing the office wherever one may go. Designed and marketed as essential tools for the busy professional, such technologies are familiarly described in advertising copy as having revolutionised the working day, making the drudgery of the office a thing of the past. These representations depict the workplace as malleable enough to suit individual workers’ preferences. The choice to decide when and where to work is a given—although the idea that one might choose not to work is rarely entertained”.

This is the paragraph which stood out for me the most in Melissa Gregg’s ‘Function creep: Communication technologies and anticipatory labour in the information workplace’. Why, because this paragraph summed up the change which is occurring most definitely in our white collar workforce. Today technology has changed how the workplace functions and communicates due to the presence of mobile productivity taking place outside of the office. Mobile productivity has meant a mobile workforce; where employees are choosing to work outside of the designated work space while maintaining a level of productivity. How this is occurring is through the many connected devices – smartphones, tablets and laptops, in which workers are opting to use in order to stay connected to their work at all times. People are working away from the office and rather intheir homes, in hotels, cafes etc, and here it is this integral part of the new network economy that we define as liquid labour.

What we have learnt from this liquid labour is that the once ‘9 to 5 office job’ is undergoing serious changes. The time spent in the office is less and the way in which communication occurs through employees, employers and clients has changed dramatically. In the 21st century technology has changed this by delivering the new workplace features of mobile work from home, closer team collaborations and unified communication streams (Burg 2013). With global a workplace, the opportunity for those to send emails, attend video conferences from a smartphone or tablet device whilst also remaining connected and productive in the comfort of your own home presents the potential for a great escape from the usual office surroundings. Secondly, those work team collaborations which used to happen from the board rooms now occur in virtual work places such as online documents – all contribute, communicate and edit at all times from wherever they are. Thirdly, the ability to have a unified communication stream through a range of applications means that workforce teams can collaboratively contribute to the conversation whilst also accessing any form of communication that has occurred through recorded data of text conversations, video recordings and conference calls.

A liquid labour workforce has undoubtedly altered the workplace in the 21st century. The fact that work functions can take place at any time of day, in any location means that those predominately in the white collar workforce have the benefit of tailoring their work day to their lifestyle. While this all seems great on the surface there is no denying that the challenge will be for the worker to ensure that the opportunities in which liquid labour brings does not mean that they take work everywhere with them. The denial of a healthy work-life balance could be the downfall of liquid labour however on the surface the pros outweigh the cons significantly.

 

References

Gregg, M, ‘Function Creep: Communication Technologies and Anticipatory Labour in the information workplace’, viewed: 19/8/2014.https://moodle.uowplatform.edu.au/pluginfile.php/245657/mod_resource/content/1/Gregg%2C%20M.%20-%20Function%20creep.pd

Burg, N 2013, ‘How Technology Has Changed Workplace Communication’, Forbes, 12 October, viewed 22 August 2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/unify/2013/12/10/how-technology-has-changed-workplace-communication/

Mitew, T 2012, Liquid labour, lecture, DIGC202, Global Networks, University of Wollongong, delivered 13 August. Accessed 20 August 2014.

Cyberspace and its ownership

In 1996 John Perry Barlow published the Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace in which he delivered a passionate cry to ‘governments of the Industrial World’ to remove themselves from intervening in the development of cyberspace. In his declaration, Barlow (1996) stated that cyberspace would not welcome any government involvement because it was intended to be a place ‘independent of tyrannies’ where cyberspace would continue to build naturally, evolving as a result of the collective actions of those who are part of the online world. He proclaimed that cyberspace consisted of a unique culture made organically which would not be altered by any governments influence. Cyber space is a world where anyone can enter and can experience the benefits of the cyberlibertarian tropes in which the ‘.com’ boom provided. Overall Barlow wanted to ensure that cyberspace remained as a libertarian utopia where a new civilisation would interact and evolve with each other free of government ruling.

After reading Barlow’s passionate declaration, it gets you thinking as to whether it is actually right for governments to intervene and run its ruling over cyberspace?

If we look at the history of the internet well then you could argue at one time that the US Government did once own the internet through APRANET. However there are two answers as to who owns the internet and that is firstly, nobody and secondly, lots of people as proposed by Strickland (2012). Strickland (2012) believes in these two reasons because you can firstly, argue that the internet is a unified, single entity where no government or company can lay claim to owning it, as there are only organisations who determines its structure. Secondly, you could say lots of people because the internet consists of numerous bits and pieces where they each have owners who control the quality and level of access you have therefore impacting your experience. From this you could state that yes, no one may actually own the internet however there are those who are responsible for ensuring that all is functioning in cyberspace.

Although despite this, today we have the issue of governments denying their civilians the liberty of participating in cyberspace and this is a major problem for me. Just like Barlow presented in his  Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace (1996), I too believe that the online world is a place where it is much different to the world we live in. It is truly unique in which freedom is given to all – a place where anyone can enter without privilege or prejudice and be free to express their beliefs. This is how cyberspace was intended to be however today we see examples of governments such as China, Syria, Vietnam, Turkmenistan who censor and block their civilians from accessing a range of online applications and websites. Furthermore we have the extreme case of North Korea, where all websites are under government control while also allowing only 4% of the population to have access to the internet (USA Today 2014). I believe that denial of entry into cyberspace is morally wrong. No one has claim over the ownership of cyberspace and the fact that governments believe they should be denying people’s access or even censoring the online world is against the cyberlibertarian tropes which the internet was built upon in the 1990s.

Cyberspace is our world, it is not the same world in which governments already rule in.

 

References

Barlow, J.P. 1996 A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html

Strickland, J 2012, Who owns the internet?, How Stuff Works, viewed 15 August 2014, http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/who-owns-internet1.htm

USA Today, 2014, ‘Top 10 Internet-censored countries’, USA Today, 5 February 2014, viewed 15 August 2014, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/05/top-ten-internet-censors/5222385/

Mitew, Ted. 2014 A Global Nervous System https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5oAlHZMgX8&list=PLiPp71qLKusXOU1bKxHVappCbRNN3-J-j&index=3

 

 

 

The internet, why we love it

Why do people want to be on the internet?

This was the question which stood out to me during what week 2 of DIGC202 had to offer. Where this question came from was Sterling’s 1993 article ‘A Short History of the Internet’. 

In this article Sterling made the argument that at that point of time, 20 years ago, people were attracted to the concept of the internet and therefore wanted to interact with it because the internet could deliver;
1. Freedom for its users as it is an “example of a true, modern, function anarchy”.
2. No existence of social or political protocols/borders therefore allowing a node to interact with any other node.
3. The presence of a bargain of a deal because there are no charges for the distance of the service you require and time of access is unlimited.
4. An anarchy where everybody pitches to assist in its constant evolution.

It is due to these reasons outlined above that the internet belongs to everyone and no one. Why, this is because of how Sterling (1993) puts it that “the internet is an institution that resists institutionalisation”.

So why in 2014, do we love the internet?

The internet has undergone an evolution since Sterling published his article and now reviewing what the internet is today in 2014, I think that we love the internet so much because we could not imagine living in a world without it. The Guardian’s Bim Adewunmi wrote an article last year celebrating the internet’s 30th birthday. Here, Adewunmi presented 15 reasons on why she has an undeniable love for the internet. In this article she shared the same reasons as proclaimed by Sterling while also including her love for iconic internet symbols such as Google and Facebook.

View Adewunmi’s 15 reasons here.. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/04/happy-birthday-internet-reasons-love-you

So after reading Sterling and Adewunmi’s articles, I had to add my two cents to the conversation and state two key reasons as to why I love the internet. Firstly, I have to make it understood that like Adewunmi states in her article, I too could not picture a world without the internet. I like the rest of my generation are avid users of the internet and it pains me to even contemplate what life would be like without the genius of the internet we have today.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube consume so much of my life that my day would feel empty without either one of them. The fact that I can be kept informed in multiple ways while also interacting with those close to me and with those who share similar passions to me, whom are positioned across the globe. This undoubtedly forces me to love these features of the internet. I am involved in so many conversations and communities worldwide through Facebook, Twitter and YouTube that I couldn’t imagine being without and this all becomes possible because of the internet.

My second reason as to why I love the internet is my Xbox. You could argue that without the internet there would be no Xbox One or similar console like there is today. Furthermore the gaming industry would not be the mega industry it is without the internet. My Xbox One does not become an entertainment system that it has been produced to be without the internet. The Xbox One serves so much of my entertainment needs through gaming both online and offline and streaming content (movies, TV and sports). The fact that Xbox makes you connect to the internet immediately on installation highlights how crucial the internet is for this console to perform the functions it is capable of.

These two reasons I presented above highlight key features which have become a large part of my life. While also agreeing with the reasons presented by Sterling and Adewunmi, the two I have explained are what I hold closely to me. So with this I would just like to say thank you internet, I don’t know where I would be without you.

 

 

References

Adewunmi, B 2013, ‘Happy birthday internet! Here are 15 reasons why I love you’, The Guardian, 5 January, viewed 7 August 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/04/happy-birthday-internet-reasons-love-you

Sterling, B 1996, A Short History of the Internet, Yale Library, viewed 6 August 2014, http://www.library.yale.edu/div/instruct/internet/history.htm