Transient

"..A dominant impulse on encountering beauty is to wish to hold on to it, to possess it and give weight in one's life...There is an urge to say, 'I was here, I saw this, and it mattered to me." - Alain de Botton - Stendhal Syndrome."

Read more

Transient

Fascinating symbiosis.

"TechCrunch is hearing that Facebook is buying Titan Aerospace, makers of near-orbital, solar-powered drones which can fly for five years without needing to land. According to a source with access to information about the deal, the price for this acquisition is $60 million*.

From our understanding, Facebook is interested in using these high-flying drones to blanket parts of the world without Internet access, beginning with Africa. The company would start by building 11,000 of these unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), specifically the “Solara 60″ model."


Read more here and here

"Kidnappings in Mexico have worsened in the last 5 years, sky-rocketing by 371%. So too have the demand for those RFID implants that were said to allow authorities find the victims. Except for one thing: they don't work.

Mexico has a pretty serious kidnapping problem-so serious that there is now a market for a $4,000...Read more

The main problem is that the technology, for a number of reasons, couldn't have worked in the first place. For one, the implants are much too small for a satellite to pick up. And that's without taking into account the barriers the implant's signal would have to overcome—that is, metal, concrete, and the water of the human body. For another, the implants can't be trusted to broadcast a signal without losing its teeny tiny charge.

And even if the police did manage to pick up the signal, there'd be no time to mount a raid to save you. All told, you're probably only about 1% less screwed.

That hasn't stopped RFID manufacturers from raking in the money in the last two years. Xega's still very much at it, even after admitting the technology is "bad for the country." UPIwrites:

Xega charges people seeking the implant $2,000 up front, with annual fees of $2,000. For their money, implant customers get a radio frequency identification chip implanted into the fatty tissue of the arm.

Dickbaggery, thy name is RFID peddlers. [Washington Post via UPI]"

Photo Credit: AP Photo/Diario de Nuevo Laredo

Photo Credit: AP Photo/Diario de Nuevo Laredo

Read more here in Gizmodo and compare with this article on Mexico's Geolocalization Law (2012).


"...Interview with Mitch Jackson - lots more on Mitch Jackson here - https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MitchJackson/about "


"...I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere down the line this [ Google Glass ] will be the norm....or whatever the mobile technology is."  - 2 April 2014 9:24AM AEST


Mitch Jackson provides an account of how he perceives Google Glass playing out across the legal profession in his state and perhaps across the United States more broadly. Mitch also provides feedback on a range of far ranging questions that included:

1. Mitch, which part of the US do you call home?
2. In your email signature you identify as a trial lawyer with 28 years experience. How is it then that you have identified as a #glassexplorer  and what does that do for your credibility as a Lawyer?
3. There have been some very public events of late that expose both the good and the bad sides of #glass  - what do you consider is the difference?
4. Have you or do you envisage in the the near future dealing with cases that involve #glass  legally in any way?
5. Where dont you wear #glass  ?
6. What has your Family reaction been to #glass  ? Rotary ? your sports associations?
7. When you say your involved with social media and #googleglass   in your G+ profile do you see these as separate entities or mutually complementary?
8. #glass  is at this point still a relatively unknown phenomena here in Australasia. What do you consider will be the impact of #glass  more broadly on the professional communities across Australia?
9. Given that society has changed significantly since the inception of the Internet do you have any ideas on what likely changes might happen with the functions and form of #googleglass  in the next iterations before it's public release?
10. What is the likely shifts in law and governance that we are going to have to tackle as a Society and internationally or even perhaps across all of humanity as a result of #glass  ?



"...Short Interview with Cathie Reid - #glassexplorer - More about Cathie - https://plus.google.com/u/0/117806724842643433035/about "

I've invited Cathie to come to Canberra, Australia and connect with the public at the INSPIRE Centre, University of Canberra as part of the 2014 #glassmeetups . These blended face-to-face and online events provide an opportunity for discussions as to what other areas of the medical, healthcare, aged care industries might have in development or even in conceptual proof of concept such as the depiction below.

"Called the Fly6, it is a combination video camera and flashing rear light that promises to make riders more visible while recording what happens behind them. It is fitted to the bike's seat post.

The inventors say it could also help to determine who is responsible when a motor vehicle hits a bicycle from behind – one of the most common causes of serious injury or death among cyclists."

Transient

From The Guardian  (extracts with emphasis added):

"Keeping track of your emails and staying on top of your calendar might be hard enough, but for American software developer Chris Dancy, life doesn’t feel complete without several hundred data sets about his life being fed to him simultaneously at all times.

...

Today, Dancy is “travelling light”, only wearing seven devices: above his eyes sits the unmistakable horizontal bar of a Google Glass headset, which records everything he sees, while around his neck hangs a Memoto narrative camera, which takes a picture every 30 seconds for good measure. On one wrist is a Pebble watch, which sends him alerts from his two smartphones, while around the other is a Fitbit Flex, tracking his movement and sleep patterns 24 hours a day. And then there’s the stuff you can’t see: a Blue HR heart rate monitor strapped to his chest, a BodyMedia fitness tracker around his upper arm and, lurking beneath his waistband, a Lumoback posture sensor – “which vibrates when I slouch,” he beams.

“Right now I feel pretty naked,” he says, “because I can’t control the room.” Back at home in Denver, Colorado, all the data from these devices feeds directly into his ambient environment, which automatically adjusts according to his mood and needs.

“The house knows my behaviours,” he says. “If I get really stressed out and don’t sleep well, when I wake up the light is a certain colour, the room a particular temperature, and certain music plays. My entire life is preconditioned based on all this information that I collect in real time.”

...

“All this stuff [...] needs to be in my clothing. Why can’t your shoes have haptic sensors in them, so if you’re walking you don’t need GPS – your shoe just vibrates left or right? I think this low-friction, ambient feedback is really the future, but for now we have to strap all this stuff on and look silly.”

...

Dancy is perhaps the most extreme exponent [of] a community dedicated to tracking and archiving every aspect of their known existence. But might others also be watching them too?

“That’s a very real concern,” says John Weir, director of the Wearable Technology Show. “You can quantify yourself as much as you want, but a lot of that is fed back on the web, and a lot of the companies now hold immense amounts of data on their customers. Particularly with medical applications, where people will hopefully be feeding stuff back to their doctors, the ownership of data and privacy is going to become a big issue.”

Dancy shares these concerns, but is more optimistic about the beneficial power of mastering our data, as long as we stop giving it away. “We don’t have a sharing problem, we have a data intimacy problem,” he says. “It’s urgent that people look at the data they are creating and giving away – so much of it can be used to make our lives better, rather than lining the pockets of mega corporations.”

In reality, few have the software skills to ensure their personal data is not being harvested against their will, so maybe it’s for the best that most wearable tech still makes you look like an extra from Star Trek. For some, that’s a useful deterrent from ever wearing it."

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/ar...

"...I definitely see a revolution in how some people will work..."

Here are the ten core questions I asked of Mark today:

1. Mark, I have you down in my G+ circles as a colleague. I note you have 290 followers. How have you managed to keep such a quiet profile amidst your incredible achievements?
2. You claim not to be a #glassexplorer  or at least not part of that online community. What do you call your developments then with #glass  or at least with the wider sub-sets of alternative providers?
3. I met with you at ISMAR13 in Adelaide, South Australia. Shortly after that event another occurred in the same university with Professor Andrew Goldsmith, Cybercrimes. What do you see as the nexus between augmented reality (AR) and that of unmanned aerial systems? (UAS)
4. Christchurch is a lovely part of the world. Given you've just returned from Israel what do you consider to be the hotbeds of technology development in the world at present?
5. What does the term privacy mean to you? 
6. In a world of big data, open data and the ripples still subsiding from the NSA and Snowden case what do you see as the greatest challenge for those who choose to route their quantified selves through servers in other countries (the cloud)? Is wearable technology responsible in some way for a shift in humanity?
7. The #glassroom  - tell us who takes your C22: The Glass Class: Designing Wearable Interfaces and why ?
8. I take it your familiar with +Thad Starner - it appears 'empathetic' appears in both of your current discourses - can you tell us more about what you mean by using augmented reality to create empathetic experiences?
9. Is artificial intelligence (AI) set to leapfrog wearables as the revolution or do we have to wait and see  #glass  sweep across Australasia first?
10. Will #glass  cause revolt, upturn apple-carts, challenge stereotypes, ubiquitously slip amongst the tools of the K-2 educator? What the key challenges that we face as humanity with #glass or is this set to be a US based phenomena only?

Popular Mech

Popular Mech

Transient

The Art of Flying Your Very Own Drone

Drones are coming to American skies—not just for surveillance or security work, but also for hobbyists. If you want to pilot your own drone, learn the ABCs of UAVs.

Read more

"Over a four-month period I learned how to fly three multicopters: a super-simple $300 Parrot AR.Drone 2.0, a $680 DJI Phantom, and a tricked-out, six-rotor $1300 3D Robotics Y6. Multicopters have anywhere from three to eight rotors, are highly maneuverable, and can hover and fly in virtually any direction. These are good starter drones, because they are generally quite controllable and won't disappear over the horizon in a hurry, the way fixed-wing craft tend to do. 

But as I found out, multicopter flying is not without its challenges. Things can sometimes go haywire faster than you can react. Plus, piloting one can be a mind-bending exercise in relative positioning. Multicopters are symmetrical, so it's not always obvious which way your drone is "facing." Remote control usually involves either a radio-control unit with dual analog sticks and a dizzying array of switches and buttons (many of which do nothing), or, in the case of the Parrot AR.Drone, an iOS or Android smartphone or tablet with onscreen virtual controls. Regardless, operation can get a little complicated. When your drone flies behind you and you turn around to face it, the directional controls are now the reverse of what they were when it was in front of you—likewise, if you swivel your drone to face a new direction without reorienting your own body, the drone moves sideways relative to you. For this reason, I suggest keeping your first flights low and close by, and that you find a wide, open area to practice in—I used a local dog park. Also, purchase a few extra propellers, because you're going to crash your drone. And that's okay, because repairing your drone is part of the hobby. 

In terms of accessibility, the Parrot AR.Drone 2.0 is the newbie's top choice. It is affordable, durable, comes with a battery and an onboard camera, and is controlled via a smartphone. You can even fly it indoors—it comes with a removable hull that protects the rotors from bumps into walls, pets, and people. Takeoff and landing are accomplished with a single button. The AR.Drone has a sonar sensor that keeps it a fixed distance from the ground, and its 720p camera records a video to your tablet or phone as it flies. 

I had fun flying it, and my nerdy little toy impressed my nerdy friends. But the limitations surfaced quickly. The standard battery for the model I tested was rated for 1000 milliampere-hours—good for a paltry 12 minutes of air time. The company now sells a 1500-mAhr battery for longer flight times. Also, since the AR.Drone is controlled via Wi-Fi, it is constrained in its range to about 165 feet from the controller. There's plenty of fun to be had within that range, but more sophisticated choppers put it to shame. 

For instance, the Phantom, a ready-to-fly quadrotor from DJI, has a range of almost 1000 feet from the controller. But I wouldn't suggest sending it that far afield—at any distance greater than 500 feet, the drone becomes a coin-size white blob against the clouds. The Phantom is also fast, with a top speed of more than 20 mph—although that kind of hot-dogging will chew through a 2200-mAhr battery (which is not included) in 10 to 15 minutes. 

The quadrotor also uses a GPS sensor and digital compass to do away with the orientation problem that plagues most multicopters. Phantom has two Intelligent Orientation Control settings that normalize its forward motion regardless of which way the drone is facing. One IOC setting fixes the Phantom to a grid, which still reverses the controls if you fly it behind you. The other setting fixes the craft to a radius around its launch point; forward motion moves it away from you, reverse brings it back. I found this massively useful once I attached a GoPro to the Phantom's camera mount. I could then steer the camera in any direction yet still fly the aircraft relative to my own postion. It was like having a helicopter cameraman at my disposal for home movies. Now I have tons of aerial footage of my kids playing with the neighborhood dogs in the park, and a few high-altitude pans that give a view of my entire town. 
 

The Überdrone

On the upper end of the (or, at least, my) cost-and-complexity curve is the 3D Robotics Y6 hexacopter, using the APM:Copter software platform, which was the last and most ambitious drone I tried. You can build this three-arm, six-rotor craft yourself for $400 to $600 in parts (depending on the options you select), or you can have 3D Robotics build it for you for $700 to $1300. Fully tricked out, a 3D Robotics multicopter can be flown manually with a remote control, or it can do autonomous waypoint navigation. It can be accessorized with a wireless-telemetry kit that communicates with your laptop and a first-person-view camera that broadcasts back to a screen or video goggles. And it can also support a servo-driven tilting gimbal for real-time control of a second video camera. The idea is that you guide the aircraft with the low-res broadcast camera and record with a hi-def camera on the gimbal. Its six motors make the Y6 a strong beast, capable of lifting a heavy payload—some of which is its own large battery (the company suggests at least 4200 mAhr). The drone can also survive one or more motor failures while maintaining flight."

 

Thought experiment.

Taking everything you know about the world of computers, the history of screen experience and the trajectory of emerging technologies—say with Google Glass, for example—combined with this culture’s love affair with instant gratification, recording, surveillance, narcissism, and control; what could one be left looking at?

The Entire History of You explores some of these ideas in a world where most people have an implant behind their ear called a ‘grain’ which records everything they do, see and hear. Memories can be played back either in front of the person’s eyes or on a screen—a process known as a ‘re-do.’

Nothing is off limits. Everything is recorded, archived, and scrutinised.

Scrutiny comes to social events too. ‘Re-dos’ are done with friends and family, analogous to the current culture of social media ‘sharing’ and the solipsistic sense of self lived vicariously through screens.

In this world—and of our own—what are the myriad personal, interpersonal and social implications? What do the profound repercussions for relationships and even individual existential experience look like?

The Entire History of You is part of a series of films called Black Mirror which explore different aspects of “the way we live now—and the way we might be living in 10 minutes’ time if we're clumsy.”

More to come...

Republished from Veillance.me (dated 19th February 2013 and written by Katina Michael).

Original source location: http://veillance.me/blog/2013/2/19/the-muffin-man

For some time now Alexander Hayes and I have been researching body worn video recording devices within the context of education & training. In 2009 when we started brainstorming about possible PhD projects we thought about engaging with all levels of education across sectors- from the way body worn video recorders would be used with young children at child care centres, all the way up to the vocational training sector, universities and beyond.

I want to write here about the Muffin Man. Who is he? What does he look like? How can the Muffin Man be connected to body worn video recorders like digital glass?

Watch this video first to get a better understanding of where I'm headed in this post. The video is simply titled: "Nathan Playing" and has in excess of 11,000 hits [now 18,469]. Not bad for a 5 minute home-style video which records children at play making muffins... 

My first exposure to day care centres (also known as preschools, although there is some distinction) came in the beginning of 2006. I rang several listed centres close to my place of residence and was fortunate enough to gain access to the most reputable for my firstborn. Any parent will tell you that a great day care/preschool makes life for a working mother/father so much easier. Absolutely wonderful when the environment you are part of is one of continual learning for both carers and children alike (not to mention parents). Juggling work life and family life is difficult at the best of times, and every parent wishes for the best start for their child to be in a loving environment.

As fate would have it the carers of my children with so many decades of experience between them not to mention a plethora of accredited qualifications, began to deliver lectures at the University of Wollongong's Early Childhood program in 2009, participated in honours research projects, and sourced great talent when required.

But I do remember on joining the Centre how much the owners looked forward to having a techy mum on hand and how technology agnostic they were... every morning for months I would drop off my child and spend some 10-15 minutes talking about "computers", tutoring lightly, and providing clarity to visions of the owners of how they would incorporate technology for benefit.

I remember the carers going on a course one day and coming back with a book and a CD filled with templates for Microsoft Word/ Powerpoint all inspired about how computers would be used, such were the courses on offer back then. Consultants made mega $ just by showing day care owners how to open and close a Microsoft Word file! I chose otherwise as there was a direct benefit to my children and those of my neighbours.

So the challenge- "integrate computers"... No, the carers were not talking about some funky electronic $7,000 whiteboard although they did later buy a sizeable screen and several laptops... and no they were not talking about showing the kids videos with computers, but about capturing the special moments of the day and allowing the mums and dads some time to reflect on their child's development upon pick up in the afternoon.

I offered my services to the carers of the "little angels" and on many occasions I found myself training the carers of my child... only it did not feel like training, it felt more like an adventure. We started from the very basics- "this is a workspace", "this is how to INSERT>PICTURE", "this is how you add TEXT", and "this is how you save". I was not interested in making it difficult but making it practical and easy and directly satisfying what the carers imagined they could do with computers. When I once demystified the process, they realised how simple it actually was and then ideas began to flow very quickly. They were "off and running" as they say.

The owners/carers had ideas about:

  1. how to capture the spirit and activities of the day through visual evidence;
  2. how to log the child's weekly milestones as identified in the national curriculum.

 

We started thinking pictures as in photos of the kids at play, we started thinking audio, we started thinking visual recordings... that Christmas I bought the day care a digital recorder- it seemed only natural that we progressed that way, this is despite my active role in Australia's Privacy Foundation and my research into surveillance devices... within weeks, the owners had an even better idea, they bought a digital camera that took good movies and used it every day while the kids played to capture milestones and record them in both a powerpoint presentation that would be shared to all the mums and dads of an afternoon; and pictures of kids they would print and stick into the child's life book with personalised comments. Every Christmas, the carers would wrap the life books up and give them to the kids as their end of year present. They dubbed the life book, "the treasure book" and I've held onto those treasures and often reflect at how fast early childhood goes... way way too fast.

Much later I learnt of Steve Mann's glogging of his own children which are hard to miss on glogger.mobi. But we'll come back to that one a little later...

Today most parents take lots and lots of photos- I've spoken to some mums who purportedly have tens of thousands of photos of their firstborn, less of their second child, and scant of their third, and very few of their fourth. Regardless, most people don't print and document and reflect on photos despite that we take so many of them! I can categorically say, as my children get older, that those treasure books are priceless.

The general practice was great- greet your child for pick-up, spend some time looking through the treasure book and then watch the day's video clips with your child. Five minutes of a summary was a great way to reflect and share on the day that was. It's a special way of connecting with your child after being apart for 8-10 hours.

That's pretty much the story I wanted to share... but there is another side to all this that might cause some readers of this post to be alarmed. Controls are super important when dealing with kids. While there are ethical guides what is absent from the literature are practical regulations, that provide some bounds when it comes to recording young children and disseminating that 'data'.

I write this piece because there is still much to learn about the following:

  1. will parents begin to demand access to this footage?
  2. will owners be tempted to stream this data securely over the web?
  3. should children be filmed at all?
  4. what safeguards might be introduced?
  5. how should data gathered be stored? should it be destroyed daily?
  6. should audio settings be muted on cameras recording?
  7. might records be demanded by authorities for liability, eyewitness reporting?

All of these questions must be asked... and I have to say that the carers and I discussed these issues at length at the outset. The owners were meticulous in their practice:-

  1. no sharing of video files directly with parents via external media (USB or otherwise) no matter what had been captured of exceptional personal value
  2. only positive exchanges were to be retained and shared showing children at play or learning or enhancing skills
  3. all children were to feature on the videos without one child dominating over another.

Almost all owners of day cares/preschools want the best for their Centres, and most steer clear of even a web site or online repositories of data. Most Centres also cannot afford expensive storage services, although almost all Centres now have broadband access given government requirements for fees and rebate calculations based on income testing.

Yet here are some aspects that people for now have put into the "too hard basket" but answers are required and pressing:

  1. Do children act differently when they know they are being recorded?
  2. Is it right to film children at all? Is audio totally off limits? What are the jurisdictional comparisons on this point?
  3. Will drones replace the camera held by the human and what are the implications of this? Positive/negative?
  4. What if children were handed the pair of glasses to wear and film the space around them? Is the child's point of view different to that of the adult point of view?
  5. How should visual evidence of minors be stored, if at all?
  6. What kinds of policies should be instituted when Centres use recording devices in their workplace?
  7. Are their learning outcomes for children when visual recordings are taken OR are the outcomes only enjoyed by parents in sharing in the joint development of their child?
  8. Should children have access to their "lifelogs" beyond their treasure books when they grow up? Will it help in resolving certain behaviours, and emphasising others in a positive way?

Those are just some of my reflections... so much work is being done in the surveillance field and children. See for example the exceptional research work of Tonya Rooney of Australia. A PhD worth reading titled: "Growing up in Surveillance Society: The Changing Spaces of Childhood Experience".

I do hope that people will take this post and consider it deeply- especially those in the Early Childhood/Tech space. So much to ponder! Welcome aboard.

It is with great joy that MG and I write to let you know that the Uberveillance edited volume is finally in stores and available for purchase. We encourage you to ask your libraries to purchase the volume. Of significance are the coming together of well-known voices in the surveillance field to discuss the definition and impact of uberveillance, including Katherine Albrecht, Roger Clarke, Mark Gasson, Kevin Haggerty, Steve Mann, Ellen McGee, Kevin Warwick, Marcus Wigan and numerous authorities on the topic of microchipping people. This volume contains 17 book chapters, and 7 interviews and panel presentations as well as full referencing of source materials in some 500 pages.

"Uberveillance" edited volume by Michael and Michael (2014)

"Uberveillance" edited volume by Michael and Michael (2014)

 

CONTENTS PAGE

PART A The Veillances

Chapter 1 Introduction: On the “Birth” of Uberveillance  (pages 1-31) M. G. Michael (University of Wollongong, Australia)

Chapter 2 Veillance: Beyond Surveillance, Dataveillance, Uberveillance, and the Hypocrisy of One-Sided Watching  (pages 32-45) Steve Mann (University of Toronto, Canada)

Chapter 3 Uberveillance: Where Wear and Educative Arrangement  (pages 46-62) Alexander Hayes (University of Wollongong, Australia)

PART B Applications of Humancentric Implantables

Chapter 4 Practical Experimentation with Human Implants  (pages 64-132) Kevin Warwick (University of Reading, UK), Mark N. Gasson (University of Reading, UK)

Chapter 5 Knowledge Recovery: Applications of Technology and Memory  (pages 133-142) Maria E. Burke (University of Salford, UK), Chris Speed (University of Edinburgh, UK)

PART C Adoption of RFID Implants for Humans

Chapter 6 Willingness to Adopt RFID Implants: Do Personality Factors Play a Role in the Acceptance of Uberveillance?  (pages 144-168) Christine Perakslis (Johnson and Wales University, USA)

Chapter 7 Surveilling the Elderly: Emerging Demographic Needs and Social Implications of RFID Chip Technology Use  (pages 169-185) Randy Basham (University of Texas – Arlington, USA)

PART D Tracking and Tracing Laws, Directives, Regulations, and Standards

Chapter 8 Towards the Blanket Coverage DNA Profiling and Sampling of Citizens in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland  (pages 187-207) Katina Michael (University of Wollongong, Australia)

Chapter 9 ID Scanners and Überveillance in the Night-Time Economy: Crime Prevention or Invasion of Privacy?  (pages 208-225) Darren Palmer (Deakin University, Australia), Ian Warren (Deakin University, Australia), Peter Miller (Deakin University, Australia)

Chapter 10 Global Tracking Systems in the Australian Interstate Trucking Industry  (pages 226-234) Jann Karp (C.C.C. Australia, Australia)

Chapter 11 Tracking Legislative Developments in Relation to “Do Not Track” Initiatives  (pages 235-259) Brigette Garbin (University of Queensland, Australia), Kelly Staunton (University of Queensland, Australia), Mark Burdon (University of Queensland, Australia)

Chapter 12 Uberveillance, Standards, and Anticipation: A Case Study on Nanobiosensors in U.S. Cattle  (pages 260-279) Kyle Powys Whyte (Michigan State University, USA), Monica List (Michigan State University, USA), John V. Stone (Michigan State University, USA), Daniel Grooms (Michigan State University, USA), Stephen Gasteyer (Michigan State University, USA), Paul B. Thompson (Michigan State University, USA), Lawrence Busch (Michigan State University, USA), Daniel Buskirk (Michigan State University, USA), Erica Giorda (Michigan State University, USA), Hilda Bouri (Michigan State University, USA)

PART E Health Implications of Microchipping Living Things

Chapter 13 Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990–2006  (pages 281-317) Katherine Albrecht (CASPIAN Consumer Privacy, USA)

PART F Socio-Ethical Implications of RFID Tags and Transponders

Chapter 14 Privacy and Pervasive Surveillance: A Philosophical Analysis  (pages 319-350) Alan Rubel (University of Wisconsin – Madison, USA)

Chapter 15 Neuroethics and Implanted Brain Machine Interfaces  (pages 351-365) Ellen M. McGee (Independent Researcher, USA)

Chapter 16 We Are the Borg! Human Assimilation into Cellular Society  (pages 366-407) Ronnie D. Lipschutz (University of California - Santa Cruz, USA), Rebecca J. Hester (University of Texas Medical Branch, USA)

Chapter 17 Uberveillance and Faith-Based Organizations: A Renewed Moral Imperative  (pages 408-416) Marcus Wigan (Oxford Systematics, Australia & Edinburgh Napier University, UK)

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Compilation of References

About the Contributors

Index

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Roba Abbas, University of Wollongong, Australia

Greg Adamson, University of Melbourne, Australia

Katherine Albrecht, CASPIAN, USA

Anas Aloudat, University of Jordan, Jordan

Michael V. Arnold, University of Melbourne, Australia

Emilia Belleboni, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain

Rafael Capurro, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, USA

Kenneth Foster, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Amal Graafstra, Amal.net, USA

Mireille Hildebrandt, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Peter Hyland, University of Wollongong, Australia

Nicholas Huber, Accenture, Australia

Indrawati, Institut Manajemen Telkom, Indonesia

Eleni Kosta, K. U. Leuven, Belgium

Ronald Leenes, Tilburg University, The Netherlands

Avner Levin, Ryerson University, Canada

Michael Loui, University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign, USA

Noëmi Manders-Huits, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Keith W. Miller, University of Missouri – St. Louis, USA

Lyria Bennett Moses, University of New South Wales, Australia

Christine Perakslis, Johnson and Wales University, USA

Laura Perusco, Macquarie Bank, UK

Kenneth Pimple, Indiana University – Bloomington, USA

Joseph Savirimuthu, University of Liverpool, UK

Alan D. Smith, Robert Morris University, USA

Charles Smith, Mesa State College Alumni, USA

Judith Symonds, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

Samuel Fosso Wamba, Rouen Business School, France

John Weckert, Charles Sturt University, Australia

 

HOW TO CITE THE VOLUME

MLA Style

Michael, M.G. and Katina Michael. "Uberveillance and the Social Implications of Microchip Implants: Emerging Technologies." IGI Global, 2014. 1-509. Web. 24 Dec. 2013. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4582-0

APA Style

Michael, M., & Michael, K. (2014). Uberveillance and the Social Implications of Microchip Implants: Emerging Technologies (pp. 1-509). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4582-0

Chicago Style

Michael, M.G. and Katina Michael. "Uberveillance and the Social Implications of Microchip Implants: Emerging Technologies." 1-509 (2014), accessed December 24, 2013. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4582-0

Transient

"...It’s equally easy, though, to see how tech companies and techno-utopians will justify collecting and analyzing this data. Just imagine this future scenario: You drive to meet up with friends at a bar. Your phone/smartwatch senses you arrived in a car. After a couple of hours in the location it notices erratic movements and gesticulations out of the ordinary. The conclusion: You’ve had a couple of drinks and you might be driving soon, so maybe you get a push alert with the number for cab service later on in the evening when you walk out of the door. It’s an entirely hypothetical and invasive-sounding scenario, but one that’s not far from being plausible — at least from a technological standpoint."

Read more

Banking at the supermarket might seem convenient, but you should think twice before putting so much of your information into the hands of a single corporation, writes Katina Michael.

Read more here

the drum.jpg

Mobile devices and wearable technology are redefining the phrase "personal computer" - no longer conjuring up thoughts of desktop or even laptop devices, but rather devices smaller - and more powerful - than many ever dreamed possible. The mobile phone in your hand - the one that has more computing performance than a 1979 Cray Supercomputer - is quickly being transformed into a mesh of wearable devices, allowing you remain connected 24x7 and throw off more private data than ever.

With the rise of mobile and wearable tech comes the ability for services providers, their partners and, well, just about anybody with a few dollars, to track where you are, what you are doing, who you are doing it with, where you've been and how quickly you're likely to be doing it again at your next "habitual" destination. Oh, and the likely route you are going to take.

Issues abound: what really differentiates mobile devices from wearable tech, and how are their privacy issues different? Why are we being pushed into an always-on/always-tracked society, and what is this data likely to reveal about ourselves over time?

lg_Dropcam-front-back-72dpi.jpg

"...Dropcam, Inc., makers of Dropcam HD – the award-winning Wi-Fi video monitoring camera with cloud recording service – today announced it raised $30 million in Series C funding led by Institutional Venture Partners (IVP) with existing investors Accel Partners and Menlo Ventures, and new investor Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers participating in the round. This funding brings the total amount raised to $47.8 million and poises the company for continued growth."

Read more

Posted
Authoralexanderhayes