Slashdot Mirror
Academics To Predict Next Twitter and Its Pitfalls
An anonymous reader writes "University researchers in the UK have put together a team tasked with predicting the next big thing in terms of communication technologies, in a bid to tackle ethical pitfalls before they become a problem. This is in the wake of the rise of social networking websites such as Facebook, Twitter and MySpace, which has led to a dramatic increase in the amount of personal information available online."
One character messages only. Now you can say the same things even faster.
Somebody just got a big fat grant for sitting around and smoking dubies.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Thanks to the stimulus input, Medbook Space, the social network for medical records will be the next online sensation. X-rays, videos of prostrate exams, drug history ... all available to employers, insurance agencies and interested voyeurs.
Seriously, forget the academics. Put 10 teens in a room of various social types with a smart developer who listens and a programmable mobile device. You'll come out with a product.
-_-
You'd probably not be swatting away for some douche at a University, trying to finish you thesis or get tenure. You'd probably scrape together every last penny you had and become a first round VC.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
So now they're trying to figure out a way to regulate new technologies out of existence before they've even been conceived of? Such progress....
Who in their right mind would ever put their own personal information on the web?
If people are stupid enough to do it, then let them be the victim of their own stupidity.
Anon.
I use pseudonyms as a barrier between me and Identity Theft, because facebook, myspace all look like vectors for Identity theft to me. Using a fake identity can't be a bad thing when people are inclined to steal it.
Unfortunately, our institutions are yet to realise that protecting privacy by educating people about using encryption is a good first step to reducing fraud related behaviour. Until that happens, the bad guys have the advantage.
Simply put, the authorities have related encryption to illicit activities instead of a set of basic tools that people can use to protect themselves on line. In terms of protecting ourselves people are often encouraged into the worst sets of behaviour, so we haven't even done the basics now, let alone 10-15 years time. I predict more scams in the future.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Flutter is the new twitter. Duh. KIM GET COFFEE!
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
The only way to make a social networking product be as big as My Space / Facebook / Twitter AND not suck monkey nuts is to keep the marketeers out of it, and that just isn't going to happen.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
In the next Twitter, there's no typing. You signal emoticons. If you are too fat to use the mouse, they will develop a device that interprets your emotions from the configurations of your fat cells, and you don't ever have to get off the couch.
etc
Futurist Traditionalism
dont you mean syfy?
Doctor, could you have a look at the cat I have in this box? It's real sick. Either that, or it's fine.
One character messages only. Now you can say the same things even faster.
Feh. Ancient history.
An entire genre of prose was derived from the high cost of sending telegrams. Hemingway is probably the most famous example, but a whole generation of journalists learned to pare down their sentences to the absolute minimum to save on transmission costs.
True story: A foreign correspondent was sent to a distant country to prepare some coverage of an imminent war. Because telegraph costs were so high, the home office had prepared large amounts of background already, and kept it sitting on file. All they needed to know was when to print it.
The parsimonious editor sent the following message to his correspondent:
?
To which the correspondent replied:
!
The same day the front page announced news of the outbreak of war.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Sorry, but you're completly missing the point.
The supermarket is a semi-private place: you show your face knowing that only a fraction of people (those that live in the same town) are present there; and if do something embarassing, an employer 10 years from now won't be able to know.
Facebook is a worldwide public place. You have to be cautious because everything you say there is on the record, for everyone to see.
So the decision to be anonymous on facebook has an entirely different meaning than the supermarket. It is far from paranoia, even more so when you think of all the new ways this information could be used ,in the future.
And of course, the thing that really matters here is politic: by setting up an anonymous account on facebook, you can lead a political life, convincing people to go to protests, or to vote or donate for a cause. It is a pretty new thing to be able to do so anonymously, and there is nothing cowardly about it when you see how scientology (for example) illegally harasses opponents.
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.