- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

PIR Survey: Future of the Internet IV
by Richard Forno 19 Feb '10

19 Feb '10

The Future of the Internet IV http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Future-of-the-Internet-IV.aspx In an online survey of 895 technology stakeholders’ and critics’ expectations of social, political and economic change by 2020, fielded by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project and Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Center: • Google won’t make us stupid: 76% of these experts agreed with the statement, “By 2020, people’s use of the Internet has enhanced human intelligence; as people are allowed unprecedented access to more information they become smarter and make better choices. Nicholas Carr was wrong: Google does not make us stupid.” Some of the best answers are in Part 1 of this report. • Reading, writing, and the rendering of knowledge will be improved: 65% agreed with the statement “by 2020 it will be clear that the Internet has enhanced and improved reading, writing and the rendering of knowledge.” Still, 32% of the respondents expressed concerns that by 2020 “it will be clear that the Internet has diminished and endangered reading, writing and the rendering of knowledge.” Some of the best answers are in Part 2 of this report. • Innovation will continue to catch us by surprise: 80% of the experts agreed that the “hot gadgets and applications that will capture the imaginations of users in 2020 will often come ‘out of the blue.’” Some of the best answers are in Part 3 of this report. • Respondents hope information will flow relatively freely online, though there will be flashpoints over control of the internet. Concerns over control of the Internet were expressed in answers to a question about the end-to-end principle. 61% responded that the Internet will remain as its founders envisioned, however many who agreed with the statement that “most disagreements over the way information flows online will be resolved in favor of a minimum number of restrictions” also noted that their response was a “hope” and not necessarily their true expectation. 33% chose to agree with the statement that “the Internet will mostly become a technology where intermediary institutions that control the architecture and …content will be successful in gaining the right to manage information and the method by which people access it.” Some of the best answers are in Part 4 of this report. • Anonymous online activity will be challenged, though a modest majority still think it will possible in 2020: There more of a split verdict among the expert respondents about the fate on online anonymity. Some 55% agreed that Internet users will still be able to communicate anonymously, while 41% agreed that by 2020 “anonymous online activity is sharply curtailed.”

1 0

IR 11.0 Submission guidelines - FAQ
by Torill Mortensen 19 Feb '10

19 Feb '10

*Submission guidelines for IR 11.0 Sustainability, Participation, Action* All contributions should be submitted to https://www.conftool.net/aoir-ir11/ Each individual is invited to submit a proposal for 1 paper or 1 presentation. A person may also propose a panel session, which may include a second paper that they are presenting. An individual may also submit a roundtable proposal. You may be listed as co-author on additional papers as long as you are not presenting them. This limits each participant to three presentations, all in different formats. For all participants: Please choose your topics of interest and expertise when you register for the conference. Also please indicate if you wish to review for the conference. PAPERS (individual or multi-author) - submit abstract of 600-800 words. Please both cut and paste the abstract in, as well as upload one document either in .doc or .pdf format. The system does not accept other formats. Please indicate all co-authors, and nominate a main author, but be sure to remove all identifying information from the abstract itself. Be aware that you can only be the main author of one paper. Full references and formal citations are not required in abstracts, but please be aware that one main issue with papers not accepted to conferences is when they don't demonstrate a good working knowledge of other relevant research, discourses and corresponding authors. If you choose to not use formal citations and references, make certain to attribute ideas, thoughts and quotes to the correct sources in the text. FULL PAPERS (OPTIONAL): For submitters requiring peer review of full papers, manuscripts of up to 8,000 words will be accepted for review. These will be reviewed and judged separately from abstract submissions. Please cut and paste the abstract in, and upload the papers either in .pdf or .doc format. The system does not accept other formats. Please indicate all co-authors, and nominate a main author. Be aware that you can only be the main author of one paper. Be sure to remove all identifying information from your paper. PANEL PROPOSALS - submit a 600-800 word description of the panel theme, plus 250-500 word abstract for each paper or presentation. Indicate all participants on the submission site but not in the body of the proposal. Collect and upload the descriptions for all participants in one document, either in .pdf or .doc format. Finally, please cut and paste the submission into the system. ROUNDTABLE PROPOSALS - submit a statement indicating the nature of the roundtable discussion and interaction, in less than 800 words. Indicate all participants and their expertise in relation to the proposed topic. Upload the proposal in one document, either in .pdf or .doc format. Also cut and paste the submission into the system. Papers, presentations and panels will be selected from the submitted proposals on the basis of multiple blind peer review, coordinated and overseen by the Program Chair. Important dates, as of 19 February 2010: Submissions Due 28 February 2010 Notifications of Acceptance 28 Apr 2010 Abstract Revisions Due 15 May 2010 Full Papers Due 21 August 2010 Pre-Conference Workshops 20 Oct 2010 Main Conference 21-23 Oct 2010

3 3

Heritrix - crawl job for single pages referenced by URL
by Steffen Schilke 19 Feb '10

19 Feb '10

Dear All, Heritrix: I was reading the manual and I have a little problem understanding how I can set up a crawl job. My task would be to archive only certain pages in a crawl job, i.e., I want to give Heritrix a list of URLs referring to one page each and I want them to be collected (including all components of that page (e.g., PDF files, images, ...). Anybody here which could give me a hint / sample job definition? Thank you very much in advance .

1 0

IR 11.0 Sustainability, Participation, Action - 9 days to go!
by Torill Mortensen 19 Feb '10

19 Feb '10

Hello all, remember IR 11.0: Sustainability, Participation, Action? It's in Gothenburg October 21st - 23rd 2010, and the deadline for submissions is February 21st. Please, read the CFP here http://aoir.org/2009/12/08/cfp-ir-11-0/ and submit your papers here https://www.conftool.net/aoir-ir11/, and then meet us in Gothenburg! Torill E. Mortensen Program Chair

4 4

Re: [Air-L] Privacy Buzz + I love Alaska
by Seda Guerses 19 Feb '10

19 Feb '10

today i finally read through the privacy thread and am really appreciating it. what is really interesting in the discussion is the way that talking about privacy (individual or privacy as a public good) automatically opens up questions about property, labor and commodification of the public sphere. after spending the last few years asking the question how to deal with privacy in systems design, i have found that undoing this entanglement does injustice to what privacy has become in surveillance/information space(s). this type of disentanglement also has a negative effect on the type of privacy research in computer science but surely also in other fields like law and sociology. specifically, the focus of privacy research has been on confidentiality and anonymity. christian fuchs also mentions in his blog entry on the google buzz: "Therefore special privacy protection mechanisms are needed. All large collections of data pose the threat of being accessed by individuals who want to harm others" i am interpreting the "privacy protection mechanisms" to be legal protections as well as confidentiality and anonymity tools. although such solutions are very important and i would not want to spend a day without them, i have argued here (http://bit.ly/bpajqx) why in a surveillance society there are just as well situations in which confidentiality and anonymity can work against the individual or a community. david phillips has also written a lot about the importance of being able to negotiate the public and private divide with respect to queer politics. he opens up the discussion on what privacy can mean in a society which has integrated digital into everyday life, and how confidentiality and anonymity can be the means for negotiating the public private divide, but are not goals in themselves. a recent case in which anonymity itself can backfire is the documentary film "i love alaska" (http://www.minimovies.org/documentaires/view/ilovealaska ). a couple of dutch filmmakers produced this film based on the profile of an anonymous user selected from the aol search data released in 2006. the film is on the one hand very interesting: the filmmakers saw the queries of this anonymous user as her prose and used it to narrate their film (without her knowledge). one of the interesting developments of our digital times has been the possibility of "participatory surveillance" (Albrechtslund,2008) which the film confronts the viewer with. it is exciting, touching, frustrating and curious to experience these queries. at the same time, the film is aggrevating (despite its cold calm) as one sits through very personal queries, written in full sentence into the aol search engine. it is impossible not to question what it means for data to become anonymous* and hence to question what it means to do something with anonymous data, or what happens to digital discretion once data goes anonymous? the filmmakers also put one profile under the magnifying glass, void of time stamps, reducing the profiled person to couple of not so sunny queries a day, reframing the queeries as a representation of some very deep truth about the querying person. but, as even google's vincent cerf will admit, it is not that single "identifiable" profiles are at the center of corporate attention, but rather aggregation of "de- identified" surveilance data often used for various types of social sorting and efficient services. hence, the film once again derails the focus of privacy from one of a social problem to that of a personal/ individual problem. the profile selected for the film is also worthy of questioning with respect to gender, class, age, sexuality, obesity etc. current data protection and companies like facebook and google have reduced privacy to a solitary ritual of setting your privacy controls on miniscule subsets of the data they compile and process about indivduals, communities and networks. this way of framing the problem unfortunately also makes it difficult to have some of the discussions about public services, the commons, etc. when it comes to surveillance and privacy. i agree with zeynep: Our social commons have moved online; it does not make sense to tell people to avoid these services as they essential to participating fully in the life of the 21st century. yes, but the question is, how can we make the existing discussions as well about the commons, property and material matters, and not just about individual choices on privacy...any ideas? s. * legally and technically anonymous data is in a sense vogelfrei. in the middle ages people could be declared vogelfrei (free as a bird) meaning that person was free to do whatever she pleased, but at the same time others were also allowed to do whatever they wanted to her, as no more legal protection was offered to that person. today data protection in europe for example does not protect anonymous data. what anonymity means is another big matter related to identity which is fun to discuss and lots of maths, but maybe not tonight. Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Privacy Buzz
by William Bain 18 Feb '10

18 Feb '10

Hi - I followed this up just briefly on a critical basis by searchengining "google militarization" without the quotes and found a video of a 2006 talk by Noam Chomsky. He was addressing the militarization of science, but I think capaciously enough to relate to privacy/publicity in what's gone before. I did hesitate a bit before sending the reference to this Google video, but in the end, given what's come out in the discussion, thought it would be better to share. The technical part of the discussion in this thread, insofar as I'm able to follow it, seems to me very interesting, let me say. In any case, two penn'orth more. Best wishes, Bill William Bain PhD Student Area of Literary Theory Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona

1 0

Re: [Air-L] WARC File viewer
by Steffen Schilke 18 Feb '10

18 Feb '10

thank you - but i would still think (and need) a full stand alone viewer (maybe java) so that i can view (and export content) without having to install a full wayback machine on a server kind regards live from my android mobile On Feb 18, 2010 2:06 PM, "Johan Oomen" <JOomen(a)beeldengeluid.nl> wrote: Good afternoon, Either use: the Java API for reading (w)arcs ( import org.archive.io.warc package -> WARCReader). With this API you should be able to read anything stored in WARC files. Or you can use the arcreader present in the heritrix install (heritrix-x.x.x/bin/arcreader) I also use boilerpipe to trim pages of unneccesary HTML content. Best wishes, Jaap Blom and Johan Oomen Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision (working on the FP7 Living Web Archives project, LiWA) Op 18 feb 2010 om 01:22 heeft "Robert Ackland" <robert.ackland(a)anu.edu.au> het volgende geschreven:\ > These are some WARC-related tools I'm aware of. I doubt there is a viewer there, though. > > http...

1 0

media environment / Internet as ecosystem
by Emiliano Treré 18 Feb '10

18 Feb '10

Hi everyone, In my PhD dissertation I'm focusing on the relations between social movements and the media, especially the Internet. I need some help in bibliography with regard to two topics: 1. the concept of media environment, mediascape, media ecology, etc. I'm considering the whole media repertoire of activists and not just focus on one specific medium. 2. the conceptualization of Internet not as a simple medium: I need some hints on papers, books and theories addressing the complexity of the Internet as an environment, an ecology that cannot be reduced to a unique technological block. Thanks a lot. Best, Emiliano Treré -- Emiliano Treré PhD candidate Doctoral Program in Multimedia Communication University of Udine, Italy

6 5

Final Call for Papers (deadline extended) - CATaC'10
by Charles Ess 18 Feb '10

18 Feb '10

Dear AoIRists Please distribute the following final CFP for CATaC'10 as appropriate - many thanks! - charles ess IMV, Aarhus University == "Diffusion 2.0: computing, mobility, and the next generations" Submission deadline extended: 4 March 2010 Please see www.catacconference.org for further details regarding accommodation, venue, and more about visiting Vancouver. Please see the Submissions page http://blogs.ubc.ca/catac/submissions for dates, formatting requirements, and link to our OCS submissions site. Both short (3-5 pages) and long (10-15 pages) original papers are sought. VENUE: The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada DATES: 15-18 June 2010 CATaC 2010 will feature keynote addresses by Dr Linc Kesler (First Nations Studies, The University of British Columbia) and Dr John Willinsky (Stanford University School of Education). The biennial CATaC conference series provides a premier international forum for current research on how diverse cultural attitudes shape the implementation and use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). The conference series brings together scholars from around the globe who provide diverse perspectives, both in terms of the specific culture(s) they highlight in their presentations and discussions, and in terms of the discipline(s) through which they approach the conference theme. Original full papers (especially those which connect theoretical frameworks with specific examples of cultural values and practices) and short papers (e.g. describing current research projects and preliminary results) are invited. Topics of particular interest include but are not limited to: - Mobile technologies in developing countries - New layers of imaging and texting interactions fostering and/or threatening cultural diversity - Theoretical and practical approaches to analyzing „culture‰ - Impact of mobile technologies on privacy and surveillance Gender, sexuality and identity issues in social networks - Cultural diversity in e-learning and/or m-learning You may also purchase the conference proceedings from previous conferences by visiting the Proceedings page. We look forward to receiving your submissions and to welcoming you to Vancouver in 2010! Local Co-Chair: Leah Macfadyen (UBC) Local Co-Chair: Kenneth Reeder (UBC) Program Chair: Herbert Hrachovec (University of Vienna) Executive Committee: Lorna Heaton (Université de Montréal, Canada) Maja van der Velden (University of Oslo, Norway) Fay Sudweeks (Co-Chair, CATaC) Charles Ess (Co-Chair, CATaC)

1 0

CfP DIGITAL GAME PLAY AS SOCIOTECHNICAL PRACTICE - EASST 2010
by Stefano De Paoli 18 Feb '10

18 Feb '10

**** REMINDER ***** Apologies for cross-postings. Please circulate it to interested colleagues and students. Thanks! ************************************************************************************************************* EASST Conference 2010, European Association for the Study of Science and Technology 'Practicing Science and Technology, Performing the Social,' University of Trento, Italy, 2-4 September 2010. Abstract submission deadline: 15 March 2010. http://events.unitn.it/en/easst010 ************************************************************************************************************** TRACK: DIGITAL GAME PLAY AS SOCIOTECHNICAL PRACTICE The Digital Game industry has become one of the fastest growing, innovative and globalised industries in advanced Western economies and Digital Games have become a key cultural artefact and leisure practice in contemporary societies. Developing out of the American military industrial and academic complex in the 1970s the study of Digital Games design and play is the study of a range of sociotechnical practices and the negotiations between a range of human and non-human actors operating within systems of rules. The complexity of these relationships brings forth a series of questions that can be investigated using Science and Technology Studies approaches. However, to date games studies, with few exceptions, have failed to adopt STS approaches and the STS community has largely ignored this area of study. This track seeks to develop the relationship between the game studies community and the STS community. Several research questions can be used to guide this: What STS theories can be used to understand Digital Games as sociotechnical phenomenon? Is the concept of practice and the practice-based approach useful to investigate Digital Games? Is there a relationship between power as inscribed and imposed by artefacts and the technical dimensions of Digital Games? What rules are inscribed into Digital Games technologies and what social worlds do these rules describe? What contribution can the study of Digital Games make to the STS discipline at large? And what contribution can an STS approach make to game studies? Can we foresee an after-method approach for Digital Games? We invite papers that tackle the sociotechnical dimensions of Digital Games and address some of the questions outlined above. Contributions might include (but are not restricted to): • Digital Games as material semiotic artefacts • Digital Games as sociotechnical assemblages • The mess of digital games • Innovation in game design as actor-networking and social shaping • Digital Game design and/or play as performance and practice • Disruptive sociotechnical users’ practices (e.g. hacking, modding) • The scripting of gendered gaming practices • Governance and regulation of gaming practices Abstracts of no more than 500 words should be sent by email (following website instructions: http://events.unitn.it/en/easst010/abstract-submission) by 2010 March 15th. Please include also a preliminary references list (up to 4). Contact for inquiries: stefano.depaoli(a)nuim.ie Convenors Aphra Kerr is a lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the National University of Ireland Maynooth. Her research focuses on the regulation, production and consumption of digital media and in particular of digital games; she established and runs the industry and community website. (www.gamedevelopers.ie) Helen W. Kennedy is Deputy Head in the Department of Culture, Media and Drama at the University of the West of England (UWE) in the UK. She has been researching and writing about games since 1993 and co-founded and chaired (from 2004 – 2009) the Play Research Group at UWE. Jennifer Jenson is Associate Professor of Pedagogy and Technology in the Faculty of Education at York University. Her research interests include gender and gameplay and the design and development of digital games for education. Stefano De Paoli is postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Sociology at the National University of Ireland Maynooth. Stefano has worked in STS since 2004 and recently his research interest has embraced Massive Multiplayer Online Games (http://www.nuim.ie/nirsa/people/postdocs/stefano_de_paoli.shtml)

1 0