Non personal information - what does it mean?

Whenever we come across joining a social networking site, or become a member of any company’s official website, the last thing they ask us to do while filling in the registration form is to read the ‘privacy policy’. Now a days, such privacy policies include terms like ‘non personal information’ and they claim that they would only use the non personal information for their use. But what is non personal information?


In Apple’s privacy policy, it is clearly stated that only the non personal information of the members will be used, shared and looked upon. click here for the policy. They classify location, language, area code, unique device identifier and time zone as non personal information. However, I fail to understand how is ‘location’ not a part of personal information. Personal information is basically whatever gives information about you which includes details like location and occupation. Apple itself defines personal information as ‘Personal information is data that can be used to uniquely identify or contact a single person.’. (apple’s privacy policy).

Location can be precisely used by the companies to track your area and your occupation can easily give them an idea of where exactly could you be working and for whom. A unique device identifier is any device with which you connect to Apple’s network. It can be your computer or even your mobile phone. With the use of GPS, they can track the location of the computers and mobile phones. They can also access information in your mobile phones from contacts, to messages to even personal photographs. Isn’t that invading our privacy? How can such an agreement then be called a privacy policy?


Later on in the agreement, it explicitly states that they can use your ‘precise location’ for security issues and issues concerning ‘other public interests’. ‘Other public interests’ is a very vague term and can include absolutely anything. Are our phone numbers and other information we present to such companies really secure with them.

I would suggest everyone to read the privacy policies of every company before presenting to them your personal information which may harm your security and privacy. It is better to be safe than Sorry!

Hidden Identities and Cool Triangle Diagrams.

Lurkers. They're everywhere. I think. I mean, I don't know. But I'm sure they're there. Probably.

They're the "1 Guest Online" of your local forum. They're the person who logs into group chats but doesn't type anything. They've probably gone through any of your public photo albums on Bebo/Facebook/Myspace. You've most likely been one before. In fact, there's probably a few of you reading this right now.

A lurker is someone who...well, lurks... online. They don't post. Often it's people who haven't even got accounts on the given site. The word implies something creepy, something voyeuristic. But is it really a bad thing to hang back? I mean, it's not as if the Lady Gaga comment-argument-spiels need more contributors.

If these "lurkers" have got an account, they're easily identifiable by:

• "Now Online!" or a recent last login date
  
• Member Since: Jan 2003 (insert long-time-ago date of choice)
  
• Total Post Count: 0 (or something equally small, compared to their membership length.)

According to various sources- it's not clear who actually coined this- only 1% of users on the average participatory website actually actively participate. It's called the 1% rule. On the average website, after the 1% minority of hardcore users who post regularly and generally keep the website going, there's the 9% of more casual users who participate now and again, and then there's the roughly 90% who are "lurkers".
(Hey, that website has the exact same cool diagrams as on my link at the end of this post. Suspicious. Also, that's a good essay. You should totally click on it.)

To qualify as a proper "lurker", ideally you'll need to have saved the lurkee website/forum/chatroom to Favourites, so you can check back regularly and see what everyone's doing. A lot of forums actually encourage lurking. "Lurkers" learn the various etiquettes of sites without making embarassing n00b posts that get them flamed. (Then again, other groups will actually delete you if you're not sufficiently "active" after initial acceptance into the group.)

So. Why do so many people lurk? How is it possible to be shy on the internet? Maybe there's a kind of appealing safeness to being able to "listen in" on peoples' conversations without risking potential social rejection.

Vicarious social interaction. Observation. It's not a bad thing to be a "lurker", for want of a better word. They're the quiet kids of the internet classroom.

"Suicide.Lame.Girls"

Have we become so bored of using Facebook that we now resort to "Suicide Girls"?
The website seems to portray vainness to an even greater extent than Facebook. "Suicide Girls" is the cyber-Nazi of the social networking world, projecting an alternative supremacy of females who are tattooed and posing in positions emulating the 1950s pin up style.

This website attempts to project a neo-feministic power of women who are covered in tattoos and essentially projecting that they don't give a shit. However it really appears that these 'Girls' are too lazy to go to university or get a real job and by degrading themselves and posing on this website they perhaps think they will land themselves a career in acting or modeling. Surely the photos cannot simply be for self expression. If these girls are so tough with their tattoos and anti-establishment views, why don't they partake in real pornography? Instead of literally beating around the bush and getting immense satisfaction from 'the tease.'

Don't you just hate it when entrepreneurs who are trying to launch something new for capital gain, create taboos around the product they are trying to sell? What I mean here is that by naming their website "Suicide Girls", this immediately attracts a curious consumer population. Suicide is a serious issue impacting on the lives of many families around the world and this website disregards the seriousness of suicide. Why are the "Suicide Girls" suicidal? Did they miss their last tattoo appointment? Is their eye shadow not dark enough?

Meme Girls

Everyone is kind of the same online.

Ok, maybe not everyone is the same online, but I've noticed a lot of YouTubers are. They're all the same mixture of neurosis, geekiness and dry wit.

This kind of persona is a way we conform on the internet. Conforming is performing identity.

It could be argued that the videos I linked to above are designed to be personable, to draw people in; after all, both communitychannel and charlieissocoollike (whose videos are embedded above) are YouTube Partners, which means they make money from every view they get. This is a valid point. However, it could also be argued that most (if not all) identities are designed to draw people in. Humans are social creatures by nature. Even the most introverted of introverts will have some very close human connections.

Memes are another great example of our social nature. There are no clear benefits from propagating a meme, yet they spread like wildfire.

Memes are a way of letting people know that we get it. That we're in on the joke. That, yes, we find the same things funny, and, oh, I've seen Mean Girls too, it's hilarious. In this way, I think identity (on and offline) is very much a performance. There is a persona we put on for the internet: it's the one that strives to be quirkily intelligent, coming slightly out of left field, but still accessible to your every-person. It's the one which reminds me of those posters for "indie" movies, you know the sort: the ones with that hand-drawn font thing going on.

In short, everyone becomes a little bit like Tina Fey.

Is it a coincidence that there are so many Mean Girls memes floating around on the internet?

Racist porn and Barbies

Whenever you come to dealing with topics of race, you feel like you need to tip toe around the topic cautiously, knowing that someone somewhere is going to misinterpret what you are saying or label you a racist or get offended or whatever. Hopefully I don't step on any toes with this post :) and let me throw in the, what seems to come from every european talking about race but it's true for me, comment about how most of my friends are Pacific Islanders and Maori, I am the whitest in my group of friends without question although I think we all just call ourselves New Zealanders.

To me the reading on SuicideGirls seems to be finding "racism" that isn't actually racist at all. Is it just me, or is SG (along with it being an empowering feminist movement or whatever it's meant to be) effectively porn for guys who like punk/rock/scene/emo chicks? (dedicated punk/rock people, please let the / represent a huge distance separating you from the emo people, I'm not trying to lump you all into one) Now in saying that, obviously I don't live in America so I can't make comparisons to there, but how many punk/rock/scene/emo chicks or guys for that matter do you see here who are Asian/Maori/Pacific Islanders? I'm not trying to say that the europeans own those particular music/lifestyle tastes, but it seems clear that for the most part europeans tend to be the ones who are part of that music or trend. Odds are if you see someone with a lot of piercings, a lot of tattoos and colourful hair, mo-hawks etc they are probably going to be european. I don't ever actually recall seeing a Maori/Pacific Islander with the sort of punk look. Is it a drastic leap to think that it would be a similar situation in America? that the African Americans would be less likely to have that look/style? If you look to the music those scenes are based around, it's predominantly white artists. So is a lack of non european models on the site really an issue of race? or is it simply an environment that is more about something white people are interested in (thinking aside from the feminist aspect of the site). If there was a similar site named RnBgirls.com or hiphopgirls.com (I have no idea if these sites are real or not) would a lack of white girls on the site be a sign of racism? or rather a sign that the site is designed around a scene/lifestyle that is predominantly made up of non white members, and I say this as a white guy who is listening to hip hop while writing this. I think the number of successful applicants to SG was 1 out of 350? how many of those were even non white applicants? it's easy to say they should have more non white girls, but how many non white girls are even interested?

The reading mentions how the tattoos on the African American girls are referred to as tribal. My experiences are a small sample size, but from what I have seen, Maori/Pacific Island people I meet are more prone to having tattoos that are tribal, meaningful, cultural rather than white people who have something A BAD ASS SKULL ON MY ARM YEAH!!! and although I'm not particularly well educated on the subject, as I understand it, tattoos for those cultures are tribal, are cultural and let's make a point here that there is a difference between tribal for these cultures and the stupid "tribal" that white people thought were all the rage a year or two ago. I don't want to lump Maori/Pacific Island people into just one big group with African American people, but again I'll ask the question, is it a big leap to think it is the same in America? that the African Americans are more inclined to have a tattoo that is tribal or cultural? think for a moment, when was the last time you thought a non european persons tattoo was tacky? for me I can't think of any and I know many with tattoos, now when was the last time you thought a european persons tattoo was tacky? if you are anything like me, at least half the time you see a white persons tattoo you think it is stupid. To me this is just hunting for something to call racism to generate a buzz out of, oh my god people are calling the tattoos tribal, RACISM!! if anything I think calling those tattoos tribal is a compliment because it acknowledges the fact that those tattoos have culture and meaning.

Gender Differences On Facebook Profiles

In class we've been talking about privacy (or lack of) and gender differences online, so I thought it might be interesting to take an overview of 60 of my "closest" friends on Facebook, 30 guys and 30 girls. Before researching, I figured that girls would share more information online in general, while guys would dominate a few topics to share, namely the "looking for," and "political views" sections. To get a gauge of the differences on Facebook, I looked to see if the profile included just the basic info, gender, current city, hometown, birthday, interested in, looking for, political views, religious views, biography, and relationship status. I didn't note any differences in seriousness of responses, just whether there was a response. Even a joke answer in this case, tells you a bit about the person, so I considered it information sharing still.

In looking at the data results, there are very minimal differences in information sharing on Facebook between males and females. There was no difference between the genders when displaying “interested in” information on their profiles. It was a fairly even split down the middle whether someone included it or not. Males were more inclined to include political and religious views on their profiles, which can be seen as seemingly contentious issues. Perhaps they are more willing to assert their opinions, while females want to avoid any possible confrontations. Females as a whole are more inclined to social cohesion, and posting a contentious point that could outcast them would not fit with this model.

About 2/3 of the males and females surveyed posted their relationship status, so again there is no real difference between the genders. This lack of differentiation seems to be consistent over the rest of the data as well. People as a whole seem to form their identities online through sharing information in the same manner despite their gender. The slight variation in posting of contentious information does seem to note the gender split, but even it was a close call on differentiation. The evening out of genders and personal information sharing habits online should be considered further.

Recent Addiction

I used to think, 'How could someone become addicted to Farmville?' It seemed like it took too much time and effort to tinker around with 'ploughing this' and 'helping neighbours [that]'. But I have recently fallen into the trap that is, Farmville. I can now make (and sell) 'Strawberry Shortcake' and 'Spicy Muffins' in my own bakery. So my current days revolve around planting seeds to grow carrots and strawberries etc to make these items. By keeping my eye on the time it takes to harvest, I make sure I have easy access to a computer at those times thanks to my Zynga tool bar (Zynga being the creators of Farmville).

To put this into context I believe this had lead me to become somewhat of a cyborg. I'll be honest; I don't really understand or like the concept of us being supposed cyborgs. But if it has something to with how dependant we have become on technology in our day to day lives, then I may be just slightly be cyborgish. For me, developments happening with online games; Farmville and Mafia Wars, makes technology/the online world further addictive. This almost obsessive maintainence of my Farm and Mafia profile is a natural part of my day, I rarely miss a day. With the wonders of continued game and technology development, its no surprise I would become addicted at some point.

Girls vs. Guys @ Gaming - Is it fair to talk about?

So, apparently men are far more likely to be willing to dedicate hours on end towards acquiring the skills to enable them to successfully compete in complex online strategy games...compared to girls, who incidentally just want to feed a virtual dog and post an update of its well-being every hour.

Now, surely in the 21st century you all find this type of comment that devalues the efforts of women in our society completely offensive and down right unnecessary - right? We shouldn't be putting women down when it is so clearly not their fault - when it is merely a reflection on the way society has always been. Since time immemorial, the woman's role has been confined to washing, cooking and having a baby now and then; it is the man who was given the more complex role in life having been dealt the 'sole responsibility for his family's survival' card. In his effort to satisfy societies expectations of him - tilling the fields everyday to ensure the daily bread, trying to maintain friendships with other men whilst also trying to be more successful than them, constantly negotiating the line between strong bloke/ sensitive husband etc, he has been given the upper hand in developing the necessary skills and patience to allow him to do better than a women could at complex online games.

Men, be aware however. As Judith Butler says, gender is performative and new media has given women the perfect vehicle through which to mask their identity and adapt their performance to enable them to compete in the masculine domain of both real and online societies. Though it may not be happening immediately, these experiences that new media affords them will only aid, through opportunity, in educating women on masculine roles. The result - a new dominant woman figure able to match it with and defeat man at complex online games *big gasp* ... oh, and in every other facet of society as well by the way... muhuhahahaha