Hannah Meiklejohn

From Hst250
Revision as of 20:20, 27 June 2013 by Meiklej3 (Talk | contribs) (Article 2: Meet Big Brother's Younger Brother[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6-HUgzYPm9g])

Jump to: navigation, search

Harvest or Kill?

Bioshock[1] - The Game

Bioshock is a first-person shooter video game set in the 1960s that is based in the city of Rapture, an isolated utopia under the sea intended for the elite to work without outside powers. However, the successful discovery of the plasmid ADAM and a class related uprising lead the city to its destruction. The player has to stay alive in this estranged world by searching for artifacts and placing trust in certain characters to help the user escape the city. This means the player will have to make many decisions in the game based on who they trust and the evidence they find. The game was well received by players and critics alike.

Anthropology of Bioshock

Katy Meyers, the author of the article "Anthropology of Social Behavior in Bioshock[2]," explains that the decisions made while playing Bioshock are directly related to how the world is portrayed to them. To get a closer look at what these portrayals mean and what they do, one can investigate the different levels of communication working in the world of the game. This same technique is used in anthropological research. She explains that with an anthropological view, one can take a deeper look into how and why people make certain choices over others while playing. Throughout the game, the user is being pushed and pulled by opposing forces in an environment that they are not familiar with. Looking at the different levels of a narration in Bioshock, or the behavior, speech, and societal ideals, will give insight into why a player makes one conclusion over another. It also helps determine the ways in which a player can get caught up in a game.

What is the Significance?

The author states right away that she is exploring, investigating and drawing a conclusion from the experience of playing Bioshock. In her experience:
  • Her investigation is an anthropological one, meaning she is mainly looking at past and present objects and events that help explain the current state of a society. This is how people come to understand the source of their actions in the game, by looking at:
  1. Behavior/actions of characters
  2. Spoken word by characters
  3. Rules of Society that characters follow
What is interesting about her investigation is that she finds a layer in the game about Objectivism. As she gets into the game, she finds that Andrew Ryan, the creator of Rapture, built the city around the idea that men can create without being overseen by God, government, or man himself. These same ideas line up with the philosophy of Objectivism, created by Ayn Rand. The author explains how this philosophy is seen at each point in the game, focusing on the power of the individual rather than society as a whole. Opposing goals by individuals as a result of their objective viewpoint is what creates and destroys the city of Rapture in the end. It does bring out some questions:
  • Can Society operate in complete Objectivism? This game is merely a simulation of such an event, but the game asks people to operate and communicate in that world. Andrew Ryan takes away the politics and beliefs to create the city in the first place with the idea that it would benefit his city the most.
  • What are the repercussions that are seen in the game? The self centered culture of the city of rapture leads to its downfall. The players introduction to the city is seeing the remains of a city dependent on individuals who perpetuate these self-centered goals.
However, the author is mostly trying to draw attention to the fact that most people function on these levels of communication without realizing it. We assess a situation at first glance, learn from spoken word experiences and draw parallels/conclusions to understand something foreign. This is something that people do in everyday life. It comes in handy when people need to remember why they came to a conclusion because they can work their way back to their initial thought. The importance of this game is that it is a piece by piece assemblage of the process of investigation. Through looking at the behavior, spoken word and society, the author found the foundation of Objectivism in the game, for instance, which she may not have caught up on without this analysis.

Personal View

This post didn't generate any comments or debate but I think that people would have to agree with the basic levels of interpretation here, discussed as an anthropological investigation by the author. It was shared on twitter and facebook and, although I could not find the shared links, I'm sure it generated discussion about objectivism and possibly existentialism. I think that the author did a good job of explaining each level of interpretation, or how I like to put it, communication. It makes sense to explore these levels in a video game because its best used in an environment that is unfamiliar. Video games have the ability to transport a player to fantastic locations that have to be explored to be conqured. Personally, Spyro the dragon is one of my favorite games and I cant go through the game without collecting all of the jewels, talking to every character, and exploring every corner of the map.
Bioshock is also one of my best friends favorite games. I remember watching her play, contemplating killing a little sister or harvesting her, and thinking, how could I begin to decide such a thing? What's great about Bioshock is that it does operate on each level of communication argued here and has the player make choices based on what they have learned. This is why decision making in the game is so crucial. Other games like this include Heavy Rain, which I really enjoyed since the game had a different ending depending on how I played it and what I decided for a character. However, I didn't realize these levels of investigation that I was operating under while playing the game. I learned from what I saw visually and what characters were telling me, even if it was misleading, and I found clues in the environment. How we learn in a video game is much like the anthropological investigations of societies spoken about here. The obvious difference being the simulation of a game vs real life experience; there is no pause or start button and you only have one life.

Works Cited

"Bioshock." Wikipedia, 2013. Web. 3 June 2013.
Meyers, Katy. "Anthropology of Social Behavior in Bioshock." Playthepast.org. Play The Past, 22 November 2011. Web. 3 June 2013.

Article 2: Meet Big Brother's Younger Brother[3]

ANONYMOUS

What can be said about a group of people who are joined together under multiple pretenses from around the globe with no leader, no rules (besides the obvious rules of the internet[4]), and no shame? Possibly that they live for memes and the joy of trolling. The viscous nature of Anonymous has made it hard to define the organization, if one could call it that. Made from a generation of hackers and /b/tards, Anonymous is now a large collective of anon internet users that join together for multiple purposes, ranging from protests to practical jokes. Quinn Norton's three part series about Anonymous gives a general timeline of the origins of the group[5]. In the beginning, it was mostly users posting on 4chan.org. The prominent pranksters started out ordering pizzas to random houses and pushing peoples buttons, aka "trolling." However I can say that from reading Norton's article, I have learned that besides cats, the Anonymous group can agree that no one will take away their right to free speech, and other such internet freedoms, away from them. They do not applause groups, institutions, or corporations that try to compromise a users ability online. They use the internet as their weapon and they don't hold back.
Over time, they have shut down or hacked websites ranging from Sony to the Church of Scientology. Members met face to face for the first time while protesting the Church of Scientology during Project Chanology[6]. They had tried to remove video of Tom Cruise speaking on behalf of the Church from the internet but failed due to its rapid circulation. It was a move from the web to the streets for the LOLZ community. From there, one can see a different divisions of Anonymous forming. Old members kept up with their usual pranks while new members decided to join as a way to organize and oppose powerful forces. Some just kept hacking websites and posting gifs. An army of internet anons arose and gained the attention of the press, who were often excited and confused with the group. Since then, more and more people have joined Anonymous to help in issues overseas with Tunisia, Egypt, and The Occupy Movement in the U.S. The success of the group to gain both media attention and the attention of establishments worldwide, as seen with Tunisia, have empowered the group and encouraged further activities in the name of Anonymous.

SOPA

The Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, is a bill whose aim is to stop those in the U.S. from accessing foreign sites that allow downloads of copyrighted materials. It dispels access to foreign sites and punishes websites that link such sites to it. These sharing websites have servers overseas, which means it is out of U.S. jurisdiction. Since copyright infringement is illegal in the US[7], but not always illegal in other countries, the internet serves as a portal for U.S. citizens to keep downloading from foreign sites, even though the law forebodes it.
  • Those who oppose the bill say it has loose language that can be easily abused or misinterpreted. This could lead to internet censorship, which most techies and their users are harshly against.
  • This includes Wikipedia, Reddit, facebook, Google and other Tech companies.
  • Those who are for the bill argue that it will stop the illegal downloading and sharing of copyrighted materials. It ruins the business aspect of selling movies and music, which is argued to result in loss of jobs in the industry.
  • This includes The RIAA, MPAA, CBS, and Time Warner.
If the bill passes, it would allow the Attorney General to use the power of the U.S. court to take down sites that allow piracy, those with links to pirated websites, or those that allow payments and advertising to such websites. The Bill states that websites will have to take on preventative measures in order to block access to pirate because its main aim is to combat the theft of US property by promoting creativity, prosperity, entrepreneurship, and innovation[8]. Reddit's Jason Harvey writes about his concerns with the broad definitions included in the bill. In his article, "A Technical Examination of SOPA & Protect IP,[9]" he states that the bill does little to actually combat piracy, but rather concerns itself with censoring websites that do. His views on the "technology-ignorant" language in the bill resonate with a lot of the complaints about the bill from its critics. The bill itself has been pushed back a few times in the House and Senate and is still debated upon because of the harsh views from both sides of the equation[10].

PIPA

Protect IP Act, or Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, is a proposed U.S. law that will give copyright owners and the US government extra tools to combat online piracy. Its critics argue that it gives corporations and the government the ability to censor websites and will result in crushing creativity and innovation. It blocks access to infringing domain names, allows corporations to sue US based search engines or blogs, and it can cut funds to and from piracy websites[11].
Much like SOPA, those who are in opposition of PIPA argue that the bill will not stop online piracy and will instead result in giving authority to corporations to crack down on piracy themselves. Most people view this as a bad thing since some companies have a rough history of suing citizens over what some consider harmless offenses. However, companies have to exercise their rights to get the compensation that is lawfully theirs. Those in support of the bill believe that most web users are blowing the bill out of proportion, arguing that corporations will not abuse the powers they have under PIPA. It still leaves a lot of people worried since the act doesn't really seem to restrict actions or measures that the government or corporation can act within. It does grant them powers that could possibly take down sites that many people agree are harmless. however harmless it may seem, companies don't usually take copyright infringement lightly.

Anonymous and Online Privacy

Since Anonymous is all for freedoms on the internet, they fall under the category of people who do not support bills such as PIPA and SOPA. It seems obvious that they would do everything in their power to harm both the supporters of the bill and their means of handing out information. This can explain why the group severed access to the main SOPA website and the websites of those who support the bills, such as RIAA[12]. Since groups like Anonymous have so much power online, they can actually use their resources to cut off information to people trying to access the site. This proves to be problematic if someone is looking to understand more information about the bill itself to form a well rounded opinion. This does however demonstrate the extreme that people not in support of the bill are afraid of, which is the censorship of websites. Not many users want to have restricted access on the internet. Its often viewed as a way of controlling what is otherwise an open source of information that no other time period has experienced before.
Groups like Anonymous do however have to support privacy online to protect their own identity. A main concept that the group unites under is the ability to remain anonymous in the first place. To remain completely untraceable online is not necessarily always an option, but to operate gatherings or plan out revolutions, it is necessary to cover ones tracks. However, you can only do so much online without being traced. As seen with the third part of Quinn Norton's article, as referenced previously, Anonymous was able to hack into HBGary's federal Server once the CEO claimed to have found the leader of Anonymous, which is far fetched in itself since all my research has lead me to believe that Anonymous is leaderless and is more like a gathering of sociopaths. Their hack into HBGary is contradictory to their ideal of anonymity because they have exposed someone who was trying to do their job. They disrespected the privacy of an individual they had a quarrel with and even asked that the CEO be fired. This power struggle is important because it sets security professionals against hackers, the only real difference between them being that one gets a government salary. It also shows the influence that Anonymous has over information that is online and it makes sense that companies and the government are worried about their power.
  1. If a corporation can "censor" the internet, how is it different from a hacker doing the same thing?
  2. Does intention matter if the result is the same?
People would still be blocked from information in the end, whether hackers or a corporation did it. Anonymous shouldn't be able to be the only ones that remain anonymous in the internet; if they truly valued anonimity, they would allow other to experience it as well. People on 4chan have a history of locating and exposing people online[13]. The Kantian Categorical Imperative comes into play here; To only act according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.[14] Essentially meaning that you shouldn't act unless you think everyone else should be able to act in the same way. If Anonymous can remain anonymous, then they shouldn't expose the identities of others. Obviously this is problematic since most of their exposing helped lead to successful operations in Tunisia and Egypt. So it ended up being a positive for oppressed people and since I don't support oppression I cant say that what they did was terrible. It doesn't allow for complete reciprocity however. I don't think the group is wrongful in all of their actions and I usually have fun watching their reindeer games.[15]


Edward Snowden

Shared information is a hot topic in light of the recent events regarding Edward Snowden. He was a technical contractor for the NSA, until recently when he leaked information that was never intended to reach the public, such as phone tapping projects and other surveillance procedures. First escaping to Hong Kong and now apparently in Russia, Ed Snowden seems to be running from US Federal Prosecutes. He opened up to a reporter from The Guardian after deciding that he was willing to face the consequences as a result of leaking information that he felt the public needed to know [16].
Unlike members of Anonymous, Snowden has come forward as the hacker/leak in the situation. He seems to be calmly aware of the risks he took in getting information out, including being hunted down by the CIA or any of its partner associations around the world. Being out in the open may not be the best idea in regards to his personal health but he argues for the importance of sharing information; he states that it is worth the risks to let people decide if they want to live "unfreely but comfortably." However it makes me wonder if people would rather live that way in the first place, ignorance is bliss; was it worth it to risk his safety to try and give information to people who don't seem to be concerned with being watched?
I know I have always had my suspicions with being watched by the government and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Many argue that if there is nothing for me to hide, then I shouldn't be worried but I think its unreasonable to think that everyone has clean hands. Everyone has at least one thing they are embarrassed about or something they are possibly ashamed of. I am a firm believer that people have to touch the stove to understand its hot. Humans learn by making mistakes and while there is an obvious difference between murdering someone and running a red light, I think Snowden has a good point in regards to record keeping concerns. If someone does something deemed seemingly unlawful, records can be traced back to "derive suspicion" about a person in order to support taking them down. I think the NSA has enough power to abuse the law system properly, seeing as they already have access to our phones without asking for public permission.
Snowden's attempt at sharing information with the public reflects the same worries of those who oppose SOPA and PIPA because they fear censorship and the blocking of information. The government keeping this information from the public in the first place is yet another reason for people to be suspicious of the aims of corporations/organizations. If they can tap into our phones without us noticing, then it would be easy for them to take down websites that they deem unlawful. I think people absolutly recognize it as an abuse of power and its regrettable since it seems that laws are supposed to protect citizens but can be broken by the government with the same intention. It also shows a lack of trust between the government and its citizens. If they are not suspicious of the public, why is it necessary to watch them like a jealous lover. Open and free information to all is an important concept both on and off the web because people need to have the resources to come to their own conclusion. I think that this Edward Snowden event can be linked to ideas of protest from the Anonymous group as well. His actions are a counteraction of the work carried out by the NSA and other government projects. I do thinks its refreshing to see someone still upset about being monitored. I often feel that most people don't care about issues like these until it effects them directly.



Works Cited

Pepitone, Julianne. "SOPA explained: What it is and why it matters." cnn.com. CNN, 20 Jan 2012. Web. 25 June 2013.

CNN SOPA http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/technology/sopa_explained/index.htm

ANONYMOUS http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/anonymous-dicators-existential-dread/all/1
SOPA BILL http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03261:@@@L&summ2=m&
SOPA WIKI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Legislative_history
PIPA WIKI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act
KANT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
J SLAUGHTER http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/jessi-slaughter
SNOWDEN WashingtonPost http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/intelligence-leaders-push-back-on-leakers-media/2013/06/09/fff80160-d122-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html