JohnFugelsang John Fugelsang
America's struggle is not Liberal vs. Conservative, it's Aristocracy vs. Democracy.
LPH 939 - Fooled (1934-2009)
1 hour ago
Saturday, 9 July 2011
Friday, 8 July 2011
Google+ for journalists at risk
When they're creating new features, software designers talk in terms of "use cases." A use case describes steps that future customers might perform with a website. "Starting a group with friends," would be a use case for Facebook. "Buying a book" would be case for Amazon's designers.
When CPJ talks to Internet companies, we highlight the use cases of journalists who work in dangerous or authoritarian environments. It might be "defending against an attacker who has control of the infrastructure and wants my password." Or, it could be "breaking a controversial story to thousands of readers, which may prompt government supporters to overwhelm the online complaint system." Or, "surviving a series of denial-of-service attacks aimed at censoring my post."
These are not the first scenarios a start-up might envision for their college-friend-sharing site or >text-message-your-friends service. Nonetheless, they're vital to consider. Whether it's Google in China, Twitter in Iran, or Facebook in Egypt, if your social site becomes an essential part of people's lives, it will be used in life-or-death situations. Young but ambitious companies can anticipate and prepare for that.
And if reporters are an edge case, their experiences also shed light on the needs of other groups. For instance, journalists working on sensitive topics talk to a lot of people, often over e-mail. It's vitally important that those contacts aren't revealed to the wrong people, or that information isn't leaked about those conversations. Ex-partners of abusive spouses have a similar need, as they made very clear when Google Buzz abruptly broke that expectation of privacy. If Buzz had "reporters under threat" as a use case, perhaps they might have spotted the other problem earlier.
Shaking out such unintended consequences is, I suspect, one of the reasons the company's new set of social projects, Google+, started with a smaller audience than Buzz. It's a complicated new product, and mapping all of those consequences will only slowly emerge through use. But having played with the service for a few hours, I can offer some tentative analysis of how it may affect journalists--and by extension, the rest of us.
In emergencies, political or otherwise, one of the first acts of involved Net users is to become a citizen journalist, if only for the duration. Everyone who speaks online potentially shares some of the use cases of a threatened journalist. And the most at-risk journalists are canaries in the coal mine for grimly inevitable challenges that will face any successful Internet site.
So, how secure is Google+ for at-risk reporters? From Day 1, everything on Google+ is encrypted with https. That means that no one, not even a maliciously motivated government with control of your local ISP, can intercept your private conversations. Companies like Facebook which did not start out using https, struggle to implement it later. Some wealthy companies like Yahoo still haven't managed it, putting their webmail customers at constant risk of identity theft and surveillance.
What about leaked information about contacts, accidentally revealing who you talk and listen to? Like Twitter's "following" list, Google defaults to telling the entire world who is in your "circles" (its system for organizing your friends and who you are following).
That makes sense for Google: The company is still attracting members for the service, and wants you to hunt through your friends' lists for new colleagues to add. But that's not a good default when a reporter, say, reaches out to a controversial activist, or reveals close family members.
Still, Google+ has learned the lesson of the Buzz fiasco, which is not to arbitrarily and automatically throw who Google thinks are your friends into this list. Even better, Google lets you select who appears in your public circle list. So a journalist can list all his or her public contacts, yet still reserve some for private connections. Boundaries like this will take some tending, and are prone to accidental revelation, but at least you are not obliged to keep everything either private or public, a profound limitation for public writers involved in highly confidential conversations.
A topic that we've covered before is the use of pseudonyms on social networks. Facebook has a strict "real names" policy, which has had consequences in countries like pre-revolution Egypt, where large publicity-generating groups were removed because their owners wished to be anonymous, and for authors like Chinese writer Michael Anti, who prefer to use their well-known pen name over their real name. (Anti, by the way, has joined Google+.)
The rule for Google+ is subtly different: You should go by the name that you're usually known as, and that you should not impersonate others. We'll see how this plays out in practice. One possibility these rules could support is that users may have more than one Google+ account--a strategy Syrian activists have pursued on Facebook, despite this being against the terms of service.
One boon for journalists isn't actually part of Google+, though it works closely with it. Google Takeout is the company's universal way for customers to extract for their own use all of the data the company keeps on them; it was rolled out for all Google services on the same day as the G+ test launch.
Google Takeout offers an opportunity to mitigate against the most drastic actions of Google itself. Like Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and other hosting services, Google will often decide to take down content it deems too controversial for their service. Putting aside whether these companies are right to remove photographs, groups, or news organizations, the more practical question is what journalists can do if their work is taken down. Or, for that matter, what journalists can do if they decide to move the material themselves.
If your web hosting provider throws you off their computers, you want to at least take your data and set up your Internet stall elsewhere. In social networking environments like Facebook or Flickr, it's far less easy. As Michael Anti and Hossam el-Hamalawy discovered, if you leave, it can be very hard to get your content or contacts out of your former host.
Coded by the company's so-called "Data Liberation Front," Takeout is a tool that lets you download all your data into a format that you might carry to another service. (Facebook has an export tool, too, but it won't allow you to obtain your contact's email addresses, thus reducing its usefulness outside of Facebook itself.)
It's too early to say whether Google Takeout will have more than a hypothetical benefit. Its usefulness depends on other services offering the capability to import the data that Google spits out.
Of course, it's too early to tell anything about Google+. Will it be successful enough to be considered a journalist's tool? Will it stumble like Google Wave and Buzz? Will it change the world, or remain a geeky backwater?
It looks like Google has considered some of CPJ's use cases when building Google+, and has strong incentives to fix any other issues before they become a bigger problem. (The company is a member of the Global Network Initiative and also paid $8.5 million in a class action settlement over Buzz's privacy violations.)
With this launch, Google is clearly thinking big. And when a company thinks big for its products, it should also think about the ethical and privacy ramifications of thinking big. People's livelihoods, the openness of their societies, and even their lives may depend on it.
The Beach Boys - Studio argument with Murry Wilson while recording 'Help Me Rhonda' (January 8, 1965)
Murry Wilson"Syncopate a little..."
"Loosen up sweetie..."
"Sing from your heart..."
"Happy! That's all we need..."
"Quit screaming and start singing from the heart..."
"You're flat!"
"So you're big stars..."
"When you guys get too much money you start thinking you are going to make everything a hit..."
"Brian! I'm a genius too!"
The Beach BoysA drunken Murry Wilson (Father of Brian, Dennis and Carl) turns up at the recording studio while The Beach Boys are recording 'Help Me Rhonda' at the invitation of Brian.
We hear him scat singing and castigating the boys for singing flat and generally just meddling.
You can see why the boys installed a fake recording console so that he could twiddle knobs to his hearts content!
Bear in mind that it was due to a blow from his father that resulted in Brian being deaf in one ear and considering that he was 22 at the time this tape was made, when you listen to it you will be amazed how much self control Brian shows.
In the end they went back into the studio to record 'Help Me Rhonda' without Murry's interferance, and this version was eventually released as 'Help Me Ronda' on 'The Beach Boys Today'.
(24 minutes VBR)
These four tracks are taken from an album called 'Journals - Vol. 2'
PS: I downloaded this quite a while back from somewhere that I have forgotten and I couldn't find again while preparing this post.
My apologies and thanks to the original uploader.
Liberated from 'Pathway To Unknown Worlds'
Shark Finning Outlawed In Chilean Waters
The new law will prohibit the practice of cutting the tips of the shark and throwing the rest of the live animal’s body into the sea, and will levy a $4,000 to $41,000 fine for persons caught mutilating sharks in this way.
According to Christine Reed of Discovery News, “The ban effects 30 shark species that cruise the Chilean coastline, which covers an extensive stretch of the eastern Pacific all the way to the Southern Ocean. Of those sharks, 15 are specific targets for finning, including the near threatened Blue sharks (Prionace glauca) and the vulnerable Shortfin Mako sharks (Isurus oxyrinchus).”
“With the passage of this law, Chile becomes a leader in the protection of these animals that are so important to marine ecosystems. We knew that large quantities of shark fins were being exported from our country. This practice meant the deaths of thousands of sharks each year. With this new law we will have a critical tool to protect and recover these most exploited species,” said Alex Muñoz, Oceana vice president for South America said in a statement...
Continue reading
Beth Buczynski @'Care 2'
From Yoko Ono to Lady Gaga: how pop embraced performance art
The pair are currently collaborating on The Life and Death of Marina Abramovic, a play that examines her life from her childhood in postwar Yugoslavia through her performance work to a staging of her death. "When it came to do the play I said to Bob [director Robert Wilson], the only person in my life who can do the music is Antony, because it really corresponds," she says. "One of the similarities between Antony and me is that in the moment of performance you really step to your higher self. You create another type of reality for the audience to enter. That's why it's so emotional. It's so funny, everybody is crying at Antony's concerts and everybody was crying in Moma when they were sitting opposite me."
Indeed, there seems nothing at all unusual about Hegarty collaborating with a performance artist. For one thing, his roots are in experimental theatre, and for another, the relationship between rock and pop and performance art appears to be blossoming as never before. In 2011, the biggest pop star in the world is Lady Gaga, a product of the same downtown New York club scene that spawned Hegarty, where what Gaga describes as an "interesting hybrid of performance art meets singer-songwriter-meets-drag-meets-theatre-meets-rock" is the common currency.
"When I was really young, I was fascinated with performance artists," Lady Gaga says, on the phone from Taiwan. "Leigh Bowery, Klaus Nomi. And when I got older I became fascinated with Yoko Ono and Marina Abramovic. I grew up with them, and sort of naturally became the artist I am today. It wasn't until I started to play out in New York and my friends said, 'Look how much this has influenced you,' that I realised it. The one thing there wasn't on the Lower East Side was pop music. So as a pop songwriter, I thought that would be an interesting way to make a name for myself in this neighbourhood. I figured if I could play the grocery store around the corner as if it was Madison Square Gardens, maybe some day I can assimilate pop music into performance art in a more mainstream way."
Looking at her sales figures, you have to say Gaga has succeeded beyond her wildest dreams: you wonder how the record labels who she says turned her down because they felt a mainstream audience couldn't stomach the more outré aspects of her performances feel now. Equally, you can see their point: pop and performance art traditionally have a very strained relationship. One theory is that rock and pop audience's negative reaction to anything that smacked of performance art was simply a legacy of public animosity towards Yoko Ono, the first performance artist to take her work to a pop audience: even before she met John Lennon, she performed Cut Piece, during which the audience were invited to attack her clothing with scissors at 1967's 14 Hour Technicolour Dream event at Alexandra Palace in London. "I thought what we were doing was high art, and there was a big difference between high art and pop music," Ono says. "High art inspires the human culture, pop music is entertainment. The mixture of high art with entertainment, which you needed to do so that people would accept it and understand what you were trying to do, was very challenging and interesting to me."
But her association with Lennon and her move from performance work into making music – "it was easier to go into the studio and make music with John rather than say to him I was going to do a big performance piece in Paris. It was about us being together, using the situation" – was, initially at least, met with derision and outrage. "Before I started working with John, I felt I was communicating pretty well, actually. When I got together with John, I thought that I was doing the same thing, but suddenly the hostility was there. High art is never accepted by the masses," she says. "I accepted that a long time ago. I had a great time with John. There was great love between us. Those things counted more to me than being accepted by the people."
There's an argument that the public's dim, if deeply unfair view of Ono – the woman who was held to have ruined the Beatles – tainted their attitude to performance artists who dared to dabble in rock music for years to come. Others feel the reasons are less straightforward. Abramovic thinks music and performance art fit perfectly together ("they're the highest forms of art because they're the most direct and the most immaterial"), but Laurie Anderson, who found herself catapulted from the New York performance art scene to pop stardom with the release of her 1981 single O Superman, initially felt the two worlds were entirely opposed to each other: performance art was by definition ephemeral, existing only in the moment of performance, which is the antithesis of making a record, something she only did because she got a grant of $500 and a friend argued she was being elitist. "Records were part of pop culture and I was a snob," she says. "Pop culture was for 10-year-olds. Nothing against 10-year-olds, but I was part of the avant garde, and we didn't want to be part of pop culture."
She subsequently revised her opinion and entered into the world of rock wholeheartedly, but still feels performance artists are a difficult fit in the music business. "It's odd because people from record companies used to feel they could come into the studio and sit back and go: 'Think this needs more bass.' I wasn't really using bass. I was using things like a lot of birds. And I think those guys would have felt silly saying: 'I think you need more birds.'" She laughs. "I guess I was one of their vanity artists or something."
Dan Fox, senior editor of art magazine Frieze, thinks the problem may have lain with mainstream antipathy to the visual arts in general. "We're suspicious of the visual arts because it's seen as somehow pretentious or a con job: if it's about the intangible and the ineffable, the idea that art can exist as an idea as much as a physical object that shows some degree of manufacturing or technical prowess, people are suspicious, and that's also fed by the connotations of the art world: big amounts of money, exclusivity, elitism. In rock music you have all these debates about being real and authentic, you know, three chords and the truth, that kind of thing. There's an idea that having some kind of different approach to performance is somehow antithetical to rock, because it's not about paying your dues."
Whatever the reason, when three members of the confrontational performance art collective Coum Transmissions decided to form Throbbing Gristle in 1976 – "We were disgusted and disillusioned with the art world, it was too formalised and institutionalised for us, and we were excited by sound" says TG's Cosey Fanni Tutti – they seemed to succeed in upsetting everybody: not just the kind of people who were upset by punk, but the punks as well. They meticulously documented the reactions, which means you can hear the audiences howling in anger and dismay at their early shows on the live box set TG24 and the answering machine message from the music journalist baldly threatening to kill them on the 1978 album track Death Threats. In fairness, if you deal in churning grey noise topped off with lyrics about serial killers and concentration camps, you should probably expect people to get upset, but there's a sense that the objection wasn't merely to what Throbbing Gristle were doing, but to their artistic background.
Tutti says the band were unbothered by their rockist critics: "I didn't even think about them to be honest, anybody else just didn't cross my radar. Why would I be interested in what the rock world thought about me?" Besides, the animosity had a positive effect. Ignored or vilified, Throbbing Gristle were forced to carve out their own niche, with lasting effects both on music – singlehandedly inventing a genre, industrial, that endures to this day – and the music industry. "We thought it would be fun to see how their business model worked, how we could subvert it, which we did. Rough Trade kind of came off the back of our label, Industrial Records. The whole independent scene kind of fell into place after that."
Thirty-five years later, a musician spawned by performance art is adored rather than despised. Lady Gaga describes her appearance at the 2009 MTV Awards, during which she appeared to bleed to death from a gash on her stomach while singing Paparazzi as "a performance art piece that re-enacted the death of celebrity in front of all America". Cosey Fanni Tutti – not a fan – probably wouldn't thank you for pointing it out, but it doesn't seem too distant from Coum Transmissions' 70s experiments with fake blood and wounds and simulated suicides. Gaga's interest in performance art seems to have had an unexpected effect on the mainstream audience: when she mentioned Abramovic in an interview, the artist says, her Moma retrospective was suddenly flooded with "this enormous audience of kids between 12 and 18 spending hours there". Abramovic adds: "She's really a phenomenon. With the costumes, the blood, everything, she's really looking to art, and she's generous enough to say where the interest is coming from, which Madonna will never do."
It could be that Lady Gaga has lured a mainstream audience with some pretty straightforward pop music, but there's always the chance her success indicates a shift in the mainstream audience's perception of performance art. Ono thinks that could be down to the cumulative effect of her forebears: "I think what we were doing was kind of a like a stepping stone, on a subconscious level. Maybe it was the preparation. This is happening now on a very big level."
Back in Taiwan, Lady Gaga is musing on her success in balancing pop with performance art. No, she says, she never worries that the spectacle of the latter detracts from the former. "I'm both. I'm musician and pop singer and performance artist. I could conversely argue to you that sometimes the music takes away from the performance art," she laughs, and heads off, to perform a gig in front of 44,000 people.
Alex Petridis @'The Guardian'
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
