1. Ahmed, Mohamed. (2009). Threats to Mobile Phone Users’ Privacy. Memory University of Newfoundland. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from http://www.engr.mun.ca/~mhahmed/privacy/mobile_phone_privacy_report.pdf

This source is a summary of the policy changes taking place in Canada, Europe(primarily the U.K.), and the U.S. It deals, for the most part, with the reception of these possible changes by politicians, citizens, and experts. This will be my basis for civilian user responses not for the world, as planned, but for western countries.

2. Ashour, Ayman. (2011). NFC Mobile Phones and the Future of Privacy. RFID Journal. Retrieved February 5, 2012, from http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/8785

SCHOLARLY SOURCE – This article explains the techniques used by mobile device carriers in the U.S. under the current business model that uses Near Field Communication technology. This technology tracks user’s buying habits, internet interests, and physical location. It also addresses the future applications of mobile device capabilities, weighing in on the the user’s sacrifice for convenience and the implications that convenience means for their ability to control their personal information.

3. Boase, Jeffrey and Wellman, Barry (2006) ‘Personal Relationships: On and Off the Internet’, in Anita L.
Vangelisti and Daniel Perlman (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, pp. 709–26.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SCHOLARLYSOURCE – This source deals with the communication patterns of social media users in America today. A magnified and personal look at how technology affects human communication will add to the depth of how privacy issues reach into people’s most intimate spaces. In order to draw attention and relate there must be information that speaks to a general audience’s personal experiences with social networks on the internet.

4. Boyd, Danah.(2006). Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies.
Sage Publications, London, Los Angeles, New Delhi and Singapore Vol 14(1): 13–20. Retrieved from
http://cvg.sagepub.com DOI: 10.1177/1354856507084416

This is an evaluation of the responses that the average social network user had in 2006 when they were notified that their private information was being stored and sold by Facebook. In order to compare the responses of worldwide internet users, I must use this information to gauge the average American’s breaking point of privacy invasion.

5. Brodkin, Jon.(2012). Mobile Device Privacy Act Would Prevent Secret Smartphone Monitoring. Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/mobile-device-privacy-act-would-prevent-secret-smartphone-monitoring.ars

This source has up-to-date information on privacy policies and the complimentary effects of mobile convenience and privacy.

6. Kravets, David. (2012). New Mobile-Phone Privacy Proposed. Wired Online Magazine. Retrieved February 5, 2012, from http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/new-mobile-phone-privacy-law-proposed/

The next source I found is a magazine article that explains the newest policy that is being reviewed by lawmakers. It summarizes the current practice of storing personal information collected by mobile phone carriers and the inability of users to control their information.

2. Designing type on a computer takes away from the process of creation. It is faster in many ways to use a computer, there’s no denying that. But there’s something to be said for the practiced painter’s stroke The time taken to start from a basic vision, slowly carving that vision into the tangible, helps to develop an idea further. You could say that creating by hand hinders the spontaneous tweaks that a computer aided process provides, moreover that it slows down innovation. Yet I still can’t help but respect life-long tradesmen that perfect their craft using hand-held tools. The slower process allows time to digest surfacing ideas and weigh the options at the artist’s disposal.

3. Typeface seems to be more apt to balance the space inside the letter with the surrounding void. The letters must work together to hold their meaning but not so much that it overtakes the background.

Typeface has a meaning or purpose on a larger scale. It has a larger audience considering its use in advertising and business. Fonts seem more personalized for home computers while typeface is purposeful and scrutinized to near perfection with people’s emotional response always in mind. The communication has an idealistic approach. The letters don’t need to merely be legible, but powerful. They demand a response.

4. Sorry if the links don’t work – Copyright and all…

My business-time font – http://www.fontshop.com/fonts/downloads/fontfont/ff_meta_serif_offc/

FF Meta Serif Offc

My personal font – NEON – http://www.dafont.com/neon-nvb.font

The basic summary for the differences of these two fonts – Squared vs. Round. For business I would choose  traditional, almost Old English font style with pronounced, sturdy edges. If it’s going to be a personal font, though, get rid of the harsh edges and replace them with a fluid curve that intrigues more than just informs. They both have a message that could technically have the same words, but the personal font(Neon) fills up the dead space with a softer touch. Granted, I’m relating the block-type font with the square version of a business-person, but it seems like a font-type that won’t repel an audience seeking my professional expertise. On the other hand, if my career was in music I’d have to consider the retro-esk Neon font type.

Two of the projects are focused around web pages that promotes a local artist. These projects sound entertaining and purposeful. There is so much room for personal style that I’m sure they won’t be anything short of amazing. I’m already curious as a viewer to navigate the sites and try out their varying options. As for the blog about Real Change News, I feel like the subject matter is completely news worthy and may bring about actual change. These 3 projects are focusing on topics that deserve attention and I’m waiting patiently to see the results.

The links below are to my 3 comments.

http://khaven2.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/a-more-detailed-description-of-my-project/#comment-20

http://zackui.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/thesis-goal-and-purpose-timeline-success-its-all-in-the-money-bag/#comment-18

http://gmkeller.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/project-update-figuring-everything-out/#comment-14

Google saturates your web experience. From your initial search to your bookmarks, Google has its stake firmly driven in. So what do you do as a regular web surfer? You could carefully plan out your search parameters, maybe find a better search engine, or even better – create your own search algorithms to fit your specific needs without putting your information out there for a third party marketing agency.

I don’t see a simple way around it. You have to use Google in some form or another throughout your internet experience. As an average user there aren’t a lot of options. At least none that are as comprehensible and all-encompassing.

This idea of all of our personal information being stored in a dark, dingy database center may not be enough to make us question the quirky, sometimes childish front that Google has made itself out to be. Granted, I despise most social networking tools out there today because there’s just too much nonsense and self-absorbed material to do anyone any good, but I’d like to think Google isn’t going to betray me.

So what can I say to save face from being labeled a hypocrite? I don’t know. I don’t think a lot of people’s opinions on privacy and their personal information would have sufficient backing unless they were able to see, with their own two eyes, exactly what personal information was being held by internet companies and their subsidiaries. The sheer amount, or even the gaping holes in our own gathered information might be the only thing that shocks us into reality.

Ok, I told myself I would beat this privacy horse to death, so on to the next discussion involving Google.

The whole idea that Google creates superficial user viewing of content by is the same issue that plagued print and broadcast. There are requirements by the government for balanced and fair distribution or broadcast of content material. Educational and entertainment driven content have their own allotted time slots and sections in order to protect our children’s innocence and get ratings while the children eyes are diverted or sleeping. Yet now with the internet the user has the control to bypass virtually all subjugated censors and slot-times to create their own customized entertainment or educational experience. In short, WE ARE GETTING WHAT WE WANT.

When was it determined that the average American isn’t able to handle the task of choosing media outlets that best fit their taste and also propel society to higher intellectual levels? Politics and policies do little for dramatic social change, so why take the power from the movers and shakers that spur change? I thought we were a country of individualism and choice. So what’s the big deal if Google works as a tool to help indulge in our interests? But, alas, I’m a sucker for Google. Ask me another day about another social network and you may get a completely different answer.

It I had time to twit my day away It might grow on me. I’m not the type of person to meander through 90 percent of concise opinions because that’s all it is, opinions. If I wanted to twiddle through non-stop rants and somehow add to my arsenal of knowledge, I don’t think I’d be a better person for it.

It may be a springboard for authentic, innovative ideas, but how much time would be wasted hunting down that kernel of motivation when there’s options outside of everyday observations from people just like you and I.

As a creative writer I take great offense in limiting the amount of post-able content to blurbs of sensationalized headlines and abstracts. Less can be more, but imagine giving a painter a 2inchx2inch canvas to change the art world.

Although there are privacy measures in place already, is it enough to fully protect the individual user from invasive tactics by information collection agencies. There are many opinions to this subject, but are there concrete studies done on the ill-effects or positive aspects concerning these privacy questions? I will do my best to provide an evenly balanced paper between popular and unpopular opinion, and the facts. I will try to come to some sort of compromise of privacy and convenience, or at least a few steps in the right direction.

My audience will be classmates, and on a broader note, anyone who owns a smart phone that has capabilities to make transactions, navigate the internet, and uses there mobile device as a tool to connect to social networks.

My timeline begins with research. There is a plethora of private, scholarly, and commercial sources that have done research or provide opinions to the tension between personal privacy and convenience. After researching and selecting the most pertinent information I will assemble a rough outline. As I collect more information I may refine my topic even further, but for the time being I am still collecting information.

Kravets, David. (2012). New Mobile-Phone Privacy Proposed. Wired Online Magazine. Retrieved February 5, 2012, from http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/new-mobile-phone-privacy-law-proposed/

2. The next source is a summary of the policy changes taking place in Canada, Europe(primarily the U.K.), and the U.S. It deals, for the most part, with the reception of these possible changes by politicians, citizens, and experts.

Ahmed, Mohamed. (2009). Threats to Mobile Phone Users’ Privacy. Memory University of Newfoundland. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from http://www.engr.mun.ca/~mhahmed/privacy/mobile_phone_privacy_report.pdf

3. The third source is a scholarly articles explaining the techniques used by mobile device carriers in the U.S. under its current business model that uses Near Field Communication technology. This technology tracks user’s buying habits, internet interests, and physical location. It also addresses the future applications of mobile device capabilities, weighing in on the the user’s sacrifice for convenience and the implications that convenience means for their ability to control their personal information.

Ashour, Ayman. (2011). NFC Mobile Phones and the Future of Privacy. RFID Journal. Retrieved February 5, 2012, from http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/8785

Even though everyone has a right to their opinion, how can society as a whole benefit or suffer from over-saturation of menial, biased opinions played out as universal truths? The average audience member is not passive, so there will be a selection process in place. But if someone’s selection process gravitates toward news facts, how will their selections be effected by sensational, biased Tweets that on their surface seem like news facts?

One of the main points I came away with from the readings was; authenticity is in conflict with the amount of acceptable personal disclosure. That’s an interesting view about what determines popular Twitter material. But I think there’s more to it than self-censoring and omission. Being authentic has a lot to do with charisma. There is a boiling point for TMI, but it has to do with the delivery by the author.

As in the first reading’s sections on blogs as news distributes, it was the formal reporters and activists with the greatest passion and command of language that were followed the most. These two strengths combine in the form of charisma. If I could weave a powerful and broadly understandable story about my dog learning how to sit I could gain viewership.

It feels wrong on some fundamental level that re-tweeting can create story buzz and transform into fact. Sure, it’s been happening within journalism for decades, but is the leech model of news-casting what people are predetermined to play out with every media? It could be that these re-tweeters have taken the role of gatekeepers, only on a civilian level. Maybe for any information to be viewed by mass audiences it has to jump through some hoops.

When information from popular Twitter personalities is allowed to be traditionally unfiltered, it follows a similar path of pop-awareness that formal institutions follow. But how detrimental is this conscious or sub-conscious self-censorship to authentic posts or tweets?  How much more severe is self-censorship when the only personal accountable for upsetting social network harmony?

I guess what I’m trying to get around is that the most popular Twitter personalities may begin to grow stale and predictable once they’ve labeled and cataloged appropriate subject matter for imagined audience demographics. Of course none of them are going to report back to the researchers, “I’m not trying to be entertaining or authentic, I was just typing my thoughts and thousands of people though I was OK.”

Of course your authentic! Who doesn’t think they are? But any kind of censorship for fear of social or legal consequences detracts from the authenticity. Just like the author has created an imagined audience, they’ve also created an imagined social network persona. It’s human nature to mold yourself to your environment. This persona is in many respects a showman’s performance in order to sale tickets, but instead you’re selling yourself.  It’s your authentic-self that has the reigns now.

So I don’t want to sound to cynical but the idea of true authenticity seems like a waist of brain cells. It’s completely subjective. What you think is authentic may make me think your a hipster. What I think is authentic may make you think,”Ya, that’s authentic because he likes it.” It all goes back to relating to your audience’s experiences and tastes, and your capabilities as a writer. Twitter themes follow the same themes we’ve all been primed for since traditional medias laid the groundwork. We are used to a methodical presentation of a story, news or not, and flock to it in herds, only to call it unauthentic once it’s over-ran by “posers” or “sheep.” Sure, people will put up with deviation to stretch their tastes, but popular Tweets involve; wars, strife, the under-dog, human relations, etc. The same themes that prosper in other medias.

So what authentic? I don’t really care.