A classic problem of digital deception is determining whether an entity is a computer or a human. The most famous test was the Turing test. More recently, CAPTCHAs (or Completely Automated Public Turing Test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart) have been used to ensure that a user is a human and not a computer. They do this by displaying letters against a cluttered visual background that makes automated optical resolution difficult. But, in the article here, reports indicate that spammers have broken CAPTCHAs. Chalk up another form of digital deception.
--Jeff
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
More relevant news - Men more likely fooled by Interent Fraud
According to this blog, a report by the Internet Crime Complaint Center also came out the day of the workshop (I couldn't find the actual report) - men more likely than women to be fooled by Internet fraud...by a lot (for every $1 lost by females, $1.67 was lost by males).
our posters...
Here's Will's pictures of the posters from the afternoon....(ok, not yet - wifi issues...)
Great Workshop!
Hi all,
We had a great time yesterday - the talks were fantastic and the people even better. I think we've started an important community and made some key connections. Plus, that dinner....!
A few things:
1. the poster session for the workshops is Tues at 10.30
2. Adam will post some pictures from the workshop
3. It seems like everyday brings a relevant news story. Here's one related to secrets I saw in the New York Times after dinner.
I'll work on making this blog a repository for readings and other resources.
--Jeff, Adam and Pam
We had a great time yesterday - the talks were fantastic and the people even better. I think we've started an important community and made some key connections. Plus, that dinner....!
A few things:
1. the poster session for the workshops is Tues at 10.30
2. Adam will post some pictures from the workshop
3. It seems like everyday brings a relevant news story. Here's one related to secrets I saw in the New York Times after dinner.
I'll work on making this blog a repository for readings and other resources.
--Jeff, Adam and Pam
Sunday, April 6, 2008
From Simeon Yates
Every time I send an e-mail, make a phone call or talk to a colleague I lie – then again we all do. That is if we mean by ‘lying’ that we make statements, assert facts that are not ‘true’ or in fact fail to state things. It is a well-established feature of all interaction that we avoid having to make, or causing others to have to make, ‘accounts’ – see the Conversation Analytic and Discursive Psychological work on ‘accounts’ – they tend to mark out points of ‘trouble’ in on-going interaction and we tend to avoid this for the sake of interactional expediency – except for when we don't….
I could make an account of why I am doing this on the night before the workshop that lists – work pressures, having just been on leave, family issues etc. But as no one nor the structure of the interaction on the blog required me to do so I am not (well I have a bit…). Excessive accounts often lead to problems as they break Grice’s rules and raise issues of Relevance.
It is easier to send the e-mail saying ‘job nearly done’ (even if you are still working furiously away) than send the long explanation of why it is still being done. It is easier to say ‘cant make it tonight busy with work’ in an SMS (even though you are not doing anything) rather than explain the complexities of give and take with a partner that keep your relationship healthy and therefore the need to be at home… I will of course put a positive spin on an issue if I am trying to persuade (even if I may feel down that day, or in truth the issue is pretty dire). I may express annoyance at someone or something as part of a strategy to deal with a problem at work.
In one sense I am keeping secrets (not revealing information) and telling lies (not being fully open) but this is the nature of interaction – without this it would all fall down. The interesting thing for me is the new resources digital media provide for doing this everyday interactional work.
My favourite examples – many of which I have done myself – come from media choices in ongoing interaction. Why an SMS or e-mail rather than a phone call? Why a phone call rather than a meeting. Often this is about limiting the bandwidth, or making the interaction written and formal; in order to prevent the awkward questions, the probing, the chance the ‘face’ might slip, which face-to-face often risks.
In our work on mobile use we have found evidence of complex face management games as well as identity play which rely on the ability to control the information ‘given off’ (as Goffman would say) in an interaction. In the end this is what digital media change. Some, like SMS and e-mail allow us to undertake private interaction in public, others like Facebook risk making our private things public. This is what fascinates me – the cleverness with which we all use the features (affordances?) of the medium to do social and interactional work, and at the same time how this makes me reflect on the social science, communications studies and linguistic theories of interaction.
Simeon Yates...See you all tomorrow.
I could make an account of why I am doing this on the night before the workshop that lists – work pressures, having just been on leave, family issues etc. But as no one nor the structure of the interaction on the blog required me to do so I am not (well I have a bit…). Excessive accounts often lead to problems as they break Grice’s rules and raise issues of Relevance.
It is easier to send the e-mail saying ‘job nearly done’ (even if you are still working furiously away) than send the long explanation of why it is still being done. It is easier to say ‘cant make it tonight busy with work’ in an SMS (even though you are not doing anything) rather than explain the complexities of give and take with a partner that keep your relationship healthy and therefore the need to be at home… I will of course put a positive spin on an issue if I am trying to persuade (even if I may feel down that day, or in truth the issue is pretty dire). I may express annoyance at someone or something as part of a strategy to deal with a problem at work.
In one sense I am keeping secrets (not revealing information) and telling lies (not being fully open) but this is the nature of interaction – without this it would all fall down. The interesting thing for me is the new resources digital media provide for doing this everyday interactional work.
My favourite examples – many of which I have done myself – come from media choices in ongoing interaction. Why an SMS or e-mail rather than a phone call? Why a phone call rather than a meeting. Often this is about limiting the bandwidth, or making the interaction written and formal; in order to prevent the awkward questions, the probing, the chance the ‘face’ might slip, which face-to-face often risks.
In our work on mobile use we have found evidence of complex face management games as well as identity play which rely on the ability to control the information ‘given off’ (as Goffman would say) in an interaction. In the end this is what digital media change. Some, like SMS and e-mail allow us to undertake private interaction in public, others like Facebook risk making our private things public. This is what fascinates me – the cleverness with which we all use the features (affordances?) of the medium to do social and interactional work, and at the same time how this makes me reflect on the social science, communications studies and linguistic theories of interaction.
Simeon Yates...See you all tomorrow.
Secrets of real estate
This is a pretty mundane secret, but it *is* something that occurred this week. I sold my house n Tuesday, and there is a lot of secrecy about pricing--you don't want to let the other party know what your lowest acceptable price is.
When coming up with an asking price, the real estate agent uses an archive of listings in the neighbourhood; given that one lives there, you can easily find out what various neighbour's housea are worth, which is traditionally not a polite question. Also, because a lot of this information (homeowner) is in databases, you can build up a profile of the neighbourhood --who lives where--even for those whose names you don't know. The city of St. John's (Newfoundland), for instance, keeps full maps with homeowner(s) of record listed online, so you can basically look up each house on the street and find out who owns it; kind of like a reverse directory, but with maps.
Again, this information was traditionally available in some sort of public archive, but it's very easy to get online, so doing very gentle "snooping" is very easy.
When coming up with an asking price, the real estate agent uses an archive of listings in the neighbourhood; given that one lives there, you can easily find out what various neighbour's housea are worth, which is traditionally not a polite question. Also, because a lot of this information (homeowner) is in databases, you can build up a profile of the neighbourhood --who lives where--even for those whose names you don't know. The city of St. John's (Newfoundland), for instance, keeps full maps with homeowner(s) of record listed online, so you can basically look up each house on the street and find out who owns it; kind of like a reverse directory, but with maps.
Again, this information was traditionally available in some sort of public archive, but it's very easy to get online, so doing very gentle "snooping" is very easy.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Keeping secrets
An example of a set of secrets I have hidden for 15 years are a series of online discussions which I collected as part of my PhD data. In those days before social networking, very basic asynchronous computer conferencing was used for my participants to discuss a controversial topic online (rape). I was looking for instances of flaming and self-disclosure and boy did I get some! The topic stimulated some very revealing comments, many about personal experiences of rape / assault and many personal views on the motives and reactions to rape.
Obviously, I have kept these to myself, however I now know many of my participants! and none of them have ever mentioned my study (they have either forgotten my name or do not want to relate the experience...). In those early days, there were not that many people who (a) were using online communication and (b) had the technical skills and time to take part in my longitudinal study. Therefore the sample was made up of a certain type of participant and most have gone on to become established researchers or lecturers in the areas of psychology, media and/or ICT.
Therefore, perhaps a question which I could raise here or at the workshop relates to ethics and the protection of the researcher [as well as participant] as a result of having knowledge of a crime committed or knowledge of a set of extreme views held my someone else.
Look forwrad to seeing you on Sunday....Jacqui
Obviously, I have kept these to myself, however I now know many of my participants! and none of them have ever mentioned my study (they have either forgotten my name or do not want to relate the experience...). In those early days, there were not that many people who (a) were using online communication and (b) had the technical skills and time to take part in my longitudinal study. Therefore the sample was made up of a certain type of participant and most have gone on to become established researchers or lecturers in the areas of psychology, media and/or ICT.
Therefore, perhaps a question which I could raise here or at the workshop relates to ethics and the protection of the researcher [as well as participant] as a result of having knowledge of a crime committed or knowledge of a set of extreme views held my someone else.
Look forwrad to seeing you on Sunday....Jacqui
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)