My example of an imagined future in literature would be the imagined future in the book Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card. Ender’s Game is set in the future predicting an imperiled society after conflicts with an insectoid alien species. Children are trained to combat a third invasion by these species. The novel explores interplanetary spaceflights and alien species. The novel has received appreciation and criticism both alike. It is a great fantasy fiction novel that will transport you to another space and time.
Ender’s Game is the story of Ender Wiggin, a child genius chosen to save the world. The military needs a brilliant commander to fight buggers, alien enemies who have previously come close to wiping out humanity. Before he can face the enemy, however, Ender must make it through Battle School, where he learns that hatred is not reserved for the buggers alone. Battle School is where the best and brightest are trained to be military commanders through participation in intricate war games. Card’s writing allows the frenzied feel of the games to permeate the book, and Ender’s trials accelerate as time begins to run out for humanity. Because Ender is the most brilliant military mind that Battle School has ever seen, his success earns him the resentment of most of his peers. He has only himself to rely on, although his small core of loyal friends is there for him in more ways than Ender knows.By placing the fate of the world in the hands of a child, Card challenges traditional assumptions both about children and war. Ender may be small, but he thinks, feels, and acts like an adult, and an exceptional one at that.
Arriving at Battle School, Ender quickly and easily masters increasingly difficult war games, distinguishing himself and winning respect amongst his peers. Ender is soon ordained by Graff as the military’s next great hope, resulting in his promotion to Command School. Once there, he’s trained by Mazer Rackham, himself, to lead his fellow soldiers into an epic battle that will determine the future of Earth and save the human race.
Vaidhyanathan argues that, “we trust google with our personal info and preferences and without access to knowledge because we trust technology that satisfies our prejudices”, I believe this true when it comes to information or basically anything that comes to mind. We depend a lot on google for the answer.Google is a very huge popular search engine that people rely on. I always use google whenever I need an answer to my question. Google is the only search engine that I use. People put their trust in google because it is fast and you are able to find almost anything that you are looking for. Some people put out their personal information and preferences out there because they believe that google is a trusting source of technology.What people love so much about Google is the fact that it is high-speed and they think that they receive information very close to what they are searching for. Google tracks every information about you. Google has access to your photos, and they also can track where you are going from google maps. I trust google for the most part whenever I need a quick answer to my question and whenever I need to look something up. I don’t trust google with my personal information. You don’t really know if your information is secured.
Google is the most trusted website because of its branding and Google opening statement declares “When you use our services, you trust us with your information.” Yet I do not have total trust in Google or any other site. Mainly because Google has all my personal information and knows my activities. Google’s presence in the digital world has set up a vast framework that has incorporated email, cloud computing, Apps, maps, and docs, that is seems to be accepted globally.Google is the one I used the most and but as much as I want to think that everything is secure, it really isn’t.Google tracks and records my actions. This can often feel like an intrusion of privacy and makes me cautious about my personal documents and pictures. Everyone knows Google and mentions using it therefore this makes me think it’s the most reliable search engine however I do not trust it with my person information . I do prefer Google over other search engines because it is fast and you can find more results.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a law that gives you the right to access information from the federal government. It is often described as the law that helps keep citizens updated with information about the government and what is going on with the government. It is also described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government.It contains declassified documents, presidential paper collections, congressional records, and court testimony. Since 1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has provided the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. Federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA unless it falls under one of nine exemptions which protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement.
The FOIA also requires agencies to proactively post online certain categories of information, including frequently requested records. As Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court have all recognized, the FOIA is a vital part of our democracy.
The American agency which administers the work in the FOIA is a group referred to as the Archive.The Archive serves as a repository of government records on a wide range of topics pertaining to the national security, foreign, intelligence, and economic policies of the United States.Archive staff members systematically track U.S. government agencies and federal records repositories for documents that either have never been released before, or that help to shed light on the decision-making process of the U.S. government and provide the historical context underlying those decisions. The Office of Information Policy of the U.S. Department of Justice also administers the work proposed in the FOIA. The Department of State also has access to department records.
President Obama and the Department of Justice have directed agencies to apply a presumption of openness in responding to FOIA requests. The Department of Justice, in its 2009 FOIA Guidelines, emphasized that the President has called on agencies to work in a spirit of cooperation with FOIA requesters. The Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice oversees agency compliance with these directives and encourages all agencies to fully comply with both the letter and the spirit of the FOIA.
I believe that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does benefit citizens because it allows people to be aware of what’s going on in the government. It keeps citizens updated on what is going on in the world. I also believe that the FOIA does benefit citizens because it removes a lot of mystery behind the scenes and allows us, as citizens, to make the best all-around decision when it comes down to it. People should be informed about everything that is happening around the world. People should be able to make the right decisions and should be able to feel safe.
In my opinion, chapter 7, “The politics of research” from Brian Martin’s book, “Information Liberation” is available as a PDF file because the author wished for this information to be as free as most of the information one would need for research.This chapter of Martin’s book is available as a PDF file because he believes knowledge can be accomplished in many different ways.This chapter is also available to read as a PDF on the web because Martin wanted readers to understand that there are different ways of achieving knowledge. He states, “Knowledge isn’t necessarily everlasting, nor is it necessarily of general value. Rather than thinking of knowledge as great truths engraved on tablets in the sky, it’s more useful to think of knowledge as ideas that are generally agreed by specific communities.” He wanted everyone to have access to the PDF file.
Brian Martin book chapter is available to read as PDF on web, because he wants knowledge to be liberated for everyone and not to be limited towards a price. He wants readers to have unlimited ways to seek knowledge, and teach them that there are many ways to find great knowledge in order to help the readers understand more.This chapter of the book can generally be used by anyone reading it in order to recognize how these subgroups can “affect the creation and use of knowledge” by “finding disciplines, hierarchy, and competition”. Furthermore, knowledge in the subgroup culture can tend to be biased, as Martin pointed out in the pharmaceutical world, when it pertains to the funding of research in finding the best drug for a particular ailment.
Martin states the word “Knowledge” suggests certainty, authoritativeness, even usefulness. It is a good thing to be knowledgeable . Yet much knowledge is quite limited, specific, parochial.
The availability of this book chapter online exemplifies his idea that scholarship should be liberated. If it were not available for free online it would defeat his purpose of defending that knowledge and research should be free and not just accessible to people with proper funding.I believe that the availability of this chapter online exemplifies Martin’s idea that scholarship should be liberated. Having the chapter available for readers online without a price goes hand in hand with his belief that knowledge is free and very powerful in the world.Martin would want more “participatory and egalitarian” access to fair, unbiased knowledge to the ordinary person. We should be able to receive any information without paying a price. We should be able to gain knowledge in different ways. We should have access to different types of information and also have access to scholarly data.
David Weinberger discusses in his work “Too Big to Know”, how knowledge has changed over the course of time due to the development of the Internet. He speaks about how people use to have to go to school for long periods of time to achieve their degree and become actual experts in a subject. However, now in this day in age, people are considered experts just by their efforts of blogging and writing a post on social media about a particular matter. When Weinberger speaks about the infrastructure of knowledge, he is referring to the variety of ways knowledge can be achieved or portrayed. By knowledge infrastructure, Weinberger means the organization and structure of knowledge. He believes that knowledge is based on “credentials” such as degrees and publications and not simple opinions.
According to Weinberger the infrastructure of knowledge is the multiple ways people can achieve knowledge and currently the way people achieve it is not really successful. The way we grab knowledge has also changed because of the internet. The way we receive knowledge has also changed by the information given over the internet. Weinberger states that “knowledge is constantly questioned, challenged, rethought, and rewritten.” The infrastructure of knowledge Weinberger is referring to is the way we look for and receive knowledge, because of so many new networks becoming available. We can not rely on the internet too much. We have to research more in order to know if the information is accurate.He further discusses the topic of networking knowledge in his book. “Knowledge now lives not just in libraries and museums and academic journals. It lives not just in the skulls of individuals. Knowledge is now a property of the network, and the network embraces businesses, governments, media, museums, curated collections, and minds in communication.” There is so many different ways of receiving knowledge that it can be a bit overwhelming. Some resources seem more knowledgeable than others and it is up to us to decide which we believe is more accurate and well- informed.
Weinberger does reinforce that knowledge makes us better researchers in a way that we should be aware of credible and reliable information. When we have credible information and we know it is credible, the researching process becomes much easier. Yes, there is an information “overload” as Weinberger puts it, but we have filters. These filters ” increase information and reveal the whole deep sea” ( 13). There is so much information out there and there is no “running away from knowledge” we just need to know how to require information without overloading our brains. It makes the researcher find information faster by being able to find whatever they are looking for and by using certain keywords. The infrastructure (to knowledge) can be viewed as a better viewing for internet researchers. The reason to that is because there is more access to knowledge on different topics, but the only thing with that is that you would have to research more, in order to make sure that the information is accurate and not just some unreliable information.
I believe that people do have a “right to be forgotten”.The right to be forgotten “reflects the claim of an individual to have certain data deleted so that third parties can no longer trace them.” People should have the right to have a choice of what information they want to have shared on the internet. If they want any personal information about them to be removed, then they should have the choice to have that information removed. In many cases there is information about someone posted on the Internet without someone’s consent. This information should be allowed to be removed as well. If you don’t want your information to be all over the web you should have the right to request any personal data to be taken off immediately. I also believe that people have the “right to be forgotten”, because this will protect people’s rights to their privacy. The information exposed to the public might be inaccurate, irrelevant, or excessive. They should have the right to request what information they want to be removed.
I don’t believe that the “right to be forgotten’ clashes with our first amendment of ‘Free Speech”. If a person has the right to voice their own opinion aloud, then they should be able to have the right to remove any information about them that they want deleted, especially if it was done without their knowledge or consent.I also do not believe that the “right to be forgotten” clashes with our 1st amendment Free Speech rights, simply because the consumers are utilizing their 1st amendment rights by speaking up and requesting that certain information not be used against them, which, in turn, can/could cause damage to their (financial) reputation. A person has the right to their privacy. Yes people have to the right say, think, feel whatever it is they want to, however the public should not have information about others who want to keep things private.Saying whatever you want to say about someone can hurt others. If someone gets hate, they would want what they posted to be removed and forgotten.
Digital Identity refers to who we are and how we present ourselves on the internet. On the internet our digital identity is how we can identify ourselves apart from others. Each person has their own digital identity.“Digital identity” represents the information that is permanently out on the internet that essentially “describes” who we are as a person through limited information. The information can easily be either true, false, or partially true. Facebook and other social medias have control of our security and privacy when we use their platform to create a profile.
At times, we control what we put onto the internet, especially when it is dealing with social media- but on the same note, there are times that an individual cannot control what’s put on the internet. Once our identity is put out there many people can control our identity without our knowledge. I also believe that the government can play a big role especially when it comes to the collection of our data and daily lives. If we post certain things that violate the rules of a website, then it will be taken down. Certain things we can not control.
Questions for What “the right to be forgotten” means for privacy in a digital age by Abraham L. Newman
1. Is it possible that European digital privacy can also be done in the United States?
2.For a government, such as the U.S., that’s supposed to be ‘by the people, for the people’, why does it seem so difficult for our government to protect ‘the people’? Why does it seem on many occasions to give free reign to the (third party) organizations over its citizens?
3.Why is it so difficult for the United States to follow suit with the more “customer friendly” European laws regarding the “right to be forgotten” privacy movements?
Questions for ” Learning from Gawker’s Attempt to Erase the Past” by Andrew Seaman
1.How often and in what time span would retractions have to run for?
2. Can we really trust companies to make the decisions on what should be removed when their ethics may not align with ours?
3. Do you think it was right for CEO Denton to request removal of this article just because it didn’t “align with the website’s values” ?
I believe that there is bias on everything. The media tries to focus so much on one side. A lot of news channels like Fox News, CNN, etc. tend to lean towards one side. You don’t really get an opinion on both of the sides of the story. Currently the news has been focused on presidential campaigns, especially focusing on Donald Trump and all his opinions about immigrants. Corporate Interest affects the information that we receive in another alternative. As we receive information from one another, it could be either biased or unbiased. It depends on what kind of news (ex: Abc 7, Fox 5) or a source that we receive the information from. The media is trying to persuade us from one individual to another with their opinion, it may be spread around with different answers as a positive or negative sign on one topic. People believe that everything that they see or hear on a news channel is reliable information. The media wants us to believe that everything we see is true and they try to persuade us into changing the way we view certain things.
Information that we receive being it bias or not has the effect of corporate interest. The media companies, due to their corporate interest to gain, sometimes changes the true meaning of the information being send across. Some sources try to make others look good, while others try to make them look bad. Certain media will make sure Donald Trump is looked as a “actual” good candidate but that is bad bias behavior for the people. Since Donald Trump has so much control, he can control the information that is put out there with the power of money to make him look good. Regardless the presidential campaign is for the people, and should stay for the people, so they should be given the right bias information in the media.
In response to the article, “Critical Thinking, Deviant Knowledge and the Alternative Press”, written by Thomas Eland in a newsletter in December 2004 for the Minneapolis Community and Technical College, I agree with the author’s assessment of the necessity for having more of an alternative press assessed view of the world in order to have a more balanced, and well-informed society. In turn this would create more of a democratic, more “hands-on” approach in making decisions dealing with our government.
I confirm that the manner in which the media is now set up is biased, simply because it only offers a one-sided view of their corporations’ interest collaborated with the interest of the major advertisers. An example of alternative news vs. mainstream media is written in an article, “These Students are Leading a Movement for Free College in the United States”, written by Rebecca Nathanson for Act Locally on November 15, 2015. The article is shown on the website www.inthesetimes.com. This article addresses the fight for Americans to go to college for free, and how Bernie Sanders has taken up this cause. I have not heard about this in mainstream media. The mainstream media didn’t really talk about this.