A Product of Colaboration

The first day of my interface design course, we were given a bunch of sheets of paper with circles, and we were told to fill each circle up however we wanted, but we had to fill up all of them in 10 minutes. This was the first task in university where I was actually told to scribble random hings inside circles. It was awesome yet weird. None of us knew the point of the exercise, until later when the professor explained it. He said "quantity is better than quality." Now that was another first for me, I had heard of quality being better than quantity but not the other way around. It turns out that when it comes to brainstorming, the other way around works better. How often is it that the first idea you have becomes successful? Not too often.

Brilliant ideas dont just sprout out of no where, at least most of the times brilliant ideas are the product of a series of smaller ideas being developed further and further. And usually ideas are the fruit of collaboration. After drawing in those circles, we shared some of our ideas with the class. Interestingly enough some people were very creative in filling them out, including one person drawing Pokemon balls.

Today many companies have started just for the sole purpose of collaboration to solve problems of come up with innovative ideas. We saw one in the lecture by Mark Kuznicki and "The Moment". One other major example is IDEO.


"IDEO (pronounced “eye-dee-oh”) is an award-winning global design firm that takes a human-centered, design-based approach to helping organizations in the public and private sectors innovate and grow." It is a comapny composed of expert designers who collaborate to innovate. They have designed almost anything going from the first computer mouse for Apple to high-tech medical equipment. "We are not experts at any given ares, we are experts on the process on how you design stuff" -David Kelley, founder and chairman of IDEO.

Below is a video which illustrates the work environment at IDEO. I think this is where we are eventually headed towards. In todays world we need to solve problems, and innovation is the key to finding the solution. If we want to solve the global warming crisis, we need breakthrough technology that conserves energy, keeps the air clean and at the same time provide us with the services we need. If we need to solve world poverty, we need a way to balance world's riches.

Gas Prices, unsteady markets, cancer, UV radiation....so many problems and we have the potential to solve them, we just need to create an environment that fosters creativity. Closed, secretive corporations where everything is run by authority or seniority and not ability is not the way to the solution.

As humans we always have worked together to face our problems, we need to do so again. Society has become such a rigid and controlled structure that when someone thinks out of the box, they are considered weird. The fear of being an outcast is so powerful that it prevents creativity. We need creativity and only an open, accepting, encouraging and collaborative environment can enforce that.

A way to safer roads. Google's Driverless cars.

I am sure by now many would have heard of Google's new invention: Driver-less automated cars. By now these cars have driven and been tested for miles and they seem to be doing fairly well. The state of Nevada has now legalized these Driver-less cars [1]. Their law states that this car can be used, however there needs to be a licensed driver behind the wheel at all times, and this driver cannot have alcohol in their system.

These cars are a revolution, which can save thousand if not millions of lives. The number one cause of death is due to accidents. Accidents that are caused by human error. A simple thought by Sebastian Thrun: we can take away the human error by introducing machines (paraphrased).

I currently do not see any problem in using these cars as long as they are fully secure and tested. In fact, these cars can later on change the lives of people who are unable to drive such as the blind or the disabled.

Technology does not fail to surprise me and it makes me feel very proud to be in a field that has enormous potential.

Doctors replaced by technology?

Technology has made its place in most if not all of the world, including health care. There have been so many new apps built to help your and your health. A quick search on the android market with "health" gives the following top 5 app results:

• Endomondo Sports Tracker
• My Fitness Pal- Calorie Counter
• Instant Heart Rate.

and so many more. The Apple Store has several other fantastic applications that one can use for health. Some apps help you measure your fitness level, some your heart rate, some help you weight control, some help you with diagnosis. Not only mobile technology but the internet itself provides answers to many questions. How often is it that a person, instead of visiting their family doctor Googles their symptoms and diagnoses themselves.

"In a 2010 CBC survey, 41 percent of Canadian adults polled said they consult online sites for information about a specific disease, medical issue or health product. And 67 percent of the time, they trust the information they're getting."[1]. These numbers are very large, and require serious consideration.

Relying on the internet is not necessarily a negative thing in terms of healthcare. What is dangerous is if one cannot differentiate between what is true and what isn't. Sometimes many diseases have the same symptoms but different treatments, and it requires at least some medical knowledge to decide on which one it is.

In the article referred to above, an excellent example of how internet can help is given. A mother of a very sick child has been trying, with several doctors to diagnose her daughter's disease. The mother is somewhat knowledgeable in medical language, thus is capable of differentiating between what is true and what isn't. She comes across a rare condition that matched her daughters symptoms. She forwarded it to the doctors, and now the doctors are looking into the situation.

I would say the internet, and all the mobile applications for healthcare are very useful, however only to a certain extent. Applications and websites that are by credited medical organizations can be trusted, however information on discussion boards and other places where the general public participates should be taken with a grain of salt.

Maybe there will be a time when we can use machines to diagnose our problems and not worry about them being wrong, but that time hasn't come yet. When it does, imagine how it would benefit third world countries, and soldiers at war.

Although we are not there yet, we do have awesome tools that help doctors, and us a lot in terms of health. Here is a very interesting article on some of the latest life saving technologies. There is one iPad app, that can assess blood flow by color change in the face and breathing by the rising and falling of the chest, it can also send this information to emergency medical professionals! 


Cannot help but wonder at how fast technology has developed, that now it can help save so many lives.

KONY 2012....Really?

So a few days ago, I opened my laptop and logged onto Facebook, a habit that many of us have now developed. After logging in I was browsing through my news feed, it was a normal visit to Facebook. I had left the page on and went back to it in an hour, and I saw about 6-8 of my friends share one same video (posted below). It was as if within  less than an hour, my Facebook world was exposed to this issue. I don't know about you, but I found this very interesting. So like a normal user, I went on to see the video that everyone was posting. It took me a good while, to figure out what exactly the video was trying to communicate to me. I knew that there were children that needed help, but throughout the whole video, a side of me was skeptical about something. Like most people who watch this video, I became sad and concerned about theses children in Uganda. Having lived in the country for three years, I felt like I had to do something to help. In that moment, I was  ready to join the KONY2012 movement. And as everyone's first step, I shared it on Facebook, liked their page and so on. Then I went on to do a little search on this movement and how I could help. By the next day, KONY 2012 was popular in our conversations too!

When I shared the video, I had a friend of mine give me a link to a debate happening on reddit. Then I realized, that I had only looked at the one picture and had gotten ready to support it. Reading more on this topic, I began to understand both sides. Before I go on to say what I got from them, I would like to say that this will all tie in as a topic of computers and society in the end.

So firstly, lets look at the side of Invisible Children's KONY 2012 movement. As the documentary clearly states, it began with the motive of stopping the abuse and torture that these children go through. To stop Joseph Kony, who is the leader of a child army. A very important problem that needs attention. Not many knew what these children were going through, and Invisible Children wanted to make these issues visible. Of course the fact that Kony was on the top of the list for the worlds most wanted criminals, and yet had not yet been captured adds to the issue. So they start a movement, letting the North American population (and later on the world) know of this issue. Since it is an excellent cause, the movement gained millions of supporters. Just like I became a supporter just by watching their video, millions of people did too. However as sad as it sounds, there is always another side, no matter how good the cause maybe, there is probably something amiss.

Which brings me to the other side. A deeper analysis into the KONY2012 movement tells me one thing, what exactly are they trying to do? And I would welcome an argument on this because I really want to know. Their motive is to make Kony popular, so everyone knows who he is. Then what? Then since the public is so interested in this matter, the US government will send more troops over to Uganda, or keep the ones they have sent there. So what are a 100 troops going to do? Educated the Ugandan army about technology, new weapons and so on. Why? Of course, so that they can fight Kony's army. find Kony, and then capture him. Sounds like a plan! But think about the past. You cannot simply forget that the current Ugandan president rose to power the same way Kony has. You cant be so naive as to deny the corruption of the Ugandan government. If the Ugandan government was so intent on capturing Kony, why haven't they done so? Yes there may be many reasons, one of the main ones being: maybe they don't want to.

Kony and the Ugandan government are both aware of the Kony 2012 movement, and this can be very beneficial to them. After all, they are getting free trainers, and information about the US Military. Its a free passageway to strengthen your army. Not to mention the booming of economy brought on by war in Uganda.

"How intoxicating for virtual friends everywhere. One click and Kony's gone. The world remade. And they don't even have to leave the house."[1]

The point is that arresting Kony wont solve the issue. Kony is not the only one that has a part in this, many others support him too, this may or may not include the Ugandan president. Also, making Kony popular will raise awareness, but again, the US government cant really go into Uganda and take over Mission Capture Kony, they have other problems to solve within North America.

There are many other aspects to consider in this issue too, such as the question "Where does the money raised by Invisible children really go?" The answer to this, I will leave up to you to find out.

now I want to discuss a question, " What can we get out of this?" One thing that amazed me was how this movement became popularized. It is notably impressive at what technology can do for you. All you need is one idea, one thought, and access to the internet. This will allow you to spread the word to the world (literally). The Kony 2012 video was watched by about 60 million people in one week! That is just plain awesome. In the video, it was mentioned that, "the technology that has brought our planet together is allowing us to respond to the call of our friends..." that is partly true. But is sharing a video on Youtube the answer? Yes we have the power of technology, but "with great power, comes great responsibility."  Millions of people support Kony2012 blindly, this power cannot be loosely taken. Make your decisions wisely and consider both sides, jut because all your friends shared it on Facebook and support it, doesn't mean its right!

Total Freedom or Total Control?

So this week's lecture got me thinking in a broader perspective, not only about the impacts of technology but one problem that technology (the Internet in particular) has brought into our view.

Currently all of the commotion with SOPA, ACTA, Bill C-11, Bill C-30 comes to solve one problem: "How can we control the freedom that is allowed by the Internet."

To me this question is contradictory, control and freedom do not go well together. That point being made, lets take a look at our past. As a side note, history repeats itself, and we must always learn from the experiences of our ancestors.

So lets go far back to the medieval times where there was a hierarchy of kings, lords, knights, serfs etc.

Each king had the freedom of setting whatever rules on his land. Each lord reported to the king and so on. To me this was a system of total control, where the power is held by one person, and whatever they say goes. Whether this system was effective or not is entirely another matter, but note the level of control.

Now fast forward to WW2, in Germany, when Hitler was in power. It was either you follow his rules, and look the way he wanted you to look or you are dead. That's it, the end.

We can also see that while Hitler was busy with his dictatorship, on the other side of the nation there was a new method of governing that was becoming more popular every day: democracy. Which was a much gentler, softer way of handling a society. A place where every individual had a voice and rights to help create a peaceful society. That to me is one of the greatest examples of crowd sourcing. Where ideas are proposed, evaluated, and put into effect by the public. And its been working so far so good.

 So where am I going with this history/civics lesson? I wanted to point out the difference between controlled and free societies.

Now lets look at control and freedom in another context, The Great invention of the Internet (which is obviously freedom). I see the Internet as this big power that has been handed over to us. We are trying to use this power, but we are not all aware of its full potential to either destroy or improve this world we have created. A writer of The Guardian, Tom Chatfield says, "The rise of the Internet, from obscurity to ubiquity in the course of a few decades, has had profound effects on our society and on us as individuals. No one could have predicted how significant it would become, and no one can predict with any certainty how it will develop."[1]

One main thing that we need to understand, is that the Internet's purpose is to allow freedom. Freedom of information, freedom of speech, and just plain freedom. Google's chairman Eric Schmidt said the following in a news article “The openness of the Internet is one of the greatest achievements of our lifetime,” Schmidt said. “Do not give that up, you will regret it.”[2]

What some of us are trying to do, is to control this freedom. Its like telling a democratic society to turn into a monarchy or a communist society. All you will achieve by attempting to do so is pure chaos, at least in my opinion.

Citizens will be angered over the attempt of control (already happening with SOPA and Bill-C30). In response to these controlling attempts, humans have a tendency to "get back" so there will be a lot of rebellion and so on. Hopefully you can see where this is going.

So just like how democracy has replaced a system where there used to be total control, we need to think of a "democratic" solution to the total freedom that the Internet offers. In other words we need a middle ground. And when hunting down for this solution, it is very important to keep in mind that one person doesn't make a democracy; everyone acting together does.

What we can do is start by using the problem to solve the problem itself. I know, you must be thinking What?? Let me explain, our problem is to find a democratic Internet system, where majority are given equal freedom, privacy and rights. All guided by effective regulations put together by the people.

So then isn't it simple? Why not use the Internet, to spread the word about this problem, and come together with a solution? A process today known as crowd source. As discussed in lecture, crowd source the problem, then crowd source again to narrow down the solutions, and repeat until a desired solution is found. Reality is that a new idea doesn't usually come from experts in the field but from a fresh face who very few know.

Give me your opinions, I would love to talk more on this!

Aside:
When I say internet's purpose is to allow freedom, I mean "one of the purposes". However that is not the internet's main purpose (to allow information to be shared).

Also, although we have currently appointed people to make decisions on our behalf, as our representatives, it is also their responsibility to ask for our opinions on major decisions that impact our lives. Laws that guard the internet are no small issue, it affects each one of us deeply.

An interesting take on Online Privacy

Rick Mercer has pretty much put into words the general Canadian opinion on invasion of privacy. The minister of Public Safety in Canada, Vic Toews has recently been criticized over bill C-30 and his comment "either stand with us or the child pornographers". Accusations have been made regarding the amount of power the police force has, or even the government over our internet activities. According to a recent Globe and Mail article, " ...[Bill-C30] require[s] Internet companies – loosely defined – to cough up your name, Internet protocol address and a few other identifiers if the police ask for them, even without a warrant".

Bill C-30 is called the "Investigating and Preventing criminal Electronic Communications Act". To understand the purpose of this act, I went to the Canadian Parliament's website and I found a summary, which you can find here.

One of the main purposes of this act is to give the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Competition and any police service constituted under the laws of a province (in essence anyone with police authority) to have access over whatever you do on an electronic device.

According to Vic, this bill will help keep Canadians, in particular children, more safe. It will be easier to catch child-pornographers and even other online criminals. However, there is always a trade-off when it comes to security. Are we really bring protected? It seems to me that while closing one possible door to danger, another on is being opened. This includes more cost for the Internet and telecommunication companies to maintain the data required, a risk of their systems getting hacked, information being misused by police-men and much more.

Canadians, or any other person for that matter, are very concerned about who can access their information. With Bill C-30, a lot of people are able to get information about any consumer that partakes in online activities some possibly without a warrant.

So all in all, personally I don't think bill C30 will solve more problems than it will create.

Social Networking Under Crisis

So there have been a lot of arguments around the advantages and disadvantages of social networking. Some people claim that social networking has been a bad influence on individuals: more time spent in front of computer screens and less time spent interacting with others than in person. Discussing this among a few friends, a topic of interest came up which was perfect for a blog entry.

We were talking about the influence of social networking in terms of spreading the news. I know that when it comes to news, I often find out whats happening through Facebook or twitter. Although the fact that I am not much of a news reader might come into play. But often cases have occurred when we all find out important information from come sort of social network.

As a general pattern, by personal observation humanity often spreads the "news" in ways that the communicate. First it was through word of mouth, then through books and writing, then newspapers, then media, and now social networks online.

I was curious however on how social networking impacts communication in emergency situations. I found a study titled "Twitter under crisis" (http://goo.gl/xLXHL), which also served as an inspiration for this blog's title. In this study, there was a detailed analysis of the spread of tweets and re-tweets during the Chile Earthquake in 2012. They also mark the impact of "false news" and its spread as well. In the end they conclude that news is effectively filtered and the difference between truth and false news claims. A chart in their research indicated the amount of tweets made that include the word earthquake. Within a few hours approximately 7000 re-tweets were made about the earthquake. That is a lot of people getting to know in a very short time.

Twitter has helped with not only the Chile disaster but many others as well. If we consider the amount of time for people to know about natural disasters or emergency situations before social networking. Any person involved, or watching the disaster happen will call, text or perhaps report it to a news company. Most of these require a person to contact another person in order to broadcast the news. Now all it requires is a single tweet to be reached to all of your followers, who can simply re-tweet it to theirs. A LOT of difference in time, and time matters when in an emergency.


So it turns out that social networking is not all that bad. Of course there are many other pros and cons, I just felt like this was something to point out. I used Twitter as an example here, but all other social networks also contribute to spreading the news. It might seem as if I am stating the obvious, but sometimes the obvious needs to be stated in order to realize its importance!