This post was written in and posted from Word 2007. The latest version of Word allows you to post to a number of popular blog engines with some limitations. I didn’t have any problem connecting to my blog, but I wish that the ability to upload files to my Flickr account was built in to the interface. I’ve attached a quick image to see if Word 2007 can post to the blog I host.
UPDATE: Worked pretty slick. Thanks to Weblog Tools Collection for bringing this to my attention. For those who would like a tutorial, check this link.
This has been blogged to death but since I’ve been referencing it in a number of workshops it just made sense to have it here on my site.
Michael Wesch, Associate Professor of Anthropology at Kansas State University, has created this 5-minute warp speed video that shows us the evolution of the web, but also how it has shaped and been shaped by evolutions in the types and social nature of various online applications. It seems to me that this movie could be just the tip of the iceberg and that it would be a great foundation or even a springboard for a larger study of how we are shaped by our technology and in turn serve to shape technology. The cyclical relationship between man and machine. Hmmm…
Anyway, enjoy…
[tags]ethnography, machine, video, web2.0, wesch, youtube, video [/tags]
This link is the full text of the legislation. - post by edventures
Senator Ted Stevens’ second attempt at regulating content on the Internet under the auspices of protecting children from online predation. - post by edventures
Lamar Smith, Republican representative from Texas, has introduced a bill which is the House equivalent of DOPA. Read a review here. - post by edventures
This came in from our state EdTech listserv, and I thought I would share it for those who are interested in advocating for the restoration of EETT funding:
The Administration recently released its proposed FY08 Budget which calls for the total elimination of critical education technology funding. Specifically, the Administration’s Proposed FY08 Budget would zero out the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program. Combined, the proposed FY08 budget cuts education technology by $290 million alone.
Before the House and Senate put forth their budget proposals, send a letter to your congressional representatives asking them to save EETT. CLICK HERE to enter your zip code and send a letter with this important message.
These proposed cuts come at the same time that the Administration and Congress are concerned that America’s students lack sufficient academic background in math and science, imperiling their personal and the nation’s competitiveness in the global economy. Denying education technology knowledge and tools to America’s k12 students and teachers not only does not advance that agenda, but undermines it.
With the House and the Senate working on a budget resolution over the next five weeks, now is the time for members of Congress to hear from you that education technology funding must be restored. Now is the time to make your voice heard in support of the EETT program.
CLICK HERE to enter your zip code to send your letter to the House and Senate asking to save EETT and to fund it at $700 million.
Every letter generated during this crucial time will make a difference. Even if you already took action a few months ago, please send another letter and spread the word to your friends, family and coworkers. Your voice matters!
Tell Congress to KEEP AMERICA COMPETITIVE and save funding for EETT!
ETAN updates are brought to you by the Consortium for School Networking and the International Society for Technology in Education
Hot off the blog presses it appears that Google has finally gone official with their commercial release of Google Apps. I’m quite happy that they have included Docs & Spreadsheets and Shared Calendaring which I thought was an obvious omission when they first rolled the suite out. They’ve also embedded API and tech support for their paid service.
At first glance, it seems reasonably priced at $50/year, but upon further review the pricing structure is $50 per user per year. So rather than attract an audience in the small business, non-profit organization and small school higher ed markets, the pricing structure may only be appealing to larger organizations such as Disney’s Pixar. You can compare the feature sets between their Standard and Premier editions although the difference seems to primarily revolve around email storage capacity, service continuity and support, and the ability to integrate APIs and third-party apps. Incredibly, Docs and Spreadsheets is included in the Standard feature set so if you don’t require advanced integration points and don’t mind ads, don’t bother with the Premier at least until they roll out more features.
I’m still waiting/hoping/expecting integration with their Google Groups feature in order to support a small team approach to project management.
The Free Geek Project - Here is a program worthy of note and emulation. Not only does it address the issue of the technology graveyard in a manner both unique and socially conscious, it’s underlying tenets challenge the paradigmatic approach to learning that our educational institutions have come to embrace. Watch the video, observe who is teaching us and think about how you could create a similar environment in your own teaching and learning world!
UPDATE: The full text of this bill is now available here.
As if Senator Stevens and Representative Lamar Smith’s bills weren’t enough, now there is yet another bit of proposed legislation in the House to
…amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require recipients of universal service support for schools and libraries to protect minors from commercial social networking websites
and chat rooms.
On Friday, February 16th, Representative Mark Kirk of Illinois introduced House Resolution 1120, the full text of which has as of this post had not yet been entered into the Thomas database although it’s placeholder can be found during a search.
According to a CNet News blog authored by Anne Broache, this bill is nearly identical to last year’s DOPA proposal. Broache quotes Kirk’s floor statement:
“I believe this is an entirely appropriate action to help parents determine
what their children can and cannot do online,” Kirk said in a floor statement
introducing his bill. “It seems foolish for the taxpayer to subsidize what
amounts to a loophole by which children can circumvent their parent?s wishes and
unwittingly expose themselves to Internet predators.”
And as expected, library, education and civil liberties proponents are again objecting to the bill.
Apparently Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) isn’t the only one trying to revive DOPA. Texas Representative Lamar Smith (R) introduced legislation, cosponsored by seven other Republican representatives, to the House on February 6th which intends “To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect youth from exploitation by adults using the Internet, and for other purposes.”
In essence it holds Internet content hosting providers and e-mail service providers legally liable if they or one of their subscribers “knowingly engages in any conduct the provider knows or has reason to believe facilitates access to, or the possession of, child pornography…” The bill goes well beyond Internet Service Providers by further defining an Internet content hosting provider as any service that:
(A) stores, through electromagnetic or other means, electronic data, including the content of web pages, electronic mail, documents, images, audio and video files, online discussion boards, and weblogs; and (B) makes such data available via the Internet
The definition as written could be construed to mean any service such as mySpace, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, and countless others, perhaps even your own blog. If the bill had stopped at at “knowingly engages,” it would be entirely understandable as an overt commission of a crime. My concern is focused on the text following that statement: “…or has reason to believe…” What parameters define ones reason to believe, and what constitutes, as the bill states, “negligent failure” to report child pornograpy?
The bill later sets record retention requirements for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Section 6 give the Attorney General carte blanche to issue these parameters but hold that the regulations “…shall, at a minimum, require retention of records, such as the name and address of the subscriber or registered user to whom an Internet Protocol address, user identification or telephone number was assigned…” Failure to comply with these record retention requirements will result in a fine and/or a year’s imprisonment.
The remainder of the bill echoes Ted Stevens’ SB37 in increasing fines and prison terms for the exploitation of children and for activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography. It also requires warning labels on commercial websites containing sexually explicit material. And Section 12 cites an authorization of appropriations to the tune of $30 million dollars for each FY 2008-2012 “to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to carry out the Innocent Images National Initiative.”
The problem with this bill, as with DOPA and Senator Stevens’ latest incarnation, is that it employs fear to manipulate the public into accepting this loss of freedom and personal privacy. As a father, I am all for protecting our children from predators, online or otherwise. But I am not foolish enough to believe that allowing the government to track all online activities will serve that end.
We do need to protect our children, but that begins with education and awareness at their level, not at the governmental level. If the old adage that knowledge is power holds true, then I would rather that knowledge be in the hands of our children, that they could learn to protect themselves.
Technology integration is not a new problem, just take a look at this YouTube video for an historical perspective.
Passed on to me by one of my graduate faculty members.
UPDATE: The original link was taken down by the user, the new link above gives the video but without the English subtitles. But it doesn’t really matter if you think about technology support and watch the body language!
UPDATED UPDATE: ZrednaZ reposted the video by popular demand so I relinked to the version with English subtitles.
So after Danah Boyd’s post, I thought it only prudent to take a look at the actual text of Senator Ted Stevens’ proposed bill. Now granted, this bill is being proposed by a Senator who after the last election is now in the minority party and the likelihood of this bill passing is small but it still bears our attention.
The problem I see with this bill, as with many bills proposed by either party, is that on the surface it appears to address a certain obvious problem. In this case, the general theme is that we are trying to protect our children from digital predators, unscrupulous marketing agencies, oh yes, and themselves. It sends the message, what sort of person would NOT want to protect our children? And places those who oppose the bill’s other tenets in a very uncomfortable position. The question is, what is the unspoken intent and resultant fall-out of this bill should it become law?
Back to our examination…
Title I–Protecting children lists as its primary aim, “To stop the video transmission of child pornography in video format.”
This section appears to focus primarily upon video rental agencies. It amends the language in the Communications Act of 1934 and essentially increases fines associated with violations. It also orders the removal of explicit material from the home page of any site (which assumes that the site has a redirect to the home page and that searchers aren’t going directly to an internal page).
Title II–Deleting Online Predators intends to develop Internet education and awareness programs for children whilst protecting them by including “protections against commercial social networking websites and chat rooms.”
This section operates on three assumptions, entitled “Findings.”
Sexual predators approach minors on the Internet using chat rooms and social networking websites.
Sexual predators can use these chat rooms and websites to locate, learn about, befriend, and eventually prey on children by engaging them in sexually explicit conversations, asking for photographs, and attempting to lure children into a face to face meeting.
With the explosive growth of trendy chat rooms and social networking websites, it is becoming more and more difficult to monitor and protect minors from those with devious intentions, particularly when children are away from parental supervision.
This section appears to address specifically schools and libraries as it replaces existing language and mandates
“enforcing a policy of Internet safety for minors that prevents cyberbullying and includes monitoring the online activities of minors and the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that– (I) protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are– (aa) obscene; (bb) child pornography; or (cc) harmful to minors; and (II) protects against access to a commercial social networking website or chat room unless used for an educational purpose with adult supervision
This section also discusses regulating “Commercial social networking websites” and chat rooms by adding the following to existing law.
(J) COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES; CHAT ROOMS Within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, the Commission shall by rule define the terms `social networking website’ and `chat room’ for purposes of this subsection. In determining the definition of a social networking website, the Commission shall take into consideration the extent to which a website– (i) is offered by a commercial entity; (ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information; (iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users; (iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and (v) enables communication among users.’.
Yet this section kindly allows for the disabling of this restriction during “adult or educational use.”
Title II also directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to:
Issue a consumer alert regarding the potential dangers to children of Internet child predators, including the potential danger of commercial social networking websites and chat rooms through which personal information about child users of such websites may be accessed by child predators; and
Establish a website to serve as a resource for information for parents, teachers and school administrators, and others regarding the potential dangers posed by the use of the Internet by children, including information about commercial social networking websites and chat rooms through which personal information about child users of such websites may be accessed by child predators.
Yet notice that the definitions of social networking website and chat room are not defined as are the other gray areas in this bill. If this bill is passed, how broad a stroke could be applied to such definitions?
Title III–Children’s Listbroker Privacy intentds to ensure that the “sale or purchase” of personal and private information pertaining to minors is restricted.
This section makes it unlawful:
to sell personal information about an individual the seller knows to be a child;
to purchase personal information about an individual identified by the seller as a child, for the purpose of marketing to that child; or
for a person who has provided a certification to engage in any practice that violates the terms of the certification.
With two exceptions, parental consent and “certification” which seems to be a rather large loophole:
(2) CERTIFICATION- Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to the sale of personal information about a child if the purchaser certifies to the seller, electronically or in writing, before the sale is completed– (A) the purpose for which the information will be used by the purchaser; and (B) that the purchaser will neither– (i) use the information for marketing that child; nor (ii) permit the information to be used by others for the purpose of marketing to that child.
It is expected that this will be enforced by the FTC and potentially by the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, and a number of other federal organizations. The one part I don’t entirely understand is Sec. 304. Actions By States. It sounds as if the Attorney General of any state may bring civil action in order to enforce this law (if passed) but there may be other allowances.
@mtnlaurel: Great-now I feel like I'm channeling SNL's The Church Lady "Well doesn't that make our naughty parts tingle!" Sorry bout the Dew 5 days ago
@elle6503: Yeah, @chrislehmann is introducing his kidz to the finer points of the 80's. Couldn't resist! 5 days ago
@sharongs: I assume the lock-down wasn't part of the presentation? Talk about a big finish! 5 days ago
