Why a digital detox is bad for us | Ruth Whippman | Life and style | The Guardian

Negative emotions and anxiety exist for a reason. The rancid sense of rising terror that we often feel in response to the current news cycle is a crucial early-warning system that things are indeed not right. Rather than trying to ignore and appease those feelings of anxiety by disengaging, we should be listening to what they are telling us. We need to be more vigilant, not less.

Fuente: Why a digital detox is bad for us | Ruth Whippman | Life and style | The Guardian


Todas las cosas buenas eventualmente terminan | Manzana Mecánica

Todo llega a su fin. Algunas cosas antes de lo esperado, algunas otras más tarde. A veces el fin de las cosas llega de una forma invisible, cuando deja de ocupar espacio en nuestras mentes, en nuestro tiempo, porque nuestras vidas se han movido vertiginosamente en direcciones que hasta hace poco, no habríamos si quiera imaginado. Es este, en mi opinión, el caso de Manzana Mecánica.

Fuente: Todas las cosas buenas eventualmente terminan | Manzana Mecánica


Facebook and Google: most powerful and secretive empires we’ve ever known | Technology | The Guardian

Google and Facebook have conveyed nearly all of us to this page, and just about every other idea or expression we’ll encounter today. Yet we don’t know how to talk about these companies, nor digest their sheer power.

Fuente: Facebook and Google: most powerful and secretive empires we’ve ever known | Technology | The Guardian


A day with Facebook’s trending topics: celebrity birthdays and Pokémon Go | Technology | The Guardian

From a hurricane to Brock Turner’s release, a lot happened last week. But Facebook calculated that a celebrity losing some weight was more important

Fuente: A day with Facebook’s trending topics: celebrity birthdays and Pokémon Go | Technology | The Guardian


El nuevo News Feed personalizado de Facebook no es un avance – El Mostrador

La semana pasada, Facebook anunció un cambio en su servicio de News Feed, destinado a poner a los seres humanos en contacto con personas parecidas a ellos y con formas de pensar y actuar que les son familiares.

Fuente: El nuevo News Feed personalizado de Facebook no es un avance – El Mostrador


Brexit Is Only the Latest Proof of the Insularity and Failure of Western Establishment Institutions

The decision by U.K. voters to leave the EU is such a glaring repudiation of the wisdom and relevance of elite political and media institutions that — for once — their failures have become a prominent part of the storyline.

Fuente: Brexit Is Only the Latest Proof of the Insularity and Failure of Western Establishment Institutions


Piñera es el presidenciable con más exposición en la prensa según investigación Usach

Se trata de un proyecto realizado en conjunto por el Centro de Investigación, Sociedad, Economía y Cultura (Cisec) de la Facultad de Administración y Economía (FAE) de la Universidad de Santiago (Usach) y del Centro de Innovación en Tecnologías de la Información para Aplicaciones Sociales (Citiaps) de la misma casa de estudios.

Fuente: Piñera es el presidenciable con más exposición en la prensa según investigación Usach


A Conversation on Privacy With Edward Snowden, Noam Chomsky, and Glenn Greenwald

NSA WHISTLEBLOWER Edward Snowden joined MIT professor Noam Chomsky and The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald on Friday for a discussion on privacy rights hosted by the University of Arizona College of Social and Behavioral Sciences. The panel was moderated by Nuala O’Connor, the president of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Fuente: A Conversation on Privacy With Edward Snowden, Noam Chomsky, and Glenn Greenwald


One big problem with open access and why the best way to fix it isn't going to work – Curt Rice

One big problem with open access and why the best way to fix it isn’t going to work – Curt Rice.

There’s a conflict, a tension, an inherent contradiction in the open access movement, and while it could be resolved, that seems increasingly unlikely.

The inconsistency goes like this: the shift to open access publishing started idealistically, with enthusiasm and pressure from the grassroots. The business model for disseminating scientific results would be changed. Instead of putting research into journals that were expensive and exclusive, we would make articles available for free. No charge at all. Ready to be downloaded by anyone with an internet connection.

Shaking in their boots

We developed more and more arguments for open access — not just solidarity with colleagues in poorer countries, but also the (im)morality of paying first for research to be done (through salaries) and then for the articles to be reviewed and edited (through volunteer work for journals) and then paying once again to be able to read them (through subscriptions). Add to this the monopolistic price gouging of the biggest publishers, whose profit rates exceed those of oil companies, and change seemed inevitable.

Wall Street analysts say open access has failed, but their analysis might help us succeed. If we dare.

Some of these arguments worked. Gradually, research councils pulled themselves over the gunwales and got onboard. Governments articulated policies. Universities gave their researchers a nudge.

The publishers started to shake in their boots. They really did. They got worried.

But then they got over it.

And this is where the other side of the inconsistency comes into play. The tension in the movement is that its idealistic and anarchistic origins are in conflict with what is needed for success, namely a clear message articulated by visible and visionary leadership.


Right to be forgotten? Most of us are still trying to be remembered | Dale Lately | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Right to be forgotten? Most of us are still trying to be remembered | Dale Lately | Comment is free | theguardian.com.

While some seek to erase their online record the rest of us languish on the long tail – heard, seen and read by almost nobody
laptop woman
‘The web acts like a giant version of Orwell’s “memory hole” – consigning thoughts, fears and feelings to virtual oblivion.’ Photograph: Getty Images/Image Source

The famous dream of being wiped from the web. Take former Formula One head Max Mosley, who has launched legal action against Googledemanding the removal of images of him at a sex party from the search engine. Most of the rest of us know all too well about being forgotten.

A blog I began a few years ago – a stunningly successful experiment in national secrecy located several thousand miles up a winding gorge in the outer reaches of the internet – had, like most blogs, all the virtual footfall of a moon crater in low season. In terms of impact, I’d have made more of an impression standing on an upturned bucket beside a motorway, performing interpretative dance to passing truck drivers.

I’m not alone. From musicians to entrepreneurs, writers to pop-up burger chefs, millions are desperately perspiring at the coal-face of the attention economy. One hundred and eighty-one million blogs wererecorded by Nielsen in 2011. The best part of half a billion tweets are now sent daily. Facebook, Blogger and Twitter regularly invite us to study the analytics for our posts and pages.

“I always make sure I can see the Twitter screen on my laptop when I am writing,” self-publishing author Ben Galley declares, just one of an army of unpaid e-authors who rise at dawn to promote themselves on social media before their paid job. A raft of startups like ClickSubmit and Outbrain promise to get you noticed on the net; trades from handymen to hoteliers face the prospect that unless they get busily networking to take on Airbnb and other Web 2.0 disrupters, they’ll end up biting analogue dust.

And yet with the rise of “erase your history” software such as X-pire! and ephemeral apps like Snapchat and Wickr, we seem preoccupied with an urge for removal and erasure – an idea now enshrined in European legislation. Whether individuals have the right to remove their own digital footprint is a good question, but it ignores the plight of a much larger but less celebrated group: those working hard at being remembered in the first place.


Edward Snowden urges professionals to encrypt client communications | World news | theguardian.com

Edward Snowden urges professionals to encrypt client communications | World news | theguardian.com.

Exclusive: Whistleblower says NSA revelations mean those with duty to protect confidentiality must urgently upgrade security• Watch Snowden’s interview with the Guardian in Moscow• Read the full interview with Snowden by Alan Rusbridger and Ewen MacAskill on Friday

The NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden, has urged lawyers, journalists, doctors, accountants, priests and others with a duty to protect confidentiality to upgrade security in the wake of the spy surveillance revelations.

Snowden said professionals were failing in their obligations to their clients, sources, patients and parishioners in what he described as a new and challenging world.

“What last year’s revelations showed us was irrefutable evidence that unencrypted communications on the internet are no longer safe. Any communications should be encrypted by default,” he said.

The response of professional bodies has so far been patchy.

A minister at the Home Office in London, James Brokenshire, said during a Commons debate about a new surveillance bill on Tuesday that a code of practice to protect legal professional privilege and others requiring professional secrecy was under review.

Snowden’s plea for the professions to tighten security came during an extensive and revealing interview with the Guardian in Moscow.

The former National Security Agency and CIA computer specialist, wanted by the US under the Espionage Act after leaking tens of thousands of top secret documents, has given only a handful of interviews since seeking temporary asylum in Russia a year ago.

Edward Snowden during his interview with Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger and reporter Ewen MacAskill Edward Snowden during his interview with the Guardian in Moscow. Photograph: Alan Rusbridger for the Guardian

During the seven hours of interview, Snowden:

• Said if he ended up in US detention in Guantánamo Bay he could live with it.

• Offered rare glimpses into his daily life in Russia, insisting that, contrary to reports that he is depressed, he is not sad and does not have any regrets. He rejected various conspiracy theories surrounding him, describing as “bullshit” suggestions he is a Russian spy.

• Said that, contrary to a claim he works for a Russian organisation, he was independently secure, living on savings, and money from awards and speeches he has delivered online round the world.

• Made a startling claim that a culture exists within the NSA in which, during surveillance, nude photographs picked up of people in “sexually compromising” situations are routinely passed around.

• Spoke at length about his future, which seems destined to be spent in Russia for the foreseeable future after expressing disappointment over the failure of western European governments to offer him a home.

• Said he was holding out for a jury trial in the US rather a judge-only one, hopeful that it would be hard to find 12 jurors who would convict him if he was charged with an offence to which there was a public interest defence. Negotiations with the US government on a return to his country appear to be stalled.


Guardian's Edward Snowden revelations receive backing in poll | Media | theguardian.com

Guardian’s Edward Snowden revelations receive backing in poll | Media | theguardian.com.

YouGov finds 37% of the British people thought it right to publish while 22% thought it wrong

 

Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden: a majority of Britons back the Guardian’s reporting. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

 

A public opinion poll has found that more Britons think it was right for the Guardian to publish Edward Snowden‘s NSA leaks about surveillance than think it was wrong that the paper did so.

According to the YouGov poll, 37% of the British people thought it right to publish while 22% thought it wrong. Asked whether it was good or bad for society, 46% considered it good against 22% who regarded it as bad.


Edward Snowden: public indifference is the real enemy in the NSA affair | World news | The Observer

Edward Snowden: public indifference is the real enemy in the NSA affair | World news | The Observer.

Most people don’t seem to worry that government agencies are collecting their personal data. Is it ignorance or apathy?

Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden’s revelations exposed a terrifying level of ‘passive acceptance’ of surveillance. Photograph: Sergei Grits/AP

One of the most disturbing aspects of the public response to Edward Snowden‘s revelations about the scale of governmental surveillance is how little public disquiet there appears to be about it. A recent YouGov poll, for example, asked respondents whether the British security services have too many or too few powers to carry out surveillance on ordinary people. Forty-two per cent said that they thought the balance was “about right” and a further 22% thought that the security services did not have enough powers. In another question, respondents were asked whether they thought Snowden’s revelations were a good or a bad thing; 43% thought they were bad and only 35% thought they were good.

Writing in these pages a few weeks ago, Henry Porter expressed his own frustration at this public complacency. “Today, apparently,” he wrote, “we are at ease with a system of near total intrusion that would have horrified every adult Briton 25 years ago. Back then, western spies acknowledged the importance of freedom by honouring the survivors of those networks; now, they spy on their own people. We have changed, that is obvious, and, to be honest, I wonder whether I, and others who care about privacy and freedom, have been left behind by societies that accept surveillance as a part of the sophisticated world we live in.”

I share Henry’s bafflement. At one point I thought that the level of public complacency about the revelations was a reflection simply of ignorance. After all, most people who use the internet and mobile phones have no idea about how any of this stuff works and so may be naive about the implications of state agencies being able to scoop up everybody’s email metadata, call logs, click streams, friendship networks and so on.

But what is, in a way, more alarming is how relaxed many of my professional peers seem to be about it. Many of them are people who do understand how the stuff works. To them, Snowden’s revelations probably just confirm what they had kind of suspected all along. And yet the discovery that in less than three decades our societies have achieved Orwellian levels of surveillance provokes, at most, a wry smile or a resigned shrug. And it is this level of passive acceptance that I find really scary.