En lugar de dirigirse hacia una vasta librería de Alejandría, el planeta se ha convertido en una computadora, un cerebro electrónico, como una obra de ciencia ficción infantil, al exteriorizarse nuestros sentidos, el Gran Hermano se asienta en nuestro interior.Así que, a menos de que seamos conscientes de esta dinámica, nos moveremos hacia una fase de terrores de pánico, adaptándonos a un mundo pequeño de tambores tribales, interdependencia total y coexistencia superimpuesta.
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.
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: Technology eats the truth
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.