The Click Have Eyes

We live in the most surveilled part of Europe. Filmed an average of 300 times when we choose to leave our homes. Feel sorry then for the people of Stratford-upon-Avon as the amount of footage is about to increase. Tony Morgan, James Woodward and David Steele have launched Internet Eyes. The site gives opportunity for those behind the eyes to reap the rewards against crime. No, not 'Them', but You. In the same week when football fans were forced to pay-per-view for a match online, at the same time viewers could choose to watch streamed CCTV footage and if you 'spot a crime' - it's a GOAL!

Alongside the Government plans for ID cards it appears that we are to live as part of increasingly 'inclusive' series of surveillance recordings as we literally zoom in and out of view. The forthcoming nationwide launch of Internet Eyes could be a profitable business. It represents the taking of a virtual journey to uncover criminal incidences just click away. For viewers this means they feel warm and fluffy having uncovered criminal situation/s (Poirot has nothing on these CCTV viewing couch surfing detectives).

Some key points
1. Should such surveillance not be in the hands of professionals and not the public
2. This can only ever work as a 'gesture' in the fight against criminal activity. And I doubt that we'll be allowed to view the CCTV footage inside bank boardrooms.
3. Internet Eyes could represent the next round for reality tv. A pay-per-view which would accumulate as a cash prize for those Spotter's of the crims. There could even be T-shirts.

So there you have it, a business proposition that profits on 'rising crime rate', social surveillance, a bit of public fear and status given to the 'eyes of good' to bring crime rates down and, in principle, convictions up.

Convinced? You could buy the T-Shirt, pay-per-view and find out.

A more exciting and unique use of CCTV has been muscially ascribed by The Get Out Clause. Watch and enjoy viewers. Best of all, no crime.

TEDx Stating the obvious?

Isaac Newton told us that when an apple fell from a tree it invariably headed towards the ground. Noam Chomsky told us we only make sense of the words of another person because we share a knowledge of the basic grammatical structure of language. Such things might seem obvious – especially when presented in a necessarily brief manner to an audience that does not share a common disciplinary background.

I am a social scientist and this means that, in common with others in my discipline, I seek to understand the social world that we all share. We do this through theoretically informed empirical research. So yes - for some people parts or all of my presentation at the recent TEDx might be dismissed as 'trivial', 'uninteresting' or 'boring'. Such critics have every right to hold and broadcast their opinions. However, in so doing they are closing their minds to the possibility of understanding or as Max Weber (another social scientist – but rather more venerable and long dead) put it ‘verstehen’ - by which (broadly) he meant to indicate that human interaction and society is so complex that it may be best understood through detailed description and interpretation. Even if this is 'just to' state the obvious.

It might be maintained that we ‘just get on with’ our interactions across SNSs and so forth. My talk was not of a ‘how to’ kind - as clearly for the audience at these events - Blogs, Twitter, Facebook and so forth are a part of everyday life. Like other social scientists (for example, Erving Goffman and more recently Anthony Giddens to name two) my concern is to ‘get under’ the everyday, the often mundane and taken-for-granted.

Does this matter in our web 2.0 world? Yes - because as social life embraces or (according to some) moves ‘online’ (an old fashioned label to some, including myself) this brings with it all the good and bad aspects of human behaviour. Indeed this shift may enhance or exaggerate and accelerate some forms of behaviour - we have all read reports of ‘cyber’ bullying, relationships damage through SNSs ‘affairs’ and so forth. More pragmatically, an understanding of how and why people move across social media will help in the design of better and sustainable resources. However, the study of such things is still in its infancy and conventional academic work struggles to keep up with the fast pace of change in social media and accompanying research.Thus, the media that you are immersed in and take-for-granted is strange, risky, fast, ephemeral and trivial to most of my academic and commercial colleagues.

My first TEDx proved to be an interesting experience - I’d like to thank my critics for their considered thoughts – I don’t (yet) have a complete answer (but then I’m not as well established, prominent or well-rewarded as the ‘great men’ mentioned above or the other participants at TEDx) - but your responses will feed into my research and the work on my book, ‘Encounters With. Social life in the network society’, in which I am exploring the issues raised in my talk as well as many others in appropriate depth.

For other hot issues on the day and social media noise about TEDxman you might also want to check out the only other female speaker; Sarah Hartley - @foodiesarah

As well as the other attendees and participants,
Louise Bolotin - @louisebolotin

Ian Aspin - @IanAspin

Kim - @Global5ocialite

Ian Forrester - @cubicgarden

And of course the photos - where one shows me uncannily smiley :-D

Saving the world by design

DURING my now long/er book writing-days, I am now taking time out between chapters and chai tea and am in development of one or two brave ideas with the Environment Department at the University of York. The latest endeavour is to take a lead with social media for a project that will record, track and follow data and information about a specific geographical area of ecological interest.

The key focus will be on the participatory nature of the digital content. Something we have seen already with regard to building specific 'web communities' (circa 1990s community spaces, newsforums etc.), but this time around usergenerated content will be a part of the creative tools to generate ‘noise’ and sustain connections. This is with the additional aim of a collaborative working approach and future publications too from an academic side of things.

So far, so innovative and full of potential with a capital 'P'. We might not save the world with our datavaillence, but there will amble opportunity for participation and a creativity in ways that academia in particular is still getting used to. Might see some whales too.

TEDx trepidation

In the spirit of 'ideas worth spreading', I have been asked to present at TEDxManchester (with thanks to Ian Forrester @BBC Backstage).

x, because this represents an independently organised event. Albeit with a BBC edge.

This will be my first TED. This will also be the first time I have ever been asked to contribute without a good sense of who the other speakers are, what direction the day will take, or the connection to audience – in my mind the most important part of any conference, unconference or otherwise. Let alone the size of the event itself. This is self-organisation on a small-to-many-scale. And I am as yet unsure as to my role, or the expectations and development of sustained interest with the others whom I hope to encounter. My only regret is that I will have to rush back to York before the close of day for more presentations and various interviews from a North East based.

As technology is my thing it seems only natural that these form the main thrust of my talk. As the pace of everyday life accelerates with various social technologies, my key question is whether we have a better handle of ourselves and/or of others? Social platforms in particular are a central part of what Castells tied together as 'networked lives'. This is a central issue beyond the rise of a technological modernity, which has thrust us into social sensibility that is as rapid, in terms of updates and change, as it can be tumultuous.


To make sense of this type of social existence I suggest these are the signs of the times where the immediacy – the combination of at-once-connection to others and the ubiquitous nature of social media – emerge as core features, which are supposedly under, but never ever completely, our control.

My aim is to draw attention to the coming and arrival of social information in our lives. Thus, the anticipation of reciprocated connections inexorably change how we (should) think about social media, networks, sociability and behavioural practices. In short, such change has already and shall continue to revolutionise our social and cultural rules, rituals and values. But are we ready for that?...

And is TEDx ready for a 'social scientist'... social media analyst or otherwise.

Whatever happens on the day I'm excited to be meeting - such is the advantage of being a Speaker - Herb Kim a figure-head in technology circles and who has more than one 'idea worth spreading'.

Arnie's problems with Eraser, as I Total Recall

Where is my en mass delete?! Surely I cannot be the only one - such is the surmountable volume of messages etc. via daily social media ramblings - who builds up a bulky backlog of read and sent messages that should, nay must be deleted.

Such en mass delete is no problem on my gmail. And I quite enjoy the 'delete all' of my SPAM box. But where is this option for Facebook; for Twitter?! Should I stop tweeting?..

So far I have found that Twitter only allows us to delete as message by, slow point and click, message. This is taking forever. I, like you, have better things to do than go through on a one-by-one basis and take out the wheat from the chaff.

I hear web rumours of software that allows you to delete messages en mass. From my American friends they rate DM Whacker. But does this allow message filters too I cheekily asked. 'Yes' was the reply! Happy days!

Which led me to discover this little gem. Did you know that by deleting your sent message, you also delete the same message from the recipients inbox. It's like it never happened! So if you regret that quick 'hello' to a particular Twitter friend you can now, in effect, go back in time via a delete and pretend (to yourself) that 'that' never happened. Handy. But does this work in real life too? Surely Arnie had similar problems in Eraser... And as I (total) recall that didn't end so happy...

Macabre presence. Being Gordon Brown's (only) Fan.

'Bored at lunch' reveals that Gordon Brown has 973 Facebook Fans. And he is in good company, as new list that mixes Web 2.0 social media and Government highlights the 'Top 10 agencies with the most Facebook fans.' The Top Three, in descending order, congratulations to the White House (327, 592 fans at 23:04pm GMT, 16th September), followed by the Marine Corps and Army. Americanism bias aside, what's the fig big?

Let us return to the Brown. BBC Two’s Daily Politics have given Brown a Fantasy Facebook. Not a page unbound with high profile friends, instead revealed are Brown's likes and dislikes - as you or I may appear.The 'Profile' comes across as quite charming actually. One mere point, click and Google away on labour.org and Labour Vision lets you ‘send to Facebook’, Gordon Brown: You have to grow not cut your way out of a recession – one can only assume to promote Labour ‘success’ or as an indication to Facebook friends how bored you were on your lunch break, which leaves it up to them how seriously to take your friendly Facebook Share.

But what exactly is going on here? What are the likes of Government policy and party members doing roaming across social media platforms demanding 'fans' and tweeting to Followers? Is this all part of a new political t/ask force? A novel means of Government innovation? Representation of Civil Service modernisation? Well that’s not really Brown on the Facebook Fan Page. So what’s being done with all those ‘Fan’ comments, Wall posts and Discussion suggestions? Perhaps evidence of a new political Think Tank. I have not Googled/Facebook yet, but I’m sure David Cameron is in on the social media act.

The wider issue here links to social presence and surveillance. The overt stratregy may to sustain party interest, but isn’t this a little grey with covert tendencies as such pages stand somewhere between satirical irony and another aggregated data depot. Perhaps the thinking goes something like, ‘oh, I see that such and such is a Fan of Brown, yes that gives him credibility I will vote for him in the next election.’ Rather than, ‘I see such and such is a Fan of Brown, where do I ‘de-friend’?...’

Novel and engaging? Or annoying and vague? Perhaps this depends on not only the whom and what the social media noise is about, but the WHERE and WHO has published the information. FYI Gordon’s Facebook Fan Page has not been self created. Can we assume then that his endorser is a Fan, a friend, family, or just Spam?...

Personally I do not have a Facebook Fan Page (In much the same vain, I do not have a Wikipedia entry. Yet. I would prefer ‘another’ to create and nominate my namesake instead. Then look forward to various ‘facts’ running amok for their inaccuracy across the Web. Hint, hint dear reader). By deploying social media are political agencies seeking new validity with the common man? Are they anticipating immediate involvement from a ‘positive’ association with a brand development across such platforms? What happens to the information and who is reading/recording the postings to such pages?

Certainly not Brown. Surely not the Labour Party. Maybe this is a new opportunity for the next smear campaign between the political parties. Rather than email, they can really lay criticisms at each others door with a awkward Wall post or repeated Poke. Such mediation should safeguard political presence, could be part of a Government 2.0 strategy or simply evidence of Digital Britain innovation.

Maybe Gordon will be my BBFF (Best, Best, Facebook Friend)?

The smell of the Web

What would the Web smell like if it had a scent? Not exactly the a subject one ponders on a daily basis, but an intriguing idea none-the-less.

Indeed, behind the scenes most of the Web's hero's do little to project the fragrant and attractive aroma of cut grass and invigoration. Although Steve Job's Apple could be indication of potential fragrant muse in this direction. Imagine everytime you opened your ibook and the experience was met with not only a happy mac icon, but Apple fragrance.

Late in the 1990s it seemed a good idea to promote the concept of a smellivision. Farming Today was particuarly popular and represnted a potential heady mix of countrywide smells destined for city based homes. Until it was realised that this also meant the likes of Jeremy Kyle would become more obnoxious. Not only to eyes and ears, but also to the nose.

As a new interactive feature the Scratch and Sniff Web.0 could be the future. Instead of 'log in' we could have 'sniff in' - the recognition of a distinctive scent that allows open access to our personal content.

My fragrance would be 'fresh cut grass', when I smell freshly cut grass I get this air of clarity. It wakes me up and invigorates. And is a damn sight more exciting than typing in the same characters across numerous social media platforms as a passcode. Why not smell your way through the Web? Facebook access could be mediated by your perfume or cologne, Twitter a show-y scent, the kind that is reminiscent of those scenes from shopping malls as counter girls and guys ATTACK! wrists with the latest Brand Beckham gym sock distinction.

Hmmm… I'm not sure what YouTube would smell like - I fear for potential loo roll, or other tube based allusions. However, I would be encouraged to log onto a restaurant review site to stimulate appetite. Just maybe not MacDonald's...

Other notables are various web consumer opportunities, log onto Amazon for that fresh book smell, eBay for the aroma of old socks, Flickr to recreate days at the beach.

The next step is to replicate taste, a screen lick concept if you will.