Privacy TEDtalk Videos

 Privacy in this digital age has become nonexistent. What was once simply a tool in order to find depths of information has now divulged into tracking devices, into file cabinets of personal information, and most terrifyingly: into a database of what you and every single American are doing, where you're going, and millions of subtle details into the person you are.

Prior to the influx of wearable and carriable technology, the personal habits of American citizens was truly private. The daily goings on of a mom who preaches word of the gospel to her bible study who has not been to church in a year, to a father who prides himself on being a family man but stops off at the local strip club every Friday after telling his wife he has to "work late" used to be known to only by those individuals. However: that is now no longer is the case. The father Facebook messages his wife as he leaves the office and is logged into Facebook's database, Apple's Maps app tracks and logs his drive to the club, the instant license plate reading surveillance cameras perched atop decades old light posts give evidence of his weekly arrival, and finally his phone call to his dancer who he has built a rapport with is done in a system which was built for surveillance first.  

Someone is consistently listening, watching, and logging the goings on of the over a billion individuals around the world who use this technology every day. There is are violations of our privacy happening every second of every day and on a scale where it is too intimidating to do anything about it. I think of my generation, Generation Z, who has grown up entirely online, who from a young age and before anyone knew the repercussions have been posting and searching and calling about information which has the potential now to ruin our lives. Our childhoods are saved into hard drives, our private questions which we are too scared to talk to family are friends about but trusted the surplus of information on the internet to help answer are etched into the digital tattoos of the people we are. 

This leaves us at an unsurprisingly sad state: realizing that it may just be too late for us.

Diffusion of the iPod

 The iPod, a portable MP3 player originating just after the dawn of the new millennia in 2001, dawned just mere months after Apples introduction of iTunes, a platform to purchase, sell, and download music. Apple, wanting to get into the portable device category sought after a market less saturated than digital cameras and camcorders- coming to the realization that the portable music playing devices of the time were useless and poorly designed and in the need of an innovative makeover- and who better to do that than Apple? The original iPod debuted with a sleek design and the capability to hold 1,000 songs, pre-packaged with headphones and a charger. 

The iPod immediately performed well with its primary adopters, quickly becoming the leading MP3 player among all markets, adored by athletes for its lightweight feel and headphone compatibility while working out, as well as casual use for its ease and quality while also looking unique and sleek. After earning a reputation as a respected entertainment device, the iPod eventually came to be accepted as a business device, used by government departments, major institutions, and international organizations  turning to the iPod line as mechanism for business communication and training, such as the Royal and Western Infirmaries in Glasgow, Scotland, where iPods were used to train new staff.

At their peak in 2009, eight years post its original release, the iPod saw 24 million quarterly sales. However, its success began (and continues) to fall as the inclusion of the iTunes Store as well as other music sharing/downloading vessels such as 8tracks, Spotify, and Soundcloud gained popularity and became accessible through the time's increasing popularity of smartphones. 

All MP3s, but especially through the popularity of the iPod, standardized the social norm of wearing headphones in public. Even on campus now, walking to class many of my peers will walk with their head down and headphones in, mind unfocused on the world around them as they sink into the mundanity of their own music and own worlds. I'm willing to bet you've tried to say "Hello!" to a friend you see on the street who becomes completely oblivious due to having their headphones in. 

Personally, having an iPod from a young age allowed me to find an individual identity in my music taste and grow as an artist myself by being able to find new music as well as play the songs which influence my style now over and over again. However, I will be the first to admit I was one of the kids who would sit on the bus with their headphones in, not talking to anyone and getting myself lost in the music while staring at my small town out the window. Is that because of my access to a distracting device, or the fact that I did not really have friends... the world may never know!

8 Values

 The Eight Values of Free Expression are integral to the free speech in our country and what makes this country so great. The value of individual self-fulfillment, the idea in which free speech enables individuals to express themselves in whatever fashion they may want, is- to me- the upmost important of the values. There are few things in this world more freeing than thought. Allowing freedom of thought to be expressed, despite how controversial or how out of the box, it allows for freedom of speech to mean so much more than just saying whatever you want- it becomes an aspect of bodily, mental, and spiritual autonomy. Freedom of individualized expression is the creation of jazz, it is the choice to wear knee black knee high boots, winged eyeliner, and a band tee to a Connecticut country club, its standing up to your relatives whose religious beliefs disregard the essence of your identity. 

The concept of individual self-fulfillment is integral to the function of modern society- however two I find the most intriguing are through social media and the music industry. Social media- especially in content created by and targeted for generation Z- is anchored in individuality of the creator. The creator does something unique, whether its an individual like @bestdressed on Instagram whose content is reliant on her ability to shop secondhand and vintage and still create distinctive, while eccentric outfits (and to me rightfully earning her namesake) to a TikTok creator whose entire persona  (and I cannot make this up) is covering his head and chest with different condiments, such as Nutella and ketchup, and then acting as the Joker from the Batman universe. This is not a dichotomy, but the prolific reality of life on the internet. Individual self expression, especially in the way in which social media not only encourages but celebrates it, allows for individuals who before may have thought they were the only ones going through something or the only ones who like certain unconventional things to feel less alone. Not only does the freedom to express oneself create a happier populous, but it creates niche markets and communities across social medias around likeminded people. 

The music industry is another environment in which self actualization is integral to its function. The creation of music in and of itself is an incredibly personal experience, an expressive art form utilized to discuss facets of someones life they either need to let out or a message artists believe their fans need to hear. Everyone has felt the community of singing back lyrics sung by their favorite artists- thousands of strangers united in the pain or joy of one person, this community only found through the kindred connection formed by someone's art. People revere artists from The Beatles to Kanye West and everyone in between because of their ability to express themselves and create their own identity as an artist. This autonomy in style and voice is what makes music so easy to connect to, individuals having the opportunity to find parts of their own individuality through the voices of artists. If not for the concept of individual self-fulfillment, there would not be the diversity in style, craft, and art that there is today.

Why War?

The anti-war sentiment seemingly is quite popular among voters- becoming a staple of the personal platforms of young and left leaning voters. Even the idea of being pro-war is assumed to be a conservative strongpoint, their ideology presumed to point towards the notion that war is a necessary circumstance, a way to prove America's strength and prove our power to anyone who is not a blatant, westernized ally- regardless of the inherent xenophobia it seems to both be fueled by and insights after the fact.

This why I find it so interesting that on the main lading page of articles in the American Conservative there is post after post, article after article detailing the troubles which come alongside going to war. I even spotted one from just two weeks ago which details what would seem to be a very liberal issue- "How Our Pointless Wars Made Life Hell for Religious Minorities." This article details the problems with the America First mantra which Trumpers yell from the rooftops, and taking a critical eye to their own party's idea of what is going on in a post-ISIS Palestine.  Detailing how US intervention causes a spike in religious persecution towards not just Christians, but Yazidis as well. It brings a really interesting thought, looking at these sentiments of American pull back and care for other human life being a middle ground- these ideas being chanted by mainstream liberals are said in whispers by conservatives alike. Antiwar.com leans into that inclusivity, calling themselves a self-proclaimed hub for libertarians, pacifists, leftists, 'greens,' and independents alike, as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism." 

Then how have we reached a place in which war is considered a partisan thing? That the systemic murder and planned destruction of other countries in the guise of "help" has become a societal norm? Is it the financial benefits to war- so great that media imposes the rhetoric that its necessary? We may never have answers to these questions- but looking towards the answers are deeply necessary. 

History of Emojis and Why they're Here to Stay

You always hear that history has a funny way of repeating itself- and the dan of emoticons is just another

example of human’s ability to reinvent and adapt, while always keeping in mind where they came from.

From writing hieroglyphics upon tomb walls in ancient Egypt to typing out emojis on a Facebook wall.

At the dawn of the internet, all content was entirely text-based; meaning between the 1960s and the

1990s all emoticons were rendered in ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange,

a standard code sed by smaller and less-powerful computers) and could only be read sideways.

Super scientist Scott E Fahlman asserted that :-) could indicate “humorous” posts on message boards

and :-( could indicate “serious” posts. The primary went on to gain a reputation as the humble Smiley-

that recognition unfortunately not being equitable with its partner the Frowney.

As the 90s transitioned into the new millennium, emoticons became a personal experience of creating individualized emotions through different combinations of keyboard symbols. What were previously just various keys used for code or type now. Being used in intricate ways to express facial expressions.

Then finally comes the emoji. Emoji is a Japanese word that translates to English as “e” for “picture” and “moji”

for character- a very fitting name for the small creative pictures used in text exchanges. The first emoji was

created in 1999 by Japanese artist Shigetaka Kurita, wanting to design an attractive interface to convey information

in a “simple succinct way.” Kurtia sketches 176 original 12 pixel by 12 pixel images

This influx of emoticon and emoji usage actually helps the way in which people communicate. The media richness theory is the idea that media has different levels of richness, i.e. the ability to understand the facial expressions and full range of emotion through a medium of conversation. For example, a phone call allows for people to hear vocal inflections but not see facial expressions during a conversation. Thus, emojis being inducted into everyday texting scenarios made a relatively shallow medium into one whose richness gets deeper with every new batch of emojis.

1] Augustyn, Adam. 2020. "ASCII | Communications". Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ASCII.

[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/emoticon

[3] https://www.thoughtco.com/emoticons-and-emoji-1991412

[4] https://www.thoughtco.com/emoticons-and-emoji-1991412

[5] https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/isre.9.3.256

The Black and White of What Constitutionally Matters

 The Six Clauses of the first amendment, in one succinct sentence, fully detail the extent of our American freedoms. This legendary sentence would truly lead to detailing the way in which our country handles itself, the values which its citizens carry, and the intrinsic rights of man that are inherent to being American.

However, as we've seen for centuries and specifically in the past few months, the fashion and execution of these rights is something still hotly debated. Looking towards the Black Lives Matter protests of current day, theres a dichotomy: looking at the day-lit protests which give the likeness of the Dr.King protests from the 60s, turning into scenes replicable to the LA riots of the 90s. The sentiment has stayed the same through the decades, people of color and allies to the movement using both their freedoms of speech and assembly to outcry that the heightened killing of black people by the police and the unjust system of racism thinly veiled by our country must end. Once researched, theres no argument that this is a reason for revolting, centuries of aggression muffled by the sounds of small victories which distract from the larger issue at hand. 

But the question here isn't whether or not the turmoil is warranted, but rather if it is indeed constitutional. To answer that, we must diverge from just the first amendment to the 14th, detailing, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," (Cornell Law School).  This clearly details that these systems of oppression used and maintained by the state can no longer occur, right? This one sentence should undo the decades after it which allows for the school to prison pipeline, exacerbated arrests and sentencing of people of color, redlining districts populated by race majorities, shouldn't it? 

Probably not coming as quite the shock- no it doesn't. The Slaughter House Cases presented a precedent stuck with by the Supreme Court nullifying the privileges and immunity clause, the exact clause meant to protect the rights of any minority group lasted in its full fervor for less than 10 years,  a group of rich white men yet again taking away the rights inherent for anyone who isn't them.

So we look back at Black Lives Matter to answer the question: is it constitutional? In short: yes and no. The right to redress our grievances is the final line in the sentence which defines the way which we are allowed to use our voices as weapons in a fight than spans generations. However, when we're caught in an endless cycle of rules getting changed in a battle which only benefit one side, maybe the idea of whats constitutional falls short to the question "what is right?" 

My Ruling on the Supreme Court

 

The United States Supreme Court, gracing themselves with the namesake of "the highest judicial body on earth" whose job is to "safeguard American Liberty" has been a body who is all but humble in the immense power in which it holds. This ultimate authority over human nature in our country being granted to nine old (typically male and even more typically white) people has flaws inherent for anyone willing to question American conventions to spot from a mile, or oceans away. 

In the video, Justice David H. Souter makes an offhanded remark when asked about the severity of this position, saying "you do the most work when you forget that you're here." Is it valid to allow the severity of your position to fall into normalcy solely because of time? Sure, jobs which sound intriguing to the hopeful applicant can reveal themselves as ultimately a dichotomy of minutia and lunch breaks, but when the decisions made on your typical work day effect the lives of the money and set the precedent for how situations should be handled is it defensible to shrug your way into the courtroom, 10 minutes late with an expresso just as you would to the office?

Maybe I'm being too critical, maybe mundanity is inevitable regardless of career path. As I watched the documentary, there was one other sentiment which truly stuck out to me. Drew S Days III, former Solicitor General of the US details just how important and truly awesome the power of the role of judge is, giving. your argument to nine willing and able sets of ears ready to debate and differ against your ideas. The judges themselves going on a tangent about just how powerful the aural arguments are, how strength and intrigue in a lawyer's diction when presenting the case can make or break the ruling. If nothing else,  the courts provide yet another example of the fortitude of the written word. And yet, Days' most interesting point was how, once your argument has started, how casual it feels. "It's just you have a conversation with nine people, everyone has the common goal of doing whats right." 

His idea leaves an interesting discovery, that maybe great power and great responsibility don't have to always feel so immense, that just maybe casually accepting the severity of the role of a Supreme Court judge isn't the wrong- however exactly right reaction. Sure, you're garnering the responsibility of a nation, but that nation is just comprised of people, individuals all looking to live life for the same pursuits: life, liberty and happiness.