Virtually Cheating

Last Thursday in class, Professor Perry presented an interesting hypothetical question. If you were to walk in on your significant other and he or she was having virtual relations with another avatar on his or her computer through an MMORPG (Massively Multi-player Online Role Playing Game), would you consider it cheating? When first presented the question, I thought that while I would have found the action extremely weird, I would not consider it an act of unfaithfulness. But after reading Kristin Kalning’s article “Is a Virtual Affair Real World Infidelity?,” I soon changed my mind. In her article, Kalning presents several people who had participated in virtual world relationships. With several examples, she explained how many people pursue very intense relationships through virtual world programs, and that these relationships were often stronger than any real world relationships that these people had. One married father would think up an excuse to sneak away to a computer to communicate with his virtual-world girlfriend any chance he got. He regularly spent more time with his virtual companion than his family on any given day. While this man may not have been physically cheating on his wife and family, I believe it definitely constitutes as an act of infidelity. This man was fulfilling his emotional, intimate, and companionship needs from another real life person outside of his family. It is hard to argue that this is not cheating.

Another interesting example in Kalning’s article was a 40 year old housewife who had a very deep relationship with another man on the MMORPG Second Life. She spent numerous hours a day interacting with him on Second Life and refused to ever discuss the relationship with her husband. The husband later found out that his wife was virtually married to this man on the online platform, and that the two had been having webcam chats often outside of the game. When the husband asked her to stop the relationship, the wife refused and it led immediately to their divorce. These examples show how a virtual relationship, while not physically cheating, can easily lead to the same result, and that a virtual relationship can often be more important to a person than a relationship in the real world.

Larping

Before taking this class, I drove by the park past the interstate on West End on Sundays and saw what I found to be an amusing spectacle. A group of ten to twenty adults adorned in odd medieval outfits would run around the park with play swords, javelins, and maces hitting each other and falling down. While I was not quite sure what these people were doing, I could definitely tell that all of those partaking were having fun. Over the last week, I have found out that what I saw these people doing was called larping (Live Action Role Playing) and was actually quite common. In live action role playing, participants play a game of war while portraying fictional characters in a fantasy world. After listening to the NPR interview with documentarian Andrew Neel in class Tuesday, I gained a new prospective on larping. Apparently, many people find that through larping they can be someone they normally aren’t in the real world. In the documentary Darkon, Danny MacCarthur, a self proclaimed nerd, enjoys larping because he feels that he has much more power and control in the fictional world than in his real life. To me, this seems very similar to why many people chose to play MMORPGs. They are not fully satisfied with their real world life, and they use these virtual worlds to fill some of the gaps. Another interesting person portrayed in the documentary is Kenyon Wells, a business manager who used larping to develop real world skills that have drastically improved his life. Through larping, Kenyon developed great social and leadership skills that he believed led to his promotion to a management position in a successful business. According to Kenyon, “Long before I was ready to negotiate a multimillion-dollar business contract, I was negotiating a treaty between our country and other countries in Darkon.” Although larping is a virtual game, it can be very beneficial to people’s real world lives.

The Permanent State of the Internet

During a piece on NPR’s On the Media, host Brooke Gladstone interviewed one of the show’s producers about the permanency of people’s online actions. Producer Nazanin Rafsanjani discussed his futile attempts to remove something he had posted on the internet over five years ago. Rafsanjani had written a passionate email to iranian.com discussing America’s response to 9/11. Several years later out of embarrassment and a desire for privacy, he tried to get the letter removed from the website. The editor of the website refused because the site’s policy was that every post was permanent. No matter how badly Rafsanjani wanted the letter removed; there was nothing he could do. This is a great example of how permanent one’s actions on the internet can be. While many people think their online actions are transitory and have no consequences, there is a lack of privacy in the internet which allows almost anyone to see these actions forever. For this reason, people should be very careful with what they post and allow others to post of them on the internet. A great example of this can be seen with the social networking site facebook. While I was in high school, two kids got suspended because of questionable photos they had posted of themselves on facebook. I have also heard on multiple occasions that employers and even school admissions committees examine a potential employer/student’s facebook or MySpace page to gain a better perspective on the applicant. There have also been scandals where politician’s children were singled out because of incriminating images posted of them on social networking sites. All of these examples show that people need to be very careful with their online actions, for even this blog post could be seen by anyone around the world.

An escape from reality

These virtual worlds provide somewhat of a safe haven for people who wish to escape from the lives they currently live. People seem to have normal lives, going to work and doing everyday tasks. However this is not enough for some people and they feel as to get away from these pressures of reality. Some people may not even be able to say or do certain things due to their social status. Thus, they run away to their virtual world. Here people are free to do whatever they very well please while still having the ability to conceal their identity. They are free to express themselves however they please, even if it means that they want to change their gender in the avatar. In the book Alter Ego, there are many cases of people escaping from reality to the freedom of the virtual worlds and freely being able to express themselves. For instance, there is a person names Harisu in the novel. She is a very famous model, actress, and singer in her country of origin. However, she has strong feelings of transgendered relationships that may be looked down upon in public. However, she is able to freely express her opinions in the virtual world. Also, there is another example of a mother named Charmaine. Charmaine uses the virtual world in order to have a social life while still staying at home and taking responsibility. However, she created a very revealing avatar that ended up in an erotic avatar magazine, with some nude pictures of the avatar as well. This mother would be looked down upon if she herself was to do this, but it was her avatar. She was able to free express her erotic art through this world. Thus, virtual world provide an escape from reality and all people to freely express themselves.

Monitoring aka profiling

Monitoring the population these days has lead to measures similar to the patriot act. However, these measures are a huge breach of privacy and seem more like tools of racial profiling. This is one more place where I can be “randomly” picked to be monitored or questioned. I have been to the airport plenty of times and been the one chosen “randomly” to go through the machine that detects if you are carrying any explosive materials. The patriot act is basically to protect American citizen from terrorist by monitoring phone lines and other forms of communication in order to prevent a terrorist attack. This basically means to me that anyone that doesn’t have an American sounding name will be monitored. No one with the name of James Smith or Thomas Brown will likely be monitored. However, people with names more like Mohammed or Salim or Khan will be chosen to be monitored. This seems very unfair to many people who are US citizens to have to give up their right to privacy for this act. There are many innocent immigrants who have come here to escape the very thing that we are putting them through. It is just unnerving to think someone may be listening to me while I am on a private phone call. I can’t even joke around about something without thinking twice about the consequences. This breach of privacy somewhat puts pressure on the right to freedom of expression. If someone is miserable here and speaks ill of the country they will be monitored. Thus, they will think twice about expressing their feelings in fear of someone hearing to what they say. Thus, this form of “monitoring” just seems like another way to control the population and profile minority races.

A new kind of social networking

Avatars are creations of the technology era that let people escape from reality into a world where they can do practically anything they want. Different types of personalities are custom created to whatever the user would like. Many people use this technology as a form of communication somewhat of a social networking tool. People are able to connect with other people around the world in this avatar form without really knowing who is behind the green –skinned muscular monster. This form of communication has really brought confidence in some people to help become more social than they are in reality. There may be some social barriers that deter these avatar users from being able to speak to people in person. For instance, if someone is really shy or feel awkward due to their appearance may be hesitant to speak to people in the public. However, these barriers do not seem to exist in this virtual world. There is no way of telling how the avatar user looks when communicating. It is one way of removing the physical attraction and going straight to understanding the individual. From the video seen in class, people have actually met through these avatar portals and formed a relationship. The people who only spoke through their avatars soon meet and possibly even fall in love. Thus, this is a very powerful tool to build relationships with other people around the world.

Virtual worlds – are they really the future?

In Second Life: The Official Guide, the authors suggest that Second Life, a game in which players create Sims-esque versions of themselves to live in a virtual world, represents "The Next Generation of Internet." They point to the fact that real life corporations, especially online retailers like Amazon.com, have begun using the game to sell things to real-life customers almost entirely within the game world. Also, the game has enjoyed a steady growth in its user base since its creation, boasting over 38,000 logged-in users at any given time (on average).

But does this game really represent the next stage of evolution for the internet? Will traditional web-pages eventually be replaced by in-game representations of the entities they represent? I think not.

The current trend in the progression of technology and the internet, is not the tendency of humans to live large portions of their lives within a specific virtual (but realistic) environment, but rather the tendency of technology and its accompanying interconnectivities to embed themselves into normal human life. Most people of the future will not need a virtual avatar to walk around in virtual rooms representing websites when those websites are readily available via wireless networks and are conveniently integrated into peoples' "real" lives. This trend is already fairly evident thanks to inventions like PDA's and iPhones; even normal cell phones are now considered hopelessly outdated if they do not provide the user with instant access to the internet anywhere and anytime. I suppose one could argue that our real lives are, through constant connection to the internet and data networks, become more like virtual ones. However, this is far from proving that games like Second Life will be taking over the internet; why get an avatar to do things you can do yourself?

Destroy all humans

I would like to return to discussion of the robot I pictured in an earlier blog posting, "Big Dog." Big Dog is a combat robot being developed by the US military and Boston Dynamics.

Check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww

On a similar note, check out another military ground robot here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjpH7ig0rKo&feature=PlayList&p=863B26044AEDC565&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=50 (This one may be a bit older and is more tank-like.)

This got me thinking, though – just what are the implications of having robot soldiers in the military? It hasn't happened yet, but it seems almost inevitable that at some point we will begin to use fully or near-fully automated robot troops rather than human ones in high-risk combat situations.

What are the ethical implications of sending a cold but intelligent killing machine into the field against live humans? A robot cannot feel mercy; it can only be programmed, and while it is certainly good to save American lives I think it's also important to ensure that mechanized violence does not get out of hand as a result of the removal of the human conscience from combat. Is it possible to program a robot to behave as if it knows kindness while retaining its military effectiveness? Would our military even consider implementing such programming when a more efficient killing machine is that's necessary to win battles? These are important questions that we may have to face in the near future, as I don't think Asimov's law of "A robot shall not harm a human being" will be a very workable combat strategy.

"He knows when you are sleeping. He knows when you're awake." 0_0

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day, and she was telling me how her little brother had learned to hack the school system to alter his grades at about 11 years old and had been hacking ever since. The stuff of movies? I think not!
Far more disturbingly, he had also shown her that just by gaining access to a friend's Facebook account he could track down that person's social security number and other personal information. YIKES! Don't worry, though. He didn't do anything with the information that time.

This anecdote serves to illustrate the extreme lack of privacy that has become the norm in the modern world and, obviously, has far-reaching implications. Information about individuals is collected constantly on a daily basis by other individuals (via facebook, etc) and by companies, especially advertisers, that are part of what Hull calls the "Panopticon." Living in a panopticon basically means being under constant or near-constant surveillance – surveillance that can be conducted must more easily by computers than by people. After all, what are computers if not an icon of the information age – an entity ideally composed of pure data and built or bred specifically to handle more and faster information each year.

One example of how privacy is, at least by conventional standards, routinely violated is when Google searches through a gmail user's mail in order to pull out keywords for advertising. This means that at the very least a computer, if not a person, is reading through millions of peoples' personal mail every day. It used to be a clearly defined federal offense to go rifling through someone's mail, but now it's just normal part of the program. Clearly, the world is changing. One must wonder whether we will have any privacy at all in the near future.

Real Vs. Virtual

In the past week, we have seen several examples of people and their avatars. While several of these people are simply playing for fun, and to make friends, there is an alarming number of people who log on to escape their own lives, or who allow the game to take over it. Examples include Lui Da, the teenager who works 12 hours a day in a game farm but then plays even more as soon as he gets off of work. Lucas Shaw admits that the game has taken over his life and destroyed his grades, his social life, and his health. And in the trailer for Second Skin, one can clearly hear one of the players say, “Forget dinner, let’s just do this.” This dedication to a virtual world is not healthy.

Humans must live in the real world. We have bodies here that must be fed, watered, and have exercise, or else they perish. And along with the human body goes the force behind an avatar. Since we must live in this physical world, it behooves humans to develop the skills necessary to live in it, which may not be possible within a game. Many gamers admit to having low social skills, which may or may not be a draw to online gaming, but games apparently do little to help one socialize. Many gamers trade physical friends for virtual friends, but people must interact with other physical people, so it is important to develop real-world social skills. And while some people make money playing and developing games, many players are just playing for fun, and not learning any job skills. Testimonies from hardcore gamers indicate that at times, they step away from the games, and find that chunks of their life are gone, with nothing but an “imaginary” life to show for it. Therefore, while online games may be fulfilling in moderation, humans must give themselves time to live in the physical world.

Governmental Power Abuses

Companies are allowed to track consumer web browsing and store information about consumers. One must wonder what such information will be used for. Currently, it is used for advertising, but given such legislation as the Patriot Act, it is difficult to judge where the encroachment may end. Soon, companies or the government may be able to use our information to any end. Some would argue that if a citizen isn’t doing anything wrong, they shouldn’t have anything to worry about. If you’re not doing anything wrong, why would it matter if the government is reading your email? Invasion of privacy may not be the worst thing that the government has done to citizens. After all, we’re not being locked in concentration camps or massacred. However, the government’s justification for invading our privacies is, in my opinion, terrifying. The government claims that they are wire-tapping, etc. for security purposes. In other words, they claim that they must perform any number of privacy invasions to prevent terrorism. While this may seem like a noble cause, it is actually placing the government in a position to choose one citizen over another. The government is now permitted to encroach on one citizen for the benefit of another. They now have an unprecedented level of power. They can decide that Person A’s rights are more important than that of Person B’s rights. Such power in a government is exceedingly dangerous. If the government continues to use such principles to flout the constitution, rights of citizens will soon amount to nothing. The government has the power to ignore the second amendment, “for the greater good”, so which rights will be next? Such blatant encroachment must stop, not because monitoring is a serious inconvenience to private citizens, but because the government should never have the right to select one citizen’s rights over another’s.

The Encroachment of Advertising

In class a few weeks ago, we discussed the encroachment of advertising onto the American citizen’s psyche. Websites and companies are permitted to save a citizen’s browsing history, and even read their emails for the purpose of centering advertisements around a citizen’s interests. While some think that this is a fair practice, I disagree. Many people like directed advertising because it makes shopping easier. They do not have to hunt down projects; the computer does that for them. However, in order to perform this targeted service, computers must encroach on people’s privacy.

But are advertisements so bad? You can simply click to exit out of them. Their encroachment is not absolute, that is, one can always escape the ads. However, recently, a new billboard was set up that can broadcast directly to an individual person. There is no opting out of this form of advertisement. One cannot simply click on it to make it go away. If you pass this billboard, you are going to listen to this advertisement, and that’s the end of that. Certainly it’s annoying, but more so than that, it is extremely pretentious. Never before have people had advertisements so forcibly thrust upon them. And while we might go out of our way to ignore such billboards, how long until it is impossible to walk down the street without having advertisements forced into one’s head? This is to say nothing of further advances in technology, which may allow for people to be assaulted as soon as they walk out of a store, or step out of their homes. People must be given the option to ignore advertising. Forcing us to listen to sales pitches is completely un-American.

Virtual Worlds: Is the Virtual Unreal?

There has been much discussion over the question Is the Virtual Unreal? It was determined by the class that the virtual is unreal in some ways, but also real in a lot of other ways. For example, even though virtual worlds do not physically exist, the emotions experienced by the “players” within the virtual worlds are very real. In some cases, the emotions experienced in the virtual worlds surpassed those experienced by the individual in the real world. In other words, I think that in many cases people turn to virtual worlds because they feel that they are missing some emotional aspect in their real, physical life.

Although I understand this argument for virtual worlds, I personally think that emotions are dulled in the virtual world. For example, if one falls in love in the virtual world, it is obviously better than not finding love in any world, but it would not be a great as falling in love in the real, physical world. Many people who enjoy spending time and living in the virtual world talked about how they create avatars, who are representative of the person that the real, physical individual aspires to become. Well, if you fall in love in the virtual world, wouldn’t that love be bitter sweet? Because wouldn’t the real, physical individual always wonder to him/herself whether his avatar partner could love the real, physical, imperfect version of him/herself. Also, even though sex in virtual worlds is possible, it clearly would not be as good as the real, physical act. Lastly, in the “Virtual Worlds, Virtual Lives” clip the one girl’s avatar was raped and she felt a lot of the emotional baggage associated with the experience. Even though rape is a horrible and hateful crime in any world, I feel confident that, that girl would rather her avatar be raped than she. Virtual Worlds can help enhance the emotionally unfilled lives of real, physical people, but I do not believe that virtual experiences could ever replace or surpass real-life experiences, because the extreme emotions that make life so great and so awful can never be transferred to the virtual world.

Privacy: Taking Advantage of Personal Information

In the On The Media clip “Permanent Record” Nazanin Rafsanjani discusses how she wrote an embarrassing letter to www.iranian.com when was just 19 years old in response to 9/11 and the letter is now featured on the website. Nazanin Rafsanjani discusses how she has asked them personally to remove the letter from the website, but according to them “everything on Iranian.com is permanent”. This is scary to me because something that is clearly Nazanin Rafsanjani’s words, her beliefs, etc. has been taken as property of Iranian.com and publicized without her consent.

Even though this situation is different than online networking sites, like Facebook and MySpace, it reminded me of the recent Facebook controversy. Facebook recently changed their Terms of Use, allowing them (Facebook) to use any information that any user has ever put on Facebook, in any way they wish to, without the permission of the individual. They also reserved the right to change this term at any time. Even though I am not sure if Facebook has modified this since I last checked, I still find this to be very scary and invasive. I understand, on the one hand, that if one agrees to use Facebook and abide by Facebook’s terms, then they have agreed on a deal. Facebook offers a service (communication, networking, picture sharing, etc.) but it is at a cost, a high cost: one’s privacy. It just seems a little deceitful and hypocritical to me that Facebook allows users the ability to set these elaborate security settings, which really just create a false sense of security, since at the same time Facebook reserves the right to use anything you have ever put on Facebook in any way they want to, at any time.

Privacy: Internet Responsibility

Lessig discusses in Code the advantages and disadvantages of individually targeted ads, based on a system of data collection. Lessig discusses that one advantage is that the consumer would be encouraged to make voluntary transactions because the ads would be better targeted. One disadvantage might be that the records that keep the consumer’s personal information could be invasive of his/her privacy. Lessig talks about how another potential disadvantage of the consumer-targeted computer ads could be that the consumer would experience a flood of well-targeted advertising and become overwhelmed.

In class, it was discussed that certain consumer groups, such as older generations, may not be as aware of the data collection and resulting well-targeted advertising and may become manipulated into purchasing the advertized products. One argument against that was presented in the class discussion was that if the consumer is on the internet, then it is his/her responsibility to educate his/herself about dangers of the internet. In other words, not being aware of the well-targeted ads, and thus allowing oneself to be manipulated is the consumer’s fault. I completely disagree with this statement. It is expected of almost any American today, that he/she has a computer and uses the internet. If someone emails another person, for example, and the person does not check his/her email regularly, that person is considered irresponsible and at fault. This is because the internet has become such a norm for communication. If society expects everyone (even older, less computer-savvy individuals) to use the internet, then they need to make sure that the internet, and its well-targeted ads are user (including older user)-friendly. In other words, if it is expected of non computer-savvy individuals to be on the internet because it is the responsible thing to do, then it should expected of the internet to take this into consideration, not take advantage of it.