"The internet has led our society towards new paths thought impossible in the span of just half of one lifetime. Unlike television of the 20th century the internet functions through the interactivity. This has lead to new frontiers for our society to explore and has lead to exponential growths in almost every facet of life. In a response reflective of human nature, we have decided that this new power be watched and regulated. This has led to groups of people recording and monitoring our interactions with unbridled access. They also have the power to turn off the web through rules that they have written. What do we gain, and what do we lose from allowing only a select few to have free access to our most intimate information? It is with this question that I propose the idea of a completely free and transparent internet to all. Every image, web site, and email would be available to see and record, with completely equal access. In a sense we could strip the internet of its anonymity. What would be of the internet if we were cognitive of the level of privacy that we truly have? What would people do to regain that sense of privacy? How would our interaction change as we use the internet to access information, but most importantly how would our interactions change when we are out of this cyberspace? I would like to use these questions as a starting point for a new discussion about how we use this machine and the effect it has on our lives. Until we reach an equilibrium with this creation we must continue asking questions until we find an order."
I guess most obviously is that it has nothing to do with architecture. Can any of you guys think of how it can, or if it even matters?
Thanks,
Posts
I believe your writing has a definite bearing in architectural discourse. Rather than confine your argument within a language of 'internet', I would recommend exploring language/architectures or security, urban planning [as it relates to public space], and counter-culture exploitations. Your following comment brings up a few parallels to those discourses, for me.
ReplyDeleteWhat do we gain, and what do we lose from allowing only a select few to have free access to our most intimate information? It is with this question that I propose the idea of a completely free and transparent internet to all. Every image, web site, and email would be available to see and record, with completely equal access.
Because you view information as 'intimate vs anonymous' I recommend dispelling your own view until further exploration or reading. I would argue that if you feel our information is intimate, then making it completely free does not counteract its private exploitation.
You already hint at issues of counteraction and counter-culture in the following.
What would people do to regain that sense of privacy? How would our interaction change...when we are out of this cyberspace?
That last moment is the start of an architectural manifestation, if that is what you look for. There are many examples of how our interactions have changed, arguably for the worse; however, social and spatial relations hinge upon the sharing / privacy allowed through internet structures.
anonymity : privacy :: Identified : public
ReplyDeleteI wanted to keep the idea open, so i like your interpretations. I see how the the fact that it is no longer anonymous does not take away from the fact that it may still be intimate but i dont want to focus on things being personal in nature. I just want to make clear that there would be absolutely no exceptions to a free and open cyberspace.
One way of looking at it is how we act when on something that is "public" like facebook, as opposed to other parts of the net. This is reflexive of how we act when home alone or out in public. Maybe the the focus is WHY/HOW these cybernetic systems are interrelated.
I find it interesting how it is almost impossible to reference todays society without referencing the fact that an entire connected reality exists in a separate digital space.
I
also consider the limitations to access of freedom/privacy/identity etc. access to the internet is not free. the tool(s) to access the internet carries cost factors. access via cyber-cafe, library, home, business, office, mobile device, laptop, computer etc. is not free nor freely accessed. we are yet to organically access the massive digital database of the internet. so while connectivity, privacy, openness, identity, anonymity, and public/private are parcels of discussion consider the architectural root of how this is born - the need to access. there is still a need for a physical location, place or sheltered space to access anything on the internet. there is a need for electrical power as well. mechanical connectivity with a screen, mobility of movement for keystrokes, voice, etc.
ReplyDelete