travelogue1
final words on the iPhone, and what it means for your next cellphone
Do you get the feeling I have typed a lot in previous posts but really haven’t said anything yet? Me too.
this guy loves his iPhone so much more than I do, but maybe I will be the only one who thinks its funny.
I tried to wait out this last post to see if I could get any information about the Apple approved SDK (Software Development Kit) which would allow applications for the iPhone with Apple’s blessing. Depending on the details of this implementation (which have not yet been released) the level of “openness” which Apple allows for applications will have a direct impact on the future of the iPhone hacking scene.  Rumors either way have been flying around both ways for Apple’s March 6th SDK Roadmap event, but one of two things will happen for sure:
1. Apple announces a platform which is sufficiently open, allowing people to do pretty much whatever they want with the phone, sans the ability to unlock the device. This could deflect a significant amount of effort from making contraband applications, and force now rogue developers to make completely legit iPhone apps for their own selling pleasure, which could less the movement so focused and jail-breaking, (and thus unlocking the phone) which could cut down on people’s ability to use the iPhone on other carriers.
2. Apple creates a sham of an SDK which does not really offer too much leeway in using the phone for innovative applications; major companies jump on the bandwagon to increase interpolitiy for their products, but individuals stick with hacking, jail-breaking, and unlocking iPhones for maximum control over the device.
iPhone hacking, a story
For the sake of trying to create a whole picture within an embeddable media environment, I will start with how I started to hack my iPhone. While its not particularly exciting, (except to maybe me) it probably will be a good place to start.
After I got my phone, for reasons unnecessary to explain here, I couldn’t activate it using iTunes due to some issues with my AT&T account. This was a major bummer as I was about to fly cross country, and was hoping to put the new video features to the test on the long flight, and you can’t use the iPod features of the phone without activating the phone portion first.  I had read casually about iPhone hacking, and was vaguely sure that one could bypass activation by jail breaking, thus letting someone use the device as at least an iPod and a Wifi device. Since I have never been one for waiting, and always willing to get overly caviler with new toys, I decided to give it a shot. I found tons of pages dedicated to iPhone hacking, and decided this one looked simple http://iphone.unlock.no/ One of the great benefits of jail breaking an iPhone, is that it bypasses the activation for the phone.
Read the rest of this entry »
Is there money in Wikipedia?
When I ask this question, I’m questioning whether or not Mr. Jimmy Wales (founder of the organization/website) is successful in creating such a media platform for users, but rather if people out there are using Wikipedia to profit, even though it is essentially a free service that anyone can edit. A more significant question, that can also be argued by means of psychology as well, would be “Why do people post on Wikipedia?”
I found this article about a man who was contacted by Microsoft to put “balance” to wikipedia’s entries.
http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/01/an_interesting_offer.html
The content is a bit technical, but in this next link discusses the concept of credibility in individuals seeking exposure for their contributions:
http://jellis.org/work/group2005/papers/forteBruckmanIncentivesGroup.pdf
In several interviews, a user explains how they try to get their articles on the main page “Did you know?” so more people can put it on their watchlist, and hopefully look at the editing history to find their name. Then people can search other articles produced by the same author. This makes the author feel respected in the Wikipedia world. But since it can be edited by anyone, essentially anyone can post forms of advertisements on pages whether it is an opinion of a product or a link near the bottom of the page. The article “Shh… it’s Not Advertising, It’s Wikipedia!” shares various stories of how it can be easy to make this happen.
http://www.johnon.com/437/wikipedia-advertising.html
This graph also clues that people are already interested in visiting websites can could potentially have served as an advertisement on wikipedia since people are going to immediately after viewing an article:
Video Chatting Revolution-
Continuing my original log from last week, I decided to go with my initial idea of video chatting as a rising revolution. After reading several articles and blogs I found this piece from the New York Times. It is about a venture company named Toxbox based in California. The company is seeking to push video chatting and video conferencing to the next level. Many companies such as AOL, Yahoo, and Skype already offer video chatting but require both users to download the application in order for the interaction to work; Toxbox is simply a streaming site that allows live chat between users, no programs needed only a camera and a browser. Chief executive Serge Faguet said,
“Video communication has never really taken off, despite the fact that people talk about it as a part of the future,â€
But the 21 year old Russian founder of the company believes the answer is in accessibility and ease. Many investors, after their success with the Youtube epidemic, believe this company is the next huge step in internet communication, Toxbox looks to do for video chatting what Youtube did for video watching.
After reading the article that was written in October of 2007 (Toxbox Article) I decided to try the site out for myself and see if the EASE was really there. From the beginning the site seemed laid out fairly well, objects were obvious, animation was at a minimum and I was not bombarded by a plethora of advertisements. I quickly created an account with 3 short question and it allowed me to sync my contacts from Google and aim accounts alike. I then decided to put the tool itself to the test. I invited my friend who is equipped with camera enabled computer to have a chat with me through this site. It could not have gotten easier all I had to do was direct him to an address that toxbox provided me and bam! he appeared. This program seemed revolutionary until one problem occurred, the quality was horrible. The sound constantly echoed, image was foggy and pixely; he immediately signed off and opted to use macs ichat video conference which was as smooth as butter. No glitches or flaws just a perfect stream.
My feeling on the Toxbox are mixed, I believe in the direction of the company as ease being one of the deciding factors in creating a video chatting culture similar to that of AIM, however, the technology does not seem to be there yet. Toxbox believes everyone has the internet and everyone has browsers, so just as Youtube is accessed by a click of the button so can video chatting. The company was just established less than a year ago and is currently in beta phase. There offices are based in California sharing offices with Youtube; what makes me thinking is this another revolution google will get there hands on.
iPhone hacking, a brief overview
First and foremost, lets clear up some details on what hacking the iPhone means, and why you would do it. There are two primary functions for “hacking” your iPhone.
1. to”Jailbreak” your phone
To jailbreak your phone is to gain root access to allow the execution of programs on the device. Normally, an out of the box iPhone has no mechanism to create and run your own applications from the iPhone. When the phone was first announced, Apple said that one could write programs using the Safari Browser and regular old HTML, but these sites turned out to be nothing more than customized websites which were optimized for the iPhone, and could not interact with any of the phone’s hardware, such as Camera, or settings, ect. Each firmware (read: update) needs to be re-jailbroken, as the exploits from the previous versions are always patched up, and called security updates 
2. to “unlock” your phone
To unlock a phone means to use it on another cell carrier other than the default it is tied to. I am sure many of you have had an old cell phone, switched from T-Mobile to AT&T or something, and found your old phone couldn’t work on your new network. In reality however, it physically CAN, but your network actually “locks” the phone so it arbitrarily only works on their specific network (with the exception of Sprint and Verizon Phones, they use a different cell technologies, so these phones are actually different from AT&T phones) Unlocking the iPhone allows use on the T-Mobile network, in addition to many other cell carriers around the world that are not AT&T. One point of confusion is that in order to unlock your phone, one needs to Jailbreak it first, so they can run the script that lets any cell carrier’s SIM card be used.
Now, that is out of the way (but if I still lose you, check this Wired: iPhone Hacking Terms Explained)
Now, why would someone want to “hack” a shiny new iPhone? Well, the first obvious reason would be because you didn’t have AT&T, and don’t want to have to pay the absorbent fee associated with canceling your old cell service, or you are just hellbent on undermining Steve Jobs’ innovative business model for the iPhone (See this, it is a great read Wired: The Untold History of the iPhone )
But for most people, they want the ability to have the full capacity of what their little pocket computer is capable of. Why would Apple just not provide a way for people to make applications for something they own? In a way, they will be shortly, with the iPhone SDK (software developer kit) however it looks increasingly likely that Apple is looking to serve as gatekeeper for which applications are allowed to be mass distributed to the public. It is this control of the functionality which leads people to hack their phones, both steeped in practicality and the idea that you don’t truly own something which you can’t control what you can and can not do with it. Some of this retoric borders on sounding a bit like the DRM which is placed on mp3s and such, prevent people from fully manipulating its use, even if the file is “bought.”
Part 2 will be more of my own experiences with hacking this device, and looking at what I have found while doing it.
Other fun links:
Wired: The History of Hacking the iPhone <—- little out of date, but gives a good idea whats going on
www.ziphone.com <—- IMHO, the best current way of hacking an iPhone, tutorials included
Traveler Log – Free for all?
Ever since the deal with double-click and google (I’m keeping in mind that I still can’t use google), I’ve been really interested in how the world of advertising will transform and dominate in our new mainstream. I’ve decided on doing research on the multiple techniques and impacts on internet advertising. I would like to touch on the monopolistic effect double-click and google may have if they continue to take over the internet with its opportunity for advertisers to easily gauge what its consumers are searching for in an effort to mention a product. It seems after this event, Microsoft has been attempting to purchase bigger internet companies in order to compete but having trouble keeping up even with their possible monopoly with Yahoo.
Also I would like to do more research on websites who use different methods of advertising to simply fund their own space, such as craigslist and uloop who allow companies like apartments.com to post, and how low the bar is for success. This is considering that facebook, who used to be very mild on advertising, has exploded in popularity due to addition of applications that can use college students’ information for advertising purposes. Wikipedia.com is probably the best example because it relies on people to donate money to the organization, but who exactly is donating? And are the articles that are posted serve as a clue to what kind of exposure the giant encyclopedia website is giving?
iphone hacking and subverting company’s control
Alright, after much personal debate, I think I want to look at the community and reasoning behind iPhone hacking. While it may seem to be a sort of specific art, there are several groups (along with many individuals) all who have many seperate goals, motives, and plans for different iPhone “jailbreaks” or “unlocks.”
It has been sort of an interesting topic, as with each new software update, Apple has closed down the points of entry for the hacks, and the community at large is forced to find a new way to gain access to the device. Ultimatly, Apple is planning on releasing an SDK (Software Development Kit) later this month so people can create “legal”(read: sanctioned) applications for the phone. However, most people within the community feel that this will be a rather strict control as to allowing only certain applications to make it through the vetting process, ones which do not negatively undermind the iPhone’s revolutionary business model (Apple gets a cut of your monthy cellular fee).  Even not considering the internal sub-group politics, (which I am sure are hilarious)there are many interesting debates concerning how users 1) use their device 2)what they can and can not do with them 3)who controls content which is able to appear on these devices. Plus, it brings to light many other issues concerning technology ownership in general. (some die hards say you only own a device/computer/tech stuff untill you open it up and modify it for your own specific use)
There are plenty of other places to take this, so I think I just need to get started to understand some of the groups that create these hacks, and in turn, the people who use them.
von Hayek and the Internet
In the documentary, ‘The Trap’ Freidrich von Hayek is discussed as being convinced that “the use of politics to plan society was far more dangerous than anything problems produced by capitalism because it inevitably lead to tyranny and the end of freedom”. He believed that the only way to avoid disaster was to look back into the past, a golden time period when individual’s cared for their own self-interest. He believed this type of society would become a self-directing automatic system which would lead to liberty and prosperity.
The image of the couples dancing about (Part 1: 06:17) reminded me of how the internet is one of the best examples of this self-directing automatic system. There is much debate about what will happen when regulation and politics increasing become involved with the internet. Will von Hayek’s theory come to play here – will control over the internet lead to tyranny and the end of freedom?
In modern society, the internet is one of the best outlets for individual to speak their mind, make use of their freedom of speech, learn new things, and exist in this world. It helps to create a dialogue with others which often is not physically possible. It leads to a different type of existence in this world that was not present before (i.e. “internet personality”).
In a sense, life on the internet is a seperate society from the physical world we live in. It’s kind of bizarre as you think about how people become celebrities from the internet, people create entirely new personas, and how people can “visit” new places (www.vLES.com, google satellite) etc etc. This world is a very different world from that of our parents – where we can exist in this world in a way we never could before or have that completely taken away from us.
Positive/ Negative Liberty & New Technologies in Our Society
During our last class, there were some questions on the definitions of positive and negative liberty as defined by the trap. I reviewed the final episode from The Trap and according to my understanding of it, positive freedom follows the idea that there is only one true freedom that was understood by leaders of a revolution, and in order to get the following of the masses, coercion was involved. Negative freedom is the freedom of all individuals to do what they want, and nothing more. Negative freedom is a society without ideals other than individuals desires and the freedom to indulge them. According to The Trap, Isaiah Berlin believed that negative liberty would lead to stability and order while all attempts at revolution will always lead to disaster.
Trying to connect these ideas to New Media, I found an interesting example involving viewer’s freedoms when it comes to television and choosing what information they would like to receive. In the book “The Constitutional Parameters Private Right to Censor,” Patrick M. Garry seems to think that there’s a “continuing onslaught of new media technologies that will keep shoving unwanted speech toward unwilling listeners [and therefore] a private right to censor may be needed” (65). A VOD, or video on demand technology, promises to be more effective than the V-CHIP in giving television viewers more control in what they watch by letting them choose what shows they receive on their sets so that it is more of an interactive experience than a passive experience. Hence this freedom could be considered a negative liberty, since it involves individuals protecting themselves, independent of the government, to fulfil their own desires.
It seems that new media is allowing for the development of technologies in which their is more of a pull to receive information that one wants as opposed to a push of information that is offensive. Because new technologies are providing more autonomy for users, perhaps we are moving into an era of increased negative liberty so that individuals are a step closer, at least when utilizing their various new media, to be free to indulge in fulfilling whatever they want and nothing else?
Freedom, the Trap, and New Media
While reading Anna Notaro’s Lo(n)g Revolution, one of her citations of an article by Jon Katz immediately shocked me:
“Where freedom is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media anymore, it is ferociously defended – and exercised daily – on the Net.”
Although the date of the article is given as 1997, it’s blatantly obvious that this quote was taken from a pre-9/11 context. Since September 11th, the mainstream media has become completely saturated with a discourse of freedom. Such an abstract term as freedom is difficult to pin down to a single definition, but it’s obvious that the term can be warped to suit the need of whoever’s using it. The primary dictionary definition is simply “the condition of being free from restraints”, and although some political definitions are given afterwards (such as the distinction of being free rather than a slave), are equally vague. The link I’ve posted with the “NMRS” del.icio.us tag details a few of the current administration’s definitions of freedom (http://empireburlesquenow.blogspot.com/2005/02/brothers-in-arms-osamic-vision-of.html) . Unfortunately, the “free’m”, as W likes to call it, that we’re supposedly trying to provide to the Middle East through military action is freedom that we don’t necessarily get here in America.
The Trap’s definition of freedom is somewhat different. Theirs is the dark, consumerist freedom based on game theory and free market economics, which we’ve discussed already. Given that the idealistic version of freedom that the government lauds is often crippled in America (take, for example, demonstrations in which protesters are forced to stand in designated “Free Speech Zones”, herded like animals into small pens), perhaps the fragmented, perverse version of freedom presented in “The Trap” is really all we have. The one zone that brings this idea into question is the realm of new media, namely the Internet. Whether or not the blogosphere is truly a public forum is up for debate, given a few aspects of its nature (the tendency to overestimate its capabilities as a tool of democracy, the ability to ignore content one doesn’t want, and the individualizing nature of working at a computer). However, it certainly seems that there’s a modicum more freedom on the Internet. I find it difficult to believe that a spontaneous protest could erupt concerning the ideals mentioned in the link I posted, however, on the Internet, the idea can be posted with little fear of punishment.
However, it’s important to note that this freedom isn’t a freedom of anonymity. With a little work, anyone can discover who’s behind a blog post or YouTube video – including the government. It’s wise to question exactly how much freedom we have on the Internet, and what exactly this freedom is, compared to other commonly used definitions.
