Peter Black's Freedom to Differ

Academics on Facebook

When I first joined Facebook I was nervous about what role it should have (if any) with my students.  Indeed, for quite some time I used to ignore Friend Requests from students.  However, I ultimately took advantage of the limited profile and then advanced privacy settings and configured a version of my Facebook page that respected my privacy but also allowed me to connect with students who wished to 'friend' me on Facebook.  I now regularly get messages from students on Facebook as it is frequently and increasingly more convenient than email for both of us.  I have even created a closed Facebook group for first year law students at QUT, activley encouraging them to use the platform to get to know one another in a 'safe' online environment.  The upshot of this is that I have given quite a bit of thought of how lecturers can use Facebook to create communities of learners and facilitate communication between teacher and student.

What I haven't given much thought to is the role Facebook can play as a channel of communication between academics.  That's why I was particularly taken with this post by Kaimipono Wenger at Concurring Opinions:

True, the "should academics use Facebook?" article is fast becoming passe. (See also: "should academics blog?", "should academics use MySpace?", and "should academics navel-gaze?") However, a recent post on the HNN (History News Network) is a particularly good example of the species. In a discussion of whether historians should use Facebook, historian Jesse Lemisch sets out some helpful analysis:

Why should historians be on Facebook? I think it has the potential to be an electronic version of the halls of the AHA: a place of lively and utterly informal talk about what historians are doing and saying, and what’s going on in their lives. Just as Facebook threatens to replace college reunions, it can constitute something like a professional meeting, between professional meetings. (Note that “something like”: I have no desire with this proposal to replace professional meetings, but rather to extend them.)

I value the papers given at the AHA and OAH, but I generally come away from these meetings as well educated by conversations in the halls, and while prowling the book exhibits. Somebody has mounted a stupid and uncomprehending attack on me in a book whose galleys are available at booth 432. And there he is, at booth 927, hiding, but available for animated conversation. Here’s somebody you haven’t seen in years, and, thank goodness, she has a name badge. And, you find, she is doing fascinating work. Here is somebody who responds to regards to the spouse with a facial expression that tells you immediately that your information is no longer accurate. And here are historians of all stripes, and information about new sources and new work and controversies not yet erupted. And so on: readers of HNN know what happens in the halls of the AHA. For better or worse, all these things can happen on Facebook.

This sounds like an admirable enough goal.  Why not chat about books, vacations, restaurants, and whatever else on Facebook? 

There are interesting parallels to law. For instance, of conversations I've had at AALS, I'd say maybe a quarter of them have been purely law conversations of the type it would be hard to have online. But the majority have been general-topic chats of one kind or another. Ideally, Facebook and sites like it can facilitate the broad, cocktail-party mingling that helps keep law professors -- a notoriously socially awkward group -- connected and in general contact with one another. In theory, this could be good. (On the other hand, it's awfully tricky to gossip on a public forum.) Right? What's not to like about it?

I would write a lot more about how law professors could use Facebook, but duty calls. II have an urgent appointment to attack Nate's zombie with my vampire before my daily attacks expire. Then, perhaps after a few games of Word Twist, I'll be back with Part 2.

Read more here.  A number of my colleagues at QUT and elsewhere are friends with me on Facebook, but I can't say we are really using it in this way.  Some don't really use it all (or use it rarely), and those who do tend to use it as an escapist distraction.  Perhaps it is time for me and my academic colleagues to lift the tone of our Facebook time (well, at least maybe some of our time)?

An Anthropological Introduction to YouTube

Michael Wesch, the famed anthropologist focused on digital culture behind the videos The Machine is Us/Ing Us and A Vision of Students Today) has released a presentation he gave to the Library of Congress on YouTube.  It is long (55 minutes) and familiar to those of you have followed YouTube's rise over the last few years relatively closely, but it is a fascinating and impressive presentation nonetheless.  Would you expect anything else from Mike Wesch?

The other blogging Peter Black

I've been aware of my namesake, a UK Liberal Democrat who maintains a blog, for some time, but it was nonetheless interesting to see Andrew Bartlett review his blog, and in particular, a more recent piece of his on the impact of blogging and the internet on politics:

I’ve mused a number of times about the potential impacts of blogging on politics and politicians, and the differences between various countries.

One longstanding blogging politician is Peter Black, a Liberal Democrat member of the Welsh Assembly, who has been at it for over five years. He has written an interesting piece on the impacts of blogging and the internet on politics, focusing particularly on Wales, but also the UK more broadly. The use of blogs by politicians in the UK is far more widespread than in Australia, but also different in tone and nature to those in the USA or those I’m aware of in some south-east Asian countries. If you’re interested in the general topic, it’s definitely worth a read.

Read more Andrew's post here and check out Peter Black AM here.

And you thought I was obsessed with reality TV

Two psychiatrists from Montreal claim there is a recognisable psychiatric illness known as The Truman Show Delusion:

Joel and Ian Gold, brothers and psychiatrists from Montreal, believe they have discovered a signature mental illness of the YouTube era: patients who claim they are subjects of their own reality TV shows.

They have named the malady the "Truman Show Delusion," and though they are in the process of putting together a medical paper on the topic, their discovery is already causing a stir.

While traditionalists insist that this delusion offers nothing new -- it is no different from, say, a deranged man who believes that the CIA has planted a microchip in his tooth -- the Gold brothers argue otherwise.

"It's really a question of the extent of the delusion," said Joel Gold, 39, who has been on staff at New York's Bellevue Hospital Center for eight years. "The delusions we typically treat are narrow: There is Capgras Delusion, where someone will think his family has been replaced by doubles. Or the Fregoli Delusion, where someone believes that one person is persecuting him: a doctor, mailman, butcher. The Truman Show Delusion, though, involves the entire world."

He also says that The Truman Show had an impact on patients that other films did not, no matter how powerful they were. "I never heard people say, ' The Godfather, that's my life.' "

While Dr. Gold says they could have easily called their new disorder the EDtv Delusion or the Matrix Delusion -- both films that refer to an unreal existence-- three of the five patients he treated at the storied mental health hospital directly likened their plight to The Truman Show, the 1998 film about Truman Burbank, an affable suburbanite who slowly becomes aware that his every movement is broadcast 24/7 to voyeuristic viewers around the world.

Read more here (from canada.com).  (Hat tip: The Volokh Conspiracy.)  And for the record, I have a movie poster mounted in my office at work of The Truman Show ...

What (if anything) do the exams I've set say about me?

Ever since the New York Times posted copies of the exams Barack Obama set while a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, the media and the blogosphere have been carefully analysing them, trying to find what they reveal about him, his mind and his ideology.  I must confess that I haven't spent a great deal of time looking at them, but reading the commentary made me think of the exams I have set at QUT over the last few years.  I wonder what they reveal about me?

While such self-analysis is probably a futile exercise, I think the answer to the question is: not much.  The exam questions and assignment topics I have set reflect what are currently unresolved or emerging issues in whatever area of law it is.  They probably show a slight obsession on emerging IT issues, but then again that also stems from the areas that I teach (and the constitutional law question I set that involved the internet was inspired by Betfair, which at the time had been heard by the High Court but no judgment had been delivered). 

I'd be interested in hearing what other academics think their exams may (or may not) reveal about them ...

High Court hilarity

It is always embarrassing when a mobile phone goes off in an inappropriate place or inconvenient time.  And so it was the Acting Chief Justice of Australia:

WHAT do you do with a judge whose phone goes off in court? And what if the judge is the Acting Chief Justice of Australia?

For Michael Kirby, the answer was simple as Bill Gummow fumbled around inside his judicial robe during a High Court special leave hearing in Sydney yesterday.

“I think we should arrest this person,” Justice Kirby said.

Justice Gummow was wearing a sheepish grin, after first looking around then realising he was the culprit.

Under the watch of 30 members of the gallery, most of whom were laughing, the longest-serving member of the court checked the caller, stopped the ringing and then returned the phone to the jacket under his black robe.

Justice Gummow would have been aware of the sign just outside the lifts on Level 19 of the courts building in Queens Square - “please switch off mobile phones past this point”.  And he would know that in Canberra, every visitor has to check in their mobile phone with attendants before they are allowed into a sitting court.

Richard McHugh SC was as surprised as anyone. He had only just started trying to convince the judges that the NSW Court of Appeal should not have ruled against his client, Chinese Media Group, in a defamation case.

He returned to his address, but 20 seconds later the phone again went off.

“Officer,” Justice Kirby called out.

With a shake of his head and a smile, Justice Gummow again reached inside his robes.

Read more here (from The Australian).

A sign of the times

Australian swimming's golden couple Eamon Sullivan and Stephanie Rice have apparently broken up.  It seems only appropriate that the couple, who shot to fame thanks to some "raunchy" party picks on Facebook, announced the break up by changing their Facebook relationship status:

Australian swimming's glamour couple Eamon Sullivan and Stephanie Rice have reportedly split up just days before the start of the Beijing Olympics.

News Limited reported the couple's parting was revealed on their Facebook pages with both swimmers changing their status to "no longer in a relationship".

Rice, who held the 400m individual medley world record earlier this year, trains in Brisbane while 50 metres freestyle world-record holder Sullivan is based in Perth.

The pair's split undermines their lucrative underwear modelling deal, the newspaper says.

Read more here (from LIVENEWS.com.au).
   

The RNC tries make a point with humour

I was intrigued to see this post on The Caucus  (a blog hosted by the New York Times) that the RNC has set up a parody Facebook for Barack Obama, BarackBook.com, to highlight some of his lesser known associations.  An interesting political strategy - and a novel use twist on using socialnetworks for political campaigns - but I'm not sure what audience the RNC is targeting with this site.  The so-called early tech adopters may find it interesting, but they are never going to support John McCain so it seems a fairly pointless, potentially controversial strategy that could backfire.  Plus, as The Caucus points out, if anything it may end up highlighting the weakness of McCain's online strategy when compared to the online phenomenon that is Barack Obama.

Anyway, here is the post:

Here’s an entry you would not expect to see on Barack Obama’s official profile on the social networking site Facebook: “Barack Obama is now friends with Antonin ‘Tony’ Rezko.”

But that’s the first item on Mr. Obama’s “FriendFeed” on BarackBook.com, a Facebook parody site created by the Republican National Committee that it says will go live on Tuesday. According to the R.N.C, the site is intended to showcase some of Mr. Obama’s “notable associations.”

...

Each profile is set to include videos, news articles and sections like “Facts About Me and Barack,” “My Donations and Bundling for Barack” and “What Barack Says About Me.” The R.N.C. says it plans to continue updating BarackBook between now and the election. (Notably, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Mr. Obama’s controversial former pastor, does not yet have a profile.)

Users of Facebook – the real one – may be able to install an application on their personal page with links to BarackBook.

Alex Conant, a spokesman for the R.N.C. called the planned site “an interactive way to learn more about Obama’s poor judgment.”

But in using a faux social networking site to highlight what it considers to be some of Mr. Obama’s more controversial acquaintances — past and present — the R.N.C. is also opening itself up to the inevitable comparisons between the Obama campaign’s online efforts and those of his rival, Senator John McCain.

While there is no single metric for success on the Internet, there are some leading indicators. For example, Mr. Obama has about 1.2 million Facebook friends, while Mr. McCain has fewer than 200,000. But the Republicans are making an effort to catch up in the e-campaign. Last week the R.N.C. launched a new Internet browser toolbar to collect “micro-donations” from supporters.

And as the Republicans are trying to point out with their twist on Facebook, having lots of friends can have its downsides.

Read more here.

Searching iPods at customs?

The Internet Industry Association has called on the Australian Government to take a "balanced approach" to a proposed but little known Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement that could result in customs officials searching travellers' laptops and MP3 players when they arrive in Australia:

The Internet Industry Association (IIA) today called on the Australian Government to take a balanced approach to a little-publicised Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that may be in force by the end of the year.

While nominally targeting major counterfeit operators, ACTA reportedly seeks to impose a new regime of enforcement measures that could undermine Australian citizens’ fair-use and privacy rights.

ACTA negotiations have been held behind closed doors. Information is scant, with the exception of an ACTA discussion document leaked online, documents hosted by the US Trade Representative  and a sketchy discussion paper from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

“Forthcoming talks in Washington DC scheduled for this week appear to be proceeding in the absence of draft text.”, IIA chief executive, Peter Coroneos said.

“Yet ACTA proponents seem bent on having a treaty in place by the end of the year.  How can appropriate outcomes be achieved with such indecent haste?”

The IIA is urging government negotiators to push for a proper timetable so that an inclusive public debate on the proposed measures can take place.

In alliance with CHOICE (Australian Consumers Association), the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) and Australian Digital Alliance (ADA), the IIA filed a submission with DFAT, insisting Australia maintains legal rights and due process. In particular, no trade agreement should breach six vital and hard won principles :

1. Transparency and accountability (all stakeholders should see and comment on text before it is concluded)
2. Presumption of innocence (no enforcement, civil or criminal, without independent findings of infringement)
3. Proportionality (all enforcement measures to be proportionate to the seriousness of any infringement)
4. Consideration of impact on other treaties and laws (no doubling up or inconsistency with Australia's existing obligations)
5. Avoiding the prescription of surveillance technologies for IP enforcement
6. Safeguards against liability for intermediaries (such as educational institutions, libraries and Internet Service Providers)

“We are very worried about leaked discussion documents relating to ACTA which would force ISPs to disclose customer information and even disconnect anyone alleged to be an infringer, based on untested and intrusive technological tracking -- without warrant or judicial oversight.” said Mr Coroneos.

“What happened to the presumption of innocence?”

“Whether ACTA ends up seeing iPods and laptops searched at international airports as some are proposing, we can’t say. But we cannot allow it to undermine the balance that exists in our laws.”

“Also what is meant by commercial scale infringement is not clear. ACTA may redefine anyone with an unauthorised copy of a song to be regarded as a criminal, without the minimal protections and subject to disproportionate penalties that go beyond what is legally fair in Australia.”

More generally, the IIA questions the need for Australia to be involved at all in the light of the recently enacted Australian-US Free Trade agreement with toughened intellectual property enforcement provisions in place since the end of 2006.

“We already have new and far reaching legislation that covers off the illegal distribution of digital sound and video recordings via the Internet,” he said.

“We strongly urge the Australian Government to adopt a cautious approach before committing to any sweeping measures as part of ACTA,” Mr Coroneos said.

A copy of the six principles and submission are available at http://www.iia.net.au/images/principles_for_acta_negotiations.pdf

Read more here.  This sounds disturbing to say the least.  In fact, it sounds so ridiculous I find it hard to believe.  Given that I am loathed to comment further until more details come to light.