Reflective Work On Group Activity

The purpose of this post is to reflect upon a game I and my group members played in class as a form of gamification. This game involved the whole class but it was played in groups.

Purpose of Gamification

The purpose of this game was to make student go across many areas of life to apply meanings to information systems.

Objective

We were told as individuals in a group to come up with three random words and put it down on a sticky note. These sticky notes will then be gathered and articulated onto a bigger sheet of paper to depict our individual effort as a group work. Then we will go to every other team to put down any random word on their group work.

Result

Hence, as a result, information system was depicted as

Creative Commons-licensed content

Yeah Beyoncé Knowles haha! Beyoncé is a musician that has a brand. For her to commercialize her songs she requires the platform of her brand.  Hence information system platforms such as iTunes, is a platform that commercializes its contents just like Beyoncé. Also it gives room for Beyoncé to commercialize her songs on its platform too.

Also information system is like a

Creative Commons-licensed content

Library

Because there are lots of data in a library and information system platforms such as online library house lots of data. Also traditional libraries sometimes require information systems platforms such as online library to distribute its data. And in fact information system originates from library surface.

And lastly, information system is like

Creative Commons-licensed content

Biscuits

Hob Nob biscuits haha! For Hob Nobs to be produced, it requires human element, the ingredients and machine. And this applies to information systems too. An information system platform such as a mobile phone requires human element, ingredients (electrical components) and machines to become an end-product.

Critique / Learning Outcomes

My effort in putting down three random words on a sticky note was very easily done with no clue that those words are going to come back for my backside. However, to apply meaning to any word especially words that did not come from me required me to think strategically across assumptions and obstacles to result to meaningful answers. Hence I benefited on the note that my brain is made to be innovative through gamification exercises in class. Also through this game, I saw that information can be defined in all sort of ways even a group affirmed that information systems is like

Creative Commons-licensed content

Creative Commons-licensed content

Yeah Nicki Onika Maraj haha!! oh god!! … Anyway its because she (Nicki) has variety of wigs and so as information systems has variety of communication channels used in enterprises. 🙂

 

 

 

See you in my next post and don’t forget to come up with you own comparisons or definitions well written in that comment box. 😉

Social-technical Issues Facing the Human-centric RFID Implantee Subculture Through the Eyes of Amal Graafstra Theoretical Research Paper by M G. Michael, Katina Michael and Amal Graafstra .

Creative Commons licensed free image

This discussion will be based on “Social-technical issues facing the human-centric RFID implantee subculture through the eyes of Amal Graafstra” this is a theoretical research paper consolidated by M G. Michael, Katina Michael and Amal Graafstra himself.

This paper intends to understand the view of RFID implantees and why they are technically hobbyist citizens and are intrigued by novel convenience-oriented solutions. The paper discussed and explored socio-technical issues and questions that DIY implantees are faced with.  Privacy, social and security issues were also areas of concentration in this paper.

Apparently, authors explained that while some cultures appreciates tattooing and piercing and all sorts of body modifications that there are now subcultures that are techno-hobbyist which are embracing change in their lifestyle through functional high tech devices such as RFID.

In this paper, Amal Graafstra was placed as the case study as he has been placed by other implantees as a pioneer in the field that does things first and also better than other implantees meddling in the high-tech art.

However, in this paper, socio-technical issues facing the RFID implantee sub-culture such as privacy, security, regulation, and societal perceptions were explained. For further references a link to journal is dropped below.

ORIGINAL THEORETICAL PAPER

This journal recognise the debate on the use of RFID for humans by Department of Homeland and it explains that during the debate, a group recognised that the use of RFID by humans should be done with care while another group thinks the use of  RFID by humans is inappropriate .

However the final recommendation from the debates appears to be specific to narrowly defined situations such as the identification of miners or fire fighters in emergencies.

The security concerns of RFID in this paper concluded that nothing is really secure, that in reality a security policy is a collection of systems, methods, and procedures that protect an asset by removing enough value and/or applying enough deterrence that a potential attacker will not even bother or quit trying.

Furthermore, it explains the misconceptions of privacy issues associated with RFID technology. It is said that RFID prompt unfounded fear among many people as they see RFID as a surveillance tool that tracks implants.

But it is stated that this kind of RFID is not available now not because RFID is not technically feasible to do so but it has only proved abortive entering into large-scale agreements with the society.

Authors explained that privacy issue becomes a problem when people sign up for commercial providers of RFID because this will mean that they have to surrender their personal information which is tied to their tag ID. I reckon this is done to make up a digital ID for each user. However, authors gave an instance to buttress their point authors stated that assuming that this users information were shared with a third party company then it is a severe problem or if users information are sold to a third-party company then it becomes worse.

The discussion on legal issues in this paper confirms that till date no employer as made it mandatory for its employee or potential employees to implant RFID to remain employed. They explained that at some point critics were misled by inaccurate media broadcast that citywatcher.com had mandated their employees to get implanted in order to access sensitive data-centers but citywatcher.com only suggested it to employees. Hence, it was optional and some employee willing turned up for implant in which was funded by citywatcher.com themselves.

A social issue that was identified by this paper was the religious concerns by us Christians that RFID is the “Mark of the beast” as interpreted in the book of revelation and this has caused backlash on Amal Graafstra and other implantees by some of the members of the believing community.

Also the future of RFID as led to socio-political fear that a totalitarian government may require the whole populace to be implanted at a point in time.

However, the information I gathered from the case study of this paper, Amal Graafstra, seem to be techno-centric in his own perspective of RFID. For example Graafstra in this paper explained that it is the people who use and implements a technology that determines its effect on the society. Hence he perceives technology as neutral.

Graafstra should have perceived the necessity of socio-technical premises to RFID as the technology as failed to enter a large-scale agreement with the society. The reality is, if technology is directed by people it may go wrong, but if people are directed by technology it will go wrong and to balance this, the need for socio-technical approach to how people perceive RFID is important.

To clear further criticism on my own perspective to the whole matter, I will admit that with a considerable level of knowledge about RFID’s limitation and capability, I concur to all the explanations articulated in this paper.

Nevertheless, the authors made some intelligent suggestions to conclude the paper.

It was concluded that going into intelligent dialogue is the solution to religious criticism against implantees.

Also law bodies should be open to discussion that would result to intelligent regulatory of misconducts in the use of RFID.

Google Ropes iPhone Manufacturer Into Ambitious Robotics Venture

Creative Commons licensed free image

Reflecting upon the headline “Google ropes iPhone manufacturer into ambitious robotics venture”

Paper from wired.co.uk .

It seems Google is about to constrain Apple into a more strategic thinking exercises because they are about to storm the strategic environment with a new innovation.

For further references, here is a link to the original paper

ORIGINAL WHITE PAPER

Presently Google is said to be in conjunction with Foxconn the manufacturer of iPhone for Apple and Boston Dynamics to build a robotic operating system in the same vein as androids but this time for industrial purposes.

These robots will be used only on manufacturing and electronic assembly. It is said that this innovation will help Google compete better against their rival Amazon which recently have been said to be embarking on the development of drones to develop packages straight to customers.

Also Foxconn is said to be developing automated machines as the company is currently suffering from rise in labour cost and disputes in China.

My reflection on this piece of information is not directed to the strategic competition going on between the big figures in the IT industry such as Google and Apple; instead my discussion is based on the social issues that this piece of information could bring to the society.

Looking at the speed at which the society is sleepwalking into the future of robotic world, I suggest the society needs to take a pause and wake up.

If Google have decided to take robots to manufacturing grounds, Foxconn to develop a robotic replacement for its workers and Amazon to replace their delivery system with a robotic one, at this age of unemployment, what is the societal benefit of their innovation? Or will it bring harm? Well, we will know as we proceed.

However, this question is not purposely meant to be socio-centric in nature but this issue need to be advocated in order to balance and embrace the premises of socio-technical approach in the IT industry.

As we all know that the issue of unemployment has crippled the financial status of most people in the society. In most society like Greece, Nigeria and Cyprus etc, it’s deep depression due to unemployment. Apparently, the employment opportunity that could sustain 2 families or more could be given to a single robot just like in Harbin, China where the restaurant now uses 20 robots to cook and deliver meals.

Although, the common argument is whether there is a balance between encouraging innovation and human.

In the case of robots, most times the accuracy and efficiency in their tasks in turn, brings about more increase in production rates, quality and reduction in wastage of materials, costs and resources compared to humans. In fact manufacturing in the U.S. has become dramatically more productive and requires fewer workers.

Below is a graph by Martin Ford.

Adapted from Martin Ford

This graph depicts how manufacturing have been a huge success in the US through the aid of innovation but the downward slope of the graph line depicts the rate which this was achieved in the expense of people’s well-being because now innovations like robots invention are out there to take our jobs, leaving the society jobless and depressed just like in Greece.

Clearly, this draws a conclusion that there is no balance instead it’s a robot revolution and your job could be the next.

Boston Dynamics Reveals Quadruped Robot Capable of Galloping Unaided at 25kph

Creative Commons licensed Free image

Reflecting upon this white paper “Boston Dynamics reveals quadruped robot capable of galloping unaided at 25kph” by wired.co.uk and thinking even Usain Bolt can’t escape.

ORIGINAL WHITE PAPER

Boston Dynamic revealed their robotic innovation appropriately named cheetah in September 2012

This four-legged robot can run 45.5kph and learnt that it can freely bound, make turns and gallop on a flat surface at around the speed of 25.7kph without the need for power supply during runs. This will mean that the fastest man on earth, Usain Bolt who can only run an average of 37.59kph will struggle on the track with cheetah the wild cat.

However, this project was funded by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and was said to be developed for the military but an official statements have not been released on this robot so far.

Anyway, at least I’m glad we are finally talking about a different type of robot. One that won’t take our jobs not even Usain Bolt would be stripped off his title, it will only aid the military to fight our national enemies and protect our country they said.

The reality is, robots like cheetah are termed “Killer robots” and their presence have griped the society as a group of people in the society campaigned, suggesting that government should ban the use and production of autonomous robots in the society and abroad. Part of these people was Ms Williams, a noble prize winner who campaigned against landmines and was merited with a noble prize award in 1997.

But really the question I have for Boston Dynamics is, Does Cheetah the wild cat understand our culture, norm, conclusively our code of ethics in the society?

As some of us are aware that another great challenge robot developers are saddled with is making ethical robots. Despite this gap in robotics, this problem has not disrupted the robotic industry like Boston Dynamic from producing unmanned, free decision making robots like cheetah.  As a result, various unmanned- free decision making robots that exist in our world today do not even understand people’s code of ethics and in some cases these robots function without human supervision.

So how is human safety regarded? Or what are the possibilities that if these robots get into wrong hands, they won’t be maliciously used to breach most of our rights and ethical principles? Ok let say in the case of cheetah that might be recruited into the military, can’t it be used for long-time surveillance if their enemies get hold of it and recode it? The answer is clearly yes.

Consequently, robots are not capable of solving ethical dilemma.

Ok, another question for Boston Dynamics, in a situation e.g. war, whereby “colonel cheetah” is in the position to make an ethical or very sensitive value-based decision, is it capable of making the best decision?

The reality is NO! Because order than the ones and zeros that cheetah have been programmed on, it does not have morals to base its decisions upon like differentiating a civilian from a combatant in a life taking decision making moment and even, Usain Bolt can’t escape.

Meanwhile looking at the way inventions like cheetah as breached ethical principle of respect for autonomy that states “man should be given the leeway to reign over themselves” and not man and “killer robots” like cheetah that might soon be working in the military like his colleagues e.g. unmanned drones etc taking human lives.

And for my readers who are just there thinking oh! His view on cheetah has just escalated quickly!!!

Well, I am glad to inform you that the drones sent to Afghanistan are classified as unmanned semi-autonomous robots.

I understand that countries like the United State of America etc are trying to accomplish a risk free or no-blood-shed war. But the US government should consider that the horrific social issue this semi-autonomous robot, MQ1-Predator has generated is extremely worrisome and inhumane. it was reported that during a survey, a suspected al-Qaeda vehicle was detected and immediately got fired with two “hell-fire” missiles but as vulnerability would have its way, unfortunately, MQ1-Predator dug a big hole in the hearts of the people of Afghanistan as innocent children and adults were also fired and killed by the same “hell-fire” missiles as a result of miss in target against the so called al-Qaeda.

Having said all these, I reckon my view is totally socio-centric but robots as socio-technical designs needs to be viewed this way because like I said in my previous post, if technology is directed by people it may go wrong, but if people are directed by technology it will go wrong. My view is socio-centric in nature in order to meet the techno-centric perspective of robots with social qualities in order to promote the premises of socio-technical systems in this context.

I will assume that IT industry is taking a critical socio-technical approach(that’s taking all the technical qualities and social impact into consideration) on the possibility of introducing cheetah to the general public officially  and “maybe” that’s one of the reasons why an official statement have not been made on cheetah yet.