Automatic Attitudinal Response

Today, I'd like to talk about cultural conditioning, particularly mine. A few weeks ago I really did some self-evaluation of my passing judgement on others. It was triggered by such a trivial thing, I was in Australia at McDonalds with my husband. We were sitting outside enjoying our frozen Cokes and a nice humid breeze. We were getting ready to leave when a young man asked if he could clear anything away from us, I looked up and found myself looking at a young man who looked very much like my husband (white, clean cut and very kind.) Then I directed my attention to the inside of the restaurant and there was a pretty blonde girl changing the garbage bags. I felt sad, really sad, as in talking-my-husbands-ear-off-wanting-to-cry-for-them sad. After a few minutes of me being oversensitive, he and I came to the conclusion that I have become SO conditioned to seeing immigrants working these entry-level grunt-work jobs, that I no longer feel sorry for them. That being said, I feel bad because I understand how hard they work for such little pay, yet I always turn around and think "Hey, at least they have a job?"  Seeing these individuals working not only made me realize how much I turn a blind eye to people here at home but also, how easily that could be me in that situation.

I have taken some time to read through my previous posts. Throughout every post there is a common theme that I seem to preach: through media engagement or disengagement we are reinforcing our own ideas or our own ethnocentrism. We have a great access to information and new ideas, however, our automatic attitudinal response is our biggest barrier. We are constantly using the media as only a mirror to compare our own culture and ideals to others, only to look but not necessarily to change.

I am now working to practice what I preach, if you look back to my post for Racism 2.0 my stance was "integration integration integration!" because inherently I didn't think that racism still existed. However, scroll up to the top paragraph of this post and you will see not only does it exist within my culture, but I am an active participant. My only hope is that I will have more opportunities to be aware of my hidden presumption. It is through truly recognizing them, not just comparing them, that I can change.

On the media: What's Really going on between Apple and the FBI.

This week I listened to the segment Apple vs. The FBI. A very timely post seeing as we recently spoke about security in class. To me, this is not a question of security, nor is it about abiding to a court order. This issue is about the government setting a precedent, and thanks to an open letter from Apple, a public who isn't really buying it. 

According to the FBI they are wanting to unlock Farook's phone so they can see his contacts to prevent further acts of terrorism. On the surface that sounds like a just cause and initially most of us agree that Apple should comply. As of right now, users set their passwords and when they die their passwords die with them. However, there is something left behind, metadata. Loads and loads of metadata. The FBI has already seen it, it appears there is no contact with anyone overseas. Still, the FBI demands Apple to write a code that doesn't exist. This code would allow the government to shoot an infinite amount of password guesses until the phone unlocks itself. Even though this is a special request this new code could be used on any iPhone once it's written. 

 Here are the problems if Apple chooses to comply:

1. Apple is writing a code that doesn't exist, an unnecessary code. The FBI has already accessed the metadata from this particular phone. The NSA has access to petabytes of transmitted data, so much data we can't begin to comprehend. Yet the FBI still presses this code being written even through the information is already accessible. 

2. If Apple were to write this code it would be applicable to all iPhones, not just terrorists. It runs the risk of being leaked and soon anyone who understands basic coding could have information to anyone's information. The nation runs the risk of facing a huge privacy breech of its citizens

3. Apple itself believes that this request is a slippery slope. This is a privacy breech that could lead to access to health records, financial records, microphones etc. without the users knowledge. 

4. Anyone who understand basic law knows this case will be cited, this court order to will be cited. If Apple chooses to write this code it will then be used as a precedent for future cases. This is a problem because it can affect future cases on a much larger scale. 

I clearly believe Apple needs to hold their grounds on this issue. Their behavior and willingness or unwillingness to comply will set an example for years to come. 

Well Informed: Democracy 2.0

Social media has the great power to inform or misinform. Is it changing our democracy? Perhaps. For the better? Not exactly.

I remember attending my Digital Revolution class during the Arab Spring, I remember us discussing with such excitement how social media was changing democracy. At last we could broadcast the thoughts of the common man to the masses. It was a really exciting time to feel like a revolution was being organized through social media. Yet, here we are a few years later and we still haven't seen much REAL change. If anything through social media engagement or disengagement we are only reinforcing our own political ideals without much discourse or deliberation.  This isn't real change.

Let me explain, I think in times past people were more engaged, they listened to the debates, they sat and debated themselves in real time and came to their own conclusions and opinions. You couldn't ignore someone sitting across the table from you. You didn't have the choice to not respond or stoop to emotional arguments. You certainly couldn't sit and correct grammar to add "validity" to your own argument.  Now, with the growth of social media people rarely want to discuss politics with people whose opinions differ from their own. Most people either avoid these conversations or disengaged when they meet an idea different from their own.  It also seems we are much less likely to post political views when they think their viewers opinions will be much different than theirs. For instance, I don't speak out about police brutality because I'm friends with many wives of officers. I wouldn't want to offend them or get into a heated argument over the matter so I hold my opinions silently.

With an ever shifting context away from face-to-face interaction, we also begin to lack common courtesy. Since social media is pretty much done solitary I think we have lost a lot of our civility. Its no wonder people don't want to discuss politics when arguments can quickly become personal attacks and full of fallacious arguments. I know I'm often guilty of choosing silence over disagreement. I understand this behavior is dangerous, but I'm not quite sure how to change it.