27.2.12

[New Media Advertising]


Facial Recognition Billboard Only Lets Women See The Full Ad

FACIAL RECOGNITION BILLBOARD ONLY LETS WOMEN SEE THE FULL AD

By Yi Chen on February 21, 2012

A new kind of outdoor advertisement is being trialled on Oxford Street in London’s West End. The interactive advertisement uses a high-definition camera to scan pedestrians and identify their gender before showing a specific ad. The built-in system has a 90 per cent accuracy rate in analyzing a person’s facial features and determining if they’re a male or female.
The £30,000 display is set up by Plan UK, a not-for-profit organization that helps children in third-world countries. Female passersby will be shown the full 40-second video of its ‘Because I’m a Girl’ campaign that promotes sponsoring a girl to receive proper education in a developing country. Males won’t be able to see the full ad and will be directed to Plan UK’s website instead. The purpose of this was to show men “a glimpse of what it’s like to have basic choices taken away.”
The ad campaign will run for a two-week period and hopes to raise quarter of a million pounds in donations over the next four months.
Image credits Plan UK


via PSFK: http://www.psfk.com/2012/02/facial-recognition-billboard.html#ixzz1nbPjvB1M

16.2.12

[open media]


Government Begins to Backpeddle on Online Spying as StopSpying.ca Petition reaches 93K

February 15, 2012 – The government is in hot water with 93,000 Canadians after introducing a bill that would allow warrantless online spying. Known as Lawful Access, this legislation was introduced in Parliament on Tuesday as Bill C-30.
Public interest group OpenMedia.ca says that if passed unchanged, this bill will create a giant, unsecure, expensive data registry that collects the personal information of any Canadian at any time without a warrant.
Over 90,000 people to-date have signed a petition at http://www.StopSpying.ca to protest the online spying bill—a growth of 10,000 since Tuesday morning—and a survey from Canada’s Privacy Commissioner show that 83 percent of Canadians oppose warrantless surveillance measures. 

12.2.12

[dreaming methods :: trailer]

How can you not want to read/interact with born digital narratives like this:


10.2.12

[green energy]

I saw this over at The Plashing Vole blog (fabulous read!) and had to repost it:


5.2.12

[whiteness of winter]

I just love these photos; makes me love winter even more!

4.2.12

[Reactivating the Unheard Avant-gardes]


EAR to the [Archive] Ground – Reactivating the Unheard Avant-gardes. Case: POEX65

Now, listen...

No archive is perfect. No one, I assume, will contest this claim – especially, in this day and age, where archives are everywhere and everything is miscellaneous (Wiser). It is a reasonable claim that this new way of using archives, socially and privately, has created a new understanding of what archives are – and what they are not. At least, it seems much more logical today to claim that any archive including the ‘grand’ and professional (scientific) archives of national and international libraries and museum are imperfect and even selective. People are selective in their choices and tastes and their archives are a mirror of their biases and behaviours. Personal taxonomies are contextualizing social networks. As a mirror of professional and scientific networks, it is easy to assume similar processes of (in this case academically grounded) choices and tastes taking place in the formation and construction of ‘grand’ archives.

My claim is that there are huge lacunas in the construction of the ‘grand’ archives, as well as in the construction of our ‘collective’ knowledge, and it would be tempting - if we consider the other end of the argument that Mark Wiser makes, which indicates that we may never bridge or fill all of them (the idea would be absurd) - to claim that none of it matters. The ‘homemade’ logic being that there is not anything interesting to find, anyway – and if there were, ‘they’ (the professional and scientific networks) would certainly know about it.

This paper argues that this is certainly not the case. The professional and scientific networks did not find, and do not know everything (!) – a lot of dynamic and significant cultural knowledge remain unheard of. Therefore, it is important and should be a priority to examine the lacunas and gaps (if we can find them) and understand them in a cultural and scientific context. Somehow they were excluded or sifted out of the ‘official’ construction of archived knowledge, and how and why this happened is an important scientific question to ask. Furthermore, the notion (it does not qualify as an argument) that only the important stuff made it into the archives, and that it only made it exactly because it was important, is as absurd as it is, almost, a dangerous (and not scientific) point of view.

Read more at Furtherfield.