(Engels)

A growing amount of personal information about a growing amount of people becomes publicly available online. When Google-ing someone’s name, it’s normal these days that a whole list of data pops up that could consist of, among others: career related data, past activities, holiday pictures, blogging and commenting, Social Network (SN) profile data, etc. At first it were merely youngsters that have been familiar with using the internet their whole life that did not really care about privacy (or did not realize the importance) and put all their information out there, available and for grabs for everybody. Not long ago also older generations have joined in and are uploading more and more personal content to the web. These are some interesting trends that will probably become more prominent in the near future.

This project has aimed at creating new insights in this phenomenon of publicly available online personal data. After a first brainstorm session about the current situation of peoples’ ‘online lives’, we all agreed that the visualization that we were supposed to develop would have to serve several relevant goals. First of all we wanted to enhance people’s awareness about privacy online, not by condemning their behavior, but by visualizing something and leave the judgment to the users themselves. A second and very important goal which is closely related to the first is that our visualization must give insights in the amount and extensiveness of people’s data online. As a result our visualization will provide people with the possibility to compare different groups of internet users. So our application provides people with interesting new insights in the different ways people use MySpace. With this application we can create insights in how users with specific cultural or demographic characteristics use MySpace in a different way.
After discussing the subject of personal data available online and putting it together with the goals, we started going through possible ways of visualizing our ideas. It did not take long before we were all very enthusiastic about a metaphoric visualization that could show ones detailed and personal publicly available data. The idea originated from a theory: the data body. A data body is all the data available online of someone. It can exist of for instance: background information, comments, interests, general info, etc. In the case of our visualization the data body is everything that is filled in on a MySpace profile.
We got even more enthusiastic about our idea when we did a brief desk research on the concept data body or applications and visualizations available online that depict somebody’s profile extensiveness. It turned out that most of the SN’s we knew did not have any indication for the completeness. Some of the SN’s we looked at indicate the completeness by a percentage. In the most innovative case (LinkedIn) we found the profile completeness depicted in a bar chart. After this finding and some more brainstorm sessions we were all very confident to take our

confident to take our idea to the next level; we decided to make the depiction interactive, give it a global touch, and even make it social by depicting a user with geographical (inter)related friends. Also, we agreed on the form of our application; we were going to make a widget that would trigger people to click on and play with.

Based on all our initial thoughts, desk research findings, and early conceptualizing we have set up the following problem statement for his project:
“No visualization tool/plugin exists to visualise a so-called data body of a person’s profile on a social network”
We will tackle this problem by firstly describing all relevant theory. This includes theory on social networks in general, online identity theory, network theory, and theory concerning the data body. Secondly we will describe the functional design of our application. In this part a detailed overview of MyDataBody is provided. Subsequently after the theory and functional design we will explain the major design choices we have made during the conceptualizing stage of our project.

During the process of conceptualizing and reading the relevant theory we also started setting up a scraper to collect as many MySpace profiles as possible. This process and the structuring of the raw data is described in the Implementation chapter. Finally before the conclusion we describe how we have actually built MyDataBody and for who the application is potentially relevant.

This concept document came about in a professional get together with Maya Aujla, Daphne Ben Shachar, Piet Walraven, James Mostert, Bram Slits and myself.

(Engels)

Google has launched the Street View application in The Netherlands. This is another phase in Google’s mission to organise the world’s information by building a 3D-environment. Simon Davies, a surveillance watchdog, stated: “The cultural imperative within Google is anti-privacy”. From his perspective that is certainly the case, but then they probably would follow a different strategy (figure below).

Google's alternative anti-privacy strategy.

Google's alternative anti-privacy strategy.

To regulate its content, Google uses a bottom-up approach of self-regulation. As Cherian George states on the bottom-up model: “[As] bloggers keep an eye over readers’ comments appended to their posts. Popular sites heavy with pictorial or video content, such as YouTube, have their own rules forbidding salacious material.(…) With the evolution of new technology, it is neither practical nor is there need for the state to play the role of a master moderator. (George)”

The bottom-up approach is very pragmatic in a sense that it is the only realistic way for regulation. Simply because, the effort to control its vast amount of ever changing content would be, in a top-down manner, an extremely labour intensive and costly practice. Even Google doesn’t have the resources to bring this into practice. So, Google uses a different strategy which is called: ‘flagging’ . The online Youtube community can get rid of inappropriate and sensitive video material by marking it as such.

The difference between YouTube’s approach and Google’s Street View approach, is the source which is generating the content. YouTube’s content is generated by its users, while Street View’ content is generated by its own apparatus. Because of the shear size of the content, regulation is mosty done by the user. From a psycho-analytical perspective, this relation between Street View and the user is rather disturbing, because the former lacks a proper conscience and the latter has to compensate this. So, when somebody stumbles upon a privacy sensitive image, he or she should be its conscience and flag it!

Google's imperative culture of anti-privacy?

Google's imperative culture of anti-privacy?

Microsoft’s Photosynth also forms a 3D-environment, but it’s based on user generated content. Photo’s taken by individuals are uploaded to a server. Here, Photosynth takes over and stitches the photo’s, taken in the same location, together to form a 3D environment of that area. If everyone would upload their images, then, in time (like Google’s Street View), a whole 3D representation of the world could be created. Except, this world is created by the users, instead of a hegemonic company like Google. Even though, we would regulate that space bottom-up. I would rather regulate a world made by users, then by a corporation without a clear conscience.

an alternative 3D representation of the world

an alternative 3D representation of the world

(Engels)

This paper focuses on two issues, within the realms of information visualization. Firstly, MacEachren’s typology of connotative map signs is examined by applying them to Google Maps. Google Maps should, following this concept, expose several connotations about the map itself and should expose connotations about the topic mapped. Section 2.1 and 2.2  will briefly summarize the crux of MacEachren’s a lexical approach to map representation, which will be an introduction towards section 2.3 and 2.4. They elaborate respectively on (1) connotations of veracity and -integrity and (2) valuative, and incitive connotations and –power  in conjunction with Google Maps. Secondly, section 3 examines whether MacEachren’s typology concerning connotative signs of maps could be applied to Graphs. By examining Wainer’s (1983) rules of bad data display and the extraction of basic Graph element. Section 4 conclude with an elaboration on the similarities between connotations of map signs and the extracted elements of Graphs.