In a culture that is torn between the right to privacy and publicity of it, and facing the absence of channels of social construction, the safety of the media (and the system connected to / by them) has reached fever pitch levels. The values \u200b\u200bof mobility and portability have been directly affected by the suggestion of insecurity and the search for architectures and security protocols.
technological portability has been possible thanks to the miniaturization of devices and the digitization and global satelización the airwaves over the past twenty years. Our mobile phones, laptops, credit cards, internet files, etc, move in a space with full coverage. This instant availability of our portable mobility makes us perceive only in terms fetish and illusionists of the machine, built in us an almost prosthetics. However, we forget that the current mobility also responds to a process of integration in the language: the outer space has become an inspiring place because it gives security. That security is based on all machines use the same language and accept the same formats. An individual fixed mobile much of his security in technology, in the certainty that, wherever you are, know the rules of use that allow you to negotiate risk situations. The interfaces therefore must be unified, if not, the mobility would be a useless production. Otherwise, there would be many tourists in half the world (715 million in 2002).
In a society increasingly connected and more dependent on their own connectivity and security paradigm, paradoxes arise often portray the stunning transformation in the functioning of our social and political relations. One of them comes from the widespread afincamiento protocol as our access control mechanism and as fundamental to our security device and system.
With the advent Internet, certain forms of identification and access own military environment has been gradually consolidated in the civil sphere. Indeed, the development of the Internet has evolved from highly centralized concept of C + C (Command and Control) to a network of multiple different networks, independent of each other, but united by language "consistent." Thus, the notion of compatibility has been one of the arguments leading to the growth of the network and, in practice, an obsession of thinkers, engineers, industrialists, politicians and Internet users. In fact, the steady rise of the Internet since the early 90's is due almost exclusively the steadfast pursuit of protocols, keys, who can link with great confidence and without loss of data from numerous systems and computer languages, some of them very inconsistent. At the end of the day, the very name of the Internet reflects that this is a "between networks." It was thus to find a standard that would serve as a common language.
The race started from those standards when the NSF (National Science Foundation), the official U.S. government agency for the legitimation of scientific applications, unified various computer centers in 1985, but especially when allowed Commercial use of Internet in 1991. Previously, research on programming languages \u200b\u200band had opened much of the way, but this was primarily aimed at computer writing systems as useful as possible rather than to provide a common language between different systems.
Achieving protocols, universal languages \u200b\u200bwhich connect disparate sources is a premise that philosophers, scientists and humanists have pointed out almost from the Baroque. Leibniz was the first to find a symbolic communication system that adapts to any existing language model. He called characteristica Universalis: "Through the universal language Type any information that could be systematically recorded in abstract symbols with any problems of reasoning could be articulated and resolved. "In 1867, Melville Bell, father of Alexander Graham Bell, one of the main inventors of the telephone, developed the Visible Speech a universal alphabet capable of encoding various systems uniformly. And in 1943, Noam Chomsky, connected in those days a military investigation into the Psycho-Acoustic Laboratory of the U.S. Navy at Harvard, proposes a Universal Grammar with the same purpose.
Undoubtedly, the pursuit of those standards that make compatible various languages \u200b\u200bhad the potential to create a fluent system of communication and interaction, but at the same time opened the can of worms as far as the use of a universal language put on the table serious security issues since anyone code available relevant symbolic could be introduced without a vast and often sensitive information network. That is the beginning of a paradox outlined above, which today already has a central character.
protocols serve to move in the network with immediacy and with the assurance that the translation work. Protocol comes from the Greek protokollon , designating the attached sheet the cover of a manuscript containing headlines or brief summaries of the contents of the text. In this way, it facilitated the search for the issues and helped to understand handwriting hard to read. The protocol also has been traditionally understood as a set of regulations and agreements that countries or institutions have been among them to "correct" the differences of customs and cultural and diplomatic. It is a way to make sure no misunderstanding and to expedite the official relations.
Likewise, the protocol in the current media environment is defined as the set of regulations to standardize a procedure repetitive "between computer systems. Among the protocols known to the public, include those directly linked to the Internet and telephony systems combined satellite and the http or wap . All these keys allow us to bind to a common network and convert the different systems in a code that all computers can read and interpret.
Now it seems clear that when the various systems lived separately without common protocols, the degree of self-confidence was much higher, given that borders between them were much more difficult to cross, but the price was the lack of connectivity and a certain self-sufficiency. Today, the situation is completely opposite: the unification offers unlimited possibilities for exchange and sharing of information, but the risks to the security of a system composed protocols are sensed enormous. That is, the establishment of common keys generated automatically lead to complex processes of encryption and coding to ensure that the global network does not cause their destruction. The interface, the standard is the guarantee.
The safety is based on each of us has its own access code, which also legitimizes us as citizens full electronic. But at the same time we believe that managing these passwords by companies in the sector can seriously infringe on our right to privacy and personal security. Another of the contradictions of this new border membrane between public and private. However, the strengthening of the interactive interfaces from the 80's has been a significant change in the perception of the necessary security environment is to create machines. This is without doubt due to the application of interactivity increasingly simple in use but more extensive in their capabilities. The machine responds, ultimately creating a family relationship, personal, reliable. The web of trust and security that have plotted the interfaces between user and machine is huge, and conditions without doubt a global perception of the technological phenomenon.
electronic user security today is based on the reversibility: the assurance that a mistake can be corrected. In the first commercial computer interfaces developed by Xerox and Apple in the late 70's, the fundamental premise of the psychologists was that the reversibility (Yes-No-Cancel) not directly punish inefficiency or user error but it extends the safety spectrum in a teaching, while helping to train him when proceeding with the machine. In the Interface manual Apple Computers in 1984 reads: "You can encourage people to explore your application through the use of forgiveness. Forgiveness means that actions on the computer are usually reversible. People need to feel that they can try things without damaging the system, creating safety nets for people to feel comfortable learning and using your product [...] Warn people always before starting a task that cause irretrievable loss of data. The alert boxes are a good way to alert users. However, when the options are clear and appropriate and prompt response is, learning to use a program should be relatively free of errors. This means that frequent alert boxes are a good indication that something is wrong with the design of the program. "
The user does not feel that constant Yes-No-Cancel as a nuisance but accepts it as something fundamental, connected to high degree of esteem that is for him or her safety. The appearance of such socialized interfaces to users in the new domain of digital relationships, avoiding sensitivities and generating confidence in the ability to undo the steps taken so far. It is interesting to note that the save data on your computer, many call it "saving" as if the computing environment was really a dark road full of pitfalls, the way of gaming. Witness the revealing comment from a teenager in 1983 after his experience with a computer Sinclair: "The other day when I was using a word processor, I tried to save him. I had spent all morning typing. I started at 8 am and ended at lunchtime. With you to make a single mistake, it's garbage. I'm panicked. Typing sucks and I wanted to make sure to save it. So I saved it all on tape [cassette] without stopping the machine. Then I took the tape to the machine from a friend of mine, to see if I could download it there. If it were possible, then I had done well. I was lucky because I did not lose those eight hours front of the keyboard. "
In 1976, Wang Laboratories engineers realized that many users of word processing equipment were terrified at the fact of losing a day's work after inadvertently pressing the wrong button. And they were not just secretaries who complained of such action: in 1981, former President Jimmy Carter lost some pages of his memoirs to hit a wrong button on a computer Lanier $ 12,000. A call to the company led it to develop a utility disk that enabled Carter to recover the original hard disk data. Wang engineers carried out a design that would make these errors could not occur. Access orders are produced through a simple menu screen. Years later, the design of Wang would be known by the cliche of "user-friendly" ("user friendly" or even GUI, Graphic User Interface, or graphical user interface). If the user makes a mistake, it is only a problem of their own adaptability and adaptation, not a machine issue.
whole system graphical user interface is based on the idea of \u200b\u200bconsistency. The elements must be consistent with each other and the way in which we operate. When a dialog box appears before us in computer screen, where we have three options to operate-IF-NO-CANCEL ", if we give the ENTER key, by default will activate the IF function. This is what consistency means, that in any computer and any application, whether the brand is and with any operating system, the mean SI ENTER key. Consistency is the core of the safety, reversibility and the standard. With consistency not only give more secure our relationship with the computer but is the main tool in the learning process, exploration and expansion of its use, because even though we face a new program, we know there are a number of actions that are always identical: Ctrl + S, Ctrl + O, Enter, etc.
That new attitude to safety management in the sense that it requires individual responsibility in safeguarding overall system contrasts with the disappearance of public accountability of such safeguards. The gradual extinction (privatization) of government policies in the public space in the energy domain, in the workplace, in the management of solidarity., Coverage slogan is the "active responsibility" in this new world deregulated and trapped in non-market laws.
An obvious example of this situation is the application and perception of the car. Speed \u200b\u200bis the fundamental value of our cultural and moral system. However, it seems logical that speed and safety should be a hand for a real social operability. But that has not happened in the case of the car. We have agreed among all the value of the velocity is higher in the hierarchy than security.
Of all the civil-purpose machines invented during the twentieth century, the automobile has been to distance the ingenuity that has claimed more lives. In Spain, killed between 75 and 100 people in a car crash or bike each week. What other machine is allowed to kill this way? What if mobile phones will take the lives of 10 people each week or each month or each year, or the use of elevators reach such a large volume of claims? On the car, our societies have placed a kind of contract with the mechanical world, a security contract, even a kind of constitution, constitution. Traffic accidents have occurred since the beginning of the history of the car, have continued to this day and never has implemented a policy of restraint. The accident represents the public notice of the effects of the inefficiency of the user on the management of the machine (and speed), and also the maximum fine or-death consequences, "circumstances that has force of law, so final.
is fully established that the responsibility for an accident is always strictly individual. That's where we set the variable security. The potential social inefficiency machines passengers killed on the bus or train or plane has nothing to do with their deaths. That's why these accidents arouse more attention and coverage. We arouse more feelings, because it is unfair. It is an undeserved tragedy for those people, but a professional, the conductor may have failed. Accidents Car morally justified precisely because the responsibility is individual. The personal freedom is the argument that sustains this moral model, and we can see publicly advertising images of cars. Individual freedom and speed and are married in the unconscious. And by the way, is treated without problems the huge number of casualties, "collateral" on the roads worldwide.
0 comments:
Post a Comment