#DigCommSu

“I always feel like somebody’s watching me.”

This paranoid chorus of an 1980s song by Rockwell sums up the one-hit-wonder’s frustration over unseen eyes stalking his whereabouts.

And that’s how it is when I search the Internet. 

But in my case, it’s not paranoia. 

Surveillance of my Web browsing patterns starts with “cookies,” which the textbook Media & Culture (Campbell, Martin and Fabos) defines as “information profiles that are automatically collected and transferred between computer servers whenever users access Web sites.” Every time I peruse the Web, my moves are being tracked.  

Cookies “can also be used to create marketing profiles of Web users to target them for advertising,” the text says. So each stop I make to consider or buy something online may generate information about my needs and wants that are ripe for companies eager to fulfill them. Such data mining allows businesses to reach potential customers with user-specific advertising.

It’s the reason why I get inquiries about my travel interests after I make hotel reservations. Or I get an email coupon following a search of sales at my neighborhood grocery store. And ever since I researched foreign-language lessons online, I’ve been pelted with promos about nearby schools and studying abroad.

This niche online experience is a part of Web 3.0, or the semantic Web. Our current era of the Internet “places the basic information of the Web into meaningful categories — family, friends, mutual interests, location — and makes significant connections for us,” the textbook says. But in order to enable “computers and people to work in cooperation” creating customized content for users, the Web requires a fair amount of online surveillance.

Frankly, I’m unnerved by all this spying. I’d like to believe that there’s still a measure of privacy in the world despite all the signs that there isn’t. For now, at least, I think I’d be willing to sacrifice a more meaningful Web for the ability to lurk online without being “watched.” But that’s not so easy these days. The need — and usefulness — of personal data trumps my individual desire to hide on the Internet.

So I guess Rockwell was right. 

For months, I’d been hoping the word “epic” would fall out of popularity in the lexicon of American speech.

Then Apple decided to take on the FBI.

Now the over-the-top (and overused) adjective seems appropriate. 

And if Apple ever needed a makeover in the media, where a tech titan-turns-underdog to become the people’s champion, this face-off with the feds could provide it — whatever the outcome of the case.

The firm has only a few days to comply with a magistrate’s order to help the FBI bypass encryption on an iPhone linked to one of the San Bernardino shooters that killed 14 people in a December attack. Both suspects, Tashfeen Malik and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, were killed by police.

Apple CEO Tim Cook published a letter to consumers Tuesday saying the government has asked for “something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.”

Cook’s letter urged “public discussion” about the legal case, and that call to action helped spark endless TV punditry, social media hashtags (#AppleVsFBI) and op-ed commentary this week. One journalist tweeted that three major editorial pages — New York Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal — favor Apple’s side in the encryption battle.

An Associated Press story reports that other “big tech companies” are also siding with the company in its fight with the government.

“We stand with @tim-cook and Apple (and thank him for his leadership)!” Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey tweeted, the AP story says. Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai also tweeted support, saying, “Forcing companies to enable hacking could compromise users’ privacy.

The text “Media and Culture (Campbell, Martin and Fabos)” says the right to privacy “addresses a person’s right to be left alone, without his or her name, image or daily activities becoming public property.”  And while law enforcement has extensive latitude in conducting crime investigations, the precedent that so-called #ApplevsFBI could set for other users is what Apple says it fears. “Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk,” Cook’s letter reasons. 

Although Apple could also lose support from consumers who rank national security higher than cell phone security, as the AP story noted, its position in this David vs. Goliath-like battle has been set. The champion here may turn out to be different, but the challenge will still be epic.

“Don’t rail against progress!”

That’s what I tell anyone who tells me how cell phones are ruining society.

And since my cell phone is ever-present and nearly always in use, I get told this all the time. It’s usually the first of a three-pronged plea by my senior relatives to put my phone away and talk directly to them.

Me: (In their company, scanning my phone for whatever …)

Them: “Cell phones are ruining this society.”

Me: “Don’t rail against progress.”

Them: “Why are people always looking at those things?”

Me: “Because they do so much. They’re very handy and necessary. People multitask.”

Them: “Will you PLEASE put that thing away?!”

Me: “I can’t. I need it.”

And I do. It’s impossible for me to concentrate effectively if I don’t have my phone at hand. I, like many, have felt the sheer panic in discovering that I’ve left my cell at home and must try to accomplish my daily tasks without it.

“I need my phone! What if there’s an emergency? How can anyone reach me?”

In reality, I almost never use my phone for the phone. Last week, I tracked my media consumption in a diary I kept over one weekday. In the more than nine hours I spent engaging with media (TV, radio, tablet and mostly, my iPhone), I logged only six minutes of telephone time. The other 9 hours and 13 minutes were spent “checking” things: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, LinkedIn, the Internet, my email — and, of course, my work. Almost all of it was exclusively accessed through my cell.

The only “lulls” in my day — when I wasn’t looking at my phone — were, thankfully, when I was driving. Even walking to and from my car, I was using (yes, it’s my addiction).

I was not surprised by how much media I consume through my phone, nor that I hardly make phone calls anymore. I’ve embraced the fact that I’m “always on,” and so are most people like me. Whatever I may appear — to some — to be losing because of that fact (in-person chat time, undistracted down time) is outweighed, in my view, by what I’m gaining: Incredible tech savviness, agility at multitasking, closer social connections (if virtual and not actual) and  up-to-the-minute awareness of the world.

Because I value these assets, I’m never “off.” And I don’t seek it from others. I rarely ask my colleagues, students, church friends or associates to put their phones away. I know they’re paying attention — to me and other things.

It’s simple to do because today we have the world at our fingertips. That’s progress. So don’t rail against it.