Post-flux/Yale-bound

Wow, that was fun: just a wonderful alignment of audience, topic, venue and panel chemistry. In choosing “schizogeography” as his point of departure, Mark was asking what happens to Situationist practices like the dérive (and, more importantly, the intentions behind them) in cities that have been comprehensively networked, thoroughly mapped, and decisively brought beneath the umbra of Empire. This particular choice of topic was, happily and not at all coincidentally, raw meat for Jan and I, and we tore into it with a certain relish. Or so it seemed from the stage, anyway.

This is the second year in a row that speaking at Conflux has – no other way to put it – left me glowing. It’s an amazing feeling to come off a talk and just know from the faces and the voices around you that you did good. Kudos galore to Christina and the rest of the Glowlab team for knocking it out of the park yet again, and many, many thanks to Mark and Jan for being the perfect co-conspirators. I’m super-bummed to have missed Régine and my main man Kevin Slavin by something less than 24 hours – probably literally crossed paths with them at JFK – but such is life.

Now. Day after tomorrow, I’m doing an Everyware talk over lunch at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project – if you happen to be in New Haven on Wednesday, why not swing by?

6 responses to “Post-flux/Yale-bound”

  1. Oxa Koba says :

    Is there any chance you would be willing to persuade future conference organizers to document and release your lectures and panel discussions as audio online?

    I realize it might directly impact your livelihood, but perhaps on certain unique occasions, such as this panel from ConFlux, the unique discussion is worth sharing.

    I enjoy the updates you provide on your site, but since you have moved away from the critical article format of the V2 days, the field of your conversations have become less accessible to those of us unable to attend conferences.

    Perhaps the dialog is rightly restricted to the community in attendance at these events, though in Everyware you make the argument that all of society needs to be engaged in the discussion because of the pervasive and looming impact of technology.

    So if there is any opportunity, any window for sharing your work with a broader audience, then I encourage you to pursue open access to conference audio, slide decks or even video.

  2. speedbird says :

    You know that I agree with you, and in fact I generally stipulate that if anyone wants to audio- or videotape my presentations, they’re quite welcome to do so, but only as long as they release the files to the public under a Creative Commons license.

    (I generally don’t, by contrast, like to put my presentation decks up online, because they’re 10% or less of what I’m trying to get across, and I can all too easily imagine how someone whose only exposure to the presentation was a collection of images could get a misleading idea of what I’m on about.)

    More generally, though, it’s absolutely not my intention to depart from the “critical article format.” I do try to get longer pieces up on Speedbird whenever possible – here’s one, for example – but, yes, I confess that I’m as frustrated as anyone else with how the site all too frequently seems to consist of an itinerary of speaking engagements. I hope you’ll trust that I’m aware of the slippage, and trying desperately to find more time to think and write.

  3. Oxa Koba says :

    I completely appreciate your openness to CC-licensed audio / video of your presentations. To clarify, I was more asking if you might encourage the actual event organizers, as opposed to the general audience, to make provisions for an a/v document to be created and released.

    Critical Article Format
    Please in no way feel pressured by my comment. If nothing else, the stream of itinerary postings on Speedbird speaks volumes about the precious free-time you have left. I in no way am asking that you pour more of your sanity into publishing here on the site.

  4. Scott Boone says :

    As a legal academic who researches and writes in this area, I’d be very interested to hear how the folks at Yale react to your talk. The legal academy seems to have given relatively little attention to ubiquitous computing and other emerging technologies as of yet.

    There are a few papers out there on the most obvious legal concern – privacy (Susan Brenner at Dayton, Jerry Kang (with Dana Cuff) at UCLA, Froomkin at Miami (way back in 2000)). Anita Allen at Penn has a piece coming out on lifelogging that looks like it might go a little beyond privacy and I have a piece coming out on the displacement of property rights in ubiquitous computing environments. I saw Greg Lastowka at Rutgers give a talk related to augmented reality, but I don’t know if he’s planning on publishing it.

    I’ve been trying to generate interest in the subject within the legal academy. I tried to talk the AALS Section on Law and Computers to devote their panel at the annual meeting to ubiquitous computing, but they couldn’t see past the privacy issue – they did end up planning a joint session with the privacy folks. So we’ll have to see.

    I’m tying to put together a panel proposal for next summer’s Southeastern Association of Law Schools’ meeting on this subject. We did one this year on Virtual Worlds which was pretty well received. I also just got off the phone with someone at Charleston School of Law who was interested in putting together a law and technology symposium together. They were thinking about virtual worlds, but I was trying to convince them that this area would be something that had not been covered so heavily.

    So anyway, I’m excited that the folks at the Information Society Project are showing some interest. Let us know how it goes.

  5. speedbird says :

    I sure will, Scott. You know that I’m also interested in the emergence of what I think of as a jurisprudence of ubiquity – although as with other emergent technologies, I’m reasonably sure most jurists will dust off and adapt whatever seemingly-relevant body of understanding and precedent lies ready to hand, rather than attempting to articulate new definitions of (for example) privacy.

    I also agree that the virtual-worlds terrain is pretty well mapped, which is ironic considering how relatively arcane those disputes arising out of same are likely to be when compared to what’s obviously coming down the pike with everyware.

    Thanks, by the way, for providing us with that most useful accounting of prior art, which I’ll totally be namechecking tomorrow.

  6. Scott Boone says :

    I agree completely regarding virtual worlds vs everyware, in terms of which will have more of an impact in the long run. I sometimes tell people that ubicomp/everyware will make the internet look like some sort of small scale pilot program. It may be a bit of an exaggreation (maybe not), but it gets their attention and it is something they can relate to easily.

    I have to go to a meeting now, but I’ll try to give you more of a run down on those articles and some of the people who are likely to be there tomorrow (at least those I have any familiarity with) a little later tonight.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s