Seminar 2010 social networking in indigenous communities


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Seminar 2010 social networking in indigenous communities

  1. 1. Our Mob<br />An system for appropriate social networking in the Indigenous Community<br />PhD Candidate: Chris RauchleSupervisor: Dr Steve Cassidy<br />MCDC10 Friday, 11 June 2010<br />URL:<br />
  2. 2. Coming up<br />Current modes of media use in Indigenous Communities<br />Requirements related to media use in the Indigenous Community<br />Ideas on how to support these requirements using technology<br />My project plan for a system to test these ideas<br />
  3. 3. Existing communications<br />Voice - a lot of issues with phone plans<br />SMS - affinity with indigenous expression<br />PANs (Bluetooth, DVD, VHS, filesharing)<br />Email - free hotmail<br />You Tube<br />Paper from IngeKral at CAEPR @ ANU<br />
  4. 4. Indigenous IT – Krall’s example SMSs<br />
  5. 5. Indigenous IT – Public computer use<br />
  6. 6. Indigenous IT – Making music<br />
  7. 7. Facebook - the awful truth<br />Requires Literacy<br />Requires expensive equipment<br />Requires a data plan (broadband or mobile)<br />Requires a private area (most equipment public)<br />Does not have Rights Management over individual pieces of media<br />Does not have Asset Management - can’t find media by a searching or protect it by local backup<br />Unsupported by current network infrastructure – may be no network so idea of being always connected doesn’t work<br />
  8. 8. Rights Management for:<br />Class and Gender restrictions<br />Location +Temporality<br />Secret/Sacred<br />Mortuary restrictions<br />Bullying<br />Privacy<br />Intend to extend social norms into the IT system that currently doesn’t support them…not replace ‘good manners’ with a machine<br />
  9. 9. Class and Gender<br />Men’s business<br />Women’s business<br />Lawman’s business<br />Questions on these issues may result in silence or misdirection as discussion of them is impolite/rude/forbidden<br />
  10. 10. Location<br />Geotagging- some things may only be discussed in/out of Country or a region<br />Indigenous Spirituality believes People continue to inhabit Country after they have been there<br />Remote experience of country<br />Augmented reality experience of country<br />BingMapslive mashups of 3D<br />Google/Bing Maps Earth/Sky overlays of historical Country<br />
  11. 11. Temporality<br />Media may need embargo or to expire after a certain date<br />Other restrictions may be relaxable after a period of time - non Indigenous equivalents: official secrets act, declassification<br />Copyright may never be allowed (NI = 75 years)<br />Some secrets must never be divulged<br />
  12. 12. Mortuary restrictions<br />No media showing a person for a period after they die<br />No speaking the name of a person who has died<br />No display of objects related to person/event<br />No group talk about death of a person (subject demands a one on one conversation)<br />Selective removal/pixelation of person<br />
  13. 13. Jock McKeon<br />
  14. 14. Bullying<br />Small connected communities mean that existing facebook style ‘defriend’ is irrelevant/inappropriate<br />Cyberbullyingneeds moderation<br />Frictionless nature of social media<br />Betrayal of trust, what can you do to expire your own media if it falls into the wrong hands?<br />
  15. 15. 3rd party betrayal of trust<br />
  16. 16. 3rd party betrayal of trust<br />
  17. 17. 3rd party betrayal of trust<br />
  18. 18. 3rd party betrayal of trust<br />
  19. 19. 3rd party betrayal of trust<br />
  20. 20. 3rd party betrayal of trust<br />
  21. 21. 3rd party betrayal of trust<br />
  22. 22. How do we accomplish this?<br />MPEG1, 2 and 4 are file standards for audio/video<br />MPEG 7 is an annotation standard producing information about content and describing the creation of the media<br />MPEG 21 is a mechanism to enforce viewer control, monetisation and location/temporal restrictions on media expression<br />
  23. 23. Asset Management<br />A prototype using these technologies will test whether media protection is enforceable <br />Personal ownership of data - PANs, Bonjour<br />Retaining rights in the file - MXF<br />Encryption<br />Long life storage<br />
  24. 24. Product Breakdown<br />
  25. 25. Future Research<br />Customer base seems to exist<br />Requires easy to administer rights management<br />Personal storage under personal control<br />Next Steps - is this something that should be prototyped with a community?<br />
  26. 26. References<br />Chose what happens next, American Ad Council, USA 2010,<br />The Manahattana Project<br />Deger, Jennifer, Shimmering Screens: Making Media in an Aboriginal Community, University of Minnesota Press, USA, 2006<br />Kral, Inge, Plugged in: Remote Australian Indigenous youth and Digital Culture, CAEPR WORKING PAPER No. 69/2010,<br />Benchmark policies: Kinship Placements,<br />Michaels, Eric, Bad Aboriginal Art: Tradition, Media and Technological Horizons, University of Minnesota Press, USA, 1994<br />Norris, Ray, Aboriginal Astronomy, CSIRO, 2007,<br />