Congratulations on your book, Nora! I just put it on my to-read list on Goodreads.

Goodreads is an excellent example of a positive and flexible channel for life-logging and digital quantification. For a voracious reader like me, it is an invaluable and irresistible tool, because I can keep track of every book I read. Every. Single. One. No more, “Oh yeah, I think I read that three years ago. I guess I liked it.” Now, I _know_ which books I read three years ago—and because I’ve taken it upon myself to write fairly detailed reviews of every book I read, I know exactly what I thought of that book three years ago. More detailed metrics allow me to break down the books I read into year by how many stars I give them, or by genre. Thanks to this almost effortless tracking (the only part the really requires effort is writing a review, and not everyone on the site does that), I learn so much more about myself—and I have access to this log of who I was in the past, what I thought was important in a book, etc. Just as I’m always amused to go back and read blog posts from my 16-year-old self in 2007, it’s fun to read book reviews I wrote a few years ago and compare them with how I write now.

Until now I’ve tended to be very transparent about who I am and what I say online, and I intentionally aggregate what I say across various places. (That is, I import my tweets to Facebook, display them on my personal website, etc.) While I am aware of privacy concerns around these services, the fact is that until recently, I haven’t had much of a life that needed to be kept private. This is starting to change. I have just graduated from the Faculty of Education, and last month I finished my student-teaching practicum. Much like others struggle with the possibility of repercussions at work for what they say online, I find myself second-guessing what I want to post because students I have taught (or parents of students I have taught) might see it.

As a consequence of maintaining very open, public profiles on places like Twitter and Goodreads, students can find me and see what I’m saying outside of the classroom. I’ve had students try to befriend me on Facebook, and while I do not accept those requests, they can still “subscribe” and see anything on my profile I make public—which is basically anything I tweet or blog about or write on Goodreads. With this in mind, suddenly I find myself thinking, “Should I be writing this? Are kids going to be reading this?” It’s weird, because of course “kids” could see everything I did online before—I just wasn’t as concerned about it. But the previous generation of teachers didn’t have to deal with the fact that what they say online one night might be part of the discussion in the classroom tomorrow. This is a tremendous opportunity if leveraged properly, but it’s also a huge challenge.

Excellent interview!

A few weeks ago, I read MACHINE MAN, a novel by Max Barry in which the protagonist loses a leg in an industrial accident. Deciding he’s unhappy with the prosthetic legs available to him, he builds himself a better leg (with WiFi!) … but of course, then he’s stuck with one, inadequate human leg and his far superior “better” leg. I’ll give you three guesses what happens next. The novel is somewhat tongue-in-cheek in the way it follows this progression to its conclusion, but it really digs down and addresses some of the big questions this sort of transhumanist approach to augmentation raises.

Well said, Celeste. It's like this xkcd comic: http://xkcd.com/903/

I think you nailed it when you called it a "mindset" and mentioned having "confidence and a willingness to explore." For example, say you are presenting a PowerPoint show, and the projector isn't communicating with one's computer. To me, a "tech savvy" person doesn't wait for the technician to show up; he or she fiddles with the computer settings and tinkers to try to get the projector working. One might not succeed at this, but it's the act of taking that additional step that earns one the "tech savvy" accolade.

That confidence, of course, can often come from experience. As one becomes more experienced, more literate in computers and how different programs work, one usually sees patterns in those programs. Becoming "tech savvy" means making that transition from, "Why isn't it Program A working??" to "Hmm, Program A isn't working. But I had a similar problem once with Program B, and *this* fixed it. I wonder if Program A is the same…." And there are levels of tech savviness! Some people are savvy with, say, Windows, and that's it—that's all they need, and that works for them. Other people are savvy with quite a few different operating systems: Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, etc. And some people are truly tech gods. "Tech savvy" is not just a single state of being but a continuum predicated on a willingness to engage with technology and learn about it.

I think there is a difference between being a "digital native" and being "tech savvy". Not everyone who is "tech savvy" is a "digital native" (some are "digital immigrants", if you will). And I would argue that the majority of "digital natives" are not tech savvy. Many, if not most, of my peers are digital natives; we were the first and second wave of teens growing up with the Web already established in our household. Not all of my peers are tech savvy though—they might have cell phones and use Facebook, but they will be just as lost as their parents if their computer begins malfunctioning.

She's not saying that police intrusions are less of a concern but that there are better checks in place against such intrusions and systems for dealing with such intrusions than there are for corporate intrusions. The police ultimately answer to the government and the people, but because it's more difficult to follow where one's information diffuses throughout the corporate sphere, a similar mechanism is harder to implement for corporations.

I thought Stoddart was anti-anti-business throughout this interview, since she repeatedly emphasized self-moderating privacy guidelines for business groups rather than more legislation and more government regulation.

I am concerned about the way that Facebook's attitude toward privacy has been changing. Matt McKeon created a great visualization of how Facebook's default privacy settings have changed since 2005:http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/ It shows the definite evolution toward less privacy by default.

The recent announcement that Facebook's "instant personalization" of other websites would be opt-OUT rankled me. That's exactly the sort of feature that should be opt-in because of its invasive, privacy-abrogating nature.

However, I'm not going to leave Facebook. I Facebook responsibly. I put only what I want to share with the rest of the world online, whether it's on Facebook or some other site. Most of my biographical information and interests are available on my website to the public at large, so why shouldn't they be available on Facebook too? I don't use many Facebook apps, either. Probably the worst case scenario is if a friend posts an embarrassing photo of me on Facebook and makes it available to the public--but leaving Facebook won't prevent that from happening. I'd have to ask the friend to remove it, and not do it again. I might even send the message by Facebook. . . .

Facebook should be censured for its approach to privacy, yes. But I don't think leaving Facebook is necessary yet. The privacy settings, when configured properly, do make it possible to Facebook responsibly. What matters is educating people so they're aware of how to use their privacy settings--and why it's so important.

Agreed about the segments!

Also, Nora gets mucho bonus points for using the word "bailiwick."

Do they have repair instructions for a time machine?

My first gen iPod nano broke last week, and I bought a replacement first gen iPod nano from eBay. It was only $37, and with 2 GB of space it's an upgrade from my 1 GB one. Had I known about iFixit, however, I would have thought twice. I can't wield a soldering gun to save my life, but I happen to have a brother who does these things.

Now I have an extra iPod nano that's in good condition aside from a battery that doesn't charge and a display that doesn't work. Is there a complementary site that matches me up with a DIY enthusiast who wants to repair an iPod nano but doesn't happen to have one? I could then ship it to him or her and feel less wasteful.

Thinking of _music_ as having soul seems rather backward. It's not the music that has the soul. I agree with Cope when he says that music has no inherent meaning. It's the listener who ascribes meaning to a piece, and hence, if the listener is the one, if anyone, who has a soul.

Now, when we create computers that are moved by music, that will be exciting. But for now, the ability to be moved by music is unique to humans, and that's something one can cherish.

Loved the interview. I appreciate that you took the time, Nora, to ask Marie some really great questions: to differentiate between the benefits of cell phones vs. similar technology, to explore the potential for more rigorous studies, to identify the motivations of the company sponsoring this project, etc. That's why I listen to Spark.

As a teacher-in-training, I'm excited by the prospects new technologies have for improving classroom experiences. However, like Chris above, I'm sceptical of any attempts to apply technology for technology's sake (whether it's because the companies have a business interest or just because "it's cool" and should therefore be used). It's very easy to get carried away.