View LISTSERV archives

CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU


View:

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CIO Home

CIO Home

CIO  September 2014

CIO September 2014

Subject:

Re: Google Indoor Mapping

From:

Luke Fernandez <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 6 Sep 2014 11:40:41 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (313 lines)

Thanks. I'll have to check out Schneier's blog.  My apologies for
butchering the Tufecki quote on "technology is just a tool"  here's
the corrected quote:

"Pundits often say that “technology is just a tool” — that technology
is merely what its users make of it, no more or no less. Leaving aside
the kernel of truth, this is a misleading notion. Yes, a chair may be
used to break a window or to sit on, but these are not equally likely
outcomes of interacting with a chair. All technologies provide
“affordances” (i.e., uses of technology that are made easier by
design, materiality, and features). Most people will sit on chairs but
they will not sit on desk lamps. “Sitting” is an affordance of chairs
but not of lamps. Unfortunately, for many who write about technology,
fear of sounding like a technological determinist (an academic
bogeyman) has too often led to a swing from “technology isn’t
everything” to the equally incorrect idea that “technology is almost
nothing.” Technology is thoroughly entangled with structures of
society, and affordances of social media has societal consequences."

Luke Fernandez
http://itintheuniversity.blogspot.com

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Robert Goldstein
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> No, I don't think Schneier would claim "technology is just a tool" at all.
>  He would say that security measures have costs and benefits.  The costs
> might include loss of privacy or loss of function for legitimate uses, as
> well as opportunity costs.
>
> I think he'd claim that the benefits depend on the nature of your
> adversary. Securing your property against storm damage is straightforward,
> since you don't expect the storm to look for workarounds.  But if you add
> security measures to foil human attackers, you should expect them to
> search for alternate attacks. Schneier has suggested that it can be more
> cost effective to spend effort to mitigate damage (e.g. Improve first
> responders) than to defend specifically against a very narrow threat (e.g.
> Shoe bomber).
>
> Schneier would also claim that different parties to the security
> discussion might have agendas beyond "better security".  E.g. A burglar
> alarm might help you, but if it merely causes the crooks to rob your
> neighbor, there is no real benefit to the police.
>
> Here's an interesting analysis of the cost effectiveness of homeland
> security:
> http://www.hsaj.org/?fullarticle=7.1.16
>
> Another about comparing various life-saving interventions:
> http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~hsm/bca2005/lnotes/500-interventions.pdf
>
> I find Schneier's blog thought provoking.  He usually writes about
> technology issues, but also more broadly about physical security, social
> trust, biological analogs, and so on.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Robert Goldstein
> Director
> Office of Information Technology
> Pitzer College
> 1050 N Mills Ave.
> Claremont CA 91711
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/6/14 7:38 AM, "Luke Fernandez" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Interesting.  I'm not familiar with Schneier.  From your summary he
>>seems to be suggesting that technology is just a tool and that it can
>>be either used for good or bad.  Or his point more nuanced then that?
>>For surely technology isn't just a tool.  Here's one of my favorite
>>quotes from Zeynep Tufecki arguing for why it's not:
>>
>>Pundits often say that ³technology is just a tool² ‹ that technology is
>>merely
>>what its users make of it, no more or no less. Leaving aside the
>>kernel of truth, this
>>is a misleading notion. Yes, a chair may be used to break a window or
>>to sit on, but
>>these are not equally likely outcomes of interacting with a chair. All
>>technologies
>>provide ³affordances² (i.e., uses of technology that are made easier
>>by design, Pundits often say that ³technology is just a tool² ‹ that
>>technology is merely
>>what its users make of it, no more or no less. Leaving aside the
>>kernel of truth, this
>>is a misleading notion. Yes, a chair may be used to break a window or
>>to sit on, but
>>these are not equally likely outcomes of interacting with a chair. All
>>technologies
>>provide ³affordances² (i.e., uses of technology that are made easier
>>by design, (from:
>>https://www.academia.edu/5788740/The_Social_Internet_Frustrating_Enriching
>>_but_Not_Lonely)
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Luke Fernandez
>>http://itintheuniversity.blogspot.com
>>
>>On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Robert Goldstein
>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Schneier and others point out many times that the bad guys use the same
>>> technologies that we all find useful, too:  cell phones, gps, google
>>>maps,
>>> taxis, boats, fed ex, and pretty much everything else you can think of.
>>> And
>>> sometimes trying to restrict these tools can cause more harm than good.
>>> E.g. For every active shooter that might have used your floor plan,
>>>there
>>> could be a first responder that also might have used it.
>>>
>>> And as Mark points out, active shooters could be resourceful enough to
>>>find
>>> (or not need) workarounds, leaving the rest of us with the
>>>inconvenience of
>>> restrictions that limit the good guys but not so much the bad ones.
>>>
>>> The clincher, for me, is this:  If you (or the TSA or other security
>>>agency)
>>> rule against some dual-use technology and something bad happens, you are
>>> covered.  If you rule for the technology, and something bad happens,
>>>you are
>>> exposed no matter how reasonable and considered your decision was.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> Robert Goldstein
>>> Director
>>> Office of Information Technology
>>> Pitzer College
>>> 1050 N Mills Ave.
>>> Claremont CA 91711
>>>
>>>
>>> From: <Berman>, Mark <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Reply-To: EDUCAUSE Listserv <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: Friday, September 5, 2014 2:44 PM
>>> To: EDUCAUSE Listserv <[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [CIO] Google Indoor Mapping
>>>
>>> Interesting. All the "active shooter" tabletop exercises that we've done
>>> have involved members of the community going on a rampage. And thinking
>>> about the actual occurrences that have happened on college campuses
>>>that's
>>> generally been true. Meaning that the people know the buildings already
>>>and
>>> don't need to go to google maps to figure out where to go!
>>>
>>>  -Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Jameson Watkins <[log in to unmask]>
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mark,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Œactive shooter¹ scenario is one that comes up in every discussion
>>>> I¹ve had about this and another less ominous (to some) scenario is
>>>>enabling
>>>> vendors to pop in to offices unsolicited. My opinion is that a
>>>>determined
>>>> person can get what he/she wants now in two or three clicks by looking
>>>> through an online directory with office addresses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our discussion went in the direction of looking into having tiered
>>>> permissions: a public-facing version that only maps our clinical,
>>>> out-patient areas and possibly a few offices like admissions, and then
>>>>an
>>>> intranet-based version for our staff that gets down into at least the
>>>> conference rooms if not specific offices. I¹m a little fuzzy on how
>>>>this
>>>> would work or if it¹s possible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> jw
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Berman, Mark
>>>> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 2:59 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [CIO] Google Indoor Mapping
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jameson and Kyle,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We haven't done this but, as a Google Apps campus, it seems like a very
>>>> attractive thing to do. We already have had issues where people click
>>>>the
>>>> "map" button on a calendar appointment and see a map of University of
>>>>Texas.
>>>> It seems to me like it would be great to have all the rooms mapped so
>>>>that
>>>> function would work as expected by users. I'll have to talk about it
>>>>with
>>>> our Risk Management folk. Does anyone see any real downsides to this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  - Mark
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Mark Berman, Chief Information Officer
>>>> Siena College
>>>> 515 Loudon Road
>>>> Loudonville, NY  12211
>>>> (518)782-6957,  Fax: (518)783-2590
>>>> Siena College is a learning community advancing the ideals of a liberal
>>>> arts education, rooted in its identity as a Franciscan and Catholic
>>>> institution.
>>>>
>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments, is for
>>>>the
>>>> sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
>>>> privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or
>>>> distribution is prohibited. If you received this e-mail and are not the
>>>> intended recipient, please inform the sender by e-mail reply and
>>>>destroy all
>>>> copies of the original message.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Jameson Watkins <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi ­
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Has any institution allowed Google to map their indoor facilities?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.google.com/maps/about/partners/indoormaps/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We¹ve been approached by Google to include our campus and hospital in
>>>> their indoor mapping project, but it¹s raising questions over public
>>>>and
>>>> private space, and the more difficult question, who has the authority
>>>>to
>>>> determine the extent of what it is that should be mapped.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A cursory search found about 25 institutions that are listed has having
>>>> signed up but I¹m struggling to find any of their actual indoor maps
>>>>from
>>>> their sites.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jameson Watkins
>>>>
>>>> Director, Customer Innovation & Support
>>>>
>>>> University of Kansas Medical Center
>>>>
>>>> 913-588-7387
>>>>
>>>> ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
>>>> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
>>>> http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
>>>> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
>>>> http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
>>>
>>>
>>> ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
>>> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
>>> http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
>>>
>>> ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
>>> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
>>> http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
>>
>>**********
>>Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent
>>Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
>
> **********
> Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.

**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Join or Leave CIO

Join or Leave CIO


Archives

March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2