Locative Media & The City

In the Timo Kopomaa article “Speaking Mobile: Intensified Everyday Life, Condensed City,” Kopomaa makes a comment that I thought was interesting. “Now that the majority of Fins have a mobile phone they have also made a commitment to it in a way which at least for the present is not possible nor perhaps desirable to retract.” We spoke in class about whether or not we feel guilty if we ignore a phone call or two, or how obligated we feel towards our mobile phone. The degree differed for each of us, but I think everyone would agree that now that we “have a mobile phone,” we “have also made a commitment to it” which is also barely possible to retract. Once we fully integrate these technologies into our lives, and accept them as calm technology- in reference to Anne Galloway’s “Resonances and Everyday Life: Ubiquitous Computing and the City,” then as a mass, is there any way to go back? Or would it even be desirable to go back? People take vacations where they declare their cell phone uninvited and unanswerable. A vacation from their cell phone, of sorts. The cell phone is synonymous with work, family, obligations, connectivity, the 9-5pm work society that has turned into a 24-hr work society. As a side note, we touched on this question in class- what happens when because of your cell phone, your work life bleeds into your personal life at all hours. I experienced this for 2 years when I was working fulltime as an event producer. Because of the nature of the jobs (events, which take place at any and all hours), and the culture of my company (work and play hard and be always available), it was absolutely expected by my boss that my cell phone was on at all hours and I received phone calls at any time. The result? On evenings where my phone didn’t ring, I was still always aware of it’s presence and it felt as though a piece from my “9-5 work day” was with me all the time. My personal life became difficult to maintain because people outside of the business did not understand why my plans could change at a moments notice. The stress level, just by having that little cell phone, that constant connectivity, was immeasurable. I became physically ill from the stress, so could I measure that as proof that a cell phone made me sick? However, on the positive side, it was also the motivator that pushed me into graduate school. And yet, like the Fins, we invite this technology into our everyday life. So I found Anne Galloway’s questioning and concern for some ubiquitous computings interesting, and I wonder too. On page 8, she says, “Of concern here are the implications of context-aware computing for privacy in everyday life. Such comprehensive monitoring or surveillance is not contained by either space or time, as these technologies may cross both physical and social boundaries.” And on page 9, “The question of ‘invisibility’ also raises concerns over privacy, as it may be impossible for people to recognize, let alone control, their interaction with ubiquitous computing applications.” This is a flawed example, since Galloway stated the alarm clock is not ubiquitous computing, but I will use it anyways for the sake of argument. Since the alarm clock became a part of our everyday life, it became expected- by labor forces and socially- that we each have an alarm clock and use it to commit to waking and appearing in locations at specific times, day in and day out. The same occurs with ubiquitous computing, and I question how by making computing technologies ‘invisible’ will negatively affect our daily lives. I’m certainly not immune- probably because of my past job, I feel guilt when I don’t answer the phone and I rarely turn it off. I also am a sucker for newer, faster, better, so technologies that are ubiquitous are appealing to me. But I fear that if we don’t slow down and pay attention, we will be socially changed in a way that, to use Kopamaa’s words, “for the present is not possible nor perhaps desirable to retract.”