Archive by Author

Stealing a Glance: Eye Tracking, AR, & Privacy

February 22, 2012 in Augmented Reality with 0 Comments

The science of tracking eye movements to determine what draws our interest  has been around for more than a century.  Retailers, product designers, and advertisers use it to figure out how to grab consumers’ attention.  Website designers use it when deciding how to lay our content on a page.

But augmented reality eyewear is likely to elevate this psychological curiosity into a full-fledged privacy battleground, for several reasons.

First, unlike virtually any technology that already exists, truly immersive AR depends on knowing exactly what our eyes are looking at. This data will be absolutely indispensable in order for the eyewear to do its job.  So it seems inevitable that such devices will collect eye-tracking information, in one form or another.

Second, the information itself has great commercial value.  Just like with today’s technologies, any provider of augmented digital content will be eager for hard data on how effective and engaging their content is for consumers.  So the temptation to collect and monetize it will prove too tempting for many service providers to resist.

Third, the public’s reaction to internet browser cookies and spyware over the past two decades strongly suggests that consumers will also react negatively to companies archiving their browsing activities in augmented space.  Much of the online tracking that goes on today is quite lawful.  Regardless, a large segment of the population reacts negatively to the idea that someone else knows what they’ve done online.   We see this in the demand for private browsing and the persistent calls for more privacy regulation in the US and Europe.  The resulting patchwork quilt of privacy laws and regulations across multiple jurisdictions already leaves many service providers confused about what information they can and cannot collect, and it’s bound to get only more complicated.

Fourth, augmented “browsing” will be an order of magnitude more personal of an experience than is typing words on a keyboard or scrolling through a display on a monitor.  It’s one thing for a computer to be logging the addresses of websites you visit.  It will be another thing entirely for there to be an electronic record of everything you physically look at. But that’s exactly the type of information that “browser” software inside augmented eyewear will collect.  Integrating our digital experience with our immediate physical surroundings is intended to make that experience feel more immersive–more real.  But such an “immersive” experience will necessarily feel more personal as well.  And the more intimately users experience something, the more deeply they are likely to feel a sense of invasion when someone else intrudes on that experience.

Of course, this viewpoint is just one side of the equation.  Augmented browsing software will undoubtedly come with terms of use, click-wrap contracts, and end user license agreements very similar to the ones governing internet browsing and digital content today.  There will likely be some level of disclosure–either voluntarily or by legal mandate–that users’ visual experiences are being recorded.  And to some extent, we will want augmented browsers to track our eye movements, in order to continuously improve the software’s performance.

Also just like today, however, no matter how many licenses and disclosures are in place, some users will still allege that their privacy is being invaded.  This article isn’t intended to suggest where the AR privacy lines should be drawn–only that fights over those lines are inevitable.

Perhaps by then, the fallout of the internet privacy wars will have resulted in some degree of consensus or regulatory brightlines defining what information is and is not private.  But if lawmakers are going to clarify privacy principles for the augmented age, they’d better hurry–because mass-market AR eyewear and software are just around the corner.

In the meantime, those companies currently developing this technology would do well to think through the related privacy issues, and have well-defined privacy policies in place from Day One.

 

 

 

 

 

New Resource: Updates on Copyright Litigation in the 6th Circuit

February 16, 2012 in IP with 0 Comments

Copyright law is a rapidly evolving field.  And a surprisingly large portion of the country’s copyright litigation happens within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  This is the federal court that hears appeals from judges in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

I was once a law clerk for a Sixth Circuit judge, and today most of my IP litigation practice takes place within this jurisdiction.  So the way this court deals with copyright issues is a subject near and dear to my heart.

So I have added a new resource page to this site called “6th Circuit Copyright Updates.”  which you can see in the menu bar above.  On this page, I will summarize rulings in copyright cases from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the various federal district courts within Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and even state courts that address these issues. These concise updates will provide a quick-glance guide to the state of copyright law within this important jurisdiction.

I hope you find this resource helpful and informative. Click here to check it out.

Report: Jurors’ Misuse of Social Media Is a Real, but Addressable, Problem

February 9, 2012 in Social Media with 1 Comment

How serious of a problem is the use of social media by jurors?  Intense reporting by news outlets and commentators (including me) could give the impression that it is a widespread phenomenon plaguing every court in the nation, and threatening to unravel the reliability of the entire jury system.  Or is it just hype?

That’s the question that the Federal Judicial Center recently set out to answer.  The FJC is the research and education agency of the federal judicial system, established by Congress in 1967.  Its purpose is to educate federal judges and court staff, research court operations, and develop recommendations for improvement.

To assess the scope of the juror social media problem, the FJC surveyed 508 federal district court judges across the country.  The results–described in a November 22, 2011 report–may surprise some people.  It concluded that “social media use by jurors is infrequent, and that most judges have taken steps to  ensure jurors do not use social media in the courtroom.”

So it’s under control then, right?  Maybe.  But digging a little deeper into the data complicates that conclusion.  First, the report is based entirely on the feedback of judges, which means it only reports social media use that got found out.  This survey says nothing about juror posts that never got reported back to the judge.  Given the number of other things that a court and lawyers have to manage during a trial and the decentralized, semi-private nature of social media, it’s reasonable to suspect that the unreported social media use eclipses the instances that get discovered.

Second, the consequences of even one juror misusing social media remain high.  In over 13% of reported cases, the juror’s actions caused a mistrial.  That means the hundreds of thousands of dollars of private money and public resources that had already gone into preparing witnesses and evidence, conducting the trial, and paying employees were wasted and had to be repent–all because one person couldn’t resist sharing their thoughts on Facebook.

In 30% of reported cases, the judge removed the juror from the panel.  26.7% were cautioned, but allowed to stay on the panel.  So regardless of how the trial finally resolved, this conduct likely gave the losing party one more argument to make on appeal–i.e., that the juror’s actions tainted the result of the trial.  In some cases, such as the recent decision in Diminas-Martinez v. Arkansas, 2011 Ark 515 (Dec. 8, 2011), this can mean that the entire trial is thrown out.  Other recent appellate decisions in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and the Third Circuit, among others, considered the argument but still upheld the decision.  Even in these cases, however, thousands of dollars in extra attorney and judicial time was spent dealing with something that was entirely preventable.

Third, fully 94% of the judges surveyed said they had adopted measures to prevent jurors from misusing social media, such as adding extra jury instructions or giving frequent reminders.  While these steps are low-cost, they again make the trial process that much more cumbersome, adding yet another layer of detail to a process that is already incomprehensible to many lay people.

In sum, this report underscores the prevailing wisdom that juror misuse of social media is a problem to be taken seriously and addressed where necessary.  It doesn’t pose a fundamental threat to our system of justice, which will adapt accordingly just as it has with previous challenges.  Still, a little personal responsibility and decorum from jurors would go a long way toward making the system more efficient and fairer for everyone involved.

Feb.15 Webinar: Social Media Legal Implications for Health Care Providers

February 8, 2012 in Social Media with 0 Comments

On Wednesday, February 15, my colleagues Linda Ross and Mary Pate and I will be presenting on this topic in a webinar sponsored by the Michigan Health & Hospital Association (MHA).    More information and a registration form are available here.
This is our second time presenting to the MHA’s constituency, but the substance of our materials has been completely updated to reflect changes in this quickly evolving field.  Here’s how the MHA describes the event:
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, LinkedIn…social networking is everywhere and presents both opportunities and challenges for the health care sector.  These online communities can offer affordable and powerful means of marketing and disseminating valuable information to patients, providers and the public.  Yet, misuse can also lead to unanticipated and undesirable legal consequences.  The MHA Health Foundation Webinar Social Networking:  Legal Implications Health Care Providers Need to Understand will help you navigate potential health care and employment law pitfalls as you determine and develop the role of social media in your organization.
Attendees will examine:
  • social media opportunities and challenges in the health care setting
  • lessons learned from recent litigation involving social media
  • do’s and dont’s in your social media policy
  • a look to the future trends in social media

If you’re in health care and at all curious or concerned about these issues, I hope you can join us.

New Year Bring New Guidance from NLRB on Employees and Social Media

February 7, 2012 in Social Media with 2 Comments

The National Labor Relations Board is at it again.

In August 2011, its Acting General Counsel, Lafe E. Solomon, issued a report summarizing several of its then-pending enforcement actions dealing with social media.  These are disputes in which an employee was disciplined or terminated for something he or she posted online.  In many of these cases, the NLRB sided with the employee, bringing charges against the employers for infringing the employees’ federal right to engage in “concerted activity.”

Six months later, Solomon recognizes that “these issues and their treatment by the NLRB continue to be a ‘hot topic’ among practitioners, human resources professionals, the media, and the public.”  Therefore, in an attempt to keep all of these audiences informed on what the Board is thinking and where its efforts are headed, Solomon released a followup report on January 24, 2012.  This document summarizes “fourteen recent cases that present emerging issues in the context of social media [and employment law].”

One notable aspect of these cases is that the Board appears to be focusing even more of its attention on the employer’s social media policy, as opposed to just the facts of individual employees’ dismissal.  In some cases, even when the Board agreed with a termination, it still punished the employer for language in social media policies that, if read literally, gave the employer too much discretion over employee behavior.

As I did last time, instead of analyzing each case at length, I’ll reprint the headlines from each section in the report.  This will give you an idea of why the NLRB considers these 14 cases to be important representations of the “emerging issues” in this area of law:

  • Discharge for Facebook Comments and for Violation of Non-Disparagement Rule Was Unlawful
  • Discharge for Facebook Comments Was Lawful, But Social Media Policy and No-Solicitation Rule Were Overly Broad
  • Employer’s Social Media Policy Was Overbroad, But Employee’s Facebook Posts Were Not Protected
  • Portions of Employer’s Communications Systems Policy Were Overbroad
  • Employer’s Initial Social Media Policy Was Overbroad, But Amended Version Was Lawful
  • Provisions in Drugstore Operator’s Social Media Policy Withstand Scrutiny
  • Employee Was Unlawfully Discharged for Her Facebook Complaint About Reprimand
  • Employees’ Facebook Postings About Supervisor and Promotion Selection Were Protected Concerted Activity
  • Employee’s Facebook Postings About Manager’s Attitude and Style Were Protected Concerted Activity
  • Employee’s Critical Online Postings Were Protected Concerted Activity That Did Not Lose Act’s Protection
  • Employee’s Facebook Postings About Irritating Coworker and Workplace Incident Were Not Protected
  • Truck Driver Was Not Engaged in Concerted Activity and Was Not Constructively Discharged
  • Employee’s Facebook Criticism of Supervisor Was Venting and Was Not Concerted

 

 

Justice Department Agrees: First Amendment Protects the Right to Video Police

February 2, 2012 in Social Media with 0 Comments

I’ve previously argued in court briefs, on this blog, and in the press that citizens have a qualified right under the First Amendment to take and share video of police officers acting in the course of their duties in public spaces.  If we didn’t have that right, then people like the videographer who filmed the Rodney King beating could be jailed for obstructing justice or sued for invading privacy, rather than being lauded as an American hero.

Yet, in lawsuits and criminal prosecutions all around the country, some police officers have been trying to accomplish exactly that result.  The vast majority of courts to rule on the subject have ruled in favor of the citizen-videographers, noting that such monitoring can be an essential tool for keeping public servants accountable.  But in many courts, this remains an open legal question.

On January 10, 2012, however, the U.S. Justice Department took a big step toward resolving the issue.  In a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the DOJ filed a brief explicitly supporting a citizen’s right to film police in public.

The Background of the Case

These “facts” are taken from the complaint filed by the plaintiff, Christopher Sharp, as described by the DOJ’s brief.  They haven’t been ruled on by a court yet, so we don’t know that they’re entirely accurate.  But for purposes of the motions currently pending in the case, the court must assume that the allegations are true.

On May 15, 2010, while in the Clubhouse at the Pimlico Race Course,  Sharp observed Baltimore City Police Department (“BPD”) officers forcibly arresting his friend. Mr. Sharp used his cell phone camera to video and audio record the officers’ conduct. Several officers approached Mr. Sharp and ordered him to surrender his camera phone. After twice refusing to comply with officers’ demands, Mr. Sharp surrendered his phone to an officer who said he needed to review and possibly copy Mr. Sharp’s recording as evidence.

When the officer returned with Mr. Sharp’s cell phone, he ordered Mr. Sharp to leaves. As Mr. Sharp left the Clubhouse, he discovered that officers had deleted all of the recordings on his cell phone, including the two recordings of his friend’s arrest and at least twenty personal videos of great sentimental value. The phone had also been reset so that it only permitted emergency calls.  On August 31, 2011, Mr. Sharp filed a Complaint alleging violations of state law and rights protected by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The DOJ’s Position

The DOJ is not a party in the case, but it intervened for the purposes of expressing its view of the law.  In a filing called a “Statement of Interest,” the DOJ made it absolutely clear that the First Amendment protects what Sharp did:

“This litigation presents constitutional questions of great moment in this digital age: whether private citizens have a First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties, and whether officers violate citizens’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they seize and destroy such recordings without a warrant or due process. The United States urges this Court to answer both of those questions in the affirmative. The right to record police officers while performing duties in a public place, as well as the right to be protected from the warrantless seizure and destruction of those recordings, are not only required by the Constitution. They are consistent with our fundamental notions of liberty, promote the accountability of our governmental officers, and instill public confidence in the police officers who serve us daily.”

Of course, the DOJ does not have the final say in interpreting the Constitution.  That’s what the federal courts–and ultimately, the Supreme Court–is for.  But the DOJ is the federal government’s top law enforcement agency.  So for it to take a firm position on this issue speaks volumes about how the law is likely to be interpreted and applied.

 

[INTERVIEW] BC “Heavy” Biermann: Taking Back Public Spaces With AR

January 31, 2012 in Augmented Reality with 2 Comments

I’m one of several people who write about how augmented reality will change the world some day.  BC “Heavy” Biermann is one of the few people currently helping to make that happen.  In addition to working as an assistant professor of media, BC is the founder and developer behind The Heavy Projects, the brains behind several innovative AR projects.  In the course of preparing my upcoming talk on “Augmented Reality and Social Change,” I had the great fortune of talking to BC and learning more about his vision of our augmented future.

Occupy AR

The first example of BC’s work that I came across–and the one most obviously tied to social change–is the “Occupy AR” channel he developed at the height of last fall’s Occupy protests.  This was a channel on the junaio AR browser by metaio.  The channel carried information for the Occupy protests in five different cities across the country.  Using the GPS coordinates of scheduled demonstrations, the channel guided users to the site, and offered related contact information.

The Occupy AR channel made a splash online as one of the earliest, starkest examples of AR being used to foment social change.  BC supports the Occupy movement and is happy to have contributed.  But I discovered that he wasn’t exactly thrilled with the final product.

“It came down to a lack of time,” BC says.  For starters, he never intended the channel to rely on geolocation.  He much prefers AR applications that use feature tracking.  “That’s why I chose the junaio platform in the first place,” he said, “because it was the best at feature tracking at the time.”  (He hasn’t yet gotten a chance to develop for the newer Layar Vision platform.)  BC’s original concept was designed to recognize the NYPD logo, overlay that with the Occupy symbol, and use that to direct users to the park where the demonstrators were camped out.  But the code to make that happen wasn’t working, and developments within the Occupy movement were happening quickly.  So he fell back to the geolocation mechanics that most smartphone AR apps use.

“I had a whole web-based back-end planned, too,” BC laments.  This would have tied into the Occupy AR channel to allow users to upload video, and give organizers the chance to collect visitor analytics.  He made preliminary plans with the Occupy Wall Street organizers in New York to develop the site, “but again, time just ran out.”

As a result, he has no idea how many people actually used the Occupy AR channel.  If nothing else, though, it proved the concept that AR can offer a unique way to use draw people to a physical location using digital data.

Hijacking Outdoor Advertisements

BC takes more pride in the development work he’s done for the New York-based Public Ad Campaign.  This organization believes “that public space and the public’s interaction with that space is a vital component of our city’s health,” and considers “outdoor advertising [to be] the primary obstacle to open public communications.”  Its mission is to “air our grievances in the court of public opinion and witness our communities regain control of the spaces they occupy.”

One of Public Ad Campaign’s several attempts to further this goal was a project called the “AR Ad Takeover.”  This smartphone/tablet app used feature tracking to recognize particular print advertisements that were then prominent across New York City.  The app then superimposed original art on top of those ads, essentially replacing their commercial message with an expression of the Campaign’s choosing.

In April 2011, BC launched a similar app that hijacked the movie poster for the film Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.  The app morphed the face of “Captain Barbossa” (played by Geoffrey Rush) into that of Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein–who BC calls “the real pirate.”  (Since then, BC notes with a healthy dose of irony, he’s noticed film companies intentionally using AR in some of their movie posters.)

The Heavy Projects have at least two new projects in the works for 2012.  The first is a “digital murals” project to “re-skin” public buildings.  Using feature tracking and 3D digital models, users will be able to superimpose a different appearance over certain buildings, and even see them “decay over time.”  The second project seeks to replicate these efforts in young minds.  BC is working with a nonprofit organization in New York to teach inner-city kids how to use junaio to replace outdoor advertisements with their own “ARt.”

Democratizing Messaging in Public Space

Each of these are steps in an “iterative process” toward an overall “philosophical” goal in mind with these efforts, he says.  It is two-fold: first, to change the way people think about public space, and second, to democratize the way public spaces are used for communication.  Or, as BC says, “eradicating the last bastions of common space that you can’t control.”

“AR can democratize messaging in public space,” BC says.  “I’m not against commercial messaging per se, but I’m opposed to commercial dominance.”  Like most of us who write about the future of AR, BC envisions a world where people wear AR-powered eyewear that seamlessly superimposes digital data atop our field of vision in a seamless, effortless manner.  But for BC, the “killer app” for such hardware would be an “open environment platform that allows users to filter their environment according to their interests.”  Users of such a platform would not see the billboards and other commercial messaging that now occupy so much of our public space unless they chose to.

As hard as BC is working to make this dream a reality, however, he freely acknowledges the drawbacks that would come with it.  I asked him whether this ability to filter one’s experience of reality could lead to more political groupthink (also called the “echo chamber effect“), where people only get information that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs, leading to an erosion in social cohesion and civic discourse.

“The question is right on target,” says BC,”and honestly, I have no good answer for it right now.”  He suggests that there should eventually be a way to combine filtering with an avenue for unfiltered information as well.  But the echo chamber problem is already inherent in our current media environment, he notes, and on balance, he believes that ending what he sees as commercial dominance of public spaces will still be a net-positive.

BC is also grounded enough to not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  I asked him about another form of public messaging that people often consider an eyesore: the abundance of traffic signage that lines our roads.  Why not, as I’ve speculated about, replace them all with digital content viewable only to drivers through an augmented windshield?

His reaction exhibited caution and thoughtfulness.  “Generally, I’m in favor of reducing clutter,” he says.  “But stop signs are for pedestrians too.  If not everyone needs to see it, then I favor removing it.  But that also presupposes that all drivers have access to the right technology, and that it’s reliable.”  In other words, this is not something that’s around the corner.

Dream or Destiny?

On that note, I asked BC whether he believes that his vision of an augmented public space will ever truly come to pass.  “I’m hopeful, put it that way,” he says.  Most of the R&D he’s seen has been taking place in Europe, but US companies are catching up.  BC has his eyes on Qualcomm and the Google Goggles project.  “As a developer, it’s out of my hands,” he says.  Bu he can’t wait for the hardware to catch up with the potential offered by the type of AR software he’s able to develop.

“We’ve also got to keep ‘gimmicky’ AR from dominating the market,” he says. “It will be more challenging” to promote AR as a means of democratizing public spaces if the public comes to associate AR with “pointless” apps that BC considers mere “diversions.”

Whether or not you agree with BC’s view of commercial messaging and public spaces, his creativity and determination are admirable.  BC Biermann is poised to be one of the people in the vanguard of socially meaningful augmented reality.

Questions: Do you agree with BC’s view of public spaces?  Will AR make our view of the world more, or less, democratic? Can AR apps really help change the world?  Leave your responses in the Comments section below.

 

 

SEC Releases Alert on Investment Adviser Use of Social Media

January 26, 2012 in Social Media with 1 Comment

On January 4, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission released a 7-page alert called “Investment Adviser Use of Social Media.”  The document is the result of a review that the SEC conducted of “registered investment advisers of varying sizes and strategies that were using social media.”

The SEC observed that, while many firms they reviewed had “policies and procedures within their compliance programs that specifically apply to the use of social media,” there was significant “variation in the form and substance of the policies and procedures.”  Moreover, some provisions of these policies were confusing, vague, or off-point.

Based on these observations, the SEC offered a “non-exhaustive” list of 13 factors that investment advisers “may want to consider when evaluating the effectiveness of [their] compliance program with respect to … use of social media.”  Those factors include:

  • Usage Guidelines
  • Content Standards
  • Monitoring
  • Frequency of Monitoring
  • Approval of Content
  • Firm Resources
  • Criteria for Approving Participation
  • Training
  • Certification
  • Functionality
  • Personal/Professional Sites
  • Information Security
  • Enterprise-Wide Sites

The report also went on to discuss guidelines for sites that allow third-party content, such as testimonials, to be posted on their social media sites.

It concluded by reminding investment advisers they have a duty under the Advisers Act to preserve copies of all documents pertaining to the advice they give, regardless of what media it’s in.  Advisers “that communicate through social media must retain records of those communications if they contain information that satisfies an investment adviser’s recordkeeping obligations under the Advisers Act.”  That may be the most onerous requirement of all, and the report includes another list of factors to consider when evaluating whether a social media communication needs to be preserved.

Prediction Fulfilled(?): Supreme Court Turns Down Student Social Media Cases

January 25, 2012 in Social Media with Comments Off

In my January 5 Mashable article “5 Predictions for Social Media Law in 2012,” I described the chaos that is the current state of the law on social media posts by students.  Public high school (and even middle school) students have been suspended or expelled for things they’ve written online about teachers, administrators, and fellow students.  When those students have turned around and sued the school for violating their First Amendment right to free speech, the results have been all over the map.  This is likely to remain true until the Supreme Court takes up the issue directly, which I predicted “is unlikely to happen as early as 2012.”

And indeed, on January 17, the Supreme Court declined to hear three closely watched appeals raising these precise issues.  In one case, an eighth-grade girl created a fake, “vulgar” profile of her principal, with his photo, that portrayed him as a sexual predator.  In the second case, a Pennsylvania high school senior also created a fake profile for his principal, calling him  a drug user, a “big fag” and a “big whore.”  Both profiles were held to be protected speech.  But in the third case, the punishment of a West Virginia girl was upheld after she created a Facebook group dedicated to mocking a fellow student as a “slut” who had “herpes.”

The Supreme Court decided not to hear the appeals, which means the decisions stay in place.  As usual, the Court made no comment when issuing its decision, and it is not a ruling on the merits of the appeals.  Its reasoning is anyone’s guess.

Personally, I suspect that most of the Justices feel this is an issue that should be allowed to percolate for a while longer in the lower courts, to see if some pattern or standard emerges.  They could also be waiting for a perfect test case–one in which the facts of the case raise all of the important issues on this topic in a way that allows the Court to issue a clear ruling.  These types of cases are heavily fact-dependent and already messy enough; the Justices want to know that their effort will be worthwhile in setting precedent that future courts can follow.

Nevertheless, because students will never stop finding new and creative ways to insult faculty, administrators, and other students, I suspect that the Court will eventually be forced to take one of these cases.  And there are still 11 months left in the year, so I have plenty of time to be wrong in my prediction of when this will happen.

Augmented Reality & Social Change: My Upcoming Presentation

January 23, 2012 in Augmented Reality, Social Media with 4 Comments

On February 17, 2012, I will be a panelist at the Michigan State University International Law Review Symposium titled “Modern Global Revolution.“  The panel on which I’m participating will discuss “TECHNOLOGY, SOCIAL MEDIA, & REVOLUTION: Modern Methods of Organizing and Implementing Change.”

My portion of the discussion is entitled “Augmented Reality and Social Change.”  I’ve blogged on this topic before, but I’m looking forward to examining it in this more academic environment.

Here is a copy of the abstract describing my presentation:

Augmented Reality (AR) is a paradigm-shifting technology with the potential to shape human interaction as profoundly as the internet and cellular telephones have over the past two decades.  It only stands to reason, therefore, that AR will open new pathways for encouraging and affecting social change.  Some of these pathways are foreseeable; others may not be.

We have already seen AR used by “Occupy” protesters as a means of organizing events, spreading their message to the public, and building community bonds between protesters.  AR protest paraphernalia also appeared in venues where physical demonstrators were unable to go.  The fervor of public discontent across the globe that was seen most vividly with the 2011 Arab Spring and continues in the online resistance to SOPA and PIPA suggests that individuals and small organizations will only continue to find innovative and cost-effective means of expressing their message.  AR applications are well-suited to that task.

AR has been, and will likely be, used to foster change in ways that are both more and less subtle than the Occupy example.  For instance, governments are already adopting AR for public service announcements, the aim of which is to directly alter citizens’ behavior.  The expansion of AR technologies into such regulated behavior as driving an automobile and commercial advertising—not to mention the potential for related criminal behavior–ensures that governments will get into the business of policing AR use.  Co-opting the medium for political messages cannot be far behind.  Political parties themselves have already begun to do so.  And in a similar vein, artists are embracing AR as a consequence-free medium for attaching their own messages to anything and everything in the physical world.  AR’s potential as a change agent, therefore, is multi-faceted.
Page 1 of812345»...Last »