Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1.1.
GOOGLE GLASS
1.2.
OVERVIEW
As per many reports, Google is expected to start selling eyeglasses that will project
information, entertainment and, this being a Google product, advertisements onto the lenses.
These glasses will have the combined features of virtual reality and augmented reality. The
Google Glasses can use a 4G cell connection to pull in information from Googles mountain
of data and display info about the real world in augmented reality on the lens in front of
your eye. As you turn your head youll get information about your surroundings and nearby
objects from Google Goggles, info on buildings and establishments from Google Maps,
2
even your friends nearby check-ins from Latitude. The company has no plans to sell ads
into your newly augmented view of the world, but will consider it if the product really
catches on.
1.3 DEVELOPMENT
Google Glass (2013) and Steve Mann's Digital Eye Glass (1980) on exhibit at the "History
of AR Vision" exhibit at the 2013 Augmented World Expo. Both are shown recording video
with each device lit up accordingly. Google Glass was developed by Google X, the facility
within Google devoted to technological advancements such as driverless cars. Google Glass
is smaller and slimmer than previous head-mounted display designs. The Google Glass
prototype resembled standard eyeglasses with the lens replaced by a head-up display. In
mid-2011, Google engineered a prototype that weighed 8 pounds (3,600 g); by 2013 they
were lighter than the average pair of sunglasses. In April 2013, the Explorer Edition was
made available to Google I/O developers in the United States for $1,500. The product was
publicly announced in April 2012. Sergey Brin wore a prototype of the Glass to an April 5,
2012, Foundation Fighting Blindness event in San Francisco. In May 2012, Google
demonstrated for the first time how Google Glass could be used to shoot video. Google
provided four prescription frame choices for $225 and free with the purchase of any new
Glass unit. Google entered in a partnership with the Italian eyewear company Luxottica,
owners of the Ray-Ban, Oakley, and other brands, to offer additional frame designs. In June
2014, Nepal Government adopted Google Glass for tackling poachers of wild animals and
herbs of Chitwan International Park and other parks listed under World heritage sites.
Gurkha Military currently uses Google Glass to track the animals and birds in the jungle.
This operation led to the latest development in military operation. Google Glass was used in
military for the first time in the world by Nepal. In January 2015, Google ended the beta
period of Glass (the "Google Glass Explorer" program). In early 2013, interested potential
Glass users were invited to use a Twitter message, with hash tag to qualify as an early user
of the product. The qualifiers, dubbed "Glass Explorers" and numbering 8,000 individuals,
were notified in March 2013, and were later invited to pay $1,500 and visit a Google office
in Los Angeles, New York or San Francisco, to pick up their unit following "fitting" and
training from Google Glass guides. On May 13, 2014, Google announced a move to a
"more open beta", via its Google Plus page. In February 2015, The New York Times
reported that Google Glass was being redesigned by former Apple executive Tony Fadell,
and that it would not be released until he deemed it to be "perfect."
1.4 FEATURES
Touchpad: A touchpad is located on the side of Google Glass, allowing users to control
the device by swiping through a timeline-like interface displayed on the screen. Sliding
backward shows current events, such as weather, and sliding forward shows past
events, such as phone calls, photos, circle updates, etc.
4
Camera: Google Glass has the ability to take photos and record 720p HD video.
Display: The Explorer version of Google Glass uses a Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCoS)
(based on an LCoS chip from Himax Technologies), field-sequential color, LED
illuminated display. The display's LED illumination is first P-polarized and then shines
through the in-coupling polarizing beam splitter (PBS) to the LCoS panel. The panel
reflects the light and alters it to S-polarization at active pixel sites. The in-coupling PBS
then reflects the S-polarized areas of light at 45 through the out-coupling beam splitter
to a collimating reflector at the other end. Finally, the out-coupling beam splitter (which
is a partially reflecting mirror, not a polarizing beam splitter) reflects the collimated
light another 45 and into the wearer's eye.
CHAPTER 2
GOOGLE GLASS TECHNOLOGY
5
In our final course, we were given the tools to best prepare for our oral examination
and which things to keep in mind when striving to get a high grade. This course was much
needed since all of us were quite unsure of how the oral group examinations are done at
RUC. Furthermore, it was also very helpful to know what a supervisor values during the
examination, since we only have a set amount of time to show what we have learned. All in
all the Techniques of Project Work was a well taught course with a lot of useful information
to guide us, to make it easier for us, as a group, to progress comfortably in the desired
direction.
2.2 METHOLOGY
Due to the technological aspect of our project, we started by mainly researching how
Google Glass works and how we are shrivelled every day without being aware or cautious
about it. After acquiring books, articles, and videos demonstrating the Google Glass and
from these gather an understanding of how the technology works, we started looking at
reactions to Google Glass. How was the reception of Google Glass? This product is not yet
available to the public; still it has caused outrage and is already banned from several places.
We looked into the problems and solutions that come with having a life online, and
we took a philosophical approach to it. We have an analysis based on cases, combined to the
theories we found relevant. Since we have not been able to test the Google Glasses
ourselves, we had to rely on articles from people who have had the opportunity to try the
device. For this reason we have maintained a critical view in the analysis on the origin of
our sources. Furthermore we have had to deal with a lot of speculations, which fits well
with our philosophical angle.
2.3 METHODS
The following chapter will deal with a few select methods, which we found very relevant to
this project when looking at the problem definition. We have an analysis based on cases,
combined to the theories we found relevant. We have decided to incorporate a method for
each of the dimension, in order to answer the questions in the problem statement. This is
due to the vast amount of information we have found on the subject.
Through observation we find a problem: What/why? Collect data and look for
explanations.
Empirical verification: Confirmation of the assumption put the theory to a test. Look
for any evidence that can conflict with the predictions in order to disprove it (GodfreySmith, 2003: 236).
Karl Popper was an enthusiast of Einsteins relativity theory, because Einstein had
very precise theories. He believed that to make a good scientific theory, it must be critically
verified; if a theory were not critically falsified he would not consider it a scientific theory.
By using this method, a theory can never be 100% verified, the method can only be
falsified. Einstein highlighted the way of the theory when he said: "No amount of
experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
(Calaprice, 2005: 291)
This project works with the hypothesis that Glass has a connection to direct and
indirect surveillance, much like many social networks and via our use of smart phones. With
the new Glass it is said that Google can monitor everything the user sees and does with the
glasses. We see this very likely to be true, since we through our research can see how much
online surveillance is going on nowadays. Because Glass is very new and not yet available
for the public, we are not able to test it ourselves; our answers will therefore be based on
articles and the knowledge of people who have tested it, and the likeliness of our
hypothesis.
8
2.3.2 SEMIOTICS
Since we are working with a Text and Sign dimension in our project, we will be using
semiotics. We will incorporate Saussure and his way of working with signs, saying that it
consists of a signifier and a signified. The signifier is the signs image, as we perceive it. It
is the basic physical existence of the sign. The signified is then the mental concept to which
the signifier refers. This mental concept can be different for different cultures, but is
common for people from the same culture as they share the same language and thereby
understanding. The relation between these two things has the term signification, and the
signifier plus the signified does via signification turn out as the external reality or meaning
(John, 1982: 47-56). Social semiotic is relevant to our project, as we will focus on how the
human signifying habit is shaped and influenced by the cultural surrounding and social
circumstances. Exploring the human habits, this method also tries to make meaning out of
the human behaviour given a certain social condition. This method allows us to investigate
the impact of surveillance and especially Glass to society, and how the symbols that comes
with it, is decoded in a social context. The method delivers an analytic view on how
surveillance and Glass may be changing the way society, and we as individuals, function in
a future virtual world.
of network surveillance and why we as human beings have such a fascination of technology
and the newest devices.
2.5 DELIMITATION
Although the project has many objectives, it sets its focus on surveillance as a consequence
of the mediated technology. In context we have chosen to deal with Google Glass as our
main case and involve it as much as possible in our project as it is a valid example of how
we all contribute to the surveillance society. Google Glass is relevant because it is one of the
newest and amongst the most innovative products of mediated society, and it contains
endless possibilities as well as risks. Google Glass has, however, not yet been released to
the majority of the public. Our project will mainly concern the United States, where the
culture is very affected by mediated life and engaged with a variety of surveillance
capabilities; however, our focus will be on network surveillance.
obvious example like Facebook, which grew from having one million active users in 2004,
5 where it started as an American college social network, to being spread worldwide used
by all age-groups, with the newest results showing billion active users in October 2013.6
This is a clear example on how the world has gradually accepted the change of how we
communicate and the evolution of communication. We cannot stay focused anymore when
we are physically socializing with friends and family.
We keep checking our phones and updating our social network sites, to see if anyone
has virtually poked 7 us. But it is hard to define whether or not this makes us more social
or asocial. People are now expected to answer to chats and texts right when they are
received, update their Facebook and re-tweet something of minor importance, which does
not necessarily make us rude or asocial if we are maintaining our online social profile while
spending time with our friends. Maybe we are not present in the current situation and
socializing with the one person we are physically next to, but we are present on so many
sites and socializing with thousands of people. It is becoming more of a common agreement
that it is okay to not really be present while we are uploading our life to World Wide Web
for everyone to see. We post self-chosen information about ourselves online. It can be
anything from photos of loved ones, relationship status or even photos of what we eat. CMC
has really brought this noteworthy phenomenon to our attention. It is on one hand a oneway communication to document how our life is going and on the other hand a public
communication starter. Say if someone is in the same situation as you and can relate to it
with a much appreciated like. The receiver is not chosen or specified from the sender
(i.e. the person leaking it), the information is self-chosen, and the sender is aware that the
leaked updates are public. But what are the consequences of this vast development? We
forget to think about them and what effects they might have. What are we actually agreeing
to when we click agree to terms? And how much privacy does our private setting really
ensure you.
government agency can do. But it is worth noticing, that this is a very broadly defined
mission. If the NSA is securing and defending the future of the USA, is it not fair to say that
by limiting the powers of the NSA America becomes less safe? By objecting to the practices
of the NSA, is one actively attacking the future of America? That is what their broadly
defined mission statement implies. Rather than take the NSA at their word, it is worth
considering their actions over the recent past.
There is no doubt that the NSA wants the United States to be a safe place. As it
states on NSA & CSSs Core Values Brochure, NSAs main goal is to secure the future
and to keep the United States of America protected by Collect (including through
clandestine means), process, analyze, produce, and disseminate signals intelligence
information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes to support
national and departmental missions.
It sounds impressive, but what does it mean? How do they go about collecting and
analysing information? And from whom do they collect this information? Are there any
limits to their reach? The Presidents Surveillance Program ("The Program") was an NSA
program released by President George W. Bush shortly after the attacks on September 11,
2001. President Bush made it possible with the program to conduct a wide range of
surveillance activities inside the United States, activities that had not been possible before.
Since 2005 various whistleblowers and major newspapers have exposed a remarkable
amount of information gathered as a result from the program, such as call-detail records
collected from major telecommunications companies in the US. These records were
collected without a warrant or judicial oversight, but through The Program and The
Patriot Act, tens of millions of Americans were spied on 10 As US Senator Patrick Leahy,
who opposed the program, asked congress:
Are you telling me tens of millions of Americans are involved with Al-Qaida?
These are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything. According to a
research by USA Today, the call-detail records included customers' names, street
addresses, and other personal information and detailed records of calls they made across
town or across the country - to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.
(Cauley, 2006) An anonymous source told USA Today that the agency's ambition was "to
create a database of every call ever made" (Cauley, 2006). All of this was done without a
warrant or any judicial supervision.
12
A few weeks later, former AT&T technician Mark Klein revealed to the New York
Times that those same telecommunications companies also had agreed to install complex
communication surveillance equipment in secret locations at strategic telecommunication
facilities around the country. The order came from the NSA. (Margoff, 2006) This
technology enabled the NSA to gain autonomous and free access to large streams of local
and international communication to be more specific, the NSA was now able to collect at
least 1.7 billion emails a day due to this surveillance equipment, according to The
Washington Post. Again, all of this was done without a warrant in violation of federal law
and the Constitution (Priest, 2010).
The Program was first criticised by the New York Times in 2005. President Bush
then admitted to a small aspect of the program; he concluded that the NSA, without
warrants, monitored the communications of 500-1000 people in the US with suspected
connections to Al Qaeda. He called this the Terrorist Surveillance Program (Priest, 2010).
But what about those people not connected to terror why collect and keep billions of
emails from innocent, non-suspicious citizens? And what happens with the collected data.
the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past. (Orwell, 1949:
17) With so much data to pick and choose from, the NSA has a remarkable amount of power
of the past. Either by design or accident, they could use their compiled data to incriminate
the innocent. The amount of power granted to any organization is astounding, and the lack
of government oversight is highly disturbing. One would expect Big Brother was wrought
from a similar beginning. It is, however, not just the Government and the NSA that ends up
with our information. It is no secret that the NSA shares their collected data with the FBI,
CIA, and the DEA. Major companies also play a vital part when it comes to collecting and
using data - with more than 950 million users, Facebook obviously has great opportunity to
track and store data on millions of people around the world. (Schneier, 2013) As Bruce
Schneier, technologist and author, said: The Internet is a surveillance state. Whether we
admit it to ourselves or not and whether we like it or not, we are being tracked all the time.
Google tracks us, both on its pages and on other pages it has access to. Facebook does the
same; it even tracks non-Facebook users. Apple tracks us on our iPhones and iPads. One
reporter used a tool called Collusion to track who was tracking him; 105 companies tracked
his Internet use during one 36-hour period. (Schneier, 2013).
The electronic footprints we leave are rapidly increasing as the technological
development expands, making it easy for anyone interested to track down our every move.
Movements that can be cross-indexed, correlated, and used for secondary purposes;
information about us has value. The Justice Department uses details from Google searches
to look for patterns that could help determine child pornographers and potential criminals.
Google uses that same information to deliver context-sensitive advertising messages
(Schneier, 2013). The majority of us have gladly given out personal information in
exchange for social media and specific services. What we object to is the surreptitious
collection of personal information and the secondary use of information once it is collected:
the buying and selling of our information behind our back.
citizens, but also leaders around the world, latest from the German Chancellor, Angela
Merkel12. Why had the invasions of privacy committed by the NSA scaled up so
dramatically, despite all the protest in 2006? The answer to this question requires a
consideration of the changes in the technological landscape that occurred in the 21st
century, best represented by the search engine Google. Google requires that we agree to
terms and conditions that allow Google to use our search information. Over the years
Google has changed its terms and conditions to allow the government access to users
search results. Prior to September 11th, users were completely anonymous under terms and
conditions. Googles privacy policy in December 2000 stated:
Google may also choose to use cookies to store user preferences. A cookie can tell
us, This is the same computer that visited Google two days ago, but it cannot tell us,
This person is Joe Smith or even, This person lived in the United States (10:43 in Terms
and Conditions May Apply, 2013). So in other words, Google states that we remain totally
anonymous. The patriot act expanded the ability of the federal government to do
surveillance in a lot of little ways. You dont need a judge's approval for instance to find out
what websites someone visited or what search terms they typed into Google Declan
McCullagh (9:47 in Terms and Conditions May Apply, 2013) Only one year later, in
December 2001, Googles privacy policy had changed to: Google does this by storing user
preferences in cookies and by tracking user trends and patterns of how people search.
Google will not disclose its cookies to third parties except as required by a valid legal
process such as a search warrant, subpoena, statute, or court order. (11:06 in Terms and
Conditions May Apply, 2013) This piece of text, from Googles own website, state that
when necessary, we are not anonymous. In December 2001 Google would not deliver user
information such as cookies, identification or user preferences to a third party without a
valid legal process such as a court order or search warrant. It is necessary to keep in mind
that Google has economic motives for tracking users. Googles business model is dependent
upon using user information to target advertising, rather than having users pay for the
service. People exchange their level of privacy for the free service. Other companies picked
up on this trend, which has made Twitter, Facebook, etc. which are such valuable
companies. All of these companies also have similar terms and conditions policy, with far
too much legal fine print to read in a reasonable amount of time. What is so interesting
about this story is not really that they changed their privacy policy but that they claim, on
their website, that their privacy policy from 2000 is the one from 2001. A non-profit internet
15
website called Wayback Machine takes snapshots of what websites used to look like and
save the photos in its own archive. It has been taking photos since the 1990. On Googles
own official webpage they list their history of Privacy Policy. They list every single Privacy
Policy that Google has ever had since the start of Google. But what Google shows as their
original Privacy Policy does not match the one from Wayback Machine. Instead it shows the
one from December 2001; the one that says, that when necessary we will not remain
anonymous.
In January of 2012, Google changed their privacy policy once again, so that all user
information could be combined into one personal profile. Detailed histories of every user
can be accessed in the database for the purpose of market research or background checks
(18:04 Terms and Conditions May Apply 2013). The current terms and conditions, when
compared to those before 9/11, are quite remarkable. What is disturbing about the massive
amounts of data that Google collects is not alone that they share it with advertisers, because
that is what consenting consumers agree to when they use Googles services. This is the
way Google pays its bills and allows them to create better services. What is so disturbing is
the ease by which governments around the world can use the information acquired by
Google. Google CEO Eric Schmidt says, the question of your, if you will, information
being retained by Google is not at this point a Google decision, its really a political or
public policy decision enforced by different governments in different ways. (10:04, Terms
and Conditions May Apply, 2013) This metadata or Big Data as it has come to be
known, in reference to Orwells Big Brother in 1984, is what the NSA claims is necessary
for protecting the future of the USA. General Keith Alexander told Congress, on December
11th, 2013, Threats are growing and explained that metadata collection is like a
traditional library index card system. Metadata is our way of knowing where those books
are in the libraryand where the bad books are (McCarthy, 2013). It is certainly true, that
the NSA is tasked with a very difficult mission. In the post 9/11 world, Americas enemies
are not entire nations, but cells of terrorists. The terrorists hide and plot against America, so
a level of surveillance is necessary. But where is that level of surveillance that is
permissible? It is an endless debate, most likely without a right answer. The intersection of
security and freedom is not a simple matter, and perhaps what is most important is that
people and governments keep the surveillance state in check.
2.8 THEORY
16
The next section will present our main case: Google Glass. Throughout the project we will
refer to
Google Glass simply as Glass.
Glass is amongst the newest device within communication technology. It is a platform that
enables
the user to experience augmented reality; the concept of images overlaying and emerging
in what
the user sees in their reality. In its basic form Glass is a computer that one can wear on ones
head.
Within the product exists a see-through screen in the top right corner of the eye where data
manifests. The product enables one to be always on, always available with the power to
stream
live video from the users point of view, advanced voice recognition software, and access to
the
worldwide web on the spot. Because the device is hands-free, the Glass functions, as
mentioned,
via voice recognition. A command is started by simply saying: OK Glass.. then the given
command,
e.g. take a picture to take a picture, record a video, browse the Internet, even speak the
message
you want to send. Glass can also translate any sign; for example if travelling in China, a
street sign
can be directly translated to English right in front of you.13 Not all commands are able to be
controlled by voice. Glass therefore has a touchpad to give additional control. This touchpad
is
placed in the right side of the frame next to where the camera is. This is also where the
Glasses can
be turned on and off with a tap on the pad.
With Glass, the user is integrated to a higher level of connectivity. It is essentially a
smartphone in
another packaging. Though having many of the identical parts of a smartphone, Glass
depends on
17
an actual app14 in order to have all the functions working. Apps are essential for Glass, as it
depends on developers to help Google invent new apps to use with Glass. The development
of new
apps create an opportunity to widen the usage of Glass and thereby extent the possible
outcome of
creativity.
Glass also gives the user an ability to interact in a new social and cultural way. This ability
to be
connected wherever we find ourselves to be is considered a tech-revolution. The new
technology
gives the user another dimension to his or hers own reality and impacts on the way we live
our life.
Google as a company is a major player in the tech-revolution and offers many services of
their own
to Glass, including: maps, calendar, Gmail, Google+ and Google Places, all of which
enables us to
simplify our lifestyle in a organized and convenient way that most people find appealing.
When
combining all of Googles services, they offer the online user a neat and ergonomic package
to
include in one's lifestyle with Glass.
Google has already released two versions of Glass to be tested by selected people; version
1, the
first version, and version 2, called Glass Explorer Edition. The differences between the
two are
very little. The newer version only has a slightly updated hardware, which does not make
any
remarkable change performance wise for the device. These changes will at best be a ten
percent
increase in the overall performance, which is shown with slightly smoother animations. The
most
noticeable difference is the mono ear bud that has been included in the product and how
specific
18
19
In December 2009, the world saw the beginning of something new. The search result from
Google
started to customize to each user a new era had begun for personalization (Pariser, 2011:
1). When
it comes to consuming information, this was a revolution (Pariser, 2011: 3). It can shape
which new
things we learn, how we learn, it could even affect how democracy works. By collecting as
much
data as possible, our online experience can be tailored. Our personal information are tracked
by
data companies and the result/consequence of this will be that each of us will live more and
more in
our own unique universe of information - a personal bubble. Eli Pariser calls this the The
filter
bubble. He says that from this personalization, most of the news we will receive is known,
pleasant,
and something familiar but it will not be possible to know what is hidden from us. Our
interest from
the past will decide what we are exposed to in the future, and learning from unpredicted
encounters
will be minimized (Pariser, 2011, 1st edition: 1st page).
According to Pariser, search results are customized and personalized for everyone, this
means we
are tracked and the Internet can get all your information and learn everything about you.
The filter bubble basically alters the way we come across ideas and information (Pariser,
2011: 2).
Pariser tells that we from the filter bubble are introduced to three new dynamics:
1. You are alone in it - The bubble does not reach out and let you be familiarized with
new
things outside of a comfort zone. Since it is personalized, it becomes a universe, where
you
are the center it revolves around, thus becoming more and more distant from other people
and new things.
20
2. The filter is invisible - the user is unaware of the filter. There is no warning or sign of
getting into this bubble. Each time a user is online, the filter bubble gets bigger and the user
is increasingly being trapped in their own little universe. The Internet becomes like a bottle,
with the filter being the bottle head. The further you go, meaning the more you are captured
by the Internet, the more narrow and recognizable the world online becomes and you are
thereby learning less from the world.
3. You do not choose to enter the bubble - the bubble consumes you when you do not
realize it. You are not actively choosing the filter. When turning on the TV to hear the news,
or reading a newspaper, you make the decision to hear and see, what you want. You choose
your filter, you are actively getting new information. With personalized filters, you are not
entirely able to choose what you want to see. Instead of you making a choice to learn about
something, they are coming to you, and they are becoming harder and harder to avoid
(Pariser, 2011: 9-10).
Pariser also tells about some positive things that come with the filter bubble. The bubble
keeps our
interests organized. A user is never bored, never annoyed it has an appealing prospect, it
makes a
return to a Ptolemaic universe17 in which we are the centre and the world and everything
else
revolves around us. But as often, everything comes with a cost, and if it is made more
personal we
are at risk of losing some of the qualities and traits which are the reasons the Internet was so
appealing to begin with (Pariser, 2011: 12). As Pariser says:
In the filter bubble there is less room for the chance encounters that bring insight, and
learning serendipity is at risk. We get a lot of bonding but very little bridging.
(Pariser, 2011: 17)
The first idea of personalization came from Nicholas Negroponte. He talked about it in the
midnineties,
but at the time people were not ready for personalization (Pariser, 2011: 21). In order for
companies to personalize, they needed a lot of data from the users. As a result Google came
up
with an innovative strategy in 2004. By providing other services, which would require users
to login,
21
such as Gmail, the users themselves would provide Google with a huge sum of data
(Pariser, 2011: 33). Pariser further explains how important personalized data is for
companies, e.g. how up to 60%
of Netflixs18 rentals are based on the personalized data of their users (Pariser, 2011: 8).
In recent years, big companies like Google and Facebook has been collecting more and
more
information about their users. The recent decade have shown a vast development in
companies
willing to pay for information concerning their demography in order to improve businessmarketing
(Lace, 2005: 99). With these data comes an opportunity to know a customer on another
level.
From the users point of view, the personalized data exists because it makes it easy for them
to
move around in the online universe. It specializes for one's particular needs and in the
process
makes it easy to interact. To have the ability to get to the needed content as fast as possible
is a key
factor for the online user, which the companies takes advantage of.
Pariser explains how it is of most importance for big companies to know how to choose the
right
content for their consumers. The three-step process of creating a personalized filter for the
user
(Pariser, 2011: 112) works because the users identity shapes the media. However, Pariser
argues
that the media also shapes the identity. So by shaping our media through our identity, our
identity is
also being shaped by the media we experience. This is a self-empowering concept, which
seems to
have no ending. Pariser talks about the consequences of these services and how they can in
fact
create a good fit between the individual and his media by changing him. In other words; to
choose
22
our own destiny is not an option here. Pariser believes that the destiny is already chosen for
us
(Pariser, 2011: 112).
The Filter Bubble makes the individuals online choices easier by reflecting their own
personality
upon the relevant material that they wants to see, but the consequence is that they do not get
a
chance to decide what that material should be. It is already decided for them. As Pariser
describes:
Personalized filtering can even affect your ability to choose your own destiny. In Of
Sirens
and Amish Children, a much- cited tract, information law theorist Yochai Benkler
describes
how more-diverse information sources make us freer. Auton-omy, Benkler points out, is a
tricky concept: To be free, you have to be able not only to do what you want, but to know
whats possible to do. (Pariser, 2011: 112)
Since Google are able to follow every step a user makes with Glass, it will make it easy for
a user to
get a filter bubble via the glasses too. Glass is an extension of our mobile phone and through
personalization, Google can use all the information they receive from Glass to create a
bigger filter since the they, just like a phone, will likely be used most of the time. Nowadays
people are
practically addicted to laptops. We could escape the filter by not being on our computer all
the time,
but now since all smartphones have network access, they are practically small laptops we
always
carry around with us wherever we are. The same goes for Glass, but with the glasses it is
barely
even necessary to do anything else but talk to them and therefore makes it easier to be
consumed
by the filter. Glass is not just thought of as an extension of the smartphone, but as an
extension of
23
our individual identities. With Glass we are moving even closer to a society where we watch
each
other.
24
and watch each other; in other words it could be said that we are all spying on each other. It
is,
however, important to remember that we only have access to spy on the things that people
have
allowed to be public, and it is therefore more reasonable to call it watching than spying
(Chalkley et al,
2012: 207-210).
In the last theory by Tony Chalkley, that is strongly connected to the Little Brother theory, it
is also
questioned why we accept so much surveillance in our society. Here he argues that first of
all, it
makes us feel safe. Even though we might be watched, there is a security in the fact that the
bad guys who are also observed, can therefore be stopped by the watching authorities.
Taking up the
Little Brother theory, it might be more a question of acceptance than security. Secondly we
accept
surveillance because of what he refers to as the normalization of surveillance. We have
become so
used to surveillance, that it has now become a part of our everyday life. We cannot even
imagine
our lives without our smartphones and the daily use of Internet. Most people are
exceedingly
dependent on the Internet; we might be surveilled on a daily basis, but we cannot stop using
the
Internet, because we need it for important research, work, practical information, as well as
the
argumentally less necessary things such as socializing and entertaining (Chalkley et al,
2012: 213).
putting a philosophical and ethical angle to the subject. Defining whether something is
ethical all
comes down to the difference between morality and law. It is essential to define whether
ethics are
about right or wrong, or about choosing between good and right.
The theory of good over right is called teleological; it evaluates actions by the consequences
of them.
The two British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill developed a theory
called
Utilitarianism. The theory is that the moral doctrine we should act in order to produce the
greatest
happiness for everyone affected by an action (Spinello, 1995: 19-20). When using
utilitarian
analyzation, the focus is on the benefits and costs to all the individuals involved. The goal
is, as
mentioned before, the greatest happiness, but what is essential to remember is that it has to
be for
the greatest amount of people. Utility is another term for describing this type of good; it is
the
foundation of morality. The consequences are again what matters the most, even if there has
to be
done wrongs in order to achieve the goal - The goal being as much happiness as possible for
everyone affected.
When analyzing by the utilitarian theory we compare benefits vs. costs to see what
weighs the
most. If there will be a larger amount of benefits, it is from the utilitarian point of view,
defined as
worth the costs. Happiness is the goal and main-interest in utilitarianism, but there is the
unavoidable struggle with how to define happiness. This definition-dilemma of happiness
also
makes it hard to define when it is greater benefits than costs. According to utilitarianism,
happiness
26
is the main benefit, and it supposedly excuses whatever costs, as long as the achieved
happiness is
greater than the costs. But if we cannot measure how great the benefit is (benefit being the
happiness for the largest amount of people), it is hard to tell if the benefit is greater than the
costs;
thus the theory is a hypothetical one that cannot always be applied with a direct outcome.
Deontological framework is the opposite theory of teleological and obviously
utilitarianism. Here it
is about always choosing right over good, cause thereby the right is chosen over any wrongdoing at
all; it is simply a duty-based theory. Immanuel Kants (1724 1804) moral philosophy is a
great
example of deontological theory. It is completely opposed to utilitarianism; what he wants is
the law
of moral to be rational, just like all other laws of physics are. There will never be doubt
about what is
a moral decision, if you have first decided that you believe in the deontological definition of
morality.
It is easier to tell right from wrong than to tell what is actually good as just mentioned;
defining
happiness and good is a serious struggle on the utilitaristic field. What can be a flaw in
Kants
deontological theory, is how sometimes the duty is truly more hurtful than for example a so
called
white-lie. Take an extreme example where you have to lie to someone in order to save
them from a
cold blooded murder. Here there is no doubt that most people would find it more ethically
right to tell
a lie, than to let an innocent victim get murdered.
William David Ross (1877 1971) therefore came up with a more flexible extension of
Kants dutybased
theory, where he includes prima facie duties. These are basically duties that are superseded
27
by higher obligation. In other words he makes space for exceptions to the normally
preferable duties
(Spinello, 1995: 14-32).
while at the same time knowledge always provokes power. Foucault termed this concept
"power/knowledge (Sheridan, 1977).
29
30
keeping their supreme control and power (Chalkley et al, 2012: 203-204).
One can argue that this form of control has been aided in our own society by new
technological
advancements that allow the government and big corporations to track any movement and
behavior.
2.9 ANALYSIS
The purpose of the analytic section is to provide an understanding for the problem
statement: What
are the possible effects between communication technology and the surveillance state? We
will
apply the above-mentioned theories to selected cases in order to give a satisfactory
perspective on
the mediated life and technology that comes with it.
31
Foucault's panoptic society and the concept of passive bodies through the use of
surveillance is,
however, the main focus in this chapter. To briefly summarize, Foucault stated that a society
of
passive bodies would emerge thanks to constant surveillance. This could be relevant to
consider
when looking at the use of closed-circuit television (CCTV). Today, CCTV can be found in
almost
every place imaginable; businesses, institutions, public spheres etc. The purpose of
mounting these
cameras varies from supposedly preventing criminality to catching traffic law violators at
intersections. Examples of CCTV are also present within the household, as many
homeowners have
chosen to install cameras to add security to their property. Even if CCTV were not as
widespread as
it is today, we still think it would be meaningful to study CCTV to show how technology
has
progressed to a far-fetched quantity since the death of Foucault. Foucault did not have the
chance
to consider surveillance with these new advances and what this meant for the panoptic
model. This
unavoidable exclusion is especially obvious today when considering the commonness of
CCTV
cameras. It is estimated that there is one surveillance camera for every 96 people in the
United
States.22
So, how closely does American society mirror the panoptic model with CCTV in the
picture? An
article to help address this question, "How Closed-Circuit Television Surveillance Organizes
the Social: An Institutional Ethnography,"23 by Kevin Walby, a professor in sociology,
enlightens the
usage of CCTV in the United States and Canada. Immediate validation of some of
Foucault's theory
32
is in the fact that there has been a great increase in the use of CCTV, verifying Foucault's
idea that
surveillance will continue to increase. This increasing tendency is largely due to
technology. The
ones watching the cameras do not have to be in the same area, or even the same country,
where
the watching is taking place. Walby writes, "It is now common for banks and other
commercial
entities to outsource their video monitoring to settings situated thousands of kilometers
away. This
again strengthens Foucault's vision of a society with intense surveillance. One feature of the
Panopticon that Foucault emphasises is the prison's function of individualization. Each
prisoner is
supposed to receive detailed attention so that the persons needs are met. If Foucault's
beliefs are
correct, then this movement should have increased to American society at large.
Another professor, Graham Sewell, argues how this individualization of the panoptic model
definitively exists in the United States. He writes, "By scrutinizing our every activity,
surveillance
places us in categories-for example, criminals, consumers, patients, or workers - that are
easily
understood by our peers and ourselves alike. This argument displays itself in racial
outlining which
rises great suspicion on minorities. For example, "suspicious names" (the majority being
Muslim
names) are mentioned on a "No Fly List" in the United States. These people are particularly
watched
at the airport (Shawki, 2009). The phenomenon of surveillance-labeling is expressed
through
several patterns in the United States. An obvious example is security at any regular
shopping mall or
boutique. Security officers openly admit that they do not treat everyone as being equally
likely to
33
commit a crime. Walby interviewed several security officers who all admitted that they
customized
their way of surveillance by only observing certain types of people. Walby describes that the
security
guards he interviewed "... do not target suspicion equally towards all shoppers; rather, their
informal
watching rules direct intensified surveillance at racialized minorities, single mothers,
persons
receiving income assistance, and other socially constructed categories. The security guards
operate
off categories that give certain people special attention (Walby, 2005). The Panopticon
model here
gains validity as people are treated in a heterogeneous manner. The United States has not
entered
an age where everyone is treated with the same respect. Managers can also track their
employees
every movement with several kinds of Management Information Systems. A maldistribution
within
power relations occurs.
A professor in marketing and philosophy, Graham Sewell, argues that the "vision of elite
groups
exercising control using management information systems also bears a striking
resemblance to the
principles of panoptic surveillance. He continues:
It bears a striking resemblance because managers have such complete control over their
subordinates. Virtually all of their activities can be checked to make sure they are
performing
their duties correctly. (Sewell, 2006)
Is it important to emphasize that of course, not every single move of the employees are
monitored,
but the possibility alone could have a great influence on the employees behaviour.
Hypothetically,
and according to Foucault, these people would have adopted the fear of potential negative
34
consequences due to the fact that they know they are being observed. Therefore, there is no
actual
need for surveillance since they act as if they are always being watched. A direct connection
to the
arguments made in Discipline and Punishment.
So far, several arguments presented in Foucaults theory concerning surveillance have been
validated. But modern American society does not completely comply with Foucault's
hypothesis. The
problem is not in any specific detail, but is more found in an all-encompassing theme. In
Discipline
and Punishment, Foucault predicts that essentially all of society will function like the
Panopticon.
This is, to say the least, a bold claim. We can of course not reject the idea that society as
Foucault
describes it is yet to come, and that the Panopticon is indeed our future. But so far, at this
point one
cannot possibly argue that the United States has become the new Panopticon.
Foucault's book argues that prisoners in a Panopticon are constantly aware that someone
may be
watching them. This awareness triggers them to modify their behaviour, ultimately
becoming dead,
passive bodies. However, CCTV is an obvious example on how Foucault's theory fails.
Walby
claims that these CCTV cameras have become so common and discreet that Americans no
longer
register that someone might be watching them. He explains:
The prevalence of discrete and mundane surveillance practices does not create the
automatic
functioning of power that Foucault had envisioned. For instance, CCTV cameras are not
noticed by the people who fall under the optical gaze. The presence of cameras does not
directly alter people's behaviour. (Walby, 2005)
American citizens do not change their behaviour in response to the cameras, an explanation
could
35
be that technology has become so refined and such a big part of the culture that Americans
have, to an extent, forgotten about CCTV. For CCTV to function as it would in a panoptic
society, it would
have to be much more obvious, and exert much more power over individuals.
Another reason why Foucault's concepts of surveillance are inconsistent in today's world
comes
from another reflection by Walby. In the Panopticon, the guards simply cast a stare on the
inmates.
The inmates, on the other hand, must adjust their behaviour to avoid punishment. Yet in a
society in
which CCTV is discreet and Americans do not constantly think about its presence, it is
actually those
that do the gazing who alter their own actions. Walby elaborates:
"... it is the CCTV operators' watching behaviour which is normalized along institutional
lines by
being behind the camera at Suburban Mall, not the shoppers' behaviour by being pored
over
by the all-seeing eye. (Walby, 2005)
This is a twist to the Panopticon model. It is supposed to be the shoppers, not the guards,
who
change. Yet it is the guards who change regarding their view on specific people as they see
them
with greater suspicion than before they began their employment. The application of the
Panopticon
to American society has therefore not been completely efficient since it is actually those that
are
observing that have been influenced so much by surveillance that they change their
approaches and
behaviours. This is a strong contrast to Foucault's visualization - a complete reverse in
power
relations.
36
As mentioned above, Foucaults interpretation of the Panopticon and the following effects
was not
entirely applicable when looking at CCTV. But what if Kevin Walbys concern became a
reality? That
these cameras recording our every move were no longer subtle and discreet, but more inyour-face?
On-your-face?
Glass is expected to launch in early 2014, and is marketed as making augmented reality a
part of
our lifestyle. Imagine your brain being augmented by Google, Google CEO and cofounder Larry
Page said in a 2004 interview (Rhrict, 2013). By now, this may no longer be just an
imagination.
Many great things can be said about Glass this new kind of technology brings endless
opportunities, such as doctors who films a medical operation for education purposes,
walking
directions on the spot etc. But everything comes with a prize besides the $1,500, which
the
glasses costs (Rhrict, 2013), Glass also gather real-time information about our every move,
every
conversation, every text message. What we see, what we hear, where we go and what we do,
being
it at home, at work or in public, Google will know, and possibly use to their benefit. As
mentioned before, publicists and corporations have been data mining as long as it was an
option, and we as
consumers already give most of the information through the use of CMC, apps, GPS
devices etc.
Glass does not essentially do anything new, but by wearing Glass, we are basically offering
our
personal data on a silver platter. As a consequence, we are not only inviting companies not
to
forget the government to view our thoughts, patterns, and consumer habits. When using
Glass, we
37
are unavoidably inviting everyone into our private lives even further, literally placing them
directly in
front of our faces 24/7. Knowing this, Foucaults vision of a passive bodies-society may
not sound
so far away. We would all be monitoring each other, ultimately doing fieldwork for Google.
This has raised numerous alarming questions concerning privacy. The Australian privacy
commissioner and 36 other data protection authorities has written an open letter to CEO
Larry Page,
raising a concern towards Glass privacy settings. (Essers, 2013)
Jennifer Stoddart, Canada's privacy commissioner, signed the letter. One of their main
worries in the
letter is that people can use Glass to film and record others;
"We are writing to you as data protection authorities to raise questions from a privacy
perspective about the development of Google Glass. () Fears of ubiquitous surveillance of
individuals by other individuals, whether through such recordings or through other
applications
currently being developed, have been raised. Questions about Google's collection of such
data
and what it means in terms of Google's revamped privacy policy have also started to
appear.
() The details of how Google Glass operates, how it could be used and how Google might
use the data the technology collects have so far largely come from media reports that
contain
a great deal of speculation (Essers, 2013)
In addition, the authorities strongly urged Page to "engage in a real dialogue with data
protection
authorities about Glass." The letter also questioned Google on how the gathered
information is
shared with third parties (see Appendix 3), if Google had done a privacy risk assessment,
and if they
would share the outcomes. Googles vice president of public policy and government
relations, Susan
38
Molinari, replied on behalf of Google on June 7th. Several questions raised in the
Congresss letter
were not answered in Google's response, including a request for examples on what Google
would
do in order to secure the privacy of non-Glass users.
"Use of Google Glass will be governed by the terms of the Google Privacy Policy. No
changes
to the Google Privacy Policy are planned for Glass," the letter states. In response to the
Congresss question: "What proactive steps is Google taking to protect the privacy of non
users when Google Glass is in use?" Google responded, "We have built some social signals
into the way Glass is used. These signals help people understand what users are doing, and
give Glass users means for employing etiquette in any given situation." (Essers, 2013)
Google's response letter generally highlights the device's positive features and evaluates the
existing regulations as sufficient. Congressman Joe Barton later commented:
"I am disappointed in the responses we received from Google. There were questions that
were not adequately answered and some not answered at all. Glass has the potential to
change the way people communicate and interact. When new technology like this is
introduced that could change societal norms, I believe it is important that peoples rights be
protected and vital that privacy is built into the device..." (Essers, 2013)
Google has tried to convince Barton by demonstrating Glass to him in person, but with no
greater
impact.
individual bubbles. These bubbles are functioning as a collar-tag that lets everybody
know what
your specific interests are. It is a personal ID, which is unique to the person behind it. As
Pariser
describes in his book:
The future of the web is about personaliza-tion . . . now the web is about me. It is about
weaving the web together in a way that is smart and personalized for the user.
(Pariser, 2011: 8)
It has become a major factor to personalize through the web in the mediated society. Glass
is the
ultimate product of this evolution. This next step in the evolution of technology has the
potential to
become the direct channel in which the online users activities is summoned. Glass will be
the
frontier for many companies that wants to advertise and get their consumers attention
through
Google, which of all big internet companies, is well known for making their bread and
butter through
vast amount of advertisement. Thus there is no doubt that Google will take advantage of
their new
products abilities and incorporate ads within the products interface. It is logical to think
that Google
will merge the personalized data into Glass, as they have done with all of their other
products. As it
is described in the Filter Bubble theory: You are getting a free ser-vice, and the cost is
information
about you. (Pariser, 2011: 6). The fact that Google is most likely to deliver ads through
Glass is also
emphasized in the user agreements of the product, where it is clearly stated that some
features
require the user to have a Google account.24
Pariser believes the personalization of the user data is both an advantage and a
disadvantage. It
40
can often happen that we get a friend invitation from a program on Facebook that is not
relevant for
us. Regardless we are still going to get the invitation because the user data that we provided
by
being online, has generated an demographic stamp on our person; a stamp that tells the
program
that we should get this invitation (Pariser, 2011: 187-188). Likewise it is also plausible that
a Glass
user will keep getting ads about computers if that is what they are searching for when
online. The
user do not have a saying whether or not they will be getting ads about computers. The
automatic
software algorithmics has already decided this because it has analyzed the personalized data
and
found the user relevant enough to receive ads about computers. Pariser describes these
automated
programs as advertars (Pariser 2011: 190). The advertar has only been created for the
greater
purpose of commercial use. The advertar is a direct product of the personalized data, and
a lot of
companies are making a huge effort in trying to de-anonymizing the Web (Pariser, 2011:
111).
Whatever the individual does online will be reflected in Glass.
When we look at their website, Glass is presented as a new and smart technical object
which makes
life more enriching and ergonomic for the user. The process of gaining access to
information has
never been easier than now. When we wear Glass, we wear our information. The process of
physically going to a computer, to retrieve the information, is over. Now the user only has to
ask the
Glass for the information and it is given. It seems that Glass could very well function as an
extension
41
of the human body. It gives us a new way of interacting online, as well as on the social
levels. The new possibilities Glass represents is revolutionary for the modern age, but are
we free? Is it
possible to use this technology without losing one's identity? This is a very important
question in
Parisers Filter Bubble theory. Are we in fact taking over the identity that is given to us by
the
Internet, and just neglecting the original blueprints of our personality?
Does Glass hold the potential to arrange a new identity for its users? When having to
maintain a
working Google account in order for Glass to properly function, then there is no doubt
about the fact
that the content and ads presented on the users computer will also be presented on Glass on
the
background of the users personal data. It is, however, clear that Pariser wants more
transparency
with companies holding vast amounts of personal data. The big online companies functions
as
relevance-seeking machines, which is fuelled with vulnerable personal data (Pariser 2011:
229). They
must begin to realize that they have a much more important role in the society, other than
what they
initially intended. It may be that Googles motto is Dont be evil, but what if they
unintendedly
happened to be? As Pariser explains:
I once explained to a Google search engineer that while I did not think the company was
currently evil, it seemed to have at its fingertips everything it needed to do evil if it wished.
He
smiled broadly. Right, he said. We are not evil. We try really hard not to be evil. But if
we
wanted to, man, could we ever! (Pariser, 2011: 147)
Pariser is definitely trying to send a message to his readers; it may be that the individual
find their
42
online life easier with the help of the personalization of his data. Though however easy it
may seem,
there is no guarantee that their personal data will not be used in a bad consensus. If Google
wants
too, they can do whatever they want with the individuals data, and they cannot do anything
about it.
If an individual is using Google, that person has agreed to their terms and conditions, and if
Google
wants to use this personal data, they will have the right to do so, without the person having
any say
to it.
The Internet has changed radically from being a free source of information flow, with a
decent
amount of anonymity for its users, to becoming a possible surveillance and marketing tool
for big
organisations. This is a general concern for Pariser. He mentions that although he likes the
shortcuts from Google, he cannot ignore the fact that this new era of personalization is
completely
invisible to the general user. Thus it becomes harder to know what information the Internet
has on us as individuals, as well as how and where it applies that personal information. How
are we able to
trust those companies that has access to all this information?:
While the Internet has the potential to decentralize knowledge and control, in practice it is
concentrating control over what we see and what opportunities we are offered in the hands
of
fewer people than ever before. (Pariser, 2011: 218)
As Pariser says:
The Internet may know who we are, but we do not know who it thinks we are or how it is
using
that information. Technology designed to give us more control over our lives is actually
taking
control away. (Pariser 2011: 218-219)
43
To cast some more light on the consequences of the personalization of data we have chosen
to deal
with a story about a pregnant teenage daughter. She had an account at Target25 where she
was
searching for, and buying, specific articles that women are most likely to buy whilst
pregnant. What
she did not know, however, was that by each search she did online, she was actually
revealing
information about herself being pregnant. As a consequence of her online behaviour, she
began to
receive baby-related commercials from Target in the shape of coupons and online ads.
Eventually
her dad got angry and called Target to ask why they sent all this baby-related material to his
daughter, when she is still a kid, attending high school. Meanwhile he then discovered that
his
daughter was actually pregnant, and he had to apologize to the Target employee a few days
later.
So Target actually predicted the daughters pregnancy before her father found out about it.
They
were able to do it because they used exactly the same system as Google. Demanded the
users to
have an account at their company, and then looked at what they were searching for when
they were
online. In this case the pregnant daughter were looking at certain products related to
pregnant
women. If a woman bought more of these products, then surely there was a great chance
that she
would be pregnant, and the system would automatically kick in (Hill 2012).
The case of the pregnant daughter is an excellent example of the positive and negative sides
of
personalized data. It is nice that she can get all the relevant products that she would need as
pregnant, but on the other hand she is also receiving a mark that says she is in that category.
Her
44
search results has been collected and transformed into a personal data pattern, which Target
uses.
One might say that Target has targeted her. When looking at Targets logo it looks
remarkable as an actual Target (See appendix 1). Speaking in a symbolic manner we could
say that all the online
companies, including Target, has an aim on their users - a target. All individuals risks being
targeted,
but we are rarely conscious about it; therefore not very cautious about it. Whatever ones
activities
online are, these activities set us as a target for the major Internet companies. This way we
make
ourselves targets by searching and leaking personal data, simply by being ourselves online.
very noticeably and more likely to get the surroundings apprehensive. Glass really contains
so much
more than a camera, it is like having a tiny computer attached to your glasses, but it is quite
plausible that the perpetrators only thought as far as: camera, surveillance, lack of
privacy, get
that man out of here! A camera is a symbol of spying, surveillance, and makes some people
act
certain ways, from their associations. A pair of glasses is usually a symbol for intelligence,
and this
is probably also thought of by Google, when they designed their new device. Glasses
generally
gives an association to someone smart, which is exactly what Google are aiming for.
Dr. Mann initially received some suspicious question from an employee who wanted to
know what
those glasses were about, but Mann happened to have his medical papers with him, stating
that
these glasses were simply digital eyeglasses, which made the employee calm down. Then
again
when Dr. Mann was eating his food, not just one, but altogether three perpetrators verbally
insulted
him, tore up his medical papers, and ended up physically assaulting him, pushing him out of
the
restaurant, and, consequently, damaged his Eyetap glasses. This case is interesting on many
levels, but using social semiotics we can actually try to see it from
the perpetrators points of view. Why would they insult a man because of the glasses he is
wearing?
It must have been an honest mistake that they thought he was spying on them with his
Eyetap
camera, but why would they assume that? Why did it offend them so much? And why did
they not
believe Manns medical papers that proved he was just wearing Eyetap? This all might have
to do
with the modern society that we live in, where surveillance has become a factor that people
46
apparently worry about. Especially when it is not just on a workplace, where it is somehow
more
reasonable to have cameras installed to spy on the assistants as well as the customers, but to
be
surveilled when eating at McDonalds, that is an invasion of privacy.
According to Saussures semiotic theory a sign (sign being everything that communicates it can be
a picture, a word etc.) is consuming a signifier, which is the physical existence of the sign,
and a
signified, which is the mental concept; the way people read the sign based on their personal
background. The collaboration between the signifier and the signified is called signification,
and its
turnout, is then the external meaning (Fiske, 1982: 42-49). Applying Saussures theory on
this case, it
shows how the society that we live in, with increasing technological devices and
surveillance all over,
have caused these perpetrators to be completely certain about Dr. Manns glasses to be some
sort
of spying ware, possibly Glass. Though this case took place in France, and our main focus
in this
project is the United States of America, it has to be demarcated that the technological
revolution has
had a huge impact on all of the world, and especially the western part of the world; meaning
Europe
and North America. Manns incident at McDonalds illustrates how these perpetrators felt so
threatened by those digital glasses that they got aggressive, when really it was all because of
their
prejudices. If we, as Saussure proposed with his signification, see, read, and experience the
world
around us based on our background knowledge and previous experiences, this would be a
plausible
explanation for why the perpetrators reacted so strongly to Dr. Manns Eyetap.
This leaves us speculating about what consequences can be once people start wearing Glass
47
wherever they go. Is there going to be a group of anti-Glass people who assault all the Glass
users,
or is it going to be forbidden to wear them in most restaurants, shops, workplaces, clubs
etc.? Will
there be signs on the doors saying: No Glass Allowed, just like there is a No Smoking
sign? Would
it not ethically be right to keep some sort of privacy? Though we live in a society where
most people
are leaking all kinds of information about themselves, it is at least up for ourselves to
choose what
we share. If Glass does not get controlled at all, we will have no idea of when we are, not
just being
watched, but actually filmed, who is filming and more importantly; what they are going to
do with it. In order to avoid loose speculations, we will after a brief optimize of ethics,
apply the different ethical
theories to put a more philosophical angle on this case.
With the rapid growth in introduction to more and more devices that both gathers and gives
us
digital information on the go, there is a lack of agreed ethical ways, which have not yet had
time
to manifest, of using these devices in our everyday life. Is it wrong to sit and text our friends
on
our new smartphone while having a conversation with our parents? Is it okay to update our
Instagram gallery when we are dining at a restaurant with our friends? In order to find out
what is
deemed right or wrong when using Glass in public, more specifically the ability to record
video
without anyone but the user knowing, we will be applying the teleological utilitarianism
theory that
strives for the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Spinello 1995: 19). To begin
with and
in turn to use William D. Rosss extension of the deontological pluralism theory from
Immanuel
Kant, which is firmly opposed to utilitarianism (Spinello 1995: 24), and emphasizes
that we
should Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Spinello, 1995: 28), we will
now
apply it on the above case; Dr. Manns incident at McDonalds.
CHAPTER 3
DMD & ELECTRONIC OPERATION
developed between the mirror and the underlying memory cell. With the memory cell in the
on (1) state, the mirror rotates to +10 degrees. With the memory cell in the off (0) state, the
mirror rotates to -10 degrees. A close-up of DMD mirrors operating in a scanning electron
microscope (SEM) is shown in Figure.
50
of the pupil of the projection lens, to create a burst of digital light pulses that the eye
interprets as an analog image. The optical switching time for the DMD light switch is ~2 s.
The mechanical switching time, including the time for the mirror to settle and latch, is ~15
s. The technique for producing the sensation of grayscale to the observers eye is called
binary pulse width modulation. The DMD accepts electrical words representing gray levels
of brightness at its input and outputs optical words, which are interpreted by the eye of the
observer as analog brightness levels.
51
The details of the binary pulse width modulation (PWM) technique are illustrated in
Figure. For simplicity, the PWM technique is illustrated for a 4-bit word (2 4 or 16 gray
levels).
53
The fabrication of the DMD superstructure begins with a completed CMOS memory
circuit. A thick oxide is deposited over metal-2 of the CMOS and then planarized using a
chemical mechanical polish (CMP) technique. The CMP step provides a completely flat
substrate for DMD superstructure fabrication, ensuring that the projectors brightness
uniformity and contrast ratio are not degraded.
Through the use of six photo mask layers, the superstructure is formed with layers of
aluminum for the address electrode (metal-3), hinge, yoke and mirror layers and hardened
photo-resist for the sacrificial layers (spacer-1 and spacer-2) that form the two air gaps. The
aluminum is sputter-deposited and plasma-etched using plasma-deposited SiO2 as the etch
mask. Later in the packaging flow, the sacrificial layers are plasma-ashed to form the air
gaps.
The packaging flow begins with the wafers partially sawed along the chip scribe
lines to a depth that will allow the chips to be easily broken apart later. The partially sawed
and cleaned wafers then proceed to a plasma etcher that is used to selectively strip the
organic sacrificial layers from under the DMD mirror, yoke, and hinges. Following this
process, a thin lubrication layer is deposited to prevent the landing tips of the yoke from
adhering to the landing pads during operation. Before separating the chips from one another,
each chip is tested for full electrical and optical functionality by a high-speed automated
wafer tester. Finally, the chips are separated from the wafer, plasma-cleaned, relubricated,
and hermetically sealed in a package.
54
An 848 x 600 Digital Micro mirror Device. The central, reflective portion of the
device consists of 508,800 tiny, tilt able mirrors. A glass window seals and protects the
mirrors.
55
S. No.
1.
Reset Sequence
Memory ready
Opcodes
All memory cells under the DMD have been loaded with
Reset
3.
Unlatch
bias bus).
The bias is turned off to unlatch mirrors and allow them
4.
Differentiate
2.
state.
The bias is turned on to capture the rotationally
separated mirrors and enable them to rotate to the
6.
7.
Last Sequence
data.
Repeat sequence beginning at step 1.
56
57
Figure illustrates a generic three-chip DLP system broken down into its functional
components (video front-end, digital processor, digital formatter, and digital display). The
generic video front-end accepts a variety of video sources (digital, digital compressed,
digital graphics, analog composite, analog video, and analog graphics). The video front-end
performs the functions of decompression, decoding, and analog-to-digital conversion,
depending on the nature of the video source.
The first operation in the digital processor is progressive-scan conversion. This
conversion is required if the original source material is interlaced. An interlaced format
provides even lines of video during one video field time and odd lines during the next field
time. Progressive-scan conversion is the process of creating (by an interpolation algorithm)
new scan lines between the odd or even lines of each video field.
Interlacing has been historically used in CRT-based systems to reduce the video
bandwidth requirements without producing objectionable flicker effects created by the
temporal decay in phosphor brightness. For progressively scanned CRTs, interlacing is
unnecessary because additional bandwidth is allocated so that every line of the CRT is
refreshed during each field time. Progressive scanning that incorporates motion-adaptive
algorithms helps to reduce interlaces scanning artifacts such as interline flicker, raster line
visibility, and field flicker. These are particularly noticeable in larger display formats.
The next operation in the digital processor is digital resampling (or scaling). This
operation resizes the video data to fit the DMDs pixel array, expands letterbox video
sources, and maintains a correct aspect ratio for the square pixel DMD format. After the
scaling operation, the video data is input to the color space conversion block. If the video is
not already in a red, green, blue (R, G, B) format, it is converted from luminance and color
difference encoding (e.g., Y, CR, CB) into R, G, B. Next, degamma (inverse gamma)
function is per-formed .CRT systems have non-linear signal-to-light characteristics. In order
to compensate for this error, an error correction, called Gamma correction is done on
images. But as the DLP system has linear signal-to-light characteristics, this correction is to
be removed, which is done in the degamma section. Degamma operation can produce lowlight-level contouring effects, but these are minimized by using an error diffusion technique.
Finally the R, G, B signals is input to the digital formatter. First, the scan-line format
data is converted into an R, G, B bit-plane format. The bit planes are stored in a dualsynchronous DRAM (SDRAM) frame buffer for fast access of the bit-plane data. The bitplane data is then output to the DMDs in a PWM bit-splitting sequence. The DMD chip has
58
multiple data inputs that allow it to match the frequency capability of the on-chip CMOS
with the required video data rates. The bit-plane data coming out of the frame buffer is
multiplexed 16:1 and fed to the multiple data inputs of each DMD. The bit-plane data is
then demultiplexed 1:16 and fed to the frame-memory underlying the DMD pixel array.
59
illuminating and projecting optics, a total internal reflection (TIR) prism is interposed
between the projection lens and the DMD color-splitting/-combining prisms.
The color-splitting/-combining prisms use dichroic interference filters deposited on
their surfaces to split the light by reflection and transmission into red, green, and blue
components. The red and blue prisms require an additional reflection from a TIR surface of
the prism in order to direct the light at the correct angle to the red and blue DMDs. Light
reflected from the on-state mirrors of the three DMDs is directed back through the prisms
and the color components are recombined. The combined light then passes through the TIR
prism and into the projection lens because its angle has been reduced below the critical
angle for total internal reflection in the prism air gap.
60
scale into nano electromechanical systems (NEMS) and nanotechnology. MEMS are also
referred to as micro machines (in Japan), or micro systems technology MST (in Europe).
MEMS are separate and distinct from the hypothetical vision of molecular nanotechnology
or molecular electronics. MEMS are made up of components between 1 to 100 micrometres
in size (i.e. 0.001 to 0.1 mm), and MEMS devices generally range in size from 20
micrometres (20 millionths of a metre) to a millimetre (i.e. 0.02 to 1.0 mm). They usually
consist of a central unit that processes data (the microprocessor) and several components
that interact with the surroundings such as microsensors. At these size scales, the standard
constructs of classical physics are not always useful. Because of the large surface area to
volume ratio of MEMS, surface effects such as electrostatics and wetting dominate over
volume effects such as inertia or thermal mass. The potential of very small machines was
appreciated before the technology existed that could make themsee, for example, Richard
Feynman's famous 1959 lecture There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom. MEMS became
practical once they could be fabricated using modified semiconductor device fabrication
technologies, normally used to make electronics. These include molding and plating, wet
etching (KOH, TMAH) and dry etching (RIE and DRIE), electro discharge machining
(EDM), and other technologies capable of manufacturing small devices. An early example
of a MEMS device is the resonistor and electromechanical monolithic resonator.
Even though the electronics industry provides an economy of scale for the silicon industry,
crystalline silicon is still a complex and relatively expensive material to be produced.
Polymers on the other hand can be produced in huge volumes, with a great variety of
material characteristics. MEMS devices can be made from polymers by processes such as
injection molding, embossing or stereo lithography and are especially well suited to micro
fluidic applications such as disposable blood testing cartridges.
3.7.1.3. Metals
Metals can also be used to create MEMS elements. While metals do not have some of the
advantages displayed by silicon in terms of mechanical properties, when used within their
limitations, metals can exhibit very high degrees of reliability. Metals can be deposited by
electroplating, evaporation, and sputtering processes. Commonly used metals include gold,
nickel, aluminium, copper, chromium, titanium, tungsten, platinum, and silver.
3.7.1.4. Ceramics
The nitrides of silicon, aluminium and titanium as well as silicon carbide and other ceramics
are increasingly applied in MEMS fabrication due to advantageous combinations of
material properties. AlN crystallizes in the quartzite structure and thus shows pyroelectric
and piezoelectric properties enabling sensors, for instance, with sensitivity to normal and
shear forces. TiN, on the other hand, exhibits a high electrical conductivity and large elastic
modulus allowing realizing electrostatic MEMS actuation schemes with ultrathin
membranes. Moreover, the high resistance of TiN against bio corrosion qualifies the
material for applications in biogenic environments and in biosensors.
62
63
Isotropic etching: - Etching progresses at the same speed in all directions. Long and
narrow holes in a mask will produce v-shaped grooves in the silicon. The surface of these
grooves can be atomically smooth if the etch is carried out correctly, with dimensions and
angles being extremely accurate.
Anisotropic etching: - Some single crystal materials, such as silicon, will have different
etching rates depending on the crystallographic orientation of the substrate. This is known
as anisotropic etching and one of the most common examples is the etching of silicon in
KOH (potassium hydroxide), where Si <111> planes etch approximately 100 times slower
than other planes (crystallographic orientations). Therefore, etching a rectangular hole in a
(100)-Si wafer results in a pyramid shaped etch pit with 54.7 walls, instead of a hole with
curved sidewalls as with isotropic etching.
HF etching: - Hydrofluoric acid is commonly used as an aqueous etchant for silicon
dioxide (SiO2, also known as BOX for SOI), usually in 49% concentrated form, 5:1, 10:1 or
20:1 BOE (buffered oxide etchant) or BHF (Buffered HF). They were first used in medieval
times for glass etching. It was used in IC fabrication for patterning the gate oxide until the
process step was replaced by RIE. Hydrofluoric acid is considered one of the more
dangerous acids in the clean room. It penetrates the skin upon contact and it diffuses straight
to the bone. Therefore the damage is not felt until it is too late.
Electrochemical etching: - Electrochemical etching (ECE) for dopant-selective removal of
silicon is a common method to automate and to selectively control etching. An active p-n
diode junction is required, and either type of dopant can be etching resistant ("etch-stop")
material. Boron is the most common etch-stop dopant. In combination with wet anisotropic
etching as described above, ECE has been used successfully for controlling silicon
diaphragm thickness in commercial piezoresistive silicon pressure sensors. Selectively
doped regions can be created either by implantation, diffusion, or epitaxial deposition of
silicon.
Vapor etching: - Xenon difluoride (XeF2) is a dry vapour phase isotropic etches for silicon
originally applied for MEMS in 1995 at University of California, Los Angeles. Primarily
used for releasing metal and dielectric structures by undercutting silicon, XeF2 has the
advantage of a stiction-free release unlike wet etchants. Its etch selectivity to silicon is very
high, allowing it to work with photo resist, SiO2, silicon nitride, and various metals for
masking. Its reaction to silicon is "plasmaless", is purely chemical and spontaneous and is
64
often operated in pulsed mode. Models of the etching action are available and university
laboratories and various commercial tools offer solutions using this approach.
Plasma etching: - Modern VLSI processes avoid wet etching, and use plasma etching
instead. Plasma etchers can operate in several modes by adjusting the parameters of the
plasma. Ordinary plasma etching operates between 0.1 and 5 Torr. (This unit of pressure,
commonly used in vacuum engineering, equals approximately 133.3 Pascals.) The plasma
produces energetic free radicals, neutrally charged, that react at the surface of the wafer.
Since neutral particles attack the wafer from all angles, this process is isotropic. Plasma
etching can be isotropic, i.e., exhibiting a lateral undercut rate on a patterned surface
approximately the same as its downward etch rate, or can be anisotropic, i.e., exhibiting a
smaller lateral undercut rate than its downward etch rate. Such anisotropy is maximized in
deep reactive ion etching. The use of the term anisotropy for plasma etching should not be
conflated with the use of the same term when referring to orientation dependent etching.
The source gas for the plasma usually contains small molecules rich in chlorine or fluorine.
For instance, carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) etches silicon and aluminium, and tri fluoro
methane etches silicon dioxide and silicon nitride.
A plasma containing oxygen is used to oxidize ("ash") photo resist and facilitate its
removal. Ion milling, or sputter etching, uses lower pressures, often as low as 104 Torr (10
mPa). It bombards the wafer with energetic ions of noble gases, often Ar+, which knock
atoms from the substrate by transferring momentum. Because the etching is performed by
ions, which approach the wafer approximately from one direction, this process is highly
anisotropic. On the other hand, it tends to display poor selectivity. Reactive-ion etching
(RIE) operates under conditions intermediate between sputter and plasma etching (between
103 and 101 Torr). Deep reactive-ion etching (DRIE) modifies the RIE technique to
produce deep, narrow features.
Reactive ion etching (RIE): - In reactive ion etching (RIE), the substrate is placed inside a
reactor, and several gases are introduced. Plasma is struck in the gas mixture using an RF
power source, which breaks the gas molecules into ions. The ions accelerate towards, and
react with, the surface of the material being etched, forming another gaseous material. This
is known as the chemical part of reactive ion etching. There is also a physical part, which is
similar to the sputtering deposition process. If the ions have high enough energy, they can
knock atoms out of the material to be etched without a chemical reaction. It is a very
complex task to develop dry etches processes that balance chemical and physical etching,
65
since there are many parameters to adjust. By changing the balance it is possible to
influence the anisotropy of the etching, since the chemical part is isotropic and the physical
part highly anisotropic the combination can form sidewalls that have shapes from rounded
to vertical. RIE can be deep (Deep RIE or deep reactive ion etching (DRIE)).
Deep RIE (DRIE) is a special subclass of RIE that is growing in popularity. In this
process, etch depths of hundreds of micrometres are achieved with almost vertical
sidewalls. The primary technology is based on the so-called "Bosch process", named after
the German company Robert Bosch, which filed the original patent, where two different gas
compositions alternate in the reactor. Currently there are two variations of the DRIE.
The first variation consists of three distinct steps (the Bosch Process as used in the
Plasma-Thermo tool) while the second variation only consists of two steps (ASE used in the
STS tool).
In the 1st Variation, the etch cycle is as follows:
(i) SF6 isotropic etch;
(ii) C4F8 passivation;
(iii) SF6 anisoptropic etch for floor cleaning.
In the 2nd variation, steps (i) and (iii) are combined.
Both variations operate similarly. The C4F8 creates a polymer on the surface of the
substrate, and the second gas composition (SF6 and O2) etches the substrate. The polymer
is immediately sputtered away by the physical part of the etching, but only on the horizontal
surfaces and not the sidewalls. Since the polymer only dissolves very slowly in the chemical
part of the etching, it builds up on the sidewalls and protects them from etching. As a result,
etching aspect ratios of 50 to 1 can be achieved. The process can easily be used to etch
completely through a silicon substrate, and etch rates are 36 times higher than wet etching.
3.7.2.4. Die preparation
After preparing a large number of MEMS devices on a silicon wafer, individual dies have to
be separated, which is called die preparation in semiconductor technology. For some
applications, the separation is preceded by wafer back grinding in order to reduce the wafer
thickness. Wafer dicing may then be performed either by sawing using a cooling liquid or a
dry laser process called stealth dicing.
66
Bulk micromachining is the oldest paradigm of silicon based MEMS. The whole thickness
of a silicon wafer is used for building the micro-mechanical structures. Silicon is machined
using various etching processes. Anodic bonding of glass plates or additional silicon wafers
is used for adding features in the third dimension and for hermetic encapsulation. Bulk
micromachining has been essential in enabling high performance pressure sensors and
accelerometers that changed the sensor industry in the 1980 and 90.
3.7.3.2. Surface micromachining
Surface micromachining uses layers deposited on the surface of a substrate as the structural
materials, rather than using the substrate itself.[16] Surface micromachining was created in
the late 1980 to render micromachining of silicon more compatible with planar integrated
circuit technology, with the goal of combining MEMS and integrated circuits on the same
silicon wafer. The original surface micromachining concept was based on thin
polycrystalline silicon layers patterned as movable mechanical structures and released by
sacrificial etching of the underlying oxide layer. Interdigital comb electrodes were used to
produce in-plane forces and to detect in-plane movement capacitively. This MEMS
paradigm has enabled the manufacturing of low cost accelerometers for e.g. automotive airbag systems and other applications where low performance and/or high g-ranges are
sufficient. Analog Devices have pioneered the industrialization of surface micromachining
and have realized the co-integration of MEMS and integrated circuits.
3.7.3.3. High aspect ratio (HAR) silicon micromachining
Both bulk and surface silicon micromachining are used in the industrial production of
sensors, ink-jet nozzles and other devices. But in many cases the distinction between these
two has diminished. A new etching technology, deep reactive-ion etching, has made it
possible to combine good performance typical of bulk micromachining with comb
structures and in-plane operation typical of surface micromachining. While it is common in
surface micromachining to have structural layer thickness in the range of 2 m, in HAR
silicon micromachining the thickness can be from 10 to 100 m. The materials commonly
used in HAR silicon micromachining are thick polycrystalline silicon, known as epi-poly,
and bonded silicon-on-insulator (SOI) wafers although processes for bulk silicon wafer also
have been created (SCREAM). Bonding a second wafer by glass frit bonding, anodic
bonding or alloy bonding is used to protect the MEMS structures. Integrated circuits are
typically not combined with HAR silicon micromachining.
Sensor
2.
Actuator
3.
Structure
In another view point MEMS applications are categorized by the field of application
(commercial applications include):
1. Inkjet printers, which use piezoelectric or thermal bubble ejection to deposit ink on
paper
2. Accelerometers in modern cars for a large number of purposes including airbag
deployment in collisions
3. Accelerometers and MEMS gyroscopes in radio controlled, or autonomous, helicopters,
planes and multirotors (also known as drones), used for automatically sensing and
balancing flying characteristics of roll, pitch and yaw
4. Accelerometers in consumer electronics devices such as game controllers (Nintendo
Wii), personal media players / cell phones (Apple iPhone, various Nokia mobile phone
models, various HTC PDA models) and a number of Digital Cameras (various Canon
Digital IXUS models) Also used in PCs to park the hard disk head when free-fall is
detected, to prevent damage and data loss
5. MEMS gyroscopes used in modern cars and other applications to detect yaw; e.g., to
deploy a roll over bar or trigger dynamic stability control
6. MEMS microphones in portable devices, e.g., mobile phones, head sets and laptops
7. Silicon pressure sensors e.g., car tire pressure sensors, and disposable blood pressure
sensors
8. Displays e.g., the DMD chip in a projector based on DLP technology
9. Optical switching technology
10. Bio-MEMS applications in medical and health related technologies
11. Interferometric modulator display (IMOD) applications
12. Fluid acceleration such as for micro-cooling
13. Micro-scale Energy harvesting including piezoelectric, electrostatic
and
electromagnetic microharvester
14. Micromachined Ultrasound Transducer including Piezoelectric Micromachined
Ultrasonic Transducers and Capacitive Micromachined Ultrasonic Transducers
Companies with strong MEMS programs come in many sizes. The larger firms
specialize in manufacturing high volume inexpensive components or packaged solutions for
end markets such as automobiles, biomedical, and electronics. The successful small firms
provide value in innovative solutions and absorb the expense of custom fabrication with
68
high sales margins. In addition, both large and small companies work in R&D to explore
MEMS technology.
3.8.
The basic bistable concept was developed in the Central Research Laboratories of Texas
Instruments (now Corporate Research & Development). The first structure, known as the
conventional pixel, did not hide the mechanical structures of the hinges or the support posts.
This resulted in less area available for the mirror and greater light diffraction from the
exposed mechanical structures. The result was a contrast ratio and optical efficiency that
could not support a commercial business.
mirror as active elements. Thus, almost every bit of area is used to develop electrostatic
torque, resulting in greater electrical efficiency and reliability.
projection screen. For clarity, only the central column is addressed. It is assumed that the
others are addressed to the dark state (0000). An electrical word is input into the memory
element of each light switch one bit at a time, beginning with the MSB for each word.
71
or 21 s. The optical switching time of the DMD and projection lens combination must be
small compared to 21 s in order to support 8-bit gray scale for a single -chip projector.
72
CHAPTER 4
NEW IN DIGITAL LIGHT PROCESSING
73
74
portion of the light. The result is that only a small amount of the incident light is transmitted
through the LCD panel and onto the screen. Recently, LCDs have experienced advances in
apertures and light transmission, but their performance is still limited because of their
dependence on polarized light.
4.2. BENEFITS
4.2.1. CLARITY
75
As it is already explained, the DLP system provides high clarity images due to its improved
digital technology.
checker-board contrast ratio is a measure of the contrast for objects in scenes containing a
full range of luminance levels. The inherent contrast ratio of the DMD is limited by light
diffraction from the mirror edges, from the underlying substrate, and from the mirror via
(the metalized hole in the middle of the mirror that acts as the mirror support post, as shown
in Figure). Recent architectural improvements to the DMD pixels have led to improved
contrast ratios.
4.2.8. PORTABILITY
Because of its very low size and weight, DLP projector system is highly portable. A
projector giving an output of 2000 lumens weigh only 6.6 pounds and that giving 1000
lumens, which is called as the micro projector weighs only 2 pounds.
1. An improved hinge material that reduces metal creep that can occur under high duty
factor and high-temperature operating conditions. The hinge material is manufactured
using thin-film technology to get less stiff material.
2. Improved packaging techniques that preserve the lubricity of the landing surface over
a wide range of environmental conditions.
3. A new architecture that incorporates spring tips at the landing tip of the yoke. These
springs store energy upon landing and push the mirror away from the surface upon
release. The result is greater operating margins as the yoke releases (resets) from the
underlying surface.
4. A particle reduction program that has dramatically reduced particle contamination
within the DMD package.
The DMD has passed a series of tests to simulate actual DMD environmental operating
conditions, including thermal shock, temperature cycling, moisture resistance, mechanical
shock, vibration, and acceleration testing and has passed all of these tests. In addition to
these, other tests have been conducted to determine the long-term result of repeated cycling
of mirrors between the on and off states. Mirror cycling tests look for hinge fatigue (broken
hinges) and failure of the mirrors to release because of increased adhesion (reset failure). To
date, in accelerated tests, a lifetime of more than 765 billion cycles has been demonstrated
(equivalent lifetime >76,000 hours ie, approximately 20 years of reliable operation) for a 10bit/primary color, three-chip projector configuration).
79
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
80
REFERENCES
1. R.J. Gove, "DMD Display Systems: The Impact of an All-Digital Display," Society for
Information Display International Symposium (June 1994).
2. L.J. Hornbeck and W.E. Nelson, "Bistable Deformable Mirror Device," OSA Technical
Digest Series Vol. 8, Spatial Light Modulators and Applications, p. 107 (1988).
3. L.J. Hornbeck, "Deformable-Mirror Spatial Light Modulators," Spatial Light
Modulators and Applications III, SPIE Critical Reviews, Vol. 1150, pp. 86-102 (August
1989).
4. W.E. Nelson, L.J. Hornbeck, Micromechanical Spatial Light Modulator for
Electrophotographic Printers, SPSE Fourth International Congress on Advances in Non
Impact Printing Technologies, pp. 427, March 20, 1988.
5. J.B. Sampsell, "An Overview of Texas Instruments Digital Micromirror Device (DMD)
and Its Application to Projection Displays," Society for Information Display Internal
Symposium Digest of Tech. Papers, Vol. 24, pp. 1012-1015 (May 1993).
6. L.J. Hornbeck, "Current Status of the Digital Micromirror Device (DMD) for Projection
Television Applications (Invited Paper)," International Electron Devices Technical
Digest, pp. 381-384 (1993)
7. J.M Younse and D.W. Monk, "The Digital Micromirror Device (DMD) and Its
Transition to HDTV," Proc. of 13th International Display Research Conf. (Late News
Papers), pp. 613-616 (August 31-September 3, 1993)
8. J.B. Sampsell, "The Dig ital Micromirror Device," 7th ICSS&A, Yokohama, Japan
(1993).
9. J.M. Younse, "Mirrors on a Chip," IEEE Spectrum, pp. 27-31 (November 1993).
10. M.A. Mignardi, "Digital Micromirror Array for Projection TV," Solid State Technology,
Vol. 37, pp. 63-66 (July 1994).
11. V. Markandey et al., "Motion Adaptive Deinterlacer for DMD (Digital Micromirror
Device) Based Digital Television," IEEE Trans. on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 40, No.
3, pp. 735-742 (August 1994).
12. V. Markandey and R. Gove, "Digital Display Systems Based on the Digital Micromirror
Device," SMPTE 136th Technical Conference and World Media Expo (October 1994).
81