Qn.

With the influence of technology, the society become a BIG BROTHER house. Critically assess the statement.

Essay

Surveillance has for a while remained a topical issue in the developed countries because of its rampant increase. The main controversial issues being personal privacy. Lyon comments that “the filed of surveillance studies has grown rapidly over the past two decades, spurred by both rapid developments in governance and new technologies on the one hand, and fresh initiatives in theoretical expansion on the other.” (2006: 3)

In a BBC News article on the 2^nd of November 2006, the headline was “Britain is a surveillance society” this article goes ahead to say that there are 4.2 million cameras in the Britain, one for every 14 people. Christain Parenti in his book “The soft cage” talks about a similar situation in the United States. He mentions that ordinary American citizens in the 21^st century are subject to CCTV cameras, smart cards, GPS chips in cell phones, electronic transaction are recorded and archived for data mining by the authorities and corporations.

Surveillance is an ambiguous and controversial term that has no single definition because of its complex nature. The term comes from a French word surveiller, which means to watch over and relates to words like inspect, view, espionage and infiltration.

David Lyon defines it as “a focused and routine attention to personal detail for purposes of influence, management, protection or direction” (2007:14)

The Home Office on the other hand defines it as recording, monitoring, observing and listening to individual’s movements, conversations and other activities or communications.

In order to get a full understanding of surveillance it is necessary to look at its history, current state and possible future.

Surveillance systems replicate Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon. Panopticon means all seeing. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was a utilitarian philosopher and theorist of British legal reform. He designed the panopticon in the 18^th Century which consisted of a tower that lay in the centre of the building. The prison guards sat in the tower and could see into every cell. The central location of the tower meant that it was a constant reminder to the prisoners that they were being watched. The idea behind the mechanism is that the prisoners could not tell whether they are being watched or not which Jeremy Bentham refers to as  ‘sentiment of an invisible omniscience’ (Atkinson pg 85)

Michael Foucault (1926-1984), a French historian and philosopher took interest in Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon. In his book discipline and punish he juxtaposes two kinds of punishment: Monarchical punishment which involves brutality and torture and Disciplinary punishment which psychologically gives professionals power over the prisoners.

He says  “Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power.

In view of this, Bentham laid down the principle that power should be visible and unverifiable. Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so” (p.195-228)

CCTV technology and the psychology behind it has similarities with the working of the panopticon however the general surveillance culture is comparable to George Orwell’s fictional book 1984. Nineteen Eighty-four is a dystopian novel, published in 1949. The writer George Orwell tells the story of Winston Smith and his dilapidation by the dictatorial super state Oceania. The novel describes a world of “Totalitarianism” where “Thought crime” means death through the dealings of “Thought Police”. The “Thought Police” were said to have placed Telescreens, hidden microphones and informers in every public place. This book explains the nature of the uninterrupted war, and exposes the truth behind the Party’s slogan, “War Is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.”

George Orwell’s depiction of society has similarities with the current surveillance culture for example there, is a believed notion that ‘big brother’ is always watching which is not unlike to day where you have surveillance cameras in almost all public places. 

There are two broad types of surveillance: mass surveillance also known as undirected surveillance and targeted surveillance. Mass surveillance is where the information gathered about all individuals for possible future use for example CCTV and databases.

On the other hand targeted surveillance “is surveillance directed at particular individuals and can involve the use of specific powers by authorised public agencies.

In 2004 Richard Thomas warned that Britain could be sleep walking into a surveillance society (BBC News) and Lord Norton of Louth described the surveillance state as ‘one of the most significant changes in the life of the nation since the end of the second world war. Today surveillance is almost becoming second nature and this is the case with countries like the UK who on top of having millions of cameras also have mobile phone triangulation, chip and pin, internet cookies, banking and iris scans that is always happening at certain airports like such Heathrow, Birmingham and Manchester.

David Leppard in The Sunday Times reported that the government was building a secret database to track down all the 60 million Britons when they are on holiday. This database would contain names, addresses, telephone numbers, seat reservations, travel itineraries and credit card details and this information would be stored for up to 10 years.

Further more, there have been public concerns about DNA databases that stored information about children. In guardian.co.uk, James Sturcke notes that “Genetic information taken from nearly 1.1 million children is now stored on the national DNA database, official figures show, and campaigners believe that as many as half of them have no criminal convictions” and goes on to say that Britain has the biggest DNA database in the world with profiles of more than 7% of the total population. The reason behind this rampant increase in surveillance is to cut down on criminal activities.

On the other hand surveillance has become a trend in entertainment as reality Television. There are several unscripted shows that document the lives of ordinary people. Show like “Big Brother”, I am a Celebrity Get Me out of Here” and Survivor are examples of the reality shows where participants are under constant surveillance. Hidden cameras and microphones are placed all over the set where the participants are likely to go in order to capture their interpersonal relationship. It’s the voyeuristic aspect of the show that keeps people tuning in. BBC News commented that “Television seems to be obsessed with fly on the on the wall documentaries” But this is only because they listen to their audience and give them what they want. More people are willingly happy to give up their privacy by opening social networking sites and sharing their personal information and images with many people in the world including total strangers. Many people are using websites to post videos of themselves on sites like U Tube. Unlike covert surveillance, the subject is aware that he is being observed and takes pride in that fact. It may be that people are willing to sacrifice some privacy for what they see as a greater reward, such as fame or riches. It may also be that the act of ‘choosing’ to go public empowers them to feel in control of the situation (however illusory that may actually be) in contrast to the situation where surveillance is non-voluntary.

The most foreseeable development in surveillance is the introduction of ID cards for all UK nationals and foreigners who intend to stay in the UK for longer than three months. According to the Home Office  “Each ID card will be unique, and will combine the cardholder’s biometric data with their checked and confirmed identity details and ‘biographical footprint’. These identity details and the biometrics will be stored on the national identity register. Basic identity information will also be held in a chip on the ID card itself.

In a report produced by a group of academics called the Surveillance Studies Network predicts that by 2016 surveillance will be mainstream culture. This is because surveillance systems will be everywhere and less obvious at immediate glance. They are referred to as “friendly flying eyes in the sky.

Shoppers could have an implanted chip to help them shop, therefore instead of credit or debit cards may have a part of their body scanned. Tagging and tracking children could be the norm, schools could bring in cards allowing their parents to monitor what their children eat and jobs may be refused to applicants who are seen as a health risk. The report was presented to the 28th International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners’ Conference in London, hosted by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Another likely development in surveillance is the microchip implant in children to prevent children from being abducted and also monitor their behavior. This idea was developed by the cybernetic professor Kevin Warwick of Reading University after the bodies of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were found in a ditch. He says that a chip implant“ would send a signal via mobile phone networks to a computer, which would pinpoint her location on an electronic map.” (Megan Lane: BBC News Online magazine).

The notion surveillance society has also produced some tangible results, it’s claimed. Speed cameras have been known to cut down on over speeding and a number of road accidents have decreased considerably since their introduction and enforcement. In a police pilot scheme in Northamptonshire, speed cameras were installed and this saw the rate of accidents dropping by 67% and the number of over speeding motorists dropping from 73% to 7%. (BBC News 13^th August 2001).

However there has been a contrasting concern that actually speed cameras may be a cause of traffic accidents. Dave Keenan from the university of Leeds did a research on the effect of speed cameras. In his report he says “The effect of the camera on driver behavior can create new problems such as erratic breaking and acceleration and distract drivers from traffic flow”(BBC News 23^rd August 2002)

Security cameras can assist the process of tracking down criminals and obtaining evidence. A good example is the camera evidence collected about the 21^st July 2006 London bombers that led to their arrest (Karen McVeigh Guardian.co.uk , July 10^th 2007 accessed on 31^st of March 2008).

Video surveillance cameras are creating a vastly increased rate of conviction after crimes are detected. Virtually everyone caught committing an offense on camera pleads guilty nowadays.

Once people know they have been videotaped, they admit the offense immediately. Such is also the case in Newcastle, where the installation of a 16‐camera system has resulted in a 100 percent incidence of guilty pleas.” Andrew Neil Show, BBC TV, 29 May 1996) cited inojotech.com

It is also claimed that the ‘shadow effect’ can improve crime in non-monitored areas. “Poyner (1991) evaluated a multi‐component scheme at the University of Surrey in Guildford, England, in which both the two parking lots received up‐graded lighting and foliage was cut back, but only the one parking lot received video surveillance cameras. Ten‐months after the program started, the author found that thefts from vehicles were substantially reduced in both improved parking lots.

In the camera‐equipped site, the monthly average of incidents declined by almost three‐quarters (73.3%), while in the second lot, they were almost eliminated (a drop of 93.8%)”

However despite the fact the surveillance systems have cost the taxpayer over £200 million, they do not prevent as much crime as it was recently thought. According to Peter Sayer of abc News, London has over 10,000 publicly funded CCTV cameras but only one in five crimes are solved. Dee Doocey, the Liberal democrats spokes person commented that “Our figures show that there is no link between a high number of CCTV cameras and a better crime clear-up rate…..Boroughs with thousands of CCTV cameras are no better at doing so than those which have a few dozen”

Ron Paul (2008), a member of the US House of Representatives says “One overriding point has been forgotten: Criminals don’t obey laws! As with gun control, national ID cards will only affect law-abiding citizens. Do we really believe a terrorist bent on murder is going to dutifully obtain a federal ID card? Do we believe that people who openly flout our immigration laws will nonetheless respect our ID requirements? Any ID card can be forged; any federal agency or state DMV is susceptible to corruption. Criminals can and will obtain national ID cards, or operate without them. National ID cards will be used to track the law-abiding masses, not criminals.”

Surveillance cameras can increase efficiency by monitoring staff. According to McCahill (2002:160) surveillance cameras in departmental stores not only track shoplifters and but are also used to monitor customer service, till operation and procedures” Inverse surveillance which refers to practice of reversalism on surveillance can has also been significant in monitoring working ethics of those in power for example ordinary people filming the police.

This was the case with George Holliday’s video that he filmed of the Los Angeles police violently beating up Rodney King. This video was later used in Court. Mydans comments that “The videotape… shows officers taking turns swinging their nightsticks like baseball bats at the man and kicking him in the head as he lay on the ground early Sunday,” (New York Times)

According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, security comes second to the satisfaction of physiological needs. The need for security can be fulfilled by the thought of having ‘some one watching over us’. The uses and gratifications model on media audiences that were developed by Jay Blumler and Elihu Katz in 1974 was commented on by Branston and Stafford (2003:153).

Their thesis was that consumers of the media are in control and use the contents to gratify their own needs. For example, CCTV and the CCTV footage could also be used by the public to find out more about their surroundings. This could even be construed as inverse surveillance.

Similarly, television soaps, documentaries and other reality shows, present social issues and assist the public to understand modern social dilemmas.  For example, it was after ‘Big Brother’ 2006 that Tourrrette’s Syndrome was appreciated by the public as an illness and not just odd behaviour, and the fact that Pete Bennet who suffers from this illness won ‘Big Brother’ that year demonstrates rewards for both the watcher and the one who is being watched. The more some one knows about their environment the safer they feel, hence gratifying their need for security. However Benjamin Franklin’s  (as quoted by Gus Martin) said “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

For those in favour of safety over privacy, the (Radio Frequency Identification Device) RFID technology is ideal. This device utilizes radio waves to transmit and automatically identify user specified information. RFID chips implanted in people with Alzheimers disease have helped track down people who wander off. This chip also contains all the necessary information about the owner’s medical history which means that even if they do not have speech or are confused they can still get the necessary medical care from the health personnel. This information comes straight on the screen when the chip is scanned. Roxane whose mother was implanted with this chip says “ It is one thing to tell the emergence room personnel over the phone that my mother has an allergic condition on her record…but with a signed record on the computer screen, they can just read and act without having to spend valuable time tracking me down” (Verichipcorp.com)

Surveillance has for longed posed privacy matters due to some very intrusive systems like communications interception kinds of surveillance. According to the UK parliament publications and record, it is noted that “In the opinion of many of our witnesses, the widespread use of surveillance technology poses a significant threat to personal privacy and individual freedom.

Liberty argued that the shift towards mass surveillance technology has the potential to affect large sections of the public, and to render privacy, and the personal autonomy that flows from it, vulnerable: “It is not only those that have something to hide that have something to fear, something to protect” (Pg. 103).

Talking about surveillance the House of Lords said “Many of these surveillance practices are unknown to most people and their potential consequences are not fully appreciated…Everyday an astonishing range of information is gathered, extending from phone calls, internet usage and e-mails to the Oyster cards used on London’s transport system and store loyalty cards” they also warned that this data may be exploited in ways the public would not anticipate. Increasing interaction between the public and private sector exacerbates this problem. Government utilisation of airline passenger manifests to record entry and exit into the UK is one example. (Times online)

In conclusion therefore the majority of people, when polled, are generally in favour of surveillance devices because of the sense of security that they give for example there is little complaint about speed cameras and this because this is helping to reduce the highest rate of road deaths in Europe. But concerns remain that personal privacy is becoming a thing of the past and that these huge amounts of information that are collected remain in the hands of those in power and could be misused at the expense of the ordinary person.  

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Atkinson, C (2006) Jeremy Bentham: His Life and Work. Kessinger Publishing

1. Ball etal(2006) A Report On The  Surveillance Society http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_06_surveillance.pdf accessed on 1st March

1. Johns Hopkins Medicine(2006) Wondering about Wandering and RFIDs. online. Available at: http://www.verichipcorp.com/images/John%20Hopkins.pdf accessed on 21^st February 2009

1. Parenti,C(2003) The Soft Cage: Surveillance in America from Slavery to the War on Terror. New York. Basic books

1. Lyon,D(2006) Theorizing surveillance: The Panopticon and Beyond. Devon. Willan Publishing

1. Martin,G (2004) The New Era of Terrorism: Selected Readings. London .Sage

1. BBC News,(2000) Are We Turning into Peeping Toms? BBC News, [internet] 23^rd July Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/834731.stm accessed on the 27^th February 2009.

1. Foucault, M(1995)  Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison New York Vintage Books.

1. Sturcke, J(2009) DNA details of 1.1m children on database. Guardian.co.uk, [Internet] 27^th February.Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/27/dna-database-children-criminal-record Accessed on 1st March 2009.

1. Wood,D etal (2006) A Report on the Surveillance Society[Online] Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_06_surveillance.pdf Accessed on 20th February 2009.

1. Lane,M(2003) Would a microchip keep your child safe? BBC News Online Magazine. 18^th December Available at  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3307471.stm. Accessed on 20th February 2009

1. BBC News (2001) Mobile cameras reduce road deaths. BBC News. [Internet] 13^th August. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1488517.stm. Accessed on 1^st March 2009

1. BBC News(2002) Speed cameras can cause accidents. BBC News. 23^rd August. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2212479.stm. Accessed on 4^th March 2009.

1. Poyner(1991) http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&q=cache:X0WcmhENbk8J:www.campbellcollaboration.org/doc-pdf/cctv.pdf Online. Accessed on 4th March 2009.

1. Sayer, P (2007) CCTV Cameras don’t solve crime. abc News.[Internet] 21^st September. Available at http://a.abcnews.com/Technology/PCWorld/story?id=3634509. Accessed on 4^th March 2009

1.  Rodney King beating  http://www.multishow.com.ar/rodneyking/RKBV.wmv

1. Helm,T(2008) Outrage at 500,000 DNA database mistakes. Telegraph.co.uk.[Internet] 19^th April. Available at:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561414/Outrage-at-500,000-DNA-database-mistakes.html. Accessed on 4^th March 2009

1. Mydans, S(1991) Tape of Beating by Police Revives Charges of Racism. The New York Times.[Internet] 7^th March http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEEDB1F3AF934A35750C0A967958260. Accessed on 4^th March 2009

1. United Kingdom Parliament http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldconst/18/1805.htm#n60. Accessed on 4^th March 2009

1. Watt, H Briefing: Surveillance: They’re watching …  Times online [Internet] 8^th February http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5683392.ece. Accessed on 8th March 2009

1. BBC NEWS (2006) Britain is ‘surveillance society’ BBC News [Internet] 2^nd November Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6108496.stm Accessed on 4th March 2006.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 the PRESENTATION.

IS WEB 2.0 BUZZ OVER?

-       What is web 2.0?

-       How did web 2.0 come about?
 

-       Why is the web 2.0 over?
 

-       After web two then what?

slides

Bibliography

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/Web_1_point_0.html

www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/Web_1_point_0.htm

http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/464/Basic-Definitions-Web-10-Web-20-Web-30/

Web 2.0 is a term introduced in 2004 to characterize design patterns in a constellation of new generation Web applications which may provide an “infrastructure for more dynamic user participation, social interaction and collaboration.” The dynamic user in web 2.0 is given the space and opportunity to enhance their creativity, share information and collaborate with other users. This term was coined during the first O’Rielly media conference in 2004. It does not differ in technology from the ordinary web 1.0 but its differences from web 1.0 lie in the way software developers and end users apply it. At the mention of web 2.0, social networking sites like facebook or myspace come in mind; this is because these sites have taken over the use of web 2.0 and utilised well.

Web1.0 on the other hand is just the first implementation of the web, which according to Berners-Lee, could be considered the “read-only web.” In other words, the early web allowed us to search for information and read it. There was very little in the way of user interaction or content contribution. However, this is exactly what most website owners wanted: Their goal for a website was to establish an online presence and make their information available to anyone at any time. I like to call this “brick-and-mortar thinking applied to the web,” and the web as a whole hasn’t moved much beyond this stage yet.

There are differences between web1.0 and web2.0 and these can be noticed in the functions of both platforms, despite the fact that there even differences in the cording, this is much more noticed by the web designers but to the end user, what matters is the functions and abilities of the platforms. Here are some of the differences:

“Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform”. The web as is stands (Web1.0) is seen as a “static” thing, like a billboard or a magazine. You can see lots of billboards, buy lots of magazines, enjoy or dislike them but they stay the same until they are changed by the publisher.”Web2.0 applications” are ones that are “user-generated” or “user-shaped”. Instead of being “published” by someone, the people using the site “publish” the content. They also market it and edit it.  Famous examples of “Web2.0 applications” already in use and much talked about are Flickr for photographs, Wikipedia for encyclopedia articles, Facebook for maintaining friendships, YouTube for seeing young people mugging to video cameras and Answers.com for combining syndicated elements of these with its own user-generated Q&A section. On the other hand however, web 1.0 is seen as a primary use of the internet, taking print media and posting it online, it saw books, news, music and everything else being moved into a digital format but the it was controlled by the publisher. This movement is still going on and will probably never stop. This is because as new data becomes available it needs to be made available online, but the majority of the community has shifted focus toward data integration since there is not much innovation remaining in posting data online.

Web 2.0 is a kind of service oriented. Web 1.0 was about publishing, not participation; that advertisers, not consumers, ought to call the shots; that size mattered. Internet was increasingly being dominated by the top websites. Web 2.0 helps to increase the participation of the users like blogs,

e-commerce websites, torrents etc, where every user gets a chance to publish in a website one way 

Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information. They can build on the interactive facilities of “Web 1.0” to provide “Network as platform” computing, allowing users to run software-applications entirely through a browser. Users can own the data on a Web 2.0 site and exercise control over that data. These sites may have an “Architecture of participation” that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it. This stands in contrast to very old traditional websites, the sort which limited visitors to viewing and whose content only the site’s owner could modify.

Web 2.0 sites often feature a rich, user-friendly interface based on Ajax,Flex or similar rich media. The sites may also have social-networkingaspects. The concept of Web-as-participation-platform captures many of these characteristics. Bart Decrem, a founder and former CEO of Flock, calls Web 2.0 the “participatory Web” and regards the Web2.0-as-information-source as Web 1.0.

The impossibility of excluding group-members who don’t contribute to the provision of goods from sharing profits gives rise to the possibility that rational members will prefer to withhold their contribution of effort andfree-ride on the contribution of others. The characteristics of Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, web standards and scalability. Three further characteristics that Best did not mention about web 2.0: openness, freedom and collective intelligence by way of user participation – all should be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0.

In conclusion the main differentiation between web 1.0 and web 2.0 only lie in their level user. Web 2.0 allows users to browse and obtain information that is available but as well as share their own media content throughout the internet challenging the mainstream media’s ability to deliver news at the same pace.  It is web 2.0 that has continually enhanced the idea of the global village where people from all over the world can share information in the easiest way possible making geographical boundaries seem less an obstacle as it was years back.

Bibliography

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/Web_1_point_0.html

www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/Web_1_point_0.htm

http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/464/Basic-Definitions-Web-10-Web-20-Web-30/

www.csa.com/discoveryguides/scholarships/gloss/php 

Second Life is a three-dimensional virtual community created entirely by its membership. Members assume an identity and take up residence in Second Life, creating a customized avatar or personage to represent themselves. The avatar moves about in the virtual world using mousecontrol and intuitive keyboard buttons.

Second Life’s virtual world also includes sound; wind in the swaying trees, babbling brooks, audible conversation, and built-in chat and instant messaging. Residents buy property, start businesses, game with other residents, create objects, join clubs, attend classes, or just hang out. The rendering of Second Life is remarkable, making it an instant guilty pleasure.

As of fall 2006, over 3,000 residents reportedly make an excess of 20 thousand US Dollars (USD) per year running businesses in Second Life. Most of them sell objects they’ve created that other residents want. One Second Life resident landed a Business Week cover story for earning a three-figure income – that’s real-world dollars – selling virtual real estate.

Property purchased in Second Life is owned by the buyer using a scheme referred to as InternetProtocol (IP) copyright. Some owners reward members for staying at their property with Linden dollars, Second Life’s currency. Linden dollars can also be purchased with real dollars using acredit card. Part of the exchange rate goes to Linden Inc., with Second Life purportedly generating over 64 million USD a year.

Real world corporations are also taking interest in the virtual world. In September 2006, Popular Science reported that Wells Fargo Bank bought an island on Second Life, where they may one day offer real world banking. Wal-Mart and Intel are just two of the mega-giants considering corporate training classes in Second Life – a business model that could save corporations, big and small, millions of dollars in travel and lodging fees. Future possibilities include virtual universities that replicate their real-life counterparts with classrooms and professors teaching interactive classes in real time, virtual interactive congressional sessions, and three-dimensional customer and tech support.

Second Life is the brainchild of Philip Rosedale, the former RealNetworks guru credited with spearheading the development of online streaming technologies. Rosedale presently runs Linden Labs, Inc., the privately held company behind Second Life, with the help of a crack team of first-rate developers with previous experience at companies like Disney, THQ, and Mattel. Anyone over 13 years of age can open a free account at Second Life, though members between 13 and 18 participate in Teen Second Life, a separate virtual community. Within the adult version of Second Life, there are PG areas and adult areas where different modes of behavior are acceptable. According to the terms of service contract, harassment of any kind in Second Life results in permanent expulsion.

Just where will Second Life’s virtual world lead? The answer is limited only by the creativity that continues to shape it. While it remains to be seen whether or not it will compete with the ubiquity of the World Wide Web for providing real-world education and services, we just might one day in the not-so-distant future wonder how we ever did without it.

he bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web. Many people concluded that the web was overhyped, when in fact bubbles and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all technological revolutions. Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage. The pretenders are given the bum’s rush, the real success stories show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what separates one from the other.

The concept of “Web 2.0″ began with a conference brainstorming session between O’Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O’Reilly VP, noted that far from having “crashed”, the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. What’s more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common. Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point for the web, such that a call to action such as “Web 2.0″ might make sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0 Conference was born.

In the year and a half since, the term “Web 2.0″ has clearly taken hold, with more than 9.5 million citations in Google. But there’s still a huge amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, and others accepting it as the new conventional wisdom.

This article is an attempt to clarify just what we mean by Web 2.0.

In our initial brainstorming, we formulated our sense of Web 2.0 by example:

The list went on and on. But what was it that made us identify one application or approach as “Web 1.0″ and another as “Web 2.0″? (The question is particularly urgent because the Web 2.0 meme has become so widespread that companies are now pasting it on as a marketing buzzword, with no real understanding of just what it means. The question is particularly difficult because many of those buzzword-addicted startups are definitely not Web 2.0, while some of the applications we identified as Web 2.0, like Napster and BitTorrent, are not even properly web applications!) We began trying to tease out the principles that are demonstrated in one way or another by the success stories of web 1.0 and by the most interesting of the new applications.