DIGITAL AMERICA

Author Archives: Sam

Interpersonal Communication

// Posted by Sam on 04/24/2013 (8:23 PM)

Can we even consider our interactions with others real human “relationships” anymore? MIT professor and scientist Sherry Turkle explains in her TEDtalk how the use of cell phones, texting, and other social media is devolving relationships into no more than… Read more

Can we even consider our interactions with others real human “relationships” anymore? MIT professor and scientist Sherry Turkle explains in her TEDtalk how the use of cell phones, texting, and other social media is devolving relationships into no more than mediated connections between people.

Sherry Turkle, “Alone Together”

In his seminal work I and Thou, Martin Buber makes a fundamental distinction between the two modes of interacting with the world: the mode of “I-it” and the mode of “I-Thou.” The “I-it” mode of interaction, or engagement, with the world implies interaction as self-centered experience and is described in the first section of the book. That is, the “I” surveys his or her empirical surroundings (the “it”) and uses those observations to live life. The “it” is no more than the object of our experiences. There is necessarily a space between the “I” and the “it;” the “I” functions more as a subject while the “it” functions more as the object.  While the “I-it” mode of interacting may not imply a deep mutual understanding or relationship between the “I” and the “it,” the mode does have practical, applied value through its empirical nature. Texting someone implies an “I-it” relationship because the person with whom you are texting is treated as an object outside of the present.

Buber’s “I-thou” mode of interaction, on the other hand, is a much more intangible, intrinsically based mode of interacting with the world than the “I-it” subject-observing-object mode of interaction. Dubbed “encountering” or “turning towards,” the “I-Thou” mode of interaction is necessary for us to use in order to consider ourselves human. Buber explains the difference between “I-it” and “I-Thou” by examining a child’s instinct to “make everything into the “Thou.”[1] While a child is still young, he or she does not form preconceived notions or judgments about the objects with which he or is encounters. Therefore, children tend to encounter more than engage. In the “I-Thou” relationship, we form a mutual bond with the object, the “Thou,” and this bond has a determinable effect on both the “I” and the “Thou.” We treat the “Thou” as a child might treat his or her loved plaything; with minimal to no preconceived notions and no superficiality. Though we technically can encounter inanimate objects (e.g. Buber’s tree example), the “I-Thou” relationship is best evidenced when it occurs between humans in what Buber deems “love.”  That being said, Buber also tells us “we’re closer to connection when hating someone than when feeling nothing at all.”[1]

Sherry Turkle suggests that our new, mediated connections between each other (that is, relationships where we can choose to maintain a space between each other), are actually diminishing our ability to share an “I-Thou” relationship with each other; we can no longer engage in genuine dialogue and will eventually lose our ability to “live in the present.”

What do you think? Is texting going to catalyze the downfall of real human interaction? Will we all be lonelier in the future than we are now?

 


[1] Buber 30


[1] Buber 38


Categories: Uncategorized

Investment and Crime

// Posted by Sam on 04/01/2013 (12:20 AM)

A recent Financial Times article struck a chord with me as it discussed and dissected some recent conversations about United States-Mexico relations. This article, entitled “Mexico-US: let’s talk about trade,” begins by informing readers that Mexican President Enrique Pena… Read more

A recent Financial Times article struck a chord with me as it discussed and dissected some recent conversations about United States-Mexico relations. This article, entitled “Mexico-US: let’s talk about trade,” begins by informing readers that Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto’s phone call with United States President Barack Obama Enrique Peña Nieto served as a confirmation call for Obama’s early May visit to Mexico.”The forthcoming trip, which Mexico’s foreign ministry has described as a working visit to cover everything from trade and competitiveness to security and education, is a big deal for both presidents, but in particular for Peña Nieto.”

The main goal of the trip, according to the piece, is for Pena Nieto “to shift the discourse on the relationship between the two countries away from drug violence – and towards trade.” Drug violence has been a crux of the United States-Mexico international relationship for the past decade; the drug war has caused spikes in violence all along the almost 2,000 mile land border between the two countries. This specific article estimates over 70,000 deaths due to drug violence along the border within the past six years. Rightfully so, American lawmakers have shared their concern that drug violence along the border is prone to “spill over” into border states such as California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. That being said, Pena Nieto has made clear that his intent in meeting with Obama is to “reset” relations between the countries and refocus efforts on promoting trade and economic development. In fact, in his 2012 Washington Post Editorial Pena Nieto asserts that “To build a more prosperous future for our two countries, we must continue strengthening and expanding our deep economic, social and cultural ties. It is a mistake to limit our bilateral relationship to drugs and security concerns. Our mutual interests are too vast and complex to be restricted in this short-sighted way. When I meet with President Obama on Tuesday — just days before my inauguration — I want to discuss the best way to rearrange our common priorities. After all, our agenda affects millions of citizens in both countries. Perhaps the most important issue is finding new ways to bolster our economic and trade relationship to attain common prosperity in our nations.”

The editorial goes on to deliver some facts that many Americans may not be aware of:

1. The United States is Mexico’s largest trading partner, largely in thanks to NAFTA

2. Mexico is the second-largest supplier of electronic goods to the United States.

3. Mexico is home to more and more production facilities, among them Coca-Cola, DuPont, GM, Nissan, Honda, Mazda, and Audi.

4. Mexico holds the fifth-largest shale gas reserve in the world, in addition to large deep-water oil reserves and a tremendous potential in renewable energy.

5.More than 1 million U.S. citizens live in Mexico

Enriqe Pena Nieto makes a comprehensive and sound argument for greater cooperation between the United States and Mexico not only in the immigration reform efforts but more importantly in the economic arena. In that light, what can either country do to further improve what is already taking shape as a stronger economic relationship? Is drug violence a more or less pressing issue than it is said to be by Pena Nieto? By Obama? What should really take precedence?

 

 


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

SocialFlow

// Posted by Sam on 03/24/2013 (8:36 PM)

The MIT technology review published this article on November 9, 2011 (right around the climax of the Occupy movement) brilliantly mapping out how the OWS movement used Twitter to their advantage. While TV cameras and newspapers have chronicled the so-called… Read more

The MIT technology review published this article on November 9, 2011 (right around the climax of the Occupy movement) brilliantly mapping out how the OWS movement used Twitter to their advantage. While TV cameras and newspapers have chronicled the so-called Occupy Wall Street protest movement as it has grown into a global phenomenon, there had not really been a good way to document how it “looks” online? Thanks to a start-up called Social Flow, and tons of Twitter data, the public can literally see, on a map, how the idea propagated through influential people and organizations, and across previously invisible conduits to permeate vast expanses of Twitter’s network.” According to the Social Flow website, the product allows you to “see real time conversation flow on Twitter and Facebook to capture peak audience attention for your messages.” Though the website markets the app as a booster of ROI (return on income) for businesses, it was used to create social “maps” of twitter data relating to OWS and the #occupywallstreet hashtag, examples of which are shown below.

MIT tells us that the first ever use of the #OccupyWallStreet hashtag was in an Adbusters blog post, way back on July 13, according to Gilad Lotan, SocialFlow’s head of research and development. (AdBusters, by the way, is the Canadian “mother” organization to OWS-learn about it here). Here’s an example of a “map” created 10 days after the first #OccupyWallStreet hashtag was used:

As you can see, the network of tweeters using#OccupyWallStreet was small and sparse in the beginning, with no major media entities yet participating in the conversation. The larger and lighter the node, the more retweets it generated.

The above map shows the #OccupyWallStreet hashtags all over the “twitterverse” on October 13, the day NYPD planned to clean up Zuccotti Park, the original site of the protest. As you can see, entities like @HuffingtonPost and individuals like @KeithOlbermann were among the influential participants. According to researchers like Lotan, “To optimize the way that your message spreads, you really have to understand who is following you, and who tends to give you attention.” SocialFlow does just that, and will prove to be a valuable resource to future movements.


Categories: Uncategorized

The NYSE: if you’re not first, you’re last

// Posted by Sam on 03/03/2013 (10:49 PM)

 

This week’s blog theme is “High Speed Money;” I really think this might be the best theme yet! Much of the way we live our lives is dictated by the economy/means that we live within, and much of… Read more

 

This week’s blog theme is “High Speed Money;” I really think this might be the best theme yet! Much of the way we live our lives is dictated by the economy/means that we live within, and much of that economy is dictated by digitally mediated forms of financial transactions. The New York Stock Exchange is one of the largest of these digitally run financial institutions, and this post will look into how the “NYSE” runs.

The worlds largest stock exchange by market capitalization of its listed companies (about $14.2 trillion), the NYSE averages a daily trading value (that is, how much money exchanges hands per diem) of hundreds of billions of dollars. While the NYSE itself is a physical building where trading happens, the trading floors are operated by the company NYSE Euronext, which was formed in 2007 when the NYSE merged with the fully electronic trading company Euronext.

The NYSE works by providing a means for buyers and sellers to trade shares of stock in companies registered for public trading. The NYSE is open for trading Monday through Friday from 9:30 am – 4:00 pm.On the trading floor, the NYSE trades in a continuous auction format, where traders can execute stock transactions on behalf of investors.

NYSE trading floor before the induction of digital trading systems and monitors

1995 marked the beginning of a digital trade process being used by the NYSE, through the use of wireless hand held computers. The system enabled traders to receive and execute orders electronically via wireless transmission. On September 25, 1995, NYSE member Michael Einersen, who designed and developed this system, executed 1000 shares of IBM through this HHC ending a 203 year process of paper transactions and ushering in an era of automated trading. *

 

 

According to this 2007 news article , as of January 24, 2007, all NYSE stocks could be traded via its electronic Hybrid Market (a combination of human and computer-driven trading). Customers could now send orders for immediate electronic execution, or route orders to the floor for trade in the auction market. In the first three months of 2007, in excess of 82% of all order volume was delivered to the floor electronically as opposed to just 19% before the induction of the Hybrid Market. The article goes on to say that “this is the harsh new reality on Wall Street, a world dominated by computers that execute trades not in seconds, but in thousandths of a second, or milliseconds…Speed has become the holy grail on Wall Street.”

Today, the NYSE (and thus much of our economy) is dictated by transactions that occur within the blink of an eye. Its merger with the all-online trading platform Euronext has broadened the importance and relevance of digital trading systems to the NYSE. This form of financial trading has never existed before, and has been found to create its own sets of issues. Now, the trader with the biggest technological advantage may be most likely to make money by being the first one to broker a deal within the four milliseconds instead of five. Is that fair? If so, is that the best method of trading? Should technological advantage really directly correlate with one’s ability to make money? In the NYSE? In life outside economic terms?

 

 

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyse


Categories: Uncategorized

The NSA

// Posted by Sam on 02/24/2013 (6:19 PM)

Lying just outside Washington, DC in Fort Meade, Maryland is the National Security Administration-the NSA. This uniquely enigmatic government entity  is one of the largest and most closely guarded branches of the United States Department of Defense (DoD). It is… Read more

Lying just outside Washington, DC in Fort Meade, Maryland is the National Security Administration-the NSA. This uniquely enigmatic government entity  is one of the largest and most closely guarded branches of the United States Department of Defense (DoD). It is a cryptologic intelligence agency. Cryptology, the practice and study of techniques for secure communication in the presence of third parties, has become an increasingly important aspect of national defense and cyber security.

The NSA is technically responsible for “the collection and analysis of foreign communications and foreign signals intelligence, as well as protecting US government communications and information systems, which involves information analysis and cryptanalysis/cryptography.” By law, the NSA is only authorized to collect foreign and international information although there have been incidents of the agency breaching this rule and interfering/monitoring domestic communications as well (see here).

The agency is unique in a few ways. It immediately draws attention from I-295 as it has its own highway exit (the sign simply reads “NSA”).

Second, the agency is kept so under wraps that the total number of employees is technically unknown. The scale of the operations at the NSA is hard to determine from unclassified data; some 18,000 parking spaces are visible in photos of the site. With roles in creating new encryption systems and monitoring telephone, fax, and data transmission, the NSA is heavily involved in daily life yet remarkably discrete. Even though the original DoD branch was founded in 1949 as the Armed Forces Security Agency, according to David Kahn author of The Codebreakers “a brief but vague reference to the NSA first appeared in the United States Government Organization Manual from 1957, which described it as “a separately organized agency within the Department of Defense under the direction, authority, and control of the Secretary of Defense [...] for the performance of highly specialized technical functions in support of the intelligence activities of the United States.”

This author takes the “well I’m not doing anything illegal, so I don’t really care how much wiretapping is done” point of view regarding NSA activity, but there are many citizens who believe that this agency is infringing on their rights. Do you feel comfortable knowing that your data-transmission activity may be monitored by a government agency? Clearly this organization raises questions as to the classic liberty versus security debate…

 

 

 

 

Ellen Nakashima (January 26, 2008). “Bush Order Expands Network Monitoring: Intelligence Agencies to Track Intrusions”The Washington Post. Retrieved February 9, 2008.

David Kahn, The Codebreakers, Scribner Press, 1967, chapter 19, pp. 672–733.


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

IP Law and Creative Commons

// Posted by Sam on 02/18/2013 (10:24 PM)

I’m sure you’re all tired of hearing about my law school bu****hit, but here I go again…I can’t help but write about my experience from today at Cardozo Law’s accepted students day. At one point during the day-long program,… Read more

I’m sure you’re all tired of hearing about my law school bu****hit, but here I go again…I can’t help but write about my experience from today at Cardozo Law’s accepted students day. At one point during the day-long program, a panel of professors spoke about their respective specialties. Professor Felix Wu is one of the mainstays at Cardozo’s Intellectual Property (IP) department. IP, according to Pisacreta and Adler, is a legal concept which refers to creations of the mind for which exclusive rights are  recognized. Here’s a quick video explanation of IP from Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google. IP law, for good reasons, is the fastest growing field of law today largely due to THE INTERNET!

Professor Wu began his part of the talk by asking some questions that have come up in courts around the nation: “For example, is it illegal for you to video record your roommate? Is it illegal for someone else to videotape your roomate and you to disseminate it via the internet? How does one claim ownership to property that was not physically or tangibly theirs?” He then cited a case in which a certain shoe company attempted to patent the color red so that no other shoe company could put the color on the sole of their shoes. So, in the same vein, how can one go about trademarking a webpage or intangible idea published online? Is it possible? If so, is it even constitutional?

In class we discussed a new-age patent and trademarking service called creative commons (CC). According to their website, Creative Commons is a not-for-profit entity “devoted to expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon legally and to share.” The company has created a new type of copyright-license called a creative commons license which  follows a “some rights reserved” principle rather than the typical “all rights reserved” copyright. CC is interesting and perhaps problematic in that it legally allows ideas created by individuals to be commercially used and marketed by people other than the creator of the idea. Personally (if I really believed in my idea), I would always opt to fully reserve the rights associated with it. CC could, in a way, erode the current copyright system by softening copyright regulations. Do you think that ideas can be only partially owned? Or should the system remain a hard-line black and white “copyrighted or not copyrighted” model? Do you think CC would even hold up in court, if contested? If your roommate videotaped you and licensed it under a CC license that legally blocked you from tampering with it…

 

 

 

Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis, by Richard Raysman, Edward A. Pisacreta and Kenneth A. Adler. Law Journal Press, 1998-2008. ISBN 973-58852-086-9


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,

Smart Shopping

// Posted by Sam on 02/10/2013 (7:35 PM)

 

Mark Poster’s intriguing book Information Please: Culture and Politics in the Age of Digital Machines begins with a compelling introduction. Poster tells us that when googling the phrase “information please,” he came across the story of someone who grew… Read more

 

Mark Poster’s intriguing book Information Please: Culture and Politics in the Age of Digital Machines begins with a compelling introduction. Poster tells us that when googling the phrase “information please,” he came across the story of someone who grew up in a house with one of the first telephones in their neighborhood. The anonymous blogger  (named Paul) described how he  developed a rather close personal connection to the local telephone operator, Sally. Even though Sally and Paul never met face-to-face, they knew enough about each other to be acquaintances.

Today, many retailers are developing relationships with their customers–but without the customers’ knowledge.  Basically, stores such as Target are using customer loyalty cards, cell phones, credit cards, returns, online shopping and search engines and product registration forms to develop individual profiles for all of their shoppers. These profiles, based on purchasing habits, tailor coupons, e-mails, and the like to each individual shopper. Seems like a great idea, right?

Well, in terms of profitability, it is. This Fox Business video describes the success of the ever-expanding phenomenon of customer monitoring. The more a store knows about its customers, the effectively it can purchase inventory, hold sales, etc, leading to more efficient sale of products and a greater profit margin. The issue, however, lies in its morality. The classic story involves Target, who began sending e-mails advertising baby care products to the family e-mail account of a young woman who had bought a pregnancy test and other baby-related paraphernalia. Her father, who she hadn’t told about the pregnancy, was therefore second to find out about a very personal issue behind Target Corporation.

In Poster’s story, the telephone company’s relationship knowing Paul personally was presented as very quaint, even emotional. Would you feel alienated by companies possibly knowing more about you than your personal acquaintances? Do you mind being tracked? Do you expect it? Does profitability in this case outweigh the moral dilemmas that are presented?

 


Categories: Uncategorized

GoogleTube

// Posted by Sam on 02/04/2013 (1:12 AM)

 

M&A

As an aspiring corporate lawyer, I’ve done a good amount of research into how companies and corporations split up their legal departments. A large part of most every legal department is mergers and acquisitions (m&a),… Read more

 

M&A

As an aspiring corporate lawyer, I’ve done a good amount of research into how companies and corporations split up their legal departments. A large part of most every legal department is mergers and acquisitions (m&a), which, according to the WikiPedia definition, is an aspect of corporate strategy, corporate finance and management dealing with the buying, selling, dividing and combining of different companies and similar entities that can help an enterprise grow rapidly in its sector or location of origin, or a new field or new location, without creating a subsidiary, other child entity or using a joint venture.”

We all know how wildly successful Google has become- not just as an internet search engine, but as a nearly ubiquitous “brand of internet.” To “google” something has become a real part of the English language, and the word has become nearly synonymous with internet use. Counterculture to Cyberculture told us that “like the rural landscape of the 1960s, Barlow’s cyberspace would stand beyond government control.” Google, however is certainly not beyond government control.

The company has grown to outrageous proportions through mergers with and acquisition of over 120 different entities, among them YouTube (bought for a steal $1,650,000,000 in 2006) and DoubleClick (online advertising firm bought for $3 billion in 2007) to Motorola Mobility (bought for $12.5 billion in 2011). These acquisitions have been rendered into such household names as Google Maps, Google Docs, Gmail, Google Analytics, Android, Google TV, and the list goes on.

These transactions are by no means maverick in nature. The Farlex Legal Dictionary tells us that “federal and state laws regulate mergers and acquisitions. Regulation is based on the concern that mergers inevitably eliminate competition between the merging firms. This concern is most acute where the participants are direct rivals, because courts often presume that such arrangements are more prone to restrict output and to increase prices. The fear that mergers and acquisitions reduce competition has meant that the government carefully scrutinizes proposed mergers. On the other hand, since the 1980s, the federal government has become less aggressive in seeking the prevention of mergers.”

So, yes, ”The online masses have an incredible willingness to share. The number of personal photos posted on Facebook and MySpace is astronomical, but it’s a safe bet that the overwhelming majority of photos taken with a digital camera are shared in some fashion. Then there are status updates, map locations, half-thoughts posted online. Add to this the 6 billion videos served by YouTube each month in the US alone and the millions of fan-created stories deposited on fanfic sites…Operating without state funding or control, connecting citizens directly to citizens, this mostly free marketplace [the internet] achieves social good at an efficiency that would stagger any government or traditional corporation.” (The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society is Coming Online). That’s all valid. In fact, it’s just peachy. But the truth remains that the internet, no matter what we are able to share, is pretty well guarded. It’s not Barlow’s maverick cyberspace anymore…

http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_newsocialism?currentPage=all


Categories: Blog, Discussion
Tags: , , , , ,

i…Potty?

// Posted by Sam on 01/28/2013 (12:10 AM)

 

Well, the world might finally be coming to an end. I can guarantee you that John Perry Barlow and William Gibson did not expect “cyberspace” to be accessible from the toilet. “The free-lancers and n’er do wells” who,… Read more

 

Well, the world might finally be coming to an end. I can guarantee you that John Perry Barlow and William Gibson did not expect “cyberspace” to be accessible from the toilet. “The free-lancers and n’er do wells” who, according to Barlow, “found their home in cyberspace,” as it turns out have a new demographic joining them: toddlers. The iPotty, a new product developed and introduced at the 2013 Consumer Electronics Show is as horrifying as it is self-explanatory. The Huffington Post describes the new product in their article here.

 

Anyone can appreciate a good newspaper or magazine in the old WC; hell, even iPhones give us our now standard 5-minute doses of entertainment.

Besides the fact that I’m starting to resent all the new products that are coming out with the “i” designation (by the way, what does that even mean? What’s next, iCereal? iToothbrushes? It’s a joke), the iPotty and its implications are remarkably annoying on their own. I’m sorry CTA digital, but this is a bright plastic piece of garbage. Is there really a need to teach toddlers how to use an iPad before they can use a toilet on their own? Are technological skills becoming as important as ditching diapers for the first time?
And even if I’m being overly critical of the implications that may or may not be associated with this joke of a product, how much time are toddlers even spending on the potty? Yes, I learned my fair share of computer skills in kindergarten when floppy disks reigned supreme and we played “Oregon Trail.” Yes, I think that iPads can be a valuable source of education for youngsters. And yes, Fred Turner has documented rather extensively the transformation from technology as a counter-culture to a so-called “cyberculture.” It worries me, though, that maybe this new iCulture is actually turning away from the dominant position that it once commanded and is beginning to become a new counter-culture? If I saw the iPotty in a child’s room, I would certainly raise some questions about the parenting.  Call me old-fashioned, but I just don’t see a parent plopping their child down on an automated toiled showing a video of how to use the potty as being tantamount to actually teaching their child how to do something on their own. Is this newly emerging radical iCulture going to become the proverbial Tea Party of Apple, Inc.?

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

Safer than hiding it under the floorboards…

// Posted by Sam on 01/17/2013 (11:24 AM)

Let’s play with some verbal association: when you hear the word “bank,” what comes to mind?

For me, its pretty easy: I see a heavy, stately two-story stone building with four granite doric columns and intricate stonework above the thick… Read more

Let’s play with some verbal association: when you hear the word “bank,” what comes to mind?

For me, its pretty easy: I see a heavy, stately two-story stone building with four granite doric columns and intricate stonework above the thick brass doors. The facade might have an inscription like “FIRST NATIONAL RESERVE” and have V’s instead of U’s–you know what I mean. According to the Mostly Economics blog, “The architecture is not merely about aesthetics, of course; banks are designed to convey strength, stability, and security to would-be depositors.”  The form of a bank has always fit its function: back in the day, they were built to embody the ideas of strength, integrity, and security. People wanted brick-and-mortar assurance that their money was in good hands. Apparently, that mode of thinking has been completely phased out…

Today, more banking happens online than in person. Aside from just commercial markets, indexes, and global trading, more and more personal banking is happening in cyberspace. It’d be difficult to find a major bank today that does not offer an iPhone app to “bank on the go.” This author alone has made use of Citizens, Citibank, and Wells Fargo apps. These apps, however, are more like extensions of physical branches rather than self-sustaining online banks.

Here’s a video demonstration of the GoBank app:

According to Wired magazine, the banking industry has evolved even further to include GoBank, a “new bank that has no branches, just an app.” (Wohlsen) The article details a new venture by Green Dot, the popular prepaid debit card company that is popular among those with no bank account, to create a completely online bank that is accessible only through the app. “Our bank was created from scratch,” Green Dot founder and CEO Steve Streit said at GoBank’s San Francisco unveiling. “It’s not a mobile app that was bolted onto an online version of a brick-and-mortar bank…the GoBank app offers all the features and services expected of a 21st-century checking account, from paying bills to checking balances to depositing checks by smartphone camera. But Green Dot hopes GoBank’s single-minded focus on the mobile user experience will peel away customers who manage most of their day-to-day lives through their phones and are tired of waiting for their current banks to catch up with that idea.” Sam Altman, Green Dot’s VP of mobile services, says the market for the app, which is comprised mostly of people under 40 who have an iPhone or Droid and are dissatisfied with their bank, is larger than one may think.

So, is GoBank a good idea? Are there any serious societal implications that we can extrapolate from people using GoBank? Will people start switching their banking to a completely online service or simply use it along with their existing bank accounts? Do you trust cybersecurity enough to invest your entire paycheck into an exclusively online bank? The economy has always been intangible, a figment of the imagination necessary to make the world turn…

 

Sources

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/01/go-bank-pay-what-you-want/

http://mostlyeconomics.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/history-of-commercial-bank-architecture-design/


Categories: Discussion, Uncategorized