-
lifelogging is more often passive then active - data/science fetishism
-
not every 30 seconds is equally important and we don’t experience time this way - see (Smolicki, 2017)
-
“in 1998 Bell decided to begin the digital capture and archiving of as much information about his everyday life as technologically possible. He saw advancements in digital technologies, storage capacities, and pervasive computing as enablers of a total memory, or as he called it, “e-memory.” E-memory was not only a technological supplement, but potentially an evolutionary advancement, and the ultimate replacement of bio-memory. While describing the latter as “subjective, patchy, emotion-tinged, ego-filtered, impressionistic and mutable,” in a highly techno-enthusiastic spirit, Bell emphasized the superiority of digital, automated memory as being “objective, dispassionate, prosaic and unforgivingly accurate” (Bell and Gemmell, 2013, p.51). In order to capture one’s life accurately, Bell believed that human agency should be entirely written out of the process, and replaced by passively operating sensors and monitoring devices.” ⤴️
-
“What distinguishes lifelogging from earlier practices of systematic recording and archiving of everyday life (e.g. writing memoirs, annals, journaling) is its increasingly automated, seemingly immaterial, and non-eroding nature, as well as its wide scope, which ambitiously aspires to cover “a totality of an individual’s experiences” (Gurrin et al., 2014, p.3). As opposed to more energy consuming, selective, and voluntary forms of personal archiving, such as journaling, life-logging deliberately “operates in a passive manner” (ibid., p.5). Thus, initiating or stopping the capture process are seemingly the only active moments in life-logging. What happens in between is a “passive” and “unobtrusive” recording of “facts” around the episodes in our lives, “but not their emotional and qualitative interpretation” (ibid., p.7).” ⤴️
-
“people no longer only write, but increasingly log their multi-media life-bits, they do not remember (which is to say actively recall and reflect), but employ quantifying procedures and algorithms to retrieve these life-bits, set them in relation and extract meanings out of them.”
-
- “What was officially presented as an outcome of the project was a set of data for a production of the Artificial Intelligence systems as well as Intelligent Robotic Assistants enhancing decision-making capacities and memory of military commanders. Due to the project’s vague handling of privacy issues and adverse publicity, DARPA’s work on Lifelog, the all-encompassing cyber diary, was eventually discontinued in 2004.35” ⤴️
-
“mutated into other, more carefully confined mass-surveilling initiatives, such as PRISM.” ⤴️
-
criticisms of lifelogging from surveillance studies, memory studies, and media and communication studies
-
“the rise and widespread normalization of “data fetishism” (Dormehl, 2014; Morozov, 2013; Sharon and Zandbergen, 2016).” ⤴️
-
“many life-loggers themselves do not subscribe to the belief that knowledge can derive from the streams of quantified data. Rather, data tracking is only one component of a more complex practice that involves reflexivity and mindfulness (Sharon and Zandbergen, 2016). Meaning does not arrive automatically with the data, but through a processual and reflective engagement with it: “alongside the figure of the quantified self, as the perfected, optimized, calculable and controlling subject and object of self-tracking, emerges a quantifying self [original emphasis]. The quantifying self ascribes meaning to self-tracking and the data it generates through a process of continuous negotiation with self-tracking methods and tools” (ibid., p.12).” ⤴️
-
“Dawn Nafus and Jamie Sherman (2014, pp.1784- 1794)” ⤴️ - “Coming from Intel Labs (a sponsor of the QS movement), Nafus and Sherman” ⤴️
-
“Abigail Sellen and Steve Whittaker (2010)” ⤴️
-
“techno-enthusiasts, computer scientists, and HCI experts, whose futuristic visions, as already demonstrated via Chun, persistently render technologies as forms of substitution and replacement, and not assistants to human mnemonic capacities and imaginations” ⤴️
-
often people interested in wearable tech are interested in lifelogging, quantifying, digitising the analogue rather than working with it, obscuring its capacity rather than bringing it to the forefront