A rapid convergence is taking place between the web and reality. The artificial division between the virtual and the real is starting to dissolve, as various applications and technologies combine to stitch together interfaces and activities that together dissolve the barriers between the web and our material world.

Augmented Reality is a vivid depiction of how this may manifest a few months from now, however in the present, services like Foursquare, Gowalla, and Google Buzz are helping to make it a reality. In contrast to AR, which I suspect most people still find a bit terrifying, the current batch of location based services have basic interfaces, usually connected to maps, which we're all relatively familiar with.

In fact there's something kind of seductive to using maps as an interface to this emerging convergent world where our location and surroundings are rich with information and social ties.

Is it an indication that we're lost and looking to find our way? Or the inverse, that we know where we are, and we wish everyone else to know as well?

The motivations for using social media and sharing one's location are not always as obvious as they may seem. Critics often slip into absolute terms when assessing how location based services can and will be used, however to fully understand their impact and potential, it is important to immerse oneself in the experience.

Let us therefore look at three location based services, each of which has its own characteristics, and features, yet all comprise a similar genre and competitive space.

Foursquare is the service I've been using the longest, and has recently been getting a lot of the credit for advancing this particular genre. The idea is that your city becomes a large game board and that each location you land on gives you points, which you can compare to your friends and fellow players via leader boards. If you land or check-in from the same location often enough you can become the "Mayor" of that spot, giving you extra recognition and points in the game.

One of the business models being developed around location based social media is the connection between points or status within these systems and real world discounts or loyalty rewards from the vendors who's spots are frequent check-ins. Foursquare becomes a kind of broker or media outlet that connects businesses with their (potential) clients. As each of your friends check-in to an establishment they are broadcasting that fact and acting as a kind of mini-advertisement for that location. If the experience goes well they could return and rise to the position of mayor, a sort of micro-celebrity endorsement.

Social hierarchy is clearly one of the desired by-products of these games, as the points, badges, and titles all add up to create both incentives towards participation, but also means by which some users are afforded special treatment.

Emulating power structures within the real world, the ability to become mayor is not determined by the number of check-ins, but instead factors in the users overall influence. The more powerful you already are the easier it is for you to usurp other players and add to your Mayoral holdings. While the interface may not exist to map out this neo-feudal phenomena, it's only a matter of time before it happens, given the API Foursquare makes available.

Which is of course the danger of any game, that people will no doubt try to manipulate the system, and "game" the network by figuring out the logic and pushing it to its limits. On a basic level this occurs as people create locations that don't exist or that only they have access to. Other times it's just obsessive behavior that has people checking in at all times from anywhere they might be. Although neither of these are wrong per se, they just take the system to the extreme and potentially amplify influence that may not reflect reality.

Reality being the ironic rule of these games, that while they have a definitive virtual dynamic to the way in which the information is shared, the interface of the map, the central position of location, means that reality is the basis of the game itself.

Yet what I find about GoWalla that makes it both fun and interesting is the way in which this reality is augmented by virtual objects, that are traded, found, and dropped on the spots or places that you land on.

I started using GoWalla largely because FourSquare limits itself to particular urban environments, whereas GoWalla can work anywhere. When I was travelling this winter GoWalla was useful in helping me scout nearby locations whereas FourSquare was non-existent off the beaten path.

The other thing I enjoy about GoWalla is the lack of Mayors. FourSquare isn't even that old and the social hierarchy is already so rigid that I'll never be mayor in the locations I frequent most.

Instead GoWalla's game is based on the collection of virtual objects. As you go around you receive and find objects that you can collect or drop that add a virtual layer that help us conceive of an augmented reality. Think of it as a cross between virtual graffiti and recycling.

Yet even such a simple game around collecting virtual objects can be easily abused, and in so doing erode the integrity of the system. For example I've found in a number of spots, like my local Canadian Tire, the check-in point is far off in the parking lot because the person who created it was just driving around creating spots at random in the hopes of collecting more items.

While these juvenile characteristics may alienate people who are not interested in playing games, there is still considerable potential in these services as interfaces to parts of our urban environments that we might otherwise ignore.

This is why I'm finding Google Buzz to be far more interesting than Foursquare and GoWalla, in large part due to the transparency and utility of the service. Without any games, and integrated directly into Google Maps, Buzz appears to be a clear path between our current world of location based social media and the near future of augmented reality.

When Buzz was first announced it received a resoundingly negative response as in typical Google fashion the announcement/launch was neither clear nor expected. The option to join Buzz was confusing, and many people agreed without understanding what they were agreeing to. It was a new concept, especially to those unfamiliar with social media.

Now that the dust has settled, I think Buzz deserves a second look. Google deserves credit in general for thinking (relatively) long term, and allowing their products the time to develop and grow. It's wrong to dismiss their products upon launch, given Google's commitment to allow their products to be in the public even in pre-beta phase.

The primary thing I like about Buzz is that it is not necessarily based on your existing social network. Yes there is an aggregation element of Buzz that gathers all of your (and all of your friend's) social media together in your gmail account, however the mobile interface to Buzz is completely different.

Whether via an Android device or Google Maps Mobile, you can view the Buzz that is "nearby" whether as a list, or directly integrated into Google Maps. For example as you browse the map, you see little word balloons that if you click on reveal what people are saying. Sometimes it is random chatter, other times they are comments tied to a business or specific location, in which case they become integrated with Google's listing for that spot.

These entries are of course all set to public, you can't see people's private entries, but the logic of this system, like most social media, is to share your posts with the public at large. What I like about Buzz is the semi-randomness of the people I'm being exposed to. What we have in common is geography, but otherwise they are strangers, which I quite like, given that it increases the likelihood of learning something new.

For example I was in Mississauga earlier this week for a client meeting and before leaving looked at Buzz to see who was nearby and what were they saying. One person in particular who's buzzing I noticed, was Punit Soni, who is Lead Product Manager, Mobile Apps, at Google. He's one of the main people working on Buzz and happened to be only a few kms away from me at the time.

Granted these are the early days of this platform, but it demonstrated to me how different this platform is, how it more closely resembles the type of interactivity I've talked about for years, without the games. A nice combination of geographic intelligence, random connection, and yet the power of google's knowledge management practices that integrate all of this activity into their larger interfaces.

So if you're curious about understanding how the current convergence between location and social media is moving towards augmented reality, then I'd encourage you to start "playing" with Google Buzz. You can find me here.

It may give you a glimpse into the near future while also giving you a sense of what's around you right now.

Augmented Reality is the newest frontier in car technology and General Motors is trying to bring it to the masses.

What is Augmented Reality you ask? It's a rapidly emerging field that combines information gleaned from the web and super-imposes it on top of "reality". From a technical perspective it employs GPS technology to determine where you are, and then uses cameras and software to engage in pattern recognition using the objects or landmarks around you.

Augmented Reality is largely being driven by the mobile industry, and the proliferation of smart phones, but as a concept is finding traction in all sorts of areas, whether they be at home with your web cam, or with glasses, or contact lenses.

As you drive your car, the AR system would be constantly scanning your surroundings, and co-relating that info with the GPS, to create a new kind of interface via your windshield.

This might be used for safety purposes, like recognizing when a hazard approaches, or anticipating an accident, or detecting a speed trap ahead, and gives you instructions on the windshield to slow down or stop, or maybe avert that nasty pot hole ahead.

Similarly it could also be used for navigational purposes, like helping you go from A to B, or recognize the restaurant you're looking for, or indicate when gas is ahead, or even point out that the car ahead of you has your elementary school teacher in it.

The potential here is really incredible, hence why AR is making such rapid gains in our society.

Why is GM choosing to go down this road? One way to think about this is as an extension of their On-Star services that provides things such as roadside assistance, navigational help, and safety features. This basically allows that service to continue to evolve and distinguish itself from other companies.

GM faces considerable competition when it comes to automotive technology, with companies like Toyota and Ford translating technological advances into market success, although Toyota has felt the consequences of rushing forward with technology too quickly.

The problem of course with any new technology is that you can never do enough testing, that it always requires a certain degree of market tests in which actual consumers use the technology. Which means the early adopter or guinea pig always goes through a bit of turbulence to enjoy the new technology.

However it is the potential malicious use of technology that should really alarm us. For example in Austin Texas a dealership installed technology in cars they leased that allowed them to remotely disable the vehicles if their owners fell behind in payments.

Problems arose when an employee of the dealership was fired, and took revenge on the company by illicitly obtaining access to the system, using it to destroy records, disable over 100 cars, and in some cases remotely activate alarm systems and horns to the shock of their owners (who of course had been dutifully meeting their car payments).

Now just imagine if the cars had an AR system, the type of potential malicious use borders on the spectacular, if not outright terrifying.

Therefore perhaps we should question our tendency to always look to new technology as a solution for problems we may not even have. In the case of the auto industry there is an incredible amount of competitive pressure to continue innovating and introducing new features, bells and whistles, to win the business of fickle consumers.

One of the dynamics is the need to convince us we need to buy something new when what we already have works fine. This is the nature of planned obsolescence that marks the impact technology has on many number of industries.

The danger of course is that we push new technology through without properly testing it our evaluating the consequences and hidden impacts. This is why Toyota is in the trouble they are. Their technology allowed them to get ahead of other auto makers, but perhaps they went too far and too fast?

The more dependent we become on technology, the more severe the consequences when the tech goes bad and the greater the difficulty in diagnosing the problem at hand. Assuming of course we can even identify the problem. Far easier to just throw more technology at it.

Last week the Google Apps Marketplace opened for business. It is a facility for third party developers to add functionality and features to Google Apps, which is a service the web giant offers to business that allow said organizations to harness the power of cloud computing.

Cloud computing is an emerging concept that encourages people to do all their work on the web, instead of desktop computers, and in this case instead of corporate servers or expensive Microsoft Outlook/Exchange/Office systems.

Google Apps combines a number of different services, like gmail for web, google docs for word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, calendar, web site publishing, basically all the informational/software needs you would require to run the basics of the company.

Google is also notorious for using a "freemium" model in which the basic level of services are free, but you can pay for a premium level that comes with support, uptime guarantees, no advertising (cause the free model has ads), and other advanced services.

I've been using the free version for years and have found it to be well worth the price. The premium version meanwhile costs $50 per user per year, which is still considerably cheaper than just about any other solution available.

The Google Apps marketplace builds upon this solid foundation by opening up the platform to third party vendors who want to provide/sell added functionality. This is partly inspired by the wild success of the iPhone and its applications that are able to do just about anything imaginable.

Seemingly everyone is now setting up a marketplace or application interface to allow for such 3rd party functionality. Google has been doing this with their phones, and their web browser, and now will also do this with their corporate communications software, i.e. Google Apps.

Some examples include CRM systems, a/k/a customer/client, relationship management systems, as well as accounting software. There are also applications that focus on collaboration, as well as utilities, such as gTrax which was developed by Halifax based Norex.ca, one of the world's leading dev shops focusing on applications for Google's platform(s).

For those of us already using cloud based services like Google Apps, the advantages are clear, and hence why companies like Norex are moving quickly to help others find their opportunities in the cloud.

The reduced cost is an obvious advantage. Often these services are free or a fraction of what you'd pay for running them in your office. This benefits both the consumer of the software, but also the producer, as it gives them an incentive to offer multiple level of pricing, including a free tier, so as to give people the opportunity to try their software. In the cloud this is far easier than the old ways of downloading and installing a demo that might mess up your computer so you were quite likely to just take a pass.

Access and mobility is another great and obvious advantage as you can connect to the cloud from anywhere, access your data, your email, your virtual office from anywhere you are. In many cases this may even eliminate the need for an office entirely, at least one as large as most companies currently maintain.

Another advantage is the evolutionary nature of cloud computing. The software is always improving, always getting better, yet in a way that doesn't leave you locked into older versions. One of the benefits of this approach is it absolves the user of the responsibility to take care of the software, whether install, upgrade, maintain, all of that is taken care of centrally.

Same is true with most security aspects, as well as backups. When done right, cloud computing will offer a more secure and reliable service than running the same stuff yourself.

However the risk is that if done wrong, then you can easily end up in a far worse situation, with increased vulnerability, and decreased stability.

Instead the role and responsibility for security has shifted, so that instead of securing your machines, your securing your access to the cloud. Proper password and access management is a must, as are proper privacy controls.

There's no reason why you can't have greater privacy computing in the cloud, the key is just to use the tools properly and securely. We keep hearing about break-ins into offices to steal physical computers, this potentially prevents that, assuming of course your passwords are secure and changed regularly.

The other potential risk is that without internet access you can be effectively unable to do your work. Therefore it becomes extremely important to make sure you always have access to the internet, including backups, so that you can always get to the cloud that has your data. Though that's also a good habit to have. Productivity in our age often depends on internet access so its a good process to ensure you've always got it.

However we can't forget about Google's long term interest. What's their agenda for seducing us into the cloud? Their mission of course is to organize the world's information and this an important part of that plan. Corporate information accounts for a considerable sum of the world's information, far greater than what is publicly available on the web, and so to get access to that pool of data is part of Google's master plan of being that great "organizer".

Yet on a more practical level this is a competitive play against Microsoft, and some of the other players in the business software industry. While on the one hand Google is undercutting their competitors by providing similar services for a fraction of the price, they are also trying to shift society towards cloud computing, which benefits Google and their massive infrastructure, at the expense of Microsoft, who's power is on the desktop, and their fading Windows monopoly.

Today, March 9th 2010 I participated in an interactive workshop at the Centre for Social Innovation in Toronto titled Surveillance and Civic Action. Organized by Andrew Clement and Kate Milberry of The New Transparency Project, the purpose of the event was to bring together as many different perspectives as possible regarding the rise of surveillance in our society.

Each participant in the workshop offered some sort of presentation or demo that showcased their work or thoughts on the broader subject of surveillance.

However surveillance was really just a thread that connected other topics, and not the primary focus of the day long discussion. Instead surveillance was used as a segue to all sorts of spheres that relate to how our society is transforming in this age of the Internet.

In the same way that environmentalism has helped us become aware of our symbiotic relationship with the environment, perhaps something similar is required to help us understand our symbiotic relationship with cyberspace.

While the language and discussion in today's workshop was generally accessible, it was also fairly sophisticated. The level of knowledge and expertise in the room was impressive. In bringing this group together Kate and Andrew initially sought to include academics and activists, yet it was quickly clear that we each had more to our identities than these simple categories.

We also recognized the importance of expanding this conversation, and opening to the public participation in this ongoing dialogue. At a basic level, I want the research that was shared today to obtain greater visibility and reach than it currently does. The problem with academics is that they so rarely leave the ivory tower to realize that so much more awaits them in the popular culture. The more time they spend engaging and conversing with the public the more accurate their research will be and the more potential rewards to be shared by all.

Take for example the notion of surveillance literacy, that gives a citizen the ability to understand the extent to which they are monitored and why. This is something that can easily be shared and can empower a larger discussion around appropriate use and regulation.

In order to get that discussion going, the participants of today's workshop agreed to meet again, this time under the name, The Surveillance Club, which would be an inclusive attempt to continue and expand the conversation about the rise and role of surveillance in our society.

The idea of The Surveillance Club reminds me of The Media Collective which was a similar concept back in the web's early days. Both seek to understand the intangible and make it tangible via collective conversation and action. Will be interesting to see what sort of characters are attracted to such a proposition.

The next meeting of the Surveillance Club will be held in Toronto at InterAccess on Tuesday April 6th at 7pm. If you are concerned about or interested in the rise and use of surveillance in our society then please join us. We welcome your participation.