Hi, please

Author Archives: nadine

Reconsidering the Digital Divide

Here are some great articles and videos to satisfy your intellectual curiosity during the summer break, and expand our discussion on digital media.

Required reading/viewing (don’t worry, all short pieces):

Very recommended reading:

Optional Extra:

If you are hungry for more:

Museums and the Web & Public Space and Interfaces

Feeling like picking up our class discussion? Then mark these events in your agenda:

Event #1: Wikipedia, Museums, Libraries, and Access to Art Collections

Wednesday, April 21, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, 203 Butler Library,  Morningside Heights Campus, Columbia University.

Monday, April 26, 11:00 am, Columbia Law School, W&J Warren Hall, Room 101.

Event related to the Museums and the Web 2010 conference

Speaker: Liam Wyatt, Vice President of Wikimedia Australia

The availability of art images through Wikimedia and other openly accessible sources is often defined and controlled by license agreements and institutional policies asserted by museums and even libraries that hold the original art collections.  Re-evaluation and critical examination of policies that will enable museums to better contribute to and use Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, and for the Wikimedia community to benefit from the expertise in museums.  This session will provide a close look at rules, guidelines and examples that can be clarified to order to promote active engagement between the keepers of the collections and the scholars, publishers, and other members of the public who seek to benefit from them.

Event #2: The Polytechnic Institute of New York University presents:

WiFi Geographies: Designing Interfaces and Interventions or Collaboration in Place

Thursday, April 22, 2010. 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm, Dibner Building, LC 400, Five MetroTech Center, Brooklyn, New York

Speaker: Laura, Forlano, Phd, Cornell University.

How can we reformat our cities and public spaces – and the architectures and technologies within them — as sites of collaboration and innovation? This presentation examines the ways in which WiFi enables the formation of networks of socio-technical spaces that reconfigure people, work and forms of organizing based on a year-long empirical research project. This presentation will also report on an ongoing collaborative design project, Breakout!  Escape from the Office, which was presented by The Architectural League of New York as part of the Situated Technologies: Toward the Sentient City exhibition

The digital afterlife: what happens in social media when we die? Part III

The last podcast of my travelogue explores how social media influence the mourning process. Two psychologists, Jennifer Boni and Arturo Peon, give insights into the experience of grief.  Is it better to maintain the profile of a deceased person, or should it be taken down? How does technology affect the construction of  personal and collective memory?

Although Facebook’s memorial profiles  can facilitate the mourning process, they can also be the source of profound dismay. Security loop holes make the system vulnerable to hoaxes, and add to the grief of the people left behind.

Grafiti-memorial in Montevideo, Uruguay (photo taken by Arturo Peon Barriga). "Sergio Silveira used to fish and teach here. Today he is no more. If you wish to use this place, do it in dignity. Daddy forever."

[podcast]http://blip.tv/file/get/Nw546-TheDigitalAfterlifeWhatHappensInSocialMediaWhenWeDieP948.mp3[/podcast]

Further resources:

More on grief cycle and mourning stages.

Facebook blog: Memories of Friends Departed Endure on Facebook

Jose van Dijk, Mediated Memories in the Digital Age

The digital afterlife: what happens in social media when we die? Part II

This second podcast explores how physical death is experienced in social media. Three people, three stories; each of them reveals how complex and diverse identity has become online- even in the afterlife. What happened to the profiles of the friends they lost? What do they represent to them? Are there clashes between the digital and the physical world?

Do social media become a way of staying immortal?

[podcast]http://ia331225.us.archive.org/3/items/DeathAndSocialMedia-HowDoPeopleExperienceTheDeathOfAPersonOnline/Death_socialmedia_part2.mp3[/podcast]

Jimena, Harris, and Ryan, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me, and let me integrate them into my podcast. I appreciate it very much.
Creative Commons License
The digital afterlife: what happens in social media when we die? Part II by Nadine Wolf is licensed under a Creative Commons Reconocimiento-No comercial-Compartir bajo la misma licencia 3.0 Estados Unidos License.

Weekly Summary: Representation, Simulation and Fun

The readings of this week address the tension between reality and fiction, representation and simulation. Why are video games so appealing, engaging and addictive?

Raph Koster (2004), Book excerpt: A Theory of Fun for Game Design- What Games Aren’t

Book author and game designer Raph Koster explores the nature of games, and explains what makes them highly attractive. He argues that the essence of a game is very different from the story it is packed into. The author responds to the controversy about violence in video games and the effect of media on behavior. According to Koster:

  • Games are about teaching underlying  patterns.  Metaphors are used to help the player understand the logic of a game. The story/plot of a game is only a “side dishes for the brain.” It is the underlying pattern or challenge that makes it interesting.
  • Differences between PacMan or Deathrace are only formal.  Games train people to look beyond fiction and learn underlying (mathematical) patterns.
  • Games aren’t stories:
    • Games involve experiential teaching processes (learning by doing), whereas stories teach vicariously (lessons learned from a character)
    • Games objectify, whereas stories evoke empathy (=identification)
    • Games categorize and simplify realities, whereas stories admit complexities
    • Games focus on people’s actions, whereas stories deal with emotions and thoughts
  • Are stories superior? Or when does a gamer cry? Games generally evolve around emotions related to mastery and don’t involve overcoming complex moral challenges.

However, Koster points out that games can be really fun (stories not always).

  • Fun is the act of mastering mentally an aesthetic, physical, or social problem.
  • Flow can lead to fun (though it is not a condition): the flow of a game lies in between boredom (to easy) and frustration (to difficult). A challenge should push gamers towards their edge;  this is what keeps them hooked and reward them with triumph and pleasure.
  • Fun is a key evolutionary advantage; our brain gives us positive feedback for learning and practicing survival tactics- in a context where there is no pressure.

Gonzalo Frasca (2001), SIMULATION 101: Simulation versus Representation

Gonzalo Frasca is a researcher and game developer. Besides commercial games for Cartoon Network, he also likes to create videogames based on news event, like Newsgaming or Howard Dean for America. Like Koster, Frasca argues that the essence of games differs from stories. Videogames aren’t “interactive fiction,” but are built on simulation.

  • Magritte’s painting of a pipe represents a pipe. However, it is not a real pipe. Representation is a traditional form of narrative.
  • Simulation goes beyond representation, as it can also model the behavior of the system or object represented. SimCity simulates a city (for example London). The game is less complex than the actual city, but retains some key characteristics and behaviors.
  • To an external observer, the outcome of a simulations appears as narrative. However, gamers feel like they are experiencing events first hand (cf. Koster’s observation on experiential teaching).
  • Narrative (=a story) works bottom-up: it induces general rules from a particular case. Simulation is top-down: it applies general rules to a particular event.
  • Are simulations superior to stories? Simulation allows experimentation of complex dynamic systems (for example, driving a car).

Let’s discuss reality, representation and simulation!

Have a look at the following three cases:

I. PeaceMaker YouTube Preview Image

II. RapeLay YouTube Preview Image

III. Article: Prescription For Iraq Vets Dealing With Trauma? Video Game



Questions:

  1. Applying Koster’s and Frasca’s definitions, how would you distinguish between representation and simulation? Do you see any differences?
  2. As game technology becomes every day more sophisticated and can involve a player’s entire body (and senses), do you think games are pushing towards ignoring fiction and learning underlying patterns? Are stories just “side dishes” for the brain?
  3. Do good games make the player cry? What do you think about games that demand overcoming controversial moral challenges in order to get to the next level (for example, becoming a suicide bomber)?
  4. Can you think of cases where reality turns into simulation?
  5. As a teaching method, what do you consider superior: representation or simulation?

Raph Koster, The Core of Fun – Presentation at Etech

In this presentation for the 2007 O’Reilly Media Emerging Technology Conference, Koster continues his analysis and reveals the magic ingredients of a fun game.

  • Games are made out of games: each micro-game or sub-activity must be entertaining!
  • Different types of fun must be mixed in (typology according to Nicole Lazarro):
    • Hard fun (the dominant characteristic of most games): you meet a challenge, figure out the pattern, and experiment until you master it
    • Easy fun: moments of aesthetic delight
    • Visceral fun: roller coaster stomach feeling
    • Social fun: schadenfreude (= gloating feeling when a rival fails)
  • All aspects of a game are important :
    • Where and when? Context matters- platforms and past interactions influence the experience
    • How? The more sophisticated skills are needed for the challenge, the better! Shopping on eBay is more fun than on Amazon. There should be also different tools (sword or arrow?)
    • Which one? There should be a broad range of challenges.
    • What for? Feedback is essential. Success must have different outcomes. In addition, gamers shouldn’t always get what they want; loosing is important, as fun results from learning.
    • Against who? Gamers like multi-layer competition. They want to play against the game, against themselves and against each other.

Questions:

  1. What do you think about Koster’s recipe for fun? Take a game you like and think it through. Which elements give you endorphin flashes?
  2. In his presentation, Koster criticizes social media. Yes, they are fun, but are they driving to participation? Let’s think again about Clay Shirky’s ideas on organizing without organizations. Are collaborative actions an interface problem, or in other terms, should they be more fun?

Alexander R. Galloway and Mushon Zer-Aviv, Kriegspiel booklet

The open source computer game Kriegsspiel is based on Guy Debord‘s 1978 board game called “The Game of War.” Debord, situationist, filmmaker and author of the Society of Spectacle, was disillusioned with the possibilities of cinema and representation, and turned toward the field of simulation.

Debord’s conceptual game design involves both elements of  classic warfare inspired by Napoleon and Clausewitz, as well as postmodern war strategics, like “counter-insurgency, urban conflict, the growing inability to distinguish between civilians and enlisted soldiers” (inspired by the Algerian war).

Kriegsspiel reinterprets Debord’s game, translating it from French to Java, and integrating contemporary “network-centric warfare,” in which “soldiers are reorganized into flexible, interconnected pods, and networks themselves are deployed as weapons on the battlefield.”

Debord believes that the game “reproduces the totality of factors that deal with war, and more generally the dialectic of all conflicts.” According to Tosca, game simulations work by a top-down approach. However, Galloway and Zer-Aviv point out that “games are both abstract totality and empirical practice. A game designer is always a legislator, an enforcer, but a game player is always something of a hacker.”

Questions:

  1. Is Debord’s approach still an effective way to study the nature of conflict? What do you think about network-centric warfare (connectivity as a kind of weapon)?
  2. Playing the game in the 1970′s required a pen and a pencil, with Kriegspiel, the computer establishes a set of rules. Do you see differences in the thinking and learning process?

UPDATE:

It seems that there delicious doesn’t work properly on our blog, so here are the links to articles that could be interesting for our class discussion:

Piano Stairs- TheFunTheory. Can we change people’s behaviour for the better by making it fun to do?

Modern Warfare 2- video game keeps players hooked:  Short video that breaks with some gamer stereotypes. Interview with gamers that are sportive, have girlfriends and make 10.000USD on gaming!

CNN.com- He married a video game character. A gamer so loves his video game that he married a character in the game.

A Rape in Cyberspace. This article by Julian Dibbells analyzes the repercussions of a “cyberrape” in a multi-player computer game called LambdaMOO (for those who haven’t read it in the MCC course).

Controversial video game mimics one of the deadliest battles in Iraq. Developers and marines are working on part game, part documentary called ‘Six Days in Fallujah.’

Shoot an Iraqi‘ : Artist Wafaa Bilal talks about his project called ‘Domestic Tension’.


The digital afterlife: what happens in social media when we die? Part I

As I laid out in the introduction of my travelogue, I will explore various aspects of death and social media. How is death experienced in our digital age? How does it affect the mourning process? And what new rituals emerge? But first of all, I will explain what policies exist for the digital afterlife in social media. Can family members or friends access the account of a deceased person? Should you put logins and passwords in your  will? As our lives and belongings become part of the Internet, death poses particular challenges to our legacy.

Click on the image to listen to the podcast

[podcast]http://blip.tv/file/get/Nw546-DeathAndSocialMediaWhatHappensToYourProfileWhenYouDie694.mp3[/podcast]

For further information:

Post-mortem policies of social networks:

Facebook: if you’d like to report the death of a loved person, this is the contact form, for general information consult What happens (online) when we die: Facebook
Google Buzz: Accessing a deceased person’s mail
Twitter: What happens (online) when we die: Twitter
MySpace: How can you delete or access a deceased user’s profile?

Companies that can take care of your digital legacy:
AssetLock
LegacyLocker
DeathSwitch

About your digital assets:
FarmVille and SecondLife and how virtual estates lead to real-word headaches

Other resources

The Digital Beyond

Death and social media

This podcast explores the topic of death and social media. How do we experience the physical death of a friend online? What implications does it have on the mourning process? Do social networks amplify or assuage the experience of loosing a loved person? Death and social media introduction

[podcast]http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Travelogue_Death_MP3.mp3[/podcast]

Travelogue 4: I need your help!

Hello everybody! I hope you had a great spring break! I have some ideas in mind for my next travelogue, but I am not sure where to take them. Could you give me some input? Thanks a lot in advance!

1)  Open Video Alliance has launched a campaign to encourage the use of videos on Wikipedia. how would an audio-visual collaborative encyclopedia look like? How could it be edited collectively? Will it simply be a mix between YouTube and the European digital audio-visual library Europeana?

Underwear Flash Mob in New York from Improv Everywhere

2) Can I create a flash mob????? What are the secrets for a successful viral spiral actions? Suggestions for the travelogue idea and collaborators are most welcome! PS: All projects include clothes on…

3) I keep thinking the Open Solace project that I mentioned in my second travelogue on Ushahidi, and that seeks to create audio-visual “message in bottles” from the US to Haiti and vice-verse.  As I am very interested in the possibilities of ITCs for development, I asked myself how small communities could create micro-economies around video technology.  So far, my research wasn’t very fruitful. Do you have any suggestions or further leads? An other  option for the travelogue could be creating digital-video “bottle messages,”  either for exploring New York or as other means for city-to-city communication.

4) It is fascinating how robots and the human being are striving to become more and more akin: on one hand, robots are becoming so sophisticated that bionic bodies are created (great article in the National Geographic), synchronizing technology to the needs of the human body. Though will on the other hand the human body become a machine?  Skinput is a method that allows users to use their own hands and arms as touchscreens. Will we become in sync with robots? YouTube Preview Image

5) Ok, here a more serious travelogue option. I feel a little bit haunted by Facebook’s suggestion “people you haven’t contacted recently.” A family friend died a few months ago, but his photo keeps popping up, and his profile is still online. Following the lead of an article on ArsTechnica called “Death and Social Media,”  I would like to explore new mourning rituals, and how social media change life after death.

WebcamGate: general state of (dis-)TRUST

The webcam school spying scandal that broke in mid-February was a bombastic scoop. It offered excellent material for sensationalist media coverage, nourished paranoiac fears, and created a heated debate about security and privacy in the Internet.

Harriton High school caught spying!

15-year-old student Blake Robbins accused its school of spying

A high school in Pennsylvania that distributed about 2300 laptops to its students, has got in the spotlight of the news as it was revealed that school officials activated secretly the webcameras, even when students were at home. The scandal unfolded when the assistant principal summoned a student to her office, and accused him of “inproper behavior” consuming drugs. She based her allegations on photos that were taken by the kid’s webcam showing him eating suspicious substances at home, or what later turned out to be Mike and Ikes candy. Shortly after, the student’s parents have filed a class-action lawsuit against the school. As the scandal become public, various other students reported that they had been perplexed by the bizarre on- and off-going green lights of their laptops. The school denied that it invaded the students privacy, and explained that the software installed on the computers that allowed to remotely access the cameras was a monitoring and security device that allowed to locate laptops in case of theft. It admitted that it has activated the students’ webcams 42 times over a 14-month period to recover 28 laptops. However, the family claims that it has never reported the computer missing. The FBI is now leading its own investigation. YouTube Preview Image

However, in the era of Skype, ChatRoulette, and the ubiquitous use of security cameras and webcams, this case raises concerns about general security and privacy issues in the Internet. Similar scenarios have occurred in the past. In 2008, a woman discovered that she was webcamera-stalked by a tech guy who was supposed to repair her computer, but turned out to take about 20,000 photos of her and her friends.

The slippery slope between monitoring and spying

It is not unusual that schools monitor on their students, as a documentary segment called „How Google saved a school“ indicates. However, the Harriton WebcamGate stands out as teachers accessed the webcameras of their students in their private homes. A blogger called Stryde Hax , a part-time hacker and consultant for an Internet security company called Intrepidus Group, has investigated the case and discussed it on his blog. Stryde Hax explains that the school installed a remote monitoring product named LANRev on their laptops. Even when computer were connected outside the school networks, the track-and-monitor feature reported back to the administrator, and allowed to remotely activate the camera. As the remote control was invisible (except the brief moments when the camera lit up), and the victims were unaware about it, this software qualifies as spyware, defined as„a type of malware that is installed on computers and collects little bits information at a time about users without their knowledge.“ Abundant similar products are on the market for private use, as for example Power Spy 2010, and even skype cameras can be converted into covert snoopers. Another troubling factor is that in Harriton High school,  only official computers with monitoring/spyware were allowed, and “jailbreaking a school laptop in order to secure it or monitor it against intrusion was an offense which merited expulsion“ (source: Stryde Hax).

Two IT employees involved in the spying were placed on temporary leave while the investigations into the case continue. However, their lawyers claim that the technicians only turned on the tracking software when they believed that the computers were stolen.  They argue that the student who filed the lawsuit hadn’t paid a $55 insurance fee to take the laptop home, so technically there were authorized to track down the computer. Computer recovery softwares, like for example Prey, an open source project, seem to have become very common. Even NYU offers such a service.

In the Harriton High case, a federal court judge banned the webcam activation of the school distributed laptops, and the company that sold the tracking feature has changed the name of its program and its user policy; from now on, the end users can’t activate the remote webcam anymore.

Is it legal or not?

Does this sort of spying violate wiretapping laws? In the case of Harriton High, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) believe that it constitutes an infringement, and filed an amicus brief in support of the victim. However, the matter is not that obvious. Kevin Bankston, an attorney for EFF, explains why:

“There is no federal statute that criminalizes or creates civil liability for such secret videotaping unless it involves sound, because then it is an intercept of a verbal communication. So no one can plant a bug in your house without violating wiretapping law, but they can still plant a camera without violating federal wiretapping laws.“

A Skype-camera spy-attack would therefore be illegal. But how about monitoring  software use in a school or a company with prior consent? According to the EFF, „private schools or employers can ask you to sign away your right to privacy, but not a government entity like a public school.“ However, there is no juridical precedent, and is up to the court to give further indications. Even for the business world, the case holds important lessons learned for legal monitoring programs. Itn the past, he U.S. Supreme Court has underlined the importance of home privacy, as in 2001-ruling that reaffirmed that “police could not, without a warrant, use thermal imaging equipment outside a home to see if heat lamps were being used inside to grow marijuana.

Similar dilemmas arise also in the context of computer theft tracking software. In the beginning of March, a techie made it into the headlines in Boston when he helped the police to recover his stolen computers. Is is debatable if evidence collected in this way would be admissible in court, as it doesn’t prove who has actually stolen the computers. In addition, justice initiaves by individual citizens shouldn’t be promoted.

Who´s to blame?

The schools behavior provoked a public outcry. How could school officials abuse the trust that students and parents give them? The plaintiff argued that students were unaware of the school’s authority to track their computers. On the other hand, it becomes obvious that the responsibilty for the failure is shared. The statements issued by parents who sends his children to the Harriton High school contacted on Facebook draw a very different picture:

This means that parents knew about the feature, but haven’t discussed the full implications and privacy risks with their children or the school’s officials. Did therefore naiv trust in the school led to the spying scandal? The SANS Computer Security Institute points out that trust is the Internet’s biggest week points, as phishing and pharming- two forms of social engeneering that are based on eliciting crucial information from victims, represent one of the biggest security problems on the Internet. From this perspective, it is crucial to re-establish trust between the school and the students, indispensable for the success of the whole education system. However, the contrary point can be argued too. By installing the surveillance feature, the school proved to generally distrust its students. If the relationship would have been based on trust, the spy-problem wouldn’t have been occurred in the first place.

One for all, but not all for one?

As a commentator called willy25 points out on the comment section of ABC’s local Philadelphia television statement: “[o]nce one child’s rights have been violated, all children are at risk.” However, not all parents back the allagations against the school. In fact, the scandal has divided the school’s community. Students show their opposition to the schools policy with “LMSD [Lower Merion School District] is watching you” T-shirts. On the correspondent Facebook group, they refer to the school as a “prison.”  On the other side, many parents and kids defend the school, and have formed different anti-lawsuit groups, like LMSDParents.org / “Reasonable LMSD parents refusing to rush to judgement” (to whom belongs Jan Klinkewicz), or Parents in Support of the Lowe Merrion School District, which collects signatures for a petition to fight the lawsuit. Concerned about the financial impact of a large class-action settlement, the group held several meetings in opposition to the class-action lawsuit. At its current pace, the Lower Merion could end up spending estimating more than $1 million a year in legal fees to continue until June- at the expense of the taxpayers, the parents!

It seems that this week, a compromise has been found as lawyers for the school and the family yesterday agreed to “freeze the case for 30 days while computer experts from both sides determine how often the school used the remote tracking software, and how many students were photographed.” However, the question arises if parents would have gone trough with the lawsuit if they wouldn´t have to pay the costs out of their own pockets. Do we assist to a partial interpretation of privacy? Is the defense of civil rights a matter of financial resources? Besides these important questions, the Harriton Hight spy-case should open a wider and long-lasting debate about the education system in general, the implications of new technologies for society, and the role of both private and public actors in addressing its risks and opportunities.

New developments in the “WebcamGate”

Last Thursday, two IT employees involved in the Harriton High School webcam scandal were placed on temporary leave while the investigations into the case continue. However, their lawyers claim that the technicians only turned on the tracking software when they believed that the computers were stolen.  They argue that the student who filed the lawsuit hadn’t paid a $55 insurance fee to take the laptop home, so technically there were authorized to track down the computer.

Justice in your own hands?

According to media reports, the Lower Merrian Police Department also knew about the software. In the case of a theft, the security feature would take every 15 minutes a photo with the webcam. Meanwhile, the company that sold the tracking feature to the Harriton High School, has changed the name of its program and its user policy; from now on, the end users can’t activate the remote webcam anymore. In the Harriton High case, a federal court judge banned the webcam activation of the school distributed laptops. Computer recovery softwares, like for example Prey (open source project!), seem to have become quite common. Even NYU offers such a service. This week, a techie made it into the headlines in Boston when he helped the police to recover his stolen computers. In this case, the victim had previously connected his home computer to his laptops (GoToMyPC is a software that would enable that), and could therefore access the stolen devices, and track their location. However, this feature has a flip side too. As the amateur techie observed, “[i]f (the family) had known what they were doing, they actually could have accessed my home computer from the laptop.” In addition, the question remains if individuals should be motivated to use this software. It is also debatable if evidence collected in this way would be admissible in court. First, it doesn’t prove who has actually stolen the computers; it only shows who the new user is. Second, isn’t first a warrant needed to follow up (even your own) computer?

Who knew what?

The are contrary statements on who knew about the school’s authority to track their computers. On one hand, the plaintiff argues that he was unaware of the feature. On the other hand, I contacted on Facebook a parent who sends his children to the Harriton High school, and he told me the following:

However, it is unclear if teachers have discussed the full implications of the tracking feature with its students, and pointed out the possible risk of privacy invasion. In addition,  as I outlined in my previous post, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) believes that “private schools or employers can ask you to sign away your right to privacy, but not a government entity like a public school.“

Polarized reactions

The scandal has divided the school’s community. Students show their opposition to the schools policy with “LMSD [Lower Merion School District] is watching you” T-shirts. On the correspondent Facebook group, they refer to the school as a “prison.” I’ve contacted several students to get more details, but they haven’t got back to me (yet). Nevertheless, many parents and kids defend the school, and have formed different anti-lawsuit groups, like LMSDParents.org / “Reasonable LMSD parents refusing to rush to judgement” (to whom belongs Jan Klinkewicz), or Parents in Support of the Lowe Merrion School District, which collects signatures for a petition to fight the lawsuit. Concerned about the financial impact of a large class-action settlement, the group held a meeting in opposition to the lawsuit last Tuesday.

I’ve also detected ad-hominem attacks on the comment section of ABC’s local Philadelphia television statement, that seek to discredit the plaintiff’s family and imply that they are seeking personal financial profit from the affair. What should be the appropriate steps to follow? One commentator called willy25 underlines that “[o]nce one child’s rights have been violated, all children are at risk.” In any case, I believe that the most important step is to (re-)establish trust between the school and the students, indispensable for the success of the whole education system.