Internet Privacy is a very huge issue today, because the generation today is a generation that live online and on-camera. The same way people in times past expect the mails and private correspondence to be private, so do people today expect what they do, even if it is online as long as it is tagged as private, it should remain so. The legal system has come a long way since the 1800’s, with every case a new precedence is set and it is adapting with the jetting changes of our time. Now MRI scan are admissible in court as evidence in to a defendant’s thought pattern, so privacy rights and human rights have over the years been eroded by the legal system.
Since the introduction of the Internet, the way we did many things before became obsolete. Even some words took a whole new meaning or where expanded in extent. Internet privacy has been an issue that has never been set in stone from the get go. It has been a very dynamic issue that is a continuum. Of all the human rights in the international catalog, privacy is perhaps the most difficult to define. Privacy is the state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2009). Privacy is a fundamental human right. It underpins human dignity and other values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important human rights of the modern age (Laurant, 2003). It is something everyone as a human being holds dear and cherishes, if it is allowed to be eroded then where is the sense of self and individuality?
This issue not only deals with privacy but also free speech, because if we are to worry about every thing we write and put out there, then where is our free speech? Facebook and many other sites like it, are the way the world lives today. With all the progress made with technology, trying to inhibit the outcome of it is simply ludicrous. With the advent of cyber social communities, the world has become a global village. Now people can keep in-touch with friends they otherwise would have lost contact with, and precious relationships saved. People even forge connections business connections and valuable networks. So putting personal information and a profile so that potential contacts and network circles can get to know you and add a personal touch to an otherwise impersonal form of communication should not be something to be punished for. As mentioned in the case the lawyer looking to obtain these personal writing is actually doing something that is unethical. If a person where going through a trauma and decides to open up to a few close people to facilitate healing, does that mean that everything they say is open to the public? Like Phillip Malone, director of the cyber law clinic at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, says the generation that has grown up online have different privacy expectations, and believe they can put material on the Internet with the expectation that only a limited group will see it (Stein, 2008). The world we live in today is a world where people have gotten used to living in front of cameras and the Internet. So because of these changes the notion of privacy and individuality should be done away with?
Networking online is not only limited to social sites, but also even ones where people go to escape the pressures of life and unwind. People relax in so many ways, some people play golf with golf buddies or poker with poker buddies, some people go surfing with other surfers, but most of the time they do these things with people the barely know but are united just by their love of a common sport or game. Now with technology in the mix new types or recreational activities have sprung up. People now go online to play games that help them escape, sometimes even assume a second identity. Second life is a virtual world developed by Linden Lab that launched on June 23, 2003, and is accessible on the Internet. A free client program called the King Bee[1] enables its users, called Residents, to interact with each other through avatars. Residents can explore, meet other residents, socialize, participate in individual and group activities, and create and trade virtual property and services with one another, or travel throughout the world (which residents refer to as "the grid"). Second Life is for people aged 18 and over (Wikipedia.org, 2009). It is an online game that has a community all of it own, here people take up pseudonyms and play characters that they create. So people escape into a world where they want to be able to say things anonymously and get some burdens off. If privacy does not apply here where else can people go to get the privacy they need?
Now begs the question, do we have a right to privacy when we share personal information with friends or family in real space? And does the same apply when we share this under a pseudonym in second life. With the way the world has changed the legal system has to pick up and not be left behind. Since the way most of our communication is made has changed new things have to be factored in when making a case. Yes the legal system is doing a good job to protect citizens better, but do they do it at the expense of the same people? When changes occur people should consider, what is replacing what? If a private conversation between two people could be considered evidence before then a phone call can used as evidence, if a private letter is admissible in court as evidence then emails and be used, if a public announcement is evidence then a blog can be an evidence.
In conclusion, when we are trying to adapt to changes it should not be used as an excuse to get rid of basic fundamental human rights.
REFERENCES
Houghton Mifflin Company. (n.d.). Privacy - definition. Retrieved April 6, 2010, from The free dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/privacy
Laurant, C. (2003). Privacy and Human Rights 2003: Overview. Retrieved April 6, 2010, from Privacy International: http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003/overview.htm
Stein, M. (2008, February 05). Daily Brief. Retrieved April 06, 2010, from Portfolio.com: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/daily-brief/2008/02/05/facebook-page-or-exhibit-a-in-court
Wikipedia.org. (2009, March). Second Life - Wikipedia. Retrieved April 06, 2010, from Wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Internet Safety: Who Scammed You?
When I hear people lamenting about being scammed, the first thing I ask is 'who scammed you?' Most people by now are aware of the most common Internet scams by crooks. Some send you mails claiming you have won a lottery with your email address, or telling you they can help you wash black papers into money, and still some others come through the guise of being millionaires who want to give you money to hold for them and spend as you see fit.
All of these scenarios are so transparent that anyone would see it for what it is: A scam. If the situation was a call for investment into a get-rich-quick business or a non existent home business that is understandable. Why? Because they are not far-fetched ideas and there are some very genuine ones. But a mail asking you to cash a cheque you did not work for, am sorry to say but people who fall for that are of the same mind as their scammer; to take money they did not earn or deserve and that is being greedy. To consent to spending money you did not earn or to consent to put it into your account, to take money for a lottery you did not enter and you paid no money for a ticket that to me is just plain greed.
I believe that nothing short of greed will make someone want to reap where they did not sow. Even lottery winners buy their tickets, people who enter a draw at least put their information down for the company to do marketing with. So essentially nothing is free everyone at least trades something before being given anything.
In harsh economic times as these and from a country were the minimum wage is less than $2 a day. Please with these facts would it not make you ask, where the money came from? Who are they? Are they criminals to have such money in such an economy? Another factor is that people are not educated. I mean how on earth can someone with whatever chemical wash black construction papers into money, please this is mind boggling. I also get emails like that but I know I never entered any lottery, yahoo or MSN is not running any, if they are as rich as they claim they could easily open a foreign bank account move their own funds.
So when I hear people (I mean you see learned and intellectuals) claim to have been scammed I ask 'who scammed you?' Is it yourself or some uneducated man who had a really silly idea and wants to see how many silly people are out there who would really fall for it? Really ask who is at fault here?
All of these scenarios are so transparent that anyone would see it for what it is: A scam. If the situation was a call for investment into a get-rich-quick business or a non existent home business that is understandable. Why? Because they are not far-fetched ideas and there are some very genuine ones. But a mail asking you to cash a cheque you did not work for, am sorry to say but people who fall for that are of the same mind as their scammer; to take money they did not earn or deserve and that is being greedy. To consent to spending money you did not earn or to consent to put it into your account, to take money for a lottery you did not enter and you paid no money for a ticket that to me is just plain greed.
I believe that nothing short of greed will make someone want to reap where they did not sow. Even lottery winners buy their tickets, people who enter a draw at least put their information down for the company to do marketing with. So essentially nothing is free everyone at least trades something before being given anything.
In harsh economic times as these and from a country were the minimum wage is less than $2 a day. Please with these facts would it not make you ask, where the money came from? Who are they? Are they criminals to have such money in such an economy? Another factor is that people are not educated. I mean how on earth can someone with whatever chemical wash black construction papers into money, please this is mind boggling. I also get emails like that but I know I never entered any lottery, yahoo or MSN is not running any, if they are as rich as they claim they could easily open a foreign bank account move their own funds.
So when I hear people (I mean you see learned and intellectuals) claim to have been scammed I ask 'who scammed you?' Is it yourself or some uneducated man who had a really silly idea and wants to see how many silly people are out there who would really fall for it? Really ask who is at fault here?
Ethical Issues: Neutrality on the Internet
As the times go by, each year new inventions and new innovative technology is brought into our world. From new devices, new applications to new information and services. With all these becoming available we are becoming increasingly dependent on the internet. With globalization tearing down barriers and bring the world to one global village, many business in order to conform to the shift are now running as e-business, even this has opened up a whole lot of possibilities now people can be business owners from their own homes. So net neutrality is something that is worth the talk it is generating to day. Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic. The issues that net neutrality is seeking to address is the artificial scarcity that ISPs are trying to create, by using their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, protocols), particularly those of competitors.
Net neutrality advocates for all information flowing on the internet to be treated fairly. Today with the way the internet has evolved, more people are streaming data-rich video and playing online games. This has also introduced the problem of congestion of the internet. So should ISPs take advantage of that and provide multi-tiered access to heavy users? With all the hype about net neutrality and the argument of both sides we usually often time skew from the fundamental issue. The Open Internet Coalition argues that “Too often, the discussion of why we need to protect the open Internet degenerates into a stale debate about regulation versus the free market. In fact, it’s impossible for innovation to continue apace without some basic rules of the road to protect that innovation. The open Internet was the principle leading the development of the Internet as the first open global communications network. And it helped drive the development of a host of Internet applications like Facebook, YouTube, and Skype. There would have been no motivation for the developers of these applications to have expended time, effort, and in some cases, their own financial security, in pursuit of their vision if they weren’t guaranteed their inventions would have been able to work over any Internet connection."
On this topic I personally believe, that with the way the internet is now so much integrated into our everyday lives, its importance alone has made it some think akin to water. If Water is not regulated in the terms of how much we drink and who can drink better water, I think that the internet should be treated the same way. Yes we pay for the delivery of the service but not for tiers of service.
As for search neutrality, which is what some people are pushing for to be included in the new rules of net neutrality, the issue being addressed is the right to have all available information on a search term made available to you in order of relevance and not in order of who can afford it. Search Neutrality can be defined as the principle that search engines should be open and transparent about their editorial policies, or, better still, should have no editorial policies other than that their results are comprehensive, impartial, and based solely on relevance. Search engines are among the most innovative services in the global economy. They provide extraordinary efficiencies for advertisers and consumers by targeting messages to viewers who are most likely to want to receive them. For things to be easier and faster some pertinent information is now made available on the internet.
So many types of information are available on the web these days, and some of them can have life changing effects in the right hands. Internet sites have much riding on search engine results: as Nissenbaum & Introna memorably put it, “to exist [online] is to be indexed by a search engine.” While users can locate relevant information on the Net in other ways, search engines now constitute the dominant platform through which content producers and audiences can reach each other. Just as dominant search engines fear an unfairly tiered online world, they should be required to provide access to their archives and indices in a non-discriminatory manner. If dominant search engines want telecommunications and cable carriers to disclose their traffic management tactics, they should submit to regulation that bans stealth marketing and reliably verifies the absence of the practice. For fair competition to be available online it demands common commercial ethics to be applied for both dominant search engines and dominant ISPs.
I personally believe, that with the amount of pertinent information and businesses on the internet which we use in our everyday lives, information should not be hoarded or displaced, to promote increase in revenue.
Looking at the ethics associated with these issues, there are to point of views that can be looked into. The deontologist approach is an approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. Deontologists look at rules and duties. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. For a deontologist ‘the end does not justify the means’, it is the original intent or motive that is the underlying factor under ethical scrutiny. Under this approach net neutrality and search neutrality is ethically right. The main motive behind it is to make things equal and accessible to all. The utilitarian position is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequential-ism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Under this view neutrality on the internet is not ethically wrong, as long as the snowball effect of it brings about a positive change.
With all these facts laid out on the table, I personally think that the internet should be regulated by a body or committee. If it is regulated thus, internet usage and things available on the web will be available to everyone fairly.
Works cited
(n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2010, from The Free Online Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Deontologist
Pasquale, F. (2008, July 15). Internet Nondiscrimination Principles for Competition Policy Online. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Judiciary House: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Pasquale080715.pdf
Schonfeld, E. (2008, August 31). The Net Neutrality Debate All In One Page. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from TechCrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/31/the-net-neutrality-debate-all-on-one-page/
Search Neutrality. (2009, October 11). Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Search Neutality.org: http://www.searchneutrality.org/
Wikipedia. (2008, August 18). Network neutrality in Canada. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_Canada
Net neutrality advocates for all information flowing on the internet to be treated fairly. Today with the way the internet has evolved, more people are streaming data-rich video and playing online games. This has also introduced the problem of congestion of the internet. So should ISPs take advantage of that and provide multi-tiered access to heavy users? With all the hype about net neutrality and the argument of both sides we usually often time skew from the fundamental issue. The Open Internet Coalition argues that “Too often, the discussion of why we need to protect the open Internet degenerates into a stale debate about regulation versus the free market. In fact, it’s impossible for innovation to continue apace without some basic rules of the road to protect that innovation. The open Internet was the principle leading the development of the Internet as the first open global communications network. And it helped drive the development of a host of Internet applications like Facebook, YouTube, and Skype. There would have been no motivation for the developers of these applications to have expended time, effort, and in some cases, their own financial security, in pursuit of their vision if they weren’t guaranteed their inventions would have been able to work over any Internet connection."
On this topic I personally believe, that with the way the internet is now so much integrated into our everyday lives, its importance alone has made it some think akin to water. If Water is not regulated in the terms of how much we drink and who can drink better water, I think that the internet should be treated the same way. Yes we pay for the delivery of the service but not for tiers of service.
As for search neutrality, which is what some people are pushing for to be included in the new rules of net neutrality, the issue being addressed is the right to have all available information on a search term made available to you in order of relevance and not in order of who can afford it. Search Neutrality can be defined as the principle that search engines should be open and transparent about their editorial policies, or, better still, should have no editorial policies other than that their results are comprehensive, impartial, and based solely on relevance. Search engines are among the most innovative services in the global economy. They provide extraordinary efficiencies for advertisers and consumers by targeting messages to viewers who are most likely to want to receive them. For things to be easier and faster some pertinent information is now made available on the internet.
So many types of information are available on the web these days, and some of them can have life changing effects in the right hands. Internet sites have much riding on search engine results: as Nissenbaum & Introna memorably put it, “to exist [online] is to be indexed by a search engine.” While users can locate relevant information on the Net in other ways, search engines now constitute the dominant platform through which content producers and audiences can reach each other. Just as dominant search engines fear an unfairly tiered online world, they should be required to provide access to their archives and indices in a non-discriminatory manner. If dominant search engines want telecommunications and cable carriers to disclose their traffic management tactics, they should submit to regulation that bans stealth marketing and reliably verifies the absence of the practice. For fair competition to be available online it demands common commercial ethics to be applied for both dominant search engines and dominant ISPs.
I personally believe, that with the amount of pertinent information and businesses on the internet which we use in our everyday lives, information should not be hoarded or displaced, to promote increase in revenue.
Looking at the ethics associated with these issues, there are to point of views that can be looked into. The deontologist approach is an approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. Deontologists look at rules and duties. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. For a deontologist ‘the end does not justify the means’, it is the original intent or motive that is the underlying factor under ethical scrutiny. Under this approach net neutrality and search neutrality is ethically right. The main motive behind it is to make things equal and accessible to all. The utilitarian position is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequential-ism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Under this view neutrality on the internet is not ethically wrong, as long as the snowball effect of it brings about a positive change.
With all these facts laid out on the table, I personally think that the internet should be regulated by a body or committee. If it is regulated thus, internet usage and things available on the web will be available to everyone fairly.
Works cited
(n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2010, from The Free Online Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Deontologist
Pasquale, F. (2008, July 15). Internet Nondiscrimination Principles for Competition Policy Online. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Judiciary House: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Pasquale080715.pdf
Schonfeld, E. (2008, August 31). The Net Neutrality Debate All In One Page. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from TechCrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/31/the-net-neutrality-debate-all-on-one-page/
Search Neutrality. (2009, October 11). Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Search Neutality.org: http://www.searchneutrality.org/
Wikipedia. (2008, August 18). Network neutrality in Canada. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_Canada
Ethical Issues: Ethical Hacking?
“Hi there, my name is Goody Two Shoes, am here to provide you with a service you cannot refuse. I am a certified ethical burglar, I bugle your home, office or company at a fee and then tell you how I did it so you can protect against it. It is like a simple fire alarm test.”
If someone walked up to you to pitch this would you listen or would you walk? One thing I have noticed is that people do not realize the seriousness of privacy breach and identity theft; people can exist and cease to exist solely from computer manipulation, houses investment and even confidential medical records that can have life altering effect can be altered with just a few strokes of the keyboard. The same absurdity, with which you would dismiss Mr. Goody Two Shoes, is the same way I see ethical hacking.
Yes, these people are trained and they have a code of ethics, doctors swear oaths yet we still have rotten apples amongst them. If this charade is going to be allowed to continue I think the onus is on the companies that hire them to monitor them thoroughly; who is to say if sensitive information that these people come across will not be sold to the highest bidder, and if things go badly in the relationship between the company and the hacker a lot of damage can be inflicted. A movie to see to understand the gravity of this is “The Net” 1995.
Whether there is law or not, somethings should not be made legal, or glorified. The same way people do not call burglars to there home to test out there alarm system and security features, things like this should not be done. ethical hacking code is what I call honor amongst thieves, that is if such a thing exists. One thing I noticed while researching this is that on the internet there are not that many sites that tell people what ethical hacking really entails or what it really means, but they have tons of sites promoting training and classes to become a CEH (Certified Ethical Hacker). All what this is, is just business, people trying to make money out of something that used to be illegal.
Someone once wrote "ethical hackers are the guardians who attempt to break into corporate sites, and once they have managed that and found loopholes, they try to get it repaired". In response, like someone had told me before " you never know when the good guy will turn bad". Companies that hire these people, one question for them, what steps are they taking to ensure the these hacker are acting buy the book. Like the saying goes ' the road to hell, is paved with good intentions". Remember relationships turn sour, even business ones, and it is these guardians that help you build up the defenses they breached, so they still know how to breach it. One thing I have learned is that people like keeping a trump card so the do not get the short stick. So while we are all singing ethical hacker lets remember that everyone has a breaking point. Situations can lead even good people down evil paths. White hat, black hat or gray hat , they are not transparent.
One of the hardest place to police is the web, lets be real people. People have so many identities online these days that is is sometimes hard to catch even inexperienced crooks. Now lets talk about people who have received the training to do this, who know the ins and outs of online and computer security. If an expert hacker is serious they can cover their track and do as they please without being caught. So as far as I am concerned ethical hacking is something that we wish to exist but does not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(computer_security)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_theft
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci921117,00.html
If someone walked up to you to pitch this would you listen or would you walk? One thing I have noticed is that people do not realize the seriousness of privacy breach and identity theft; people can exist and cease to exist solely from computer manipulation, houses investment and even confidential medical records that can have life altering effect can be altered with just a few strokes of the keyboard. The same absurdity, with which you would dismiss Mr. Goody Two Shoes, is the same way I see ethical hacking.
Yes, these people are trained and they have a code of ethics, doctors swear oaths yet we still have rotten apples amongst them. If this charade is going to be allowed to continue I think the onus is on the companies that hire them to monitor them thoroughly; who is to say if sensitive information that these people come across will not be sold to the highest bidder, and if things go badly in the relationship between the company and the hacker a lot of damage can be inflicted. A movie to see to understand the gravity of this is “The Net” 1995.
Whether there is law or not, somethings should not be made legal, or glorified. The same way people do not call burglars to there home to test out there alarm system and security features, things like this should not be done. ethical hacking code is what I call honor amongst thieves, that is if such a thing exists. One thing I noticed while researching this is that on the internet there are not that many sites that tell people what ethical hacking really entails or what it really means, but they have tons of sites promoting training and classes to become a CEH (Certified Ethical Hacker). All what this is, is just business, people trying to make money out of something that used to be illegal.
Someone once wrote "ethical hackers are the guardians who attempt to break into corporate sites, and once they have managed that and found loopholes, they try to get it repaired". In response, like someone had told me before " you never know when the good guy will turn bad". Companies that hire these people, one question for them, what steps are they taking to ensure the these hacker are acting buy the book. Like the saying goes ' the road to hell, is paved with good intentions". Remember relationships turn sour, even business ones, and it is these guardians that help you build up the defenses they breached, so they still know how to breach it. One thing I have learned is that people like keeping a trump card so the do not get the short stick. So while we are all singing ethical hacker lets remember that everyone has a breaking point. Situations can lead even good people down evil paths. White hat, black hat or gray hat , they are not transparent.
One of the hardest place to police is the web, lets be real people. People have so many identities online these days that is is sometimes hard to catch even inexperienced crooks. Now lets talk about people who have received the training to do this, who know the ins and outs of online and computer security. If an expert hacker is serious they can cover their track and do as they please without being caught. So as far as I am concerned ethical hacking is something that we wish to exist but does not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(computer_security)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_theft
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci921117,00.html
The Future: The Next Big Thing!
"Throughout the history of computation and the Internet, there have been watershed moments where technological advancements have defined a generation of both devices and applications.Today, given the vast diffusion of technologies and the diverse uses that can be derived from a single product, it may seem difficult to identify technologies that are truly redefining the way we live, learn, work and play."
- Prof. Kristina Verner 2010.
As stated above 'Today, given the vast diffusion of technologies and the diverse uses that can be derived from a single product, it may seem difficult to identify technologies that are truly redefining the way we live, learn, work and play.' Still there are some underlying technologies that actually herald the changes that we see in the way we live, learn, work and play.
An example is the internet; it gave rise to all devices and applications that promoted community and instant information. Another example is the touch screen technology that has led to a whole new era of technology use. Now we have the iPad, iPods, touch screen phone and computers. Last example is search engines, these have revolutionized the way we retrieve information from the internet, not only that it has created a whole host of other applications and jobs.
Now we are moving to a whole new age where the contemporary computer systems will become obsolete. I am talking about Cloud computing, Cloud computing is a general term for anything that involves delivering hosted services over the Internet. These services are broadly divided into three categories: Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). With this the use of CPUs, processors and hard drives will cease to be relevant. Also with the introduction of the TED sixth sense the needs for computer monitors even touch screen ones and trackball or pad will become a thing of the past. These new technological processes if perfected and introduced into the society it will effectively change the way we live, learn, work and play. Then blind dating will not be so blind, education will be boosted a long way, average productivity per person would increase, carbon printing would reduce, and medical breakthrough, collaboration and intervention would be almost instantaneous.
All these above are some the good things that we will derive from these things, but there are also some down sides to them. I am talking about privacy. With both new in-the-works technology, privacy is a very big issue, not only that cyber crimes could be on the rise and the ethical issue of "when is the technology too much and how much of our lives should we hand over to machines". These issues that I have mentioned, do you think they matter at all or are there more issues than I mentioned?
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltouch.htm
http://www.computerhistory.org/internet_history/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_search_engine
http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid201_gci1287881,00.html
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html
- Prof. Kristina Verner 2010.
As stated above 'Today, given the vast diffusion of technologies and the diverse uses that can be derived from a single product, it may seem difficult to identify technologies that are truly redefining the way we live, learn, work and play.' Still there are some underlying technologies that actually herald the changes that we see in the way we live, learn, work and play.
An example is the internet; it gave rise to all devices and applications that promoted community and instant information. Another example is the touch screen technology that has led to a whole new era of technology use. Now we have the iPad, iPods, touch screen phone and computers. Last example is search engines, these have revolutionized the way we retrieve information from the internet, not only that it has created a whole host of other applications and jobs.
Now we are moving to a whole new age where the contemporary computer systems will become obsolete. I am talking about Cloud computing, Cloud computing is a general term for anything that involves delivering hosted services over the Internet. These services are broadly divided into three categories: Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). With this the use of CPUs, processors and hard drives will cease to be relevant. Also with the introduction of the TED sixth sense the needs for computer monitors even touch screen ones and trackball or pad will become a thing of the past. These new technological processes if perfected and introduced into the society it will effectively change the way we live, learn, work and play. Then blind dating will not be so blind, education will be boosted a long way, average productivity per person would increase, carbon printing would reduce, and medical breakthrough, collaboration and intervention would be almost instantaneous.
All these above are some the good things that we will derive from these things, but there are also some down sides to them. I am talking about privacy. With both new in-the-works technology, privacy is a very big issue, not only that cyber crimes could be on the rise and the ethical issue of "when is the technology too much and how much of our lives should we hand over to machines". These issues that I have mentioned, do you think they matter at all or are there more issues than I mentioned?
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltouch.htm
http://www.computerhistory.org/internet_history/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_search_engine
http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid201_gci1287881,00.html
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html
Facebooking or facing the book!
With the way the world is structured today and the amount of technology available, trying to impose an age when kids should be exposed to the wonders of the internet is basically impossible. The way we grew up and the way kids today are growing is so vastly different; things we never knew into our late teenage years, kids today know it at five.
Talking ideally kids should not be allowed to be on the internet and on online communities until they have a better sense of self and safety. The world we live in is very far from ideal, so the best a parent can do is to educate your child early to know the real fact, real dangers and how to keep safe. Sites like Facebook say kids under thirteen are not allowed to register on Facebook and some sites ban people under eighteen. How do they and other such sites know when a kid lies about their age?
All in all, parents are the ones to determine at what age their kid should be exposed to the cyber-world. Some parents seem to know the dangers and address them, but some think that ignoring it and blindly forbidding their children will solve their problems. With internet available everywhere and some parent who have no restriction on their kids (giving a ten year old a personal laptop, getting an eight year old an internet equipped cell phone), not educating your children on the right uses and safety tips on the internet is not advisable. If left to me, kids should not be allowed on the internet till they are thirty-five years.
Looking at the trends that are common today, where kids, teenagers and young adults who seem to have no knowledge or regard for the longevity and wide availability on information posted on the internet, go on to post damaging and potentially damaging data of personal nature for the world wide web. Everywhere we look today we see people who are posting incriminating and damaging information and data about themselves. Most of these information are posted during inebriated periods or thoughtless adrenaline exuberant times.Like the cases we see in the media, examples are: a fire house volunteer whose wife posed naked was outed three years later, by someone in South Africa who saw the pictures; the mayor of Arlington, Oregon whose racy fire truck picture after being posted on Myspace forced her eviction from office; and the case of Casey Anthony whose most damaging evidence where picture on social networking sites. Need I go on, everyday in the media around the world, we see the dire consequences of thoughtless moments made gawking exhibits for the rest of the world on cyber space. So should parents and authority figures take this more seriously and take a firmer stand, I believe it goes without saying.
It is a known fact now that employers and potential employers do thorough searches on employees and potential employees, both on search engines and social media sites. With the advent of smartphones the chances of ruining your career or life have increased exponentially, with greater access to speedy upload of embarrassing and scandalous information. Today with just the click or push of a button people can successfully commit character assassination against themselves before they even realize it. So next time you have an itchy button finger, ask yourself who the collateral damage in your information are.
http://www.facebook.com/policy.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/aug/07/socialnetworking.facebook
http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html
http://www.onlinedatinglaw.com/checklist.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/childrens.html
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23445683
http://statter911.com/2011/06/19/nude-fire-station-photos-continue-to-cause-trouble-for-pasadena-texas-fire-department-three-years-after-it-was-dealt-with-a-good-reminder-about-social-media-ethics-just-plain-ignorance/
Talking ideally kids should not be allowed to be on the internet and on online communities until they have a better sense of self and safety. The world we live in is very far from ideal, so the best a parent can do is to educate your child early to know the real fact, real dangers and how to keep safe. Sites like Facebook say kids under thirteen are not allowed to register on Facebook and some sites ban people under eighteen. How do they and other such sites know when a kid lies about their age?
All in all, parents are the ones to determine at what age their kid should be exposed to the cyber-world. Some parents seem to know the dangers and address them, but some think that ignoring it and blindly forbidding their children will solve their problems. With internet available everywhere and some parent who have no restriction on their kids (giving a ten year old a personal laptop, getting an eight year old an internet equipped cell phone), not educating your children on the right uses and safety tips on the internet is not advisable. If left to me, kids should not be allowed on the internet till they are thirty-five years.
Looking at the trends that are common today, where kids, teenagers and young adults who seem to have no knowledge or regard for the longevity and wide availability on information posted on the internet, go on to post damaging and potentially damaging data of personal nature for the world wide web. Everywhere we look today we see people who are posting incriminating and damaging information and data about themselves. Most of these information are posted during inebriated periods or thoughtless adrenaline exuberant times.Like the cases we see in the media, examples are: a fire house volunteer whose wife posed naked was outed three years later, by someone in South Africa who saw the pictures; the mayor of Arlington, Oregon whose racy fire truck picture after being posted on Myspace forced her eviction from office; and the case of Casey Anthony whose most damaging evidence where picture on social networking sites. Need I go on, everyday in the media around the world, we see the dire consequences of thoughtless moments made gawking exhibits for the rest of the world on cyber space. So should parents and authority figures take this more seriously and take a firmer stand, I believe it goes without saying.
It is a known fact now that employers and potential employers do thorough searches on employees and potential employees, both on search engines and social media sites. With the advent of smartphones the chances of ruining your career or life have increased exponentially, with greater access to speedy upload of embarrassing and scandalous information. Today with just the click or push of a button people can successfully commit character assassination against themselves before they even realize it. So next time you have an itchy button finger, ask yourself who the collateral damage in your information are.
http://www.facebook.com/policy.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/aug/07/socialnetworking.facebook
http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html
http://www.onlinedatinglaw.com/checklist.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/childrens.html
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23445683
http://statter911.com/2011/06/19/nude-fire-station-photos-continue-to-cause-trouble-for-pasadena-texas-fire-department-three-years-after-it-was-dealt-with-a-good-reminder-about-social-media-ethics-just-plain-ignorance/
Internet Governance: Internet Filtering
Internet filtering or Internet censorship is control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet. One difference is that national borders are more permeable online: residents of a country that bans certain information can find it on websites hosted outside the country. A government can try to prevent its citizens from viewing these even if it has no control over the websites themselves. In today's world getting information is just with the touch of a button. There is a lot of information on the internet, and it is now readily accessible to people. So how do we stop this information from getting into the wrong hands? Wrong hand for information maybe Pornography in the hands of an under-aged child, credit information in the hand of an internet crook or chance meeting of a gullible innocent and a predator online. Censorship and filtering of internet content is pertinent to some extent; some information have no business being circulated around on the internet. Examples are: Home made explosives and drugs, How to dispose of a body you killed, How to rob a bank, child pornography e.t.c. What rules are there in place to make sure that harmful information like these are not available to the general public and impressionable minds of kids?
With the world moving steadily toward a society of democracy, things like free speech and human rights are holding sway worldwide. Free speech or Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. When does free speech broach into Hate speech or the dissemination of harmful information? The internet is the one place where free speech is still almost reigning supreme. Information and things posted on the internet are not really censored and is really hard to censor. According to an article in Australia where the government is moving to have contents on sites filtered in the country. Does this have any infringement on freedom of speech? I say no. No, because like everything else nothing is absolutely perfect. With this technology of internet filtering, there is an acceptable use and unacceptable use of it. Countries like Mexico and the Caribbean nations are on the extreme lax side, in the sense that nothing is censored in those regions. Countries like Canada and the U.S could pick up with a little more censoring of the things allowed in there internet space. Countries like China and Korea which are referred to as “Black holes” are on the other extreme where freedom of speech is now being denied and the formation of the ‘Thought Police’ is very much real.
Yes internet filtering has some drawbacks that make it seem inadequate, because some of the contents the government is trying to filter out can still be gotten from servers outside the country and legitimate site could be hampered. The Australian filter was among a number of new measures aimed at strengthening online protection for families. It aims to block material such as child pornography, bestiality, rape and other sexual violence, along with detailed instructions about committing crimes or using illicit drugs. Such material is already banned from publication on Australian sites, but the government currently has no control over it being accessed on servers overseas. Critics say illegal material such as child pornography is often traded on peer-to-peer networks or chats, which would not be covered by the filter. The only issue with the implementation of the Australian filter in 2011 is the lack of transparency of the whole process, because it leaves skeptics with the doubt that legitimate businesses could be black listed and corrupt government officials could use this as an avenue to extort money from legal businesses. Seeing that the world of today is a cyber-world where almost everything is electronic, from e-mails to e-commerce. A company that is unable to tap into the vast market and opportunity of the internet in their own home country stands to lose a lot, so the secrecy of the Australian blacklist by the government might raise a couple of free speech issues.
In conclusion, to put to rest the concerns of the critics, the Australian government should make the internet filter blacklist draft an open and transparent process. They should also have well stated rules and guidelines that the people support in the determination of blacklist sites.
Works Cited
How get away with murder. (2004, June 13). Retrieved March 13, 2010, from Ask metafilter: http://ask.metafilter.com/7921/If-you-killed-somebody-how-would-you-dispose-of-the-body-without-getting-caught
Internet censorship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2008, August). Retrieved March 13, 2010, from Wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship
SULLIVAN, R. (2009, December 15). Australia Plans Internet Filter Blocking 'Obscene' Content, Criminal Sites. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/australia-internet-filter_n_392393.html
With the world moving steadily toward a society of democracy, things like free speech and human rights are holding sway worldwide. Free speech or Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. When does free speech broach into Hate speech or the dissemination of harmful information? The internet is the one place where free speech is still almost reigning supreme. Information and things posted on the internet are not really censored and is really hard to censor. According to an article in Australia where the government is moving to have contents on sites filtered in the country. Does this have any infringement on freedom of speech? I say no. No, because like everything else nothing is absolutely perfect. With this technology of internet filtering, there is an acceptable use and unacceptable use of it. Countries like Mexico and the Caribbean nations are on the extreme lax side, in the sense that nothing is censored in those regions. Countries like Canada and the U.S could pick up with a little more censoring of the things allowed in there internet space. Countries like China and Korea which are referred to as “Black holes” are on the other extreme where freedom of speech is now being denied and the formation of the ‘Thought Police’ is very much real.
Yes internet filtering has some drawbacks that make it seem inadequate, because some of the contents the government is trying to filter out can still be gotten from servers outside the country and legitimate site could be hampered. The Australian filter was among a number of new measures aimed at strengthening online protection for families. It aims to block material such as child pornography, bestiality, rape and other sexual violence, along with detailed instructions about committing crimes or using illicit drugs. Such material is already banned from publication on Australian sites, but the government currently has no control over it being accessed on servers overseas. Critics say illegal material such as child pornography is often traded on peer-to-peer networks or chats, which would not be covered by the filter. The only issue with the implementation of the Australian filter in 2011 is the lack of transparency of the whole process, because it leaves skeptics with the doubt that legitimate businesses could be black listed and corrupt government officials could use this as an avenue to extort money from legal businesses. Seeing that the world of today is a cyber-world where almost everything is electronic, from e-mails to e-commerce. A company that is unable to tap into the vast market and opportunity of the internet in their own home country stands to lose a lot, so the secrecy of the Australian blacklist by the government might raise a couple of free speech issues.
In conclusion, to put to rest the concerns of the critics, the Australian government should make the internet filter blacklist draft an open and transparent process. They should also have well stated rules and guidelines that the people support in the determination of blacklist sites.
Works Cited
How get away with murder. (2004, June 13). Retrieved March 13, 2010, from Ask metafilter: http://ask.metafilter.com/7921/If-you-killed-somebody-how-would-you-dispose-of-the-body-without-getting-caught
Internet censorship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2008, August). Retrieved March 13, 2010, from Wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship
SULLIVAN, R. (2009, December 15). Australia Plans Internet Filter Blocking 'Obscene' Content, Criminal Sites. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/australia-internet-filter_n_392393.html
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
'Wiki it', 'Google it'
In today's world getting information is just with the touch of a button. With the advent of the internet, a lot of possibilities were opened to the world. search engines, online dictionaries, online encyclopedia, open source dictionaries e.t.c. All these are now such a part of our lives that words and phrases are being coined from them e.g. 'Wiki it' and 'Google it'. Not only is information now readily available but it is also floating around, not just general information but also sensitive information. Since knowledge is power and knowledge come from information it can be said that information is power, since the internet is one giant mass of information, in the right hands this is a very powerful tool and great power indeed.
Yes there is a lot of information on the internet, and it is now readily accessible to people thanks to sites like Google and Wikipedia, but the main question is, are all the information accurate and trustworthy? Given the ease with which I am whipping up this page that will be published shortly, I can write any thing I want call it a fact and release it to this massive cloud of information and it is accessible to anyone anywhere in the world. So how do we tell real information from just useless data? How does Wikipedia and Google come in?
One mistake that a lot of people around the world make on a constant basis is relying on brand name when it comes to information on the internet. Most people when looking for information on the internet use mainly Google and for research they use Wikipedia, and whatever results they get they implicitly believe must be a fact and not a fallacy. Due to the image most people have of Google and Wikipedia as being infallible, trustworthy and the best in what they each do, people now automatically think 'if i found it on Google Or Wikipedia it must be true'. This is a huge fallacy that people must open their eyes to. All Google actually does is to look for information that looks as close to the search term as it can get and presents it to the user, it does not go to verify the sites, the source of the information, credential of the author of the information or if they are any proofs or supporting data. Likewise when Wikipedia is used, all it give is information that had been entered by someone else like you and I.
So searching for information on the internet is not just as simple as 'Wiki it' or 'Google it', it is more like a person conducting a small experiment, but with information being the sample.
- First identify the problem; that is the information the person is seeking, and make sure it is as well defined as it can get i.e. make the search term as specific as possible
- Next identify the expected outcome; that is all the knowledge the person has about the subject, but do not hold on to it as it can lead to bias
- Next put the experiment in motion; enter the search term in the portal or engine
-Next observe the results and eliminate all contaminated source; look through the search result and discard all information from non trustworthy sites i.e. sites that the source of their information cannot be verified or authenticated
-Next go through the remaining result and establish a pattern; look through the search results and make sure each information corroborates the other
-After the pattern has been established, the result is set; now after following all these steps the information gathered must be fact (except there is a global conspiracy with the aliens against you).Lol*.
So next time you 'Google it' or 'Wiki it' make sure you do it right.
*Laugh out loud
Yes there is a lot of information on the internet, and it is now readily accessible to people thanks to sites like Google and Wikipedia, but the main question is, are all the information accurate and trustworthy? Given the ease with which I am whipping up this page that will be published shortly, I can write any thing I want call it a fact and release it to this massive cloud of information and it is accessible to anyone anywhere in the world. So how do we tell real information from just useless data? How does Wikipedia and Google come in?
One mistake that a lot of people around the world make on a constant basis is relying on brand name when it comes to information on the internet. Most people when looking for information on the internet use mainly Google and for research they use Wikipedia, and whatever results they get they implicitly believe must be a fact and not a fallacy. Due to the image most people have of Google and Wikipedia as being infallible, trustworthy and the best in what they each do, people now automatically think 'if i found it on Google Or Wikipedia it must be true'. This is a huge fallacy that people must open their eyes to. All Google actually does is to look for information that looks as close to the search term as it can get and presents it to the user, it does not go to verify the sites, the source of the information, credential of the author of the information or if they are any proofs or supporting data. Likewise when Wikipedia is used, all it give is information that had been entered by someone else like you and I.
So searching for information on the internet is not just as simple as 'Wiki it' or 'Google it', it is more like a person conducting a small experiment, but with information being the sample.
- First identify the problem; that is the information the person is seeking, and make sure it is as well defined as it can get i.e. make the search term as specific as possible
- Next identify the expected outcome; that is all the knowledge the person has about the subject, but do not hold on to it as it can lead to bias
- Next put the experiment in motion; enter the search term in the portal or engine
-Next observe the results and eliminate all contaminated source; look through the search result and discard all information from non trustworthy sites i.e. sites that the source of their information cannot be verified or authenticated
-Next go through the remaining result and establish a pattern; look through the search results and make sure each information corroborates the other
-After the pattern has been established, the result is set; now after following all these steps the information gathered must be fact (except there is a global conspiracy with the aliens against you).Lol*.
So next time you 'Google it' or 'Wiki it' make sure you do it right.
*Laugh out loud
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)