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
Showing posts with label legalities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legalities. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
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
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)