Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
COM 305 Blog Post #4
Have you ever clicked the I agree to the Terms and Conditions on a page and not actually read them? If you did you probably wouldn’t click the I agree. Permission to track you and sell your information is hiding everywhere on the web, not just in the I Terms and Conditions. Sick of emptying your spam folder? If nothing changes it is onl going to get worse.
However according to an article on The New York Times’ website the stage has been set for thing to change. Advocates to increase internet privacy are pushing for a “do not track” feature that will allow users to “tell Web sites to stop surreptitiously tracking their online habits and collecting clues about age, salary, health, location and leisure activities.” This feature would be similar to the “do not call” lists for telemarketers.
This has lead to a lot of debate in Washington as to how strict to privacy policies should be. Currently two groups, the Federal Trade Commission and the Commerce Department, are set to release their reports on this.
According to the article consumer advocates are worried that the policy makers will neglected to take into consideration the interest of the people who will be “most effected by the privacy laws.”
Well of course they are worried. Half of their market could easily elected out of being spammed by them, profits would drop because they can’t sell the information they have collected on you. To me that sounds great, actually.
The people who use this information to target their audience thinks that targeted ads are helpful, as is ad competition. Well of course they would think that. It’s where they can reach people who are more likely to be their consumers.
On the other side, the article states that the White house wants to create a panel to look at how to protect us, the consumers, while also making U.S. companies a stronger competition on an international level. They also want to make sure that no restrictions will interfere with law enforcement or national security efforts.
The results of these discussions could potentially rely on which agency and which political party is able to lead the debate.
There is also a concern in the Obama administration that we should be worried about the prospect of stricter standers for privacy internationally.
Europe just increased it’s privacy regulations recently and increased the regulations especially for targeting ads on social networking sites.
However according to an article on The New York Times’ website the stage has been set for thing to change. Advocates to increase internet privacy are pushing for a “do not track” feature that will allow users to “tell Web sites to stop surreptitiously tracking their online habits and collecting clues about age, salary, health, location and leisure activities.” This feature would be similar to the “do not call” lists for telemarketers.
This has lead to a lot of debate in Washington as to how strict to privacy policies should be. Currently two groups, the Federal Trade Commission and the Commerce Department, are set to release their reports on this.
According to the article consumer advocates are worried that the policy makers will neglected to take into consideration the interest of the people who will be “most effected by the privacy laws.”
Well of course they are worried. Half of their market could easily elected out of being spammed by them, profits would drop because they can’t sell the information they have collected on you. To me that sounds great, actually.
The people who use this information to target their audience thinks that targeted ads are helpful, as is ad competition. Well of course they would think that. It’s where they can reach people who are more likely to be their consumers.
On the other side, the article states that the White house wants to create a panel to look at how to protect us, the consumers, while also making U.S. companies a stronger competition on an international level. They also want to make sure that no restrictions will interfere with law enforcement or national security efforts.
The results of these discussions could potentially rely on which agency and which political party is able to lead the debate.
There is also a concern in the Obama administration that we should be worried about the prospect of stricter standers for privacy internationally.
Europe just increased it’s privacy regulations recently and increased the regulations especially for targeting ads on social networking sites.
Monday, November 8, 2010
COM 305 Blog Post #3
Computers have been changing the face of the world as we know it for quite a few decades now. Compare all of the things you do now on a computer to what you used to do manually or through a professional.
For example, I bet you used to go to the bank to do banking? These days most banking is electronic; most money is electronic.
Computers are being used more and more in the everyday lives of average citizens.
Just like with anything that people don’t understand, fear has started to build over this. From the perspective of people who do not understand computers very well, computers are taking over and could destroy us.
Others are able to see that the fear shouldn't be of the machines itself, but those out there who could potentially use them maliciously. Which is even more terrifying to the general public.
The bad guys are real and they have technology we don’t understand? Clearly the end must be near.
Cyberwarfare is real. Obviously, we should be protecting ourselves against attacks from other nations especially considering our global political standing, but are we focusing too much on it?
According to the article Cyberwar vs. Cybercrime: Assessing the Feds' Priorities in Battling the Bad Guys we might be approaching this wrong.
Apparently we should be more concerned about attacks from within our own nation. Rather than putting all of our money, publicity and priorities into building up our military's Cyber Command we should be giving law enforcement these technologies and building up our defenses against ourselves.
The article suggests that there is a clear and present danger from our own criminal element.
Other articles even state that there was a decline in the number of "terrorist" cyber attacks in the past year.
Meanwhile there is actually a bigger threat from American cyber criminals attacking us. So why does this get less coverage?
I don’t know. I do know that it shouldn’t be so easily over looked. Honestly I am more worried about the acne ridden teenager in his basement with the anarchy poster and a computer than a middle-eastern terrorist.
Maybe the government should be too.
For example, I bet you used to go to the bank to do banking? These days most banking is electronic; most money is electronic.
Computers are being used more and more in the everyday lives of average citizens.
Just like with anything that people don’t understand, fear has started to build over this. From the perspective of people who do not understand computers very well, computers are taking over and could destroy us.
Others are able to see that the fear shouldn't be of the machines itself, but those out there who could potentially use them maliciously. Which is even more terrifying to the general public.
The bad guys are real and they have technology we don’t understand? Clearly the end must be near.
Cyberwarfare is real. Obviously, we should be protecting ourselves against attacks from other nations especially considering our global political standing, but are we focusing too much on it?
According to the article Cyberwar vs. Cybercrime: Assessing the Feds' Priorities in Battling the Bad Guys we might be approaching this wrong.
Apparently we should be more concerned about attacks from within our own nation. Rather than putting all of our money, publicity and priorities into building up our military's Cyber Command we should be giving law enforcement these technologies and building up our defenses against ourselves.
The article suggests that there is a clear and present danger from our own criminal element.
Other articles even state that there was a decline in the number of "terrorist" cyber attacks in the past year.
Meanwhile there is actually a bigger threat from American cyber criminals attacking us. So why does this get less coverage?
I don’t know. I do know that it shouldn’t be so easily over looked. Honestly I am more worried about the acne ridden teenager in his basement with the anarchy poster and a computer than a middle-eastern terrorist.
Maybe the government should be too.
Monday, October 25, 2010
COM 305 Blog Post # 2
How important is technology in our world really? Considering that billions of subscribers use their computers with internet connection as a telephone, an educational tool, and to bring medical care to people who would otherwise not be able to have it, it’s safe to say that having internet access is definitely better than not having it.
Within our country alone there is a difference in the lifestyles of the haves and have nots of new technology and broadband internet. Globally the effects of not having recent technology and internet access could potentially leave certain countries father and farther behind. Entire civilization of people in under-developed countries are already unable to compete in the global market and without internet and new technologies this will only get worse until those countries become obsolete and forgotten.
However there are already several movements dedicated to preventing that from happening. There are many non-profit organizations out there that donate time, money, durable laptops, and education to help bridge the digital divide.
Then there is Virgin Media who is using ferrets to bridge the digital divide in London. They have dressed the ferrets in jackets embedded with microchips that are able to detect and analyze damaged underground broadband cables. According to an article on Telegraph.co.uk.
They quoted the London branch of Virgin Media’s director of broadband, Jon James as saying, "For hundreds of years, ferrets have helped humans in various jobs. Our decision to use them is due to their strong nesting instinct, their long, lean build and inquisitive nature, and for their ability to get down holes. We initially kept the trial low-key as we wanted to assess how well the ferrets fitted into our operations before revealing this enterprising scheme."
How could this help bridge the digital divide? Well the ferrets are able to provide access to places that were previously considered inaccessible. This is allowing Virgin to lay cables in places that they otherwise would not have, like the rural areas in London.
The article informs us that “The government [of England] has set a target of universal broadband access of 2Mbps by 2012.” With the unconventional approach of Virgin this goal is made even more possible.
Just imagine if this kind of success creativity where applied globally? We could use non-invasive species in other countries that have large rural areas, or where the cities are fairly far apart, to provide internet to thousands more people.
Within our country alone there is a difference in the lifestyles of the haves and have nots of new technology and broadband internet. Globally the effects of not having recent technology and internet access could potentially leave certain countries father and farther behind. Entire civilization of people in under-developed countries are already unable to compete in the global market and without internet and new technologies this will only get worse until those countries become obsolete and forgotten.
However there are already several movements dedicated to preventing that from happening. There are many non-profit organizations out there that donate time, money, durable laptops, and education to help bridge the digital divide.
Then there is Virgin Media who is using ferrets to bridge the digital divide in London. They have dressed the ferrets in jackets embedded with microchips that are able to detect and analyze damaged underground broadband cables. According to an article on Telegraph.co.uk.
They quoted the London branch of Virgin Media’s director of broadband, Jon James as saying, "For hundreds of years, ferrets have helped humans in various jobs. Our decision to use them is due to their strong nesting instinct, their long, lean build and inquisitive nature, and for their ability to get down holes. We initially kept the trial low-key as we wanted to assess how well the ferrets fitted into our operations before revealing this enterprising scheme."
How could this help bridge the digital divide? Well the ferrets are able to provide access to places that were previously considered inaccessible. This is allowing Virgin to lay cables in places that they otherwise would not have, like the rural areas in London.
The article informs us that “The government [of England] has set a target of universal broadband access of 2Mbps by 2012.” With the unconventional approach of Virgin this goal is made even more possible.
Just imagine if this kind of success creativity where applied globally? We could use non-invasive species in other countries that have large rural areas, or where the cities are fairly far apart, to provide internet to thousands more people.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Podcast: Net Neutrality
Check out my podcast!
Net Neutrality
For more information on net neutrality check out:
SavetheInternet
Video that helped me grasp the concepts
The monster's home page
Net Neutrality
For more information on net neutrality check out:
SavetheInternet
Video that helped me grasp the concepts
The monster's home page
Sunday, September 26, 2010
COM 305 Blog Post #1
Who are we portraying ourselves to be online? Some articles suggest that we present who we want to be, others that we present who we are. While both are probably true in some sense, how we appear on the internet is something we need to think about.
Online Identity has become such a crucial part of our everyday lives that there are now two movies about it. The movie “The Social Network” is a documentary about the Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook.
It refers to him as a socially inept nerd who found home in the anonymity of the internet in the early days. This isn’t entirely kind, though somewhat accurate. Who retreated to the web in the early days for friends? Who still does? The people who want to find someone who likes them for them, not for how they look, or act hid behind anonymity and being able to choose who was in their virtual social circle. The article suggest that Social Networking could only have been created by someone who needs a way to remove themselves from a social setting to communicate effectively.
The thing about social networking sites is that they give us a chance to edit and manipulate our ascribed identity in ways that we can’t in face-to-face communication. By being able to control out ascribed identity more, we are able to build a better reflexive identity.
The article linked to above claims that Facebook inevitably makes you expose your true self. The second movie is about a housewife who pretends to be her daughter online, but still expresses characteristics about herself without meaning to.
Social networking has removed us from the eyes of the people who judge us. We are able to stand back and be who we are with typically positive feedback. The negative feedback is usually only given by people who are able to hide behind anonymity.
Where forums exist on the premise of a screenname that allows individuals to feel removed from there actions, major social networking sites like Facebook forces it’s user to have some accountability.
Facebook users are able to select who can see selected posts, who can call them a friend, can whose status they see. It allows us to be ourselves by removing all factors that make us comfortable. We feel safe staring at a screen getting positive feedback all day about who we are and who we want to be.
Online Identity has become such a crucial part of our everyday lives that there are now two movies about it. The movie “The Social Network” is a documentary about the Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook.
It refers to him as a socially inept nerd who found home in the anonymity of the internet in the early days. This isn’t entirely kind, though somewhat accurate. Who retreated to the web in the early days for friends? Who still does? The people who want to find someone who likes them for them, not for how they look, or act hid behind anonymity and being able to choose who was in their virtual social circle. The article suggest that Social Networking could only have been created by someone who needs a way to remove themselves from a social setting to communicate effectively.
The thing about social networking sites is that they give us a chance to edit and manipulate our ascribed identity in ways that we can’t in face-to-face communication. By being able to control out ascribed identity more, we are able to build a better reflexive identity.
The article linked to above claims that Facebook inevitably makes you expose your true self. The second movie is about a housewife who pretends to be her daughter online, but still expresses characteristics about herself without meaning to.
Social networking has removed us from the eyes of the people who judge us. We are able to stand back and be who we are with typically positive feedback. The negative feedback is usually only given by people who are able to hide behind anonymity.
Where forums exist on the premise of a screenname that allows individuals to feel removed from there actions, major social networking sites like Facebook forces it’s user to have some accountability.
Facebook users are able to select who can see selected posts, who can call them a friend, can whose status they see. It allows us to be ourselves by removing all factors that make us comfortable. We feel safe staring at a screen getting positive feedback all day about who we are and who we want to be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)