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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)