Here is my Podcast for Copyright in the Digital Age:
Podcast 2
Posted using ShareThis
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Blog 4- Online Privacy
Online privacy is not a new topic in the digital world, but it is becoming more and more prevalent in the recent years. Social media is growing, and reliance on the Internet seems to be irreversible at times. We as Internet users will put almost anything online, and it is starting to come back to kick us in the face[book].
In the article Technology Coalition Seeks Stronger Privacy Laws by Miguel Helft, he shows that privacy concerns are not just against hackers, but our own government.
We are so quick to trust the ways of the Internet and we think the chances of something targeting us in the vast network are incredibly slim. We assume we will remain safe and private, and will defend that idea faithfully. Yet, even if we do claim a website is not helping us protect our privacy, the number of users does not seem to change dramatically. How much do we really care if we are not taking an active stance against it? I have gotten many spam messages from friends on Facebook who did not personally send them, but not one of them has called it quits and deactivated their account because of this violation.
Some companies feel like they are securing their documents by allowing the file to be online. Instead of only have one or two paper copies that could be lost or damaged, they can have it stored on the web where multiple copies can be made. Personal documents, however, are easier now than ever to find, whether it be by the company or a hacker. It may actually be trickier now to steal paper copies than to hack a network.
What is interesting about this article is that it discusses protecting these company documents not from household hackers, but government authorities. The group known as the Digital Due Process coalition wants to ensure these law enforcements agencies have to obtain a search warrant before they can access a person’s email or any electronic document that would have been published on sites like Google and Facebook.
On the other end of the spectrum, as stated in the article, AT&T is facing a lawsuit for helping the National Security Agency monitor their customer’s private conversation. Where is the line drawn between safety, privacy and paranoia? If they were truly helping to keep our nation safe by sacrificing the privacy of others, we cannot scold them.
When everything comes together, the source of all the privacy issues starts with us. We as social media users, or companies, hope that the sites are secure, and that our identity will be protected. We published every piece of information that is on these sites for others to see. How can we complain that we are losing privacy when we are the source of the issue first place? We know by now that whatever is placed on the Internet never truly goes away, and that an innumerable amount of people can gain access to it. The issue is that we want to be in control of our own data, and the second someone sees it that is not supposed to, we claim our privacy is violated because we are not in control anymore.
In the article Technology Coalition Seeks Stronger Privacy Laws by Miguel Helft, he shows that privacy concerns are not just against hackers, but our own government.
We are so quick to trust the ways of the Internet and we think the chances of something targeting us in the vast network are incredibly slim. We assume we will remain safe and private, and will defend that idea faithfully. Yet, even if we do claim a website is not helping us protect our privacy, the number of users does not seem to change dramatically. How much do we really care if we are not taking an active stance against it? I have gotten many spam messages from friends on Facebook who did not personally send them, but not one of them has called it quits and deactivated their account because of this violation.
Some companies feel like they are securing their documents by allowing the file to be online. Instead of only have one or two paper copies that could be lost or damaged, they can have it stored on the web where multiple copies can be made. Personal documents, however, are easier now than ever to find, whether it be by the company or a hacker. It may actually be trickier now to steal paper copies than to hack a network.
What is interesting about this article is that it discusses protecting these company documents not from household hackers, but government authorities. The group known as the Digital Due Process coalition wants to ensure these law enforcements agencies have to obtain a search warrant before they can access a person’s email or any electronic document that would have been published on sites like Google and Facebook.
On the other end of the spectrum, as stated in the article, AT&T is facing a lawsuit for helping the National Security Agency monitor their customer’s private conversation. Where is the line drawn between safety, privacy and paranoia? If they were truly helping to keep our nation safe by sacrificing the privacy of others, we cannot scold them.
When everything comes together, the source of all the privacy issues starts with us. We as social media users, or companies, hope that the sites are secure, and that our identity will be protected. We published every piece of information that is on these sites for others to see. How can we complain that we are losing privacy when we are the source of the issue first place? We know by now that whatever is placed on the Internet never truly goes away, and that an innumerable amount of people can gain access to it. The issue is that we want to be in control of our own data, and the second someone sees it that is not supposed to, we claim our privacy is violated because we are not in control anymore.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Blog 3- Digital Conflict
All week, I have been hearing about the Google vs. China debate on CNN. While watching, I thought it was interesting, but I did not give it much thought until I considered applying it to cyber warfare or digital conflict in general. I did some further research and did not need to look too far to find this article, entitled "China Accuses U.S. of Cyber Warfare", written by Kim Zetter of Wired.Com. The content of the article sparked some thought on how the Internet is regarded globally, and the influence of the American search engine, Google. What is being censored? The right to use the Internet, or the right to express oneself on the Internet? The Internet has provided a new way for people to have a voice, and it has sparked some digital conflict in modern societies.
I use Google as my search engine, because I feel it gives me all the information it can for me to use. After using it for so long, it is now just habit. I never thought about the restrictions that would be placed on a search engine in a regulated Internet. Sure, certain sites would be blocked, but I never considered how Google would be used in a place like China, and that they would need to censor what search results are provided.
As stated in the article, the U.S. Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, said the use of the Internet is a global basic human right. But who has the authority to claim what is a “basic human right” and what is not? What we as Americans believe should be a right of all citizens is not always going to transfer to other countries.
So how does that censorship apply to social media used around the world? It is complicated to block specific content placed on social media sites without banning the site entirely. Zetter addresses the influence of Twitter in Iran, and that proves how social media is a growing trend in not just the American and European societies. Twitter has been an outlet for Iranian protestors, and it is clearly a powerful tool if the U.S. State Department is asking Twitter to change their maintenance schedule to allow this open expression. In smaller societies, perhaps social media are even more essential and powerful when trying to get a message across because the other outlets are more regulated.
The Internet itself may not always be seen as a basic human right, but when the Internet is a primary tool in allowing citizens of any country to express themselves in ways they could not if using other media, perhaps blocking it really is going against a basic human right (as claimed by Americans and so many others). Google’s disagreement with China's censorship may be based upon the foundations of the American freedom of expression, rather than the foundations of the Internet.
I use Google as my search engine, because I feel it gives me all the information it can for me to use. After using it for so long, it is now just habit. I never thought about the restrictions that would be placed on a search engine in a regulated Internet. Sure, certain sites would be blocked, but I never considered how Google would be used in a place like China, and that they would need to censor what search results are provided.
As stated in the article, the U.S. Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, said the use of the Internet is a global basic human right. But who has the authority to claim what is a “basic human right” and what is not? What we as Americans believe should be a right of all citizens is not always going to transfer to other countries.
So how does that censorship apply to social media used around the world? It is complicated to block specific content placed on social media sites without banning the site entirely. Zetter addresses the influence of Twitter in Iran, and that proves how social media is a growing trend in not just the American and European societies. Twitter has been an outlet for Iranian protestors, and it is clearly a powerful tool if the U.S. State Department is asking Twitter to change their maintenance schedule to allow this open expression. In smaller societies, perhaps social media are even more essential and powerful when trying to get a message across because the other outlets are more regulated.
The Internet itself may not always be seen as a basic human right, but when the Internet is a primary tool in allowing citizens of any country to express themselves in ways they could not if using other media, perhaps blocking it really is going against a basic human right (as claimed by Americans and so many others). Google’s disagreement with China's censorship may be based upon the foundations of the American freedom of expression, rather than the foundations of the Internet.
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Digital Divide and Major Telecom Companies
The digital divide is a topic that has been highly debated for many years, especially since the new millennium. Many believe that closing the digital gap will help unite the world in it’s technology use and will open many windows for its growth. The issue of broadband Internet seems to be at the center of the debate. When major companies such as Verizon and Comcast threaten to increase their price for Internet services, it only widens the chasm of the digital divide.
In Malkia Cyril’s article titled, A New Civil Rights Mandate: Champion Open Networks to Close the Digital Divide, Cyril agues that when these already profitable telecom companies charge more for their services, it excludes the lower working class, and those of color. Cyril argues for civil equality, which is essentially the core of the digital divide. Everyone should have the same opportunities as the next when it regards technological use and growth. Lesser-developed and lower income communities, as claimed in this article, are unfairly treated when it comes to broadband Internet.
Interestingly, Cyril addresses the threat of net neutrality and its effect on the digital divide. Although the debate over regulation of the Internet is only a small portion of the technology spectrum of the digital divide issue, the two are in fact closely related. If big Internet service providers start to charge for more advanced services, it starts to signal out those who are not as economically fortunate, which adds another crack in the digital divide. The issue is even more pronounced when companies such as Verizon and Comcast have had large profits in the past.
As stated in the article, people mostly use the Internet for non-commercial purposes, so it seems ironic that these providers would charge so much. What exactly are we, as users, paying for? Communication? We can communicate for free in one way or another, so why should we pay so that more when the foundation of it has been traditionally free. Obviously, there are reasons to pay for the service, but we defiantly should not be paying for the act and right to communicate.
However, regarding the severity of the digital divide, this article acts like the only people who are left behind are the lower class and people of color, which is not the case. Increased fees affect everyone, not just these groups of people. There are more demographics that feel the financial pressure around the United States and the world.
Cyril states that “we know that digital inclusion and closing the digital divide is only possible with affordable, accessible, and open high speed networks” but that is easier said than done. In reality, these services are never going to be free. Because of that, it is always going to be too expensive for someone, and it will never be fast enough to please everyone.
Malkia Cyril’s article is occasionally one-sided, but it solidifies the important role big telecom companies play in closing the digital divide. Influencing those of lower income and color, their prices combined with net neutrality can have a profound impact on the future of technological equality in the United States and around the globe.
In Malkia Cyril’s article titled, A New Civil Rights Mandate: Champion Open Networks to Close the Digital Divide, Cyril agues that when these already profitable telecom companies charge more for their services, it excludes the lower working class, and those of color. Cyril argues for civil equality, which is essentially the core of the digital divide. Everyone should have the same opportunities as the next when it regards technological use and growth. Lesser-developed and lower income communities, as claimed in this article, are unfairly treated when it comes to broadband Internet.
Interestingly, Cyril addresses the threat of net neutrality and its effect on the digital divide. Although the debate over regulation of the Internet is only a small portion of the technology spectrum of the digital divide issue, the two are in fact closely related. If big Internet service providers start to charge for more advanced services, it starts to signal out those who are not as economically fortunate, which adds another crack in the digital divide. The issue is even more pronounced when companies such as Verizon and Comcast have had large profits in the past.
As stated in the article, people mostly use the Internet for non-commercial purposes, so it seems ironic that these providers would charge so much. What exactly are we, as users, paying for? Communication? We can communicate for free in one way or another, so why should we pay so that more when the foundation of it has been traditionally free. Obviously, there are reasons to pay for the service, but we defiantly should not be paying for the act and right to communicate.
However, regarding the severity of the digital divide, this article acts like the only people who are left behind are the lower class and people of color, which is not the case. Increased fees affect everyone, not just these groups of people. There are more demographics that feel the financial pressure around the United States and the world.
Cyril states that “we know that digital inclusion and closing the digital divide is only possible with affordable, accessible, and open high speed networks” but that is easier said than done. In reality, these services are never going to be free. Because of that, it is always going to be too expensive for someone, and it will never be fast enough to please everyone.
Malkia Cyril’s article is occasionally one-sided, but it solidifies the important role big telecom companies play in closing the digital divide. Influencing those of lower income and color, their prices combined with net neutrality can have a profound impact on the future of technological equality in the United States and around the globe.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Online Identity- Social Network Suicide
When the act of deleting online user profiles is compared to suicide, we know the line between online identity and reality is becoming blurred. In the article “Facebook blocks online identity deletion sites,” new programs are discussed that promise to help social network users “commit social network suicide” by deleting online information. Instead of deleting entire profiles, it will “change passwords, pictures and delete[s] ‘friend’ connections.” Not only does it help the user commit viral suicide but it puts up a complimentary “memorial” page which includes the users final thoughts. One of these sites, Web 2.0 Suicide Machines, is in an ethical battle with Facebook. Does Facebook own the user’s information, or does the user?
The terms Web 2.0 uses to describe their service is particularly noteworthy. The term “suicide” usually has negative connotations, and is not taken lightly. It also does not usually apply to non-living things. However, because it is now being used to express the deletion of online identities, the word has less serious consequences. Society has somehow gotten to the point where we think that deleting our online identity is somehow related to deleting ourselves or a dimension of ourselves. It is becoming apparent in today’s society that we make light of the things we see online. We become very involved in these social networks and we can disconnect ourselves from reality and create new ones. Society emerges into the online world we all seem to so desperately cling to.
Facebook also argues the ethics of sites like Web 2.0, because they have established a sound statement that promises Facebook will not give away any passwords nor do they encourage sharing passwords. Web 2.0 rehashed, saying password secrecy is up to the user, which brings up the question of who owns the user’s online identity. Does it belong to the website that houses and stores it, or is it the property of the people who posted the data in the first place? While Facebook is claiming ownership of these online identities, Web 2.0 says the rights are with the people. This proves that these identities and their legal ties are questionable, because so many can claim its possession. In the future, who can claim ownership when all of these Facebook users have stopped using the network and forgotten about their profiles? The information is still out there for anyone to access. The question of who owns what on the Internet is a long battle that seems to just be getting messier. Not only does this apply to social networks, but file sharing as well.
Websites that offer these social network suicides must have been created from people wanting these services for their online identity. Did these users want their online identities deleted because they no longer want their lives at anyone’s disposal, or did they just want to move onto another social network with a fresh start and a new online identity? It is a bit of both. People are always looking for the newest and most popular way to express themselves, and to connect with other people. It is very easy to start fresh, which is why people want to delete their old information. However, as it becomes more prevalent that anyone can access anything placed on the web, people are beginning to protect their identity and keep it separate from their actual lives.
That brings the notion of online identity full circle. There are many instances of online identities becoming more distant from people’s real personalities, but it does not necessarily make them any less “real”. That is why websites such as Web 2.0 Suicide Machines have a noose on the homepage and offer and out from social networks. We all know it is not actual suicide, but it is getting close enough that we can make a pun of the word. It is like a viral version of a relocation program: it may not be a popular fad yet, but these sites do offer the opportunity to start fresh, and allow us to be anyone we could want.
The terms Web 2.0 uses to describe their service is particularly noteworthy. The term “suicide” usually has negative connotations, and is not taken lightly. It also does not usually apply to non-living things. However, because it is now being used to express the deletion of online identities, the word has less serious consequences. Society has somehow gotten to the point where we think that deleting our online identity is somehow related to deleting ourselves or a dimension of ourselves. It is becoming apparent in today’s society that we make light of the things we see online. We become very involved in these social networks and we can disconnect ourselves from reality and create new ones. Society emerges into the online world we all seem to so desperately cling to.
Facebook also argues the ethics of sites like Web 2.0, because they have established a sound statement that promises Facebook will not give away any passwords nor do they encourage sharing passwords. Web 2.0 rehashed, saying password secrecy is up to the user, which brings up the question of who owns the user’s online identity. Does it belong to the website that houses and stores it, or is it the property of the people who posted the data in the first place? While Facebook is claiming ownership of these online identities, Web 2.0 says the rights are with the people. This proves that these identities and their legal ties are questionable, because so many can claim its possession. In the future, who can claim ownership when all of these Facebook users have stopped using the network and forgotten about their profiles? The information is still out there for anyone to access. The question of who owns what on the Internet is a long battle that seems to just be getting messier. Not only does this apply to social networks, but file sharing as well.
Websites that offer these social network suicides must have been created from people wanting these services for their online identity. Did these users want their online identities deleted because they no longer want their lives at anyone’s disposal, or did they just want to move onto another social network with a fresh start and a new online identity? It is a bit of both. People are always looking for the newest and most popular way to express themselves, and to connect with other people. It is very easy to start fresh, which is why people want to delete their old information. However, as it becomes more prevalent that anyone can access anything placed on the web, people are beginning to protect their identity and keep it separate from their actual lives.
That brings the notion of online identity full circle. There are many instances of online identities becoming more distant from people’s real personalities, but it does not necessarily make them any less “real”. That is why websites such as Web 2.0 Suicide Machines have a noose on the homepage and offer and out from social networks. We all know it is not actual suicide, but it is getting close enough that we can make a pun of the word. It is like a viral version of a relocation program: it may not be a popular fad yet, but these sites do offer the opportunity to start fresh, and allow us to be anyone we could want.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
