As we move further into this new internet , and web 2.0 (and web 3.0 awesomeness) we will continue to wrestle with the issues discussed in this blog; privacy, safety, and Identity. There is new legislation that is emerging to protect us (as consumers or just as members of the public), however, most of it seems to be aimed at protecting kids from predators and bullies. Not an inherently bad idea, but as i said in my last post, we have to careful about maintaining our first amendment rights.
New legislation is also emerging that would help people protect their privacy online. lets be honest though; most of this new "lack of privacy"(those are meant to be like finger quotes by the way) is caused by individuals voluntarily posting their pictures and information. I therefore don't see why we should impair a business' ability to engage in new forms of advertising that aren't really posing that big of a threat to us, or to stifle a new multi-billion dollar industry (data mining), especially when our economy sucks this bad already.
One of the biggest concerns I have, and probably you too (especially if you're a college student) is pictures on Facebook, and future employers. Our lack of privacy online could easily lead to missed job opportunities. This too, however, might solve itself eventually. As more and more people have Facebooks and other social networking accounts these things might become so ubiquitous as to no longer be a problem, but just a normal part of life for everyone.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Counter Argument!!!
In a Blog post on CNET.com (a news blog) titled "A Rallying Cry Against Cyber Bullying" the authors are supporting proposed legislative action to make Cyber Bullying a crime (or at least more easily prosecuted- as it is often a criminal act).
My problem with this in not whether bullying is right or wrong in any form: it isn't. My issue is that overall we might be over reacting. This doesn't mean that we might not need new legislation to address this new problem (or at least its new location, or format if you will); of course we do. Laws have to change with society, if they didn't witchcraft would still be punishable. When I say overreacting, I mean that because all of the stories we hear about cyber bullying are tragic (they are usually about kids who have killed themselves as a result) that we might be jumping to support overreaching legislation that is aimed at what is probably (all be it unfortunately) a normal childhood behavior moving into a new medium.
For example; a friend of mine (an adult, in her 20's) was arrested for calling someone a bitch on Myspace. The police said it was Cyber stalking (the comment was on her own Myspace page by the way). To my knowledge it isn't illegal to call someone a bitch to their face, but because of the medium used this was considered a crime, which landed her community service and a trip to jail. This is kind of problem I see with this type of legislation aimed at cyber behavior. It may be difficult to strike a balance between safety and protecting our First Amendment rights.
My problem with this in not whether bullying is right or wrong in any form: it isn't. My issue is that overall we might be over reacting. This doesn't mean that we might not need new legislation to address this new problem (or at least its new location, or format if you will); of course we do. Laws have to change with society, if they didn't witchcraft would still be punishable. When I say overreacting, I mean that because all of the stories we hear about cyber bullying are tragic (they are usually about kids who have killed themselves as a result) that we might be jumping to support overreaching legislation that is aimed at what is probably (all be it unfortunately) a normal childhood behavior moving into a new medium.
For example; a friend of mine (an adult, in her 20's) was arrested for calling someone a bitch on Myspace. The police said it was Cyber stalking (the comment was on her own Myspace page by the way). To my knowledge it isn't illegal to call someone a bitch to their face, but because of the medium used this was considered a crime, which landed her community service and a trip to jail. This is kind of problem I see with this type of legislation aimed at cyber behavior. It may be difficult to strike a balance between safety and protecting our First Amendment rights.
Protecting the Kids!!
Building on the previous post, Visual Rhetoric. How do parents protect their kids while they're online, and what are the issues they are most concerned with?
Let's start by talking about a few of the things parents are most worried about. Specifically those things that can be controlled by tools (that is to say not things like cyber-bullying that require human action); that leaves pornography, violent media, and communication with pervs.
As far protecting kids from online predators, the best thing is to talk to kids, but other than that the use of software that is designed to keep kids out of places where they might be targets is your best bet. Software like Microsoft's Windows 7 parental controls has safety measures built in, where settings can personalized to fit a family's needs. The same tools can be used to keep kids safe from pornography, and violent media, but these two problems are so pervasive that even the best tools need to restrict access to the point rendering it useless.
So on to the most significant problem: pornography. Here's some statistics. 12 percent of all sites on the web are pornographic, and 35 percent of all downloads are for porn. On average a child's first exposure to porn is age 11, and the largest consumer demographic group for porn is the 12-17 year old age group, and 90 percent of 8-16 year olds have viewed pornography (most while doing homework). These are some pretty shocking statistics, but the use of firewall software can help stop most of the unintended viewings.
Let's start by talking about a few of the things parents are most worried about. Specifically those things that can be controlled by tools (that is to say not things like cyber-bullying that require human action); that leaves pornography, violent media, and communication with pervs.
As far protecting kids from online predators, the best thing is to talk to kids, but other than that the use of software that is designed to keep kids out of places where they might be targets is your best bet. Software like Microsoft's Windows 7 parental controls has safety measures built in, where settings can personalized to fit a family's needs. The same tools can be used to keep kids safe from pornography, and violent media, but these two problems are so pervasive that even the best tools need to restrict access to the point rendering it useless.
So on to the most significant problem: pornography. Here's some statistics. 12 percent of all sites on the web are pornographic, and 35 percent of all downloads are for porn. On average a child's first exposure to porn is age 11, and the largest consumer demographic group for porn is the 12-17 year old age group, and 90 percent of 8-16 year olds have viewed pornography (most while doing homework). These are some pretty shocking statistics, but the use of firewall software can help stop most of the unintended viewings.
Visual Rhetoric!!!
By situating the old man on the floor, amidst a pile of remote controls, the illustrator is demonstrating the older generations inability to use even simple technology, much less a computer, thereby emphasizing the hopelessness that many parents feel. This concept is further demonstrated by the text box above the Old Man, which says "... that's like asking cavemen to monitor the 20th century's use of the wheel!"
The old woman is holding a news paper, or magazine, the back of which reads "You Tube: Kids Access Violent Videos" which highlights one of parents key concerns about what their kids are doing, which is accessing violent content. It also illustrates the different ways in which different generations receive information.
Overall the tone of the cartoon resembles The Farside, which is another format that older people are usually familiar with and adds to the comic appeal of the cartoon. By drawing the Parents as "old people" the author reinforces the idea that the parents inability to use technology makes them feel old.
What's Next For Online Privacy??
On Friday, April 15, President Obama unveiled a new government proposal/request for how the private sector could and should move to create a more secure environment for online consumers (that's us). This Proposal, The National Strategy For Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, is the White House's blueprint for a solution to growing problem of internet insecurity (with regards to identity theft and fraud).
Essentially what the Proposal is calling for, is for businesses (the private sector) to offer, as a service, the creation and management of a consumer's (that's you and me) online identity. We would therefore provide our information to this "company," and they would, by some- as of yet- undetermined means, communicate with whatever online service we wanted to use, to verify our identity with much greater accuracy than is possible now, for example, by asking you for your mother's maiden name or the name of your fist pet.
The creation of what the White House is calling an "Identity Ecosystem," would mean that we (the consumers) would only need to manage one personal identity for all of our online activities (or at least those we want to use it for). That means no more managing dozens of accounts with different user names and passwords, not to mention the added security, because now your login password isn't what says you are you, the digital fingerprint it carries with it (created by the hypothetical company we now employ) is what verifies our identity. I'm not saying this is a fix all for identity theft, but it will most definitely put a dent in it.
Essentially what the Proposal is calling for, is for businesses (the private sector) to offer, as a service, the creation and management of a consumer's (that's you and me) online identity. We would therefore provide our information to this "company," and they would, by some- as of yet- undetermined means, communicate with whatever online service we wanted to use, to verify our identity with much greater accuracy than is possible now, for example, by asking you for your mother's maiden name or the name of your fist pet.
The creation of what the White House is calling an "Identity Ecosystem," would mean that we (the consumers) would only need to manage one personal identity for all of our online activities (or at least those we want to use it for). That means no more managing dozens of accounts with different user names and passwords, not to mention the added security, because now your login password isn't what says you are you, the digital fingerprint it carries with it (created by the hypothetical company we now employ) is what verifies our identity. I'm not saying this is a fix all for identity theft, but it will most definitely put a dent in it.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Welcome To King Burger, Can I Take Your Order???
There's a big concern these days, especially amongst college students, about how the use of social networking sites like facebook, myspace, and blogger, will affect a users ability to get a job, or maintain a job: we've all seen stories in the media about people who have been fired for the content of their Facebook page or their Blog. For younger kids (I mean high school and on down mostly) the concerns of a career search seem far removed from the more immediate concern of fitting in, and certainly the same can be said about many college students (even me). For many college students, who are the main users of Facebook (and its intended audience), those concerns are less distant, especially when the student hits junior year and realizes "oh crap... i'll need to start job hunting in a few MONTHS." The student can then find themselves in a panicked race to erase any negative online presence that they may not wish for an employer to see.
Why are employers so worried about peoples Facebooks, and blogs? The answer to that has a few different parts. One is that employers want to look to gauge what kind of person you are, and if your even worth the interview (hint: if your FB has pictures of you smoking a j and trying to blow smoke rings, you're not worth the interview); for example, if your blog contains extremely left wing political comments, then you might not be right for a job at Fox News. Another would be to see whether or not your an idiot (by idiot i mean someone who is less capable of doing a good job, because they just don't get the proverbial it). An employer assumes that you know they might look at your Facebook, therefor if you didn't take the time, or care to make sure it was presentable then you are an idiot, and not someone to hire. Which brings to the moral of the story: If you don't want your boss (or future boss to see it) then don't put out there in the first place, and if you did then take it down (NOW)!
Why are employers so worried about peoples Facebooks, and blogs? The answer to that has a few different parts. One is that employers want to look to gauge what kind of person you are, and if your even worth the interview (hint: if your FB has pictures of you smoking a j and trying to blow smoke rings, you're not worth the interview); for example, if your blog contains extremely left wing political comments, then you might not be right for a job at Fox News. Another would be to see whether or not your an idiot (by idiot i mean someone who is less capable of doing a good job, because they just don't get the proverbial it). An employer assumes that you know they might look at your Facebook, therefor if you didn't take the time, or care to make sure it was presentable then you are an idiot, and not someone to hire. Which brings to the moral of the story: If you don't want your boss (or future boss to see it) then don't put out there in the first place, and if you did then take it down (NOW)!
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Traditionally the U.S. government has taken a very hands off approach with regards to the internet and privacy, with their actions largely being limited to issues concerning children under the age of thirteen, hoping not to stifle new innovations that would jeopardize the U.S.'s ability to dominate the technology market (such dominance has provided huge prosperity for us). However, as the technologies progress so too do the risks to our privacy, and it's no secret that data mining is becoming an increasingly profitable business, as well as an increasingly invasive one.
For some time there has been a need for the government to step up and and at least enact some basic privacy protection laws to regulate the trade in information about internet users online behavior. These laws/standards don't need to be so overbearing that they might stifle innovation, but they should provide a standard of what is and is not acceptable behavior (on the part data miners), and provide some system (like SEC) to ensure that companies are following the rules. Some politicians and personalities, mostly right wingers who are concerned with growing government power (and some on the left concerned with regulation of freedoms of speech) have opposed internet regulation. The simple fact of the matter is that whether you agree or disagree with regulations, there is nothing you can do (unless you posses considerable computer skills or specialized software) to completely protect your privacy because most of the decisions about it aren't made by you, but by companies outside of your control (you probably don't even know they exists). And lets face it; if it comes down to choosing between your privacy or money in the bank most executives are choosing a new Ferrari, and what's to stop them you don't even know they're doing it (answer= nothing).
Its not all bad news though. The Obama administration has taken that important first step in calling for this new type of regulation, which would include an "internet users bill of rights." Their plans, which have apparently taken a back seat to the recession (and anything else), would include passing basic privacy laws, and establishing a watchdog office to ensure that regulations are being followed, and even the possible required installation of a do-not-track feature on browsers.
For some time there has been a need for the government to step up and and at least enact some basic privacy protection laws to regulate the trade in information about internet users online behavior. These laws/standards don't need to be so overbearing that they might stifle innovation, but they should provide a standard of what is and is not acceptable behavior (on the part data miners), and provide some system (like SEC) to ensure that companies are following the rules. Some politicians and personalities, mostly right wingers who are concerned with growing government power (and some on the left concerned with regulation of freedoms of speech) have opposed internet regulation. The simple fact of the matter is that whether you agree or disagree with regulations, there is nothing you can do (unless you posses considerable computer skills or specialized software) to completely protect your privacy because most of the decisions about it aren't made by you, but by companies outside of your control (you probably don't even know they exists). And lets face it; if it comes down to choosing between your privacy or money in the bank most executives are choosing a new Ferrari, and what's to stop them you don't even know they're doing it (answer= nothing).
Its not all bad news though. The Obama administration has taken that important first step in calling for this new type of regulation, which would include an "internet users bill of rights." Their plans, which have apparently taken a back seat to the recession (and anything else), would include passing basic privacy laws, and establishing a watchdog office to ensure that regulations are being followed, and even the possible required installation of a do-not-track feature on browsers.
Who's That Creepin In My Window????
How do companies get information about our online activities, and what are they doing with it?
The primary way in which a company gathers data about your online activity is by using a bit of software called a "cookie" which is automatically inserted on your computer by your browser when you visit a site. Don't freak out yet. Cookies are arguably the most important component of internet browsing after the browser itself. There are thousands of different cookies out there and they are used for a variety of reasons ranging from storing your password on Gmail, and keeping track of what's in your shopping cart on overstock.com to tracking your purchases for advertising and marketing purposes, as well as occasionally acting as spyware and stealing your banking info. So before we condemn cookies as the evil tools of giant corporations it is important to state that without cookies the internet would pretty much suck, as cookie technology is basically what makes function. However, for all the benefits of using cookie technology, there is downside. There are literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of companies using this technology to compile massive amounts of information about us and our online behavior, and then selling that information for a profit.
Why do they want this info? In most cases it's just companies who want to sell you stuff, or simply to keep track of what parts of their website are the most popular. And as long as there is a market for this type of info, information companies will want to collect it so that they can sell it to the marketers who will use it.
On any given website, with the exception of a few highly secure and privacy oriented ones (www.cia.gov for example), there are tacking cookies examining and storing the details of your online behavior, and there is no rule (in the u.s.) saying that the information collected has to be protected other than a companies desire to protect profits (also much of this information is personally identifiable). For example: I just visited walmart.com and was tracked by four different companies employed by walmart to provide them with intelligence about customers online shopping behavior, preferences, and ease of use (info from Ghostery.com).
These practices don't necessarily constitute invasive behavior on the part of companies who use these tools, but they do provide a reason for concern. The massive amounts of data gathered by these companies may never really go away, and that fact will always carry with it concerns about potential surreptitious uses.
The primary way in which a company gathers data about your online activity is by using a bit of software called a "cookie" which is automatically inserted on your computer by your browser when you visit a site. Don't freak out yet. Cookies are arguably the most important component of internet browsing after the browser itself. There are thousands of different cookies out there and they are used for a variety of reasons ranging from storing your password on Gmail, and keeping track of what's in your shopping cart on overstock.com to tracking your purchases for advertising and marketing purposes, as well as occasionally acting as spyware and stealing your banking info. So before we condemn cookies as the evil tools of giant corporations it is important to state that without cookies the internet would pretty much suck, as cookie technology is basically what makes function. However, for all the benefits of using cookie technology, there is downside. There are literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of companies using this technology to compile massive amounts of information about us and our online behavior, and then selling that information for a profit.
Why do they want this info? In most cases it's just companies who want to sell you stuff, or simply to keep track of what parts of their website are the most popular. And as long as there is a market for this type of info, information companies will want to collect it so that they can sell it to the marketers who will use it.
On any given website, with the exception of a few highly secure and privacy oriented ones (www.cia.gov for example), there are tacking cookies examining and storing the details of your online behavior, and there is no rule (in the u.s.) saying that the information collected has to be protected other than a companies desire to protect profits (also much of this information is personally identifiable). For example: I just visited walmart.com and was tracked by four different companies employed by walmart to provide them with intelligence about customers online shopping behavior, preferences, and ease of use (info from Ghostery.com).
These practices don't necessarily constitute invasive behavior on the part of companies who use these tools, but they do provide a reason for concern. The massive amounts of data gathered by these companies may never really go away, and that fact will always carry with it concerns about potential surreptitious uses.
Privacy?
Do I really have a right to privacy on the internet, and if so, then where?
This isn't the first time we've had this debate. When video surveillance cameras began to gain popularity this debate was front and center. Many people found this new technology to be an egregious breach of their right to privacy; the idea of being watched constantly, and that the video was being stored made people uncomfortable. But as the debate found it's way into the courts it was eventually decided that in a public space like Wal-mart, or a connivence store, there was no breach of privacy because there is reasonable expectation of privacy in such a public space.
The real, fundamental question is... what is the difference between the internet and the so called "real space," and where might I have a reasonable expectation of privacy online?
To answer that, let me first say that there seems to be a tendency among people to think of the internet as some kind of pseudo-real space; that is to say that using the internet is fundamentally different than walking down the street to go to wal-mart. But is it really that different, and does the fact that I never left my house provide a reasonable expectation of privacy? The truth is it's a complicated issue, and I think the argument could go either way, but in most cases we probably do not have an inherent right to privacy on the internet just because we're on the internet. The reason we do not is because the internet is not a pseudo-real space, it's a very real space with addresses, property rights, and even physical space (even if it is located on hard drive). Why is going to walmart.com different from going to the walmart down the street. Walmart certainly keeps detailed records about how many people come to their stores and what they buy, and even who buys what; that type of information is immensely valuable to marketers, and is the reason that the whole data mining phenomena exists. I would say that just as walmart has the right to video tape you and to store information about your behavior in their "real space" stores, so do they also have the right to record and store information about you (or in this case your computer) and your behavior in their online space as well.
But collecting the information isn't the only thing happening, some companies also sell our information. In regards to this we may have a reason to expect privacy regardless of whether that information was gathered online or in "real space."
People need to adjust their perception of the internet, and cyberspace in general. The idea that i have a right to privacy just because my physical person never left the house (a place where you certainly do have a reasonable expectation of privacy) is foolish one. The internet is always a public space (because the internet is nothing but a system of INTERCONNECTED computers). Our online activities are no more private than our offline activities, they are just easier to track.
This isn't the first time we've had this debate. When video surveillance cameras began to gain popularity this debate was front and center. Many people found this new technology to be an egregious breach of their right to privacy; the idea of being watched constantly, and that the video was being stored made people uncomfortable. But as the debate found it's way into the courts it was eventually decided that in a public space like Wal-mart, or a connivence store, there was no breach of privacy because there is reasonable expectation of privacy in such a public space.
The real, fundamental question is... what is the difference between the internet and the so called "real space," and where might I have a reasonable expectation of privacy online?
To answer that, let me first say that there seems to be a tendency among people to think of the internet as some kind of pseudo-real space; that is to say that using the internet is fundamentally different than walking down the street to go to wal-mart. But is it really that different, and does the fact that I never left my house provide a reasonable expectation of privacy? The truth is it's a complicated issue, and I think the argument could go either way, but in most cases we probably do not have an inherent right to privacy on the internet just because we're on the internet. The reason we do not is because the internet is not a pseudo-real space, it's a very real space with addresses, property rights, and even physical space (even if it is located on hard drive). Why is going to walmart.com different from going to the walmart down the street. Walmart certainly keeps detailed records about how many people come to their stores and what they buy, and even who buys what; that type of information is immensely valuable to marketers, and is the reason that the whole data mining phenomena exists. I would say that just as walmart has the right to video tape you and to store information about your behavior in their "real space" stores, so do they also have the right to record and store information about you (or in this case your computer) and your behavior in their online space as well.
But collecting the information isn't the only thing happening, some companies also sell our information. In regards to this we may have a reason to expect privacy regardless of whether that information was gathered online or in "real space."
People need to adjust their perception of the internet, and cyberspace in general. The idea that i have a right to privacy just because my physical person never left the house (a place where you certainly do have a reasonable expectation of privacy) is foolish one. The internet is always a public space (because the internet is nothing but a system of INTERCONNECTED computers). Our online activities are no more private than our offline activities, they are just easier to track.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
What is Information Overload?
Today, thanks to the internet, we all have access to a staggering amount of information. In his book "Information Anxiety," Richard Saul Wurman says that "there has been more information produced in the last 30 years than in the previous 5000," and now because of search engines like google and, bing, all of this information is a mouse click away. All you need is google to experience information overload.
What is information overload?
Information Overload is a phrase coined by Alvin Toffler, and it refers to the difficulty of Interpreting and locating information because of the excessive amounts of information available. For example my account on Google Reader (a site that locates news articles) usually has as many as a few thousand unread items. If I took the time even to skim through all the article's headlines I would spend at least an hour, and wouldn't have learned anything for my time. If you google the words "information overload" you'll get more than 3 million hits, most of which are probably completely useless to you. My point is, is that there is so much information out there that it is becoming impossible to sort through, even the things that you subscribe to,and find desirable, useful information.
This increasingly large amount of information available online poses another problem as well. Can I trust the information I find on the internet?
The popularity of open source information websites like Wikipedia, and the quality of information they provide is a serious contemporary concern, not just relegated to the student or professional communities. I once used Wikipedia to find out if Tony Blair was eligible to run for another term only to find out that his full name was "Tony whoopty doo Blair." Wikipedia of course fixed the problem very quickly, but that is a good example of how wrong information can be easily found passing itself as truthful on the internet. With increasing popularity of blogs more and more potentially corrupted information is becoming readily available.
As the amount of information continues to grow we will find ourselves more frequently asking the question... can i trust this?
What is information overload?
Information Overload is a phrase coined by Alvin Toffler, and it refers to the difficulty of Interpreting and locating information because of the excessive amounts of information available. For example my account on Google Reader (a site that locates news articles) usually has as many as a few thousand unread items. If I took the time even to skim through all the article's headlines I would spend at least an hour, and wouldn't have learned anything for my time. If you google the words "information overload" you'll get more than 3 million hits, most of which are probably completely useless to you. My point is, is that there is so much information out there that it is becoming impossible to sort through, even the things that you subscribe to,and find desirable, useful information.
This increasingly large amount of information available online poses another problem as well. Can I trust the information I find on the internet?
The popularity of open source information websites like Wikipedia, and the quality of information they provide is a serious contemporary concern, not just relegated to the student or professional communities. I once used Wikipedia to find out if Tony Blair was eligible to run for another term only to find out that his full name was "Tony whoopty doo Blair." Wikipedia of course fixed the problem very quickly, but that is a good example of how wrong information can be easily found passing itself as truthful on the internet. With increasing popularity of blogs more and more potentially corrupted information is becoming readily available.
As the amount of information continues to grow we will find ourselves more frequently asking the question... can i trust this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)