Protecting Privacy: Education, Technology, and Markets

In GOF 2.5, Sarah Baase talks about ways to prevent the loss of privacy. First of all, people must be aware of the problems in technology; people need to understand the possibility of the misuse of information given out, and must be careful. There are also technologies that increase the security of databases, or large storehouses of information that have the possibility of being distributed. One of the hugest problems that people have to face is the possibility of losing privacy. Unfortunately, there are trade-offs in technology; sometimes we have to make sacrifices when we use certain technologies. For example, many Americans feel that having wires tapped is worth the safety that could come along with it, after the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center. Therefore, in order to live with today's technology, we all must make some sacrifices of privacy. The question is, is it too high a price to pay? Also, the accessability of information on the Internet means that people need to be more careful about what the put online, bu tisn't that a restiction of our rights to freedom of speech? Unfortunately, the government can't be trusted to regulate information online, because the government itself uses and abuses the information online. It looks like it's up to us, the citizens, to regulate what's online; but with big brother looking over our shoulder, is there a way to have complete freedom with what we can say and do (which is our right, as stated in the constitution)?

More Privacy Risks

In GOF 2.4, Sarah Baase talks about the insecurity of social security numbers. Social security numbers are used to identify us, and are therefore given to certain organizations, which use them to identify us. The fact that social security numbers are used for so much, a lot of valuable and personal information is associated with them. Whoever knows your social security number can gain access to a huge amount of information, pretty much everything about you. The possibility of someone unlawfully gaining access to one's social security number is a huge risk, resulting in fraud and invasion of privacy. In history, the government has even abused the use of social security numbers (or other uses of identification), including: Hitler, who used the information to determine religious affiliation, in order to track the non-Germans; and even the United States now, using identification to keep track of illegal immigrants. Today, the Internet, which is the ultimate source for the exchange of information, has also become very dangerous, because of the availability of information. If social security numbers, and other identifying resources, which hold our most personal information, are so insecure and are sometimes subject to flaws, what can we rely on to keep our private information safe?

Consumer Information: Databases and Marketing, and Credit Bureaus

GOF 2.3.1 and 2.3.3, by Sarah Baase, discusses information used by companies, and how this information could be used harmfully and/or not to the customer's knowledge. Marketers compile information about potential customers into databases, and send advertisements, or, as some consider it, "junk mail," to these potential buyers. Although advertisements to not cause serious harm, they can be inconvenient and annoying. Behind the inconvenience, though, is an even bigger problem. Marketers could have access to information about people (customers) that these people might not want other people to know about, and most probably is without the customer's knowledge. Also, credit bureaus, with their large storehouse of information form credit reports, have been known to distribute this information to marketers, which will in turn use the information to send advertisements to those more prone to spend, as judged by said credit reports. At first site, marketers and credit bureaus may seem harmless, if annoying; but behind this facade is a much deeper, more troubling problem, that could cause more harm than expected. It seems that any organization or business trusted with personal information can't, in fact, be trusted. Is there a way to prevent the leaking of information?

"Big Brother is Watching You"

In GOF 2.2, by Sarah Baase, the topic discussed is government access to personal information. Government access to personal information can be very helpful in catching persecutors and preventing crime, but Baase discusses some shocking, little-known facts about the government. For example, did you know that the FBI tracked the movements of thousands of citizens (mostly anti-Vietnam war) during the 1960's and 70's without a court order? Or that police can use toll records in investigations without a court order? Or that there could be surveillance cameras where you wouldn't expect, watching your every move, and that the government can use this information without your knowledge or consent? There are many more instances involving the government abusing power, and going against our right to privacy (Fourth amendment). The fact that the government is abusing the rights that it is supposed to uphold is disturbing and frightening. The government is supposed to be protecting our rights and freedoms, but at the same time is taking them away. If our own government can't be trusted, how can we be sure that our rights and freedoms are being protected? What can we, as a democratic country, do about the situation?

From Virtual Communities to Smart Mobs

This article, by Lane Jennings, is about the future of technology, which could include wearable devices that could allow us to have access to information whenever we want/need it, and advanced surveillance systems that could process information about people anywhere and at any time. As much as these technologies could benefit society, they may also result in an equal amount of harm. This kind of access to information would raise numerous questions about rights to privacy; if anyone can get information about anyone they meet, and if people are being constantly watched and listened to, people's lives would basically be an open book to anyone who would have the information. Also, the potential harm caused by hackers getting access to this much information is hard to fathom. If the Internet now is raising problems such as loss of privacy, and issues such as child molestation, what would the future hold if information availability became as Jennings sees it? These types of problems need to be solved now, before this kind of technology expands and the problems become out of control. Technology has been changing society since the beginning of time, and it will continue to change society for as long as man exists. The thing we do have control of, though, is whether it will benefit or harm, through regulation and, most of all, awareness. Can we filter out the possible negative effects of technology and maintain the benefits?

Hacktivism

Hacktivism has a bad reputation because of the harm it can cause. In the NPR program, "hackers Stall Ticket sales for Rockies Game," the Colorado Rockies game had 54,000 tickets prevented from going on sale for a time because of a hacker. Although there are many hackers who use hacktivism to cause harm, there are beneficial forms of hacking. The Zapatistas used hacking to put out there ideas and their cause over the Internet to garner support for their revolution in Mexico. This is just a modern form of civil disobedience, but is subject to punishment, because it may cause harm to the government, as did literature in the past, such as Thomas Paine's "Common Sense." The problem with the punishment of hacking is that not all hackers are trying to cause harm, and the term "harm" and who may be harmed are subject to opinion. Obviously the Mexican government will be harmed by the Zapatistas movement, but the citizens of Mexico may be helped. Who is to say what may harm and what may help?

Computer Crime

This chapter discusses the evolution and ethics behind computer hacking. Hacking has evolved from getting into systems for intellectual reasons, to getting into systems for money, to hacking just to cause harm. The main issues that need to be looked at with hacking is how it is to be punished, and how it is to be prevented. Some people believe that it's like vandalism, a misdemeanor, and others believe that it is much more serious, and needs a harsher punishment. The ability of so many people to hack into systems also reflects a weakness in security. Unfortunately, security measures cannot keep up with the growing intelligence of hackers. The problem is, this affects everyone, not just large corporations, so we are all at risk to viruses and having identities stolen. Is there a way to prevent hacking, as it evolves more and more? Can there be an end to it?

GOF 5.29-Hate Speech

Some of the websites I found that contained hate speech involved hurtful material concerning political groups and racial groups. Specifically, I found information about President George W. Bush, and concerning gays. There was a lot of hate speech, and not much for their defence. This is unfair, because there is more information being presented containing hate speech than there is towards the group or person's defence. Even though these websites are hurtful, they are still protected by the 1st Amendment, because the only speech not protected by the First amendment is defamation of character, such as libel or slander. Although it seems that hate speech could hurt a person's reputation, it is still considered to be a form of expression, no matter what form it comes in. Some of the websites I found that contained hate speech were:
http://www.bushisantichrist.com/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/palestinians.html
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

Freedom of Speech in Cyberspace

This chapter in A Gift of Fire, by Sarah Baase, concerns our First amendment rights (freedom of speech and press), and government controls on what we can put on the Internet. The Internet is such a beneficial way to communicate and send out ideas, because we can get them out to so many people. The problem is that there are many harmful items online that people believe should be censored, at least from young children. The Internet is now the easiest medium we have where we are able to share our ideas, so this is not only a very good thing, but also very bad. We finally have a source where we can share our ideas without restrictions, but we also now have easier ways of spreading pornography, spam, and has also created new avenues for pedifiles. So the question is, does government control over the Internet benefit us in the sense that we are safe from unwanted junk mail, pornography, and pedifiles; or does it harm us in the sense that we are being prevented from excercizing our First amendment rights? Are we willing to give up out rights to protect our children, or is this too large a price to pay?

New Radiohead CD to Debut Online

This NPR broadcast, by Jacob Ganz, talks about how Radiohead is selling their music on their website, rather than through record label companies. The real shocker is how much they're selling their new record for-whatever the consumer feels like paying. That's right, there's a blank box for where the price should be with a question mark next to it, and you can buy the album for whatever you want. This way of selling music is actually causing Radiohead to make a lot of money-more money than they'd make if they were selling it through a record label company. This also makes it so that more people are interested in Radiohead's albums. If you look at the bigger picture, though, you'll also see that buying the album for any price may also cause a decrease in people illegally downloading the album online. This could be the solution to end Internet piracy that every one's been waiting for! Reasons why people download music online is because they don't want to pay for the CD, and that it's easier just to download it off the Internet. With Radiohead's method of selling music, they are eliminating these reasons for people to illegally download music. Could this bring an end to Internet piracy?

A Robot With Heart

This article, by scenta, talks about a robot that can perform catheter ablation surgery on people with arterial fibrillation (AF), a heart rhythm disorder. AF is the most common heart disorder, especially in the elderly, and yet catheter ablation is the most difficult surgery to perform, due to the complexity of the surgery, and there are few doctors that are trained to perform this kind of surgery. This makes it so that only 10 percent of people with AF can undergo the surgery. The Sensei Robotic Catheter system is a robotic arm controlled by a doctor in another room that performs the surgery-it has the brain of the doctor, and the precision of a robot. This new technology makes it so that many more people can undergo the surgery, with a lot less risk. There may be a risk to this Sensei Robotic Arm, though. There have been many instances of engineering designs failing, such as the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis. Who knows if this robotic arm could suddenly malfunction, at the risk of the person having the surgery? It's a good thing, though, that there is a doctor controlling the robotic arm, because operations need a surgeon's innovation and expertise, and a robot performing surgery on its own could be dangerous. The Sensei Robotic Catheter system can be a very beneficial instrument in the medical world, and can help save lives, but there's no knowing if the robot may malfunction. Do the pros outweigh the cons?
http://www.scenta.co.uk/Health/1706351/a-robot-with-heart.htm

Intellectual Property

In this chapter in Gift of Fire by Sara Baase, the problem of copyrighting and what can be done about it is addressed. Intellectual property is an original work that is protected by copyright, but , with advances in technology, copyright infringement is becoming easier than ever to get away with. The fair-use doctrine states that, as long as the use of the copyrighted material has a good purpose, then distribution and use of the material is protected under this doctrine. The problem with this is, who has the power to decide what is "fair"? This could be a matter of opinion, and anyone could say their purpose for using copyrighted material is fair. What really causes controversy is whether the use and distribution of copyrighted material has an effect on the market. Free downloading of songs on the Internet could be said to cause a decrease in the sale of Cd's, which would be harmful to the economy, along with being unfair to the copyrighter. A good solution brought up in the chapter is using encryption on hardware and software that prevents copying or viewing without proper authorization (digital rights management technologies). This seems like the best way to prevent copyright infringement. The only problem is, could this go against the fair-use doctrine? There needs to be a balance between all-out copying and use of any and every copyrighted product, and completely stopping the fair use of copyrighted materials.

The Copyright Paradox

This article, by Jonathan Band, is about copyright laws, and how they seem to be targeting beneficial organizations rather than individuals. It's easy for individuals to perform copyright infringement (like burning CDs and downloading music online), but libraries and colleges are the ones getting in trouble for it. Legislation (through the DMCA and the UCITA) can help prevent Internet piracy, but it's also preventing libraries and educational organizations from distributing copyrighted material fairly. It's ironic how individual copyright infringers, who mean harm, are able to get away with copyright infringement, while libraries (etc.), who mean no harm, are prevented from distributing useful information, which, under Section 108 of the Copyright Act, they are allowed to do. There definitely needs to be something done about copyright infringement, but legislation seems to be going about it the wrong way. Shrink-wrap and click-on licenses help, but the freedom of the Internet causes people to be able to put anything and everything on the Internet, and once some thing's on the Internet, there's no stopping it. The only solution that seems to come to mind is the dreaded government take-over of what's allowed to be on the Internet, but this would be against our First and Fourth amendment rights. This situation is indeed a paradox, and there doesn't appear to be a tangible solution. Perhaps just awareness and consideration of others could help solve the problem. There definitely needs to be a large effort on the consumer's part if there's going to be any solution to this problem.

Is there a light 10 billion times brighter than the sun?

This article, by Jacob Silverman, talks about the Diamond synchrotron, which is a particle accelerator that can produce a beam of light 10 billion times brighter than the sun. A particle accelerator accelerates electrons to a great speed so that they'll produce a lot of energy, and the Diamond synchrotron concentrates these energetic electrons into an extremely concentrated beam of light. Since light waves consist of X-rays, this technology can be used to read manuscripts that are too old and fragile to handle. Since light waves also include waves such as microwaves, it could be possible to use this kind of technology to power homes, like nuclear energy (which uses nuclear fission reactors). When Silverman wrote this article, though, he failed to write possible harm this Diamond synchrotron could cause. Light from the sun includes UV rays, which are radioactive, and can cause cancer. If this synchrotron can produce a light beam 10 billion times as intense as the sun, this means it is also 10 billion times as radioactive as the sun. This light beam can be very beneficial, but it may also be very dangerous, so it needs safety precautions, just as nuclear reactors do, to insure safety while providing benefit.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/synchrotron.htm

Mind Control

In this article, Richard Martin talks about the advantages of brain-computer interfaces, which can help paralyzed people perform normal tasks, and may ultimately lead to brain-controlled robots in the military. In the example of Matthew Nagle, a C4 quadriplegic, Nagle can perform tasks on a computer through a chip implanted on his brain, which is connected to BrainGate, which can adapt to patterns in neural clusters in Nagle's brain to interpret what he's thinking, and amplify it on a computer. This technology is very incredible, but it can also be dangerous. Who knows if something could go wrong with the chip, and cause Nagle some kind of harm? Since this was a last resort for Nagle, who thought he had nothing to lose, he didn't fear the possible danger, but there still is this possible danger. Your brain is the most important organ in your body, controlling everything your body does, and if this chip could do harm to your brain, this is a very potentially dangerous product. That is why there needs to be more research and testing on this product. The idea of a chip that doesn't need direct implantation on the brain sounds like the safest way to use this technology. Either way, BrainGate is a huge step forward in technology, and if it can be used effectively and safely, it could become a very valuable asset to the world.

The Intelligent Internet

This article, by William E. Halal, talks about how communication and economics can be improved through an "Intelligent Internet," which includes speech recognition software, videoconferencing, a "conversational" human-machine interface, and more. The problem with the coming out of new technology, though, is that there's always a decline in profits at the beginning of the using of the new technology, due to expenses and such, but, in the long run, society can profit from this new technology, as with the dot-com revolution. The author predicts that the advantages of this new technology should become imminent around the year 2010, and the only obstacle to making this technology a reality is a lack of vision; in other words, people not being able to see how this could benefit us in the long run, and being concerned about present expenses and difficult changes. Everyone should keep an open mind to this "Intelligent Internet," because it could produce huge benefits that definitely outweigh any difficulties.

Structure and Evolution of Blogspace

This article, by Ravi Kumar, Jasmine Novak, Prabhakar Raghoven, and Andrew Tomkins, gives the results of studies of bloggers and blogging communities. The results are that bloggers seem to congregate amongst bloggers of similar age groups, locations and interests, and communities form mostly between people of similar locations and interests. Over the years, blogging activity in blogging communities has increased, suggesting that bloggers are becoming more community-oriented. This article is interesting, because it's showing, through bloggers, how technology is affecting today's society. Many people believe that technology is causing a lessening of personal contact and personal communication, but these results show that people are actually becoming more community-oriented, instead of less so, as has been the popular belief.

Making Yourself Understood

In Stuart Crainer's and Des Dearlove's article "Making Yourself Understood," the problem of people having poor writing skills due to advances in technology is addressed. Especially in businesses, where there's a lot of communication, people's writing skills are being depleted because of the increased use of e-mail and instant messaging. The article suggests that this is because people just don't have time to write well-thought-out e-mails. This can be a problem because businesses have failed due to poor writing. In order to write effective and well-thought-out e-mails, people must get into the habit of using correct grammar and punctuation, and once that's been achieved, writing well will be easy from that point on.

Killer Electrons From Outer Space

This article, by Saswato R. Das, discusses the problem with satellite communication interruptions, which are caused by storms developing in the Van Allen belts, which are two belts in the Earth's atmosphere that contain radiation, due to reactions with the Earth's magnetoshere with cosmic rays and solar winds-a stream of particles constantly being given off by the sun. Satellites orbit in these belts, and storms in the Van Allan belts, caused by spikes in the levels of radiation, cause problems with communication with the satellites. Scientists are just starting to understand why these storms occur, and understanding them is the first big step to solving the problem. Solutions to this problem include satellites that can resist radiation better. But what if this didn't work? Since communication interruptions seem to be most frequent around the poles (probably because the charges of the poles supercharge electrons even more), maybe this should be the scientists' focus. Rather than focusing on improving the satellites to resist radiation, they could perhaps be looking for alternative ways of orbiting the satellites, instead of in the Van Allan belts where communication interruptions is such a problem.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/sep07/5498

GOF 2.11

In GOF Chapter 2, the right to privacy in accordance with the Internet is discussed. When I searched a LAN line, my search results consisted of offices, eating establishments, and more (mostly commercial). When I searched for a cell phone number, I came up with some of the same things as the LAN line, along with some results that needed translating. These results show that it's easy to find information about people using their phone number. This could be a good thing, because it's easy to find the information you need. This could be considered bad for the same reason, though. People believe that this is a loss of privacy, and is against our Fourth Amendment rights. People could use that information they find about a person wrongfully, and that is a big issue. There are also health risks associated with using cell phones- the radiation could possibly cause cancer. The point of all this is that there are a lot of risks that people take when they use technology, and whether the good outweihgs the bad is still an issue.

GOF 1.12

In GOF Chapter 1, important themes are discussed, such as how technology affects society, and how people are losing their jobs due to the advance of technology making ordinary jobs obsolete. Two jobs that have been made obsolete by computers are printers (of newspapers) and bankers. Bankers were replaced by ATM's, and printers were replaced by computerized printers. Although ATM's made transferring money more efficient, and computerized printers made it so that more newspapers could be printed out, these people lost their jobs. People may say that the increase in computer jobs has increased, leveling out the unemployment of the printers and bankers, but the printers and bankers are still unemployed, because they aren't qualified for these computer jobs. Two jobs that would not exist without computers are computer programmers and computer operators. There are many jobs out there made possible by computers, but the effect of computers on our lives may outweigh the positive impact of this. Computers and technology have made environmental hazards, and even affected us socially, by the way we communicate with people.

Whom to Protect and How

This article, by a plethora of authors including Robert Blendon, gives statistics that the vast majority of Americans believe that the Internet Revolution has had a positive effect on society. However, access to the Internet has caused some problems, such as pornography, loss of privacy, violence, and more. People believe that the government should regulate what is put on the Internet, but that could start issues concerning First Amendment rights. We need to find a way to regulate the harmful aspects of freedom of speach in the Internet, without violating the rights of people who are doing nothing wrong.

Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change

This article, by Neil postman, talks about how technology changes the world. The author takes into account the fact that technology has its advantages and disadvantages, and that it does not add to, but changes life as we know it. Technology helps us because it makes life easier and we can do a lot more with it than we could without it. Unfortunately, technology has also caused pollution of air and possibly even a complete climate change. The important point of the article, though, is that technology has changed all of our lives, for the better and for the worse. In order to figure out if technology is really worth it, the pros and cons must be considered, and if the pros outweigh the cons, then the technology is most likely worth it.

It Adds Up

In the article "It adds up," by Jennifer Loviglio, a parent is concerned about children these days needing to always be up to date with current technology. I also believe that this could be a problem. New technology is constantly coming out, making things easier to do -like the example with the child's graphing calculator. New technologies are a great benefit to society. The problem, though, is that, not only kids, but everyone needs to keep up with all of this new technology, and this can be quite costly. Although there may be no solution to needing to be up to date with technology, knowing what is necessary is important, and you don't always have to buy the most expensive equippment, so this is a possible solution to this costly problem.

Hi

I'm just saying hello from my classroom.