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