Are fusion centers allowing for an invasion of privacy?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1883101,00.html?artId=1883101?contType=article?chn=us

It is feared with the prodigious amount of information shared within fusion centers that it may be making it too

easy for the government to collect and share data with numerous public databases.Organizations are trying to

pass bills to restrict fusion centers' access to data. The article says, "legislation has been introduced in Santa Fe that would prohibit any New Mexico law enforcement agency from collecting information about the religious, political and social associations of law-abiding New Mexicans. And in what would be a first for the nation, the bill would allow private citizens to sue law enforcement agencies for damages over the unauthorized collection of such data." I think this is a great bill because it maintains citizen's privacy. New Mexican citizens, as well as all other Americans, want to know that some form of privacy is kept about themselves. Especially since they have kept a clean record for all the time leading up to the present.

The article spoke about a Maryland scandal a few years ago involving undercover Maryland state police carried out surveillance of war protesters and death penalty opponents. The information gathered was leaked into public databases through fusion centers. That kind of stuff should not happen. One of the liberties of being part of the United States is supposed to be freedom of speech. Isn't freedom of speech speaking up for your own beliefs? If we speak our own beliefs we should not automatically be targeted by local law enforcement.

The article also reads, "the report, issued in late December, echoed some of the concerns laid out in earlier congressional and Government Accountability Office reports that warned of the potential for mission creep by the fusion centers." Mission creep is when there's an expansion of a project beyond its original goals. When mission creep occurs it usually results in a failure. We can see here that the result of this was very angry people due to their private information released on public databases all because the law enforcement was trying to broaden their communication through fusion centers.

This is not to say that fusion centers are not a great creation. The amount of money put into them may be a bit too much, but hopefully with the new "state of the art surveillance" the money will be well spent. Safety is top priority. As noted in the article strategic solutions for crime problems are solved through fusion centers. It almost allows a forum for these discussions to take place allowing a flow of ideas to enter which allows for great communication.

Privacy May Be a Victim in Cyberdefense Plan

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/13/us/politics/13cyber.html

In President Obama's new cyberdefense strategy he promised to provide protections for personal privacy and civil liberties. In this new cybersecurity plan he made clear that the U.S. military and the U.S. government would not be looking at our e-mail and not tracking what we do online. It is said in the article that it is very hard to try and monitor the thousands of daily attacks on security systems in the United States. The National Security Agency is supposed to be in charge of the new military command's work.

The cybersecurity effort, Mr. Obama said at the White House last month, “will not — I repeat, will not include monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic.” I personally find this rather relieving. I feel like everyone has become so worried by the amount of monitoring that could occur from the Internet, and this should be a piece of mind to know that Obama would like to try and keep our security rather than monitor our every move.

The article says that military officials say there may be a need to intercept and examine some e-mail messages sent from other countries to guard against computer viruses or potential terrorist action. Advocates say the process could ultimately be accepted as the digital equivalent of customs inspections. I see this as a good idea because ultimately it isn't prohibiting other countries access, it is providing us with additional security measures in order to protect ourselves. From my overseas traveling I have become very aware of how customs works. It is detailed and thorough. I always have felt safe.

Some administration officials have debated whether laws or regulations should be changed to allow law enforcement, the military, or intelligence agencies more access to networks or Internet providers when significant evidence of a national security threat was found. I think that this should completely be allowed. With a sufficient amount of evidence I don't see the problem. People could argue though, what exactly is a sufficient amount of evidence? Boundaries could definitely be blurred, especially when it comes to the government.

A good question was posed, "what constitutes an intrusion that violates privacy and, what is an intrusion that may be acceptable in the face of an act of war?"

ExistenZ-Thoughts?

Today in class we watched a movie called ExistenZ. This 1999 science fiction thriller starred Jennifer Jason Leigh and Jude Law. Wow was it different. The basic plot features Allegra Geller, the greatest video game designer in the world, testing her new virtual reality game called ExistenZ. Testing the game, a group of people are chosen from an audience. The movie quickly takes off when a man tries to kill Allegra and Ted Pikul protects her bringing the plot to an intense journey to win the game.

In order to play the game each person must have a bioport. This was a plug placed into the bottom of each players spinal chord. An umbilical looking chord was extended with a controller at the end. The game was powered by each player's nervous system essentially. When playing, each player becomes fully engaged in the game. They can call for a 'pause' or a 'stop' from inside the game. Then, immediately the players pop back into reality. I was thinking throughout the movie I know they can 'pause' or 'stop' the game at any point, but if an outsider, for example, came into the room and needed to ask one of the gaming participants a question would the characters inside the game ever hear them calling? 

I also thought about if this were real life could any of this ever be possible? Could virtual reality and actual reality ever merge?

When I started to actually question whether or not this could ever be possibly I decided that certain aspects could most definitely become possible in the future. Whether or not it is a near future or far I have yet to determine. The progression of entertainment has led to more stimulating gaming experiences already. This has been enabled through the use of physical technology, the gaming controller. This controller has allowed the player more control of the game, and this is stimulating their brains. So, it's probably safe to say that one day technology will progress to the point of a more enhanced stimulating experience that could likely enable the actual gamers to use their brain to control the game. Basically, I guess I'm also trying to say that I do believe certain aspects of virtual reality and reality could merge, but some things are just sci-fi!

UK's way of defending against hackers

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/naughty-brits/

The UK has put into effect a new cyber security command center to help fight and even plan offensive attacks against network intruders/hackers. Great Britain has hired a number of former hackers to help work for the new Cyber Security Operations Center, which will start working in September.

Lord West, who was appointed Britain's first cyber security minister, stated, "You need youngsters who are deep into this stuff…. If they have been slightly naughty boys, very often they really enjoy stopping other naughty boys."

Supposedly, there had been a lot of state-sponsored hacking of important UK information networks "on an industrial scale," and this was the reason behind creating this center. The center will be based in Cheltenham at Britain's famous secret eavesdropping facility known as GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters).

While I think this is a good idea, it can be taking a huge risk by having these "former hackers" working with the government to try and find other hackers. But it is risky to fully trust these so called "former hackers," as they were once doing exactly what they're now helping to defend.

Response to Class Discussion-Interfaces

In class we discussed interfaces used on our computers. We talked about whether or not the desktop metaphor is even relevant anymore. Is it? Do we even like it? We also talked about GUIs which are graphic user interfaces. Would/are other graphic user interfaces better than our typical desktop that we use daily?

First let's discuss the desktop metaphor. Wikipedia describes the desktop metaphor very well when it says, "the desktop metaphor treats the monitor of a computer as if it is the user's desktop, upon which objects such as documents and folders of documents can be placed. A document can be opened into a window, which represents a paper copy of the document placed on the desktop." This is what each of us are used to every day when we use our computers whether it be a PC or Mac. There is also this concept of an actual DESK TOP. There are various ways to arrange your DESK TOP virtually and in reality. Personally, I have always been a pretty organized person, so my actual DESK TOP years ago was arranged somewhat organized. When I look at my virtual desk top i see a similar organization to it, but it is done so easily. Each of my files are easily stored, and all I need to do in order to find that folder is double click on it directly on my desktop or scroll down menu bar until I reach it. I do believe this metaphor is still relevant because people like what they know, and they know and understand this representation.

We talked about other GUIs such as Microsoft Bob, Lifestream, and Bump Top. Each of these interfaces are different is some way. Microsoft Bob, which we learned was a huge failure, was depicted in an actual room created for the user to navigate. Bob helps you whenever help is necessary, and the user engages with the objects on the screen. This was created for novice computer users, but I actually think it seems complicated. Lifestream is completely different because it is based on chronology instead of themes (like files). This interface in very cool and interesting in regards to taking photos etc. With this interface it is very simple to navigate through vacations taken before or even medical records, as mentioned in class. The last one discussed, Bump Top, is a virtual desk with documents and literal piles of information. While there is an organizational method to Bump Top it looks very confusing and completely unorganized. I feel that one of the reasons people use a computer is to organize all their information into one area that doesn't look like there actual desk with piles in every corner. While there was a way to fan through or scroll through piles of information it looked confusing. 

There was some discussion about whether or not we as individuals would like an interface designed as a mall for example. There would be a representation of an escalator and each of the stores to the right and left sides of the escalators, just like a directory. This I do think would would well. I like this type of interface because it is very similar to a regular directory in a mall except it shows pictures. People like to engage with pictures rather than words when it's simple. Who wouldn't rather click on a picture of a grocery store, for example, to find it rather than scrolling down a menu bar until you find the word itself?

Watch out Iranian internet users!

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/wsj-nokia-and-siemens-help-iran-spy-on-internet-users/

According to a Wall Street Journal story, Iran has "adopted NSA-like techniques and installed equipment on its national telecommunication network last year that allows it to spy on the online activities and correspondence--including the content of e-mail and VoIP phone calls--of its internet users."

Nokia Siemens Networks, a cooperative agreement between Germany's Siemens and Finland's Nokia, installed the monitoring equipment late last year in Iran's government-controlled telecom network, Telecommunication Infrastructure Co. Authorieties only recently enforced its full capabilities in reponse to recent protests that have taken place in the country over its presidential election. The equpiment allows the country to perform deep-packet inspection, which searches through data as it travels through a network searching for keywords in the content of e-mail and voice transmissions.

This is very scary for Iranian internet users, and I know I would be incredibly outraged if America decided to conduct this same invasion of privacy. I don't know what I would do though, and I'm not sure what Iranians can do in this instance. This is a very important and ethical topic, as the internet plays a huge role in private communication all over the world. Personally, I don't think something like this should be allowed, as the internet was formed on the basis of open and free communication, but then again, I'm not the law.

Illegally downloading music isn't illegal until you are caught

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/thomasfollow/

Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a Minnesota mother of four, is fined for illegally sharing 24 music tracks on the Kazaa peer-to-peer network. She was fined $1.92 million, after already going to court for a 1st trial, which ended in a verdict of $222,000 for these same songs, but was canceled after the judge said he "provided faulty jury instructions that favored the recording industry." But this 2nd trial worth even more money, was unfortunately for Thomas-Rasset, not canceled thus far. This verdict will only spur lawyers, academics, and judges who want to enforce a constitutional limit on "statutory" damages, argued Ben Sheffner, a copyright attorney who writes the "Copyrights & Campaigns" blog.

This is very scary to someone like me, who has been illegally downloading music for the past six or so years. I've heard of very rare examples of people fined for illegally downloading and sharing music (including this one, the most expensive fine yet), but for some reason, I'm not scared enough to stop anytime soon. I don't see how every single person who downloads music illegally can possibly be caught and fined, and I guess I never will be able to understand this until it, God forbid, happens to me. I think it is ridiculous to just single out a few illegal downloaders just to prove a point and try and scare everyone else, that if a few are going to pay for it, everyone should have to pay for it. I would absolutely hate to be one of the few victims caught and fined for this (especially $1.92 million), when millions of people are doing the same thing.

Response to class discussion- What is point of Twitter, and why do people feel need to "Tweet?"

We discussed in class today the effect Twitter had on the Iranian election, and how the Iranians had no way of exactly verifying who was actually "tweeting." This is the main problem with the internet as a whole, that there is no way (yet) of verifying who is writing what and who you are dealing with on the other end of the computer. Eventually, I feel there has to be a way of verifying everyone online and in the virtual world, as this invention would be a huge positive for the progression of the internet.

Maybe this is just me, but I do not see the sense or point really in "tweeting," or more precisely, the point in "regular," or "ordinary/non celebrities" "tweeting." From my point of view, Twitter does not add anything of importance or value to the online world, as it is just an update or train of thought in a certain number of words, to a certain number of followers/people. My argument would be, first off, who cares about what people are doing every minute of their lives, and second, people are reporting to at most around 10 of their friends who are following their Twitter, who can just find out what you think/are doing by just asking you either in person or by text message. I just think that a lot of people feel the need or pressure to join Twitter, but the truth of it is, in my opinion at least, no one really cares enough about reading all their friends' "tweets." It's one thing if you are following a celebrity (or at least you hope it's actually the celebrity) that you love (and even that I don't understand because I don't care what they're doing every minute of the day), but it is absolutely another thing to just "follow" your good friends when there are easier ways of communicating that don't involve sharing information over the internet. And then there's the reason because Twitter allows people to be in contact with celebrities; this shouldn't be of offense to anyone, but if your own friends don't care to read your "tweets," can you imagine what your favorite celebrity feels about reading thousands of fans' "tweets?" It's just completely unrealistic.

GPS Chip in a Shoe

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/10/gps.shoes/index.html?iref=newssearch

Everything is being invented these days! They now have a shoe with a GPS chip inside. This was developed for Alzheimer's patients to wear in order for their caregivers to know where the person is at all times. The article says this new aid should save a lot of money in search and rescue missions for patients that have disappeared. This is a very interesting because I never fully considered all the money and man power that went into finding each Alzheimer patient each time one goes missing.

This device will give patient's families and friends a little sense of security when it comes to their loved one suffering from memory loss. While this is an amazing device the article suggests people have raised ethical concerns about informed consent and personal privacy. Do you think this device invades the privacy of an Alzheimer's patient considering they don't actually know they are being monitored?

I don't believe this is an invasion of privacy because it is in the best interest of the patient.  It is for their safety. The article mentions that if the patient is involved in the decision making process it should be no invasion of privacy. I fully agree with that. There will be an automatic alert made to the Alzheimer patient's caregiver if the patient leaves the designated boundaries. This sounds like a good idea because unlike the wristbands etc.. already made for patients, the shoes will be comfortable. The patient won't even feel they have a chip monitoring their moves. It isn't bulky and it isn't a constant reminder. This device isn't expected to be made to the public until 2010 because there are still slight changes being made here and there.

Bye Bye Love for Jon & Kate?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/22/jon.kate.gosselin/index.html

By now everyone knows about the show Jon & Kate Plus 8. It's no wonder that everyone knows who Jon and Kate Gosselin are because the pair have been pictured together and separately on every tabloid and popular magazine across the U.S. The couple came into the public eye when they were believed to be only the second set of sextuplets born in Pennsylvania. Before the birth of the sextuplets the couple already had 3-year-old twin daughters.

Allegations surfaced in more recent time that Jon was having an affair and Kate's close relationship with her body guard seemed very strange. Viewers began to realize that Jon and Kate's relationship seemed strained on the show. Audiences watched the pair in love and thrive at the beginning of their new adventure with the children. Then people sat back and watched the relationship fall apart before their eyes. Now Jon and Kate are separated, most likely a divorce will follow.

Friends of the pair and the pair themselves have said in past interviews they fell in love almost instantly. Now, after their lives have been put under a microscope and made for all viewing pleasure, happiness seems long ago. Do Jon and Kate actually no longer love each other or is it the fact they live their lives without any privacy? I think that having a reality TV show doesn't even give the couple a fair shot to make it. Every little dispute or normal marital issue is on the big screen for all to see. Their lack of privacy can't result a happy outcome. The inability to walk down the street in peace is terrible.

Twilight 's Robert Pattinson clipped by Taxi

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20286077,00.html Why is it that Robert Pattinson can't seem to find peace in the limelight?  Robert Pattinson, the actor who plays Edward Cullen in the heartthrob teenybopper movie Twilight, can't get any privacy these days.  It was reported in this article and many others that as he was in New York filming his new movie, a mob of Pattinson fans ran after him leading to him getting clipped by a moving taxicab. Pattinson loves his fans, but at the same time had to hire bodyguards and other people to protect him. Protect him from his own fan base that he has worked to gain!  These things happen too often to celebrities, whether it's running away from crazy fans or from the paparazzi. There was even an instance in October 2005 where pop star, Lindsay Lohan, wrecked her Mercedes while fleeing from paparazzi. I understand that individuals choose to be in the public eye when they become actors or musicians etc., but they should not have to be scared for their lives when it comes to their fame. How would you, not only like to be watched in your every move, but also chased or hit while trying to escape for some privacy?  I would hate if my life was put into jeopardy because I decided to pursue a career in the spotlight. Robert Pattinson became a teen sensation over night it feels like. Since his hit in Twilight he has escalated off the charts in popularity. There comes a time to draw a line between the safety and privacy of an individual and their fame. The question is, where exactly is that line?

AT&T's Privacy Policy- Response to class discussion

After reading and discussing AT&T's new privacy policy, I was not taken back or surprised by really anything AT&T was doing. The reason I think Professor Zaslow wanted our class to read and discuss this policy was not intended to shock us, but more so to make us realize that before this policy, major companies were somewhat holding back on what they were telling the public, and their actions were pretty vague. This policy by AT&T clearly stated in great detail everything that was going on and involved in AT&T's everyday business.

The reason I was not shocked by this policy I think, is because I'm so used to the technology-based world we live in, where if something as valuable as finding out your audiences likes and dislikes is at all possible and can be a humongous benefit to a world-wide company, that company is probably going to go ahead and use that benefit.

As for not owning my own information goes, as stated in class, until it becomes super apparent to me that AT&T owning my information is at all harmful to me, I could care less if they own my information or I do. AT&T owning my information has not been a threat to me, and that is why I'm not bothered by the company saying they own our information.

Privacy Policy for AT&T

http://www.att.com/gen/privacy-policy?pid=2506

Today we were asked in class to read through the new Privacy Policy for AT&T and give our thoughts about whether we were surprised, bothered, or happy by the policy.

Personally, I thought it was easy to navigate and broke down all their information in an easy-to-read manner. I felt the beginning gave a basic over view of their policy and from that point forward it provided a detailed question and answer format. Every question you can imagine from what information is collected to where the information goes is discussed.

AT&T's policy seems to be fair and sound. There were two things while reading that raised a couple questions in my head though. First, AT&T explains they have parental control tools so parents can monitor their children to the best of their ability. It claims that information is not collected on children 13-years-old and younger without parental consent. I thought that was strange because aren't you a child until you're 18-years-old? Parents should need to give consent for all children until they reach 18 years of age. We need to protect our children. This includes all their information. They are not old enough at 13 to know what kind of information about themselves is made "public knowledge" and so forth.

Second, as I was reading I came across the part where they were explaining which information about individuals is collected. One of the items listed was Internet Site Usage. This includes the pages you visit, the length of time you visited etc. I started to think about how I felt about this issue. Then, in class the question was posed. Do you feel okay that companies are essentially monitoring which sites you access etc.? Honestly, it doesn't bother me at all. It's an advertising and marketing tool. I understand that people don't want it to be monitored on the sites they are using, but here we are talking about phone sites basically. Who really cares? The monitoring of the sites allows advertisers to send you information you may be interested in and assesses the popularity of certain items over others and so forth. In a way it's kind of an interesting tool.

Response to class discussion- Frontline's "Growing up Online"

After watching this extremely interesting special in class, I took into consideration a few things about the life I lead online.

Even though internet users view the "virtual world" as being completely different from the real world, I am a firm believer that this is a completely wrong way to view the internet, and can only get internet users into serious trouble. Just because new technologies have allowed us to have full contact virtually, this does not mean that one should change there beliefs and act like a different person online. While in some cases, changing one's persona online could be beneficial to the person (for example Autumn Edows), in most cases it just leads to trouble. As stated in class by a classmate, internet users should apply the same ethics and actions as they do in the real world, and act no differently just because they are sitting behind a computer screen.

In addition, we discussed in class how the internet has lessened the need for physical contact, which while I see is a somewhat valid point, I don't think this is necessarily true. All technology and the internet has done, like I stated before, has made available more options which were not previously available. This does not mean that people should have less physical contact, it just means that if needed, other options are available. The option of physical contact will always be there and it is up to the people involved whether or not physical contact is lessened or not.

Response to class discussion- Google book search

We discussed in class how Google's book search allows for small parts of books from various libraries to be seen online. Google is being brought to court for this obviously, because the authors of these small parts being shown online, feel that Google is demonstrating the violation of copyrights.

While I do agree that Google has to somehow have full consent from the authors before showing a piece of their writing, I do think with that consent, this is an easy and very efficient way of getting one's works known to the public (if that is what the authors desire). The purpose of the internet is to make the world we live in somewhat easier and more efficient by putting to use new technologies. Google, like it has done with most every other use of their search engine, has made the world more efficient and easier to find and deal with things that exist in the world, and this instance I believe, is no different.

So yes, with the consent of the authors, I feel this is another good idea of Google's, and will only lead to further knowledge of people using the internet. And for the authors, if their piece being sampled is admired, they might be able to sell some of their writing and make a profit which wasn't available before.

Is Real Age Really Deceptive?

“Let he who is without [ever seeing an episode of Oprah, even lingering on it for a couple minutes] … be the first to cast a [virtual] stone [through your computer screen]”… Or so the quote goes somewhere along those lines…. I’m assuming no one will be throwing stones. Oprah’s approval on anything automatically puts it on some kind of best seller’s list and/or attracts droves of loyal fans… I wonder if people think because something is “Oprah approved” it’s automatically trustworthy?

Now, what does Oprah have to do with my topic? Well, Oprah made this test and its creator famous, continually endorses it, and has had it’s creator Dr. Mehmet Oz on her show repeatedly. The online test I’m talking about is the Real Age Test. For those of you who are not familiar with Real Age, let me give you a quick overview of what it is and what it does. Real Age is a compilation of health and lifestyle questions that are presented to the user in a quiz format. The user is asked to reveal in-depth and personal questions about themselves so the system can determine the user’s “actual” age. This assessment’s mission is to help you “change your life” so you can be “who…and where you want to be”. Once your assessment is completed you are asked if you would like to become a member for free in order to receive emails and have access to the sites multitude of health plans, buddy system, meal plans, and health and wellness recommendations. ALL FOR FREE! (It reminds you in large letters) And they promise the user their information is kept private! Sound too good to be true? Well, that’s because it is .

The Online Age Quiz Is A Window For Drug Makers article on NyTimes online shed some real light on the Real Age Test. The article discovered that Real Age packages its test results, and categorizes them into sought after market segments and sells the information to pharmaceutical companies. “How”, you say? Don’t they guarantee they won’t sell your information? Sure. They won’t sell your information if you don’t become a member. “Now wait a minute”, you say, “Why does that make a difference? How can they do that?” Simple and legally, Real Age test execs say. Even though Real Age sells your information to the pharmaceutical companies, they are not doing anything illegal or what is considered in breach of privacy laws. They aren’t selling your name or contact information, merely your test answers. What then happens is the pharmaceutical companies send Real Age e-mails that are sent out through the Real Age network to members that fit their interested demographic, AND that’s how they get you! Although they never get your contact information or contact you directly, they advertise and send you suggestions of pharmaceutical products they deduced (for your test answers) would help improve your “Real Age” and get you down to being under your current age. All in the name of health they say!

I feel this is an extremely deceptive thing to do. I went on the website myself and snooped around, and there isn’t much you can do [that will give you step by step help] without becoming a member. And when prompted to become a member there is no mention made that your info will be sold and that you’ll be bombarded by e mails diagnosing you before you’ve even set foot in a doctor’s office! These practices seem [although legal, if you read the article] quite unethical to me!

Questions To Consider:

1) Would you mind giving your information to a company that sells it to a third party if it ultimately sent you e mails that could potentially benefit your health?

2) Do you think Real Age is being deceptive?

Who Stole the Cookie from the Cookie Jar? It wasn't Elmo.

Imagine that you’re innocently surfing the web for some organic dog treats for Fido and suddenly you’ve noticed that the ads on the websites you frequent start to mention dogs in every shape, size and breed. Organic food stores start blinking at you, sparkling dog collars light up your screen, and vintage clothes with floral patterns and torn edges flash by with power point precision. This my friends, is proof that your information has just been... SOLD !

Yep. That’s how “they” do it. When you use certain search engines [Google was not mentioned] large marketing companies, such as BlueKai and eXelate Media, harvest your cookies [information] and sell it [their yield] like the organic farmers you so adoringly admire.

This is how you get those catalogs from Macys and Bloomingdales. But sometimes they glitch up and send you a product that doesn’t "fit" you. Let’s take, for example, that you receive The Limited Too catalogue and you’re a single thirty-four year old man. Before the advent of the web, companies like Acxiom and Experian would only be able to broker your income level, age, interests, and sex. But, now with the great world wide web they can [and do] search deeper, and get more personal information. The ironic thing is, most of the time, people willingly offer up these pearls of great insight for the machine to grind into a fine powder. Which is then, metaphorically [of course], sold by the ounce to companies who, in turn, try to take your money from you.

“Oh no!” you cry. “My information! Will anyone know about my love of playing games on little girl websites and try to advertise to me?!” Well, that’s why you got The Limited Too catalog at your house… “How do they get such information on me then?”
Now, this is where all those required computer classes in college come in handy [hopefully you were awake long enough to retain some information]. These companies (BlueKai and eXelate) infiltrate your computer through your “cookies” which are automatically stored on your computer. “Cookies? What the heck are those?! You mean those tasty little treats I adore to eat with milk?”

Erm. Not so much.

Well, you see, cookies are these teeny tiny files on your computer, and they’re text based. A computer user will normally not notice cookies on their computer, unless they go cooking hunting. “Oohh exciting. Do I get a butterfly net?”

No.

So, cookies are not as evil as many people believe, and not as sinless as we think they are either. As I stated before, they are teeny tiny web files on your computer that sit pretty waiting for something to happen to them. Basically, these cookies are for the website owner or moderator to use. It stores how many users visit a day, and sometimes a little more information such as passwords or usernames. So when you sign onto your facepages and mybooks and you click the “remember me!” box, a cookie is stored and made with your password and username, meaning anybody who turns on your computer can sign in without your discretion.

But this would be level one infiltration of privacy in my opinion. The aforementioned companies “go” into your computer log, clone your cookies, and leave the imposters and hoard the real ones for a ransom of hundreds of dollars. Companies do anything to get a little hint on how to appeal to their demographic.

The worst part? You can control cookies, but most internet users don’t know how. It’s quite time consuming, since web browsers [such as Firefox] have the option to block websites from making cookies, but you have to manually enter in the website yourself, and many, many, many people don’t ever touch the buttons above the web bar.
“I know I don’t!”

I know you don’t either.

So things get a little crazy when you can actually GO onto the websites and they give you the option to OPT out of their service, which technically makes stealing your cookies from your cookie jar completely legal, especially since they aren’t giving out real names and contact information.

So to freak you out, I’m just going to use the example from the article in the NyTimes online.

Start off by going to the BlueKai website and see if they might already have information on you. Now go to Kayak and search for something.

Finally, go back to the BlueKai link I’ve provided and you’ll see information about the flight you’ve chosen.

Scary right?

You may commence the panicking.


Questions to Consider:
1) Would you be okay with websites taking your cookies in order to give you a more targeted experience?

2) Does this at all freak you out in any way?

Frontline: Growing Up Online-Response to Class Discussion

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/

Today in class we watched Frontline: Growing Up Online. While I have been growing up during this new era it still seems foreign to me in many ways. As I was watching the show I was honestly freaked out at first.  I know what's going on around us, but to put a glance at all the major issues into a 60 minute segment is almost disturbing. Afterwards I had many posing questions racing in my head. 

One of the first questions, and possibly the most important question, that entered my mind was, "should kids be allowed their privacy on the Internet?" In Frontline one mother took the only family computer and placed it downstairs in the kitchen. She felt that if the computer was in a more "public area" it would be harder for mischief to take place. Another girl had an eating disorder and publicly announced the fact that she surfs the Internet looking at Ana sites and speaking to others that feel the same way as her.  Another boy was bullied at school, and when the bullying carried over to after school hours he began entering websites focusing on suicide. Later he hung himself. 

It has been said that being "connected" online allows individuals that may normally be very quiet have a new persona and voice. In the show one girl locked herself in her room for countless hours taking questionable photos of herself while building a whole new identity over the Internet. These kids look at this as a way to create the person they want to be and everyone else "wants" them to be. Again, should kids be allowed their privacy on the Internet? 

I believe that parents teach their kids morals and values.  Parents give their children the wings and expect them to fly. There are always the birds that fly into our windshield just as there are the kids that find themselves in dangerous situations and even death. While there are children engaging in bad behavior and such online there is just as much bad behavior happening offline. I believe they even stated that in the show. I, personally, do believe that children, within a certain realm, should be allowed their privacy on the Internet. The Internet gives teenagers, specifically, a way to show their independence. Group forums and bonds are formed online allowing kids to engage in other activities besides illegal or inappropriate behavior.

...To Peep Or Not To Peep? That Is The Question...

Peeping Toms, we’ve all heard of them. If you’re like me, the image you conjure in your head is one of a seedy-perv-looking character getting off while peering into your bedroom window from his bush hideout. The FreeDictionary.com defines a Peeping Tom as the following:

A person who gets pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, from secretly watching others; a voyeur.

The ever evolving progress towards everything-capable digital media has dramatically changed our lifescape (my hybrid word referring to the tools we make a part of our daily lives). It has reinvented old ways of doing business and daily functions, and made us almost inseparable from Tim O’Reilly’s Web 2.0 concept. However, I can’t help but wonder if this rapid fire evolution of digital media isn’t also simultaneously updating and increasing our list of “Things To Be Cautious Of”… For example, what if we no longer thought of a Peeping Tom as a perverted individual seeking to satisfy himself by perching himself on a tree limb peering into your bedroom, and say called search engine / application mammoth Google the new age Peeping Tom?

The NyTimes article Google Threatened With Sanctions Over Photo Mapping In Germany made me seriously rethink my idea of who and what a modern day voyeur really is. Here is a quick summary of the article:

Germany officials are threatening to sanction Google for violating German privacy laws by photo mapping German streets (which include street views of private residences) on their Google Earth application. German officials are requiring Google to submit in a written statement that they will comply with Germany’s 12 point objection of their Street View application by conforming its mode operation to align itself with German privacy laws. German privacy laws make it unconstitutional to film or photograph houses and/or private property without the owners permission. Google has only made verbal promises to German officials, from which Germany continues to seek “written guarantees from authorized Google representatives…”

I’ve used Google Earth before, and I must admit that I’m guilty of looking up addresses of interest and scrolling the street, through Google’s Street View app, for personal interest and knowledge. I never really pondered the ramifications of such an application. In being so elated that I could now satiate my own curiosities, I forgot to contemplate the curiosity of others. How comfortable are you with knowing that anyone can look you up on white pages and in a matter of minutes see your home, your street, your neighborhood? I know the idea of some random individual being given an all access pass to information about my life made me extremely unsettled. So, I conducted some research on U.S. privacy laws versus German privacy laws, ironically using the all powerful Google search engine. Here’s an excerpt from the German Law Journal on the low down describing the differences between American and German privacy laws:

Germany’s approach to the regulation of covert surveillance thus differs remarkably from its American counterpart. The United States Supreme Court has held that “a person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.” These reduced protections for privacy follow from the circumstance that surveillance is conducted in public areas and from the mobility and extensive regulation of automobiles. …By contrast, German suspects enjoy privacy rights in public as well as private areas. The degree of constitutional protection turns on how “personal” the information is... Whether observation takes place in public or private is a secondary concern. …

On the German approach to privacy … people do not forfeit legal protection by “knowingly exposing” themselves or their activities to public view. As [James] Whitman points out, naked sunbathers in German parks may even suppress the publication of nude photographs of themselves taken in public.Under German law, of course, people enjoy less protection for privacy in public areas than in their home or workplace. Filming a suspect in public is permissible, while filming him in his home is not. But appearing in public only diminishes privacy protections; it does not cancel them altogether. Thus it makes sense that German law requires advance judicial authorization of long-term visual surveillance even when conducted entirely in public areas. In addressing the permissibility of GPS surveillance, the FCC reaffirms the larger principle that the degree of privacy protection depends crucially on the nature of the information, which this technology discloses. When combined with other surveillance techniques in ways that yield too comprehensive a record of a person’s doings and habits, even the use of a tracking device may violate suspects constitutional right to “informational self-determination.”

Although this texts' main premise is to discuss the use of GPS systems, I felt it applied to Google Earth and photo mapping, since they operate through the usage of GPS systems. I was appalled to discover that our government, which advocates freedoms in a seemingly unending variety of capacities, deems that an individual traveling in an car or public transportation shouldn’t expect privacy in his/her movements. So, is viewing someone’s house via Google Earth’s Street View not considered an invasion of privacy or a form of surveillance because it’s the virtual equivalent of doing a drive by in your car? Maybe the Google Earth app isn't a Peeping Tom by standard definition, but who knows what the person behind the screen is doing...

Questions to Consider:
1) Did the NyTimes article make you think (or re-think) of the ramifications and detriments of applications like Google Earth?

2) How do you feel knowing that anyone can see where you live and consequently gain insight in your life?

3) Do you consider Google Earth’s app (and similar apps) to be an invasion of privacy?

No More Porn for China

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090608/ap_on_hi_te/as_china_internet

"China is requiring personal computers sold in the country to carry software that blocks online pornography and other Web sites."  This is a program that allows parents to monitor what sites their child accesses.  The article states that the program picks up on key words and such rather than just web addresses to block. It is possible to unblock sites or uninstall software, but it involves taking the time to do so. Parents are essentially using this program to monitor their child's internet viewings, but how many of them will uninstall the software even if they don't mind their children viewing it? I would say, "not many." The parents of the children in this computer generation are fairly new with technology and wouldn't bother to figure out how it completely works. Therefore, technology like this will continue to control internet browsing. It is stated that if people want to uninstall the software "there's also the possibility of the software leaving traces and giving users a false sense of security if the software blocks or monitors usage anyhow." Talk about censorship!

While this version doesn't have surveillance over its users, there is a huge possibility that future updates will have surveillance capabilities. Then what? Is our society eventually going to turn into China where every one's computer usage will be intensely monitored ALL the time?

This article predominately focuses on blocking pornographic websites, and while I understand all the illegal outcomes that come from pornographic websites such as "kiddie porn" and so forth I don't believe it should be banned. There should, for sure, be ways to block and shut down under age porn sites, but PORN isn't illegal. Stores and stands sell porn magazines every day, and people order TV porn all the time. By placing this program in PCs in China it puts America one step closer to becoming like China, over censored! We live in a place of freedom and our personal viewings should be our business as long as it is within the legal perimeters. If china has this then you know we are only a step away from having a very similar form of technology.

Google Book Search-Good or Not So Good?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/technology/internet/29google.html

The article attached talks about the terms of the settlement for the Google book Search made available on the internet. The settlement agreement "stems from a class action filed in 2005 by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers against Google. The suit claimed that Google’s practice of scanning copyrighted books from libraries for use in its Book Search service was a violation of copyrights." 

Today in class we spoke about this issue and our thoughts about whether or not it should be okay for Google to essentially come in and copy books in digital format to further place them in "partial form" on the Google database. Google says they are really doing a service to the authors of these books because now their books can be available to a wide array of viewers. In this settlement everyone, essentially, would be getting paid a percentage and benefits would be made overall.

I understand why authors don't want others, such as Google search engines, to make a profit off their works, but at the end of the day this feature will add to everyone's knowledge. Only a short clip from each book would be shown. If the viewer has interest in the book then they can choose to purchase it themselves and go from there. I find this to be very efficient. Everyday we move closer and closer to everything being digital. If books are all accessible online it is more convenient for the audience and everyone still gets paid. It seems like a win-win situation to me.

David Carradine Hanging

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/05/carradine-had-rope-around_n_211689.html

David Carradine, a prominent Hollywood actor was found dead in his hotel room in Bangkok, Thailand.  The actor was found with his hands, neck, and genitals tied in front of him, hanging from the support bar in his closet. The death was originally ruled as a suicide.  Now there is evidence displaying the possibility that the actor may have been involved in a dangerous form of sex play known as auto-erotic asphyxiation.

Now, what makes this "accidental suicide" a matter of public opinion and talk? A Thai publication released photos of Carradine hung to the public. The family of Carradine is outraged by the photos released. It was stated that if any U.S. publication shows photos of Carradine then there will be reason to sue.

The fact that photos of the victim were released is awful for the surviving family and friends of Carradine. In the field of journalism America makes it very clear that victims of "sexual" encounters and such should remain anonymous unless the family directs otherwise. Photos are basically never released in "inappropriate" circumstances due to individual integrity. It was stated in the article that due to privacy laws in the U.S. they were unable to release further details of the deceased to the public until his body was returned and further action was taken. Why do other countries find it okay to show pictures of a victim like that? The fact that the actor is an American should count for something. I feel like our laws should have some baring on Carradine's circumstance because he was only there filming a movie, not becoming a Thai citizen.

Is the Government Keeping Taps on Individuals?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/government.spying/index.html?iref=newssearch

The Justice Department and the NSA were conducting routine oversight when they detected issues that raised concerns about the government unlawfully spying on U.S. citizens. This is an issue that has worried Americans very much, especially in the years post-September 11th. That day our security was threatened and surveillance was given a "code red."

In the article Blair stated, "The National Security Agency goes to great lengths to ensure the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. citizens but has made occasional mistakes." While mistakes are understandable at times, we, as Americans, give the government little room for error. We put them on a pedestal because they are the authority and law makers, but one must wonder how far this "individual surveillance of U.S. citizens" would have gone on if the NSA didn't step in during their routine check.

They cover their backs by saying, "the fact that auditors discovered the problem and reported it and the bureaucracy made adjustments to prevent a reoccurrence is an indication that the program is working." While that sounds legitimate, this is just one more instance in which the government trying harder and harder to keep taps on each individual.

"Is Big Brother Watching?"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/03/11/db.smartsigns/index.html?iref=newssearch

While reporting on digital signage and consumer behavior, CNN reporter, Lara Farrar, posed a good initial question in her article, "How can advertisers tell if anyone is actually watching?" With this expensive new medium it isn't uncommon to wonder if it's actually generating enough positive feedback and results.  Farrar explains with this new wave of technology ad companies are turning to technologies more commonly used to track terrorists then trace consumer behavior. These new signs set up in public environments such as malls and airports are capable of measuring which specific ads are most appealing to which demographic.  These signs are able to generate your information changing the content almost instantly based on your particular age and likings. That is crazy!  

Now people ask, "Is Big Brother watching?" I do not feel that our privacy is being violated because the information is never being recorded.  An expert explains that they are simply generating data.  The data is not personalized. It is merely tracked in order to gain a proper feedback response. I believe, for years, America and other places have searched for newer and more efficient ways  to track consumer behavior, and now they are on the right track.

Further in the article Farrar discusses an even more specific way of collecting information on personal shoppers and their shopping techniques, RFID tags or wireless tracking devices into loyalty cards.  With a loyalty card you give the establishment your information, and it is recorded when you enter the store and what you buy etc.  In exchange you gain opportunities for rewards and benefits. Basically it's a win-win situation. You give the "private" information you want given and reap the benefits from your purchasing experience. People enjoy being treated special and as an individual. This personalizes your shopping experience while not violating any amendments.

While I do believe our society steps closer and closer to having Big Brother watch, I do not believe this is an instance in which that's occurring. It's really just a new way to measure effectiveness in advertising.

Future of surveillance cameras

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/business/12novel.html

Computational photography will come into play, as Tenebraex Corporation has invented the Digital Window D7 surveillance camera. This is unlike any other surveillance camera before it, as it is only 6 ounces and the size of a deck of cards, but more importantly, covers a 180-degree field of view. Before this camera, surveillance only was able to account for a specific area (the area where the camera was pointed), and consequently, probably missed some important viewings. The D7 is able to cover such a wide area due to its 5 sensors that after taking 5 separate pictures, synchronizes these pictures together into a panoramic stream. Everyone's cell phone cameras will then be able to be linked to say Google (or whatever company the D7 is linked to), and people sitting at their computers at home will be able to view live whatever they want to view at whatever time they desire. Eventually, people will be able to view basically a live YouTube, and experience occurrences without physically being there.

Baring It All On Facebook

http://mashable.com/2009/04/28/facebook-privacy-settings/

The author of this aricle is Alison Driscoll who is an interactive copywriter and social media consultant who specializes in Facebook. Driscoll speaks about the fact that today more and more people are giving the world a play by play of their lives on Facebook. People upload pictures and update their statuses as if that is they job. She begs the quesion, "How much is too much?"

We have laws and regulations to protect our privacy everyday. Individuals pride themselves on the fact that, as Americans, privacy is our luxury. Now, why would a person give up that? From the moment a person starts putting their life on Facebook the privacy is gone. Allowing your life to be available to thousands is unsafe.

Today there are privacy controls on Facebook to limit the information available to others. It's very important to utilize those controls. Otherwise an overload of information is given to viewers.

Driscoll explains how on Facebook now it is possible to create different "views" for each segment in your life. This is done by creating "friend lists," and from that point forward it is possible to limit information about yourself to certain groups. This is a way for individuals to gain back their privacy. It only makes since for this feature to be used by Facebook users. Protect yourself.

GPS-Ready or Not, Here I Am...

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/may/07/news/chi-ap-wi-gps-police

GPS systems were originally created for individuals to navigate themselves and aid when lost in unfamiliar territory, but today GPS systems are used to find individuals when they do not, necessarily, want to be found.  Is this right?

According to a Wisconsin court's ruling in May 2009, police are allowed to place GPS tracking on individual's cars without their consent or obtaining any form of a search warrant.  A possible violation of a person's constitutional rights have been brought to attention. The fact that no warrant is necessary seems strange. The judge in the article stated, "Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure." While it may not involve a "search or a seizure" it is still the property of an individual and those property rights should be respected.

Giving police the right to place a GPS on a person's car without gaining permission oversteps the boundaries of privacy.  As free Americans we are given rights to come and go as we please without minute to minute monitoring.  Tracking people without their prior knowledge is unfair and wrong. If a person is suspected of criminal activities then a lawyer should need to present a valid argument in order to obtain the warrant and proceed from there, just as that lawyer would do to obtain a warrant for a person's place of residence. While the intentions of the GPS placed by the police may be good, it undermines an individual's rights.