Watch Your Private Parts

RFID Chips: A Privacy And Security Pandora's Box?

2009-07-14T07:09:00.001-04:00

"The team counter the argument that honest citizens have nothing to fear from RFID. "A surveillance society where RFID tags reveal personal information and enable the tracking and tracing of the individuals, shall be contested, as every law-abiding citizen should be free from any kind of monitoring," they say."

If you are able to be tracked with this chip, would you still get it?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081118141854.htm

Is your privacy being invaded?

2009-07-14T07:03:00.002-04:00

Not many people are aware of how easy it is to get information from credit cards, lisences, and pass ports, they all are a type of microchip that can be scanned from a distance and Todd Lewen decided to put it to the test. He sat in his car with a system he bought for just $180.00 and was able to scan credit cards, passports, and the RFID chips implanted in certain people, basically anything with a barcode he was able to scan and withhold information. If someone can do all that for $180.00, imagine if this got into the hands of very shady people, more and more identities could be getting stolen with the advancment of technology. Where do you draw the line?

http://www.examiner.com/x-6495-US-Intelligence-Examiner~y2009m7d13-Microchip-security-questions-Is-your-privacy-being-invaded

Creepiness Factor

2009-07-14T06:52:00.002-04:00

"The creepiness factor is a risk inherent in so-called behavioral targeting. This practice is based on marketers anonymously observing a user's behavior on the Internet and compiling a personal profile based on interests and behavior -- sites visited, searches conducted, articles read, even emails written and received. Based on their profiles, users receive advertising targeted specifically to them, regardless of where they travel on the web.

Consumer advocates worry that online data collection and tracking is going too far. Marketing executives counter that consumers benefit from seeing advertising relevant to their interests and contend that relinquishing some personal data is a reasonable trade-off for free access to Internet content, much of it supported by advertising."

I found this to be very interesting because in the article Fran Maier had just been diagnosed with a heart condition and a few days later she was getting junk mail about heart conditions and things to help it. If I would in her shoes I would be VERY creeped out and I would think someone is getting into personal information.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1999

Video Surveillance for your Home

2009-07-14T06:44:00.002-04:00

So doing all these readings on security cameras I decided to look up some sites and to see how hard it really is to set these things up. Well I found a do it yourself website that sells cameras you can set up outside or inside your home and it's easy to do and very well priced, check it out.

http://www.surveillance-video.com/

Employers watching Employees

2009-07-14T06:22:00.002-04:00

In New Jersey the employers of a major company went onto MySpace.com and made a discussion forum about your place of work and invited all their employees to engage in conversation, the only thing the employees didn't know is was that the company was behind it. After the employees engaged in discussion and bad mouthed some of the head bosses at the job, they were soon fired, but the company sees nothing wrong with this.

The same thing happened with the popular restaurant in Hackensack, NJ, Houstons. The bar tenders engaged in the online discussion and once the owners of restaurant found out and read what they all had to say, anyone who part took in the bad mouthing was soon fired.

I personally think this is wrong, to fire someone for speaking their mind, especially when it was never intended to make its way back to the boss. Do you think this should be grounds or termination?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124045009224646091.html

Google- too close for comfort?

2009-07-14T06:05:00.002-04:00

Kalin, a resident in SanFran, decided to google maps her own location one day, and if you have ever done so it is at street level. Kalin was looking at her apartment window and could see her cat in the window, a clear photo, and this freaked Kalin out. If google maps could see her cat in the window, imagine what else it would do with a better camera. Kalin had put in reports for quite sometime but she just became known as the crazy cat woman. It was until she went public with it that someone actually decided to give her some answers. Although google understands her concern, it also helps with the safety of the neighborhood and garentees that the images/videos is just for locations and that no one would ever be zooming in to spy on someone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/technology/01private.html

Corporations spying on employees behind their backs

2009-07-14T05:17:00.002-04:00

Deutsche Telekom, a major company in Germany has been hacking into thousands of their employees, cell phones, emails, and computers and keep records of everything on them. They say they are doing it for security measures to make sure no one is being dishonest in the company but do they really need to go as far as going into people's email, cell phones and so on?

It went even farther then monitoring their phones and emails, they had cameras watching their every move, how many times each employee went to the bathroom, if any of them were falling in love with each other and to see who was slacking on the job. It seems that this company is going a little too far with the surveillance.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/23/world/fg-germany-spying23

iSpy with an iPhone?

2009-07-14T05:06:00.002-04:00

Apparently with a few tweeks you can actually use your iPhone as a camera to spy on someone. Here is how to do it...

1.) You need a jailbroken iphone, one that is unlocked.
2.) Install the Cydia Application
3.) Download the Veency iPhone Virtual Network Computing (VNC) Server on it
4.)This program helps you link your iPhone to your computer, allowing you to view your iPhone's display in a window on your desktop
5.)Once you've installed the viewer on your computer, you can input your iPhone's IP address (found under the Wi-Fi section in settings). At this point, it's critical that you click "accept" on your iPhone to allow the VNC connection to take place.
6.)Now that you're viewing your iPhone's display on your computer, you can use an iPhone video recorder application such as Cycorder on your hacked iPhone. This turns your camera's 2.0 megapixel camera into a video camera. Once you've set this up, you should be able to observe the live video feed from your iPhone on your computer screen. With a networked iPhone and computer, you'll be able to turn the video camera on and off, as well as adjust settings, play music and do lots of other stuff.

Good luck! Although they do not recommend you do this because you are risking it being stolen and it doesn't really hold that much video, who would have thought you could do so much with the iphone.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/how-to-tech/how-to-use-iphone-as-security-camera1.htm

U.S. doles out millions for street cameras

2009-07-14T04:14:00.002-04:00

The US has been putting millions into putting cameras in major cities and on streets all over the country. It's costing tax payers, but its a small price to pay for safety. Although with technology now we are able to see every detail in these cameras, some people feel like they're privacy is being violated... below are some main points from the article.

-In the last month, cities that have moved forward on plans for surveillance networks financed by the Homeland Security Department include St. Paul, which got a $1.2 million grant for 60 cameras for downtown; Madison, Wis., which is buying a 32-camera network with a $388,000 grant; and Pittsburgh, which is adding 83 cameras to its downtown with a $2.58 million grant.

-Recent examples include Liberty, Kan. (population 95), which accepted a federal grant to install a $5,000 G2 Sentinel camera in its park, and Scottsbluff, Neb. (population 14,000), where police used a $180,000 Homeland Security Department grant to purchase four closed-circuit digital cameras and two monitors, a system originally designed for Times Square in New York City.

-But privacy rights advocates say that the technology is putting at risk something that is hard to define but is core to personal autonomy. The proliferation of cameras could mean that Americans will feel less free because legal public behavior -- attending a political rally, entering a doctor's office, or even joking with friends in a park -- will leave a permanent record, retrievable by authorities at any time.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/12/us_doles_out_millions_for_street_cameras/

Why Everyone should have security cameras

2009-07-14T03:57:00.002-04:00

This article talks about how the increase popularity in security cameras is a good thing. In today's world you can't go down the street, especially in a big city without being video taped and it's helping police officers stop crime a lot faster. Through out the article they discuss the different types of video cameras you can install in your home. There are ones you can hide in smoke detectors, picture frames, telephones, a tissue box, and even a pen that can record up to 8 hours of picture and sound in a very discreet pen. These cameras come in either black and white or color and range anywhere from $100.00 to $1,000.00 plus. We have a camera by out garage where we can see the entire drive way from a monitor in the house and it takes a very detailed video of everything going on in that given area. It's great for when you want to see who's ringing your bell before you open your door.

http://www.articlesbase.com/technology-articles/security-cameras-why-everyone-should-have-them-861534.html

Cruisin' in Private?...Nope. Think again....

2009-07-14T01:58:00.001-04:00

Hey Mindy! What a fine and beautiful windy night it is on the cruise ship! Fancy having you in the room next to mine! I love being on the balcony! Don’t you? Let me cross over to your room from my balcony!

You just wait Mindy! Let me get my good- hmph- leg over! Okay! Almost-… AHHHHHHHHHHH~!!!!!

SPOOOOOSHHHHH!!!!

This must have been the last words of a New Jersey Woman who thought it would be the best idea in the world to cross over from one balcony to another.

But this article isn’t about her; it’s about the fact that they have a tape of her in her room and then fifteen minutes later they have her on tape falling off her balcony, which only means THEY HAVE CAMERAS IN THE ROOMS!!

What the hell?! Now I feel COMPLETELY grossed out, especially since my seventeen year old sister and I share rooms when we go cruising with the family, and we get dressed in there! I can just picture it! A lone Indonesian man named Batok grins and records the whole thing to take to his room with him!!!! GAH!

And then worst! Can you just imagine all of the couples, marriages, and honeymooners cruising?! The damn ship REEKS of body order. Oh god.

How gross. I’m totally grossed out now. If I couple make a pukey smilie I would.

BAH! Violation!!!!

F.B.I : Galaxy Defenders...Kind Of...

2009-07-14T01:04:00.002-04:00

For whatever reason whenever I think of the FBI, I always associate it with MIB. FBI and Men In Black working together fighting crime and alien scum. Sounds like any little kid’s picture of what they do. I mean, that’s my image of them. :P

But, I don’t think that’s what it really is, you know, them running around in black suits… How sad!! :’(

They’re going to change some laws to help the men report in an easier fashion. They want there to be less reporting and more ass kicking! YEAH!

Well… kind of. They were going to allow more than 12,000 agents the power to conduct a physical surveillance, get information, and interview the bad guy’s buddies earlier than before since now they don’t need to play “Mother May I” with the supervisors. At least before they can do any of that, they need to prove that this guy is actually a baddie, and will provide some serious threat to the inner workings of America.

Basically, the FBI just wants investigations to flow more “organically” and let the agents decide on what they feel is the next step to take. They want less confusion and have the agents become more pro-active.

Some people are worried the FBI will accuse them of race or religion and they responded saying that racial profiling is illegal, and will not succumb to it.

And now, wearing a recording tape under their clothes to record conversations now need approval, except when the person is a high security threat.

At the date of the writing of this article, the new laws were in the process of being written. No word on how they turned out.

In Soviet Russia: Blog Reads YOU!

2009-07-14T01:02:00.002-04:00

Oh boy! It’s time for some jokes! In America, you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia, party can always find you! In America, you listen to man on radio. In Soviet Russia, man on radio listen to you! In America, you watch television. In Soviet Russia, television watches you! In soviet Russia everybody spies on you!

Huh? That last one wasn’t a joke. The writer of this article explains how in 1991 when she was living in Prague she was being spied on by her neighbors. Can you just imagine? Being spied on constantly by your neighbors? Having them watch your every move, turning you into a scared, guarded, bitter person?
Yikes! :’(

Oh wait, we’re already being watched. All of the phone taps, emails being read, texts being intercepted and cameras watching you.

Doesn’t it kind of bother you how any mall you walk in, there are cameras WATCHING you? You end up feeling almost criminalized. I mean, you’re innocent. Your records are clean, and you didn’t even get detention in high school! How is it that we’re almost always being watched and stalked? Aren’t we supposed to be trusted? Aren’t all people innocent until proven guilty? I guess this isn’t the case anymore…

A watched group of people creates a group of unfeeling, unintelligent, scared populace. Ideas can’t be freely exchanged for fear of punishments. People are not allowed to be themselves! Dum dum dum!

Living in a country with freedom such as western European countries and North America should be something to thank the genetic lottery. Hopefully more laws are made to protect privacy and make sure the future doesn’t turn out to be like 1984.

Top Internet Security Suites: Paying for Protection

2009-07-14T00:50:00.002-04:00

PC world put Anti-Virus suites to the test and came up with a Top 10 list. First place went to Norton Internet Security 2009. Their malware detection percentage was 99% and sends our new updated virus information to your computer every 5 - 15 minutes. Below is the top 10 list.

http://www.pcworld.com/printable/article/id,158157/printable.html

Zoot alors! Zhey Have Ze Nayked Piktures of You!

2009-07-14T00:46:00.002-04:00

Oh hoh hoh! Ze nayked piktures! Mah specialty! How zimple it is to now take nayked pictures of strangers! Oh hoh hoh! :3

Yep! It’s true! A new machine has been invented where instead of a metal detector and some large lady with a man haircut violating you; you now walk into a machine to be violated in a different way! Hurray! :D

You stand in a machine and it spins you around while it takes naked pictures of you.

Even though I am confident with my own body and the way it looks, not many people are, and this has caused an outrage in even non-prudent Europe!

Why the nudie pics, you ask in wild bewilderment. Well, it’s the newest way to view if anybody has ANYTHING that could be viewed as potentially dangerous. There would be some guy or chick looking at your picture in a private room, and he pushes buttons to say if you’re clear or not. These machines don’t really tell you that they’re taking a naked photo of you, and neither does the guard who escorts you into it. It just happens.

The whole process only takes less than two minutes which is just as long as it takes for somebody to remove their belt and shoes, pass under the arc and redress.

The idea of not having to take off my belt, jacket, hat shoes and purse sounds lovely, but naked pictures of my body, just doesn’t. I’m sure there would be a camera inside of the guard’s office to make sure that no touching happens… but still. I just don’t feel the need to have a nude shot of me taken, and have some guard look me over.

But maybe it would create the “gyno effect” on the guards. It’s a gyno’s job to look at vaginas all the live-long day, so nothing fazes them, or turns them on anymore. It’s just an organ and maybe, these guards would see as just as suspects and harbor no sexual desire for us.

Who knows? All I know is they should tell people what they’re getting into before a machine digitally rapes them! Le Gasp!

Stalking...Is F.U.N!

2009-07-14T00:40:00.002-04:00

Gosh! Where the hell are you? Isn’t this something people always ask each other? Wouldn’t it be deliciously lovely to know all the time? <3 I mean I can FINALLY know for sure if my friends really are where they say they are! How perfect! But wait. They’ll know where I am too. This is a problem.

There are two new companies one called “Loopt” and the other “Buddy Beacon” which track your whereabouts, but show them only to subscribing friends. For almost 3 bucks a month, you and a few buds can keep a close watch on each other. I mean it’s perfect when you are going to meet up with them and they’re the kind of people who are always late, or the kind that always get lost.

You don’t have to call them, or if you call them 15 million times, and they haven’t answered, you can see that Joey and Sally are currently at make out point, and can now feel totally uncomfortable when they arrive.

But things can be pretty sucky too. What if your gossipy cousin asks to track you? Or your parents? That could be a major drag. You see, even if you don’t use this service, you can be one of the many people that uses GPS or internet, and the phone companies know exactly where you are; which is currently at home, stuffing your face, or being generally lame like me.

So think about it. There’s no hiding if you have your cell phone tucked away in your pocket, No escaping society unless you unplug from your phone. What if your significant other is the crazy clingy type? You can never have life reflecting walks at night without being stalked.

Oh yeah. A lot of bad can come with this. It’s a blessing and a curse all at once. (Yay being cliché!) Because there is no stopping it unless you have an older phone or don’t have the internet functions or apps, you are still being stalked. At least the companies know your whereabouts.

Aw crap. Now I have to get a decoy phone so AT&T can think I’m having an awesome time somewhere, and not sitting at home writing blogs. :O(

Say Everything

2009-07-14T00:38:00.002-04:00

This article is about young people and how they express themselves via facebook, myspace, live journal, blogs, etc. They interviewed a girl in her 20's, Kitty, she was up to date with all the latest networking sites, facebook, myspace, livejounral, and so on. They found out how much you could find out about this girl just by reading her blog and her myspace and facebook. The person interviewing Kitty found out her parents had died a few years back and that she had an eating disorder and that she had a very deep dark depressing time in her life, but now she is much better. The interviewer learned all this about her just from her sites without even meeting her. The rest of the article shows all the different ways that young people portray themselves on the internet. It also discusses how sites like facebook and myspace became so popular. They say it all started with the Real World and the obsession of reality television. It's like when you have your facebook profile and you update with photos, and status updates, it's like you're a celebrity in your own world, but is this a good thing or a bad thing?

http://nymag.com/news/features/27341/index7.html

Virginity Tests? Today? Yea. Today.

2009-07-14T00:34:00.003-04:00

Eeep! Virginity tests? What the hell? How can anyone fathom such a thing? Maybe this is something only women can understand. (I’m not trying to be a crazy feminist here. XD)

I mean, how awful is it to be subjugated to such a test? A woman’s virginity is a private and personal matter. Women shouldn’t have to be virgins to get married. This should be a choice, not something to force upon women. Supposedly women over in India in a city are being tested to verify their virginity.

Young women sign up for a mass marriage ceremony (what in the hell?) and can only receive a government present (kind of like a dowry) if they take this test. If they “pass” they are given 6,500 rupees which is about $132! Typically these girls are from extremely poor families where this kind of money would be SUCH a blessing for them.

It’s so disgusting and shameful how they dupe women into taking this exam just to make money. In India, you see, virgin brides are such a hot commodity, since pre-martial sex is frowned upon, so this is how they can get “away” with administering such a test. These poor young girls either sign up out of free will, or get forced into these mass weddings in hopes of securing a finically stable future, even if it means getting married before they feel ready and mature enough for such a commitment.

But the official Neeraj Dubey denies any sort of test. He says that they are making the young women take pregnancy tests, since none of the men that signed up want the child of another man.

Everybody is then all hush hush about it, since it is a logical reason, but the truth is, they are invading these poor girls’ privacy by administering these virginity tests. Virginity should be a choice, not something required of women! But I digress…

Several of the women ended up complaining about how they felt violated and humiliated. I mean, I’m sure the way these women were tested probably wasn’t in a comfortable building in a private room. It must have been a mass test, such as the weddings are.

Cold and Unfeeling.

What a sad way to usher these girls into womanhood.

You Said What?! Wait, I’ll Just Call Good Old Barack, He’ll Know.

2009-07-14T00:33:00.002-04:00

Have you ever eavesdropped on people? Do it the old fashioned way of sticking the bottom of the cup to your ear and the top to a door in hopes of hearing mommy tell daddy what she got your for Christmas? I know I’m guilty of such! Eavesdropping on people’s conversations are just so man darn fun that the American government is still doing it.

Yes my friends, the government is still eavesdropping on your phone calls and e mails. By the millions, actually! They are harvesting your conversations by the millions, thanks to this program called Pinwale. So, your call to Sally to complain about how Mindy (who always complements herself and her assets) really has a dumpy little butt? The government has it on tape.

Originally, Pinwale was supposed to record only foreign communications, but it’s being expanded to include domestic. Now it archives foreign AND domestic calls AND e mails without any discretion over where they’re coming from and who these people are [like are they suspected of something serious]. It just records everything. That phone call to your boyfriend at 3 a.m. that may have gotten a little too interesting and make your sheets damp? Yep. They have that on tape too.

Just so you know, so far, no one is doing a THING to stop what’s happening. I mean Mr. Obama DID mention that people are indeed being taped, buuuuuut nothing is still being done.

Really? Wow.

The Day The Ads Died…I Wish.

2009-07-14T00:27:00.006-04:00

Oh the internet. The virtual watching hole of life. All people from all walks of life use the internet. We have the Zebras, who are your typically middle-aged inept internet users. They can also include the technologically stupid. The Zebras take a drink in their watering holes, lapping up pop-ups, strange e mails with even stranger attachments and VIRUSES. Then some alligator hiding under the surface of the water is watching, the family of Zebras. So innocent. So ripe for the picking. You see, the zebra can’t physically see the alligator under the murky waters. Although they are taught from young age that the watering hole is dangerous, and that there are “rules” and “privacy policies” [which sound like something good], and that there’s this proverbial “screen” that protects you from the alligators…what was really being said, is that ignorance is bliss and the alligators WILL indeed eventually kill you, and since you just won’t know when or how, you might as well lap carefully but gaily.

So the Zebras wade into the water, thinking they’re relatively safe because they are following the rules of interaction with the watering hole and… SNATCH! One of them is suddenly dragged under! He’s bobs above the surface, visibly missing appendages, and it’s clear to see… the alligator has gotten to personally know his prey.

Yup. That’s the internet for you. I always viewed myself as the Bonobo monkey [minus all the casual sex]. I would say Bonobo monkeys are like the mart internet user. They proceed with caution, always, but on occasion do lose a monkey or two. Buuuuuut, they do fling poo at Zebras and alligators, so it evens out, I guess.

Whoops. Okay. Back to explaining my imagery. So, the alligators are the ad companies, and the water hole represents the internet. Something we need and can’t successfully live without, any more. The snatch and death of the Zebra? That’s a pop-up taking your personal info back to their database. Hmmmmmm.

There have been complaints to try and change the privacy policies . Even going so far as to suggest renaming that section to “advertising information”.

“Spurred by the Federal Trade Commission, some key players in the advertising

industry, including Google and Yahoo, have been exploring much more direct

ways to inform Internet users about ad targeting and give them better controls”

The article then goes on to explain how ads should have a purpose, and an explanation. That would save the morons who try to shoot the duck to win a new iPod! And that would prevent thousands of that are made, and are run, that annoy the Bonobo Monkey’s a.k.a the smart internet users.

The FTC also tried to lobby for a change in laws that allowed the user to see the that these ads have collected, but that got quickly turned down. Going on the supposition that people wouldn’t understand, and may suffer from rage [ha-ha].

Can you imagine how cool it would be to be able to opt out of ads, without having to do it manually in a labor and time intensive routine that has to be done every time your cookies get deleted?! I mean who wouldn’t want ads to not be like alligators waiting at the bottom of a water hole waiting to eat you alive?! Meee! Oh, and way to many people to count. There would be way to many people jumping on the ‘no-ad bandwagon’ and thus it would generate no revenue and make the internet…well…almost unprofitable, I guess. The would economically screw things up, and seeing as we’re not exactly doing so wonderfully right now…It’s no wonder why these laws weren’t changed and why there wasn’t much of a fight about it when the lobbying efforts got thrown out the window. Right?

To Tweet or Not to Tweet? That Would Be My Internal Struggle If I Was Iranian…

2009-07-14T00:27:00.005-04:00

As if being in the middle of a bloody, tumultuous political uprising isn’t bad enough, where wearing the wrong color can get you bludgeoned and through in a ditch! The SNS Twitter has reinvented the idea of activism, as a result of Iranian citizen tweets on up-to-date rallies, beatings, death’s and marches in uproarious Tehran. There has been public outpouring of support and interest as a result of Iranian citizen tweets. Even media outlets have begun to read Iranian citizen tweets as a means of remaining connected to Iran.

But for all it’s praise and glorification, I haven’t seen anyone stand back and examine the potential problems that can arise from tweeting activism in the middle of a political uprising… until I read “The Tragic Pitfall of Iranian Citizen Journalism” in the Huffington Post.

Iranian tweeters have used the internet to expose what’s going on in their country…But haven’t they also exposed themselves? The Huffington Post article raises an alarming theory—that internet activism has consummated the marriage of censorship and surveillance. Previously informants had to infiltrate a group, be microphones, have secret cameras, know about face to face meetings and understand code to be able to spy on people that were considered dissenters or threats. Now? A search of ‘sensitive words’ is done through the internet on SNS, emails, search engines, etc and logged in a database for investigation. What does this mean for the Iranian election citizen journalist tweets? Why has te government not been able to stop them from tweeting? Well first, this means that somewhere there is a database compiled of ‘sensitive words’ that can eventually be traced (fairly easily) to a location, time, and person. Yep, there’s no anonymity on the internet folks. You. Can. Be. Found. Next, besides the obvious fact that Iran would want to keep news of their uprising within their means of interpretation for public dissemination, these tweets are convenient for them. This cuts out the work and the middle man and has left these citizen journalists marked…For what?... I’m sure we’ll be reading tweets about this soon, as it dominoes through the Iranian tweeter activists…

The Twitter (R)Evolution…Courtesy of Tehran.

2009-07-14T00:25:00.001-04:00

Normally I would start my word soup with some sort of anecdote about yours truly or try to add a dash of lameness, buuuuuuut….this time I can’t! I don’t tweet! I confess! I’m not a Twitterhead, rarely do I set eyes on that page [was it not for the Iranian Twitter sensation I would occasionally peer at]. I never found the appeal, really. Plus, who wants to read about my random ramblings in 140 characters or less, not even I do. I’m a (wo) man of many words. How can ANYBODY sum up the words in their head in as little as 140 characters?! Characters ARE NOT letters, mind you. They include spaces and punctuations. So it’s not even like, ‘Ok. You have 140 letters are your whim to type as you please. GO!’ Ah! Somehow, however, the Iranians are able to do it. And they’re able to tweet about a revolution no less. I can’t even explain what I ate for breakfast in 140 characters. The opening quote of this article:

“Pray that today at 4pm Toopkhane Sq. will turn into a sea of green, biggest

march in 30 years, Mousavi will be there”

That’s 117 characters! AHA! Yes! I counted it out MYSELF. Yet, it’s such a powerful image. It evokes something in the reader. Like I said, I can’t even say something that well written about breakfast…but then again, I’m not organizing a revolution against my morning eggs.

The government has been trying to block all modes of communications between the protesters of the current regime. They’ve tried blocking websites, and monitoring text messages, but Twitter? They can’t seem to get to Twitter. Twitter seems like Iran’s kryptonite. They can’t stop it. It’s a moving, living, embodiment of the Iranian people. Even news broadcasters are relying on it for information. This is the first time in HISTORY that news in a censored country has come out so raw…and more importantly…so true. People are taking pictures with their camera phones, uploading them, and sharing these blood chilling images with the world. Iran seems to be blocking Facebook and YouTube on and off, but just can’t seem to get to Twitter.

But, here’s the thing. Apparently, politics isn’t even what Iranians blog about so much. High on their blogging list of things there is also religion and…poetry. How romantic, no? I guess the Iranian government doesn’t think so.

But Iran isn’t the only country to block the internet. China is also a big player in censoring what its citizens can see, read or write about. For example, China blocked access to YouTube on the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square. In countries like North Korea or Cuba, only a select group of….very very few…have access to such websites and only have access for very specific reasons. However, nor China or Iran can keep the internet blocked forever. They economically depend on the internet to help make revenue. Even though ‘censored countries’ get tsk-tsked by the rest of the world, their main reason for “loosening up” is mainly for financial reasons—not for it’s citizens. So what does this mean? Well, it means that eventually, humble me thinks, China and Iran will have to embrace the blogs and the internet because it’s Pros outweigh its Cons, at least financially speaking. I mean, you could probably order a singing goat from China, and a magical lamp from Iran. Money DOES talk. And to make it…They’ll have to let other versions of talking occur as well.

Oh You Can Tell By The Way I Use My Walk… I’m a Terrorist?

2009-07-14T00:24:00.003-04:00

Can you just imagine that while you’re ordering your kebab from your friendly neighborhood kebab stand on wheels, someone is watching you? Somebody’s blearing eyes are watching your every move on the black and white (maybe color) screen! AHHHHHHHH!!!! Creepy nightmare, right?!?! But..AHHHH! It gets worse! This is actually true ! In lower Manhattan they have super sneaky cameras watching your every move. Even reading your license plates. So, some New Yorkers and contacted the New York Civil Liberties Union, and in conjunction they decided to sue the United States Department of Homeland Security for ‘failing to disclose records about..’ this heist in downtown Manhattan (as I like to call it).

This whole Lower Manhattan security initiative stalks you from Canal Street all the way to Battery Park! Civil Liberties groups are saying that this is an AWFUL idea because this plan and what it entails was never fully disclosed (or even slightly) to the public. So, if I understood correctly, in the name of watching out for ‘suspects’ they also have the right to be privy to the every move of innocent citizens? This doesn’t sit well with me. Who’s to say what these records could be used for? What everyday citizens could possibly be accused of? Where has privacy gone?! I mean it’s not as if we’re all terrorists with bombs strapped on, right? Maybe someone just wants to leave their mistresses house in peace, without worrying that his wife might be able to get her hands on this footage. Is what he doing wrong? Maybe. Does he have the right to do it in privacy. Absolutely. I doubt this suit will ever make it to court and win. Maybe they’ll read my blog and change their mind? Until then, make sure you smile pretty while you walk down the downtown Manhattan street chomping on that kebab or big ol’ hot dog of yours….

Metro Card: Your Ticket To Ride Or Your Ticket To Being Tracked?

2009-07-14T00:22:00.002-04:00

Who would have thought there would be a day when a murder suspect could be acquitted and proven innocent solely on the information his metro card provided? You might say, perhaps, that such a thing was inevitable. I agree.

We are entering the age of “ Privacy Lost”.

In this article we learn brothers Jason and Corey Jones were convicted of shooting a government witness that provided information on drug and gun cases. Both men had records spotted with drug trafficking, guns, and drug usage—and a link to the victim, which made them prime suspects. After a witness came forward to i.d. them, they were facing charges that could have sentenced them to the death penalty. Jason Jones, however, kept on insisting they had detained the wrong man. If his alibi was true, it would have placed him 5 miles away from the scene of the crime at the time the shooting took place. His defense lawyers used an unconventional method to prove their client’s innocence—they asked the NYC Transit Authority to run a trace on his Metro Card (which police had found in his wallet when he was arrested) for the day of the shooting. When the trace came back, Jason Jones’ alibi checked out. He was exactly where he said he had been, according o the traced metro card times.

When I first read this article, I thought “Another way we didn’t even realize we could be traced”. Just like every other “social convenience”, the Metro Card gives you one kind of mobility and takes away another. Then I started thinking of the countless innocent people in jail, and how perhaps something so simple as having the technology to trace Metro Cards existed when they were convicted, they might have been acquitted and leading very different lives. So, maybe…just maybe… even though some privacy has been lost—a new kind of freedom has been gained?

1. How do you feel about being able to be tracked by your Metro Card?
2. Do you think being “trackable” by your Metro Card is more useful than invasive?

Jon - Kate + Eight = Broken Family

2009-07-14T00:12:00.004-04:00

Oh! My favorite! I love reading the news and feeling enriched while indulging in my guilty pleasure of reading about ‘celebrities’. I personally have always smelled the demise of the Gosselin family since the tots were about three. Jon and Kate always seemed to…act. They bitched and moaned to each other, and not in the loving old married couple kind of way. They were NASTY. Kate always yelled at Jon like she was the master, and he was the slave, and not in the sexy kind of way. She was downright degrading, at times! But, Jon isn’t innocent either! He was always the blubbering passive aggressive kind of guy. His anger boiling in some deep part of his core, while waiting to throw the contents over the fortified plaster walls on some attacker. The media got to them, according to what I read . However, I’m pretty sure the stress of raising multiples [in front of the world] is another reason. Raising eight kids, six of them being the same age [5 years old] seems like a Herculean feat to me. I mean the Duggers have 18, but they rang in ages. The media attacks don’t seem like fun either, though. Within the recent months, tabloids have been cranking out gossip, and [tall?] tales about ‘who said this’ and ‘who did what’. Kate’s own brother has also hopped on the ‘I Hate Kate’ train parade. From what I’ve read, Kate has surprisingly had nothing to say about her bother other than the fact that she’s disappointed.

Oh and speaking of raising multiples, the writer of the article I’m basing my blog on, wrote about how she feels media infiltration of your family life is the worst thing. You know what? I agree! Imagine cameras following you around allllllll day, taping how you and your spouse interact, how you handle your kids, how you relate to the world. And then, after filming for 8 hours [a day; which they need to do in order to produce a 30 minute segment], your day get spliced up and patched back together to portray whatever the T.V. stations deems to be the juiciest storyline. Things get taken out of context, stares are cued in at a certain point to illicit a reaction from the crowd, events get cut, and BAM there’s a day you don’t even remember having. Jon and Kate + 8 kids… feasible, I think, after much hard work and dedication. Jon and Kate + 8 kids + Cameras + Paparazzi + World Speculation….impossible to come out alive.

I Always Feel Like Somebody’s Watching Me

2009-07-14T00:09:00.004-04:00

The urinal test . Everybody who’s anybody (hardy-har-har) has downloaded it, or mooched the test off of a friend, or has at least heard of it. If you haven’t well let me fill you in. it test’s the player’s ability to be a gentleman when the urinal fills up. These are called apps. It’s what is sold us or in some cases GIVEN to us free of charge.

“Hey wait a second. Free?” you say.

“Why yes. Free”

“What’s so horrible about that? I LOVE free annnnnd I’d LOVE to see if I’m a pissing gentleman”

Well the problem isn’t necessarily connected to the Urinal Test app, but more so to the tracking apps. “Tracking? Huh? Like tracking deer for the hunt?!” Basically sir (or madam), you’re being tracked by large companies all paying to get your attention. “What kinda apps ‘track’?” Well…since you asked… It’s really any app that has to do with location. For example: YouTube, Yelp, Urbanspoon, TMZ, and even your good friend the GPS. All of these apps and many many, many more work together to get your attention to mosey on to their store and spend your hard earned dough on their product. Yup. The apps you hold near and dear to your heart can be spying on you. Right now.

How many of you just frantically went on to your cell phones and tried to cancel some of your apps? How many of you at least took a PEEK at them, so make sure you didn’t have any of those treacherous tracking apps on your phone? It’s a pretty creepy idea, since we’ve become such a digitally dependant society. Can you imagine no phones? No computers? NO INTERNET?! You wouldn’t be reading this right now, since you’d be too busy trying to rub two stones together to make a flame and cook your dinner. “Oh man! What kind of information do they collect?” Well, my friend, at least 20 pieces of info on you such as consumer data, including income, housing, and spending power. What you do on your 3G isn’t only for YOUR eyes. Somebody is spying on you , and gathering it to make you one SUPER consumer. The scary thing (as if it isn’t scary enough) is most people don’t even know they’re being tracked. Which is why taking your self off of the company’s list is near impossible.

Since none of these apps collect or ‘pin-point’ your exact location, nor your exact home address, you can’t sue them! So far, as I’m typing this, there are no rules in place to regulate or protect your privacy from these apps. It seems almost as if you have a little secret squirrel in your pocket! Now your Blackberry, PDA, Zune and ‘whatever-is-left’ users aren’t immune to the tracking apps. If you’ve ever downloaded a free game onto ANYTHING, friends, you’ve been tracked. The evolution of the cell phone is mind boggling; I mean they practically speak for us! At least to advertising companies they do!... Soon we’ll have talking advertisements!...Oh wait. We do.

Cyber Attack Ahoy! .Gov, Bring In The Masked Savior!

2009-07-14T00:08:00.002-04:00

-Man the battalions! Prepare yourself men! A great attack is coming!

-Sir, excuse me, sir, but isn’t this attack on the internet?

-Ahh….Well… What? The inter-what?

-The internet sir. You know. That place you go on the computer for vast amounts of knowledge?

-Uhmm….My reports told me it was a graaaaaaave attack!

-Yes. It is. But it’s online. Sir.

-Oh. Well… You men can go back home then.

EEEp! That sounded like a lame car insurance commercial! But seriously! There was an attack on state websites recently. The important .gov websites at the Head of State, White House, and even the Pentagon websites have been suffering cyber attacks by Cyberbullies! (Whom I picture to look like large tubby men, with humps on their backs, broken glasses, and an awful haircut with a maniacal laughter).

But maybe, they’re not so terrible since the State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the attacks aren’t plenty or horrible, but more so annoying. There have also been attacks on South Korean based websites, and they speculate North Korea could be the possible ‘hump back’ culprits. (How unoriginal of South Korea to assume that. Waa-Waa-Waa). But America confirmed ever so nicely (and slowly) that there is NO evidence that would lead anyone to think North Korea is the perpetrator.

So, how bad are these ‘attacks’? Well, they basically flood websites with fake/ghost computers that are carrying viruses…Which makes things…shall we say, difficult. Oh boo.

No word on what the government is doing, but I’m picturing super computer geeks coming to the rescue complete with flowing capes!

How dreamy. <3

Every Step You Take…Every Move You Make…

2009-07-14T00:05:00.006-04:00

Picture yourself sitting on the veranda of your beautiful summer home in St. Tropez over looking the ocean, hands behind your head, smoking a cigar… When all of a sudden you’re surrounded by men dressed in black, faces covered, magnums pointed in your direction from every angle, and someone shouting at you to get on the ground… While you’re on the ground, the big brute whose knee is jutting into your back yells into the back of your head that you are under arrest by the U.S. Government. Your eyes peer in through your sliding glass doors and find a sleuth of officers tearing apart the inside of your house, dumping drawers and their contents on the floor… They haven’t read me my rights! They haven’t served me with a search warrant! Isn’t this illegal?!... Actually. It’s not.

One of 3 judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan wrote “The 4th Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness…applies to extraterritorial searches and seizures of U.S citizens”. So, what does this mean? It means that if the government can come with a reason (a “reasonable” reason), they can tap your phones, search your property and not have to Mirandize you when they bring you into custody. Reasonableness… Seems quite vague to me.

My question here is, “What constitutes ‘reason enough’ to ‘trump a United State’s citizens rights”?

This is one of those “issues” that I’m sitting on the fence about. Why? Well, I want the government to catch suspected terrorists before they’re able to carry out any attacks that could kill an innumerable amount of victims. My fear is… Are we opening up Pandora’s Box? If they can do this to suspected terrorists with U.S citizenship/ U.S. naturalization who are living outside the U.S., what’s stopping them from expanding their reach to other ‘reasonable’ crimes? Of course, the old saying goes “If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide”. Which I believe it true to some extent… But isn’t this taking away our “option” of being able to retain some measure of secrecy? Aren’t the definitions of ‘privacy’ and ‘secrecy’ very similar?

I just decided to write about this article , because I feel like its one more step that’s being taken (right under our noses) to living in a global “Big Brother” world, where everything we do can always be monitored in the name of some unnamable social benefit…

Can You Hear Me Now?! England Spies…On You?

2009-07-14T00:01:00.003-04:00

I’ll say…this is an Orwellian nightmare, my comrades! So, from this moment forward, I shall be addressed as “master and commander and ruler of the whole word”. Thank you comrades. Let us plot against Snowball! Muahahahahahahah!

Whoopsy! Did I let myself get carried away? Well, I guess that’s fine since according to what I read England may be suffering their own Orwellian nightmare, or at least it will be soon. A lady by the name of Jacqui Smith proposed the idea to be able to go through everybody’s text messages, calls and (gasp!) emails.

Everyone over in Queens Country seems to be in a major tizzy. English citizens feel they are being called ‘guilty until proven innocent’. Guilty until proven innocent?! What in the Queen’s name is going on here?! The English government has basically given this response “Look here. Keep your knickers on. It’s not like we’re going to have EXACT copies of what you’re saying. More like, a general idea and exact times, is all. Oh. And we’re storing it on a super computer. Cheers!”

I even took the time to read some of the comments about this article, and they all hate Ms. Smith. I would go so far as to say, they hate her enough to want to feed her to the monster that sleeps under Stonehenge. After all, isn’t that what Stonehenge really is? Killer monster teeth that are sitting pretty above the earth until one day it decides to SNAP shut?

Ahem. Back to work.

I mean, can you just imagine how horrible this plan would be? Napoleon, the Orwellian pig of course, reading about your life?! Even if you have the most boring life in the world (a category I’m sure I could run for the title of, seeing as I don’t tweet because I’m not leading a revolution), it just doesn’t feel right being spied on like you’ve committed some kind of heinous crime. I can’t even have people hold my cell phone for too long, for fear or people reading my texts! My cover would be blown, the intelligent façade I’ve worked so diligently to create would be shattered once people knew I looked up baking blogs on my iPhone. If I was English, I would say “Chaps! I won’t be subjected to such treatment! I’m going to start a Twitter Revolution until the Queen hears my cries! Huzzah!”

Lancaster, PA

2009-07-13T23:30:00.002-04:00

Lancaster, PA keep a close eye on itself.

In this article, the very small town of Lancaster, PA which is only 4-6 miles around has over 165 cameras in the streets. They installed the cameras to help cut down on the crime in town, the prostitution, and any other vandalism. They thought it would cut down the crime rate but it didn't. If anything it is helping them solve murders, theft, crime, prostitution etc. The problem with the new camera installation is that anyone can sign up to be a camera monitor. This worries the people of the town because if they have a neighbor they don't really like they're afraid of being spied on. Also they found a wife who wanted to use the camera's to spy on her husband and his mistress but obviously the town did not allow that.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-spycam-city21-2009jun21,0,3641451.story

Big Brother is watching your house.

2009-07-13T23:01:00.002-04:00

George Orwell's Big brother theory has become very true. Even if you don't believe it just look at technology today. There are camera's everywhere, on the street, in buildings, your phones, you have google earth where you can see your own house on a map via satellites. Britian alone has 4.2 million cameras on the streets, thats 1 camera for every 14 people and each person is caught on a camera an average of 300 times a day. Within 200 yards of Orwell's former flat, there were 34 cameras recording every moment. Although it seems over the top to have this many cameras, it comes with it's good and it's bad. Although these camera's may help with theft and crime in gerneral it's also a loss of privacy and some people can't handle being watched 24.7 so it's for you to decide.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391081-details/George+Orwell,+Big+Brother+is+watching+your+house/article.do

Protect your children from the Internet's Seamy Side

2009-07-13T22:02:00.002-04:00

This is an article on internet safety for children and what parents can do to protect their children from the dangers of the internet. A study was done what happens when a girl would type Barbie into google, you would expect maybe a barbie website or links to toy stores, but the top 20 hits link were softcore porn sites. The word "fashion" was also typed in and within the top 20 matches fasion fetishes and hardcore pornography were related. The article gives parents and kids what they should and shouldn't do.
Stay out of chat rooms
Do not reply to unknown emails
do not give out personal information
never share password, even with friends,.
Never arrange a face to face meeting with someone you meet online.
Don't believe everything you read online
Do tell a parent if something online makes you uncomfortable.
Make use of available controls on your ISP
Make sure computers are out in the open where family members father.
Know what sites your children are visiting; stay involved.
Let children know which sites are appropriate and which are off limits.

Ebay switches from No to Yes..

2009-07-13T21:41:00.004-04:00

For any of you who have an ebay account and have noticed ever since the day you signed up that your email inbox has began to fill up with junk mail, here is why.
Ebay has over 19 million members and for atleast 6 of these 19 million members, and any new members who signed up after the "Swtich" date, you're preferences were switched from No to Yes automatically. What this means is, on ebay there is a setting that you can select No or Yes to allowing ebay to give out your information to advertisers. Before they made the switch, it was automatically no, but now it is Yes and over 90% of ebay users don't know about this and that you can switch it back to no. Not only is it emails, its also phone calls and actual junk mail in your physical mail box. So for all you ebay users you might wanna change your setting and probably get a new email address because if it's like mine, 99% is junk mail and I had to delete it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/11/technology/11GEE2.html

Response to net neutrality question

2009-07-13T19:59:00.002-04:00

As this was the one question I chose to not answer on the final exam, I thought I should address the idea of net neutrality in my blog.

Net neutrality is the notion that, because the internet is one enormous network where everyone has access to everywhere at anytime, every site should be accessed the same way at the exact same speed and there should not be any interference with this open networked concept (keeping the net, short for internet, neutral/equal). A few problems exist with net neutrality though, such as the bigger websites paying more to have their site run faster than smaller, less known sites. As we do live in a capitalistic nation, where the more money you have, the more options are open to you, but the question becomes, on this open network, should capitalism come into play and affect the speed of some of the larger sites in comparison to the smaller ones? Should capitalism exist everywhere except online, even though more and more aspects of life are turning to online?

My take on this whole concept is, even though I don't think it's fair that the speed at which certain sites can be accessed in relation to others can be different in some sites' favor, at the end of the day, if we live in a capitalistic society (which we do), we can't have capitalism for some aspects of life, and then completely ignore it in other parts of life. If money talks in the offline world, I guess it's only fair that money should talk in the online world too. The larger companies/sites have worked hard to become as successful and powerful as they could, and should be able to benefit because of that. Hard work should pay off.

War...thankfully it's just in the cyber world

2009-07-13T00:31:00.000-04:00

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/mydoom/

Talk of a "cyberwar" is now spreading after more than two dozen high-level websites in the U.S. and South Korea were knocked by denial-of-service attacks this week. Some are blaming a five year old "worm" as the source of the traffic, which has been under the influence of an unsophisticated hacker who it appears that did little to sustain his borrowed code against detection.

The attacks have spurred a thousand headlines and helped to toss some fuel on some long-standing international political flames, with one party blaming another for the aggression. As reported by several media outlets this week, websites belonging to the White House, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, National Security Agency, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Defense and the State Department, in addition to sites for the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq were thumped by denial-of-service attacks over the July 4th holiday weekend. The Washington Post website was also affected by the attacks, caused by a "botnet" of more than 50,000 computers in several countries (China, South Korea, and Japan) influenced by the hacker.

At least eleven sites in South Korea, including sites for the Ministry of Defense and Presidential Blue House were also targeted, spurring the Associated Press to publish a story mainly quoting anonymous South Korean intelligence officials blaming the attacks on North Korea.

Chips...not the edible type

2009-07-12T23:54:00.002-04:00

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hHq9P54bYfXbHp-aDgs01gePq1twD99CDMT00

This article was very fascinating and dealt with the fact that passports, drivers licenses and other documents all contain chips. These chips allow the government to detect each persons identity, just by strolling down the street. This is an incredible breach of privacy, the fact that I can be walking down the street and the government can, within seconds, have my drivers license ID and basically know all this information about me.

I understand the fact that we are in a post 9/11 world where we are constantly trying to find and arrest terrorists, but this is just plain ridiculous. I want to have the freedom to go and buy a sandwich and have the solace in knowing that an FBI official will not know what country I last visited, just by looking at a scanner.

Are we living in the novel 1984, where the government is turning into "Big Brother?" If the government is able to gain knowledge about our passports, they can probably get medical records, as well as past jobs of employment and other personal information. This is a very scary development and a total breach in the privacy of the individual.

Oh Bush.....

2009-07-12T13:14:00.004-04:00

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/psp/

The Justice Department is investigating whether the furtiveness of Bush's warrant-less wiretapping program had an influence on terrorism prosecutions by hiding exculpatory evidence from defendants, according to five inspectors general this past Friday.

The report (mandated by Congress), also warned that President Bush's post-9/11 extrajudicial intelligence programs involved unparalleled collection of communications, and the government needs to be careful about storing and using that data.

Senator Russ Feingold (Wisconsin Democrat), who sits on the Intelligence Committee, said the report showed the programs were "outrageous...This report leaves no doubt that the warrantless wiretapping program was blatantly illegal and an unconstitutional assertion of executive power...I once again call on the Obama administration and its Justice Department to withdraw the flawed legal memoranda that justified the program and that remain in effect today.”

The government has only admitted to eavesdropping on calls and e-mails, where one end was overseas and one person was suspected to be a terrorist, but has never officially confirmed that it "sucked" in the telephone records of millions of Americans or eavesdropped wholesale on the internet.

Response to class discussion- gatekeeping/credibility

2009-07-12T12:49:00.003-04:00

We spoke about gatekeeping and credibility when it comes to online blogging, citizen journalism, and of course the infamous Wikipedia. The big problem with Wikipedia is that it is a form of citizen journalism, where regular, non "experts" are the ones who are putting out the information for other viewers to then go and research.

In my opinion, this is a huge problem, and even though our class discussion didn't change my overall opinion about this topic, it surely gave me a different angle to view this problem. As I believe that a research site, such as Wikipedia, should have "experts" per say who are delivering the important information for viewers to then research, our class discussion brought up the key point, well who are these "experts" and is their credibility really that much more valid than a regular joe schmo?

In my opinion, the answer is definitely yes, there are more educated, intellectual, studied people who have been working hard and studying to become these "experts," and the general public should be more inclined to listen to these people instead of possibly uneducated people who do this for fun. That's the point of blogs to me, for these regular joe schmos to give their personal opinions based off of journalistic pieces that are 100% objective. But in a research site like Wikipedia, where people go to find true facts and information, I think you shouldn't have uninformed, studied people writing the information with possibly some subjectivity thrown into the articles, because that's what blogs are for. There are people out there who are naturally smarter and then on top of that, work and study harder to gain more information to then put out to the general public, and it's important to have these people gatekeeping and researching the information that the public sees.

Class Discussion-Gate Keeping & Objectivity-Thoughts?

2009-07-07T15:27:00.002-04:00

In class we spoke about the significance of gate keeping and credibility. Is gate keeping significant? Is objectivity important when it comes to the flow of information such as the news?

As I listened to my fellow classmates feelings about these questions I thought about my own feelings in my head. While I believe we should be able to write as we wish and have the freedom to hold our own opinion and public expression, I do believe there is a "good" way to keep a steady flow of information. I believe gate keepers such as editors etc. have a very important role when it comes to the release of news and information to the public. While I understand certain information sources like to spin their information to their benefits there is still a consistent flow of information. It's consistent because there is an editor or someone of that nature reading through the information and deciding what will and will not be placed in their publication.

I do agree with one of the critics in a short clip we watched. A hierarchy of knowledge of necessary. I like the idea that someone there is always someone higher in the pyramid (except the top point of course) that double checks what is going on in the organization. There does need to be someone to make a call on what should and should not be there.

Back to one of the original questions in regards to the importance of objectivity in the news. I do believe that it is important for some information to remain neutral. I think it is important for the audience to get the facts and then analyze the issue in the way they want whether it's posing their own questions and talking with friends or building on more research from that point forward.

Watch out for those blind hackers...

2009-07-06T18:31:00.002-04:00

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

A legally blind Massachusetts phone hacker, Matthew Weigman, 19, was sentenced to over 11 years in federal prison. This phone hacking followed his guilty plea on computer infringement and witness intimidation charges earlier this year. There is no parole in the federal system so the 135 month term will likely keep Weigman behind bars until 2018.

Weigman is known in the telephone party-line scene as "Li'l Hacker," and is considered one of the best phone hackers alive. He is known for using social engineering to influence phone company workers and others into revealing confidential information and entering commands into computers and telephone switching equipment on his behalf.

The FBI had been chasing Weigman since he was 15 years old, and finally arrested him in May of last year after he just turned 18. When interviewed, Weigman stated, “I’ve been interested in phones since I’ve been about 8...I talked to technicians when they came down here to do things on my phone.”

ATM Vendors

2009-07-05T21:04:00.002-04:00

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/atm-vendor-halts-talk/

An ATM vendor has succeeded in getting a security talk taken out of the upcoming Black Hat conference, after a researcher announced he would reveal a vulnerability in the system. The researcher, Barnaby Jack, works for Juniper Networks, and was going to show how he could "jackpot" a popular ATM brand by exploiting a vulnerability in its software.

But Jack's employer released a statement saying it was canceling the talk due to the vendor's intervention. The statement read, "Juniper believes that Jack’s research is important to be presented in a public forum in order to advance the state of security...However, the affected ATM vendor has expressed to us concern about publicly disclosing the research findings before its constituents were fully protected. Considering the scope and possible exposure of this issue on other vendors, Juniper decided to postpone Jack’s presentation until all affected vendors have sufficiently addressed the issues found in his research.”

Truly a scary thought...

Web Vigilante

2009-07-05T20:23:00.002-04:00

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/former-perverted-justice-member-arrested-for-ddosing-rolling-stone-radar/

Bruce Raisley, a software developer, has been charged with "launching denial of service attacks against websites belonging to Rolling Stone, Radar, and others." Raisley allegedly launched these attacks to block access to 2 articles written by the publications that reported embarrassing information about him. And of course, by him trying to do this has brought even more attention to his case.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Erez Liebermann stated, "his actions were alarming in that he chose to attack third party websites when he didn’t like their content...It’s one thing for him to be unhappy with a website. It’s another thing for him to attack third parties that have not done anything, which causes damage on the side of the victim companies and on the side of any affected computer.”

"The Car of the Future" Police-mobile

2009-07-05T19:48:00.004-04:00

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/07/04/holmes.super.police.car.cnn

When I think of a car of the future this police vehicle is exactly what comes to mind. The year 2012 is the expected date of production for this new and improved police car aimed to really fight crime. This high-tech piece of equipment has many gadgets that resemble an oversized iphone.

The car has a 15 inch computer consoul, radar screen, cameras in the front and back, a license plate recognition device, and can read up to 15000 plates a minute. At the start of production this new piece of machinery is said to produce 10,000 new jobs. Whenever a new company comes in the empoloyment of many is soon to follow. What does this new wave of technology mean for the common American citizen? We are, for sure, going to have to watch our speeding! If I was a criminal I would definitely not want to mess with the cops that have this car. The police will be able to be more efficient than ever before. The video compares it to the Bat-mobile.

Head of British Secret Intelliegence Service Personal Information Given Up on Facebook

2009-07-05T19:27:00.003-04:00

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/05/uk.spy.chief.facebook/index.html

Being a British ambassador and the newly appointed head of Britain's international spy agency definitely does not entitle you to a normal life. John Sawers' wife made family vacations and their place of residence open to the public when she decided to blast information on the public networking site, Facebook. It is understood Sawers daughter recently joined the site, but given her father's status wouldn't dream to place private information on the site. What was his wife thinking?

Sawers was appointed only 10 days ago to become the head of the Secret Intelliegence service, also known as the M16. The article critically states how detrimental this could be to his personal security. While all signs point to Sawers doing a great job while in this position one must wonder if this information placed on Facebook could be harmful to his well being. When he is head of the M16 he will be in charge of a new British cybersecurity organization. The new organization will be in "charged with making sure that all the intelligence services are not vulnerable to hacking, identity theft, or phishing." When a person is in charge of so much information and new technology their identity should be as concealed as possible for him and his family's safety.

Response to eXistenZ

2009-07-05T17:50:00.002-04:00

eXistenZ was unlike any movie I'd ever seen before. While we talked as a class about a few possibilities of why this movie would have been made and what was the possible idea behind it, I have a slightly different perception of what this movie might have intended to teach its viewers.

I thought that this was somewhat of a wake-up call to teenagers who play violent and graphic video games to warn them of the difference between virtual reality and reality. eXistenZ I felt, was trying to portray that some teenagers (and even some adults) would think it was alright to transfer and act upon what they saw in virtual reality to reality, leading to several deaths or serious injuries. The movie was trying to give the sense that to some, there is a blurry line between fantasy and reality, where whatever one sees in video games is possible to occur in reality. This is why there have been the instances of stories where humans are doing some absolutely ridiculous acts of violence because they are imitating what they see in their favorite video games.

To some, the line between virtual reality and reality is non-existent, and this could lead to danger for other humans around these few examples. This idea, I thought, was what eXistenZ was trying to poke at.

Response to class discussion- desktop interface

2009-07-05T17:31:00.002-04:00

When asked by Professor Zaslow to think about/come up with different possible interfaces instead of the only one I was familiar with (Microsoft's desktop), I was fairly stumped and uncertain about what my answer would be.

I have only known the desktop, as I have always worked with a PC, and never with a Mac. I am only familiar with what the desktop has to offer and the way it is set up/arranged. To me, the recycle bin makes sense for me to put garbage, or files I did not need any longer, also trying to remind me and other users that it is good and important to recycle in real life when necessary. Internet Explorer would be where I would go to search or "explore" the web/internet. Word is where I would go to type up assignments and essays, simply made up of varying numbers of "words." And finally, "My Network Places" makes sense because all computers are part of much larger networks, and web access is obtained through either a wireless network or a wired network, which can both be found here.

To me, saving my assignments in something other than files that I personally name, doesn't make sense at all, to the point where I cannot even think of how I would change this interface. The problem was not that I didn't understand what was being asked of me, but instead, to actually imagine and come up with other possibilities that would make sense to me.

E-mail Surveillance?

2009-07-02T16:26:00.003-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html?_r=1

This article discusses the renewed scrutiny that the National Security Agency faces over the extent of its domestic surveillance program. The major problem faced is the recent "intercepts of the private telephone calls and e-mail messages of Americans." A certain team is made to go through bulk e-mails messages. This is done without court warrants. The handling of these messages infuriates many because it's an invasion of American's privacy.

They claim to have a hard time distinguishing between American and foreign e-mails. That is just inexcusable though. With all of the technology that we have today there must be a way to know the difference between foreign and American messages. Are they claiming to not know the difference or is the government choosing to snoop and blaming it on negligence?

The agency is permitted to collect e-mails from private Americans if there is reason to believe they could be involved in overseas contact/e-mails. Who determines which Americans are examined? It seems to me that almost anyone could be a reasonable suspect when the government is deciding. What constitutes a person to be of personal "liking" to the agency?

The article states, "In April, the Obama administration said it had taken comprehensive steps to bring the security agency into compliance with the law after a periodic review turned up problems with “overcollection” of domestic communications. " An over-collection of information is what leads to an invasion of privacy. This must be monitored and fixed obviously.

Are fusion centers allowing for an invasion of privacy?

2009-06-30T16:44:00.003-04:00

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

2009-06-29T17:40:00.002-04:00

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?

2009-06-29T15:32:00.004-04:00

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

2009-06-26T18:37:00.002-04:00

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

2009-06-25T11:29:00.006-04:00

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!

2009-06-22T21:47:00.002-04:00

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

2009-06-22T21:18:00.002-04:00

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?"

2009-06-22T20:47:00.002-04:00

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

2009-06-22T19:50:00.002-04:00

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?

2009-06-22T16:33:00.003-04:00

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

2009-06-22T15:07:00.003-04:00

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

2009-06-16T19:57:00.002-04:00

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

2009-06-15T18:20:00.002-04:00

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"

2009-06-10T21:43:00.002-04:00

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

2009-06-10T21:19:00.002-04:00

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?

2009-06-10T19:56:00.003-04:00

“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.

2009-06-10T19:09:00.013-04:00

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

2009-06-10T17:54:00.004-04:00

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.

2009-06-09T05:09:00.007-04:00

...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

2009-06-08T17:50:00.000-04:00

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?

2009-06-08T17:09:00.000-04:00

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

2009-06-08T16:46:00.000-04:00

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?

2009-06-07T13:21:00.000-04:00

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?"

2009-06-07T12:30:00.000-04:00

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

2009-06-07T12:06:00.000-04:00

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

2009-06-04T14:11:00.000-04:00

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...

2009-06-03T18:12:00.000-04:00

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.