Privacy+Controversy+(CM)

= ﻿ = rss url="http://citizenlab.org/feed/" link="true" number="10"This feed gives updates on the goings-on regarding internet privacy, security, and activism in today's world. some common topics are China's violations of internet privacy, and the emergence of internet cultures in developing or authoritarian governements.

rss url="http://feeds.feedburner.com/Newsblogged" link="true" number="10"This feed talks about breaking news in regards to news-worthy internet controversies, such as Wikileaks and shutting off of the internet in Egypt.

Book Review

The Book __Privacy in The Information Age__ is a book that discusses how information is accessed, protected, and traded in today’s digital age. In lieu of focusing on the moral and ethical issues that are bound to come up when discussing topics such as this, Author Fred Cate discusses the legal logistics of the laws that allow people access (or deny them access) to the every day information of individuals. He also discusses how almost everything you do generates some digital data, and that it is difficult to keep this deluge of information safe.

How Free is Too Free? Freedom of speech and the internet
The internet has often been described as a representation of the best and worst aspects of freedom of speech. With the ability to speak to untold thousands of people at once, and still be almost completely anonymous, the internet can be quite dangerous.

One of the many controversies on the internet is censorship versus freedom of speech. There have been several calls to action, where people have sometimes requested, and often demanded, a website be shutdown, or a person be arrested, for things said or done on the internet. There are just as many people, however, who believe this to be an incredible violation of their rights.

Computer Programmer Ed McGinnis offered his opinion on whether or not freedom of speech is in danger on the web.

“If it is in danger of being infringed upon, it is because it is being abused. Things like slander on social networking sites, predators on dating sites, and a lot of the hate speech on the internet. I think it (freedom of speech) may shrink, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing.”

The possibility of the addition of more government enforcing and monitoring on the web scares a lot of people, especially those that consider themselves part of the “internet culture.” Other people feel less concerned about the censorship or monitoring of the internet in the United ‘states, and more concerned about places where it is already full blown, such as in countries with oppressive governments, like china and Iran. Some people are trying to remedy this issue by themselves, or among groups of peers.

Many of these individuals consider themselves “hacktivists” people striving to address various world issues through the use of hacking and other technological means. There is a great deal of controversy surrounding this issue; specifically regarding whether or not the United States and other countries have the right to interfere with the laws of other countries, even if they are immoral or unethical.

“I’m hesitant to think we should get involved w/ other countries laws.” Ed had posited. “we wouldn’t want others to put pressure on us to change ours. I think we should encourage and work with other countries in regards to these laws. We should work with Chinese Government, Encourage not censoring, point out advantage, etc. but we should not try to circumvent their laws.”

Lomker offered a similar opinion.

“We should deal with out own problems before meddling in others, but if we were to (interfere) we should do so gradually.”

If china and Iran represent one extreme of the information-freedom scale, then Julian Assange’s Wikileaks represents the other. Wikileaks, a non-profit organization that releases confidential and top secret information to the world, has been looked at with varying degrees of approval. Some people have heralded it as a bastion of honesty, a force of order there to prevent any of the world’s governments from lying to it’s people. Others still have seen it as a tool of mischief and chaos, being wielded by a narcissist and being used solely to make him famous and ruin foreign relations.

Once again, Jim Lomker gave his opinion on the ethical standing of Wikileaks.

“No (I do not think it is ethical)- I believe it’s sole purpose is to disseminate any and all information that it uncovers whether it is private, secret or classified. Certain things are classified and need to stay classified. The internet opens up so many more avenues of information, but I think if it was ethical they would think about what they leak before divulging it. Instead, it’s info in- info out regardless of how classified.”

Ed also agreed that that Wikileaks was being handled unethically.

“I understand the need for the revelation of injustice. However, what he (Assange) did was self serving, he put people in harms way. There were specific people he put in danger because of what he said, that’s my problem with it.”

There will always be controversy surrounding the distribution of information. Be it a concern about there being to much regulation and censorship, such as in China and Iran, or the case of there being far too much information available to any one who wants to look, such as with Wikileaks, controversy will most likely always be a part of these discussions. Despite this, people will keep working to either censor or reveal information, for better or for worse.

Government involvement and the Internet
The face of the internet is much different than it used to be. There’s a lot of danger out there now; cyber crime is becoming more and more common, and the targets are getting bigger. Every year, thousands upon thousands of computers are ravaged by various viruses, worms, and Trojans, and more and more companies lose information from information theft programs. In recent years, this problem has become prevalent enough to warrant the involvement of the United States Government.

However, there are many that say that the U.S> should not be involved in securing peoples computers, and keeping their information private. “who will be able to say how far too far is?” many people ask. Among the internet community, there are many that prefer a laisez-faire approach; viruses can easily be avoided if you aren’t stupid, and if you get one, it is your own fault.

Computer programmer Ed McGinnis offered his own opinion on the issue.

“ I don’t think it’s the governments job to protect your information other than through law making; the government should pass a law forbidding breaking and entering, but they shouldn’t post a guard outside of my house.”

In addition to explaining his outlook on government regulation, he also discussed how government regulation plays into his own job.

“In my job, we are FDA regulated, as well as restricted to patient-privacy and Hippa laws. None of our programs can collect people’s initials or names. Security is very important to us.”

If the government is supposed to regulate the internet solely through lawmaking, then the actual, direct protection of people’s information and other assets lies with anti-virus programs like Malware Bytes and Virus Scan. There are some who feel that these programs are not enough, or are not good enough at their job to be considered reliable. Ed shared his opinion on the effectiveness of these programs.

“It’s a constant gain; It’s the bigger, newer mousetrap. Someone will always try to beat it. It’s helpful, but certainly not a cure all. I don’t think it will ever be fool proof.”

Fellow Programmer Jim Lomker agreed, saying that people would never be completely free from threats like malware and spyware.

“(It’s) just part of the game.”

Despite the agreement that the threat of malware (short for “malicious software, a blanket term for any software that damages someone’s computer or steals their information) will never truly be gone, the two both agree that action can be taken reduce the risks of getting infected. They both agree that informing the public is an important step. “technology moves too fast for those in the IT (Information technology) world.” Lomker said. “Average people do not have a clue as to the power of the internet.”

“I don’t think you can know too much(about internet security)”. Ed McGinnis thinks. “I think, when people buy computers, they should come with some sort of You-tube like thing you can just play, takes about an hour, and teaches them about computer and internet security, in extreme layman’s terms; talks about simple bugs, scams, and stuff like that.”

I also asked if keeping people safe would be easier if they were more informed

“Absolutely.” Lomker had replied “The more they know, the better.”

Viruses may still be a huge deal, and we may never be entirely sure how the issue of malware should be handled, and by whom. The people may not be entirely educated on how to handle the kind of technical problems that are becoming more and more common place these days, though it seems that here are no shortage of people out there ready to help. In the mean time, people will continue to do their best to avoid getting viruses, and companies like Mcaffee will be happy to help.

** Wikileaks: Swing and a Miss, Assange. **

I remember cheering for WikiLeaks a few years back. This was the first time people had really heard of WikiLeaks; I was vaguely aware of it, solely because of my internet-driven lifestyle. I thought it was pertinent that we, as Americans, know what happened in Iraq. Besides, I thought, theses were all old reports; telling the “terrorists” where our troops were 8 months ago isn’t exactly treason. However, with the latest batch of documents, I can openly say I don’t support what WikiLeaks is doing. However, I still have hope for the IDEA of WikiLeaks.

According to Assange, the creator of WikiLeaks, the organization exists to make all countries accountable for their actions. This on the surface, is a brilliant idea. Since Nixon, the American public has always been at least a little suspicious of the government’s doings; removing the curtain from those in power, whether they like it or not, seems like the perfect cure for alienation of the public. This doesn’t just apply to the United States either; citizens of nearly every country in the world are at least a little suspicious of what goes on inside their government. If used properly, Wikileaks could alleviate those anxieties, and inform the people of their government’s activities

The problem is, Assange has different ideas in mind.

In lieu of doing anything half-way supportive, Assange does the global equivalent of posting the class jock’s diary on face book. WikiLeaks has set back foreign relations for several countries decades back, by publishing info said behind closed doors, in addition to other pireces of sensitive information. Anyone who says this is necessary is an idiot; in terms of foreign relations, things said behind closed doors are said there for a reason. In real life, people are never completely honest with their friends and family, and generally the only thing at risk there is Nana finding out the sweater she made you is hideous. On the global scale, this kind of thing could lead to WARS. Some of these published secrets were meant to be kept, and some of them are straight up inconsequential. Who does Assange think he’s helping when he publishes that a U.S. ambassador thinks Karzai’s an idiot?

The biggest issue with wikileaks is that of it’s founder. Mr. Julian Assange is, far as I can tell, a text-book narcissist. Maybe he was trying to help the world at some point, but it seems these new documents are being published as just a show of power. Recently, Assange said that in the event that the government interfered, he would publish a “doomsday file”, containing information that would shake the foundations of the world so thoroughly as to shatter it. Yet, he still continues to say he’s helping the world. So, destroying society as you know because Uncle Sam jumps the gun and blocks your website is “helping the world?” Greater Good, my eye.

While it is very easy to blame Assange entirely for Wikileak’s failings, that isn’t entirely fair; the idea itself is flawed when looked at closely. Even if wikileaks wasn’t being used as an insurance policy by Assange, it would still end badly. It is very, very easy for someone to publish a secret document from the white house, and then “neglect” to put in context. When given information that can be controversial unless explained, the public always jumps on the rage bandwagon. Let’s say Wikileaks gets a few pages of the go-ahead of a plan to invade Venezuela, and leaks it to the news. The news immediately play’s it up to frenzied levels; the Left-wing stations saying we have no right, and the Right-wingers saying it’s Phase 2 of Comrade Obama’s New World Order plan. Let’s go further and say that the government releases the ENTIRE document, which explains the force will go in, putting into power rebels that are against the administration that is firmly in the pocket of drug cartels, and then leave. By the time this happens, people will be so distrustful they’ll straight up ignore the evidence. Sound farfetched? Remember the Victory Mosque at ground zero? Did you know it was a Community Center? It was information that was made highly available, but wasn’t really talked about, simply because “Victory Mosque” is a lot more catchy and angering than “Victory Muslim Community Center.”

To summarize, WikiLeaks is not doing the right thing by publishing confidential information, and probably will never be able to, as the public will always misinterpret secrets into whatever they want them to mean. I’ll still hold out hope though; maybe someone else will get an idea like this, and hopefully, they’ll do it better than Assange.