Thursday, April 8, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Privacy methods
An article in the NYTimes explains the problems with online privacy today. “Policy and privacy experts agree that the relentless use of the Internet data harvesting has overrun the old approach of using lengthy written notices to safeguard privacy. These statements are rarely read, are often confusing, and can’t hope to capture the complexity of modern data-handling practices. Daniel J. Weitzner said “There are essentially no defenders anymore of the pure notice-and-choice model. It’s no longer adequate.”
It is nearly impossible that a user can do anything online without revealing even a smidgen of personal information, such as births dates, addresses, credit card numbers or Web-browsing habits. The article explains that “enhancing online privacy is a daunting research challenge that involves not only computing, but also human behavior and perception.” It also says we need new laws and regulations. Some people have already communicated ideas to better online privacy. A group at Carnegie Mellon University is working on “privacy nudges,” where they desire to design a software that provides real times reminders such as short on-screen messages that the data you are about to send has privacy implications. “It learns, helps you and occasionally prompts you,” said one of the computer scientists. M. Ryan Calo of the Center for Internet and Society at the Stanford Law School is exploring techniques that give visceral notice to users. According to a study he has done, “Our brains are hard-wired to respond to images that look human, alive.” An example would be a digital nurse popping up in a personal health record to explain to the user the privacy implications of sharing personal information with doctors, family members, and drug companies.
First of all I do think that there is already plenty of notice on each website about the privacy implications of the information we may give away to that website. I think it is the users’ fault when they do not read the whole warning, no matter how long. I know I am definitely guilty of this. People adapted to the digital age are getting more spoiled every day. Users will not wait longer than five seconds for a website to load, and are most unlikely to glance through more than a page of their web browsing results. Therefore who in the digital age is going to want to spend as little as ten minutes reading some lame privacy details about a site they are in a dash to join?
Therefore I do think these methods of quick reminders mentioned above may become a necessity for technology. The users must be informed of what they are giving away to the website before they do so. Since so many humans work at a fast pace on technology, quick pop ups or visceral warnings may be all that is necessary to accomplish this. With proper speedy warnings of which information they can withdraw from the public, people may have more of a handle in their own online privacy.
It is nearly impossible that a user can do anything online without revealing even a smidgen of personal information, such as births dates, addresses, credit card numbers or Web-browsing habits. The article explains that “enhancing online privacy is a daunting research challenge that involves not only computing, but also human behavior and perception.” It also says we need new laws and regulations. Some people have already communicated ideas to better online privacy. A group at Carnegie Mellon University is working on “privacy nudges,” where they desire to design a software that provides real times reminders such as short on-screen messages that the data you are about to send has privacy implications. “It learns, helps you and occasionally prompts you,” said one of the computer scientists. M. Ryan Calo of the Center for Internet and Society at the Stanford Law School is exploring techniques that give visceral notice to users. According to a study he has done, “Our brains are hard-wired to respond to images that look human, alive.” An example would be a digital nurse popping up in a personal health record to explain to the user the privacy implications of sharing personal information with doctors, family members, and drug companies.
First of all I do think that there is already plenty of notice on each website about the privacy implications of the information we may give away to that website. I think it is the users’ fault when they do not read the whole warning, no matter how long. I know I am definitely guilty of this. People adapted to the digital age are getting more spoiled every day. Users will not wait longer than five seconds for a website to load, and are most unlikely to glance through more than a page of their web browsing results. Therefore who in the digital age is going to want to spend as little as ten minutes reading some lame privacy details about a site they are in a dash to join?
Therefore I do think these methods of quick reminders mentioned above may become a necessity for technology. The users must be informed of what they are giving away to the website before they do so. Since so many humans work at a fast pace on technology, quick pop ups or visceral warnings may be all that is necessary to accomplish this. With proper speedy warnings of which information they can withdraw from the public, people may have more of a handle in their own online privacy.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Network Infultration from Millions of MIles Away.
At article in the NYTimes talks about a research paper written by Wang Jianwei, a graduate engineering student in Liaoning, and a professor called “Cascade-Based Attack Vulnerability on the U.S. Power Grid,” is being interpretted in two different ways. Larry M. Wortzel, a military strategist and China specialist, says the paper should be of U.S. concern because it explains “how to attack a small U.S. power grid sub-network in a way that would cause a cascading failure of the entire U.S." Mr. Wang however claimed he was simply finding ways to enhance the stability of power grids by exploring potential vulnearabilities. “My goal is to find a solution to the network safer and better protected,” Wang said.
Mr. Wang was merely an innocent subject caught in the middle of cyberwarfare between the U.S. and China. The United States grid was chosen for his study because he said it was the easiest way to go. “I just wanted to do theretical research,” he said. “I chose the electricity system because the grid can best represent how power currents flow through a network.
It was however unfortunate to Mr. Wang because of the perception among Americans that rivals are likely to attack critical infrastructure, such as the U.S. electric grid. When Mr. Wotzel gave a testamony about this to the House of Representatives, one representative from California alluded to in 2001 when The Los Angeles Times reported intrusions into the network were connected to someone in Guangdong Province, China. Tension also escalated earlier this year when Google made threats to stop business with China after asserting to have evidence of Chinese involvement in a sophisticated Internet intrusion. Mr. Wotzel told the House that the intentions of researchers of Wang’s paper did not matter. The concern was the “vulnerability is out there all over China for anybody to advantage of.” Wang’s paper showed that “even a misunderstanding has the potential to escalate tension and set off an overreaction.”
This may mean many things in the future of the Digital Age. In the sense of globalization, technology can help us feel more connected around the world. However, it may also provide us with more way to be hostile towards one another. Wang’s paper, whether intended or not, confirms that someone on the otherside of the world could infiltrate the power grid of my town. This would be worse than your typical WORM or exe document viruses. Whats most intimidating about it is it can be so easy to get a way with too. All someone has to do is stealthily sit in the safety of their home and let their fingers work.
Even if infultration wouldn’t result in consequences too fatal to our network, just the thought of infultration itself may induce fear into the U.S. citizens. This could produce more mean world syndrome where the people may nag this to be a bigger deal than it is. John Auquilla, director of a Information Operations Center, says this war of words holds great peril due to the conflict between the U.S. and China in the past months. “Dense commuinications across many different links can have effects that are unpredictable,” he said. “Cyberwarfare in some way analogues to the way people think about biological weapons – that once you set loose such a weapon it may be very hard to control where it goes.” You never know, the next link you click on may be your last click before your computer shuts down forever.
This may also encourage technical specialists to attempt to find more ways and methods to secure our network. That be the case, then Wang’s said goals for writing the paper would be successful.
Mr. Wang was merely an innocent subject caught in the middle of cyberwarfare between the U.S. and China. The United States grid was chosen for his study because he said it was the easiest way to go. “I just wanted to do theretical research,” he said. “I chose the electricity system because the grid can best represent how power currents flow through a network.
It was however unfortunate to Mr. Wang because of the perception among Americans that rivals are likely to attack critical infrastructure, such as the U.S. electric grid. When Mr. Wotzel gave a testamony about this to the House of Representatives, one representative from California alluded to in 2001 when The Los Angeles Times reported intrusions into the network were connected to someone in Guangdong Province, China. Tension also escalated earlier this year when Google made threats to stop business with China after asserting to have evidence of Chinese involvement in a sophisticated Internet intrusion. Mr. Wotzel told the House that the intentions of researchers of Wang’s paper did not matter. The concern was the “vulnerability is out there all over China for anybody to advantage of.” Wang’s paper showed that “even a misunderstanding has the potential to escalate tension and set off an overreaction.”
This may mean many things in the future of the Digital Age. In the sense of globalization, technology can help us feel more connected around the world. However, it may also provide us with more way to be hostile towards one another. Wang’s paper, whether intended or not, confirms that someone on the otherside of the world could infiltrate the power grid of my town. This would be worse than your typical WORM or exe document viruses. Whats most intimidating about it is it can be so easy to get a way with too. All someone has to do is stealthily sit in the safety of their home and let their fingers work.
Even if infultration wouldn’t result in consequences too fatal to our network, just the thought of infultration itself may induce fear into the U.S. citizens. This could produce more mean world syndrome where the people may nag this to be a bigger deal than it is. John Auquilla, director of a Information Operations Center, says this war of words holds great peril due to the conflict between the U.S. and China in the past months. “Dense commuinications across many different links can have effects that are unpredictable,” he said. “Cyberwarfare in some way analogues to the way people think about biological weapons – that once you set loose such a weapon it may be very hard to control where it goes.” You never know, the next link you click on may be your last click before your computer shuts down forever.
This may also encourage technical specialists to attempt to find more ways and methods to secure our network. That be the case, then Wang’s said goals for writing the paper would be successful.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
This article for One Laptop Per Child shows that the system really works. One Laptop per Child adopts the idea that a child with access to a single computer is the most efficient way to “enhance the pupil’s ability to learn effectively. This is called 1:1 computing.
According to some statistical studies published in the Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, students are bound to be more successful while participating in this program than in those in the tradition classroom setting. One study said “Students who have participated in 1:1 computing report higher achievement and increased engagement. This new collection of articles brings together some of the best evidence to date on the implemation and impacts of 1:1 computing…students in the 1:1 settings outperformed their traditional classroom peers on English/Language Arts standardized tests by a statistically significant margin. Study authors also reported on evidence of increased student motivation and engagement, as well as changes in teachers’ instructional practices.
These statistics could prove that once and for all providing a laptop per child could help in their overall education. This is a breakthrough in OLPC’s works, which up until this point had very little evidence of effectiveness. Through the 1:1 program students are not only gaining a higher education, but they are enjoying it as well. Therefore the 1:1 program could encourage more kids to get excited about learning.
These reports also say that the teachers play an integral role in OLPC’s efforts. The 1:1 program showed that some main factors that applied to the students success in 1:1 were having a strong commitment from their school leadership, developing consistent nd supportive administration policies, and creating professional development opportunities for teachers.” Therefore OLPC gives teachers the opportunity to better their technological stills to better fit with their lesson plans.
OLPC believes their efforts could further close the gap of the digital divide. With students finding more opportunities in the 1:1 program as well as having the enthusiasm to use it, the ratio of technology per person is only going to increase. Much like what have been learning in class, the digital divide’s gap will further close by providing the education and access of computers to those who can use them for their everyday life.
According to some statistical studies published in the Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, students are bound to be more successful while participating in this program than in those in the tradition classroom setting. One study said “Students who have participated in 1:1 computing report higher achievement and increased engagement. This new collection of articles brings together some of the best evidence to date on the implemation and impacts of 1:1 computing…students in the 1:1 settings outperformed their traditional classroom peers on English/Language Arts standardized tests by a statistically significant margin. Study authors also reported on evidence of increased student motivation and engagement, as well as changes in teachers’ instructional practices.
These statistics could prove that once and for all providing a laptop per child could help in their overall education. This is a breakthrough in OLPC’s works, which up until this point had very little evidence of effectiveness. Through the 1:1 program students are not only gaining a higher education, but they are enjoying it as well. Therefore the 1:1 program could encourage more kids to get excited about learning.
These reports also say that the teachers play an integral role in OLPC’s efforts. The 1:1 program showed that some main factors that applied to the students success in 1:1 were having a strong commitment from their school leadership, developing consistent nd supportive administration policies, and creating professional development opportunities for teachers.” Therefore OLPC gives teachers the opportunity to better their technological stills to better fit with their lesson plans.
OLPC believes their efforts could further close the gap of the digital divide. With students finding more opportunities in the 1:1 program as well as having the enthusiasm to use it, the ratio of technology per person is only going to increase. Much like what have been learning in class, the digital divide’s gap will further close by providing the education and access of computers to those who can use them for their everyday life.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Online Suicide!
According to IOLTechnology, as of last Monday Facebook is blocking access from the Web 2.0 Suicide Machine, a website that allows you to completely eliminate your online presence. Facebook has also sent a letter ordering a “cease and desist” to a website called Seppukoo.com, which gives you the opportunity to destroy your virtual identity as well.
Facebook allows you to delete your profile, for I have done it once before (though it of course did not last long). However, traces of my online identity were still left behind. Information such as pictures and posts can be retraced. It is hard to trust your online identity can truly be gone forever because the Internet is so huge and leaks of information can be dropped. It’s like leaving a fingerprint behind.
Web 2.0 Suicide Machine takes care of all of that for you. . "This machine lets you delete all your energy sucking social-networking profiles, kill your fake virtual friends, and completely do away with your Web2.0 alterego," the website says. Whether it be facebook, twitter, myspace or any social networking site, this machine will do away with it. Nothing is leaked.
Seppukoo.com urges facebook users to "impress your friends" and "disconnect yourself" by committing online suicide in the style of a Japanese samurai, allowing account eradication through five simple steps. It gives you the option to choose from many R.I.P. templates to leave behind as well as leave some last words behind for a “memorial” page, in which your friends may post testimonials on the left behind “gravestone.” The site notes "Seppukoo playfully attempts to subvert this mechanism (online identity) by disconnecting people from each other and transforming the individual suicide experience into an exciting 'social' experience." Here is a small video advertisement for Seppukoo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we8N5Zmddds
In Web Publishing we have learned that our online identity is who we want to be and how we present ourselves online. The Internet is user-friendly and therefore if we want to be dead online, it allows us to be dead. A lot of people nowadays may want to turn back from the life they have on the Internet with a possible intent on concentrating more on their real life. These machines carry out this procedure in an almost effortless way.
Upon doing further research I found out facebook’s reason for banning Web 2.0 SM and Sekkukoo was because these websites require the users to give away their password information. Facebook has always been keen on it’s user’s privacy, and giving away password information to another website breaks the Facebook Bill of Rights. In the future facebook may however find it more efficient to add their own little suicide application, realizing that some people may not be as excited anymore about keeping their online identity in their real lives as they were when they first created it.
Facebook allows you to delete your profile, for I have done it once before (though it of course did not last long). However, traces of my online identity were still left behind. Information such as pictures and posts can be retraced. It is hard to trust your online identity can truly be gone forever because the Internet is so huge and leaks of information can be dropped. It’s like leaving a fingerprint behind.
Web 2.0 Suicide Machine takes care of all of that for you. . "This machine lets you delete all your energy sucking social-networking profiles, kill your fake virtual friends, and completely do away with your Web2.0 alterego," the website says. Whether it be facebook, twitter, myspace or any social networking site, this machine will do away with it. Nothing is leaked.
Seppukoo.com urges facebook users to "impress your friends" and "disconnect yourself" by committing online suicide in the style of a Japanese samurai, allowing account eradication through five simple steps. It gives you the option to choose from many R.I.P. templates to leave behind as well as leave some last words behind for a “memorial” page, in which your friends may post testimonials on the left behind “gravestone.” The site notes "Seppukoo playfully attempts to subvert this mechanism (online identity) by disconnecting people from each other and transforming the individual suicide experience into an exciting 'social' experience." Here is a small video advertisement for Seppukoo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we8N5Zmddds
In Web Publishing we have learned that our online identity is who we want to be and how we present ourselves online. The Internet is user-friendly and therefore if we want to be dead online, it allows us to be dead. A lot of people nowadays may want to turn back from the life they have on the Internet with a possible intent on concentrating more on their real life. These machines carry out this procedure in an almost effortless way.
Upon doing further research I found out facebook’s reason for banning Web 2.0 SM and Sekkukoo was because these websites require the users to give away their password information. Facebook has always been keen on it’s user’s privacy, and giving away password information to another website breaks the Facebook Bill of Rights. In the future facebook may however find it more efficient to add their own little suicide application, realizing that some people may not be as excited anymore about keeping their online identity in their real lives as they were when they first created it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
