Second Reflection

The recently passed, second segment of class has opened up some serious discussions over whom and what constitutes a true online activist. It also covered the utilization of social media to commence or aid in a revolutionary movement. A couple of key points stood out to me and perhaps it is due to my habit of following money trails and searching for the root of the problem.
We speak of oppressive regimes in other nations and how “their rulers” impose harsh rules and punishments. Yet we fail to thoroughly research and analyze how this is possible in the Common Era. Our country has continued to do business with what we consider to be “tyrants” for decades. Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarek and Omar Gaddhafi are huge examples. Often this has taken place after some coup d’état agreed upon by the United Nations because the dictator has refused the continual advances of multinational companies or eventually gets tired of being bullied by the World Bank and its goons. The media does a smear job and the rest is history…another “puppet leader” will be installed as head of that particular nation. Here’s the part that I find really peculiar—some strongly believe that social media has a part to play in the success of an uprising. The only way I see it happening is if the citizens under bondage shed enough light on their disastrous situations in a timely fashion on social media. By doing this it allows for widespread public opinion to spread across the Earth where Internet access is readily available compelling the U.N. to be forced to react. There are plenty of other nations where leaders are very harsh rulers, but we won’t hear about that until the business aspect goes bad with said nation.
Julian Assange feels obligated to reveal the dirty and scandalous activities that are perpetuated by governments “behind the scenes.” Some people take issue with this and claim that he is violating national security. My question would be those people are: “If we are operating under the ideas of freedom and justice for all, then why do choose to ignore atrocities happening to other nations that we are largely responsible for?” Is it because we are truly selfish and are happy as long as we are granted certain freedoms? French philosopher Jean Paul Sautre stated “individuals are trapped in a narrow and bleak idea of freedom by the pressures of the society around them.” Somehow, I have a strong feeling that we are currently experiencing this in the United States.

Blog Post 2 - Cybercrime

I found chapter 7 in Tavani regarding Cybercrime an interesting read and can relate this somewhat to a personal experience I've had in the IT field. From my tenure as a supervisor at a telecommunications outfit, I dealt with some levels of fraud. However, most of them were not related to cybercrime and were mostly financial cases. One thing I do remember was watching our System Administrator perform some Active Defense Hacking (Tavani, 204). The system administrator, or "SysAdmin" as we called him, was a self-proclaimed "code poet" and I couldn't deny him that title. This man knew what he was doing with Linux software, networks, and overall server management. At the time, our company had just been purchased by a larger conglomerate which had internal security issues. At the time they were a long-standing local telephone company that had dial-up and DSL Internet services, but struggled with their network infrastructure and occasional DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks. I remember watching the administrator as he used a "port-sniffing" software tool to find commonly-exploited ports that were open on each network node (this would include basic terminals, workstations, servers, and mainframes). The port-sniffing software could be defined within Tavani's classification of hacking tools used by a typical cybercriminal, but was used with the intention of strengthening the security and integrity of the network (Tavani, 203). The administrator then took action at the server level to adjust permissions and TCP/UDP protocols. On a few occasions of inbound DDoS attacks, he would counter-attack the originating IP addresses with what I assumed were similar tactics. Although I did not know what actions were actually performed. Ethically speaking, it is unknown if the counter-attacks were soundly justified. First off, our administrator was not a Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) or at least he wasn't to my knowledge. Second, as Tavani's example states "if hacking is illegal, then it would seem that hacking back would be no less illegal" (Tavani, 205). I believe if the administrator acted only on securing the ports with the possibly-risque port-sniffing software, he could have maintained his ethical integrity. The counter-hacking was definitely counter-intuitive from my standpoint.

Blog 2 - Ricardo Iniguez

         The past four weeks we have touched base with issues on the Internet involving the topics of freedom of information, privacy, security, hacking and activism. I believe issues concerning the topics mentioned above; arise mostly because our government would like to regulate the information available to us on the Internet. Of course once we—individuals here in the U.S.—hear regulate, we automatically tend to fight back and try to protect our freedom of speech by peaceful marches or by other conventions that can be seen as a form of civil disobedience. Should we let our government decide on what it sees as fitting when it comes to information? A certain group doesn’t think so!

         One great example that touches all topics mentioned before, and why the government is some what worried, is the work of the loosely collected group of individuals known as Anonymous. I was really engaged with the actions taken by Anonymous (group) because of how they fought for our freedom of information using the Internet. Reading about Anonymous, I went through a whole range of emotions with each individual operation and found myself classifying them as heroes in one operation to chumps in another.  

         When I first read and watched some feedback on YouTube about Operation Payback—which targeted corporations for withdrawing their funds to a website that leaked confidential and sensitive information (WikiLeaks)—I found myself with a huge smile and could have stood up clapping after seeing how this group of individuals orchestrated successful Distributed Denial of Service Attacks (DDoS attacks) on the websites of MasterCard, Visa and PayPal. I couldn’t believe that these individuals were willing to stand up to ‘Goliath’ and I quickly labeled them as ‘heroes’ (Internet activists) because they were willing to stand up to the big corporations and willing to fight to keep our rights to freedom of speech.

         But the more and more I read and watched about their operations, I started to feel different about Anonymous (group). When they went after the Church of Scientology because of human right violations—which I couldn’t find any articles supporting this— and fraudulent activities, I started to realize that maybe they weren’t ‘heroes’ and maybe more along the lines of hacktivists because they didn’t seem too concerned about human rights. I felt they instead wanted to ridicule Tom Cruise and the Church to get a laugh (lulz) by leaking the video and DDosing their website.

         Then I lost most of my respect to this group and called them chumps after reading that they abandoned Operation Cartel because it was too dangerous. Sure, of course it would be crazy to go against a drug cartel that shows no mercy but if they were really true to their statement in which they say, “We don’t forgive” then it just goes to show you that this group is mainly composed of tech savvy individuals that hide behind their keyboards when the action gets tough.

         At first I was all for Anonymous' actions and didn't want any part of our freedom of speech/press to be regulated but then I could see how some information should be regulated (towards some regulations not all). We already have seen some of our rights taken with the Patriot Act and It’s not hard to see why our government would like to control more of this fast and unfiltered information. If there is no regulated way of controlling the Internet than our future national security can be compromised because we won’t be able to track down with ease any malicious hackers. In the long run—regulating the internet, even if we compromise some individual freedom and some privacy—will help track down future groups like Anonymous, that are willing to take it a step further (terrorist). Using the utilitarian approach to their decision by only allowing information that is fitting because it will be good for the greater number of citizens is ok with me because I feel very safe here in Wisconsin J

Recha LIS 120 Blog Post 2, Reflecting Weeks 5-8

The recent readings and discussions have had an emphasis on privacy, security, other rights related to information communication technologies(henceforth ICTs), and those who use, or have the power to use ICTs to influence or abuse those rights or technologies.  The people who abuse ICTs, and try to exert influence over the freedoms and rights of others are called many things from hackers and crackers to internet activists.  Following a particular ethical theory may reduce our sense of self-worth if we perform a job in which we do something we consider unethical.   We may yet perform tasks related to, or enabling things which our ethical philosophies consider immoral, whether in real world space or in cyberspace.  Social media and activism turned out a lot of discussion over the past few weeks, but I'd prefer to cover the use of ICTs in hacking, and its relation to certain freedoms.  Having learned hacking in college and occasionally practicing it unprofessionally outside of the scholastic environment, I feel the need to rationalize and defend my own actions and draw a distinction between them and criminal or malicious activity.  I don't find it unethical to break certain laws, so long as those laws are either unjust, or do not serve a moral purpose within my personal school of ethics.

Based on the definitions Tavani states as maintained by Eric Raymond's Jargon file on the web at www.tuxedo.org/esr/jargon (Tavani 204).  I qualify both as a hacker, "someone who is an expert or enthusiast of any kind," and a cracker "someone who breaks security on a system".  I've learned white-hacking and black-hacking in a college environment in order to train me as an information security specialist.  The skills I gained on and off campus have not been used solely in pursuance of a job in the information security field, nor for civil disobedience or other forms of activism, simply for the enjoyment of freedom as often as not.

A personal friend works for a company that produces the worlds largest smithed metal objects.  This friend knowingly continues his employment, regardless of the fact that certain parts his company produces, and some that he has personally forged, are used in intercontinental ballistic missiles, the company of course produces many more innocent products, but there is to him no ethical stigma in working for this company, or creating these parts.  I on the other hand have many innocent hobbies, but I also have some that qualify as criminal.  Though our situations differ, like my friend, I feel no ethical stigma or loss of morality.

While "many in the government, and business sectors view hacking... as a form of trespass"(Tavani 206), I find trespassing laws to be unjust.  I think we lack proper concept, and protection of freedom of movement, both through space in the world, and cyberspace.  I do not actively fight against laws disallowing trespassing, but like privacy, and security, though they may seem opposing concepts, I believe we should protect all these rights, and I somewhat infrequently disobey such laws.  My hobbies that include trespassing (walking through forests, or finding backdoors into websites and webservers, simply to explore new space) are non malicious in nature, I don't intend to steal or harm or alter the landscape or cyberscape I pass over.  While I may break laws, I still feel that the consequences of my actions do not result in harm to any or many, my personal ethics are satisfied, but what I have learned and will take from these weeks readings into my personal life is caution.  I will be more cautious in my activities, because while some civil liberties activists may support my actions as expressions of freedom, the law is still certainly not on my side, and there could be punishment.

Blog 2 (privacy, hacktivism, whistle-blowing)

The one thing that really got to me from these past couple of weeks is Luciano Floridi’s idea that information is a part of you not a belonging. With this idea relating to privacy and hacktivism it made me look at everything a lot differently. At first I would just say that if you put things on the internet is your responsibility, but now I agree with Deborah Johnson when she said that we need privacy to form a sense of our own identity. I think back to when I was a teenager and I didn’t want my parents anywhere near my business. It is important to make sure that we can keep just a little part of ourselves private. Otherwise there is nothing that we can truly call our own. I really think about what I put on the internet now because it is a part of me, it represents me.
Along the lines of hacktivism before our discussions I believed that it is wrong and should not be done under any circumstances. I still think the same if not more. Yes the government could hack and try to bust someone for doing something illegal but they can take that way too far so easily. According to Tavani criminals do what they do to show off, they love the joyride, and they try to find “holes” in systems (Tavani 203). Now really come on, that should not be right. The group Anonymous I’m sure could find a much better way that would hurt and embarrass a lot less people. There would also be the threat of “counter hacking” and it might never end, just keep going back and forth (Tavani 204).
Finally, I was really intrigued by the concept of whistle blowing. It was not really touched on a lot so I wanted to bring it up myself. I still do not have a final decision about it. Is it telling on people or is it just a last grave effort to stop something that can be potentially very dangerous? Sisela Bok says that it should be the last alternative because it can be very destructive. All I can see as a bad point would be that the person would be labeled as a snitch. You would be a good person and doing the right thing but you would be shunned from society potentially.

The Grey Area of Facebook.

I think the thing we talked about class that most stuck a chord with me was the concept of something that falls under freedom of speech and yet is often considered for censorship. I remember reading the question and talking about it for a while after I wrote up my response with my wife. My response, and stance in the discussion with my wife, was that the sharing of other people's photo's online for sexual reasons was ok, so long as the photo's were obtained from the person in question. Our conversation went on over the course of a 6 hour car ride. So I was a bit disappointed to see that it wasn't discussed too heavily in class. The argument that I had was that whatever you share online, for whatever reason, is shared for all to use.

This brings to mind Alix Bromley. In 2010 she filed a number of legal complaints with various publications over pictures taken from her Bebo (a social media site) profile that ultimately left her nicknamed the "Epic Boobs Girl" Understandably miffed by this she did what she could to keep her photos from being published. The Press Complaints Commission ultimately threw out her complaint with the following statement in their adjudication.

The test, therefore, was whether the publication intruded into the complainant's privacy, and the [Editor's Code of Practice] required the [Press Complaints Commission] to have regard to "the extent to which material is already in the public domain". In the Commission's view, the information, in the same form as published in the magazine, was widely available to such an extent that its republication did not raise a breach of the Code. The complaint was not upheld on that basis.(1)

I think this is interesting, in that it states that the fact that her pictures, which she posted in one place, over 4 years earlier, were now no longer in consideration for privacy because of the actions of others. While I don't think this is wrong I think this is a prominent thing that others forget. Just like an actor or actress can suddenly become infamous due to a photo taken by a hidden photographer that is then plastered on every tabloid, a person's misgivings or raunchy photo's online can do the same.

One of the beauties of the internet, in my opinion, is that it is a place with few barriers that can't be easily overcome. While it might seem like a very secure place to the technologically naive, that misunderstanding is hardly the fault of others. Just as a police officer might tell someone that ignorance of the law excuses no one, ignorance of how the internet functions does not protect you from the malicious acts of others.

Blog 2

Class in the past couple of weeks have been quite interesting to me. I have learned a bit and witnessed how different and the same we can all be. For example while reading through several post, I noticed how many people seem to think and agree on the same things. And then I read those post where many people also do not agree on the same things. There are also the post where people get off track and just vent. Hilarious to me. Basically we have these discussions with specific discussion questions and instead of answer the question the question reminds them of a topic similar or on something different and they get carried away about that. What I have learned this last week in class is that things in the media are not always accurate. I have also learned that many of all our thoughts and opinions are different from what the reality is when you really look at accurate data. Even though some data could be missing, with the data provided what we may think, may not be the case. When it comes to using technology and from the past few weeks of class I believe my technology behavior will change as such that I will start using some parts of social media that I have never really found a need to use. I still believe it may be a little difficult for me because I need a following. I am thinking of using Twitter. After covering the Arab Springs in the last week and seeing the impact social media has had I figure for some of the stuff that's on my mind maybe just maybe social media if used correctly can help me out in making a difference. I have discussed issues relevant to class at work with peers when topics are brought up on the news. Something I think is that in person when you have an open discussion most people are very afraid to say how they really feel so they just agree or have no comment. And then you those who hate you for what you say and how you feel. Then when it comes to class in our open forum it seems everyone speaks their minds. I believe this is due to the behind the scenes I can never be seen. With that all being said social media and information technology, I feel is on the verge of a major transformation on how people carry out their daily lives. Whether politically or personally or by the people and whether ethics is a consideration or not social media and IT is revolutionizing the way of the new world!

Weeks 5-8 Blog

Weeks 5-8 Reflection Blog The discussion topics and reading assignments for weeks five through eight were comprised of several interesting topics including freedom of speech in relation to privacy, hackivism and the social activist group Anonymous, whistleblowing and a debate on whether or not the a social revolution exists or is pending. The readings provided informed perspectives on these topics, however for me, I thought the discussions along with some of the additional links provided the more interesting points for weeks five through eight. For this review segment, beginning in week 5, the reading assignment on freedom v privacy and security brought forth an interesting question posed by Charles Ess in the text: should we as a society be more paranoid in regards to our privacy and how it relates to the growing popularity of the Internet? This was the basis for a great discussion board as classmates weighed in. I personally felt that the answer to this question was: yes. We should be more protective and even paranoid in a sense when it comes to our information being shared via the Web. Along with Ess, Tavani brought up the interesting point that people should protect sensitive information that is shared over the Internet in the same manner as how they would any other sensitive information such as medical or credit history. Week 6 covered hackivism and the idea of internet vigilantism. As a class, we debated the activities of Anonymous and whether or not their actions should be considered the work of an activist group or criminal activity from a vandalistic or even terroristic group. I feel that groups like Anon are in fact social activist groups and in making that statement, it is definitely my belief the activities of this group and other subsequent groups like this will serve the purpose of bringing issues to light that need to be addressed. Issues such as child exploitation on the Web, which are not challenged or protested as intensely as some would desire. The following week dealt with the topic of freedom of information, freedom of speech and whistle-blowing. Specifically, what, if anything, should be censored when it comes to the Web; also how should these sites be monitored if there were censorship activities present. It is my belief that we should attempt to censor the internet in the same way we handle graphic or unwanted content, in the form of having those who wish to consume ‘controversial’ content pay for it, allowing for those who sign up for these sites to be subject to any activities that may be deemed illegal. The final week, week 8 handled the topic of social revolutions any supposed role that the Internet might possibly play in fueling these activities in today’s technological age. The assigned readings explored the validity of claims that popular social sites such as Twitter or Facebook assisted in recent protest activities in the Middle East. After several accounts supporting the notion that Twitter had finally arrived, meaning, taken on some level of importance and becoming more than just a site to send what amounts to mass text messages. All in all, the readings for this ‘quarter’ of the Spring 2012 semester were informative. I enjoyed discussing all of these topics, each of which carried enough weight to maintain interest and spur a decent amount of discussion on each of the topics.

Blog 2

There were a number of topics that I found interesting from the readings assigned in weeks 5 through 8. Chapter 6 discusses the idea that hackers actually perform a useful service for society by searching for and exposing security holes. I thought that this was an interesting way to look at the issue of hacking. I feel like it is just looking at an issue positively, by identifying the benefits that can come out of a bad situation. However, like spafford, I don’t think that the idea justifies hacking in any way. You can find something positive out of almost any negative situation, but that still doesn’t make the negative situation right.

I also thought it was interesting to read about whistle-blowing. This is a term that I have never heard before but someone I know very well was involved in a situation that could be considered whistle-blowing.  During one of his previous employments, he was confident that his employer was doing something illegal and, in an attempt to prove this, he made photocopies of another employee’s time card. When his boss discovered this, he was fired. Should he not have gone behind his employers back to collect evidence that would get ultimately get his employer in trouble? Or an even better question would be, since he was trying to collect evidence of an illegal act, does this justify his act of copying another employees time card? It was an interesting situation, and it was hard for me to determine whether his actions were wrong or right.

Blog 2 - McCuen

My feelings with regards to whistle-blowing have been broadened during our week of discussions regarding Freedom of Information/Speech, Whistle-blowing, and WikiLeaks.  As defined in Tavani, p. 115; a whistleblower is an individual who makes “revelations meant to call attention to negligence, abuses, or dangers that threaten the public interest.”  Talking about when and how to blow the whistle was where I am ethically torn.  Using whistle-blowing as a “last alternative due to its destructive side effects” to what is considered morally permitted vs. being morally required is great guidance for all of us to consider.  I personally do not feel that there is enough leeway to stomp out some of the corruption that goes on in our society if we stay within those guidelines.   

Most think of whistle-blowing as an act that happens between an employee and their employer, but as we learned with Julian Assange, this is not always the case, as seen in his video interview “Why the world needs WikiLeaks” it was said that a small group of activist in WikiLeaks released more classified information in a year than all the world press combined.

Showing the video to family and friends, the reactions ranged from Assange being a spy that put soldiers and informants at risk to he should receive the Nobel Peace Prize for having the courage to inform people as to what is really going on behind closed doors.  One interesting comment was that he has raised the standard (bar) of the media forever.

Julian Assange, of WikiLeaks, provides whistle-blowers a medium to voice issues that WikiLeaks feels society has a right to know.  Individuals can then choose what to do with the information provided.  In some aspects he stands for the greater good as he talks about his core values being for nurturing victims and then goes on to say that he polices perpetrators of crime which therefore may negatively affect people that have been deemed perpetrators.  For example, early in the video he was referred to as a hacker.  Being called a hacker would have made him a perpetrator, and he was quick to deny the negative connation because he was being questioned in an open forum.  That is in contrast to the people exposed on WikiLeaks, which do not have the luxury of defending themselves instantaneously on their actions or words on the WikiLeaks website.  We can all think of times when we have been taken out of context on social media and the damage is sometimes hard to erase.

WikiLeaks influenced the December 2008 general election in Kenya.  The report was being withheld by the government to bait Moi into backing President Kiabiki for a second term.  WikiLeaks releasing the private report three days before the election in which Moi (former president) had announced his support of President Kiabiki’s re-election bid affected the outcome of the election, as the report was then released by other news agencies inside and outside of Kenya.  This shifted the vote 10 points according to a Kenyan intelligence report.  The results of the election were changed.  The ability to measure the implications of this event is difficult, but we certainly know that it changed the landscape of politics in Kenya forever.  You can imagine the implications if something similar had happened before the elections of say a President Lincoln (freeing of the slaves/Civil War), President Nixon (Watergate/Vietnam), or even Chancellor Hitler (Holocaust/WWII).

Having a website like WikiLeaks supports a common belief that the press is the watchdog of any free society.  As quoted from Thomas Jefferson, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”  Why should the most powerful people in the world control information? 

It is impossible to know if the dissemination of information has long term good or bad implications on society.  My belief is the more information that people are exposed to the better choices they can make about the people we elect as leaders that make decisions that impact history forever, such as freedom, wars, economies,  and social values.

Social media in a new world

In the previous months we saw what many called the revolution in the Middle East, governments were toppled while some stood strong. We along with the rest of the western world were afforded a view we never had before; we were able to watch this revolution through the technological invention of social media. Tools like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube provided us with a front row view of what was going on in these countries and what the average citizen in these countries was feeling. Now this technology didn't affect all the countries in the Middle East in the same way and I want to discuss these differences using information from several sources.

The first place I would like to discuss is Egypt and to start I would like to add a quote from Amir Hatem Ali's article in the "Harvard Human Rights Journal Vol. 24":

"Prior to the first day of protest, 85,000 Egyptians pledged on Facebook to attend  “Revolution Day.” Similarly, April 6 Movement had over 90,000 members during the protests, and We Are Khaled Said had over 40,000 Facebook fans. In the two weeks leading up to and including the first few days of the protest, Egyptians created 32,000 Facebook groups and 14,000 Facebook pages."

This excerpt alone shows how social media impacted the revolution in Egypt; we can see that these tools played a huge tool in how the word was spread about demonstrations and other gatherings. This huge success of using social media to organize led to the governments order to shut off the internet in Egypt. As you can imagine this isn't a simple flip of a switch, this shut off cost the country nearly $90 million dollars and only served to anger the public more.

Now to turn attention to Iran, in the country of Iran the government is considered to be one of the most repressive regimes to date in the world. This would lead to that it is no surprise that in Iran the internet is very controlled and censored unlike in places like Egypt, this led to an entirely different impact on the Arab spring in Iran. Follows is a quote from Mark Hill's article "5 Reasons Twitter Isn't Actually Overthrowing Governments" on Cracked.com, where he discusses the number of Twitter users from Iran.

"At the height of the 2009 "Twitter Revolution" in Iran, the number of Twitter users reportedly based in Iran was around 20,000. Consider that Iran has a population of 77 million, and that number looks a lot less impressive -- it's minuscule 0.03 percent; less a revolution than a bake sale."

 He goes on discuss how even those numbers are highly exaggerated due to a scheme used by people around the world who changed their locations on Twitter to Iran, in order to confuse the local authorities from cracking down on those who are providing the world with details of what’s going on. He states that the true number may be somewhere around 1,000 people. Now this is a huge difference from what was said was occurring in Egypt at the time and I like to bring this to the reason being the internet in Iran is not as accessible nor is it as free as it is in Egypt, it's that simple. On the other hand after discussing this topic I was presented with the fact that those 1,000 people may have had more of an impact than the many thousands in Egypt for the simple fact that their voices being rarer made them more profound. Without those 1,000 people, the western world may never have known what exactly was going on in Iran, so we must acknowledge and be thankful for them in that regard.

To wrap this blog post up I want to end with one last thought on how social media affected the Arab spring, social media was praised as helping bring about democratic change and promoting change but on the other hand it also helped empower the governments they were being used against. This is a quote from an article on the NPR.org website that discusses the work of Evgeny Morozov, "The Net Delusion".

"Authoritarian governments can harness the Internet's power to serve their purposes as well. Some use it for surveillance, Morozov says, "tracking down what's happening on social networks, trying to identify who are all of those people tweeting.""

Main point of his book being that the people of these countries may feel like they are free but they are being watched and in many cases being tracked down in real life for their online activities, but the government’s involvement online doesn't stop there. The average citizen or protester isn't the only one with access to the internet the governments were empowered by this and were able to post their own blogs and propaganda online in order to fight back. In the end social media in the Arab spring wasn't really a one sided thing, it helped in some cases the protesters and in others it helped the government.

Blog 2

The reading from the past few weeks was quite a bit more interesting than previous weeks. I really liked the variety of material we were given, it’s nice to get outside of the books and breach into some more up to date reading. There were several readings that really sparked my interests.

First off I had never really fully understood the WikiLeaks situation. I’ve heard a lot of buzz about it in the past and some people I know have said some pretty terrible things about Julian Assange but I never asked why. The “No Secrets” article was incredibly interesting and well written. It really painted a clear picture of Julian and the WikiLeaks. My opinion on the subject is mostly neutral, I don’t find that WikiLeaks is the most terrible thing in the world but I also find that some of the “Leaks” are somewhat unnecessary such as the various War Logs. I feel that society is probably better off without leaking because it’s not really doing a whole lot of good overall, at least in my opinion.

Another reading I found interesting was “5 Reasons Twitter Isn’t Actually Overthrowing Governments.” Cracked has always been an interesting site and I was glad to see it included in our reading. The article worked to dethrone social networking’s status as a great tool for organizing protests and other such things. It also detailed how social networking can cause incorrect information to spread like wildfire. I found this particularly interesting because it made me realize just how easy it is to say anything you want and broadcast it instantly to large amounts of people. I was shocked to find out that tweets have been used as valid sources of information. I had no idea that reporters were using Twitter to source “facts.” One specific example that blew my mind was how reports had been quoting tweets from protestors about the Egyptian protests, but some of the protesters weren’t even there. It’s funny that we’ve come to a point where we will put so much weight on something someone posts online. In this day in age we really need to be more judgmental with the information we read. It really makes me wonder how much of the information I read daily is actually accurate. I hope we do not lose our ability to judge the validity of information.

The material from the past few weeks has certainly altered how I look at information. I think we all become so used to reading information online that we don’t always step back and question its validity. I hope we continue to dive into material that I can so easily relate to my everyday life. 

Hacking.

Over the last few weeks we have gone over a lot of different topics. But something that I really enjoyed talking about in class these last four weeks was the hackivism section of our class course. Specifically I found the video The Secret History of Hacking to be very informative. I personally am a big computer geek (built computers for myself and others). So I felt very connected to the information they were discussing.
There were a few things in the video that really blew my mind. The first thing was that the original hackers didn't use computers, they used phones (The Secret History of Hacking). I have always heard stories before of people who did that from Hollywood movies ect, but never thought it was actually possible. Also I found it very interesting how the government started arresting people for having “black box” on them (The Secret History of Hacking). This was a box these hackers made that help recreate dial tone sounds. That reminded about my previous blog post were I talk about how the older generation tries to control the new generation. This was another prime example. In the video most of these original hackers were only hacking into the phone line for the lulz (The Secret History of Hacking). But the government saw it differently and thought they were being destructive (The Secret History of Hacking).
Another thing that really caught my attention was when they did start talking about computers. From my understanding, the video stated that these hackers were people who kinda help start the computer revolution (The Secret History of Hacking). So these people who the government saw as extremely dangerous, were actually helping bring one of the greatest technologies we have into every household. That outstanding. I can only imagine what could have happened if the government came down even harder on some of these hackers. We may not have had the technology to create this laptop i'm writing on right now. If so the world could have been an extremely different place.
Overall I learned a lot over these last four weeks in class. I would say the biggest thing I took out of it was, who has the right to censor and stop others from seeing certain information? Likewise, what type of information should be protected from others? The first question is kinda tough to answer depending on the type of information. So I guess my option is that the government has the right to help someone protect their personal information that has a sensitive nature to it. But if someone is trying to share/interact with that information and they don't have the right to, the government should step in and stop them. But handle the offender with a different set of standards then say someone that was caught breaking into a house. I don't think our government has anything set up yet to handle hackers in a proper manner, but hopefully something respectable will be developed soon.

"The Secret History of Hacking." Online video clip. Google. Accessed on 18 March, 2012.

Blog Post 2

Over the course of the past few weeks many of the articles that we have read were very interesting to me in some way or another.  One topic that intrigued me was the concept of privacy and the three different types of privacy Accessibility, Decisional, and Informational Privacy.  Until I read that section in Chapter 5 Tavani the thought of separating privacy into those categories never came to me.  I began to see different situations where the different types of privacy were being broken.  One example being the gossip newspapers at your local Walmart and the pictures they show of celebrities in all kinds of settings which violates Accessibility Privacy.  It surprised me just how little privacy we have these days in our day to day lives.

Another section that really interested me was the section on Anonymous.  After watching the video and reading the articles for class I decided to do a little more digging to find out what I could of the movement.  After watching several videos on Youtube and reading over news articles and blog posts I would like to think I have a better idea of just what these people are trying to achieve.  That being just chaos and disruption of the government and anyone else they feel deserves to be thrown into the limelight and judged.  I started out liking how the movement seemed to punish the bad people in society and make others aware of just what was going on but as I read and researched I couldn’t really find a set goal of Anonymous and it seemed the more I learned about the movement the less I really understood about what was going on.  The lack of coordination and the vastly different set of goals of the group seem to be its weak point.   Sure they can make some changes in how some things are dealt with and sure companies are afraid of being hacked but really what are they doing?  I don’t know like I said I still don’t understand the real reason they do what they do and probably never will.

The section on developing nations and the effect of social media didn’t really appeal to me very much.  Personally I think as a nation we spend way too much time trying to fix the world and we ignore all the problems we have at home.  Are there starving people in other countries? Sure. Are there starving people in the U.S.? You better believe it. Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace really have no place in my life so a section discussing this type of media just didn’t appeal to me.  Do I care that people are in a rough place in other countries? Sure I do. But I got enough hardship and struggling in my own life at the moment to worry about others.

Blog 2- Kia Reinders

Much of what we learned in weeks one through four could be applied to our readings in weeks five through eight.  These most recent readings were all very engaging, but I was probably the most engaged when reading about Anonymous and whistle blowing.

I never really paid any attention to groups who identify as being “anonymous”.  The actions of this ‘group’ vary and sometimes their attacks are just sort of childish and obscene.  I do not see what all the hype is about.  Sure, Anonymous can be harmful as many of its members call themselves hackers, but I am generally unimpressed with their actions.  After reading about Anonymous, I came to the conclusion that, for the most part, this group is incredibly unorganized.  There are so many people who identify with being Anonymous, but they all seem to have their own agendas.  Some do it for the lulz, some want to be heard, and some are activists.  While I have been referring to Anonymous as a group and having members, it should be known that Anonymous is not an actual organization with a leader and members and some sort of hierarchy of power.  I think the “power” that Anonymous holds, is their strength in numbers.  One thing that really sparked my attention was that Anonymous generally does not take credit for their attacks and that pinpointing a culprit in Anonymous is difficult.  Many times an organization or individual wants to take credit for something they did, even if that action is illegal.  Although I am, for the most part, unimpressed with the whole Anonymous thing, I think some of the things that they do are funny.  For example, I get a kick out of lolcats!  I can confidently say that, after reading this section, I understand Anonymous much better than before.  I’m also more aware of their presence on the Internet

In week seven we discussed whistle blowing and freedom of speech.  I learned how to determine when to blow the whistle, and how to go about it.  I was shocked to read that there are conditions laid out about when it is ok to blow the whistle.  These conditions apply to engineers, but conditions similar to these are probably seen in other occupations.  Richard De George says that, “…workers are morally permitted to go public with information about the safety of a product if three conditions are satisfied” (Tavani 117).  These conditions relate to determining whether there is a safety issue or threat and whether or not the worker has notified supervisors but has received little or no support from them.  I guess it was just surprising to learn that employees need to complete certain steps before they can blow the whistle.  It’s strange how, when we are young, many of us are taught that when we know something is not right, we should speak up immediately.  In the workforce, this isn’t so.  A lot of this could be because there is a certain level of loyalty between an employee and their employer, and the scope of an issue may be much larger than if we saw our friend steal a piece of candy.  The issue of whistle blowing and when to do it is largely deontological.  Some employees may feel as though they are responsible for taking the fall for their employer and that, as being their employee, they’ve agreed to some sort of promise that they will do so.  Of course this is not always the case and this is only true “…where there is mutual commitment on the part of both parties involved- employer and employee” (Tavani 114).  The process of whistle blowing isn’t as easy as one may think.  It’s more than just being aware that something is wrong.  I realize that its also understanding that blowing the whistle may cost someone their job and could tarnish the reputation of the company they work for.  In the grand scheme of things, however, blowing the whistle on something that poses a threat to the public is, I think, far more important than losing ones job.

Sara Duffney - Blog Entry 2

Some of my favorite readings this month were those concerning the freedom of information and censorship. Since I’ve been interested in this topic for many years, it is something I’ve considered doing for work in the future (hopefully with the American Library Association). I was happy to learn the difference between “suppression” and “deterrence” in censorship, as well as the opposing viewpoints of my fellow students. While these opposing views have not necessarily changed my opinion on the matter, it has forced me to view things in a different way and take other things into consideration. For instance, during the discussion for that week, several students noted how some sites should definitely be censored, either because they encourage people to have affairs (thus breaking up families), they teach people how to make meth and/or bombs, or they contain child pornography. There was some great discussion about the website encouraging people to have affairs: some thought it was morally okay to allow people the right to cheat on their spouse, others thought because it’s illegal to practice adultery in some places that it is immoral to host such a site, and still others reminded us that some couples have agreed to cheat on each other (polyamory and open relationships).

This small yet engaging discussion has stuck with me, and will remind me to consider the other side of the coin. There is no way that everyone can agree on some moral points, as we’ve all been brought up in very different homes. This is especially true for another topic we discussed that week, which was whistle-blowing. Many conservative and military families are staunchly patriotic and aggressively protective of war heroes, which is something to remember when debating whether or not American military secrets should be released (which ones, how important, if at all, etc).

My opinion on these topics has become more concrete. A personal example I’d like to use is that of abortion and censorship in that regard. My mother is extremely pro-life, while I am pro-choice. While she doesn’t usually support hate speech, she was certainly not angry or upset about the abortion doctor being killed because of the website posting his personal information (because to her, a murderer was killed. Was anyone that sad about Jeffrey Dahmer dying in prison?). She worked for a pro-life clinic that regularly posted images of aborted babies on their website, with the intent to dissuade pregnant women from getting an abortion. She also picketed abortion clinics in the 80’s. This week’s information has helped me to understand the difference between these things: where the line is crossed is more apparent to me. The doctor’s information being hosted on the site should have been completely illegal, as it is an invasion of privacy and it encourages violent behavior. However, peacefully protesting by presenting facts (including horrific images of aborted babies) is and should be legal.