Life in the Digital Age (FYS 100 J)

So, I know this course is almost over, but I was helping a friend look up the symptoms for Swine Flu(she thinks she has it, but she doesn’t), and found that there is now an Iphone App for information like that. Barry Schwartz created IntuApp, which is more or less a Swine Flu tracker. You are able to see the current threat for the disease, a map that shows confirmed and suspected areas of risks for it, a symptoms area to see all the symptoms that have been reported for it, and of course, an alert page for breaking news concerning the Swine Flu.

Wow. I guess watching the news has become overrated, or too many Americans simply feel they don’t have time to do so if this type of application is popping up. The mass amount of information we found on google apparently isn’t enough either, they literally want the information to be right at their fingertips. The good thing about this app, however, is that the Swine Flu is actually a very serious matter despite the whole sickly pig image that is now the face of Swine Flu. This app allows people to have access to any alerts or information about it whenever they need to, but I think that the people that are capitalizing on the scare of Swine Flu might want to settle down just a bit. It is a very dangerous thing to put the imformation about it in the hands of so many different people, as rumors that don’t have an ounce of truth about them could easily surface. It’s great that technology is getting the information out there, but I for one will not stop watching my trusted New Channel 14 and Fox 8 News for information that arises with this awful sickness that has began to spread!

I was able to find the story on TechCrunch as well, so the link is posted below.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/30/want-to-avoid-swine-flu-theres-an-app-for-that-too/

The relentless advance of technology changes many things…

In this Age of the Internet, no one buys bound paper encyclopedias any more. But, even digital forms are vulnerable. The Chronicle of Higher Education comments on a Wall Street Journal article about Encarta, Microsoft’s digital “Encyclopedia of Tomorrow”. Encarta is going to be shut down, as it has not been able to compete against Wikipedia.

There was a time when Encarta was ground-breaking technology that had to be purchased on disk and installed on your PC. For an additional subscription fee you could get periodic updates on disk, or, if you had an Internet connection, by download. Later, it was distributed on disk for free, and then ultimately migrated to a free, online version. The content has always been carefully edited for quality, but Microsoft never had a chance to keep up with Wikipedia’s quantity.

As the Chronicle says:

In the end, though, what’s really telling about Encarta’s demise is the fact that many folks didn’t even realize the encyclopedia still existed. When it made its debut in the early 90s, Encarta was a legitimately disruptive technology. Now, just 15 years or so later, it feels like a relic.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica has survived almost 250 years (and seems to have successfully navigated the transition to become an online resource). Encarta survived just 15 years. Wikipedia has been around for about 8 years… What new technology (if any) might be waiting in the wings to displace that?

You can still buy the print version of Britannica-only $1250!

I’m a crime show TV junkie, and I happen to love the show Numb3rs, which mixes a crime show with Math and Science, my two favorite subjects. Despite the crime shows, they say they try to keep the mathematics fairly real, and they are actually starting to use mroe and more mathematical equations to predict future happenings or solve crimes.I was watching the new episode this Friday, and I herad something extremely relevant to my class. So relevant, thatI decided to blog about it.

We have been talking about how it is hard to stop hackers and other online criminals from doing what they do because technology changes so quick that it is hard for the law to keep up with it. I realized, however, that we never discussed the government using this same mindset. On the show, the FBI wanted to use an internet trap to look for certain pieces of information on websites and gather any websites that posted a type of material. The show has two brothers, an FBI agent who heads a department, and one is a doctor of math and science and teachesat CalSci university. The following conversation about the internet trap took place:

FBI Brother: “Is that legal?”

Cal-Sci Teaching Brother: “It’s not illegal… Technology’s ahead of the law.”

I thought that really embodied what we talked about, however, in a different sense. FBI analyst and technology personelhave the same advantage as the hackers and online criminals except they use that advantage for positive things. They’re still at a slight disadvantage because they don’t know what the hackers are going to throw at them next, but as far as finding criminals and solving crimes, there seems to be a lot of stepping stones around the law thanks to the law’s lack of quick changes, as the way our government is set up doesn’t allow it.

As was made obvious during the campaign season, the new administration has embraced the Internet and Web to a much greater degree than has been seen before in the federal government. For example, the official presidential Web site, www.whitehouse.gov, has a blog, and last week the site was opened up for the public to post questions for last Thursday’s “online town hall meeting”.

While this is a new level of connectedness for the White House, there are, of course, those who would like to see more.

Cellphones are very personal items these days. Without a cellphone in the US, you won’t be able to maintain the same type of life (social and otherwise) as almost any American in the country, but is your cellphone safe? The answer is, depending on the phone, your phone is accessible to anyone. There is a method of sending unwanted messages to cellphones and hacking into cellphones called “bluejacking” and “bluesnarfing”, respectively. Both methods use a cellphone’s bluetooth capabilities against the owner. It allows a person to send messages or hack a phone by using special software or methods.

The least of a person’s worries is bluejacking. Bluejacking is a simple method that involves beaming a contact entry from one phone to another. The point is that a person can customize the contact entry to say whatever they want, and bluejacking can only be prevented by turning off your bluetooth. This, of course, invades a person’s privacy.

There’s also Bluesnarfing to deal with. Bluesnarfing is done through programs. A program on the hacker’s cellphone goes through bluetooth connections to hack into a phone. The hacker then has the ability to look at the victim’s contacts, change settings, look at text messages, see previous calls, make ringtones play even though the cellphone is on silent, turn the phone off, and even make calls which can rack up massive phone bill. Bluesnarfing is illegal in most countries, but with a simple google search, the software to get bluesnarfing tools is as easy as downloading an mp3. Also, if the hacker so chose to do so, a virus could be uploaded from the hacker’s phone onto the victim’s phone that could disable components in the phone and cause many problems. But, despite all of the threats, it’s true that bluesnarfing only works with certain phones (unfortunately this includes the extremely popular sony ericsson ). But even though the phones that it wil work with are limited, it still doesn’t stop the fact that hacking a phone through bluetooth is possible.

The simplest way to stop bluejacking and bluesnarfing is simple: just turn off bluetooth capabilities when you’re not using it. The only problem is that people may not remember to turn off their bluetooth. So, what can make devices with wireless connectivity safer from hackers? Are more wireless devices going to fall victim to potential hacking?

http://viruster.com/is-your-bluetooth-device-safe-from-bluejacking-bluesnarfing-and-bluebugging.html

I read an article titled, “A Blacklist for Websites Backfires in Australia.” This article outlines the recent problems with the Internet in Australia where the Australian Communications and Media Authority (like the FCC in the United States) wanted to find a method for blocking certain URLs. To find a company, they sent out the list of URLs to many companies that could make software to bock these sites. However, quickly “Wikileaks” got a hold of this information and posted the information online so these websites could still be accessed.

This topic is similar to one of the debate topics we had recently in class where we discussed the positives and negatives of blocking not only specific URLs but entire websites or search engines. The ACMA claims they only wanted to block sites that “promote incest, rape, child pornography and child abuse” but many professionals claim their websites were also on the list for no reason know to them. This brings up one of the negative effects of “blocking” websites. What other effects does this create?

Although I understand that the topics the ACMA was trying to block are legitimate, new websites can be as easily created as they can be blocked. And even if this were not true, Wikileaks proves how easy it is to get around these blocked websites anyway. My high school tried to block certain web pages, but even high school students knew shortcuts to getting to the sites they wanted to see. Now that people know how simple it can be to beat the system, how can a website possibly be blocked “for good?”

One of the biggest problems is that the ACMA is very evasive as why certain websites are being blocked. Sure, it is obvious that the above topics should not be promoted, but what about the innocent professionals who need a website to access clients. Many Austrailians speculate that the ACMA wants to take down political information, but this claim is consistently denied.

The ACMA has quicky seen how hard it is to block URLs, and many people say doing this is not worth it. What is the best way for the ACMA to “protect” the country from what they believe is bad content?

The article can be found at http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1888011,00.html and was published on March 27, 2009.

In August Facebook registered its 100 millionth user making it one of the fastest growing means of communication on line and now sometime this week they expect to register their 200 millionth user. Its CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated that although reaching this high number of users was a great success for his company, he feels that there is still plenty of room for facebook to grow. In the past facebook as served as a means of communicating with both close and distant friends and family members. A woman with cousins both in Zürich and China can easily communicate with both of them through facebook. Facebook has also served as a means of broad based activism. Issues varying from politics, sexuality, life vs. choice and more can all be talked about on groups in facebook. Facebook’s instant message system has also made it very handy for people to communicate.

Although facebook brings so much to the table in terms of making communication easy, some users are displeased with certain issues. The ultimate problem is that people feel that facebook does not listen to the concerns of its users. People are upset that too many people have access to their personal information and pictures on facebook. When the new facebook was created people were furious and millions of memebers joined groups on facebook which were against the new facebook. People are also upset that facebook has used information they had collected from peoples accounts in order to make profit with advertising companies. People are also upset with the update system in that others can post bad things on their profiles and there is no way for them not to see it. Facebook argues that although they are concerned about the feelings of their users the company is not a democracy and that the company has enough wisdom to meet their desired goals. Although facebook is a great place to communicate and share ideas, issues with users and the company will not go away any time soon

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/technology/internet/29face.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=technology

I have never noticed the site Alertpedia until yesterday when I found this article, Alertpedia keeps searching, even when you’ve given up. I took a look at the homepage of it, and found it is really helpful. As seen from its website, Alertpedia says “Alertpedia sends you email alerts when something happens that matters to you.” Your trip on Alertpedia begins from selecting a category which varies from job hunting to travel information, from real estate to local event, and even from earthquake alert to Youtube videos. Then the search results will be delivered through email. Different from other websites people usually use to gather information, such as Kayak, who let you wait for several second and give an immediate search result, Alertpedia does this job periodically and sends you email daily, weekly or immediately. What’s more, without sign-up! You don’t have to leave any specific information about yourself but the email address.

Although the article pays more attention on the imperfectness of Alertpedia, it does claim that Alertpedia do have a lot of advantages. “There are very few ways to view job openings, book a vacation, or find that perfect home without plowing through multiple websites and advertisements,” said in the beginning of the article. Alertpedia saves users time by doing automatic and periodical search. Once you fill out one alert request, click on the frequency of alert, Alertpedia will do everything else for you. You do not have to check the website and repeat the tedious search again and again in case of losing a single clue about what you want to know. Then you can stay safer because you do not offer any private information but the email address. What’s more, as the site announced, the information is from reliable sources like the US govt bulletin, etc. Alertpedia is a really practical and handy tool to use.

However, all the obvious advantages may maintain or bring disadvantages. First, is it really fast? I searched the flight from Greensboro to San Jose, and I chose the frequency as As soon as possible, but it did not reply me until several hours after. It does save your time to check the website again and again, but for some of the time, when you do want to see the result immediately, it works not that well. Also I doubt the reliability of its information. Actually, not only from those comparatively reliable websites, a user, like you, can also post information, which makes me think of Wikipedia, whose most information is true, but just not that reliable. Last but not least, it comes to the issue mentioned in this article-endless results may be sent to your email box constantly and you have no idea which one you really want.

Everybody can take a look in your own email box. How many of the emails you delete everyday are real spam? Not a lot. What fill up your email box are endless emails from the websites you signed up before, but never taking a second look at. Personally, I receive a whole lot of emails about promotion, deals, and all other stuff from the websites I used before, but rarely check again. At the same time that the services bring us conveniences, inconveniences follow right after.

The article can be found at<http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10204428-2.html?tag=mncol>

“8 Hours a Day Spent on Screens, Study Finds,” an article written by Brian Shelter, is about how the average American is exposed to 61 minutes of advertising a day. Ball State university completed this study that cost 3.5 million dollars to see if advertising companies need to address new forms of media measurement. 350 people participated in the study in various age groups and suprisingly all of them were exposed to forms of media such as radio shows, television, and computers for the same amount of time, which helps advertisers think differently about the consumers viewing their advertisements. It narrowed down which age group spent the most time doing– texting, watching TV, online, and so on.

Advertising is a topic we havetalked aboutin class and topics about privacy, efficiency, and so on have come up in discussions. This article is not only good for advertisers, but it also shows interesting factslike researchers found that television and video games attract the most undivided attention, while other actions (like listening to music) often occur while people are doing other things. As well as, “When subjects in the study were asked to recall their behaviors, people underestimated the amount of time they spent with TV by a substantial amount about 25 percent on average. The same people tended to overestimate their use of other media.”

My opinion is that people are generally open to advertising if it is done in small amounts because everyone needs different things and advertising can open people up to new products. I do not oppose advertising because it usually does not bother me and some advertisements like SuperBowl commercials are a big part of the reason why the SuperBowl is even watched. I feel as though advertising in America is normal and a big reason why so many good shows are on TV is because advertising funds their income. All in all I think advertising is advantageous in many ways.

In the journal Nature Neuroscience, there is a study that shows that playing video games can improve eyesight in adults. The program noted improvements in contrast sensitivity, which is the ability to notice subtle differences in shades of gray. Playing video gamesfor this purpose is considered “training” in the journal, and it can be beneficial to those who have a condition called amblyopia, or lazy eye, and it can also help those who have trouble seeing at night while driving.

But it wasn’t just any video game. The improvements were seen in those who played action games such as, Call of Duty 2, rather than regular non action games like the Sims. It seems that the “precise, visually guided aiming actions” required in action video games, is what helps eye sight.

I feel that this is a very interesting idea simply because ever since video games started becoming popular, children have been told that playing them too much is bad for them. But now there is a study saying that it could be beneficial to adults. And not just regularvideo games, action video games, the ones that seem to cause the most controversey.

But its amazing to me how something that has been seen as a form of pleasure by some, and as a problem by others, is something that can potentially help many.

Im curious to see what happens after more studies are done and itbecomes a medically reccomended way to improve vision, how will doctors get middle aged adults to play video games?

Around 1300 computers in over 100 countries were found to have a certain malware program on them which gave the hacker complete control over the infected computers. This network was found to be based in China, but no offical connection to the chinese government has been made. Experts have named this network GhostNet. This malware however, once installed, has the capability of gaining complete control of the computer. This includes searching through all of the files, and turing on microphones and webcams on the computer to listen of watch people. The program was cleverly disguised as an e-mail from a friend or co-worker, with the program attached. Some e-mails were even stolen after they were sent, then the attachement was added, then resended.

This is directly related to our topic last class of cyper crimes. The idea that there are people and countries with this capability, to not only look through your private files on your computer but to go as far as to listen and watch you through a microphone or webcam, is startling. This brings up a whole new array of implications with web security.

Should the protection of personal files be left up to the individual or the government? In other words, should the government help protect us against personal information being stolen from foreign governments? If so, should we as American’s be worried that the government might abuse to the power and end up spying on us? And if not, how should we protect ourselves from cyber crimes?

This article can be found:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/03/29/ghostnet.cyber.espionage/index.html

“Vast Spy System Loots Computers in 103 Countries”

by John Markoff

Published: March 28, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/technology/29spy.html

The office of the Dalai Lama, the exiled leader of Tibet whom China regularly attacks, contacted Canadian researchers based at the Munk Center for International Studies at the University of Toronto, who are network security experts, to examine its computers for signs of “malicious software.” In the process the researchers discovered an electronic spying operation based in China, which they call ‘GhostNet’ that infiltrated 1,295 computers and stole documents in 103 countries. The spying was targeted not only to the Dalai Lama’s organization but also to economic and government offices of South and Southeast Asian countries. GhostNet spying has access to sensitive information, including documents from the private office of the Dalai Lama and also has the capacity to turn on the camera and audio recording functions of an infected computer to see and hear what goes on in a room.

This issue relates to our course discussion of digital technology privacy problems and consequences of misuse. In an article that I had found last month “Breaching Trust: An Analysis of Surveillance and Security Practices on China’s TOM-Skype Platform” by Ronald Deibert of the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, proof was presented that the Chinese government was secretly checking text messages. This operation already abused the issue of surveillance versus privacy.The March 28^th article by Markoff points to a recent example of cyber crime based also in China that continues to infiltrate more than a dozen new computers a week. The report emphasizes the growing capabilities of potential misuse of digital technology.

The use of sophisticated computer programs to secretly gather information is a reality that exposes “basic shortcomings in the legal structure of cyberspace.” The danger I think is that not only Chinese criminals but also other digital criminals can pick up the secret tactics used by the Chinese to infect computers in order to steel sensitive information. International law enforcement agencies need to react to the spying operations that are happening. Strong digital technology guidelines need to be established to stop international spying and respect and protect privacy. Information security is not available and needs serious monitoring and attention.

It is a very strong possibility that almost anyone who has had experience with computers has had to deal with a computer virus. Recently, a computer worm called “conficker” has gained attention and worry from Microsoft. According to reports, the worm, which was first spotted in November of 2008, is supposed to modify itself on April 1st. The modification will make it much harder to remove. The worm is reported to spread through the internet and hide in USB memory sticks. Data can be stolen from individuals computers, but more importantly the hackers can gain control of an infected machine and create a massive network of machines. The combined computing power can then be used to hack passwords. Programmers are searching for better ways to disrupt the worm but it is pretty much too late.

The Microfsoft task force is finding the worm to be very difficult to remove, which has to make us wonder: are computer viruses going to outpace those that fight them? What happens when our home anti-virus software can’t protect us anymore? These questions all raise a large amount of concern for us as daily lives and livelihood become further devoted to computers and the internet. Worms, like Conficker, that bury them selves deep in a computer serve as nothing but a nuisance and can possibly cost us lots and lots of money. Hackers will always exist on the internet in huge numbers as long as there are no major restrictions placed on how the internet can be used. Also, most computer users are not active enough in backing up their computers with the latest software patches that are provided by their computer companies. Patches should start becoming enforced much more frequently and effectively.

We can’t, however, just sit back and let viruses continue to be such a major force on the internet because it will only get worse. Microsoft has already offered a $250,000 reward for the anyone who can turn those who are responsible in. Bounties will not cut it, though. In the coming years it will be interesting to see how “internet law” may change if attacks grow too powerful.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9849350f816804a357829631f0fd7a21.51&show_article=1

The article is about the website RealAge that asks users over a hundred questions about their habits and health and then tell them their “real age” based on that information. After the user gets their results, RealAge offers tips to help stay healthy; these are nonmedical tips like eating breakfast and flossing. The website has been a huge hit with America’s craze to stay young and has had over 27 million people take the test. While people are taking the test, they are prompted several times to become members of the website and if clicked once, they will become a member using their email address already given to take the test. What most of the users do not know is that RealAge is giving their information to pharmaceutical companies. The companies are in turn sending the users specific advertisements or information about medications that applies to a possible disease they may have judging from their RealAge test answers. RealAge does not supply the pharmaceutical companies with the user’s email addresses, so the emails come from RealAge, a reason why most do not realize RealAge is actually a middleman. RealAge’s privacy policy does say that they will share the test information with third parties, but it is very vague. Some do not see this as a problem because doctors are not infallible and others see this as a bad thing because they do not want pharmaceutical companies with their personal information.

I think that this has grounds for both arguments. Obviously because RealAge states, though ambiguously, that they will share the information, legally there is nothing wrong, unless someone wants to push that fact that it does not clarify who the information will be shared with. Ethically, I don’t think it is necessarily right. I personally would not want my personal information sent to pharmaceutical companies sending my drug information tailored to me. As the article mentions, this can cause panic in people because they’re being sent medication recommendations for a disease that haven’t even been diagnosed with, or at times known they even had symptoms of. I don’t think it is right for the pharmaceutical companies to cause social unrest like that because they are trying to make money. RealAge should not be condone this kind of behavior that causes anxiety because they pride themselves on physically, mentally, and emotionally sound individuals and this sort of thing is not in harmony with that image.

Online Age Quiz Is a Window for Drug Makers

By STEPHANIE CLIFFORD

Published: March 25, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/technology/internet/26privacy.html?ref=technology

I read an interesting article on CNET about Twitter. Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, is known for his controversial actions in interviews, in the stands and even sometimes on the basketball court itself. He has been fined a total of $1.5 million to date in his ownership status. His most criticized subjects are referees who he claims, don’t do a proper job.He usually makes his complaints via interviews or in game “court storms.” However, his most recent outburst was of a new variety.Mr. Cuban made his thoughts known via a “tweet” on his Twitter account.He was angry about a transgression between his players and J.R. Smith of the Denver Nuggets and wrote on his twitter page, “how do they not call a tech on JR Smith for coming off the bench to taunt our player on the ground?”The author of the article did not really speculate on the implications of such an action, so I will.

While this may seem like a normal reaction and a reasonable one, the NBA has to wonder how far something like this could be taken.If Twitter or any social networking site can be used to send messages like this one, the whole league could be making negative statements online without any effort, leading to a drop in NBA popularity.It is also worrying to think that people can impersonate another online.It just so happens that this Mark Cuban “tweet” was confirmed as his.But anyone could go online and pretend to be a professional ball player or an owner and make a statement.While it wouldn’t take long for the NBA to figure out the impersonation, they do not have time to be rummaging through every social networking site to make sure there are no negative statements made by their players, coaches and owners.

The digital age is obviously a key component to professional sports and the internet is a key source of revenue.But there are aspects of the internet that could cause the downfall of a professional league.

The article can be found here….

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10206605-71.html?tag=newsLatestHeadlinesArea.0