Anytime you post something online, it stays there. Even if it's the littlest thing about where you were and what you were doing, to signing up to a website with your email address, it's permanently burned on the internet. No matter how much you try to get rid of it, there will always be a foot print available on the servers hidden deep within cyberspace. Even though it's up there for anyone to see, it's still your property. When you accept various terms and conditions to a website, you're signing a contract basically saying that what you post is yours. But what about when you die?
In this article, 21-year-old college student Ben Stassen committed suicide and his parents want to find out why. This ongoing battle between the parents and Facebook is trying to determine whether the Stassens should have access to his account. The court order says that "the Stassens are the heirs to their son’s
estate and are entitled to any of his assets, possessions or records,
including the contents of his Facebook account." This, however, brings up the debate on how online companies can honor their contracts with users to continue to protect their privacy.
One of the main problems that goes along with that is that no one knows if the user wants their family to have access unless it's written in a will. I don't really think people think about writing "I allow my family to have the rights to my Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, and Tumblr accounts and all content contained in them when I die."It's just not something that would come to the first thought. Once property is digitized, it's really hard to grasp it because it's not physical. It hard to determine if something digital can even be property. Even if a Facebook could be considered property that can be inherited to family, there's tons of liability issues if the family was lying about the death or if the company is legally unable to disclose any information without the consent of the customer, etc.
Social networking sites are still so young that they probably didn't take death into account when writing up their terms and conditions. Most states don't even have laws regarding online account information to refer to. Online companies should consider adding a clause to the contract, at least, discussing matters of death and needing the family to provide a death certificate or written will (if the user has one) so that courts don't have to get involved. However, that does still present the problem if the user wants their family to get hold of it in the first place. The article states that the federal government is prompting the public to write a social media will. Guess we should all get started.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Blog 3: Conflict and War in the Digital Age
War has never been easy. From the families at home to the soldiers on the battlefield, it's a constant struggle to survive. Advances in technology, however, have made some jobs easier. GPS and radars have accurately pinpointed where the enemy is and given our soldiers the one up in strategy. Robotics and hidden cameras can seek out buried landmines before anyone steps foot into the area. But in more recent times, we're not the only ones wielding this power. The other side now has tech savvy soldiers with the ability to gain intel and potentially use it to harm American troops.
Newsweek's Magazine had an article online that gave us an inside look at an undercover solider who was in charge of digging up Taliban intelligence to better inform U.S. troops. He was dressed as a normal civilian going around with a digital camera right under their noses. On the Taliban side, they're recruiting more that have a better knowledge of technology to gain intelligence, manage communications, and maintain electronic security. This puts us at a huge disadvantage.
The more they learn, the more they can do. At this point, the possibilities are frightening. They can hack our emails, listen to our phone conversations, direct suicide attacks without us ever being able to know. Technology is designed to help people with everyday needs, long term projects and to make life easier. It's scary to think how people can use it for ill desires. Is the advancement of technology only harmful to us in the long run? It's a dog eat dog world and just because we have the ability to use these skills doesn't mean that we're the only ones that will.
What does this mean for people living in the digital age? The government may or may not want to create restrictions on different aspects of technology or connection to the internet. They may want to start tracking what users are looking up in fear of the country's security. This would put such a choke hold on the people's electronic freedoms. What if people thought what you were looking up was a threat? How would you fair because of how one group of people would judge you?
One can argue that this advancement can be harmful to the community, on the battlefield as well as off. It can be detrimental for intelligence security of position, tactics and other information. It can also be harmful for future privacy and access on technology all over the nation. We can only hope that we can stay with the leg up on the fight.
Newsweek's Magazine had an article online that gave us an inside look at an undercover solider who was in charge of digging up Taliban intelligence to better inform U.S. troops. He was dressed as a normal civilian going around with a digital camera right under their noses. On the Taliban side, they're recruiting more that have a better knowledge of technology to gain intelligence, manage communications, and maintain electronic security. This puts us at a huge disadvantage.
The more they learn, the more they can do. At this point, the possibilities are frightening. They can hack our emails, listen to our phone conversations, direct suicide attacks without us ever being able to know. Technology is designed to help people with everyday needs, long term projects and to make life easier. It's scary to think how people can use it for ill desires. Is the advancement of technology only harmful to us in the long run? It's a dog eat dog world and just because we have the ability to use these skills doesn't mean that we're the only ones that will.
What does this mean for people living in the digital age? The government may or may not want to create restrictions on different aspects of technology or connection to the internet. They may want to start tracking what users are looking up in fear of the country's security. This would put such a choke hold on the people's electronic freedoms. What if people thought what you were looking up was a threat? How would you fair because of how one group of people would judge you?
One can argue that this advancement can be harmful to the community, on the battlefield as well as off. It can be detrimental for intelligence security of position, tactics and other information. It can also be harmful for future privacy and access on technology all over the nation. We can only hope that we can stay with the leg up on the fight.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Blog 2: Digital Divide
Recently, I was reading an article that shed some light on something many people aren't aware of. When I thought about the digital divide, I pictured third world countries that are unable to even stay fed and lack the proper technology to get online or even do everyday things. America tends to be a spoiled country and is much more fortunate than many others. After reading this article, it occurred to me that a digital divide exists in our own country. There are so many less fortunate people who live here.
Of the 311 million people who live in America, just over 200 million have access to a high speed wired internet at home. This is still a large number, but what about the remaining 111 million people without it? Well, smartphones allow internet access. In the last four years, the amount of people with smartphones has went from 10% to 34%. That makes up for a little, but with all the caps that cellphone companies require, you can do all the things online as you'd like.
The real shocking numbers are that 90% of people with a $75,000 income have high speed internet, where as 4 out of 10 households with an income below $25,000 income have high speed internet. The digital divide doesn't just exist economically, but it does racially as well. To quote the article, "Only slightly more than half of all African-American and Hispanic households (55 percent and 57 percent, respectively) have wired Internet access at home, compared with 72 percent of whites."
But enough with numbers, let's get to the real issue at hand. Besides our drastically receding economy, with all the others expenses that people have in their lives, internet is just too expensive for many to afford. Further reading, the author Susan Crawford makes a good point. The lack of competition and unregulated services is greatly effecting the divide. If you think about it, there are only a few companies who are providing internet services. Verizon, Comcast, Clearwire, and maybe a few more to count. They don't see the need to expand into less populated area, so they won't install the wiring. Companies that are providing a service are supposed to be considering their customers needs at hand.
While I don't agree than the content online should be regulated and I do agree that internet should be a purchased service and not a government responsibility, I believe that maybe there should be a government influence on costs of high speed internet. Corporations are continuously hiking the costs every day. Soon, majority of the middle and lower class will not be able to afford the service at all. A change needs to be taken into effect. Access to the internet and information from around the world should be a primary focus to everyone. The world has become ever changing. Without the technology we have readily available today, we're going to be stuck in a standstill.
Of the 311 million people who live in America, just over 200 million have access to a high speed wired internet at home. This is still a large number, but what about the remaining 111 million people without it? Well, smartphones allow internet access. In the last four years, the amount of people with smartphones has went from 10% to 34%. That makes up for a little, but with all the caps that cellphone companies require, you can do all the things online as you'd like.
The real shocking numbers are that 90% of people with a $75,000 income have high speed internet, where as 4 out of 10 households with an income below $25,000 income have high speed internet. The digital divide doesn't just exist economically, but it does racially as well. To quote the article, "Only slightly more than half of all African-American and Hispanic households (55 percent and 57 percent, respectively) have wired Internet access at home, compared with 72 percent of whites."
But enough with numbers, let's get to the real issue at hand. Besides our drastically receding economy, with all the others expenses that people have in their lives, internet is just too expensive for many to afford. Further reading, the author Susan Crawford makes a good point. The lack of competition and unregulated services is greatly effecting the divide. If you think about it, there are only a few companies who are providing internet services. Verizon, Comcast, Clearwire, and maybe a few more to count. They don't see the need to expand into less populated area, so they won't install the wiring. Companies that are providing a service are supposed to be considering their customers needs at hand.
While I don't agree than the content online should be regulated and I do agree that internet should be a purchased service and not a government responsibility, I believe that maybe there should be a government influence on costs of high speed internet. Corporations are continuously hiking the costs every day. Soon, majority of the middle and lower class will not be able to afford the service at all. A change needs to be taken into effect. Access to the internet and information from around the world should be a primary focus to everyone. The world has become ever changing. Without the technology we have readily available today, we're going to be stuck in a standstill.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Monday, May 7, 2012
Blog 1: Online Identity
Sometimes people just don't want to deal with reality. There are deadlines, events, and a million other things that need to be stressed about. When the internet came into play, it became almost a getaway for many people. When normally they'd be the shy and timid person at work, they'd become this strong, courageous hero online. I read this article about the psychology of cyberspace and identity management. It talked about the level of fantasy and reality and the conscious aware and control. It really put some things into perspective. Over time, can people differentiate between their online life and reality?
What will this mean for society if the online realm becomes more appealing than reality? If a person is getting a negative reaction from his peers in reality and the users online accept him, he's more than likely going to become attached to that positive reinforcement and spend majority of his time online. But how bad could it get? Maybe spending some time away from the world can be a good thing. On the contrary.
People might become confused with who they really are compared to who they've become. Ideally we'd assume if people like the way someone is acting online, that person would change their personality in reality to fit their online persona. Sometimes, society is not as accepting to an online persona, but the user has become extremely attached to it. What now? The negative reaction in the real world can make the person want to reject reality and stay inside on the computer. Now we're stuck with a recluse who is starting to believe he's a level 86 mage with a charmed double blade sword and the ruler of Azeroth.
An example was given in the article about characters of people who role play seem to take on a life of their own. It can become a problem if people start believing they are their characters if they're otherworldly. The limits of role playing are only as restricted as one's imagination, but those rules can't apply in reality if a person thinks he can cheat death by stopping a moving bus with his mind. An online persona can be a dangerous thing if people can't keep it separate from the real world or learn to apply the positive characteristics while leaving the negative or socially unacceptable behind.
What will this mean for society if the online realm becomes more appealing than reality? If a person is getting a negative reaction from his peers in reality and the users online accept him, he's more than likely going to become attached to that positive reinforcement and spend majority of his time online. But how bad could it get? Maybe spending some time away from the world can be a good thing. On the contrary.
People might become confused with who they really are compared to who they've become. Ideally we'd assume if people like the way someone is acting online, that person would change their personality in reality to fit their online persona. Sometimes, society is not as accepting to an online persona, but the user has become extremely attached to it. What now? The negative reaction in the real world can make the person want to reject reality and stay inside on the computer. Now we're stuck with a recluse who is starting to believe he's a level 86 mage with a charmed double blade sword and the ruler of Azeroth.
An example was given in the article about characters of people who role play seem to take on a life of their own. It can become a problem if people start believing they are their characters if they're otherworldly. The limits of role playing are only as restricted as one's imagination, but those rules can't apply in reality if a person thinks he can cheat death by stopping a moving bus with his mind. An online persona can be a dangerous thing if people can't keep it separate from the real world or learn to apply the positive characteristics while leaving the negative or socially unacceptable behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)