"APRIL 26--A Pennsylvania woman claims that her teaching career has been derailed by college administrators who unfairly disciplined her over a MySpace photo that shows her wearing a pirate hat and drinking from a plastic cup. In a federal lawsuit, Stacy Snyder charges that Millersville University brass accused her of promoting underage drinking after they discovered her MySpace photo, which was captioned "Drunken Pirate." The picture from Snyder's MySpace page was snapped at a costume party outside school hours. In her complaint, Snyder, a 25-year-old single mother of two, says that Millersville officials discovered the image last May, while she was a senior working as a student-teacher at Conestoga Valley High School. A university official told her that the photo was "unprofessional" and could have offended her students if they accessed her MySpace page. At the time the "Drunken Pirate" photo was taken, Snyder was of legal age to drink, though her lawsuit notes that the photo "does not show the cup's contents."
Although I just recently completed a research paper on Facebook and Myspace in relation to privacy and how having a profile lowers your right to privacy, I find this example to be an extreme case. I could see if the user was underage and had a beer bottle in her hand, but she is of legal drinking age, and the contents of her drink are not visible. While the caption is a stretch, the picture in itself should not be enough for the school to deny Snyder her teaching degree. While the picture may not be "professional" in the eyes of her school, she has not broken any laws, and they have no right to deny her a degree. I think that there are so many other cases where a users picture is outright unacceptable and they are not losing their jobs or college degrees. Snyder is the unfortunate user that is going to set the example for other users, and bring attention to the fact that administrators, potential employers have access to their social network profiles. While users on mypsace do have a lowered expectation of privacy in the information that they post online, Snyder does not need to be made into the poster child of that lowered expectation on the Internet. I hope that Snyder is awarded her teaching degree as she deserves, because the fact that her school is withholding her degree is unconstitutional.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Copyright Laws
While I do not have any articles to base my blog on this week, I have been recently inspired from our in-class discussion of our final papers. Today in the presentation that discussed copyright laws in regards to movies, music and even books, I realized that companies are now being sued for advancements in technology. When we discussed today that the manufacturers of DVD players, Tivo's and VCR's are being sued for making a machine available that has the ability to copy a copyrighted material. But why are these manufacturers being sued? You would think that these companies would want their shows and movies being taped so that they can be watched continuously, or perhaps capture a dedicated viewer for another week if they have the ability to watch an episode of their favorite show at a later time. I think that these industries should focus only on the distribution of the information, rather than the gathering of it, or the devices through which data can be saved. An example given in class was that it is acceptable to record a TV show, however if you make a thousand copies and place them all in your front yard for others to take, then you would be breaking copyright laws. Another copyright issue that struck me as odd today was the capabilities that Apple has. While Apple offers the IPod that in some way encourages music pirating, they also offer music that can be downloaded to the device. Whether you illegally download music, or you pay for every song you have, Apple provides you with a device to listen to your music. If the manufacturers of devices such as VCR's and Tivo's are being sued for infringement on copyright laws, then why isn't anyone suing apple? I personally think that there would be a lot less controversy and problems if the music industry would just accept the fact that people are going to pirate music, and they should stop filing lawsuits against people. Sure these industries are losing money, but the reality is that technology is changing, and with this the availability of music is also changing. No one needs to buy Cd's anymore because they can get the music online, so why doesn't the music industry try to find another way to deal with this, for instance stop putting out Cd's and sell the songs online only.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Facebook and Privacy
Do the users of facebook have a lowered expectation of privacy? In my opinion, yes they do. When you sign up for facebook you are willingly exposing not only your personal information to the databases of facebook, but to the entire network. Facebook is a network created by college students in order to better connect students, however, those who overexpose themselves in this online community have a lowered expectation to privacy. Facebook offers a privacy setting that users can utilize, however it does not completely eliminate strangers from accessing your information. Especially now that facebook has opened its doors to everyone, unlike in the past when only college students had access, a users expectation of privacy is lowered. Police, parents and teachers have the right to be on the network, and to access any users information. Many school police have begun to use facebook as a means of patrolling their student body, and they have every right to. You should not post pictures or messages that you do not want authorities to see. The internet is a public space, and therefore your actions are not private, and are prosecutable. People who have hundreds of pictures of themselves are definitely overexposing themselves in a public place, and if their pictures show illegal activity then there should be repercussions. There have been many cases in which students have claimed that their expectations to privacy have been violated, however none of these cases should "hold water". Anytime you do something in the public eye you are being watched, and you are aware of it, so why are your actions of facebook any different? They aren't! While some can argue that they have taken measures to secure their information through facebook security options, they can not account for someone who does have access to their information allowing someone else to use their account. Facebook in theory is a wonderful creation that allows for people to keep in touch with and meet new people, however it also opens up its users to a lowered expectation of privacy. People need to taken down pictures of themselves, and not post all of their actions on their homepage, in order to begin to gain back some expectation of privacy. Until the users of facebook begin to realize that they are only hurting themselves and their reputation every time they sign on, their expectation of privacy is only going to continue to dwindle.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Worst child abuse images quadruple online in three years, says watchdog
"Peter Robbins, the IWF's chairman, said the figures demonstrated an increasing appetite among Internet paedophiles for the most severe sorts of imagery, while sites selling abusive pictures and videos appeared to be turning to increasingly hardcore material in order to fend off competitors. "The images appear to be on a trend towards more severity, probably because there is greater demand," Mr Robbins told the Guardian. "The age of the children involved is predominantly under 12, and the commercial sites where these images are being sold are staying up for long periods." Last year the IWF processed 31,776 reports of illegal images on the Internet - up from 24,000 in 2005. The material was hosted on more than 3,000 websites."
With all this talk about creating and enforcing Internet laws, the first should be the banning and regulating of child pornography. The chilling facts about the increasing number of child abuse images and distributors of these images is unacceptable. People are up in arms over the legality of domain names, when there are far more pertinent issues, such as child pornography, that are being overlooked. The higher the demand for these images, the more hardcore and readily available the images become, when they should be banned.
"One expert said greater international cooperation was needed to close down such websites completely." I completely agree with this expert in that every nation should give their full cooperating in shutting down these websites. While pornography is legal in our country, child pornography is not, and all available measures need to be taken to ensure that it stays off the internet. Not only are these images disturbing, but they are also a reflection of what is going on in our country and those around us to young children. As was said in the articles, the creation of these images could suggest child trafficking and industrial level abuse. No other internet patrolling should be considered, until this problem is cleared up. The music industry is so wrapped up in suing people and attempting to make back lost profits, while they could be focusing their attention on protecting the lives of children everywhere. If internet companies worked together to eliminate child pornography on the internet, then they would be doing more than taking away graphic images, they could be saving the lives of many children. With all the technology available today there has to be a way to eliminate child pornography from the internet, and it needs to be done immediately.
With all this talk about creating and enforcing Internet laws, the first should be the banning and regulating of child pornography. The chilling facts about the increasing number of child abuse images and distributors of these images is unacceptable. People are up in arms over the legality of domain names, when there are far more pertinent issues, such as child pornography, that are being overlooked. The higher the demand for these images, the more hardcore and readily available the images become, when they should be banned.
"One expert said greater international cooperation was needed to close down such websites completely." I completely agree with this expert in that every nation should give their full cooperating in shutting down these websites. While pornography is legal in our country, child pornography is not, and all available measures need to be taken to ensure that it stays off the internet. Not only are these images disturbing, but they are also a reflection of what is going on in our country and those around us to young children. As was said in the articles, the creation of these images could suggest child trafficking and industrial level abuse. No other internet patrolling should be considered, until this problem is cleared up. The music industry is so wrapped up in suing people and attempting to make back lost profits, while they could be focusing their attention on protecting the lives of children everywhere. If internet companies worked together to eliminate child pornography on the internet, then they would be doing more than taking away graphic images, they could be saving the lives of many children. With all the technology available today there has to be a way to eliminate child pornography from the internet, and it needs to be done immediately.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Malaysian ministers in fresh attack on bloggers
While I have written before about the governments of other countries taking away their citizens rights to free speech, The Malaysian ministers are yet another example.
"Malaysian ministers have issued fresh attacks on bloggers, threatening to take away their rights and accusing them of trying to overthrow the government, according to reports."
The governments of these countries should allow their citizens a right to free speech, and in turn the right to disagree with the government. By posting ones opinion in a blog is not making an active advance towards overthrowing the government. In the U.S you can blog freely in relation to your opinion of the government, as long as you are not threatening the well being of any individual (i.e. the President). These bloggers are not spreading lies about the government, as the ministers have said, they are simply stating their unsupported opinion of the government.
"We are not interfering with their rights. But if they behave irresponsibly, we will take away their rights," Lim was quoted as saying in the New Straits Times. "The way they blog, with all that filth inside, do you think they are responsible?""
This statement by the Prime Minister goes to show that the freedom of speech, while recognized as a right, does not hold my weight. If your rights can be taken away from you for "irresponsible behavior", then what kind of a right is it at all? These bloggers are not breaking any law, and their right to free speech should certainly not be taken away as a result of their expression.
A government that reacts in this manner, is one that shows grave signs of weakness. If a bloggers accusations are enough to get the government up in arms, and attempt to take away citizens rights away over an online blog, I fear for what they would do to those, who are actively trying to gain power and overthrow the government. A blog is an innocent way of expressing your feelings, weather it may be about the government or about your day at work, and the Prime Minister of Malaysia, along with all other government officials should have no right to take away the rights of bloggers, based on the content of their blog.
"Malaysian ministers have issued fresh attacks on bloggers, threatening to take away their rights and accusing them of trying to overthrow the government, according to reports."
The governments of these countries should allow their citizens a right to free speech, and in turn the right to disagree with the government. By posting ones opinion in a blog is not making an active advance towards overthrowing the government. In the U.S you can blog freely in relation to your opinion of the government, as long as you are not threatening the well being of any individual (i.e. the President). These bloggers are not spreading lies about the government, as the ministers have said, they are simply stating their unsupported opinion of the government.
"We are not interfering with their rights. But if they behave irresponsibly, we will take away their rights," Lim was quoted as saying in the New Straits Times. "The way they blog, with all that filth inside, do you think they are responsible?""
This statement by the Prime Minister goes to show that the freedom of speech, while recognized as a right, does not hold my weight. If your rights can be taken away from you for "irresponsible behavior", then what kind of a right is it at all? These bloggers are not breaking any law, and their right to free speech should certainly not be taken away as a result of their expression.
A government that reacts in this manner, is one that shows grave signs of weakness. If a bloggers accusations are enough to get the government up in arms, and attempt to take away citizens rights away over an online blog, I fear for what they would do to those, who are actively trying to gain power and overthrow the government. A blog is an innocent way of expressing your feelings, weather it may be about the government or about your day at work, and the Prime Minister of Malaysia, along with all other government officials should have no right to take away the rights of bloggers, based on the content of their blog.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Baseball Seasons Comes to Itunes Stores
"Apple has announced that it will be selling a selection of Major League Baseball game highlight videos on its iTunes Store, just in time for the start of the 2007 season. They'll be distributed in the form of two programs, "MLB Daily Rewind," a 25-minute recap of the highlights of a given day; and "Game of the Week," which will offer full-length videos of two featured games from the National and American Leagues. Each Daily Rewind and Game of the Week will cost $1.99; a month of Daily Rewinds will cost $7.99, and a "Season Pass" for every Game of the Week will cost $19.99. Interested viewers can also download a season preview for free from the iTunes Store. Additionally, the store will sell another MLB.com show, "MLB.com Baseball's Best," featuring classic baseball games, for $1.99 an episode."
Apple has gone from a computer company to a music industry tycoon and they are now attempting to cash in on our nations love for baseball. I think that bringing sports into Itunes is crossing the line. MLB.com should continue to offer this clips exclusively through their website free of charge, rather than add to the apple industry. If Apple has the ability to distribute baseball games now, what comes next? Will the State of the Union be available in the Itunes store as well, will children's textbooks by downloaded through Itunes Store as well. By allowing Apple to add baseball game highlights and or full games into their Itunes store, is opening the door for Itunes to dominate all American industries over a matter of time. To add sports clips to the Itunes Store is to give Apple too much power, and if we do not limit their power now, there is going to be a point when we can not stop them from reeping the benefits of every American pass time.
Apple has gone from a computer company to a music industry tycoon and they are now attempting to cash in on our nations love for baseball. I think that bringing sports into Itunes is crossing the line. MLB.com should continue to offer this clips exclusively through their website free of charge, rather than add to the apple industry. If Apple has the ability to distribute baseball games now, what comes next? Will the State of the Union be available in the Itunes store as well, will children's textbooks by downloaded through Itunes Store as well. By allowing Apple to add baseball game highlights and or full games into their Itunes store, is opening the door for Itunes to dominate all American industries over a matter of time. To add sports clips to the Itunes Store is to give Apple too much power, and if we do not limit their power now, there is going to be a point when we can not stop them from reeping the benefits of every American pass time.
Friday, March 30, 2007
ICANN votes against .xxx Domain
"The agency that sets the Internet addressing guidelines influencing how people navigate the Web defeated a proposal Friday to give adult Web sites their own ".xxx" domain."
I find it to be very disappointing that this proposal was rejected on Friday. By giving adult Web sites their own .xxx domain separates the pornography section of the Internet from interfering with the rest of the information. If the adult web site industry were to have their own domain it would make it easier to control the access of these sights by minors and the unsuspecting. In some events there are domain names that one would assume to be a store or a search engine, and since they are not,people are unsuspectingly exposed to pornography on the Internet, while trying to search for shoes or a song title. If all adult web sites were subject to .xxx domains it would eliminate unsuspecting adults and minors from being confronted with pornographic images while they are exploring the Internet. Although many religious groups have concern for the expansion of the adult porn industry on the Internet, I think it would be making a necessary separation between basic information and shopping from pornography.
"Religious groups worried that ".xxx" would legitimize and expand the number of adults sites, which more than a third of U.S. Internet users visit each month, according to comScore Media Metrix. The Web site measurement firm said 4 percent of all Web traffic and 2 percent of all time spent Web surfing involved an adult site."
By approving this proposal would have been from ICANN to protect children from being exposed to pornographic images due to a type in a domain name. If the domain names of adult web sites remain intertwined with those of Google and walmart.com children are at risk of being exposed to pornographic material. I think that the protection of children should take precedence over a religious view that fears the inevitable, the expansion of the porn industry.
"ICANN revived the proposal in January after ICM agreed to hire independent organizations to monitor porn sites' compliance with the new rules, which would be developed by a separate body called the International Foundation for Online Responsibility."
It would be unnecessary for ICM to organize the International Foundation for Online Responsibility if ICANN provided all adult web sites with the .xxx domain. ICANN can exert control over the world wide web if they created a clear distinction between elicit material and school research.
I think that ICANN should be approved the proposal for all adult web sites to have a .xxx domain.
I find it to be very disappointing that this proposal was rejected on Friday. By giving adult Web sites their own .xxx domain separates the pornography section of the Internet from interfering with the rest of the information. If the adult web site industry were to have their own domain it would make it easier to control the access of these sights by minors and the unsuspecting. In some events there are domain names that one would assume to be a store or a search engine, and since they are not,people are unsuspectingly exposed to pornography on the Internet, while trying to search for shoes or a song title. If all adult web sites were subject to .xxx domains it would eliminate unsuspecting adults and minors from being confronted with pornographic images while they are exploring the Internet. Although many religious groups have concern for the expansion of the adult porn industry on the Internet, I think it would be making a necessary separation between basic information and shopping from pornography.
"Religious groups worried that ".xxx" would legitimize and expand the number of adults sites, which more than a third of U.S. Internet users visit each month, according to comScore Media Metrix. The Web site measurement firm said 4 percent of all Web traffic and 2 percent of all time spent Web surfing involved an adult site."
By approving this proposal would have been from ICANN to protect children from being exposed to pornographic images due to a type in a domain name. If the domain names of adult web sites remain intertwined with those of Google and walmart.com children are at risk of being exposed to pornographic material. I think that the protection of children should take precedence over a religious view that fears the inevitable, the expansion of the porn industry.
"ICANN revived the proposal in January after ICM agreed to hire independent organizations to monitor porn sites' compliance with the new rules, which would be developed by a separate body called the International Foundation for Online Responsibility."
It would be unnecessary for ICM to organize the International Foundation for Online Responsibility if ICANN provided all adult web sites with the .xxx domain. ICANN can exert control over the world wide web if they created a clear distinction between elicit material and school research.
I think that ICANN should be approved the proposal for all adult web sites to have a .xxx domain.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
YouTube ban
"ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) - A court ordered access to YouTube's Web site blocked Wednesday after a prosecutor recommended the ban because of videos allegedly insulting the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
Paul Doany, head of Turk Telekom, Turkey's largest telecommunications provider, said his company had immediately begun enforcing the ban.
``We are not in the position of saying that what YouTube did was an insult, that it was right or wrong,'' Doany told the state-run Anatolia news agency. ``A court decision was proposed to us, and we are doing what that court decision says.''
Visitors to the YouTube site from Turkey were greeted with the message: ``Access to this site has been blocked by a court decision! ...''
A message in both Turkish and English at the bottom of the page said, ``Access to www.youtube.com site has been suspended in accordance with decision no: 2007/384 dated 06.03.2007 of Istanbul First Criminal Peace Court.''"
For a government to shut down a forum of free speech within their country due to an insult is just plain embarrassing. While it is understandable that a government would be upset by public ridicule, that should not allow them to justify the shutting down of a website in order to stop it. My bias may come from living in a country where the right to free speech is protected, however by YouTube being shut down is taking away the citizens rights to express their feelings in regards to their leaders. So long as the speech posted on YouTube is not threatening the government or the countries safety, then there is no need to ban it. The fact that this public forum was banned from Turkey as a result of a comment that said that the leader, Mustafa Kemal Ataturkma and the Turkish people were homosexuals, is outrageous. This ban reflects the type of government that runs Turkey. If they can not handle jeers from other countries via Internet, then they must not be very powerful at all. Everyday in our country and others as well there are comics, movies, clips and magazines published that bash our president, our government and the American way of life, but you do not see our leaders banning all of these forms of public speech. The Turkish government should rethink this ban, because they are only making themselves look weak, if they can not even handle being called homosexuals without causing an uproar. If YouTube videos are enough to send this government into a panic, how will they act to an actual threat or crisis?
Paul Doany, head of Turk Telekom, Turkey's largest telecommunications provider, said his company had immediately begun enforcing the ban.
``We are not in the position of saying that what YouTube did was an insult, that it was right or wrong,'' Doany told the state-run Anatolia news agency. ``A court decision was proposed to us, and we are doing what that court decision says.''
Visitors to the YouTube site from Turkey were greeted with the message: ``Access to this site has been blocked by a court decision! ...''
A message in both Turkish and English at the bottom of the page said, ``Access to www.youtube.com site has been suspended in accordance with decision no: 2007/384 dated 06.03.2007 of Istanbul First Criminal Peace Court.''"
For a government to shut down a forum of free speech within their country due to an insult is just plain embarrassing. While it is understandable that a government would be upset by public ridicule, that should not allow them to justify the shutting down of a website in order to stop it. My bias may come from living in a country where the right to free speech is protected, however by YouTube being shut down is taking away the citizens rights to express their feelings in regards to their leaders. So long as the speech posted on YouTube is not threatening the government or the countries safety, then there is no need to ban it. The fact that this public forum was banned from Turkey as a result of a comment that said that the leader, Mustafa Kemal Ataturkma and the Turkish people were homosexuals, is outrageous. This ban reflects the type of government that runs Turkey. If they can not handle jeers from other countries via Internet, then they must not be very powerful at all. Everyday in our country and others as well there are comics, movies, clips and magazines published that bash our president, our government and the American way of life, but you do not see our leaders banning all of these forms of public speech. The Turkish government should rethink this ban, because they are only making themselves look weak, if they can not even handle being called homosexuals without causing an uproar. If YouTube videos are enough to send this government into a panic, how will they act to an actual threat or crisis?
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Yahoo Stole My Identity!
"An Ohio woman is demanding $20 million from Yahoo for allegedly using a photo of her without her permission for a welcome e-mail sent to new users."
Shannon Stovall, upon signing up for a yahoo account was sent a welcome email in which she found a picture of herself to be the image of. This email offers tips to all new users of yahoo, and has been sent to millions of people and they are viewing this picture of Stovall, that she did not give permission to be used in their advertisement. So should yahoo be able to use Stovall's picture to advertise their email tools? In my opinion I do not think that Stovall has the right to sue yahoo for the use of her picture without permission. We now live in a world of which there is no place to hide. We all have a lowered right to privacy in the world in which we live, and therefore she does not hold the right to this image of her. I do not think that yahoo has overtaken her right to control the commercial use of her identity. Within the generation that we live, we have all created a digital identity that exposes us, and usually without our knowledge. Every time that you go to the ATM you are allowing yourself to be captured on video, and every time that you enter a building you are caught on their security camera. We are all agreeing to a lowered expectation of privacy when we do not put up a fight regarding the capturing of our images on a daily basis. With Stovall at one point having been a model, who knowingly exposed images of herself, in my opinion lost her case right there. You can not willingly expose yourself in some instances and expect others to respect your right to privacy in other instances. In the world that we live in we are all subject to a lowered expectation of privacy, including Shannon Stovall. I do not think that Stovall has a legitimate case against Yahoo for the use of her photograph in their advertisement. Stovall has willingly exposed herself in many other instances, and as a result of this overexposure she was captured in a photograph, that Yahoo can rightfully use.
Shannon Stovall, upon signing up for a yahoo account was sent a welcome email in which she found a picture of herself to be the image of. This email offers tips to all new users of yahoo, and has been sent to millions of people and they are viewing this picture of Stovall, that she did not give permission to be used in their advertisement. So should yahoo be able to use Stovall's picture to advertise their email tools? In my opinion I do not think that Stovall has the right to sue yahoo for the use of her picture without permission. We now live in a world of which there is no place to hide. We all have a lowered right to privacy in the world in which we live, and therefore she does not hold the right to this image of her. I do not think that yahoo has overtaken her right to control the commercial use of her identity. Within the generation that we live, we have all created a digital identity that exposes us, and usually without our knowledge. Every time that you go to the ATM you are allowing yourself to be captured on video, and every time that you enter a building you are caught on their security camera. We are all agreeing to a lowered expectation of privacy when we do not put up a fight regarding the capturing of our images on a daily basis. With Stovall at one point having been a model, who knowingly exposed images of herself, in my opinion lost her case right there. You can not willingly expose yourself in some instances and expect others to respect your right to privacy in other instances. In the world that we live in we are all subject to a lowered expectation of privacy, including Shannon Stovall. I do not think that Stovall has a legitimate case against Yahoo for the use of her photograph in their advertisement. Stovall has willingly exposed herself in many other instances, and as a result of this overexposure she was captured in a photograph, that Yahoo can rightfully use.
Monday, February 26, 2007
4 years in prison for blogging?!
Blogs, such as this, are created by individuals in order to express first amendment rights of freedom of speech and thought. Blogs can range from what someone had to eat that day, which does not bother any legal officials, to talk of the faults of the government, which is not so readily accepted. By the Egyptian court sentencing a blogger who chose to exercise his 1st amendment right seems unconstitutional; in the eyes of the American law. When Abdel Kareem Nabil in his blog "had been a vocal secularist and sharp critic of conservative Muslims" the government acted out against him. However, what this government is not seeing as that they are taking away his right to freedom of speech and expression. By writing in a blog you are expressing your point of view in the same way that a picketer or a journalist would, which are both legal forms of expression, in the United States. If Abdel Kareem Nabil had made direct threats against the government then it would be understandable for them to take action,however in this case it is not. What type of a message is being sent to the rest of the world who uses blogs to express themselves and have their voice heard? By legal action being taken against Abdel Kareem Nabil, leaves the rest of the public the idea that you may not express any idea, feeling or opinion through a blog, because if you do, you will be prosecuted for it. I would hope that this government can see their wrong doing and release this innocent man from prison. It seems more then outlandish to have to serve 4 years in prison for peacefully expressing an opinion about your school and your government. I think that Abdel Kareem Nabil was correct in the way that he expressed his dislike for his school system, as well as the government. By the Egyptian court imprisoning Abdel Kareem Nabil they are taking away his, under American law, right to freedom of speech and expression, and I strongly hope that the court sees they are infringing upon what should not only be considered American laws, but god given rights.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Keith Urban and Domain Names
What is the reason for all the controversy behind domain names? Since Symbolics.com registered on March 15, 1985 the "market" for domain names has greatly increased. The number of active domain names has more then double, tripled or even quadrupled since 1985. With this steady increase in registered domain names many conflicts have arisen. Once a domain name is created, it is owned, paid for and maintained by an individual or business. While there are no restrictions on the type of domain name that can be created, there are many issues surrounding the actual names chosen. For example, should the man whose last name is McDonald and sells lawnmowers get to own the domain name McDonald's, or should the multimillion dollar corporation McDonald's be able to gain control of this domain name. Currently, there are no laws regarding domain names, and which party has the "right" to ownership. However, in my opinion it should be settled upon a first come first serve basis. A domain name is not even necessary in the computer world, it is a method of simplification that humans use to remember websites, because we would forget the numerical sequence that represents a website. There should be no difference with online name copyright and the name copyright that exists in the everyday material world. There can be many places named McDonald's, as long as they are not furnishing the same products and or services. And while it may be frustrating to superstars like Keith Urban, there are other people with his name and have the right to own the domain name Keith Urban and use this website for commercial reasons, personal reasons or anything else he sees fit. Being a millionaire or a super successful company does not buy you the right to own the domain name of your choice. As long as the owner of the name you want, it not pretending to be affiliated with your company or pose as you, then you should not be able to do anything about it besides think of another non-existing domain name. The copyright laws that apply to companies and people within the United States need to be applied to the internet in the case of domain names. With such a large demand for domain names today, it is only right that people be protected under copyright laws, and that the registration of domain names occurs on a first come first serve basis, not on social status or power. When I say this, I mean for legitimate circumstances such as that matter between the Keith Urban's, this does not apply to the people who are buying up all the domain names in hopes of one day being able to sell them to a huge company or celebrity. The registration of domain names should not be able to become marketable.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Myspace to offer parental notification software
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/01/17/myspace_to_offer_parental_notification_software_report/
Myspace is an online "community" in which people can meet new people, share pictures, interests and even catch up with old friends. Although the idea of this website is harmless and offers a chance to build community effortlessly, it is just as easy for sexual predators and child abusers to gain access to these communities and take advantage of young users. In response to this threat, a company called "Zephyr" is going to create software that allows parents to view only the name, age and location that their children are using to log into myspace. Parents can not gain access personal information, emails or anything of that sort, they can only monitor the way and from what location their child is presenting themselves from. I strongly believe that allowing parents this ability to access this trivial information could greatly improve a parent’s ability to control their child’s actions on Myspace. The current age requirement of Myspace is 14, and if parents can see that their child, who is underage has a Myspace account, they have grounds to prevent their child from using the account. In addition, if a young user says that they are over the age of 18 they are putting themselves in a position to interact with older users and even perhaps become a victim of sex offenders. By allowing parents to view the age that their child uses on Myspace gives them the ability to further protect their children from online predators. Although there are "33 state attorneys general considers whether to take action against MySpace if it does not raise the age limit to join the site to 16 from 14 and begin verifying members' ages", there are other ways to keep children safe. During decision process regarding if parents are allowed to access their child’s limited profile, they could prevent any other young users from becoming victims of sex offenders. Although a parent viewing their child’s limited profile does not prevent these teenagers from over exposing themselves and giving out too much information, it is a step in the right direction. The users will be alerted of their status being checked, and with the threat of parents watching their actions, many youngsters may be less tempted to falsify information in their profile. Parents possessing this ability to obtain information does not violate the privacy of the users, because this type of information can be obtained by any other users, it is just made easier for the parents, as to save them the time to search around and find their child. However an important question is raised that if others will be able to use this system to also track underage users. As much as I am in favor of parents using this system to help protect their children from becoming online targets, it should not be used until all the kinks are worked out and it can be guaranteed that sex offenders or users looking to get the information of children cannot access that type of information. It is not the responsibility of Myspace to keep children off their site who are giving fraudulent information, however with the help of "Zephyr" parents can prevent their children from falling victim to sexual predators in the Myspace community.
Myspace is an online "community" in which people can meet new people, share pictures, interests and even catch up with old friends. Although the idea of this website is harmless and offers a chance to build community effortlessly, it is just as easy for sexual predators and child abusers to gain access to these communities and take advantage of young users. In response to this threat, a company called "Zephyr" is going to create software that allows parents to view only the name, age and location that their children are using to log into myspace. Parents can not gain access personal information, emails or anything of that sort, they can only monitor the way and from what location their child is presenting themselves from. I strongly believe that allowing parents this ability to access this trivial information could greatly improve a parent’s ability to control their child’s actions on Myspace. The current age requirement of Myspace is 14, and if parents can see that their child, who is underage has a Myspace account, they have grounds to prevent their child from using the account. In addition, if a young user says that they are over the age of 18 they are putting themselves in a position to interact with older users and even perhaps become a victim of sex offenders. By allowing parents to view the age that their child uses on Myspace gives them the ability to further protect their children from online predators. Although there are "33 state attorneys general considers whether to take action against MySpace if it does not raise the age limit to join the site to 16 from 14 and begin verifying members' ages", there are other ways to keep children safe. During decision process regarding if parents are allowed to access their child’s limited profile, they could prevent any other young users from becoming victims of sex offenders. Although a parent viewing their child’s limited profile does not prevent these teenagers from over exposing themselves and giving out too much information, it is a step in the right direction. The users will be alerted of their status being checked, and with the threat of parents watching their actions, many youngsters may be less tempted to falsify information in their profile. Parents possessing this ability to obtain information does not violate the privacy of the users, because this type of information can be obtained by any other users, it is just made easier for the parents, as to save them the time to search around and find their child. However an important question is raised that if others will be able to use this system to also track underage users. As much as I am in favor of parents using this system to help protect their children from becoming online targets, it should not be used until all the kinks are worked out and it can be guaranteed that sex offenders or users looking to get the information of children cannot access that type of information. It is not the responsibility of Myspace to keep children off their site who are giving fraudulent information, however with the help of "Zephyr" parents can prevent their children from falling victim to sexual predators in the Myspace community.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
I spy; Doesn't Everyone?
" There was a time when unearthing someone's private thoughts and deeds required sliding a hand beneath a mattress, fishing out a diary and hurriedly skimming its pages. The process was tactile, delibarateand fraught with anxiety: Will I be caught? Is this ethical? What will it do to my relationship? But digital technology has made uncovering secrets such a painless, antiseptic process that that boundary delineating what is permissible in a relationship appears to be shifting."
"In interviews and on blogs across the Web, people report that they snoop and spy on others--friends, family, colleagues--encumbered by anxiety or guilt."
These two quotes come from The New York Times article titled I spy; Doesn't everyone? written by Stephanie Rosenbloom. This article explores how we are all using the ever so quickly developing online data sources to our advantage. By having peoples personal information at our finger tips, we are all finding it that much easier to justify taking away some elses right to privacy in order to satisfy a desire to settle our own insecurities. Snooping though computers and checking personal websits such as myspace and facebook is an act that is becoming increasingly popular today. People are driven by suspicion and with the amount of information that the internet provides us with, makes it that much harder to walk away and not snoop. When you know that you hold the ability to satisty your own curiosity within minutes, it is often times hard to keep in mind the right to privacy that others, even those who you are in a relationship, deserve. Although we are all making a concious choice to put our own information onto the internet, we do not expect that anyone can gain full access to our personal information. Many of the most popular websites that are created to create a community and a way to meet other people are serving as stepping stones to privacy invasion and diminished rights to privacy. Updated technology and easy internet access puts us in a position to test ourselves. Can we be faced with a mountain of information that could answer all of our questions or can we walk away and respect some elses right to privacy. Another aspect that arises when considering spying, is "applied situational ethics" . This idea brought up by Jan Goldman is exactly what many of us are using today. When you feel as though your need for information is greater than anothers right to privacy we use applied situational ethics. Maybe it is okay for parents to gain access to their childrens internet activities, because they are parents and their applied situational ethics is justified, because after all they are just protecting their children aren't they? While none of us want the governernment or the Umass police gaining access to our information, we find it okay to access the information of others. The mountain of information that exists on the internet surrounding just about every person in this country and others is causing people to disregard the rights of others in order to satisfy their own person needs, and this is not right.
"In interviews and on blogs across the Web, people report that they snoop and spy on others--friends, family, colleagues--encumbered by anxiety or guilt."
These two quotes come from The New York Times article titled I spy; Doesn't everyone? written by Stephanie Rosenbloom. This article explores how we are all using the ever so quickly developing online data sources to our advantage. By having peoples personal information at our finger tips, we are all finding it that much easier to justify taking away some elses right to privacy in order to satisfy a desire to settle our own insecurities. Snooping though computers and checking personal websits such as myspace and facebook is an act that is becoming increasingly popular today. People are driven by suspicion and with the amount of information that the internet provides us with, makes it that much harder to walk away and not snoop. When you know that you hold the ability to satisty your own curiosity within minutes, it is often times hard to keep in mind the right to privacy that others, even those who you are in a relationship, deserve. Although we are all making a concious choice to put our own information onto the internet, we do not expect that anyone can gain full access to our personal information. Many of the most popular websites that are created to create a community and a way to meet other people are serving as stepping stones to privacy invasion and diminished rights to privacy. Updated technology and easy internet access puts us in a position to test ourselves. Can we be faced with a mountain of information that could answer all of our questions or can we walk away and respect some elses right to privacy. Another aspect that arises when considering spying, is "applied situational ethics" . This idea brought up by Jan Goldman is exactly what many of us are using today. When you feel as though your need for information is greater than anothers right to privacy we use applied situational ethics. Maybe it is okay for parents to gain access to their childrens internet activities, because they are parents and their applied situational ethics is justified, because after all they are just protecting their children aren't they? While none of us want the governernment or the Umass police gaining access to our information, we find it okay to access the information of others. The mountain of information that exists on the internet surrounding just about every person in this country and others is causing people to disregard the rights of others in order to satisfy their own person needs, and this is not right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)