Online comment sections – constructive commentary or obnoxious anarchy?

A few weeks ago in class we talked about the shortcomings of online discussion and these shortcomings are no more apparent than in comment sections. I happened to find this article that ties in neatly with our previous discussion.

Gawker Media founder Nick Denton (known for his blogs including Gawker, Jezebel, Gizmodo, io9, and Lifehacker) spoke at South by Southwest Interactive about thoughtful discussion through global communication.

“The idea of capturing the intelligence of the readership -- that's a joke.”

He goes on to say, “I don’t like going into the comments. … For every two comments that are interesting – even if they’re critical, you want to engage with them – there will be eight that are off-topic or just toxic.”

Although critical of online comment sections, Denton had no clear solutions to the problem and was quick to shoot down possible ideas. I don’t blame him though because I don’t believe there is a simple solution anywhere within immediate reach.

One idea that Denton proposed is having a hand-picked, pre-approved group of people to comment on certain stories. While it is a noble idea I believe it dabbles too much with elitism and even censorship to a degree.

Regardless of having a solution in sight or not, public online discussion is an interesting topic that will surely be around for a long, long time.

New “enemies” of the Internet revealed

A few weeks ago in class we discussed the Arab Spring and I happened to find an article relating to this very topic.

Reporters Without Borders released its latest “Enemies of the Internet” list on Monday. Enemies are defined as “counties that severely curtail freedom of expression on and access to the web”.

Bahrain is one of the newest members of this infamous list due to a news blackout and harassment of bloggers. This country had also been previously under surveillance due to its anti-internet actions.

One country that has actually been removed from the list is Libya due to the end of Moammar Gadhafi’s repressive rule.

A few countries are listed under surveillance that may come as a surprise. While not nearly as dangerous as counties listed as an enemy, countries listed under surveillance still must be kept under close watch. These surprises include Australia and France.

Australia is listed for persuading internet service providers to create a national content-filtering system. Reporters Without Borders is concerned that the filtering criteria for this system may be too broad.

France is listed for passing a law that punishes people who illegally download content by stripping them of their internet.

This is the first time I have heard of the “Enemies of the Internet” list and it seems to be a good idea as long as those who compile the list are unbiased and fair in their judgements.

Nice shiny new smartphone... Now, don't lose it!

A new study conducted by security firm Symantec reveals what happens when you accidently misplace your smartphone. Depending on how much faith you place in the general public you may be appalled by the findings or the findings may simply confirm your previously existing preconceptions.

Symantec conducted the study by “accidently” misplacing 50 smartphones in major cities across the U.S., including Washington D.C., New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Of these lost smartphones, users’ privacy were violated a whopping 89 percent of the time. Nearly half of this instances included attempting to access the owner’s online banking information.

Fortunately the owner was contacted half of the time, but even people who contacted the owner also accessed personal information on the phone as well.

Here are all of the findings from the study, according to Fox News:

·         A total of 89 percent of devices showed attempts to access personal apps or data.
·         Attempts to access a private photos app occurred on 72 percent of the devices .
·         An attempt to access an online banking app was observed on 43 percent of the

 devices.

·         A “Saved Passwords” file was accessed on 57 percent of the phones

These findings are disheartening to say the least, but are useful nonetheless. If we wish to store private information on our cell phones we must accept the fact that phones can easily be misplaced or stolen. Once you have lost your phone, the odds of retrieving it with all of your private information intact are extremely low.

As smartphones become more and more commonplace we must be aware of what information we have stored on our smartphones and either be extremely aware of where our phones are at all times or utilize some form of security measures (lock screens, PINs, etc.). Of course, there’s always the third option of doing nothing at all and having your private information at risk, but that’s your decision to make.

Google Violated User Privacy on iPhone, Study Finds

Online privacy has been a hot topic of debate in class and I stumbled upon an interesting article relating to Google, another popular talking point in class.

A research study conducted by Stanford University’s Security Lab and the Center for Internet and Society released today reveals that Google has violated users’ online privacy choices. Apparently Google and its DoubleClick ad network have been bypassing a privacy setting in Apple’s Safari, iPhone’s primary web browser. Three other companies were also named in the study: Vibrant Media Inc., Media Innovation Group LLC and PointRoll Inc.

The iPhone’s Safari broser is set to block third-party cookies by default, but Google and the previously mentioned companies have taken measures to circumvent this feature. Allowing these cookies make it possible for companies to track users online activities.

Google claims that they have started removing the advertising cookies and that no personal information has been collected.

To be honest, I’m not really sure what to make of this study’s findings. Should it come as a huge surprise that we don’t have as much privacy as it appears? I certainly don’t agree with Google’s actions to observe users online activity on the iPhone, but how much can be done about this? Google says they have stopped doing it, but have they? The article I linked to earlier mentioned getting the Federal Trade Commission involved, but will that actually happen?

So many questions… So few answers...

Nevada Paving Way for Self-Driving Cars

On Wednesday Nevada state legislature approved regulations for self-driving vehicles. This makes Nevada the first state in the U.S. to do so. These regulations set the requirements for companies who wish to test their self-driving vehicles on Nevada’s public roadways. These vehicles will be required to have a red license plate and once the technology is available to the public, autonomous cars will be required to have a green license plate.

My first thoughts… Awesome! Get all of these terrible drivers off the road! But of course it’s never as simple as that. While the technology is nearly there to make this a reality there are so many hurdles to overcome before consumer will be able to get their hands on autonomous cars.

Are these autonomous cars able to co-exist with other drivers? What about traffic and sudden stops? And that’s not to mention people’s willingness (or unwillingness) to adopt the technology. Personally, I find driving to be very therapeutic and don’t necessarily want to give that up, but if one thing can ruin a nice, relaxing drive it’s bad drivers. And another question, once this technology hits the mainstream how long before it becomes mandatory? I’m all for safer driving conditions, but I certainly don’t want to give up my right to drive my own car.

Now I’m just playing devil’s advocate because I love the idea of self-driving cars, but how would insurance companies handle these? Would rates be distinguished between manual and automatic drivers? How would fault be handled in accidents? I could go on and on with similar questions, but I’ll leave it at that for now.

One huge plus I see with this technology is with senior citizens and possibly even student drivers. Both could be driven automatically for safety reasons, or another possibility is to have the car monitor the person’s driving behavior and make small adjustments automatically if necessary.

Despite all of the questions I have regarding this technology, I would love to see autonomous cars on the road in the near future. And on that note, it’s the year 2012… Where’s my jetpack???

Internet Filters – The Crosswalk Guard of the Internet

Last week in class we discussed internet filters and whether they are necessary or even effective. Many students joined in the discussion and it seemed that we were all mostly on the same page on this topic. Despite the occasional difference in opinion we all agreed on something; that internet filters are good when they work and bad. Well, duh!

I suppose it would make sense for me to start with some of the supporting arguments for internet filters so I’m gonna do just that! One thing that internet filters do well is blocking sites that have inappropriate content (go figure). With children accessing the internet at younger and younger ages as technology continues to evolve we must take steps to protect them from inappropriate content. I don’t think there’s really any argument against that point.

The problem is internet filters don’t always do their intended job and they certainly aren’t tamper-proof. From my experience, internet filters are often overly-protective. I get that you don’t want me accessing porn sites or whatever, but blocking breast cancer sites just because of the word “breast”? Come on… Even to this day North Central’s website is blocked at my work because of “religion”. It’s not like North Central plasters religious propaganda all over their website and most of the time I’m simply trying to access my school email so it seems a bit silly.

And do school networks really need to block social media sites? I think this is especially ridiculous in high school where you know the students are constantly on it anyways and they will do anything to get around the filter just to check on their latest feed updates. Not to mention it is laughably easy to get around the filters to begin with. I haven’t even mentioned the blocking of all email websites too.

Basically what I’m getting at is that they have the right idea with internet filters, but the execution is just off. Filters are simply too easy to bypass and are overly strict on the things they block. Hopefully these issues can be ironed out over the next few years, but as of now I don’t believe filters are doing an adequate job of protecting young children from inappropriate content without hindering the web experience. And can we all agree that by high school we’re all mature enough to surf the web, no strings attached? (We’ll find our way around the filter regardless!)

Kids on Facebook: Annoyance or Serious Problem?

We had an interesting discussion in class last week about underage users violating Facebook’s terms of service. To create a Facebook profile you must be at least 13 years of age, but it seems that many underage users are finding their way onto the site. There are two sides of this issue that I would like to discuss: how I’m personally effected by it and how underage users may be effected by it.

Viewing this issue strictly from my own personal experience I would say this “issue” is really a non-issue. I don’t know anyone in my life who is underage who also has a Facebook profile. Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever even stumbled upon an underage profile. Granted, there’s no way of verifying whether or not a person is being truthful about their age on Facebook, but I haven’t seen any profile pictures of anyone looking younger than 13. So what are my thoughts on it? “Meh.” I’m not one to obsess over Facebook so I don’t personally care whether or not underage users are using the service. I don’t think children should be using Facebook at such a young age, but then again that isn’t my issue to deal with.

Now, as I said at the beginning of this post I want to try to view this issue from another viewpoint other than my own since I never really gave the issue much thought at all before we discussed it in class. One group of people who might have an issue with underage Facebook users would be parents. One argument that I could see them bringing up is that children at that age simply cannot comprehend the possible danger that they put themselves in by creating an underage profile. Children might be susceptible to online predators that look for vulnerable kids to take advantage of. Children also don’t realize the importance of online privacy.

While these are all perfectly valid points to bring up, the problem is that these issues apply to the internet as a whole, not just Facebook. It is the responsibility of the parents to monitor their children’s internet use. It is also their responsibility to teach their kids proper internet safety and ensure they don’t talk to strangers. So while underage Facebook users are an issue, I believe the lack of parental involvement in a child’s internet use is a bigger problem. It shouldn’t be a site’s responsibility to protect children. That is and always will be in the hands of the parents.