Who is on our side?

The media drones on about the battle between internet users and information privacy laws.  While most fight the laws by protesting or voting, Nicholas Merrill is taking a different route.  This internet engineer has plans to develop a non-profit company that provides users access to the internet in a setting controlled by their own privacy settings.  The average internet users are clueless to the technology behind internet security but are now becoming aware of the importance of information protection.  Merrill’s idea is a great and potentially profitable one, but will it be able to stand a chance against the government and its available resources?  As the information protection battle drags on, it is comforting as a regular net user to know action is being taken for my side.

Anonymous goes to China

Most of us view the internet as a source of entertainment, knowledge and communication.  With the explosion of social networking in the recent years, the world has become more connected than ever before.  However, China faces adverse effects as the country and its government butt heads now more than ever.  Various political scandals have been exploited through the internet and have caused outrage among the country.  Previously mentioned activist group Anonymous has now decided to step in and “take down the Great Firewall of China.”  This is not the first time Anonymous has taken action against the Chinese government.  The threat of action could cause the Chinese government to back down or possibly spark an internet war. Yikes!

CISPA: Just another acronym.

Up for vote in the nearing weeks is a new act, similar to those voted down previously.  The Cyber and Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) allows the government to gain access to any private information stored by any corporation using internet means, no warrant necessary.  CISPA would allow anything and everything you do online to be shared and stored by different agencies.  Many are questioning this bill as it is vague and does not clearly distinguish itself from former bills that have been voted down.  Do you think the government is overstepping their boundaries by approaching internet security using constant surveillance?  Although many large corporations are standing behind CISPA, the bill is far too unclear to be voted through.

Who is on the other side of your web cam?

There has been ongoing debate related to privacy and security on the internet as the public becomes more aware of the kind of data being collected about them.  Under British law, government agencies are now allowed to essentially tap into your computer.  Instant messages, internet activity, and skype calls are allowed to be monitored.  The British government defends themselves by pointing out the potential for terrorist activity over the internet and the need to intervene.  While the government agency records frequency, call times and addresses, they do not record the content itself.  Similar laws are presently being enacted here in the U.S.  Should we be angry at the government for attempting to prevent internet terrorism?  I am more than willing to sacrifice the privacy of the meaningless conversations I hold via the internet to the government in order for them to provide security.

Google Wants Government to Regulate Internet

          For over a decade, companies like Google have been pushing for the government to regulate the internet in the name of net neutrality. Net neutrality, simply put, refers to the absence of restrictions or priorities placed on the type of content carried over the internet by the major carriers and ISPs. It states that all content be treated equally and that packets are to be delivered on a first come first serve basis regardless of who sent them or their destination. Google, along with other similar companies, are part of a long going fight over whether the physical intrastructure of the internet will remain a competitive, free market foundation for the broader technology sector and the U.S. economy, or be reduced to a regulative utility or even government owned information network. Google and its allies have argued that a free market, unregulated internet will lead to ISPs blocking websites or disrupting services, wreaking havoc on the internet information community. Google has said that only government intervention can stop this from happening.
           So, should the government regulate the internet so that the major internet service providers cannot interfere with information being sent? Or is Google just scared that these ISPs may limit their power?

Kerpen, Phil. "Google is no Friend of Internet Freedom." www.foxnews.com. Fox News, 01/20/2012. Web. 8 Apr 2012. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/20/google-is-no-friend-internet-freedom/.

Web-Tracking Proposal Raises Privacy Concerns

          Since the year 2000, there has been a long standing ban on tracking how people use government internet sites using cookies and similar technologies. In 2009, the Obama administration proposed to scale back this ban, allowing visitors to government websites to be profiled and have their information taken from them. Supporters of this change, giving government websites the right to track users, say that social networking sites often take advantage of the tracking technologies and they have revolutionized the way people and communicate and keep up with one another. One of Obama's aides said that allowing these government websites to use the technologies would greatly increase public involvement and make government more transparent. However, some privacy groups argue that the proposal brings about an unexplained shift in government policy, allowing these government agencies to gather all the personal information on the users of their websites. Vivek Kundra, the government's chief information officer, wrote that the new policy is intended to improve customer service on government agency websites by analyzing how visitors use the site and remembering users individual data and preferences to make the site more compatible to them.

          There has always been use of cookies and other technologies to track individuals on the internet but until now, government websites have been exempt from these technologies. So do we want government websites to enable the use of tracking technologies? Could they be just wanting to gather information on us for some bigger reason that we do not know about? Or could they only want to know our information so that everytime we visit their website they can taylor the content to our liking just to get a vote?

Hsu, Spencer, and Cecilia Kang. "Obama Web-Tracking Proposal Raises Privacy Concerns." Washington Post [Washington D.C.] 11 08 2009, n. pag. Web. 8 Apr. 2012. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002743.html>.

SOPA and PIPA

SOPA (Stop Online Piracy) and PIPA (Protect IP Act) are two anti-piracy bills that were introduced by the U.S Representatives with the purpose of having a more strict control over copyright infringement and Intellectual property theft. They provide the right to request orders from the court to stop websites such as advertising websites to have any business to do with infringing websites. This also includes search engine websites like 'Google' to not include links connecting to infringing websites.

However, SOPA and PIPA brought a lot of controversy because it had people who were strongly opposing it while others were in support of the bills. Opponents of these bills had claimed that it is a threat to freedom of speech and Innovation in the sense that it would change the way people use the internet. We do so many things on the internet today, and the internet itself and the things that we have been able to achieve through it are all part of innovation. That being said, some of our favorite websites could be taken down at any time. YouTube is a great example of one of these websites because most of us visit it often. YouTube is one of the biggest video uploading and sharing websites which also deals with copyrighted videos often by taken down the particular copyrighted video. But now, YouTube would stand the risk of being taken down completely if any of its users uploads a copyrighted video

 Even though people who are in support of these bills are claiming that it would provide a more stronger protection of the intellectual property market, and also maximizes the effort of copyright laws, It is no question that our right to freedom of speech is at risk and also the way we use the internet would change.

The Ease of Accessing Information

Approximately 15 years ago, most government agencies barely had made a presence for themselves on the internet. Since then, however, government agencies have made great strides and in the year 2000, over 90% of all federal and state government agencies had an up and running internet website. Currently, the public is pushing more and more for government websites to release information that should have already been made public. Social networking sites and helping this push, making it easier for the regular citizen to view agency information as well as individual political figure information. This is bringing us closer to the state of transparency that we need to eventually get to. The increase of the internet to help governmental agencies share information that would otherwise be lost in a file cabnet somewhere has essentially networked the country, making it much easier for the average citizen to look up something on a government agency if they have a question. The rise of e-government has been one of the most striking movements on the web, giving citizens a new understanding of government if they so choose to take advantage of it. Government web portals are now virtually the face of government, with sites becoming easier to navigate. The accessibility to these portals to find out information on things like education, commerce, research, and healthcare, has truely made our government much more transparent.

Schneider, Scott. "Government Without Walls." Diss. Print. <http://www.thepolicytree.com/Government_Without_Walls,_August_2011.pdf>.

Government's Invasion of Privacy

In the past couple of years the government has been becoming more vigilant on illegal activity on the World Wide Web.  Instead of focusing on websites that give free download to the public, social networking sites that help coordinate groups and websites that leak information to help the public understand what is really going on. The government is playing a big role in our lives and with more regulation will help create a bigger hand over the digital world.

                Websites that give free download shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions or fined. In the world we live in information and application programs are so readily available there should be no reason to shout down websites. Social networking sites should be able to work freely to help people communicate and coordinate direction. Government should not have the right to watch what you say or follow what you are saying on the web because this may lead to invasion of privacy.  Websites that help hold political figures accountable for their action should not be shut down. The government figures that break the law should be held for their actions.

                The more government intervention into the web may cause frustration amongst users who use the web. If the government does pursue this route it may lead to more taxes, regulation and might make the web less efficient due to government constraints.

Government Takes Action to Protect Artists

    The internet has allowed a broadening of everyone's horizon, enabling access to information that would normally be unavailable to most individuals, and allowing people to easily remain in contact through social networks. The internet has also created a giant cache of copyrighted materials that can be easily accessed or downloaded for free. Everyone agrees stealing a CD from a store is wrong, so how is stealing a song from the internet any different?

    Governments are expected to protect their citizens' rights, both individual and corporate. As much as we'd like to "stick it to the man", we can't allow rampant theft to go unchecked on the internet. Governments have a responsibility to uphold the law, even on the internet.

    Recently, the United States government attempted to pass several acts of legislation (SOPA and PIPA) to police the internet. These acts were met with outrage by the internet community. The heavy-handed approach in these acts would do more harm than good and if left unchecked, could possibly result in shutting down every website out there. Obviously this isn't a good solution, but there should be something done to protect individual and corporate rights on the internet.

Our Privacy and Safety

     The internet has raised a lot of privacy concern. We put our private information on the internet without even knowing it. When we register on websites, some of these websites have cookies which monitors the information we put and therefore know the type of products or services to advertise to us based on the information we put. 

     This is no difference with our information that the government has. Since the government can deliver some of its services to us through the internet, it means that the privacy of our information with the government is also at risk. Anyone can easily search your address, place of work, phone number etc. on the government website. I think there should be a way that the government will have to protect people's private information at least for their safety so others can have information about you that you only want them to have.

         For instance, I saw on the news about  a student broke up with her boyfriend in school. Her boyfriend wanted to seek for revenge, and searched for her family address, so he could go harm her family in order to inflict pain on the girl. It's very alarming that he could easily get asses to the girl's family address without her giving it to him and now, their safety is not even guaranteed

     With cases like this, we should understand how dangerous it is that our private information can be easily asses on government website. 

Giving People the Right to Decide

In the past decade we as a society have been able to use the internet in more advance ways than ever before. We can download or upload data freely, we can publish what we think and the internet has brought us closer together.  I think government intervention on the internet will not be efficient or effective giving the cases in the past century.

The ability to download and upload data has made the internet more useful, not only it makes information readily available but helps us make decision in a faster process. The people of the United States are able to publish what they think on the internet, having a beneficial tool such as the internet we can make publishing faster, easier, and cost effective. The internet has brought us closer together with communication tools such as Facebook, Twitter and Google Blogger and having demonstrated ability to help us communicate and organized.

I think government has it place in helping the people be safe but regulating social networks and the internet will not make the internet a safe place. It will cost the people more tax dollars and give groups such as “anonymous” incentives to find loop holes to penetrate the systems. I think the decision should be in place with the people, not the government.

Using Social Networking to Interact with the Government

In today's time, nearly one third of online U.S. adults use digital tools, other than websites, to get information from government agencies or officials. Many of these tools have just recently been adopted by government agencies. Although, despite their popularity in today's mainstream culture, many people still get the information they need from traditional government websites. A recent survey showed that 13% of adult internet users follow a blog posted by a government official or agency, 15% of users signed up to receive email alerts from a government official or agency, and 15% watched a video on a government website or social network page. As far as demographics are concerned, government social media users look very similar to the internet population as a whole. There is, however, one statistic that stuck out in my mind. Government social media users tend to be more affluent and educated than the internet population at large. Compared with those that have only attended high school or are in college currently but haven't graduated, those with a college diploma are more likely to follow a government agency or official on a social networking site (22% of college graduates in the last 5 years). Are government social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) more convenient for people to receive government information than reading long articles on an agencie's webpage? Or do many people not take them seriously since social networking sites are supposed to be fun and light hearted?

Smith, Aaron. "Government Online." www.pewinternet.org. PewInternet, 27/04/2010. Web. 24 Feb 2012. <http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Government-Online/Part-Two/Engagement.asp&xgt;.

Anonymous Speaks Out

While technology has enabled communication efforts of the government in many aspects, we must also take a look at the downsides.  A new group of activists who title themselves Anonymous are using the internet as their basis for protest.  To convey their interest in promoting freedom of information, this unknown group of hackers breaks into various websites to “terrorize” them.  Several claims of Facebook and Twitter accounts being taken over by Anonymous have been made.  While this may seem to be nothing more than a mere nuisance, where do we draw the line? As recently as last week, Anonymous hacked into multiple government websites and replaced them with obscene videos supporting their protests.  These websites have been shut down until the security issues are located and resolved. It is generally assumed that a web address ending with “.gov” is safe and secure.  Can we be so certain that we won’t be personally affected by these seemly powerful activists?  This activity could result in much more than a disruption in social networking.