Although I will be graduating this spring, there were various activities that could’ve helped me in the past.
During the first couple of weeks of class we went over mind maps; how to create them, organize them, and discuss them using a logical flow. I only wished that my English professors for ENG 2100, 2150, and ENG 2850 had used this type of method for organizing our notes. But this is not only useful in English classes, but also in History, Psychology, and essentially any class where you could map out a diagram that helps explain the notes taken. Speaking of notes, while reading the Filter Bubble I began taking notes similar to how it was shown in class with three columns (People, Companies, and Ideas). This was a great deal of simplicity and extremely easy to take notes with, being that you can glance over certain ideas and say to yourself “Oh I remembered that” and to easily be able to connect the people to their ideas mentioned or companies that they own or work for. The mind maps are like databases to me, and the notes we take prior to creating the mind map are the raw data. By using the notes I was able to create a mind map and was able to understand the different ideas mentioned in each chapter much better than if I only had the three columns of notes.
The second thing I learned from this class was how to update and edit a wiki. Prior to this class I have never edited a wiki – I only knew how to access them via over the internet. Last semester I took a web design class and our end of semester project was to create a website about a made up jazz band. If I had the knowledge of using wiki pages I could have created one for my fictional jazz band. Perhaps I could’ve put in a link that would re-direct the users to the wiki page with all sorts of information about the band. I would’ve hoped that having this knowledge in that class, I could’ve created not only a website, but also a wiki in order to give my work greater credibility like as though it was a real band. I was a bit surprised too that in all of the CIS courses I have taken, not one ever involved the use of wiki’s; whether it being creating them, or using them, and I am glad that I had the exposure to this type of web 2.0 technology in our class.
Last but not least, I learned how to query databases in a more “proficient” manner. This I will never forget as I will most definitely be using this skill in the future when I work full time. But in prior classes such as those that I have taken for my Psych minor, I only used Google to search for information (for countless research papers, especially the capstone class PSY 4012) and I never used Baruch’s databases as every time I used it, it was as though all of the results that came back were irrelevant. Prior to the class I thought I knew how to search quite well, but after learning about wildcards, truncation symbols, and grouping terms with parentheses, it’s was as though I became 100x more knowledgeable in researching. Rather than having 4000 results returned from a search, I learned how to narrow it down to under 10. Let me also just also say that BPL 5100 would not have been the same if it wasn’t for Mergent Online. Thank goodness for this database! And for those who will be taking BPL 5100 I highly suggest you take advantage of this database. I only wish that I took this class as a freshman at Baruch, and compared to a lot of other required core classes that must be taken, I believe this class would be more useful than a handful of them. It only makes greater sense that students are exposed to learning how to use databases before they go off to write research papers, prepare for a debate, and etc…
The one thing I wished we had covered in this class was information security. I think being able to use information and organize and interpret it is vitally important, but the security of it is just as important. Privacy concerns were a major theme we discussed throughout the semester, and I believe that the security and safety of our information goes hand in hand with ensuring our privacy in the digital world. I am not very familiar with information security, I only know little about SSL (Secure Socket Layers) and learning about information security would help us reassure ourselves that our information won’t be passed on to information brokers. Information security sounds like common sense, but in reality, I think there is so much more to it than just for example: setting your privacy on Facebook to be “only for friends.”
In Sacramento there was a bill that passed the senate on a 37-0 vote. The bill is to protect kids under the ages of 18 and give these kids the right to “erase” content on social media sites (like Facebook) freely. The bill also bans the collection of minors personal information for the purpose of marketing or advertising products that minors cannot legally obtain. – So while tobacco companies cannot market cigarettes to minors, other products such video games can be marketed to these teens. In theory the bill seems like a good idea, since its primary goal is to protect children (and even our own children in the future) however, in reality this bill would not add much value to the privacy of teens/tweens. Once something is on the web, other users can download it, and re-post it to other sites like Reddit, also even if the bill bans collection of minors personal information for marketing certain products or services, wouldn’t parents want to ban the collection of their child’s information from all sites? If parents wanted to protect their children from advertising agencies and telemarketers, then it is most likely they want them kept out of the light of advertisers and information brokers.
All in all this bill seems like a minimalistic solution to an ever growing problem of privacy for children. Lets not also forget that kids can set their age to anything on Facebook and other social media sites with/or without the consent of their parents. What are your thoughts on this bill – Is it a positive solution, negative solution, or a temporary band-aid to solve the issues of privacy for individuals under 18?
Article:
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130505/ARTICLES/130509739/1036/business?p=1&tc=pg
Hello all!
I have made edits to three pages of our wiki project on the 25th street plaza.
The first page I worked on was Stakeholders under the Introduction folder. I added various images that correspond with the stakeholders of our project using HTML embedded code.
The second page I worked on was Current Policies under the What is there now folder. The page initially was blank, so I decided it would be nice to add an image and begin filling out the content that would relate to that page (the current rules that are in place in regards to the plaza).
The third page I worked on was Desired Uses under the What Should Be Planned folder. The page seems very well done, and there was a lot of uses that the author came up with, so instead of editing the page, I posed a question to the author in regards to uses of the plaza during the Fall and Winter semesters, as currently the uses on the page are for the warmer months.
While reading this article I began to think a lot about how it connects to the Filter Bubble. Polonetsky mentions that the most important issue to consider when it comes to customer privacy is “transparency.” If the data being aggregated by companies are used to benefit the users by some sort of improvement with the service offered, then users are completely ok with that. This is fascinating because while so much of society are trapped in a filter bubble, and may want to deviate away from its adverse effects, they willingly trapped themselves in there in the first place. Also when asked what the most overlooked issue is when it comes to businesses and customer privacy Polonetsky states that it is choosing passwords. I find his notion that users choosing poor passwords (ex: 1234, ABCDEF) are extremely vulnerable to hackers. And that using the same password for every site basically invites hackers into stealing your data. As Polonetsky mentions, strong consumer relationships are the determinants of success and I highly agree with him. If our relationships with companies are transparent, and companies are using our data responsibly with full disclosure, then this enables us the consumers to feel safe, but if otherwise, how can we truly trust the services we are using? Simply telling us that collecting our data to benefit us is not good enough of a reason to make users feel secure.
Article:
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/226519
We have had wiretapping laws for telephones for decades, and now a new proposal has been in place for the FBI to be able to wiretap the “Digital World.” If legislation for the FBI being able to screen and monitor the activities on certain sites such as Google and Facebook, then this could mean serious business. A wide majority of users are daily users of these two sites, and while the FBI claims that it is imperative to be able to wiretap into certain high traffic sites in order to “aid them” in solving crimes, I have to disagree with them. We have to ask ourselves, what is the point of monitoring a couple of sites and services and not all of them? If FBI wanted to catch criminals, would criminals really be using Gchat or Skype of Facebook to plan their mischief? They could be using the most rudimentary online chat programs like AIM, or Yahoo Messenger, as oppose to the major services like Gchat. I also believe if this proposal was to go through, then the meaning of the world privacy would go out the window, as all of our activity will be transparent. And while transparency of companies is a good thing, perhaps this is a bit overboard, especially since this proposal wont aim to help us solve the problem of the filter bubble or privacy, and instead will create turmoil amongst the users of the internet. What are your thoughts on this proposal?
Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/proposal-seeks-to-fine-tech-companies-for-noncompliance-with-wiretap-orders/2013/04/28/29e7d9d8-a83c-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story_1.html
In chapter 8 of The Filter Bubble by Eli Pariser, the author provides suggestions about ways we can address the problems of the filter bubble that widely exists today in our daily lives. Eli Pariser explains to us that there are three primary categories for which we can respond to the effects of the filter bubble. The first are actions from companies, the second are actions from the government, and the third are actions from individuals.
Actions from companies in theory, is the best solution for addressing the concerns relating to personalization and privacy. If companies were transparent in their motives and they admit the use of personalization then users would be knowledgeable about the effects from using search engine X (Google) vs. search engine Y (DuckDuckGo). In the latter the search engine provider clearly and explicitly states that they do not track your behavior and they do not filter your searches whereas in the former there is no mentioning of such details that is clearly visible to the user and by clearly I am referring to not having to go through heaven and earth to be able to find the disclaimer notice. “A visitor to a personalized news site could be given the option of seeing how many other visitors were seeing which articles…of course, this requires admitting to the user that personalization is happening in the first place, and there are strong reasons in some cases for businesses not to do so. But they’re mostly commercial reasons, not ethical ones” (Pariser 232). So in a perfect world, if companies were transparent in their behavior, then the users of their services will have, at the least know what other users are engaging in and what sources others have visited. However, the world is not perfect and companies need to act in regards to their best interests and in the interests of their stakeholders, hence, foregoing the interests or their customers (the users).
Actions from government are the weakest form for addressing the issues relating to personalization and privacy. I am currently registered on the do not call list and have been for the past four years or so, however, in the past three years I have been bombarded with countless calls from telemarketers and surveyors. One might ask if the government is really monitoring these lists or have they just given up and have moved onto more important matters? In my opinion this is why I believe the Do Not Track list is the weakest method in addressing the problems of privacy and personalization. “But Do Not Track would probably offer a binary choice – either you’re in or you’re out – and services that make money on tracking might simply disable themselves for Do Not Track list members…And as a result, the process could backfire – “proving” that people don’t care about tracking, when in fact what most of us want is more nuanced ways of asserting control” (Pariser 238). If you use Facebook daily, and fall into the category of being a mouse (visiting the same site daily for an X amount times) and have opted in for the Do Not Track list, the worst of the worst may occur; you may be blocked from using Facebook. Who are we to say that they cannot ban/lock/disable your account for not “complying” with their user policy agreement? And as Pariser has said “most companies reserve the right to change the rules of the game at any time” (Pariser 239). Facebook could have the right to disable your account due to noncompliance with their policies. Let’s also not forget that if users are exhibiting the mouse like behavior that Pariser outlines in the chapter then it is most probable that the users in our previous Facebook example will continue to use Facebook vs. opting in the Do Not Track list. If users need their daily digest of their Facebook news feed, they will most likely continue to use it even if it means having Facebook tracking your every move. Think of smoking for a moment; people do it even though they know it is bad for their health, yet why do people continue to smoke? Because it is ADDICITNG – This is exactly the same reason for why as much as we love using Facebook and Google, we will continue to use their services even though they are tracking us because without it, we would be essentially going through “withdrawal.” Just like with the smoking example, in essence we are sacrificing our health (our privacy) for a moment of satisfaction and pleasure –using Facebook, Google, etc.
Now the only solution left for defending ourselves against the effects of the filter bubble are actions from individuals. “In courts around the world, information brokers are pushing this view – everyone’s better off if your online life is owned by us” (Pariser 239). This may be the most frightening comment to be posed to the users of the internet. It is as though they are saying that the cyber world (the internet) should be governed by a dictator or an oligarchy. The internet is supposed to be a leveled playing ground for all users; a world where the users are granted certain rights (rights to privacy). But again this is not a perfect world, and users continue to make the same mistakes of not knowing what information is being collected from us before it is too late. We have to ask ourselves – Who knows myself more than me? – No one, and this is why in order for us to be able defend ourselves against the filter bubble, we need to take actions into our own hands and not leave it to the government and companies because if users truly want control over their activity on the internet, then the users should be responsible for such control.
It is my strong belief that to be educated and knowledgeable about the filter bubble and the existence of such privacy and personalization concerns is one of the most important factors for being able to address these issues raised. And this is why I believe that the strongest idea for addressing the problems of the filter bubble is to develop Algorithmic Literacy. “It doesn’t take long to become literate enough to understand what most basic bits of code are doing” (Pariser 229). If Facebook tells us transparently that they are collecting our information for reasons x and y, it still doesn’t tell us how and what type of data is being collected. The most effective way for users to be able to understand how Google filters our search results or how Facebook filters our news feed is to understand the fundamentals and the basics of how their algorithm works. The personalization algorithms that companies use are all very similar in ways in which the server (the host) sends information from the users into a database (where all your data is stored) based off set patterns of behavior. We can begin to understand how such algorithm is formulated by first knowing the language of coding.
By understanding how coding works, and what a certain line of code does, it ultimately gives you the behind the scenes all access pass into how a company’s personalization algorithm works. “We need to recognize that societal values about justice, freedom, and opportunity are embedded in how code is written and what it solves for. Once we understand that, we can begin to figure out which variables we care about and imagine how we might solve for something different” (Pariser 227). If everyone knew coding then we could in reality alter our behavior to counteract the existing code that is already in place. To put it simply, if Google’s personalization algorithm does X, then we the users should do Y in order to prevent us from falling into their personalization trap. For example, when we enter a query into the Google search bar, instead of clicking on the top results, or even the first page for that matter, we should click on the second page and start clicking on those links; that way we can avoid being trapped in their personalization algorithm because we can strongly assume that the top results will be 99% tailored for each individual based on their previous behavioral preferences. By understanding code we can understand more of our behavior on the internet, we can begin to understand how a site works, how data is gathered, retrieved, stored, and assimilated. If users don’t want to be in the passenger seat anymore and having the companies personalize their preferences, then the users should start sitting in the driver’s seat – Take control of your behavior, acknowledge and admit to yourself that tracking exists, and is unavoidable to a certain extent because even if you select the second page on a Google search result every time, Google may start personalizing this newly altered behavior of yours. However, by recognizing that such algorithms exists to impede on your privacy and to create this filter bubble of yours, we can at the least be able to avoid it for a period of time. Understanding the code behind how any algorithm is executed is crucial because a code is simply line(s) of text that does either X or Y. Codes are definitive and will not do something that isn’t defined within the lines of the text. So if we know the basics for how a generic personalization algorithm works, then we (the users) will have a chance to be able to take advantage of this knowledge and alter our behavior in order to avoid being filtered – we can outsmart the personalization algorithms!
Necessity
Light – cables/wires, fuses
Phone – Internal -digitizer, mainboard, LCD, external – wireless towers
Car – Internal – ECU, Gauge Cluster, Wiring harness, battery, radio, external – radio towers
Alarm – LCD, audio (speakers), outlet, more wires/cables.
Elevators
Refrigerator
Escalators
Entertainment/Leisure
Projector – Light
Computer (Monitor, keyboard, mouse, physical desktop, internet)
Printers
Security/Safety
Baruch Turnstiles – Magnetic stripe, led lights
Traffic lights
Towards the end of February a new copyright alert system had rolled out. Essentially it is an early alert system for users that downloaded illegal/copyright content. The individuals affected by this new monitoring system are those who download from peer to peer clients. The most popular client out there are torrents. So if one day John doe decided to download the new Taylor Swift album from The Pirate Bay and the content owners of that album (ex: the recording studio) happened to find out that this file was downloaded illegal through a peer to peer network, the content owners can inform the Internet Service Provider of the downloaders’ illegal activity and the Internet Service Provider (ex: Verizon) will send our a warning to user in the form of a pop up message and an email notification.
The rest of the article talks about the other repercussions that could occur if the user repeatedly downloads (pirates) copyrighted content.
While Internet Service Providers have been monitoring our online usage since the dawn of time, now they are seemingly passing this ability to content owners (music/movie industries). These content owners essentially could be monitoring everything that we download, since they are screening out all of the downloads and transfers that occur through peer to peer networks. Could this lead to an invasion of our privacy? They basically have the tools needed in order to analyze our behaviors on the internet, and with the support of the major internet service providers, its as though they are free to roam around in our private lives as they so desire. Torrenter’s are not the only ones affected, even users that send files through 4shared and FileZilla are monitored since those fall in the category of P2P. What do you think? Do you think there is a much greater transparency on the net now and that we should be held accountable/responsible for our behavior on the internet? And do you think it is “fair” that these content managers are able to monitor our behavior (whatever it may be they are actually really monitoring)?
Source:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2013/0227/Copyright-Alert-System-Six-strikes-and-you-re-out
Google and Facebook are two big players in their quest for information. While both are very popular, only one can be crown the king of mining and analyzing data. While Facebook provides you with ads that may be relevant to you, in my experience they miss the mark almost 75% of the time. I hardly receive ads that relate to my interests, and most of the time they are of ads about food. Ads for restaurants can be targeted to anyone, what Facebook is lacking are ads that target just me as an individual. Google on the other hand takes the similar approach of trying to show me ads that are relevant to me, but for Google, they seem to have a much better understanding of who I am. I have a routine in the morning when I wake up and I visit the same sites on a daily basis. This is how Google begins to track my patterns of search behavior. For example when I search “Nexus 7” into Google Search, the ads that are displayed on the right hand side shows ads of similar deals from retailers and online stores. Google is able to personalize my ads because they know that I usually spend some time researching these products on Google. So if I am looking up specifications for an android tablet then I will usually see ads for deals for these devices.
Google knows me as a user of their product, but Facebook seems to be trying to “guess” who I am. Its like with a first date, if you had a dinner date with Facebook (figuratively), you figured out there were things you both liked, however you didn’t feel as though you were clicking as well as with your previous date with Google. Google seemed to take you off your feet when you found out Google can predict what activities you enjoyed. Facebook on the other hand, had to ask you 20 questions to get that one specific answer. “The one-identity problem isn’t a fundamental flaw, It’s more of a bug: Because Zuckerberg thinks you have one identity and you don’t, Facebook will do a worse job of personalizing your information environment.” – And this is somewhat true, when we are on Facebook our experience are limited to the activities of our friends in relation to us. So while its great that you can like certain pages, and posts on your news feed, it doesn’t tell much of a story. But Google can analyze you as though you had multiple personalities. Google can figure out that you love to teach, or that you love to read poetry, and that you also love to skydive and snowboard. With Facebook there is a beginning and an end, with Google, there is a beginning, a middle, and an end. In the end Google is victorious when it comes to extracting our information in order for our experience to be more personalized.
Automotive accidents happen when drivers least expect it. If you have ever been in a car accident or have witnessed one, you will see that the time needed to sort out all of the statements can take hours. The concept of the “black box” has been around for many years now and is no new innovation. It was just that not all manufacturers were integrating this piece of technology into their vehicles. But now it may be more likely that every new car that comes off the lot will come with one pre-installed from the factories. In the simplest terms the black box is essentially a data recorder. It records data such as speed, throttle position, whether seats belts were used, and the like.
Having the black boxes in new cars will definitely make settling insurance claims easier. There will be a more definite decision towards who was in the right and who was in the wrong during accidents, with less greyness in between. However, privacy advocators believe that the black box could just be another way to invade our privacy. Sure the primary purpose of having these boxes are to monitor our behavior prior to the accident, but what if there were ulterior motives they were not mentioning. Perhaps the box could even monitor your location such as where you frequently travel to. This tid bit of information may not seem like much, but its enough to get a pattern of the neighborhoods you visit. Also one of the biggest concerns are the limits of the amount of data collected. Could audio also be recorded – your conversations, calls, etc…? Does it stop there, or does the list go on? What if companies could even sell/share your information to other agencies? Its still too early to say but we can see that there are so many possibilities for firms to collect data ABOUT you without your consent.
What do you think about the black box? Do you believe it could do more good than harm? Also what do you think about this type of technology in general. Do you believe advocates of the black box wanted this technology to be implemented nation wide because drivers are inherently untrustworthy when it comes to speaking the truth after an accident (in order to protect their own self interests) ?
Source
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-advocates-say-car-black-boxes-could-become-a-privacy-nightmare-20130215,0,5120489.story
How I found the article – I entered nyt.com into the address bar, searched “facebook”, refined my search by specifying a specific date range (01/28/2013) and finally selected the first article from the results page (which happened to be the one we were looking for).
What you can find out about the author of the article (who she is, etc.) and what if any is her expertise on this topic – Somini Sengupta currently resides in San Francisco, graduated with honors from the University of California, Berkely and mainly covers technology news for the NYT. She is currently the Technology Correspondent at The New York Times. In her previous years she was the New Delhi Bureau Chief and West Africa Bureau Chief at the NYT.
A list of all the people mentioned in the article and a phrase of two about each that sums up who they are
– Kathryn Hymes – Left a master’s program in linguistics at Stanford to join the eclectic team in developing the new facebook search. Her goal is to create “this natural, intuitive language.”
– Amy Campbell – Another member of the eclectic team. Earned a doctorate in linguistics from the University of California, Berkeley
– Loren Cheng – Led the natural language processing part of the project. He emphasized that the searches should be adjusted to the demands of the users rather than based on the “terms” of the computer.
– Clifford I. Nass – Professor of communicaiton at Stanford. Specializes in human-computer interaction.
A list of all the keywords/ideas in the article
– Search Tool / Search Engine
– Real world knowledge
– Google
– Facebook
– Robospeak
– Code/Algorithms/Query
– Demands of users
-Human-Computer Interaction
-Like vs Dislike Button / Homophily
– Social Distance
– Synonyms
Testing 123!
http://www.baruch.cuny.edu
Baruch College
Comments:
"The idea of the klout score to me is just another way of discrimination. its like saying you didn't get this job position because you are not friends with Kim Kardashian or you do not have 1000 facebook friends. If employers are recruiting based on this score, perhaps they should have their score analyzed as well (to be fair). I'm quite surprised such a concept exists. I believe the klout score became what it is because of the mentality of social media sites. Facebook and twitter users generally want more friends and followers respectively, and to most of them, its like an achievement. For example Youtube users can subscribe to channels. Currently the #1 Youtube channel with the highest subscription is Smosh with over 8 Million subscribers. Numbers matter on youtube, and I believe it stirs competition for other channels to try their hardest to pool in more subscribers. So like twitter having thousands of followers gives you a sense of accomplishment, while it may not be for beneficial for society, it makes you as a person feel like you are of some value (based on your Klout). Anyhow, this Klout score should be disregarded, and thrown into the trash bin when recruiters are looking to hire, because positions should be filled based on merit and experience, not on how popular you are in relation to the person next to you."
posted on Mar 5, 2013, on the post You are not hired because your Klout score is not high enough."I too remember receiving this email multiple times (I also thought it was spam). While I do not approve what Facebook had done, especially without permission from the owners of the content, what they did was actually very smart. Facebook has tens of thousands of images uploaded daily (if not more), so its like having Google images search engine capabilities within Facebook. Could you imagine if there was an advertisement for Bud Light and there was a picture of you holding a glass during a party? - That would be very shocking first of all, and secondly outrageous. You would be asking yourself "How did that get there"!? I think the major lesson to be learned here is, if you're going to upload images to any site, you shouldn't take privacy concerns lightly, because anyone can access it once its on the web. There are even sites that provide tax services through digital means, and even though the site says its fully secured with the highest level of encryption, you should always leave room for caution..."
posted on Mar 5, 2013, on the post FACEBOOK LEGAL NOTICE"I can see why in Japan they love the fax machines, its an integral part of their culture and society. Some people just prefer paper over a monitor. Its similar to the kindle and the hardcover book, some readers prefer holding and reading a physical book, rather than using the kindle. Its like the kindle is the middle man between us and the story and it lessens our enjoyment of the book (we want direct confrontation, direct stimuli). The Japanese do make a very valid point in that the world of fax machines helps us prevent data from being hacked, or sniffed during the time of transfer. On the internet a "sniffer" is something that could potentially grab data while in transit, it could be anywhere from Social Security #s to telephone numbers. With fax machines, it is very difficult to do something like this (if not impossible)."
posted on Mar 5, 2013, on the post Not Everyone Wants the Latest Technology"OLED technology is definitely an amazing innovation. We went from CRT, LCD, LED and now OLED. While we keep improving the ways we watch television, I don't believe it will increase our filter bubble in the short run, but, maybe in the long run. Its like with old CRT televisions that weighed 100 lbs. Those things were still around until the early 2000's when LCDS started to replace them. Every piece of technology has an expiration date on it, for example with CRTS, they will eventually be faded and someting new will replace it. Eventually all of us will have OLED televisions and smartphones in our filter bubble, its just how the lifespan of all technology works. It begins to feel like rather than us trying to personalize our filters, we just happen to stumble upon them (like the CRT and LCD example) due to the nature of the lifespan of technology."
posted on Mar 5, 2013, on the post Oled Revolutionizing Technology"When I think of facebook I tend to think of Myspace. Especially in the earlier years when Myspace was more popular and Facebook was just rolling out. For those that had a myspace, you would most likely notice you could personalize your page with backgrounds, crazy effects, and music, where as facebook is like a unibody. Everyone has the same page only different avatar. I believe that the way you express yourself on the web doesnt really reflect your personality in real life (RL). I think myspace tried to do this though with the whole customizable user page. But anyhow, there are users that will make multiple accounts. For example, famous artists, singers, youtubers will have their facebook fan page which is for the public and their own private facebook page for friends and family. If a user had two different accounts, one for business and one for regular everyday partying, he/she will be sure to see different ads tailored toward them, while not reflecting on their personality, it reflects the personality of the "Username" and not the actual user of facebook/myspace, etc...."
posted on Mar 5, 2013, on the post What Is Your Facebook Identity?"Since the technology being used is a webcam I do not believe this will have any drawbacks in terms of third parties trying to sell information about you. A program that helps you adjust your computer text resolution is actually fantastic. Now you could sit back further away from the monitor and relax, I know I have spent countless hours reading on the computer screen and after a while it starts to wear my eyes down. But anyhow if this program will be used offline and without the need of an internet connection i think its 99% safe. That 1% is left out there for the most substantial hackers that are able to hack into your computer and steal your information (even worse broadcast your webcam feed). So I think this technology will actually help us rather than trail us :)"
posted on Mar 5, 2013, on the post SCREEN RESIZING FONTS"Youtube videos are filled with comments, whether it may be positive or negative. I believe you must sign in to your google account in order to post a comment on youtube, but even more so if you click on any video what you will most likely see are "trolls." Its no surprise that most comments on youtube (while not all) are filled with hateful words, discrimination, racism, and the like. If sites were to use verification methods in order for the world to know who you are when commenting, I do not believe it will cause any privacy issues since we pretty much have been signing in for almost every site that requires user verification in order to post a comment. Whether a post or response is anonymous or not I do not believe will have an effect of what is said, and there will always be that one person that will troll the internet, its just how the cyberworld works."
posted on Mar 5, 2013, on the post Anonymity Online"The concept of the Google glasses is an amazing technological advancement in the information technology field. You can begin to see what could become of it in further future development (ex: driving aid for alerting you of blind spots, cars on the adjacent lanes, gps, etc...) The Google glasses while extremely innovative, could also be problematic for advocates of privacy. I am not saying that wearing these glasses will enable you to have x-ray vision, but it can certainly record videos and take pictures of you without you knowing (so as long as you speak softly to the voice recognition I suppose). The Google glasses to me is very much like a smartphone, but in this case its less obvious when you take a picture of a stranger with the glasses as oppose to doing so with a Samsung galaxy note (you kinda get the picture). In the Filter Bubble, Eli Pariser mentions that personalization is becoming the next big thing on the web, and the effects of it could numb us from more important societal issues. Will the Google glasses numb us from whats really important? - Could it begin to personalize what restaurants we have looked up and begin to provide recommendations based on those searches? One definite possible answer to the above question is yes."
posted on Feb 25, 2013, on the post Google Glass and Overload"Every time we interact with the internet, whether by email, instant messaging, filling out online forms for an insurance quote, we assume the notion that "nothing is every safe on the web." Once something is out there in the "cyber world" it will always be out there. Even traces of it can still be on the web cached or archived. Its like a door that has been left opened; it is only a matter of time until someone breaks in and takes something and in this case its your "data." At the end of the article it mentioned a computer scientist able to look up pictures of faces with facial recognition software...Now the real problem is what if one day this becomes a mobile app? You can already begin to imagine on all levels what could go wrong in these types of situations (ex: stalkers)."
posted on Feb 25, 2013, on the post Your Trail of Personal Data"Cookies are essential to the growth of ad revenues especially if the ad revenue model for a site is a cost-per-click or cost-per-view. However, the statement that cookies are harmless I believe is false. Cookies will not be able to harm your computer/phone/tablet since it is not in the category of a virus/Trojan/Malware, etc...BUT a cookie is meant to store information, and in this case it can be any information (ex: login credentials) supplied from the user initially and then supplied back to the server so you will never know how the owners of that third-party cookie will use your information. The real concern here is privacy, but then again every time we use our credit card, sellers have our information, and so do the banks, government, etc...There is a plus and minus to everything, and technology is no different."
posted on Feb 25, 2013, on the post Firefox’s New Browser Rejects 3rd Party Cookies"No kids, but im sure 99% of NYC students are in school!"
posted on Jan 31, 2013, on the post It is 2:40, do you know where your children are?