Featured

The Internet is Watching You

July 29, 2015 by ALICE VO

Many people believe the Internet is private. If they only know how wrong they are.

Since the creation of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Myspace, the concern with privacy has been on the rise. Many users are beginning to realize that the information they put online is perhaps not as secure as they first thought.

The majority of Americans do not read the privacy policies of all websites they utilize, despiting checking the “Agree to Terms and Data Policy” box because the task of reading the Terms is tedious. Yet, people do not realize the impact these policies would later have on their online privacy when they click the ‘Agree’ button and find themselves tunnelling down the rabbit hole called social media.

Users of Facebook, for example, do not realize the site uses their names, profile pictures, and information to sell advertisements on their pages without giving users any compensation. According to Kashmir Hill of Forbes, the platform can gather more information on a user even when the user is offline by accessing data from applications and websites the user frequents.

Hill wrote, “On smartphones, any apps that… have Facebook likes in their apps will send information back to Facebook for advertising purposes. If the Open Table app…has a Facebook log-in, and you are looking at Mexican restaurants all the time, you’ll start seeing ads for chips and salsa on Facebook….In exchange for giving advertisers a dubious measurement of how effective their Facebook ads are, Facebook gets to invisibly track users around the Web.” Even after advertisers stop using Facebook, the social giant continues to track its users by using the “code” provided by advertisers.

This shows how little privacy you have on the Internet despite being able to “private” your account on multiple platforms. Every time you like a page, “instant message” a friend, or upload a new profile picture, you expose more of yourself.

Another privacy concern has emerged with the growth of Internet users in the last ten years: the issue of catfishes. In short, the term describes people online who pretend to be someone they are not, usually to get someone to fall in love with them.

According to DailyMail.com, 25 year old Ruth Palmer had 1,000 photos of herself and personal information stolen by an anonymous user who used the photos to set up fake social media accounts. Anonymous used Palmer’s information for roughly three years under the name of Leah Palmer and fooled several men.

After finding out about her catfish, Palmer quickly contacted the men involved. Two men were shocked to hear that the person they were texting, exchanging emails with, and talking to on the phone for years was not real. However, it was hard not to be fooled because the catfish set up fake accounts pretending to be Leah’s mother and friends, even using their real information, to make ‘Leah’ appear more realistic.

According to local British paper, the Brighton Argus, Palmer commented that she felt “ violated and completely invaded” by the revelation that someone was stealing her life on the Internet.

She had always believed that she was careful with her social media accounts. However, she later admitted that for a period of time on Instagram, her profile was briefly public.

When Palmer managed to get Leah’s profiles removed from Twitter and Instagram, the anonymous user created more ‘Leah Palmer’ profiles to replace them.

Sadly, Palmer’s story is not an isolated case. All over the world people are having their identities stolen, privacy invaded and used by strangers with screens for faces. This is not only damaging to the victims of identity theft but also to people who are being tricked.

People believe they have privacy behind closed doors of their homes but the moment they turn on their electronic devices and enter their social media platforms, it is quite a different story.

You never know who is watching.

man-158403_640

Is Helping the Homeless Really Helping Them?

July 29, 2015 by VIVIAN SHAN

40 percent of the food that the U.S. produces each year is wasted. Saving 30 percent of that 40 percent would make food insecurity a thing of the past.

That’s what I tell every volunteer I guide through the city to bring restaurants’ leftover food to homeless shelters, rescue missions, and churches. Since last July, I have been a lead rescuer for Rescuing Leftover Cuisine, a non-profit food rescue organization based in NYC that focuses on eliminating food waste and insecurity simultaneously. For almost a year, I have been in close proximity to the city’s homeless population while wondering whether I should help them more or less.

While carrying out my duties of bringing both volunteers and food safely to the nearest church or homeless shelter, I found that the statistics on homelessness in the nation are less astonishing than how well-off some homeless people are. Certainly, there are patrons of the shelters who approach outsiders to network for job opportunities, but there are also patrons who approach bystanders to expand their social media following. The latter may leave you thinking, “What is he doing in a homeless shelter trying to get more Facebook likes and Instagram followers when he should be trying to get a job?”

To expand on that, you might ask yourself, “Why am I even bringing food to these so-called underprivileged people who have smartphones as nice as mine?”

People often visualize homeless people as old men with beards, more than three bags at any given time, and odd stenches. In May 2015, there was an estimated 59,000 people without shelter in New York City, so does that mean there are tens of thousands of stinky old men with beards walking around?

Despite common misconception, families, not men, are the majority group of homeless people. Lack of affordable housing, eviction, and overcrowded homes are common causes of homelessness in the city. A fair amount of the homeless are victims of violent acts or domestic abuse.

According to The Coalition for the Homeless, the number of people in NYC who sleep in shelters every night has spiked 79% in the last decade. Even so, it is hard to give a precise calculation of just how many people are living in New York City without a roof over their heads.

One might then ask, “Since these people are young, can’t they just get a job?” While many young homeless people make efforts to get hired, it is almost impossible to get employment without a fixed address. Thus, they must return to homeless shelters every evening just to receive a meal, if not a warm place to sleep.

Many times while delivering up to 30 pounds of food to The New York City Rescue Mission, I encountered patrons who were there for a plate of rice and chicken that most would take for granted. These people had all become a family, joking around and calling out each others names and laughing. Getting comfortable in an environment where everyone is in a situation similar to yours makes it easier, but being homeless is far from easy.

256941993_3d0d31a148_o

No one wants to be homeless, but anyone can be at any given moment. Statistics say that one out of every three working people are susceptible to being homeless. As soon as one is labeled ‘homeless,’ it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pick himself or herself back up especially when all the eyes of society are looking down upon him or her. Thus, the answer to the question of whether or not the homeless should be receiving as much help as they do today is yes, they should.

Most homeless people once had jobs, houses, and families before life hit them with unexpected tragedies. It takes an enormous amount of persistence and effort just for a homeless man, woman, or child to survive and homelessness should not be looked down upon, especially in today’s society where everyone is striving for equality.

The Health Craze is Not Just a Phase, But a Gaze into History

July 29, 2015 by Nicole Yapijakis

Merriam Webster needs to make revisions to its dictionaries because society has altered the definitions of beauty and success once again due to the increased popularity of the health craze.

As a new resident of the Chelsea/ Flatiron neighborhood, I wasn’t surprised to find numerous Starbucks locations at my disposal, yet when I explored the area they appeared scarce compared to the overpopulation of juice bars. I never expected to stumble upon 7 spinning studios – 3 of which were SoulCycle.

SoulCycle reinvented indoor cycling when it opened its first studio in 2006 and became one of the top 10 NYC Google Searches of 2012. Ever since then, spinning studios have become part of the New York City lifestyle.

Companies like Juice Press and Blue Print have become popular names in the juice industry and they too are being integrated into our lives. They no longer just offer a trendy beverage for those who can afford it at $10 a bottle, but the companies, like spinning studios, have become part of our regimen.

“We see detoxing as a path to transcendence, a symbol of modern urban virtue and self transformation through abstinence…we indulge in expensive cold pressed juices and SoulCycle classes, justifying these purchases as investments in our health,” says Lizzie Crocker, journalist at the Daily Beast.

These days it seems like trends are ever so fleeting, but a few like these have become a part of who we are as a community.When you look into history, you see the trends that defined beauty and success have transformed drastically, while reflecting the times.

Look at the corset for example. In the 16th century it was meant to create a cylindrical figure, while flattening and raising the bust line. By the 18th century it transformed into an unhealthy device that created a hourglass figure. A trend that became a part of society for over 2 centuries evolved and changed to the point where it no longer was one.

In the past, a full figure meant you were wealthy enough to eat rich food. Due to this, such a figure became the definition of beauty and success for both women and men. Yet now, being skinny and fit has become the epitome of beauty. Just like in history, only those who can afford it have the opportunity to become society’s ideal image.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Eugene Lee Yang, video producer at BuzzFeed, said, “We’re so often preoccupied with current trends that we lose perspective on how fleeting our obsession with physical perfection has historically been.”

This recent health craze isn’t just a trend that reflects how we are fixated on obtaining society’s idea of perfection, but how perfection is made for the rich. If Merriam Webster needs help revising its definitions, here is a suggestion, “Beauty & Success: If you can afford it!”

Blast from the Past: Does Back to the Future still holds up as an 80’s cultural icon?

July 29, 2015 by KIMBERLY CHAVEZ

delorean-38103_1280 “Roads? Where we’re going, we don’t need roads.”

These are the last lines from the 80’s sci-fi film Back to the Future. The film is having its 30^th anniversary this month and the main cast has reunited in London to celebrate it. But one question remains: does the film still hold up as a film classic after all this time or is it as dated as the time traveling tropes that the movie created?

Back to the Future is about a teenager named Marty McFly, played by Michael J. Fox, and his eccentric scientist pal, Dr. Emmett Brown played by Christopher Lloyd, and Brown’s time machine, a DeLorean, which lands Marty in 1955 with seemingly no way to return to 1985. While in 1955, Marty encounters his teenage parents, Lorraine and George played by Lea Thompson and Crispin Glover respectively, and he has to make sure his parents get together or else he may cease to exist.

After its release on July 3^rd 1985, the movie became a cultural icon and even the president at the time, Ronald Reagan, even quoted the film in his 1986 State of the Union address stating, “Where we’re going, we don’t need roads.” The film became the top grossing movie of 1985 and spawned two sequels, multiple video games, and helped the DeLorean gain its iconic status.

Back to the Future got everything right in terms of casting, script, and special effects. Fox and Lloyd had an undeniable chemistry and were able to play off each other in terms of comedic timing. Their characters were also believable in terms of actions and dialogue. The script was full of classic quotes, such as “I’m your density. I mean, your destiny.” and “If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 mph… you’re gonna see some serious s#!t”

It didn’t feel as if the story was hard to follow or understand for traditional audiences. The special effects like the lighting hitting the clock tower and sending Marty back in time may feel dated for people accustomed to the CGI of today but for the time and what it was trying to accomplish, it worked beautifully. The movie doesn’t feel like a traditional sci-fi movie because it also has action, adventure and comedy. This allowed it appeal to a wider audience.

So Back to the Future still deserves its iconic status, even 30 years after its release because it can appeal to a wide audience and has the potential to bring in a new generation of fans because it has a unique story. It was also the forefather for the devices that time-travel films released after Back to the Future utilize like Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure and Project Almanac. Therefore, Back to the Future deserves the praise and recognition it gets from critics and audiences alike.

Corporations and Elections: a Questionable Democracy

July 29, 2015 by Anastasia Krasilnikova

Money and politics. They are like rats and the NYC subway- nobody wants to see them together but history shows that they are inseparable. And with presidential race in full swing, more politicians are proving that money is far more valuable than a clear vision on current problems.

There is nothing wrong with supporting your favorite candidate by donating to his/her fund or a Political Action Committee (PAC). Democracy suffers, however, when powerful and wealthy players become donors as they overshadow everyone else. 1280px-American_corporate_flag

Corporations, based on Supreme Court decision in Citizens United (2010), are people and, therefore, may exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech; many corporations decide to support certain political candidates by donating money.

The problem is corporations are not like people when it comes to incomes. A corporation is a lifeless, emotionless “machine” that has only one purpose– to make money. As the result, donations that many corporations are capable of far exceed the ones of an average citizen. According to 24/7 Wall Street, since 2012 a financial firm, the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. donated $4,769,994 to various political campaigns. Similarly, a casino and resort operator Las Vegas Sands Corp., donated $11,738,600. It’s certainly not what the average citizen can afford.

So how do these huge amounts of money hurt America? First, huge donations help donors get better treatment than everyone else. A politician feels the need to help generous donors after a couple of millions are thrown his or her way. This means signing exclusive deals with that corporation, “closing their eyes” to corporation’s misconduct, passing or vetoing a new law. For example, a controversial Keystone pipeline bill that’s been repeatedly vetoed by Obama was passed in Congress with 270 members voting for it. According to Think Progress report, all 270 congressmen received generous donation from big oil company totaling about $31 million.

Does this sound as a democracy?

The second problem is that no politician can advance without big donations. Even the ones with strong moral values fall to the temptation of having better resources. Money enables candidates to run campaigns and bombard voters with ads and commercials. This is evident in current presidential elections; Austin Barbour, a Mississippi-based operative interviewed by USA Today, said that, “anybody who is thinking about running for president has got to have a group of donors out there aggressively backing them.” Running for president costs a lot–some experts say that Obama spent $1 billion on 2012 presidential elections.

The GOP candidates have started fundraising early. According to The Washington Post, $4 out of every $5 raised so far on behalf of GOP White House candidates has gone to independent groups rather than the official campaigns. These independent groups are not supposed to be controlled by the candidate but often are. Independent groups also do have the same restrictions on the amount of money that can be raised that campaigns do; donors donate how much they please and don’t even have to disclose their identity. Do you see the problem with that? Politicians might get millions of dollars from wealthy people whose name is not disclosed to the general public. When we vote, we are clueless about who candidates are working with behind the closed doors.

The Democratic candidates, unlike many believe, catch up with the Republicans on fundraising as they accept money from powerful people. Hillary Clinton, for example, is the first Democrat ever to publicly embrace her Super PAC which is expected to raise $200 million to $300 million. Super PACs are similar to independent groups as there is no limit on donations and donors’ name can be concealed.

Experts say that the current presidential race will be the most expensive one yet. This seems likely. But, as more candidates accept money from profit-thirsty corporations, American democracy breaks apart.