Asides: Iran Cuts Off Google

While I understand Iran’s outrage for Google’s offensive video, I think that cutting off your entire country to Google and Gmail is unfair. Not only does that take away Iranian citizens access to countless of important websites and information, but it is taking away their rights of freedom. Iran censors the most of almost any other country. They censor sites like Facebook and Youtube already, and now even Google! The government already has extreme control in Iran, now they are taking complete control of the Internet and disconnecting from the World Wide Web. This seems totalitarian to me- like Big Brother can choose exactly what sites you go onto and is watching you the whole time… Iranians are losing their freedom. They are being cut off from the rest of the world, and there is nothing to be gained from this isolation. How are curious citizens supposed to know what is happening in the rest of the world? How will they know who they can trust if their information is all coming from one biased source? The Internet gives us freedom we have never experienced before, the possibilities of information we can discover are endless. Cutting off access to this information is sad, the citizens will never be able to know the immense knowledge out there, and they will never know anything but their own culture.  A simple feud with Google can be solved without hurting the citizens of the country. But it sounds like Iran has a lot more to worry about than Google since it got the Stuxnet virus. We learned about that in class and the worm can cause mass havoc to the computer or control systems.  Iran suspected it was US who planted the worm, naturally. I can’t say I am surprised though, they are a very paranoid country if they cut off all ties when one disaster happens. They are not only isolating their citizens, but isolating the country as a whole, which is a huge global mistake. 

Music & Technology Questions (Group 10)

I vaguely remember the days when I paid for music, at that time $0.99 for one song seemed absurd. CD's were verrryyyy expensive and treasured purchases. I have been illegally downloading music for years now. I switch from site to site since illegal music sites are clearly "illegal" and are often shut down. I like MP3Rocket and youtubetoMP3 as my personal favorites. I think our generation and the ones following us are past the point where paying for music is even an option, especially since it is so simple to get music illegally or just stream it on your computer. I don't think people realize the morally wrong nature of this act, since it is so common. For the music industry to thrive, they must do something more and different to attract the upcoming tech-savvy generations.

IT & War Questions (Group 9)

1.In general, describe the relationship between I.T. and war as it has existed throughout history and into the present: I never really thought of there being a big relationship between I.T. and war until this class actually, when we read the Vaneiver Bush article. The greater the technological advancements, the higher warfare technology we can employ on our enemies. I think it is a bit ridiculous that we are achieving so much technological greatness only to employ it for a one time use during a battle.

2. Consume the following material:

• Video: "The Military Invented the Internet: What Next?"
• Text: "War and Technology" 

Three Quotes:

1. "War is a driver for technology... everything from the Internet to jet engines to robotics are all things where military is a driver. This goes into question of human duality and human creativity."

2. "Maybe the question is that we can't get past our age old need to destroy each other. Is it machines that are wired for war or are we just inherently wired for war?"

3.  "But countless inventors and innovators, from Alfred Nobel to Robert Boyle, thought of weapons positively. They believed that they could banish the scourge of war, or at least restrain its excesses, if they could only invent the ultimate weapon, the instrument so horrible that no one would dare use it."

I assumed that weapons were only made in war for evil, and it was a negative thing to spend so much time, money and effort making our weapons more powerful. Now I realize, weapons can be made for good. They can be so powerful that nobody would dare use it, such as a nuclear bomb. We can't use that for fear of retaliation. I thought it was really interesting how closely related I.T. is with war, as seen in countless examples and circumstances. Humans are wired to create, but does that mean we are wired to destroy? I know it's the survival of the fittest with the human race, and being technologically smart makes you wartime smart as well. 

Virtual Reality Questions (Group 9)

My initial understanding of virtual realities is a place online where people create avatars and act out another life. I picture online Sims, or Second Life, or World of Warcraft type games. People use these games to escape their own reality and live in a virtual reality where they can achieve anything and be anything they wish.

Questions
1.) Do you think it's possible that people can be so consumed with their virtual reality that they eventually start to believe that is their actual reality? With all the advancements in gaming, I predict this situation could happen all the time.. Which could be very dangerous and unstable

2.) I think the philosophical question of "what is reality" is a very necessary one. What do you believe? Do you agree with Plato's ideal form, with Buadrillard's "hyperreality" with Kant's phenomena idea? Do you think there even exists a reality beyond what we physically can interact with?

3.) If we are interacting with a virtual world, are we ever truly engaged or interacting when we are interacting with an illusion, a virtual facade of something real?

Aside: Fears for Civil Liberties as Apple Patents Technology

I think it is absolutely ridiculous and unconstitutional for someone to have the power to disable my smartphone. The new patent technology that Apple has released will give police officers or authority figures to remotely control smartphones. They claim that it is helpful because it could prevent against fraud, create more privacy, and control unstable situations; however, to me this looks like a Big Brother situation. America is a free country, and controlling something so personal and important to users such as their smart phones is a detrimental idea. People will grow to detest their superiors like some sort of cruel dictatorship where the people have no power. So much viral and groundbreaking media has come from footage shot on smartphones, such as the UC Davis police pepper spray attacks or even the Arab who got out of their car during a protest and was shot on the spot. Smartphones give anyone the ability to be a journalist or news reporter, and they give people the feeling that they are involved in making a difference and that their voice matters. Not only that, but this patent can take away phone-call abilities at certain times; who the heck would benefit from this? If the police had the power to shut down cell phone usage during the UC Davis protests, the world would never have had proof of the violence and unprofessional tactics used by the officers and they could still be in positions of power today. Smartphones give the user the world at their fingertips. With the push of a button, we are now more powerful than we ever have been before. Taking this away from users is not only a huge abuse of governmental power, but also takes away freedom, civil liberties, and rights that we Americans take for granted.  Nick Pickles said it best, 'It’s been a fact that modern phones are in reality tracking devices that let us make calls, but the idea that awkward citizens might find their phone shut down at the behest of a Government agency is a very worrying thought and not one that fits with democratic principles.” This patent goes against democracy as well as constitutional rights of freedom and I think it is a very unwise decision to implement this technology.

IT: Privacy and Security Questions (Group 6)

1.) What does the bank do with this private data after it's unnecessary or obsolete? How long can they keep it and/or who can they share this data with? Personally I am okay with the  banks knowing my privacy information or my IP address if that means that my money is safer, but I don't want anyone else having access to that sensitive data...

2.) Whoa, the transparency grenade makes private governmental information public to everyone... Is this really a good idea? Leaking governmental information makes it easier for citizens and activists to be involved and aware, but it also makes it easier for people plotting against the US to gain information they would use in a negative way. I think there is a reason that the government keeps certain information private, and certain information public and I think it should be kept that way.

3.) What does the government (or anyone who's formerly private information is becoming public) have to say about the transparency grenade?

Open Source & FLOSS Questions (Group 7)

1.) Stallman says that copyrights should be able to expire after some time, is this a good idea? Would this solve propriety problems with software?

2.) Source code is understood by human beings, not computers so does that mean when computing source code into machine code, humans will always have an important job? (this is reassuring with all the fear that machines are going to take over)

3.) Kristi Grisbi says that open source software is too risky and unpredictable compared to her own software system, do people think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in this situation? Otherwise why would people ever even consider using open source if their privacy is exposed?

4.)  Stallman is making money from requesting the source codes from companies and taking their business away from them.. is this even legal?

5.) Stallman says free software is "software that respects your freedom," what exactly does this mean? What defines freedom? Freedom for individuals or groups?

Virtual Communities Questions (Group 5)

Questions for our interview with Mr. Howard Rheingold:

1. How have virtual communities changed since you wrote your book in 1993? you

tell us we must arm ourselves with knowledge and that what happens next with the

internet is completely up to us...

2. You stated that face-to-face interactions are just as important as online

ones. Do you think that in our culture today we are getting to the point where

online interactions are taking the place to face-to-face? What do you think this

means for society?

3. You broached the question "instead of falling under the spell of a sales

pitch, or rejecting new technologies as instruments of illusion, we need to look

closely at new technologies and ask how they could help build stronger, more

humane communities — and how they might be obstacles to that goal.” Do you think

technologies have been able to do so in these past years?

4. A main point we got from your book is that virtual communities are only

virtual in location, but the effect they have on people is very real. would you

say this is still true today? could you make the claim that virtual communities

have in fact become real...?

5. You talked about the idea of web anonymity and the concept of being anyone

that you want to on the web. This is a growing concern nowadays with pedophiles,

liars as well as privacy protection.. do you have any tips on how people can

interact on virtual communities without compromising too much of their own

information? how can we be prepared to protect ourselves from people who are not

who they pretend to be?

6. You touched upon a lot of advantages and disadvantages of the virtual

communities in your book. What would you say are one of the most important

advantages and disadvantages of virtual communities nowadays?

7. What do you think is one of the best or most successful virtual communities

out there today? And why?

8. Do you think virtual communities today are affecting people in more of a

positive way or a negative way?

9. How the heck did you know 20 years ago that this all was going to happen? you

correctly predicted a lot of Internet issues, like service-for-privacy and the

rise of social networks

10. What do you think about facebook giving its users information to companies

for marketing purposes? How do you feel about that? Are you on Facebook yourself

or not?

11. 20 years ago you asked about the future of the internet.. Will it continue

to be largely free and defined by its users, or will government and big business

take control? can you answer this now?