Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Online Privacy
So, you set your Facebook profile to private. As private as you can possibly get. You assume only your friends/family can see everything you post and what's going on your life. Truth of the matter is, there are several ways around that "privacy" mode, and others can easily access your page if they wanted to. Makes you wonder, just how private are any "privacy" settings online?
In an article titled, "How Privacy Vanishes Online" it explains how so much of one's personal information can unintentionally be placed on their Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc. It even goes as far to say that this information can "increasingly be collected and reassembled by computers to help create a picture of a person’s identity, sometimes down to the Social Security number." It also explains how personal relations with friends & families can be more revealing than we think.
So, basically what the article is saying is that privacy online really isn't privacy. The Internet is so huge, so popular, so heavily used, of course our information can be accessed somehow. After reading this article I feel it is important that people are aware of the so called "privacy" settings on a social networking site, or any thing online for that matter. People cannot get upset when they willingly share as much as they do, even if they think it's just with friends and family.
In the article it mentions something about behaving online as you would in public, since it generally is public. I couldn't agree more with this statement. Most people wouldn't share every deep, dirty or unknown secret in their life with the world, so it's probably a good idea to not share it on the Internet. We live in a time where we have less and less privacy, and in the Internet is probably one of the last places we can get it.
Just look at websites such as Spookeo.com, Mylife.com. If you haven't heard of these sites, they are include people's personal information such as full name, address, city, state, marital status, income, age..you name it. How did they get this information? Your email, facebook, twitter, blogs, places you shopped online. This is why these social networking sites are free, because sites such as Spookeo pay them to get YOUR information. So, next time you post a tweet or your next Facebook status, think twice before you post it.
In an article titled, "How Privacy Vanishes Online" it explains how so much of one's personal information can unintentionally be placed on their Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc. It even goes as far to say that this information can "increasingly be collected and reassembled by computers to help create a picture of a person’s identity, sometimes down to the Social Security number." It also explains how personal relations with friends & families can be more revealing than we think.
So, basically what the article is saying is that privacy online really isn't privacy. The Internet is so huge, so popular, so heavily used, of course our information can be accessed somehow. After reading this article I feel it is important that people are aware of the so called "privacy" settings on a social networking site, or any thing online for that matter. People cannot get upset when they willingly share as much as they do, even if they think it's just with friends and family.
In the article it mentions something about behaving online as you would in public, since it generally is public. I couldn't agree more with this statement. Most people wouldn't share every deep, dirty or unknown secret in their life with the world, so it's probably a good idea to not share it on the Internet. We live in a time where we have less and less privacy, and in the Internet is probably one of the last places we can get it.
Just look at websites such as Spookeo.com, Mylife.com. If you haven't heard of these sites, they are include people's personal information such as full name, address, city, state, marital status, income, age..you name it. How did they get this information? Your email, facebook, twitter, blogs, places you shopped online. This is why these social networking sites are free, because sites such as Spookeo pay them to get YOUR information. So, next time you post a tweet or your next Facebook status, think twice before you post it.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Digital War
When national, global, or local crisis occur, people want to know about it. Since the invention of newspapers, radio, television and the Internet, there are multiple ways and sources to get news and current events. News on Wars is no exception. Truth of the matter is, no one actually LIKES war, but everyone wants to know what is happening during a war. There has been much controversy as to what the media shows to the public as opposed to what is actually going on in whatever the war is taking place. Should they show graphic images, videos, articles? Should people actually know all the gruesome details through digital media?
In an article dated back in 2004, it digs into more of the image problems taken place when it comes to documenting what exactly is going on. This article includes a photo, which spread around the world, of someone about to be tortured in Iraq. The photo, though, was actually taken by a solider, rather than a journalist or any other type of media. The article goes on to ask whether or not it's right for a soldier to be able to have a camera with them, and if they do, can they have email access. It goes on to mention that several photos, just like the one posted, were sent to the New York Times, all from different cameras; all from different soldiers.
When I think of this topic, I immediately think of Kevin Sites, who presented to us a video and photos of what he captured during several different wars he witnessed throughout the course of a year. While war is not exactly a fun issue, I personally believe that we should have access to these images, videos, etc. through digital media. Would this create conflict, and possibly a "war" over the Internet? Possibly. But if we can have access to limitless amounts of information, why can't we know exactly what is happening on war grounds?
I think of people who have husbands, wives, sons, daughters, or any other family or relatives off fighting in some battle or war. Shouldn't they have the right to know what they are facing? Absolutely. This would indubitably create more fear into ones life, but if they wish to read, see, or hear about these gruesome details, they should have that option. While not all sources on the Internet may be credible or reliable, people should have that option to see it if they wish.
In an article dated back in 2004, it digs into more of the image problems taken place when it comes to documenting what exactly is going on. This article includes a photo, which spread around the world, of someone about to be tortured in Iraq. The photo, though, was actually taken by a solider, rather than a journalist or any other type of media. The article goes on to ask whether or not it's right for a soldier to be able to have a camera with them, and if they do, can they have email access. It goes on to mention that several photos, just like the one posted, were sent to the New York Times, all from different cameras; all from different soldiers.
When I think of this topic, I immediately think of Kevin Sites, who presented to us a video and photos of what he captured during several different wars he witnessed throughout the course of a year. While war is not exactly a fun issue, I personally believe that we should have access to these images, videos, etc. through digital media. Would this create conflict, and possibly a "war" over the Internet? Possibly. But if we can have access to limitless amounts of information, why can't we know exactly what is happening on war grounds?
I think of people who have husbands, wives, sons, daughters, or any other family or relatives off fighting in some battle or war. Shouldn't they have the right to know what they are facing? Absolutely. This would indubitably create more fear into ones life, but if they wish to read, see, or hear about these gruesome details, they should have that option. While not all sources on the Internet may be credible or reliable, people should have that option to see it if they wish.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)