This week I was reading the news, and I found something that fit perfectly with the subject material this week in class. What better way to end the semester than to take a look at the battle between Tea Party activists and anti-tea party activists. On the one side, we have Fox News Host and radio personality, Glenn Beck, who champions the cause of the Tea Party Movement. The other side, the anti-tea party side, is led by our very own Cass Sunstein, who has been appointed by President Obama as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The first question to ask is: what is the Tea Party Movement?
The Tea Party Movement is a protest movement beginning in 2009 that stands for a constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets. Protests happen all around the country, and those who participate fight against the bailout of 2008 and the stimulus package of 2009. The Economist magazine has even labeled the movement as "America's Most Vibrant Political Force." Based upon stats given by Quinnipiac University, the majority of these activists are conservatives/republicans and 82 percent view the democratic party as unfavorable.
Now, what in the world does this have to do with new media and our class? In 2008, Cass Sunstein, while at Harvard Law School, "co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites (as well as other activist groups) which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists." (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein) Does this sound familiar? Does it sound like astroturfing? Because that's exactly what it is. I won't go into every minute detail, which is why I posted the link after the quote, so you can see for yourself. But I will give you a reader's digest version of Sunstein's paper.
Basically, Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." Sunstein also proposes that the Government should make secret payments to "independent" credible voices to strengthen the Government's messaging ("on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government").
Sunstein believes these tactics should be used to infiltrate the Tea Party Movement and discredit their cause by creating fake websites that suck up to the government and destroy the oppositional websites. One of these astroturfing websites is the other 25, which is an anti-tea party movement website that defends the government from tea party criticisms and attacks the tea party movement as a fringe. According to Glenn Beck and Red State (a conservative based website), the other 25 purports to be an authentically grassroots campaign. However, "the designer of the program is affiliated with moveon.org and other leftwing websites. But the most notable is the donation page. You can make donations to Democracy in Action. Democracy in Action is not for individual activists to use. It is for small and medium size 501(c)(3) organizations and others on the left." (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/39348/)
That last sentence is extremely crucial, because it was Cass Sunstein, who I will remind you once again is the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (which tries to do the following: reducing paperwork burdens, reviewing Federal regulations, and overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs) and may possibly be a Supreme Court Judge, has exuberantly supported using 501(c)(3) interest groups as agents of astroturfing.
Glenn Beck's fear is that the people of the Tea Party Movement are being painted as radical right wing crazies through these sites proposed by Sunstein. According to Beck, these websites and their followers have even infiltrated inside the Tea Party Movement and tried to discredit the participants by pretending to be racists and extremists. However, a liberal journalist from the Washington Post, Robert McCartney, sees things a different way: "I went to the tea party rally at the Washington Monument on Thursday to check out just how reactionary and potentially violent the movement truly was. Answer? Not very. Based on what I saw and heard, tea party members are not seething. They are not ready to explode racists, as some liberal commentators have caricatured them. Some are extremists and bigots, sure. The crowd was almost entirely white. I differ strenuously with the protests on about 95% of them. So in other words, this writer doesn't agree. Nonetheless, on the whole they struck me as a passionate conservative voice dedicated to working within the system rather than the dangerous militia types or a revival of the KKK. Although shrinking government is their primary goal, many conceded the that the country should keep Medicare and even Social Security. None were clamoring for civil disobedience, much less armed revolt. Someone in the Revolutionary War fired bullets. This time we're firing politicians, said Clinton Lee, a wedding photographer from Tampa."
Is astroturfing and effective method of persuasion? Sometimes it is. But remember, although it may be effective sometimes, the practice itself is always, 100 percent propaganda and, in this blogger's opinion, completely and totally unconstitutional and downright wrong. Beck may be a conservative who leans one way, and Sunstein may be a liberal who leans the other way, but by simply looking at the facts, one can clearly see that Sunstein's astroturfing proposal is as wrong as Glenn Beck makes it out to be. I'm going to side with Mr. Beck on this issue. I'll leave you with a link to Mr. Beck's "One Thing" from his Fox News show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_i1hnIRvCE
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The King of Hackers
Kevin Mitnick is considered to be the greatest and most popular hacker of all time. From 1992 to 1995, Mitnick led the FBI on a manhunt after breaking into computer networks and stealing software from companies like motorola and Novell. Mitnick used social networking rather than actual hacking, and would leave traps for the FBI in order to stay one step ahead of them.
The idea of using social networking, however, is what separates Mitnick from other hackers. He would control touch phones and call employees, convincing them to give him information. For example, he was able to call an employee at Motorola and convince her to send him the code for the MicroTAC Ultra Lite cell phone; he would manipulate the telephone network and set up call-back numbers within Motorola's campus. Convincing a manager in operations to tell one of the employees to read off his RSA SecurID code any time he needed it, Mitnick was able to access the network remotely. He had complete access to Motorola's internal network and then was able to use technical means to hack into their development servers for cell phones.
Doing these things, however, did not seem wrong in Mitnick's eyes. Instead, he viewed hacking as a challenge; a huge puzzle that needed to be solved. Like the Motorola case, Mitnick did not want to sell the source codes to anyone; he didn't care about making money. His real prize was the satisfaction of breaking into four different layers of security to get the codes. After all, in the 70's, there were no laws against hacking. Mitnick had been using telephones to hack in since the internet wasn't really around back then.
Mitnick ended up in jail after being caught by authorities in 1995. He even served a year in solitary confinement because the judge feared he would take revenge by hacking into NORAD and launching an ICBM. After his subsequent release in 2002, Mitnick launched a security consultancy and has a lucrative speaking deal which takes him all around the country. Once a fugitive hacker, Mitnick is now a wiser and reformed man who still uses the same skills today that got him arrested 15 years ago; only difference now is that he's doing it legally.
How does this tie in with the lectures on cyber-terrorism? I think Mitnick is a great example of the difference between a terrorist and a hacker. Mitnick didn't find out secrets and codes and sell them to bad people. He didn't hack into a bank and steal all of its funds. Mitnick simply hacked into places for the fun of it in order to gain an "intellectual prize" rather than a monetary or physical one. Though Mitnick's actions were wrong, they in no way constitute terrorism, as some authorities had labeled him in 1995. Once America's most wanted computer hacker, Mitnick has taken that 180 degree turn, realizes his mistakes, and now hunts down and tries to convince present day hackers of his faults, hoping they don't fall into the same trap as he did.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10269348-83.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1L2uZDjzy8
The idea of using social networking, however, is what separates Mitnick from other hackers. He would control touch phones and call employees, convincing them to give him information. For example, he was able to call an employee at Motorola and convince her to send him the code for the MicroTAC Ultra Lite cell phone; he would manipulate the telephone network and set up call-back numbers within Motorola's campus. Convincing a manager in operations to tell one of the employees to read off his RSA SecurID code any time he needed it, Mitnick was able to access the network remotely. He had complete access to Motorola's internal network and then was able to use technical means to hack into their development servers for cell phones.
Doing these things, however, did not seem wrong in Mitnick's eyes. Instead, he viewed hacking as a challenge; a huge puzzle that needed to be solved. Like the Motorola case, Mitnick did not want to sell the source codes to anyone; he didn't care about making money. His real prize was the satisfaction of breaking into four different layers of security to get the codes. After all, in the 70's, there were no laws against hacking. Mitnick had been using telephones to hack in since the internet wasn't really around back then.
Mitnick ended up in jail after being caught by authorities in 1995. He even served a year in solitary confinement because the judge feared he would take revenge by hacking into NORAD and launching an ICBM. After his subsequent release in 2002, Mitnick launched a security consultancy and has a lucrative speaking deal which takes him all around the country. Once a fugitive hacker, Mitnick is now a wiser and reformed man who still uses the same skills today that got him arrested 15 years ago; only difference now is that he's doing it legally.
How does this tie in with the lectures on cyber-terrorism? I think Mitnick is a great example of the difference between a terrorist and a hacker. Mitnick didn't find out secrets and codes and sell them to bad people. He didn't hack into a bank and steal all of its funds. Mitnick simply hacked into places for the fun of it in order to gain an "intellectual prize" rather than a monetary or physical one. Though Mitnick's actions were wrong, they in no way constitute terrorism, as some authorities had labeled him in 1995. Once America's most wanted computer hacker, Mitnick has taken that 180 degree turn, realizes his mistakes, and now hunts down and tries to convince present day hackers of his faults, hoping they don't fall into the same trap as he did.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10269348-83.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1L2uZDjzy8
Saturday, April 10, 2010
I-PAD Isn't a Revolution
In case you've been living under a rock for the past few months, the I-PAD has arrived and many people are getting in on the newest sensation from Apple. The I-PAD is a tablet-shaped computer that can be viewed as the "missing link" between the I-Phone and the laptop computer. This new invention has many defining characteristics: a touch screen, the ability to flip the device in any direction and still see things upright on the screen, and new features that allow you to buy and read books, rent and watch movies, and buy and listen to music all at your convenience. In other words, this device can be seen as your own personal virtual library.
The Positives for this device are quite clear. First, physical copies of things like books, CD's, and movies are all digital and can be stored easily inside your I-PAD. You can lose a physical copy of something or even break it very easily, but with the I-PAD, you won't have to ever worry about losing any of your precious stuff. Second, it's sleek shape allows for easy carrying and storage. You can hold it in your lap while you sit, or hold it like a clipboard while you walk. Finally, the I-PAD has a touch keypad for writing e-mails and typing in URL addresses.
On the surface, the I-PAD sounds like a fresh, new, and exciting invention that will revolutionize the way we use the web. However, that might not be the case. The I-PAD's tablet shape could be a pain for some people. Having to hold something constantly in order to use it might drive some people nuts, not to mention neck strains and bad posture for those individuals who place the I-PAD on their lap or flat surface and try to use it. A laptop allows the user to look straight ahead, thus taking tension off the neck. The idea of the I-PAD isn't revolutionary either. It looks and acts like an I-Phone; the only difference I see is it's size. If both devices use things the same way, then I'd rather have the phone that can fit in my pocket rather than a tablet that I have to carry around all the time.
Yes, the I-PAD looks really cool and can do some neat stuff, but in practical terms, it is not worth the money. Now, if the I-PAD was released before the I-Phone, then I could see the revolutionary qualities it possesses. But the I-Phone simply does just about everything the I-PAD does. In fact, it does even more (i.e. calling people). This marketing ploy for the I-PAD reminds me of the evolution of video-game systems. A company, like Nintendo for instance, will put out a new game console that has a bunch of new features and hypes everyone up, and then in a year or so, they create a new system that overtakes the old system. The craze is gone, so people don't buy the old systems anymore, thus wasting a bunch of money on games and accessories that they'll probably never use again.
At least Nintendo progressively improves their product. From GameCube to the Wii, the evolutionary changes in gaming are unparalleled. Nintendo improved their product in a linear fashion by taking progressive steps in a forward direction. Apple, on the other hand, seems to be walking backwards. The progression should have been the MAC, I-PAD, and then the I-Phone. Instead, Apple introduces this supposedly new I-PAD that is nothing more than a large I-Phone that can't even call anyone. Yes, the I-PAD has something to bring to the table, but anyone who says, "it's revolutionary" or "it's never been done before" need to go out and buy an I-Phone, and then decide whether or not the I-PAD lives up to the hype.
The Positives for this device are quite clear. First, physical copies of things like books, CD's, and movies are all digital and can be stored easily inside your I-PAD. You can lose a physical copy of something or even break it very easily, but with the I-PAD, you won't have to ever worry about losing any of your precious stuff. Second, it's sleek shape allows for easy carrying and storage. You can hold it in your lap while you sit, or hold it like a clipboard while you walk. Finally, the I-PAD has a touch keypad for writing e-mails and typing in URL addresses.
On the surface, the I-PAD sounds like a fresh, new, and exciting invention that will revolutionize the way we use the web. However, that might not be the case. The I-PAD's tablet shape could be a pain for some people. Having to hold something constantly in order to use it might drive some people nuts, not to mention neck strains and bad posture for those individuals who place the I-PAD on their lap or flat surface and try to use it. A laptop allows the user to look straight ahead, thus taking tension off the neck. The idea of the I-PAD isn't revolutionary either. It looks and acts like an I-Phone; the only difference I see is it's size. If both devices use things the same way, then I'd rather have the phone that can fit in my pocket rather than a tablet that I have to carry around all the time.
Yes, the I-PAD looks really cool and can do some neat stuff, but in practical terms, it is not worth the money. Now, if the I-PAD was released before the I-Phone, then I could see the revolutionary qualities it possesses. But the I-Phone simply does just about everything the I-PAD does. In fact, it does even more (i.e. calling people). This marketing ploy for the I-PAD reminds me of the evolution of video-game systems. A company, like Nintendo for instance, will put out a new game console that has a bunch of new features and hypes everyone up, and then in a year or so, they create a new system that overtakes the old system. The craze is gone, so people don't buy the old systems anymore, thus wasting a bunch of money on games and accessories that they'll probably never use again.
At least Nintendo progressively improves their product. From GameCube to the Wii, the evolutionary changes in gaming are unparalleled. Nintendo improved their product in a linear fashion by taking progressive steps in a forward direction. Apple, on the other hand, seems to be walking backwards. The progression should have been the MAC, I-PAD, and then the I-Phone. Instead, Apple introduces this supposedly new I-PAD that is nothing more than a large I-Phone that can't even call anyone. Yes, the I-PAD has something to bring to the table, but anyone who says, "it's revolutionary" or "it's never been done before" need to go out and buy an I-Phone, and then decide whether or not the I-PAD lives up to the hype.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Protecting The Next Generation
The online restrictions trying to help prevent children from looking at inappropriate material on the internet has been the subject of controversy for some time. Whenever I see a screen that asks me to type in my date of birth so I can access a site, I begin to laugh. There is nothing to stop a minor from typing in a fake birthday so they can access information. This kind of restriction is an absolute joke.
Other restrictions, like asking for personal information (i.e. info. from your i.d., social security, address, etc.) is also a joke. You can fake this information, but if the site actually checks a person's i.d. or social security number, then people are going to be very weary of going on to those sites; people do not want to give out their personal information on the internet for obvious privacy and safety reasons.
I remember watching television a couple of years ago and I saw an advertisement for the V-Chip. The V-chip allows parents to block programming on their televisions that they don’t want their children to watch. Television programs are now given a rating according to a system established by the television broadcast industry. The rating is encoded with the program before it comes on the air. Using the remote control, parents can program the chip to block shows with ratings indicating that the program content may be inappropriate for children.
A V-Chip for the internet would be a great way to shield our youth from the disturbing content normally found in it. In fact, today there is internet filters that act as V-Chips. Internet filters are configurable software programs that will block access to certain websites. A client filter is setup on your computer, and blocks that computer from loading certain web pages. These filters work in another way as well: server filter is implemented by your internet service provider (ISP) and can be configured to block web sites on the server’s end, before they even get to your computer. Programs such as Net Nanny, Cyber Patrol, and K9 Web Protection are examples of internet filter software programs.
In the end, it all comes down to one thing: parenting. Like I said in an earlier blog about the Korean boy who was addicted to online gaming, it is the parent's responsibility to protect their kids from corrupt and inappropriate things. Every kid is as curious as a cat; they want to absorb as much information as possible. But during their childhood, the fear lies in retaining all of that garbage. If a robber comes into your house and tries to take your kid, you'll obviously protect them. So if some wierdo is trying to steal information from your kid or some website is trying to expose questionable material, PROTECT your kids.
When they are old enough and mature enough to handle those types of things, then they can do whatever they want. But until that time, let's take care of our children. And it starts with initiative, like acquiring the necessary software to block bad content. We now live in the age of the internet; teaching our kids about it and protecting them from it should be a primary priority because the internet isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Other restrictions, like asking for personal information (i.e. info. from your i.d., social security, address, etc.) is also a joke. You can fake this information, but if the site actually checks a person's i.d. or social security number, then people are going to be very weary of going on to those sites; people do not want to give out their personal information on the internet for obvious privacy and safety reasons.
I remember watching television a couple of years ago and I saw an advertisement for the V-Chip. The V-chip allows parents to block programming on their televisions that they don’t want their children to watch. Television programs are now given a rating according to a system established by the television broadcast industry. The rating is encoded with the program before it comes on the air. Using the remote control, parents can program the chip to block shows with ratings indicating that the program content may be inappropriate for children.
A V-Chip for the internet would be a great way to shield our youth from the disturbing content normally found in it. In fact, today there is internet filters that act as V-Chips. Internet filters are configurable software programs that will block access to certain websites. A client filter is setup on your computer, and blocks that computer from loading certain web pages. These filters work in another way as well: server filter is implemented by your internet service provider (ISP) and can be configured to block web sites on the server’s end, before they even get to your computer. Programs such as Net Nanny, Cyber Patrol, and K9 Web Protection are examples of internet filter software programs.
In the end, it all comes down to one thing: parenting. Like I said in an earlier blog about the Korean boy who was addicted to online gaming, it is the parent's responsibility to protect their kids from corrupt and inappropriate things. Every kid is as curious as a cat; they want to absorb as much information as possible. But during their childhood, the fear lies in retaining all of that garbage. If a robber comes into your house and tries to take your kid, you'll obviously protect them. So if some wierdo is trying to steal information from your kid or some website is trying to expose questionable material, PROTECT your kids.
When they are old enough and mature enough to handle those types of things, then they can do whatever they want. But until that time, let's take care of our children. And it starts with initiative, like acquiring the necessary software to block bad content. We now live in the age of the internet; teaching our kids about it and protecting them from it should be a primary priority because the internet isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Second Life
Second Life is a a user-created, 3D virtual world community where anyone can go on and create another life for themselves. I guess that proves there is multiple universes after all; only this universe isn't found in reality. In this world, there are infinite possibilities and you can live a life without boundaries, guided only by your imagination. Do what you love, with the people you love, from anywhere in the world. You can customize your own avatar however you want. Height, weight, gender, race, clothing, hair - really anything can be customized. You can change your avatar whenever you want. In other words, if you hate yourself, feel free to run away from the real world and live in this fantasy land.
This universe is always expanding and changing; people can make buildings, create cities, meet new people, etc. Travel isn't a problem either. You can spread your arms and fly anywhere you want, or just take conventional transportation and use airplanes or cars. Some cities are mirror images of real life cities (such as Tokyo) while other cities are complete creations of someone's ideas. Communication is unique as well; you can IM or voice chat with anyone on Second Life at any time. Group forming is also a common occurrence; people can gather anywhere and create clubs, therapy sessions, universities, etc. Second life even has it's own currency: linden dollars, which are very easy to obtain. These linden dollars can be used to buy anything in this virtual universe.
Believe it or not, you can even have a job, build your own house, and even start relationships. But Second Life isn't limited to individualism; you can even collaborate with other people to make anything you want. Businesses like IBM and Dell have placed their faith in Second Life, promoting their companies by using it as an outlet to reach out to potential clients. Even MIT and Notre Dame have utilized Second Life for educational purposes; the universities have their own setup in second life.
Second Life does seem like a dream world where all of your fantasies can come true; however, I think the creation of this virtual world is detrimental to developing social skills, business skills, and life skills in the real world. No matter how realistic this world looks, it isn't real; it is a simulation. No matter how successful you can become in this world, it doesn't correlate to the real world. I think it's great that people can use their imagination and create whatever they want and be whoever they desire, but this virtual world seems extremely flawed. I could easily see this site or other sites like Second Life becoming so huge in the next few years that people will start to spend more time in the virtual reality world then in the real world. My fear is that people will wake up, go immediately into their online world for the rest of the day, and then fall asleep and wake up the next day, only to do the same thing. This virtual world is a breeding ground for obsession and addiction.
Like I said, I'm all for individuality and collaboration and public forming groups and creativity, which Second Life promotes very well, but my problem is with the impact it will have on the real world. Younger generations that are introduced to these kind of sites will struggle adapting to the real world if they are brought up in this Second Life virtual reality. There is no concept of moderation or reality within Second Life; you can be as lavish as you want or look like anybody. I really hope this isn't going to be the future, because if it is, I fear that 7 billion people will stay in their homes all day, everyday, and live in this made up reality. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd rather see the great pyramids of Egypt in person rather than in a dream world. I'd rather go out and meet people and physically see them than walking around talking to people on an online world where I have no idea what they look like or who they are. And I'd rather start and sustain a relationship in reality rather than in a virtual world because let's face it, you can't simulate true love. That can only be found in reality.
I suggest looking at this site and draw your own conclusions. Maybe you'll have a different opinion. But I can assure you, there isn't a shot in hell you'll ever see me on something like this. I prefer reality.
http://secondlife.com/?v=1.1
This universe is always expanding and changing; people can make buildings, create cities, meet new people, etc. Travel isn't a problem either. You can spread your arms and fly anywhere you want, or just take conventional transportation and use airplanes or cars. Some cities are mirror images of real life cities (such as Tokyo) while other cities are complete creations of someone's ideas. Communication is unique as well; you can IM or voice chat with anyone on Second Life at any time. Group forming is also a common occurrence; people can gather anywhere and create clubs, therapy sessions, universities, etc. Second life even has it's own currency: linden dollars, which are very easy to obtain. These linden dollars can be used to buy anything in this virtual universe.
Believe it or not, you can even have a job, build your own house, and even start relationships. But Second Life isn't limited to individualism; you can even collaborate with other people to make anything you want. Businesses like IBM and Dell have placed their faith in Second Life, promoting their companies by using it as an outlet to reach out to potential clients. Even MIT and Notre Dame have utilized Second Life for educational purposes; the universities have their own setup in second life.
Second Life does seem like a dream world where all of your fantasies can come true; however, I think the creation of this virtual world is detrimental to developing social skills, business skills, and life skills in the real world. No matter how realistic this world looks, it isn't real; it is a simulation. No matter how successful you can become in this world, it doesn't correlate to the real world. I think it's great that people can use their imagination and create whatever they want and be whoever they desire, but this virtual world seems extremely flawed. I could easily see this site or other sites like Second Life becoming so huge in the next few years that people will start to spend more time in the virtual reality world then in the real world. My fear is that people will wake up, go immediately into their online world for the rest of the day, and then fall asleep and wake up the next day, only to do the same thing. This virtual world is a breeding ground for obsession and addiction.
Like I said, I'm all for individuality and collaboration and public forming groups and creativity, which Second Life promotes very well, but my problem is with the impact it will have on the real world. Younger generations that are introduced to these kind of sites will struggle adapting to the real world if they are brought up in this Second Life virtual reality. There is no concept of moderation or reality within Second Life; you can be as lavish as you want or look like anybody. I really hope this isn't going to be the future, because if it is, I fear that 7 billion people will stay in their homes all day, everyday, and live in this made up reality. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd rather see the great pyramids of Egypt in person rather than in a dream world. I'd rather go out and meet people and physically see them than walking around talking to people on an online world where I have no idea what they look like or who they are. And I'd rather start and sustain a relationship in reality rather than in a virtual world because let's face it, you can't simulate true love. That can only be found in reality.
I suggest looking at this site and draw your own conclusions. Maybe you'll have a different opinion. But I can assure you, there isn't a shot in hell you'll ever see me on something like this. I prefer reality.
http://secondlife.com/?v=1.1
Saturday, February 27, 2010
One segment in the documentary, “Digital Nation” really upset me. Usually I don’t get worked up about documentaries, but when I saw the Vice Principle of that School and realized what he was doing, I couldn’t keep my mouth shut. Basically the school provides laptops for everyone and those laptops are used for homework, projects, etc. However, the real problem lies within the Vice Principle’s ability to monitor what the kids are doing on their laptops at any time. Each laptop is equipped with a camera so the V.P. can see if any of the kids are goofing around.
This is the biggest invasion of privacy I’ve ever seen. First of all, everyone should have their privacy. The kids that he showed us were just fixing their hair, but they didn’t seem to realize that they were being watched. What if the camera was on by accident and the person was in the bathroom or something? And what’s even more disturbing than that is the idea of taking those laptops back home. Does that mean the V.P. can look at what the children are doing at home if they decide to use their laptops? This just seems like the biggest invasion of privacy.
Second, how do we know whether or not the V.P. is a caring administrator who just wants to make sure his kids are working hard, or he is some huge creep who is watching the kids all day at school and even at home? I’m sure these kids had to sign a release form or something to allow this kind of voyeurism, but I’ll tell you right now there is no way I’d ever sign something that would take away my privacy.
I understand that schools like this one are trying out new learning techniques to keep up with the growing digital world. I also accept the fact that in that particular school with the laptops, attendance increased by 90 percent, overall performance was increasing, and there were less fights and problems in the school. These are great stats; however, it doesn’t take away the fact that these kids are being monitored 24/7 like lab rats. Hell, I’d go to class everyday and do everything I was supposed to do if I knew someone was monitoring my every move. But the point I’m trying to make is this: children shouldn’t be forced to go to class because of a technology or because they know someone is watching their every move. It totally reminds me of the Patriot Act in the U.S. Children should go to class because they want to learn.
I know that’s easier said than done and I definitely do not have a good solution. But I do know that there has to be a better way to motivate students than to monitor their every move by giving them laptops with cameras inside of them. That just doesn’t seem right to me at all. I’d rather do the old fashioned way: sit in a class, read my textbooks, and hand write my assignments. Yes, it might take longer, but at least I know I don’t have someone breathing down my neck every waking moment of the day.
This is the biggest invasion of privacy I’ve ever seen. First of all, everyone should have their privacy. The kids that he showed us were just fixing their hair, but they didn’t seem to realize that they were being watched. What if the camera was on by accident and the person was in the bathroom or something? And what’s even more disturbing than that is the idea of taking those laptops back home. Does that mean the V.P. can look at what the children are doing at home if they decide to use their laptops? This just seems like the biggest invasion of privacy.
Second, how do we know whether or not the V.P. is a caring administrator who just wants to make sure his kids are working hard, or he is some huge creep who is watching the kids all day at school and even at home? I’m sure these kids had to sign a release form or something to allow this kind of voyeurism, but I’ll tell you right now there is no way I’d ever sign something that would take away my privacy.
I understand that schools like this one are trying out new learning techniques to keep up with the growing digital world. I also accept the fact that in that particular school with the laptops, attendance increased by 90 percent, overall performance was increasing, and there were less fights and problems in the school. These are great stats; however, it doesn’t take away the fact that these kids are being monitored 24/7 like lab rats. Hell, I’d go to class everyday and do everything I was supposed to do if I knew someone was monitoring my every move. But the point I’m trying to make is this: children shouldn’t be forced to go to class because of a technology or because they know someone is watching their every move. It totally reminds me of the Patriot Act in the U.S. Children should go to class because they want to learn.
I know that’s easier said than done and I definitely do not have a good solution. But I do know that there has to be a better way to motivate students than to monitor their every move by giving them laptops with cameras inside of them. That just doesn’t seem right to me at all. I’d rather do the old fashioned way: sit in a class, read my textbooks, and hand write my assignments. Yes, it might take longer, but at least I know I don’t have someone breathing down my neck every waking moment of the day.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Digital Nation
After watching a documentary ("Digital Nation") on the evolution of the digital world and how the Internet has created potential problems for its users, I couldn't help but think of one segment where it discussed the online gaming problem in South Korea. There are Internet shops where kids can go and stay for hours and sometimes even days. The segment also introduced to us a young South Korean boy who constantly plays games and has dropped from the top half of his class to the bottom half in school. Even the relationship between he and his mother is strained because of his excessive use of video games.
South Korea decided to call Internet addiction a psychiatric disorder; it not only affects the mind but the senses as well. Performance in school decreases, eye sight and hearing are damaged, and physical activity is almost non-existent. So what does South Korea do? They fix the problem by creating Internet recovery camps. Yes, there are actual recovery clinics for individuals who want to learn how to manage and limit the amount of time they spend on the Internet. There are even some recovery camps in the US!
Is excessive use of the Internet an actual addiction, and, if it is, are recovery camps the best way to go about curing these individuals? These camps are structured like clinics for recovering drug addicts. That's right: according to places like South Korea, Internet addiction should be treated like it's a drug addiction. I know that sounds crazy, but that's precisely what these Internet recovery camps are: rehab clinics.
I understand there are some adults who are overly dependent on the Internet to a point where it runs their entire lives; however, these clinics should be for them and them alone. Young boys should not be wasting their time going to these clinics. Instead, their PARENTS should be the ones taking care of the situation. The young Korean boy's mom is distraught over her son's situation and decided to send him to one of these camps. I've got an idea: why doesn't the mom actually intervene in her child's life and take the Internet away from him? In Internet addiction involving kids, it should be the parents' job to monitor their children's Internet use, much like they would with homework or chores. In my opinion, these camps for kids are only here because of bad parenting. Just pull the plug on your child's Internet! Yes they need to learn and grow on their own, but children need guidance from their parents.
The only people who should attend these Internet recovery clinics are those individuals (not children) whose lives are completely consumed by the Internet, and it is affecting their physical and mental health, as well as the people around them. Other than those individuals, these camps are doing absolutely nothing for these children other than delaying the inevitable. They interviewed the Korean boy during his tenure at the camp, and instead of actually making progress, all the boy did was think about online gaming. When he was asked if this camp will ultimately help him, the young boy thought he would go right back to gaming once the clinic was over. This is exactly why parents should take some initiative and protect their kids from these types of things. Camps won't do anything for children: they need their parents. And it is the parents' fault for not intervening in their children's lives.
South Korea decided to call Internet addiction a psychiatric disorder; it not only affects the mind but the senses as well. Performance in school decreases, eye sight and hearing are damaged, and physical activity is almost non-existent. So what does South Korea do? They fix the problem by creating Internet recovery camps. Yes, there are actual recovery clinics for individuals who want to learn how to manage and limit the amount of time they spend on the Internet. There are even some recovery camps in the US!
Is excessive use of the Internet an actual addiction, and, if it is, are recovery camps the best way to go about curing these individuals? These camps are structured like clinics for recovering drug addicts. That's right: according to places like South Korea, Internet addiction should be treated like it's a drug addiction. I know that sounds crazy, but that's precisely what these Internet recovery camps are: rehab clinics.
I understand there are some adults who are overly dependent on the Internet to a point where it runs their entire lives; however, these clinics should be for them and them alone. Young boys should not be wasting their time going to these clinics. Instead, their PARENTS should be the ones taking care of the situation. The young Korean boy's mom is distraught over her son's situation and decided to send him to one of these camps. I've got an idea: why doesn't the mom actually intervene in her child's life and take the Internet away from him? In Internet addiction involving kids, it should be the parents' job to monitor their children's Internet use, much like they would with homework or chores. In my opinion, these camps for kids are only here because of bad parenting. Just pull the plug on your child's Internet! Yes they need to learn and grow on their own, but children need guidance from their parents.
The only people who should attend these Internet recovery clinics are those individuals (not children) whose lives are completely consumed by the Internet, and it is affecting their physical and mental health, as well as the people around them. Other than those individuals, these camps are doing absolutely nothing for these children other than delaying the inevitable. They interviewed the Korean boy during his tenure at the camp, and instead of actually making progress, all the boy did was think about online gaming. When he was asked if this camp will ultimately help him, the young boy thought he would go right back to gaming once the clinic was over. This is exactly why parents should take some initiative and protect their kids from these types of things. Camps won't do anything for children: they need their parents. And it is the parents' fault for not intervening in their children's lives.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)