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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)