Cloaked Websites

The whole idea of cloaked websites is quite an intricate concept. As defined in class, this concept can be described as "Sites that are published by individuals or groups who conceal authorship in order to disguise deliberately a hidden agenda." This is most commonly used in cyber racism, where websites will appear to be innocent enough, whether it will be because of the domain name or even graphics. However, upon closer inspection the reader discovers that the information provided instead is biased and indeed racist to some degree.

Shockingly, as I have come to learn through research done online, it is rather easy to hide authorship so when reading information on the Internet, websites can remain anonymous. For example, there is a how-to guide on Yahoo Answers about how to conceal authorship ( http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080209180156AA90zlU).

Information like this should not be provided on the Internet. Individuals should not be able to hide who they are if they are going to post information online for others to read. Authors should be held accountable for what they provide to readers. Without associating a name with information, how will the Internet be able to monitor what is happening if they cannot know how to watch?

Although I know it would be difficult to regulate, there should be guidelines put in place to make sure that authorship is required and used for every website or post that is put on the Internet. Without it, responsibility could not be properly dictated and discussed with users. In order to make sure that the Web provides the most up-to-date and honest information, we have a responsibility as readers and managers to report such behavior when it is questionable.

Cyberbullying: The 21st Century Form of Torture

This video above depicts only one of the many cases of cyber bullying which ended in tragedy. Megan, the girl shown above killed herself after she started talking to a boy online. At first everything was fine, but then he started calling her names. It got so excessive that she ended up killing herself. Only after an investigation was done did it in fact show this teenager was being bullied by a grown woman, posing as a boy.

Cyber bullying, which has really started occurring more frequently in the past couple of years, is a new form of torture. This attack can occur either over texting, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, e-mails, etc. Once it is out there in cyberspace, it can be uploaded for the whole world to see. More importantly, it seems to me that cyber bullying stings more than verbal abuse. When you see words in front of you in a document, they are forever etched into your head. First of all, more people can see it and take part in it. It is easier for people to join in on the torment because it is more open to everyone as opposed to just a phone call. Secondly, the information never disappears, as opposed to voice mails that can be deleted.

There needs to be more done in order to stop such atrocities from happening. Whether it would be in forms of stricter legislation or just better regulation of such social networking sites. This is preventable, but we need to take measures to make sure this doesn't happen. Individuals have already taken steps to help eliminate cyber bullying by creating online groups such as "STOP cyberbullying" which discusses why this happens and things that can be done with regards to prevention (http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/index2.html). However, much more can and should be done so that teenagers do not end their lives over something that is said over the Internet. Even though at the time they might think their life is over, they need to realize that it is not.

Democratizing Knowledge: Can it Ever Happen?

Every week I try to read one of my magazines so that I can recycle them and start to de-clutter my room. This week's challenge was November's 2009 InStyle which is pictured above. One of the articles, as advertised on the cover, discusses their favorite websites online. In the section, 10 Essential Bookmarks, the editors promote one site, Straightup Headlines (http://www.straightupheadlines.com/). As the article says:

We love this site, which serves up scoops according to your specific
area of interest, whether it's fashion, food or politics. You can scan for
a quick overview of all the important news and then click to see the complete
stories (InStyle, November 2009, pg. 245).

I thought this piece was very interesting because it related to what we were discussing in class about the democratizing of knowledge on the Internet. Sites such like these tend to promote the idea of personalization, which when all is said and done, do nothing to increase the reader's knowledge of other topics. Because users are able to pick what they want to read, they will bypass all the other news articles that don't appeal to them for whatever reason.

Although I believe that having favorite websites that discuss the kind of information you love is good, it takes away from everything else that a person should read to be able to make an informed decision. In that respect, I believe Sunstein's argument that without expanding a person's horizon of knowledge, individuals will not be able to come together in order to make important decisions that impact society. Everyone needs to have experiences from different backgrounds to make informed choices. Without it, how will they know if their decisions are right?

Furthermore, Internet websites should take a more active stand in being able to make regulations for information posted online. There should be requirements to tell all websites to provide opposing information to allow the readers the option to click on the link (although that doesn't mean they always will). Without some regulation, the gap between opposing minds will only increase.

China and Yahoo

In class this Thursday, we discussed the role of the government and the Internet and if the two entities can coincide. On one hand, the Internet which does not have any boundaries is difficult to define by a country's law. Then, on the other hand, we have the example of Yahoo, which signed an agreement with China that named Yahoo as the sole Internet provider, but required them to censor some of the hits that would result from searches because they were not deemed acceptable by the Chinese government.

What particularly caught my eye was the piece at the end of the first chapter, that explained how, because of its obligation to China, Yahoo turned over the name of an user who sent an e-mail out criticizing the government. As the selection said, Shi Tao (the author of the the e-mail), "was thrown into prison for ten years" (10). In my quest for information about this particular case, I came across a website called Human Rights For China. It has a lot of information about his particular case, including what they have done specifically to help Tao as well as a link to the media coverage the case has been getting (Find the link to the website here: http://www.hrichina.org/public/highlight/).

This website is really interesting, because it explains the efforts of the organization and what they are doing to help appeal Tao's conviction in a attempt to get him out of jail. They also have press releases detailing all the legal steps they have taken and the dates which they have filed them as well as Yahoo's policies regarding everything in their company.

Sadly, this is only one example of what is happening when governments are allowed to censor the information that can either be attained or sent over the Internet. The simple freedoms and liberties we have in America should not be taken lightly because, as this case demonstrates, people have given up years of their life to get their voices heard. Although I agree that some regulations and governance needs to be enacted to see what is put online, what China is doing seems too dramatic. People should not be punished for expressing their views. These are basic human rights. No matter where you live, everyone should be entitled to it.

Betty White's Hosting Gig on SNL: Pure Fate or Facebook Guided?

We concentrated this week in class on forming action groups on the Internet. Some individuals when asked believe that it is a great development for society and Internet users. For example, citizens throughout the country would be able to connect to individuals that would never interact otherwise. On the other hand, there are skeptics who are afraid that these action groups would end up having too much power. Is it wrong for people to have a voice and be able to use it to their advantage?

After this discussion in class, I was reminded of the big hoopla surrounding Betty White. This was a big year for the star. Not only did she get praise for her role in "The Proposal," but also received lifetime achievement awards for all that she has contributed in the entertainment industry. With everything that she has been able to do, fans of the actress wondered why she has yet to host Saturday Night Live?

They talked and talked, but got nowhere. That's when they took their argument online and tried to gather as much support for her to host SNL that was possible. One way was to (surprise, surprise) create a group on Facebook entitled "Betty White to Host SNL (please?)!" Find the link here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Betty-White-to-Host-SNL-please/266442514828?v=info

With the help of online group members (503,806 to be precise), Ms. Betty White has finally accepted the hosting gig and will make her debut on May 8, 2010. Many people wonder why this time she said yes or why this was so important to her fans for her to host. Perhaps the reason for media coverage was not because she agreed, but rather the extent her supporters would go to get her on the show. To be quite honest, it is very impressive their dedication to White. Not only was it impressive, but it should what mass groups could do when they all have the same voice.

Dedication is key to any major action group that is founded on the Internet. In my personal opinion, I believe it is fascinating to see how much a group of individuals can impact or change a course of events. Not many people can say they have been able to do anything productive while in a group. The majority of the time, people fail to gain any attention or motivate individuals to assist in their cause. However, with the creation of social networking pages like MySpace, Twitter, and Facebook, spreading the news has become a lot easier. It is more convenient to find people with similar interests so that you have a comfort circle. This is the way the Internet is developing and at this point there is no turning back.

School Laptops: A Great New Idea or A Curse?

As you all know, we have been watching different parts of a documentary for the past few weeks. One segment that I found particularly interesting was the one that talked about the school in New York City that gave all students laptops to use inside as well as outside of the classroom. This opportunity has numerous benefits for students. They are allowed, by using technology in the classroom to not only understand computers in a brand new way but also the

subject being taught. Also, it allows teachers to conform to some pressures that educators are facing with regards to computers, and more specifically the Internet, becoming the new way of teaching. By allowing students to have laptops in class, teachers implement important new methods for teaching while still allowing educators to use a lecture format during the period.

However, one downside would be that sometimes, administrators take advantage of being able to hack, in a sense, into students' laptops to see what they are doing. In fact, a case just broke in the news cycle when a student accused a school district in Pennsylvania for monitoring students when they were not in school (you can find the link right here:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9162940/_Spygate_teenager_demands_webcam_pix_from_Pa._school?taxonomyId=15).

In a sense, this is a student's worse nightmare. They feel that, in the security of their own home, they should not worry about being monitored by anyone, let alone a school representative. To be honest, that is really creepy! If you are worried about particular adolescents selling drugs or pills (which was the claim in this article), they should monitor them at school. Also, administrators should not feel that they have the authority to commit these acts. Not only does this cross a line of what is appropriate, but also one of privacy.

If school districts allow students to have laptops, they should make sure that there are some regulations in place to insure that officials cannot take advantage of the power they have. Students should have privacy at home. In school, I think it is a different issue because teachers and administrators have a right to know what is being accomplished in a school setting. But there has to be limits. If not their whole life is an open book.

There Isn't an App for Everything...

I'm not shy to admit it. I have an iPhone and I absolutely love it. To be honest, it is normally always attached to my hand and I rarely go anywhere without it. Therefore, I found Jonathan Zittrain's article, "The Future of the Internet-And How to Stop It" very interesting because some of the devices mentioned have a direct relationship about the applications I use and which are available to me. Before getting into the article, we discussed the history and, more specifically, generativity vs. tethered devices.

Tethered devices particularly interested me, because, as stated above, I have an iPhone and I frequently visit the App Store. Now, as mentioned in class, these devices do not allow any form of tinkering, pretty much the complete opposite of generativity. Individuals are not allowed to try to better any kind of software. What kind of consumer would appreciate such limitations?

To some extent, I can understand Apple's hesitancy when deciding on how all the applications can work or be produced. However, they should allow those who buy the handheld devices to be able to devise their own applications for the phone. They know that they want. Let the consumer speak! Who better to satisfy whatever craving they have to improving their phone than them?

Currently, there are many applications which have yet to be produced. Therefore, why not give people the freedom to create what they want? Because, when push comes to shove, if one person wants a certain application, there are probably at least ten more who want it as well. Why fight the consumers and punish them with certain restrictions? It could not hurt the industry, but rather improve it. Of course there need to be regulations, but if there are Apple and others can make a profit from this new relationship.