Surveillance

Right now, as I type this post I could be (and in fact probably are) being watched. Its scary when it is put in those terms. Do I really want some agent of surveillance following my digital traces and reporting back to some person who will look at my activity and decide whether I pose a threat or not?

Of course I don't, but the reality is I don't have a choice, unless I decide to cut off all forms of digital communication with people (which I don't want to do). In this day and age, this is an extremely hard thing to do, especially as it is now how most people communicate with those not in their immediate proximity. I think surveillance is necessary to an extent, whether it be formal surveillance by the govt for the good of the nation or by employers in order to ensure the protection of trade secrets. Surveillance has a place in the current technological age. However, how far is too far? Is it acceptable for a govt or employer to read the private conversations between 2 people? I think not. There is a reason NZ has a piece of legislation called the Privacy Act. This Act sets down the rules by which an agent may collect personal information from an individual and in the broadest sense the guidelines involve doing so for a lawful purpose, directly from the individual, with the individuals knowledge, in a way that does not intrude upon an individuals affairs, protects the information from others, allows the individual access to it at all times and does not disclose it to another agent or person without good reason. It seems to me that govts and employers are in breach of the principles of the Privacy Act. I know that most employers get their employees to sign an IT policy form which does cover them for the most part. However, I still feel that the line between what is acceptable surveillance and what isn't has great potential to be blurred.

I was actually quite surprised to find that I was guilty of peer to peer surveillance. I have never thought of my activities like that. I think that surveillance is a necessary thing, but that it is perhaps abused. People have a right to privacy. Think of the consequences on freedom of speech if surveillance is taken too far. People will be afraid to speak out and public debates will be severely hindered. Democracy will be undermined and fundamental rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act will be violated. An opinion on the subject is all very well, but what can be done to stop unnecessary and right-infringing surveillance when people do not even know they are being watched???

Copyright or creative comments???

In a world where technology is constantly developing to make the transfer of information, ideas and commodities easier and more efficient the traditional notion of copyright is being challenged. Some may say it is even becoming invalid. How is it possible for a person to track every person who has downloaded or copied their idea or creation? This is near impossible in regards to the internet; and who really wants to invest all their time and money in going after those people when in reality it will not stop copyright infringements from occurring. Even the big corporations are unable to have much of an impact. I think copyright must give way in some shape or form. In my opinion copyright is still important, but perhaps it is not such an effective legal tool as it once was. It still does its job in some respects, as it protects ideas but the fact that the onus is on the creator to enforce copyright of their work makes it somewhat invalid when tracking offenders is such a difficult task.

This is where I like the idea of creative comments. Authors work is still protected but the fact that they can decide what it is used for arguably gives them more control over it than copyright does. I also like the fact that it would free up intellectual ideas. If someone is smart enough to come up with such a wonderful idea or piece of work, why not share it with the masses? I think freedom of information is an important thing in this day and age. I think it is important that the authors are recognised and don't think it would be unreasonable for them to profit from their ideas, especially if they are good ones. To me, the fact that record companies expect us to pay $30 for a cd that cost them all of about 20cents to make is ridiculous and I am fully in support of sharing music online. The reality is the die hard fans will probably go out and buy the cd anyway. So copyright or creative comments?
I think copyright still has it's place, but regarding the sharing of information online it is perhaps becoming outdated and this is where creative comments steps in to fill the gap.

My Online Self

Todays lecture really got me thinking about my online self and whether it is in fact any different form my off line self. Having pondered this I have come to the conclusion that they are almost exactly the same. I am one of those people who are pretty truthful about themselves online. I could make up a new persona if I wanted to, but the reality is I'm happy with the one I've got. So when I pose as me online, you do pretty much get the 'real me', I do edit and omit certain things, but that is more for safety and security reasons.

I have heard of MMORPG's before and know a few people who are die-hard warhammer players. I have never actually played any of these games myself, they have just never held much of an interest for me. Although, I do think that if i got into them I would be hooked. I like the sound of second life, that is the type of MMORPG I probably would play. I do think that reality and virtual reality are becoming augmented, but I had no idea it was to such an extent or that virtual economies were so profitable. I have to say finding this fact out this morning did make me feel a little naive as to the world of virtual realities and communities out there. But I am learning and this paper has certainly opened my eyes to a whole new world accessible through my computer. I can definitely see why people become so involved in these games and if I were to use them it would be for socializing purposes, I guess playing the game would be a bonus. Anyways I'm off to discover more about this world I have been missing out on.
See you in class :)

Welcome to my C list blog

I wasn't aware of it until today, but I have a C-list blog. How exciting!!! Does this change the way I view my blog? To be honest no, I knew that only a small number of people were reading my blog and to be even more honest I cannot see why people outside our class would want to read this. It doesn't contain any gossip (did you hear Angelina might be having twins?), witty political commentary or insider secrets on how to drop 10 pounds in a day. However, to me this experience of writing a "series of dated entries" is new and I confess somewhat exciting, it doesn't even feel like an assessment. Participating in this social experiment of creating an online community in I guess what you would call a somewhat controlled environment has made me realise just how easy it is to make and become part of a virtual society.

I have actually never had much of an interest in blogs and knew/know very little about them, but increasingly I find myself reading the blogs on nzherald.com and exploring other blogs that are out there. In some ways its like reading a magazine, but you don't have to pay for it and it is more up-to-date. I like the idea of multiple contributors when it comes to blogs. I know that saying the internet is democratic would be a somewhat wishful and naieve statement, but allowing multiple contributors at least gives people who are passionate about a topic room to have their say. Mass media already permeates our everyday lives whether we want it to or not, it is inescapable. It seems only natural that it would manifest itself as blogs on the internet as well. I don't think that blogs are challenging the role of traditional mass media, rather I think they are making it more accessible to the masses. They compliment it as they are still putting the news out there, its just that the format is slightly different. Peoples responses and comments can be viewed as essentially letters to the editor in another form. As for a code of conduct, I like that idea, but it would be difficult to police and it would have to be careful not to limit people's right to free speech too much. The internet as a forum for freedom of expression and opinion is what makes it such an intriguing and exciting thing. You never know what you may find. Diversification makes for a better world, homogeneity is boring. Long live blogging!

authority on the internet

Authority on the internet is an interesting concept. I quite like the idea that anyone can be an author, even me! However, I also find that somewhat scary as that means some of the information available on the net is not necessarily true. Erika's wikipedia example is a good one. I don't think this will prevent me using information on the internet, but it will make me more careful about checking the source it has come from. I think the changes in authority on the internet are expected and as technology progresses we may find that the hierarchy continues to flatten. Its good for everyone to have a voice on the internet, it would be boring if all we could access was information that had been filtered and put out by an authority such as the government (like China for example). Information should be free to all. Of course it would make things easier if it was accurate, but lets be honest if we want freedom, we won't be able to have total accuracy. we cannot have our cake and eat it too, (although that would be nice)! I personally like wikipedia, but I only ever use it as a starting point or to clarify something, never as an authoritative source. This is because I have been warned numerous times that I shouldn't rely on it for accuracy, but how many other seemingly accurate sources are out there that we haven't been warned about and rely on???
That's the problem with the internet, there's so much information out there it makes it hard to be sure what is accurate and what's not.

Virtual communities, online identity and ties

I do confess that I found the readings quite hard going this week. Not because the subject matter they contained was difficult, but because there was a lot of content to get through. Virtual communities are an interesting concept. People can join a social network and exchange social capital without ever meeting those they are associating with. I think its interesting that anyone can join one of these communites and engage with people who share similiar interests. Its astounding to think about just how big these communities could get. However, they are self limiting, as Erika said in class people can only maintain a certain number of relationships before they just cannot spread their social capital any further. I think that virtual communities will become very important in the future as more and more people spend greater amounts of time in front of computers.

The idea that we can create a different identity online is an enticing concept. I like the idea that I can take on a new persona, but I am also aware that to be someone completely different is a difficult thing to achieve as we always put part of our true selves into our online identities, whether we intend to or not. Communication through language only can make interaction more challenging in some respects as it is not possible to read people's body language and facial expressions, which means many social cues aren't communicated. I guess emoticons and web cams combat this to some extent, but I don't think they can replace face to face interaction.

I think Wellman's idea of bonding and bridging ties is an accurate description of the different social bonds we form with people. I guess its not possible to have strong bonds with all the people you know, it would certainly leave you quite exhausted.

Week 3

Hey all,

Thank you very much to those who read my blog and to those who posted a comment. I think this whole cybersociety thing is really working well. I found this weeks readings quite interesting, they certainly changed my idea of what a hacker is. I always thought they were the stereotypical isolated, reclusive person who spent all day and night in front of their computer screen trying to 'break' into official websites (govt, big corps) to try to take control over their systems and steal data. How wrong I was, I guess I have the media (hollywood movies etc) to thank for cultivating that perception. Although, I guess that 'hacktivists' do actually do that sort of thing to an extent. But they do it in a form of peaceful political protest, in essence no different from the organised non-violent protest marches you see around the world, and they don't steal data. I have to say I agree with and like some of the original hacker ethics. Information should be freely available to everyone and whilst I think it is necessary to have some kind of authority to keep some sort of order in society (it would be total chaos otherwise), I do think that information is too centralised and much of it is 'privileged'. Not in the confidential sense, but in the sense that only some people are privileged enough to have access to it (govt agencies and officials etc). I agree with Douglas Thomas that hacking hasn't changed much, hackers are still accessing systems, the difference now is that they are 'black hats' accessing systems for personal gain rather than in the quest to discover and create. I guess that this shift was somewhat inevitable, with all the information people share about themselves online these days, someone was bound to take advantage of it and use it for a less than honest purpose. I'm sure that like everything though, where there is bad there is also good and out there somewhere there will be 'white hat' hackers using their skills for the good of everyone.

In relation to the concept of 'cyberterrorism' I think it is a genuine threat. With so many people using the internet around the world there is bound to be some form of terrorist activity. It could occur when the boundaries of hacktivism are pushed and taken a step too far thereby harming the life of people or persons or severely affecting a country's infrastructure. I like the idea of hacktivism as I think it is important that everyone has a voice and has the right to express their opinions. But where do you draw the line? and how long before it becomes blurred?
The internet's global reach provides an ideal forum for potential terrorist acts, and although there is surveillance by govts and large corporations, something is bound to slip through the net. Scary, scary thoughts...

Kat