Daniel Soloves article “The End of Privacy” focuses on privacy, the lack there of, and the internet. It is becoming more and more like second nature for people to have their interests, thoughts, pictures, amongst other little details of their lives, posted on the internet; knowing that this information in cyber space can reach people around the World. As more and more information is getting shoveled onto the internet, people are finally posing the question, how can we maintain our privacy in a cyber-world that was designed to be available to everyone? Likewise, how much privacy can people actually expect to have while using the internet? It is unfortunate that a teenager’s capricious use of the internet can hinder their chances at getting a job after graduating college because of stuff that they had on their Facebook page from years previous; but it happens, employers just like the rest of the general public can find ways into the so-called “personal” information on these social networking sites. Past, personal information posted on the internet about someone, or by someone doesn’t go away; there isn’t a trial period for being on the internet, once something is on there is will be on there forever. As Solove mentions in his article, this inhibits people from having the chance to “start over.” As people move from one phase of their lives to the next, there could be things in the past that the person would like to overcome, even forget but the internet won’t allow for that; it’s like a Pandora’s Box full of dirty little secrets. As technology continues to expand exponentially, it is our right and duty as citizens and technological users to protect ourselves! Human kind has proven itself smart enough to invent countless gizmos and gadgets that help make our day to day lives easier; the next step is to develop new ways to protect ourselves from the very new gizmos and gadgets that we have adopted into our culture.
I think that Solove’s article is great; he asks the kinds of questions that more citizens of the U.S. need to be asking. Such as, why is the closest U.S. privacy law for citizens an appropriation tort that is ineffective in being used for cyber-space? The world is changing, digitizing, our law makers and politicians have got to realize that they cannot continue doing their jobs the same ways it has always been done, and they have got to mold the laws to fit in a digital world.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Extra Credit: UNCW Library Mobile Device Website
I accessed the UNCW Library’s website through the browser on my Blackberry mobile device. I have to say, I am thoroughly impressed! I really like the initial view of the site being 9 same sized icons that then take you further into the site. I think that each specific item chosen to be an icon are the most useful places of the library website for a mobile user and it made navigating through them very simple. The site itself, as well as each individual page loaded quickly and with all of the images; although I only checked it while being connected to a WiFi network. One thing that did not load correctly was the computer availability map. The floor plan of the commons loaded fine and looks really good but all of the computers show up in a vertical row on the left side of the screen; rather than in their specific location on the map. You can still see the number count of available and unavailable computers so it isn't totally useless. I would be interested to see when the Library Catalog section is up and running next semester if everything on that page loads correctly just because of how much information it carries. One thing that I think might be useful under the “floor maps” section, would be a link to a text page that would have a simplified version of the library of congress classification system. This way students can see on the map what part of the library houses which sections of the general collection as well as going further and being able to find out what kinds of subject materials are in each section. I think this would be a great way to help students understand how the library is set up and open their eyes to the fact that you can actually browse library books by subject; I think you would be surprised to find out how many college students are actually unaware of this fact. However I would not label this link “Library of Congress Classification System” because then no one will click on it; something along the lines of “Browse the library’s General Collection by subject” and then on the actual page mention that it is the LCCS. I also think that it would be useful to have a little blurb on the actual library websites page about the mobile device website and have a link available until more of the student population knows that it is out there. I can see the mobile site being overlooked and un-used if people are unaware of its existence. That being said, I think that the mobile website looks great and is extremely useful and all students would benefit from using it. I hope that you all figure out fun ways to spread the word!
Thursday, November 11, 2010
News Report #5
“Will Your Local Library Lend E-Books? (Or Can They?)”
Audrey Watters, NY Times – Read Write Web
11/11/10
http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2010/11/10/10readwriteweb-will-your-local-library-lend-e-books-or-can-3532.html?ref=internet
Calling some Americans “old-fashioned” for preferring a bound book over its new fangled e-book counterpart and sadly you wouldn’t be making a statement that is too far off. Current sales of e-books, provided by Amazon, are heavily outweighing those of both paperback and hardcover books; proof that the written word has its place in the 21st century, in a digitized form. With the demand for e-books climbing, some publishers are concerned that their sales will plummet and the market for e-books will disappear altogether if they allow libraries to lend out e-books. The Publisher Association has decided that they will allow libraries to offer e-books with extreme limitations. The e-book reader will be confined to only being able to read the book while inside the library as well as only being able to lend one e-book to one individual at a given time. However, not all publishers agree with the restrictions, claiming that trying to “apply physical barriers to digital commodities shows a lack of digital understanding.” These publishers are expanding into an unknown territory for their company and have to treat this new market as such. Libraries will still be purchasing the books from the publishers and lending them out, one copy at a time, just like bound books.
I think it is outrageous that publishers are trying to limit the use of their digital products to libraries. It not only shows a lack of technological “respect” from the publishers but also a stifling sense of having information and literature controlled by “the man”. The article cited that one publisher, Faber and Faber, admitted themselves that libraries only account for 4% of their buying market for books. Considering that libraries will be continuing to buy books from publishers, however in the digital form, the publishers will still be receiving the same compensation as they would have been for their paperback versions. Hopefully the Publisher Association will come to their senses and begin to focus on the fact that the market for e-books has so much to offer the general public and less on what their company’s income statement looks like.
Audrey Watters, NY Times – Read Write Web
11/11/10
http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2010/11/10/10readwriteweb-will-your-local-library-lend-e-books-or-can-3532.html?ref=internet
Calling some Americans “old-fashioned” for preferring a bound book over its new fangled e-book counterpart and sadly you wouldn’t be making a statement that is too far off. Current sales of e-books, provided by Amazon, are heavily outweighing those of both paperback and hardcover books; proof that the written word has its place in the 21st century, in a digitized form. With the demand for e-books climbing, some publishers are concerned that their sales will plummet and the market for e-books will disappear altogether if they allow libraries to lend out e-books. The Publisher Association has decided that they will allow libraries to offer e-books with extreme limitations. The e-book reader will be confined to only being able to read the book while inside the library as well as only being able to lend one e-book to one individual at a given time. However, not all publishers agree with the restrictions, claiming that trying to “apply physical barriers to digital commodities shows a lack of digital understanding.” These publishers are expanding into an unknown territory for their company and have to treat this new market as such. Libraries will still be purchasing the books from the publishers and lending them out, one copy at a time, just like bound books.
I think it is outrageous that publishers are trying to limit the use of their digital products to libraries. It not only shows a lack of technological “respect” from the publishers but also a stifling sense of having information and literature controlled by “the man”. The article cited that one publisher, Faber and Faber, admitted themselves that libraries only account for 4% of their buying market for books. Considering that libraries will be continuing to buy books from publishers, however in the digital form, the publishers will still be receiving the same compensation as they would have been for their paperback versions. Hopefully the Publisher Association will come to their senses and begin to focus on the fact that the market for e-books has so much to offer the general public and less on what their company’s income statement looks like.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Reading Report #3
Both of the readings were centered around the general idea that libraries are not obsolete and have much room for the general publics use in the modern future. The first article, “Why the next big pop-culture wave after cupcakes might be libraries” focused on the good qualities of libraries and how although they are often overlooked, libraries can be a social place filled with a diverse group of people and personalities. The article was very easy to read and had a comical attitude within its contents. This reinforced the theme that libraries today are/can be a fun place to go and hang out. They touched on the fact of the goodwill of libraries in that they offer all that they have to give, to any person, for free. I think if this article was publicized enough, more people would realize that their local library is a very convenient receptacle for renting books and movies, all for free. The second article, “The ‘library of the future’ begins to emerge” focused more on the modern library and all that is in store for libraries in the ever expanding technological world. The author focused on how the general public needs to shift from viewing the library as a stiff place filled with dusty books and the stereotypical librarian telling people to hush, to the more modern reality of the library being a diverse center for receiving and passing on information. She emphasized the fact that libraries are not only a place for obtaining information but also a place for inquiring minds to meet and socialize. Also discussed in the article, libraries are molding their services and buildings to reflect the changes in the way we receive information due to changes in technology. Most all libraries now have computer stations and offer classes on computer training.
I think that it is a great thing that librarians and knowledge lovers everywhere will not allow the idea of libraries becoming extinct to enter into their minds, nor less be depicted in their actions. Libraries should continue to serve as a communities center for information, learning, and discussing knowledge with other members of the community. Although, it is hard for such a technologically centered business to be ran with the endless changes and upgrades in technology; it might seem as though libraries are always lagging behind. It is great that libraries are making a valiant effort to modernize and adapt to new ways of thinking and handling information. I truly believe that as long as libraries continue to stay connected with technology and promote themselves in the truly fun-loving giving manor that they operate in, they will always have their place in society.
I think that it is a great thing that librarians and knowledge lovers everywhere will not allow the idea of libraries becoming extinct to enter into their minds, nor less be depicted in their actions. Libraries should continue to serve as a communities center for information, learning, and discussing knowledge with other members of the community. Although, it is hard for such a technologically centered business to be ran with the endless changes and upgrades in technology; it might seem as though libraries are always lagging behind. It is great that libraries are making a valiant effort to modernize and adapt to new ways of thinking and handling information. I truly believe that as long as libraries continue to stay connected with technology and promote themselves in the truly fun-loving giving manor that they operate in, they will always have their place in society.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
News Report #3
U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet
Charlie Savage, New York Times
9/27/2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=technology
As the influx of people communicating over the Internet has continued to exponentially increase, our government is trying to combat new ways in which to monitor cyber conversations. A new Obama administration plan will work to combat an increasing problem that national security officials are having, tracking their suspect’s communications over the Internet as they have been with telephone communications. Internet services that enable communications, such as encrypted e-mail messages, social networking (Facebook), and direct “peer to peer” messaging (Skype) are all services in which currently the authorities cannot efficiently wiretap or decode messages sent by users. The proposed bill will require such communication-heavy Internet sites to themselves develop a way in which, when asked to do so, their company can provide the government with whatever raw text data one user sent or said to another user. This will have huge repercussions for the companies involved in that they will have to spend their time, money and resources to develop such a security system rather than promoting new advances in their services; as well as having to admit to their users that the services they provide will now be subjected to the government, whom has a lawfully sound way of obtaining the so called private conversations held over the Internet. If providers do not comply with developing the services the government will slap a fine on them or force them to face some penalty. While this seems like a necessary precaution to be taken by the government, some are worried that, “requiring interception capabilities” will create “holes” that will be predictably exploited by hackers who aim at making the government look foolish.
I understand where the government is coming from. There are some sick people in this world who want nothing more than to wreak havoc and cause harm to others. In this sense I sympathize with the government for wanting to be able to monitor those who could potentially be planning threats to our country and its citizens. The government has been lawfully able to listen in on phone conversations for decades and yet people still continue to talk freely on their phones. In the same sense I do not think that this bill will heavily affect those users out there who are communicating over the Internet for pleasure, as compared to those users that are constructing plans to take over the world. As the global population continues to increase exponentially the threat of disaster also increases, as does the need for people to feel safe. The government takes it upon themselves to, in the only seemingly small minded ways they know how, keep their people safe from harm. Although practices such as wiretapping may seem an infringement on the freedom of the general public, the general public has to realize that as long as they are not doing something that the government should be suspicious about, they need not worry. On the complete other hand, I hate that I just had to rationalize the right of someone to legally be able to snoop on other people. Will small steps like these being taken by our government now only lead to further people’s acceptance of being monitored? As technological advancements soar, won’t the need for interception also soar? How much will the general public be able to take?
Charlie Savage, New York Times
9/27/2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=technology
As the influx of people communicating over the Internet has continued to exponentially increase, our government is trying to combat new ways in which to monitor cyber conversations. A new Obama administration plan will work to combat an increasing problem that national security officials are having, tracking their suspect’s communications over the Internet as they have been with telephone communications. Internet services that enable communications, such as encrypted e-mail messages, social networking (Facebook), and direct “peer to peer” messaging (Skype) are all services in which currently the authorities cannot efficiently wiretap or decode messages sent by users. The proposed bill will require such communication-heavy Internet sites to themselves develop a way in which, when asked to do so, their company can provide the government with whatever raw text data one user sent or said to another user. This will have huge repercussions for the companies involved in that they will have to spend their time, money and resources to develop such a security system rather than promoting new advances in their services; as well as having to admit to their users that the services they provide will now be subjected to the government, whom has a lawfully sound way of obtaining the so called private conversations held over the Internet. If providers do not comply with developing the services the government will slap a fine on them or force them to face some penalty. While this seems like a necessary precaution to be taken by the government, some are worried that, “requiring interception capabilities” will create “holes” that will be predictably exploited by hackers who aim at making the government look foolish.
I understand where the government is coming from. There are some sick people in this world who want nothing more than to wreak havoc and cause harm to others. In this sense I sympathize with the government for wanting to be able to monitor those who could potentially be planning threats to our country and its citizens. The government has been lawfully able to listen in on phone conversations for decades and yet people still continue to talk freely on their phones. In the same sense I do not think that this bill will heavily affect those users out there who are communicating over the Internet for pleasure, as compared to those users that are constructing plans to take over the world. As the global population continues to increase exponentially the threat of disaster also increases, as does the need for people to feel safe. The government takes it upon themselves to, in the only seemingly small minded ways they know how, keep their people safe from harm. Although practices such as wiretapping may seem an infringement on the freedom of the general public, the general public has to realize that as long as they are not doing something that the government should be suspicious about, they need not worry. On the complete other hand, I hate that I just had to rationalize the right of someone to legally be able to snoop on other people. Will small steps like these being taken by our government now only lead to further people’s acceptance of being monitored? As technological advancements soar, won’t the need for interception also soar? How much will the general public be able to take?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
News Report #2
"Fastest Net Service in U.S. Coming to Chattanooga”
Steve Lohr, NY Times
9/12/2010
In today’s world time, in terms of speed, has become an increasingly important and some-what manageable factor in our daily lives. It is nonnegotiable that high-speed internet has become the holy of holy’s in our never-ending race to have more time. Surprisingly enough, the average broadband speed in America lags far behind the newest technological competition. Only a few cities around the world have begun to offer the highest-speed service that has the capabilities of up to one gigabit per second. That equals to being a whopping 200 times faster than our old broadband. EPB, Chattanooga, Tennessee’s city-owned electric utility, has announced that they plan to offer their customers with this ultra-high-speed internet service by the end of the year. This will make Chattanooga the first city in the United States to offer such digital capabilities. Since the technology is so new, the service will be offered at the seemingly steep price of $350 a month. Given the price range, EPB does not expect to have a large demand for their one-gigabit-per-second service; rather, EPB believes in offering it simply because they can do so at minimal additional expenses to their company. EPB has the capabilities of offering the service in part because of their smart-grid network, which requires fiber optic cables running to every household and computerized meters in homes. Doctors in Chattanooga are already excited about acquiring the service; knowing that when they do they will be able to upload/download medical images at a much faster rate than before.
Even though the initial price to consumers has been set at a largely higher rate than current internet prices, I think it is great that Chattanooga and EPB have taken the initiative to begin the United States fight in modernization of technologies. I believe it is essential that the United States, the founders of the Internet itself, should remain in high standing with the latest technologies. Not to mention that doing so will allow us to further our economic development through Internet based products and services, and could potentially revolutionize the way our health system manages and interprets our medical records. Overall, kudos to Chattanooga for wanting to become a leader in the world’s fastest Internet; hopefully the rest of the U.S. can catch up soon!
Steve Lohr, NY Times
9/12/2010
In today’s world time, in terms of speed, has become an increasingly important and some-what manageable factor in our daily lives. It is nonnegotiable that high-speed internet has become the holy of holy’s in our never-ending race to have more time. Surprisingly enough, the average broadband speed in America lags far behind the newest technological competition. Only a few cities around the world have begun to offer the highest-speed service that has the capabilities of up to one gigabit per second. That equals to being a whopping 200 times faster than our old broadband. EPB, Chattanooga, Tennessee’s city-owned electric utility, has announced that they plan to offer their customers with this ultra-high-speed internet service by the end of the year. This will make Chattanooga the first city in the United States to offer such digital capabilities. Since the technology is so new, the service will be offered at the seemingly steep price of $350 a month. Given the price range, EPB does not expect to have a large demand for their one-gigabit-per-second service; rather, EPB believes in offering it simply because they can do so at minimal additional expenses to their company. EPB has the capabilities of offering the service in part because of their smart-grid network, which requires fiber optic cables running to every household and computerized meters in homes. Doctors in Chattanooga are already excited about acquiring the service; knowing that when they do they will be able to upload/download medical images at a much faster rate than before.
Even though the initial price to consumers has been set at a largely higher rate than current internet prices, I think it is great that Chattanooga and EPB have taken the initiative to begin the United States fight in modernization of technologies. I believe it is essential that the United States, the founders of the Internet itself, should remain in high standing with the latest technologies. Not to mention that doing so will allow us to further our economic development through Internet based products and services, and could potentially revolutionize the way our health system manages and interprets our medical records. Overall, kudos to Chattanooga for wanting to become a leader in the world’s fastest Internet; hopefully the rest of the U.S. can catch up soon!
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Reading Report #2
When it was first introduced to the internet, Wikipedia soared in popularity. People became enticed with the fact that they could edit articles on a collaborative encyclopedia; in actuality people could add in their own “two cents” about a subject of interest. However, in more recent years Wikipedia’s growth has come to a cautious halt. With over 3 million articles stored in their gigantic database, it comes as no surprise to me that the general public has lost interest in adding or editing the already lengthy and, as best we know, accurate subject matters. Yet this phenomenon of halted un-exponential web-based growth has left Wikipedia’s site runners/developers flabbergasted. Could this be due to the fact that it has become increasingly harder for people to get their edits seen on Wikipedia? Is this do to the fact that there is already so much information posted, in part by scholarly individuals, that most of the public just accept it all as truth? Has the addition of editors to Wikipedia which now correct the public’s edits on articles caused doing so less attractive to most? Have people generally stopped using Wikipedia because some of the crap on there is a hoax and is not worth anyone’s time?
In my mind in order to dig deeper into why this is happening one must take the time to step back and think of Wikipedia as more than just a website. Think of Wikipedia in terms of being a functioning part in society; a part of our culture, our morals and values, the very things that have historically group masses of people together. Now in this sense, Wikipedia has crossed so many thresholds. They have intertwined together different societies into one large information database that stores the collectives thoughts instead of one person or publishers direction. Why then have users stopped adding or editing their greatest areas of expertise to be seen and understood by the world? In my opinion, the downfall of Wikipedia is simple, it has gotten too big! Perhaps there is really no way for any one place on this great green Earth to grow exponentially, even if the place is located on the internet. I do believe Wikipedia has proven useful for finding out answers to everyday questions that need no further research than a skimmed reading. However I also think there is a highly likely possibility that Wikipedia will become a thing of the past; a reference to this time in history and how our generation started going about providing masses of people with a central location for editable information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)