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?

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!

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.

Reading Report #1

Our reading about web hoaxes, counterfeit sites, and other phony information out there on the internet greatly informed me of the lack of veracity in some web sites. I feel more confident now in my abilities to separate false internet information and authentic useful research information also found on the internet. I had no idea that crude web sites such as the one promoting white power and the demise of Martin Luther King Jr. even existed. Although we do live in the great land of free speech, it is sad that a kid in middle school could stumble across that site whilst actually trying to find truthful information on MLK for a school project. I feel that it is becoming an increasing problem for parents to be able to diligently monitor the information that their children are receiving over the net; for the sake of kids that are not yet old enough to decipher misinformation. I think it is great that some websites have dedicated themselves to keeping record of these hoax sites, but is that enough to keep the general public informed about misinformation? Although, the author of the article does have a point when stating that having some hoax sites can be useful and even prove to be a learning method. I only agree with this in that people can learn what they think is right from reading what other people have said, regardless of the veracity or ludicrousness’ about the subject, and doing so can help shape someone’s own informed opinion about that topic. Not to mention that some hoax sites are incredibly hilarious and are only put out in the publics eye for a good laugh. All in all, this article helped me understand that there is a lot of non-sense on the internet; and as a student, learning how to sift through web-sites to find out if the information portrayed is truthful is just as important as not committing plagiarism on a school paper.