The Tyranny of Copyright

 

 

 Recently, a few Swathmore college students set out to put a spotlight on inadequacies of the country’s voting machines.  They had come across 15,000 email messages and memos presumed leaked or stolen from Diebold Election Systems, makers of most of our election machines. In short, these messages centered around flaws in the software as well as security issues.

 

Remembering the events of the 2000 presidential election, the students decided to post the files on the internet.  While noble, the actions broke the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act.  The D.M.C.A belongs to a group of recent laws aimed at regulating intellectual property.  The act was engineered to protect copyrighted material on the web by making Internet service providers responsible for what its users post.  It’s quite simple, any aggrieved party threatens a lawsuit, the provider, to avoid liability removes the material, and everyone is happy.  This gives private parties almost absolute control over much of the information published online.

 

The Swathmore students, shortly after posting the memos, were charged with Copyright infringement by an angry Diebold.  Diebold insisted the material be removed from the site on the college’s server.    Swathmore made no argument and complied.  That is the D.M.A.C. in all it’s glory. 

 

While Diebold was in the right, legally, the students persistence and negative publicity forced the company to drop their lawsuit.  While the memos are now on the internet, there are quite a few fears from proponents of free speech on the net. 

 

The days of the “Wide Open Range” that was the Interet, are coming to a close and more and more is guarded.  Everything from girl scouts attacked for singing copyrighted songs around the campfire to authors and now proposed patents on genes are among the new wave of insanity. 

 

No one will argue that the film industry and the music industry are among the largest groups focused on protecting their enterprise from illegal downloads.  Everyone does it, but soon, thanks to successful lobbying, the companies will be able to lengthen copyright terms thereby controlling more and more.     

Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying

 

Bullying has existed for quite some time.  Physical means like mail, telephone, or face-to-face harassment have been widely used in blackmail or to simply ruin ones reputation.  With today’s technology, many people are finding themselves targets of cyberbullying via computers, cellphones, and PDA’s.  With a few words it is possible to ruin entire careers.  Stalkers can now use the internet to harass or threaten someone.  While this practice is affecting everyone, teens and young adults commonly find themselves targets.  Schools have become breeding grounds for the increasing problem.

 

It is a lot easier to bully and continue bullying when one can remain anonymous as well as physically distant.  Being threatened can be much more intimidating when your aggressor has no name or face.  Also, the lack of contact likely makes the bully more sinister and harder to trace.  Bullies can strategically or randomly choose victims and post  their private photos or other private information across the web.  With the click of a mouse or the thumbing of a keyboard, bullies can quickly reach millions with mass emails.  Bullying has always existed in one form or antoher, but cyberbullying is new and with it come new threats with the rise of technology.  There is a chance that it could become far worse than it is now. 

 

There are ways to protect yourself.  Do not make yourself a target by broadcasting your personal information, likes, and dislikes.  Keeping those who have access to your personal information few, it will be easier to maintain your privacy.  This will also make you a less likely target as well as make it easier to find out who might be bullying you. 

 

The last thing you want to do is encourage a bully by responding violently.  Bullies love to get reactions and you would be playing into the game.  It may be as simple as changing your email or password.    If it continues after that though, there may be a serious problem and the authorities should be contacted.  Keeping documented accounts of the activity would be a good idea.  Save documents, print and store messages or any other information you can. 

 

If you feel that you are a victim of cyberbullying, contact the police or even the FBI.  While there is a difference between free speech and criminal offences, law enforcement should be able to examine your case.  It might be a good idea to speak with your boss if it is work related of the school administration for schools because of specific policies they may have.  Spread the word.  Teach your children proper techniques of avoiding cyberbullying just as you learned to guard against viruses and other early internet threats. 

 

 

 

 

 

  

And Then There Were Four Summary

There are around four search engines out there that matter.  Most of us are aware that there are more, but only four are advanced enough to compete in today’s search engine world.  In 2003 Yahoo got rid of Google making Yahoo more than capable of turning itself into a major search engine. 

 

Microsoft, after feeling pressed between advertising engine Overture and the search engine Inktomi.  These both became Yahoo’s.  Microsoft, in 2003, began research testing out their own crawler which officially launched in 2005.  Microsoft could shut down Google just as they did with Netscape if they forget about capitalizing for a few years.  There appears to be no reasonable explanation for Google’s success other than mere hype.  Search engine design is common knowledge around the globe.

 

In the end,, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and even Teoma/AskJeeves, which really has to step up, rein kings of the Search Engine world. 

 

Google is obviously at the forefront of the search engine race.  Google own about 75 percent of referrals from most websites.  There is hope out there that one of the other three will provide some actual competition.  The fear is that if not, Google’s server’s will be home to our websites.

 

Independent webmasters are under a lot of pressure.  Google, from the inside is forcing itself to become Top Dog of the web.  The web is still open range, but Google is closing in fast and trying to buy up as much land as possible.

The struggle for advertising revenue is major.  The main consensus out there is that the only advertising with any real worth is the kind triggered after keyword searches.  For instance any keyword search on google will likely bring products up on your right screen loosely based on your actual search.  While you can’t be expected to absorb every bit of advertising on your screen, which today is roughly half.  Google was originally ad free.  Google cashing in big-time and they aren’t the only ones.

 

Yahoo and Microsoft are sadly losing interest in pure search algorithms.  It is more lucrative and thereby more attractive in pay for placement/pay-for-inclusion revenue stream.  There is still public sector sites like org, edu, and gov, that are expensed by google on the noncommercial side.  Google’s major boost came around when Alta Vista decided portals were the way to go and abandoned searching and crawling altogether.  This is much like the madness that is happening now with the push for advertising.

 

There is no Library of Congress online or any other public-sector websites.  Everyone is busy keying away on Google to realize that maybe there are spam free alternatives.

 

The main fear out there is that Google, showing no signs of protecting our searches, will give the Government full access.  No one talks about it but there is suspicion, or should I say that it is obvious that The Government knows full well what we are looking at.

 

I don’t see any real fix to the problem.  Google is going to own most of the Web.  They, by sounding catchy and being mentioned by most celebrities and anyone else with the voice to say, “I googled myself”, have created a virtual monopoly.  This has given them the opportunity to be the only real competition out there.  Given the size of Google it isn’t to hard to speculate that shady deals with the Government have been made because someone’s gonna do it and I’m sure Google doesn’t want to fall behind the power curve or risk alienation by the Government.  There are probably a lot of incentives in helping out Uncle Sam. And someon’s gonna do it anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

   

Photo I like

I chose this photo because it is the first one that came to mind. That being said, the first photo to come to my mind must be a pretty important one because there are many images inn my head at most times. This photo of South Vietnames Police commander Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong prisoner on a Saigon street not only screams at you from it’s frozen place in time, it is a reminder of what kind of imagery can help stifle public opinion of an ongoing mess of a war.

Net neutrality proposal revived in Senate

Imagine if there were only a few gatekeepers monitoring, controlling and taxing your web surfing. Imagine if the internet was controlled by only a few gatekeepers instead of it being the open range that it is now. Telecommunications executives would like to see this happen. They would love to have their internet acces similar to cable access where you pay for each channel you get. Maybe they would give you nice packages, but still you would be denied access to sites that are not in your plan.

There are people fighting to ensure this doesn’t happen. North Dakota Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan and Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe are working on the Internet Freedom Preservation act as well as campaigns from actors to tech-nerds. The Snow Drogan Legislation covers a lot of bases. Network operators would in no way be able to slow or stifle access to the wide range of net content. There will also be assurance that, as long as there is no security threat, external devices will be allowed use on the network. Another nice rule would be that the providers would, in the instance of creating special private pipelines, have to open them for public use. Of course the bill would allow companies to offer standalone broadband service. This does not mean that the consumer has to buy it. In the case of issues concerning the Bill, however, the Federal Communications Commission will be there to regulate.

The FCC recently accepted terms from AT@T regarding net neutrality in their merger with Bellsouth. AT@T knew this would expedite the merger although they obviously do not endorse net neutrality. AT@T as well as Verizon were among other companies which complained about the re-emergence of the Snowe-Drogan Bill. They argue that it will hinder advances in telecommunications, security, health monitoring, and entertainment choices.

Consumer advocacy groups, however championed the continued effort involving net neutrality. Sens. Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy, Hilary Clinton and Barak Obam among six democrats who co-sponsored. The only Republican, however was Snowe.

There seems to be continual effort in ensuring net neutrality in congress. I would love for the internet to be the “Wild West” forever. I believe big companies have plenty of ways to make money without tampering with internet freedom, but controlling the web would be a big money maker and companies just want to ensure that if there has to be a few they want to be in on it. It’s like selling weapons to foreign countries. It’s not right, but if someone is going to make money off of it, well, you get it. My biggest concern is that these companies will find a way to change words around enough to make it seem like net neutrality is unsafe and that there need to be more regulation in the interest of the people. People will believe just about anything.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!