The Internet: Hype and Glory - Recently Updated Pages

Digital Dating

kmsordel — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:26:14 CST

by Emily Ayotte and Kara Sordelett

Introduction

Dating has evolved over the past decade. With new technology, there are easier ways to meet people without the hassle of awkward conversations. We plan to uncover the changes that certain dating sites have initiated. In an era where most communication is established via electronics, intimate relationships have already begun to evolve and may continue to change with technologies continually developing.

There are several aspects of dating that are affected when using dating sites, such as Eharmony.com, Chemistry.com, and Match.com. The most important aspect that we have discovered is the speed at which relationships grow. We also found that there are different reasons for using the sites. These reasons vary between male and female: newly single, divorced, and unsuccessful daters. Not only are there differences in gender and status, but also in age, for example some of the sites are geared towards a middle-aged bracket, while others are for younger daters.

Dating Sites

The three dating sites that we researched were Eharmony.com, Chemistry.com, and Match.com. Each site is available to anyone over eighteen years old who is interested in dating or even marriage.

Eharmony.com
This is a pay-by-month dating site that is considered more conservative and for a middle-aged user. There is even a section for married couples that need advice and counseling. This site is more geared towards finding a spouse rather than casual dating. Because of this, they only allow for heterosexual members to use their site. Unless they are running a special, the user must pay first to access any part of this site.

Chemistry.com
This site is a dating site for all ages and sexual orientations. When first joining, the user is required to complete a personality assessment and answer personal questions. Some of the questions are displayed on the user’s profile, while others help to determine what type of person they are compatible with. After completing the survey, an evaluation is given back about your personality type and what type of personality you would be compatible with. There are four different types of personality: Builder, Explorer, Director, and Negotiator. Each of these types are then related to the questions which were answered in the survey. It is broken down on a 100% scale, for example I (Emily) am 25% Explorer, 26% Builder, 30% Negotiator, and 17% Director. This appears to stereotype the user and then chooses the match based on these stereotypes. It could almost be viewed as a type of astrological reading.

Match.com
Match.com is similar to Chemistry.com because it does not discriminate based on the user’s sexuality. After answering a series of questions, Match.com then selects your matches based on the similarities in answers. Match.com allows the users to either view results based on mutual likes and dislikes (mutual match) or by searching who is looking for a person like you, a reverse match. The users with the higher percentages of similarities are shown first.

Reasons for Using Dating Sites

After interviewing several people who have used dating sites, we discovered that there are several reasons why people chose to use the technology. We received answers from never married, single, college-aged students that resulted in being new to the area, the promise of free match reviews and simply curiosity. The others we interviewed were divorced, middle-aged women who claimed it was too hard to start dating again and "getting out there."

One of the middle-aged users claimed that she did not want to put herself completely out in the open, but wanted to share some information about herself with an interesting match. After being divorced for three years, this woman realized that beginning to date again was going to be an awkward transition. She believed that joining a dating site would take some of the pressure out of meeting new men.

One of the male participants is new to the area and felt that he didn't have anything to lose joining a dating site. Only 25, he believed if he met his matches and they weren't perfect for dating, he could at least make a few new friends. He did however express a preference for meeting women randomly, but didn't know what all of his options could be.

A 21-year old female had broken off a marriage engagement this past March. She felt that it would be nearly impossible to meet a guy that could treat her how she wanted or deserved. She also didn't want to meet someone in a bar and use him as a rebound. With this in mind, she joined a dating site, intrigued by the promise of viewing free matches and then became a paying user.

Age Group Differences

All the participants that took our survey claimed that they used the site for the genuine reason of meeting a person they could date or even marry. We found most of the younger participants were interested in the casual dating scene, while the middle-aged participants claimed to be more inclined to join the sites to find a spouse.

When it came to disclosing information, we found that the college-aged participants were more likely to reveal more about their personal life. The younger users felt more comfortable posting more than one photo of themselves. The middle-aged users were more conservative and chose not to reveal as much information, including posting one picture, if any. For instance, a 65-year-old female was more concerned with displaying her interests and ideals than her photo. She also looked for compatible interests in the other profiles.

Acceleration of Relationships

The instant biographies given by these sites allow the user to scrutinize, stereotype, and ultimately chose or reject certain matches based on a basic profile and sometimes a picture. While the user wants to trust the information given, there is still a possibility that the other user could be lying or making themselves more “attractive” in character. This could be considered a disadvantage because not everyone joins for the same reasons or with the same expectations.

Because these dating sites speed-up the dating process there is discrepancy between how online dating and regular dating progress in terms of time. This could be a positive or negative effect for the couple. If they actually are compatible and chose to continue their relationship without technology, this could result in a great relationship and possibly marriage.

One example of accelerated dating was when a match was made and within the two weeks after being matched, a girl was asked to move in with her new boyfriend. Yes, they had chosen to take the next step from talking online to becoming a couple, but how fast is too fast? For this particular couple, he believed things were not moving too fast and that this would be the best decision for their relationship; whereas she was taken aback and had to decline his proposal but still contemplated the “what if’s” of the new situation.

The idea of speeding up the dating process online is one problem, but we believe that it has leaked into the actual dating world. Couples have different expectations depending on their needs, but has internet dating made couples more demanding in their relationships? Age plays a big part in the acceleration of relationships, but there were still similarities between each age group. It is more common for the divorced or older users to need an accelerated relationship, whereas the college-aged users still have a lot of time to casually date.

Conclusion
Our ethnography proved that dating sites have improved and hindered the dating process in several ways. Because we only interviewed a small population of the dating community on the internet we could not make an accurate accusation of the effects, but we found several similarities that proved our hypothesis. We found that expectations in relationships have increased and couples are moving faster into the next phase, which can prove disastrous in some cases. Even though we have only a few user experiences, we concluded that online dating has actually changed the expectations, speed, and longevity of serious relationships, casual dating, and even marriage.

Meghan's Principles

jhcollier3 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:42:19 CST

Meghan Malinowski

The Intertnet should be free of charge
This principle, to me, means that everyone with a computer should have the ability and means to surf the web for anything and everything and no matter how long a person spends logged onto the internet, the use should always never coincide with a dollar amount. No one should be charged for the internet because the internet is an open public site. This principle should be taken seriously because a student researching online and a disabled person buying Christmas presents online should not have to pay to access vital sites. If the internet had a price sticker on it, it would be like charging an entrance fee to a public library and a clothing store.

The Internet should not be censored.
This principle is saying that the internet should not be allowed to ban anything from any site out there on the web. From this principle, any one can write about anything; people can brag and go into detail about a co-worker she recently slept with and people can bash a former president all they want without getting in trouble for it. This should be adopted because everyone in America has the right to free speech, but no one really has to read it if he or she does not want to. This principle is saying that the internet should be opened like how a street corner is with a person on a soap box screaming through a megaphone.

Hate speech on the Internet should be restricted.
This principle should be taken very seriously by internet users. This principle is one that should be implemented because no one should be harmed in anyway from what a person or group of people say on a website. Anything can be viewed as hate speech, so it should all be restricted. A person can just say that he or she does not like the attitude of another person or some one can say that they want to kill a person and list his or her home address. Hate speech should be restricted because no one should be forced to worry and that they will get hurt because of it, no matter how false the statement is.

Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to create a social networking account.
An easy way for predators to target children is through the internet. One way to keep children from going through any physical and mental pain caused by being stalked or harassed through social networking sites is to keep children off them. This principle means that there will be a secure way to check if someone is of age or not to access sites such as My Space or Facebook. More and more children are being fooled into giving out too much personal information on sites that can be accessed by anyone anywhere between the ages of 4 and 74. This principle should be adopted by readers because hopefully with maturity, young adults will know better and realize safe behaviors on-line.

Businesses/companies should not access potential employees' blogs and/or social networking page.
This principle statement deals with the privacy, or lack of it, on open sites. Even though users of those social networking pages know that pretty much anyone can view pictures users put up of themselves, that group of anyone should not include possible employers. This statement should be adopted because even though users of social networking pages have the freedom to put up anything on their own sites, employers should not make possibly false assumptions based on one controversial picture. People definitely grow up and mature after college so a picture dated back when they were in high school should not cost someone a job. Employers can loose highly qualified workers that are a pleasure to be around based off of one picture that was taken years and years ago.

Privacy settings, company regulations and other information regarding email ought to be simple and easily accessible for users.
This statement is saying that everyone should have the choice to privacy settings on his or her work computer and those setting should be readily available. This should be adopted because everyone has the right to privacy, even at work. Employers should make an effort to teach their employees on how to use privacy settings to not only keep their employees safe, but their entire company as well. It is all too easy for some one to hack into one company computer and steal millions of dollars. In the long run, this principle will be beneficial to everyone.

Sites that allow users to find the location of others without their consent should be eliminated.
This principle makes me automatically think of Googlemaps. Anyone that wants to find another person can type in his or her address and find an exact picture of their house, and even find out the model of his or her car if parked out on the street. With open sites such as Facebook and My Space, users have the option to include his or her address, but Googlemaps does not have that choice. Sites such as this should be eliminated because it is a breech of privacy. Sure, Googlemaps only meant the site to be fun and helpful, but if this principle were not adopted by readers, some one with too much time on their hands could come to the conclusion that the person down the street from them has a car that they want to steal.

All forum and chat room-based websites must require users to provide valid registration information.
A secure site that accurately can validate a person’s information and either allow them or not in chat rooms would be highly useful. This principle would stop a tremendous amount of on-line child predators and theft on the internet. Users would never have to question who was typing to them in a chat room and asking them questions because no one could pretend that he or she was someone else. People that innocently use chat rooms to connect to the rest of the world would be much safer knowing that the person under the screen name was really legitimate.

The Internet should encourage responsible government participation.
This statement takes the stand that everyone should be informed about what is going on in the government. Everyone should be informed to then have the ability to make educated decisions regarding voting and how each person running, whether it be for congress or the next president and how their polices will change the government. This should be done through the internet because almost every single household in America has at least one computer and information can be accessed much quicker and cheaper that way. This should be adopted because everyone should know what is going on in his or her country, and the information should be open and easily available.

The Internet should not be owned or controlled by any one person or organization. As previously stated, the internet should be open and free to everyone. With that said, this principle wants to make it known that no one can or will have the ultimate say on how the internet workers, what goes on it, or who is allowed on the web. All users of the internet are on the same level and have the same power on the internet. This principle is an important one to adopt because if some one or organization did control it, free speech, free access, and free sites would almost certainly be a thing of the past. For the internet to continue to grow and develop, it needs to be free from anything that could hinder or slow down the creative process that comes with a single person being in power.

Society should not become one with the computer.
Even though children younger and younger are beginning to sit at the computer for hours on end, this principle wants to drive home the point that there is more out there that the computer. Writers are calling the present generation stupid and that people are only getting dumber because all we know is how to read off a computer screen since we lost the ability to open an actual book. This principle should be kept in the back of everyone’s mind because there are things going on around us all the time in the world that can be missed if all people do all day is sit in front of the computer. People may not necessarily be dumber, but if people become one with the computer, people will loose the ability to connect with others on a face to face level and have no idea how to interact outside of the computer room.

Creative work posted on the Internet should be under the same copyright umbrella as traditionally published creative materials.
This statement is saying that even though the internet is open and free to access, people do need to give credit to all the information that he or she may find and use late on in an assignment. Just because something is free does not mean it is not worth anything. The writer took the time to write down his or her ideas to better not only themselves, but others as well. This principle is saying that a blog is just as important as a book and should be treated as such, that means citing all information taken from it. This is important because it does not matter how something is published. Information could be on paper or on a computer screen, but both deserve to have copyright laws protecting them.

Kevin's Principles

jhcollier3 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:35:26 CST

The Internet should be free of charge.

The Internet should not be free of charge as this principle states. Companies who provide the internet to households, such as Comcast or Time Warner, should be in constant battle over which company provides the best value available. However, if this principle pertains to the idea that websites should provide their services free of charge to users who purchase their internet through legal channels, then I must agree. Individual charges based on how many searches are done or how many websites are visited should never become a part of the structure of the internet as a business.

Creative work posted on the Internet should be under the same copyright umbrella as traditionally published creative materials.

Why should the internet be different? If an owner chooses to first place their written work on the internet, perhaps because of its ease, then it should be held in the same light as works that are published by way of hard copy. As someone who may consider down the road developing my own creative work, I would love to see that it is protected equally whether it is on the internet or in physical form. The misuse of a person’s word should violate copyright laws whether it is physical or digital.

The Internet should not be censored.

The internet doesn’t have to be censored if the owner of the computer has the ability to censor the material himself. Perhaps in the future internet providers will be able to sell internet packages of which no material with a certain rating will be accessible. But if a user wishes to have an uncensored form of the internet, with all the hate speech that can be found along with any other form of questionable material, they should be able to.

Hate speech on the Internet should be restricted.

Because hate speech has the potential to devastate a life, it has no place on a public forum such as the internet. Thus, it should be restricted as much as humanly possible. Due to the belief that the internet must not be controlled by a single group, successfully eliminating hate speech becomes near impossible, but the never-ending pursuit of 0 hate speech on the internet should be an accepted value by all who choose to use it, and all who choose to present to others.

Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to create a social networking account.

The only negative effect of children under the age of 18 having access to social networking accounts that I can comprise would be the idea that pedophiles may have an easier time pursuing children using such sites. However, if there were some way to verify each and every applicants age prior to accessing the social network, combined with limiting the age to 18 or so, I see no problem in allowing children the ability to use a facebook or myspace account. Considering that those sites are done in good taste for young adults and the like, I see no reason why the same can’t be done for children.

Businesses/companies should not access potential employees' blogs and/or social networking page.

This principle I must disagree with. Because the internet must stay a public place to further improve its globalization, employers having access to their employees’ blogs and social networking places is an unavoidable situation. If a user doesn’t want their employer to know their opinions on subject matter they choose to explain on their public blog, then they should not state them on their public blog. Should an employer find something they deem unacceptable by their employees on a networking site, they should have every right to act on the situation in any way that they choose, thus preserving the reputation of the company.

Privacy settings, company regulations and other information regarding email ought to be simple and easily accessible for users.

This principle I feel is a given. Of course important information regarding email should be easily accessible. If it weren’t, then enforcing such rules and regulations would become more difficult. Informing employees of what is and what is not acceptable is the first step in providing the freedom of email. Containing what users are able to do is simply sensible. A structure must be created that is simple to ensure that no wrongdoing occurs. Making the information easily accessible just creates fewer problems down the road for the governing body.

Sites that allow users to find the location of others without their consent should be eliminated.

I firmly agree with this principle. Mass gathering of information without the consent of the user is un-ethical and immoral. The knowledge of the person that is gained through this tactic, whether it is phone numbers or addresses etc., violates an un-written privacy agreement between business and customer that companies should look to as a serious negative. Individuals who gain knowledge of such private information most of the time will have bad intent, and if the information is needed to catch up with an old friend for instance, the numbers may be found through other means.

All forum and chat room-based websites must require users to provide valid registration information.

Ensuring that these websites require valid registration information simply creates a security umbrella that users can trust. This could potentially eliminate any falsification that may be caused by using incorrect information. If a user uses false information when they sign up to use one of the websites, then there can be no consequences for their actions regarding what they say on the website, creating a form for free reign and the potential for a lot of harm to be caused.

The Internet should encourage responsible government participation.

Responsible government participation in my eyes means having government involvement with the internet as limited as possible. The internet should never become a government controlled entity. Responsible government participation can be construed to mean that if a censoring formula were to take place then the enforcement of it may be government controlled. If this principle is also designed to include responsible government participation regarding candidates and their use of the internet to reach more citizens, then I fully encourage that.

The Internet should not be owned or controlled by any one person or organization.

Should one organization be in control of the internet at any point in its existence, it would provide that group the ability to manipulate it to their liking, a conclusion that must never be reached. Such is a socialist thought. The idea of giving any organization the power to control the vast reaching tool the internet has become, and manipulate those who use it however they see fit is a communist idea. The fall of the Soviet Union is reason enough to not allow that sort of control to occur.

Society should not become one with the computer.

I think this principle is attempting to state that human interaction must not dissipate with the increase in computing abilities. If we as a society were to rarely speak to each other because of the idea that computers could control our every need would mean that we as a people would eventually become more like the machines that are telling us what to do. I would never like to see that happen. However, since computations are much more cost effective than paying a human to perform a duty, perhaps the decrease in human relationships is inevitable.

Matthew's Principles

jhcollier3 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:15:43 CST

The Internet should be free of charge.
As the beginning of a new era, the government should not have control over something that is so vital to the evolution of our species. The internet allows people to be connected anywhere at any time, why should we pay for a service that can be wireless anywhere in the world, even to third world countries?

Creative work posted on the Internet should be under the same copyright umbrella as traditionally published creative materials.
Just like any man or woman who creates a document using a typewriter gets a copyright for his or her work; creating documents online is just the same thing, because creating a blog with a keyboard is just the same as any book written before.

The Internet should not be censored.
It is much like the media being censored, except over time we gained the right to allow most anything on television through the First Amendment. The internet is no different; the only way to censor the internet is by parents censoring their children. Not allowing any average person to see whatever they want to online is not the power of the government or anyone else, the internet should be free.

Hate speech on the Internet should be restricted.
I left this one on here even though I do not agree with it. What is the difference between hate speech online and hate speech in person? Just because you can’t see their face doesn’t mean it is any less cruel. Plus, without hate speech, there would be no way to regulate who are the jerks in the world and who are the good people. It’s just words, they heal.

Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to create a social networking account.
I completely agree with this. Though we all believed we were adults before we were 18, we all know differently now. Unless a site was created for 18 and under children (much like the clubs they have for under 18), then children should not be allowed onto social networking sites created for adults.

Businesses/companies should access potential employees' blogs and/or social networking page.
Again, people should know by now that the internet is MASSIVE and open; you put something online, someone will see it. It is just like getting a criminal background check on a potential employee; if your employer goes online, types in your name and finds a pornographic site; it is your own fault.

Privacy settings, company regulations and other information regarding email ought to be simple and easily accessible for users.
I think that before an employee is even allowed on the computer network at the company, they should be advised as to the rules and regulations regarding email interactions within the company. Even still, a ready source of information regarding the proper policies in the company would be beneficial to anyone.

Sites that allow users to find the location of others without their consent should be eliminated.
Instantly one would think of GoogleMaps, because of the amazing ability it has to zoom in to almost any place on earth, to give you an exact picture of any location. This could easily wind up being your house and some thief, murderer, car jacker, or any chum could easily find out the exact layout of your house. I think there should be restrictions on the users for using sites like GoogleMaps. Restrictions like only allowing public places to be accessed.

All forum and chat room-based websites must require users to provide valid registration information.
I think this would cut down on the amount of abuse that is found online, as well as the amount of online predators. I think it is much like applying for a credit card, any sort of bad mark on your person and you will be denied access into the forum.

The Internet should encourage responsible government participation.
Imagine if someone had used a GPS locating website to find out where you live in order to rob you. Now, imagine that the Government stepped in and used the internet to trace back who had recently looked at your area that particular site; the Police grab your robber and you get your stuff back! I think as long as the Government doesn’t start to restrict the internet for their own purposes, responsible participation would be completely acceptable, especially in the area of government contributions to the internet.

The Internet should not be owned or controlled by any one person or organization.
This is not that hard to convince anyone of; it’s like trying to say that a dictatorship is better than democracy. If one company, say like Google or Apple, takes over the internet, I believe that a lot in the world would change for the worst. It really makes one wonder that movies like Resident Evil could possibly come true; don’t trust Umbrella.

Society should become one with the computer.
An internet integrated society would be a huge step into the future for us. As long as we as a people can get the computer out of the house and off of the couch, then we will have a brighter future of non sloth-like humans who are constantly at ease with the internet at there side twenty-four-seven.

Broken Links

kmak1 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:17:27 CST

By Komal Makhdoom.
Futurist Essay.
11.09.08

It is the year 2033, and the Gregorian calendar has not been replaced. The microphone on my NotePod is transcribing my sentences, while its built-in eye-tool will capture selective images that can be reproduced in hologram form if the audience chooses to see me speak. There is a voice activation feature on the NotePod’s drop-down menu, which will play my voice at a custom volume scale. The extensive dictionary of the speech-recognition component will prevent any of my words from going unrecognized.

Every NotePod has a complimentary Glo-chip installed in it. It’s back label reads:

“All recorded content will be reported to the Globinal’s international staff, that will decode dialects, variations, slang, and related components of the language used, ensuring that no word or phrase goes unrecognized, and that your accent is comprehensible.”

I wonder how soon the “complimentary” chips will become mandatory in all voice-activated devices (VADs). Not that I mind them as an extra feature. I think it’s great that they’re free now. Just not so much that they’re non-removable.

In a way, the chips are the public’s own invention. They were suggested in last election’s Digi-poll, the mandatory electronic survey filled out by voters to implement a new technical division in public universities, and a government-sponsored employment track related to it. Globinal translators initially offered live support for VADs with multi-lingual components. Today, their “complementary” chip accompanies almost every electronic device with a speech function. Because VADs are more accessible, their export value is increasing globally. The local industry is increasing rapidly based on demand as well. Long live Digi-polls, I guess.

Gone are the days when I’d push the ‘escape’ button on my Macintosh and ask it to tell me a joke. For some reason, however, I’ve yet to escape the primitive technology of instruction manuals. In the next Digi-poll, I may be voting for all electronic devices to know their own function. Either that, or they should be synchronous with our mentalichips. Mentalichips have all the answers. The NotePod would know exactly what I’d want transcribed, and the method in which I’d want it published, if it could only hear the little strip of metal I spent millions to install near my temple. But today, I have to listen to the droning computer recite the following instructions and precautions:

“To adjust the language and volume of your readable audio, or the visual quality of your hologram, please install the micro-pad accompanying the NotePod into your index finger. The micro-pad will align itself to the print-rings on your digit. Upon reaching optimum temperature, the film on the pad should display a faint white glow. Align the installed pad to an un-covered finger of your choice, by rubbing the two together. This combination finger will be used to direct the NotePod’s menu through the micro-pad. If the glowing micro-pad does not respond to the initial finger of choice, please try another one.

If your pad does not glow after 30 seconds of installation, choose from the following voice commands to allow it to solve your problem:

'Get New Pad:' After screening the voice and credit card associated with your fingerprint, the repair terminal connected to your micro-pad will order and ship a new device to the address associated with the initial micro-pad purchase, from the nearest located Micro-Center. Any defective pad is eligible for return within 24-hours of purchase.
'Help Without Purchase:' The Micro-Center representative matching your e-profile, based on former purchases made with the credit card on your record, will contact you within 30 seconds of your call. After insta-comparing records of your daily holo-phone minute usage obtained from your provider, to the average number of keystrokes uploaded to your global-file by your wireless keyboard, the representative will select whether to communicate via IM or your personal holo-phone.

The Micro-Pad Allows You to Customize Your Reading Experience.
If you feel discomforted by any component of the essay, please adjust it to your preference. If you are in audio mode, scroll the RPM option to increase or decrease vocal speed. If you have trouble understanding the writer’s expression, or would like a visual presentation for any other reason, choose the character you find most suitable for the hologram feature…”

The NotePod is online-capable. Everything is online-capable. And as long as things are online-capable, the Globinal has access to them. The accessibility feature on the NotePod allows articles to connect to the Globinal, where they are translated and then archived. My essay can be read, heard, and/or viewed in over 6912 languages in any country with a Wifi terminal.

A couple of decades ago, all we had was Google. When I have the time to develop memories, they can be bothersome. I wonder if I’m ashamed to have belonged to an era when only 80 languages were recognized on the web, incorporating only 30 countries. Sometimes I wonder what the pressures on common people were two decades ago, if not for mandatory enrollment in classes explaining the importance of inventions established after Digi-polls. I can hardly remember if any old body was allowed to use the Internet back then, or if there was always a permit-process like today.

Now I’m wondering how users ever felt safe on the Internet if any old body was allowed to use it. Why is my memory failing me? The mentalichip must be malfunctioning. It usually has all the answers.

Maybe I’m just tired from listening to instruction manuals. I should check the warranty on my chip to see if it covers boredom from unnecessary primitiveness. I know it doesn’t cover pressure from certain mindwaves. If I’ve broken my mentalichip thinking too hard about the Globinals, it’s too late for a refund. But I guess worrying about a refund would add to the damage too. I should stop. I should set aside any discomforting thoughts, to avoid losing the couple more millions I have in my savings. It’s ok. I am safe. My version of the mentalichip is too outdated to have the Globinal component obligatorily installed. They won’t be able to scan and archive my thoughts in 6912 different languages and publish them to any willing buyer at any end of the world. The two of us are safe.

Works Cited

American Management Association, 2005. "2005 Electronic Monitoring and Surveillance Survey: Many Companies Monitoring, Recording, Videotaping—and Firing—Employees." Available: http://www.amanet.org/press/amanews/ems05.htm

Apple Inc., 2008. "Physical and Motor Skills." Available: http://www.apple.com/accessibility/macosx/physical.html.
"INotes Lite." Available: http://www.apple.com/webapps/utilities/noteslite.html.
D'Amico, Mary Lisbeth,1999. "Voice-activated devices on the way." Available: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9908/13/voiceactivate.idg.

Google Inc., 2008. available: www.google.com.

National Virtual Translation Center, 2008. "Languages of the World." Available: http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/november/worldlanguages.htm.

Patent Storm, 2000. "Current-sensing Touch Pad Patent." Available: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6054979/description.html.

Robotics and Automation, 2002. Proceedings. ICRA '02. IEEE International Conference. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1014779.

Wilson, Mark, 2008. "Dreamoc 3D Display Turns Any Phone into Hologram Machine." Available: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/dreamoc_3d_display_turns_any_phone_into_hologram_machine-2.html.

Youtube, 2007. "3D Hologram Phone." Available: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1A-ft2EIiE.

Statement of Principles Page

jhcollier3 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:49:35 CST

On coming to this page, please create a new page and post your principles. If you have questions, please refer to the Statement of Principles assignment.

Laura's Principles

jhcollier3 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:44:40 CST

Laura Ingles

Hate speech on the Internet should be restricted.
I agree that hate speech on the Internet should be restricted, or at least controlled at a reasonable level. Hate speech, especially over the Internet due to its ability to spread rapidly, has the potential to ruin one’s reputation. The question is who will restrict it? If the Internet is not owned by any one person or organization – which it should not be – then who will regulate such things? All slander over the Internet ought to be controlled, but, as is the problem with other aspects of the Internet, the question of who will take on that responsibility remains unanswered.

Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to create a social networking account.
Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to create accounts for mature social networking accounts, such as Facebook. While they do not need to be exposed to pictures and information that is so easily accessible on Facebook, I understand their desire to be in the loop. Sites for younger kids, such as Webkinz, are carefully administered and monitored, and are perfectly acceptable for pre-teens. Young girls who, for example, meet at summer camp and want to keep in touch, are able to do so through websites such as this without getting involved with MySpace, Facebook or Instant Messenger until they get older.

Businesses/companies should not access potential employees' blogs and/or social networking page.
Bloggers and users of social networking sites ought to know better than to include incriminating information. While it is unfair for potential employers to judge a candidate based on his or her blog or Facebook page, those competing for jobs should be more conscious of what they put online. Decisions should not be based solely on information found on the Internet, but if an employer has it narrowed down to two, and finds unappealing information/pictures of one candidate, giving the job to the other person is not unreasonable.

Privacy settings, company regulations and other information regarding email ought to be simple and easily accessible for users.
Too often, users of email – particularly older ones – overlook the fine print when registering for an account. Users of company email are often unaware of any restrictions and the fact that company executives have access to every email sent and received, and they use it for personal reasons that may be considered work inappropriate. Younger users may be unaware of the harmful effects of forwarded messages and other forms of spam, or may fall for hoaxes that involve them sharing their passwords and other personal information. Clear, plain guidelines ought to be included in email registration, but they should be short and sweet – not Internet jargon in fine print at the bottom of the page.

All forum and chat room-based websites must require users to provide valid registration information.
Who will regulate and confirm the “validity” of registration information? While the idea is an excellent one, with intentions of preventing predators from going after vulnerable Internet users, it is not entirely practical. Lying about registration information such as age and contact information is simple, and detecting untruthful information amongst the truthful would surely prove to be virtually impossible. Already users must provide a name and some sort of contact information, and often age when registering for forum and chat room-based websites; predators get around it.

The Internet should encourage responsible government participation.
The government has entirely too much control over and access to certain aspects of the Internet. The fact that a government official has the capability of reading all of my emails and going through everything on my laptop makes me nervous. While I have nothing to hide and know that no incriminating information would be found, it is still unnerving. On the other hand, if someone is constantly visiting websites related to terrorism or the making of weapons or something along those lines, most would agree that the government has every right to step in, in the interest of the nation’s safety.

The Internet should not be owned or controlled by any one person or organization.
The appeal of the Internet is the fact that it is, for the most part, a completely open forum. Anyone and everyone can access an infinite amount of information, and in turn add to and create countless sites and pages. People in general desire a sense of freedom, and often resent certain forms of control. If the Internet were to suddenly be owned by one person or one organization, the popularity of the technology would likely decrease. How would the owner(s) be designated? Who decides who gets to have ownership or control over such a vast technology?

Society should not become one with the computer.
Unfortunately this has essentially already happened. Society as a whole is so frighteningly dependent on technology, particularly the Internet; people do not know what to do with themselves without constant access to it. Face-to-face interaction has diminished, as text messaging and instant messaging is far more convenient and less personal. A great deal of concern has been expressed that society has become too dependent on technology, but because it has been developing so rapidly, it may be too late. We may be more in touch with our computers than with ourselves in a few years.

All websites ought to be available in multiple languages (or website-translating software ought to be readily available)
While I understand the precautions of keeping certain information and websites private from other nations, the majority of websites ought to be available in multiple languages, or translation should be a simple process. My brother, who lives in Japan, sent me the link to a website that he wanted me to look at; due to my location and Internet provider, the website did not translate, and came up as a long string of random numbers, letters and symbols. This is inconvenient and unnecessary.

Password-protected sites ought to automatically log user off after navigating away from the page
On more than one occasion, I have sat down at a computer in Torgerson Bridge and had to log out of another student’s Blackboard or Facebook account. VT Webmail has a feature that logs the user out after a certain period of idle time, and when the user navigates away from the page. Other password-protected sites, however, keep the user logged in even after the window has been closed. Students are often in a hurry when leaving Torgerson Bridge and do not think to log out, and may suffer severe consequences if someone else is able to access their personal accounts. All password-protected sites, including email, social networking sites and those requiring credit card numbers, such as Amazon.com, ought to have the same features as VT Webmail.

Advertisements ought to be appropriate for website users
Google is able to control its advertisements and appeal to users; other websites, particularly social networking sites ought to do the same. While fourteen-year-olds should not have Facebook to begin with, if they do, Facebook should make an effort to gear its advertisements towards them. Freshmen in high school do not need to see ads on the side bars for condoms, nor do they need information on selling their books back at the end of the semester. Facebook and other social networking sites ought to base advertisements on the users’ ages and networks.

Users of social networking sites should not have the option to alter the site Facebook has changed drastically over the past year and a half; the format is constantly changing, and users add new unnecessary applications that clutter up the pages on a regular basis. Social networking sites should not be like Wikipedia; any and everyone should not have the ability to alter the site, because it affects millions of people. If users of social networking sites do agree to allow users to alter the sites, users ought to have the option of accepting these changes or using the original layout of the site.

Brittney's Principles

jhcollier3 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:42:08 CST

Brittney Hatrack

1. The internet ought to discard the process of continually collecting data through websites like Google.

Everyone on the internet knows that their providing information about their life to an entirely unknown amount of people. However, what most people don’t know is that Google keeps track of every website you visit in a huge database. I think it violates basic rights to keep this information for over a year; especially making it available at the government’s whim. Privacy is slowly becoming extinct, but that doesn’t mean that the basic rights we have as a society should be disregarded by a private search engine.

2. The internet should advance wiki’s so that the internet becomes an entirely collaborative world of knowledge.

Based on the wealth of knowledge available on the internet it seems unwise not to completely focus on the vision of collaborative thinking. The success of Wikipedia shows that the world is ready to share their knowledge for the betterment of society as a whole rather than individuals or specific groups. Collaborative thinking will advance social, economic and professional worlds on so many levels that it would be smart to put a lot of spotlight on what it could do for society.

3. Social networking ought to keep advancing so that it matches the social and technological ideas of the time.

Social networking has advanced so much since the start of the internet. In my time on the internet there has been OpenDiary, MySpace and finally, Facebook. They went from simple page layouts with no media and very little information to extremely informative interactive sites. With the future of the internet moving forward into an age of change involving wiki’s, media and design, social networking sites need to keep up with the change to keep social sites on the same level as the rest of the developing internet.

4. Media, including movies, music and television, on the internet should be free for everyone.

Television and certain movies are already available at any time on the internet through different websites. However, media moguls like Apple’s iTunes, Rhapsody, and Zune’s monthly pass charge $1.00 for a single song and normal prices for whole cd’s. I think by making media free, it will downplay the reliance on illegal downloading thus endorsing creativity and not stealing. A lot of artists make their music available for free because the aren’t “sell outs”. Television on the internet is easy because they still make money from advertising. Media is already on the way to becoming public and small steps towards free media will promote the creative internet universe.

5. The internet should provide any single person with the privacy we are subject to under law.

The internet has a lot of issues with confusion on the basis of privacy laws. There’s a lot of bending rules and finding loop holes in order to get out of trouble because there is no foundation to ruling the internet. What I feel needs to change is not changing laws to include the internet, but to build a whole new section of laws to address internet fraud, gossip, privacy and other important problems. The government needs to recognize that the internet is new and unique. It needs to protect people under specific laws that can’t be confused because of the source of the law itself.

6. Sites that allow users to find the location of others should be eliminated.

I altered this principle to simply address sites that visually allow people to see the locations of others should be eliminated from the internet. There is Google Earth among other sites, which allow anyone in the world (without registration) to closely view individuals houses and any other place on the earth that has an address. In the news, they showed that terrorists used Google Earth to plot bombing locations on U.S. soil. This just shows that these websites are dangerous and create situations that can be avoided by simply registering users or checking content. I believe that the internet bases so much pressure on monitoring our country that they forget to monitor others. We as a society are endangering ourselves with websites like Google Earth.

7. All forum and chat room-based websites must require users to provide valid registration information.

One of the biggest problems with the internet is that young users are privy to inappropriate information and users. Internet pedophiles find young girls to prey on, websites advertise to young boys to gamble. There is no restriction on who can use the internet; therefore, there’s no restriction on what they can do. By insisting on valid registration, websites will be able to control the users and stop unsuitable relationships, as well as decrease viewing of inappropriate material.

8. Hate speech on the Internet should be restricted.

This principle feels similar to the questioning about laws on the internet. Just like creating new laws about privacy, the U.S. should create laws that regulate hate speech on the internet. There is no “police force” for the internet, the government can track what people look at; however, they can’t stop websites from existing. There are countless white supremacy websites and forums, as well as hate websites for almost everything in existence. Because of the idea of link-minds forming more radical ideals, the danger of hate speech grows exponentially on the internet. By restricting hate speech or at least giving it some sort of order, there would be a smaller chance of hate speech becoming a bigger problem.

9. Children under the age of 16 should not be allowed to create a social networking account.

Similar to the principle about valid registration for chat based websites, the idea of children under the age of 16 using social networking sites runs along the same lines. Social networking sites first contain similar chat-based forums, as well as suggestive adult situations available. Social networking sites also draw focus away from life itself and to wait until they are at least 16 makes it so they “don’t grow up too fast.” The internet grows so quickly and if these teenagers are living their life on MySpace or Facebook, they won’t grasp the reality of the real world.

10. Businesses/companies should not access potential or current employees’ blogs and/or social networking page.

The basis for this principle comes from an old saying, “Don’t mix business with pleasure.” It’s a staple of most corporations to have a no fraternization rule, and even the army has a don’t ask, don’t tell policy. What an employee does should be their own business as long as it doesn’t violate the law or codes of the corporation by using specific names or jargon. Also, a large amount of potential employees are coming from college, and aren’t necessarily represented by the pictures shown on their social networking site. The societal norms between college and the professional world and completely different and its unrealistic to expect every worker to have no interaction with deemed inappropriate behavior. By accessing blogs and social sites, they are losing employees that are both social and hard-working for employees that are simply just hard-working.

11. The Internet should be free of charge.

In order to charge for the internet, the internet would first need to be privatized and owned by someone or something. The internet would then be regulated and restricted, and although in certain situations that is a good thing, to entirely regulate the internet would defeat the primal purpose of its invention. The internet is everyone’s and to charge for the internet takes that away from different economic and social groups because of monetary issues. Also, the problem of the internet being privatized would then give a one corporation or the government the ability to run the single most important component of our country.

12. Society shouldn’t become one with the computer.

I feel that the most important principle doesn’t actually have anything to do with the physical internet. What’s most important is that there is a whole world out there for internet users to experience, so don’t focus too much on the virtual world. Don’t forget that there’s real mail, the ability to travel and friendships off of the internet. Our social and regular lives shouldn’t become completely integrated with the virtual world of the internet. It is an amazing tool; however, it is not an amazing world to live in.

Annamarie's Principles

apammen — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:47:08 CST

Statement of Principles

The Internet should be free of charge.
- The Internet is a resource that connects people with things found outside the scope of their everyday lives and should thus be free to use. It allows horizons to be expanded and for people to learn things they might not otherwise learn. I believe it is very important for people to have exposure to things they would not normally encounter on a daily basis. With a tool such as the Internet that allows this expansion, it is difficult to agree that a charge should be put in place that would likely limit people’s access. The Internet’s popularity will dwindle if charges are put in place for its use, and thus people will go back into the same shells they were in before the time of the World Wide Web.

Creative work posted on the Internet should be under the same copyright umbrella as traditionally published creative materials and enforced fully.
- It is unfair to think that the Internet provides a forum for taking from artists of all genres without paying them for their efforts. Music, literature, and other creations are not free for anyone to use at their own discretion. There is very little difference between works posted electronically and those physically printed on paper. I think it is morally wrong to steal just because there is a lesser chance that you will get caught. It is unlikely that someone would want their work stolen from them, so they should practice empathy and show a willingness to pay for anything they would like to own the rights to use.

Hate speech on the Internet should be eliminated
- Hate speech is wrong regardless of the forum, and should definitely not be allowed in a public setting such as the Internet. It is hurtful to those whom it is directed towards emotionally and psychologically. I do not tolerate the use of such language spoken verbally or physically or electronically written. The human race shouldn’t use such language to begin with, but it should certainly be eliminated from the Internet, which is used as an everyday tool in today’s world. Any language that is classified as “hate speech” should not be allowed to be posted in any capacity on the Internet. I doubt that anyone likes to hear hate speech directed at them, so I could not understand why they would not support this decision.

Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to create a social networking account
- Children under the age of 18 have no reason to be networking socially via the Internet. They go to school each day and are provided opportunities extending even beyond that for social interaction with other age-appropriate children. I don’t think kids need to use the Internet to interact with others, and it could potentially take away from their ability to personally socialize with other children. Previous generations have turned out relatively well without the help of the Internet so it should be easy to believe that current and future generations could do the same. With many parents knowing so little about the Internet and its lack of limitations, it is just better to prohibit minors from using social networking sites.

Rules and regulations should be in place to prevent minors under the age of 18 from viewing things that are not age-appropriate
- Just about anything can be found on the Internet and it currently places no restrictions on who can look at what. I think that while the Internet should remain free, accounts should be made for each user so that the websites they view can better be regulated. Minors cannot be held responsible for always knowing what is best for them, and thus it would be good to have a universal regulation to prohibit them from seeing things, such as porn, before they can legally make such a decision. They are not given the right to vote, drink, or drive (in some cases), so why should we give them full permission to see anything they like via the Internet?

Businesses/companies should not access potential or current employees’ blogs and/or social networking page
- The philosophy about not mixing business and pleasure should be taken seriously by both parts of the equation. How people choose to represent themselves or what they choose to share is independent of how they act at work and so there should be no reason to mix the two. I personally like to keep my life away from work private and I don’t think employers should go snooping around to find out personal information. I understand that reputation is important, but unless it affects the way an employee performs at his or her job, it should not be of interest to the employer. I think it is hypocritical to a point as well because it is almost certain that our employers weren’t angels when they were our age just because there isn’t digital evidence.

Sites that allow users to find the location and personal information of others without their consent should be eliminated
- It is scary to think that addresses, phone numbers, and other forms of personal information are available to anyone via the Internet. With the ability to look up information without that person knowing, it opens up a potential can of worms that can lead to numerous problems. I do not like the idea of someone I do not know looking up my phone number for any reason. Additionally, my address is something that should be private unless I willingly give it out. The problem goes both ways: even if you like looking up other people’s information then you should be willing to let them look at yours. No one really needs that kind of information without consent anyway unless his or her intent is malicious.

All forum and chat room-based websites must require users to provide valid registration information and cross check information provided
- Websites of this sort are often based on anonymity but that doesn’t mean that fake information should be provided or allowed when signing up. With the ability to provide false information, people could sign up without worrying about consequences for their actions. I personally don’t always trust the Internet, but that is in part because I don’t trust the people who are on it. I fear that my truthful information could be used against me, and in turn I am often hesitant to join any sort of site that requires more than just a valid email. I do believe, however, that if this were standardized then we would be in a better position to have more honest use of the Internet. I wouldn’t want to share information with someone that was lying to me, so why would someone that was lying expect my information to be valid?

The Internet should be easy to use, specifically areas requiring the adjustment of privacy settings, account information, and company guidelines
- The Internet is a vast space and it can be very confusing to use at times, especially in the areas that allow you to personalize it. With so many people that know the Internet much better than I do, I worry that my information may be stolen or used against me because I didn’t secure something properly. Rather than intimidating its users, it should offer different levels of assistance to assure that each user is wholly protected. Additionally, policies regarding the Internet should be clear and concise. It is difficult to expect others to know how to use it when those that know how to use it are not willing to assist where necessary.

The Internet should not be owned or controlled by any one person or organization
- The Internet is a free space and having one group control it would be a bad idea. That would open up the gates for censorship of ideas and thoughts that were previously permitted. It is much better as a democratic forum where anyone can aid in controlling the content. Not everyone is going to always agree, but it is certain that a single person or organization cannot make the decisions for everyone. Yes, I think there should be regulations regarding content, but I would not like for one group to be in total control. As previewed by books such as 1984 and shown by history, a single group in control of anything can lead to huge problems and the loss of many freedoms thought to be rights.

The Internet should allow people a free means of communication with others without huge regulations from outside parties
- The Internet gives access to people from every corner of the world and that should remain an integral part of the tool. People should be allowed to chat, email, or blog without worrying about constraints from outside parties getting in the way. There is, again, a need for certain regulations, but for the most part, people should be able to communicate with one another without problem. I enjoy the freedom I have with my Instant Messages and personal email account, and I would be greatly upset to have those taken away or heavily regulated. Empathy is once again called in to help others understand. It would be unfair to have ones emails censored so why should they be allowed to edit anyone else’s?

Society should not become one with the computer
- We often get caught up in the latest on YouTube or Facebook and forget to just be human. There was a time when we could interact face to face rather than through anything virtual. I personally try to refrain from using my computer when I can, and I realize that it is a luxury in most cases rather than a necessity. The younger generations, however, should be wary of becoming too reliant upon their computers. The pace at which society has become comfortable with using computers is alarmingly quick, and we should heed that as a warning as to what could potentially happen. As our bodies try to adapt to using them, physical ailments become problematic, as well as the mental idea that not checking email for one day is the end of the world. No one likes to be completely tied down, but it would seem the trend is leading towards our inability to function without our computers.

Komal's Principles

jhcollier3 — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 08:35:40 CST

1. Hate speech on the Internet should be restricted.
This principle calls for a group of moderators appointed by ISPs offering hosting; private publishers; social networking (including online dating and matrimonial) site publishers; and wiki, blog, and forum operators, to monitor the content of posted/hosted items against any “speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on…any… distinction that might be considered by some as a liability” (Wikipedia). In order to “restrict” hate speech, or any online content, those posting will have to give up a certain amount of power to whatever authority determines their “speech” as “hateful” or controversial. Conflict can be avoided if publishers state the definition of “hate speech” in their terms of use agreement. The principle allows a certain amount of censorship, and is expected to cause “free speech” controversy.

2. The Internet should not be censored.
If users want pornography to be restricted from web sites, hate speech to be removed from forums, graphic images and indecent exposure to remain out-of-the-norm in online mediums, or any other form of modification to original content, they will have to give up the argument against “censoring” the Internet. Perhaps this principle should be modified to determine exceptions, or to specify content restrictions on certain types of web sites. Censorship requirements for childrens’ web sites, for instance, will differ from those geared specifically towards adults, or adult singles (a cocktail recipe website may allow, for instance, banner ads for bars or online dating/local hook-ups).

3. Online courses should remain an option for students.
Based on personal experience, I am in favor of online courses: while I was undergoing GI diagnosis last summer, they allowed me to work from my computer at home instead of having to travel to class. Furthermore, online professors were generally accessible, because they frequently checked their e-mails and online student forums—I never had to make an appointment for office hours. Finally, I was able to take a required class even while my professor was conducting research in South America—his travel schedule didn’t interfere with my course schedule. Students should not be coerced into taking a certain course online. As long as online courses are a mere alternative, they should be used to a student’s personal advantage and convenience.

4. Creative work posted on the Internet should be under the same copyright umbrella as traditionally published creative materials.
In order to establish the legitimacy of the Internet, particularly as a platform for original production (such as writing or work samples requested by employers), it must be put under the same restrictions and procedures of evaluation as accredited, tangible sources of information. Also, most Internet sites, like open forums, readily provide information, which can make it easy to steal and replicate as one’s own. Copyright laws can protect posted content, which would encourage more educated writers to publish their work without worrying about it being plagiarized.

5. Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to create a social networking account.
Although 18 isn’t necessarily the wisest age in a person’s life, it is the age determined by the government as sufficient for military participation, purchase of cigarettes and porn, and pro-creating. An 18 year-old can be tried by civil court, and is exempt from a large number of serious legal protections involving minors, such as statutory rape. So if an 18 year old decides to post provocative pictures of them self online, or ends up in a relationship with a cyber-buddy, they are much less likely to face legal consequences than a minor.

6. Businesses/companies should not access potential employees' blogs and/or social networking page.
Uncontrolled voyeurism on the Internet makes it impossible to determine who may, at an unknown point of time, access someone’s public, unrestricted blog or social networking page. However, from an ethical perspective, potential employers should not hunt for personal information about their employees without their knowledge, especially because of the consequences implied by such a search (such as loss of a dream job to drunk pictures online). By allowing a candidate into their office, and introducing them to a professional opportunity, an employer suggests a certain relationship with them. This relationship should be kept professional, and outside the scope of either party’s online activity. Potential employees should not be scrutinized for any activity, as they are not a formal part of the company. Current employees, who follow company rules and operate equipment as instructed, rather, are parties responsible to any employer.

7. Privacy settings, company regulations and other information regarding all Internet use ought to be simple and easily accessible for users.
No one should have to lose their job simply because they didn’t know the extent of surveillance of online and offline activity in their office. Employers persecute employees for misrepresenting the office, or instigating any form of harmful consequences through their online actions, using company property (such as computers and bandwidth). Employees should be made aware, with examples, of what constitutes “harmful” or “detrimental” action, of who is watching their actions, and why they shouldn’t be performing any such action. While interning at a law firm, I was told my boss could backtrack my every keystroke. That knowledge kept me extremely careful about the web sites I visited, and of preventive action such as logging off when I was away from my computer.

8. Social networking web sites should determine a strict method of verifying user identity and age.
I’m not sure how it could be done, but I believe that if the issue were more hard-pressed, site owners would at least derive specific criteria to determine user age and/or identity. My friends studying Economics insist that necessity gives birth to ideas—which is why, apparently, America will never run out of fuel resources, because necessity will give rise to alternatives (how optimistic). If I were tech-savvy enough, I’d come up with a specific method of verifying user identities on web sites like “Blogger,” “Facebook,” “Xanga,” “Myspace,” and “EHarmony”. Providing serious identification such as a driver’s license number may be an option, but probably one too risky to remain practical. For the safety of minors, and to help predators for using fake identities to communicate online, however, serious measures must be taken.

9. Society should not become one with the computer.
People should remain aware of the world existing beyond the Internet. As social beings, we remain interested in the activities of our peers, or even strangers in our social sphere, which we learn of through public blogs and other web sites designed to publish personal information. We should not forget, however, the charm of hearing someone’s actual voice while communicating—as opposed to the voice we imagine in IM’s and text messages. Story telling is a lot more fun when reactions are audible, so while reading blogs is fun, people should not forget the value of live conversation. When I’m in a waiting room, I don’t text-message friends complaining about the wait; I just convey it to the people sitting next to me, and we always have at least that one issue in agreement.

10. Medical web sites that are not accredited by the National Institution of Health or associated with a hospital should be removed.
Although his writing is usually limited to dark erotica (which I do not indulge in by the way), Anthony Beal speaks my mind when he asks “when someone will grow the testicles to say to Americans everywhere, 'Enough with the self-medicating.' Seriously” (thinkexist.com). Online information is acquired rapidly, and on sites published by the NIH it is free, so the temptation to look up symptoms before seeing a specialist is understandable. However, getting lost in the plethora of un-accredited medical web sites is dangerous, and obviously slows down proper treatment. Appointing a police force to hunt and remove un-accredited web sites may be impractical. More realistically, search engines should not list medical web sites in symptom/key word searches that are not NIH-branched or associated with a hospital.

11. The Internet should not be owned or controlled by any one person or organization.
The Internet is not a solid, tangible entity, and as long as users are able to compete over superior HTML skills and publishing methods, no single entity will be able to contain it, or lock it away from users according to their preference. If the government, hypothetically, attempts to censor Google search results, this will only be detrimental to Google, because the public will give birth to a newer, “freer” search engine in reaction.

12. The Internet should encourage responsible government participation.
News broadcast and related web sites do an efficient job of listing candidate policies, speech overviews, campaign reports, international activity, and other pre and post election events that can keep interested public informed on the political sphere. People should take advantage of information present on various online news sources to develop their own political opinions, and perhaps reactions to speculative debates. News web sites also offer public sections for people to comment on important issues, and are increasing coverage of public opinion posted on political and social blogs, as well as popular YouTube videos.

The Internet & Copyright

eccole — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:25:24 CST

How the Growth of the Internet has Affected Copyright Laws
By: Elizabeth Cole

Ethnography Abstract
This ethnography looks at how the growth of the Internet has allowed for easier infringement of copyright laws. All different mediums of entertainment are available online, and companies have answered instances of copyright infringement with lawsuits or their own money-making form of their product available online. The ease with which infringements can happen has also caused governments s to adapt and change their own copyright regulations. The DMCA and the World Intellectual Property Organization have enacted laws to protect copyrights across international borders. As the Internet continues to grow and change, copyright infringement will be a major issue because of how easy these infringements can be.

The Internet allows for countless amounts of information to be shared and shown around the world. As the Internet grows, so do instances of copyright infringement. Copyright law has been a part of United States law since 1790, but has seen growth and change with the advent of new technologies, especially the Internet.

What is Copyright?
Original material is protected by copyright upon its creation and the creator has exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the work, as well as the right to create other works derived from the original. The material must be “in a fixed tangible medium and be original.” The idea of what is in a fixed tangible form is under question when it comes to the Internet. Some of the key questions that are circulating in regards to the Internet and copyright are as follows:

If something is copied and put on the Internet, is the online copy an original?
If something created electronically in a fixed and tangible medium?
If something is created on a computer and the sent over the Internet and not saved on the computer, is that material protected?

One recent example is Triad System Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co. The court found that material in a computer’s random access memory is “sufficiently fixed to be protected.” Even if you don’t save something on your computer, it still may be available in the computer’s memory, thus allowing it to be protected under copyright law. Since this case was not seen before the Supreme Court, this standard of protection may not apply to all states until a Supreme Court decision is made.

All of these issues will become more and more important as time goes on and the Internet grows. The ease with which copyrighted image, words, and media can be copied and used on another site is alarming. The wide audience that the Internet has allows for others to get around copyright laws and not realize when information they are using is copyrighted, thus losing funds for the owner of the copyright. Eventually these issues will need to be addressed by the Supreme Court or other larger body of legislature.

Current Legislation
One of the major acts of legislation regarding Internet copyright is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The act implements two treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Specifically, the DMCA:

Criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works
Criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself
Heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet
Limits the liability of ISP’s for copyright infringement by their users

The DMCA allows for protection of the service provider's in the event that their users are infringing on copyright. There are exemptions to the DCMA and are updated every three years.

Liability Issues
The DMCA begins to address the issues of liability when it comes to consumer's Internet Service Providers (ISP). The basic question is, are the online service providers liable for copyright infringement by their users? Three cases have been brought to court about this; two courts have found the ISP liable, while the other did not. The difference in the cases was whether the provider had prior knowledge of the copyright infringement; since the ISP knew about the incident and did nothing to stop it, the court found the ISP liable.

This same idea of liability comes into play with a recent case that is still in litigation. Viacom is currently suing Viacom and YouTube couldn’t come to an agreement about splitting revenues and allowing YouTube to host Viacom’s material. YouTube was asked to remove over 100,000 unauthorized clips. Viacom then charged YouTube with copyright infringement and inducing its users to copyright infringement. Viacom can take YouTube as a whole to court and not each individual user because the videos are on YouTube’s servers and not saved on each individual hard drive.

Another large issue regarding Internet copyright is pirated textbooks at university presses. Sales at university presses have gone down over the past few years, mostly in textbooks. The most worrisome aspect for presses is the fact that their books can be found in pirated online versions. University presses are currently working to catch up to the pirates to make texts available online for a fixed fee or similar way of distribution. It is projected that as textbook prices rise, so will the rate of students turning to online texts instead of the actual bound copies. At the University of Texas at Austin, an experiment will be underway next semester to shift entire classes to the exclusive use of e-books.

After issues such as music copyright infringement and the more recent issues of video on YouTube and e-books, corporations that hold copyrights on this popular material have found ways to make their products and services available online for their own benefit. Programs such as iTunes allows for the purchase of music and videos; and sites like Hulu allow for the free viewing of television and movies with the occasional interruption for an advertisement. Companies are adapting to the changes in technology to make sure that their products are protected.

Overall, copyrighted materials are becoming easier and easier to access. If the owners of these copyrights are not receiving the revenue from their work, in most cases, someone is losing out on their form of income. The process of having materials available for purchase online is the best possible solution for preventing easy copyright infringements. In the case of textbooks and music especially, these materials are a for-profit business and if Internet users are accessing them for free, people are being denied their income from their products. Providing easy access while still protecting copyright will need to become the norm for copyright-protected creative works.

Sources

"Fair Use of Copyrighted Materials." University of Texas. March 2005. <http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm#top>.

Guess, Andy. "E-Textbooks for All." Inside Higher Ed 7 Oct 2008.15 Oct 2008. <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/10/07/ut>.

Howard, Jennifer. "Textbook Sales Drop, and University Presses Search for Reasons." Chronicle of Higher Education 19 Sept 2008. 6 Oct 2008. <http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i04/04a01002.htm>.

Lipschultz, Jeremy Harris. "New Communication Technologies." Communication and the Law. Ed. W. Wat Hopkins. Alabama: Vision Press, 2008.

Ottaviani, John and Glenn G. Pudelka. "YouTube Lawsuit Raises Novel Internet Copyright Issues." The Licensing Journal. (October 2007): 9-14.

Young, Jeffrey. "Students Flock to Web Sites Offering Pirated Textbooks." Chronicle of Higher Education 4 Sept 2008. 6 Oct 2008. <http://chronicle.com/free/2008/09/4477n.htm>.

Sara's Principles

sematthe — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:47:26 CST

Sara Matthews

The Internet should be free of charge.

Access to the internet should be completely free of charge, given that the user has the necessary hardware (the computer) to connect. Many of our daily activities involve the internet, therefore users should not be charged for accessing it. The initial connection to the internet should be free, and if privately owned websites wish to charge their users then they can do so on their own accord. This is the only fair route since everybody uses the internet for different reasons. Also, the speed of access can be upgraded for a flat-rate charge to the user.

Creative work posted on the Internet should be under the same copyright umbrella as traditionally published creative materials.

The web is basically an open forum for people to share information with each other. Music, movies, and art are posted on the internet for people to view and enjoy in their own time and comfort, rather than physically going somewhere else to view/experience these things. The internet is not a place to illegally use someone else’s work. Therefore, the internet should protect artists and musicians under the same guidelines that they are protected by outside the web.

The Internet should not be censored.

This principle has its support through our constitutional right of freedom of speech. Under this amendment anything can be posted by anyone – regardless of whether it is authentic or appropriate. Hate speech, child pornography, and slander will not be monitored or removed. Even though people have the right to say whatever they would like, they also have the right to choose not to read something if they think it will upset them.

Hate speech on the Internet should be restricted.

Hate speech should be restricted because of the unforeseen harm that it can cause. Although some may argue that restricting hate speech is a violation of our rights, it is still justifiable because it is more so a measure of protection than a renunciation of our right to free speech. In order for this principle to by adopted and followed, we must clarify what exactly counts as hate speech. Is writing a negative blog-post about a girl that you don’t get along with on the same level as writing a blog-post about your anti-Semitic feelings? These guidelines must be determined before this principle is effective.

Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to create a social networking account.

This restriction needs to be enforced because children are naïve to the possible dangers of the internet. Social networking sites are common outlets for internet predators, and children are easy prey. Not only are social networking sites dangerous, but they were also originally created for older adults to keep in touch and network with former friends. Children under the age of 18 need to build strong human to human relationships with other children through school, sports, and clubs – not through a keyboard and monitor.

Businesses/companies should not access potential employees' blogs and/or social networking page.

This principle should be adopted in order to protect a potential employee from discrimination by a business/company. Companies should focus on the potential employee’s performance during interviews and quality of resumes rather than what types of hobbies and music the person enjoys. If a hiring manager wanted to view an employee’s social networking profile, then he should do so on his own time and not let it influence his opinion of the potential employee.

Privacy settings, company regulations and other information regarding email ought to be simple and easily accessible for users.

This principle will protect both the employee and the company. Companies must teach their employees about privacy settings and inform them of what they have access to. This information needs to be easily accessible so that there is no confusion between the employee and the company. Effective privacy settings for a company computer is extremely important because employees have access to sensitive information, therefore they could be prey for a hacker.

Sites that allow users to find the location of others without their consent should be eliminated.

Once again, this principle is aimed at maintaining a person’s privacy. Map-finder websites should only be operable if they have the consent of the person who is being searched. Having access to a person’s residence is not only dangerous, but it is also unnecessary. If a person needs to find the home of someone else, then they should have direct contact with that person, not through a sketchy map-finding website.

All forum and chat room-based websites must require users to provide valid registration information.

This principle will help to reduce chat-room anonymity, and it will make users responsible for their words and actions on forum/chat websites. This principle should reduce the amount of rumors, gossip, and hate speech that currently flows freely through these websites. Possible forms of valid registration information would be name, birth-date, address, and a driver’s license number. Once this information is approved, then the person can make posts to the chat room or forum. However, this information will not be displayed to other users on the website.

Retailers should require some form of a digital signature to help decrease credit card fraud.

People can cause a lot of damage to someone’s finances through a lost or stolen credit card. The internet is one of the easiest places to illegally use someone else’s credit card. Since no face-to-face contact is made during online purchases, credit card fraud runs rampant. Retail websites need to require some other proof that the credit card information matches the actual buyer before they approve the transaction. A possible idea is having the buyer supply the last four digits of their social security number or even their birth-date.

Similar to television censoring, sexually explicit websites should only be accessible after a certain hour.

Sexually explicit material on the web needs to be censored more than it currently is. A way of doing this would be to only allow these websites to be accessible after a certain time – say ten o’clock at night. This would also protect children because theoretically, children would not be awake a ten at night. This is the same concept that many television networks follow. They will wait until after primetime TV is over to play their mature adult-oriented shows.

Society should not become one with the computer.

Face-to- face contact needs to remain the most important tool for building strong relationships with one another. When people begin to rely too heavily on the internet, they begin to lose some of their inherent social skills. If people start to lose their ability to communicate with each other, then we can not live harmoniously as one. Plus, not everyone is fortunate enough to own their own computer. How would those people interact with others if everyone became ‘one with the computer’ ?

Delaney's Principles

jhcollier3 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:01:19 CST

Delaney Parrish

1- Social networking sites should be limited to users 18 years of age or older.

This one is pretty straightforward to me. I think that social networking site fudge the idea of friendships and meaningful human connections. I would like to see the youth of our nation first learn to communicate with one another without the use of social networking sites. Before making virtual friends, I would like to see them create, establish, and tend to living friendships.

2- The Internet should be particularly dedicated to protecting the privacy of minors.

I see this principle as a stepping-stone. Though I think the Internet should promote privacy for all users, I think it should take dedicated strives to first protect the privacy of minors. Those under 18 years of old are legally protected in the United States for both crimes by and against them, the idea being that minors don’t always show the best judgment, that they should be given second chances, and that they are particularly vulnerable as victims of crime. This same idea should be applied to occurrences online. The violation of a minor’s privacy should be considered especially offensive, and strides should be taken legally to both prevent and prosecute such violations.

3- The Internet should promote access to pornography as socially unacceptable and deviant.

Pornography, I believe, is an example of an industry that could only exist, on as large a scale as it does, online. Without the Internet, I do not believe that pornography would be so widely circulated and used. I do not believe that we as humans should be participating online in something we wouldn’t participate in as a part of our “real lives.” There are legal restrictions regarding access to, for example, child pornography or snuff films, and yet there are few repercussions, if any, for access to pornography that otherwise serves as a gateway to these types of pornography. I understand the dangers and complications in legislating a person’s sexual life or desires. Therefore, I do not necessarily believe that pornography or access to pornography should be outlawed (or even greatly restricted), but I do think that the Internet allows pornography to be more commonplace that it should be. This is a social norm that needs to change if we wish to restore and/or build healthy relationships between and among men and women.

4- The Internet should encourage responsible participation in systems of government.

Responsible, I suppose, is the problematic word here. I think I mean for the vague quality of the word to refer to an individual’s own capacity to discover what “responsible” might mean to them. To me, responsible participation in government is reasonable, logical feedback on the decisions and methodologies of a nations government in regards not only to its own people, but to peoples of other nations and backgrounds. Angry rants are not responsible. Gossip blogs about the sex life of Washington staffers are not responsible. Online participation in government should instead be dedicated to the benefit of all parties involved with or affected by the government, not to the individual priorities of the one speaking (writing, blogging, etc.)

5- The Internet should value knowledge and/or noteworthy information over gossip.

With all due respect to Perez Hilton, you do little to benefit anyone. I think that people do need a release from the more serious aspects of life. But I don’t think obsessing over other people’s lives, particularly celebrities, does little to advance anyone’s quality of life. Rather, it only proves detrimental to those being gossiped about. This is not to say that only news and/or seriously political or social topics are to be considered “noteworthy.” I think that there is much more to life than that. But I would rather people spend their time trying to enhance the quality of their lives instead of merely passing the time with the consumption of mindless, pointless information.

6- The Internet's purposes should not be confused or intermingled with endeavors of capitalism.

This principle is not meant to disown online shopping. I was not talking about ebay or bluefly.com. Rather, I meant that the Internet should not be seen primarily as a means to make money. When it is seen a means for capitalistic victory, I think the Internet will begin to value quantity of information over quality of information. As with most things in life, when the only purpose of any endeavor is to make money, many immoral and hurtful decisions tend to be made along the way. If users can manage to both make money and simultaneously benefit one another, than I have no major qualms with capitalistic endeavors on the Internet.

7- Hate speech on the Internet should be barred from respectable websites.

This principle is a modified version of the one posted on the wiki as part of our 12 class principles—Hate speech on the Internet should be restricted. I like that norm, but I am hesitant to suggest that hate speech should be restricted. We have a freedom of speech in this country, and I think it should stay that way. I think that instead we need to discover ways to norm hate speech as undesirable or unacceptable. But restricting something often does little to curtail it. I understand that respectable is vague at best, and that most websites we would consider “respectable” would likely bar hate speech to begin with, but I though it should be stated nonetheless.

8- Creative work posted on the Internet should be under the same copyright umbrella as traditionally published creative materials.

Traditional copyright laws have been modified over the years to best protect an author’s right to their work. They should not be altered because work exists in a digital rather than physical medium. Digital production of creative work does not devalue its nature, and therefore it should not be subjected to devalued copyright law or copyright law enforcement.

9- Sites that allow users to find the location of others without their consent should be eliminated from use by the general public.

This is a modified version of the one posted on the wiki as part of our 12 class principles—Sites that allow users to find the location of others without their consent should be eliminated. Technology that allows such infringement of privacy law holds considerable power, and should therefore be in possession only of those who might best manage such power. Therefore, the use of this information should not be accessible to the public-at-large for personal use. This information, and websites that produce it, should be limited to use by government and/or law enforcement officials.

10- Social networking sites should be seen as opportunities to represent and celebrate diversity, rather than as locations for strict enforcement of pre-established social norms.

I think that students’ anger towards companies who use Facebook to eliminate possible employees is a representation of their frustration that these companies want them to represent a specific image. While it may not be the case that all companies only use Facebook to turn down the kids who seem to party a lot, there is so truth to the fact that companies are looking for something specific when hiring, and it probably doesn’t veer towards parties and nudity and drugs. However, I think that social networking sites could have a positive impact if we allow them to represent the true identities of individuals—identities that might not otherwise be seen or understood. If we learn to celebrate these different identities, rather than use the site to comb through and eliminate those that are, in fact, different, then social networking sites might ultimately created some sort of new social equality.

11- The Internet should not be owned or controlled by any one person or organization.

The Internet as an open forum controlled by and created by the general public is its true virtue, and one that should remain. If it is ever owned or largely dictated by one organization, then it will lose its power of checks and balances. There is something to be said for the constant struggle it undergoes to meet the needs of all who participate in it. We can see, already, how Google search engines dictate our access to the Internet’s information. Facets of the Internet such as Google should be limited if at all possible.

12- Society should not become one with the computer.

Though this one is, perhaps, the most vague, it is one of my favorites. I think we need to be constantly reminded that the Internet is something of human creation. We created it, we can alter it, and we can disable it. It should not be seen as some inevitable facet of our lives. As human beings, we have far more cognitive abilities than the Internet will ever have. For this reasons, we could not, and should not, allow it to be a part of our human fiber.

Paige's Principles

jhcollier3 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:00:22 CST

Paige Burton

1. The Internet should be free of charge.

The Internet, for the purpose of this argument, is the World Wide Web – any connection (Internet Explorer, Mozilla, Safari, etc) containing the fastest connection (DSL). “Free of charge” entails the ability to be able to connect to the Internet without having to pay any sort of fee to connect to the Internet (meaning the Internet would have a wireless connection throughout the world). The Internet should be free of charge because being “connected” has become such a vital part of people’s lives; the Internet, in many ways has become a provider of communication, information, and even a place of employment. If the Internet was free of charge, there would be more opportunity for people who may have been without the ability to pay, a way to connect with others and become better educated (in a general sense) through the technology.

2. Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to create a social networking account.

A social networking account is any network on the Internet that permits one to communicate with and/or meet others. Children under the age of 18 shouldn’t be allowed to create a social networking account because until he or she is of legally of age, it is not necessary for them to have a social forum through the Internet (through that particular network). There are too many negative aspects to these networks at a young age; such as: exposure to indecent photographs of older people/friends (drinking and provocative pictures), an outlet that may lead to unhealthy relationships (friendships and romantic), and an altered perception of what meaningful relationships are.

3. Businesses/companies should not access potential employees’ blogs and/or social networking page.

Businesses and companies should not access potential employees’ blogs and/or social networking page because the personal and intimate that may be posted on either of the pages should not be judged based on the person’s qualifications for a job. Blogs and social networking pages are set up to enable a person to express him or herself in whatever way they please. Employers should not judge a persons’ information voluntarily posted, in respect to his or her eligibility for a potential career. Whether a person chooses to partake in a blog or social network should not be used against him or her in the eyes of an employer.

4. Privacy settings, company regulations and other information regarding email ought to be simple and easily accessible for users.

Privacy settings and company regulations refer to the particular settings/regulations that a company may assign to all employees which explain what the company has access to [of which its employees access] and how that information is attained and viewed in the eyes of the company. Company employers should lay out the privacy settings and regulations in a simple manner so that the employees will know what they can consider “private” and what is or could be company information, or read by an employer [for whatever reason]. Companies should also make these settings and regulations accessible at all times and easily understood so that there is no confusion or misunderstanding for their employees.

5. Sites that allow users to find the location of others without their consent should be eliminated.

Location-finder sites are sites that allow anyone to use the address or general location of any person to find where exactly it/she/he is on a map, with provided directions if desired. An example of this is Google Maps. To have given “consent” one would need to accept or agree to the terms of the site which allow anyone to type in the address of his or her home to find where he/she lives. These sites should not be allowed without the consent of a person because it endangers any one person by allowing someone to find where they live and how to get there. If a person does not give their consent for their whereabouts to be accessible through these types of sites, it should not be allowed. There are many dangers in allowing location-finding sites, especially when one does not know that their privacy is being invaded and their location can be easily found.

6. Academic courses through a college or university should not be allowed on the Internet (and as the only source).

Academic courses offered through a college or university (unless that college/university is online-based only) should not allow online courses as the only means of education (for any particular course). The school (college/university) should not be allowed to do offer a class online only because it takes away from the educational experience, the learning experience that is so important for all students. There are many disadvantages to offering a class only online, such as, not everyone may have immediate access to a computer/the Internet, the student does not interact with any other classmates, the teacher-student relationship is lost, complete understanding of the subject may be difficult to grasp without an oral or demonstrative explanation.

7. The Internet should value knowledge and/or noteworthy information over gossip.

Knowledge and/or noteworthy information refer to any sort of information that is relevant to academia, political, social, economical, (etc) issues. The Internet should value these types of issues over gossip because it has no real value or impact to our lives. Yes, it’s fun and interesting to read about the lives of celebrities – who’s dating whom, and who’s back in rehab – but in reality, this kind of news does not affect us in any way. People should be more concerned about what is going on in the world, and what actually affects them – and if more emphasis is put on sites with this intention, then perhaps we would become a more informed society.

8. Society should not become one with the computer.

This principle implies that society should realize that life exists outside of their computer screen. Today, the computer makes it easy to do almost everything you could do physically, on the computer (or through the Internet). It’s important to remember that learning, playing, teaching, and just doing should not be done just on our computers – we take away the meaning of actually doing things when we rely on computers so heavily.

9. Hate speech on the Internet should be restricted.

Hate speech, in the simplest sense, refers to any type of language that is used to hurt another (be that mentally, physically, or emotionally). This sort of speech should be restricted because it does not belong on the Internet – having this sort of hate speech available to anyone who may choose to read it only reinforces the damage it can do. This sort of language is not appropriate online because it can be put into the mind of someone who has bad intentions, or intentions to put the hatred into action. There are too many dangers with hate speech being available to so many people, and if it is not restricted, hate speech will become a kind of norm, or acceptable, which I do not think is ok.

10. The Internet should not be owned or controlled by any one person or organization.

The Internet should not be owned/controlled by just one person because there would be too much responsibility in that ownership. There are so many different outlets and facets to the Internet that it might cause too many problems if one person tried to “control” or “own” it. The Internet is a place where millions of people are able to contribute their work and/or thoughts. Everyone who uses the Internet owns it, and that’s how it should remain. It would take away our freedom of speech and capabilities if we let only one person take control.

11. All forum and chat room-based websites must require users to provide valid registration information.

This principle should be enforced because there are too many risks without this requirement. Chat-room based websites should require users to provide valid registration information because in today’s society, there are many people who lie on these websites with dishonorable intentions. If registration was required, we would be able to track down those offenders, and prevent them from using these types of sites as a means of causing potential harm to another user.

12. The Internet should not be censored.

The term censored means that materials on the Internet should be examined, suppressed, and/or removed if considered morally or ethically wrong. I agree with this statement to some degree because there are certain materials on the Internet that do not belong there, for example hate speech websites. Because the Internet is so fast it would be virtually impossible to censor it completely, and it would take away from our freedom of speech. Although there are sites that are not appropriate in some way, there are websites that are useful and communicate for the common good of others, and because of this, the Internet should not be censored. When it comes down to it, people are given the opportunity to read and write about whatever they choose on the Internet, which is ultimately to their benefit because they are learning about something, regardless of the subject matter – what’s most important is that people understand that they have the freedom of speech, and make change, if they feel inclined to do so.

The Future of the Internet & Copyright

eccole — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:59:13 CST

by Elizabeth Cole

Protecting the original works of others is the ultimate goal of copyright law. As the Internet has exploded over the past 25 years, looking ahead to the next 25 holds amazing possibility. Copyright laws will also have to adapt and change as the Internet does. The freedom that the Internet allows will continue to make copyright laws harder to enforce, so they must adapt and change as well. We can make some educated guesses as to what the future might hold for the Internet and, specifically, Internet copyright.

The explosion of speed and connectivity that the Internet provides allows for information to be transferred and shared in a manner of seconds. Copyright laws have had to transfer over the Internet because of this ease of sharing information. Is sending a photograph copyright infringement? Is downloading music copyright infringement? Is posting a picture of Mickey Mouse on your website copyright infringement? The answer to all of these is yes. As the Internet continues to grow and change, will copyright laws become more stringent or more relaxed?

First of all, original material is protected by copyright upon its creation and the creator has exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the work, as well as the right to create other works derived from the original. The material must be “in a fixed tangible medium and be original.” The idea of what is in a fixed tangible form is under question when it comes to the Internet. If something is copied and put on the Internet, is the online copy an original? If something created electronically in a fixed and tangible medium? These questions still have yet to be answered by a court of law.

One of the major acts of legislation regarding Internet copyright is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The act implements two treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Specifically, the DMCA criminalizes the production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. The DCMA also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself, heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet, and limits the liability of ISP’s for copyright infringement by their users. The DMCA allows for protection of the service provider's in the event that their users are infringing on copyright. There are exemptions to the DCMA, and they are updated every three years. Through these exemptions, the DCMA allows for changes as the web changes. When there are infringements on copyright, the ISP's are currently protected. As time goes on, the ISP will become obsolete. The Internet will become one access point for all users. All users will be held responsible for their own infringements.

Looking towards the future, I believe that Internet copyright laws will have to become more relaxed. As more and more people are getting online, more and more instances of borrowed and sharing of material will occur. The Internet is not under the jurisdiction of one nations court system so there is no logical and efficient way to keep track of “where” copyright infringement issues will take place. If the offender is in China and the copyright holder is in the United States, will there legally be a way to make to offender take the copyrighted material down? Although the World Intellectual Property Organization has passed treaties to deal with between borders copyright infringement, not all of the countries of the world are subject to these treaties and the future will inevitably allow for easier infringement from all parts of the world.

Some of the big copyright issues that are being discussed today involve she sharing of music and video, and, more recently, textbooks. The sales of printed textbooks have gone down and the availability of textbooks online is becoming a more common occurrence. After issues such as music copyright infringement and the more recent issues of video on YouTube and e-books, corporations that hold copyrights on popular material have found ways to make their products and services available online for their own benefit. Programs such as iTunes allow for the purchase of music and videos; and sites like Hulu allow for the free viewing of television and movies with the occasional interruption for an advertisement. Companies are adapting to the changes in technology to make sure that their products are protected. In the future, however, I believe that there will be no issues with all of these things being equally shared and available for use at all times by anyone. Advertising will be the main way for companies to make money, as it is today.

Along with international copyright laws, the Internet in general will also continue to change and develop. Access will be allowed anywhere and with any device. The integration of something like the iPhone will become the norm for everyone. This type of technology allows acces to all forms of communication and entertainment in a small package. Everyone will always have access to the Internet and all it has to offer. This allows for the easier acces to copyrighted materials, which in turn can lead to more and more infringement through postings and use of protected materials. All technologies will be available at all times for everyone.

Although there are still parts of the world that have minimal computer and Internet access, as time goes on, those things will change. The whole world will be connected through remote access and location will not matter. Anywhere you are, in any part of the world, the Internet and communication channels will be available. Typing will be left in the past, and tablet functionality and voice recognition will become the norm for access and use of the Internet. I believe that the interface will still look the same, but with the advent of touch screen and voice recognition, the mouse will also disappear. Touching the screen or telling your “computer” what to do will be sufficient enough for use.

With the easy, global access of the Internet, copyrights wil still need to be protected. If there is no protection, there is no incentive for people to create original works. Anyone can claim anything as their own. Protection needs to continue to be enforced, even if not to the full extent it is today.

The future of the Internet is discussed and researched in depth every day. It is hard to say where we will actually be in terms of the Internet in 25 years, but we can be sure that there will be easy access for more and more people. Any and all information will be available online for all to access. The changes in copyright laws will allow for the easy and open sharing of all sorts of information and products. Although the interface is sure to change, the functions of the Internet will be basically the same as they are today: information and communication.

Sources

Guess, Andy. "E-Textbooks for All." Inside Higher Ed 7 Oct 2008. 15 Oct 2008 <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/10/07/ut>.

Howard, Jennifer. "Textbook Sales Drop, and University Presses Search for Reasons." Chronicle of Higher Education 19 Sept 2008. 6 Oct 2008 <http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i04/04a01002.htm>.

Lipschultz, Jeremy Harris. "New Communication Technologies." Communication and the Law. Ed. W. Wat Hopkins. Alabama: Vision Press, 2008.

Ottaviani, John and Glenn G. Pudelka. "YouTube Lawsuit Raises Novel Internet Copyright Issues." The Licensing Journal. (October 2007): 9-14.

Young, Jeffrey. "Students Flock to Web Sites Offering Pirated Textbooks." Chronicle of Higher Education 4 Sept 2008. 6 Oct 2008 <http://chronicle.com/free/2008/09/4477n.htm>.

Elizabeth's Principles

eccole — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:17:27 CST

1. The Internet should be free of charge.
Since the Internet is such a pervasive medium, access to connectivity to some form of the Internet should be free. The user should be required to purchase the hardware needed to access, such as a laptop or desktop computer. Having wireless access should be the preferred mode to allow access from anywhere users need the Internet. There should be a standard speed at which the free Internet is run, but if a faster speed is needed, users should be able to pay to receive faster speeds to do things like download or upload large files.

2. The government shouldn’t be able to regulate speech on the Internet any more than it can with other mediums of expression.
Free speech should be allowed on the Internet. Since the press and other forms of speech in public are both protected in certain ways, so should speech on the Internet. There are certain restrictions and the same restrictions should also be followed on the web. Since there is no one governing body of the Internet, it is also hard to even regulate speech since the web is so vast and crosses all national borders.

3. Hate speech on the Internet should be restricted.
As with other forms of expression, hate speech should be restricted to a certain extent. Because of the severity of some things that are written online, there do need to be some restrictions to keep people safe from threats or privacy leaks that could endanger them or their families. Since hate speech and fighting words are restricted in the press and verbally, it should also be restricted on the Internet.

4. The Internet shouldn’t be owned/regulated by owned or regulated by any one person or organization.
Right now, different countries have different restrictions on the Internet depending on their government policies. This should not be the case because of how much the Internet crosses international borders. If one entity has control, there will be things done to the Internet that not all users or governments will agree with. Innovations on the Internet should be allowed to happen, and if there is a restriction on who is running and controlling the Internet there could be limitations on what kinds of innovations are allowed.

5. The Internet should promote active government participation.
Because the Internet is such an open forum, active participation and learning should easily happen. Politics, especially in the 2008 election, has become more and more integrated on the Internet. Users have become more active in their participation in politics on the Internet, but in a one-sided way. Users generally actively seek out the opinions and websites that reinforce their own views. The change that needs to happen is opposing views need to become more prevalent in Internet use to foster better education.

6. Creative works on the Internet should be subject to the same copyright laws as traditionally published materials.
An artist’s, writer’s, or professional’s work is important to each of them. Current copyright laws protect original works. These laws should spill over into the Internet. There are current laws in place, specifically with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and these laws should continue to be enforced. Original works should not be allowed to be copied and posted onto the Internet without permission of the copyright holder. Even as the Internet grows and changes, original works should be protected for the sake of the creator.

7. There ought to be electronic access to all forms of media & entertainment paid for through advertising or smaller user payment.
Music sharing on the Internet is a hotly contested issue. Many say that entertainment access should be free, but then how would the creators of these forms of entertainment continue to keep working if they did not make money. If people want to access these materials, then there needs to be some way to make money off of users viewing or listening to these materials. Advertising during a movie or on the same page as the video will help make money. A small user fee is also another way to make money. As with iTunes, paying for songs or video is a plausible way to make money for entertainment.

8. Users under the age of 18 should not be able to create a social networking page.
It is important for users to be aware of the risks of posting personal information online. For children under the age of 18 some may understand the repercussions of their postings, but not all do. Protecting children online is important and fostering a positive childhood is just as important. Friends shouldn’t be made exclusively online. Spending time with friends and other people will help children be successful adults when they have to get out into the world and fend for themselves. When they do become adults, social networking can become an option.

9. All forum and chat room-based websites must require users to provide valid registration information.
To enter any place where you will post information, there should be a way to verify the person is who they say they are. Although these types of technologies may be a little ways off in the future, there is the possibility of verifying correct information. This type of advancement would allow for safe and accountable use of the Internet. Online predators could be prevented, threats thwarted, and accountability for comments and postings can be possible.

10. Private information and records of Internet use should be able to be accessed by legitimate agencies with proper and reasonable documentation.
When there is a threat to national security or a reasonable need for a user’s personal information regarding their Internet use, the government should be allowed to access that information. Although there should be a reasonable feeling of privacy on the Internet, illegal and potentially harmful materials should be able to be tracked. There should be a legitimate way of going about obtaining this information, such as a warrant or filing of some form of paperwork to allow for user privacy.

11. Privacy settings, company regulations and other information regarding email ought to be simple and easily accessible for users.
The way a company tracks use of the Internet on company machines and with company accounts should be plain and simple. These policies should be stressed when starting to work for a company, but also allow for a reasonable amount of privacy regarding other email accounts outside of the workplace. The workplace should be a place for work exclusively and the policies used should be made clear to ensure security for the company and for the users themselves.

12. Society shouldn’t become one with the Internet.
The Internet shouldn’t become the one form of communication and entertainment for everyone. All of our activities cannot be on this one medium. We need to be sure that our personal relationships do not all transfer over to the Internet. Face-to-face communication should be the way of building relationships. The Internet does allow for faster communication and an easy way of accessing information and entertainment. We need to be sure to hold onto the relationships that matter and not become consumed with technology.

Emily's Principles

jhcollier3 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 05:55:22 CST

Emily Ayotte

1.The Internet should be free of charge.
This principle is kind of a given in most cases. The internet is already such a vast and uncontrolled sort of idea anyway. It has become so significant in professional, educational, and social aspects of living that one might call it essential. It is hard to live in this day and age without internet or access to it. It debilitates those who cannot afford it, which can even keep them from pulling themselves out of financial trouble. Not only would it benefit those who cannot afford it now, but it would also be great for those of us who can. If we could access the internet anywhere, at any time, for free we could hypothetically have the information we need at our fingertips. Because of the recent increase in demand for internet access just to live in today’s world, free internet access seems necessary and essential. The internet is a collected series of information that many have contributed to, and in order to access general websites, we should not have to pay a service provider such as Comcast or Verizon. I adopted this principle because I believe the internet has become such a huge part of our lives (good or bad), and each citizen needs to be given the same advantage of being able to access it. It is a serious issue because we are paying for a company to grant us access, when we should already have the right to access the internet for free in the first place.

2. Creative work posted on the Internet should be under the same copyright umbrella as traditionally published creative materials.
I think this is a simple principle that any respectable human being would understand. If you create something, it is yours, no matter what. Even if the person puts something on the internet, which is a huge cluster of anything you can imagine, it is still theirs. They are sharing something that they have created, which does not mean, in any way, that they are allowing others to steal it, sell it, etc. I adopted this principle because I believe that the internet can be crucial in terms of stimulating creativity and spreading ideas. This can be taken advantage of on the internet because there are no laws that protect a user’s work (unless it is traditionally copyrighted). This might eventually start deterring users from posting on the internet, which would not only be counterproductive, but it would also take away one of the greatest aspects of the internet: the sharing of information and ideas with fellow peers (who should respect ownership of the said information).

3. The Internet should not be censored.
The internet is meant to allow for free speech. It is a crucial part of the internet and what it does for society. Anyone, no matter their age, sex, race, etc. should be able to express themselves, after all the internet is an open forum. I selected this as one of my principles because I value other’s opinions and I think that it should be a given that everyone respects and is exposed to other opinions. Our internet is already tailored to our own opinions and beliefs, as expressed in our reading about “The Daily Me”, so in a way it is already somewhat censored. I think it is crucial that we keep the internet uncensored for that reason and also because I am afraid of who would be selected to censor it…I mean think about it.

4. Hate speech on the Internet should be restricted.
Well, I know this principle conflicts somewhat with the previous one, but I still really believe in it. I think hate speech is underestimated in terms of the damage it can do, even if a lot of it is just social problems. I think hate speech is unacceptable and should not be tolerated, but I also believe that there is a grey area between hate speech and expressing an opinion. I think the internet should support a norm that leans more towards expressing your opinion, but not rallying against someone or a group of people. I adopted this norm because I believe that the more hate and hate speech we allow on the internet, the more acceptable it will become in everyday, real life. If we do not change the norm on the internet, it could potentially wreak havoc on our social norms.

5. Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to create a social networking account.
This norm is essential and my favorite. I think that social networking has created a lot of good things, but it has also allowed for children to spread their lives (unknowing or not) all over the internet. I do not think they are completely aware of their consequences, and I also believe they are too naïve to know the definition of privacy on the internet (if there is such a thing). This would keep 17 and younger children off of the social network and away from predators. I adopted this principle, not going to lie, mainly because after Facebook became available to anyone, I sort of shunned Mark Zuckerberg. I think the fact that younger children could get on Facebook made it more like a Myspace site, which is almost like a soft porn site with a mass amount of easy, underage targets. I think this principle would keep children safer and give social networking a better name. Letting children on Facebook is like letting a baby play on the floor of a bar, they don’t belong there and it’s dangerous.

6. Businesses/companies SHOULD be allowed to access potential employees' blogs and/or social networking page.
I’m sorry to the rest of you who do not believe this norm, but I think it should be allowed. I think this norm is an important one to think and analyze. Social networking is great and allows you to connect with friends etc., but it also is a portrayal of who you are as a person. Whether you like it or not, you are displaying a form of yourself and making a virtual representation of your personal life and your personality. This can be beneficial, and it could possibly get you a job, if you portray yourself a little more like a professional that values privacy, and not a drunkard who values keg stands. I know the idea of religious views and political views came up, but I think that if someone judges/hires you on the account of either of those views, they aren’t a respectable company/business anyway. With that said, I think that businesses should not base much of their hiring process on a potential employee’s social networking profile, but be able to access it if they would like. I don’t think it should be a required at all, but it should be an option if the company wishes to view a page that you posted about yourself. I think you can actually show a great side of yourself on a social networking site, and do not be ashamed of who you are (unless your are a crazy drunkard/pothead with tons of pictures posted as evidence.)

7. Privacy settings, company regulations and other information regarding email ought to be simple and easily accessible for users.
This norm is very important and should be supported by all users because it protects them and gives them options, as well as control. No matter what age or literacy of the user, each person has the right to set privacy and regulations. If these settings are not readily available and easily accessible, a user might miss the opportunity to use them. They might not even know whether or not there are options for their privacy. I’m not sure why the internet is like this now, but the privacy settings are almost hidden from users. They should be put forward and sites should even prompt the user to set their privacy settings (sort of like Firefox does when you access a site and it asks you if you would like to remember this password). I adopted this principle because I have seen my own mother struggle with privacy settings. Even though she is less literate with computer technology, she has every right to know what information of her is being displayed and what is not. I realize it is her ignorance, but she is a victim of circumstance and a generation gap; there should be more of a catering to them than there is now.

8. Sites that allow users to find the location of others without their consent should be eliminated.
This is principle is a given. No one should be able to find your location on the internet, especially via satellite and advanced video technology. I realize the government has been doing this and setting a bad example for its citizens, but by allowing users to find other users and even find out their addresses, phone numbers, and location at the time is scary. It is the ultimate creeper/stalker status. I don’t see how this could be useful in anyway for citizens. The government, as much as I hate to admit it, has some rights to do these sorts of things for protection, but any old citizen? Absolutely not. I adopted this principle because people with too much power and information could cause a lot of damage, and I think the internet is placing just that in some dangerous hands: American’s with that “it’s a free country, I can do what I want” attitude.

9. All forum and chat room-based websites must require users to provide valid registration information.
This principle is a great one, that would demand that each user who posts on a forum provide valid information about themselves. This would allow for inappropriate, dangerous, or suspicious users to be tracked down. It also would make each user own and own up to what they state so ferociously when they are anonymous. I think owning what you say, whether on the internet or in person is not valued nearly as much as it should be. If you are putting it on the internet, put it on the internet as what it is: yours. I adopted this principle because I think too many people hide behind the fact that you don’t have state who you are or have any sort of connection to what you wrote if you don’t want to. This can be dangerous, but it also might make people think twice before making inappropriate comments.

10. The Internet should encourage responsible government participation.
I think that this is another principle that is already sort of being put into action. I think that the internet should support and encourage citizens to participate and actually be voters, not observers. I think that the internet already has begun to implement this with Youtube and the candidate’s sites. I think that it is based on democracy, so the internet should also support democracy. I adopted this principle because I believe that every eligible American should vote, and I think that since the internet is already so filled with ideas and supports others ideas, it should encourage voting and political involvement. The internet is already so powerful and controls norms, why not make patriotism and democracy an important part of those norms.

11. The Internet should not be owned or controlled by any one person or organization.
This principle would make sure that no one person or organization could have complete or even partial control over the internet. The internet has so many contributors as well as users. It is a powerful place, and should not be controlled by any elite person or group. That is way too much power for one person, and if it was controlled by someone, it would not be the internet we know now. Everyone owns the internet, and that’s the way it should stay. I adopted this principle because I think the internet is already restricted enough, why would it need to be owned or regulated by a separate person(s).

12. Society should not become one with the computer.
This principle is a little more complex than the others. It suggests that as a society we should keep our lives separate from the internet. They should not rely or be based on the internet or even the technologies around us. We do not have to use the internet, it might make things easier, but we should not be addicted to or have to have it as a society. We should be able to function as a society without the internet. It is a technology, not a way of life. I chose this principle because I think that society relies heavily on the internet and rarely realizes that it is a manmade technology that is just that. Then again, I also think I was born in the wrong time, thus I might be a little more inclined to say the hell with technologies.

Katelynn's Principles

jhcollier3 — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:52:22 CST

Katelynn Reilly

1. Online retailers should not keep a customer’s credit card number in their database.

This principle is important in protecting a customer’s security and privacy. If this principle wasn’t in place if a person’s login account to an online store got hacked, their credit card could be used to purchase fraudulent goods. It is important we enact this principle at this time because many Americans have multiple login accounts and often make their passwords easy to hack which can easily lead to credit fraud. I adopted this principle because my credit rating is extremely important to my future and me and I want to protect it in any way I can.

2. Spam emails should not be sent to children under the age of 18.

Spam email can often be confused for real email messages this is the reason is should not be sent to children. Scams such as sending money to receive millions of dollars are a type of spam message that children can easily fall victim too. Additionally, many pieces of spam email contain pornography and/or links to inappropriate websites. My principles bans all spam email from being sent to minors, there is no legitimate reason why children need to receive spam and generally spam causes more harm than good. I chose to adopt this principle to protect children since they are young, vulnerable and can easily fall prey to these scams.

3. All email account should be remain private unless the government needs to access it.

The world is changing and most messages are now sent via email, instead of written letter. This principle protects those messages and keeps them private. By making email private it will only be available to the person who received the message and to the person who sent the message.

I adopted this principle because many messages I send over email are private and I would be upset if anyone besides the recipient saw the message.

If you ever send messages that you wouldn’t want the entire world to see, I would recommend you adopt this principle as well.

4. The Internet should be free of charge.

This principle means that companies such as Comcast can no longer charge for Internet use. The Internet will be free for everyone to use, this will help to make sure any and everyone can get online. The Internet will no longer be just for the rich this will help disseminate information quicker and easier. I don’t believe companies like Comcast should charge for the Internet, which essentially doesn’t cost Comcast anything to produce. Companies like Comcast are not making the Internet; they are simply providing it to you, which can be done centrally for everyone to access. I adopted this principle because I believe a centralized free Internet is the best way to make Internet accessible to everyone, everywhere. I would like to live in a world where I can access the Internet while driving in my car or while grocery shopping, for free.

5. Creative work posted on the Internet should be under the same copyright umbrella as traditionally published creative materials.

Posting work to the Internet is the best way to get publicity and display your work. This principle will protect that artistic work from being stolen by other Internet users. When you post your work to the Internet is should be given the same rights as when you physically write your work down on paper. I chose to adopt this principle because the Internet as a whole is very easy to “copy and paste” information from. Many times people use ideas straight from the Internet that are not their ideas. I believe that people who post to the Internet deserve the same rights as those who write traditionally. These people should not be punished for keeping up with the times and using the Internet to disseminate their ideas.

6.The Internet should not be censored.

The Internet should be a public forum that is free from regulation by government and industry alike. Similar to the Ancient Roman Forums, the Internet should be a place that all citizens can go to state their ideas and opinions freely and without fear of censorship. I agree with this principle because I tend to be a very opinioned person who likes to share her opinions with others, using the Internet is the easiest way for me to disseminate my opinion. I wouldn’t want my opinion censored because others didn’t agree or like it and I believe it’s my right to state my opinion on the Internet.

7. The Internet should not be owned or controlled by any one person or organization.

In a world where corporate ownership is increasing at a record pace, I believe it’s important for the Internet to remain public and free from ownership. If companies or individuals have ownership and/or control the media will lose its ability to allow free speech, it will essentially become censored. I chose this principle because if a company like Apple “buys” the Internet, they have the potential to censor it from competitive information such as Microsoft and Windows. I believe for the Internet to remain a forum for free speech it should not be owned or controlled.

8. Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to create a social networking account.

Children are extremely vulnerable to the bad things that can and do happen on the Internet, this principle helps to protect the children. By eliminating children on social networking sites, this will help keep them from posting photos of themselves both appropriate and inappropriate and from talking to people online that they do not know. Social networking sites make it easy for bad people (child molesters, rapists) to contact and communication with members, eliminating children from these sites will keep them safe. This principle is the easiest for me to adopt, I believe by not allowing children on social networking sites this may keep them young and innocent a little longer. Children now tend to grow up a little too fast because of these sites, with this principle hopefully that will change.

9. The Internet should encourage responsible government participation.

The Internet should foster political discussion, outreach and increase voter turnout. I believe by opening online government forums for new ideas and possible policies we will allow more citizens to be involved in all forms of government. I believe all government agencies should have a part of their website that allows for new ideas to be submitted. I adopted this principle because I believe that if there was a chat or message forum where I could list my ideas for the country and have them heard by Washington I would feel more connected to the government and participate more.

10. Privacy settings, company regulations and other information regarding email ought to be simple and easily accessible for users.

Many Internet users are new to computers and have trouble navigating the Internet. By making important details about email and privacy settings easier to understand and access we would insure that everyone understood them. Every email user is subject to these settings and rules, which makes it crucial that everyone using email understands them. Although, I am young and a member of the “internet generation” there are a lot of privacy setting and regulations that I don’t know about and/or use. If this knowledge was more accessible and easier to understand I could be safer and more protected online.

11. Sites that allow users to find the location of others without their consent should be eliminated.

Tracking sites should be banned because they provide an unnecessary big brother aspect that will scare some users from the Internet. I believe the goal of the internet is to include everyone, if you start to track the locations of users this will discourage users who feel the internet is already too invasive in their lives. I personally don’t want people on the Internet to know my location at every moment of the day that scares me. This tracking makes me worry about stalking and general privacy overall.

12. All forum and chat room-based websites must require users to provide valid registration information.

The Internet allows for free speech, but with this free speech you must identify yourself. The registration should include name and drivers license number, this way age can be verified. This principle is extremely important because if you did not need to provide valid registration anyone can post racist, sexist or any other kind of rude comments without any identification of who they are. Additionally, it is important incase threats are made and the police need to track down the person who made those threats. I adopted this principle because I believe Internet bullying is a huge problem with our current teens. With a policy that requires registration this problem could be eliminated.

Kara's Principles

jhcollier3 — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:51:48 CST

Kara Sordelett

1. Online courses should be reconsidered.
There are times when an online course could be useful. When a student needs to be off campus for personal reasons, an online course may be necessary to complete course requirements. For professionals wishing to return to school, but do not have the ability to go to night classes on a regular basis, an online course could be useful. For a student who lives on campus or within the vicinity of campus, online courses are not necessary. They take away from the teacher/student and student/student relations and class discussion.

2. Businesses/ Companies/ Grad Schools should not access potential candidate’s blogs and/or social network pages.
There are equal opportunity acts against discrimination of age, race, gender, etc. Why should these same companies be given the ability to discriminate based on a profile or a passage written about something that happened in someone’s life? A person’s behavior in and out of work can vary. If a candidate is a partier outside of work, doesn’t mean that this person will be irresponsible on the clock. There is also the Solo cup conspiracy. Solo cups are used for more than just alcohol. Who uses glass containers or non-disposable cups when camping or out where a sink or dishwasher isn’t available.

3. Children under the age of18 should not be allowed to create a social networking account.
Social networking sites such as Facebook that were designed for college students may prove to be inappropriate for children under 18. Myspace has been proven to be a target for online predators and young, impressionable children should not be made susceptible to this. There is a security issue with a person pretending to be someone else. Just recently a woman was tried for pretending to be a young boy taunting a young girl, who killed herself based on what she thought this boy was saying to her.

4. The internet should be free of charge.
Does this mean internet service providers should not charge for a person to have internet access at home or that all websites should be free for any person to view? I don’t think there would be an issue allowing free access from service providers. There are maintenance issues and hardware which cost money, so this may not be possible. Nothing is ever “free” anyway. As far as not charging for access to chosen websites, this is not unlikely. Most websites are free and are paid for through advertising. So far is seems the advertisements work because of the amount of free websites there are.

5. Hate speech on the internet should be restricted.
The main questions are how to restrict it and who would be in charge of finding the speech. We’ve discussed the different radical groups that could be targeted for this, but who would have the job of finding it and removing it? Could you ban a repeat offender, at least from the website in question? If people have free access to websites it could pose a problem of tracking a repeat offender. Using a different IP address is only one way of getting around those people looking for repeat offenders.

6. The internet should not be owned or controlled by any one person or organization.
Would there be multiple organizations or people controlling it? What is the internet being defined as in this statement- websites such as Wikipedia that anyone is allowed to post on? Who owns the internet/websites? How is the internet controlled? Some sites have moderators and some sites are individually controlled. It would be impossible for any one person to control, the internet and all websites it contains. Who would establish the people and groups that are allowed to control the internet? How would it be controlled? Would it been kept to appropriate content and no hate speech?

7. All personal information required online should remain private.
All personal information includes but is not limited to: social security numbers, credit card numbers, passwords, addresses, etc. Some websites require certain information to set up an account such as match.com, chemistry.com, paypal.com. All of these sites require a credit card number and personal information to use all services of the site. Colleges require social security numbers, addresses and other information to apply to schools online. Now it’s almost necessary to apply online, the costs are cheaper and it’s easier to handle an online document. The incentives to apply online outweigh the risks that are taken to apply. If a site or company can promise that this information will either be erased or stored where it can never be accessed, it would make using the internet safer and more comfortable for its users.

8. Privacy should be a concern by all users when using the internet.
This extends farther than the previous statement. When using a company email address, there are risks that are taken because the corporation has the authority of monitoring the emails being transacted. Secure sites also need to be monitored. When being required to enter personal information, some people have created fake sites that look real and use these to steal information. By looking for the lock or the https at the beginning of a web address it can make it easier to identify fake websites. Each person using the internet for whatever purpose needs to be made aware of the consequences of entering any form of information. Precautions need to be taken to insure the maximum security. This is not a call to be overly cautious, just be aware of your surroundings.

9. Music sharing should be free and allowed.
Contrary to the claims of the music industry, the royalties that the music industry makes each year does not significantly decrease when music is shared between peers. After the rise of Napster, it was said that music sales remained the same or increased because people were able to sample music and then choose to purchase it. Shows are available free to watch online. The consumer is not required to buy a box set of their favorite tv show, they can view the episodes for free online. If a music sharing program allowed ads to help keep it running, it wouldn’t cause too much disruption. The fact people are being taken to court for sharing or downloading music is unnecessary. The film and music industries control more money than most any other industry. Let us be consumers, and sample free music then choose how we spend our money; don’t take it from us!

10. The internet should not be censored.
With the concept of free speech, censoring written documentation online can be a hard thing to do. There are too many sites to control and there will always be an outlet. The one concern of not censoring the internet is that children also have access to the internet. We cannot allow children to be influenced by someone’s views or opinions, or by someone’s inappropriate website. There needs to be some type of censorship put into place. A parent can attempt to control their child’s use of the internet, but will not be present for every moment their child is logged online. With the ability of children and their knowledge of technology it is hard to monitor their use.

11. Privacy settings, company regulations, and other information regarding email ought to be simple and easily accessible for users.
Companies should inform their employees of their responsibilities when using their email accounts. Each employee should understand that their emails may and are being monitored and that if they are caught either sending personal emails or visiting sites outside of what their job needs, they could be written up or terminated depending on the severity. If an employee ever needs to be reminded of these company policies, it should be available at all times. There are generally reminders at the signature section of an email, but it should also be available to an employee either in a memo, brochure, or some other form of written communication.

12. All forum and chat room-based websites must require users to provide valid registration information.
There are some chat rooms and forums that do not require registration. It’s possible these forums also have some questionable content. By requiring users to provide information, it could help protect the innocence of a child. How could someone enforce valid registration? Any person can pick a random birthday or create an alias; there is no all-knowing database to say otherwise. It would be too much of a security risk to require some other information such as a credit card number or a social security number. It may not be possible to put these types of restrictions and have a users continue to use the service.

The Future of Facebook and Social Networking

ptburton — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:57:16 CST

Paige Burton

Facebook and social networking via the Internet is a phenomenon that has become an important, almost vital, communication tool for many people today. For college students in particular, social networking has become a resource used everyday. Social networking through the Internet has changed our ways of communication, social patterns, and perhaps our concept of socializing all together. While Facebook has become a great utility for communication, we must remember that it is a fad. Facebook will, eventually, be replaced by something bigger, better, and faster; this may entail a networking site available to everyone and anyone interested around the world, it might open up doors of communication we never thought possible, or intended. Our ideas of communicating with one another have changed significantly with the development of networking online, and may continue to change even more in respect to forming meaningful relationships. Just as the Internet itself has been modified and improved, every social networking site will be, as well.

The Internet has inevitably changed us (or it's users) because it has given us an easy way out - which I would argue many people look for in most everyday situations. The Internet provides an easy way to receive and post information, communicate, learn, play, etc., and we make conscious decisions to use what it provides. That being the case, one must wonder what is to come. Because we have become such a technology-driven society, we must questionwhether the Internet will exist at all 25 years from now. Will the Internet have taken on a new form by the year 2033? And if the Internet is still intact then, what kind and how will it affect/change the way we use it? Based on studies and research done by various analysts, I do believe that the Internet will exist to some degree. Because the World Wide Web and computers in general are changing so readily today, it seems inevitable that these technologies will be significantly different 25 years from now.

Consider the computer and how it has developed over the past few decades. The computer has transformed from box-y desktop computers, to Personal computers, to virtually hand-held computers. As the computer has transformed to become smaller, more accessible, and easier to use, the Internet has done the same. The Internet has changed in ways that one cannot even begin to fathom. The Internet has undergone transformations in all aspects: from email, America Online (AOL), broadband (high-speed connection), Wi-fi, Instant-Messenger, Google, EBay, MySpace and Facebook, etc. Every aspect of the Internet has been changed so that we can utilize it in whatever way we choose - as long as it is easy. We (Internet users) demand that every aspect of our lives and what we want is easily, readily available via the Internet – so that all it takes for us to buy clothes now, or a date, is click a few tabs or punch in a few keys.

I believe that this consumer mind-set is what will have the biggest influence on what the Internet is like 25 years from now. I think that just as we demand that the Internet connection be faster and more available, we will want it available everywhere. Perhaps or laptops will closely resemble the cell-phones that we own today. Blackberries and iPhones will be replaced by a technology even more advanced. Our cell-phones and laptops will become one in the same – with an Internet connection that is always on. We will no longer have to “sign-on” to the Internet, but instead it will be there, 24 hours a day, waiting to be used.

I think that just as the Internet will progress to something better and more consumer-driven, social networks will change in the same way. Facebook, I would argue, is our generation’s sensation. We have given socializing a new name. We have made making friends, a verb, “friending.” We have become obsessed (at least from my perspective, based on my ethnography) with knowing every detail about people’s lives – whether we are friends with him or her, or even know the person no longer matters. Because of our new concepts of friendships and communicating, it seems only natural for it to progress in the direction of more openness. By “openness” I mean that we will make the details of our lives even more available to others. Facebook will be replaced with a network that connects everyone – and we will no longer have to “friend” someone to have access to his or her information.

I think the network that takes the place of Facebook will be used by people of all ages, not just college and high school students. It will resemble MySpace in that a user can make it more personal – by adding details and links about themselves. Since the Internet will be (based on my assumptions) readily available everywhere we go, the new Facebook will be available everywhere as well. That way when we take a vacation, where we normally would not have an Internet connection and consequently no Facebook access, we will be able to get updates and check up on our friends that we would normally be in contact with.

Although the thought of being “connected” everywhere seems to be great in theory, the reality that we are becoming sucked into a virtual world is not so great. Social networking users may become enveloped into “cyber-space.” Enveloped, in the sense that their world (in their minds) may revolve around their Internet use and networking sites. If the new social networks provide friends and other assumingly inter-active sources, people may find the real world boring. Some studies have actually suggested that the MySpace and Facebook generations cannot form meaningful relationships. This is important to consider for future generations, especially if social networking is still a prominently used resource.

I believe it is our responsibility to make sure that our children learn how to make meaningful relationships and not become wrapped up in the virtual world that will most likely be accessible everywhere. Although there are great advantages to having social networks and the like available, the disadvantages should be considered as well. If the Internet continues to grow and become bigger and better, we must realize what consequences come with it. We have already become a consumer-driven society and if we accept this role, we need to realize how our lives will change. I cannot provide a definitive answer for how our lives will change, but I can almost promise, based on how we, as consumers, have acted in the past, that we will have a difficult time finding a way to avoid change. Social networks will only expand and take over how future generations communicate. Socializing through the Internet may function as our primary source of communication. I believe we need to consider these possibilities now, and their consequences before it becomes a reality.