According to this article, a proposed law which would have limited how employers are allowed to control usernames and passwords of employees' social media accounts was voted against by a large majority in the US House of Representatives, which is an important half of the Congress. Interestingly enough, the vast majority of Democrats in the House were for the measure, and the vast majority of Republicans voted against it - coming out as winners.
This is incredibly frustrating to me. At first, I was going to be angry about how politicians don't represent the will of the people anymore, but once I saw the partisan split, it made me even more angry and further reinforced how, as an American citizen, I will never vote for a single Republican ever again until they clean their act up.
It seems to me that the Republicans are almost willfully ignorant. How can these Representatives who voted against the measure be so woefully out of touch? Do they really believe that it is in the best interest of the American people to have our privacy violated so obviously and egregiously? We could chalk it up to them being older, and most likely not computer-savvy, and blame this vote on the lobbyists who influence the Representatives.
However, I think this is the symptom of a greater problem. The Republicans, most of whom have taken on the title of "conservative," are going overboard in their conservatism. There is something to be said for conservatism, but in this time, this ever-changing world, there is not really a place for it. We are on the edge of the old world - gasoline power, incomplete civil rights, underestimating the power of technology - and the new - where alternative energies are possible, where all people deserve clear and sensible rights, and where technology and the forces that control it and spring out of it are addressed in a thoughtful and honorable manner.
How many House Republicans use Facebook? Probably very few. They don't understand how this decision will affect the common man and woman in America. This is a huge problem with Republicans as I see it - they find the voters who are afraid of change - the homophobes, the racists, the victim-blamers, the deeply religious - and they pander to them, shamelessly using them to push their agenda through. It works though, as we have seen, and there are people in America who are loving this, as they help contribute to the general decline of our rights and liberties in the name of order, false righteousness, and conserving all that is "good."
I used to be proud to be an American. I used to love what my country stood for, what we did and believed in as a nation. I'm not sure if it's because I grew older and wiser, or if it's because things have gotten so bad - maybe they've always been bad, and I just never realized. I hope that there are many Americans like me, who don't like what's happening and are willing to use their anger to make change. I'm tired of politicians and the "moral" right telling me what's good and how I should live. Although I plan to live in Canada, possibly forever, I want to contribute to a better reality for Americans who stay.
I think what is wonderful about technology, what the right doesn't yet completely understand, is the incredible potential it has to reach a massive audience. I believe technology can and should be used as a vehicle for social, and through voting, political change. I'll be posting this article on Facebook, and I hope the word will spread. I hope people will see what is going on and get angry. The fight isn't over yet.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
Facebook takes a stand against nosy employers
According to this article, Facebook may take legal actions against employers who are found to be asking employees for their Facebook passwords. It is also against the Facebook privacy policy to share passwords.
I think this is a really important stance. Although it would be nice if governments made it illegal for employers to ask for social media passwords, this is at least a step in the right direction.
Some people may be outraged that companies even consider asking for such personal information; however, I can appreciate that perhaps some companies worry that their employees may be posting information or opinions on Facebook which may be harmful to the company. Despite this logic, they should still have no control over employees' accounts. The idea of it even seems Orwellian. When the line between work and personal life becomes too blurry, simply speaking one's mind on a non-work-related issue can become a job-threatening act.
This is clearly illustrated in this Twitter conversation between the two co-founders of tech start-up Geeklist and web-citizen Shanley Kane. In the conversation, which began with Kane's tweet about a scantily-clad model bearing the logo of Geeklist, Kane's employment at company Basho is brought up and threatened on the basis that Basho is a client of Geeklist's. Although Basho sided with Kane in the fact that the conversation had nothing to do with her employment there, she could have been unlucky enough for them to feel otherwise and lost her job.
In order for us to have a free and open society, we must have separations among institutions, divisions of power: between work and personal life, between church and state, and in many other more specific scenarios. If any one sphere of life absorbs too much of another, there is the possibility of tyranny. It is my personal belief that humans will and do take advantage of every scenario that is available for them to benefit from, and if we too easily give or vote away our rights and privileges, including privacy, we have only ourselves to blame.
I think this is a really important stance. Although it would be nice if governments made it illegal for employers to ask for social media passwords, this is at least a step in the right direction.
Some people may be outraged that companies even consider asking for such personal information; however, I can appreciate that perhaps some companies worry that their employees may be posting information or opinions on Facebook which may be harmful to the company. Despite this logic, they should still have no control over employees' accounts. The idea of it even seems Orwellian. When the line between work and personal life becomes too blurry, simply speaking one's mind on a non-work-related issue can become a job-threatening act.
This is clearly illustrated in this Twitter conversation between the two co-founders of tech start-up Geeklist and web-citizen Shanley Kane. In the conversation, which began with Kane's tweet about a scantily-clad model bearing the logo of Geeklist, Kane's employment at company Basho is brought up and threatened on the basis that Basho is a client of Geeklist's. Although Basho sided with Kane in the fact that the conversation had nothing to do with her employment there, she could have been unlucky enough for them to feel otherwise and lost her job.
In order for us to have a free and open society, we must have separations among institutions, divisions of power: between work and personal life, between church and state, and in many other more specific scenarios. If any one sphere of life absorbs too much of another, there is the possibility of tyranny. It is my personal belief that humans will and do take advantage of every scenario that is available for them to benefit from, and if we too easily give or vote away our rights and privileges, including privacy, we have only ourselves to blame.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Like another limb
I recently had an unpleasant encounter with my friends. After coming back from a walk outside, we all sat down to hang out and talk with each other. I unfortunately turned out to be mistaken on the latter. One of my friends pulled out her smartphone and started playing an attention-heavy game. My other friend opened her laptop, and after reading her Facebook newsfeed, began a conversation over chat. Hoping this would be temporary (as I don't have a smartphone and had nothing to occupy myself with other than the company of friends), I waited several minutes in silence before cracking a joke about how "we" were all so involved with our electronics, hoping they would take the hint. Without looking up, they laughed, agreed, and promptly continued with what they were doing. Frustrated, I left. The worst part is that this isn't the first time this has happened, and it happens with all sorts of people and all sorts of devices.
I agree that technology is fascinating. The things we can do and access using little effort and at great speeds within the palms of our hands are objectively awe-inspiring. There are opportunities to interact with people thousands of miles away in near real-time. It's easy to see why technology can eat up so much of our time. However, I think there's a problem when we begin to neglect the people we physically are close to in favor of playing with a phone, a computer, a tablet...
As seen here, 84% of teens own a personal media device. I imagine that for college-aged adults, that number is much higher. When I confronted my friends about the incident where I felt ignored after I had calmed down a bit, they failed to see the problem and had the attitude that I was overreacting. I guess I'll have to accept the fact that people today have become nearly inseparable from their electronics. I've heard some even take their smartphones to the washroom with them so they have something to read while on the toilet. I feel like a "get-off-my-lawn" type when I say this, but is it so hard to go without news or information for just a little bit, to spend time face-to-face, one-on-one, without texting or playing games? Yes, the virtual world is fantastic, useful, entrancing, but it's not real. When people get so absorbed in virtual worlds, they forget, overlook, and dismiss the multitudinous facets of our real world, where there is beauty in the simple fact that everything is flawed.
I agree that technology is fascinating. The things we can do and access using little effort and at great speeds within the palms of our hands are objectively awe-inspiring. There are opportunities to interact with people thousands of miles away in near real-time. It's easy to see why technology can eat up so much of our time. However, I think there's a problem when we begin to neglect the people we physically are close to in favor of playing with a phone, a computer, a tablet...
As seen here, 84% of teens own a personal media device. I imagine that for college-aged adults, that number is much higher. When I confronted my friends about the incident where I felt ignored after I had calmed down a bit, they failed to see the problem and had the attitude that I was overreacting. I guess I'll have to accept the fact that people today have become nearly inseparable from their electronics. I've heard some even take their smartphones to the washroom with them so they have something to read while on the toilet. I feel like a "get-off-my-lawn" type when I say this, but is it so hard to go without news or information for just a little bit, to spend time face-to-face, one-on-one, without texting or playing games? Yes, the virtual world is fantastic, useful, entrancing, but it's not real. When people get so absorbed in virtual worlds, they forget, overlook, and dismiss the multitudinous facets of our real world, where there is beauty in the simple fact that everything is flawed.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Stormclouds on the Information-sharing front
As you can read in this article, even legislators are at odds with each other when it comes to ACTA.
The popular opinion among Internet users is that ACTA and similar provisions are being forced upon an unwilling populace, and it seems that even some politicians are beginning to object. ACTA, like SOPA and PIPA before it, aims to control and limit the flow of information on the premise of copyright and intellectual property right infringements.
With the globalization of the economy, information and services (which often deal with information) have become the bases of the global market today.
This may be a bit of a generalization, but when it comes down to it, wars are fought over resources and ideas. Often, these overlap, and conflicting ideas are pointed to as triggers or reasons for war, but I believe that resources are the reason wars are fought.
It seems that the international debate about information is becoming more and more uneasy. The US is overstepping its bounds already, as we discussed in class with the Bodog.com example. It wouldn't be surprising if other countries followed suit, applying their copyright rules and laws to websites owned by companies located in nations outside their jurisdictions. It's disaster waiting to happen.
I don't believe any full-fledged wars will be fought about the Internet, but there have already been many riots. Until the issue of how to deal with copyright infringement on the Internet is resolved, there will continue to be conflict. Who knows how bad it may get.
The popular opinion among Internet users is that ACTA and similar provisions are being forced upon an unwilling populace, and it seems that even some politicians are beginning to object. ACTA, like SOPA and PIPA before it, aims to control and limit the flow of information on the premise of copyright and intellectual property right infringements.
With the globalization of the economy, information and services (which often deal with information) have become the bases of the global market today.
This may be a bit of a generalization, but when it comes down to it, wars are fought over resources and ideas. Often, these overlap, and conflicting ideas are pointed to as triggers or reasons for war, but I believe that resources are the reason wars are fought.
It seems that the international debate about information is becoming more and more uneasy. The US is overstepping its bounds already, as we discussed in class with the Bodog.com example. It wouldn't be surprising if other countries followed suit, applying their copyright rules and laws to websites owned by companies located in nations outside their jurisdictions. It's disaster waiting to happen.
I don't believe any full-fledged wars will be fought about the Internet, but there have already been many riots. Until the issue of how to deal with copyright infringement on the Internet is resolved, there will continue to be conflict. Who knows how bad it may get.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Online Currency
This article discusses the theft of about $228,000 worth of online currency known as Bitcoins.
The intersection of currency and the Internet has always made me uncomfortable. I believe that the economy is a mostly abstract thing, as money has no value except for the value we give it, as illustrated with recent bubble bursts (auto and housing as well as others). Through speculation and other financial tricks, people can acquire large amounts of money just by knowing and gaming the system. This a tangent however.
I think that online currency or even financial interactions online are too easy to be taken advantage of by one party or another. I've heard of issues with PayPal where transactions go bad, and one party to the transaction loses money for various reasons.
Because the money is virtual, it is harder to keep a grasp on it, and more likely that hackers or even unscrupulous businesspeople will fudge the numbers. Cash is stable because it is a physical good. Much revenue can come from online business, but it is less trustworthy by far. If a system could come about for reliable transactions, the online market could live up to its potential much more. Not to mention data mining by credit card companies regarding purchases both on- and offline...
The intersection of currency and the Internet has always made me uncomfortable. I believe that the economy is a mostly abstract thing, as money has no value except for the value we give it, as illustrated with recent bubble bursts (auto and housing as well as others). Through speculation and other financial tricks, people can acquire large amounts of money just by knowing and gaming the system. This a tangent however.
I think that online currency or even financial interactions online are too easy to be taken advantage of by one party or another. I've heard of issues with PayPal where transactions go bad, and one party to the transaction loses money for various reasons.
Because the money is virtual, it is harder to keep a grasp on it, and more likely that hackers or even unscrupulous businesspeople will fudge the numbers. Cash is stable because it is a physical good. Much revenue can come from online business, but it is less trustworthy by far. If a system could come about for reliable transactions, the online market could live up to its potential much more. Not to mention data mining by credit card companies regarding purchases both on- and offline...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)