RIAA vs. The People: Four Years Later
I found this fascinating; an indepth, quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the RIAA's campaign against illegal downloading of music by the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation). Some of the methods used by the RIAA are little short of extortion, and a lot of it sounds really ruthless and also rather futile in the broader picture. The paper also gives a good overview about the way file sharing has gone underground - foregoing P2P software for private networks and "darknet technology" (simple CD ripping and burning) that are harder to trace.
Showing posts with label internets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internets. Show all posts
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Why Internet Safety Policy is Cracked
The article is a good overview of why the government's $84million porn filter was a half-baked idea even before it was publicised as 'crackable', but it's the comments that really fascinate me. A lot of people who work in the net security arena have measured input as to why its not technologically feasible to have a filter that works 100%, teens add their point of view as to what is really important to address about kids online, and parents contribute the struggles and their own layered methods of internet security. It's thoughtful, interesting, and ties very nicely into the stuff that danah boyd's panel brought up (see post 3 down). Media interest and government scrutiny needs to turn to other areas in order to bring about real useful change, rather than using scare campaigns to frighten people about technology and drive parents further away from communicating with their kids over these issues.
The article is a good overview of why the government's $84million porn filter was a half-baked idea even before it was publicised as 'crackable', but it's the comments that really fascinate me. A lot of people who work in the net security arena have measured input as to why its not technologically feasible to have a filter that works 100%, teens add their point of view as to what is really important to address about kids online, and parents contribute the struggles and their own layered methods of internet security. It's thoughtful, interesting, and ties very nicely into the stuff that danah boyd's panel brought up (see post 3 down). Media interest and government scrutiny needs to turn to other areas in order to bring about real useful change, rather than using scare campaigns to frighten people about technology and drive parents further away from communicating with their kids over these issues.
...the work of Satan?
Australian government caught editing Wikipedia
This is maybe old news, but I was skimming through this article at work today (ooh, yeah, that's right, productive use of my paid time...) and the following passage caught my eye:
But. There are people working in the official administration that runs this country that would put the above sentences into public circulation. Part of me believes it's the work of pranksters - bored office people playing with the freedom and anonymity. But another part of me is thinking, "What if they really do think that?" I mean, I can't say I agree completely with the beliefs of Mormons, but "the work of Satan" is a very strongly worded opinion!
This is maybe old news, but I was skimming through this article at work today (ooh, yeah, that's right, productive use of my paid time...) and the following passage caught my eye:
This just strikes me as really hilarious, and a little scary. It's not that I think government officials editing Wikipedia is wrong - before you can yell about bias, it's the democracy of Wikipedia that allows it to be such an interesting place and a good overview resource. Anything that is obviously biased is usually pointed out by its lack of notation, and tidied up by opposing forces soon after that. Plus, the fact that it is on Wikipedia means there is a level of awareness by its users that critical analysis is important in evaluating the truthfulness and honesty of information posted.Additions to various Wikipedia entries made using government computers
included "Freemasonry is the work of Satan", "Mormonism is the work of Satan"
and "Jesus is god", the paper said.
But. There are people working in the official administration that runs this country that would put the above sentences into public circulation. Part of me believes it's the work of pranksters - bored office people playing with the freedom and anonymity. But another part of me is thinking, "What if they really do think that?" I mean, I can't say I agree completely with the beliefs of Mormons, but "the work of Satan" is a very strongly worded opinion!
Sunday, August 19, 2007
sexual predators and online bullies
Just the Facts About Online Victimization
danah boyd links to media from a panel she was asked to speak on. The speakers presented quantitative and qualitative data on youth presence online and how they were exposed and responded to sexual and other forms of victimisation.
danah boyd links to media from a panel she was asked to speak on. The speakers presented quantitative and qualitative data on youth presence online and how they were exposed and responded to sexual and other forms of victimisation.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
when funny people go nuts...
Don't Have A Cow, Man...
I thought this was a very funny joke, but googling "Judd Apatow", "Mark Brazill" and "emails" gets you a whole slew of articles about how they're *real* emails full of real, insane venom between two people who might once have been friends. This is what happens when people are passive agressive, methinks.
I thought this was a very funny joke, but googling "Judd Apatow", "Mark Brazill" and "emails" gets you a whole slew of articles about how they're *real* emails full of real, insane venom between two people who might once have been friends. This is what happens when people are passive agressive, methinks.
reruns #1
An article on social networking that I find fascinating: A Group Is Its Own Enemy
It looks at social interaction online and the software that supports these kinds of interactions; but more than that, it delves into the fact that the way people relate and interact online forms both the bonds that grow a group and also tends to lead to the groups' own destruction at the same time, because of the mistaken assumptions made about how technology will/can/should change the way people behave.
It looks at social interaction online and the software that supports these kinds of interactions; but more than that, it delves into the fact that the way people relate and interact online forms both the bonds that grow a group and also tends to lead to the groups' own destruction at the same time, because of the mistaken assumptions made about how technology will/can/should change the way people behave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)