EU’s Reaction to Spying

Since the US National Security Agency was found to be spying on EU government officials, much controversy has arisen. The relationship between the EU, particularly Germany, and America has quickly become tense. Many articles have theorized how the EU will react, but it is unsure of what policies will be implemented in the future to protect their citizens from international spying.

After the news, representatives from 28 countries within the European Union all signed a joint document stating that “a lack of trust could prejudice the necessary cooperation” the U.S. hopes to receive in the fight against global terrorism. The British national news paper, the Guardian, recently reported that the NSA had been monitoring the phone lines of thirty-five European leaders including the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Upon these reports, Merkel has announced that she will now peruse a new agreement with U.S. authorities which will more specific rules and limitations regarding how the NSA operates within her country. Due to the NSA’s actions and the scandal surrounding the agency the potential now exists that new Free-Trade Agreement between the EU and US could become delayed or blocked. The European Parliament’s president Martin Schulz end the talks for negoiation; however, all twenty eight members have declined to do so.

How shocked were you to hear the news? Do you think that America was the only one spying, or just the only one who got caught? There is no way to prove that other countries have been spying on each other, but with all the recent technology it isn’t that crazy of an idea.

Has the NSA gone too far yet again?

Since the passing of the Patriot Act the United States government has been able to conduct warrant less wiretapping and surveillance on United States Citizens all in the name of "counter terrorism". However American citizens may not be the only ones being spied on.

Several German publications reported recently that the NSA has been tapping the phone of the German Chancellor. They went on to state that President Obama had been given this information and had done nothing about it. When James Clapper the head of the NSA was questioned about this he responded unapologetic that this is one of the basic pillar's of American intelligence.

The real issue here is not espionage involving foreign allied officials but the surveillance of their citizens. Gen. Keith Alexander when confronted on the need for oversight of these extensive programs stated "It is much more important for this country that we defend this nation and take the beatings than it is to give up a program that would result in this nation being attacked". This is the normal rhetoric that comes from Washington when asked about invading our privacy. It is always in the name of national security. 

One might ask themselves, if we are not doing much here about the NSA watching us when will be time for the American citizens to protest? Waschinski of Yahoo states ” But Alexander made no apology for the NSA's activities and reiterated his denial that the secretive agency was scooping up millions of phone records from French and other European citizens”. 

Has the United States gone too far? There may come a point where another country will not accept this and it could start a war. There is a simple solution here and a fine line between invading privacy and protecting the national security of the United States. Waschinski went on to state, “And, in another embarrassing chapter for Washington, the United Nations said it had received an assurance that US agencies would not bug its secret communications in the future. Conspicuously, the United States could not promise the world body it had not been spied upon in the past.”

We are beginning to cross that line and there must come a time where the citizens stand up to stop a possible war that the NSA may cause. I for one do not want to be involved in another war or spied on. On the other hand I want the United States to keep us as safe as possible and there may be no other way to do that. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/us/politics/u-s-intelligence-officials-defend-surveillance-operations-on-capitol-hill.html

http://news.yahoo.com/european-spy-services-shared-phone-data-us-nsa-185616676.html 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/30/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSBRE99S03N20131030

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/politics/nsa-hearing/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/28/report-nsa-spain/3284609/

Catfish- It’s not just for dinner

Raising Awareness About Online Impersonation 

Online impersonation amongst social media sites has become an increasingly pressing issue lately. Numerous cases of identity fraud have been reported where one’s pictures have been taken from their personal account and used on fake accounts without their knowledge. I have looked into many articles where people have been kidnapped and even killed after meeting up with an online correspondent. On Mother’s Day of this year, a 15-year-old girl of Maine was murdered after agreeing to meet with the person she thought she had been talking to online. Her murderer, Kyle Dube, 20, created a fake Facebook account with someone else's pictures. He had planned to kidnap her, hide her in a secret place, then pretend to rescue her so that he could become a hero. In the process of kidnapping her, he accidentally killed her and left her body covered in the woods. Countless instances of cyberbullying have been reported throughout the nation as well. North Carolina has enacted a statute, Section 14-458, that makes negative behaviors related to cyberbullying illegal. This statute criminalizes certain harassments, but it does not prevent the actual creation of false profiles that lead to serious online crimes. With rapidly increasing technologies, online communication is not going to become less common, especially for the generations to come. I feel that it is important for NC to pass a preventative law against online impersonation before further serious online crimes occur.

Another issue regarding false profiles is the lack of awareness on practicing safe online communication. North Carolina public schools have not yet incorporated a lot of education regarding internet safety into the curriculum. Last Friday, a Cabarrus County Schools employee was arrested after allegedly posing as a 14-year-old girl in order to solicit nude photos from teenage boys. Seven children have already been identified as victims and the employee will be charged with a felony indecent liberties with a child. This man clearly does not have a lot of respect for the law and would probably not be deterred from a law against online impersonation. But do you think if any of the victims were educated about tools such as Google Image Search, the crime could have been stopped sooner? 

Here is the link for further information:  http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/cabarrus-county-school-employee-charged-child-sex-/nbRjf/  

I was recently featured on a television series highlighting online relationships. A high school acquaintance created a profile with pictures taken from my personal account. She then started dating someone online who thought he was talking to a person who looked like me. Not only did she use my pictures, but said I had cancer as a means to further their relationship. It was shocking to hear someone else’s words behind my images, but even more shocking to realize that anyone can create a false profile. The circumstances have motivated me to work with State Representatives in order to pass a Bill against online impersonation.

I began researching North Carolina laws and found that there are no laws preventing the creation of fake social media accounts. I was able to find a law that protects NC teachers from this issue, but it does not apply to students. New York and California have already passed laws against online impersonation, a misdemeanor eligible for a fine if found guilty. Texas on the other hand has made online impersonation a felony. I understand that passing this law could lead to controversy relating to First Amendment Rights, but is vital to consider that if the account clearly does not state that they are not the person they are impersonating, it is a form of online deceit and could in some cases  be a type of defamation. Fortunately the profile that was created in my case did not portray me in an incredibly negative manner. Yet in some instances, the person in my position could suffer the consequences of a fake account if a future employer was to look them up online and find false information that was claimed to be true. I am currently researching other cases of online impersonation within the state and am learning as much as I can in order to pass this bill. I have been in contact with a NC House Representative to help determine the appropriate steps to support the bill and have started receiving support from local news to help create awareness. 

After 2 seasons of the show Catfish, we have seen no response from the source itself, Facebook. I actually read on one group's blog, Social Networking Online, that Facebook now has a new face recognition tool that identifies you when you walk into certain establishments. If they have that technology, then I definitely think they have the technology to at least help determine if an account is not real. Below is a somewhat bias article regarding Facebook’s stance on fraudulent accounts, but provides an interesting outlook on why they don’t really take action.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-tavakoli/facebooks-fake-numbers-on_b_2276515.html

It is important to always remember what we post online. Yet it is also important to be aware that anyone could use our images, even someone that we know. It is amazing to me that this is actually allowed. Do you feel that a law against online impersonation is necessary? If so, how do you think it could be regulated? If not, do you think the State should make a point to educate citizens on tools to find out if someone is actually who they say they are? Feel free to comment, ask questions, and provide advice. 

If you’d like to watch the episode, here are the links. 20 minutes into the After Show, I actually get to meet my impersonator and the person who thought I was the girl he fell in love with. 

http://www.mtv.com/videos/catfish-the-tv-show-season-2-reunion/1715676/playlist.jhtml#series=2211&seriesId=39262&channelId=1

http://www.mtv.com/videos/catfish-the-tv-show-season-2-ep-15-mike-caroline/1715651/playlist.jhtml#series=2211&seriesId=39262&channelId=1

Classmate’s Article on “FaceDeals"

http://www.info3130socialnetworkingonline.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-picture-of-your-face-is-like-money-in.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/kyle-dube-pleads-not-guilty-nichole-cable-murder_n_3466810.html

SOPA

Today, in our online world it is easier than ever to find and download free movies, music or other pirated content with just the click of your mouse. Applications like Lime Wire, Frost Wire, Pirate Bay, Media Fire and many others have made file ‘sharing’ an easy alternative to purchasing content.  

In 2011 SOPA was introduced by Texas Representative Lamar S. Smith and brought before the House floor. SOPA is an acronym for the Stop Online Piracy Act which restricted sites hosting pirated content. The Act’s main target was combat overseas sites which offered file sharing and streaming of U.S. copyrighted material. If passed, SOPA would have required internet providers to block access to sites which law enforcement officials deemed to be promoting illegal content. 

Under the most severe versions of the act Wikipedia would be classified as a search engine and would then be prohibited from linking to sites like Pirate Bay even within the encyclopedic definition of that particular site. The bill would also have forced search engines like Google, Yahoo and Bing to censor certain search results that were flagged as inappropriate and contained infringed upon copyrighted material. Opponents of the bill argued that SOPA would promote censorship and hold websites responsible for their individual users actions. 

On January 18th, 2012 a mass protest was carried out in opposition to the SOPA legislation. Craig’s List, Reddit, and Flicker along with hundreds of other websites banded together and featured some sort of anti internet censorship messaging. The public also joined in and 80,000 calls to congress were made as well as 2,000,000 signatures collected opposing the bill that day. 

Google, one of the bill’s most outspoken opponents even blacked out in protest. 

Wikipedia was also shut down for the day. 

After the demonstrations, blackouts and protests lawmakers began to see how unpopular the bill had become on a nationwide basis and the potential legislation was abandoned on January 20th, 2012 and indefinitely postponed. It’s author Representative Smith said “I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy. It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.” 

How do you feel?

Do you consider sharing music, programs or other digital content with your friends or family to be illegal? What kinds of laws should be put in place to protect online content? 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/20/opinion/smith-sopa-support/

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/technology/sopa_explained/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/01/sopa-blackout-wikipedia-google-wired-join-protest-against-internet-censorship/

http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_RogueWebsites.html

How IT has Revolutionized the Elections

During Election time, an election campaign’s end goal has always been to acquire more voters; originally this was done by phone calls, door to door knocks or basic public speeches in town halls. During the 2008 presidential election, then candidate Obama changed the way in which his campaign reached out to voters and the way they would get donations.

                

            As more and more people, from a tech savvy generation, were becoming eligible to vote the traditional way of campaigning wasn't really the best approach to inform potential voters. Obama’s campaign was quite efficient at using the internet to reach out to these people. Social media sites such as twitter, Facebook, and YouTube played a big role and changed the way voters interact with candidates. Twitter was able to let people see the integrity and characteristics of a candidate without a campaign manager in the way. These sites could create influence among voters and discussions to persuade people without the participation of campaign supporters. Political apps also played a major role in Obama’s campaign, here voters who were on the fence could get real time information and data about the candidate and make a better decision on who to vote. It informed people on how to volunteer and get involved for the cause. People could register to vote which did gain 1.3 million new voters. This app made it easier to donate to the campaign which generated about 500 million dollars in the 2008 campaign and 690 million dollars for the 2012 campaign. Obviously from here on out, technology is going to play a major part on how the elections will run, it’s going to be a powerful tool in the which can affect the way the results will end, however technology isn't perfect and does have it’s disadvantages.

Pros/Cons of IT on elections

It is being used in Elections more than ever, especially social media and even texting.

“Obama announced he was going to reveal his nomination for the vice presidency via SMS. by doing so he turned how campaigns were built and constructed, for the better, toward the use of technology.”

Obama being the first to use SMS for political reasons set a new era of politicians using IT. Obama even has a twitter that is used to make announcements and his campaign uses other forms of social media to influence young and even old minds. However this is always a pro for the politician, but what about the voter? I believe this can be annoying, I for one do not want constant messaged on facebook, twitter, and on my phone about a certain party I may not be interested in.

However IT is also used to our advantage to know exactly what politicians are doing. A quote from the Huffington Post…

¡   “In a little over a week, congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) has gone from a rising progressive star to a man clinging to hopes of a political future.”

Anthony Weiner is just one example of a politician whose campaign was shattered thanks to IT. This is great for the voter, I prefer to know as much as a can before I cast a vote. Using pictures on cell phones, texts sent, old pictures on social media, we now know politicians as best we can. This helps the voter to make the right choice and decide on many factors other than what each politician has to say to the voters. I believe we can all see the advantages of this. 

Sources

McCormack, Simon. "Anthony Weiner Twitter Photo Scandal: A Timeline (PHOTOS)." The Huffington       Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 07 June 2011. Web. 27 Sept. 2013.

"Politics and Technology." Politics and Technology. http://election2012.tmcnet.com/, 2013. Web. 27 Sept.  2013. 

O'dell, Jolie. "Mashable." Mashable. N.p., 23 June 2010. Web. 09 Oct. 2013. <http://mashable.com/2010/06/23/obama-ipad-iphone-app/>.
Kaur, Dr. Satwant. "How Technology Could Turn the Tides in the Election." The Huffington Post.       TheHuffingtonPost.com, 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 09 Oct. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-satwant-kaur/how-technology-could-turn_b_1954174.html>.

Scherer, Michael. "Person of the Year." TIME.com. N.p., 19 Dec. 2012. Web. 09 Oct. 2013. <http://poy.time.com/2012/12/19/obamas-data-team/>.

Fund Racing

Over time money has influenced politics more and more. Never has this been so prevalent than in the technological era. E-commerce has given rise to candidates who may not have had a chance otherwise, such as Ron Paul who in his 2012 money-bomb raised over half a million dollars in one day. This internet fundraising has also given a substantial advantage to certain candidates over others. McCain in 2008 also raised half a million in one day but in the long term fell to Obama and his persistent tactics through social media and mobile technology.   

Campaigning is a race and the most efficient path is what is going to get you to the finish line.  In the Obama 2012 campaign, online fundraising reported to have raised $690 million online.  Mitt Romney’s online fundraising did not come close to Obama's. While Romney relied less on large-dollar contributions Obama took more low-dollar contributions over the course of the election.  

Just like any other competition there are tactics and strategies that build the better course of action.  Obama used E-mail and fundraising websites to raise money online and this is where two thirds of the donated money came from. Colin Delany of epoliticts.com states, “the combination of an email list and a fundraising website STILL blows every other channel out of the water as a dollar-raising tool”.  He also states, “You should go where your audience is” which is the internet.  The majority of our society uses the internet whether it is on their phone, computer or tablet.  It’s on a level of convenience and just makes it much easier for supporters to donate towards their interest at their fingertips.

Money will continue to influence politics as long as we live in this capitalistic society. Politicians in the following years and decades will have to learn how to adapt and maneuver through this technological age.

 

http://www.epolitics.com/2009/08/27/two-thirds-of-obamas-online-fundraising-was-via-email/

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/10/12478/political-strategists-praise-power-online-fundraising

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/18/pauls-final-moneybomb-draws-half-million/ 

http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/04/how-technology-changed-american-politics-in-the-internet-age096/

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/07/nation/la-na-campaign-money-20121207

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-17-internet-cash_x.htm

The Great Firewall of China

Over the past few months, there has been much concern relating privacy and government interaction within our online activities. Data mining has made many Americans question how much the government actually knows about us personally. Information concerning what we like, where we go, and the people we associate with is forever recorded into a database. Yet in China, it is not a question of what the people want the government to know, but rather what the government allows it’s citizens to know.

Online information that is accessible to us everyday may not be available in China. Under the Golden Shield Project, the government is allowed to control what it’s citizen’s can and cannot view on the internet. Websites that seem distasteful to the government are censored from the public. If a Chinese citizen was to type a word like “democracy” into a search engine, the results would all read as an error. Below is a link to a website that allows you to type in a website address to see if that website is censored in China.  It’s likely that you’ll find most websites to be blocked. 

http://www.greatfirewallofchina.org/index.php

Last year, Harvard political science professor Gary King conducted a study of the Chinese government’s censorship through the creating of a fake social network. With the launch of this site (who’s URL he will not divulge) King hoped to catch a glimpse over the great wall of Chinese federal censorship. Surprisingly, the Chinese government relies on competitive system in which native companies bid on government issued contracts to censor their fellow citizens. In the past similar studies simply monitored social networks to see which posts ‘disappeared’. Creating a company and working with major Chinese internet and software providers allowed King and his team to witness firsthand the degree and methods of censorship used. “When we had a questions, we just called customer service. They were being paid to help us.” said King. 

In managing their site, the software that King’s team purchased came with automated processes that could analyze, flag and hold back posts that matched cretin criteria. Using this software specific IP addresses could then be individually targeted for increased censorship and even surveillance. When his team contacted the softwares company’s customer service they learned that could pay for additional more focused features to filter content. Their inquires also shed light on the number of censors actively screening online content. “King was told that to keep the government happy a site should employ two or three censors for every 50,000 users. Based on that, he estimates that there are between 50,000 and 75,000 censors working at internet companies inside China. 

In 2009, Chinese citizens came together in a protest known as the Doo Dah Protest. In the months following, social media was banned including sites such as Facebook and Twitter. It doesn’t seem that Chinese citizens are particularly excited about the Golden Shield Project. With no social media, political mobilization becomes much more difficult for those who want to take action against the censorship. It is unknown how long the censorship will be in effect, but until then the Chinese citizens will have to live a life many young Americans could never imagine: a life with no Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Would you rather have the government know all about you or have limited access to information? 

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/519066/academics-launch-fake-social-network-to-get-an-inside-look-at-chinese-censorship/

http://thediplomat.com/china-power/beyond-the-great-firewall-how-and-what-china-censors-2/

No more Privacy in Politics

The more politicians who depend on technology the more likely the privacy of those is vulnerable.  Imagine the internet, mobile devices, tablets etc. always open to attacks by hackers trying to expose the affluent and/or politically powered people. Without IT this wouldn’t be an issue but everything has its pros and cons.  In this case, IT is an advancement for everyone but comes with a price.  Russian computer-security expert and CEO of antivirus software firm, Eugene Kaspersky said “There is no more privacy”.  He also states,

“We depend on IT in all our critical infrastructure—like power plants, power grid, transportation, health care, finances. Unfortunately it's not difficult to attack these systems and we've had examples in the past…. For enterprises, I think the second thing for them is espionage attacks because there are so many, and it's a very serious problem. I'm not surprised if all the data in the world has been stolen already, at least twice. For consumers, I think the next issue is mobile security on smartphones and tablets.” --Eugene Kaspersky

                                 

 Within this article I like to point out the issue of mobile security on smartphones and tablets especially now with the new iPhone 5S releasing this week with its new finger print scanner.  Privacy is paid for and lost all at the same time.  The iPhone 5s is less prone to attacks compared to androids according to Kaspersky but it is possible for iPhone’s to be attacked and could be a very dangerous scenario.  If the lot of the new iPhone 5s’s were attacked that would mean any politician who has private information on their iPhone will have his information exposed.  It is safe to say that IT can never have too much protection, but as of now there are possibilities of intruding the privacy of everyone.



   Cohen, Steve. "The Impact of Technology on Political Communication." The New York Observer. WordPress, 23 June 2009. Web. 19 Sept. 2013. <http://observer.com/2009/06/the-impact-of-technology-on-political-communication/>.

Paul Sonne. "There is no more Privacy." Wall Street Journal. Sept. 3, 2013. Web. 18 Sept. 2013. < http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324432404579053091175949708.html >