Should there be real prison time for someone connected to a death on the internet? What about a rape? I think penalties should mirror real life. Having said that, proving damage done and who is directly responsible are not so easily proven. Would heavier regulation help suppress it?
In 1983, there was a very different kind of trial for a rape committed in New Bedford, Massachusetts. A woman whose demeanor was bordering on promiscuous was gang raped in a bar. Her attackers received a light sentence in a plea deal. Angered by the plea deal, she convinced her attorney to prosecute the onlookers who were said to encourage the rape by “egging on” participants. In 1988, a movie “The Accused” was made about the case. (Incidentally, the prosecutor won the case against the encouraging onlookers.)
We prosecute people for internet identity theft and cancel their accounts when they display inappropriate behavior but what if things went a step further and somebody died? Would real prosecution and real prison time be feasible? Crimes of theft are cut and dry. Something was stolen, someone stole it and they should be prosecuted; prison time should be real. But crimes regarding intangible items are much more difficult. How do you prove mental anguish and post traumatic stress is related to something that was said to you or done to you on-line? After all, you can simply shut off the computer and walk away right?
The Buffalo News recently published an article about a college student who committed suicide live on the internet. The student suffered from bipolar disease. He set up his web cam, took some pills and talked to onlookers until he collapsed. Some concerned viewers contacted police but the police arrived too late to save. The student was pronounced dead on arrival.
The disturbing part of this story is that some of the viewers were reportedly encouraging him to commit suicide and were taunting him. Were these individuals responsible for the student’s death? Would he have committed suicide without their coaxing? This is a very difficult action to prove. The student was diagnosed with a serious mental illness and had allegedly threatened suicide in the past. But we all “cry wolf” once in a while and who could know if the student was crying wolf again? Was it a game? The onlookers may not have felt that there was a real danger. How could they have known that the pills were even real?
This was a real death. Was it an accident, was it provoked or was it inevitable? Should the onlookers who encouraged be prosecuted and if so, how severely? If the website had been regulated, would it have made a difference?
The student’s father is pushing for tougher regulation standards on the internet. If it were possible, I don’t think regulation would necessarily be wrong. However, I think it would be like “chasing a ghost.” New sites pop up all the time and there simply isn’t enough manpower to watch every site. Regulators would (as they do now) have to rely on the reporting of concerned citizens. As in the case in point and many others, prosecutors are simply too late to avoid irreversible damage. I think what we need instead, is education. A campaign should be put in place to promote reporting of wrongdoing or unethical behavior. Without it, our internet may be forced to surrender to regulation. We typically can’t skip commercials when viewing streaming media clips, why not include a public service message? I believe in education before regulation.
I read an interesting article regarding former President Bill Clinton’s endorsement of the “User Empowerment Approach” which believes in personal responsibility and personal regulation by parents in order to keep children safe. Can we be personally responsible? After all, we can’t be watching all the time, can we? There are some compelling arguments for and against regulation. Interestingly, one of the arguments is that parents are not as technologically advanced as their children and therefore, find it difficult to monitor them. Again, education is here is the key! As a parent, I try and stay up to date on the latest technology and I talk to my kids about it. They actually enjoy helping me learn and find it amusing when I struggle. However, every new technology that I learn helps me talk to (educate) my kids about what is OK and what is not. My presentation of an up-to-date and reasonable argument with substance makes all the difference.
http://www.buffalonews.com/nationalworld/national/story/502264.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094608/synopsis
http://shelley.toich.net/projects/STS110/internet-regulation.html
Monday, November 24, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Is a transparent government possible?
Transparency, what does that really mean? Well according to Dictionary.com it could mean:
3. free of deceit
4. easily understood or seen through (because of a lack of subtlety); "a transparent explanation"; "a transparent lie"
Well, I find that it would be nearly impossible for anyone, let alone the government, to be “free of deceit.” That would require abstinence from “little white lies” and skewed use of persuasive tools. I don’t think any human is capable of being “free of deceit.” Imagine if we had to be? Has anyone see the movie Liar Liar with Jim Carrey? There are some things that just shouldn’t be said and some that no matter how gently they are said they will be misconstrued by the receiver. In government, it would mean full disclosure and we should certainly not have that; the terrorists would all know our strategies!!
“Easily understood” should be the definition we are looking for. We want this for our government. However, I am not sure that a weekly posting of the weekly Democratic address will do that. I do believe however, that it can and should be a contributor. I think a (small) part of President-elect Barack Obama’s success can be attributed to his astute use of the internet and social networking tools. However, I am wary of his gift for rhetoric. His gift for rhetoric was a benefit to him in the election. It created a tremendous “hype” around him which caused him to be compared to a rock star. It will continue to benefit him as he deals with leaders in the future. It is something though, to be aware and careful of. It means he has the gift to "sway" us; to deceive us should he choose. The question is, will he use this gift to bring us to a more transparent government?
John McCain was a respected war hero. That does not automatically mean he is fit to lead our country. Barack Obama is a gifted speaker. That does not automatically mean he is fit to lead our country. What it could mean, is that he is persuasive and has immense capability to be deceitful. We can only hope that he will be the man to change the way things are presented to our nation. Will he be able to walk that fine line between what we need to know to protect us and what we shouldn’t know to protect us? The Sarbanes-Oxley Act followed the failure of Enron. It opened eyes to the misrepresentations that many businesses were making in their non-standard financial statements. Barack Obama is coming in and riding on that wave. He is coming in at a time where issues of transparencies have already taken center stage; actions have already been put in place. Let’s hope he is the man to carry that over to government. Let’s hope that he is capable of change. We must remember that he presides over a heavily democratic congress; which is exactly what President George W. Bush did.
The use of social networking tools can help us move toward a more transparent government. It is important to note though, that the reason isn’t so much that government will be talking as much as it is that more people will be talking and expressing their opinions to a much larger audience. Nobody has all the answers. The more people who talk, the more ideas we experience. Remember, an educated consumer is the best shopper; it’s about time we become more versed in our government and its policies. The use of internet and social networking tools is becoming an increasingly popular way to communicate. I firmly believe that if you want to get the word out to everyone, you have to include these tools in your communication strategy. According to a political spokesperson that is exactly what President-elect Obama is doing. "This is just one of many ways that he will communicate directly with the American people and make the White House and the political process more transparent," spokeswoman Jen Psaki told us last night.
A nice beginning. (Vargas, 2008)
Citations
transparent. (n.d.). WordNet® 3.0. Retrieved November 16, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transparent
The Internet Movie Database, 2007, http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0119528/
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act
Enron, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
Vargas, J.A., The YouTube Presidency, Washingtonpost.com, November 14, 2008, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/14/the_youtube_presidency.html
3. free of deceit
4. easily understood or seen through (because of a lack of subtlety); "a transparent explanation"; "a transparent lie"
Well, I find that it would be nearly impossible for anyone, let alone the government, to be “free of deceit.” That would require abstinence from “little white lies” and skewed use of persuasive tools. I don’t think any human is capable of being “free of deceit.” Imagine if we had to be? Has anyone see the movie Liar Liar with Jim Carrey? There are some things that just shouldn’t be said and some that no matter how gently they are said they will be misconstrued by the receiver. In government, it would mean full disclosure and we should certainly not have that; the terrorists would all know our strategies!!
“Easily understood” should be the definition we are looking for. We want this for our government. However, I am not sure that a weekly posting of the weekly Democratic address will do that. I do believe however, that it can and should be a contributor. I think a (small) part of President-elect Barack Obama’s success can be attributed to his astute use of the internet and social networking tools. However, I am wary of his gift for rhetoric. His gift for rhetoric was a benefit to him in the election. It created a tremendous “hype” around him which caused him to be compared to a rock star. It will continue to benefit him as he deals with leaders in the future. It is something though, to be aware and careful of. It means he has the gift to "sway" us; to deceive us should he choose. The question is, will he use this gift to bring us to a more transparent government?
John McCain was a respected war hero. That does not automatically mean he is fit to lead our country. Barack Obama is a gifted speaker. That does not automatically mean he is fit to lead our country. What it could mean, is that he is persuasive and has immense capability to be deceitful. We can only hope that he will be the man to change the way things are presented to our nation. Will he be able to walk that fine line between what we need to know to protect us and what we shouldn’t know to protect us? The Sarbanes-Oxley Act followed the failure of Enron. It opened eyes to the misrepresentations that many businesses were making in their non-standard financial statements. Barack Obama is coming in and riding on that wave. He is coming in at a time where issues of transparencies have already taken center stage; actions have already been put in place. Let’s hope he is the man to carry that over to government. Let’s hope that he is capable of change. We must remember that he presides over a heavily democratic congress; which is exactly what President George W. Bush did.
The use of social networking tools can help us move toward a more transparent government. It is important to note though, that the reason isn’t so much that government will be talking as much as it is that more people will be talking and expressing their opinions to a much larger audience. Nobody has all the answers. The more people who talk, the more ideas we experience. Remember, an educated consumer is the best shopper; it’s about time we become more versed in our government and its policies. The use of internet and social networking tools is becoming an increasingly popular way to communicate. I firmly believe that if you want to get the word out to everyone, you have to include these tools in your communication strategy. According to a political spokesperson that is exactly what President-elect Obama is doing. "This is just one of many ways that he will communicate directly with the American people and make the White House and the political process more transparent," spokeswoman Jen Psaki told us last night.
A nice beginning. (Vargas, 2008)
Citations
transparent. (n.d.). WordNet® 3.0. Retrieved November 16, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transparent
The Internet Movie Database, 2007, http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0119528/
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act
Enron, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
Vargas, J.A., The YouTube Presidency, Washingtonpost.com, November 14, 2008, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/14/the_youtube_presidency.html
Friday, November 14, 2008
Opening a can of worms
As I read through the reading regarding net neutrality I felt like I was running through a labyrinth. First, definitions of net neutrality were similar but yet different. It is like trying to define what is meant by communication. It means different things to different people. I felt dizzy after reading the arguments for and against. However, a few themes came through, money, regulation and monopoly.
In the end, I came away with a few things. Net neutrality really wasn’t about freedom or free trade to the corporations but it was all about money. Nobody wants regulation because who wants rules? They only restrict us from doing whatever we want. Monopolies hurt us in the end. As a watch corporations like AIG get bailed out by the government, I see how monopolies can hurt. Here is a corporation that grew large enough that it carried enough weight in our economy to get a "pass" when its business failed. In support of its greed, after receiving a bailout loan from the government, AIG flexed its “Teflon” muscles and blew a considerable amount of that money on a spa retreat for bigwigs and then spent more on executive payouts. So who really makes the rules when colossal entities are players? Corporations want a competitive market but in order to get large, they seek to kill their competition.
The current debate:
The most common theme for the definition of net neutrality was freedom and equality. Freedom for users’ access and equality for Internet services and service providers were the main arguments. However, many issues clouded the arguments, which is what typically happens when lines are drawn. Rock stars and corporations argued “on behalf” of users saying that users have a right to visit the websites that they want at equal speeds and levels of accessibility regardless of content. Internet service providers argued that in order to foster a competitive environment, there needed to be platforms and levels of access that came with pricing structures in order to keep internet technologies on an evolutionary path. A plethora of “what ifs” ensued, primarily in fear of regulation. Analogies (which in my mind tend to cloud the issues) also emerged; users (computers) were even equated to toasters and irons!
Whose interests are at stake and what are they?
Herein lays the problem. Who can speak on behalf of others? Aren’t the rock stars who argued against file sharing of their music a bit hypocritical when they argue that the internet should be free and without regulation? (Don’t they mean as long as it doesn’t affect us?) Do they have the right to speak on behalf of all users?
Do corporations have a right to say “it isn’t fair to our users” when what they really fear is loss of profitability? Internet service providers have to make money to stay afloat just like everyone else but they want more than just business funding. They argue that in order to keep technology moving, which would allow them to improve their services, they need to make more money and be in a competitive market. Again, they are not just there to provide a service to customers; they are there to make money.
A few years ago, we had a rainy summer and people were not watering lawns nor were they using as much public water. The public was shocked when the water authority said they had to raise rates. There was a simple misunderstanding of the basic principle. Water is not entirely free; money is needed to run any and all businesses. If people were not using as much water, not as much money was coming in. The water authority wasn’t looking for profit, they were low on funding. So why do I tell this story? Well at the same time, the bottled water industry was surging. People were also using less public water for drinking and a twinkle of panic started the notion that we could stand to lose our public (“free”) water supply to a “water for profit” industry. Could we lose internet freedom to an internet for profit industry?
Support or oppose and why?
I am not really in support of net neutrality because I am in favor of some regulation. What would happen to our society if we had no laws and people could do whatever they wanted? On the flip side, what would happen if our government had complete control? Neither is good.
What has bled into the net neutrality argument is regulation of the internet (not just access to it.) It has moved away from speed and freedom to that speed to regulation of the places we go. Without any regulation in our society, it would surely fail. Since the internet is becoming a larger and larger part of our society, it should be regulated as well. The Wikipedia reading says it all, “network neutrality regulations threaten to set a precedent for even more intrusive regulation of the Internet.” We fear too much regulation.
I don’t know what the answer is but I know that all things objectionable will never be removed from the internet. However, we need to return to the notion of Web 2.0 technologies. That is the real beauty of the internet. Perhaps the net needs to be split in the way that radio was split between public and satellite radio? Maybe the best route is to have separate internets? Is that even possible? Users and corporations alike have to remember that every freedom comes with a price.
In the end, I came away with a few things. Net neutrality really wasn’t about freedom or free trade to the corporations but it was all about money. Nobody wants regulation because who wants rules? They only restrict us from doing whatever we want. Monopolies hurt us in the end. As a watch corporations like AIG get bailed out by the government, I see how monopolies can hurt. Here is a corporation that grew large enough that it carried enough weight in our economy to get a "pass" when its business failed. In support of its greed, after receiving a bailout loan from the government, AIG flexed its “Teflon” muscles and blew a considerable amount of that money on a spa retreat for bigwigs and then spent more on executive payouts. So who really makes the rules when colossal entities are players? Corporations want a competitive market but in order to get large, they seek to kill their competition.
The current debate:
The most common theme for the definition of net neutrality was freedom and equality. Freedom for users’ access and equality for Internet services and service providers were the main arguments. However, many issues clouded the arguments, which is what typically happens when lines are drawn. Rock stars and corporations argued “on behalf” of users saying that users have a right to visit the websites that they want at equal speeds and levels of accessibility regardless of content. Internet service providers argued that in order to foster a competitive environment, there needed to be platforms and levels of access that came with pricing structures in order to keep internet technologies on an evolutionary path. A plethora of “what ifs” ensued, primarily in fear of regulation. Analogies (which in my mind tend to cloud the issues) also emerged; users (computers) were even equated to toasters and irons!
Whose interests are at stake and what are they?
Herein lays the problem. Who can speak on behalf of others? Aren’t the rock stars who argued against file sharing of their music a bit hypocritical when they argue that the internet should be free and without regulation? (Don’t they mean as long as it doesn’t affect us?) Do they have the right to speak on behalf of all users?
Do corporations have a right to say “it isn’t fair to our users” when what they really fear is loss of profitability? Internet service providers have to make money to stay afloat just like everyone else but they want more than just business funding. They argue that in order to keep technology moving, which would allow them to improve their services, they need to make more money and be in a competitive market. Again, they are not just there to provide a service to customers; they are there to make money.
A few years ago, we had a rainy summer and people were not watering lawns nor were they using as much public water. The public was shocked when the water authority said they had to raise rates. There was a simple misunderstanding of the basic principle. Water is not entirely free; money is needed to run any and all businesses. If people were not using as much water, not as much money was coming in. The water authority wasn’t looking for profit, they were low on funding. So why do I tell this story? Well at the same time, the bottled water industry was surging. People were also using less public water for drinking and a twinkle of panic started the notion that we could stand to lose our public (“free”) water supply to a “water for profit” industry. Could we lose internet freedom to an internet for profit industry?
Support or oppose and why?
I am not really in support of net neutrality because I am in favor of some regulation. What would happen to our society if we had no laws and people could do whatever they wanted? On the flip side, what would happen if our government had complete control? Neither is good.
What has bled into the net neutrality argument is regulation of the internet (not just access to it.) It has moved away from speed and freedom to that speed to regulation of the places we go. Without any regulation in our society, it would surely fail. Since the internet is becoming a larger and larger part of our society, it should be regulated as well. The Wikipedia reading says it all, “network neutrality regulations threaten to set a precedent for even more intrusive regulation of the Internet.” We fear too much regulation.
I don’t know what the answer is but I know that all things objectionable will never be removed from the internet. However, we need to return to the notion of Web 2.0 technologies. That is the real beauty of the internet. Perhaps the net needs to be split in the way that radio was split between public and satellite radio? Maybe the best route is to have separate internets? Is that even possible? Users and corporations alike have to remember that every freedom comes with a price.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Second Life can be a peaceful and informative place.
After I downloaded the software, I looked up my location with information I received from my welcome e-mail. I visited http://secondlife.com/showcase/ to begin. I wasn’t sure how Second Life would run for me because my laptop’s processor was labeled as slow. Things did not seem too bad though.
My first experience was the soft and peaceful sound of bells; perhaps they were wind chimes. Either way, it was a lovely sound. I visited the American Cancer Society’s island in Nonprofit Commons. I had to do a search to find it because it wasn’t on the pick list. I entered the American Cancer Society’s Island on a pathway which was lined with brightly lit lanterns. I had read a while back about lanterns that could be lit by participants in the American Cancer Society’s “Relay for Life” which is Second Life’s version (four years running) of the real life Relay for Life that began in 1985 to provide awareness and raise money for the cause.
The island was so quiet and peaceful. I began to walk around. My movements were not smooth and I didn’t feel like I was walking normally but moving about erratically as if I was being chased. This made me feel a bit foolish. My strange movement did not worry me though, I didn’t see anyone around. As a matter of fact, I didn’t see ANYONE around for a long time.
At first, I walked along a walkway and passed several empty stages and what appeared to be meeting rooms. There was a certain tropical feel to the island. There was a lot of water, a great deal of green and everything appeared to be open to the elements. This only added to the peacefulness and serenity of the island. I came upon a sign for the Relay for Life looking for volunteers. I was “offered” some gifts but couldn’t figure out how to grab or take them. (I will have to go back.)
I walked some more and came upon a Book of Hope. I was unable to read thorough it though, only the cover. As a matter of fact, all the signs and pictures I saw were blurry until I actually clicked on some of them. Wait! There is someone coming…but she passed me right by. She did not slow down long enough for me to catch her name or try and interact. How strange, only two of us on the island, I thought she would say hello.
I came upon an elevator which told me I was on the 5th floor; I used the elevator to go to the 4th floor which featured breast cancer information. There was a larger than life-size book with facts about breast cancer; it was supported by graphs. I was able to walk around the front of the book to see that facts were from the previous year. There were a few offices with brightly colored furnishings but nobody was in them. As I returned to the elevator, I was able to pick up an information pamphlet.
I would say that my first time experience in Second Life was nice. I admit that I was nervous that I might encounter a flood of avatars and feel overwhelmed, but I only saw one and she did not talk to me. I was able to move about without incident and collect my information. I came upon one location where ACS would e-mail additional information to me. The island was full of places where you could get information about cancer and also, places where you could donate.
It was a peaceful place, almost eerie. Whenever I was near water, I could hear the sound of a running brook. If nothing else, the island was calming. I wondered if it was a bustling place when the Relay for Life was in full swing. As I moved to depart I passed my free gift again. I was still unable to get it BUT, I was able to shrug and say, “I dunno.” I was only able to walk a little further before Second Life crashed. Even that, was quiet.
The island was interesting enough for me to want to go back. I still have some things to learn like how to walk without bumping into walls or walking off pathways (and what is this jumping thing?) Perhaps I will learn to like it. I would say that Second Life was at the very least, compelling. The ACS's island was a nice place to start. I think it is also a good place to get information.
My first experience was the soft and peaceful sound of bells; perhaps they were wind chimes. Either way, it was a lovely sound. I visited the American Cancer Society’s island in Nonprofit Commons. I had to do a search to find it because it wasn’t on the pick list. I entered the American Cancer Society’s Island on a pathway which was lined with brightly lit lanterns. I had read a while back about lanterns that could be lit by participants in the American Cancer Society’s “Relay for Life” which is Second Life’s version (four years running) of the real life Relay for Life that began in 1985 to provide awareness and raise money for the cause.
The island was so quiet and peaceful. I began to walk around. My movements were not smooth and I didn’t feel like I was walking normally but moving about erratically as if I was being chased. This made me feel a bit foolish. My strange movement did not worry me though, I didn’t see anyone around. As a matter of fact, I didn’t see ANYONE around for a long time.
At first, I walked along a walkway and passed several empty stages and what appeared to be meeting rooms. There was a certain tropical feel to the island. There was a lot of water, a great deal of green and everything appeared to be open to the elements. This only added to the peacefulness and serenity of the island. I came upon a sign for the Relay for Life looking for volunteers. I was “offered” some gifts but couldn’t figure out how to grab or take them. (I will have to go back.)
I walked some more and came upon a Book of Hope. I was unable to read thorough it though, only the cover. As a matter of fact, all the signs and pictures I saw were blurry until I actually clicked on some of them. Wait! There is someone coming…but she passed me right by. She did not slow down long enough for me to catch her name or try and interact. How strange, only two of us on the island, I thought she would say hello.
I came upon an elevator which told me I was on the 5th floor; I used the elevator to go to the 4th floor which featured breast cancer information. There was a larger than life-size book with facts about breast cancer; it was supported by graphs. I was able to walk around the front of the book to see that facts were from the previous year. There were a few offices with brightly colored furnishings but nobody was in them. As I returned to the elevator, I was able to pick up an information pamphlet.
I would say that my first time experience in Second Life was nice. I admit that I was nervous that I might encounter a flood of avatars and feel overwhelmed, but I only saw one and she did not talk to me. I was able to move about without incident and collect my information. I came upon one location where ACS would e-mail additional information to me. The island was full of places where you could get information about cancer and also, places where you could donate.
It was a peaceful place, almost eerie. Whenever I was near water, I could hear the sound of a running brook. If nothing else, the island was calming. I wondered if it was a bustling place when the Relay for Life was in full swing. As I moved to depart I passed my free gift again. I was still unable to get it BUT, I was able to shrug and say, “I dunno.” I was only able to walk a little further before Second Life crashed. Even that, was quiet.
The island was interesting enough for me to want to go back. I still have some things to learn like how to walk without bumping into walls or walking off pathways (and what is this jumping thing?) Perhaps I will learn to like it. I would say that Second Life was at the very least, compelling. The ACS's island was a nice place to start. I think it is also a good place to get information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)