The Blog To End All Blogs: FakeBook

I enjoyed our discussions about cloaked websites. I found it most interesting, because I believe I have been responsible to some degree in making a kind of cloaked website. While the agenda was fairly upfront, I created a Facebook account for a cartoon character representing a company I was used to work for. Of course the account was mostly a joke, but it did entail acting as someone I am not. The account was for a "Goldy McMinemine," a character who would bring a softer touch to the mineral resource development industry. I know of several instances of people creating false Facebook accounts in order to find out information or to harass fellow users.

"Cloaking" occurs more often than we may even realize. Consider the Spam which frequently fills up your mailbox. Many of the emails are harmless, but some have a more insidious objective. Hackers will send out seemingly legitimate emails to unsuspecting users. The emails may include the logo of the company, a believable URL, and other features that lend credence to the message's legitimacy. The email will ask for certain pieces of confidential information (Social Security #, Bank Account, etc). Successfully "cloaking" the email involves convincing the user that it is legitimate and that their response is secure. The email may include a sense of urgency in its wording and presentation in order to push the user to respond. Millions of people have their identities stolen online by many of these seemingly harmless inquiries. One recent example involved a fake email from the Canada Post regarding subscription information. The scam included official imagery and "urgent" language in order to effectively deceive unsuspecting readers. Once the recipient opened an attached PDF, a "Trojan" virus would quickly make its way through their computer. These scams are common and can only be combated with the skeptical and informed eye of the email user.

The technique is known as "phishing" where a hacker literally "fishes" the web for users who would be caught by such techniques. A recent scam in Virginia uses the logo of a bank to catch people's confidential information. The phishing scam actually involved text messaging and phone calls on top of the emails. The police involved made the point that if you are in doubt - do NOT provide any confidential sensitive information.

CyberThreats - Foreign and Domestic

Last week I blogged about cyber-bullying and net “sabotage” with regards to political activism. This week, we discussed two other harmful uses of the internet: cyber-crime and cyber-terrorism. There are numerous examples of both in recent years. During the last presidential election, the personal email accounts of Governor Sarah Palin were hacked by a college student in Tennessee. The student sought information about Palin that would be harm her public image before the election. He posted several pictures of her inbox and several emails. Next week, he will stand trial in Tennessee for his alleged cyber-crime. It will be interesting to see what sort of precedent the case may set for future instances of high-profile email hacking.

In the realm of cyber-terrorism, the Senate has recently been discussing efforts by the Pentagon to set up command center specifically to counter cyber-terrorism efforts. The ABC News article points out that computer mainframes in “neutral countries” and the computers of innocent Americans can be commandeered and used by hostile agents during a cyber attack. It is a much trickier form of warfare as opposed to the open battlefield.

Dr. Akhavan mentioned the ongoing debate among scholars and experts regarding the actual threat of cyber terrorism and its real potential to cause harm. Is it merely a nuisance or is it a substantial threat to our security? I think it’s important to note that our national power grids and other utilities conduct a great deal of their operation in cyberspace. During a time of war, having the ability to take down electrical grids and communication abilities is an essential way to disrupt and disable an opponent. With the recent rash of cyberattacks originating in China, I think it’s important to realize that we are not the only ones who recognize the power and potential threat of cyber-terrorism.

We also discussed the distinction between cyber-terrorism for the purpose of inflicting harm (attack) and obtaining information (hack). According to the Fox News article, intelligence officials have acknowledged that several large-scale attacks on government agencies have originated in China. One cyber-warfare expert, Gary Elliot said, "There was a large government military or intelligence agency behind this." Considering the depth and calibre of the attack makes it clear that only an organized, government agency could have coordinating such an attack. The challenge is in proving WHICH government and WHICH agency was behind the attack.

Anonymous says...

I agree with David Weinberger that conversation is important in establishing common ground and understanding in a democracy. I also believe his analysis of “echo chambers” is fair and reasonable. It is not a failure for the Internet to have echo chambers. Weinberger articulates the point that having groups of people “egging each other on” is in fact worse than an “echo chamber” of like-minded believers. Weinberger cites the examples of the Huffington Post and RedState as examples of liberal and conservative echo-chambers. Both sites allow like-minded contributors to exchange and debate ideas from their area of the political spectrum. The contributors wish to share their views and consider others.

I think one point that the author misses are the instances in which “sabotage” users post nasty comments in an otherwise healthy line of debate. Some may disregard these occurrences as irrelevant and unimportant. Weinberger himself says that these sorts of outrageous comments are quickly moderated out or ignored. There’s one problem with that. Instances of bomb-throwers in echo-chamber blogs DO get the attentions of many mainstream media outlets. For example, if a conservative wished to discredit or delegitimize the Huffington Post in the eyes of the larger public, they could simply sign up for the site and start posting some outrageously bigoted remarks. In a matter of time, some of the comments come to the attention of mainstream media outlets who begin to label the Post as a “hate site.” And because of the anonymity which the internet provides, no real information about the bloggers can ever really be identified. There is no more effective strategy of silencing your political opponent and tainting their image. It’s really no different from a protester dressing up as a Neo-Nazi and attending a political rally. Once the cameras capture the outrageous figure, the candidate or cause is irreparably tainted. Mission accomplished. On the web, this is made even easier, because people are not physically around their peers, so no real accountability is possible.

As much as I enjoy my own anonymity on the web, I think it is one of the central problems in online discourse. It is a wholly different experience from someone announcing their views in a protest before a courthouse or in soft conversation in the privacy of their home. The point is that in these instances, the person is not separated from their words and their viewpoint. They can be shunned or ridiculed for what they say. In effect, there are actual consequences. I realize myself how easy it is to say something meaner or more ridiculous on the internet simply because your person isn’t attached to it. When we are responsible for our speech, we tend to curb outrageous or insensitive comments – because there are consequences.

Cyber-bullying is the extreme example of the potentially harmful effects of internet communication. Disparaging someone online becomes much easier than saying the same things to their face. Take the example of Phoebe Prince who was bullied in class and online until she eventually committed suicide. Some states are even considering legislation to target cyberbullies. I'm not sure if legal action is the best course of action. Educating people about the potential abuse of online communication seems like the solution as people devote more and more of their time to communicating online.

(My Presentation) Post

I presented a week ago on the topic of Internet organizing, related to Clay Shirky's article. As I said in the presentation, Powerline Blog was an instrumental force in exposing fraudulent documents related to President Bush's National Guard service. The whole investigation took place about two months before the 2004 election. If you're interested in reading more about Powerline's role in the historic momoent of web organization, go to (www.powerlineblog.com). The important point about the incident is that it didn't involve two or three highly educated bloggers investigating media malpractice. Instead, everyday readers from across the country contributed their expertise in a variety of areas (military protocol etc.) in order to expose the documents for what they really were.
I was a little surprised that more people weren't familiar with the "Tweet Up" considering the wild popularity of Twitter today. I think it's great that Tweet Ups are organized for all different kinds of purposes: from political activism to casual social engagement. I was surprised to find out how organized "Tweets" were from my own hometown. I encourage you to look up "Tweet Ups" in your own area to see how people are organizing, and for what cause. If you're interested in learning more about Tweet Ups, and the Dos and Donts of organizing, read Stuart Foster's article on Mashable.
Lastly, as you know from the presentation, rival groups of students are organizing Facebook groups addressing the recent controversy surrounding Father O'Connell's decision to be this years commencement speaker. If you're interested in getting involved, voicing your opinion and joining the cause, go here.
And of course, for organizing events, you can always use the services of Eventbrite.

"Don't Be Evil"

When reading about Yahoo!’s history in Europe and China, I have to admit that my first reaction was surprise. I had no idea Yahoo! had such jurisdictional conflicts with foreign nations. Of course, the topic is much more familiar today as a result of Google’s dealings with China. Recently, the search giant decided to no longer comply with China’s strict censorship policies. In effect, Google was put in the exact same position as Yahoo! Chinese users are directed to Google’s Hong Kong site which exists with looser restrictions as a result of the city’s semi-autonomy. Before people cheer Google’s “noble” stand against tyranny in the face of lost profits, I think it’s important to consider what Google was doing. I remembered an article several years ago which featured images of Google’s “Image Search,” one censored by the Chinese government, the other a regular, unrestricted search. When entering the term “Tiananmen Square,” the site of the slaughter of hundreds of protesters by the tyrannical state several decades ago, one will find two completely different results. From the American portal, you will find images of tanks rolling into the square and protesters assembled with a giant, makeshift model of the Statue of Liberty. From an American perspective, this moment was a glorious one, people risking their lives for their own freedom. This moment, unfortunately, is not remembered on the Chinese portal. The images are noticeably absent from Google’s Chinese “Image Search.” So, again, before we laud Google’s noble stand for liberty and freedom – it’s a little late. I’m going to have to agree with Steve Jobs on this one. Google’s “don’t be evil” mantra is “bullsh*t.”

At least Yahoo! didn’t hold itself up as a “non-evil” entity (like Google) when it turned that poor Chinese man into Party authorities for daring to breathe the word “liberty.” I do think it’s ridiculous that Yahoo! is held accountable to French law for simply providing the platform by which Nazi paraphernalia can be sold. Why not hold the seller accountable for sending illegal goods to a foreign nation? I think Yahoo!’s argument is valid: It simply cannot comply with the strict laws and regulations of all 150+ nation states in which it operates. Expecting a company like Yahoo! or Google to comply in that manner is a denial of the fundamental nature of the Internet. The Internet exists outside of transnational borders and no hissy-fit by the obscure dictator of Djbouti is going to change that. Knowing where an IP address originates from is not sufficient in “policing” the online activity of the billions of Internet users. However, companies like Google and Yahoo! have grown up in the United States and have benefitted from the economic liberty provided by this country. We, in effect, made it possible for Google and Yahoo! to exist and thrive. So when we see moments where the (now) global corporations are faced with jurisdictional dilemmas, it is important that we as consumers take a closer look. These companies thrive and produce wealth for their investors as a result of our nation's stability and freedom. It is shocking then to hear that a company which has benefited first hand from these conditions would go ahead and facilitate their demise in another part of the globe. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to start asking these “American” companies a question: Whose side are you on?

Grouping

Clay Shirky’s article reveals the ability of the Internet to empower everyday users like Evan. Several people brought up the point that Shirky’s story may also reveal a ‘digital divide’ between Evan and the poor teenage girl from Queens. Sasha did not have the technical knowledge to mount a defense of her actions on the Internet. She was at the mercy of a man with expert knowledge and experience in the numerous resources provided by the Internet, like Digg. Evan’s technical advantage made it possible for him to consolidate the power of the media, the public and eventually law enforcement to his side. But I’m not so sure I agree that the treatment of Sasha was unfair or unwarranted. It is true that probably thousands of phones are lost in New York City every year. It also probably wasn’t much of a burden for Evan’s fiancée to obtain a new phone (and get the important content off of her old phone). That doesn’t change the fact that Sasha had taken something that wasn’t hers. “Finders keepers” may have standing on the playground, but not in the real world. The Internet provided new channels for a wronged individual to have a situation righted. It doesn’t really matter that Sasha was in a less beneficial situation than the victim. How far do we take the sympathy reasoning? Do we let the carjacker have his BMW just because he would probably never be able to buy one of his own? A $300 SideKick is not a BMW, but it was the property of someone else, and we shouldn’t feel bad that is was taken back from a pitiable thief.

On a lighter note, the ability of the Internet to organize users doesn’t always have to take the avenue of law enforcement. There are plenty of examples of people organizing over the Internet to effect change that they believe in. It is now second nature for any political figure, ballot measure or cause represented on the Internet to proudly include organizing features like Facebook, Twitter and Flickr on their main-pages. I think that these tools can represent active, organized members of a movement, but there are reasons to be skeptical. The organizers are motivated to inflate their “rolls” and make it look as though they have the support of the majority. Organizers will also frequently include “man on the street” quotes of supposedly random people supporting their initiative. From previous work experience, I can tell you that many of these “random” interviews are in fact staged interviews with employees of the organization. So “Michael S. from Washington, DC” may in fact be a much more involved supporter than a random citizen. It is easy to “join” or “support” causes and candidates through Facebook and other sites. I think it remains an open question as to how effectively these masses can be mobilized considering the relatively loose ties and feeble support they maintain with the organizers. A good example of more mobilized group is on The Huffington Post’s College Page which allows students from across the country to post pictures of themselves holding posters with the amount of debt they have incurred during college. Students can share their stories with each other and the large audience of the Huffington Post. With enough support, perhaps the movement could reach critical mass where its voice is heard in the larger media landscape and eventually Congress in order to enact legislative changes for debt-ridden students. That remains to be seen.

Stalled Software

Stallman makes some important arguments about free software. Some of his arguments were more convincing than others. His refutation of the emotional argument states that the work of a programmer is quickly signed over to a large corporation, undermining its status as an integral “extension” of the programmer. It may be true that many programmers work for large corporations, but not all do. Is it okay to steal the software of those programmers who sign over their work to their employer and not okay for those who do not sell their work? It seems like the only distinction being made between the two is a comfort distinction. The author is comfortable taking from someone who he doesn’t have to face, someone who he doesn’t know. It would be uncomfortable for him to steal a program from his neighbor, for example. Stallman attempts to justify taking the software (which is illegal) through emotional arguments of his own. His argument that restricting access to software (charging money for it) causes “psychosocial harm” was one of his more ridiculous notions. Supposedly, restricting (is white bread restricted because people have to pay $1.50 for it?) software changes people’s relationships with each other, making them less likely to share. This argument would be great if it didn’t implicate almost every other commodity bought and sold in our country.

There are points made by Stallman that I think have merit. By implementing an “ownership” system of software, certain innovative capabilities are severed for aspiring programmers. Curious students are unable to view the source code for many programs, making it impossible to learn from the coding. In the interest of education, should all software be unprotected and fully available? Perhaps. But since when was it “the spirit of competition” to force a company to reveal its method or secret to success? Isn’t Dr. Pepper successful, because the Coca Cola Company spent the time, effort and money to cultivate the perfect flavor? Software isn’t soda, I know. But what is the basis for giving programmers no ownership of, credit for or rights to their own work? Stallman says that even with free software, programmers would still develop new programs (for some reason). That may be the case, but what motivation could a programmer, or a company for that matter, have to develop cutting-edge software that will change people’s lives? I think benevolence only gets us so far. I think benevolence maybe could get us “Word Perfect” or “Paint,” but not the Microsoft Office Suite. I think we need to think about the real consequences of unregulated, royalty-free software before jumping into the great unknown.
PS: I definitely think Stallman should move to Russia.