Latest Entries »

Lecture 2/22/2011

During this lecture we discussed the parameters for our final research project. We are to identify the area that we wish to work in and find information related to this area. We are  to create a summary draft of a literature review that contributes to a greater body of knowledge which is essentially empirical research. We are to figure out where we can  fit into a project as well as use Radian6 in the final project presentation. We should be able to see the data and presentations available. We should figure out what research ideas and how to use Radian6 to implement research project.

Lecture- 03/22/2011

In this lecture we discussed short and long readings that we were to analyze and comment on. Further discussion about final steps for research was discussed and is as follows:
methods and results-graphs and pie charts
discussion(what results means…what does this mean
how does it answer research question, does it
fit with literature review, did i find out
something new, does something need to be changed or modified)

limitations-what are limitations of study, idea case scenario,
not ideal case scenario

Suggestions for future research

how to protect your Facebook/MySpace page from outside review
types of crimes involved using privacy breaches
type of information gathered from 3rd party API
(application programming interface)
how info obtained-how use obtained info
Percent of people who have been affected vs who have not
violent crime involving privacy breaches
fraud involving privacy breaches
computer corruption involving privacy breaches

RESEARCH QUESTIONS- SOCIAL MEDIAS GRIP ON PERSONAL PRIVACY:

PROTECTING YOUR ONLINE PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM THREATS

HOW TO BETTER AVOID PRIVACY BREACHES AND SECURITY RISKS THAT INFILTRATE AND EXPLOIT INDIVIDUAL’S PERSONAL ONLINE INFORMATION

Presentation for 04/05/2011
PEER TO PEER FILE SHARING-CULTURE..

[1]WHAT IT IS

[2]IMPLICATIONS
[3]SECURITY RISKS(INFO UPLOADED, INFO DOWNLOADED)
[4]UPSIDE[5]DOWNSIDE[6]HOW TO USE(HABITS)
1 definition-what is it-brief history
2 major examples
3 big ideas/values underlying
4 implications

Today’s lecture was about individual personal, attention and the distractions that keep us from it. We discussed if technology’s effect on society or society’s effect on technology affected our individual decisions about attentions.

Topics discussed in class are as follows, but not limited to:
Carr, Jackson- Technological Determinism-What technology does to me vs Human Agency-What I do to technology.
Luddites-Individuals who hate technology
Adaptive Structuration Theory(Giddens)

– distraction/ interruptions
– multitasking
– information theory

Attention-
What it is, How it works?
Single channel theory automaticity theory
Serial vs Parallel Attention
How to train your attention if something outside grabs your attention
Bottom Up Attention- controlled by the individuals spot light metaphors attention is a spot light top down
Top Down Attention- The scenario controls the attention
-Attention is the most scarce resource in today’s society

During our class on Tuesday we given the opportunity to present on topics identified and selected by the students in the class. The topic I chose was Peer-2-Peer file sharing which is essentially file sharing with different peers over a connection or connection-less oriented network. This is facilitated by a decentralized network of host computers that in turn act as clients for the network. In respect to the rest of the presentation, THEY WERE GREAT! I learned a great deal of information from the presentations. LOLSPEAK was an introduction to computer conversation that I knew nothing about. The information on Cyber bullying was very informative and provided a great deal of insight. Overall, everyone did a great job!

ISSUED BY: GCIS Communications Command Center

SOURCE: AFCEA

07March2011 9:00amEST

GCIS CYBER-SECURITY UPDATE: Computer networks are essential to global productivity and collaboration. They also are weapons: More harm is possible from a network attack than from a machine gun, according to experts gathered in London to discuss cyberwar.

CyberspaceCyberspace is the global nervous system, explained Raul Rikk, who heads the cybersecurity department for Trustcorp Limited, but cyberspace also is a new dimension of warfare. “You have to have a license to own a gun, but not so for computers,” he emphasized. The Internet is an incubator for criminal and terrorist activity, agreed Vice Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., USN, commander, U.S. 6th Fleet; commander, Striking and Support Forces NATO; Joint Force Maritime component commander, Europe; deputy commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe; and deputy commander, U.S. Naval Forces Africa, speaking just before the start of the two-day Technet International conference, held October 28-29.

The pace of cyberattacks is increasing, and those with harmful intentions are finding unique ways to infiltrate not only computers connected to the Internet but also computers that never were connected to the online world. Stuxnet, a computer worm that targets critical industrial infrastructure, was an entirely new type of attack. Tony Roadknight, technical architect, Nexor, called the worm a cyber missile, not just cyber mayhem. Part of the attack had to include individuals with infected media who accessed the closed system. The ability of the worm to target only certain systems and then hide the changes has made tracking its source, or even its purpose, difficult. (read full report)

How Secure Am I Really and At What Costs?

I was online recently and it dawned on me that someone just might be monitoring what I was doing. It is clear that ‘we’ have serious security threats that are thwarted everyday by the government and corporations factions on the behalf of the American people, but when the government decides to step in and bend or break the laws that were put in place to protect us, it seriously worries me. It is enough that we have to worry about our own personal security issues by even being on social media sites, but adding additional worries by having the government setting up dummy accounts on social media sites just so that they can gain the trust of unsuspecting individuals and well as their daily personal information. This troubles me. Sssooo……….   HOW SECURE ARE WE REALLY AND TO WHO ARE WE LENDING OUR TRUST TO? It is very conceivable that if the government can employ hundreds or even thousands of professional hackers and tech guy(s)/girl(s) to keep us safe from cyber attacks, those same individuals can develop web crawlers to spy and grabs personal info from the web about every citizen in the United States and beyond. This troubles me. What guarantee are we given from these sites that our personal information is more secure with them than from intrusion attempts from unwanted parties? Are these sites technical professionals better than the ones that the government employ? WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW? This troubles me.

On to the next thought…..


What has freedom of speech come to and at what cost?


What has this world come to when an individual cannot even sit back and reflect on ones thoughts and write it down without someone having an opinion about it. It should not matter if it is public or not! WHY is it scrutinized to the point where it creates friends or enemies? Clearly  it is not enough to just be an outspoken individuals with freedoms and have at your core the taut feeling of individualism, but it comes at a cost.  This also troubles me. Take for example what is going in in Libya and other middle eastern countries; all they want is freedom from oppression and the right to be classified as an individual with liberties and own the right to free speech without persecution. With that said, I propose a solution….not only should celebrities be [paid] for posting thoughts and having free speech, but everyone who has something to say.  This does not trouble me.


On to the next thought…..


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just wanted this last thought to give some inspiration to people who don’t update their blogs like I should. LOL…CIAO!!

If you weren’t able to blog last night or yesterday for some reason, this might have been the culprit….check this out……

 

After recovering from the largest Distributed Denial of Service attack in the service’s history (“multiple Gigabits per second and tens of millions of packets per second”) yesterday morning, blog host WordPress.com was attacked again very early this morning, finally stabilizing its service at 11:15 UTC (around 3:15 am PST).

WordPress.com serves 30 million publishers, many of them news sites like our own,  which lead some to conjecture that the attacks had come from the Middle East, a region experiencing its own Internet issues at the moment. Not so says Automattic founder Matt Mullenweg, who tells me that 98% of the attacks over the past two days originated in China with a small percentage coming from Japan and Korea.

The area that I would like to conduct research in will be security and privacy using social networking sites as well as using social media in general. There are a number of cracks in cyber security using social media sites and most hackers intend on exploiting those defaults for gains in criminalized activities ranging from identity theft to monetary theft to defamation to violent crimes committed from information gained from these sites; i.e(address, phone number or demographics in general).  I would like to research how to better prevent these types of criminalized activities from occurring and ways to better protect your privacy.

GCIS CYBER-SECURITY BRIEFING: Internet “Kill Switch”: Mapping Out Governmententals Proper Role in Cybersecurity

ISSUED BY: GCIS Communications Command Center

SOURCE: The Heritage Foundation

22February2011 2:03pmEST

GCIS CYBER-SECURITY UPDATE: The problem is indeed a challenging one. Clearly, the federal government needs the ability to protect its own interests, some of which require use of the private-sector portions of the Internet. Likewise, the government is charged with providing “for the common defense,” and all Americans would expect it to play a role in defending, say, the West Coast electrical grid against a Chinese assault.

The Government's Internet Kill SwitchThe recent report of Chinese infiltration of Canadian government computers is a salient demonstration of the need for some defensive measures. And the reality is that if pre-enforcement judicial review of any governmental order is required, it is possible that the governmental response will be delayed so long that it proves ineffective.

But equally clearly, giving the government power over the private sector and the Internet is fraught with peril to civil liberties. Even though the legislation has explicit language denying presidential power to cut Americans off from the Internet generally (and even though any President of either party should not be presumed to exercise powers granted in a dictatorial way), the recent experiences in Egypt make it clear how relatively easy it is for an autocratically minded leader to take control of private conduct.

And even when government acts with good intent, mistakes happen—for example, the recent error in which DHS mistakenly seized a number of innocent domain names that it thought were tied to child pornography but were not. Post-enforcement judicial review is of less value after the order has already been given and implemented. (read full report)

“GCIS INTELLIGENCE UPDATE” is an intelligence briefing presented by Griffith Colson Intelligence Service, and provided to the public for informative purposes only. All subject matter is credited to it’s source of origin, and is not intended to represent original content authored by GCIS, it’s partners or affiliates. All opinions presented are those of the author, and not necessarily those of GCIS or it’s partners.

The military has issued a request for bids on software to let it spread messages and make online friends using non-existent identities on social media sites.

ISSUED BY: GCIS Communications Command Center

SOURCE: Information Week

23February2011 7:25pmEST

GCIS CYBER-SECURITY UPDATE: The United States Air Force is taking an unusual approach to cyber-security with a request for bids for “Persona Management Software,” which would let someone Air Force to use fake IDs onlinecommand an online unit of non-existent identities on social media sites. The move became a major topic last week following the release of emails from private security firm HBGary, which were disclosed after an attack by Wikileaks competitor and collaborator Cryptome.org.

According to Solicitation Number: RTB220610 , the armed services division sought a software program that could manage 10 personas per user, including background; history; supporting details, and cyber presences that are ” technically, culturally and geographacilly [sic] consistent. Individual applications will enable an operator to exercise a number of different online persons from the same workstation and without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries. Personas must be able to appear to originate in nearly any part of the world and can interact through conventional online services and social media platforms. The service includes a user friendly application environment to maximize the user’s situational awareness by displaying real-time local information.” (read full report)

“GCIS INTELLIGENCE UPDATE” is an intelligence briefing presented by Griffith Colson Intelligence Service, and provided to the public for informative purposes only. All subject matter is credited to it’s source of origin, and is not intended to represent original content authored by GCIS, it’s partners or affiliates. All opinions presented are those of the author, and not necessarily those of GCIS or it’s partners.

~ Identity performance Identifying characteristics is important on how to present yourself. How you analyze yourself on your speech while online. Attempting to get away from who you really are and portray yourself in a different manner. Online social media allows you to disembody themselves from their current persona. Difficulties of online presentation are that of self perception and their intended audiences perception.  GOFFMAN speaks about  front stage pertaining to in the public persona whereas back stage deals with a more relaxed approach, where you are comfortable with friends, but could still  be interpreted by people who are unwittingly  in your front stage. Conceptual thinking deals with applying  the theory. More frequently we see blurring of lines between front stage and back stage.

~Crowd Wisdom– (Difference of crowds, crowd sourcing and community) Wisdom of Crowds deals with  gaining a collective idea from a crowd based off of the consensus of the individuals Where as crowd sourcing deals with  getting ideas from crowds but one single individual makes the decision.

The PowerPoint presentation was very informative which dealt with the  research strategies and types of analysis based on social media sites.  Most analysis was based upon demographics and insight into the characteristics of personal profile information and the reactions to certain information based off those identifying characteristics. Unwitting information that is given can be perceived in a positive or negative mannerism depending on the particular culture that the users are involved in. Future research of this presentation includes revisit to Morocco to complete a study with grad students,  compare them to other grad students from other schools and identify changes of a period of two years.  Great presentation with in-depth analysis, insight and corroborated data. Good job!!!

 

~ Active Social Media Poll~

ARTICLE REVIEW #2

My second article review for TECH621 is titled Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A Comparison of Facebook and MySpace. The purpose for this article is to look at how privacy concerns and trust influence social interactions within social networking sites. This article was based on an online survey of two popular social networking sites, Facebook and MySpace.

BACKGROUND INFO

This research article focuses on two main SNS sites, Facebook and MySpace. Social networking sites are a type of virtual community that has grown tremendously in popularity with Facebook and MySpace averaging, a total combined unique visitors, of over 60 million each month. When an individual join a social networking site, they establish a profile which contains identifying information about that individual. This information is then stored and is used to identify the user once logged on and in “downtime”. The root motivation for using these sites is communication. The research described establishes the impact of trust and internet privacy on the use of social networking sites for communication and moderate interactions. This research describes the responses of 117 individuals given the same questions in an online survey.

METHODOLOGY

The methods used in this research involve a list of questions given to participants in an online survey.

RQ1- For members of social networking sites, how does trust in the site and its other members affect willingness to share information and develop new relationships?

RQ2- For members of social networking sites, what is the relationship between internet privacy concern and their willingness to share information and develop new relationships?

RQ3- For members of social networking sites, what personal information was included on their profile?

RQ4- Comment on-“I find it easy to meet new people on social networking sites”.

RQ5- In general, how often are you concerned about your privacy while you are using the internet?

Although these are not all of the questions, a total of 16 questions were administered and were a seven point semantic differential scale anchored by “Never” (1) TO “Always” (7).

Most qualitative research focuses their objectives to one site whereas the research conducted in this empirical study focuses the objectives of research to two SNS. The survey questions developed were design to capture the perception of trust, internet privacy concern, information sharing and development of new relationships. The questions were derived from a qualitative study conducted by (Dwyer 2007). Each question was reworded for two surveys, one for Facebook and the other for MySpace.

 

RESULTS

Results of the surveys included the relationship between privacy concerns and online behavior. Users expressed very strong concerns about privacy of their personal information, but less vigilant about safeguarding it. (Awad and Krishnan, 2006).  Of the 117 subjects, 69 were Facebook members (29 male & 40 female) and 48 were MySpace users (29 male & 19 female). Given the results of the five item internet privacy scale, users for both sites had an average of about 23.302 indicating that there is a level of concern slightly above neutral. The summary of results from the trust related questions indicate that most users feel safe with their information on SNS. Although users also believe that other users exaggerate their profile to make it look more appealing than what it actually is.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, most studies conducted to date have focused on a qualitative study based on a single social networking site. Very few studies have been conducted that show the interests and similarities of two social networking sites. From both sites, they each expressed a level of concern regarding internet privacy. Facebook member were more trusting of the site and were willing to divulge more personal identifying information in their profile. Accurate modeling of how behavior and activity are correlated with trust and privacy concerns have yet to be developed in research. Further research is needed to understand these patterns and accurately model them.

ARTICLE REVIEW #1

My first article review for TECH621 is titled Randoms in my Bedrooms: Negotiating Privacy and Unsolicited Contacts on Social Networking Sites. The purpose for this article is to look at how solicited and unsolicited contacts on (SNS’s) breach privacy regulations or solicit breach of privacy regulations.

BACKGROUND INFO

This research article focuses on two main Social Networking Sites (SNS), Facebook and MySpace. It is also based on a qualitative project involving 38 individuals living in the Gold Coast region of Australia between the ages of 15 and 27. The research that was physically conducted was limited to this age group because of two reasons; one was to resist discursive constructions of youth engagement in online social spaces as ”risky” and dangerous and to test the need for comparable research being conducted to determine whether online social practices deviate or conform to other individual around the world.

Methods

The methods derived in this study consisted of first hand interviews with each of the participants that lasted approximately 30 to 60 minutes in length in a neutral location to each participant. Preceding the interview, an analysis was done of each of the participants to get an understanding of their demographics. Participants were recruited from undergraduate populations of Griffith University on the Gold Coast area with a variety of selection methods imposed.

Results

The results of this particular study focuses on the notion of friendship as a socio-cultural system of belonging and the impact of the belief of belonging that leads to a false conceptualism of “Friends” and ultimately a pattern of displaying a false sense of privacy to the users of social networking sites. The issue of privacy on social networking sites has been an element of both scholarly and popular discourse since they had begun to be widely adopted. Boyd’s (2007a;2007b;2010) research, for instance, followed the development of social network sites since Friendster was released in 2003, and argues that online social platforms  are simply new mediums that allow for the maintenance and articulation of existing relationships.  This friendship also comes at a cost where in the “age of Facebook” privacy is leveraged for personal information. Privacy has been conceptualized more pragmatically in the past decades, but as we move forward in the “Golden Age of the Internet”, there are emerging strategies for effective management of online privacy. A half a decade ago it was common practice never to use your full name on the internet. Now at this point, Facebook requires it of all of its users to release their full name upon setup of their “free” account in order to have a profile established.

This is the reason Bahrain is so important to the United States….check it out..clearly they are the “sweet soil” that the United States want to have a vested interest in. it should have been apparent, if they didn’t have something that we wanted, we wouldn’t be interested. Actually, it’s really sad!.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/17/us.bahrain.stakes/index.html

The violence is spreading like wildfires and there will be more to come! The people of this country are tired of absolute dictaorships. They see the democracy of the United States and want what we experience…..freedom from oppression. They deserve it!

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/16/bahrain.profile/index.html

Comment

http://karch10k.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/politics-2-0/#comment-8

Comment

http://scottabney3.blogspot.com/2011/02/tech-621-article-2.html?showComment=1297911857010#c7902916935779869329

Comment

http://anishparikh.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/article-analysis-1/#comment-8