Hollenberg's Thoughts

This past week in seminar, we talked about identity on the Internet. One thing that I found especially interesting was our discussion on how we portray ourselves online vs. how we are in real life. As teenagers we put so much time and thought into our online personas. We think hard before every snapchat we post, ever Facebook picture we add, and every tweet we send. Online our audience is everyone. When we post something online, it is usually not just seen by one person, or a group of people, but rather it is seen by everyone. Is what you put on your Facebook profile actually a representation of you? Or is it just how you want others to see you? As humans we act so different in so many different situations, as we adapt to each situation that we encounter. Yet, on Facebook, we have no time to adapt, for everything is visible to everyone. We try harder online to make sure that we look “cooler.” We always send the snapchats of our parties, but never send snapchats of us when we are crying because we have too much homework. So is the Internet an accurate representation of our identity?

This is also an issue when it comes snap judgements made from people when they are perusing online profiles. Although I pride myself in being a non-judgmental person, when I look at someones Facebook or Twitter profile, I immediately judge who they are. If their profile picture is of them playing basketball, instantly in my mind I make an assumption that they are a jock-type person. If their profile picture is them making a speech at a debate tournament, I immediately classify them as a nerdy-type person. Yet, that is often not the case. As much as an individual tries to portray their true self online, it is almost impossible that everyone viewing your profile will see you the same way. It is impossible to “please” everyone. With an audience larger than you even know, many assumption will be made about you, without you even knowing. For me, this makes online relationships shallow. Personally, I prefer talking in person, rather than online. I prefer meeting someone in person before I see their Facebook profile and make a quick snap judgment.

Lastly, people portray themselves differently on different social media sites. On Linked-In, I am not going to make my profile picture a picture of me partying with my friends. I will most likely make it a professional looking picture. In my profile, I will not harp on the fact that I am a diehard sports fan, and love the show Entourage. Although, those are two huge parts of who I am, they will be invisible to anyone who sees me on Linked-In. On Facebook, I may share dozens of posts about the Patriots, and many clips from funny/stupid TV shows. However, I would never post about my CS50 final project that I am so, so excited about working on. As you can see, I am a completely different person on different social media platforms. So how can one get an accurate representation of an individual online? In my opinion they can’t. What makes our generation so interesting and different is that we make so many judgments of people online before we meet them, and this affects how we become friends with them. The Internet is affecting our relationships more than we think, and to me that is a interesting thing to think about. Imagine going into college with no Facebook? Weird, huh?

That is all for this week! Stay tuned!

In seminar this week we again had an amazing special guest. This time, his name was Jonathan Zittrain, who talked to us about cyber crime, cyber security, and cyber warfare. I was enthralled with the conversation and thought that Professor Zittrain had answer to every question or hypothetical thrown at him, I was quite impressed. In a field with so much uncertainty, Professor Zittrain shared a lot of interesting information about crime online.

After the conversation and some thinking, I believe that the best way to stop cyber crime is the preventative method. Although it is quite difficult, I believe that cyber security must be improved. These attacks happen so frequently, and it makes me wonder why can’t we develop security good enough to stop these hackers? Are these hackers just too good, and no matter what security we have they will be able to break into? I believe that governments should focus more on cyber security as more and more stuff goes online and into technology, we must keep up with the security in these high-tech fields. Additionally, what surprised me was the amount of money that these hackers can make by doing these attacks. These hackers can make thousands and thousands of dollars for each attack they do, and since they are so detrimental to the users, the users are forced to pay these absurd sums of money.

One interesting hypothetical we talked about was the google email “scan” for terrorism. What this scan would do is go through everyone’s gmail account, and see if they have the exact match of a terrorist email. With this email, the government would then be able to know who is in on the act of terror. Is this okay? Does this invade privacy? Do you agree to this by signing up for google? I was very adament in our conversation that I would be okay with this scan. As long as no humans lay eyes on my emails, and it is simply an algorithm that checks through my emails, I am fine with that. But, Professor Zittrain compared it to many other hypotheticals, such as a robot taking pictures of your diary, would I be okay with that? To be honest, I was definitely a little more skeptical after each of Professor Zittrain’s comebacks. Still, with just an algorithmic check of my emails, I feel comfortable, but should I? Does google already have all my email data? Can a worker at google simply go in and look at my email? Although that is illegal, is there anything stopping that worker? It is all these questions that make this hypothetical very confusing, and not as  simple as one might thing.

But I will always listen to what my dad told me when I first got email:

“Make sure before you send any email, that you would be comfortable reading this email in front of the whole world, because once it is online the whole world can see it.” That stuck with me.

That is all for this week. Stay tuned for my last few blog posts!!!

This was another special week as we had Scott Bradner come in and speak to us about Internet Governance. Scott Bradner has been on the forefront of Internet regulation for many years now, and it was an honor to have him speak to us in such a small group. The main thesis of his talk was the fact the there actually is no Internet governance, especially in the United States. Some countries (China for example) have had some sort of Internet governance, but there is no global  governance, and definitely not any governance currently in the United States.

One thing from the presentation that I found exceptionally striking was the slide that depicted different Internet “plans” that providers might supply. Imagine if you could only buy 100 websites from a provider. What would happen to all these small websites developed by normal people like you and I. Would we not be able to visit them unless we bought the unlimited plan? I think that that is just completely wrong. What is so special about the Internet is its scope, and its endless amount of nooks and crannies that are loved by different people. TV, Phone, and Radio are all localized and more easily regulated. But what makes the Internet the Internet is that it is not regulated. A regulated Internet would ruin all the values that the Internet has. Once described as a bumble-bee that was not able to fly, the Internet has flown with flying colors, and there should be nothing that should stop it. The only regulations that should be on the Internet is that all members on the Internet should play fairly and should “do what is right.” There should be no overarching regulations that should limit what individuals should be able to access online. To be completely honest, seeing those Internet plans scared me, and scared me a lot.

Another thing I found interesting about Internet Governance was its lack of consistency across the globe. For example the European Union’s (EU) right to be forgotten, is only a law in the European Union. Let’s say I lived in France, and wanted to forget some of my history on google. Would that information also be forgotten on google in the United States. How does one deal with these laws that span only specific parts of the world, but can be seen on the Internet all over the world?

Another thing I find interesting is how governments can influence an individuals ideology by filtering what they see online. For example, if a governement is in charge of the Internet, it can block anything that is anti that government, and suppress any sort of rebellion, unrest or protest. I believe that should not happen. The Internet can be an incredible tool to help bring masses together and elicit social change. Yet, if the government is regulating everything that is going on the Internet, it will limit the power of one of humanities best tools that it can use to unite masses.

As of now there is no Internet Governance in the United States, and there hasn’t been since the Internet was invented. The main question is: Will this last? In my opinion, it will last, but not to the extent that it is at currently. As the Internet continues to advance, I believe there will be more of a need to implement laws that keep play on the Internet fair and just. I do not think that there will ever be governance like AT&T offering you Internet plans, but I do believe that more and more laws will have to be created to ensure that fair play is ensured on the Internet and that the Internet remains a safe place.

That is all for Hollenberg’s Thoughts this week. Stay tuned!!!

Brady for MVP?!?

This week was a special as we had David Eaves come in and talk to us about how the government is using technology to try to enhance its citizens lives. Professor Eaves was very knowledgable on the topic, and it was a topic that I never really had thought about. When he first introduced himself, I thought he would be a computer science guy that was working on the software and hardware for these governments. In fact, he was the opposite and he argued that empathy was the most important factor in the technological advances that governments make to improve the lives of their citizens. He made the metaphor that the fastest runner in the world will not win the race if he does not know where he is going, and therefore it is not the runner that is the most important, but rather the individual that is telling the runner where the run. He compared the runner to the coder, and the empathetic individual to the man that knew the route. Personally, I disagree with this statement. Professor Eaves was arguing that we do not need more high level coders, but rather need more people that are willing to solve the problems and direct the coders in the correct direction. Yet, I believe that the runner (the coder) is just as or even more important as the man who is telling the runner where to go. Sure, this individual might know the route of the race, but there is no possible way to win the race without the fastest runner. Additionally, to be the best runner, one of the skills would be to know where you are going, and the one of the main skills of a coder is to attack problems and come up with solutions. I agree with Professor Eaves with the fact that there must be more people that are willing to solve these technological issues, but who says it can’t be the runners (coders) themselves. I really did not like how he downplayed the importance of the coder, as without these coders, there would be no technological advances.

Another point that Mr. Eaves made that was shocking was the 3rd degree “rule of thumb” or idea he shared with us. If you are within 3 degrees of a suspicious/wanted individual, the FBI is most likely collecting tons more data on you than if you weren’t three degrees separated from a suspicious/wanted individual. Since I am in email contact with Professor Waldo, and he is in contact with an individual that was in contact with Snowden, then according to this rule I am being watched more than the average person. What? What did I do? To me, that is completely shocking and eye-opening.

This made me think of all the times that there is data collected about you by the government. For example, the sidewalk labs collect data about you every time that you check in to one of them. Cell phone towers interact with your phone every time you pass into their range. The amount of data that the government has about you is astounding. It is true we are all digital citizens of our nation.

Also, what horrified me the most was at the Baltimore protests police were able to use image recognition technology to identify those who had a warrant, and were able to single them out of the crowd and arrest them. What? How? Does that mean that one day if I am walking down that street, and I have not paid a parking ticket, a police officer will be able to see that and get me in trouble right then and there? Will we ever have privacy on our sidewalks? Scary stuff

A few big questions I have are:

What does the government do with this information?

Is this ethical? Did we ever vote on this?

I hope you enjoyed this edition of Hollenberg’s Thoughts. More to come next week.

No surprise Brady is incredible