Group items tagged

Many of us remember the PSN outage of April 2011. Sony blamed 'Anonymous,' a collective hacktivist group formed in 2003 on 4chan, after they found the Anonymous calling card 'We Are Legion' in their system. Anonymous is composed of individuals with the ideals of: 1. Freedom of Information 2. Freedom of Speech 3. Unregulated Internet Anonymous will only attack databases and websites only if provoked, and will not do so for monetary gain. The group has recently engaged in multiple attacks on international government databases. The article, by Casey Chan, is about the Anonymous digital attack on Israel, in retaliation after the Israeli government threatened to shut down Internet access and other telecommunications to the Palestinian people in the Gaza and "Occupied Territories. " The group attacked the Israel Foreign Affairs database and Bank of Jerusalem database, as well as DDos attacks on over 600 sites and theft of over 2000 email addresses and passwords. This attack has generated some controversy. Since the beginning of November, Israel has also received over 150 missile attacks from the Palestinians as well. Anonymous aids the Palestinians by sharing a 'Care Package,' instructions on what to do in the event Israel does sever the Internet connection. Anonymous has become quite influential on the Internet. This illustrates how important the Internet has become. The internet is not only a commodity, but a right to have. It has replaced forms of communication, entertainment, transactions, and more. A group of 'anonymous' users has been formed for the sole purpose of protecting it, with the will and capabilities to punish any party that wishes to disrupt it. As with every conflict, there are sides. Anonymous, in protection of Internet freedoms; and the Israeli government, that has been fighting a war for as long as anyone can remember. Who's side are you on?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDeOMq4RPxY&feature=relmfu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group) *More information on Anonymous

With all that's been happening with the Super storm, Hurricane Sandy, social networking may seem far from our mind, but it turns out social network sites, like twitter has become a common source for breaking news about what's going on in different places. At times like these, people often join together and find courage and compassion in one another, while others simply seek to make the problem worse. That's what happened when someone had tweeted false news about the hurricane, like tweeting about the New York Stock Exchange building being flooded and under three feet of water. The rumor had spiralled and even been repeated on CNN and the Weather Channel before being found fake. Normally, false tweets are simply overlooked or scoffed at, but at times like this those kinds of tweets can create mass panic and worry. They are definitely immoral, but what has come into question is whether it should be considered illegal. Some think that this type of tweeting was done to increase fear and endanger, but should his behaviour be considered criminal? After all, he does have freedom of speech and the freedom to lie is included in that, except in "rare occasions". Personally, I think that, normally, silly, fake tweets can be overlooked and just scrolled past, but in times of emergency, tweets like this that can add more fear and panic to an already troubled situation should be considered a criminal action. In times of crisis, everybody should be uniting and helping each other, not creating more danger and trouble. Freedom to lie in the face of disaster like this, about that kind of information is not something that should be tolerated. No matter how big or small the aftermath and reaction to those tweets, they should not be overlooked and in no way should the law consider it okay.

The law on hate speech being used on the internet does not interfere with freedom of expression, according to the courts. The penalty you get for doing this action clearly is a violation, but courts have not taken that into account. This happens to be section 13, a currently defunct law. A penalty for hate speech on the internet can result in up to a $10000 fine! This penalty is what gives people the reason to argue. Wouldn't fining someone for stating an opinion on something (no matter how bad it is) still be a violation of someone's freedom of expression? Unless you were under employment and did something of that nature within your job, you should be fired. But, the internet seems to be much different than real life. When something is written it must have more power, because saying your opinion in real life out loud, will not result in any fines. The problem is that section 13 violating free speech is right politically, but wrong legally. Section 13 is being removed in June of 2104, and for good reason. No internet hate speeches are being made in which a victim should recieve $10000 in compensation. Personally, I would never say anything to offend a large group of people to such a degree, but I still think section 13 should be removed, if it goes against a constitutional right under reasonable grounds.

This article, by Somnini Sengupta on the New York Times, is an in-depth look on free speech on the internet, and drawing the line between free expression and hate speech. An anti-Islamic video recently posted on YouTube has brought up the debate over where internet companies decide to draw that line. After the killing of a US ambassador and three other Americans, Google has restricted access to the video in Egypt and Lybia. Google continued to restrict the video in five other countries where it violated local laws. The question about free speech proves to be a problem where it can lead to hate speech. There are continual debates over whether hate speech includes speech that can lead to violence, or demeans a group by race or religion. Politically unstable countries, such as Pakistan, have blocked YouTube altogether. Many internet companies such as Facebook and Twitter, receive the same problems on content as well. Social networks of communication and freedom of expression can also become outlets and channels of hateful and demeaning speech. However, it is also difficult to screen such large amounts of user uploaded content at a time. Although these social networking sites may not condone the views expressed by their users, they can do little to prevent the upload and viewing by hundreds of millions of daily active users. As represented by the anti-Islamic video, these views can affect events, actions, and the lives of people the world over. This can relate to us as students because we can see how widespread the internet is, and how much larger it will become. Everything we post online is recorded and forever preserved; once it's out there, it's out there. Whether what we post reach the desired recipient or a nation, words, coupled with the internet, have immense power, and should be treated with respect. This reflects on smaller scale issues such as cyber bullying, where what we post may intentionally or unintentionally harm our peers. Yes, I believe that free spee

This video describes how the constitution of America opposes those warning labels on cigarette packaging. Although many believe the warning should stay, judges oppose by arguing that preventing companies to properly advertise a legal drug is against freedom of speech. 1/7 people smoke and I can emphasis with the judge in his decision.

This article notifies the world that the CIA wants to spy on you through your TV and has the means just to do so. Anytime you download a movie from Netflix to your television or turn on a Internet-based radio, you could be alerting people who you don't want or need watching you. The CIA organization will not need to plant bugs in homes or other places to spy on individuals because of coming advances in computer and Internet technology. Just by people purchasing and using new apps and various "connected" devices, people will essentially be bugging their own homes. The CIA agency and others will be able to "read" these and other gadgets from outside places to monitor via the Internet and perhaps even with radio waves outside your home. This is astonishing information and what makes it even more surprising is it can get worse, it the sense that everything, not just electronics, will be controlled by an app or chip, and will ultimately be viewed and seen by outside sources. This is a scary idea that can be put to action and that fact that we won't even be secure and safe in our homes because there may always be someone watching us and viewing what we are doing. I understand technology is helping us in our everyday lives, but I feel this is too far and the government is now using there means of advancing technology against society. They have the power and resources to possibly monitor and maybe to control what we go on the Internet or what we watch on TV and this will alter our once safe and comfortable environment to have the freedom to use technology how we like in our home.

This article is about Obama saying that the white house will not support the SOPA, because it reduces the freedom of expression, and because of an online petition called We the people.

Today steams family sharing has become available for everyone. Family sharing allows people in a close vicinity to play most of each other's games. Also while a game is being although there are some exceptions like monthly subscription MMO games. I believe that this is a really good and inspiring concept. This allows siblings and friends who come over to you house to play the same games while only one person owning it. This is giving similar freedom you have in console games where you can play together using one disk. Although this is still early and really buggy, I myself tried to share games with my brother and while his computer found my laptop shows "no other local accounts found". All in all being released so recently I am impressed.

This is an extremely important matter as it is the first large step within the american government to censor the internet. Mega upload is not just a website, it is a symbol of expression. The government censoring things such as large websites and social networks is a scaring thing as it marks the first step in global censorship. It causes people to fear the government.

"You can always opt out," said the fellow at the other end of the table. "If you don't want to share anything with anyone, why would you join a social network at all?"

Theodore Cottingham is single-handedly the greatest discovery I have made on the internet. When you click this link, it will bring you to the world of Theodore. All his religious beliefs on ALL of his 816 videos summed up in one minute. His philosophical nature is the driving and compelling force for this channel. The uniqueness of his delivery keeps me coming back. I honestly cannot fathom how this channel only has 18 subs. This man is not catholic, nor any religion for that matter. A future internet phenomenon for sure, reddit/atheism would probably go crazy over this guy. Oh yeah, and did I mention each one of his videos are an hour long? Don't fret though, every second is well worth being in Theodore's presence. I would consider subscribing to this guy if you already haven't, he makes a video every day. Well, there's so much I can explain on a Diigo bookmark, you'll see what I mean once you watch one of his videos. I see Theodoreism as a subject of discussion on the interwebs, so prepare yourselves people. ~23:59 p.m.