Group items tagged

Four Corners and Q&A are covering the mandatory ISP filter debate tonight, should be a great double bill. Now its off the agenda till after the election, so the Government clearly misjudged the public reaction. Thanks to widespread media coverage on the inherent flaws of the MISP, coupled with the activism of protest movements such as Electronic Frontiers Australia and the Pirate Party, its fair to say that the general public have moved beyond the Government's black and white positioning of the proposal.

Thanks for the reminder!

Scroll down and read the discussion forum paper, "Child Protection and Freedom of Expression Online". The report aims to open discussion and reframe the debate surrounding child protection by bringing together, rather than isolating, advocates of online child protection and those of freedom of expression. It rejects the current moral panics that dominate the debate, particularly in the media, which over-represents the likelihood of harm to children online. It highlights the unproductive nature of framing online protection as a moral panic because it obscures and undermines the work of both freedom of expression and child protection advocates. Rather than keeping these two parties as diametrically opposed the discussion laid the first steps in finding common ground between the two. From here they can work together to advance both of their agendas and therefore achieving a more desirable balance between defending the rights of children and maintaining freedom of expression.

This article refers to the internet as the "weapon of choice" for the Taliban. The reason the article gives for why the internet is deemed a weapon in this case is due to the distribution of misinformation. If this is the case the internet should deemed to be a weapon in the hands of any government in the world. Misleading information is a problem everywhere and this is why people need to be diligent when looking at information on the web.

A politician, a political analyst and the editor of the Russian edition of Newsweek have been, supposedly, framed by the Kremlin in order to discredit them. Videos of them in compromising positions have been distributed in the Internet: the web as a channel through which public opinion can be molded by totalitarian states. Political campaigns could "learn" a lot from the Kremlin's actions... 

If you are going to look at copyright on the internet, you really can't go past this settlement. This is Google's next step at world domination: control of our intellectual property. No one likes it, but everyone is going ahead with it because Google has them over a barrel ... The basic deal is that Google wants to digitise every book ever written and make them all searchable online by google customer. On the surface this is all shiny; it seems commonsense that all material should be digitised - we have to keep up with technology. The problem arises when you get to the sticky situation of copyright - generally with books, owners get royalties every time someone buys a copy. With the digitisation, Google wasn't too keen on the idea of pay-per-view. Ideally, they would have loved to present all that information free and just reap the benefit ... well, however Google reaps benefits. There was litigation all round - publishers were against it, yahoo and other internet giants were against it (because it wasn't their idea) and it went to the doors of the US Supreme Court, but not quite to trial. Google's rivals were not too sure that they wanted to go to trial, because the outcome was a little on the uncertain side. So the Google book settlement was drawn up, objected to, fought, signed up to, taken to the US Supreme Court for approval, rejected, modified, fought over a bit more, and sent back to the judge. The last move was in Feb 2010; we're still waiting for Critics argue that the deal gives Google too much power over digital books and will not benefit customers in terms of cost, possible censorship issues, privacy. Copyright owners will also lose out, as Google's royalty policy cuts them out of the system and reduces their royalty - and they are automatically included in the agreement unless they 'opt out' (even if they have not 'opted in'). Really, Google is the only party that seems to benefit, and yet for all of the fighting, the settlement seems

Much has been said and written about Obama's online success during the 2008 US presidential election. But what are the numbers? This is an interesting report that sets the stage for the 2012 elections, which are not that far away. Interesting findings not only concerning the candidates, but also in the role played by the Internet in the voting experience itself. 

The UK Government are proposing to introduce a Digital Economy Bill.  The owners of copyright material will be able to pursue individuals who are sharing their content and take legal recourse.  Persistent offenders can eventually be blocked by their ISP. "Persistent" offenders will have received 50 notices before the Government can request that the ISP block their access to the internet. Sites that host material / content that breaches the bill will be issued with a series of take down notices. This impacts all sites - not just those whose servers are based in the UK.  If the site does not comply with the take down notice it will be possible for the site to be blocked within the UK. 

Two of the three richest men in the world derive their fortunes, in large part, from the information business: Carlos Slim (king of Mexican telecommunications) and Bill Gates (well, we all know what he does). How much power do these two hold over the architecture, policies and whereabouts of the web?  NOTE: the fact that the richest man in the world comes from a country with 80 million poor people is in itself a worthy discussion topic. 

South Korea is the country with the fastest internet connection. The reasons for this can be found in the existence of a competitve market, the encouragement of the use of computers propelled by the government, the "shared" telecommunications insfraestructure, the density of the population and the broadband policy existing for more than 10 years now

A really interesting article on the use of social networking platforms during and after protests in Kyrgyzstan. Twitter, Facebook and local forum, Diesel are important sites for citizens to report, share information and discuss issues in a relatively impartial environment as the media has increasingly come under the power of the President. In April protests took place in the captial Bishkek against President Bakiyev. The social networking sites allowed poeple to hear what was going on. It also facilitated groups forming to attempt curbing the violence that was taking place. The downside to this form of communication in this situation was the inflammatory comments that was essentially fear - mongering were posted. Some were found to be untrue, and some believe that it was the Russians attempting to influence the situation in Kyrgyzstan.

An article on how the increasing flow of internet traffic could potentially lead to a form of 'gatekeeping' of users by providers. It has always been perceived that there was network neutrality as providers charged a flat rate for unlimited internet access. However, the article argues that this is not the case as there has aways been some form of management of traffic so that an acceptable level of service is maintained. An extreme example is the court case between BitTorrent users and the provider Comcast. Comcast blocked this service as it was effecting service. This was challenged by users who initially won. However in a challenge by Comcast, Washington found in their favour as it found that the Federal Communications Commission could not decide how Comcast should manage its network. Another interesting point made is the potential for service providers to charge content providers who attract a large amount of traffic.This way good service is guarenteed, through essentially sharing the burden of cost. Obviously this is fiercely opposed by businesses. Clearly this all has the potential to change the relationship between users, content providers and service providers.

The findings of this article definitely portrays an extremist view of the internet. It shows the internet to be extremely dangerous which would add to the already growing nervousness which I think many parents experience in letting their children surf the web. While cybersecurity is an increasingly prominent issue I don't see how producing a bubble of fear around the online world can improve the situation. You generally cannot function without the internet and being fed these alarmist ideas only furthers the notion that people should be fearful and avoid the internet rather than be engaging with it and appreciating it for being an amazing tool to communicate and learn.

Well, Fox News is just unbelievable... guess who they consider their competitor, CNN or Comedy Central.

yayy for fear-mongering....

Blog from the New Internationalist about the movement taking place in the UK to donate votes for the upcoming elections, called "Give Your Vote". The idea is for UK citizens to donate their vote to someone in Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Ghana. These countries were chosen due to the involvement of the UK in all these countries through various ways (ie troops, legislation that has an impact on climate change, trade). In each country they have a sister campaign called "Use a UK Vote". Effectively it is a means for citizens of these nations to voice their opinions. The movement demonstrates global democracy in a sense. A word of warning - if you want to visit the site http://www.giveyourvote.org/ it's not particularly user friendly. Under the heading there are subheadings (however they are invisible).

According to this article "word of mouth has become word of web." People are using digital technology to communicate important information such as social gatherings and recommendations about things such as new recipes - things that used to be transferred through offline word of mouth. The implication is that people without an online presence miss out, and the response of the Canadian (as well as the Australian) government is to inject millions of dollars into decreasing the 'digital divide' to encourage social participation through increased digital literacy.

After the class last night, I kept having a thoght that maybe our whole society structure is changing bcuase of the internet, the accessibility to the Internet. Money, education, perhaps are the main critaria to structure the society anymore.

This article has explored the successful application of internet in Obama's political campaign. Obama's is said to be the first internet president. This article analyzes the advantage of the new media internet campared to the traditional media such as Newspaper, Television, radio, newspaper and so on. As is listed in the article the main advantages of the internet for the campaign use are including the ability to focus on specific demographic segment, and the convenience to create a place for participant to donate, and as is said by the author Samuel Greengard "Obama's staff could conduct polls, solicit ideas and opinions, and hold online town，hall meetings." However this article does not explore the reasons why Internet has this power deeply enough. Behind this power, in my opinoin, it is the "recursive public" that exerts impacts, it would be better if the author also to the "social capital" theory to analyze the power of the internet.

In the US a coalition consisting of Google, Microsoft, Ebay, AT&T, and Intel is fighting for a change of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) that was enacted in 1986. The coalition stresses the fact that the Internet has changed tremendously since then and the law therefore needs to be adapted. It protects files in the homes of people but law enforcement entities do not need judicial warrant to view files stored with ISPs, in the cloud or get GPS data from mobile phones.\nDefinitely a case worth fighting for - and an opportunity for Google & Co. to get good press. What about the law that allows checking and copying peoples' computer harddrives at airports though?

The Four Corners report mapped the issue from when internet censorship was bought forward as a policy issue in a report by the Australian Institute in 2003 to how the Howard government and now how the Rudd government has approached the issue of internet censorship. \n\nNot only can you can watch the report you can also read the transcript, watch the extended interviews and there are also links to further resources.\n

No, I don't agree that Internet Explorer is dead. However, there has been a significant progress in the adoption of alternative browsers, which is a healthy way to avoid a monopoly in browsers, which are the gate to internet for end users.  The decline in the use of IE thanks to the participation of open source browsers is acknowledged here. 

Israeli soldier posts the details of an operation on Facebook, and the operation is called off. Ironic: the Internet, originally a military tool, causes trouble in the military. Like with potential victims for kidnapping in Mexico posting personal details online: should basic media literacy education be provided for the use of social media among groups with potential risks?