ARIN6902 Internet Cultures and Governance

This article discusses the terminology "cyber" versus "online" as a method to frighten people. The manner in which we speak on the Internet has changed greatly, and as a result, this article ponders the legitimacy of the use of this word, for example, "cyberbully," "cyberwar," are terms or tactics to instill some sense of fear into the masses regarding the security on the Internet. "When that kind of fear-mongering is needed to loosen the purse strings for computer security, only one word will do...Cyber."

Should customers in Internet cafes be monitored? The governments' fear of terrorism stands against user privacy. Up to now no official regimentations for internet cafes in the EU exist, Scotland Yard now advises administrators of public web spaces to regularly control their customers' activities.

Very interesting article about people being marked in social networks even if they are not a member - can Facebook and the like be made responsible? An Italian court recently sentenced three Google executives because of a video posted by a user. Swiss and German privacy watchdogs further discuss the matter, many other EU nations are also involved. Google asks where to draw the line between censorship (controlling users' content being an invasion of their privacy) and free speech. There could be a conflict between US Web Giants and EU authorities. Only mentioned in passing that American media companies only react very slowly to European concerns "given the close relationship between Silicon Valley and the administration of President Obama".

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is convinced that big Web players like Google or Facebook are collecting too much personal information of their users. Users could barely choose privacy, a FTC representative stated. They insist that the current privacy regime is not efficient.

This is about how the work pattern changed in terms of the use of cloud computing and convience of the internet.

In this article, the author stated the new health-care system depends heavily internet technology, this article also listed the main beneficiaries of this reform such as Microsoft, Microsoft.

Yahoo has made public its proposal to hack the domain name system (DNS) so as to resolve issues with migrating to IPv6 from IPv4. Internet protocol version 4 (IPv4) was the first widely deployed version of IP that supports 32 bit addresses (equating to 4,294,967,296). The issue of exhausting the 32 bit address allocation was identified in the 1990's, prompting the development of IPv6. IPv6 supports 128 bit addresses, obviously offering a more expansive address system. The article claims that a 'significant percentage of internet users have broken IPv6 connectivity'. Yahoo thus proposes to switch users to IPv4 connectivity once detection of broken IPv6 connectivity is realised. Yahoo will forward its proposal to the Internet Engineering Task Force, however questions of DNS trust and security will surely be the two topics of debate in testing this proposal.

I know this is a piece of fluff, but it raises some questions for me: 1. Was Twitter the only medium through which this event was advertised? Could there not have been other ways to advertise the cancellation of the signing? 2. Is private Twitter usage able to be publically regulated? If so, to what extent? 3. To what extent is the shopping mall responsible? OHS and Fire codes would have mandated the number of people allowed in an area - should they not have made provision for that? 4. Was the failure to tweet reckless endangerment on the part of the manager, or have the law enforcement agencies taken social networking and used it to increase the level of responsibility a person owes to the general public (at least in this instance)? I'm not saying that the manager is in the right, I'm just wary of the level of importance placed on one aspect of this event. Has the way we operate changed to such an extent as to warrant this sort of police interference?

Self-googling will not sound as vain or egotistic as it may seem if it means that an individual can be aware of what information the internet holds about him or her. To me, it's a form of "damage control". 

Media hyperbole or a serious threat? Threatening posts on the '4chan' boards has the government ad the SMH worried...

Although in some respects, the public response to Australia's push to impose mandatory internet filtering, there has been a violent and disturbing response from a select group calling for the assassination of Stephen Conroy and advising on how to make bombs.

After declaring its withdraw from China, Google faced some arising questions such as the usage of other apps. Dashboard appeared to help the chinese people about the availability of their apps.

Jail for cyber pirates? (In Spanish, I'm looking for an English version) 

I believe Apple will not be very happy about this.

Andrew Keen gives his opinion about Hunch, the social recommendation engine. Keen has been named "the antichrist of internet" for his critic position against social web. Is he right on this one? As Jimmy Wales says here,  http://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/10766582402 I have the hunch that the site is not as bad as Keen claims...

Is this the end of the story? Google seems to challenge China by taking out the filters to content

In 2005 Creative Commons launched Science Commons, a project that seeks to provide a model of rights for scientific material that is available on the web. The project grants different types of licenses to improve the protection of material produced by researchers at the same time that aims to promote this material and its fair use.

A useful guide on the different types of licenses to share work as open source

A summary of Matt Mullenweg's talk  in "The Economist Innovation Conference", about Wordpress and the importance of people behind Open Source.

With mandatory filtering legislation looming in Australia, Google makes its point about why this is a bad idea. And while their argument doesn't include any ground breaking points, it is a good summary of reasons against the legislation.

A short and sweet introduction in to the developing cyber security threat and the vision behind Barack Obamas Cyber security plan launched in May 2009.