Group items tagged

A solution to the problem associated to IP security cameras. as seen in: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16919664

The FBI's idea sounds like a good one, as it could lead to early warnings for law enforecement all around the world on any local or global threats, One good example of how a piece of software like this could have been used is the Norweigan massacre, as it was reported by the media that terrorist Anders Breivik had mentioned put forward extremist ideology and terrorist tendency while using the internet, going so far as to write a manifesto. On the other hand it would be vital for this application to fall under the Data Protection Act meaning data on individuals would have to be kept safe and up-to-date, it would only be kept for the necessary amount of time, and that all information would be deleted once a suspect was deemed innocent.

The concern is privacy.Apparently the FBI was able to acquire Kim DotCom's messages with other MegaUpload employers by means of spyware, which could access skype conversations stored on a local host. Even though the FBI had a warrant to search for information, this is still rather disconcerting. This software can easily be misused. The software is called CIPAV and it stands for Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier. This software is able to send "network-level messages" containing the target computer's IP address, Ethernet MAC address, environment variables, the last-visited Web site, and other registry-type information including the name of the registered owner of the computer and the operating system's serial number. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10222294-38.html

I agree with you Morten. The social and ethical issue here is privacy. In the article they specify when saying "Sources told CNET yesterday that Skype, the Internet phone service now owned by Microsoft, was not asked by the feds to turn over information and was not served with legal process" that Skype did not give permission to the FBI to access this information. Even though the Data Protection Act states that "Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes." it is still not appropriate to "hack" into Kim DotCom's messages. Here is a link with the rules for Data Protection Act. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/schedule/1 Privacy is coming to bits, the only way we can talk to people knowing that knowing is going to get hold o f that information is by face-to-face communication, and even by that way people can be hearing the conversation secretly. Where has privacy gone?

By banning accounts, Twitter is giving into outside pressure to effectively censor its own website, and destroying one of the main goals that was set out at the time of the company's creation: freedom of speech. Once one account is banned it sets up a precedent for other governments, and businesses to politetly request Twitter to 'censor' what governments believe to be 'illegal' accounts.

The social and ethical issue mainly presented is surveillance. The twitter accounts are set up to warn the followers of traffic stops, roadblocks etc, this gives time for the followers to avoid the police. This is an even bigger problem to tackle because most smartphones have access to Twitter through a 3G connection, this means that users are able to get push notifications on the road as well as at home. I agree with 'Fiche Galinha' in the sense that the banning of the accounts does go against freedom of speech however, it is a sensible measure to take as the account users are making police officers jobs more difficult.

Rather than blocking access to Facebook and Twitter, a growing of employers are monitoring what proportion of the working day individuals spend on them.

State and Describe the main Social and Ethical issues that relates to this article: The main social and ethical issue that relates to this article is surveillance. In this article, it is suggested that workers in an office space would have the time they spend on a social network being monitored and controlled. This survaillence of how the workers spend their time on the computer seems somewhat appropriate in my opinion. What this is doing is it's reaching a compromise for the workers, by still letting them access these social networks, while limiting how long they can access it for daily so as to ensure that they focus as much on their work. Although it could be question whether it's ethical to monitor people's computer, what this is doing is avoiding measures such as a boss visually monitoring everyone's computer behind their backs,which raises a much bigger surveillance issue. The second suggestion of an internal and local social network that would only include people in the workplace is also a good option that attempts to keep the workers focused on the workplace and to ecourage communication between workers, rather than getting distracted with life outside the workplace. This is also, in my opinion an excellent suggestion as it offers an alternative to simply blocking social networks, which raises an issue in terms of how ethical it is to simply restrict someone from visiting a website, which could be seen as censorship.

"Award-winning Archerfish Solo™ is a thinking, wireless monitoring camera and recorder with advanced Homeland Security technology. It understands what it sees, so you can tell it what to look for and what to ignore. Archerfish will alert only on what interests you and emails you a video so you can see for yourself. You can even watch live video, on the web, any time you want!"