Group items tagged

"Koreans are really interested in converging and cramming many different functions into a single gadget, and mixing technologies, in order to find novel ways to complete ordinary tasks,"  "Our customers are really busy and many don't have the time to go to the supermarket to do their shopping (...) so our virtual store allows them to save time." Will the virtual store and smartphone app replace the traditional concept of shopping?

This article has made clear that the AdWords advertising system is flawed, it is unacceptable for a large company like Google to lead users to believe that a website can be trusted using the 'sponsored links' and continues to make profit. This goes against the 6th point in Google's philosophy "You can make money without doing evil" although they are not doing it consciously. From the article I understood that the system is run using an automated filter to identify websites which break Google's policy and a manual assessment also takes place by a human. Instead of using just one human, a group of humans can assess the adverts to ensure nothing is missed. Furthermore, an update of Google's databases should regularly take place in order to catch illegal websites quicker.

Google's corrupt sponsored links affects nearly every digital citizen, as Google is by far the most popular and used search engine. There is alternatives to Google, but nevertheless Google is the most popular search engine(we're talking 70+% http://www.seoconsultants.com/search-engines/ ) I agree with Jorge's main ideas above. However, I do not think that increasing the number of people checking would make any large difference. It is their filters which needs an update - something I'm sure they're already doing. It does raise some reliability concerns, being the most popular search engine, you'd expect them not to endorse(even unknowingly) corrupt links.

The social and ethical issues related to this news story are reliability, privacy and anonimity to an extent. Privacy as the information from the buyers credit card is given to what seems to be an unknown person or company. The multiple stakeholders seen would be the buyer, Google and the advertiser. Although it is via Google that the advertiser gets sell his product, it is important to understand that there are most likely thousands of advertisements added daily to the Google search engine and, referring back to Jorge's point, it would be very likely that humans would fail to see such mistakes as well after repeatedly going through hundreds of adds everyday. The trust and reliance that people have on Google can be misleading and it is evident that to solve such an issue people must be awared of the several scams that they are exposed to every single day in order to prevent this sort of problems.

This article refers to the authenticity of the identity of web shops, and the security of shoppers' credentials. "DI Hoare said shoppers should also be wary of unsolicited offers that arrive via email." A common scamming tool that cyber thieves resort to in order to "harvest credit card and banking details" is phishing. "Phishing emails usually appear to come from a well-known organization and ask for your personal information - such as credit card number, social security number, account number or password. Often times phishing attempts appear to come from sites, services and companies with which you do not even have an account. In order for Internet criminals to successfully "phish" your personal information, they must get you to go from an email to a website. Phishing emails will almost always tell you to click a link that takes you to a site where your personal information is requested. Legitimate organizations would never request this information of you via email." http://www.phishtank.com/what_is_phishing.php

this gives a similar example where they used a real store and created the fake website then... the shop owners would receive all the complaints with out actually knowing what was going on http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/01/caveat_emptor.html

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.

"Networks blur the private and public divide"

"BankSimple will be a worry-free alternative to traditional personal banking. No surprise fees plus the customer service you deserve. And that's just the beginning. Banking shouldn't be hard. BankSimple. Launching in 2011. "

This link gives you some valuable information for your homework.