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

The arrest of Megaupload's founders has led to other file storage sites taking action in an apparent attempt to protect themselves from legal action. The following is a link to a news story describing the disciplinary action taken against the founder of Megaupload: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16711416

How online storage works Online storage in websites such as Megaupload, upload.to and Rapidshare work using cloud storage. This is similar to the storage used in Gmail, Youtube and Facebook Essentially this is how it works: 1. User accesses websites and selects file he/she wants to upload 2. File is uploaded to the cloud storage server, which is located in the house cloud storage systems called data centers. 3. Usually the files are then copied to other servers around the world in case one of them goes down or needs repairing, this is known as redundancy. Without redundancy cloud storage cannot guarantee that the user will be ble to access his files. Servers are also powered by multiple power supplies in case one of them fails. 4. When the user wants to access the files he uploaded he may do so through a web-based interface. For more information on how cloud storage systems work http://computer.howstuffworks.com/cloud-computing/cloud-storage1.htm

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120121/16551717500/jonathan-coulton-destroys-rationale-behind-megaupload-seizure-with-single-tweet-follows-up-with-epic-blog-post.shtml In the article above Jonathon Coultron makes a good point. Although there might be a lot of illegal activity on MegaUpload such as: sharing DVDs and CDs, there are also a large group of people that use MegaUpload as a tool to legally upload data that they wish to share with others or keep a backup for themselves. Furthermore, I think his tweet says it all in regards to the millions of dollars the music and film industry will gain from the death of MegaUpload.

The main stakeholder here is the google, youtube, gmail, etc. user. The change in privacy policy settings in the system affects the stakeholder in these ways, as outlined in the article: In "suggesting search queries, or tailoring search results, based on the interests expressed in Google+, Gmail and YouTube" (mining data to provide "ever more targeted adverts"), the results become limited: "something I am interested in this week, I might not be interested in next week. I use Google's facilities as both a private individual and in my professional life. Which bit are they going to give back to me?" There is no opt-out alternative to the changes in the system. "Google has become a way of life for some people. They can't do without it even if they don't like the direction it is going in". The simplification of policies could lead to graver problems. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/27/tech/web/google-privacy-clarified/index.html

"With streaming services now established and a number of web-first companies investing heavily in bespoke and exclusive content, is it time we started speaking of YouTube or Netflix in the same breath as the BBC or Sky?"

The blurring of reality and the virtual world has come full circle. Just over twenty years ago I can remember watching the first stirrings of the Gulf War, arguably the first television war, and one where the images of missile strikes were commonplace.

An entertaining video on copyright laws. It covers these topics: Chapter 1: Copyright definition - 0.52 Chapter 2: What things can be copyrighted? - 2.52 Chapter 3: Copyright Duration and the Public Domain - 3.52 Chapter 4: Fair Use - 6.22 Chapter 5: Why use Disney cartoons? - 8.14 Credits - 8.52 Public domain

The main social and ethical in this article would have to be authenticity, as it deals with the fact that people are making accounts to be real people. In my own experience I've had this happen to me once and it was easily identified for the reasons this article states, no status updates etc. Although in my case it was harmless, it can lead to issues of a greater significance. This article also highlights the worrying ease at which people can fake an accout and that there is a very significant number of these accounts. They could in some cases be used in a harmful manner. For example, sexual predators could easily make a profile pretending to be 15 years old, add a profile picture of a child and then add other children as friends. This creates a security issue as the children's life is in a potentially harmful situation, as these cases of sexual predators over the internet has been a security issue since social networks came to be. Another issue that lack of authenticity brings is that these fake accounts could be used for spam, and could also potentially be used to spread malware. This is a very common problem in Facebook as these fake accounts can share a link with their "friends" and from this it starts spreading throughout the entire social network.

TripAdvisor has been ordered to rewrite some of its marketing claims by the UK's Advertising Standards Authority.

the social and ethical issue here is reliability. No one can be completely confident that what they see online is true whether it is with traveling companies or something mr brooke showed us in class: http://www.familywatchdog.us/search.asp in this website for example, we can not be sure that the people registered really are sex offenders.

How do we define digital access when the price of personal computers and related technologies has dropped dramatically over the years?

The comments section adds a great analysis to this article.

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?

The news article shows some very important facts for instance, out of 5.3m teenagers in the UK more than half a million of them have suffered from cyber bullying. Furthermore, as social networks are now becoming more available on mobile devices this number is likely to increase in the coming years.

Nowadays lots of cyber bullying is going on, and it is increasing. Not only cyber bullying exists via text messages, yet also through anonymous calls and what is increasing a lot now, via social networks. People create facebook pages with names such as 'The ugliest person in Cascais' (this is probably an example of one of the 'less worse') and post images of people, with insulting descriptions on the photos. This is a big issue since people who are bullied may psychologically or even physically suffer from this. "half a million of them had been a victim of online bullying.". Technology is increasing, so surely, if no one tries to actually do something to change this, cyber bullying will also increase.

I'm a bit surprised at the number, it's lower than what I thought it would be. Perhaps I'm just a pessimist. Nevertheless, I agree with Ines. We're getting more and more cyber bullying, Stopping cyber bullying has proved difficult with the exponential growth of social networking. Cyber bullying is of course as we know, the use of the Internet or text messaging to bully others. But what can we do to change this escalation of cyber bullying? Not a whole lot really, in my opinion. Kids will, unsurprisingly, bully each other. The Facebook-generation is merely using the medium they are given.

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.

SO scary!!!!!! After reading this shocking article I'll probably start covering my security cameras while I'm at home! A main social and ethical issue is SURELY privacy. I think that many people aren't aware that security is coming to bits by the second, privacy isn't what it was some years ago. And, in my opinion, it's the technology's fault. Even though computers, internet, phones etc have become useful, society's becoming too much dependent to technology and this is an issue as technology will continue to increase even more, meaning that society's privacy will continue to decrease even more. Can't we even have privacy at home?

To some extent I agree with you Ines. But technology isn't all bad. Yes, we are losing privacy at a rapid pace. But these cameras provided us with security. Well, they would have if it wasn't for the breach in Trendnet's security they would have provided people with security. Our world has become much dependent on social networking etc. We do not have as much privacy as one would like, but this is not solely the technology fault in my opinion. It is as much human nature, the drive to have 15 minutes of fame. Just my two cents anyway : )

The IT system in focus is the Trendnet home security camera. Here is how real-time, live video broadcasting works. This information originally referred to IP based cameras, which essentially work the same way. Image: http://www.ipcctv.com/images/learnMore/Single-Camera.gif The camera is installed and ran "The camera turns video & audio into binary data The camera connects to your the and transmits this data onto the network This data can then be viewed on a PC; on the local network, or over the internet." The remote viewer inputs the Internet addresses which link to the video streams and is able to see footage. source: http://www.ipcctv.com/article.php?xArt=13

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.