Group items tagged

1.11_people_machines 2.2_IT_teach_learn 3.4_internet

Privacy is the main issue being presented as facebook users are exposed to phising. Phising involves 'stealing' a users username and passwords usually through emails or links leading to fake websites which seem to be trustworthy. Phishing attempts give the user a sense of urgency in order to convince them to give their information. (e.g. You need to provide us with your username and password as soon as possible. Not doing so will result in permanent deletion of your account) The relationship between the users and the IT system is that users often use facebook on a day to day basis to perform various activities. This makes facebook a 'profitable' target due to the large number of people that can be tricked at once. The risk is that the stakeholders may be susceptible to is the loss of their username and password, giving the hacker/phisher full acess to ones account which may then lead to other information to be divulged about the user. Facebook is attempting to solve this issue by warning users about suspicious links they may be accessing, although there are already some security options in facebook settings such as the use of HTTPS which provides "encrypted communication and secure identification of a network web server." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Secure

I agree with Andre as though the consequences of the hack can be dealt with in a relatively short amount of time, the incident reveals a bigger problem with the security of the government's files and questions just how safe confidential information really is from being accessed by the wrong people. The main social and ethical issue is security, as the security of US official's e-mails may have been breached by fishing. The fact that such an incident has occurred in such a place with such important information and with supposedly very high security measures is worrying, and ways to detect and combat the threat of phishing should be publicized.

Here is a list of all Google's philosophy, http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/tenthings.html

Good story this and nice link to Google's philosophy Jorge. This article is a good one for commenting on the relationship between the stakeholder and the IT system. Anyone want to step up and "Describe the relationship of one primary stakeholder to the IT system"?

This article raises a huge reliability issue as people are being tricked to buying tickets from fake websites, which are advertised by Google. Due to its increasing reputation over the years, the average internet user will use and think of Google as the most reliable website to navigate, and therefore would trust most of the llinks that would appear when they search for something. The secure and reliable reputation Google has is what makes the fact that these illegal websites being sponsored ads such a large issue. It affects many web users and as they are likely to visit these websites, their personal information such as bank account details and personal details are made public. So security could also be seen as an issue as these people are put at risk as they have given their bank account data to fake websites, who could use the data gain access to bank accounts and steal money.

This article compromises the privacy of British citizens, as well as the reliability and integrity of the DNA database. I will focus my comment on the latter. It was a matter of fortune that Button's DNA had been collected due to his arrest for a domestic assault in May 2010. This is because according to the Protection of Freedoms Bill, biometric material can only be retained if the holder consents it formally. This consent "can be withdrawn at any time". There are also strict regulations on the amount of time that a DNA profile can be retained by authorities according to the new Bill. In addition to that, what way is there to ensure the 62 million(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) British citizens have their DNA profile taken and input in the database? This compromises the integrity and completeness of the DNA database. According to the article itself, "The national database is believed to hold over five million DNA profiles". The new Bill also "requires schools to get parents' consent before processing children's biometric information" (http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/protectionoffreedoms.html) The full official bill on the regulation of biometric data can be found at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2010-2012/0099/lbill_2010-20120099_en_2.htm#pt1-ch1-pb1-l1g1 Hence the sweeping statement "The odds, we were told, were over a billion to one, so we were quite confident we'd got the right man", is certainly misleading, because the database is likely not to include a fraction of the British population. The most disturbing thing is that the responsible chief Richard McNamara states "it was the DNA alone that convicted the man, because we never had any other evidence". Is it really ethical to convict a criminal solely based on a potentially incomplete database? A solution to this problem would be to enforce surveillance systems and active police monitoring in order to obtain more plausible evidence.

This article regards the compromising of the privacy of British citizens, as well as the reliability and integrity of the DNA database. I will focus my comment on the latter.

"The Zhan" you raise some interesting points on the privacy issues of DNA databases. However I think you may have misunderstood the reliability issue of the DNA test. When two DNA samples are found to be the same then it is 99.99% certain that it is in fact the DNA of the suspect and is a very reliable indicator that it was that person. There are forensic issues involved in the collection and contamination of DNA samples from a crime scene but that is another issue. The main social and ethical issue here that you have rightly pointed out is the collection and storage of DNA from people. This article outlines some of these issues from 2008: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7177152.stm Here the issue of innocent peoples data being stored has come because ....."following a change in the law in 2001, all DNA collected by forensics - for whatever purpose - can be stored permanently. " It was promised in the recent election in the UK to destroy old data but it appears to be one of the many U turns that the current government has made: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8659968/A-Bill-to-curtail-our-liberty.html