"What's the carbon footprint of ... email?"

The news article mainly addresses the issue of people and machines, although the use of email has numerous advantages, it is affecting the environment and speeding up the greenhouse effect. However, the main cause of the high carbon footprint is predominantly due to spam emails; each spam email creates 0.3g of Carbon dioxide if you times this by the 62 trillion spam emails sent globally it is equivalent to "driving around the Earth 1.6 million times". Here is a link to another news article which breaks down the several aspects of email and shows their impact on CO2 emissions: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10220363-93.html

I agree with the fact that Apple factories are going to face independent inspections. Everyone deserves a good to work at a safe environment, just like Apple's chief executive stated "Workers everywhere have the right to a safe and fair work environment.". I think it is a good idea to do so since suicides have occurred in the past and also because "137 workers in eastern China were injured after they used a poisonous chemical - n-hexane - to clean iPhone screens". This shows that the work environment isn't completely safe therefore I agree that Apple factories should be independently inspected.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16832106 This link is explaining that factory conditions for Apple are poor

As Ines pointed out there are some issues with the use of chemicals in Apple factories which make the work environment unsafe to work in however, I believe that if Apple's factories are independently inspected then all other factories should also go through the same process to ensure other factories aren't making employees work in unsafe environments.

This is a major security and reliability issue as government servers are not taking the right measures to protect people's personal information. Anonymous claim they only acquired a small amount of information just to prove how incompetent the system is, if it were a hacking group looking to use the data in illegal ways then this would be a big problem.

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

I find, in this scenario, Facebook's behaviour immoral. They have known of this problem for three years, and they have yet to produce any progress. Facebook does not seem to respect one's stance on these things. If you wish the picture deleted, then it should be deleted.

The apparent deletion of photos takes place by the elimination "all of the metadata for the photo as well as any and all tagging and linking information. For all practical purposes, the photo no longer exists. However, technically, the bits that make up the photo persist somewhere. It's possible that someone who previously had access to a photo and saved the direct URL from the CDN (...) could still access the photo." http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/2493/how-long-does-facebook-keep-data-of-a-deleted-account In the article, "Wolens claims that Facebook is on the verge of fixing up its content systems so that "deleted" photos are really, truly deleted from the CDN within 45 days." However, the reliability of this claim is compromised by Facebook's Terms of Service, which every user must comply prior to creating an account. Summing up, it grants Facebook the right to do whatever they like with old content. They can even sublicense it: "You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and DISTRIBUTE (through multiple tiers), any User Content." http://consumerist.com/2009/02/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever.html Note the contradictions with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998: "If you collect data about people for one reason, you can not use it for another; You can not give people's data to other people or

...organizations unless they agree;" http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act I get the impression that through blurring the ownership of intellectual property and personal records, social networks have some ulterior motives. The following passage in the article suggests the photos could, in fact, be instantly deleted from the CDN databases: "(Amusingly, after publishing the 2010 followup, Facebook appeared to delete my photos from its CDN that I had linked in the piece. (...) Other "deleted" photos that I had saved links to-ones that weren't from my account and were deleted even earlier than mine-remained online.)" Zuckerberg counterargues: "trust us, we're not doing this to profit from you, it's so we are legally protected as we enable you to share content with other users and services." http://consumerist.com/2009/02/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever.html In the end, it is in the hands of the user to control what is shared and given up ownership of.

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.

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.

Criminal hackers have found a way round the latest generation of online banking security devices given out by banks, the BBC has learned.

I agree with Jorge. There are various ways in which hackers can obtain personal information by the internet. One way by which hackers can do this is by phishing. In this article, account holders are being tricked by the offer of training in a new "upgraded security system", meaning that account holders click on the link and their money is moved out of their account without them even noticing! This is a big problem, and as this article says "Online banking fraud losses totalled £16.9 million in the first six months of 2011, according to Financial Fraud Action UK" therefore in only 6 months, millions of pounds were gone! Phishing is increasing more and more, some day we can't even click a link because we're scared it could be something similar!

Here is a website which is explaining how China is trying to combat hi-tech spyware! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16357238

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

"Ordering Pizza in 2015"

The social and ethical issue here is surely privacy. We can see here that there are various databases which are interconnected and the pizza restaurant is able to access all of them. This is a major issue as the pizza restaurant can invade the customers privacy and use the data to exploit the customer e.g. the pizza restaurant may see that the customer is wealthy and charge a higher price. Furthermore, If anyone else can gains access to this information the customers safety can be put at risk for instance, the pizza service knows whether or not you are at home therefore this could increase home robberies.

i think this can even be considered dangerous. There could be a scenario where a young and wealth girl places the pizza offer. what could happen then is the person on the phone would know all her private information where she lives, where she works/studies her income and would probably end up with a picture of her. the person on the phone might not be a very reliable person and decide to do something dangerous

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.

this relates to a story which was previously posted by mr brooke. this was then argued by jorge who says that apple has some unethical procedures regarding Chinese labor: http://groups.diigo.com/group/mjb_itgs/content/apple-united-kingdom-the-story-behind-apple-s-environmental-footprint-4017062

As this relates to another story then maybe your post is best placed in that discussion. Remember you are required to post in three places other than your own bookmarks....

1.11_people_machines 2.3_environment 2.3_ewaste 3.1_hardware

1.11_people_machines 1.9_policies 2.3_ewaste 3.1_hardware

I could never thought that such things could lead to such problems! This social and ethical issue (people and machines) is surely affecting the world around us, not only use but the environment as well. Not everyone is aware of this, that these electronics can lead to a lot of harm! Yet, even if more people would be aware of this, I don't think anything special would be made to reduce so many pollution and harm to the society as people are becoming so dependent of technology that eventhough they would like to reduce such pollution, they wouldn't abdicate their electronics in order to reduce pollution (in my opinion) Furthermore, technology has been increasing rapidly and will continue to increase even more. This means that more pollution due to more electronics will be made. The question is, for how long will Earth continue 'alive'? Because by this passe, how technology and pollution is increasing drastically, not many more centuries.

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.