I have always thought that USA is without culture. Only lately they start to have some history there. The copyright law history is also one of them. Where at first everything was uncontrolled ans based on some self-managed regulations. Legislation reaction was made only if a major disagreement started.
I was surprised that in England as soon as the first printing equipment arrived, the legislation was made to control the outcomes. I also understand that it was mostly because of the religion revolution, it meant that everything that carried information had to be controlled. But on the other hand it showed how good planners English royalty with advisers was - they felt right away, that this might be a threat and acted before something bad actually happened.
Usa acts on the contrary, they make laws after they have got their first defeat. Europe on the other hand kind of has common knowledge, we are more paranoid and this means we also try to protect us in advance.
This makes me just laugh that USA signed a Barne convention 100 years after it was first ratified in UK. This is exactly what USA has always thought about themselves, they think that they are untouchable and those things that apply to others are not compulsory for them.
As said at the end of chapter 14, all these laws and restrictions worked well until internet came. Although there still are many who act according them there are many people who do not feel that copyright has to be protected or at least it should be shared for free. Sharing information through internet is low-cost and easy, no shipping expenses or paper wasting. I am curious which side of the world is able to control internet content quicker and better (not only copyright but also all kinds of (other) criminal activity.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Overview of 3some wikidot
3some Wikidot work about hacker ethics is very well thought through and 4 parts of the work each have their own meaning and direction.
Hacker Ethics in Web 2.0
1st part: Hacker Ethics in Web 2.0 is talking about what differences have Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 in hacker point of view. What advantages or disadvantages Web 2.0 has. How for average person words "hacking/hacker" usually mean something bad and even criminal while historically and for those who know, it has a totally different meaning.
Structure of the article is really good, it is logical and easy to read. Material that used for the article and seen under Bibliography is excellent. Although reading the article I had a feeling for couple of times, that the article is all about putting together what others (knowers) have told, not what actually writer thinks or a deeper analyze would conclude with comparing different sources and viewpoints.
About the structure again. It was so easy to follow the sources as they were all linking and an overview box also appeared on references. It should not judging the content of the article, but it is important while reading it, because I can feel that everything I wold like to get more details about, are there.
Applicability Of Hacker Ethics
Olga in her article is talking about what purposes hacker ethic has since 90-s compared to 60-s when it actually started and was accessed to limited group of people only. This article has beginnin, content and also a conclusion which makes it really easuy to follow and understand. Althought I first felt that it might have nothing new to tell compared to first Stacy article, it did. It did not compare so much web 1.0 and 2.0 but the actual written/unwritten and followed ethics of real hackers. It talked about what difficulties have hackers had (as they have been considered as responsible for bad activities) and how they try to cope with changing and worldwide internet. Although hacker ethics approach is the same, there is difference on what hackers actually concentrate on now.
Basic Info About Hackers
Maria concentrated much on what actually "hacker" means. She has listed definitions from different sources. Her overview tells that "hacker" has never originally meant someone who deliberately harms somethings/one, but for wider public it has just turned out this way. Maria also points out that I remember from Ethics and Law reading materials - "One should not call him/herself a hacker, but others should describe the person this way". Basically there is nothing else to say about Maria article, well done, several sources found and refers them nicely.
Development of content in 21st century
Taavi starts to give an overview of most commonly used programs/software/websites connected to web 2.0 and his short explanations facts are interesting. But it seems like he did not have enough time to end his article, as the last sentence is really short and no descriptions are there about Second life or other 3D games. As his article is already a conclusion of different Web 2.0 capabilities, there is no need to have final paragraph to make a conclusion.
The main article is put together by 4 personal articles made by team-members. This brings together the idea behind all 4 parts and shows reader what was actually the purpose of all four. The conclusion states that team-member hope their article can show for some people what "hacker" actually means and what it is considered to be. It also concludes that web 2.0 would not have happened without hacker ethics and the most important part of it - control but share.
3some showed that a team can work together even if they are not in the same room. I would say this part actually shows what web 2.0 is really about, all different commmunication channels were used: special forum for 3some, probably emails, some instant messaging systems and weekly discussions as well. This is how knowledge is shared in today's web 2.0.
Hacker Ethics in Web 2.0
1st part: Hacker Ethics in Web 2.0 is talking about what differences have Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 in hacker point of view. What advantages or disadvantages Web 2.0 has. How for average person words "hacking/hacker" usually mean something bad and even criminal while historically and for those who know, it has a totally different meaning.
Structure of the article is really good, it is logical and easy to read. Material that used for the article and seen under Bibliography is excellent. Although reading the article I had a feeling for couple of times, that the article is all about putting together what others (knowers) have told, not what actually writer thinks or a deeper analyze would conclude with comparing different sources and viewpoints.
About the structure again. It was so easy to follow the sources as they were all linking and an overview box also appeared on references. It should not judging the content of the article, but it is important while reading it, because I can feel that everything I wold like to get more details about, are there.
Applicability Of Hacker Ethics
Olga in her article is talking about what purposes hacker ethic has since 90-s compared to 60-s when it actually started and was accessed to limited group of people only. This article has beginnin, content and also a conclusion which makes it really easuy to follow and understand. Althought I first felt that it might have nothing new to tell compared to first Stacy article, it did. It did not compare so much web 1.0 and 2.0 but the actual written/unwritten and followed ethics of real hackers. It talked about what difficulties have hackers had (as they have been considered as responsible for bad activities) and how they try to cope with changing and worldwide internet. Although hacker ethics approach is the same, there is difference on what hackers actually concentrate on now.
Basic Info About Hackers
Maria concentrated much on what actually "hacker" means. She has listed definitions from different sources. Her overview tells that "hacker" has never originally meant someone who deliberately harms somethings/one, but for wider public it has just turned out this way. Maria also points out that I remember from Ethics and Law reading materials - "One should not call him/herself a hacker, but others should describe the person this way". Basically there is nothing else to say about Maria article, well done, several sources found and refers them nicely.
Development of content in 21st century
Taavi starts to give an overview of most commonly used programs/software/websites connected to web 2.0 and his short explanations facts are interesting. But it seems like he did not have enough time to end his article, as the last sentence is really short and no descriptions are there about Second life or other 3D games. As his article is already a conclusion of different Web 2.0 capabilities, there is no need to have final paragraph to make a conclusion.
The main article is put together by 4 personal articles made by team-members. This brings together the idea behind all 4 parts and shows reader what was actually the purpose of all four. The conclusion states that team-member hope their article can show for some people what "hacker" actually means and what it is considered to be. It also concludes that web 2.0 would not have happened without hacker ethics and the most important part of it - control but share.
3some showed that a team can work together even if they are not in the same room. I would say this part actually shows what web 2.0 is really about, all different commmunication channels were used: special forum for 3some, probably emails, some instant messaging systems and weekly discussions as well. This is how knowledge is shared in today's web 2.0.
Chapter 20 - There are no free lunches?!
Copyright laws and restrictions are part of our everyday life. Although some bands may want to share their music for free in charge or some software developers would like their programs to spread free to everyone, we are used to that there are some who do not expect to get copyright on their outcomes and there are others that do.
Big companies have all the means to protect their programs/results. It gives them funds to develop things. It also gives user the right to accuse the company on something if it does not work the way it should. If we talk about freeware, not copyrighted and changed by all then there is noone who would be actually responsible. Maybe it won't but what happens if it caos happens - things do not work the way they are expected and noone can be reached who could fix it quickly or even know how to fix it.
Although I want to use musiv free of charge and computer programs that I do not have to pay for (and free ones are mostly quicker developed than those for fee from big companies).
If I talk baout computers, then there is bunch of computer users who are happy to pay for their oc with all needed software and tey do not want to spend time on thinking what browser they need to surf in the internet, they even do not know that they could use 2 browsers at the same time in their pc (it is a real-life example of users who have been using computer for years, every day and not only for work). I think the copyright laws gives an easier life to a person that does not want to think what and how to get, but is happy to get a completed product from a shop and start using it when he/she goes home.
On 20th chapter was an example about a band that decided their fans have to get their music for free. Only the fans can get it who know where to look for it. But there is a small change that someone who would also like it, but does not know he/she can't get it from a store for reasonable price, would actually see it. Most free products end up spread form hand to hand or by internet, but they do not have moderator who would be really interested on getting the product for so many end-users.
Big companies have all the means to protect their programs/results. It gives them funds to develop things. It also gives user the right to accuse the company on something if it does not work the way it should. If we talk about freeware, not copyrighted and changed by all then there is noone who would be actually responsible. Maybe it won't but what happens if it caos happens - things do not work the way they are expected and noone can be reached who could fix it quickly or even know how to fix it.
Although I want to use musiv free of charge and computer programs that I do not have to pay for (and free ones are mostly quicker developed than those for fee from big companies).
If I talk baout computers, then there is bunch of computer users who are happy to pay for their oc with all needed software and tey do not want to spend time on thinking what browser they need to surf in the internet, they even do not know that they could use 2 browsers at the same time in their pc (it is a real-life example of users who have been using computer for years, every day and not only for work). I think the copyright laws gives an easier life to a person that does not want to think what and how to get, but is happy to get a completed product from a shop and start using it when he/she goes home.
On 20th chapter was an example about a band that decided their fans have to get their music for free. Only the fans can get it who know where to look for it. But there is a small change that someone who would also like it, but does not know he/she can't get it from a store for reasonable price, would actually see it. Most free products end up spread form hand to hand or by internet, but they do not have moderator who would be really interested on getting the product for so many end-users.
Chapter 18 - does my "science" belong to me if I make it public and free
I have studied Psychology in Tartu University, which basically means that I have some idea of how science articles are made, citated and shared. I have done many researches and used several databases to find either articles on previous works or even books about some certain topic.
I have seen how many authors are willing to give their article for students for free. I have never understood why some do not. But then again it might not be because of the authot himself, but as every scientists has to have some funds from somewhere (well, basically only a sutdent can to some research for free, and even in this case some funds like schooling is used for the student), then there are "higher" people who may say if the results can be made public for everybody or only abstract can be public and usually free.
Bsaically an Estonian psychology student never buys an article for their researhc, we either use those that are for free, take only the abstract or ignore the results all together. Fortunatelly Tartu University has agreements with several science databases that allows students to get articles from hundreds of science journals all over the world. But still even in those systems there are some articles that ask for further payment to be able to read them fully.
Although I understand that an author should protect their "inventions/results" in some way, I feel that if those results are not free for everybody to get, who are interested, it will obstuct further quick development.
I have seen how many authors are willing to give their article for students for free. I have never understood why some do not. But then again it might not be because of the authot himself, but as every scientists has to have some funds from somewhere (well, basically only a sutdent can to some research for free, and even in this case some funds like schooling is used for the student), then there are "higher" people who may say if the results can be made public for everybody or only abstract can be public and usually free.
Bsaically an Estonian psychology student never buys an article for their researhc, we either use those that are for free, take only the abstract or ignore the results all together. Fortunatelly Tartu University has agreements with several science databases that allows students to get articles from hundreds of science journals all over the world. But still even in those systems there are some articles that ask for further payment to be able to read them fully.
Although I understand that an author should protect their "inventions/results" in some way, I feel that if those results are not free for everybody to get, who are interested, it will obstuct further quick development.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Chapter 17 - GNU GPL
The idea behind GNU GPL was not first clear to me. I first understood that everything under this license is free of charge, but actually no, there also can be free programs that still ask for some fee but in return give user/developer the right to modify the program unless they keep it to themselves. Probably I use programs under this license every day, but as most of internet/computer users, including me, do not read user agreements, I have not noticed it. As I am not a developer I also have not modified it by myself.. but I have used modified programs, most of all Mozilla Firefox, which has different capabilities done by different developers, although the "original" version is also quite good :P
The strength behind GPL is mostly that every person can be sure that she/he can share his/her programs and at the same time it is protected as well. The biggest fear with allowing others to use you prgram for free would actually be that someone of them might take the program and decide to register it for their name. It would mean that the original developer would not get credit (I am not talking about money here) for it.
As programs are free to be developed it gives the opportunity for them to evolve quickly. " heads are always better then one and if first developer does nto seem to have more new ideas, it does not mean that with brains trom or just different point of view it could not be done. This is actually definitely a weakness for big companies sofwares that are really hard to manage and changed.
The strength behind GPL is mostly that every person can be sure that she/he can share his/her programs and at the same time it is protected as well. The biggest fear with allowing others to use you prgram for free would actually be that someone of them might take the program and decide to register it for their name. It would mean that the original developer would not get credit (I am not talking about money here) for it.
As programs are free to be developed it gives the opportunity for them to evolve quickly. " heads are always better then one and if first developer does nto seem to have more new ideas, it does not mean that with brains trom or just different point of view it could not be done. This is actually definitely a weakness for big companies sofwares that are really hard to manage and changed.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Chapter 13 - Do I own this comment?
I do not believe in the world without copyright and ownership. I think the main thing that makes people angry is that from ownership mostly big companies and richer countries benefit. But at the same time we could not live in the world where everything belongs to everybody.
Of course it would be nice to think that intellectual people, scientists and researches would develop their ideas because they want to and they would be triggered by other motivation actions. But How long would that last?
I think that it is in human nature to want to own something. Starting from ones home and ending with the work tools used for example cutting wood.
Actually when things are copyright you know wehre to turn to when you need to ask or investigate anything. If I read a research paper abstract and I would not know the author because it is not needed to connect it with him then, how could I contact the scientist to know or as more or to offer my help on this research thing.
Or for example the situation with Ashleigh Brilliant, "professional epigrammatist." although I do feel that it is quite weird the she asks for money, but at the same time I totally agree that if she has come up with those sentences then she should get some credit (either material or not) for it.
I agree with Martins view that - It can cost a lot to set up and operate a system of intellectual property.
But again, I think so what? We have different people in the world. If I want to help someone then I do not ask any credit for that. But at the same time, if I have written a poem and I choose to make it public, I want others to know it was me.
For me it seems that if there is no control of copyright and next “Mozart” does not have right to claim for credit for his musical work, then what to de have as people. It would go there that everything would belong to everyone, and even those who are willing to make a bigger contribution and do more, decide not to do anymore and loose their interest and willing.
In this current world every person has their chances and choices. I do not think that the problem with big corporations that seems to be the actual problem should be solved with the world without copyrights.
Of course it would be nice to think that intellectual people, scientists and researches would develop their ideas because they want to and they would be triggered by other motivation actions. But How long would that last?
I think that it is in human nature to want to own something. Starting from ones home and ending with the work tools used for example cutting wood.
Actually when things are copyright you know wehre to turn to when you need to ask or investigate anything. If I read a research paper abstract and I would not know the author because it is not needed to connect it with him then, how could I contact the scientist to know or as more or to offer my help on this research thing.
Or for example the situation with Ashleigh Brilliant, "professional epigrammatist." although I do feel that it is quite weird the she asks for money, but at the same time I totally agree that if she has come up with those sentences then she should get some credit (either material or not) for it.
I agree with Martins view that - It can cost a lot to set up and operate a system of intellectual property.
But again, I think so what? We have different people in the world. If I want to help someone then I do not ask any credit for that. But at the same time, if I have written a poem and I choose to make it public, I want others to know it was me.
For me it seems that if there is no control of copyright and next “Mozart” does not have right to claim for credit for his musical work, then what to de have as people. It would go there that everything would belong to everyone, and even those who are willing to make a bigger contribution and do more, decide not to do anymore and loose their interest and willing.
In this current world every person has their chances and choices. I do not think that the problem with big corporations that seems to be the actual problem should be solved with the world without copyrights.
Chapter 12 - Social engineering in internet
I have a psychology background and Social Engineering is considered a good thing in there. On the contrary in the internet social engineering is nothing but bad.
The best advantage in the internet – people can be connected with any other person in the internet without knowing/caring where the other person is – can be its main threat.
Reading about Social engineering makes me even more paranoid about internet and its safety. I am probably a common user. I am suspicious enough in the real life as well, so I have never believed an email saying I have won something that I previously had never signed for.
I really liked a definition of social engineering in “internet safety wiki” –
Social engineering is Techniques used by a malicious person to get someone to divulge confidential information.
My view has always been that Google has enormous amount of data about me but what I had not think about so much is that the Google password that opens so many doors for me can also open all these doors to some bad person who have stolen the password. If I am one of those person that uses same password for years in different places, then it would not be hard to track it down. But then again - why they should choose me?
Behind internet organized crime are actually lightheaded people. This example of social engineering in a firm that contains not only actually using internet but being in the company by person, is well organized one and every step well thought trough. While int this case the people who "attacked" the company were inside the building in person, then basically it would not be always needed. The same way someone can currently "walk" through my computer and collect data I have not protected correctly.
How should I protect myself? The first thing to do is acknowledge that there is this kind of threat, social engineering in the internet is a security risk in every moment. I need to learn about new threats and keep my constant paranoid thinking working, this will help me with most of the threats.
The best advantage in the internet – people can be connected with any other person in the internet without knowing/caring where the other person is – can be its main threat.
Reading about Social engineering makes me even more paranoid about internet and its safety. I am probably a common user. I am suspicious enough in the real life as well, so I have never believed an email saying I have won something that I previously had never signed for.
I really liked a definition of social engineering in “internet safety wiki” –
Social engineering is Techniques used by a malicious person to get someone to divulge confidential information.
My view has always been that Google has enormous amount of data about me but what I had not think about so much is that the Google password that opens so many doors for me can also open all these doors to some bad person who have stolen the password. If I am one of those person that uses same password for years in different places, then it would not be hard to track it down. But then again - why they should choose me?
Behind internet organized crime are actually lightheaded people. This example of social engineering in a firm that contains not only actually using internet but being in the company by person, is well organized one and every step well thought trough. While int this case the people who "attacked" the company were inside the building in person, then basically it would not be always needed. The same way someone can currently "walk" through my computer and collect data I have not protected correctly.
How should I protect myself? The first thing to do is acknowledge that there is this kind of threat, social engineering in the internet is a security risk in every moment. I need to learn about new threats and keep my constant paranoid thinking working, this will help me with most of the threats.
Chapter 11 - virtual sit-in
Virtual sit-in seems to be a creative way to use internet and still be able to make a kind of mass protest action with blocking access to some information or room.
We have all heard a "cyberwar" phrase before and I have taken it as attack towards something and being a violent act similar to actual physical harm.
But bringing together thousands of people who all would just click a page to make it slow and maybe even crash sounds interesting. It has the same "we can make together more than alone" feeling and touch.
I was determined to find some recent activity of virtual sit-in, but to my surprise there wasn't almost any. basically there has been 2 biggest virtual sit-ins. One that is considered as virtual sit-in was a protest action against World Economy Forum in 2002, but this had also some help with special software. People who wanted to be part of this protest had to download a special software that helped to crash the website.
I have to admint that I am really interested how tens of thousands of people in internet network end up on the same place and agree on to do something like this together. How it is possible to get the information about the action to so many people in time? This is a real challenge. If 40 000 people agreed to download the software and disturb the WEF website, how many people actually git the information first place? 40 % more 70 % more maybe 300 % more got the info. How the info was shared? And all kinds of other questions came into my mind.
We have all heard a "cyberwar" phrase before and I have taken it as attack towards something and being a violent act similar to actual physical harm.
But bringing together thousands of people who all would just click a page to make it slow and maybe even crash sounds interesting. It has the same "we can make together more than alone" feeling and touch.
I was determined to find some recent activity of virtual sit-in, but to my surprise there wasn't almost any. basically there has been 2 biggest virtual sit-ins. One that is considered as virtual sit-in was a protest action against World Economy Forum in 2002, but this had also some help with special software. People who wanted to be part of this protest had to download a special software that helped to crash the website.
I have to admint that I am really interested how tens of thousands of people in internet network end up on the same place and agree on to do something like this together. How it is possible to get the information about the action to so many people in time? This is a real challenge. If 40 000 people agreed to download the software and disturb the WEF website, how many people actually git the information first place? 40 % more 70 % more maybe 300 % more got the info. How the info was shared? And all kinds of other questions came into my mind.
Chapter 10 - Internet makes it equal
As I described deaf people in my previous post, I would like to discuss how they could actually benefit from internet and this way make the cap between themselves and hearing world smaller than it currently is. Deaf people do get most of their information by reading and seeing. Although not all deaf people are completely deaf, most of them can hear something, so they are not 100 % deaf. If they hear something they can also learn to talk – it is quite hard to learn to talk when you can’t hear what you are saying and how loud you are saying it.
But all this does not matter when they are talking online. I have a friend who is half-deaf. He can speak, but mostly he tries to understand what people are saying by reading lips. He does not have any problems communicating in internet through emails or MSN. I have to admit that he does not write grammatically correct Estonian, but he tries and at the same time understands everything that is told him.
Internet helps him and others like him to be part of the world. At least in the internet there is almost nothing that he could not do. Internet helps him to get more information, helps him to communicate with people that otherwise would never get in contact with him. Internet helps them to be normal not different from society. I think it is most important for young children and teenagers, a deaf person can have hard time seeing pop-culture on the streets, but not being able or just too afraid to be part of it. But as more and more of youngsters are hooked with internet, the minority young deaf people are taken as equals.
But all this does not matter when they are talking online. I have a friend who is half-deaf. He can speak, but mostly he tries to understand what people are saying by reading lips. He does not have any problems communicating in internet through emails or MSN. I have to admit that he does not write grammatically correct Estonian, but he tries and at the same time understands everything that is told him.
Internet helps him and others like him to be part of the world. At least in the internet there is almost nothing that he could not do. Internet helps him to get more information, helps him to communicate with people that otherwise would never get in contact with him. Internet helps them to be normal not different from society. I think it is most important for young children and teenagers, a deaf person can have hard time seeing pop-culture on the streets, but not being able or just too afraid to be part of it. But as more and more of youngsters are hooked with internet, the minority young deaf people are taken as equals.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Chapter 9 - Room will be filled anyway
I found Parkinson's Law of Data with 2 other Laws were the most true definitions on Jargon File.
I just liked the definition "Data expands to fill the space available for storage". I have felt it myself and seen all other people around me suffering for the same reason.
When I had my first PC, it had 3 giga harddrive, and I was really happy over it, I could watch movies, had several hundreds of music files and liked my PC and considered it to be a good and enough for me. Then the PC crashed and I was forced to get a new one. he new one had everything more, memory, harddrive, videocard etc... and I started to have more data. Windows itself took more and more space on C disc.
Then I got my first laptop - I just could not believe my happiness - I had 40 Gigabytes of harddrive, for me it meant thousands of files of music and after some time no stored movie on my laptop. This one also crashed, and unfortunately I did not get a laptop with bigger harddrive, but the same - I was really sad, for 2 years I basically could not include any new music files to my computer, because it was full - 30 gigas of music (I was even forced to remove some music from laptop, it was a traumatic experience) and a little bit other things.
Fortunately my luck changed :) and now I have 160 gigas of harddrive, I have had it for 2 months and half of it is full.
The more room there is the more things will be put inside (also applies to any living condition, it does not matter how big house someone has, it will be full of things anyway).
I just liked the definition "Data expands to fill the space available for storage". I have felt it myself and seen all other people around me suffering for the same reason.
When I had my first PC, it had 3 giga harddrive, and I was really happy over it, I could watch movies, had several hundreds of music files and liked my PC and considered it to be a good and enough for me. Then the PC crashed and I was forced to get a new one. he new one had everything more, memory, harddrive, videocard etc... and I started to have more data. Windows itself took more and more space on C disc.
Then I got my first laptop - I just could not believe my happiness - I had 40 Gigabytes of harddrive, for me it meant thousands of files of music and after some time no stored movie on my laptop. This one also crashed, and unfortunately I did not get a laptop with bigger harddrive, but the same - I was really sad, for 2 years I basically could not include any new music files to my computer, because it was full - 30 gigas of music (I was even forced to remove some music from laptop, it was a traumatic experience) and a little bit other things.
Fortunately my luck changed :) and now I have 160 gigas of harddrive, I have had it for 2 months and half of it is full.
The more room there is the more things will be put inside (also applies to any living condition, it does not matter how big house someone has, it will be full of things anyway).
Chapter 6 - internet scam
I will write about a scam that I recently got close with. My mother is a sign language translator, that means I have also communicated with many deaf people since I was a child.
Deaf people in Estonia are friends with all kinds of technical possibilities, they have mobile phones – no they do not call with it, but write SMS’s, really easy and quick way to communicate with each other or their sign language translator. Do you know that with some cases you can even call for Ambulance with SMS in Estonia ;)
But the ambulance is not what I wanted to talk about.
Couple of months ago my mother called me and asked that if I could help one of her deaf people with English. She told me that the man is good using internet and also understands some English, but this time he would like to have some help with a letter that is telling him that he has win several millions of pounds in a lottery. I understood right away that there is something fishy in it. But of course I was ready to help, especially a person that according to my mother seemed to believe this email.
So I told, that ok, he can forward me the email.
Of course I did not need to read more than half if the first sentence
„Transfer Options for the Immediate Transfer of your Winnings of the Sum of £750,000 Pounds Sterling with Transfer Identification code: ELPC/MWT/0143“
The rest of the letter had spelling mistakes in it, more fishy information, no mentioning real name of the receiver, let’s name him Jüri.
To make Jüri relize he is being tricked I sent him long explanation of these kind of scams, took details from this email to make him understand why it was a fake. I sent the letter to him and was sure he understands everything and is happy that he is saved.
Next day my mother called me and adn said Jüri vas happy to get my mail and understood everything, he agreed that contacting this email was not good. But... he had already sent a response to this email before. Which of course ment that later he got more mails and when he did not answer them then a new mail from new address came, claiming that he has won even bigger sum of money with somekind of Lottery that he had never took part in.
Deaf people get most of their information from written texts or TV (they watch a lot of TV), but it also means that for example in a bus, sitting alone, they never get some new information from people talking next to them.
Jüri had never heard about internet scams. So when the next letter came, he again contacted me about it. I, again, took time to answer him and was sure that this time he will understand and will delete all future messages like that without further reading. During the time he had already told my mother that he will buy my mother a car if she helps him with this. It was sad, how Jüri believed that he has really won something. His financial status is not good, so he really wanted to believe this luck.
After I got third letter from him I suggested to change his e-mail address, or at least make a google account and forward all emails from his hot.ee address to google and ignore spam mails.
The tricky thing was that he understood my explanations and believed me what he was not so good at making connections with new mails he got about his winnings and big sums – he did not get the big picture how to just get with a first glance to email that this is not a true one.
***
I had a really rough day at the office which continued with really bad internet connection from home (writing this offline right now), but during the workday I tooka look to www.whatsthebloodypoint.com and now writing about it makes me laught. It was just a really good idea to have a webpage like this. I right away thought that I should show this page to Jüri, maybe then he could form a bigger picture to keep himself from believing future fraud letters :P
Because I found the idea to trick the email-frauders into believing that they have a “real believer” on the other side, a really good one, it is quite hard to find ethical problems in it. Of course the whatsthebloodypoint-person was just doing some fun and keeping frauder away from new victims, but at the same time he was cheating as well. It is quite hard to actually detect the frauder. I think that if I would get the email and turned to Police with it, there would be nothing they could do about it. If I ignore the letters, then spammer has more time to find another victim. I looked at the mails bloodypoint-person had got and it really takes time to write them.
I do agree from ethical point of view that making this: http://www.whatsthebloodypoint.com/pics/g1-5.htm is not really a honorman thing. But would playing a trick like this on your friends be unethical – I do not think so. So I also do not think that answering spammers emails, is unethical – I just can’t think seriously about that.
Deaf people in Estonia are friends with all kinds of technical possibilities, they have mobile phones – no they do not call with it, but write SMS’s, really easy and quick way to communicate with each other or their sign language translator. Do you know that with some cases you can even call for Ambulance with SMS in Estonia ;)
But the ambulance is not what I wanted to talk about.
Couple of months ago my mother called me and asked that if I could help one of her deaf people with English. She told me that the man is good using internet and also understands some English, but this time he would like to have some help with a letter that is telling him that he has win several millions of pounds in a lottery. I understood right away that there is something fishy in it. But of course I was ready to help, especially a person that according to my mother seemed to believe this email.
So I told, that ok, he can forward me the email.
Of course I did not need to read more than half if the first sentence
„Transfer Options for the Immediate Transfer of your Winnings of the Sum of £750,000 Pounds Sterling with Transfer Identification code: ELPC/MWT/0143“
The rest of the letter had spelling mistakes in it, more fishy information, no mentioning real name of the receiver, let’s name him Jüri.
To make Jüri relize he is being tricked I sent him long explanation of these kind of scams, took details from this email to make him understand why it was a fake. I sent the letter to him and was sure he understands everything and is happy that he is saved.
Next day my mother called me and adn said Jüri vas happy to get my mail and understood everything, he agreed that contacting this email was not good. But... he had already sent a response to this email before. Which of course ment that later he got more mails and when he did not answer them then a new mail from new address came, claiming that he has won even bigger sum of money with somekind of Lottery that he had never took part in.
Deaf people get most of their information from written texts or TV (they watch a lot of TV), but it also means that for example in a bus, sitting alone, they never get some new information from people talking next to them.
Jüri had never heard about internet scams. So when the next letter came, he again contacted me about it. I, again, took time to answer him and was sure that this time he will understand and will delete all future messages like that without further reading. During the time he had already told my mother that he will buy my mother a car if she helps him with this. It was sad, how Jüri believed that he has really won something. His financial status is not good, so he really wanted to believe this luck.
After I got third letter from him I suggested to change his e-mail address, or at least make a google account and forward all emails from his hot.ee address to google and ignore spam mails.
The tricky thing was that he understood my explanations and believed me what he was not so good at making connections with new mails he got about his winnings and big sums – he did not get the big picture how to just get with a first glance to email that this is not a true one.
***
I had a really rough day at the office which continued with really bad internet connection from home (writing this offline right now), but during the workday I tooka look to www.whatsthebloodypoint.com and now writing about it makes me laught. It was just a really good idea to have a webpage like this. I right away thought that I should show this page to Jüri, maybe then he could form a bigger picture to keep himself from believing future fraud letters :P
Because I found the idea to trick the email-frauders into believing that they have a “real believer” on the other side, a really good one, it is quite hard to find ethical problems in it. Of course the whatsthebloodypoint-person was just doing some fun and keeping frauder away from new victims, but at the same time he was cheating as well. It is quite hard to actually detect the frauder. I think that if I would get the email and turned to Police with it, there would be nothing they could do about it. If I ignore the letters, then spammer has more time to find another victim. I looked at the mails bloodypoint-person had got and it really takes time to write them.
I do agree from ethical point of view that making this: http://www.whatsthebloodypoint.com/pics/g1-5.htm is not really a honorman thing. But would playing a trick like this on your friends be unethical – I do not think so. So I also do not think that answering spammers emails, is unethical – I just can’t think seriously about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)