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.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)