Computer Security- its future and questions (take 2)

First off, I think it is important to address the youtube video we watched with the "interface mockery."  I think it is so creative (and amusing) of Microsoft and at the same time it got me thinking- where is our technology world going to go next? Nowadays, anything is possible!  It is also interesting how in a sense we bow down to Apple and all of its advancements when they make something as simple as a phone dock, but then on the other hand, attack Microsoft for their even more innovative projects.  That being said, if we can do just about anything with technology, it makes me wonder why the security threats are such a prominent issue still.  Wouldn't you think that if they have thoughts of a "Microsoft surface"- why aren't they able to come out with computers and other forms of technology that are able to keep the bad viruses, worms, Trojan horses, etc.?  In a sense it almost makes sense, due to the fact that technology continues to advance so rapidly, unfortunately that must mean the rate of these forms of evil technologies are advancing just as much.

According to CNET News in the article, "Computer Security Problems Growing" it discussed the growing problems related to computer security.  For instance, there was a study released that reported computer security breaches were up to 16 percent from 1996 to 1997, also that computer-related crime (this includes security breaches) cost 241 surveyed organizations $136 million last year.  Do you think these numbers continued to rise in the last decade?  There was also another study released that said personal security to be of "paramount interest to Internet users."  After these studies came out, the report warned that "the resources necessary to conduct a cyber-attack are now commonplace.  A personal computer and a simple telephone connection to an Internet service provider anywhere in the world are enough to cause a great deal of harm."  This scares me as a rapid technology user and at this day and age depends on having my computer and phone for work, internet, email and many other important (as well as unimportant, such as online shopping or "facebooking" of course) reasons in my everyday life...what harm could someone like me be in?  I mean we all know the risk of losing all your work, documents, music, pictures, credit card information, etc.; but is there more risk you could be in with all the new and innovative viruses and the complexity of a hacker's mindset? 

With that being said, what can be done to many hackers stop?  According to Peter Neumann of consultancy SRI International, "making it illegal doesn't stop hackers" and "if a terrorist wanted to take over all those Pentagon machines, it would be child's play, and that would be a serious problem."  Which brings me to my last point, this problem of computer security, how do you think 9/11 effected this?  What type of precautions do you think need to be made at this point, not only for the Pentagon and the US government, but on an even smaller scope for each and every one of us?

(This is the second time I am posting this because I am not sure if it worked the first time, so sorry if you are seeing this twice!)

Computer Reliability and Online Voting

The discussions of computer reliability and network security are important to consider when further pondering whether or not this concept of online voting is something we should continue to invest our time and efforts into. With regards to computer reliability, sure instances of having a glitch in the system have been corrected in the past by producing updated versions of a system (for example the case with Windows or the Therac-25). But, these glitches would never have been found had the programs not been put to use. When voting for the president of the United States, this isn’t exactly something people are willing to gamble with by using a machine that is possibly still in its “trial and error” phase. Furthermore, it took time to update Windows 95 and remove all the viruses. Could we potentially have elected officials in office for an entire term before finding out they hadn’t actually won the election? This seems to potentially threaten the legitimacy of American democracy and the concept of popular sovereignty. I know someone made the point in class that we are willing to allow potentially erred systems to run things like power plants, which is a good point. But as someone else also stated, it isn’t often that people try and tamper with things like that. People are, however, very passionate about their leader. There were documented instances of violence that arose from heated debates over Obama and McCain. You think these people wouldn’t try and alter the election in a heartbeat were they given the chance to? The high probability of individuals tampering with an electronic voting system would require a system that was next to perfect. Is that possible when using computer systems, and do we really think it ever will be possible? Sure older methods like vouchers seem obsolete, but sometimes the old phrase “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” makes a good point. Aside from the logistics of potential computer error or lack of computer security, you also have to consider the demographic of people that will be isolated from the vote. I know people spoke a lot about the elderly being isolated from online voting, but we must also consider other demographics of people that will be left out of the vote by making it online, namely the poor. It was brought to our attention that historically the vote was made difficult, so that only certain individuals ended up voting. For the sake of progress, we want today’s vote to reflect people all of all ethnicities, gender, sexual-orientation, etc. Certain poor regions are marked by the very demographic of people that we want to make a point to include in today’s vote (I’m a psych major and have been studying this a lot in my poverty and development course). People in these areas have a hard time getting access to grocery stores and banks, let alone computers. I know this last point wasn’t as much related to the concept of computer reliability, but I think it is still very important!

Is fair use ACTUALLY fair??

The answer to that question is quite simply, NO.  Copyright laws are hurting the human need for creating works of art that stimulate one’s imagination.  I was reading the comic book that Jennifer Jenkins and her colleagues wrote about intellectual property and I just don’t think it’s right or fair for someone to sabotage a perfectly good scene of a documentary and request money because a 4 ½ second clip of “The Simpsons” happened to be on the television where they were filming the scene.  I think I can semi-understand if the director intentionally showed a clip of the show for the scene, but that’s not what happened.  So, instead of being able to freely create and imagine new things and new viewpoints, Americans are forced to cut scenes because of unintentional slip-ups.  In my opinion, that is just ludicrous!  Do Americans need to stop and think about everything they do or say to prevent possibly being hit up for money?  Do you think it’s fair that for saying phrases like “Everybody Dance Now” in a scene could wind up costing you $5,000 dollars?  Okay, I understand that’s a song but come on…that is such a basic statement that I think it should be considered fair use! Right?!?!? The actor did not break out in a dance or sing the lyrics to the song at the top of his lungs.  He simply stated a phrase that wound up costing a lot of money to keep the scene in the documentary (which they ultimately decided to cut because of cost issues).  

I think the worst part about this whole copyright law situation is the time period allowed to keep a copyright.  You get 70 years after your death and I think that’s too long.  I’m pretty sure everyone in the world knows the “Happy Birthday” song and somehow that is still copyrighted. So, someone out there is making money every time that song is referenced or used in any capacity. Umm, who else thinks that is ridiculous besides me? Do you feel like it’s only a matter of time before people stop making films or creating TV shows because they are afraid of being sued for copyright infringement? I definitely feel that way but I’d love to hear what your take is on the situation. Do you think the fair use act we have today is actually fair? If your answer is no, what do you think needs to change in order to make things fair?  

Intellectual Property

Trying to play devil's advocate, it is incredibly diffcult as college students to understand why many fight for the rights of their "intellectual property." We don't have money. We want to get the things we want for as little money as possible. We "borrow" music from our "friends" across the internet. We want less control on sharing of digital files. But, on the opposite spectrum, what if we stood to gain money, no matter how insignificant the amount, from the sale of our intellectual property. The monetary amount doesn't necessarily matter, but the sale of that album, or that book, or anything is an affirmation of the artists creativity. That acceptance cannot have a price label on it, and there cannot be laws protecting that or ethics involving that.

On another note, did you know that a hospital in Britain owns a perpetual copyright of the Peter Pan play?!

Jennife Jenkins and Copyright Law

On Monday night Jennifer Jenkins spoke about intellectual property and the laws that went along with it. I found it really interesting to find out about the copyright laws in particular. According to her a copyright is obtained as soon as it is fixed, and lasts 70 years after the death of the owner. This law caused a lot of questions for me. Questions such as how to prove who fixed the object first, and what happens if more than one person wants to claim the item. To bring it back to an ethical dilemma, people could easily steal an item that has a copyright, apply for the license on it, and use it as their own, which now allows that person to make money off of an item that was not theirs. The idea of having an automatic copyright on an item as soon as something is fixed, seems to me to come with a lot of complications. Wouldn’t be easier to require people to apply for a copyright in the first place. I think that requiring a person to register for a copyright would eliminate most problems with establishing or recognizing ownership of the work. What are some thoughts on this topic?

Misrepresentation of Intellectual Property in the Media

I have to admit that I, like most Americans, am guilty of assuming that intellectual property laws were grouped together under the same basic principles and ideas. I agree with the article that by doing this the majority of people forget what the actual laws are about. For example it makes hardly any sense to think of a copyright law protecting an artist's right to a painting in the same sense that a trademark law protects the formulation of Coke. This way of thinking makes these laws more vague in that they are only distantly related to one another. I agree with the article that overuse of the term "intellectual property" disguises the details associated with copyright law, patent law, and trademark law which sometimes helps certain companies that claim some of their products as "intellectual property". Applying only this term would mean that anything that is a product of your intellect is protected under law, which ignores the concept of fair use. This over generalization may seem like a small detail, but it is important that society is well educated in the details of these laws due to the fact that the information age has made the works of others so remarkably accessible.

James Moor and Computer Ethics

During the 1980s, there was a total fear that computers had a mind of their own. Some believed that they could take over the world. We saw this in the clip that we watched in class where they actually believed that the computer could start World War III. However, it is important to see that they are learning that you can basically train/ teach computers to do almost anything. Some of this fear is expressed in James Moor’s article about computer ethics. I think that a lot of what he wrote is still relevant, yet at times you can tell that it was written in 1985. We still need to think about how much we should trust computers to do things for us. I like the point that he makes about computers creating new methods of communication. This also creates an issue that we have talked about a few times in lecture. Personal contact is taken out of the picture because it is easier to email, instant message, and text people. New methods created by computers make our lives much easier; however, we lose face- to- face contact. Few people stop and think about how easy our generation has it with all of the technology in front of us to do a research project. In addition, registering for classes in person would be a complete nightmare and waste of time.

I found Moor’s section about ‘the invisibility factor’ to be the most interesting and prominent to our lives in 2009. He gives the example of a programmer who realized he/she could steal excess interest from a bank and transfer it to his/her own account. The excess interest could be a minute amount, but could add up over time. People could also create a program to steal someone’s credit card number off of an online shopping website. This part of the article made me think of Bernie Madoff. Obviously, his lack of proper ethics/ morals goes far beyond the examples that Moor discusses. The problem with invisible programs occurs when even programmers can not catch them. Moor finishes by saying how we like a good amount of the invisibility with computers, but that this is what makes us vulnerable. Today, I would imagine that there are more people that are trained to catch harmful invisible computer programs. Sometimes I agree and think we do put too much trust in computers. I was curious what others thought about this. I was thinking about whether or not an invisible program could have prevented Madoff from scamming so many people. On the other side, I think that part of the reason he got away with it because such a program could be consider an invasion of privacy.