The fact that Georgia's websites were blocked is a scary idea. The fact that it was most likely by Russia due to the war. It makes it even more disturbing in the fact that even though Russian officials state there was no war, this would be the only reason to block Georgian websites. In this way, the country was disabled. It would not only affect services such as the police, fire department, etc., but civilians as well. This seems to be more like a war against every single person in Georgia.
The fact that in today's society, the web has been so ingrained into our psyches that we are lost without it. During a traditional war, the fighting can affect civilians. Many are killed who are not actually involved in the fighting. Cyber-warfare allows for an enemy to target non-combatants definitely.
My computer passed on a few weeks ago. I have been at a total loss. I am lucky that have been able to use my mother's computer in order to access the internet. I check my email accounts, bank account, various websites and of course, UMass' websites. The fact that cyber-warfare is excentually like my computer for everyone in a country that is targeted, is a hard to digest. The government, financial, commerce, education, private-sector employers and citizens can now be the direct target of terrorism or war.
It just shows that we have to insure that our infastructure can function without the internet in order to protect ourselves. I know a lot of people who would not have a clue how to function. My previous employer used the internet for everything! The computer files and screens that we had to access were all internet based programs. For example, in order to do our timesheets you had to log into a website to do so. If you got a question from a customer that you did not know, you had to access another web page to look up the information. The business is total dependent on the internet. I see it know as being too dangerous. It is only auto insurance, but it would affect so many people if those website went away.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Who owns a name?
The Internet will certainly be affecting this years presidential election. Technology allows anyone to post pretty much whatever they want out on the web for all to see. This is a good thing as far as exchanging ideas and being able to express one's self, however, it does allow for misinformation. It also brings up the question of who has the right to use a particular domain name or blog.
Barack Obama was able to gain control of a blog started by a supporter. This blogger was not compensated for his hard work. It comes down to the question of who owns the name "Barack Obama." I can understand how and way Obama was able to take over this blog. It is his name and is for the benefit of his campaign. However, since someone else was working on their own, using his name, to further his campaign, it seems a little wrong to not compensate this person.
Anyone can purchase a domain name. Even if it is a famous person's name, a candidate, etc. Is it fair that anyone can buy your name in the hope of making money, getting publicity, etc. from someone else's identity? I happen to have the same name as someone who used to be famous. She is more infamous to most people who remember her. I have to ask myself, who owns my name? Does she, or do I? In fact, my name is real, I was named it by my parents without meaning any connection to this ex-star, she took my family's last name long before I was born.
It is a difficult subject to approach. I think it does make a difference if a name belongs to a present star or candidate. They should be the only ones to use their names. Others would still be able to post their opinions, but I think it would be less confusing for many people if others would not be able to call their websites or blogs, etc, after these famous names. This would be an impossible task, to be sure.
I think the present state of affairs will strongly be affected by the use of a candidate's name by anyone. It opens up the chance that misinformation will be posted and believed to be real. Especially if someone thinks a representative of, or the actual person (ex. Barack Obama) posted the information. Many people don't use critical thinking when then read. They think if it is in writing, anywhere, it must be true. This will definitely affect the election and how people will feel and vote for the candidates.
Barack Obama was able to gain control of a blog started by a supporter. This blogger was not compensated for his hard work. It comes down to the question of who owns the name "Barack Obama." I can understand how and way Obama was able to take over this blog. It is his name and is for the benefit of his campaign. However, since someone else was working on their own, using his name, to further his campaign, it seems a little wrong to not compensate this person.
Anyone can purchase a domain name. Even if it is a famous person's name, a candidate, etc. Is it fair that anyone can buy your name in the hope of making money, getting publicity, etc. from someone else's identity? I happen to have the same name as someone who used to be famous. She is more infamous to most people who remember her. I have to ask myself, who owns my name? Does she, or do I? In fact, my name is real, I was named it by my parents without meaning any connection to this ex-star, she took my family's last name long before I was born.
It is a difficult subject to approach. I think it does make a difference if a name belongs to a present star or candidate. They should be the only ones to use their names. Others would still be able to post their opinions, but I think it would be less confusing for many people if others would not be able to call their websites or blogs, etc, after these famous names. This would be an impossible task, to be sure.
I think the present state of affairs will strongly be affected by the use of a candidate's name by anyone. It opens up the chance that misinformation will be posted and believed to be real. Especially if someone thinks a representative of, or the actual person (ex. Barack Obama) posted the information. Many people don't use critical thinking when then read. They think if it is in writing, anywhere, it must be true. This will definitely affect the election and how people will feel and vote for the candidates.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)