Friday, September 30, 2011

Google Yourself!

Everybody has asked the question one time or another: "How much about me is available for people on the internet?"  Obviously some information (like what people post on their profile pages) is private, but private seems to be a relative term.  How private is "private" really?  Well, one way to answer the question is simply to Google yourself.  The amount of search criteria you insert is directly related to the amount of information about yourself that Google (or some other search engine) will return.


Consider the first example: typing in only a name and a hometown.  Personally, three pages of the top five listed revealed information specifically about me.  Two were somewhat impersonal, relaying stats from my high school volleyball career, but the third page was my facebook profile.  Information such as my name, activities, interests, groups, preferred music, books, and TV shows was available for every internet user to see.  More importantly, non-facbook users have access to this information as well.  Fortunately, the pictures and more personal information require both a facebook account and an accepted friend request.

As the second trial consider typing in a name, hometown, and high school (or other defining but not unusual piece of information.)  A greater percentage of the websites returned will be specifically about the one being googled.  

These results lead to the idea behind the digital dossier.  Notice that much of the information available on a specific person was not added by the individual.  Rather, a third party added the information for whatever reason, and the person of whom it regards is most likely unable to delete it.  So take a look for yourself.  See how much information about you is available online.  And remember, you've only just scratched the surface of what's actually there.

Friday, September 23, 2011

A Visual Rhetoric Cartoon Addressing Internet Identities

Sometimes the easiest way to convey a message is through a piece of art.  Many people will look at an image rather than read an entire essay regarding an argument or opinion on an issue.  The image below comes from the University of North Carolina's Journalism and Mass Communication website.






The first thing one notices isn't the caption, but rather the dogs in front of the computer.  The black and white palette keeps the cartoon simple.  In fact, the dark dog draws a looker's primary attention because of the extreme contrast between its shade and the lighter aspects the rest of the cartoon has.  The caption, because of its size, is the final piece one would observe, and it only solidifies the message conveyed to those looking at the cartoon.

The purpose of this piece is to illustrate to its audience, specifically internet users, that in using online communication tools you don't always know who exactly you're interacting with.  You may think that you know, but this is not always the case.  This also demonstrates then, the limits of the internet: while it allows for high speed, almost conversational messaging, it removes the face-to-face interaction.  This was once considered crucial in human relationships.  Face-to-face can of course be simulated via online video sources, but this does not pertain to the cartoon above.

Finally, it is important to note that the cartoon does not incorporate ethos or pathos, but rather pure logic, (logos).  The truth is, something that is completely obvious in real life (ie, the fact that the above characters are dogs), can be totally unknown in the digital world.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Big Brother is Watching

Most students have read George Orwell's 1984 by the time they've graduated. And if they remember only one thing from the novel, it's most likely that Big Brother is watching.  One of Orwell's purposes in his writing was to express his concern in technology's "enabling oppressive governments to monitor and control their citizens."  It's somewhat ironic that in the world today, people are legitimately asking questions regarding privacy and the government.  No longer are we simply reading 1984, but we are beginning to explore similarities and differences between the fiction and nonfiction.

So when does the obsession for security overtake the desire for privacy?  Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court heard United States vs. Jones, a case regarding policemen in the D.C. area planting a GPS device in a citizen's car, suspecting him to be a drug dealer.  On November 8, the Court will determine whether or not the government's planting these GPS trackers violates the 4th amendment.  Moreover, they will decide if these chips will be implanted in every future vehicle.  Many Americans are concerned by how much personal information will be available if these accessories are permitted. As Catherine Crump stated in the ACLU's "Blog of Rights": 

The Court has the opportunity in this case to safeguard Fourth Amendment privacy protections in the face of technological advances.  Police surveillance using GPS technology raises significant privacy concerns. 
But these car devices are not the only way in which the government can follow someone.  In fact, 96% of Americans already carry around a personal tracking device on a daily basis--the cell phone.  So why all the concern for GPS chips in cars if an equivalent already exist in something we're practically glued to?  While each individual carries his own opinion, the decision made in the November case will certainly have a huge impact on citizen privacy within the United States.

Friday, September 9, 2011

What do businessmen, college students, and soccer moms all have in common?

...Each uses technology on an hourly basis to function in everyday life.

Who am I? Who do I need to be in order to fit in with those in my peer group? Every teenager asks these questions, consciously or subconsciously, when determining what to publish on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, or MySpace.  Brad Paisley illustrates the idea behind these internet profiles with his song "Online".  Though humorous in his execution, Brad demonstrates one of the reasons people create their online identities.


It's through these online social networking sites that teenagers, young adults, parents, and even grandparents can create, re-create connect with, or express themselves.  Ask anyone, and they most likely have an online profile in Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, etc.

In July of 2010, Facebook reached the 500 million user mark.  As the number of social networkers increases, so does the concern for privacy and safety.  While only a "minimal" (which is itself a relative term) amount of information is necessary to create any of the various accounts, many choose to post more than the required fields.  And even though some profiles are limited, the information is still stored somewhere in some database to which someone has access.  Not to mention, this "personal" information is posted on the world wide web.

The soccermom is buying textbooks or ordering school supplies online to save time: how many companies have her credit card information on file?  Customers sometimes have no "reliable way of knowing when they are disclosing private information to illegitimate parties."  For the businessman sending emails as he travels from one meeting to the next, we assumme the information he sends is important.  A mistake in an email adress of only 1 or 2 letters can send crucial information to someone for whom it was unintended.

Though all these concerns and considerations are widely discussed, the contemporary society has not drawn away from its use of technology (primarily the Internet) in so much of everyday activities.  With the pivitol role of digital communication in contemporary society, I have chosen to investigate the internet as the centerpiece for the discussion of the identity, privacy, and safety of its users.