Data mining is the process of collecting vast amounts of information about people, generally from the internet, and using that information for some purpose. The most commonly known uses are credit card companies using the process to identify stolen cards. Many online companies data mine as well, using the gathered information to target ads to people depending on their tastes. Both of these uses seem rather handy, although the ad targeting can get annoying at times. However, not all data mining is so friendly. the department of defense of the U.S. government uses data mining to identify possible terrorist threats. In a article on Wired, Bruce Schneier points out how ineffective the process is and how much of our privacy is lost for so little gain. Schneier’s point is that because of the complexity of attributes that lead to terrorist attacks, no data mining system would be able to accurately predict any attacks in the foreseeable future – reasonable if one thinks of the internet as a haystack and the key information as a needle, broken into pieces and thrown in. This means the citizens of the U.S. are essentially being watched by their own country for no security gain. This was proven by the NSA’s eavesdropping program: it gave thousands of tips per month, which were followed up by the FBI and each one was a dead end, costing thousands of man hours which could have been spent actually making the country safer. Schneier is not totally against date mining: he supports the uses by credit companies to fight fraud, by sites like Amazon and Google for showing him things he might buy, all because there is a obvious gain for the loss of privacy.

Personally, I agree with Schneier on data mining. If the uses it is being put to work, like the credit card and online shopping, and I benefit from it then I support it. But the current projects attempting to protect us do sound to much like a Big Brother government in the making. As the system currently just tells the government everything I do on the internet but fails to catch any terrorists, and very few other criminals, I do feel it is logical to keep using it. If it worked, if this system had stopped one terrorist attack, I would feel better about its continued activities, but seeing how it has not managed that, I feel that it is not worth the lose in privacy. Security Data Mining on such a large and random scale as terrorism needs serious work, and until it can actually effectively work and protect us, I don’t feel like sacrificing my privacy, on principle. It really comes down to Ben Franklin’s paraphrased quote: He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. And giving up privacy is to close the freedom for me.

Bruce Schneier is a cryptographer, computer security specialist and writer. He maintains generally liberal views on cyber security and disclosure.

YouTube has become a huge part of the internet culture since its creation. Henry Jenkins, a professor of communications, wrote about nine ideas about what will make growth of YouTube, about 5 years ago when YouTube was still young. Today we can look back and see how right Professor Jenkins was.

The 4th entry of Jenkins states that YouTube will greatly depend on the ease of sharing through social network sites. People can surf YouTube, but find the real ease of sharing through sites such as MySpace and LiveJournal which help spread the popularity of both the shared video and the site. Today, we see this is very true. As I was was writing this article, I checked my own Facebook page – and in the news feed section, there were 3 links to YouTube Videos, one of which was from me to a friend. How easily popular videos can spread is very obvious as there are many videos that have gained fame because of widespread sharing (they could be termed Meme, if my internet vocabulary is correct). Some examples of videos that I have seen spread through Facebook: a comic 1-minute Hamlet, this Russian man singing something, and the legend of Leroy Jenkins (whose name I found ironic for this article). These videos, and many others have been shared by YouTube, and the ease of sharing through social media sites have most definitely helped the growth of YouTube, although the popularity is heavily dependent on the presence of videos on the site. The freedom of what can be uploaded to YouTube is key to is continued usefulness to users, and should that be limited, the fact it is easy to share will not matter as much as content.

Dennis Jerz seems to be a writer and English teacher who focuses on trying to give helpful advice to new authors on the web. His website includes various blogs and sources of information about many topics, including humanities, Cyperculture, Journalism and Writing.

The particular piece of Jerz’s that I was looking at was about tips for newbie web authors (http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/etext/checklist.htm). It has many good points that make sense once you read them, but I would not of though of on my own. The particular points that jumped out to me where: how to name linked text to help readers know what it links to, the tips about writing hypertext style, and be sure to test the website from another computer. All, once I read them, seemed like very good ideas, but they simply weren’t ones that I had really thought about. He admits, at points, that this is his view on certain parts (like his dislike for splash pages) but does not let that override his suggestions.

I think checklists like these are good resources for writers on the web, to help them edit their own work. The importance of editing can not be understated, and the often lack of simple editing on the Internet can be very irritating.

Danah Boyd is a social network researcher who focuses on the effect of social media sites like Facebook and Myspace on society, mainly on young people. In this particular article, Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life (http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf), Danah brings up important aspects of the life that lead youth to social networking sites, as well as factors that result because of that shift. In the text, she talks about how the trends of teenage people having access to both the internet and social media sites was on the rise. Because of this, many teenagers felt that the ‘cool’ kids had Myspace, or equivalent, accounts and also signed on. From there, the online culture expanded and created issues like online social rules, privacy, parental controls, and safety. Dranah then finishes by saying that the social media sites are a new way for teens to experience the public, and that at some point they have to be free to do things on their own and makes mistakes in order to learn and that the old generations should give some space, carefully.

I feel that Danah makes good points about the trend toward social media sites – In fact, I was in the middle of it. Many of the issues she brings up are still issues today. She does advocate for learning from what teens are doing now, in order to help the younger generations from making mistakes. Well I feel that this is a good idea, I am curious how it would be done. Neither schools nor parents tend to be competent enough on average in the next generation’s technology to be able to properly train others. The constant shifting of social norm and online etiquette would make what ever the teachers and parents learned in their youth to be out of date. The social sites could attempt to have a tutorial, but very few people would read those, especially considering how few people pay attention to the legal notices from software.

Andrew Keen, host of TechCrunch TV (example interview here: http://www.techcrunch.tv/show/keen-on), wrote the Cult of the Amateur (free preview: http://books.google.com/books?id=Z59TDBx1U2UC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false), a book where he states his views upon the ‘web 2.0’ and how he feels it is debasing our culture. Keen, who admits he started out as a strong supporter of the internet, believes the web 2.0 where everyone can blog, make videos, comment, and generally say what they want without having to prove who they are or provide support for what they say. This flood of noise, of everyone on the internet talking about whatever is drowning out the real media, according to Keen. He believes that what people post and read on the internet they assume is true, even though there is no guarantee that it is as blogs and such sites are not professional news-sources. He feels that the sum of this situation is killing our culture, or at least important parts of it.

I also watched an interview of Keen’s with Adam Lashinksy, the author of Inside Apple. Inside Apple is a book about how Apple works, which is to say with great secrecy. Ironically, for a company that has had much great growth because of the internet and the culture associated with the net, Apple’s interior workings are very different that those of the internet. Where as the internet is sort of free running chaos, Apple sounds to much more rigid – each person has their task, and they do that task and nothing else. Very little other chit-chat happens in Apple, and employees do not talk about what they do. It is interesting, as this almost seems to be a culture Keen could want; everything has its place, and there are certain, reliable news sources that give information about the company. The contrast between Apple and the internet, and between Apple and its largest rival, Google, are quite interesting. Its culture is much less free to grow and develop as the cultures of Google or the Internet. However, a question is how will that culture survive without the driving personality of Steve Jobs.

Personally, I can seen Keen’s point. The analogy to the monkeys on typewriters, well being somewhat insulting, is rather accurate. The internet is full of so much… stuff, much of which is empty noise. The issue of how many people use blogs and sites like Wikipedia as a sort of new-source and take any information there as truth does create problems, especially in a system already rife with education problems as it is. However, his view that it is killing our culture does not strike a cord with me. Yes, the old culture is being replaced, slowly and surely, but that is the way of cultures; they shift and change as time moves on and the more rapid the changes in technology, the faster the change in culture. Yes, there are problems with how fast the culture is changing, as people try to fit into the culture and adapt to it, but it does not mean the change is bad, as keen’s view seems to say it is.

Remix (http://ia600204.us.archive.org/13/items/LawrenceLessigRemix/Remix-o.pdf) is an essay written by Lawrence Lessig, a political activist and academic particularly interested in copyright law and freedom of information in regards to culture. The essay, of which I read part 1, concentrates on his views on the evolution of copyrights because of technology, how he feels it affects culture, and his views on ‘read/write (RW) culture’ and ‘read/only (RO) culture’. RO is culture products one consumes, but does not respond too – like most TV shows. RW culture is cultural products people consume, think about and remix into something else – for example, a musician mixing songs together, or a student who quotes a book in a paper. Lessig feels that the copyrights of the current era are attempting to convert everything to RO, at the cost of much of the creativity of culture – with the catch phrase of “permission is vital, legally’. It is remarked upon how the march of the development of entertainment, digital media, has made RW culture much easier, compared earlier visions, where live performances and then analog media, make RO the only possible form of consumption. Lessig feels that both versions of culture have their place, but feels that there should be much more efficient and logical legislation to govern copyrights and the ilk.

I agree with much of what Lessig says regarding the topics of copyrights and the conflict between RO and RW cultures. I personally am a fan of much of the results of RW culture, such as the wiki websites and open source software. However, the area I feel his arguments are lacking is the how – he creates a basis for what changes he would like to see in the system, but does little to expand upon it. Any changes in the copyright system would be fiercely contested, and how these changes would be made to happen is an important part of any argument advocating for change.

Writer Jonathan Lethem creates a different and interesting perspective on plagiarism in his article in Harper’s Magazine. Harper’s magazine is an publication which aims explores interesting issues in the current time.  It contains a mix of essays, fiction and reporting and has a left lean on politics. Plagiarism is an issue that is often brought up in the current times; authors, students, journalists often have trouble because accused of plagiarizing. Often in these cases, it unclear whether the individual was activity stealing another’s ideas, if it was a subconscious thing, or if they came up with the words by themselves and just happened to be very similar to another work. Lethem talks about many of the issues with plagiarism and some famous artists and shows which, strictly speaking, plagiarized. He points out how many of these plagiarized works are important parts of our culture – the Simpsons as perfect example. The concept that ideas are intellectual property can both help and harm society; help by protecting writers and artists but hinder by the death grip of companies upon their property. Lethem ends with this point, and asks readers to do a simple thing: respect his work, do not steal is editions, but feel free to use his ideas.

For those who care, my comments on plagiarism are less well spoken as those of Mr. Lethem. He, as a writer, has much more invested interest in the issues of copyright law and theft. However, plagiarism is still of interest to myself – as a student I am told in every class I take how bad plagiarism is. I do agree that quoting verbatim without giving credit would be wrong; I expect myself and fellow students to do their own work. However, I do like Mr. Lethem’s statement that we are free to use his ideas, but not his words.  If creators are not allowed to build of each other’s ideas, then we place a huge restraint upon the materials that they can work with, stifling growth. Indeed, few works of today can actually be called original at first glace. If studied, we see the affects of other works and writers, of inventors and even tv shows. We should not curb this exchange of ideas. I do believe that authors’ works should be protected and they should receive something for those works, but I also believe that the ideas within those works should be less strictly regulated. As Lethem believes, Thomas Jefferson’s views on copyrights: enough to give writers motivation, and then allowing ideas to be freely used.

Lethem’s article:http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/02/0081387

The Huffington Post is an interesting creation of the internet. It is a mix of a news website and a blog, and it seems to aim to cater toward the average Internet user: slight left leaning. This particular article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/09/wikileaks-assange-transparency_n_820348.html) was published because it is the type of article the paper wishes to bring attention too: as well as the wiki-leaks issue is a important source of current news, and this media source wishes to stay on top of current events. Micah L. Sifry, the writer of the book ‘Wikileaks and the Age of Transparency’ which the article is about. He is the executive editor of the Personal Democracy Forum, which brings his interest to Assange and Wikileaks, as they represent the freedom of the press which is so vital to the democratic process. Wikileaks is a product of the transparency moment, attempting to promote government and business dealing to be more open and accessible. it should be noted that wiki-leaks is not actually a wiki, as the site has moved away from the actual wiki software. In the excerpt, Sifry supports the wikileaks and its actions – he believes that the wikileaks and its similar movements are something of the next step in the evolution of the Transparency movement. He makes a powerful argument for why the transparency is important and how the government and businesses are failing without it.