Friday, November 9, 2012
(#7) Who Watches the Watchmen?
After reading Braden and Albrechtslund, consider any questions presented in the following prompt when responding: Many
would argue that the Internet is merely another window through which
the public may be spied upon by “big government” or by secret agencies.
Do you feel that Braden and Albrechtslund share a similar argument regarding
this issue? According to these authors, and in your opinion, what are
the weakest points (literally, sites) of the Internet? What are some
potential results of the Internet’s ability to replicate and publish
information? Do you feel that you participate in citizen-surveillance?
Do you contribute to content on the web? If so, what kind? What aspect
of the Internet are you most wary about? Use at least two, properly
cited textual examples in your response. (Due 11/13)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sandra Shamburger
ReplyDeleteENG 125 – RQ1
Prof. Addis D’Amato
E-journal #7
Peter Braden in his text “Is The Internet The Harbinger Of Orwell's Nightmares?” and Anders Albrechtslund in his text “Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance” deal with the same issue of social networking as tool for surveillance but also as a chance to empowerment. Braden seems to see the danger of control by surveillance as more threatening than Albrechtslund does. But he concedes that the internet itself encompasses a chance for empowerment because it makes it hard to withhold information. He comments to that issue, “many voices reporting the state of the world, it is hard to […] silence them all” (6). Albrechtslund on the contrary sees the threat of surveillance as inciting panic. For him the willing participating takes out the control of the watchers.
Albrechtslund admits that the internet can be a playground for predators. He mentiones many dangers lurk in the transparent world of mediated publics, […] not least, the menace of predators who want to harm young people (4). For Braden it is the threat of “erod(ing) history” because everybody can add or delete history and if enough people participate history is changed just by “writing” about it (3). Meaning people can invent new history which has nothing to do with facts anymore. Another point is that people can invent their personalities that means that friendships might be also invented, meaning very superficial and fake.
Replication bears the possibility of changing facts by taking them out of contexts and giving them complete different meanings similar to the “erod(ing) history” issue or like Braden calls it “wikiality”(3).
Since I don't really use social networking no I don't fee l like I participate in citizen-surveillance. What I use to communicate with friends is not more than a better phone call. I do not like to be tagged on photos by other users but my friends know that so I do not need to worry.
Diana Cuevas
ReplyDeleteEnglish 125-RQ1
Prof. Addis-D'Amato
E-Journal #7
November 13, 2012
“They can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true.” “Where did you hear that?”…“The Internet.”
The Internet has been an informational medium in which society becomes too reliant on. A common use of the internet where many display their reliance is in social networking websites. These sites serve the purpose of rekindling past friendships and relationships, catharsis, marketing, entertainment, and evidently: networking. However, one’s risky dependency over the internet can lead to the over exposure of personal information, which can be pried upon by the “regime”. In the articles, “Is the Internet the Harbinger of Orwell’s Nightmares?” written by Peter Braden, and “Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance” written by Anders Albrechtslund, a dissimilarity is shared in the aspect of surveillance. Braden argues that censorship is occurring in many more countries with the addition of social networking sites “being linked to government surveillance” while harming users privacy (Braden 1), whereas Albrechtslund counter argues Braden’s claim and strongly reiterates that social networking sites “introduces a participatory approach to surveillance, which can empower – and not necessarily violate – the user” (Albrechtslund 1). Braden assets that although there may be some benefits to “censorship tools”, except the threats of exploitation it provides overpowers the advantages (Braden 2). On the other hand, Albrechtslund sides with governmental “snooping” and disputes that the government’s interest in social networking sites is merely to find society’s criminals and deviants (Albrechtslund 3).
Everything that is on the internet is not factual. Although the information found on Wikipedia comes from the Encyclopedia Britannica which is known to be precise, Wikipedia contains many factoids. A factoid is an invented fact that is believed to be true because of its appearance on print. The removal and insertion of inaccurate information is the weakest point on the Internet. In my opinion, it can be very unfortunate for one to retrieve imprecise information from the internet that may be later used on a research assignment so to speak. Like Braden, Albrechtslund declares that along with several other digital sources, social communication found on networking sites can be removed and changed for it to be put in other contexts (Albrechtslund 3). Factoids found on the internet may result to confusion upon people worldwide that have access to this misrepresented information. Society would not know what to trust without the appropriate clarification of the altered content.
It would be highly untruthful for me to say that I do not participate in citizen-surveillance because although I do not hold a membership or account on any social networking websites, I do contribute to the surveillance that goes on in my English 125 classes’ blog. Occasionally I read my classmates’ journal entries to understand their written judgments on the assigned topic. What I can admit, that I am most wary about is identity theft on the internet. Being that I habitually insert my social security number and credit card number on the internet for situations like logging into government funded account (college and financial aid websites), bill payments, credit card enrollments, online shopping and job applications; I worry that my information may get leaked somewhere in the internet’s technological world or even in an individual’s possession. To end this in a submissive note, after reading these two articles by Braden and Albrechtslund, I have been very conscious of my internet use that it led me to change my browsing mode into incognito.
Mandeep Singh
ReplyDeleteEng-125
Prof. D'Amato
E-Journal #7
Nov.13,2012
PROFESSOR, TOO MANY CHARACTERS--SO THIS IS IN TWO POSTS.
Peter Braden in text, "Is The Internet The Harbinger Of Orwell's Nightmares?", emphasizes the possible reality for exploitation of government, or "big brother", power through social mediums, in the cases of "surveillance"--he does so in the lens George Orwell's "1984" provides.. With the increase in social networking, Braden exclaims that the government has naturally adapted its policy, to an extreme, in order to crass its grip on "power", essentially. Censorship is one of these facets of the suggested "surveillance", which is firmly present in the "Orwellian Nightmare". Braden says, "[...]key themes in 1984 is the effects of censorship... oppression of ideas contrary to government policy...internet has been hailed as an open forum...censorship has begun to manifest" (2), "Censorship is repression of information...As a limitation on freedom of speech...an abuse of power" (2). Braden, in some manner, is inferring that it’s almost recommended, and evident a country would want to suppress certain ideas, movement, and such, for the benefit of self-sovereignty, but they are simultaneously acts of democratic defiance--present day sentiments similar to "1984". Braden feels "surveillance" has altered the moniker of "privacy" as well. Commenting the government, "big brother", utilizes popular web-pages to accomplish the end-task, the breech. Braden says, "[...] receive and transmit simultaneously ...private life came to an end [...] Facebook. With over 60 million users sharing pictures, messages, and interest...the amount of personal data that the site contains is, however, worrying." (3) Logically speaking, Braden is stating the objective "obviousness" for "big brother" to use fixations, as Facebook and such, is far too tempting for those in the position not desire to do so. Affirming this vividly, "Although they claim that the data will be anonymised...the potential for abuse is huge." (4) Braden, overall, is displeased with the "surveillance state" essentially, and recommends the abuse of rights is a failure in judgement.
Anders Albrechtslund in next post.
Anders Albrechtslund, in the "Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance", coincides many of the agitations of Braden, and Orwell, however he doesn't harbor the same bullets. Albrechtslund understands the "surveillance" issue, similar with Braden, however Albrechtslund understands a symbiotic relation with all parties interacting--"big brother", the user, the social space. A "participatory" layer to the dialogue: which is coherently, accepted. Albrechtslund believing, "Surveillance is associated with snooping, spying and privacy invasion, and is a prevalent view that everything related to it should be avoided if possible."(5) Albrechtslund concedes the surveillance may be playing the power oriented role, as they possess a platonic "heirachy" over the user, but these interactions between these different entities can all be subjective--that the "surveillance suggested, may work , in fact, in a favor of the user, as well as the "over-seer". Albrechtslund suggests, "[...]surveillance can be seen as a flat relationship or even in favor of the person under surveillance, either negatively as actively resisting the gaze...or positively as exhibitionistic empowerment." (5) There is an "empowerment" present in "the practice of revealing your very personal life", these truthful messages "engage in the self con-construction of identity", and inspire "subjectivity". Albrechtslund feels the "surveillance" on any, web-site, or forum is an opportune for users to simply demonstrate their personality.
ReplyDeleteI don't partake in the social-networking moguls mostly applicable to the governmental surveillance “tirade". I don't believe the examples of the power directly affect me, but if enough of my peers are barred rights through government brute, then the problem becomes much bigger than a case by case situation--it is now a prospect of civilian rights. Censorship is the absolute greatest importance to me. If ideas are capped, and not allowed to ingest to masses in cyber space, then there is a clear assault on the populous, and abuse of government power.
Barry Henderson
DeleteEnglish 125/ E-journal #7
Professor Stephen J Addis D’Amato
11/13/12
Monitoring our lives
When it comes to the Internet I feel the government is playing catch up. They are trying to pass laws to help track and sensor activity because cyberspace is growing faster than anyone could imagine. Plus valuable information is being exchanged by some desirable and undesirable sources. This is where Peter Braden who wrote, “Is the Internet the Harbinger of Orwell’s Nightmares?” and Anders Albrechtslund who wrote “Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance” opinions begin to differ. Braden mainly talks about how “big brother” is watching our every move and trying to repress our involvement through surveillance and software such as “cleanfeed”(2). Which can limit people’s searches. Albrechtslund argued more about how and why online social networking can be empowering to the user by “meeting friends, constructing identity and socializing with strangers”(6). Stating that acts of engagement on the Internet are voluntary.
In my involvement with the Internet I tend to surf the web and frequent social media like “Facebook”. But it takes a lot of self-restraint when posting or sharing information. I am most wary about giving up my personal information on social sites. I have been known to post my exact location on occasion, which is a form of citizen surveillance. I also contribute to the web by offering critiques about restaurants that I visited on a site called “Yelp” which is very helpful when deciding where to eat. The Internet is like everything else in the world that involves the ying and yang. This means that with everything good comes a little bad and vise versa.
Eng-125
ReplyDeleteProf. D'Amato
E-Journal #7
Nov.13, 2012
Most agree that internet or social media is one of the ways how government or big corporations are monitoring our life. Anders Albrechtslund, in the "Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance” that he believes that internet somewhat is controlling our life. For example they can social network has so much data on billions of people like “characteristic of online networking is the sharing of activities, preferences, belief” (Albrechtslund 1). It shows that social network can change our way of thinking. Peter Braden in text, "Is The Internet The Harbinger Of Orwell's Nightmares?" He mainly argues about how he compares the social network and government to “big brother” it is watching our every moves and it is trying to control and influence us. Likewise this is there are supposed to be system of check and balances for society “To run efficient control systems, a considerable amount of information needs to be collected about participants”(Braden 1). That why there is social networking and internet is needed for the government or big corporations around the world. Both authors Braden and Albrechtslund agree that internet and social networking is controlling, influencing and changing our society.
Vanessa Raghubar
ReplyDeleteENG 125-RQ1
Prof. Addis D’Amato
E-Journal # 7
11/13/12
The internet hold the answers to almost any question and become of this society has become very depend on it. Being, blinded by this phenomenon we do not the danger and invasion of privacy the internet may possessed. In the article, “Is the Internet the Harbinger of Orwell’s nightmares?” by Peter Braden and “Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance” by Anders Albrechtslund both authors argued whether of not the internet was put there so that big governments and secret agencies can spy on the public. Braden expresses concern that with social networking sites makes it easier for the government to access information about an individual. Facebook for example, when registering it ask so many personal questions, why is that necessary? “When face book was set up in 2004, one of the first investments in the company was from venture capital firm Accel Partner, whose manager James Breyer previously served on the board of a company set up by the CIA. With such close ties to a government intelligence agency, it is no wonder why people are so suspicious of Facebook” (Braden 4). The government uses the internet as an easier gateway to spy on the public. Braden went on saying that what we put on the internet and eventually negatively affect us.
Albrechtslund like Braden discuss that the internet is like a webcam for the government. “ Most social networking sites ask their users to provide these sorts of details…the needed information to the profile people is not something hidden that must be uncovered or retrieved using exotic technologies” (Albrechtslund 3). When we delete things off the internet it does not really disappears. The government has certain technology that can retrieve such information whenever they want.
Sky Strang
ReplyDeleteENG 125- RQ1
Prof. Addis D’Amato
Response #7
The texts “Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance” by Anders Albrechtslund and “Is The Internet The Harbinger Of Orwell’s Nightmares?” by Peter Braden we see a similar view on the internet and the topic of surveillance. Both of these men believe that it is troubling with the amount of personal information put up and given to via social networking sites. A similar topic touched upon is people’s opportunities for employment or schooling because of their online life. According to Braden “It is now know that before hiring new employees, many companies do a background check on their internet presence which can often include an examination of their Facebook profile” (4). Albrechtslund also cites information from another named Tribble who believes “…that past online social networking will be damaging to an applicant’s chances for employment.” (4).
In all honesty I am proud to say I do not partake in citizen-surveillance. I can be found on many web sites but I unlike many others I know, do not have the need to share every bit of information that pops out of my head. I do leave a mark on the internet. You can fine me on social networking, this blog, and even the list of top 500 teams in World of Warcraft I can be found (although under my gaming name). From all the information based on my internet browsing the most a person can gather from me is I am a college student who enjoys games and electronic music. That isn’t much to go on and therefore surveillance of me is pretty much useless. I am not wary of anything on the internet because of a natural common sense about what I should and shouldn’t do and/or make public.
ADJEWAAH BOAHEN
ReplyDeleteENGLISH 125
PROF. DAMATO
JOURNAL #7
The word internet can be defined as a worldwide system of computer networks used to exchange information. The internet first came around the 1957 and has been in process since then. Even though the internet system serves as very helpful and valuable, there are some disadvantages that come along with it. The moment ones computer or electronic device gets connected to the Internet, that's an automatic "goodbye" to one 's privacy. Even though there ways one could set their internet usage to “private” the government will always have access to all information. Any action that takes place on the Internet leaves traces behind and is monitored by the government and other spying services of the government. In the articles “Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance by Anders Albrechtslund” and Is The Internet The Harbinger Of Orwell's Nightmares by Peter Braden, both authors share almost the same views about the whole concept about the internet.
“While privacy maybe at risk in social networking sites, information is willingly provided” (Albrechtslund ,4) .When registering in social networking sites, all kinds of information and without submitting the required information, the registration wont be processed. The information we provide not only on social networks but other sites as well deprives us from having privacy in which just by providing our email address, all of our information can be accessed.''With the development of television and the technical advances which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to and end”(Braden,4). No matter how and what you delete from the internet/ sites visited, there will always be leftovers that allows the government and other surveillance services to keep track of your every move on the internet.
I do participate in citizen surveillance because on the blog I always read other students comments so I can have a brief idea of how to put my journal entries together. Also since I am involved with a social network, I tend took browse through other peoples profiles/ pages all the time to see whats going on and sometimes out of boredom or just for fun. I do contribute on some sites like “reading sites” but not as much as I did before because of the government’s spying procedures. When surfing on the internet I turn off my location services at all times. Most of the time when information is required to register on some sites, I don’t to give up my information unless educational wise because even with the least information you provide your whole life story can be accessed through.
Mohsina Fayeza
ReplyDeleteENG 125-RQ1
Prof. Addis D’Amato
Ejournal#7
11/2/12
Watched upon to be protected
Anders Albrechtslund, in the "Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance” and Peter Braden in, "Is the Internet the Harbinger of Orwell's Nightmares?" expresses their concerns on the surveillance of citizens by the government and other agencies.They both share a common view on the topic . The usefulness of the internet can be perceived by seeing our unlimited use of it. The internet has all the answers to all the question even though they might not be always hundred percent true. Replacing dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books the search engines of the online world have made our work easier and eventually made us more efficient as it saves time as well. But with the convenience it provides lies the hidden fear of being watched over. The ip address is monitored and all your activities and recorded might not send a chilly feeling to us if we are doing nothing harmful but it does give a sense of agitation. Though the authors are concerned about the surveillance but eventually this is only done to protect us from any mishaps. Braden justifies “it is probable that intelligence agencies use information from social networking tools for profiling…” (4). The citizens are spied upon so that no one can harm the citizens be it one of them.
From social networking websites information about us can be spread over to various sources which we do not even realize. So when participating in these sites it’s our duty to maintain the information we are willingly giving off. As Albrechtslund points out “ the idea of social networking sites as sources of secondary purposes….” (3). The information we are giving out might seem only reaching our friends but the actual destination may be different from our expectations. So we need to protect ourselves with our actions in the ‘cyber space’ as we never know who is watching us and from where.
Michelle Andrade
ReplyDeleteENG-125
Prof. Addis D’Amato
E-Journal #7
11/25/2012
Privacy Invasion
Braden’s and Albrechtslund share a similar approach arguing that the citizens being under surveillance by the government and secret agencies, in result their privacy is being infringed upon. The share the same ideology, according to the dangers surveillance imposes and how it plays a role on mutuality, empowerment and sharing. One minor difference between both authors is that Braden focuses on the tie with censorship and government surveillance and the risk that the misuse of internet brings about. Conversely, In “Online social networking as participatory surveillance” Albrechtslund states “I would like to hold on to the idea of surveillance being a mutual practice… I will replace the vertical relation with a horizontal, which makes it possible to understand some of the positive aspects of being under (mutual) surveillance.” (6) While Albrechtslund connects the internet with participatory surveillance and not lateral surveillance.
Some potential results of the internet’s ability to replicate and publish information are worry some. Because the web has a large capacity of users that are able to edit information/websites especially with government interference, it has stirred confusion in the accuracy of the data. In “Is the internet The Harbinger of Orwell’s Nightmare?” it discusses the rewriting of history, “Fabricated to justify government decisions and to manipulate public opinion.” (2) Wikiscanner and safeguards have been created to minimize the defrauding of the data. In addition, Cleanfeed has been created to filter and block access to certain websites on a block list possibly by the government which is not allowing one to have the right to know what’s going on if they can’t access the information.
While the government is invading our privacy, citizen surveillance has played a slight role in my life, when it comes to Facebook or Instagram. I would scroll down my news feed. I do not contribute to content on the web, when it comes to editing history or data on the internet. My concern with the internet is that our rights are going to be violated inn front of our eyes and are not going to be put to a stop because we allow it, by entertaining the media and social networks.