www.nytimes.com
by Brad Stone
April 9, 2007
There are many people who believe the World Wide Web is uncivilized. Because of this, "high profile figures in high-tech" are trying to come up with rules and guidelines for online debates and discussions. Most of these rules will be affecting the world of blogs. And the article stated, "bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship."
I believe this will be very beneficial in the attempt to make the Web civilized. People don't really know what is acceptable online and this will give people a sense of direction. Furthermore, the people who do know how to act online aren't doing so because there are no set rules and I think if they make a set of guidelines people will be more in touch and will follow these rules.
In addition, this will limit the misconduct that goes on on the Web and will hopefully decrease the amount of conversations that could lead into much worse accounts.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Monday, April 2, 2007
"Sports Organizations Try to Limit Online Reporting"
www.nytimes.com
By Doreen Carvajal
April 2, 2007
This September, during the Rugby World Cup, there will be new restrictions put on the use of photographs, stats, and information about the games that is put online. The article says that, "the rugby board is limiting the number of game photos that can be published in online news sites during competition.
Some of the photographs have pictures or phrases of the teams sponsors, and this is the believed reason as to why they are trying to limit the number of photographs. However, the International Rugby Board said it has to do with their own online site, that gives information and stats about each game and provides pictures. They continued to talk about how other online sites are taking away from their own site.
In addition, the Pan American Games just banned their participating athletes from blogging.
With all of this in mind, I don't believe it's fair for the board to ban the use of game information and pictures for online sites. If the press is allowed to attend the games and take pictures they should be allowed to post and update their site using the information. Also, I don't understand why the Pan American Games would ban their athletes from blogging. One athlete commented on the issue saying, "blogging in general is a cathartic outlet for competitors to release pent-up thoughts and feelings."
By Doreen Carvajal
April 2, 2007
This September, during the Rugby World Cup, there will be new restrictions put on the use of photographs, stats, and information about the games that is put online. The article says that, "the rugby board is limiting the number of game photos that can be published in online news sites during competition.
Some of the photographs have pictures or phrases of the teams sponsors, and this is the believed reason as to why they are trying to limit the number of photographs. However, the International Rugby Board said it has to do with their own online site, that gives information and stats about each game and provides pictures. They continued to talk about how other online sites are taking away from their own site.
In addition, the Pan American Games just banned their participating athletes from blogging.
With all of this in mind, I don't believe it's fair for the board to ban the use of game information and pictures for online sites. If the press is allowed to attend the games and take pictures they should be allowed to post and update their site using the information. Also, I don't understand why the Pan American Games would ban their athletes from blogging. One athlete commented on the issue saying, "blogging in general is a cathartic outlet for competitors to release pent-up thoughts and feelings."
Monday, March 26, 2007
"1 in 10 British Internet users victim of fraud"
www.chinaview.cn
By Gareth Dodd
March 26, 2007
According to the article, one in ten British Internet users have been victims of fraud online in 2006. In addition, they have lost an average of $1,716. These people have been victims because they do not protect themselves online by not keeping their protection software up to date. The article says, "Six percent of internet users, or 1.7 million people, suffered fraud shopping online, while 4 percent (or 1.2 million) were victims of bank account or credit card fraud."
In a survey done, half the people believe that they are responsible for protecting themselves online from fraud, however, most believe that the banks or online stores are responsible for this.
I believe most of the responsibility should be on yourself, as an internet user. Although, the online sites should provide a great system of protection from hackers. It is a persons own responsibility to keep their computer protection software up to date and installed on their computer. Also, in terms of online banking, I believe a person should be able to protect themselves by picking a good password that isn't easy to figure out for hackers and the user should change their password often to protect themselves from fraud.
By Gareth Dodd
March 26, 2007
According to the article, one in ten British Internet users have been victims of fraud online in 2006. In addition, they have lost an average of $1,716. These people have been victims because they do not protect themselves online by not keeping their protection software up to date. The article says, "Six percent of internet users, or 1.7 million people, suffered fraud shopping online, while 4 percent (or 1.2 million) were victims of bank account or credit card fraud."
In a survey done, half the people believe that they are responsible for protecting themselves online from fraud, however, most believe that the banks or online stores are responsible for this.
I believe most of the responsibility should be on yourself, as an internet user. Although, the online sites should provide a great system of protection from hackers. It is a persons own responsibility to keep their computer protection software up to date and installed on their computer. Also, in terms of online banking, I believe a person should be able to protect themselves by picking a good password that isn't easy to figure out for hackers and the user should change their password often to protect themselves from fraud.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
"U.S. judge strikes down Internet porn law"
www.nytimes.com
By Robert Campbell
March 23, 2007
On Thursday March 22nd, a U.S. federal court ruled that the law of Child Online Protection Act, which protects children from viewing porn on websites, violates free speech rights. The American Civil Liberties Union brought this case up and they believe that this law is violating the First Amendment.
According to the article, the Child Online Protection Act "made it a crime for any person to provide minors access to "harmful material" over the Internet."
Most believe that software protection is enough to protect children from being able to access and view pornographic sites, however, it is also believed that the software is ineffective because many parents do not install or update the software. Therefore, many kids are granted access to viewing these sites.
By Robert Campbell
March 23, 2007
On Thursday March 22nd, a U.S. federal court ruled that the law of Child Online Protection Act, which protects children from viewing porn on websites, violates free speech rights. The American Civil Liberties Union brought this case up and they believe that this law is violating the First Amendment.
According to the article, the Child Online Protection Act "made it a crime for any person to provide minors access to "harmful material" over the Internet."
Most believe that software protection is enough to protect children from being able to access and view pornographic sites, however, it is also believed that the software is ineffective because many parents do not install or update the software. Therefore, many kids are granted access to viewing these sites.
Monday, March 12, 2007
"States scrutinize minors' security on MySpace"
www.csmonitor.com
By Alexandra Marks
March 12th, 2007
As we all know, there have been many cases where men have set up times to meet with girl minors. Therefore, the state of Connecticut is trying to push for a bill that will limit this from happening. They became the first state in the United States to "introduce legislation that would require MySpace, other social networking sites, and chat rooms to verify the ages of their users. Any postings by those under 18 would require parental permission. Failure to comply would result in a fine to the Internet company of $5,000 per incident." However, MySpace feels as if the legislation has good intentions, but will be ineffective if fixing this problem.
I believe what Connecticut is doing is a good thing because it will prevent incidents like this from happening. Furthermore, by putting a restriction on a site where a minor needs permission from an adult, this will give parents more control over what their children are doing on the internet.
This form of protection, age verification, is already used for many other things, such as buying alcohol and cigarettes online, therefore, it should be just as effective. In the end, this should limit the number of sex offenses that take place over the internet.
By Alexandra Marks
March 12th, 2007
As we all know, there have been many cases where men have set up times to meet with girl minors. Therefore, the state of Connecticut is trying to push for a bill that will limit this from happening. They became the first state in the United States to "introduce legislation that would require MySpace, other social networking sites, and chat rooms to verify the ages of their users. Any postings by those under 18 would require parental permission. Failure to comply would result in a fine to the Internet company of $5,000 per incident." However, MySpace feels as if the legislation has good intentions, but will be ineffective if fixing this problem.
I believe what Connecticut is doing is a good thing because it will prevent incidents like this from happening. Furthermore, by putting a restriction on a site where a minor needs permission from an adult, this will give parents more control over what their children are doing on the internet.
This form of protection, age verification, is already used for many other things, such as buying alcohol and cigarettes online, therefore, it should be just as effective. In the end, this should limit the number of sex offenses that take place over the internet.
Monday, March 5, 2007
"Assault spurs school YouTube ban"
www.cnn.com
by the Associated Press
March 1st, 2007
YouTube, an internet site where users can upload their own personal videos for the public to view is, for the most part, a positive thing. However, some times people walk the fine line of whether the videos they upload are appropriate or not.
YouTube has a policy that whenever someone uploads a video, the video is reviewed by YouTube first before it is actually published online for the public to view. I think this is a great way of keeping illegal things offline and in most cases, out of the view of minors.
This article said that Victoria, a state in Australia, "banned the popular video-sharing site from its 1,600 government schools after a gang of male school students videotaped their assault on a 17-year-old girl on the outskirts of Melbourne." The educators and officials of these schools believe that YouTube should be blocked from the students in the schools because 'every student has the right to learn in a safe and supportive environment.'
I agree with what the schools government did about banning YouTube in their schools. Some things on the YouTube website are not appropriate for children of that age and this is an easy way of protecting them at school. However, what the children do at home under the watch of their parents may be different, but that's another issue with many concerns among people.
by the Associated Press
March 1st, 2007
YouTube, an internet site where users can upload their own personal videos for the public to view is, for the most part, a positive thing. However, some times people walk the fine line of whether the videos they upload are appropriate or not.
YouTube has a policy that whenever someone uploads a video, the video is reviewed by YouTube first before it is actually published online for the public to view. I think this is a great way of keeping illegal things offline and in most cases, out of the view of minors.
This article said that Victoria, a state in Australia, "banned the popular video-sharing site from its 1,600 government schools after a gang of male school students videotaped their assault on a 17-year-old girl on the outskirts of Melbourne." The educators and officials of these schools believe that YouTube should be blocked from the students in the schools because 'every student has the right to learn in a safe and supportive environment.'
I agree with what the schools government did about banning YouTube in their schools. Some things on the YouTube website are not appropriate for children of that age and this is an easy way of protecting them at school. However, what the children do at home under the watch of their parents may be different, but that's another issue with many concerns among people.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)