Thursday - Oct 21, 2010
The Internet will reach a milestone by the end of the year. According to a new report from the International Telecommunication Union, over 2 billion people, not quite a third of the world’s population, will be online. As you might suspect, there are huge disparities: 65% of Europeans are online, but only 9.6% of Africans; in the Americas, it’s 55%.
Perhaps more interesting is the number of gadgets connected to the Net. According to IBM, the number may exceed 2 billion. Think of all the smartphones, devices with embedded sensors and webcams out there. Our interconnected world is now a global neural network with vast implications for life as we know it. How will it affect you? Watch the video and weigh in with your thoughts.
For an intriguing look at some of the more amazing things the Internet has inspired, check out a multimedia presentation from Google Creative Labs.
Monday - Oct 18, 2010
In 2002 President Bush signed a secret order authorizing the super-secret National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans. The NSA monitored telephone calls, e-mail and other electronic communications looking for contact with suspected terrorists. Under U.S. law, domestic spying is illegal unless a warrant is issued by a court. Despite the illegality of domestic surveillance, the practice continues.
Recently the Electronic Frontier Foundation received government documents under the Freedom of Information Act. One of the documents from the Immigration Service reveals how social networking sites were used to detect fraud by applicants for U.S. citizenship. According to the memo:
“Narcissistic tendencies in many people fuels a need to have a large group of “friends” link to their pages and many of these people accept cyber-friends that they don’t even know. This provides an excellent vantage point for FDNS to observe the daily life of beneficiaries and petitioners who are suspected of fraudulent activities.
This social networking gives FDNS an opportunity to reveal fraud by browsing these sites to see if petitioners and beneficiaries are in a valid relationship or are attempting to deceive [United States Citizen and Immigration Services] about their relationship. Once a user posts online, they create a public record and timeline of their activities. In essence, using MySpace and other like sites is akin to doing an unannounced cyber “site-visit” on a [sic] petitioners and beneficiaries.”
The Social Network Monitoring Center (SNMC), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, ran an operation prior to the Obama inauguration in 2008 that monitored social networks for any signs of suspicious activity. For a fascinating insight into the clandestine caper, check out this PowerPoint presentation.
It’s unclear what operations are currently active, but given how much personal information people reveal about themselves online, one can only assume that the monitoring is ongoing. The takeaways from these revelations? Be careful who you “friend”; personal information you post on social media sites is publicly available.
Monday - Oct 11, 2010
For years, security experts have warned of the danger of cyberwars. By attacking critical computer systems a nation can be brought to its knees by disrupting the power grid and financial, transportation and communications systems. It’s not as far-fetched as you may think.
Recently a computer virus forced Iran to delay the launch of a nuclear power facility. Iranian security experts have charged that the Stuxnet worm is a state-sponsored attack that may have originated in the United States or Israel. More disturbing, however, is a growing movement by governments to ban the spread not of viruses, but of ideas–ideas that they claim threaten their very survival.
Lead by Russia, a group of countries that includes China, India and Brazil, wants to combat “information wars” — ideas used by one country to destabilize the government of another. Russia has introduced a resolution in the United Nations that would ban state-sponsored “information terrorism.” For instance, under the resolution, promoting the idea of democracy in North Korea would be banned. I suppose that promoting capitalism in China would also qualify as “information terrorism.”
According to James Lewis, an adviser to the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research, “An official from one of those countries told me [that] Twitter is an American plot to destabilize foreign governments. That’s what they think. And so they’re asking, ‘How do we get laws that control the information weapon?’ ” Fortunately for those who value free speech, it may not be so easy.
The other night I went to see “Howl”, a film that tells the story of arguably the most famous poem of the 20th century written by its most influential poet, Allen Ginsberg.
In 1957, a small San Francisco publisher, City Lights Books, published “Howl and Other Poems” by the then obscure poet. In an attempt to ban the sale of the book, the city of San Francisco prosecuted the publisher, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, alleging that the poem was obscene.
Although the prosecution objected to certain “dirty words” contained in the poem, it was really trying to suppress the ideas expressed by the rebellious writer. “It was that it was a direct attack on American society and the American way of life,” said Ferlinghetti. Sound familiar? Not so different than the argument now being made by Russia and China.
More ominously, if the case against “Howl” was successful, the censors had other books in their crosshairs. The trial was just the opening shot of a culture war.
In a landmark ruling Judge Clayton Horn dismissed the charge, ruling that “Howl” had “redeeming social importance” and was therefore protected by the First Amendment. In an ironic twist, the failed prosecution of “Howl” not only made Ginsberg famous, but paved the way for the publication of other books that might have faced similar charges. The floodgates had opened, affirming Americans’ right to uncensored information.
Will Russia’s attempt to control the Internet backfire as well? Only time will tell, but I bet that right now, there’s some ingenious teenager working on the next Twitter–a technology that will terrify and subvert the established order.
For another perspective on the power of new media, check out Malcolm Gladwell’s article in the New Yorker, “Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted.”
