Blog Post #5

Consequences for the Absence of Regulation

Social networking sites, Facebook and MySpace, recently released their proposals for targeted marketing. Both sites will now have banner and flyer ads catered to the specific interests, location and hobbies of the sites' users. The sites' gold mine of information from users is now a means of profit for the companies. 

But how do the sites directly target the users? They collect the users' personal information and monitor it. Is that right? Many privacy advocacy groups like the Center for Digital Democracy don't think so. The CDD has filed a complaint for the Federal Trade Commission to impose regulations for online marketing. (See "New Facebook, MySpace Ad Programs Prompt FTC Complaint")

"New technology has brought extraordinary benefits to society, but it has also placed all of us in an electronic fishbowl in which our habits, tastes and activities are watched and recorded, " New York Governor Eliot Spitzer said when he was attorney general (from Simon Garfinkel's article "Privacy and the New Techonology:What They Know Can Hurt You."  The Internet has remained a free market for all to use as they wish. Most embrace this uncontrolled freedom of speech and typically forget about the consequences that can arise from it. 

The lack of Internet regulation has allowed for businesses to obtain typically private information. And yes, it can be a good thing - like recommended readings on Amazon.com or an ad for the band you like - but does it invade our privacy? The companies do not think so.  And if they can continue to increase profit from collecting and marketing data, they never will. 

Imposing regulations for online marketing would be a tricky issue though. Once government regulation of the Internet starts, it will be hard to stop it. So In Thomas Claburn's article "Privacy versus Personalisation" alternatives such as an opt-out program are described. Claburn said one approach is to allow Internet users control over what information is collected about themselves. Another suggestion is for companies to better inform consumers of companies' privacy policies and what data is colllected.

The CDD and other advocacy groups have called for a "Do Not Track" list similar to the "Do Not Call" list. Claburn said, "Talk of a Do Not Track list is a clear red flag that it's time for online marketers to address consumer concerns about privacy and manipulation. If they don't, others - regulators and legislators - could step in." 

So to keep our freedom of speech safe, we better get used to seeing ads and websites act like they know us and all of our interests. Or we have to continue to find ways to avoid being targeted by advertisers and big businesses looking for more profit. 

Blog Post #4

Open Access to the Internet

The Internet was founded and based upon the principle of open access; however, media mergers and the rise of broadband threaten the history of open access. The current trend is toward closed access to the Internet.

Open access is allowing people to browse, transmit and publish content as they want particularly in regards to being able to chose their Internet Service Provider (ISP).

Pat Aufderheide, author of "The Threat to the Net," started his article with a great point about media ownership: "Who owns the Internet? If you think the answer is 'nobody,' you're right - for now. That's why it has been such an astonishing innovation that has flourished so vibrantly as the grassroots."

With the innovation and placement of broadband into more and more Internet users' hands, cable companies are moving to closed access of the Internet. Aufderheide hypothesized and displayed some examples of the movement of the Internet in his 2000 article, but more examples are frequently occurring in the media.

In "The Threat to the Net," Aufderheide said that the AT&T's ISP, Excite@Home, will not allow more than 10 minutes of video sent at a time. This restriction may enable more people to use the Internet at once, but it also restricts people's freedom to publish and access more graphically intense sites.

More recently, Comcast Cable has acknowledged slowing down the connection between file-sharing computers. On Thursday, November 1, consumer groups and legal scholars filed a petition for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to stop Comcast from interfering in its customer's Internet actions including file-sharing.

This movement toward closed access is happening because, as the Media Access Project described, "for years, the FCC has refused to require cable companies to open their networks in the same way that they required the telephone companies to open their networks to the dial-up Internet."

Some communities such as Seattle and Portland, Oregon have fought against the large media companies for open access. Ron Sims, who worked for open access in Seattle, said it's about control of content, freedom of speech and choice.

Other consumer groups have formed such as the Net Neutrality Squad. The goal of the group is to "help keep the Internet's operations fair and unhindered from unreasonable restrictions."

But it is hard to fight against the evil media empires. AT&T told Portland City Commissioner Erik Sten "We hope you have a large legal budget," when he demanded that AT&T allow "nondiscriminatory broadband access."

For Internet users such as myself, it takes reporting interference to consumer groups for backing, to the FCC, complaining to the companies. We even need to try and get legislators involved. In the end it will be worth the struggle because as Aufderheide said, "too many people have sampled an open information system to settle for less."

Blog Post #3

Are You Protecting Your Dirt?

Normally when you think of Internet regulation, you think of the government attempting to control the flow of information and what is online. However, people need to regulate the Internet as it pertains to them.

Do you want people to dig up your dirt? I doubt so; most information posted on social sites is intended only for friends and family. “It's public, and there is a false sense of security surrounding these sites perpetuated by the environment itself,” says Ken Rogers, senior management recruiter at Trader Publishing, in an article about how online profiles affect job searches.

The United States is as Neil Swidey described “A Nation of Voyeurs.” Employers google current and prospective employees. People google their dates or significant others. Students google professors to find out dirt. Everyone searches someone every now and then.

According to a recent poll conducted by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, 26.9 percent of employers report googling potential employees.

In order to prevent all of your dirty secrets from being aired (think Miss USA and former Miss Nevada), guard yourself and self-regulate your information online.

Here are some simple tips for information posted on social networking sites:

• Do not post your full name and contact information.
• Swidey wrote, "once information gets online somewhere, it spreads so fast that it's virtually impossible for it ever to be private again."
• Use privacy settings to your advantage.
• Only allow certain people to access your profile.
• Don’t post embarrassing photos or photos of you doing illegal things.
• If a friend posts the photo, ask him to take it down. If they don’t, at least untag yourself in the photo.
• “You shouldn't broadcast or share any information that you wouldn't want to share with your parents, or that you would be ashamed of should it appear on the front page of the newspaper. Follow that and you can't go wrong,” Rogers says.

For stronger privacy settings, you can create an online profile without revealing your true identity. In David Weinberger’s “A New Small World (Small Pieces Loosely Joined),” .Zannah is someone’s web identity. She could have personified .Zannah with herself in the quizzes and lists she wrote, or it could be a created identity.

.Zannah shows how to share information and connect with other people without giving others an entryway into all your personal information. She had a homepage linked to her blog; however, her location and description was, as Weinberger described, still fairly discreet.

Why protect your information at all? To prevent ex-boyfriends (or ex-girlfriends like Amanda in Swidey's article) from getting back at you. To try and prevent cyberstalkers. To help prevent identity theft. To make sure there aren't monsters in the closet when applying for a job.

Yes, there is only so much you can do to protect yourself online. But taking preventative measures is better than believing nothing can happen to you.

Blog Post #2

Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property is the material of the Internet. But how can this owned knowledge or expression, as Charles Mann describes intellectual property in “Who Will Own Your Next Good Idea?” be prevented from being copied? Can copyright even truly exist on the Internet?

As the Internet has grown to include more people, intellectual property can reach more people. Businesses could see this as a potential to expand and profit more, but technology is prohibiting this from happening.

File-sharing sites such as the old-school Napster and the newer Kazaa and LimeWire have allowed people to share their music, software, movies, pictures, among other items with users across the world without regard to copyright limitations.

According to Mann sites like these and DVD-R and CD-R burners have caused industries to lose billions of dollars. For example the Motion Picture Association estimated a loss of $2.5 billion due to piracy in 1998.

But, some people say that these businesses already make enough money, so it’s okay to reuse the material over the Internet. Others such as John Perry Barlow from the Grateful Dead said allowing people to free access will increase their want to buy the original material.

Barlow's idea of allowing free intellectual property is becoming more common among aspiring artists and even popular ones like Radiohead. MySpace pages have blossomed many careers in the music and even acting business.

For example, iTunes offers a free download of the week for artists. One week the single was “Bom Bom Bom” by Living Things and within a few weeks, I heard the song at the base of commercials. Or just a few months ago, Cobbie Calliat’s single “Bubbly” was the giveaway for the week. Within two weeks, I heard the song playing on top 20 formatted radio stations.

Mann wrote, “Copyright should not impede artistic efforts to explain or times. Nor should we let it interfere with the relation between producers and consumers of art.” All the talk about how to regulate and prevent people from copying innovative material takes away from the uniqueness of the Internet.

It allows people to link something they like over and over to more and more people, creating an even larger target market for businesses. Review those two musicians and see where their careers are now – the music isn’t free anymore, but people are still buying it.

The media are just upset consumers are not directly buying everything from them anymore.

Blog Post #1

Regulation of Internet Gambling

Internet gambling is a growing business that has influence globally. However, in the United States, Internet gambling across state boundaries and international borders is illegal.

The country of Antigua and Barbuda battled the U.S.’s Wire Act with the World Trade Organization. Antigua viewed that the law violated global fair trading practices. The little Caribbean island country stood up to the U.S. and won even through two U.S. appeals.

The WTO’s decision stated that the U.S. did not prove public moral or any other need for the complete ban on online gambling. The upheld decision calls into question what the U.S. will do about Internet gambling.

Because a dominant government cannot control the Internet and its commerce, the U.S. regulation of Internet gambling requires examination into all possible options.

One suggestion is to legalize online gambling (however, this would create problems in continuity between state and federal rights because currently individual states decide whether gambling is legal within the state). That way, as many debaters on BusinessWeek.com suggest, the government could regulate the flow of the money. With regulation of Internet gambling, taxes could be collected. For example, in parts of Great Britain legal betting is taxed even when completed online.

American citizens gamble online despite U.S. law. Besides, current laws only apply to gambling businesses, not individual gamblers. Most gambling businesses hold their headquarters (aka servers) outside of the U.S., so the U.S. does not have power to shut them down or regulate the sites. Therefore, another possibility would be to not change the law.

However, Nelson Rose, a law professor at Whittier Law School, said the international trend in Internet gambling is toward more government regulation.

Even though gambling can become just like an alcohol addiction, it is the individual’s right to chose to live responsibly or not. Government cannot attempt to eliminate all risks for its citizens; Its job is to protect and handle matters outside an individual's abilities.

The U.S. may just have to remember that it really does not rule the world.