How dependable is the information that is available on the internet? Is the internet taking over our social lives? This week in our Internet and Society class, we did and evaluation of the internet. Some agree that the internet has caused persons to be less sociable. However, the internet has now made it much easier to connect with people around the world. There is also the possibility of making new friends in other countries. This can also be a downside because connecting with a criminal can be a possibility.
Is there a possibility of an increase in fraud as a result of the internet? I believe that there is a vast increase of fraud since the internet was introduced. Any information on the internet can be viewed by other people. One has to be extremely careful with the information that they put on the internet.
The internet has its advantages and disadvantages. Like anything else it has it good and bad. What is important is how and what it is used for.
Lately there has been some controversy over business owners screening prospective employees over Facebook. How ironic. These same employees who are screening their prospective employees are now banning the use of social networks in the workplace.
Many people are in agreement while some are of the strong that social sites contribute to how productive an employee becomes. I am of the opinion that it all depends on the nature of your job. For example as an FBI agent because of the way Facebook operates it may be asset because one is able to establish connections and links of individuals that are under investigation. However, for a profession such as teaching, is it really necessary in the workplace? Yes I know that can be debated.
Social sites can hinder productivity because employees may spend hours on these sites while they could be performing on the job duties. Others may use their judgment and visit the sites as a break to relax from the stress of the jobs. Some employees may also rebel because they believe that employers are restricting their freedom, and are not allowing the opportunity to use their judgment.
Are there any benefits for employers using social sites? Of course there is. Some companies use the sites to connect with customers, and advertise their new products.
How difficult or easy it is to stay off Facebook while at work?
How many of us with a Facebook go one day without visiting the site? The following site highlights 5 problems with social networking in the workplace. Do you agree?
Identity theft and credit card fraud are very serious issues that society is faced with. Credit card fraud can put you in immediate debt. Most times it is too late when one discovers that their credit card information has been stolen. Identity theft is also a serious crime, and can have lasting implication. People seldom ever completely recover from identity theft.
Is identity theft more serious than credit card fraud? I am of the strong opinion that it actually is. As I said before, credit card fraud puts one in immediate debt. I believe that one can recover from debt. However, as it relates to identity theft there are implications other than just debt.
Identity theft can include loss of individual identity, financial information, driver’s license, voter registration, passport and even social security number. Loss of these can cause emotional distress and anxiety. Also, someone who uses another’s identity may tarnish the reputation of the person’s identity that they stole. Re-establishing a legal identity can be difficult and long process.
I believe that identity theft and credit card fraud can both be avoided but not totally eradicated. I have attached a link from the Wall Street Journal which includes some tips on how to protect you from identity theft and credit card fraud.
When it comes to the internet there are so many things that we have to be careful about. Information that we put on the internet can have serious repercussion. Very often we blindly click on links from our email, and think that it is so legitimate. Then we get “hooked” by phishers. E-mails are often used by phishers to get people’s information such as passwords, and credit card information.
Phishing emails can appear to be very legitimate. I remember getting a particular email that asked to reactivate my amazon account by entering my credit card information. However, I did not fall for it because I knew that my amazon account had not expired, and I recognized the URL was not http://www.amazon.com it was www.amazon.suspiciousnamehere.com.
It is possible for anyone to fall into a phishing scam, as a result I feel inspired to educate others about it. There are several ways to spot phishing. I have attached a link which shows how to spot a phishing scam. So before you blindly click on that link in your email, click on this. http://bit.ly/9Jirke
For this week’s Internet and Society class we were teased on the following questions. This gave me insight to understand what fair-use and copyright actually means.
Is the remix/reuse a “fair use”? Why or why not? (include a discussion of the four factors that are considered in fair-use cases)
Remix/reuse has practically become normal for many of us. Many videos and songs are remixes. Some are remixed for fun and some are done for profit. The question is whether the remix is fair use. In the remix of Little Sister originally done by Elvis Presley I would have to say that the remix is not fair-use based on the four factors of fair-use cases in the “Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians”. Fair-use is not necessarily a right. The song was a remix done for a club and not for educational purposes. The remix of the whole song was used for entertainment by a club which cannot be considered a non-profit organization. There is a possibility that there may be an economic loss that the copyright holder is entitled to. The remix of this song may compete with the original. People may tend to purchase the remix over the original.
Who benefits from the remix/reuse? The original creator? The remixer/reuser? The audience? Why?
The club and the audience would tend to benefit more from the remix. The remixer could sell the remix and make a profit. Also the audience has the option to purchase and enjoy the music. The remix was done to suit a certain crowd. The environment in which the song is being played satisfies the audience and the remixer.
In “Walking on Eggshells,” Jordan Roseman said, “there’s no question that at some point using other people’s recordings is 100% your creativity and then at some point it is 0% your creativity.” What do you think he meant by this statement and how does it apply to your example?
In “Walking on Eggshells”, when Jordan Roseman says “at some point using other people’s recording is 100% your creativity”, I believe he meant that one is able to take something and make it into anything they want to. One can be creative and use someone else’s recording for a different purpose than what it was originally created for. At some point it is 0% their creativity because they were not the ones who produced or created the original recording. For example in the remix of Little Sister, the beat that was added, and the music in the background is the creativity of the remixer DJ Ethan. It was created to satisfy his audience. The remix can be considered 100% his. However the original song was done by Elvis Presley so it is 0% DJ Ethan’s.
Do you agree or disagree with the artists’ viewpoints as expressed in “Walking on Eggshells”? Why?
I do agree with the artists viewpoints as expressed in “Walking on Eggshells”. Something has to come from somewhere. People get inspired by things that they either hear or see. Someone can create something, then another person can make something completely different from that same original creation. Some of the greatest artist reproduced songs that were not originally theirs and became famous as result. The songs may not have originally been theirs but because of their creativity in reproducing the songs they benefited.
There is a popular belief that net-neutrality encourages an anti-government mentality. Several tweets that I came across this week made reference to Mitt Romney’s rejection of net-neutrality. With the introduction of net-neutrality there is no control over what one puts on the internet. Many people use social networks as a medium to express themselves freely. Will there be any form of protectrion for the youth and the rest of society?
Network neutrality basically allows for free use of the internet. Without net- neutrality would there still be internet? How much control is too much or too little? Without net-neutrality the internet will become less entertaining for some people which could cause a fewer number of people to join the social networks. As a result owners of these networks would operate at a loss. This would result in these sites having to shut down.
When Elihu Katz came up with the Uses and Gratification Approach he indicated that people use the media to their benefit. One of the five basic assumptions is that, “in the mass communication process much initiative in linking need gratification and media choice lies with the audience member.” This assumption highlights the fact that individuals’ opinions are very powerful as compared to the media. Many people use the internet to their benefit more than the internet uses them.