SECOND LIFE IN VIRTUAL CHILD SEX SCANDAL

I thought this was interesting seeing how we have discussed second life in class. I find this real disturbing for two reasons. One its online so how seriously messed up do you have to be and two isn't this a second life to get away from the norms of the sick twisted world we live in already, and why was this an option in second life. i really don't understand how second life works but I don't believe that "buying sex" should be an option if you are under a certain age or posing under a certain age. There should be a monitor to stop this act from happening.
BUSH WANTS PHONE FIRMS IMMUNE TO PRIVACY SUITS/ This goes more with what i am writing my paper on which is privacy. In the third party doctrine an authority figure who has a legit reason can get your telephone, bank ect. data without a warrant and now your interent data is included. Here a bunch of telephone companies after 9/11 helped president Bush out and now they are being sued. My point in writing about it's relevance is a phone bill only tells you who you called not what you talked about, but in a computer you can find out everything, every convo on AIM you had, every site you visited, everything you bought and everything you downloaded. With our technology changing shouldn't our laws change too?

Freedom Of Speech

I was looking through all my articles and I really don't think i ever wrote one about freedom of speech. All of my articles could potentially have a way of leading into the 1st amendment but none at this current time do, however some of the articles for my paper i have gathered do talk about the like between privacy and freedom of speech, which is always interesting to learn about. Like Do the makers of a website that has minor"threats" and abusive language have a right to privacy within their supporters? and is their speech protected. Well how about the names of the people this site puts on their list, do they have a right to privacy and not having their names on the list or is it free speech to be able to write and say stuff about them including their names? in the article New Version Of Nuremberg Files Yanked Off Web I can only see the fact that their 1st amendment right is not being violated. Put aside my own personal feelings with the issue, I do believe both pro-choice and pro-life activists have a right to express to their world their own opinion and even have websites adhering to that issue. However this website was different, It gave out names and addresses of doctors and escorts for abortion clinics and this could cause harm to these doctors etc. and they had threats and slandering words on there website which is not a right you have. Do i believe they have free speech to express their hatred for pro-choice's? yes but to have threats and harmful words NO it is not protected. . "he case was brought by several abortion providers and organizations to stop the distribution of Old West-style "WANTED" posters of abortion providers called, the "Deadly Dozen." The posters, which included personal information such as home addresses, phone numbers and children's school locations, followed similar poster campaigns against three abortion providers who were subsequently murdered. The Deadly Dozen then became the basis of Horsley's "Nuremberg. Files." This is not protected speech at all and this is why this site will no longer exist along with any other sites this man has made.

Privacy

When researching for my paper on privacy I have come across many articles involving facebook privacy being an issue. Recently I have known an actual case where facebook has directly effected one of my friends and their life. My friend from home is turning 21 so he is under the legal drinking age, and he is graduating a year early from college and is expecting to get a big time job when he gets out, well that was until his last interview. The interviews started out with over 400 people from different parts of the U.S. then went down to 200, then down to 50 now it is down to the final 4, which my friend is one of. Well to be at the final four in itself is amazing and even if you don't get this job it means you have a great chance of getting any other job in that field, but what my friend Tom didn't know was the intense back round check they would do on him. I am not talking about police background check because tom has never been in trouble in his life but it meant a face book and myspace background check. Well they found tom on facebook and searched through his pictures and saw one where he had a beer in his hand and used that picture against him saying he was underage and it was illegal and he lost the job over this picture. Now i know what most people would say, well its his own fault. But what ever happen to privacy, which is what the issue is here. Did tom have a right for his own account on facebook to be kept private or because he put it out there does anyone have a right to access it? The realization is with the growing internet craze what is safe and private anymore? Even if I put my facebook account of private and only allow those who i personally know to look or access my account there are ways of getting into my account. How private is privacy when it comes to the internet? The problem is with the internet it is so easy to access anything you want from someone Else's computer you don't even have to be in the same room. If i was to put a picture of me drinking underage in a filing cabinet in my room no one would have access to that picture without a warrant yet if i put that same picture on my computer on facebook and kept it just as private anyone could get it without a warrant and I believe that is where the privacy gets divided.

ICANN VOTES AGAINST DOT-XXX DOMAIN

Since we have talked about this in class and online before i thought it was interesting enough to talk about. I thought the idea of changing it so all porno sites had to have the same domain name was a great idea. It is understandable why the porno sites wouldn't want this though. If all the domain for porno were .xxx then it would be so much easier to monitor what is put on these sites and to block these sites from children's computers. Right now children are able to access some of these sites because they can't all be blocked because they are using so many different .com .org. xx type endings. It is not a secret either that child porn somehow makes it s way onto the Internet so this would also be a fantastic way of making sure these illegal child porn does not end up splashed all over some guy/girls computer screen. This will also help when somebody is trying to reach a site and they type in the wrong name and a porno site pops up. This way you would have to type in .xxx if you wanted to see the sites. I agree with the Religious groups who are concerned that it would help the .xxx agencies expand, but there are so many porno sites all over the Internet that expanding it on an .xxx would be okay because once again it would be so much easier to regulate and block those sites. in another article i read it was talking to some porno sites and they said their biggest problem would be that people would start going to any xxx site instead of a specific one because they would be easier to find and would take away business from their own sites. Now honestly this is a great business point they can make because how many different way can you have the same site. People will type in anything instead of a specific site. Another problem would be the space. There are sites named girlongirl.com or girlongirl.org or girlongirl.xx different sites with the same name but different endings but on the .xxx this won't be able to happen and some businesses will have to think of different names. I also believe it will reduce privacy even more because of the .xxx would make it obvious and easy to monitor.

FBI CHIEF BLAMES COMPUTERS FOR PRIVACY FLAP

When reading this Internet news i realized that it softly went over the subject of the patriot act which gives FBI to the power to get information about and American without a warrant. This is now allowed for anyone with some type of security to be able to obtain information from your bank or Internet service etc. without a warrant, which means that once again your privacy is thrown out the door. I guess as I have said before it is so easy to believe that you are safe when you are sitting at your computer by yourself in your own home, who would think that everything your doing on the Internet can been seen by someone else million of miles away. This is just another thing we allow to happen because we think it will helps us in the long run be safe. All the government aka Bush has to say is that they need to invade our privacy but looking at all our computers to keep us safe from another 9/11 attack and most Americans just willingly give up their privacy rights. A lot of us meaning citizens of the United States don't understand or exactly know what rights they really have, even those that can recite the constitution wouldn't see the privacy because it isn't listed in the constitution but it is still there. A lot of the time Americans don't know their privacy rights are being violated. What bothers me is that the government knows this is totally takes advantage of this. The thing is if people aren't willing to enforce their rights then the government isn't going to do it for them.

VIACOM LAUNCHES BILLION DOLLAR SUIT AGAINST YOUTUBE

I felt it necessary to follow up on what I wrote about last week with the Microsoft and Google copyright problem. Every since Google got YouTube it has been nothing but trouble and has had many suits filed against it for copyright problems. This case is Viacom suing Google for $1 billion dollars. It has said that Google has purposely allowed videos that are copyrighted to be posted on YouTube and has even use some of the clips of the videos to attract people to the website. Now Google says there is a copyright law that protects Google from what their users post, problem is they seem to be more involved in what their posters put up then not aware. Google says they hope to one day pay of these big media companies with what they made on the site. Viacom is not the only one upset with youtube as a lot of different media sites continue finding their copyrighted material on Youtube and don't see it going away, though none have gone as far as Viacom. It is a big burden on every media company out there to have to search this one website for their material to make sure it is not on there. The most confusing part is that Google feels they are completely safe and within the laws. So how on earth is this going to turn out? Well honestly I don't know but I do know this, if now when Internet is at it's peek and growing, this site is causing this many problems between this many companies and Google, how many problems do you think it is going to cause in a couple years when Internet is like brushing your teeth, EVERYONE does it EVERYDAY at least three times. Some people go on the Internet more than 20 times a day. The amount of material that will be on YouTube will be doubled and from all around the world. United States won't be the only country having major problems with YouTube and Google anymore. I enjoy YouTube as much as the next individual but if it is causes this much trouble and is clearly violating laws then i say get rid of it. If Viacom does win this $1 billion dollar lawsuit Google might have to start thinking about getting rid of it.

Microsoft attacks Google on copyright

I did this article in relevance of what we are going to be learning in class. First and foremost the idea that a company as huge as Google felt that breaking copyright laws was okay is amazing to me. Google, one of the biggest search engines in well at least America, (not sure where else) Used over 100,000 copyrighted movies just on You tube alone, which is owned by Goggle. They are accused of using copyrighted material from books, music, films and television. They are being sued by the Association for American Publishes for making photo copies of copyrighted material. They are trying to justify what they are doing by telling all who are mad at them for doing this that it is okay, the copies are secure they are only showing small parts, and it will help them out. Honestly this is not something that i would expect Google to try and do because they are not stupid, clearly, yet they are trying to make what they did what was to steal copyrighted material and use it for their own benefits online. For them to try and get away with this it is crazy.