I was extremely interested in the reading by Julian Dibbell entitled "A Rape in Cyberspace". I had first encountered the case of Mr. Bungle in another reading "Napster's Second Life" which dealt with the issues of regulation virtual worlds. The author's hypothesized that unless regulation was the same across the board then the virtual worlds may devolve into a series of peer-2-peer worlds that governmental bodies are not able to regulate because there would be too many servers and people would be fully in control. The relationship between this idea and the Mr. Bungle incident is that I feel that were there to be a peer-2-peer setup, occurrences might not occur. The reason for this is that many virtual worlds could be invite only and hopefully this would keep out unwanted people. Though it would be extremely naive to believe that there would be no disputes, the actions of Mr. Bungle were disgusting. The disputes would be more pragmatic, quotidian concerns.
The second thing that interested me about the Mr. Bungle incident was how violated people felt by it. Though I do not expect that users will not find issue with another user forcing them to do inappropriate things with kitchen utensils, the level of connection between people and their virtual selves is paramount to understanding how to mediate all disputes in the virtual world. There are many cases, especially among users who spend vast amounts of time in their virtual worlds, where they do not even see the line anymore between their virtual and real world selves. I notice this even in my life. I do not spend an exorbitant amount of time on my virtual world, yet I do feel a small connection to my avatar. However, as I discussed virtual worlds with another professor from the Legal Studies department, I was saying that many people use their avatar to represent themselves in the virtual world in the way they feel they cannot in the real world. This is not something I can empathize with. My avatar does not represent for me and hidden desires about aesthetics or anything else for that matter. I do not feel the need to skulk into any of the sex simulations in the virtual world. That's something that I could do in the real world if I wanted too.
This idea brings me to the character of Anshe Chung. She started out her empire by being a prostitute in the virtual world. This is not something that she would do in the real world. This is an example of more of a disassociation from one's virtual character. Even in the interview that was interrupted, it seemed that she was angrier that it wasn't about her, not that her avatar had been disrespected per se.
In seeing the need to regulate virtual worlds and the disputes that occur there needs to be a better understanding about the relationship between people and their online selves.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Sunday, March 11, 2007
491S Blog Post W/E 3/11/07
Sweden eyes monitoring e-mail, cellphone calls
- from BNA emailThis article was of interest to me because I see it as a somewhat followup to last weeks blog post regarding the United States DOJ intending to pass a law that mandates that image-sharing sites to have user data. Though this article pertains to Sweden and not the United States, I think it shows the current trend at governments attempting to better regulate the internet. However, this better regulation comes at the price of privacy of many internet users. The Swedish government contends that it will only monitor international emails and cellphone calls and thus only a tiny amount of communications will be monitored. However, this is not acceptable. I have friends in Sweden and I absolutely do not want the Swedish government reading the emails I send them.
The article also references the U.S. government's attempt do the same thing in 2001. This act was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of journalists and others who felt that this "would put many of their overseas contact under such surveillance".
This act still must be passed by Swedish Parliament. If passed, the Swedish government could use data-mining software to check for key words that occur in transmissions that occur over national borders. Other countries have similar laws, however they are not as invasive. For example, in Britain "emails can only be intercepted with a warrant signed by Secretary of State". Furthermore, these intercepted emails are inadmissible in court. This law is so overarching that even the Swedish security police criticize it. The law will come up in the Parliament later this year.
It is no secret that there is a problem in the world with terrorism, whether it be in the United States or Europe, however, the time is coming when people have to evaluate how much they are willing to give up to be "protected". Living in a world of no privacy can very likely make life not worth living.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
491S Blog Post W/E 3/407 (Makeup from Last Week)
"Law Weighed to Stop Online Predators"
It is no secret that the internet has made the world a less safer place for children. There are people out there who use it for nothing more than to abuse children. However, this was not was it was intended for and I think articles such as this show how sometimes that is forgotten. Obviously, there is not one sane-minded person who thinks that predators should be allowed to talk to children. This proposed law, however, is extremely over-reaching:
"Released sex offenders caught using the Internet would face up to 18 months in jail and fines of up to $10,000"
WHAT? Though the crime is despicable, you are going to disallow a whole class of people from using the internet. By doing this, the group is cut off from the fastest form of information available. This law would, in a way, cut these people off from the world. This is such a curtailing of individual autonomy. Furthermore, once you deny a certain group rights to the internet, the concern of a slippery slope arises. What other groups can be denied access. When one views how integral the internet has become to everyday life, this idea seems preposterous
It reminded me slightly of the case of Skinner v. State of Oklahoma in that the government is once again intending to make impotent the criminals who committed a crime. In Skinner the government intended to do this physically, while this time it would be metaphorically. The irony of the decision in Skinner was that this law violated the Equal Protection clause because it left out white-collar criminals. The same is true about the New Jersey law. What about people who insider trade solely on the internet, should they also be denied internet rights?
Again, no one wants predators to harm children, but isn't there are better way to accomplish this?
It is no secret that the internet has made the world a less safer place for children. There are people out there who use it for nothing more than to abuse children. However, this was not was it was intended for and I think articles such as this show how sometimes that is forgotten. Obviously, there is not one sane-minded person who thinks that predators should be allowed to talk to children. This proposed law, however, is extremely over-reaching:
"Released sex offenders caught using the Internet would face up to 18 months in jail and fines of up to $10,000"
WHAT? Though the crime is despicable, you are going to disallow a whole class of people from using the internet. By doing this, the group is cut off from the fastest form of information available. This law would, in a way, cut these people off from the world. This is such a curtailing of individual autonomy. Furthermore, once you deny a certain group rights to the internet, the concern of a slippery slope arises. What other groups can be denied access. When one views how integral the internet has become to everyday life, this idea seems preposterous
It reminded me slightly of the case of Skinner v. State of Oklahoma in that the government is once again intending to make impotent the criminals who committed a crime. In Skinner the government intended to do this physically, while this time it would be metaphorically. The irony of the decision in Skinner was that this law violated the Equal Protection clause because it left out white-collar criminals. The same is true about the New Jersey law. What about people who insider trade solely on the internet, should they also be denied internet rights?
Again, no one wants predators to harm children, but isn't there are better way to accomplish this?
491S Blog Post W/E 3/407
"Justice Department Takes Aim at Image-Sharing Sites"
This article was extremely interesting to me in its connotation of internet responsibility and culpability. One of the major issues arising over internet usage is the lack of accountability. Here the government sees the need for internet providers to maintain a database of who is posting what as a way of making it easier for police to track crimes such as child pornography. However, there are numerous ramifications of this that are less savory. First, though the DOJ is only asking for a track of who posts images now, what is to say that this won't eventually become further reaching. A complete list of every single thing that a person does on the internet. Also, even if this is restrained to images, what will prevent an overzealous university from searching through pictures "finding" crimes such as possible underage drinking.
In general, with the lack of privacy already faced by Americans, this is yet another attack on liberty by the Administration. Even if one is not doing illegal things on the internet, what if someone gets a hold of their records and there are some websites that they have visited that could cause them some embarrassment, such as a pornographic site. In the wrong hands, this could ruin someone's life.
It is not arguable that many facets of the internet need more accountability. However, mandating that ISP's make it easier for governmental entities to spy on their customers, is not the best way for this to occur. Furthermore, as the article states, sites like Google already retain searched items indefinitely. The government needs to step back and not legislate further incursions into individual privacy.
This article was extremely interesting to me in its connotation of internet responsibility and culpability. One of the major issues arising over internet usage is the lack of accountability. Here the government sees the need for internet providers to maintain a database of who is posting what as a way of making it easier for police to track crimes such as child pornography. However, there are numerous ramifications of this that are less savory. First, though the DOJ is only asking for a track of who posts images now, what is to say that this won't eventually become further reaching. A complete list of every single thing that a person does on the internet. Also, even if this is restrained to images, what will prevent an overzealous university from searching through pictures "finding" crimes such as possible underage drinking.
In general, with the lack of privacy already faced by Americans, this is yet another attack on liberty by the Administration. Even if one is not doing illegal things on the internet, what if someone gets a hold of their records and there are some websites that they have visited that could cause them some embarrassment, such as a pornographic site. In the wrong hands, this could ruin someone's life.
It is not arguable that many facets of the internet need more accountability. However, mandating that ISP's make it easier for governmental entities to spy on their customers, is not the best way for this to occur. Furthermore, as the article states, sites like Google already retain searched items indefinitely. The government needs to step back and not legislate further incursions into individual privacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)