Donate blood and your identity please!

Good citizens who thought they were doing good by giving blood may be feeling a pinch more painful than a needle: identity theft. Thieves stole a laptop from a St. Paul Minnesota blood clinic containing pertinent information on over 268,000 blood donors on November 28th. The information lost contained names, medical history, social security numbers, and addresses. A manager at the blood clinic Laura Kaplan stated "We believe that the data is secure.” The information was protected by several passwords, although the hospital will not say if it was encrypted or not. Police believe the crime was random, and the thieves will not attempt identity theft. Yet if I had recently donated blood in Minnesota I would be very worried. Since the clinic did not proudly state the data was definitely encrypted, I believe it most likely was not. The clinic would want everyone to know if it was. Therefore the thieves, with a little bit of tech know-how, could access the critical information. Even though, they may not want to commit identity fraud, they probably could find a buyer for the valuable data.
Because of incidents like this and others, people will stop volunteering valuable personal information even if it means not being able to give blood. As a frequent blood donor, I will be more hesitant to give blood next time if the administers are not going to take my privacy seriously. Since so many patients depend on blood daily, this will be detrimental to society. Patients will have to wait longer for necessary medical procedures, and run into more complications. It’s bad news for everyone.
To ease people’s concerns, the government should require laptops, and other storage devices containing such private information as someone’s social security number and medical history, be encrypted. Encryption is the when data is converted into code so only an intended viewer can see the actual data. Lives can be ruined when identities are stolen, so the government should do everything they can to protect people’s lives. Likewise, the medical community should not complain about the added expense and regulation because they are supposed to follow the Hippocratic oath which is a promise the medical community makes to protect privacy. Also, people will be more comfortable helping someone by donating blood. Donating blood is always painful, but the pain should not be more than a pinch.

Just say no to (e)democracy

Last week, Dazza Greenwood, a privacy expert at the MIT Media Lab, spoke to our Legal Studies class a great deal about his strides towards promoting internet privacy, and all the great things added privacy could bring. Among the things mentioned, Dazza emphasized the changing role of government. With added privacy, the government could become more and more digital. He gave the example of the changing format of renewing a driver’s license. No longer will one have to wait in line at the RMV, instead one can just go to a website, and fill out some forms quickly. He further added with a center ID verification process, “e-democracy’ could be a great benefit to society. No longer will people have to go to the local town hall or elementary school to vote in a national election. Voters can simply turn on a computer, enter in a username and password, and choose a candidate. Also, people’s voting decisions could be kept anonymous. I am highly skeptical of this development. I know the technology will one day be available so it could work. I doubt people will let it. History is filled with countless examples of leaders fixing elections. Anyone who has any computer experience knows data on a computer is highly manipulative, so it is not illogical to think election results could easily be manipulated. Information technology workers could swing an election one way or another if they were bribed. Safeguards could be installed, but how do you guarantee they are actually working. National elections are far too important not to consider these possibilities. Also, how is it possible to recount electronic votes and have confidence in the results? Less than 8 years ago, the nation watched as the results of the Presidential election were challenged. I saw this as a sign of how great our system of democracy is because actual votes could be confirmed. We would lose that if we switched to electronic democracy. I do not watch the democracy of these country to be trusted to administrators running a software program. Sure it might improve voter “turnout” but at a serious cost.

Google=Goliath?

The internet’s Goliath is getting stronger everyday. Google now claims 58% of all searches on the internet, and that number is expected to climb higher every month until they reach near 100%. Even at 58%, Google has substantial control over the content users see, and what they buy. Their stock reflects this too. As of fifteen minutes ago, their stock is 684 dollars. An investor willing to pay $684 for one stock shows extreme confidence in the company. In fact, broker Credit Suiss predicts the stock will hit $900. Google is a sure bet to getting rich, right? History tells us no.

There are so many examples of companies being on top of the world then quickly finding themselves at the bottom of the heap. For one, the government broke up the AT&T monopoly years ago. If Google’s dominance continues, the government could very well do the same exact thing. Further, the technology industry is exceedingly volatile. Major players one decade easily find themselves spectators the next. In 1997, Dell CEO Michael Dell said if he was in charge of Apple Computer he would shut it down, and give the money back to its investors. He was saying Apple had no chance of competing. Today, Apple is worth more than Dell. In the mid 90s, Nintendo ruled the video game market with an iron fist. Today, they must fight for their survival against Sony and Microsoft. In the 1940s, Chairman of IBM Thomas J. Watson once said “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” He obviously was dead wrong. I am trying to get my point across that Google’s dominance very well might be short lived. Nobody knows how people will find websites in the future. Traditional search engines might become obsolete. There is a saying that I feel is appropriate here. The Bigger They Are The Harder They Fall. David killed Goliath with a new invention, a slingshot. A new player could kill Google with a technological advancement.

Big Brother (cough cough Facebook cough) is looking over your shoulder

Facebook.com is digging its own shallow website grave. Through their actions to generate more revenue, Facebook.com is turning away their strongest users. According to an article reported in SiliconValley.com “Users decry Facebook tracking”, Facebook is now tracking their users online purchases-and reporting them to friends. If an item is purchased on Overstock.com for instance, the retailer will notify Facebook of the purchases, and Facebook will promptly display it in the mini-feeds of the consumer’s friends. The consumer is implicitly endorsing the product which in theory will create more revenue for the retailer. Facebook benefits from companies paying them for this service. So everyone is happy right? Nope. Many facebook users were extremely surprised when they saw their purchase was posted online. Personally, I had no idea Facebook was doing this. Facebook has added “stalkerish” features before, this however takes the cake. Like many of the students quoted in the article, I do not want my friends to know my online purchases. I could be buying something that is very private. The article mentioned what if the book Coping With Aids was displayed. After reading this article, I am seriously contemplating turning off my Facebook account.

Although I don’t like it, I believe Facebook has a right to do it. They provide a service, online networking. Since online networking is not a necessity of life and the service is free, Facebook should be able to do what they want. However, they should still respect the privacy rights of their users. Users should be better informed of the new feature. Facebook obviously did not do a good job since I go on every day, and never saw a message about this. Further, users should be able to turn off the feature if it bothers them. People often want their online purchases kept a secret. Besides the convenience of not leaving the house, many people buy items online they would be too embarrassed or scared to buy in person. Yesterday, I bought such a purchase. The purchase was perfectly legal, and I have a right to use it. Facebook defended its practice by saying it was only provided the information to “a small selection of a user's trusted network of friends.” I know Facebook does not seriously believe this themselves, because most people have a few hundred friends. A few hundred friends (or more accurately acquaintances or people you met once) is not a small trusted network. Of course I am not going to say what it was (who knows who actually reads this blog). My stomach dropped a little bit when I thought maybe for a second my purchase had been displayed. After investigating, I know it wasn’t. Further, I do not want my name and image implicitly endorsing a product I just happened to buy. If the company wants me to endorse a product, they should pay me directly, and I will even proudly tell all my friends in person I use. Overall, Facebook has finally gone too far. Even people with the slightest bit of intelligence realized when they signed up for Facebook they were giving up privacy right. Yet, should we have to give up them all? That is a decision everyone must make themselves. Personally, I am going to go delete my Facebook.

Internet Censorship

Currently, Google and other popular search engines are struggling with the idea of when censorship is acceptable. According to an article published on WashingPost.com Google Israel Head Rejects Censor Role, journalist Regan Doherty reports Meir Band refused to remove anti-Semitic material from its search results. Google believes the right for people to view controversial material is more powerful than the harm the content might bring. Google said they only remove content from their search results when it is ordered by a court. An example of a possible removable site would be a copyright infringement. Not everyone agrees. According to Christopher Wolf, chairman of the International Network Against Cyberhate, "The law is simply one tool in the toolbox for dealing with hate speech” (Doherty). He believes that the internet industry (i.e. Google) should remove litigious material voluntarily. I agree with him that the law is only a tool in dealing with hate speech-not the end all, yet I believe he is completely off base about Google having to voluntarily remove things. The task is too big, and too problematic. It would also infringe on internet users rights all over the world.

Although, I despise hate filled material they should remain accessible. If Google removed anti-Semitic material from Israeli viewers, experts predict there could be a “spillover” effect. Since the web works on a world wide scale, citizens of other countries would not be able to view the material either. Therefore if every government protested some form of material, the internet would be significantly more hampered and less educational than it is now. Recently, I did a project on hate groups which required me to go to contentious websites. It was beneficial for me, because I was able to use primary sources in my paper. Further, it would futile to try to remove racist material from the internet. Individuals are able to create new websites too easily. If one is taken off, it will just reappear under a different user name. Also, police and other law enforcement agencies often monitor these controversial websites to make sure nothing radical is being planned. If the websites are harder to access, they wouldn’t be able to do this. I could not be more proud of my favorite search engine. Google believes firmly in the rights of internet users which is a good thing for everyone.

Google getting to know me

Its an axiom of good business to know one’s costumers. If a business knows what its customer’s want, they can deliver. In the old days, a store owner would put names with faces, and remember what was purchased. Today, websites track content researched and page surfing routes to do the same. Experts disagree where to draw the line between acceptable and not. Consequently, the FTC is holding a special two-day review of “behavioral advertising” that is utilized by huge companies such as Google, Yahoo!, and other search engines (Davies).
Federal regulators are interested in the issue as privacy groups advocate for more consumer rights. Federal Trade Commissioner Jon Lebowitz stated at a recent meeting, "Your online experience seems private, but you never know who's peering over your shoulder" (Davies). Behavioral advertising can include how websites remember what you searched for the previous time you visited the website through cookies, or scanning content such as email for keywords and thus displaying related ads. The giant search engines like Google, and Yahoo! defend they only hold information for 18 months, and consumers actually like it because they do not have to view absurd ads. Also, the advertising revenue enables great free services on the websites.
I personally am very torn about this practice. I use Gmail, which is run by Google. I get to use it for free with unlimited space. In return on the right hand side of my screen are advertisements that are supposed to target my spending behavior. So in a recent email my mom mentioned the word “flu”, and google displayed all the places in the area I could get a flu shot. On one hand, I hate the fact that Google tries figure out my consumption patterns. I also am not sure if Google will keep this information to themselves or if they will be willing to sell it to someone else. At the same time, I love gmail. I have my umass email account forwarded to their because of the great search feature, and the ease of the interactive userface. There is a saying in economics “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” The idea applies well here because in order for me to enjoy the great service, I have to give up something, in this case privacy. I suppose the advertisements are not a big deal since I trained myself not to look there. Yet, I wonder how else they can target me. In the terms of services, they say “No human will read the content of your email in order to target such advertisements or other information without your consent, and no email content or other personally identifiable information will be provided to advertisers as part of the Service.” This is really good, but they go on to say “We may combine personal information collected from you with information from other Google services or third parties to provide a better user experience, including customizing content for you.” I am apprehensive of who these third parties are, and what content relating to me they are talking about. This sparked my curiosity about just how good this software is.
I tested the software by sending an email to myself with only one sentence “I want to invest in donkeys.” Eight ads were displayed when I opened the email. Although they all related to investing, none were about investing in live stock. The software has its limitations, but its only time before it will be able to tell where to buy a donkey in Amherst, Ma. I will continue to use Gmail, and am nervous about the day when I will never have to search for anything. The information will come to me.

Davies, Frank. FTC reviews adds shaped by online use. SiliconValley.com Nov. 2, 2007
retrieved online November 7, 2007.

Are these labtops enough?

Technology is easily taken for granted in this country. I am sitting in front of a computer right now in the library. If I don’t like the space I can simply move to another computer out of the hundreds available to me. If I don’t want a public computer, I can just go back to my room and use my laptop. With the gluttony of technology today, people including myself forget quickly how fortunate we are. An article written by the BBC “Uruguay Buys First $100 computer” reminded me of how economically disadvantaged the rest of the world is.

The article detailed the plans of a non-profit organization, One Laptop Per Child (OLPC), in distributing cheap laptops to children in developing countries. The laptops can be purchased cheaply and can run on solar, foot pump, or pull string energy. Likewise, they are waterproof and highly durable. On first thought, I thought this was an awesome idea. People from economically depressed backgrounds should have access too. Yet, now I wonder if its really enough. Computers can be an amazing learning tool, but I am not sure if the laptops that are being distributed are. They do not receive internet connection, which removes much of the usefulness of computers since they can connect to other computers. Further, the article never mentioned if there were encyclopedias or other educational software stored on it. If it doesn’t, then another huge potential learning asset is gone. Besides educational software and the internet, there is not much computers can do as far as learning goes. I am sure the children who receive these love to play with them, yet it would be a shame if its only use was playing games or typing. In no way am I saying that they shouldn’t have access to computers, rather I am saying that maybe its not enough. It would be a truly great learning experience for these kids to be able to connect with the rest of the world, and explore what is outside their realm.

What makes something gambling?

One of the fundamental principals of the legal system is equality. Yet some state this foundational thought isn’t being applied to the internet. In an Associated Press article, “Poker Players Fight Online Gambling Ban”, poker players say the law restricting online gaming is unfair. They point out fantasy sports, horse races, and state lotteries are allowed on the web. I found this extraordinary interesting. I never thought about how these activities are a form of gambling. After some thought, I firmly believe they are.

In my book, gambling is any activity where there is risk and the potential to make money for leisure purposes. All of the above mentioned groups I would undoubtedly consider gambling. It is unbelievable to me that they are legal on the web. One of the reasons why gambling is allegedly illegal is because internet gambling can become an addiction and drain people’s savings. The same thing can happen in any other these other activities. After pondering the issue, I can not think of any solid reason of why this might be.

Perhaps when legislators were debating the issue, brick-and-mortar casinos fought and lobbied hard to have legislators shut down gaming sites (to obviously protect their services). On the other hand, these other gambling activities might have fallen under the radar for different reasons. Since the popularity of fantasy sports exploded since the creation of the internet, there really was no developed industry that had vested interest in fantasy players’ money. Therefore, no one lobbied hard to make it illegal. Also people with financial interests in horse races might have thought online betting would only bring in more revenue. Further, the Federal government is likely not to ban the fundraising ability of the states, so that could be why lotteries are still legal. These are just my opinions. Some people might even call them conspiracy theories.

Whatever the logic was in creating the laws, a double standard exists. Certain gambling activities are illegal, why some perfectly fine. I believe that the government in the interest of fairness should act one way or another. Either make all gambling illegal, or let the virtual dice roll.

Russian (internet) mafia

Its hard to stop the mafia, especially when they are on the internet. Russian Business Network, an internet domain name company loosely headquartered in St. Petersburg, Russia, has become a hub for everything illegal on the web according to the article “Shadowy Russian Firm Seen as Conduit for Cybercrime” by Brian Krebs.

They allow clients to run child pornography sites, “phish” for passwords, and overall piracy. It has been extremely hard to shut this business down. They have no real legal identity which makes them hard to sue or prosecute. Likewise, they have ties with organized crime, and are believed to be bribing public officials. Also, according to experts Russian’s internet crime fighting is relatively weak which adds to the challenge of stopping the illegal activities. Furthermore, the company itself doesn’t break the laws; they just allow others to break the laws. All of these are challenging obstacles in stopping the company.

So what are people to do? Many internet service providers are simply blocking the websites for their customers. One security administrator said after they blocked the sites "Our instances of spam and infected machines dropped exponentially." So blocking the whole network seems like it’s a really good, and easy thing-but its not.

When an entire network is blocked, consumer groups start complaining according to Danny McPherson, the chief research officer at Arbor Networks. Should consumers be allowed to go to any website they want, even if that website potentially is trying to hurt them? There is no easy answer to that question.

Another potential problem is the company can just shut down, and reset up under a different guise. Therefore, endless blocking could occur and the problem never really be solved.

This is an extremely important topic for several reasons. First, in order for the internet to grow and develop, there must be laws that protect consumers rights. If a brick and mortar store is robbed, they can call the police who will investigate and act. Yet, imagine the same kind of store but only on the internet. If they are robbed by hackers, its harder for them to go after the criminals. If the problem becomes too rampant, then many will shy away from going into business on the internet. Likewise, innocent children are being exploited and used cruelly for profit and malice. A government has the duty to protect its youth. Lastly, others will look to this Russian company as an example, and go into illegal business themselves. Therefore, its important for governments and regulatory bodies to go after the perpetrators.

Digital health records: Good or bad?

The internet has obviously revolutionized the way information is stored, and the storage space is getting bigger. According to an article on CNN.com, “Microsoft opens personal health record site”, Microsoft is coming out with a new program that will allow people to store medical records online. Many insurance companies and other healthcare providers are creating their own programs. Also, both Google and Wal-Mart are hedging in on the potentially money making venture. Patients will be able to easily upload data onto the site, and manage it by having a feature that will allow them to send it to doctors or pharmacies when needed. In many ways, this can be a very good thing. Information will be readily available, and can be assessed quickly in an emergency.

Of course there are obviously thorny issues associated with these new software programs. Of course as with anything else related to the web, there is the dilemma of privacy. Consumers might be very reluctant to put sensitive medical information online. Attorney Reece Hirsch, of the law firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal in San Francisco states "There's a lot of emotional distress associated with inappropriate disclosure of that [medical] information." Therefore, it is extremely important the software creators put extra care into privacy. It is fundamental that the law does the same. Right now, Microsoft’s new program does not apply to state medical privacy rules. One reason is because the concept is so new, and another reason is because it is seen as a doctor just handing information over like in person but only electronically. If the legal system does not catch up, this can open a Pandora’s box of privacy problems.

Currently, identify theft is a huge crisis. Right now, hackers can ruin someone financially. With these new programs, they will be able to destroy one medically. A hacker could potential get into these systems and cancel prescriptions, delete files, share private information with outsiders, change data, or even change an address so prescriptions get mailed to them instead. When identity theft happens, it can take months to sort out the problem. A patient needing medical attention can’t wait that long.

Another potential dilemma is if a medical provider is trying to treat a patient who lets say hypothetically is unconscious. It would be a huge asset to the doctors (and the patients) if the doctors could be able to quickly and easily see the patient’s medical history without the patient’s formal consent aka having the patient type in his password and log on. On the other hand, there need to be safeguards to prevent anyone pretending to be a doctor to assess them. These and others are important issues in law that needs to be resolved before these digital medical cabinets become too big.