QotW5: Online Identity, Reputation, Deception

IDENTITY IDENTITY….YIKES!!!!

Well known to all, the internet has undergone tremendous transformations from the time it was launched. Together with its astounding abilities were the online social networks formed. Networks like Friendster, Blogspot, Flickster, etc are hard to miss by. Nevertheless, just like the masked ninja (in the picture), they are many in the virtual communities hiding out to combat illegally instead.

I recall an incident where my friend Jia Wei contacted me screaming that her laptop had crashed due to some kind of virus. Someone out there had sent her a spam email with a virus attached. In between her sobs, I understood her clueless mindset of what and how this had happened. Unfortunately, till today she is still in the dark about the identity of her perpetrator. I am sure many of you out there are able to relate with this situation to a certain extend. Jia Wei was and still remains to be a dedicated member of some of the main social networks (mentioned above). After researching further on identity thefts and listening to the speech by our guest speaker in Com242 class, I am pondering upon the possibility that the ‘perpetrator’ may not be an unknown face after all.



Wikipedia mentions online identity to be a “social identity”. In my opinion, online identity is something we create for ourselves to institute a validity to our individuality online. As for me, I have a ‘Friendster’ account (online identity). Millions of people out there are engaged in ‘Friendster’. It is easily accessible and accounts can be created in a jiff. Recognizing the explosion in the membership, administrators of ‘Friendster’ are consistently upgrading and promoting the site and its capabilities.

Reputation?

My reputation in ‘Friendster’ is constructed via my user name, my pictures and all the nitty-gritty details I have revealed about myself in the profile section. I further establish status through the messages sent to contacts, ‘shout-outs’ and bulletins posted.
All of these become my investment into this social network for others to know more about me.


Identity theft

In ‘Friendster’ email addresses are used to add contacts onto your list. Through this process, a potential hacker can obtain your email add and send you a surprise gift (virus-phishing). One email is all it takes to complete the task.

Furthermore, the information presented on your profile is substantial to provide the perpetrator the necessary details to begin his quest. Sometimes, people post their numbers in the hope of making new friends. However, this act itself causes their downfall.

These so called ‘friends’ made online can learn more about your personal life to the extent of getting your credit card numbers. They may carry this out indirectly by ringing you up and posing to be a bank officer or someone of superior relevance. Once the required details areobtained, it would not take long before these ‘masterminds’ begin their ‘free purchases’.

Another issue is pseudonymity (1996). It is anonymity that hides a person behind an online persona via a username. This is common online. Many internet users have a number of different identities they use online. These allow them to explore different aspects of their persona, interests or hobbies. Nevertheless pseudonymity is also the key to membership systems as well, as it allows members of the community to learn to identify other members they like or dislike based upon their behaviors and personality (1996). Pseudononymous systems strike a balance between people’s needs to obscure their identities online, while still allowing them to build reputations in those usernames. These systems have been shown to work very well for an online community.

Unfortunately the misuse of the above mentioned also results in identity thefts. Perpetrators with the intention of deceiving you can easily disguise themselves through weird usernames and pictures just to learn more about you and then eventually become you!

Here’s an example of an actual incident to illustrate the simplicity of pseudonymity. Back in my college days, I had some friends who created a ‘Friendster’ profile just to check on another classmate. To make the account realistic, these guys uploaded pictures of a girl found on the net and used a fake name. Therefore, they basically created a fictious character- five guys assuming the identity of a girl for selfish reasons.


Conclusion

As you can see, online identities can be easily created to engage in illegal dealings. Maintaining a reputation is also something challenging with your identities being under ‘attack’. Sometimes it is done for fun (like my friends) and sometimes the member also has serious consequences to face (credit card transactions).

‘Friendster’ does provide a certain amount of privacy for its members. For example, members can select if they want their profile to be made viewable by the public or their own contacts. You are even allowed the liberty to delete ‘disturbing’ individuals or report on them to the administrators. However, even though these security measures are available, they are useless if people do not make use of them to their advantage- I certainly have turned these measures to my advantage :p

References:

Donath ,Judith S. ( 12 November 1996) Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community, MIT Media Lab. Retrieved on February 15, 2007http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Uslaner, E. M. (April 2004) Trust online, trust offline. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 28-29. Retrieved on February 7, 2007, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=975817.975838

Bellovin, S. M. (December 2004) Spamming, Phishing, Authentication, and Privacy. Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 144. Retrieved on February 7, 2007, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1035159&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=1375041&CFTOKEN=81344821

QotW4: Internet Economies and You...

Assignment 3

When something is given, something is always inherently given back in exchange. But gifts work best when you pay them forward. You must find another place to use your knowledge acquired from others. It is this passing along that creates the ’Gift Economy’.


Currently
In our highly materialistic world, monetary gains are normally the focus of people’s contributions. The market economy is deliberately impersonal, but the whole purpose of the 'Gift Economy' is to establish and build up the relationships between us and to connect us one to the other. It is via the circulation of gifts in the communities that there is an increase in relationships and associations.

Our current economic system is encouraged by self-motivation and stands on the foundation of ‘exchange’- giving in order to be given. The satisfaction of another’s need is used as a medium to satisfy one own self (Kollock, 1999). So the exchange or 'market' economy is entrenched in the concepts of inequality, scarcity, quantifiable correspondence of value, and acquisition. However, the ‘Gift Economy’ is rooted in the concepts of parity, large quantity, unquantifiability, generosity and connection.


Gift Economies are not brand new; there have been around for sometime but maybe in other forms (Kollock, 1999). An example would be the hunting societies.

Anyway, being a member in ‘Multiply’ (www.mulitply.com) has enabled me to benefit from numerous amounts of entries posted by my friends and their contacts. It is just like our regular blogs. Nevertheless, in my opinion, majority of the ideas and events mentioned are extremely personal. It surprises me at times those delicate issues are willingly
posted. Most of the time I witness advises in the form of comments being posted. Even though, there is an exchange without expectations, there is a form of blockage here. At times not everyone is willing to contribute openly. Hence, there is a breakdown in the contribution. Therefore, let me move on and talk about another ‘Gift Economy’ with a constant flow of messages, ‘Femalefirst’ forum (http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/).

‘Femalefirst’ is the new appearance of Female online communities. It is the fastest growing site in its field, a site that has been created by women for women. It can also be called a community where over 3,000,000 women discuss issues, solve problems, share experiences, and speak their minds openly. My cousin from London tipped me off about this site a year ago and I have been a member since then.

These women who are member have built a community that is their own, an area that they feel at home in, somewhere they can break away from from life's pressing issues and chill out in the company of other like minded individuals.

The forum as mentioned above, allows discussion of all sorts of women’s concerns. Posting questions is as easy as receiving replies and suggestions. Topics discussed range from politics, fashion, health matters to even motoring details. My most favorite and benefited discussion topic would be on the family issues. Here women out there share their struggles eagerly to help and educate girls like myself. After learning about the experiences of others, I too feel encouraged to share my encounters.

Another incentive from engaging in this forum would be the gaining the knowledge of women all over the world. I get to understand their mindsets and perspectives (they also provide amazing fashion and skincare tips:) )

Conclusion
Hence this is my example of a ‘Gift Economy’. Through this I have learnt that the ‘Gift Economy’ is about 'agency'. You should be an active consumer of gifts. Everyone has within them the capability to contribute, and the network will only grow if everyone turns the gifts they have received to others. We need to learn to become responsive of our own agency.

Reference:

Kollock, Peter (1999). 'The Economies of Online Cooperation; Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace" Retrieved February 7, 2007 from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm



Pollard, Dave (2005). "The Gift Economy" Retrieved February 7, 2007 from http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2005/04/17.html

Open Source Definition (2007), Voices from the open source revolution Retrieved on February 7, 2007, from http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html

QotW3: Sharing, Copyright and Creative culture

ASSIGNMENT2

All over the world, public schools are spending lesser than three percent of their budgets each year on textbooks and other copyrighted works--approximately $5.4 billion out of current expenditures of well over $200 billion. Many teachers and students are either doing without the material or pirating it. One study found that some 32 percent of 1,349 participants had illegally copied software.

Copyright???

Copyright provides one with the legal rights over subject matter (Circular 92, 2003). This “one” refers to the content creators themselves. It prevents unauthorized replication of any kind of material ranging from written work to music cds.

Copyright allows the creators to gain financially from their inventions which in fact, becomes their motivation to continue inventing. The public also benefit from this as they also use information or the entire invention to meet certain needs. Most of them the time, creations are meant to be used by the public. For instance, how does a singer benefit if his albums are not selling? How does a novelist succeed if his or her novels are not being read?


Problem!!!

However, this ‘usage’ of information by the public in an illegal way is what that leads to encroachment of property that is not theirs. For example, plagiarism in blogs without proper citation, photocopying, duplicating masterpieces in paintings as art ‘practice’, pirated vcds and so on.

How it works?

Putting ourselves in the shoes of the creator, creation is a miracle of life; from metamorphose to the realization of the new idea. It is something that could only happen to a few people in a life time. Along with that of course, the lucky ones would jealously want to protect the invention, make it rare and precious so that they can make a good fortune out of it. "Rules are made to be broken". In the majority people who cannot impregnate an invention, some would not accept the inferiority complex, but rather to exercise their wit and skills to take away the original invention, embellish it, and create a new version of product, sold it cheaper and in big volume, so that they can make a good fortune out of it. This is the current situation in concerning music albums.

Sometimes, the thief outwits the creator, by giving out the product at the same time with the original (Circular 92, 2003). Most of the time, the copy product is cheaper and comes out abundantly, making it affordable to common people who survive paycheck by paycheck. This is especially true for products that correspond to human basic needs.

Way out???

So what should we do? Implement some sort of Microsoft-like product activation system? No, I do not think that is a solution.

Here in the information age, virtually all intellectual creations can be protected by some form of intellectual property law. Intellectual property (IP) segments the universe of intellectual creations into three domains: copyrights, trademarks and patents. In a nutshell, copyright protects expression, trademark protects names, and patents protect ideas.
However it is argued that intellectual property laws need to balance the interests of creators with different motivations, not just the interests of those creators seeking economic benefits with the public interest.

For some, economics are the reason for creative expression. However, for many, there are non-monetary reasons for creative works. In a democratic system, freedom of expression about our political beliefs and perceptions of what is happening in the world is absolutely essential. While a few of us write and sing for a living, families and communities throughout the ages have been sharing stories and song with no expectation of monetary reward. Academics write research articles for impact, not for money. A great many people do volunteer work of many forms; creative works sometimes arise from these efforts. Intellectual property laws and procedures designed specifically to guard economic interests may impede the goals of creators in this sense.

For example, if the work of an author who freely shares his or her work, with the hope that many will read it, is placed behind an anti-circumvention barrier, then this particular IP protection is thwarting and not helping the goals of this creator.
Therefore another possible solution can be the approach which is most likely to accommodate these varying needs of creators and the public is one based on the Creative Commons approach (Circular 92,2003), rather than traditional copyright law. The beauty of the Creative Commons approach is that it allows for IP protection for the creator who wants it, but also freedom to share for the creator with different motives. It is up to the creator to select from a variety of options, from retaining all rights to retaining commercial rights but allowing education uses, to retaining commercial rights in the developed world and allowing free use in the developing world.


Wrapping up:)

Although the solutions I mentioned can help, their impact may not be lasting unless there is a change in mindset among the public. The public must realize that intrusion of materials that do not belong to them is not only illegal but morally incorrect.

They should think from the view of creators, considering how disastrous it is when your creation is being stolen by others you do not even know. The public must thoroughly understand why it is wrong to duplicate another’s work and use them for their own benefits.

Unless this happens, a balance to accommodate both content creators and the public cannot be fully achieved.




References


Crews, K. D. (30 April, 2001). “The expiration of copyright protection: survey and analysis of U.S copyright law and analysis of U.S copyright law for identifying the public domain. Retrieved on January 31, 2007 fromhttp://www.dml.indiana.edu/pdf/dml-copyright-duration-report.pdf

Circular 92 (2003). Act. 106. US Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code. US Government Printing Office. Retrieved on January 31, 2007, fromhttp://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf


Recording Industry Association of America, n.d. In Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 23:20, February 1, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riaa


Litman, J. (2003). Sharing and Stealing. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved February 1, 2007 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=472141