Monthly Archives: April 2013

Printer Unique Identification Technology

Posted on April 8, 2013 by | 6 Comments

According to this article the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has been aware of and alerting the public to unique printer identification or “printer dots” since about 2004. It goes on to state that the companies who have implemented this have done so of free will and in collusion with the United States government. The EFF has kindly provided a list of printers that have been tested for “anomalous yellow dots” that indicate unique identification. This article explains what the results mean and how they were obtained as to expose their methodology to as much scrutiny as possible. According to this document obtained by the EFF through a Freedom of Information Act request Canon, Brother, Casio, Hewlett-Packard, Konica, Minolta, Mita, Ricoh, Sharp, and Xerox are complicit in these acts.

The implementation of a tracking device, especially without informing the citizen/consumer of its existence, is very troubling because it directly violates the right to anonymous, free speech, a pillar of our cultural identity. A more troubling idea is that not only can the government read and interrupt this data, but so can anybody with the knowledge to do so which includes _AT LEAST_ the a handful of people in each of the above mentioned companies. This also opens the door for a person or persons to forge a paper from another persons printer and use it against them while being much harder to detect or disprove.

Interestingly enough act utilitarianism could plausibly used to justify this, especially since most people are ignorant of this fact, but the more applicable idea of moral rights theory is in a strange stalemate depending on who is asked. Founding father Ben Franklin stated “[s]ell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power,” or more colloquially, “[h]e who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”

Are the freedoms sacrificed worth the security gained?

→ 6 Comments

Posted by in Classroom discussion continuation, Media, information, and communication, Technology and information policy, Technology and society.

Globalization and Technology

Posted on April 8, 2013 by | 3 Comments

I came across this article on BBC business news section and surprisingly, it is related to our reading for Monday;  the article talks about the next phase of technology and globalization. Speaking from experience as a foreigner, technology has changed the way the world communicate, i can Skype, Facebook chat with my cousins in the most remote village in The Gambia. The article divided the effects of technology and globalization into three sections.

Most businesses operate on a rationality concept- getting more done and spending less. According to the article, except for the jobs that require complex knowledge and expertise, many middle skilled jobs will be at risk of been outsourced. I am not okay with this part of technology and globalization because not every person can become an engineer, a lawyer or a doctors; if semi-skilled jobs are outsourced, it may become hard for people who do not have complex expertise to find decent jobs.

Another highlight the article talked about is external competition. One of the  crucial reason people the outside world are lured to the West is access to better education. With Educational platforms like MIT’s OpenCourseWare, Open Yale, and iTunes U, high quality education can be acquired by students living in some remote parts of the world. I think this is a good move, because it will minimize immigration and open the world to people who may not have to chance to travel to the West.

The article finally talked about emergence of Transnationals. To summarize the last part of the article  it simple said that technology will continue to re-balance the world by creating leaders form different parts of the world. what i understand from this is that in the near future, ones look  may not judge his origin and the American for example will have a prefix, say a Chinese American.

In most aspects, I am in support of the rising trend of technology and globalization,  because i think it will help bring light the many different cultures and people of the world on some kind of similar platform, what do you think?

→ 3 Comments

Posted by in Classroom discussion continuation, Media, information, and communication, Technology and society.

Violating Terms of Service could be criminal

Posted on April 6, 2013 by | 1 Comment

The Department of Justice has in the past taken the stance that violating the terms of service of a website is a criminal act, such as in the cases US v. Drew and US v. Nosal. With this, many underage people would be violating the law when on the internet, even when they are on news websites. Due to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection and for other reasons, many news sites have it in their terms of service that one has to be 18 or over to view their articles. While this has not yet become legal precedent, there’s a proposal in the House Judiciary Committee to make this a modification to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Many consider the law as it is too broad and vague, as it allows selective persecution, such as with Aaron Swartz. With the suggested changes, this would make the law extremely prone to abuse, as it applies to such a broad part of the population. I think that this proposal speaks a lot about the disparity between legal policy and technology, and that it goes against the Kantian view of individuals as autonomous moral agents. People should be able to decide for themselves if they want to view the content of a website, though there should exist a method that allows them to know what they might be viewing beforehand, which I think that the terms of service currently exist to fulfill.

→ 1 Comment

Posted by in Technology and information policy, Technology and society.

Consumer Protection is hot in Cali

Posted on April 5, 2013 by | 1 Comment
California – already known for their progress in pushing issues surrounding privacy advocacy and consumer protection – are again trying to shift the norm by requiring companies to (upon request by the consumer) to disclose all data they’ve collected on you as part of any producer/consumer transaction. Whether it be a good or service – online or offline – the “Right to Know Act of 2013” would require businesses to keep accurate and detailed records of any customer data that they’re received from you. Particularly important in this proposal was the stipulation that would also require businesses to keep track of who else gets access to your consumer data.
            This may not seem like a huge deal, because at the moment, current Californian law states that customers have the right to request accounting of disclosures of direct marketing purposes (for example, you call and find out your local telephone company has been doing small-time selling of your home phone number to advertising agencies). However, the new proposal sheds light on what is otherwise a very non-descriptive and loose boundary setting law that protects consumers right now. It provides consumers with additional tools and resources too truly see where their data is going – including access to their own information sold to online advertisers, data brokers and third-party apps.
            Although this is doesn’t seem like an enormous move in terms of protecting consumers, California has had a knack for testing good consumer-protection legislation only to be later similarly adopted in other states. It’s important that we as consumers continue to keep up with the ideas that we as consumers are worth more than individual buyers – our power comes from the fact that we are the sum of many parts. How important do you think it is that consumers push to strengthen and further define our rights as capitalism in America becomes more and more digitized?

→ 1 Comment

Posted by in Uncategorized.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The ageless issue of privacy at work

Posted on April 3, 2013 by | 1 Comment

A bill amendment proposed yesterday – if passed – would allow potential employers to demand for your Facebook or other social media passwords during company investigations for employees in Washington state. Odd this amendment’s goal is – as one of the original bill’s sole purposes was to bar employers from even requesting for social media passwords during a job interview. Instead, this amendment decided to take the argument in the opposite direction and actually restrict our right to privacy as paid employees even further. Specifically – the amendment allows an employer to ‘require or demand’ access to a personal account if this current employee – or any prospective employees – has allegations of work-place misconduct, where the allegation would require an official investigation to determine legitimacy.

However even the small amount of literature concerning the investigation is spotty and non-specific at best, which in turn has most people worried about the potential for exploitation in this amendment. The general consensus among the opposed is obviously reasoned, “why on earth should employees be held responsible for what they do on a social networking site”, especially as the national trend is moving away from this type of thing. In fact – seven states this year have banned employers from asking applicants/employees social network passwords, and 33 states are considering similar legislation.

So why is this issue so important, and why now? My main question here is why employers all of a sudden deem it necessary rip open your private, digital life in order to meet hiring requirements. How has technology changed in the past couple years, causing this issue to become relevant and important today?  Has there been a ‘low-tech’ (i.e. not an online social) network of this kind to facilitate the breaching of employer-employee privacy in the past?

→ 1 Comment

Posted by in Uncategorized.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Printable….Ships?

Posted on April 2, 2013 by | 1 Comment

Today I read an article about two Navy lieutenants named Scott Cheney-Peters and Matthew Hipple. In the journal of the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, the pair talked about the growth of 3D printers and that in the future these printers could change almost everything about the way the Navy builds things “through the design and construction of ships, submarines, aircraft, and everything carried on board.” As 3D printers evolve, their hope is that the Navy can use them for everyday logistics and producing tools and supplies. Cheney-Peters and Hipple want 3D printing to be so heavily incorporated into Navy use that it is used to print plates, tools, medical supplies, and even ships. They even hope that 3D printers can be placed in Naval hospitals so doctors can use them to print medical tools and prosthetic limbs. At this point in time, 3D printers are not capable of being used to the degree that these lieutenants are hoping, such as for printing ships and aircraft. The highest quality 3D printers cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they still cannot print high quality rubber or metals that the Navy needs in production.

In our class, we have discussed 3D printing a number of times. We have also discussed drones. What is they were combined? Researchers in Virginia and the United Kingdom have printed working, flyable drones (without engines of course). As 3D printing becomes more popular and affordable, we will continue to hear more stories like this. However, the time is coming where it will be possible to print ships. If we can print ships, why not a nice car? Printable houses are already possible. What will be done to keep this all in line? Will the Government soon make limits on what can be done with 3D printers? Or will we continue to print 3D guns and whatsoever we desire as 3D printing evolves?

→ 1 Comment

Posted by in Classroom discussion continuation, New technology, Science, Technology and society.

Tagged , , ,