Friday, November 27, 2009
Chinese Google Censorship
The Chinese Government asked Google to sensor some of the search results so it could prevent the Chinese citizens from looking up pornography or other contents that the government wants to be censored. The issues here is the censorship of information that might harm the reputation or demonstrate the corruption of the country. This is in a way altering the truth of what actually happened and deceiving the people into believing what is a lie to others. Whilst a government exists for its people, this is more like an example of a government that controls its people.
The video argues that Google lied about censoring the Internet in China and how this affects the internet use of the user negatively. The integrity of the information is violated as well as the trust for a big corporation as Google will be demolished.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Precision Guided Munition
Precision Guided Munition also known as smart munitions, are guided weapons used to precisely hit a target making the munition more effective. Unlike a guided missile, the precision guided munition relies on the height and speed of the aircraft for propulsion instead of an onboard engine. By using this type of amunition, less amunition will have to be used to attack a target. Since it is more accurate, it is more effective therefore even if bombs miss, fewer bombs will be used, less aircrafts would be put at risk, and civilians would be running a lower risk of harm. The lower the risk and collateral damage, the better.
We've seen from history how weapons that were intended to destroy important cities also have killed thousands of innocent civilians in the process. For instance, in 2008, eleven people were killed after Russian aircraft dropped cluster bombs in populated area in Georgia. Although the casualties do not seem very big, nonetheless it still serves as an example of the collateral damage a bomb can cause.
So, as to prevent these damages, a new type of weapon called Precision-guided Munition (PGM) or sometimes called smart weapon was invented. These are designed to precisely hit a specific target, and to minimize damage to things other than the target itself.
There are several positive outcomes with the use of PGMs. The most obvious one is that military will be able to reduce civilian casualties. The effectiveness of a bomb is measured in Circle of Equal Probability or CEP which is the radius of a circle that half the shots will land in and most smart boms have a CEP of about 10m while the bombs used in WWII had a CEP of about 8km. So from these number you can clearly see how effective these PGMs are. When back in the days in order to win a war thousand of people had to be sacrficed for the good of the greater cause, these days, with the development of technology, the military won't have to risk people's lives anymore which eases the planning of an attack and also it is more easier for soldiers to attack, so there is less mental stress.
However, there are still limitations to this technology. For example a laser guided bomb which is a type of PGM might be accurate, but the conditions that need to be met in order to bomb an area accurately is too complicated. For instance, the bomb has to be released at a height, speed and angle that give it a reasonable chance of latching onto the guidance cone of light and if the climate is foggy or not very clear, then the accuracy greatly decreases, which makes me wonder whether we can really rely on this technology.
Also, it is not able to distinguish the target. What I mean by this is that if the target is a tank and for some reason there is a moving truck at the same location, then the bomb will not be able to distinguish which is the enemy and might eventually strike the truck. Finally one other limitation is that if the missiles lose their target, then they become uncontrollable. Yes, technology improved the accuracy of the missiles but at the same time we've become too dependent on them that there still problems occurring. We will not be able to ensure the people's lives during a war if there happened to be a little kid besides a tank or if the environmental conditions were not right. So we must question the reliability of the PGM and also be aware that during a war, the opponent is not naive enough to wait for us until we can use this technology.
We've seen from history how weapons that were intended to destroy important cities also have killed thousands of innocent civilians in the process. For instance, in 2008, eleven people were killed after Russian aircraft dropped cluster bombs in populated area in Georgia. Although the casualties do not seem very big, nonetheless it still serves as an example of the collateral damage a bomb can cause.
So, as to prevent these damages, a new type of weapon called Precision-guided Munition (PGM) or sometimes called smart weapon was invented. These are designed to precisely hit a specific target, and to minimize damage to things other than the target itself.
There are several positive outcomes with the use of PGMs. The most obvious one is that military will be able to reduce civilian casualties. The effectiveness of a bomb is measured in Circle of Equal Probability or CEP which is the radius of a circle that half the shots will land in and most smart boms have a CEP of about 10m while the bombs used in WWII had a CEP of about 8km. So from these number you can clearly see how effective these PGMs are. When back in the days in order to win a war thousand of people had to be sacrficed for the good of the greater cause, these days, with the development of technology, the military won't have to risk people's lives anymore which eases the planning of an attack and also it is more easier for soldiers to attack, so there is less mental stress.
However, there are still limitations to this technology. For example a laser guided bomb which is a type of PGM might be accurate, but the conditions that need to be met in order to bomb an area accurately is too complicated. For instance, the bomb has to be released at a height, speed and angle that give it a reasonable chance of latching onto the guidance cone of light and if the climate is foggy or not very clear, then the accuracy greatly decreases, which makes me wonder whether we can really rely on this technology.
Also, it is not able to distinguish the target. What I mean by this is that if the target is a tank and for some reason there is a moving truck at the same location, then the bomb will not be able to distinguish which is the enemy and might eventually strike the truck. Finally one other limitation is that if the missiles lose their target, then they become uncontrollable. Yes, technology improved the accuracy of the missiles but at the same time we've become too dependent on them that there still problems occurring. We will not be able to ensure the people's lives during a war if there happened to be a little kid besides a tank or if the environmental conditions were not right. So we must question the reliability of the PGM and also be aware that during a war, the opponent is not naive enough to wait for us until we can use this technology.
Do you think that this technology is secure enough or should we develop it more?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Obama and Web 2.0
What strategy did president Barack Obama use to persuade the people during his 2008 presidential election? Yes, he fully took advantage of the Web 2.0 and the results? He won.
As known by many, Facebook is the most popular social network in which millions of people connect or interact with each other throughout the whole world. This all gave Barack Obama a great idea, an idea that would certainly help boost up the number of votes in his favor. During the presidential campaign, Facebook launched its own forum to encourage people to debate or discuss different points of views. There is proof that this strategy did in fact help Barack Obama win at the presidential election; 70% of Americans under the age of 25 (the common ages of people mostly involved in social networks) voted for him.
But how effectives are these websites? Look at the video
Web 2.0 allows people to advertise themselves because it is the users who hunt down the companies and not vice versa. With the old traditional way of advertising, companies would have to spread fliers to the customers. However with Web 2.0, all the president had to do was to make a profile in a social networking site and young Americans would automatically become a member, and thus the president became more popular.
Also the president took advantage of the capability of blogs. By adding new posts, he was able to spread his opinion faster through the web by internet users and also it created a sense of closeness between the president and the users which was more enticing.
By familiarizing himself and taking advantage of the digital era, Barack Obama successfully won the presidential election. It seems from now on technology will be a key to the success for candidates which will gradually turn election into E-lections.
What other aspects of Web 2.0 do you think would aid the government or political candidates?
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Cyber Attack & Government
Cyber attacks on a nations military and/or commercial computers have evolved into a more complex situation. In the past, this was simply done for the fun or rush of doing such a thing. Today, it is a real menace to a government due to the increase of ease in performing this. Also, with the on-going "race" of power between nations, cyber attacks are an easy and cheap way for one nation to attack another. This has evolved into such a problem that cyber-weapons are to be added to the list of arms falling under the remit of the UN.
The problem here is the lack of adequate cyber defences. By making it more difficult for anyone to attack a nation, obviously the better off the country will be. A cyber attack can easily destabilise a country with out even getting accross a border.
For example, imagine the world where smart grid is fully functional and every source of energy will be managed electronically. Then hackers could infiltrate and control the system causing power failures in chemical and water plants which would cause unimaginable losses in major cities shown in the video below.
This hypothetical scenario is best illustrated in the movie Die Hard 4 where the antagonist takes advantage of the computer-controlled infrastructure of the nation to explode energy plants, shut down major stock companies, thus creating fear amongst the citizens.
However, creating physical damage is not the only fear that the government has towards hackers. They are also on alert about having their own government network hacked. The government holds so much information, detailed information, on citizens that once a hacker hacks the network, then he/she could misuse that information. For instance, hackers stole data on 1500 Energy Department employees whose work related to nuclear arms. Although no harm was done, the hackers could have used this information to kidnap, bribe or even threaten national security.
We must take into account that some hackers infiltrate government networks as a means of protest, this is called Hacktivism. For example, three teenagers hacked into the network of India's atomic research center and downloaded files to protest India's test of nuclear weapons. But we must ask ourselves whether taking extreme measure to express our opinions is the appropriate way or whether it should be allowed because we have our freedom to express ourselves.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Monitoring Internet Activity
FBI wants widespread monitoring of 'illegal' Internet activity
In 2008, the FBI called for a new legislation that would allow the federal police to monitor internet activities in order to filter "illegal activities".
Yes, this might sound like a very good idea. This plan will make sure that there won't be cyber attacks such as DOS or DDOS and the government will also be able to effectively root out inmates who are planning to carry out "illegal activities" by announcing it in the world wide web. FBI director, Robert Mueller, said "to go beyond a current plan to monitor traffic on federal-government networks. Mueller seemed to suggest that the bureau should have a broad "omnibus" authority to conduct monitoring and surveillance of private-sector networks as well."
Mr. Mueller's plan will surely ensure that we won't encounter child pornography or have our websites shut down because of cyber attacks. Then major companies such as Amazon that solely rely on the internet would not have to worry about having their websites shut down, which if it were to happen, it could mean tons of loss. Another advantage is that governments could locate terrorist plans in the web and prevent them preemptively.
However, should we sacrifice our rights for these benefits?
If the plan were to be passed, then this would be a breach of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution where it guards citizens against "unreasonable searches and seizures". To me it seems a little ironic that the federal government is trying to "legalize" the internet by ignoring the rights that individuals in the United States hold as citizens. Also we have to question what is the FBI's standard of "illegal activities". This is such a broad term that could range from DOS attacks to "talking bad about the president".
Consequently this will create fear amongst internet users because they do not know what, how or why they are being monitored. For example, right after 9/11, the FBI investigated an old man because he was speaking about Osama BinLaden. The same scenario could happen in the net where if an internet user were to speak about Osama BinLaden, then the government could label the user as "performing illegal activities". Then the internet would become an anarchy rather than a place where people can freely express their opinions.
After looking at the video, do you think that it was it just for the FBI to arrest Michael for its internet activities in Twitter?
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Government Database
The UK government plans to create a database that will monitor the internet activity of its users. Although the ministers said that "it's not a case of creating a single government-owned database but instead a way of keeping track of contact, as opposed to monitoring the actual contents of what is being said." 40% of those who were asked during the Home Office Consultation opposed the plan
Having a central database that hold medical and financial information of the public will break down the unnecessary barriers between different government department, thus it will increase the efficiency by responding more quickly and effectively to the public's needs. Also the public will not have to give out the same personal information to different departments, so having a central database also benefits the public.
But a question that one might come up is, How will the government hold this massive amount of information in a database? The amount of data will only create more mistakes and confusion which will decrease the efficiency of processing information.
A government database could indeed increase the efficiency of the work for both the public and the government but by sacrificing some of the rights that the public has.
In the year 2000, the Canadian government developed a DNA database that is capable of identifying a person even with minute samples of blood. However, the problem is that what if organizations, companies or even small businesses are given access to these databases? Then a person would be judged by his/her DNA rather than the personality. For example, a person could be rejected from a job because he happened to carry a disease that the employer seemed dangerous when in fact it could have been harmless. This doesn't only apply to jobs but can also apply to health care, adoption, insurance and other social services that the government provides. I agree with the notion that a DNA database could be used very effectively in capturing inmates because it is a definite benefit.
However, the fact that the government database hold the public's personal information is like saying "You are a suspect so we must store your information in our database". But weren't we innocent until proven guilty?
Some others argue, that having a database is an invasion of privacy. Citizens should not give up their own privacy for the convenience of the government's data management, but rather the government exists to serve the citizens. So, allowing governments to store all personal information in a database is just going beyond what is necessary.
Do you think it is necessary for governments to hold personal information on their databases or is this unnecessary and a invasion of privacy?
Monday, November 9, 2009
One Laptop Per Child (OLPC)
That is why I am one the passionate observers who understand the great value of the OLPC. Nicholas Negroponte's is an inspired idea which about to produce a paradigm shift in education. What I would have done if I had an OLPC in 1951! My education would have been so much faster, richer and more exciting. And that is the opportunity that millions of children will have. Children are similar regardless of the circumstances surrounding them, like puppies are similar in any place in the world. -Mario Miyojim-
Nicholas Negroponte has been able to receive praise from various organization for his One Laptop Per Child plan, targeted to improve the education in developing countries. Due to it's environmental friendly architecture and the cheap cost, the laptop provides a lot of benefits to children in poor countries.
The laptop has a battery life of 13 hours, which reduces the use of electricity and in some cases the laptop can be charged manually. For example in Afghanistan, where electricity is an issue, a prototype using pedals, instead of the original hand cranks, to generate electricity was introduced for people to produce electricity in a more easier way(Mafia2020). Therefore, even the children who are not financially well off can use the laptop to improve their education.
The implementation of OLPC could be crucial for governments in developing countries to improve the education of the young ones who have the potential to develop the country. But there are still issues concerning with this program.
As it is common with students who are using laptops at school, the use of OLPC might mean that there will be less socialization between the students and the teacher. Then, the students would come to rely more on their laptops than on their teachers, which brings the question of whether the laptop will truly improve the question of whether it will only incite students to study by themselves.
Also from the teacher's perspective, they could have a hard time getting accustomed to a new education systems where it involves laptops. Therefore, the class might be spent analyzing how the laptop works which could decrease the productivity of learning. Another problem might be that teacher might also be too dependent on the technology which could cause them to tell the students to do this and to do that in the laptop while the teacher himself does not do anything (Tse).
The misuse of the laptops could also be a problem. Although OLPC was carried out with the idea of improving children's education in developing countries, what if with time, they learn how to deviate from what they are supposed to do and start accessing inappropriate websites? Also using the net, means that there are possible issues of privacy. Children could eventually learn how to use the internet and start posting personal information in the net because they haven't had the right education of the possible threats of the net.
Do you think that students in developing countries should set up a proper educational environment first or is distributing OLPC a good plan?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)