Eric Butler created Firesheep, a free downloadable program that allows users to easily hack others' computers on the same unsecured wi-fi network, to demonstrate the vulnerability of the current website security employed by most websites. This article from the New York Times, New Hacking Tools Pose Bigger Threats to Wi-Fi Users by Kate Murphy, exposes how insecure some websites are that handle sensitive data. Firesheep uses cookies to impersonate the victim on the website, which can also give the malicious Firesheep user access to the victim's account information.
This article has a couple of interesting points. The most interesting is that this program, which is easy to access and download, was created as an impetus to change the current approac to security employed by many websites. Another important point, that everyone should know, is that one really shouldn't conduct sensitive business on unsecured networks. Additionally, this makes me a little afraid and disappointed that web companies don't do anything about this.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Twitterpated
Pressed for time as I always am these days, I read Twitter's Biz Stone On Starting A Revolution from NPR instead of listening to the interview with Biz Stone (is that his real name?). Anyway, Biz is the creator of Twitter, which is a social media technology that I do not use and am not too familiar with because the general impression I get is that it's for people who like to continuously update their friends on every little thing they do each day (in 140 characters or less). I also see it as part of why people's attention spans are decreasing rapidly.
My judgments aside, Twitter played an interesting role in the Egyptian revolution (is that what we're calling it?) that deserves to be recognized as an innovative use of this new(ish) technology. In addition to using Twitter to organize, Egyptians used Twitter to broadcast what was happening in their country after the Internet was shut down. Collaboration between Google and Twitter made it so people could call local numbers, speak into the phone, and this message would be made into tweets. That's pretty neat.
In the article, Biz does talk about how these technologies are bringing the world together into a global community. He believes that by reading a tweet from someone across the globe, we can feel greater empathy for our fellow humans. I'm not sure about this. On the one hand, it's another way to reach people and create ties across the world; on the other hand, it has the potential to weaken interpersonal relationships with your immediate world.
My judgments aside, Twitter played an interesting role in the Egyptian revolution (is that what we're calling it?) that deserves to be recognized as an innovative use of this new(ish) technology. In addition to using Twitter to organize, Egyptians used Twitter to broadcast what was happening in their country after the Internet was shut down. Collaboration between Google and Twitter made it so people could call local numbers, speak into the phone, and this message would be made into tweets. That's pretty neat.
In the article, Biz does talk about how these technologies are bringing the world together into a global community. He believes that by reading a tweet from someone across the globe, we can feel greater empathy for our fellow humans. I'm not sure about this. On the one hand, it's another way to reach people and create ties across the world; on the other hand, it has the potential to weaken interpersonal relationships with your immediate world.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Man versus Machine
I just learned about this ridiculousness last night in class when someone made a comment about Watson and everyone seemed to know what that meant. For those who don't know (for those stuck in some graduate school bubble/choose not to watch tv), Watson is a super computer that has been beating the two best Jeopardy stars ever (here's an article about it). Yes, people care about this. And they should, but not because it's on some game show. Rather, because this computer is able to use ambiguous clues to deduce answers faster than humans.
Imagine Google doing that. According to this article (Which search engine would win at Jeopardy?), that ranks search engines on how well they would do on Jeopardy, Google would have the correct answer 66% of the time, with some other search engines close behind. Watson was significantly more accurate than that. Imagine the implications for future search engines. I'd like to know how Watson does what it does--does it function as a search engine like the others? People seem to think that this is it for AI--the robots are next! People are weird.
Imagine Google doing that. According to this article (Which search engine would win at Jeopardy?), that ranks search engines on how well they would do on Jeopardy, Google would have the correct answer 66% of the time, with some other search engines close behind. Watson was significantly more accurate than that. Imagine the implications for future search engines. I'd like to know how Watson does what it does--does it function as a search engine like the others? People seem to think that this is it for AI--the robots are next! People are weird.
Will Facebook be as friendless as Zuckerberg in The Social Network?
So, clearly, I am obsessed with Facebook. Not obsessed like I have withdrawal symptoms if I don't post my status every hour, but obsessed in that I love reading about the way Facebook is (or is not) disrupting business as usual on the Internet. This article, Facebook's Growing Web of Frenemies by Geoffrey A. Fowler from the Wall Street Journal, talks about Facebook's relationships with other IT companies. Some companies must decide whether to continue to compete with Facebook or join forces. Facebook is taking ad revenue away from some companies, even companies using traditional forms of advertising. It's that powerful. For example, Yahoo has integrated Facebook features into its sites instead of directly competing with the company.
Like I mentioned in a previous post, Facebook is trying to do more. I did mock its preliminary ideas about email and messaging services, yes. But it's going bigger! Facebook is creating a platform, which will put it in direct competition with other major IT companies. I don't know how this will all pan out, but should we be afraid of the Fb taking over the world?
Like I mentioned in a previous post, Facebook is trying to do more. I did mock its preliminary ideas about email and messaging services, yes. But it's going bigger! Facebook is creating a platform, which will put it in direct competition with other major IT companies. I don't know how this will all pan out, but should we be afraid of the Fb taking over the world?
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Can Facebook Improve Retention Rates?
I'm skeptical about social networking. I'm skeptical about how well it actually works for creating a network of friends beyond just acquaintances. I wonder how much it helps people connect around common interests, or how much it gets people to move outside themselves. I wonder about its possibilities for creating stronger bonds between people.
But never fear! According to an article by Larry Abramson from NPR, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is investing money in Inigral, a company that creates Facebook sites for schools in order to create a greater sense of community for students. This is an effort by the Foundation to decrease dropout rates, which can be as high as half of the freshman class by the end of the year. Apparently, retention rates have been decreasing significantly, so colleges are looking for different ways to keep these students enrolled. These sites attempt to create a network of peer support for students--available immediately upon starting school. The sites will be only for college students at that particular school.
As mentioned in the article, it will be difficult to judge how successful these school-specific Facebook pages are for creating a peer support system and reducing dropout rates. While I remain skeptical, I do like the different ways people are using social networking technologies, especially for endeavors greater than wishing the friend you haven't seen for 10 years a happy birthday.
But never fear! According to an article by Larry Abramson from NPR, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is investing money in Inigral, a company that creates Facebook sites for schools in order to create a greater sense of community for students. This is an effort by the Foundation to decrease dropout rates, which can be as high as half of the freshman class by the end of the year. Apparently, retention rates have been decreasing significantly, so colleges are looking for different ways to keep these students enrolled. These sites attempt to create a network of peer support for students--available immediately upon starting school. The sites will be only for college students at that particular school.
As mentioned in the article, it will be difficult to judge how successful these school-specific Facebook pages are for creating a peer support system and reducing dropout rates. While I remain skeptical, I do like the different ways people are using social networking technologies, especially for endeavors greater than wishing the friend you haven't seen for 10 years a happy birthday.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Ebooks, what are you doing?!
Steven Johnson brings words of doom and gloom for the book, the physical book, as we know it. In this article, Johnson discusses how ebooks are and will change the way people read and write. As a future librarian, I find this topic fascinating because it will change the way I approach my job. And potentially the way I relate to books on a personal level.
Johnson talks about how "print books have remained a kind of game preserve for the endangered species of linear, deep-focus reading" in a world full of electronic distractions like hyperlinks, smart phones, iPads, email, and our decreasing attention spans. However, with the rise of the ebook, book reading may conform to these distractions and become yet another quick activity that happens between checking email, sending a text, and updating a Facebook status.
Additionally, Johnson writes that "Reading books will go from being a fundamentally private activity -- a direct exchange between author and reader -- to a community event, with every isolated paragraph the launching pad for a conversation with strangers around the world." This is made possible through the same channels that provide distraction: hyperlinks, social networks, social tagging. I have to say, though, that while this idea of a global community around a certain text seems a little idealistic, it's pretty cool. This aspect makes me optimistic about inspiring more people to read, to expand their literary tastes, and think critically about literature. I also wonder if it's easier to become distracted this way too: you find a passage that you don't understand, so you look to see what other people have said about it. Then you look to see what other books are cited, then you look at other comments, then other citations, and five minutes later, you're very far away from what you were reading.
Ebooks may also change the way people write. If books are purchased by chapter, this type of micropayment system will ensure that books are written with chapters to be read individually. This can work in some contexts but, as Artistotle said, the whole is different from the sum of its parts.
I'm not sure how much of this will come to pass. It's interesting, and some parts of it sound beneficial to the way people relate to text. I don't see this happening anytime soon because the people in my generation are quite tied to books. With younger generations who grow up with ebooks, who knows?
But that's fine, I'll still have a job.
Johnson talks about how "print books have remained a kind of game preserve for the endangered species of linear, deep-focus reading" in a world full of electronic distractions like hyperlinks, smart phones, iPads, email, and our decreasing attention spans. However, with the rise of the ebook, book reading may conform to these distractions and become yet another quick activity that happens between checking email, sending a text, and updating a Facebook status.
Additionally, Johnson writes that "Reading books will go from being a fundamentally private activity -- a direct exchange between author and reader -- to a community event, with every isolated paragraph the launching pad for a conversation with strangers around the world." This is made possible through the same channels that provide distraction: hyperlinks, social networks, social tagging. I have to say, though, that while this idea of a global community around a certain text seems a little idealistic, it's pretty cool. This aspect makes me optimistic about inspiring more people to read, to expand their literary tastes, and think critically about literature. I also wonder if it's easier to become distracted this way too: you find a passage that you don't understand, so you look to see what other people have said about it. Then you look to see what other books are cited, then you look at other comments, then other citations, and five minutes later, you're very far away from what you were reading.
Ebooks may also change the way people write. If books are purchased by chapter, this type of micropayment system will ensure that books are written with chapters to be read individually. This can work in some contexts but, as Artistotle said, the whole is different from the sum of its parts.
I'm not sure how much of this will come to pass. It's interesting, and some parts of it sound beneficial to the way people relate to text. I don't see this happening anytime soon because the people in my generation are quite tied to books. With younger generations who grow up with ebooks, who knows?
But that's fine, I'll still have a job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)