Unlike our national identity cards, online identities may not carry even an ounce of truth in it. Everything from the name, race, date of birth, sex, address and blood group can be made up. Unfortunately, since there are just too many Andreas out there, I had to make up another name – andreosity, to open my Yahoo email account. Nevertheless, wherever possible, I would rather use my real name online (eg. Friendster, Blogspot).
Speaking of Friendster, even though I have a Friendster account, I would never make it on their list of active or loyal users. I personally feel that Friendster was designed primarily to feed our egos. From there, we see and show others how “popular” we are, simply by the number of “friends” we have there. Not to mention the ‘testimonials’ section, where I must admit I have ever resorted to reading through when I needed some ego boosting myself. The testimonials I have received remind me of how wonderful, talented, beautiful, appreciated and well loved I am (blah blah blah…. Get a life, Andrea). And honestly, who really cares what my favorite shows, songs or books are, which by the way have not changed since 2003, when I started the account to quell my boredom at the workplace.
Despite there being millions of cyber users who have online identities, many are still oblivious to the risks of identity theft. According to Schneier, B. in Mitigating Identity Theft, the term "identity theft" itself is an oxymoron. “Identity is not a possession that can be acquired or lost; it's not a thing at all. Someone's identity is the one thing about a person that cannot be stolen.” He adds that the real crime here is fraud, more specifically, impersonation leading to fraud. For example, a criminal impersonates a victim online and steals money from his account. No one's identity is stolen, but identity information is misused to commit fraud.
Schneier also stresses that the crime involves two very separate issues – (1) privacy of personal data, and (2) the ease with which a criminal can use personal data to commit fraud. Personal privacy is important for many reasons, one of which is impersonation and fraud. As more information about us is collected, correlated, and sold, it becomes easier for criminals to get their hands on the data they need to commit fraud. And to illustrate the second issue, is the simple case of applying for a credit card in someone else’s name. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced in September 2005 that there had been 27.3 million cases of identity theft in the last five years. And overall, this crime cost U.S. citizens $52.6 billion in 2004 (Forbes.com, 2005).
In Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community, Donath, J.S. discusses another aspect of identity – identity deception.
To avoid falling into the web of deceit, Donath advises that it is vital to distinguish between institutional and commercial accounts. Institutional accounts are online addresses from universities, research labs and corporations; they are given to people because of an association with the institute. However, unlike the institutional accounts, commercial accounts do not imply any affiliation; they simply mean that the user has signed up for the service.
“The account name is thus an important, but limited, form of online identification. It is important because it is ubiquitous: all postings must have the account name in the header. It is a key marker of individual identity: although there is not always a one-to-one mapping between an account name and a real world person (accounts may be shared, some people have several accounts), the account name is generally perceived to refer to a single person (or persona). And it may provide some contextual information about the writer, information that, while quite sketchy, may be the only such cues in the posting” (Donath, 1996).
For a tighter safety measure, the domain name needs to be evaluated within the culture of the net and of the organizations that provide access.
Learning of these pitfalls in the virtual world only makes me more hesitant to increase my involvement there. In fact, I’m even considering closing my Friendster account very soon…lest I make a tempting prey.
REFERENCES
Donath. , J, S. (1996, November). Identity and deception in the virtual community. MIT Media Lab. Retrieved on 6 February 2007, from
http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
Hooked on Phishing (2005). Forbes.com. Retrieved on 6 February 2007, from http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/04/29/cz_0429oxan_identitytheft.html
Schneier, B. (2005, April). Schneier on Security: Mitigating Identity Theft. Retrieved on February 6, 2007 from http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/04/mitigating_iden.html
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Friday, February 9, 2007
"QotW4: Give And It Shall Be Given Unto..."
Don’t we all love a free gift?
Nevertheless, with any gift comes obligation. Scholar and writer Lewis Hyde expresses the spirit of a gift economy as based on "the obligation to give, the obligation to accept, and the obligation to reciprocate," (Wikipedia, 2007).
The online gift economy, on the other hand, operates somewhat differently. As Kollock (1999) explains, when people pass on free advice or offer useful information, the recipient is often unknown to them and the giver may never encounter the recipient again. Thus, the usual obligation of a loose reciprocity between two specific individuals is difficult or impossible. The relative or absolute anonymity of the recipient makes it all the more remarkable that individuals volunteer valuable information – one cannot realistically count on the reciprocity of the recipient in the future to balance the gift that has occurred. While a balanced reciprocity with a particular individual may not be possible, there is a sense in which a balance might occur within a group as a whole.
This system of sharing entails generosity as an individual provides a benefit without the expectation of immediate reciprocation. But this is also the source of risk. There is the temptation is to gather valuable information and advice without contributing anything in return. If everyone succumbs to this temptation, however, everyone is worse off than they might have been otherwise: no one benefits from the valuable information that others might have (Kollock, 1999).
Why then would someone still want to contribute valuable information to the so-called privileged group? Kollock cites anticipated reciprocity as a reason. It is the expectation that one from within the group will receive useful help and information, and in return, “repay that kindness”. Nevertheless, this kind of network-wide accounting system creates a kind of credit, in that one can draw upon the contributions of others without needing to immediately reciprocate.
Another possible motivation is the effect of contributions on one's reputation. High quality information, impressive technical details in one's answers, a willingness to help others, and elegant writing can all work to increase one's prestige in the community. A third factor that a person contributes valuable information is because the act results in a sense of efficacy, that is, a sense that he has some effect on this environment, that his impact on the group supports his self image as an efficacious person.
A fourth possible motivation is need, that is, one may produce and contribute a public good for the simple reason that a person or the groups as a whole has a need for it. And finally, the attachment or commitment one can have to the group. In other words, the good of the group enters one's utility equation (Kollock, 1999).
Dabbling in a New Economy
As a freelance actor in Singapore, most of my jobs came by word of mouth. It was when I met a fellow actor while working on a local feature film, that I learned about a Yahoo group - ART(S). The following was extracted from the Group’s home page:
“…ART(S), Arts Resources Tabloid (Singapore), also known as SG_Art, where Singapore performance artists & crews gather & network. This is a group intended to unite amateurs and pros in the sharing of useful resources and info for fellow actors and actresses / other entertainers in Singapore. ART(S) is a new and independent group that welcomes member's generous and spontaneous contributions of useful resources like links, info, experiences as well as audition calls. ART(S) is created in hope of helping all members improve their skills, update of info, seek opportunities, as well as playing as a portal of notices about Singapore performance art events. ART(S) also hopes to serve as a gateway for the new enthusiasts to venture into the Performance Art Industry as well as a database / network of talents to ease production crews in their hunt for suitable talents.
In ART(S), you would expect to find info on acting courses / other trainings & audition calls (for TV, Movie, Short Film, Student Projects, TVC, Theatre Productions, Voice-Overs & etc). We in ART(S) yearn for supports and urge all members to be generous in sharing. And if you know of any other actors or actresses / other entertainers who're not in the group yet, you may invite them to join in and expand our pool of database / network too…”.
ART(S) was founded in January, 2004, and to date has 1131 members. This online community could be considered a part of the cyber gift economy as it bears the three structural and basic features, as listed by Kollock, required of any successful online group – ongoing interaction, identity persistence, and knowledge of previous interactions. For instance, if a film production company is casting for its next Channel 5 sitcom, it could post a casting call in ART(S), and automatically every member of the group would receive the audition posting in their email. From there, those who have an interest in trying out for a particular role would contact the production company directly for the audition. This way, open interaction is maintained, and because ART(S) sends out at least one posting almost every day, members are continually kept in the loop. The motivation of running this community could also coincide with the need-motivation described by Kollock. For example, this is the meeting point for a film-maker who needs a crew or cast, and a sound engineer or actor needs his next job.
To quote Barbrook, “…the gift economy … can only expand through mutual collaboration within cyberspace…”.
REFERENCES
Barbrook, R. (2005). The Hi-Tech Gift Economy. First Monday. Retrieved February 5, 2007 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_12/barbrook/
Kollock, Peter (1999). 'The Economies of Online Cooperation; Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace". Retrieved February 5, 2007, from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.html
Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia. (2007, February 4). FL: Wikipedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://www.wikipedia.org/
Foong, K., Neo, T., Isaac, J. & Lim, K.L. (2007). Art Resources Tabloid (Singapore). Yahoo Groups. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sg_art/
Nevertheless, with any gift comes obligation. Scholar and writer Lewis Hyde expresses the spirit of a gift economy as based on "the obligation to give, the obligation to accept, and the obligation to reciprocate," (Wikipedia, 2007).
The online gift economy, on the other hand, operates somewhat differently. As Kollock (1999) explains, when people pass on free advice or offer useful information, the recipient is often unknown to them and the giver may never encounter the recipient again. Thus, the usual obligation of a loose reciprocity between two specific individuals is difficult or impossible. The relative or absolute anonymity of the recipient makes it all the more remarkable that individuals volunteer valuable information – one cannot realistically count on the reciprocity of the recipient in the future to balance the gift that has occurred. While a balanced reciprocity with a particular individual may not be possible, there is a sense in which a balance might occur within a group as a whole.
This system of sharing entails generosity as an individual provides a benefit without the expectation of immediate reciprocation. But this is also the source of risk. There is the temptation is to gather valuable information and advice without contributing anything in return. If everyone succumbs to this temptation, however, everyone is worse off than they might have been otherwise: no one benefits from the valuable information that others might have (Kollock, 1999).
Why then would someone still want to contribute valuable information to the so-called privileged group? Kollock cites anticipated reciprocity as a reason. It is the expectation that one from within the group will receive useful help and information, and in return, “repay that kindness”. Nevertheless, this kind of network-wide accounting system creates a kind of credit, in that one can draw upon the contributions of others without needing to immediately reciprocate.
Another possible motivation is the effect of contributions on one's reputation. High quality information, impressive technical details in one's answers, a willingness to help others, and elegant writing can all work to increase one's prestige in the community. A third factor that a person contributes valuable information is because the act results in a sense of efficacy, that is, a sense that he has some effect on this environment, that his impact on the group supports his self image as an efficacious person.
A fourth possible motivation is need, that is, one may produce and contribute a public good for the simple reason that a person or the groups as a whole has a need for it. And finally, the attachment or commitment one can have to the group. In other words, the good of the group enters one's utility equation (Kollock, 1999).
Dabbling in a New Economy
As a freelance actor in Singapore, most of my jobs came by word of mouth. It was when I met a fellow actor while working on a local feature film, that I learned about a Yahoo group - ART(S). The following was extracted from the Group’s home page:
“…ART(S), Arts Resources Tabloid (Singapore), also known as SG_Art, where Singapore performance artists & crews gather & network. This is a group intended to unite amateurs and pros in the sharing of useful resources and info for fellow actors and actresses / other entertainers in Singapore. ART(S) is a new and independent group that welcomes member's generous and spontaneous contributions of useful resources like links, info, experiences as well as audition calls. ART(S) is created in hope of helping all members improve their skills, update of info, seek opportunities, as well as playing as a portal of notices about Singapore performance art events. ART(S) also hopes to serve as a gateway for the new enthusiasts to venture into the Performance Art Industry as well as a database / network of talents to ease production crews in their hunt for suitable talents.
In ART(S), you would expect to find info on acting courses / other trainings & audition calls (for TV, Movie, Short Film, Student Projects, TVC, Theatre Productions, Voice-Overs & etc). We in ART(S) yearn for supports and urge all members to be generous in sharing. And if you know of any other actors or actresses / other entertainers who're not in the group yet, you may invite them to join in and expand our pool of database / network too…”.
ART(S) was founded in January, 2004, and to date has 1131 members. This online community could be considered a part of the cyber gift economy as it bears the three structural and basic features, as listed by Kollock, required of any successful online group – ongoing interaction, identity persistence, and knowledge of previous interactions. For instance, if a film production company is casting for its next Channel 5 sitcom, it could post a casting call in ART(S), and automatically every member of the group would receive the audition posting in their email. From there, those who have an interest in trying out for a particular role would contact the production company directly for the audition. This way, open interaction is maintained, and because ART(S) sends out at least one posting almost every day, members are continually kept in the loop. The motivation of running this community could also coincide with the need-motivation described by Kollock. For example, this is the meeting point for a film-maker who needs a crew or cast, and a sound engineer or actor needs his next job.
To quote Barbrook, “…the gift economy … can only expand through mutual collaboration within cyberspace…”.
REFERENCES
Barbrook, R. (2005). The Hi-Tech Gift Economy. First Monday. Retrieved February 5, 2007 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_12/barbrook/
Kollock, Peter (1999). 'The Economies of Online Cooperation; Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace". Retrieved February 5, 2007, from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.html
Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia. (2007, February 4). FL: Wikipedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://www.wikipedia.org/
Foong, K., Neo, T., Isaac, J. & Lim, K.L. (2007). Art Resources Tabloid (Singapore). Yahoo Groups. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sg_art/
Friday, February 2, 2007
"QotW3: Of Pirates and Copycats"
The issue of copyright has sparked much controversy since its birth as England's Statute of Anne in 1710, the widely regarded first copyright law. Through the centuries, instead of it having found some resolution; with the advent and boom of the digital age, problems concerning copyright seem far from de-escalating.
Today, the modern US Copyright legislation - the Copyright Act generally gives the creators of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works the exclusive right, in addition to authorizing others, to the use of their creations (Copyright.gov, 2006). The purpose of these laws is to ultimately benefit the public by promoting "the progress of science and useful arts;" that is, learning and knowledge (Ovalle, 2005).
Thanks to these laws, creators can benefit financially from their creations, which should provide them an incentive to continue creating. The public benefits because the authors and inventors continue creating original works that these creators may not have otherwise developed, and because these creations are freely usable by the public once the limited time has passed. It is important to remember that copyright law is intended to proscribe a balance between the interests of the authors and the interests of the public (Ovalle, 2005). Nevertheless, somehow, this balance has been tipped.
Today, the modern US Copyright legislation - the Copyright Act generally gives the creators of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works the exclusive right, in addition to authorizing others, to the use of their creations (Copyright.gov, 2006). The purpose of these laws is to ultimately benefit the public by promoting "the progress of science and useful arts;" that is, learning and knowledge (Ovalle, 2005).
Thanks to these laws, creators can benefit financially from their creations, which should provide them an incentive to continue creating. The public benefits because the authors and inventors continue creating original works that these creators may not have otherwise developed, and because these creations are freely usable by the public once the limited time has passed. It is important to remember that copyright law is intended to proscribe a balance between the interests of the authors and the interests of the public (Ovalle, 2005). Nevertheless, somehow, this balance has been tipped.
Most of us internet-users might have been guilty of copyright infringement, at least once before; simply by engaging in one of the most common on-line activities - file sharing. File sharing grew in popularity with the proliferation of high speed Internet connections, relatively small file size and high-quality MP3 audio format. Although file sharing is a legal technology, many users use it to download copyrighted materials without explicit permission. (Wikipedia, 2007).
Under current law, the information in cyberspace is lawful only because much of its content - the facts, information, and ideas, is in the public domain. Which means, that to the extent that the material in this information space is in the public domain, it can be shared, used and reused. To the extent it is protected by copyright, on the other hand, permission is needed to do all of that, and in that, spells impossibility (Litman, 2003).
A crucial change, according to Litman, transformed the U.S. copyright system from one designed to ensure the enhancement of the public domain, to one designed to support the indefinite proprietary treatment of articulated thought. Divisibility of copyright allows the creator to keep control over different sorts of exploitation of his work by different entities. However, the problem with divisibility is that it potentially requires multiple licenses for any single use of a copyrighted work.
In the case of MP3.com, which specialized in making both major-label and unsigned music available in the MP3 format, it seemed 'legal' to stream copyrighted music to its subscribers, and to purchase public performance licenses to allow it to do so. Conversely, MP3.com got sued for willful infringement because it did not license the reproduction rights to those songs, which are controlled by a different entity (Litman, 2003).
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a donor-supported group which seeks to protect and expand digital rights. Its activities include litigation, political lobbying, and public awareness campaigns. The foundation promotes the legalization of peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted materials and alternative methods to provide compensation to copyright holders(Wikipedia, 2007).
Litman added that in order to create a viable online information and entertainment resource, a U.S. government task force concluded that the Unted States needed to offer distributors of copyrighted works a larger share of the 'copyright pie'. Only then would they invest the resources needed to develop digital content that would be sufficiently compelling to convince consumers to pay for Internet access.
Whether it's the divisibility of copyright, the EFF, or a larger piece of the copyright pie, perpetually everything is protected by copyright, and it is almost impossible to know whom to ask for permission. With the ambiguity and complexities of the albeit long-withstanding rules of copyright, we either become, or fall prey to the present-day 'pirates' and 'copycats'.
REFERENCES
Circular 1 (2006, July). Copyright Office Basics. US Government Printing Office. Retrieved on February 1, 2007, from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
Litman, J (2003, November). "Sharing and Stealing". University of Michigan. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved on January 18, 2007, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=472141
Ovalle, C. (2005). “What is copyright?”. University of Texas at Austin, Course INF 312. Information in Cyberspace. Retrieved on January 18, 2007, from
http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~i312co/3.phpWikipedia: The free encyclopedia. (2007, February 1). FL: Wikipedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://www.wikipedia.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)