Supplementary post on Internet Privacy

 Internet privacy is a growing concern for individuals and organizations alike. With the proliferation of personal information on the internet and the increasing use of internet-connected devices, the potential for data breaches and other privacy violations is on the rise. This blog post will discuss the importance of internet privacy, the ways in which it can be compromised, and some steps that individuals and organizations can take to protect themselves.

First, it is important to understand what internet privacy is and why it is important. Internet privacy refers to the right of individuals to control the collection, use, and disclosure of their personal information online. This includes information such as their name, email address, date of birth, and other identifying information. It also includes information about their online activities, such as their browsing history, search queries, and online transactions.

The importance of internet privacy cannot be overstated. Our personal information is precious, and it can be used to steal our identities, commit fraud, or even blackmail us. In addition, the collection and use of personal information can raise ethical concerns, such as whether it is appropriate for companies to track our online activities without our knowledge or consent. Furthermore, the loss of internet privacy can lead to a loss of trust in institutions and a decline in overall social welfare.

There are many ways in which internet privacy can be compromised. One common way is through data breaches, in which hackers gain unauthorized access to personal information. This can happen through a variety of means, such as malware infections, phishing scams, or unsecured networks. Another way in which internet privacy can be compromised is through the use of cookies and other tracking technologies by companies. These technologies can be used to collect information about our online activities, which can then be used for targeted advertising or other purposes.

Individuals and organizations can take several steps to protect themselves from internet privacy violations. For individuals, this may include using strong and unique passwords, avoiding suspicious links and emails, and keeping their software and devices up to date with the latest security patches. They can also use privacy-enhancing technologies, such as virtual private networks (VPNs) and privacy-focused browsers, to encrypt their internet traffic and prevent their online activities from being tracked.

For organizations, protecting internet privacy may require a more comprehensive approach. This may include implementing robust security measures, such as firewalls and intrusion detection systems, to prevent data breaches. It may also involve training employees on internet privacy best practices and implementing policies that govern the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information.

In conclusion, internet privacy is a critical issue affecting individuals and organizations. As the amount of personal information on the internet continues to grow, it is important that we take steps to protect ourselves from privacy violations. By using strong passwords, avoiding suspicious links and emails, and implementing effective security measures, we can help ensure that our personal information remains safe and secure online.

The Progressive Era blog post #5

Antiwar.com is a website that provides news and analysis on issues related to war and peace. It offers a strong antiwar perspective, opposing military interventions and the use of force as a means of resolving conflicts.

  The American Conservative is a website that also offers a strong antiwar perspective. It was founded by Patrick Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos in 2002, and its editorial stance is generally conservative and non-interventionist.

    Both Antiwar.com and The American Conservative provide a valuable counterpoint to mainstream media outlets that often support military intervention and the use of force. In doing so, they help to amplify the voices of those who believe that war should be avoided whenever possible and that diplomacy and peaceful negotiation are the best ways to resolve conflicts.

One example of the strong antiwar voices that can be found on these platforms is the work of journalist and author Justin Raimondo. Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and he has been a vocal critic of American foreign policy and the use of military force. In his writings, Raimondo argues that the United States has a history of using military intervention to advance its own interests, often at the expense of the people and countries it is supposedly helping. He also advocates for a more non-interventionist foreign policy, in which the United States would focus on protecting its own citizens and avoiding conflicts abroad.

   

Another example of a strong antiwar voice on these platforms is the work of journalist and author Daniel Larison. Larison is a senior editor at The American Conservative, and he has written extensively on issues related to war and peace. In his writings, Larison often criticizes American foreign policy and the use of military force, arguing that it is not only morally wrong but also ineffective and counterproductive. He also advocates for a more humble and modest foreign policy, in which the United States would focus on its own national interests and avoid trying to remake the world in its own image.

    Overall, Antiwar.com and The American Conservative provide valuable platforms for strong antiwar voices. By offering alternative perspectives on issues related to war and peace, they help to challenge the dominant narrative and promote a more peaceful and non-interventionist foreign policy.

Response to second EOTO presentations

 After hearing our second round of EOTO presentations I was very interested in the concept of gatekeeping. Gatekeeping involves a hierarchy of power where one individual or entity takes it upon themselves to withhold or not provide access to information.

Gatekeeping refers to the process through which information, ideas, and people are filtered by gatekeepers who have the power to decide which things are allowed to pass through and which are not. This process is often used to maintain the status quo and prevent the introduction of new or challenging ideas.

Gatekeeping can take many forms, from the selection of news stories by editors at a media outlet, to the acceptance or rejection of research papers by academic journals, to the granting or denying of visas to immigrants. In all of these cases, the gatekeepers hold a certain amount of power and influence over what is allowed to pass through and what is not.

One of the key issues with gatekeeping is that it can often result in the exclusion of marginalized voices and perspectives. For example, news organizations may only cover stories that fit a certain narrative or reflect the experiences of a particular group of people, effectively silencing the perspectives of others. Similarly, academic journals may only publish research that aligns with the dominant beliefs of the field, making it difficult for new or controversial ideas to gain traction.

Gatekeeping can also lead to the spread of misinformation and the suppression of important information. For instance, if a news organization only covers stories that support a particular political agenda, they may be inadvertently spreading false or misleading information. Similarly, if an academic journal only publishes research that supports the dominant narrative, they may be ignoring evidence that contradicts that narrative.

In order to address the issues associated with gatekeeping, it is important to recognize the power dynamics at play and to strive for diversity and inclusivity in the gatekeeping process. This can involve giving a platform to a wider range of voices and perspectives, encouraging critical thinking and skepticism, and promoting transparency in the decision-making process.

Overall, gatekeeping is a powerful and pervasive force in our society, and it is important to be aware of its potential effects on the flow of information and the inclusion of diverse perspectives. By recognizing the limitations of the gatekeeping process and working to address them, we can strive for a more fair and inclusive society. 

EOTO blog post #9

The Smith-Mundt Act, also known as the U.S. Information and Education Exchange Act, was passed in 1948 and was created to "promote a better understanding of the United States in other countries, and to increase a mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries." 

Karl E. Mundt, 1945 

The Smith–Mundt Act was first introduced by Congressman Karl E. Mundt in 1945 and was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman on January 27, 1948. This Act was first created to regulate the broadcasting of information to a foreign audience through the State Department. It prohibited the domestic distribution of this content in the U.S. This law targeted independent networks of the U.S. government called the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). BBG offers some programs: Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, and Middle East Broadcasting Networks. Since the bill was passed in 1948, BBG had only been promoted to share its content with foreign listeners due to the Smith-Mundt Act. 

The Smith–Mundt Act was first challenged by J. William Fulbright in 1972, where he proposed that the U.S. was funding propaganda. He argued that Voice of America, BBG's oldest and most popular network, "should be given the opportunity to take [its] rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics." After this statement was made, more restrictions on the dissemination of content were implemented.

The Smith–Mundt Act was rechallenged in 2010 when Congressman Adam Smith and Congressman Mac Thornberry worked together to sponsor the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act. This Act was proposed in 2010 but would not get passed until 2012, when it was adopted into legislation. This new Modernization Act would allow people across America to see and hear valuable news produced by BBC and its accomplished journalists. The new Modernization Act considers content platforms that are not restricted by national boundaries, including satellite broadcasting, mobile delivery, and the internet. This new modernization to the Smith–Mundt Act would facilitate better reach and audience engagement and provide transparency into publicly-funded broadcasting. 

The implications of the Smith–Mundt Act are harmful because it outlawed public broadcasting that was aimed at the United States. Before the Modernization Act was passed in 2012, many Americans believed that the Smith–Mundt Act violated their right to a free press and media outlined in the constitution. This rebellious mindset led to over two hundred attending the Smith‐Mundt Symposium held at the Reserve Officers Association on Capitol Hill on January 13, 2009. 

Reserve Officers Association 

This Symposium was attended by a diverse group of Departments of State, Homeland Security, stakeholders, observers from Congress, and practitioners. The real purpose of this gathering was to "facilitate an interagency, public‐private, and inter‐tribal discussion about the purpose, structure, and direction of America's global engagement." The Symposium was presented through a series of panel discussions structured to start with the past, move to the present, and discuss the features of America's press and national security. This Symposium served the purpose of raising awareness which would later influence the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. 

While researching the Smith-Mundt Act, it becomes clear that the upsides to the creation of this Act lie in national and public safety. This was because Congress did not trust the State Department to promote ideals and content to the American public. Emily Metzgar, a professor at Indiana University school of journalism and a former U.S. diplomat, said that the Smith–Mundt Act was not created to protect the public from government propaganda. She had the opinion that the "record suggests it was really more about protecting a nascent broadcast industry in the United States right after World War II, and it was over time that more and more politics got interjected into the discussion."  

    The downside of the Smith–Mundt Act was that it shielded American people from viewing content produced by its own government. Many people felt this Act violated their constitutional rights and prevented them from viewing the media they chose. 

    The Smith–Mundt Act affected our society negatively because it forced people to look for the content censored by the government online. While the Smith–Mundt Act prevented the broadcasting of information domestically, this content was readily available online through various websites and blogs. Because people were forced to use other platforms to gain this information, many individuals were exposed to false information that was not produced by a credible source. 

    The Smith–Mundt Act had the potential to alter not only my life but also the lives of my friends and family. This Act, if it had not been modernized, would have prevented me from viewing content produced by the government on the broadcasting network. This is a form of government censorship that goes against the constitution. Not only would I have access to information produced by my own government, but I would also have to search online for any information that had been censored. 

In conclusion, the Smith–Mundt Act was the least understood and most influential Act affecting national security. While it might not have been apparent during its creation, the Smith–Mundt Act had affected not only individuals but also school districts and educational programs since the beginning of the Cold War. 

Privacy

 

With the rise of technology usage in the United States and worldwide, the issue of privacy and safety needs to be stressed. New technological developments would have led to mass surveillance and location tracking advancements. Awareness of these new developments allows citizens to protect themselves and their families. 

Mass surveillance by police departments has arisen with the development of automatic license plate readers. These readers, which are placed on street corners and police cars, were first developed to help automate the process of running a license plate in the database manually. Now, cameras combined with new technology scan every license plate regardless of whether the person is under investigation or not. This is a significant change because before this technology was implemented, a license plate was only run through the database if you were suspected of committing a crime or traffic violation. Now, every license plate that passes the camera is recorded and saved in a database. This has led to hundreds of thousands of people getting their photos taken and imputed to a database 

even though they did nothing wrong. Police departments keep these photos and information in case they need it in the feature. This affects not only my family and me but also all of my friends and loved ones. Photos are taken and stored without the individual even knowing and can be used years down the road against you. These issues personally affect me because these cameras are also used to track my everyday movements, including where I go, whom I see, and the things I like. This information can then be used to develop a picture of my life that law enforcement and other entities can use against me. If the surveillance system is ever hacked into, this information about myself is available, leaving me vulnerable. 

Another way our privacy and security are being abused is through the use of a cell tower dump. Cell tower dumps reveal the caller's location along with the other cell towers used to make the call. Cell phone companies originally developed this feature but have transitioned to government and law enforcement control. Wiretapping 

has become increasingly prevalent in the United States and was first implemented to target terrorist and criminal activity. Making a call is not private anymore, not only the government but also hackers and whoever else breaks into the surveillance system can listen to your call. One of the ways to deal with this is using a platform that is harder to wiretap. Platforms such as iMessage and facetime use an inscription method that is very hard to crack. Using these encrypted platforms makes it harder for law enforcement and hackers to access your private calls and messages. Another way that our society could deal with wiretapping is logging for better laws and regulations that prevent what platforms are wiretapped and who can access them. 

In conclusion, privacy and security technology upgrades have led to many Americans being vulnerable. Not only is your personal information gathered and stored without your knowledge, but your private phone calls can be listened to by many people. The only way to solve this problem is by spreading awareness of the situation. The more people understand that we have an issue, the more people that can be activists toward a solution. That solution could be more lobbying and protests for data control and surveillance. At the end of the day, people's data is harvested and stored without them even knowing, these advancements in technology have drastically changed the world of surveillance as we know it. 

Diffusion of Innovations

 This blog post will outline the development of the telephone and its correlation to communication through the lens of the Diffusion of innovations theory. The invention of the telephone changed how our society communicated and gave the world a new way to send and receive messages and data. 

Alexander Graham Bell first invented the telephone in 1876 during the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution is a significant part of history because it ushered in a new age of mass production and the rise of the middle class. During the Industrial Revolution, factories started using machines to mass-produce items, and the United States started producing more goods that could be sold worldwide. With this new influx of goods being produced, communication became a crucial element in selling and distributing these goods. 

photo of Alexander Graham Bell 

Through the 1860s and 1870s, Graham Bell was fascinated by communication technology and focused his time studying the relationship between human speech and the use of technology. One of his many early inventions was a receiver he created in 1875 that could turn electricity into sound. Bell called this device the 'acoustic telegraphy,' which allowed voice-like sounds to be heard across a wire. After securing a patent for his invention in 1876, Bell continued his work until he had a telephone that could communicate across the US. 

    Looking at this invention through the lens of the Diffusion Theory, it becomes apparent that this invention was successful because it solved the problem of long-distance communication. The Diffusion of innovations theory was developed by Everett Rogers 

photo of photo of Everett Rogers

and sought to explain how and why new technology and ideas spread and become popular. According to Rogers, five key elements influence how a new product or idea gains traction. These elements included the innovation itself, adopters, communication channels, time, and a social system. When looking at the development of the telephone, one of the main reasons this communication became so popular was the invention itself. The telephone provided a service that was in heavy demand, so one of the main reasons the idea took off was that the invention itself served a purpose. When looking at the beginning of a new technology or invention, early adopters and the early majority heavily influence if it becomes popular or not.

Diffusion of innovations theory

 Early adopters of new inventions, such as the telephone, have the potential to boost a product's popularity or destroy the invasion before it has even reached its target audience. So many people became early adopters of the telephone because they wanted to experience a new technology developed for communication. During the telephone early adopters phase, Bell demonstrated his invention at the "Smithsonian Castle Building during meetings of the newly formed National Academy of Sciences." This meeting was essential to the early adopter's phase because the influential individuals that attended this meeting had the potential to share this invention with their audiences. As a result of this meeting, telephones were installed in all Smithsonian buildings in 1878. 

Individuals considered late adopters in the invention of the telephone did not link change or new technology. While the telephone was new and exciting for most people, some wanted to keep using snail mail or face-to-face contact. While letting go of past tendencies is easy for some, others struggle to let go of habits deep-rooted in their lifestyle. These individuals were considered late adopters of the telephone because they only used the technology after most people did. 

Some of the negative impacts the development of the telephone had on individuals were decreased face-to-face communication. With the invention of the telephone, people did not have to leave their homes to be able to communicate

switchboard operators

 with the people they loved. While this was convenient, it also meant that people did not physically have to see the person to communicate with them. Another negative impact of the telephone was state and national security. Security was yet to be a priority when telephones were first introduced into the market. This meant that many conversations were listened in on or monitored by switch operators. 

In conclusion, I can theorize through the Diffusion Theory that the positive effects of telephones outweigh the adverse effects. While safety and security were significant issues that needed to be solved, the telephone has changed how people community. The invention of the telephone allowed people from around the world the ability to communicate without having to be face to face. The invention of the telephone will continue to change as time passes, but this invention has altered the lives of people worldwide and changed how information is communicated. 

In the Age of AI

     After watching the second half of the documentary “In the Age of AI,” I became aware of a lot of topics that aren’t usually discussed in our society. One of the main ideas highlighted in this documentary was that after companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter harvest our personal information, they are in possession of this information and can do whatever they want.

Most users of these big-name platforms are not aware of the legally binding agreements they make with these companies when they sign up to use the platform. When users sign for a popular social media site or search engine, they sign a legally binding contract of adhesion with that company. This contract of adhesion essentially allows the company to start data-mining information about your usage of the service and the specific things you search for or interest you. This data is then sold or analyzed to target you with ads about your specific interests. 

While looking into national security, people must understand that when they sign a company’s terms and conditions, they allow that company access to their data and personal information. In the past, we have seen massive data breaches where companies are hacked, and user information is openly accessible to hackers and the general public. This is extremely dangerous because the information that you probably didn’t even know that company had on you is now out in the world and leaves you vulnerable.

 The second issue of national security that arises is the fact that users often sign the rights of their information and content away to the platform they are using. Many platforms outline in their contract of adhesion that they own any data collected on you as well as the rights to any content posted to their platform. This becomes an issue of national security because that information can be sold to third-party companies without your consent or knowledge. After all, you permitted them to do so. This information can be purchased by components around the world and could potentially alter a US election or gain knowledge about people in the US. 

Identity theft has become an enormous issue in the United States, with hundreds of thousands of Americans affected yearly. With the rise of internet marketing and advertising information, identity theft has become commonplace around the United States. When companies collect your personal information data, the chances of identity theft drastically increase. Not only can your data be sold to companies that do protect it, but once you put your information out into the world, you can never get it back. Once a company or platform has your data, they essentially have total control of your information. They own the rights to your private data and then use that data as a tool of control.