Levy vs. Mitnick

Both Crypto and The Art of Deception expand on the issue of public privacy and security. The writing style and approach of the author’s differ. In Crypto, Levy focuses mainly on the development of encryption and it’s development over time. His work seems to be targeting an audience with some background knowledge on technological systems relating to encryption. This makes is somewhat difficult for someone like myself to follow. In contrast, Mitnick, author of The Art of Deception, presents ways to protect privacy and gives examples from a business perspective that freely connect to personal privacy and security.

Levy presents the struggle between the government and cryptographers on keeping information secure and anonymous. When Levy poses the question, “But what if governments were not the only beneficiaries of cryptography?,” he presents the idea that the general population could benefit, which is most definitely true. This book does relate to people in general, but the narrative expands on very specific details relating to the history of cryptography. From my perspective, I prefer a book that gives current examples and implications with a focus on how it affects me directly. At times Levy does point out specific implications such as those who could wrongly benefit from the transfer of anonymous information, “Kidnappers, child pornographers, and terrorists, whose lives would be made much simpler and more secure with such tools.” One could say this book goes “behind the scenes”, detailing the conflicts.

The organization and writing style of Mitnick’s work, The Art of Deception, is easier to follow. Mitnick focuses on the charisma and intelligence of social engineers to manipulate people. Though the focus is on the business world, Mitnick’s ideas and suggestions can benefit anyone living in our current world filled with electronic transactions, both online and in person. He presents his ideas by stating, “Security is not a technology problem—it’s a people and management problem.” Mintick’s style is more engaging because of the analysis of this management and the incorporation of possible solutions. He includes, from a business perspective, that it is a high priority to have a security policy and proper education and training for employees (p. 27). Like the business environment, people in general must be educated about security and privacy and understand the implications. We must also make it a priority on ourselves to think through our actions when it comes to the exchange of information. The Art of Deception presents a perspective in a meaningful manner with explicit examples and solutions.    

References

Levy, S. (2001). Crypto: How the code rebels beat the government -saving privacy in the digital age. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Mitnick, K. (2002). The art of deception. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing.

CSE 619 Final Paper (first 400 words)

The personalization of information does not simply limit access to information, it  also has negative implications on other areas affecting Internet users. These areas include creativity, exploration opportunities and cultural awareness. Creativity based on one’s learning through making choices and developing connections. Limiting exploration by creating boundaries and wall impeding acess to unfamiliar information. Finally, cultural awareness that is limited to a narrow perspective based on information support one’s current beliefs or ideas.  

Static information limits the opportunities for creativity to emerge due to the similarity in the information already known to the user. In The Filter Bubble, Pariser affirms three ways personalization can interfere with creativity. First, he explains the “solution horizon” is limited. This is where users search for possible solutions to problems. With less information this limits possible options. Personalization also limits the environments accessible. For each individual, different environments can prompt creativity. Last, a filter encourages a passive approach to obtaining information due to the information being mouth-fed to the user.

Christensen, an author and educator, addresses the importance of literacy and it’s key role in promoting social justice. One can draw a parallel between this reading and understanding of text to having acess to reading material. According to Christensen, reading and writing are political acts. One example Christensen references is how slaveholders denied Africans literacy because it would lead to liberty and spread of freedom. In our current world of emerging technologies, theses have become the medium for political acts and awareness. Blogs allowing an open opinion medium. Users interacting with authors of reports of current events and issues through commenting and replying to others. Denying a person literacy is like denying a person the right to be politically involved and demand social justice. This relates to cultural awareness, one area effected by personalization.   

Tracking is another topic addressed in Christensen's work. This is an educational practice in which students are grouped and separated based on acadmic success. This is similar to what occurs when people are grouped based on personalization algorithms. In both examples, participants are excluded from certain activites or information, whether it be those from a different track or different information filter.  Christensen writes about these tracks, “Everybody should have all opportunities open to them. Why figure out ahead of time for people what they’re going to do with their lives (pp. 170).” Like tracks, personalization takes away opportunities and attempts to decide what is important. As Christensen advocates for creating quality education for all students, removing an information filter would create diverse news feeds for all internet users. 

Andrews and Pariser unite for control of privacy

Both Andrews and Pariser call for a change in the control of online privacy and security. “As a user, you should have the ability to control what happens with your information,” argues Andrews, after referencing various examples manifesting the implications of privacy on the web. Some deal with employment, family life and personal freedom. Pariser would agree that there is still the possibility of a shift. He explains the importance of “individual action, corporate responsibility and governmental regulation.” Andrew’s Social Network Constitution and Pariser’s shift acknowledge the user’s right to privacy.

As mentioned in prior posts, Pariser focuses on democracy, relating to the representation of different perspectives. The filter bubble’s effects are both personal and cultural, according to Pariser. He includes a cultural piece. Where there is a filter of information, there is a filter of opinions and ideas. Without a free flow of information, each person is not equally exposed to new and opposing ideas. Pariser includes the idea that personalization affects our thinking by giving only few choices versus the vast diversity available. The Filter Bubble also discusses the friendly world syndrome, opposite of the mean world syndrome. Because information is sifted and many things are excluded, Pariser writes “biggest most important problems fail to reach our view at all.” This causes a biased view on the reality of true issues that may not be so friendly or perfect. This is contrary to Andrew’s perspective, which focuses on the effects on advertising, data aggregators and freedom of speech.

The following are some key aspects I would include in a course for 5^th graders on smart internet use and data privacy. On main priority would be to discuss appropriate sharing. It would be encouraged to determine thoughtfully what to share and consider possible outcomes. This is necessary for all people in general. As Andrews explains, “They may not realize the extent to which their offline self in being overshadowed by their digital doppelgänger.” Discussing weblining would be a beginning, then introduce the idea that “words are powerful” as Andrews states. If students are aware of the magnitude of the ability to share and how information is available to large audiences and easily duplicated, they may reconsider how they address each other and present their virtual persona. In consideration of personalization, it would be necessary to address how it effects users in relation to information access. Pariser explains that we do not choose to be in the filter bubble and “Ultimately, the filter bubble can affect your ability to choose how you want to live.” It would be imperative to develop awareness, so that students do not settle for limited opportunities, static perspectives and little creativity. If students are aware of a filter, they may attempt other means and allow less control to this filter bubble.   

References

Andrews, L. (2011). I know who you are and I saw what you did: Social networks and the death of privacy. New York, NY: Free Press.

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. New York, NY: The Penguin Press.

Personalization and it's power to limit

Personalization and information filters can impact us in many ways, simply by allowing less access to information can change perspectives. Pariser not only addresses how your identity shapes your media, he also considers how media shapes identity. In his book, The Filter Bubble, he considers this connection a flaw, suggesting that it encourages self fulfilling identities. Our identities can be manipulated unkowingly with information that is specifically targeted in a purposeful manner. Pariser adds, "the Internet's distorted picture of us becomes who we really are." If the previous is true, it is a cause and effect relationship in which the media is the determining factor.

Professionally, personalization can have certain consequences. Yochai Benkler is referenced by Pariser supporting the idea that "more-diverse information sources make us freer". A filter bubble impedes this open flow of information. Recognizing that information is filtered has allowed me to reflect and reconsider the content I am presenting to students. Is the content promoting cultural awareness? Does it provide various perspectives on the topic? Are there a variety of topics being presented? Each of these questions is important when considering whether the content is presenting a world view versus an individualized view. When information is filtered students may lose the opportunity of encountering diverse ideas and as Pariser mentions, this is a cause for not developing the skills of flexibility and openness when we encounter differences. He also includes, "But perhaps the biggest problem is that a personalized Web causes us to spend less time in discovery mode in the first place." I, as a teacher must facilitate and encourage these discoveries. These discoveries would benefit students greatly, as Pariser points out, making a connection to Benkler's idea on autonomy, "You have to be able not only to do what you want, but to know what’s possible to do."

On a personal level, professionally, a filter bubble limits what I can encounter on the Web. It can limit my connections and perspectives, which is what I transfer to students. Narrow mindedness could be a result of exposure to similar information. Personalization is based on limiting information, as a result, it can limit a person intellectually. In fact, Pariser would agree, he states, "Because personalized filters usually have no Zoom Out function, it’s easy to lose your bearings, to believe the world is a narrow island when in fact it's an immense varied, continent." Becoming aware of this filter bubble can be a motivating factor for attaining varied information. It could also be a motivation to present diverse ideas purposefully to students.

References

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. New York, NY: The Penguin Press. 

Algorithms: Their effects on perspectives and creativity

In both books, I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did and The Filter Bubble, the authors equally bring up their concerns and arguments fighting for our right to privacy in the virtual realm. Who decides what we share? They do. Who decides what we see? They do. Who develops algorithms that use our data to decide what is important to us? They do. When I refer to “they” it is the corporations that are benefiting from our information sharing, without asking permission to do so.

Both authors would agree that the use of algorithms can create inaccurate and biased profiles. In The Filter Bubble, Pariser describes a perspective on the use of these algorithms, “Now you get the result that Google’s algorithm suggests that is best for you…In other words there is no standard Google anymore.” It is unclear how a simple algorithm can determine preferences when in reality there is no evidence of personal interactions to determine these. Andrews, the author of I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did, also affirms, “Often the information is wrong, culled from erroneous or outdates sources and interpreted by imperfect algorithms.”

Andrews focuses on issues such as incorrect information affecting opportunities such as employment and granting credit. On the other hand, Pariser discusses the implications a filter has on the news or information we get access to through examples such as PageRank and Facebook’s News Feed. The focus is on how a filter has an affect on the human culture. Pariser closes Chapter 1 by including, “the consequences of personalization for how we consume news, make political decisions, and even how we think will be even more dramatic.”        

One key point that caught my attention as I considered how these topics affect the students I teach is Pariser’s reference to an “information diet.” This included a quote to a speech comparing media content to a diet. When we are only filtered content considered relevant to our lives we can develop “obesity”, having too much of one type of information leaving out exposure to other perspectives or topics. Pariser includes, “In the filter bubble, there’s less room for the chance encounters that bring insight and learning.” With a filter bubble will our students develop into well-rounded citizens involved in their community? The truth is that the media has an affect on how we view the world. Personally relevant information will only provide static information without developing true awareness to world issues. I also strongly agree with Pariser’s idea that creativity is developed when a connection is made between different ideas. Not only will personalized information minimize our access to an assortment of information, but it also limits the natural ability of the human mind to develop connections and determine relevance.     

References

Andrews, L. (2011). I know who you are and I saw what you did: Social networks and the death of privacy. New York, NY: Free Press.

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. New York, NY: The Penguin Press. 

Digital Dossier (shared in LIB 686, also taught by Dr. Zobel and Dr. Bucy)

Privacy: Where do we draw the line?

In to book I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did, Lori Andrews uncovers a vast amount of information related to privacy and security on the web, more importantly OUR privacy. Andrews reveals that a poll found that 61% of Americans believe that information shared online is private and not shared unless requested. Various topics discussed in the first few chapters are eye opening and unthought-of.      

In relation to the poll mentioned above, one topic of relevance that impacts students is lack of awareness. Andrews discusses her perspective on the roots of Facebook, college students lacking awareness of future implications of sharing and exchanging information. In reference to current Facebook users, Andrews includes, “They may not yet realize the extent to which their offline self is being overshadowed by their digital doppelgänger.” As technology becomes an integral part of our lives, educators must make it a priority to promote responsible sharing. I’m not only referring to cyber-bullying, but for the purpose of unknown access to personal information and marketing, which is a main motive.        

I was more surprised to read the comment by the founders of Facebook, “People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people.” Andrews argues profit and money, the main motive, is gained through a lust, as she puts it, for information about people’s lives. I found it interesting how Facebook lures their users to provide information without any barriers causing any difficulties, which in turn benefit the company. Andrews makes a specific reference to the Skinner Box, instead of physical rewards the user feels rewarded with likes and attention. It is human nature to feel liked and accepted, but all of this comes at a cost on the web. One must determine what is at stake and set appropriate boundaries. This is aside from the fact that companies unknowingly change their privacy policies from one day to the next.  

The section that included the AOL search logs is one example of how it is possible to inaccurately analyze information that is out of context. For those of us who have no bad intentions, this is scary. As I read through the searches it is clear the you cannot judge a person's habits and intentions by these seaches alone. Thought I can see some advantages such as finding substantial evidence for a murder case or stopping terrible acts. One questions remains, where do we draw the line?    

References

Andrews, L. (2011). I know who you are and I saw what you did: Social networks and the death of privacy. New York, NY: Free Press.