http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/25/cashmore.twitter.phishing/index.html
This article delves into the ever present struggle to limit phishing attacks on the internet. This article specifically brings up Twitter and the recent phishing attack it had. Many people were hit by getting an email that seemed to be from a friend. This email would look inviting and prompt the user to click the link in the email into what they thought was Twitter's login page. However, once the info was sent, the user ID as well as the password to get in were sent to the phishers. The writer explains that there are two main reasons people fall for these attacks other than email. The first reason is the shortening of the url to click on certain pages. What occurs is that people click the link without seeing the whole URL, which often will give away the fact it is a hacking tool. The other main dilemma is the fact that Twitter allows users to use information to gain access to third party sites such as Wall Street journal. This again sets users up to go to a page that is stealing their information.
I have never used Twitter in my life and I never plan to. However, speaking generally about phishing, I realize that it is a much bigger issue than people let on. It is extremely simple for someone to gain your information, granted you fall for their tricks. I find it pretty incredible that people fall for certain scams and attempts to gain personal information. Does anyone really think that the great grandson of a deceased African King really wants you to have 3 million dollars? The first time I heard someone tell me this attempt to take personal information I laughed and wondered who would actually fall for something that ridiculous. To humor myself, I searched on Google and found not one or two, but thousands of links depicting how people fell into the trap and had their bank account info stolen and used.
We all get the emails that the main article referred to almost on a daily basis. It's usually something like "click here to claim your 500 dollar gift code" or "follow this link to learn how you can make 1000's of dollars just using your computer!" When these happen to slip past my junk folder, they do not even get opened. Yet more and more, especially in our current economic times, people follow these traps and can't understand why weeks later their computer won't turn on or their bank account has no money in it. The sad truth is this just human nature. Before the internet, these same types of operations were occurring, just on a more personal level.
Another article refferring to the Twitter phishing problem, http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/open_source/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=223100861&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News discusses how a UK cabinet member and even a bank fell prey. The same email that the main article above discussed got these two powerful men into trouble. It goes to show that phishers are not just looking for the average person, they are looking for everyone. The article also talks about Twitter's attempt to stop this problem. They have posted everywhere that Twitter will not ask to follow links, and that certain emails are not from them.
It amazes me that even high powered people such the bank chair and a cabinet member could fall victim to this. Did they not think that a link saying "lol is this you" probably wasn't a good idea to follow? The truth of the internet though is that although government agencies are working nonstop to stop phishing, it will never be stopped. People will always be drawn into too good to be true links or links for social sites that don't even cross their mind of being suspicious. Until the world gains more common sense, phishers will profit.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Article Six
http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/12/author-the-web-is-among-worlds-most-destructive-technologies
This article talks about the opinion of one man, Sam Harris, who wrote the famous book "End of Faith" regarding the internet. His opinion is firm and contrarian to many in our society. He feels as though the internet is among the most destructive technologies in the world today. He references two main points to back up his claim. His first is the idea that internet crime and security issues are running rampant, with no real to police or stop it. His next main point is that the Internet is a venue which can inspire "psuedoscience" and other extremely fictious information that many believe to be true. He also talks about how jihadists and other terrorist organizations have used the internet to expand terrorism. Although he does take a moment to talk about how the internet is not all bad, it is clear his main opinion.
Let me start off by saying that on the base level, his points do have merit. Internet crime is an enormous problem in the global society, and currently it is a train that cannot be stopped. Also, it is true that many things on the internet are opinions posed as facts, or simply erroneous information. However, I feel as though Mr. Harris is a very narrow minded person who can't see past his blinders. The internet is basically a global free speech emporium. I could write on this blog right now that Bill Cosby was the 37th president and present it as fact. If someone were to cite me on that, that shows their stupidity, not the internet. What Mr. Harris is saying about false information spreading is true, but an indiviual needs to take the extra time to research a topic before accepting the first thing they see. It is the fault of the person for being to lazy to realize "Justin Balser's blog" may not be the best source of information.
Another thing that really bothers me about this article is his opinion that increased terrorism is a direct result of the web. This is an extremely ignorant statement that although i'm sure is supported by data doesn't express the truth. Does Mr. Harris truly want me to believe that if terrorists did not have the internet they would have NO means to spread the message? This is simply ridiculous. This is the way of technology, and Mr. Harris does not see that. He wants to live in a time where snail mail and word of mouth were the main ways to talk to people. That's not how life works, technology will always make things easier for people. If the terrorists didn't have the internet, i'm sure another piece of technology would be there making it just as simple. This is way of the world.
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/allen-the-internet-is-destructive_1125539
This article poses an interesting view on how the internet can destructive in an entirely different way. Lily Allen, a singer, talks about how the internet became her outlet for depression. She has now given up the internet because she constantly looked for negative comments about herself on fan forums and twitter. She said she did this to "substantiate how (she) was feeling." She has now completely given up the internet and does not even own a computer. I feel sorry for her situation and realize that a lot of people are probably in this position. I'm sure people are the other way around, having to fish for compliments in order to feel happy. However, I would again say this is on the person rather than the internet. If they were not looking for comments on Twitter or facebook, they would be asking friends in school. The internet did not form these personalities in people, they did. Although the internet does have some "destructive" tendancies, the overall good it produces is greater.
This article talks about the opinion of one man, Sam Harris, who wrote the famous book "End of Faith" regarding the internet. His opinion is firm and contrarian to many in our society. He feels as though the internet is among the most destructive technologies in the world today. He references two main points to back up his claim. His first is the idea that internet crime and security issues are running rampant, with no real to police or stop it. His next main point is that the Internet is a venue which can inspire "psuedoscience" and other extremely fictious information that many believe to be true. He also talks about how jihadists and other terrorist organizations have used the internet to expand terrorism. Although he does take a moment to talk about how the internet is not all bad, it is clear his main opinion.
Let me start off by saying that on the base level, his points do have merit. Internet crime is an enormous problem in the global society, and currently it is a train that cannot be stopped. Also, it is true that many things on the internet are opinions posed as facts, or simply erroneous information. However, I feel as though Mr. Harris is a very narrow minded person who can't see past his blinders. The internet is basically a global free speech emporium. I could write on this blog right now that Bill Cosby was the 37th president and present it as fact. If someone were to cite me on that, that shows their stupidity, not the internet. What Mr. Harris is saying about false information spreading is true, but an indiviual needs to take the extra time to research a topic before accepting the first thing they see. It is the fault of the person for being to lazy to realize "Justin Balser's blog" may not be the best source of information.
Another thing that really bothers me about this article is his opinion that increased terrorism is a direct result of the web. This is an extremely ignorant statement that although i'm sure is supported by data doesn't express the truth. Does Mr. Harris truly want me to believe that if terrorists did not have the internet they would have NO means to spread the message? This is simply ridiculous. This is the way of technology, and Mr. Harris does not see that. He wants to live in a time where snail mail and word of mouth were the main ways to talk to people. That's not how life works, technology will always make things easier for people. If the terrorists didn't have the internet, i'm sure another piece of technology would be there making it just as simple. This is way of the world.
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/allen-the-internet-is-destructive_1125539
This article poses an interesting view on how the internet can destructive in an entirely different way. Lily Allen, a singer, talks about how the internet became her outlet for depression. She has now given up the internet because she constantly looked for negative comments about herself on fan forums and twitter. She said she did this to "substantiate how (she) was feeling." She has now completely given up the internet and does not even own a computer. I feel sorry for her situation and realize that a lot of people are probably in this position. I'm sure people are the other way around, having to fish for compliments in order to feel happy. However, I would again say this is on the person rather than the internet. If they were not looking for comments on Twitter or facebook, they would be asking friends in school. The internet did not form these personalities in people, they did. Although the internet does have some "destructive" tendancies, the overall good it produces is greater.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Article Five
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/08/rosen.texting.communication.teens/index.html
This article discusses what the title refers to as "generation text". The writer states that he has a nineteen year old daughter who he tried contacting via phone and email, and finally text her and immediately got a response. The rest of the article discusses the specifics of text messaging, namely how many texts are sent on average per teenager. He talks about how phone conversations and face to face interactions are becoming a dying form of communication. He makes a great point in saying that while the phone took fifty years to reach fifty million users, while myspace and facebook took four and two years respectively. The writer finishes the article by stating that this may be not be all bad however. He understands that this new way of communication is a way of life and may help kids in their technological futures.
Even as a twenty year old kid, I completely understand the frustrations and argument the writer is representing here. I am a dying breed of youth that really dislikes text messaging. Sure, it is nice to ask a friend a quick question and not have to worry about getting into a long conversation. It also can really help if I know my girlfriend or relatives are in a position to not be able to hold a phone conversation and I need to get a hold of them. But to me, that's where text messaging should end. from a strictly physical standpoint, my fingers get very tired from typing on my mini keyboard. It also gets very tiring when someone is trying to explain to me a situation which in no way can be expressed via text.
I came across this article, http://indyposted.com/10814/lets-stop-dating-okay-50-percent-of-breakups-now-happen-over-text-message/ that states over 50% percent of breakups happen via text messages. I would call this incredible and unbelievable, but in today's society it doesn't surprise me at all. It really puts home what the CNN writer was trying to say about today's generation. We are afraid to have face to face or physical conversation so we revert to using our thumbs. I know the times I've had to call it off with a girl I would of never considered using text messaging. That seems so degrading to the person that they aren't even worth the time to talk in person.
But what am I supposed to do other than give in? I know for a fact that the only way I can contact half the people in my phone book is through text message. I've tried calling them several times, and ten minutes later I will get a response not by phone, but by text. It seems incredible to me that my own close friends don't call me back, but that is what our society. Sure sometimes it may be more "convenient" but that doesn't mean that's how we should talk. . It won't be much longer till people will be teaching exercises for one's thumbs as to not strain them while texting. I just can't wait to see what inevitably takes over text messaging as the next way to avoid the old phone call. It really bothers me, but everyone has to accept we are becoming a text messaging society.
This article discusses what the title refers to as "generation text". The writer states that he has a nineteen year old daughter who he tried contacting via phone and email, and finally text her and immediately got a response. The rest of the article discusses the specifics of text messaging, namely how many texts are sent on average per teenager. He talks about how phone conversations and face to face interactions are becoming a dying form of communication. He makes a great point in saying that while the phone took fifty years to reach fifty million users, while myspace and facebook took four and two years respectively. The writer finishes the article by stating that this may be not be all bad however. He understands that this new way of communication is a way of life and may help kids in their technological futures.
Even as a twenty year old kid, I completely understand the frustrations and argument the writer is representing here. I am a dying breed of youth that really dislikes text messaging. Sure, it is nice to ask a friend a quick question and not have to worry about getting into a long conversation. It also can really help if I know my girlfriend or relatives are in a position to not be able to hold a phone conversation and I need to get a hold of them. But to me, that's where text messaging should end. from a strictly physical standpoint, my fingers get very tired from typing on my mini keyboard. It also gets very tiring when someone is trying to explain to me a situation which in no way can be expressed via text.
I came across this article, http://indyposted.com/10814/lets-stop-dating-okay-50-percent-of-breakups-now-happen-over-text-message/ that states over 50% percent of breakups happen via text messages. I would call this incredible and unbelievable, but in today's society it doesn't surprise me at all. It really puts home what the CNN writer was trying to say about today's generation. We are afraid to have face to face or physical conversation so we revert to using our thumbs. I know the times I've had to call it off with a girl I would of never considered using text messaging. That seems so degrading to the person that they aren't even worth the time to talk in person.
But what am I supposed to do other than give in? I know for a fact that the only way I can contact half the people in my phone book is through text message. I've tried calling them several times, and ten minutes later I will get a response not by phone, but by text. It seems incredible to me that my own close friends don't call me back, but that is what our society. Sure sometimes it may be more "convenient" but that doesn't mean that's how we should talk. . It won't be much longer till people will be teaching exercises for one's thumbs as to not strain them while texting. I just can't wait to see what inevitably takes over text messaging as the next way to avoid the old phone call. It really bothers me, but everyone has to accept we are becoming a text messaging society.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Article Four
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/edwardbaig/2010-02-04-baig04_ST_N.htm
This article is discusses the functionality and content of 3-d laptops being developed by Asus and Acer. The writer had the opportunity to use these computers for basic functions as well as playing the video game Avatar based on recent movie by James Cameron. He goes into good details about how the 3-D is noticeable, however is not great yet. He feels this product is definitely suited for gamers who are looking for an experience that's never been created. He goes on to say that although the technology is indeed impressive, there probably is not a high demand in main street market yet. The last of the article discusses the specs of the laptop such as RAM and hard drive space.
I think it's incredible we are coming to a point in society where 3-D will be a mainstay in the home. I remember being a kid with the plastic multicolored glasses thinking it was coolest experience of my life. Now, 3-D is almost a common place with movies. Anyone can see that the latest movies, Avatar and Michael Jackson's This is it to name a couple, are offered in 3-D. I know for a almost certain fact sooner than later nearly every movie will have a 3-D component.
I would absolutely love to get my hands on this laptop and try the aspect of video gaming. I can only imagine how amazing it would be to play all my favorite games in 3-D. However, I get the sneaking suspicion that the 3-D craze will overstay it's welcome and fast. I'm a huge sports fan. My t.v. is almost exclusively on ESPN or ESPN2. When I saw that ESPN would be broadcasting games in 3-D, I cringed. Does anyone truly want to watch a game like that? I can only imagine how big of a distraction that would be. Before we know it, all the major stations will be offering a 3-D service. We'll be watching 24 and Lost with glasses on our eyes. Ultimately, 3-D will become a over hyped fad instead of the awesome experience it should be.
A British article posted here: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/01/28/review_laptop_asus_g51_j_3d_notebook/ is testing the same laptop from the above article. They also pretty much agree that although it is impressive, there are some things that hurt the laptop's chances to sell. They state the specs are not much different to similar laptops coming out today. For the price these will sell for, around $3000 American, they clearly expected top of the line hard drive space and RAM. Also, like the above author, they feel as though people aren't ready in society for this 3-D gaming experience. This will definitely sell, but not in the quantity a company like Asus would want.
I can only hope the price goes does significantly so I can try it out. I would love to get 3-D computing a whirl, but for $3000 I will sit on the sidelines and hope my friends buy one.
This article is discusses the functionality and content of 3-d laptops being developed by Asus and Acer. The writer had the opportunity to use these computers for basic functions as well as playing the video game Avatar based on recent movie by James Cameron. He goes into good details about how the 3-D is noticeable, however is not great yet. He feels this product is definitely suited for gamers who are looking for an experience that's never been created. He goes on to say that although the technology is indeed impressive, there probably is not a high demand in main street market yet. The last of the article discusses the specs of the laptop such as RAM and hard drive space.
I think it's incredible we are coming to a point in society where 3-D will be a mainstay in the home. I remember being a kid with the plastic multicolored glasses thinking it was coolest experience of my life. Now, 3-D is almost a common place with movies. Anyone can see that the latest movies, Avatar and Michael Jackson's This is it to name a couple, are offered in 3-D. I know for a almost certain fact sooner than later nearly every movie will have a 3-D component.
I would absolutely love to get my hands on this laptop and try the aspect of video gaming. I can only imagine how amazing it would be to play all my favorite games in 3-D. However, I get the sneaking suspicion that the 3-D craze will overstay it's welcome and fast. I'm a huge sports fan. My t.v. is almost exclusively on ESPN or ESPN2. When I saw that ESPN would be broadcasting games in 3-D, I cringed. Does anyone truly want to watch a game like that? I can only imagine how big of a distraction that would be. Before we know it, all the major stations will be offering a 3-D service. We'll be watching 24 and Lost with glasses on our eyes. Ultimately, 3-D will become a over hyped fad instead of the awesome experience it should be.
A British article posted here: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/01/28/review_laptop_asus_g51_j_3d_notebook/ is testing the same laptop from the above article. They also pretty much agree that although it is impressive, there are some things that hurt the laptop's chances to sell. They state the specs are not much different to similar laptops coming out today. For the price these will sell for, around $3000 American, they clearly expected top of the line hard drive space and RAM. Also, like the above author, they feel as though people aren't ready in society for this 3-D gaming experience. This will definitely sell, but not in the quantity a company like Asus would want.
I can only hope the price goes does significantly so I can try it out. I would love to get 3-D computing a whirl, but for $3000 I will sit on the sidelines and hope my friends buy one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)