From Big Guns to Sleek Gadgets

If you think an iPad (or any other tablet device) is just for entertainment and ‘information on the go’ . I suggest you think, or should I say tap again.

Just recently the Singapore’s Defense Ministry announced its plans to issue the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) 8,000 sets of tablet devices, to its military recruits starting November this year. According to the report, this is to "harness our advantage of today's technologically savvy servicemen" by "exploiting the use of popular and current information and communications technology." The device's camera can be used to send photos and videos to share intelligence data and for post-mission assessments. It would also allow for group chats and live messages to commanders or other battalions. (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/224687/technology/singapore-military-adopts-ipad-2)

“This changes everything. Again.”

Back in the days, no one would have ever thought that such devices can be used for the military. In fact, can we imagine the AFP holding IPads and rifles at the same time? Probably not in a million years. But with today’s technology, a lot of things that seemed absurd and unheard of come alive. As early as 2010, the UK Military has adopted the iPad for training its soldiers. And today, special applications for military use are being worked on with third parties not only in Singapore but also in the United States as well (e.g. SoldierEyes by Textron Systems).

The recent developments in military tactics only proves that the use of tablet computer technology is not anymore limited for the gadget-hungry mass consumers looking for ways to entertain themselves. It has evolved into a different game altogether involving the government. Tablet military warfare anyone?

(Image Source: Image Source: http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/07/30/uk-militarys-new-recruit-an-ipad-app)

Entry #2

Click here, Click there, and anywhere

Ads. The number one revenue source for websites that deliver free web content to anywhere in the world. The bloggers publish an endless array of topics which could be counted as non revenue generating in the real world but if you put it up on the web, voila! Instant money. I admire the site owner who can generate so much money just by putting an ad on the website and then wait for the surfers to just click on it. Some people earn $10,000 a month or even a $100,000 and others less but everything would depend on your traffic.

Traffic. There are millions, probably billions of websites on the Internet but we hardly ever get to know more than the ten websites the average joe frequents. The Internet landscape is so cluttered that Google would probably not waste any money to pay the geniuses on coming up with an algorithms to create a directory for all the websites in the world. Their current search algorithms would depend on variables like your location, previous searches, links that you frequent etc. You can just input your search word and click on whatever sites the search engine gives back to you but you won't really go past page 3 if you get what you want right away. Everything is predetermined by math and calculus and whatever fancy science they use out there. There are no road maps to equal phone book directories on the web. If you're lucky and you've got the backing of the online community, maybe you will earn some money.

Money. They say it is what makes the world go 'round. I say, true. It is the seed in business and it is common sense that if you inject capital in your business you can generate revenue. The site owner would need the money to purchase bandwith and host their domains. They can then put in the ads along with the web content and just pray that somebody somewhere would click that moving car or that girl with the flowing dress so that they could paid. But what if nobody can find you? This is the problem that 1plusV, a French company, blames on Google. They say that Google made some of its sites impossible to find which led to lost ad revenue of $421 million. I just about said WHAT!?! That is a lot of money. (Duh.) I would be outraged if I had the same problem. They have a projected revenue but from what I've learned, this would only be considered an expectancy. Unfair competition or not, how did they expect to earn that much? Actuarial studies and projections are considered reliable tools on the profit projection but aren't people fickle? We can search for sites and they could turn up but who can say for certain that we will actually click on this or that? If Google did indeed make them invisible, then they are most probably liable for damages. But to ask for such a large amount bring me back to the conclusion that it is always about the money.

Entry # 2 Abigail Alameda

Webcam Security

When you have a webcam, or any other sort of security camera that goes through the internet, it would be in your best interest to have a password to access the same. Why is this? To put it simply, webcams and security cams before being viewed by the other source are first placed in a sort of online depository, where users may access the same provided they know how to connect to the same. Therefore even if a person does not have a direct link to your webcam, he may actually go to this depository and access the links there. Now of course there are thousands of links to different cameras, but he could use search words, and this stranger might stumble upon our webcam during more private moments.

Freaky? Don’t believe me? Try it for yourselves.

1) Go to the google search page

2) type inurl:/view/index.shtml in the browser

3) Search.

Now you will be in a page among others with different links with little or no details, those are the url's of webcams all over the world. Think of this area as a depot where all webcam feeds pass through, if the webcam doesn't have a password, you could probably view it through here. Security cams can be found in this depot as well, so you might see into some traffic cams, security cams in schools, etc. You can make your searches more specific as well.

Man updated Facebook status - during a standoff.

In Salt Lake City, Utah, Jason Valdez held a woman hostage at a motel in a tense 16-hour, overnight standoff with SWAT teams. Valdez, 36, is no stranger to Utah police, having been convicted for aggravated assault and domestic violence in front of a child. His latest encounter with the law, which led to the incident, was for missing a preliminary hearing on a case for felony and misdemeanor drug possession charges. Police tried to serve him the warrant for the missed court appearance, however Valdez allegedly resisted and took a hostage with him inside Western Colony Inn. It would have been an ordinary standoff with the police that we read and see in the news everyday, save that Valdez found time to keep his family and friends updated - via Facebook.

“I’m currently on a standoff... kinda ugly, but ready for whatever”, Valdez first posted in his account at 11:23 p.m. with the popular social networking site. He then posted "I love u guyz and if I don't make it out of here alive that I'm in a better place and u were all great friends." However, his posts did not end there. He also updated his friends when police shut off the power that his "hostage" was fine - and with him willingly - and that police are jeopardizing her life by their actions. Valdez even uploaded 2 pictures of himself with the woman and quoted the photograph, saying “Got a cute ‘hostage’ huh?” Valdez’ friends and family also communicated back to him while the standoff was ongoing. One of his friends even tried to helped him by posting that police had a “gunner in the bushes stay low." Valdez replied "Thank you homie. Good looking out." The stand-off lasted until around 9 a.m. the next day, when the police finally decided to storm inside the room. However, before being arrested, Valdez shot himself in the chest with the handgun and is now in the hospital in critical condition.

During the duration off the standoff, police said that his friends responded to his account with over 100 comments. Some people offered words of support, and others pleaded for him to "do the right thing." Authorities are now discussing whether some of Valdez' friends should be arrested and charged with obstruction of justice for hampering a police investigation. "We're not sure yet how to deal with it," said one of the police officers.

This incident shows how social networking sites have been increasingly integrated to the lives of people, even to the point that they will use it during peculiar circumstances, or even dangerous situations. It also illustrates how communication is made easier through the use of these services. Valdez was able to communicate with his family and friends in the middle of a critical standoff with the police by simply updating his Facebook status. The relative convenience and ease of use of social networking sites take communication to a whole new level, connecting people in a more dynamic, interactive way.

With regard to the people who helped him evade the police arrest by posting information as to the actions and whereabouts of the police during the standoff, I personally believe that they should be made criminally liable, in one way or another. They shouldn’t be able to hide in the cloak of “privacy.” I am not sure if posting it in the criminal’s Facebook wall will have any difference as compared to messages being relayed through PM (private messaging). Furthermore, I’m not sure as to what offense will be applicable to them though. I am not familiar as to the elements of the crime “obstruction of justice” in the United States. Generally, it is defined as the crime of interfering with the work of police, investigators, prosecutors, regulatory agencies, or other (usually government) officials. But what would constitute sufficient “interference” that will make a person liable for such crime? Evidently, there is a wide gap between the advancements in information and communication technology and the laws that seek to regulate it.

Source:

http://techland.time.com/2011/06/22/utah-man-updated-facebook-status-during-standoff/#ixzz1QfmnUAWu

Image Source:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3uN3tpNW0F5jYIQxTZRro1UhqWNA6rBmLAXN2FJJbztuv27FUxtCb_gPeAbDp9ZZy8PIFEbjhQjHa36RGaeq-RxfBKHBHhQEP0d1QvG-_fuE5qoGYFqfSPjWfzVWwkK3HyHT-xRrdYz12/s1600-h/facebook.jpg

Entry # 2

From Goods to Services: Why Digital Distribution Bothers Me

I can still remember the very first piece of computer software I bought with my own money. It was Sierra On Line's VGA Remake of Quest For Glory 1, a sweet package that came in several 5 1/4th inch, 360k floppy disks, complete with its box, 2 manuals, and a game book that explained the game's world, acting as its "Bible" of sorts. It was quite the experience: opening the box was as much an adventure as playing the game itself, thanks to all the knick knacks and doodads that came with it.

But also with that same box came the intangible benefits: namely the bundle of rights one gets when one purchases a good or product. Jus utendi, jus abutendi, jus disponendi, possidendi, and the rest. Back then I was twelve, and did not really realize how important these property rights were, and how no one else but I, the rightful purchaser of the software, had them.

Nowadays, digital distribution is rewriting the rules so that software is no longer seen as goods, like cars or VCRs, but as a services, like electricity. And there lies my problem: I'm not sure I'm ready to give up my fundamental property rights as of yet. I don't like the idea that I cannot sell a piece of 2nd-hand software I no longer like, thanks to DRM. That's like being unable to sell an old, but still usable car I bought with my own money. I used to have the right to dispose of, nay, resell property as I see fit.

I also don't like the idea that I can't transfer lawfully bought software from one of my PCs to another of my PCs--the same way I'd raise hell if I discovered my VCR refused to work with any TV other than my old one. Last I checked I had the right to use my property any way I wish, the same way I can hook up my VCR to any TV with an RCA Jack. Even worse is software that has limits to the number of times it can be installed. That's like having a VCR that can only be connected and disconnected from the same TV a handful of times.

I fear that other classes of software aside from games will follow suit, from on-line smut to cellphone apps. Eventually, we might see entire OSes and Business Software sold this way. And again, sellers justify it under the paradigm that the buyer is not purchasing goods, but services, taking these transactions away from the protected realm of property and sales law and into the realm of contract law.

I have nothing against digital distribution or DRM: it's the wave of the future. I have nothing against the service paradigm per se. I will concede that software piracy has made this paradigm shift inevitable. I just want to be protected by the same bundle of rights I'd have had I bought a car and not Spore. In a world where software is inevitably cracked, where phones are jail broken, and where illegal downloads show no signs of stopping, it's a very bad idea to punish your paying customers by limiting their rights to their software, while their pirating counterparts suffer no such limitations.

Copyright In the Age of Social Networking

Social networking makes it so easy to share posts, videos, pictures and links. It must be difficult for our ancestors to imagine how free we are to say whatever we want and whenever we want in the Internet. However, many questions abound regarding this powerful development. How does the law protect our almost limitless ability to share? How do we properly share information? Does it matter where it comes from? Is Internet stuff public property?
If you watched the last season’s NBA playoffs, you must have heard the news about Dallas Mavericks owner, Mark Cuban getting fined for tweeting about lousy officiating. Then, the debate about copyright and tweeting was triggered when NBA republished his Twitter feed without his permission.
Technically, tweets are copyrightable. In reality? Not really. First, the 140-character limit makes it hard to argue sufficient creativity for copyright protection. Second, most tweets are about facts, and facts are not copyrightable. While facts can be delivered with humor, originality hardly has anything to do with it. But, it really depends on the tweet in question which can be subjected to quantitative and qualitative analysis.
In other social networking sites such as Facebook, is it enough that a posted video or link links back to the original site? Is it enough to put HT or hat tip or even a mere thank you to acknowledge a source in a post? More and more questions are being asked, challenging our legislators to balance out copyright protection and freedom of speech.

James Anthony Mina #2

Computer Addiction and the Law

Computers are undeniably necessary in this generation. Almost everything runs with the help of computers. However, there is much more than meets the eye. The normal use of computers is generally not harmful. Unfortunately, many are abusing it that they unknowingly develop an addiction.

One thing I found strange with our laws is that there is no regulation with regard to the use of computers. Sure, there are laws which prohibit and criminalize certain activities such as hacking and others which refer to "external" effects but I haven’t seen any law (yet) which deals with the "internal" effects, particularly the negative effects to the user.

I know of a girl who was an internet addict. She spends several hours surfing the internet about beauty stuff that girls usually go to. She is quite intelligent, having passed the UPCAT and is currently a student in UP Diliman. However, her parents noticed that her behavior changed when she started spending too much time online. They say she is easily irritated and has been depressed for months now.

Also, I know of a guy who was addicted to computer games so much that he does not study anymore. The guy was intelligent and was even studying in one of the best universities in the country but his addiction to gaming was too much that he skipped classes and preferred to just stay in a computer shop. He also participated in “LAN parties” playing games like DotA and Counter Strike which had him awake for several days without breaks. He was obviously expelled from that school.

The examples above are just a few where we see lives impacted negatively by computer addiction. I just realized that there should be some kind of regulation that should be done here. I know that there might be some privacy and enforcement issues here. Laws which can't be enforced are basically useless. I also don't prescribe adopting a policy which allows the government to monitor the population's computer usage. I just believe that something should be done though I'm not yet quite sure what it might be.

Entry #2

John Joseph Parco