I had not heard of Identity 2.0 before but after having to register multiple usernames and passwords in a variety of sites for this course and having often been unable to re- enter a page I had set up because I couldn't remember which un and pws I should use I could really to relate to the Indentity 2.0 product. I have often tried to comment on my fellow classmates blogs but had my carefully crafted responses removed because I could not get through the identity validation hoops waiting for me before I clicked 'send'.
I don't want to have to prove to myself that I should be able to enter my own site every time but I really understand a person's desire for this sort of security if they thought their information was so precious.
Of course I see the absolute necessity of this security for financial institutions and personal record keeping. Maybe also for substantial intellectual property and for ensuring the validity of some other transactions but for much of the communication done using Web 2.0, I don't know. I don't really care who sees my Facebook profile because I wouldn't put anything there that people could use against me (if they could be bothered). If someone can find value in what I publish then all power to them. I don't care if I don't know who they are and if they want to tell me then my email address is on the page somewhere. Isn't that what the web is all about?
The protection of music copyright occupied many Gigabytes of web babble for many years because traditionally the recording and music publishing industry relied on the proceeds from the sale of CDs and vinyl. Much time and money was devoted to the development of systems that would prevent people from getting access to music on the web without the interaction being paid for or even audited by the music business.
In the last few years, a tsunami of consumer opinion and behaviour has demonstrated to the music business that protecting the downloading of music is futile. The battle has been lost - just deal with it. With the exception of some notable exceptions (the Beatles), consumers now can buy/download legally the majority of music. My point is that the gates to download are open. What is happening is that musicians now see the web as the best marketing tool they could ever dream about and at its core is that consumers (without the restrictive security) can discover them. THEREFORE much of the security is unwarranted IF people act honestly, or are only communicating information that has little real world value - like celebrity trivia.
Simplifying the personal validation process would make the whole thing much simpler and easier.
Phishing refers to spam e-mails that prompt you, often with dire warnings or tempting monetary returns, to click on a link to a bogus website and enter private, personal information such as bank card numbers and login passwords. Pharming also means you enter information into a website that looks like a legitimate site. In this case, you may not even be aware you are visiting a spoofed website. Spam e-mails can send code that corrupts the local host file of your computer, which then misdirects your surfing. Sometimes, it's not your computer at all; the domain name server itself can be corrupted.
http://www.oma.org/Cybermed/tech/privacy1.htm
The right to privacy refers to your right to be left alone. There are several different ways a person's right to privacy can be invaded.
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/B9998A9F-B6BE-44D3-AAF526978C49BDD9/catID/268BB6A8-8884-4677-89869B6AD8
Identity theft occurs when somebody steals your name and other personal information for fraudulent purposes. Identity theft is a form of identity crime (where somebody uses a false identity to commit a crime).
www.netalert.gov.au/advice/publications/guides/a_teachers_guide_to_internet_safety/glossary.html
No comments:
Post a Comment