Reading Report #3

“Why the Next Big Pop-Culture Wave After Cupcakes Might be Libraries”

 by: Linda Holmes 

AND

“The ‘Library of the Future’ Begins to Emerge”

by: Sue Dremann

These two articles present a very clear point to their readers: Libraries are here to stay! There has been a continuous debate regarding how necessary libraries are and whether libraries are still a popular place to gather information. With the growing amount of technology and the use of the Internet for books and other forms of information, it is easy to see why some individuals believe the library and its vast array of hardcover books serve no purpose. In contrast, these two articles demonstrate how libraries can continue to be an important resource for society by reevaluating the way they distribute information: regular books, computers, electronic book readers, online article/book access, etc. By “keeping up with the times”, libraries can continue to provide great access to information at no cost to the community. Another growing debate, regarding the use of this new technology, is the necessity for the librarian’s role. Many individuals believe that with the use of online/electronic access, librarians will no longer be needed to help an individual access the information. These articles stress that librarians will be needed even more with new, technological advances because many individuals may not know how to access the information through online or electronic sources. 

I agree with the articles that libraries are still a viable, important resource for information, irregardless of the format of the document (electronic, hardcover, etc.). The implementation of new ways to retrieve information should only increase a library’s popularity and usage. Can you imagine how much more information would be available to you if a library chose to use a variety of information formats?

News Report #3

“Report: Feds to Push for Net Encryption Backdoors”

Declan McCullagh, Chief Political Correspondent for CNET

9/27/2010

< http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20017671-281.html?tag=topImage3 >

The Obama Administration is attempting to enforce a new federal law for Internet surveillance: a law that will force all Internet communication providers (e-mail, instant messengers, etc.) to provide a “backdoor” method that allows the government access to private information that would otherwise be blocked by security encryptions. This law will make completely secure, Internet communication sites non-existent. The federal government will have the right to invade a user’s privacy to monitor for criminal/terrorist suspects and to help with investigations. The article states that the federal government will only access such information if there is a court-order to do so.

In the past, with telephones as the main source of communication, it was fairly easy for the government to conduct wiretaps on potential suspects. Unfortunately this is not the case today: the encryptions on Internet communication sites have made it harder for the federal government to serve and protect against potential threats to our society. With this in mind, the government may enact this law sooner than later: the Internet is becoming the main source of communication for the majority of citizens. In my opinion, such a law may not be a bad thing. It would allow the government, under just cause and a court order, to monitor the behavior of potential terrorists, child molesters, gang-related individuals, serial killers, etc. With this new law, the government could monitor their suspects and carry out their investigations a lot sooner and more efficiently. Can you imagine the amount of lives that could be protected and saved from such a surveillance?

News Report #2

“Craigslist Unexpectedly Pulls Adult Services Listings”

Eric Bangeman, Ars technica

9/5/2010

<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/craigslist-unexpectedly-pulls-adult-services-listings.ars> 

Craigslist is known for its easy access and for listings of everything in the world that can be given away or purchased. Originally, Craigslist did not see a problem with having a section where sex, like a used car or television, could be listed as “available”. Craigslist originally named this section “Erotic Services”. After constant criticism, Craigslist renamed and revised the section in May 2009: the “Adult Service” section would now make users pay a fee to post under such listings. The new revisions only raised more criticisms, resulting in the recent demise of the section. Over Labor Day Weekend, the section was permanently removed because law enforcement agencies believe that such listings will promote/condone prostitution and child exploitation. Unfortunately this may not be the end to such services on Craigslist: users may continue posting adult services under sections that are not intended for such use. 

It is about time that the “Adult Services” section was removed from Craigslist. Such listings can be viewed by anyone: there are no filters on Craigslist that can prevent children from accidentally accessing these listings. Also, there have been several documentaries showing how different sites, including Craigslist, have been used to set up profiles for females of all ages, even children, that are involved in the sex trade. I believe that If this section stayed online, it would be condoning prostitution and the exploitation of innocent children. I am surprised this section was not removed sooner: it was an easy target for law enforcement agencies because the users’ intents were well known by all viewers of the posts. 

Reading Report #2

“Is Wikipedia a Victim of Its Own Success?”

by: Farhad Manjoo

Wikipedia has been known for its easy access, open editing, and overwhelming lack of credible information. Everyone in the world, despite their expertise, has been able to post on Wikipedia: editing and creating information for the masses. This has caused a major debate on whether the site is a credible source for general knowledge and research papers. Recently, Wikipedia has tried to address this problem with more controls such as cross-checking the posts for accuracy. Another major problem is the site’s lack of diversity in people posting: the majority posting are men. As noted in the article, these issues can continue to decrease postings until Wikipedia meets its demise. 

Wikipedia should have controls that filter for accuracy amongst the site’s posts. Too many people take Wikipedia at “face value” without double-checking for its accuracy.  With this in mind, the level of misinformation on websites such as Wikipedia can have mixed effects on people (general misinformation, affecting a grade on a research paper, etc.) If the implementation of controls on Wikipedia are causing a decrease in posts, it makes me wonder if people are more concerned with just being heard versus actually posting expert, accurate information. As avid users of the internet and its many resources you would think society would be happy that certain sites, like Wikipedia, are trying to prevent individuals from being misinformed. As for the lack of women posting: if they are anything like myself, I am too busy and have way better things to do than try to edit or create posts online, especially when I have no expertise on the topic!

Reading Report #1

"Web Hoaxes, Counterfeit Sites, and Other Spurious Information on the Internet"
by: Paul S. Piper

There are a variety of websites on the internet that can offer misinformation to unsuspecting individuals. These sites can be hoaxes, counterfeit sites, fictitious sites, sites that have been hacked, and parody/spoof websites. Even sites that we rely on to stay “in the loop” of society, such as the news, have been affected by different levels of misinformation. 

Many counterfeit sites contain similar information and url addresses as the authentic sites they are trying to represent. Unlike counterfeit sites, fictitious and parody/spoof websites may be more easy to recognize for their lack of authenticity: humorous or very outrageous website designs and information.

Also, some of these misinformation/disinformation websites are subject-specific and can contain suspicious material with serious consequences. For example, as listed in the article, websites with misinformation about health care can be seriously detrimental to someone’s health and can even result in casualties. Serious social phenomenons have also been the topic for misinformation, such as 9/11 and the Holocaust. The article mentions how The Institute for Historical Review, for example, is a website that is trying to claim the Holocaust and all of its atrocities never happened.

I believe there is a definite need for internet users to be aware of misinformation sites. Some websites are more easy to recognize for their lack of authenticity than others. More information about how to recognize these websites should be accessible to the general public. One of the most serious consequences from misinformation can result in serious injuries or casualties. I do agree with the article that not all misinformation is a bad thing. When studying any part of society, individuals need a clear depiction of why two opposing forces feel so strongly about their position. With this in mind, even though one of these websites can be biased and misinforming to support a point, it can still provide viable information when researching opposing points of view and controversial topics. Even though these websites have some positive aspects, individuals should still have a basic knowledge of how to distinguish the informative from the misinformed.