The Dogdays Are Over: The Fight for Internet Privacy

Big brother is no longer just watching you, he's also liking your status and retweeting your instagram. Gone are the days of internet privacy! Although people are voluntarily sharing personal information on the web we must be vigilant. Bills like SOPA/PIPA are just the beginning of upcoming legislation aimed to police/protect the internet. Why should we be concerned? Because everything from our Amazon purchases to Facebook messages will be under the watchful eye of the law.

But Taylor! Why are you so concerned? The only people who should worry are the cyber criminals and child pornographers! Wrong. My simple concern is this: we now have the largest accumulated wealth of knowledge known to man. From the millions of Wikipedia articles to the billions of Youtube videos man has never come close to this free exchange of ideas. Should we favor the interests of corporations and trash what may be the greatest library of media texts? I think not, but the corporate interests and their high-paid lobbyists would strongly disagree.

SOPA aims to police copyright infringement by attacking the website itself for unknowingly allowing a user to host "stolen" content. That's like shutting down a Walmart because one customer showed up high. Clearly there is some fault in this logic, as any rational person would hold the customer responsible and not the business. So the user himself/herself should be punished for any illegal activity online, with respects to the laws of warrant-based investigations. Yet websites like Amazon and Facebook use your private information for target advertisements and cache any information you've ever shared. This leads me to wonder: if private interests can get access to your information then what's stopping the government? Could private deals between these companies and the government undermine the requirements for a warrant?In the near future would web users be punished for visiting weed legalization websites? Will underaged kids get sent to juvenile court for viewing porn?

It all boils down to this: the advent of the internet took the public sphere out of the hands of media corporations and into the hands of individual citizens. This shifted the very meaning of democracy in America, freedom of press is now attainable on some level. But this is bigger than just freedom of press/speech, never before has it been easier to peacefully assemble/ protest. The news conglomerates and the US government have become close friends over the years and will do anything within their power to have the pendulum swing back in favor of large media conglomerates. SOPA is the beginning of this shift and with the FBI planning to monitor social networks it's only a matter of time before someone gets arrested for sharing a link on twitter. Internet privacy is dying, one day soon we'll all have universal web usernames.

If it doesn't scare you now, imagine if everything you do online is visible on your facebook wall. Like, everything.

Don't Track Me, Bro!!

            Have you ever logged into Facebook and noticed an advertisement on the side which seemed eerily attuned to your specific interests? Recent news regarding Internet privacy issues has introduced of what is called DNT or “Do Not Track” tools in major web browsers. A DNT essentially prevents browsers from conducting tracking or accumulating information on Internet users based upon their online history, interests, searches, etc… The article outlines that browsers such as Apple’s Safari, Mozilla’s Firefox and now Google’s Chrome have begun to integrate remedial versions of the tool into their respective browsers. This information remains important because of a poll that revealed that 80% internet users would like to see tracking outlawed in the future, and the author argues that the tool should be made simpler, more consumer friendly.

            So why is this important exactly? There are very many implications of tracking on Internet consumers but what remains important to the issue is the fracturing of audiences and availability of content and services on the web. Tracking allows an individual’s online activity to be recorded, but it is not for some larger government surveillance project quite yet. Tracking essentially can be used to tailor the web and web browsers to specific interests and preferences. This can come in the form of search engines that know what you are looking for or it can lead to advertising of products that you personally might enjoy based upon your online activity. Facebook does this based on what you “like” and what is in your info/interests. The downside to tracking, however, is that many feel it is an invasion of one’s privacy by corporations and advertisers.

            Tracking, consisting of both pros and cons, seems appealing to advertisers and frightening to consumers which I think gets at the heart of the issue. Before some larger governmental privacy mandates are put into place I believe that DNT tools should be put into all browsers so that people have the option to choose. Some might like an Internet that is tailored to their interests while others might want those eyes off their backs. Either case can happen but what matters is whether the browsers out there decide to make it simple enough for the average Internet user to figure out. 

Internet Freedom: can privacy be ensured?

On the internet nobody knows you’re a dog. Or at least, that’s how it used to be. With the rise of social networks like Facebook and Google+ the age of internet anonymity is quickly becoming extinct. People are voluntarily sharing personal information through these websites more and more each day. Although it seems relatively harmless, sharing one’s likes and dislikes in exchange for user-targeted ads, it’s just the start of a new era in online communication.

What if the government issued a centralized ID login system for the internet much like the required driver’s license to drive a car? This would allow them to keep tabs on all of your internet activity, ensuring that dogs wont be able to pass as humans. We run the risk of sacrificing our personal freedom & right to privacy in favor of corporate advertisements. Cookies, Flash cookies, and zombie cookies collect user information and sell it to others; similarly, search engine logs help to improve searches and also target their (eg. Google) advertising results. Some companies/sites allow users to opt out of being tracked; however, if you don't know who they are, that's not going to happen. Further, many sites don't function properly unless the user accepts cookies, some opt-outs don't work as promised, and others are only temporary.

What if we crafted a constitution of internet rights, similar to our actual constitution, ensuring our rights to privacy online? In the book I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did author Lori Andrews proposes such a constitution. This “Social Network Constitution,” comprised of just ten articles, ensures the user’s “right to connect” meaning that “no government shall abridge the right to connect, nor shall a government monitor exchanges over the Internet or code them as to sources or content.” It also ensures that “each individual shall have control over his or her image from a social network, including over the image created by data aggregation.” Although it seems a bit extreme as of now with bills like SOPA surfacing our right to the internet is threaten and must be ensured.

Black and White and Grey All Over

The Internet is the driving force that has led to many legal debacles in modern times.  Through the Internet, people now have a free gateway to any information he or she wishes to have.  This free access to information is also what is causing many of the legal issues. 

DJ Danger Mouse created a new album bringing together both Jay Z’s The Black Album and the Beatles’ The White Album and created what he called The Grey Album.  This new album was a mashup that he had created utilizing both Jay Z’s lyrics and the Beatles beats and chords.  What DJ Danger Mouse didn’t know was how his new tracks would quickly go viral and be the cause of a lot of copyright and serious legal issues.

 

The issues surrounding DJ Danger Mouse’s The Grey Album reflects the problems that major companies and people with power face on a daily basis.  DJ Danger Mouse didn’t even have control over what his album would become as soon as the tracks were put on the internet.  The Internet served as a highway for the tracks to spread like wild fire.  He originally only made 300 copies of his album to give to his friends and family, but as soon as that album hit the Internet, word of mouth led to the album being downloaded by hundreds of thousands of people from all over.  (Here is a link to download The Grey Album for yourself)

The legal issues with this case deal with the fact that DJ Danger Mouse did not seek to get legal rights to use the Beatles tracks in his mashups.  This copyright infringement is what led the EMI to seek legal action.  EMI claimed that DJ Danger Mouse violated a serious copyright law.

The grey area of EMI’s argument, however, is that there is no set price or detailed description within copyright laws explaining how DJ Danger Mouse could have gotten the rights to the samples even if he had tried to go about using the samples legally.  If it is true that copyrights exist for the purpose of protecting an artist's economic and artistic or intellectual interests and property than shouldn’t there be a cost association for people who desire to buy rights to samples of the music or property?

The copyright laws need to reconsidered and reevaluated for clarity.  If these laws do not become thorough and comprehensive than we will continue having these legal battles.  The Internet is a powerful technology that allows for people to use and distribute music among other things whether it is sanctioned or not sanctioned by the industry from which they originate.  This is why copyright laws need to be clearly black or white and we need to move them out of the grey area.  

Matrix Media: A Necessity in Current Society

In chapter 1, “Matrix media,” Michael Curtin describes a matrix media as a media system where corporations provide media in a variety of forms, allowing consumers to interact with and intake the media at any time.  This style of media doesn’t aim at mass audiences at once, but rather uses a large supply of outlets for their product adding up viewers among them.  An example of matrix media that Curtin uses is that of “Top Chef,” a cable show.  This particular show can be viewed on cable during its’ allotted show time or on their website for a period of weeks, can be purchased on ITunes, has video games and blogs for dedicated fans to play and read on the internet, and lastly has mobile applications so viewers can get information anywhere on their phone discretely and quickly.  This style of media, matrix media, has not been the dominant style forever.

            Technological shifts in the recent past, along with audience members viewing tendencies, guided the media industry into a matrix media set-up.  The continually improving video game market was one technological shift that had an impact.  As video games continually become more advanced, many consumers began to choose to spend their time playing video games over watching television.  Curtin states that the day after Super Smash Bros Brawl was released, television ratings dropped 14 percent.  Corporations were forced to make their media more interactive, maybe with fun games or blogs, and have more flexible availability in order to remain competitive, due to the fact that video games were interactive and available to be played at any time.

           Another technological shift was the increasing popularity of the internet.   The internet became a tool that almost everyone used daily, and with programmers creating websites where television shows and movies were free to watch illegally, it had a staggering effect on television ratings.  Thus corporations were forced to supply better, “professional” versions of their shows online that were able to compete with the illegal sites due to better quality and good availability.

         Lastly, the obsession with smart phones has led to very profitable opportunities involving mobile devices.  Curtin estimates that this market will be worth around fifty billion to corporations in the media market.  Thus, due to the advancement of video games, the increased popularity of the internet, and the creation of the smart phone, it became highly advantageous, if not necessary, for the media industry to become a matrix media.