Privacy Protection
Published November 30th, 2010 | 
Privacy is a very important concern while surfing the Internet – one that is often overlooked. All of your online information is controlled by someone. Every time you log on to a website, whether it be a social networking or internet dating site, you are vulnerable.
Watch how someone can steal personal information. Reveal what is the difference between a computer and Internet Security Security. Learn how to create strong passwords that hackers can not break.
1. What is your privacy? Is the power to control the computer data that you disclose about yourself and control who can access personal information.
2. What is Internet privacy?
Part of the computer privacy. He has the power to control the information you reveal about yourself online, the power to control the Web sites, remote scripting and Web applications can use this personal information and the power to know about these sites, scripts and web applications sufficiently reliable.
3. What is privacy?
Undoubtedly, you have tons of information:
* All web sites you’ve visited
* All documents, folders, pictures, videos, files are opened and created * All emails, names and passwords forum
* All data from credit card and credit you saved
* All calls from Skype to Skype and MSN has cats
* Al-tech, writing or art, you’ve invented
* The purchase of an online business: When you visit the shop
* Is my information shared photos and video, age, hobbies, preferences, even if all the thoughts out there
* In general, all the habits of equipment and things to do All equipment and information they consider private information to websites are private.
4. How to create strong passwords that hackers can not break?
We use passwords for daily access to our files, e-mail accounts, bank accounts, Twitter and Facebook accounts, and hundreds of other services. It ’s very tempting to use a password for all accounts and make quick and easy to remember. This has a devastating impact on our security and privacy. If you think you have something to hide, think again. In most cases, passwords are hacked to use a computer is a spam bot to steal money and personal information, infect your computer from viruses and spyware and so on. Learn to avoid the following low and easy to crack passwords:
* The passwords and default passwords generic. Examples: manager director, guest user, password, password, ILOVEYOU, 2010, etc. These are the first passwords that are judged by software piracy.
* Significant words or names. Examples: sandbox, NY, lion, John, Mary, United States, love, myspouse, dragon, etc., can easily break the dictionary-assisted cracking tools.
* The words or names with numbers. Examples: john123, pass123, 123456, number1, abc123, 654 321, so that it can break easily automated cracking tools.
* My name, date of birth or similar information. They are used like a password, and are easily broken. For example, if the password is an anniversary that few hundreds or thousands (if the year is included) possible combinations of passwords are very weak. Learn how to create a random password of these rules:
* Select "random" letters and numbers. It seems random, but only at first sight. Numerous studies have shown that humans are not very good at random – I always try to spread things too uniform, which is not random behavior.
* Keyboard "Random" in the dark. This is slightly better than chance, but still pretty random.
* Random password generators online. Much better than the two previous options, but there are two major drawbacks. First, it is possible that the passwords generated can be stored on a malicious website, or someone can listen on your connection and intercept passwords generated. Another major problem is the quality of random number generators, which are often not up to it. Many of them were taken innocently and gives much less than the combinations are theoretically possible (no more than a few tens or hundreds of millions of which were in no way a password – see box above paragraph).
* Special programs for generating random passwords. Best choice, as duly signed and reliable.
Questions Answered?
Published July 23rd, 2010 |
Patricia, over at the Communication Exchange posed some questions for her readers to answer and since I have nothing better to write about this morning, I thought I’d post a response:
1. Why are some bloggers (like me) obsessive about posting regularly and others seem to have a very lackadaisical attitude regarding the frequency of their writings?
I guess posting frequency depends on an individual’s goals, work ethic and how much time they have in which to write. For myself, I try to post at least three times a week, but sometimes manages multiple postings in a single day. And there have been periods due to illness or other commitments when I’ve posted hardly at all. It depends. As a rule, I think bloggers should blog every day. That’s how you keep people coming back. That being said, I think it’s probably better to write a few solid posts infrequently than to post frequently just for the sake of posting. There have been plenty of times when I’ve done the posting for the sake of posting thing and what I usually end up with is a lot of useless filler. So another rule of thumb should be, if you have nothing to post about, it’s probably not such a bad idea to take the day off.
2. Are Facebook (and other personal information-sharing sites) making us more or less effective interpersonal communicators?
Even though I have a Facebook account and a Twitter account, etc., I don’t really spend much time on any of them, so I’m probably not the best person to ask this question. However, I’ll vote in the “less effective” column. As much as I love the Internet and all that jazz, I’m still a big believer in the lost art of letter writing. Email and texting is great in a pinch, but our over-reliance on these new modes of communication is making us lazy, I think. As to whether its actually making us stupid, only time will tell. I understand that there are studies that suggest the opposite — that the Internet and such is making us smarter, rewiring our brains. Those studies may actually be correct. There are also studies that suggest reading EBooks are encouraging people to read more, not less. On the other hand, I’ve listened to teenagers whose communication skills have been heavily influenced by Facebook, texting, etc. and I’m not yet convinced. So many of them are speaking a language that no longer even remotely resembles coherent English and they are quickly growing into adults who no longer speak recognizable English, so until I see some improvement in that area, I’m going to stick with the "dumber, less effective" category. (I realize, of course, that my inability to speak their language may mean that I’m simply a less effective communicator, not them)
3. What can be done (or even should be done) to temper the increasingly nasty political communication in our country? Or am I totally mis-reading the volatility of most political communication (that is, between government officials, politicians, members of the media, etc.)?
I don’t know if I should even try to answer this one given that anytime I even mention politics on this blog, I end up losing old friends and making new enemies, but whatever… I think if you look at our political discourse from a purely historical perspective, it’s probably not as nasty as it has been in certain bygone eras. That this notion of civility in politics is mostly a myth. On the other hand, we’re living in 2010, not 1810, and it’s clear that the Internet and cable broadcast media amplifies the negativity and interferes with effective governance. What does it say about our politics that the current U.S. president went from a 75% approval rating to 44% in less than 2 years in office? How much of that is reflective of his leadership and how much of it is the direct result of a constant media barrage telling the country that Obama’s no good? I don’t know, but I’m thinking that our media doesn’t practice real journalism anymore — just propaganda that serves the interests of big corporations.
4. Is The Bachelorette (or, for that matter, The Bachelor) doomed to never produce a viable couple because humans are incapable of falling in love in an organized, systematic way?
I hate reality shows, so I’m not really a big believer in the premise that you can meet your soulmate in this manner. However, I’d point out that that one Bachelorette did marry that fireman guy and they are still together and have children. I’d also point out the other reality stars (albeit not necessarily from the same shows/seasons have gotten together and married). There’s no right way to make a love match. A reality show is no more or less effective than any other manner, I don’t suppose. I think the problem with these specific shows, is that the producers are far less interested in making a love match than they are on producing an entertaining show that draws big ratings, so the men and women they collect aren’t the type of people who mesh well as couples. Remember, conflict and incompatibility equals ratings.
It’s Hard to Stay Neutral About Net Neutrality
Published October 24th, 2009 | Much ado has been made about net neutrality — by those who support it and those who don’t. Those who don’t support neutrality are mostly the Telecom industry and those who support the Telkom industry such as certain member of congress who’ve been in the pockets of the Telecom industry for years. Those who do support neutrality (or at least are indifferent to it) are comprised of everyone else.
The reason it’s become such a hot button issue is because the FCC is now pushing for new regulations to enforce neutrality rules onto the Telecom industry. To be fair, the previous administration was philosophically in favor of net neutrality as well, but did little to support it in fact. Cynics would argue that the current administration’s push is a reflection of the fact that tech industry giants like Google want the new rules and Google was one of Obama’s major corporate contributors and this is probably quid pro quo. However, given that net neutrality, or the lack thereof, affects everyone who uses the Internet, or creates content or gadgets and software for downloading a viewing digital content, we should be engaged in the issue.
Let’s face it, it doesn’t matter if you are a blogger, Face book, Google, an eBook publisher, Web2Print, or a company selling online backup services — you need to worry about an unregulated Internet where an Internet provider may well be using its power to control the quality and access to certain websites like YouTube or other well-trafficked sites and services. If you are a consumer, you sure have the right to the level of quality, speed and access you are paying for.
Now, is there currently a major problem with net neutrality? See, that’s one of the arguments anti-neutrality forces are using. It’s not a problem. Cases in which providers overreached (Comcast, ahem), are for the free market and the courts to sort out, according to them, and not Congress. Well, okay, let’s say for the sake of argument that it isn’t currently a problem, that Comcast’s unilateral decision to block certain P2P file access is an isolated incident and that most Internet providers are responsible citizens. With more and more technology providing newer, better and faster ways of accessing and creating content coming into use, it’s a sure bet that it will become a big problem in the future, if someone doesn’t lay down the law now.
One of the problems I’ve always had with the FCC is that under past administrations they’ve spent too much time playing at being the nation’s censors, stepping on free speech and too little time enforcing the rules they are supposed to enforce, leaving the so-called free market and the pro-business leaning Supreme Court to write a blank check for the Telecom industry. The web was intended to be the progenitor of creativity and progressive thought. It belongs to people who use the Internet. It does not belong to the Telecom companies. They merely provide access to the Internet — they don’t really own it. So the onus is on the regulators to protect the people who really create the content and communities that really make-up the Internet.
I’ll use myself as an example. I figure, I spend about 35% of my week online. That’s many hours of multitasking, writing blogs, reading submissions, accessing Facebook and YouTube and Netflix. Now prior to 2009, the only broadband Internet access in my neck of the woods was offered by Comcast. I couldn’t afford Comcast, so until very recently, I was stuck with dial-up. That meant until about a month ago, I didn’t have a functional Internet. I couldn’t do much online and what I did do, took forever. This forced me to take my laptop around town looking for whatever hotspot I could find. I was at the mercy of the Telecom industry. Now, while this doesn’t specifically have anything to do with net neutrality, my case demonstrates how a Telecom company with a virtual monopoly over a region, that for years was legally protected from any real competition at all, can affect not just the consumers who use their service, but those who cannot afford it. If our lawmakers give the Telecoms unlimited power to prioritize access to legal sites and services, they are not acting in the best interests of Internet users or in the best interests of the Internet itself. So, yeah … I have to say I’m in favor of net neutrality.
That does not mean that the Telecoms can’t charge different fees for different levels of service provided those fees and levels of service are mutually agreed upon by both parties. What it does mean is that the Internet providers can’t charge for a level of service they are not providing and that they can’t ban fair access to paying customers or discriminate against legal sites and prioritize service for whatever made-up reason. That they should be forced to compete and act fairly. That we cannot trust them to do it for themselves.
Posted in Current Events, New Media, Publishing, Rants, random thoughts, social networking, websites