https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Jcsmith2 2026-05-20T13:43:54Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.41.0 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=17003 2008-08-10T03:05:26Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Open Source System */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Electronic Voting==<br /> <br /> The voting apparatuses that have been employed in any democratic election process, including ballots, lever systems, and DRE (direct-recording electronic) voting machines, have a history of intrinsic vulnerabilities and illusory public trust. To fully understand why all voting apparatuses are flawed, one must know the design specifications, the basics of which are summarized neatly in Michael Shamos, Ph.D.'s six commandments for voting system design (listed in order of consensual public importance):<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> #''Thou shalt keep each voter's choices an inviolable secret.''<br /> #''Thou shalt allow each eligible voter to vote only once, and only for those offices for which she is authorized to cast a vote.''<br /> #''Thou shalt not permit tampering with thy voting system, nor the exchange of gold for votes.''<br /> #''Thou shalt report all votes accurately.''<br /> #''Thy voting system shall remain operable throughout each election.''<br /> #''Thou shalt keep an audit trail to detect sins against Commandments II-IV, but thy audit trail shall not violate Commandment I.''[http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/#2b]<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Successful implementation of such a system is a practical impossibility. The chief contradiction lies between commandments '''I''' and '''VI''': one cannot successfully audit a set of votes in which each voter's selections are guaranteed to be secret. That is, the disconnect between vote capture and vote reporting, as required by the primary commandment precludes a reliable audit. And so the historical solution to this dilemma has been to always maintain the secrecy of each vote, while relaxing the audit requirement to allow the use of merely &quot;good-enough&quot; solutions.<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> A leading proponent of proprietary software is Microsoft. They argue that requiring users to pay for software as a product increases funding for the research and development of software. They claim that per-copy fees maximize the profitability of software development.<br /> <br /> When it comes to market revenue, closed source software especially creates greater commercial activity over free software.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> <br /> *Closed systems require the public to trust a private entity to have done due diligence in manufacturing a robust technical solution, and to trust that the system is impervious to tampering by maligned parties. <br /> *Keeping system design closed to the public does not necessarily prevent interested parties from viewing that design; lax security policies, outright bribery, or simple carelessness may lead to [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 public exposure of that design].<br /> <br /> ==Open Source Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> An obvious benefit is that open source code, available to all, is usually free.<br /> <br /> Another convenience of open source code is that bugs are usually found faster and can be fixed by the user(s) who comes across it. Instead of waiting for a new release of the software with the bug corrected, open source code can also be redistributed to bring a corrected version to everyone immediately.<br /> <br /> Support for open source software, just as the software itself, is easily accessible. With so many people able to view the code, theoretically any number of them could offer support.<br /> <br /> Possibly the biggest advantage of open source software is the fact that everybody has the right and ability to modify and tweak the source code. This allows for implementation in other software and adaptability to a changing environment.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> *If a system design is open to public inspection, then anyone is free to locate vulnerabilities within that system without reporting them to codebase maintainers; those vulnerabilities could be used for private gain.<br /> *Even if a published system design is purported to be used; that does not guarantee that it is so. It is feasible that an organization could claim to use published source code, but then use a different system altogether in the actual implementation.<br /> *One of the strengths of open source projects is that ''more eyes'' seems to imply better code, but in highly specialized systems, the general public may lack the technical expertise to properly evaluate or improve them. Certainly basic bugs and glaring security flaws may be addressed by the public, but more nuanced vulnerabilities require highly skilled minds to detect.<br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.<br /> * [http://timjimnetworktech.wikidot.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-open-source Advantages Disadvantages Of Open Source]<br /> * [http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3758486 Datamation - Closed Source vs. Open Source in Desktop Linux] Matt Hartley, July 12, 2008.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=17002 2008-08-10T03:05:13Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Voting Systems */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Electronic Voting==<br /> <br /> The voting apparatuses that have been employed in any democratic election process, including ballots, lever systems, and DRE (direct-recording electronic) voting machines, have a history of intrinsic vulnerabilities and illusory public trust. To fully understand why all voting apparatuses are flawed, one must know the design specifications, the basics of which are summarized neatly in Michael Shamos, Ph.D.'s six commandments for voting system design (listed in order of consensual public importance):<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> #''Thou shalt keep each voter's choices an inviolable secret.''<br /> #''Thou shalt allow each eligible voter to vote only once, and only for those offices for which she is authorized to cast a vote.''<br /> #''Thou shalt not permit tampering with thy voting system, nor the exchange of gold for votes.''<br /> #''Thou shalt report all votes accurately.''<br /> #''Thy voting system shall remain operable throughout each election.''<br /> #''Thou shalt keep an audit trail to detect sins against Commandments II-IV, but thy audit trail shall not violate Commandment I.''[http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/#2b]<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Successful implementation of such a system is a practical impossibility. The chief contradiction lies between commandments '''I''' and '''VI''': one cannot successfully audit a set of votes in which each voter's selections are guaranteed to be secret. That is, the disconnect between vote capture and vote reporting, as required by the primary commandment precludes a reliable audit. And so the historical solution to this dilemma has been to always maintain the secrecy of each vote, while relaxing the audit requirement to allow the use of merely &quot;good-enough&quot; solutions.<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> A leading proponent of proprietary software is Microsoft. They argue that requiring users to pay for software as a product increases funding for the research and development of software. They claim that per-copy fees maximize the profitability of software development.<br /> <br /> When it comes to market revenue, closed source software especially creates greater commercial activity over free software.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> <br /> *Closed systems require the public to trust a private entity to have done due diligence in manufacturing a robust technical solution, and to trust that the system is impervious to tampering by maligned parties. <br /> *Keeping system design closed to the public does not necessarily prevent interested parties from viewing that design; lax security policies, outright bribery, or simple carelessness may lead to [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 public exposure of that design].<br /> <br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> An obvious benefit is that open source code, available to all, is usually free.<br /> <br /> Another convenience of open source code is that bugs are usually found faster and can be fixed by the user(s) who comes across it. Instead of waiting for a new release of the software with the bug corrected, open source code can also be redistributed to bring a corrected version to everyone immediately.<br /> <br /> Support for open source software, just as the software itself, is easily accessible. With so many people able to view the code, theoretically any number of them could offer support.<br /> <br /> Possibly the biggest advantage of open source software is the fact that everybody has the right and ability to modify and tweak the source code. This allows for implementation in other software and adaptability to a changing environment.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> *If a system design is open to public inspection, then anyone is free to locate vulnerabilities within that system without reporting them to codebase maintainers; those vulnerabilities could be used for private gain.<br /> *Even if a published system design is purported to be used; that does not guarantee that it is so. It is feasible that an organization could claim to use published source code, but then use a different system altogether in the actual implementation.<br /> *One of the strengths of open source projects is that ''more eyes'' seems to imply better code, but in highly specialized systems, the general public may lack the technical expertise to properly evaluate or improve them. Certainly basic bugs and glaring security flaws may be addressed by the public, but more nuanced vulnerabilities require highly skilled minds to detect.<br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.<br /> * [http://timjimnetworktech.wikidot.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-open-source Advantages Disadvantages Of Open Source]<br /> * [http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3758486 Datamation - Closed Source vs. Open Source in Desktop Linux] Matt Hartley, July 12, 2008.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=17001 2008-08-10T03:04:38Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Voting Systems==<br /> <br /> The voting apparatuses that have been employed in any democratic election process, including ballots, lever systems, and DRE (direct-recording electronic) voting machines, have a history of intrinsic vulnerabilities and illusory public trust. To fully understand why all voting apparatuses are flawed, one must know the design specifications, the basics of which are summarized neatly in Michael Shamos, Ph.D.'s six commandments for voting system design (listed in order of consensual public importance):<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> #''Thou shalt keep each voter's choices an inviolable secret.''<br /> #''Thou shalt allow each eligible voter to vote only once, and only for those offices for which she is authorized to cast a vote.''<br /> #''Thou shalt not permit tampering with thy voting system, nor the exchange of gold for votes.''<br /> #''Thou shalt report all votes accurately.''<br /> #''Thy voting system shall remain operable throughout each election.''<br /> #''Thou shalt keep an audit trail to detect sins against Commandments II-IV, but thy audit trail shall not violate Commandment I.''[http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/#2b]<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Successful implementation of such a system is a practical impossibility. The chief contradiction lies between commandments '''I''' and '''VI''': one cannot successfully audit a set of votes in which each voter's selections are guaranteed to be secret. That is, the disconnect between vote capture and vote reporting, as required by the primary commandment precludes a reliable audit. And so the historical solution to this dilemma has been to always maintain the secrecy of each vote, while relaxing the audit requirement to allow the use of merely &quot;good-enough&quot; solutions.<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> A leading proponent of proprietary software is Microsoft. They argue that requiring users to pay for software as a product increases funding for the research and development of software. They claim that per-copy fees maximize the profitability of software development.<br /> <br /> When it comes to market revenue, closed source software especially creates greater commercial activity over free software.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> <br /> *Closed systems require the public to trust a private entity to have done due diligence in manufacturing a robust technical solution, and to trust that the system is impervious to tampering by maligned parties. <br /> *Keeping system design closed to the public does not necessarily prevent interested parties from viewing that design; lax security policies, outright bribery, or simple carelessness may lead to [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 public exposure of that design].<br /> <br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> An obvious benefit is that open source code, available to all, is usually free.<br /> <br /> Another convenience of open source code is that bugs are usually found faster and can be fixed by the user(s) who comes across it. Instead of waiting for a new release of the software with the bug corrected, open source code can also be redistributed to bring a corrected version to everyone immediately.<br /> <br /> Support for open source software, just as the software itself, is easily accessible. With so many people able to view the code, theoretically any number of them could offer support.<br /> <br /> Possibly the biggest advantage of open source software is the fact that everybody has the right and ability to modify and tweak the source code. This allows for implementation in other software and adaptability to a changing environment.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> *If a system design is open to public inspection, then anyone is free to locate vulnerabilities within that system without reporting them to codebase maintainers; those vulnerabilities could be used for private gain.<br /> *Even if a published system design is purported to be used; that does not guarantee that it is so. It is feasible that an organization could claim to use published source code, but then use a different system altogether in the actual implementation.<br /> *One of the strengths of open source projects is that ''more eyes'' seems to imply better code, but in highly specialized systems, the general public may lack the technical expertise to properly evaluate or improve them. Certainly basic bugs and glaring security flaws may be addressed by the public, but more nuanced vulnerabilities require highly skilled minds to detect.<br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.<br /> * [http://timjimnetworktech.wikidot.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-open-source Advantages Disadvantages Of Open Source]<br /> * [http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3758486 Datamation - Closed Source vs. Open Source in Desktop Linux] Matt Hartley, July 12, 2008.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16993 2008-08-09T19:58:36Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Disadvantages */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The voting apparatuses that have been employed in any democratic election process, including ballots, lever systems, and DRE (direct-recording electronic) voting machines, have a history of intrinsic vulnerabilities and illusory public trust. To fully understand why all voting apparatuses are flawed, one must know the design specifications, the basics of which are summarized neatly in Michael Shamos, Ph.D.'s six commandments for voting system design (listed in order of consensual public importance):<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> #''Thou shalt keep each voter's choices an inviolable secret.''<br /> #''Thou shalt allow each eligible voter to vote only once, and only for those offices for which she is authorized to cast a vote.''<br /> #''Thou shalt not permit tampering with thy voting system, nor the exchange of gold for votes.''<br /> #''Thou shalt report all votes accurately.''<br /> #''Thy voting system shall remain operable throughout each election.''<br /> #''Thou shalt keep an audit trail to detect sins against Commandments II-IV, but thy audit trail shall not violate Commandment I.''[http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/#2b]<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Successful implementation of such a system is a practical impossibility. The chief contradiction lies between commandments '''I''' and '''VI''': one cannot successfully audit a set of votes in which each voter's selections are guaranteed to be secret. That is, the disconnect between vote capture and vote reporting, as required by the primary commandment precludes a reliable audit. And so the historical solution to this dilemma has been to always maintain the secrecy of each vote, while relaxing the audit requirement to allow the use of merely &quot;good-enough&quot; solutions.<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> A leading proponent of proprietary software is Microsoft. They argue that requiring users to pay for software as a product increases funding for the research and development of software. They claim that per-copy fees maximize the profitability of software development.<br /> <br /> When it comes to market revenue, closed source software especially creates greater commercial activity over free software.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> <br /> *Closed systems require the public to trust a private entity to have done due diligence in manufacturing a robust technical solution, and to trust that the system is impervious to tampering by maligned parties. <br /> *Keeping system design closed to the public does not necessarily prevent interested parties from viewing that design; lax security policies, outright bribery, or simple carelessness may lead to [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 public exposure of that design].<br /> <br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> An obvious benefit is that open source code, available to all, is usually free.<br /> <br /> Another convenience of open source code is that bugs are usually found faster and can be fixed by the user(s) who comes across it. Instead of waiting for a new release of the software with the bug corrected, open source code can also be redistributed to bring a corrected version to everyone immediately.<br /> <br /> Support for open source software, just as the software itself, is easily accessible. With so many people able to view the code, theoretically any number of them could offer support.<br /> <br /> Possibly the biggest advantage of open source software is the fact that everybody has the right and ability to modify and tweak the source code. This allows for implementation in other software and adaptability to a changing environment.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> *If a system design is open to public inspection, then anyone is free to locate vulnerabilities within that system without reporting them to codebase maintainers; those vulnerabilities could be used for private gain.<br /> *Even if a published system design is purported to be used; that does not guarantee that it is so. It is feasible that an organization could claim to use published source code, but then use a different system altogether in the actual implementation.<br /> *One of the strengths of open source projects is that ''more eyes'' seems to imply better code, but in highly specialized systems, the general public may lack the technical expertise to properly evaluate or improve them. Certainly basic bugs and glaring security flaws may be addressed by the public, but more nuanced vulnerabilities require highly skilled minds to detect.<br /> <br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.<br /> * [http://timjimnetworktech.wikidot.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-open-source Advantages Disadvantages Of Open Source]<br /> * [http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3758486 Datamation - Closed Source vs. Open Source in Desktop Linux] Matt Hartley, July 12, 2008.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16992 2008-08-09T16:09:43Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Disadvantages */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The voting apparatuses that have been employed in any democratic election process, including ballots, lever systems, and DRE (direct-recording electronic) voting machines, have a history of intrinsic vulnerabilities and illusory public trust. To fully understand why all voting apparatuses are flawed, one must know the design specifications, the basics of which are summarized neatly in Michael Shamos, Ph.D.'s six commandments for voting system design (listed in order of consensual public importance):<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> #''Thou shalt keep each voter's choices an inviolable secret.''<br /> #''Thou shalt allow each eligible voter to vote only once, and only for those offices for which she is authorized to cast a vote.''<br /> #''Thou shalt not permit tampering with thy voting system, nor the exchange of gold for votes.''<br /> #''Thou shalt report all votes accurately.''<br /> #''Thy voting system shall remain operable throughout each election.''<br /> #''Thou shalt keep an audit trail to detect sins against Commandments II-IV, but thy audit trail shall not violate Commandment I.''[http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/#2b]<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Successful implementation of such a system is a practical impossibility. The chief contradiction lies between commandments '''I''' and '''VI''': one cannot successfully audit a set of votes in which each voter's selections are guaranteed to be secret. That is, the disconnect between vote capture and vote reporting, as required by the primary commandment precludes a reliable audit. And so the historical solution to this dilemma has been to always maintain the secrecy of each vote, while relaxing the audit requirement to allow the use of merely &quot;good-enough&quot; solutions.<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> A leading proponent of proprietary software is Microsoft. They argue that requiring users to pay for software as a product increases funding for the research and development of software. They claim that per-copy fees maximize the profitability of software development.<br /> <br /> When it comes to market revenue, closed source software especially creates greater commercial activity over free software.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> <br /> *Closed systems require the public to trust a private entity to have done due diligence in manufacturing a robust technical solution, and to trust that the system is impervious to tampering by maligned parties. <br /> *Keeping system design closed to the public does not necessarily prevent interested parties from viewing that design; lax security policies, outright bribery, or simple carelessness may lead to [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 public exposure of that design].<br /> <br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> An obvious benefit is that open source code, available to all, is usually free.<br /> <br /> Another convenience of open source code is that bugs are usually found faster and can be fixed by the user(s) who comes across it. Instead of waiting for a new release of the software with the bug corrected, open source code can also be redistributed to bring a corrected version to everyone immediately.<br /> <br /> Support for open source software, just as the software itself, is easily accessible. With so many people able to view the code, theoretically any number of them could offer support.<br /> <br /> Possibly the biggest advantage of open source software is the fact that everybody has the right and ability to modify and tweak the source code. This allows for implementation in other software and adaptability to a changing environment.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.<br /> * [http://timjimnetworktech.wikidot.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-open-source Advantages Disadvantages Of Open Source]<br /> * [http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3758486 Datamation - Closed Source vs. Open Source in Desktop Linux] Matt Hartley, July 12, 2008.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16991 2008-08-09T16:05:38Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Disadvantages */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The voting apparatuses that have been employed in any democratic election process, including ballots, lever systems, and DRE (direct-recording electronic) voting machines, have a history of intrinsic vulnerabilities and illusory public trust. To fully understand why all voting apparatuses are flawed, one must know the design specifications, the basics of which are summarized neatly in Michael Shamos, Ph.D.'s six commandments for voting system design (listed in order of consensual public importance):<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> #''Thou shalt keep each voter's choices an inviolable secret.''<br /> #''Thou shalt allow each eligible voter to vote only once, and only for those offices for which she is authorized to cast a vote.''<br /> #''Thou shalt not permit tampering with thy voting system, nor the exchange of gold for votes.''<br /> #''Thou shalt report all votes accurately.''<br /> #''Thy voting system shall remain operable throughout each election.''<br /> #''Thou shalt keep an audit trail to detect sins against Commandments II-IV, but thy audit trail shall not violate Commandment I.''[http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/#2b]<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Successful implementation of such a system is a practical impossibility. The chief contradiction lies between commandments '''I''' and '''VI''': one cannot successfully audit a set of votes in which each voter's selections are guaranteed to be secret. That is, the disconnect between vote capture and vote reporting, as required by the primary commandment precludes a reliable audit. And so the historical solution to this dilemma has been to always maintain the secrecy of each vote, while relaxing the audit requirement to allow the use of merely &quot;good-enough&quot; solutions.<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> A leading proponent of proprietary software is Microsoft. They argue that requiring users to pay for software as a product increases funding for the research and development of software. They claim that per-copy fees maximize the profitability of software development.<br /> <br /> When it comes to market revenue, closed source software especially creates greater commercial activity over free software.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> <br /> *Keeping system design closed to the public does not necessarily prevent interested parties from viewing that design; lax security policies, outright bribery, or simple carelessness may lead to [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 public exposure of that design].<br /> <br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> An obvious benefit is that open source code, available to all, is usually free.<br /> <br /> Another convenience of open source code is that bugs are usually found faster and can be fixed by the user(s) who comes across it. Instead of waiting for a new release of the software with the bug corrected, open source code can also be redistributed to bring a corrected version to everyone immediately.<br /> <br /> Support for open source software, just as the software itself, is easily accessible. With so many people able to view the code, theoretically any number of them could offer support.<br /> <br /> Possibly the biggest advantage of open source software is the fact that everybody has the right and ability to modify and tweak the source code. This allows for implementation in other software and adaptability to a changing environment.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.<br /> * [http://timjimnetworktech.wikidot.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-open-source Advantages Disadvantages Of Open Source]<br /> * [http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3758486 Datamation - Closed Source vs. Open Source in Desktop Linux] Matt Hartley, July 12, 2008.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16990 2008-08-09T15:54:05Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The voting apparatuses that have been employed in any democratic election process, including ballots, lever systems, and DRE (direct-recording electronic) voting machines, have a history of intrinsic vulnerabilities and illusory public trust. To fully understand why all voting apparatuses are flawed, one must know the design specifications, the basics of which are summarized neatly in Michael Shamos, Ph.D.'s six commandments for voting system design (listed in order of consensual public importance):<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> #''Thou shalt keep each voter's choices an inviolable secret.''<br /> #''Thou shalt allow each eligible voter to vote only once, and only for those offices for which she is authorized to cast a vote.''<br /> #''Thou shalt not permit tampering with thy voting system, nor the exchange of gold for votes.''<br /> #''Thou shalt report all votes accurately.''<br /> #''Thy voting system shall remain operable throughout each election.''<br /> #''Thou shalt keep an audit trail to detect sins against Commandments II-IV, but thy audit trail shall not violate Commandment I.''[http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/#2b]<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Successful implementation of such a system is a practical impossibility. The chief contradiction lies between commandments '''I''' and '''VI''': one cannot successfully audit a set of votes in which each voter's selections are guaranteed to be secret. That is, the disconnect between vote capture and vote reporting, as required by the primary commandment precludes a reliable audit. And so the historical solution to this dilemma has been to always maintain the secrecy of each vote, while relaxing the audit requirement to allow the use of merely &quot;good-enough&quot; solutions.<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> A leading proponent of proprietary software is Microsoft. They argue that requiring users to pay for software as a product increases funding for the research and development of software. They claim that per-copy fees maximize the profitability of software development.<br /> <br /> When it comes to market revenue, closed source software especially creates greater commercial activity over free software.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> An obvious benefit is that open source code, available to all, is usually free.<br /> <br /> Another convenience of open source code is that bugs are usually found faster and can be fixed by the user(s) who comes across it. Instead of waiting for a new release of the software with the bug corrected, open source code can also be redistributed to bring a corrected version to everyone immediately.<br /> <br /> Support for open source software, just as the software itself, is easily accessible. With so many people able to view the code, theoretically any number of them could offer support.<br /> <br /> Possibly the biggest advantage of open source software is the fact that everybody has the right and ability to modify and tweak the source code. This allows for implementation in other software and adaptability to a changing environment.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.<br /> * [http://timjimnetworktech.wikidot.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-open-source Advantages Disadvantages Of Open Source]<br /> * [http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3758486 Datamation - Closed Source vs. Open Source in Desktop Linux] Matt Hartley, July 12, 2008.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16989 2008-08-09T15:53:07Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The voting apparatuses that have been employed in any democratic election process, including ballots, lever systems, and DRE (direct-recording electronic) voting machines, have a history of intrinsic vulnerabilities and illusory public trust. To fully understand why all voting apparatuses are flawed, one must know the design specifications, the basics of which are summarized neatly in Michael Shamos, Ph.D.'s six commandments for voting system design (listed in order of consensual public importance):<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> #''Thou shalt keep each voter's choices an inviolable secret.''<br /> #''Thou shalt allow each eligible voter to vote only once, and only for those offices for which she is authorized to cast a vote.''<br /> #''Thou shalt not permit tampering with thy voting system, nor the exchange of gold for votes.''<br /> #''Thou shalt report all votes accurately.''<br /> #''Thy voting system shall remain operable throughout each election.''<br /> #''Thou shalt keep an audit trail to detect sins against Commandments II-IV, but thy audit trail shall not violate Commandment I.''[http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/#2b]<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Successful implementation of such a system is a practical impossibility. The chief contradiction lies between commandments '''I''' and '''VI''': one cannot successfully audit a set of votes in which each voter's selections are guaranteed to be secret. That is, the disconnect between vote capture and vote reporting, as required by the primary commandment precludes a reliable audit. And so the historical solution to this dilemma has been to always maintain the secrecy of each vote, while relaxing the audit requirement to merely &quot;good-enough&quot; solutions.<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> A leading proponent of proprietary software is Microsoft. They argue that requiring users to pay for software as a product increases funding for the research and development of software. They claim that per-copy fees maximize the profitability of software development.<br /> <br /> When it comes to market revenue, closed source software especially creates greater commercial activity over free software.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> An obvious benefit is that open source code, available to all, is usually free.<br /> <br /> Another convenience of open source code is that bugs are usually found faster and can be fixed by the user(s) who comes across it. Instead of waiting for a new release of the software with the bug corrected, open source code can also be redistributed to bring a corrected version to everyone immediately.<br /> <br /> Support for open source software, just as the software itself, is easily accessible. With so many people able to view the code, theoretically any number of them could offer support.<br /> <br /> Possibly the biggest advantage of open source software is the fact that everybody has the right and ability to modify and tweak the source code. This allows for implementation in other software and adaptability to a changing environment.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.<br /> * [http://timjimnetworktech.wikidot.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-open-source Advantages Disadvantages Of Open Source]<br /> * [http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3758486 Datamation - Closed Source vs. Open Source in Desktop Linux] Matt Hartley, July 12, 2008.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16988 2008-08-09T15:48:32Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The voting apparatuses that have been employed in any democratic election process, including ballots, lever systems, and DRE (direct-recording electronic) voting machines, have a history of intrinsic vulnerabilities and illusory public trust. To fully understand why all voting apparatuses are flawed, one must know the design specifications, the basics of which are summarized neatly in Michael Shamos, Ph.D.'s six commandments for voting system design (listed in order of consensual public importance):<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> #''Thou shalt keep each voter's choices an inviolable secret.''<br /> #''Thou shalt allow each eligible voter to vote only once, and only for those offices for which she is authorized to cast a vote.''<br /> #''Thou shalt not permit tampering with thy voting system, nor the exchange of gold for votes.''<br /> #''Thou shalt report all votes accurately.''<br /> #''Thy voting system shall remain operable throughout each election.''<br /> #''Thou shalt keep an audit trail to detect sins against Commandments II-IV, but thy audit trail shall not violate Commandment I.''[http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/#2b]<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Successful implementation of such a system is a practical impossibility. The chief contradiction lies between commandments '''I''' and '''VI''': one cannot successfully audit a set of votes in which each voter's selections are guaranteed to be secret. That is, the disconnect between vote capture and vote reporting, as required by the primary commandment precludes a reliable audit.<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> A leading proponent of proprietary software is Microsoft. They argue that requiring users to pay for software as a product increases funding for the research and development of software. They claim that per-copy fees maximize the profitability of software development.<br /> <br /> When it comes to market revenue, closed source software especially creates greater commercial activity over free software.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> An obvious benefit is that open source code, available to all, is usually free.<br /> <br /> Another convenience of open source code is that bugs are usually found faster and can be fixed by the user(s) who comes across it. Instead of waiting for a new release of the software with the bug corrected, open source code can also be redistributed to bring a corrected version to everyone immediately.<br /> <br /> Support for open source software, just as the software itself, is easily accessible. With so many people able to view the code, theoretically any number of them could offer support.<br /> <br /> Possibly the biggest advantage of open source software is the fact that everybody has the right and ability to modify and tweak the source code. This allows for implementation in other software and adaptability to a changing environment.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.<br /> * [http://timjimnetworktech.wikidot.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-open-source Advantages Disadvantages Of Open Source]<br /> * [http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3758486 Datamation - Closed Source vs. Open Source in Desktop Linux] Matt Hartley, July 12, 2008.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16987 2008-08-09T15:46:56Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The voting apparatuses that have been employed in any democratic election process, including ballots, lever systems, and DRE (direct-recording electronic) voting machines, have a history of intrinsic vulnerabilities and illusory public trust. To fully understand why all voting apparatuses are flawed, one must know the design specifications, the basics of which are summarized neatly in Michael Shamos, Ph.D.'s six commandments for voting system design (listed in order of consensual public importance):<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> #''Thou shalt keep each voter's choices an inviolable secret.''<br /> #''Thou shalt allow each eligible voter to vote only once, and only for those offices for which she is authorized to cast a vote.''<br /> #''Thou shalt not permit tampering with thy voting system, nor the exchange of gold for votes.''<br /> #''Thou shalt report all votes accurately.''<br /> #''Thy voting system shall remain operable throughout each election.''<br /> #''Thou shalt keep an audit trail to detect sins against Commandments II-IV, but thy audit trail shall not violate Commandment I.''<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Successful implementation of such a system is a practical impossibility. The chief contradiction lies between commandments '''I''' and '''VI''': one cannot successfully audit a set of votes in which each voter's selections are guaranteed to be secret. That is, the disconnect between vote capture and vote reporting, as required by the primary commandment precludes a reliable audit.<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> A leading proponent of proprietary software is Microsoft. They argue that requiring users to pay for software as a product increases funding for the research and development of software. They claim that per-copy fees maximize the profitability of software development.<br /> <br /> When it comes to market revenue, closed source software especially creates greater commercial activity over free software.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> An obvious benefit is that open source code, available to all, is usually free.<br /> <br /> Another convenience of open source code is that bugs are usually found faster and can be fixed by the user(s) who comes across it. Instead of waiting for a new release of the software with the bug corrected, open source code can also be redistributed to bring a corrected version to everyone immediately.<br /> <br /> Support for open source software, just as the software itself, is easily accessible. With so many people able to view the code, theoretically any number of them could offer support.<br /> <br /> Possibly the biggest advantage of open source software is the fact that everybody has the right and ability to modify and tweak the source code. This allows for implementation in other software and adaptability to a changing environment.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.<br /> * [http://timjimnetworktech.wikidot.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-open-source Advantages Disadvantages Of Open Source]<br /> * [http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3758486 Datamation - Closed Source vs. Open Source in Desktop Linux] Matt Hartley, July 12, 2008.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16986 2008-08-09T15:45:00Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The voting apparatuses that have been employed in any democratic election process, including ballots, lever systems, and DRE (direct-recording electronic) voting machines, have a history of intrinsic vulnerabilities and illusory public trust. To fully understand why all voting apparatuses are flawed, one must know the design specifications, the basics of which are summarized neatly in Michael Shamos, Ph.D.'s six commandments for voting system design (listed in order of consensual public importance):<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> #''Thou shalt keep each voter's choices an inviolable secret.''<br /> #''Thou shalt allow each eligible voter to vote only once, and only for those offices for which she is authorized to cast a vote.''<br /> #''Thou shalt not permit tampering with thy voting system, nor the exchange of gold for votes.''<br /> #''Thou shalt report all votes accurately.''<br /> #''Thy voting system shall remain operable throughout each election.''<br /> #''Thou shalt keep an audit trail to detect sins against Commandments II-IV, but thy audit trail shall not violate Commandment I.''<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> Successful implementation of such a system is a practical impossibility. The chief contradiction lies between commandments '''I''' and '''VI''': one cannot successfully audit a set of votes in which each voter's selections are guaranteed to be secret. The disconnect between vote capture and vote reporting precludes a reliable audit.<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> A leading proponent of proprietary software is Microsoft. They argue that requiring users to pay for software as a product increases funding for the research and development of software. They claim that per-copy fees maximize the profitability of software development.<br /> <br /> When it comes to market revenue, closed source software especially creates greater commercial activity over free software.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> An obvious benefit is that open source code, available to all, is usually free.<br /> <br /> Another convenience of open source code is that bugs are usually found faster and can be fixed by the user(s) who comes across it. Instead of waiting for a new release of the software with the bug corrected, open source code can also be redistributed to bring a corrected version to everyone immediately.<br /> <br /> Support for open source software, just as the software itself, is easily accessible. With so many people able to view the code, theoretically any number of them could offer support.<br /> <br /> Possibly the biggest advantage of open source software is the fact that everybody has the right and ability to modify and tweak the source code. This allows for implementation in other software and adaptability to a changing environment.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.<br /> * [http://timjimnetworktech.wikidot.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-open-source Advantages Disadvantages Of Open Source]<br /> * [http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3758486 Datamation - Closed Source vs. Open Source in Desktop Linux] Matt Hartley, July 12, 2008.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16985 2008-08-09T15:33:04Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The voting apparatuses that have been employed in any democratic election process, including ballots, lever systems, and DRE (direct-recording electronic) voting machines, have a history of intrinsic vulnerabilities and illusory public trust. To fully understand why all voting apparatuses are flawed, one must know the design specifications, which are summarized neatly in Michael Shamos, Ph.D.'s six commandments:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> # Thou shalt keep each voter's choices an inviolable secret.<br /> #Thou shalt allow each eligible voter to vote only once, and only for those offices for which she is authorized to cast a vote.<br /> #Thou shalt not permit tampering with thy voting system, nor the exchange of gold for votes.<br /> #Thou shalt report all votes accurately.<br /> #Thy voting system shall remain operable throughout each election.<br /> #Thou shalt keep an audit trail to detect sins against Commandments II-IV, but thy audit trail shall not violate Commandment I.<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> A leading proponent of proprietary software is Microsoft. They argue that requiring users to pay for software as a product increases funding for the research and development of software. They claim that per-copy fees maximize the profitability of software development.<br /> <br /> When it comes to market revenue, closed source software especially creates greater commercial activity over free software.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> An obvious benefit is that open source code, available to all, is usually free.<br /> <br /> Another convenience of open source code is that bugs are usually found faster and can be fixed by the user(s) who comes across it. Instead of waiting for a new release of the software with the bug corrected, open source code can also be redistributed to bring a corrected version to everyone immediately.<br /> <br /> Support for open source software, just as the software itself, is easily accessible. With so many people able to view the code, theoretically any number of them could offer support.<br /> <br /> Possibly the biggest advantage of open source software is the fact that everybody has the right and ability to modify and tweak the source code. This allows for implementation in other software and adaptability to a changing environment.<br /> <br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.<br /> * [http://timjimnetworktech.wikidot.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-open-source Advantages Disadvantages Of Open Source]<br /> * [http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3758486 Datamation - Closed Source vs. Open Source in Desktop Linux] Matt Hartley, July 12, 2008.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16948 2008-08-08T23:08:58Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> # Thou shalt keep each voter's choices an inviolable secret.<br /> #Thou shalt allow each eligible voter to vote only once, and only for those offices for which she is authorized to cast a vote.<br /> #Thou shalt not permit tampering with thy voting system, nor the exchange of gold for votes.<br /> #Thou shalt report all votes accurately.<br /> #Thy voting system shall remain operable throughout each election.<br /> #Thou shalt keep an audit trail to detect sins against Commandments II-IV, but thy audit trail shall not violate Commandment I.<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16947 2008-08-08T23:06:23Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> {{quote|<br /> # Thou shalt keep each voter's choices an inviolable secret.<br /> #Thou shalt allow each eligible voter to vote only once, and only for those offices for which she is authorized to cast a vote.<br /> #Thou shalt not permit tampering with thy voting system, nor the exchange of gold for votes.<br /> #Thou shalt report all votes accurately.<br /> #Thy voting system shall remain operable throughout each election.<br /> #Thou shalt keep an audit trail to detect sins against Commandments II-IV, but thy audit trail shall not violate Commandment I.<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16946 2008-08-08T23:00:41Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> :# Thou shalt keep each voter's choices an inviolable secret.<br /> :#Thou shalt allow each eligible voter to vote only once, and only for those offices for which she is authorized to cast a vote [2].<br /> :#Thou shalt not permit tampering with thy voting system, nor the exchange of gold for votes.<br /> :#Thou shalt report all votes accurately.<br /> :#Thy voting system shall remain operable throughout each election.<br /> :#Thou shalt keep an audit trail to detect sins against Commandments II-IV, but thy audit trail shall not violate Commandment I.<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16945 2008-08-08T22:57:20Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Resources */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Resources==<br /> * [http://cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html/ Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat] Michael Ian Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. March 1993.<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16944 2008-08-08T22:40:45Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Resources */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Resources==<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.<br /> * [http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Analysis of an Electronic Voting System (pdf)] Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. July 23, 2003.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16943 2008-08-08T22:37:19Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Resources */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Resources==<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.<br /> * [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record] Miriam Raftery, ''Raw Story''. Dec 6, 2005.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_5,_Group_2&diff=16942 2008-08-08T22:32:15Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Resources */</p> <hr /> <div>= Open Non-Proprietary Technology vs. Closed Proprietary Technology =<br /> <br /> The issues surrounding electronic voting have highlighted the concerns of use of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology. On the one side, closed proprietary technology allegedly safeguards voting security by making it impossible for outsiders to discover vulnerabilities by analyzing the code. On the other side, open technology encourages more eyes to look over the code, and may find vulnerabilities in advance, in time to correct them. What bearing does this discussion have on other types of software systems? Should other systems with high social value also have open non-proprietary licenses to increase accountability, or do the risks of open licensing outweigh the benefits? <br /> <br /> Examine how the experience with electronic voting applies to other critical software systems (e.g., software used for port security, handling medical records, or managing a payroll). What are the costs and benefits of open non-proprietary technology vs. closed proprietary technology for such applications? Are there applications where one or the other should clearly be used? Are there applications for which neither is appropriate? Please explain your answers.<br /> <br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> ==Proprietary Systems==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Open Source System==<br /> ===Advantages===<br /> ===Disadvantages===<br /> ==Resources==<br /> * http://courses.ncsu.edu/csc379/lec/001/lectures/wk14/lecture.html<br /> * [http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56938.html?welcome=1218234164 Open Source, Transparency and Electronic Voting] John P. Mello, Jr., ''LinuxInsider''. Apr 18, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2003/10/61014 E-Vote Software Leaked Online] Kim Zetter, ''Wired''. Oct 29, 2003.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16884 2008-08-06T15:31:13Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> <br /> Social dossiers: [http://pg-server.csc.ncsu.edu/mediawiki/index.php/CSC_379_SUM2008:Topics#Social_Dossiers Topic Description]<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The rise in popularity of social networking sites has had an extroversive effect on large volumes personal data. Sharing photos, personal commentary, status updates, and other personally interesting information through social mediums like Myspace and Facebook has become a common activity for many internet users. Some users that are not fully aware of the implications may decide to publish personal photos or writings after considering only their intended audience, failing to consider that other parties may view them. To illustrate (hypothetical scenario):<br /> : ''John Q. User is rather fond of his victory in last weekend's beer pong tournament, and so he decides to share photos commemorating the event with his friends using his public Myspace profile. Later, when John is applying for a job, his interviewer asks if he still likes to play beer pong. John is blind-sided by the question, thus losing his nerve and failing the interview.''<br /> Is it fair for the interviewer to ask this question? Or to examine his profile photos? Should John have ''known better'' than to leave potentially compromising photos of himself in a publicly viewable space?<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> Public profiles from multiple networks may be linked without using a specialized search engine; a series of generic search queries, network-specific searches (e.g. using Facebook's internal search) and basic deductive reasoning may allow you to easily compile a fairly complete dossier of a person's life. For instance, confirming someone's profile on myspace may reveal their AIM network name, which by coincidence is the same username that they specified for their YouTube account. Their YouTube profile features a video in which they mention that they have a personal blog on Livejournal, etc. This method of aggregating information is fairly straight-forward and easy to accomplish with minimal sleuthing skills.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> While new reasons to aggregate a persons data continue to emerge, there are several traditional motivations that seem to be popular. Perhaps the primary of these is the use of social networking data by those people in charge of human resources decisions. HR Managers are interested in hiring the best candidate for a job, and given that a simple web search may reveal substantial amounts of information on a job candidate's background, it's not surprising that focused search services like [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo] have been developed. But ''should'' interviewers use these services? Is it really fair to bring a job candidate's peripheral social data into an HR decision? In some cases where the job in question involves high public exposure, such as a corporate spokesperson, detailed background checks are an expected part of the confirmation process; therefore most people would consider it a justified examination. Conversely, if a person's lifestyle outside of work has no effect on their ability to perform their job, then many would consider the use of their personal information in a hiring decision to be unjustified. <br /> <br /> '''Traditional applications:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> =Links &amp; Resources=<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, ''Daily Nexus''. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Talk:CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_4,_Group_4&diff=16883 2008-08-06T15:23:51Z

<p>Jcsmith2: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;Jason&gt;CJ &amp; Reid, I have an Assembly exam @ 3:30 today which means that I will be online around 7pm to work on this. --[[User:Jcsmith2|Jcsmith2]] 13:27, 1 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> &lt;Reid&gt; I'll be working on it at approximately 7PM also.<br /> <br /> &lt;Reid&gt; I'll work on the &quot;Why it's useful&quot; section if that's OK with you guys<br /> <br /> &lt;Reid&gt; I added information to the &quot;is it bad&quot; section. Feel free to modify it. Also, feel free to modify what I wrote for the &quot;Why is it useful&quot; section.<br /> <br /> &lt;Jason&gt;I think we should add one statement regarding the non-disclosure of the printer manufacturers. That's a key component of the ethical discussion. -&gt; Is it a bad idea? <br /> Also, one of the reviewers suggested that &quot;Is it a bad idea?&quot; is bad grammar. Perhaps we should re-title this section? --[[User:Jcsmith2|Jcsmith2]] 21:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ORIGINAL ASSIGNMENT: <br /> What if every page you print from a color printer were labeled with a hidden code, detailing the printer the page was printed from, the date of printing and the time of printing, down to the minute? What if this feature was intentionally hidden from the user and could not be disabled? What if the code could be viewed and decoded by anyone, not just law enforcement? These hidden tracking codes exist – examine the ethical considerations they pose. Should users be informed of the feature? Should users be able to disable the feature? Develop ethical arguments for both positions.<br /> <br /> &lt;Reid&gt; I fixed the grammar error in the section title. The section was titled &quot;Is it bad idea?&quot; instead of &quot;Is it a bad idea?&quot;<br /> <br /> &lt;Jason&gt;Ha!... I didn't even notice...</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16867 2008-08-05T16:35:54Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Data availability */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> <br /> Social dossiers: [http://pg-server.csc.ncsu.edu/mediawiki/index.php/CSC_379_SUM2008:Topics#Social_Dossiers Topic Description]<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The rise in popularity of social networking sites has had an extroversive effect on large volumes personal data. Sharing photos, personal commentary, status updates, and other personally interesting information through social mediums like Myspace and Facebook has become a common activity for many internet users. Some users that are not fully aware of the implications, may decide to publish personal photos or writings after considering only their intended audience, failing to consider that other parties may view them. To illustrate (hypothetical scenario):<br /> : ''John Q. User is rather fond of his victory in last weekend's beer pong tournament, and so he decides to share photos commemorating the event with his friends using his public Myspace profile. Later, when John is applying for a job, his interviewer asks if he still likes to play beer pong. John is blind-sided by the question, thus losing his nerve and failing the interview.''<br /> Is it fair for the interviewer to ask this question? Or to examine his profile photos? Should John have ''known better'' than to leave potentially compromising photos of himself in a publicly viewable space?<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> Public profiles from multiple networks may be linked without using a specialized search engine; a series of generic search queries, network-specific searches (e.g. using Facebook's internal search) and basic deductive reasoning may allow you to easily compile a fairly complete dossier of a person's life. For instance, confirming someone's profile on myspace may reveal their AIM network name, which by coincidence is the same username that they specified for their YouTube account. Their YouTube profile features a video in which they mention that they have a personal blog on Livejournal, etc. This method of aggregating information is fairly straight-forward and easy to accomplish with minimal sleuthing skills.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> While new reasons to aggregate a persons data continue to emerge, there are several traditional motivations that seem to be popular. Perhaps the primary of these is the use of social networking data by those people in charge of human resources decisions. HR Managers are interested in hiring the best candidate for a job, and given that a simple web search may reveal substantial amounts of information on a job candidate's background, it's not surprising that focused search services like [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo] have been developed. But ''should'' interviewers use these services? Is it really fair to bring a job candidate's peripheral social data into an HR decision? In some cases where the job in question involves high public exposure, such as a corporate spokesperson, detailed background checks are an expected part of the confirmation process; therefore most people would consider it a justified examination. Conversely, if a person's lifestyle outside of work has no effect on their ability to perform their job, then many would consider the use of their personal information in a hiring decision to be unjustified. <br /> <br /> '''Traditional applications:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> =Links &amp; Resources=<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, ''Daily Nexus''. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16864 2008-08-05T03:51:24Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Aggregation motives */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> <br /> Social dossiers: [http://pg-server.csc.ncsu.edu/mediawiki/index.php/CSC_379_SUM2008:Topics#Social_Dossiers Topic Description]<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The rise in popularity of social networking sites has had an extroversive effect on large volumes personal data. Sharing photos, personal commentary, status updates, and other personally interesting information through social mediums like Myspace and Facebook has become a common activity for many internet users. Some users that are not fully aware of the implications, may decide to publish personal photos or writings after considering only their intended audience, failing to consider that other parties may view them. To illustrate (hypothetical scenario):<br /> : ''John Q. User is rather fond of his victory in last weekend's beer pong tournament, and so he decides to share photos commemorating the event with his friends using his public Myspace profile. Later, when John is applying for a job, his interviewer asks if he still likes to play beer pong. John is blind-sided by the question, thus losing his nerve and failing the interview.''<br /> Is it fair for the interviewer to ask this question? Or to examine his profile photos? Should John have ''known better'' than to leave potentially compromising photos of himself in a publicly viewable space?<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> Public profiles from multiple networks may be linked without using a specialized search engine; a series of generic search queries, network-specific searches (e.g. using Facebook's internal search) and basic deductive reasoning may allow you to easily compile a fairly complete dossier of a person's life. For instance, confirming someone's profile on myspace may reveal their AIM network name, which by coincidence is the same username that they specified for their YouTube account. Their YouTube profile features in which they mention that they have a personal blog on Livejournal, etc. This method of aggregating information is fairly straight-forward easy to accomplish with minimal sleuthing skills.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> While new reasons to aggregate a persons data continue to emerge, there are several traditional motivations that seem to be popular. Perhaps the primary of these is the use of social networking data by those people in charge of human resources decisions. HR Managers are interested in hiring the best candidate for a job, and given that a simple web search may reveal substantial amounts of information on a job candidate's background, it's not surprising that focused search services like [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo] have been developed. But ''should'' interviewers use these services? Is it really fair to bring a job candidate's peripheral social data into an HR decision? In some cases where the job in question involves high public exposure, such as a corporate spokesperson, detailed background checks are an expected part of the confirmation process; therefore most people would consider it a justified examination. Conversely, if a person's lifestyle outside of work has no effect on their ability to perform their job, then many would consider the use of their personal information in a hiring decision to be unjustified. <br /> <br /> '''Traditional applications:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> =Links &amp; Resources=<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, ''Daily Nexus''. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16861 2008-08-05T03:50:21Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Data availability */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> <br /> Social dossiers: [http://pg-server.csc.ncsu.edu/mediawiki/index.php/CSC_379_SUM2008:Topics#Social_Dossiers Topic Description]<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The rise in popularity of social networking sites has had an extroversive effect on large volumes personal data. Sharing photos, personal commentary, status updates, and other personally interesting information through social mediums like Myspace and Facebook has become a common activity for many internet users. Some users that are not fully aware of the implications, may decide to publish personal photos or writings after considering only their intended audience, failing to consider that other parties may view them. To illustrate (hypothetical scenario):<br /> : ''John Q. User is rather fond of his victory in last weekend's beer pong tournament, and so he decides to share photos commemorating the event with his friends using his public Myspace profile. Later, when John is applying for a job, his interviewer asks if he still likes to play beer pong. John is blind-sided by the question, thus losing his nerve and failing the interview.''<br /> Is it fair for the interviewer to ask this question? Or to examine his profile photos? Should John have ''known better'' than to leave potentially compromising photos of himself in a publicly viewable space?<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> Public profiles from multiple networks may be linked without using a specialized search engine; a series of generic search queries, network-specific searches (e.g. using Facebook's internal search) and basic deductive reasoning may allow you to easily compile a fairly complete dossier of a person's life. For instance, confirming someone's profile on myspace may reveal their AIM network name, which by coincidence is the same username that they specified for their YouTube account. Their YouTube profile features in which they mention that they have a personal blog on Livejournal, etc. This method of aggregating information is fairly straight-forward easy to accomplish with minimal sleuthing skills.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> While new reasons to aggregate a persons data continue to emerge, there are several traditional motivations that seem to be popular. Perhaps the primary of these is the use of social networking data by those people in charge of human resources decisions. HR Managers are interested in hiring the best candidate for a job, and given that a simple web search may reveal substantial amounts of information on a job candidate's background, it's not surprising that focused search services like [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo] have been developed. But ''should'' interviewers use these services? Is it really fair to bring a job candidate's peripheral social data into an HR decision? In some cases where the job in question involves high public exposure, such as a corporate spokesperson, detailed background checks are an expected part of the confirmation process; therefore most people would consider it a justified examination. Conversely, if a person's lifestyle outside of work has no effect on their ability to perform their job, then many would consider the use of their personal information in a hiring decision to be unjustified. <br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> =Links &amp; Resources=<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, ''Daily Nexus''. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16860 2008-08-05T03:49:28Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Data availability */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> <br /> Social dossiers: [http://pg-server.csc.ncsu.edu/mediawiki/index.php/CSC_379_SUM2008:Topics#Social_Dossiers Topic Description]<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The rise in popularity of social networking sites has had an extroversive effect on large volumes personal data. Sharing photos, personal commentary, status updates, and other personally interesting information through social mediums like Myspace and Facebook has become a common activity for many internet users. Some users that are not fully aware of the implications, may decide to publish personal photos or writings after considering only their intended audience, failing to consider that other parties may view them. To illustrate (hypothetical scenario):<br /> : ''John Q. User is rather fond of his victory in last weekend's beer pong tournament, and so he decides to share photos commemorating the event with his friends using his public Myspace profile. Later, when John is applying for a job, his interviewer asks if he still likes to play beer pong. John is blind-sided by the question, thus losing his nerve and failing the interview.''<br /> Is it fair for the interviewer to ask this question? Or to examine his profile photos? Should John have ''known better'' than to leave potentially compromising photos of himself in a publicly viewable space?<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> Someone's public profiles from multiple networks may be linked without using a specialized search engine; a series of generic search queries, network-specific searches (e.g. using Facebook's internal search) and basic deductive reasoning may allow you to easily compile a fairly complete dossier of a person's life. For instance, confirming someone's profile on myspace may reveal their AIM network name, which by coincidence is the same username that they specified for their YouTube account. Their YouTube profile features in which they mention that they have a personal blog on Livejournal, etc. This method of aggregating information is fairly straight-forward, and frightening easy to accomplish with minimal sleuthing skills.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> While new reasons to aggregate a persons data continue to emerge, there are several traditional motivations that seem to be popular. Perhaps the primary of these is the use of social networking data by those people in charge of human resources decisions. HR Managers are interested in hiring the best candidate for a job, and given that a simple web search may reveal substantial amounts of information on a job candidate's background, it's not surprising that focused search services like [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo] have been developed. But ''should'' interviewers use these services? Is it really fair to bring a job candidate's peripheral social data into an HR decision? In some cases where the job in question involves high public exposure, such as a corporate spokesperson, detailed background checks are an expected part of the confirmation process; therefore most people would consider it a justified examination. Conversely, if a person's lifestyle outside of work has no effect on their ability to perform their job, then many would consider the use of their personal information in a hiring decision to be unjustified. <br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> =Links &amp; Resources=<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, ''Daily Nexus''. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Topics&diff=16857 2008-08-05T03:34:42Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Social Dossiers */</p> <hr /> <div>= New Topics =<br /> <br /> '''For these topics, you will be creating the study guide and bibliography sections, instead of providing an update an existing page. Examine the [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/ ethics.csc.ncsu.edu website] for examples. Since your pages will be created and maintained in wiki-form, please design your pages with wiki markup (not HTML). Formatting resources are provided on the [[CSC 379]] wiki homepage.'''<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Smart Mobs==<br /> '''social/smartmobs'''<br /> <br /> As cell phones, text messaging, GPS, and other technologies make mobilization of groups easier, people are continually finding new uses. Both physical and virtual actions now frequently take place; protests, flooding email accounts and online polls, to impromptu gatherings. Explore smart/flash mobs, and the ethical considerations they raise. Include information on important instances of smart mobs and the future of smart mobs.<br /> <br /> ==Social Dossiers==<br /> '''social/dossiers'''<br /> <br /> In the old days, if someone wanted to assemble a dossier on you, they would hire a private investigator. Now, depending on your Web presence, they may only need to Google you. Bits and pieces of information about ourselves can be found everywhere online, and most are unaware of just how much information about them is available. Anyone with sufficient time and/or software can assemble social dossiers from this information. What you write on Facebook may affect your ability to get a job! Examine the array of personal information available online, efforts to assemble and utilize this information, and ethical considerations raised by posting or using this information.<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/social/lifebits/new.html Helpful Links] --&gt;<br /> [http://pg-server.csc.ncsu.edu/mediawiki/index.php/Social_dossiers New Study Guide]<br /> <br /> ==Phishing==<br /> '''abuse/spam/phishing'''<br /> <br /> Phishing efforts are growing in variety and sophistication. They pose many privacy and security risks. Examine the practice of phishing, its forms, and the ethical considerations raised.<br /> <br /> [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/abuse/spam/phishing/new.html Helpful Links]<br /> <br /> ==Encryption==<br /> '''privacy/encryption'''<br /> <br /> Provide a general overview of the ethical considerations of using encryption. Within your coverage, explore specifically if governments should be allowed to impose restrictions on the types of encryption that can be used as well as where and how encryption may be used.<br /> <br /> [http://pg-server.csc.ncsu.edu/mediawiki/index.php/Encryption Wiki Article]<br /> <br /> [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/encryption/new.html Helpful Links]<br /> <br /> ==Voting Receipts==<br /> '''risks/reliability/voting/receipts'''<br /> <br /> Touchscreen voting was widely touted as a solution to vote-counting fiascoes like the famous Florida election debacle of 2000. But it wasn't long before computer experts started to raise the alarm: With electronic touchscreen voting, there is absolutely no record of how a voter voted, except for the tallies spit out by the machine at the end of the day. If a software bug or hardware malfunction resulted in a miscount, no one would ever know. Many computer scientists demanded that paper receipts be printed and shown to the voter for verification, then retained by the machine in case a recount was needed. So the vendors of touchscreen voting systems reluctantly added printers. But the printers have not been reliable, and now scientists are searching for another way of creating unforgeable receipts. Explore the competing ethical requireents that must be met by these receipts: voter privacy, accurate tallies, and resistance to hacking. <br /> ***Do not cover aspects of electronic voting other than receipts; the issue of hacking vote-counting software and Internet voting have their own pages, for example. Cover only articles that are in some way related to the need for receipts, or the type of backup used.<br /> <br /> [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/reliability/voting/receipts/new.html Helpful Links]<br /> <br /> = Existing Topics =<br /> <br /> '''For these topics you will be performing an update on an existing topic. Pages for the study guide and bibliography sections are included on the [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu ethics.csc.ncsu.edu website], which you will be transitioning to their new wiki-form. Since your pages will be created and maintained in wiki-form, please design your pages with wiki markup (not HTML). Formatting resources are provided on the [[CSC 379]] wiki homepage.'''<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Cyberwarfare==<br /> '''risks/security/cyberwar'''<br /> <br /> Cyberwarfare has long been a topic of theoretical interest and growing practical importance, as nations' infrastructures grow increasingly computerized. Now, with the recent attack on Estonia, the cyberwar era may have begun in earnest. Provide a general overview of the ethical considerations related to cyberwarfare. Examine new methods of cyberwarfare, and include recent examples.<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;4&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/security/cyberwar Current Main Page]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/security/cyberwar/study.php Current Study Guide]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/security/cyberwar/new.html Helpful Links]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> [[Wiki Page]]<br /> <br /> ==Intellectual Property Law==<br /> '''intellectual/law'''<br /> <br /> Intellectual-property law is a topic that is basic to this course. Although not much is new, it is still worthwhile to update the sources. Ensure that trade secrets are included in your coverage. ''Alternative intellectual property models (GPL, Creative Commons, etc.) are '''not''' part of this topic. Nor are implications of IP law related to electronic communication (e.g., whether it is legal to copy a Web page and send it to a mailing list).'' The only material that should be covered here is material on what the law states, and relevant court decisions. <br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;4&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/intellectual/law Current Main Page]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/intellectual/law/study.php Current Study Guide]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/intellectual/law/new.html Helpful Links]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Cyberlicenses / Shrinkwrap Licenses==<br /> '''intellectual/licensing/cyberlicenses''' and '''intellectual/licensing/shrinkwrap'''<br /> <br /> In the past, we have had pages on the Ethics Web site related to shrinkwrap licenses (that are contained within the cardboard box that software comes in) and cyberlicenses (licenses you agree to over the Web before being allowed to download or install software). The issues never were that different, and as digital downloads come to dominate the market, it makes less sense than ever to maintain two separate pages. Provide a general overview of the ethical considerations related to shrinkwrap and cyberlicenses, such as whether a buyer can realistically give informed consent to a document that is long, hard to read, and may contain provision whose meaning is not clear at first glance. Expand on licensing related to ownership of content created through web services, such as Facebook and MySpace.<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;4&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/intellectual/licensing/cyberlicenses Current Main Page (1)]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/intellectual/licensing/cyberlicenses/study.php Current Study Guide (1)]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/intellectual/licensing/cyberlicenses/new.html Helpful Links (1)]<br /> |-<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/intellectual/licensing/cyberlicenses Current Main Page (2)]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/intellectual/licensing/shrinkwrap/study.php Current Study Guide (2)]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/intellectual/licensing/shrinkwrap/new.html Helpful Links (2)]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Computer Modeling==<br /> '''risks/models'''<br /> <br /> The implications of computer models are often controversial, but the GIGO adage always applies: a model can be no better than its inputs. An inaccurate model has a high potential for conveying a misleading and dishonest view of reality. However, people who are less computer literate may not understand this, and may accord credence to anything that comes out of a computer. Thus, modelers must take pains not to make expansive claims about their results. Provide a general overview of the ethical considerations, both from a science/engineering, and social/economic perspective. Cover both sides of the current controversy over models of global warming. On a social/economic plane, include ethical considerations related to developments in computer modeling in virtual communities, such as Second Life.<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;4&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/models Current Main Page]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/models/study.php Current Study Guide]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/models/new.html Helpful Links]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Depersonalization==<br /> '''social/technoharm'''<br /> <br /> While Generation Y tends to be most comfortable when always connected, a lot of other people believe that computers are drawing us away from meaningful personal contact. In the past decade, this view was much more widespread in Europe than in America. Provide an overview of controversy over depersonalization, and the ethical considerations related to becoming more conversant with technology than with other people.<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;4&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/social/technoharm Current Main Page]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/social/technoharm/study.php Current Study Guide]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/social/technoharm/new.html Helpful Links]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Privacy of Medical Information==<br /> '''privacy/medical'''<br /> <br /> Privacy of medical records has long been a high-profile issue. Inevitably, medical records are becoming more computerized. Emerging patient-centric services such as [https://www.google.com/health Google Health] are accelerating this trend. Provide a general overview of the ethical considerations related to privacy of digital medical information.<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;4&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/medical Current Main Page]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/medical/study.php Current Study Guide]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/medical/new.html Helpful Links]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Electronic Voting==<br /> '''risks/reliability/voting/electronic'''<br /> <br /> &quot;Electronic voting&quot; means the use of machines that register votes and record them in electronic memory. While once touted as the solution to fiascoes like the one in Florida in the 2000 presidential election, they quickly became controversial because of the large number of &quot;undervotes&quot; they recorded--where voters voted for no candidate in a particular race. Concerns were raised that some voters were simply not familiar enough with technology to use e-voting machines correctly. A number of election anomalies tended to lend credence to this claim. Then, there is also the problem that there is no way to effectively test the software. Unlike financial transactions, there is no record kept of how a particular vote counted. So if the vote is not counted, who will know?<br /> <br /> This page is due an update, but please be sure to steer clear of such related topics as (1) the [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/reliability/voting reliability of vote-counting software], (2) [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/reliability/voting/internet Internet voting], and (3) what kind of receipts, if any, should be produced by machines so that voters can verify that their vote was recorded. These topics all have their own pages on the [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu Ethics Web site]. You do not have to find articles that avoid all mention of these topics, but do not pick any articles that are ''mainly'' about any of these three. Rather, focus on articles that talk about electronic or touch-screen machines, as compared to other methods of voting.<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;4&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/reliability/voting/electronic Current Main Page]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/reliability/voting/electronic/study.php Current Study Guide]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/reliability/voting/electronic/new.html Helpful Links]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Instant Messaging==<br /> '''commerce/anticompetitive/instant'''<br /> <br /> Most of the references on this page are three or four years old. The issue is whether a small number of companies should unfairly dominate the market for instant messaging. Update the existing page with new references, and the study guide with new issues.<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;4&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/commerce/anticompetitive/instant/ Current Main Page]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/commerce/anticompetitive/instant/study.php Current Study Guide]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Security Precautions==<br /> '''risks/security/precautions'''<br /> <br /> If you are in charge of network security, you have a duty to keep your network secure. What security precautions do Web and network administrators need to take to guard against hacker attacks, such as distributed denial-of-service attacks? What precautions are needed against other forms of hacking? Against cyberwarfare and terrorist threats? Update topic page and study guide to cover current/future precautions related to recent occurrences. ''Be sure to focus on articles that talk about precautions that administrators need to take,'' not article that focus on threats to networks, only mentioning precautions as an afterthought.<br /> <br /> '''Social Engineering''' should be included as a major section within this topic. If you would like to make a new page focused on social engineering, you may if you choose this topic.<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;4&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/security/precautions Current Main Page]<br /> | [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/security/precautions/study.php Current Study Guide]<br /> |}</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16856 2008-08-05T03:33:23Z

<p>Jcsmith2: </p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> <br /> Social dossiers: [http://pg-server.csc.ncsu.edu/mediawiki/index.php/CSC_379_SUM2008:Topics#Social_Dossiers Topic Description]<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The rise in popularity of social networking sites has had an extroversive effect on large volumes personal data. Sharing photos, personal commentary, status updates, and other personally interesting information through social mediums like Myspace and Facebook has become a common activity for many internet users. Some users that are not fully aware of the implications, may decide to publish personal photos or writings after considering only their intended audience, failing to consider that other parties may view them. To illustrate (hypothetical scenario):<br /> : ''John Q. User is rather fond of his victory in last weekend's beer pong tournament, and so he decides to share photos commemorating the event with his friends using his public Myspace profile. Later, when John is applying for a job, his interviewer asks if he still likes to play beer pong. John is blind-sided by the question, thus losing his nerve and failing the interview.''<br /> Is it fair for the interviewer to ask this question? Or to examine his profile photos? Should John have ''known better'' than to leave potentially compromising photos of himself in a publicly viewable space?<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> While new reasons to aggregate a persons data continue to emerge, there are several traditional motivations that seem to be popular. Perhaps the primary of these is the use of social networking data by those people in charge of human resources decisions. HR Managers are interested in hiring the best candidate for a job, and given that a simple web search may reveal substantial amounts of information on a job candidate's background, it's not surprising that focused search services like [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo] have been developed. But ''should'' interviewers use these services? Is it really fair to bring a job candidate's peripheral social data into an HR decision? In some cases where the job in question involves high public exposure, such as a corporate spokesperson, detailed background checks are an expected part of the confirmation process; therefore most people would consider it a justified examination. Conversely, if a person's lifestyle outside of work has no effect on their ability to perform their job, then many would consider the use of their personal information in a hiring decision to be unjustified. <br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> =Links &amp; Resources=<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, ''Daily Nexus''. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16854 2008-08-05T03:32:43Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Study Guide */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> <br /> Social dossiers: [http://pg-server.csc.ncsu.edu/mediawiki/index.php/CSC_379_SUM2008:Topics#Social_Dossiers Topic Description]<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The rise in popularity of social networking sites has had an extroversive effect on large volumes personal data. Sharing photos, personal commentary, status updates, and other personally interesting information through social mediums like Myspace and Facebook has become a common activity for many internet users. Some users that are not fully aware of the implications, may decide to publish personal photos or writings after considering only their intended audience, failing to consider that other parties may view them. To illustrate (hypothetical scenario):<br /> : ''John Q. User is rather fond of his victory in last weekend's beer pong tournament, and so he decides to share photos commemorating the event with his friends using his public Myspace profile. Later, when John is applying for a job, his interviewer asks if he still likes to play beer pong. John is blind-sided by the question, thus losing his nerve and failing the interview.''<br /> Is it fair for the interviewer to ask this question? Or to examine his profile photos? Should John have ''known better'' than to leave potentially compromising photos of himself in a publicly viewable space?<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> While new reasons to aggregate a persons data continue to emerge, there are several traditional motivations that seem to be popular. Perhaps the primary of these is the use of social networking data by those people in charge of human resources decisions. HR Managers are interested in hiring the best candidate for a job, and given that a simple web search may reveal substantial amounts of information on a job candidate's background, it's not surprising that focused search services like [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo] have been developed. But ''should'' interviewers use these services? Is it really fair to bring a job candidate's peripheral social data into an HR decision? In some cases where the job in question involves high public exposure, such as a corporate spokesperson, detailed background checks are an expected part of the confirmation process; therefore most people would consider it a justified examination. Conversely, if a person's lifestyle outside of work has no effect on their ability to perform their job, then many would consider the use of their personal information in a hiring decision to be unjustified. <br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, ''Daily Nexus''. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Talk:Social_dossiers&diff=16852 2008-08-05T03:30:44Z

<p>Jcsmith2: </p> <hr /> <div>*&lt;Not sure where to link...&gt;There should be a link to the topic description.<br /> *&lt;Corrected: 16+&gt;There need to be more links, perhaps two dozen instead of one dozen. (was having difficulty finding quality articles that were not duplicates of existing stories...)<br /> *&lt;Corrected: added more discussion&gt;{identification of issues} Some, e.g., use in hiring. But the study guide says very little about it; you have to follow the links. <br /> *&lt;Corrected: incorporated into discussion&gt;Differing viewpoints are not really identified, unless you read the articles linked to.<br /> *&lt;Corrected: revised link categories&gt;&quot;Articles of interest&quot; is too vague; one of the headings should certainly be &quot;Job Hunting&quot;<br /> *&lt;Corrected&gt;{identification of issues} It probably mentions them somewhere, but does not really identify them as ethical issues.<br /> <br /> *&lt;Corrected&gt;The study guide does not read as a narrative, but rather as a set of related paragraphs. There should be topic sentences, explaining why lists of issues have been aggregated together.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Talk:Social_dossiers&diff=16850 2008-08-05T03:29:06Z

<p>Jcsmith2: </p> <hr /> <div>*&lt;I'm not sure what is meant by this???&gt;There should be a link to the topic description.<br /> *&lt;Corrected: 16+&gt;There need to be more links, perhaps two dozen instead of one dozen. (was having difficulty finding quality articles that were not duplicates of existing stories...)<br /> *&lt;Corrected: added more discussion&gt;{identification of issues} Some, e.g., use in hiring. But the study guide says very little about it; you have to follow the links. <br /> *&lt;Corrected: incorporated into discussion&gt;Differing viewpoints are not really identified, unless you read the articles linked to.<br /> *&lt;Corrected: revised link categories&gt;&quot;Articles of interest&quot; is too vague; one of the headings should certainly be &quot;Job Hunting&quot;<br /> *{identification of issues} It probably mentions them somewhere, but does not really identify them as ethical issues.<br /> <br /> *&lt;Corrected&gt;The study guide does not read as a narrative, but rather as a set of related paragraphs. There should be topic sentences, explaining why lists of issues have been aggregated together.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16848 2008-08-05T03:25:42Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The rise in popularity of social networking sites has had an extroversive effect on large volumes personal data. Sharing photos, personal commentary, status updates, and other personally interesting information through social mediums like Myspace and Facebook has become a common activity for many internet users. Some users that are not fully aware of the implications, may decide to publish personal photos or writings after considering only their intended audience, failing to consider that other parties may view them. To illustrate (hypothetical scenario):<br /> : ''John Q. User is rather fond of his victory in last weekend's beer pong tournament, and so he decides to share photos commemorating the event with his friends using his public Myspace profile. Later, when John is applying for a job, his interviewer asks if he still likes to play beer pong. John is blind-sided by the question, thus losing his nerve and failing the interview.''<br /> Is it fair for the interviewer to ask this question? Or to examine his profile photos? Should John have ''known better'' than to leave potentially compromising photos of himself in a publicly viewable space?<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> While new reasons to aggregate a persons data continue to emerge, there are several traditional motivations that seem to be popular. Perhaps the primary of these is the use of social networking data by those people in charge of human resources decisions. HR Managers are interested in hiring the best candidate for a job, and given that a simple web search may reveal substantial amounts of information on a job candidate's background, it's not surprising that focused search services like [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo] have been developed. But ''should'' interviewers use these services? Is it really fair to bring a job candidate's peripheral social data into an HR decision? In some cases where the job in question involves high public exposure, such as a corporate spokesperson, detailed background checks are an expected part of the confirmation process; therefore most people would consider it a justified examination. Conversely, if a person's lifestyle outside of work has no effect on their ability to perform their job, then many would consider the use of their personal information in a hiring decision to be unjustified. <br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, ''Daily Nexus''. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16847 2008-08-05T03:21:28Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The rise in popularity of social networking sites has had an extroversive effect on large volumes personal data. Sharing photos, personal commentary, status updates, and other personally interesting information through social mediums like Myspace and Facebook has become a common activity for many internet users. Some users that are not fully aware of the implications, may decide to publish personal photos or writings after considering only their intended audience, failing to consider that other parties may view them. To illustrate (hypothetical scenario):<br /> : ''John Q. User is rather fond of his victory in last weekend's beer pong tournament, and so he decides to share photos commemorating the event with his friends using his public Myspace profile. Later, when John is applying for a job, his interviewer asks if he still likes to play beer pong. John is blind-sided by the question, thus losing his nerve and failing the interview.''<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> While new reasons to aggregate a persons data continue to emerge, there are several traditional motivations that seem to be popular. Perhaps the primary of these is the use of social networking data by those people in charge of human resources decisions. HR Managers are interested in hiring the best candidate for a job, and given that a simple web search may reveal substantial amounts of information on a job candidate's background, it's not surprising that focused search services like [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo] have been developed. But ''should'' interviewers use these services? Is it really fair to bring a job candidate's peripheral social data into an HR decision? In some cases where the job in question involves high public exposure, such as a corporate spokesperson, detailed background checks are an expected part of the confirmation process; therefore most people would consider it a justified examination. Conversely, if a person's lifestyle outside of work has no effect on their ability to perform their job, then many would consider the use of their personal information in a hiring decision to be unjustified. <br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, ''Daily Nexus''. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16845 2008-08-05T03:19:06Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> The rise in popularity of social networking sites has had an extroversive effect on large volumes personal data. Sharing photos, personal commentary, status updates, and other personally interesting information through social mediums like Myspace and Facebook has become a common activity for many internet users. Some users that are not fully aware of the implications, may decide to publish personal photos or writings after considering only their intended audience, failing to consider that other parties may view them. To illustrate<br /> : ''John Q. User is rather fond of his victory in last weekend's beer pong tournament, and so he decides to share photos commemorating the event with his friends using his public Myspace profile. Later, when John is applying for a job, his interviewer asks if he still likes beer pong.''<br /> <br /> Ignorance regarding privacy practices and re<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> While new reasons to aggregate a persons data continue to emerge, there are several traditional motivations that seem to be popular. Perhaps the primary of these is the use of social networking data by those people in charge of human resources decisions. HR Managers are interested in hiring the best candidate for a job, and given that a simple web search may reveal substantial amounts of information on a job candidate's background, it's not surprising that focused search services like [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo] have been developed. But ''should'' interviewers use these services? Is it really fair to bring a job candidate's peripheral social data into an HR decision? In some cases where the job in question involves high public exposure, such as a corporate spokesperson, detailed background checks are an expected part of the confirmation process; therefore most people would consider it a justified examination. Conversely, if a person's lifestyle outside of work has no effect on their ability to perform their job, then many would consider the use of their personal information in a hiring decision to be unjustified. <br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, ''Daily Nexus''. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16819 2008-08-05T02:40:13Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Aggregation motives */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> While new reasons to aggregate a persons data continue to emerge, there are several traditional motivations that seem to be popular. Perhaps the primary of these is the use of social networking data by those people in charge of human resources decisions. HR Managers are interested in hiring the best candidate for a job, and given that a simple web search may reveal substantial amounts of information on a job candidate's background, it's not surprising that focused search services like [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo] have been developed. But ''should'' interviewers use these services? Is it really fair to bring a job candidate's peripheral social data into an HR decision? In some cases where the job in question involves high public exposure, such as a corporate spokesperson, detailed background checks are an expected part of the confirmation process; therefore most people would consider it a justified examination. Conversely, if a person's lifestyle outside of work has no effect on their ability to perform their job, then many would consider the use of their personal information in a hiring decision to be unjustified. <br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, ''Daily Nexus''. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16818 2008-08-05T02:39:27Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Aggregation motives */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> While new reasons to aggregate a persons data continue to emerge, there are several traditional motivations that seem to be popular. Perhaps the primary of these is the use of social networking data by those people in charge of human resources decisions. HR Managers are interested in hiring the best candidate for a job, and given that a simple web search may reveal substantial amounts of information on a job candidate's background, it's not surprising that focused search services like [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo] have been developed. But ''should'' interviewer's use these services? Is it really fair to bring a job candidate's peripheral social data into an HR decision? In some cases where the job in question involves high public exposure, such as a corporate spokesperson, detailed background checks are an expected part of the confirmation process; therefore most people would consider it a justified examination. Conversely, if a person's lifestyle outside of work has no effect on their ability to perform their job, then many would consider the use of their personal information in a hiring decision to be unjustified. <br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, ''Daily Nexus''. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16813 2008-08-05T02:18:07Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> While new reasons to aggregate a persons data continue to emerge, there are several traditional motivations that seem to be popular. Perhaps the primary of these is the use of social networking data by those people in charge of human resources decisions. HR Managers are interested in hiring the best candidate for a job, and given that a simple web search may reveal substantial amounts of information on a job candidate's background, it's not surprising that focused search services like [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo] have been developed. But ''should'' interviewer's use these services? Is it really fair to bring a job candidate's peripheral social data into an HR decision? In some cases<br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, ''Daily Nexus''. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16812 2008-08-05T02:16:46Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* In the courts */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> '''Ideas to consider:'''<br /> # Availability of Data. (Secure? Private? Is it accessible to anyone? How do you limit information exclusively to its intended audience.)<br /> # Accuracy. (Is there inaccurate data attached to your online identity? Libel/Slander. What if the facts are just wrong?)<br /> # Anonymity.<br /> # &quot;They should have known better than to...&quot;<br /> # Search. Find. Link. -&gt; Repeat. -&gt; Compile: Summary judgment.<br /> # Purpose. Why do people investigate other people? (Ex: Human Resources; Customer/Client/Vendor Relations; Obsession/Stalking; Criminal Prosecution; Civil Litigation;<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> While new reasons to aggregate a persons data continue to emerge, there are several traditional motivations that seem to be popular. Perhaps the primary of these is the use of social networking data by those people in charge of human resources decisions. HR Managers are interested in hiring the best candidate for a job, and given that a simple web search may reveal substantial amounts of information on a job candidate's background, it's not surprising that focused search services like [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo] have been developed. But ''should'' interviewer's use these services? Is it really fair to bring a job candidate's peripheral social data into an HR decision? In some cases<br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, ''Daily Nexus''. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Talk:CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_4,_Group_4&diff=16811 2008-08-05T02:07:06Z

<p>Jcsmith2: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;Jason&gt;CJ &amp; Reid, I have an Assembly exam @ 3:30 today which means that I will be online around 7pm to work on this. --[[User:Jcsmith2|Jcsmith2]] 13:27, 1 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> &lt;Reid&gt; I'll be working on it at approximately 7PM also.<br /> <br /> &lt;Reid&gt; I'll work on the &quot;Why it's useful&quot; section if that's OK with you guys<br /> <br /> &lt;Reid&gt; I added information to the &quot;is it bad&quot; section. Feel free to modify it. Also, feel free to modify what I wrote for the &quot;Why is it useful&quot; section.<br /> <br /> &lt;Jason&gt;I think we should add one statement regarding the non-disclosure of the printer manufacturers. That's a key component of the ethical discussion. -&gt; Is it a bad idea? <br /> Also, one of the reviewers suggested that &quot;Is it a bad idea?&quot; is bad grammar. Perhaps we should re-title this section? --[[User:Jcsmith2|Jcsmith2]] 21:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ORIGINAL ASSIGNMENT: <br /> What if every page you print from a color printer were labeled with a hidden code, detailing the printer the page was printed from, the date of printing and the time of printing, down to the minute? What if this feature was intentionally hidden from the user and could not be disabled? What if the code could be viewed and decoded by anyone, not just law enforcement? These hidden tracking codes exist – examine the ethical considerations they pose. Should users be informed of the feature? Should users be able to disable the feature? Develop ethical arguments for both positions.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_4,_Group_4&diff=16810 2008-08-05T02:06:22Z

<p>Jcsmith2: </p> <hr /> <div>==Printer Tracking Technology==<br /> <br /> ===How does it work?===<br /> <br /> Encoding data in the form a machine-readable printed graph is not a new idea&amp;mdash;adhering printed barcodes to physical objects for tracking purposes has been a commercial practice since 1966, becoming truly ubiquitous in the 1980s. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcode#History] Printer tracking codes are a lot like commercial UPC codes, except that they are virtually undetectable by unaided human eyes and data is encoded into a 2-Dimensional array of micro-dots. As an example, the [http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/ Xerox DocuColor] series printer encodes printer data into a 15x8 grid of nearly invisible yellowish dots. The grid is repeated across the entire page, so even fragmented documents may later be forensically identified. The data encoded by the printer is simple: the printer's serial number, the date and time at which a document was printed. <br /> <br /> Currently, hidden printer tracking technology has been found only in ''some'' laser printers, of which [http://www.eff.org EFF] has compiled a non-comprehensive [http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/printers/list.php list].<br /> <br /> ===Why Is It Useful?===<br /> <br /> Currently, the only official use of the hidden tracking dots by our government is their role in tracking down [http://www.kahl.net/news/2005/10/government-tracks-printer-usage-with.html counterfeiters]. These criminals often employ the technique of scanning legal currency, then by using a color laser printer or color laser copier, they are able to mass-produce the counterfeit money that is of a high enough quality that it will fool most people. By using the [http://www.jconline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080713/NEWS09/80713019 hidden tracking codes], law-enforcement officials, specifically the Secret Service, are able to determine the brand and model number of the printer that produced the counterfeit bills as well as finding the specific serial number of the offending machine. They are then able to [http://www.pcworld.com/article/118664/government_uses_color_laser_printer_technology_to_track_documents.html use that information] to contact the manufacturer of the printer to gain purchase information that will allow them to determine who owns that specific device. <br /> <br /> Currency counterfeiters are not the only ones affected by this technology. By employing similar criminal techniques, document forgers are using color printers to forge driver's licenses, passports, identification badges, and [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4DC1231F93BA35753C1A966958260&amp;sec=&amp;spon=&amp;pagewanted=all checks]. By analyzing the tracking dots on the paper that the forged documents were printed on, authorities are able to create a paper trail leading to the forgers and expedite their capture. <br /> <br /> This practice is not limited the the United States government as the governments of [http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1002274598 other countries] concerned with the circulation of counterfeit currency also employ the same techniques used by the Secret Service.<br /> <br /> ===Is it bad idea?===<br /> <br /> By producing what amounts to a documented signature of the originating machine, the anonymity that comes from a printed document over a digital document is no longer possible due to this technology. There is nothing about this technology that limits its use to only tracking counterfeiters and forgers so the end result is that it is a blatant [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2008-07-13-printer_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip violation of the privacy] of the affected person, even when they are not guilty of any crimes. Otherwise innocent people such as [http://www.jconline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080713/NEWS09/80713019 political dissidents, whistleblowers, religious activists, or protesters] that certain groups might find threatening can be tracked due to their privacy being compromised by their printers. This seemingly blatant privacy violation is not going unchallenged as groups in the [http://www.eff.org/issues/printers United States] and [http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080214-eu-commissioner-printer-tracking-may-be-human-rights-violation.html?rel Europe] are pressing their governments to act and defend their rights to privacy. While it's original design was a noble one, the end result is that these document tracking dots remove any sense of privacy for the author of a document and might as well be the signature of that author.<br /> <br /> ===Links===<br /> *[http://www.pcworld.com/article/118664/government_uses_color_laser_printer_technology_to_track_documents.html Government Uses Color Laser Printer Technology to Track Documents]. Jason Tuohey, Medill News Service. Nov 22, 2004.<br /> * [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2008-07-13-printer_N.htm Printer dots raise privacy concerns]. Thomas Frank, ''USA Today''. Jul 13, 2008.<br /> * [http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/ EFF's analysis of Xerox DocuColor Printers' hidden printer tracking dots].<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-tracking-dots EFF's list of laser printers that do or do not display tracking dots].</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16797 2008-08-05T01:47:24Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Aggregation motives */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> '''Ideas to consider:'''<br /> # Availability of Data. (Secure? Private? Is it accessible to anyone? How do you limit information exclusively to its intended audience.)<br /> # Accuracy. (Is there inaccurate data attached to your online identity? Libel/Slander. What if the facts are just wrong?)<br /> # Anonymity.<br /> # &quot;They should have known better than to...&quot;<br /> # Search. Find. Link. -&gt; Repeat. -&gt; Compile: Summary judgment.<br /> # Purpose. Why do people investigate other people? (Ex: Human Resources; Customer/Client/Vendor Relations; Obsession/Stalking; Criminal Prosecution; Civil Litigation;<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> While new reasons to aggregate a persons data continue to emerge, there are several traditional motivations that seem to be popular. Perhaps the primary of these is the use of social networking data by those people in charge of human resources decisions. HR Managers are interested in hiring the best candidate for a job, and given that a simple web search may reveal substantial amounts of information on a job candidate's background, it's not surprising that focused search services like [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo] have been developed. But ''should'' interviewer's use these services? Is it really fair to bring a job candidate's peripheral social data into an HR decision? In some cases<br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, Daily Nexus. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Talk:Social_dossiers&diff=16787 2008-08-05T01:22:42Z

<p>Jcsmith2: </p> <hr /> <div>*There should be a link to the topic description.<br /> *&lt;Corrected: 16+&gt;There need to be more links, perhaps two dozen instead of one dozen. (was having difficulty finding quality articles that were not duplicates of existing stories...)<br /> *{identification of issues} Some, e.g., use in hiring. But the study guide says very little about it; you have to follow the links. <br /> *Differing viewpoints are not really identified, unless you read the articles linked to.<br /> *&lt;Corrected: revised link categories&gt;&quot;Articles of interest&quot; is too vague; one of the headings should certainly be &quot;Job Hunting&quot;<br /> *{identification of issues} It probably mentions them somewhere, but does not really identify them as ethical issues.<br /> <br /> *The study guide does not read as a narrative, but rather as a set of related paragraphs. There should be topic sentences, explaining why lists of issues have been aggregated together.</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16786 2008-08-05T01:19:00Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Data availability */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> '''Ideas to consider:'''<br /> # Availability of Data. (Secure? Private? Is it accessible to anyone? How do you limit information exclusively to its intended audience.)<br /> # Accuracy. (Is there inaccurate data attached to your online identity? Libel/Slander. What if the facts are just wrong?)<br /> # Anonymity.<br /> # &quot;They should have known better than to...&quot;<br /> # Search. Find. Link. -&gt; Repeat. -&gt; Compile: Summary judgment.<br /> # Purpose. Why do people investigate other people? (Ex: Human Resources; Customer/Client/Vendor Relations; Obsession/Stalking; Criminal Prosecution; Civil Litigation;<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Some search providers have even begun to specialize their services to scour popular social networking sites. A user may simply enter part of your identity, such as your name or email address, into a query box, and the search engine returns a listing of potential matches. This makes compilation of your publicly available data frighteningly easy.<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, Daily Nexus. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Talk:CSC_379_SUM2008:Week_4,_Group_4&diff=16780 2008-08-05T01:05:33Z

<p>Jcsmith2: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;Jason&gt;CJ &amp; Reid, I have an Assembly exam @ 3:30 today which means that I will be online around 7pm to work on this. --[[User:Jcsmith2|Jcsmith2]] 13:27, 1 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> &lt;Reid&gt; I'll be working on it at approximately 7PM also.<br /> <br /> &lt;Reid&gt; I'll work on the &quot;Why it's useful&quot; section if that's OK with you guys<br /> <br /> &lt;Reid&gt; I added information to the &quot;is it bad&quot; section. Feel free to modify it. Also, feel free to modify what I wrote for the &quot;Why is it useful&quot; section.<br /> <br /> &lt;Jason&gt;I think we should add one statement regarding the non-disclosure of the printer manufacturers. That's a key component of the ethical discussion. -&gt; Is it a bad idea? <br /> Also, one of the reviewers suggested that &quot;Is it a bad idea?&quot; is bad grammar. Perhaps we should re-title this section? --[[User:Jcsmith2|Jcsmith2]] 21:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16750 2008-08-03T01:11:38Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Stalking */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> '''Ideas to consider:'''<br /> # Availability of Data. (Secure? Private? Is it accessible to anyone? How do you limit information exclusively to its intended audience.)<br /> # Accuracy. (Is there inaccurate data attached to your online identity? Libel/Slander. What if the facts are just wrong?)<br /> # Anonymity.<br /> # &quot;They should have known better than to...&quot;<br /> # Search. Find. Link. -&gt; Repeat. -&gt; Compile: Summary judgment.<br /> # Purpose. Why do people investigate other people? (Ex: Human Resources; Customer/Client/Vendor Relations; Obsession/Stalking; Criminal Prosecution; Civil Litigation;<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, Daily Nexus. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41389 Stalking by a &quot;high-tech&quot; guy]. John Loveall. Stalking Resource Center. 2005.<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16749 2008-08-03T00:43:19Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Stalking */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> '''Ideas to consider:'''<br /> # Availability of Data. (Secure? Private? Is it accessible to anyone? How do you limit information exclusively to its intended audience.)<br /> # Accuracy. (Is there inaccurate data attached to your online identity? Libel/Slander. What if the facts are just wrong?)<br /> # Anonymity.<br /> # &quot;They should have known better than to...&quot;<br /> # Search. Find. Link. -&gt; Repeat. -&gt; Compile: Summary judgment.<br /> # Purpose. Why do people investigate other people? (Ex: Human Resources; Customer/Client/Vendor Relations; Obsession/Stalking; Criminal Prosecution; Civil Litigation;<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, Daily Nexus. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> *[http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_StalkingTechnology139 The Use of Technology to Stalk] from the Stalking Resource Center.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16748 2008-08-03T00:38:09Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Links &amp; Resources */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> '''Ideas to consider:'''<br /> # Availability of Data. (Secure? Private? Is it accessible to anyone? How do you limit information exclusively to its intended audience.)<br /> # Accuracy. (Is there inaccurate data attached to your online identity? Libel/Slander. What if the facts are just wrong?)<br /> # Anonymity.<br /> # &quot;They should have known better than to...&quot;<br /> # Search. Find. Link. -&gt; Repeat. -&gt; Compile: Summary judgment.<br /> # Purpose. Why do people investigate other people? (Ex: Human Resources; Customer/Client/Vendor Relations; Obsession/Stalking; Criminal Prosecution; Civil Litigation;<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, Daily Nexus. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Stalking===<br /> *[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003845520_websnooping21.html Facebook makes it easy to &quot;profile stalk&quot;]. David Sarno, ''Los Angeles Times''. Aug 21, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16747 2008-08-03T00:32:50Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* In the courts */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> '''Ideas to consider:'''<br /> # Availability of Data. (Secure? Private? Is it accessible to anyone? How do you limit information exclusively to its intended audience.)<br /> # Accuracy. (Is there inaccurate data attached to your online identity? Libel/Slander. What if the facts are just wrong?)<br /> # Anonymity.<br /> # &quot;They should have known better than to...&quot;<br /> # Search. Find. Link. -&gt; Repeat. -&gt; Compile: Summary judgment.<br /> # Purpose. Why do people investigate other people? (Ex: Human Resources; Customer/Client/Vendor Relations; Obsession/Stalking; Criminal Prosecution; Civil Litigation;<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> *[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC-5mkxddsdwxCN5_DwfLq3RqPmwD920TQK00 Web networking photos come back to bite defendants]. Eric Tucker, AP. Jul 19, 2008.<br /> *[http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13440 Court case decision reveals dangers of networking sites]. Evan Wagstaff, Daily Nexus. Feb 28, 2007.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16746 2008-08-03T00:23:17Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Other Links */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> '''Ideas to consider:'''<br /> # Availability of Data. (Secure? Private? Is it accessible to anyone? How do you limit information exclusively to its intended audience.)<br /> # Accuracy. (Is there inaccurate data attached to your online identity? Libel/Slander. What if the facts are just wrong?)<br /> # Anonymity.<br /> # &quot;They should have known better than to...&quot;<br /> # Search. Find. Link. -&gt; Repeat. -&gt; Compile: Summary judgment.<br /> # Purpose. Why do people investigate other people? (Ex: Human Resources; Customer/Client/Vendor Relations; Obsession/Stalking; Criminal Prosecution; Civil Litigation;<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Social Search Services===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Social_dossiers&diff=16745 2008-08-03T00:22:05Z

<p>Jcsmith2: /* Articles of Interest */</p> <hr /> <div>=Study Guide=<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> '''Ideas to consider:'''<br /> # Availability of Data. (Secure? Private? Is it accessible to anyone? How do you limit information exclusively to its intended audience.)<br /> # Accuracy. (Is there inaccurate data attached to your online identity? Libel/Slander. What if the facts are just wrong?)<br /> # Anonymity.<br /> # &quot;They should have known better than to...&quot;<br /> # Search. Find. Link. -&gt; Repeat. -&gt; Compile: Summary judgment.<br /> # Purpose. Why do people investigate other people? (Ex: Human Resources; Customer/Client/Vendor Relations; Obsession/Stalking; Criminal Prosecution; Civil Litigation;<br /> <br /> ==Data availability==<br /> Many websites (especially social media sites) allow users to create personal profiles; a substantial portion of those sites allow their content to be indexed by search-agents, and so any content created while using a site may potentially be located easily through basic search queries. The information that is connected to a particular user varies widely and can include very basic information (name, age, gender, locale, etc.) and/or disturbingly detailed information (e.g. mySpaceUserXX aka &quot;Jane Q. User&quot; is single, bisexual, Hispanic, a Unitarian Universalist, an Aquarius, a self-professed alcoholic, works in Accounting/Finance, graduated from Anytown Community College in 2004, etc.).<br /> <br /> {| cellpadding=&quot;5&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Social Media Sites<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> !&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;<br /> ! Types of Information<br /> !&amp;nbsp;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> *[http://www.facebook.com Facebook]<br /> *[http://www.myspace.com Myspace]<br /> *[http://www.linkedin.com LinkedIn]<br /> *[http://www.friendster.com Friendster]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]<br /> *[http://www.digg.com Digg]<br /> *[http://www.flickr.com Flickr]<br /> |<br /> *[http://www.photobucket.com Photobucket]<br /> *[http://www.picasa.com Picasa]<br /> *[http://www.twitter.com Twitter]<br /> *[http://www.xanga.com Xanga]<br /> *[http://www.livejournal.com Livejournal]<br /> *[http://www.blogger.com Blogger]<br /> *[http://www.deviantart.com Deviant Art]<br /> | &amp;nbsp;<br /> |<br /> *Demographics<br /> *Photographs<br /> *Videos<br /> *User Comments<br /> *Cultural Interests<br /> *Religion/Creed<br /> *Political Views<br /> |<br /> *Sexual Orientiation<br /> *Forum Discussions<br /> *Work History<br /> *Education History<br /> *Favorite Videos<br /> *Friends' Identities<br /> *Offline Media Tastes<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Aggregation motives==<br /> <br /> '''Potential Interested Parties:'''<br /> * '''''Hiring:''''' Human resources staff and job interviewers' hiring decisions may be influenced by what search-queries reveal. [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml] The legality and ethical issues of unofficial google-stalking of potential job candidates is currently under debate. [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php]<br /> * '''''Criminal Prosecution:''''' Prosecutors may use the content you post online to build their case against you; your own social media profile may serve as a character witness against you. [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html]<br /> * '''''Business Contacts:''''' Sales professionals constantly distribute their business cards to prospective clients/customers, so it is foreseeable that a lack of understanding of web privacy by a sales representative (that uses social media sites) could lead to disastrous results for themselves or the company they represent.<br /> * '''''Insurance Eligibility:''''' &quot;I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but according to your blog, the following conditions are pre-existing and will require a rider/exclusion for us to even consider giving you a quote...&quot;<br /> * '''''Stalkers:''''' If you have a lot of information publicly available through social networking profiles, then you have no real defensive strategy against potential stalkers accessing that information. Granted, dedicated stalkers would find a way to obtain sensitive information (e.g. course schedules, work schedule, friends' identities) without using the internet, but social media only increases opportunity and ease, therefore the likelihood of attracting stalkers.<br /> <br /> ==Links &amp; Resources==<br /> <br /> ===Job Hunting===<br /> * [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html Facebook can ruin your life, and so can Myspace, Bebo...] Ida Bergstrom, ''The Independent''. Feb 10, 2008.<br /> * [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1649121,00.html Online snooping gets creepy]. Anita Hamilton, ''Time''. Aug 2, 2007.<br /> * [http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/2006/09/employers_using.php Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?] George Lenard, George's Employment Blawg.<br /> * [http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/05/googlestalking_your_interviewe.html Google-stalking your interviewer is smart]. Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, ''Time''. May 29, 2008.<br /> * [http://accounting.smartpros.com/x54248.xml Employers Google Job Candidates, Check Social Networking Web Sites]. SmartPros. Aug 8, 2006.<br /> <br /> ===In the courts===<br /> * [http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080717_Alleged_DUI_killer_s_MySpace_profile_depicts_youth_consumed_with_money__drugs_and_graffiti.html Alleged DUI killer's MySpace profile depicts youth consumed with money, drugs and graffiti]. Stephanie Farr and Dafney Tales, ''Philadelphia Daily News''. Jul 17, 2008.<br /> <br /> ===Privacy Resources===<br /> * [http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/06-07-wt2/www2/S_Hintersteininger/home.htm Beyond the Job Interview: Unofficial Online Background Checks]. Stefan Hintersteininger. University of British Columbia. March 2007.<br /> * [http://epic.org/privacy/tools.html EPIC online guide to practical privacy tools]. Electronic Privacy Information Center.<br /> * [http://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy EFF's top 12 ways to protect your online privacy]. Stanton McCandlish, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apr 10, 2002.<br /> <br /> ===Other Links===<br /> * [http://www.spock.com Spock People Search]. Spock.com.<br /> * [http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/AboutUs.aspx MyBackGroundCheck.com].<br /> * [http://www.spokeo.com/hr Spokeo.com/hr]. &quot;Want to see your candidates' profiles on MySpace and LinkedIn?&quot;</div>

Jcsmith2 https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=Talk:Social_dossiers&diff=16744 2008-08-03T00:10:59Z

<p>Jcsmith2: </p> <hr /> <div>*There should be a link to the topic description.<br /> *There need to be more links, perhaps two dozen instead of one dozen.<br /> *{identification of issues} Some, e.g., use in hiring. But the study guide says very little about it; you have to follow the links. <br /> *Differing viewpoints are not really identified, unless you read the articles linked to.<br /> *&quot;Articles of interest&quot; is too vague; one of the headings should certainly be &quot;Job Hunting&quot;<br /> *{identification of issues} It probably mentions them somewhere, but does not really identify them as ethical issues.<br /> <br /> *The study guide does not read as a narrative, but rather as a set of related paragraphs. There should be topic sentences, explaining why lists of issues have been aggregated together.</div>

Jcsmith2