https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=LawhitloExpertiza_Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-10-06T12:44:57ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.41.0https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_5,_Group_6&diff=2171CSC 379:Week 5, Group 62007-08-06T20:36:00Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Safety and Internet Social Networks=<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Internet social network sites are services designed to link together communities of people, often those with similar interests, backgrounds, or goals. They usually require a user to sign up and create a profile to represent him or herself, and on the profile the user may usually include pictures, personal background, lists of interests and friends, and even music. The sites also offer multiple ways in which users may interact with each other, including chatting, messaging, blogging, video and voice chat, and sharing music or other files. Popular examples of internet social network sites include [http://www.myspace.com MySpace], [http://www.facebook.com Facebook], [http://www.livejournal.com LiveJournal], [http://www.flickr.com Flickr], [http://www.orkut.com orkut], and [http://www.last.fm Last.fm].<br />
<br />
The rapid growth of these sites has led to a growing concern over the safety issues inherent in disseminating information about oneself online. Of particular concern is the use of social networking sites by children and young teenagers who may be vulnerable to sexual predators who use the sites to find victims. The site MySpace in particular has come under increased scrutiny after several high-profile cases in which men molested underage girls they met using the site. To limit use by children, many sites institute an age limit for members; MySpace's age limit, for example, is 14. However, these limits are largely not enforced, and it is therefore easy for an underage child or teenager to sign up by falsifying his or her age. Because of concern over this issue, advocates have proposed a number of possible solutions to increase the safety of internet social networks.<br />
<br />
Some, however, think the danger associated with social networking sites is not as large as recent media attention portrays it to be. A recent study published in the [http://www.elsevier.com/locate/adolescence Journal of Adolescence] found that most MySpace users under the age of 18 guarded their personal information to varying degrees. According to the researchers, "when considered in its proper context, these results indicate that the problem of personal information disclosure on MySpace may not be as widespread as many assume, and that the overwhelming majority of adolescents are responsibly using the website."<br />
<br />
==Solutions==<br />
===Limit Access in Public Places===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Limit or eliminate the ability of individuals to access social networking sites in public places, such as schools or libraries, as in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Deleting Online Predator's Act of 2006]<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
Proponents of this approach often cite that while the primary duty to protect and educate children falls with parents, locations such as schools and libraries are places where minors often lack parental supervision, and access to social networking sites should be limited to locations where parents can monitor the activity of their children. Schools and libraries, they further contend, are places of education, and while this approach often allows exemptions for the educational study of social networking, government-maintained computers and public institutions of education are not the appropriate place for online socialization. Also, they note that while the current availability of the Internet in libraries makes the resources of cyberspace available to all, it also provides the the questionable resource of a free, quick, simple, and wide-reaching way for adults to contact minors through social networks. Limitation of social networking sites in the public, it is argued, would at least make such access and contact somewhat more difficult, while leaving the majority of the benefits of the Internet intact.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
Opponents of this approach question how much it would truly accomplish in keeping so-called "predators" at bay, as well as the true cost for such limited gains. They point out that preventing those who target children from accessing social networking sites in libraries does not prevent them from finding other ways to gain access - at home, work, or with friends. Also, while carefully limiting the behavior of children when outside of parental supervision seems a good idea in principle, a significant problem arises in attempting to legislate precisely what constitutes a "social networking site." While such sites are easily recognizable by those familiar with the technology, the current legislative definition, per the DOPA, would potentially limit access to a number of websites generally agreed to not be of a social networking nature, including Yahoo!, Slashdot, and perhaps, in the future, even Google. The implication of this fact would be to severely mitigate, if not essentially nullify entirely, the value of offering public access to the Internet in libraries at all.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<br />
<BR><br />
This approach to promoting safety on social networking sites appears to be entirely legal, a point underwritten by the fact that there is presently an act in Congress with the aim of making this particular approach into a federal law. The only presently reasonably foreseeable challenge to the law on Constitutional grounds would be the broad but historically ineffectual assertion that the tenth amendment to the Constitution prohibits federal involvement in schools and libraries. <br />
<br />
===Require Age, Consent or Identity Verification via Credit Card===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
This approach to ensuring safety on social networking sites would require users to submit credit card information upon signing up for the service. This information would guarantee any of a number of data about a user, such as age, the possession of informed parental consent, or the validity of identity information displayed on the site. Variations on this approach include the use of debit cards or bank accounts in addition to credit cards.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
The idea of requiring users of social networking sites to submit valid information is nothing new. At present, no system exists which compels users to definitively verify much if anything about themselves. Some social networking sites, such as Facebook, have preliminary checks to help ensure that a member really is from a particular area or academic institution, but for the most part these measures are easily circumvented. Proponents of requiring the entry of credit card information to sign up for social networking sites claim that this approach would provide a more effective manner of verifying identity than any measures currently in place, and would not require the establishment of any new identification system. Presentation of credit card information, they argue, would require that adults use their true names and ages when signing up for the site, and that minors have true parental consent, in order to create a social networking profile. Thus, parents would be kept more informed about their children's online behavior, and online predators would be easier to identify and monitor, screen, or eliminate from the service, as they would not be able to hide behind aliases. Additionally, potential first-time offenders would not be able to mislead minors about their identities, as names and ages of cardholders would be verifiable.<BR><BR><br />
<br />
Opponents of this approach, however, adamantly insist that it would do more harm than good. As with all legislative approaches, the problem exists of legally defining precisely what constitutes a social networking site. Perhaps more importantly, current wide definitions of social networks would require a user to submit credit card information to a wealth of websites, putting him or her at risk for unauthorized transactions by unscrupulous employees or hackers, and perhaps even identity theft. Companies would also have to shoulder the burden of storing and securing databases of very sensitive information, and would most likely be liable for breaches. Further, this approach would unfairly exclude from social networks all adults who had no credit card or bank account, and all children of such adults, as well. While adults who signed up for social networking services would in theory have their identities verified, many point out that children, especially teens, are fully (if not legitimately) capable of obtaining a parent's credit card information either without informing the parent of the purpose, or entirely without consent. While this fault does ultimately reside with the parent, it nonetheless poses a significant challenge to those who claim that parental oversight of social networking activity would be achieved by means of credit card entry.<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<BR><br />
Though perhaps unwise, this policy does seem to be legal. Any institution can require the submission of credit information, if by no other means than simply charging a trivial fee for its services. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Require Age, Consent, or Identity Verification via National Identification===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
This approach would require the establishment of a national identification card program to cover United States citizens. Potential members of social networking sites would submit their identification number and confirming password or PIN, and identity information on the site would correspond to the information in a national database associated with that individual. In the event that a minor signed up for such a site, consent would ideally be obtained directly from the parent or guardian directly from the social networking organization.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<br />
<BR><br />
Arguments both for and against establishing identity through a [http://news.com.com/National+ID+cards+on+the+way/2100-1028_3-5573414.html national identification system] largely parallel their counterparts for and against establishing identity by means of credit card information. Proponents of this approach specifically indicate that four distinct advantages present themselves in the national identification scheme over the credit card scheme. Firstly, if all individuals were to have an identification card, then it would not be difficult for those without credit cards or bank accounts, or their children, to use social networking sites. Further, the information presented by minors to such sites would be accurate - something that cannot be guaranteed by the credit card system, as minors are not cardholders. Parental consent would also be less subject to circumvention, as children would be ostensibly less likely to give fraudulent consent when the parent was contacted directly - perhaps by phone, postal mail, or email - rather than when mere possession of a credit card. Finally, the risk of the theft of credit information would not be present in a system which did not retain that information at all.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
Opponents, however, see more danger in the proposal of a national identity program alone, notwithstanding its use for social networking sites, than in the idea of using credit information to verify social networking information. National identification at all, they argue, would be a dangerous step in the direction of tighter government monitoring of American citizens, and would eventually mean the renunciation of further precepts of privacy, whether they be rights or privileges. Additionally, a centralized federal database of identity information, as well as the association of this information with numerous social networking accounts, would place users at perhaps an even greater risk for identity theft than any other safety scheme herein discussed. The registration of minors in particular poses an entirely different set of concerns, largely unrelated to this topic. It would be likely, as well, that any national identification program would be used, as social security numbers are now, for a number of different purposes relating to private information, meaning that a failure in the security of a social networking site could lead to a host of other problems for the site's users. Possession of parental consent by minors, while more likely than in the credit card scheme, would neither be guaranteed by these means. Undoubtedly, however, the most daunting problem with this idea is the establishment of a national identity program itself, which would most likely have to be government-mandated in order to ensure accuracy. Finally, it is doubtful that this would provide a complete fix to the problem, as most social networking sites are open to locations outside of the United States, which would be unaffected by any identity confirmation requirements in this nation, as when a teen from Michigan traveled to the nation of Jordan to meet someone with whom she was acquainted on a social network.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<BR><br />
While no specific legislation exists to prohibit this particular approach, previous attempts to begin a national identification card program has met with significant opposition, both from private organizations and [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9026324 from the states,] and would probably be challenged in the courts if enacted.<br />
===Restricting or Prohibiting Access...===<br />
'''Overview of Idea'''<BR><br />
The central idea for forcibly protecting the safety of minors on social networking sites is to limit access to such sites by those considered most likely to become potential victims, or those most likely to become potential abusers, or both. While this eliminates the risk of potentially unsafe incidents between these two groups, it raises serious questions, as well. Of course, moreover, the ability to block a specific portion of the population from social networking sites also requires that their computer usage be tracked and monitored, an idea alone with which many people take issue. Either a suspiciously Orwellian technological solution or vast armies of parole officers would be necessary for a number of the suggestions below.<br />
<br />
<I>...by Age</I><BR><br />
Due to the Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act, children under the age of 13 cannot sign up for memberships to any website without "verifiable" parental consent. Myspace, one of the major online social networking sites, requires its users to be at least 14 years of age, or rather, to report that they are at least 14 years of age, to register for an account. However, many wonder if this age limit is too low - whether 14-year-olds can fully grasp the possible repercussions of exposing personal data - everything from one's likes and dislikes, to a list of friends, to potentially exploitable photographs - online. There have been suggestions to raise this limit to anywhere between sixteen and eighteen. While this change would manifest a significant negative impact on the business and user base of several social networking sites, it would certainly put younger children out of harm's way. More importantly, however, is the statement that imposing this limit by means of legislation would make about children's rights, and the right of parents to govern their child's behavior as they see fit. Children's rights, relative to adults, are curtailed, to be sure. How many activities, however, purely innocent and recreational if not for the few who exploit the system, must the government legislate away in the name of safety? Do they truly have the right to do so? On the other hand, if it prevents abductions or abuse, does the question of authority really matter? More immediately, however, is the question of how, without a national ID card program, children who desire to use social networks can be expected to report their actual ages.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by Felons</I><BR><br />
By law, individuals who commit a felony already forfeit a number of their rights as United States citizens, such as the right to vote or to hold certain political offices. It has been suggested that future social networking legislation also force felons to forfeit the right to create or use a social networking account. Essentially, the thinking behind this approach reasons that commission of a felony may be a "risk factor" for exploitation of children online - that felons are more likely than law-abiding citizens to be or to become online predators. Unfortunately, this is largely unsubstantiated, especially for those whose infractions have no relation to child exploitation or cyber-crime. Opponents argue that the punishment of prohibition of online social networking does not universally fit felony crimes. Thus, this policy might be challenged as "unusual" punishment on a Constitutional basis.<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by the Mentally Ill</I><BR><br />
Much as with the commission of a felony, some believe there to be a correlation between severe mental illness and the tendency to exploit or abuse minors. In fact, it has been argued that the desire to sexually abuse children in and of itself constitutes a mental illness. In many states, those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and thus judged to be a danger to themselves or others, are prohibited from owning a firearm. The idea has been brought forth that these people, having already been judged by professionals to be a danger in some capacity, be barred from social networking sites, as they there could pose a new sort of danger to the site's members. This is somewhat more accepted than the idea of banning all felons, as mental illness more closely relates to sociopathic or unpredictable behavior than does the commission of most crimes, but some still see it as the repression of a group whose members need more help than regulation.<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by the Domestically Violent</I><BR><br />
Prohibition of the domestically violent from using social networking sites has been suggested, not so much as a means of protecting the young, but of protecting anyone, minor or adult, with whom an unstable person might enter into a potentially dangerous relationship. As with most restrictions on the domestically violent, this would most likely be a temporary ban for a court-determined duration. Opponents contend that there is little to no precedent for such a ban, and that domestic violence does not necessarily correlate with negative behavior in online social networks, but there have been cases where the domestically violent were forbidden from relationships, and so this option is not unthinkable. However, this would most likely be applied on a case-by-case basis than as a general rule.<BR><BR><br />
<I>..by Sexual Offenders</I><BR><br />
Of all the proposals to ensure the safety of social network users by government means, this plan, many would agree, receives the least opposition. It is well-known that those with a history of sexual violence are prone to repeat episodes, and social networking sites provide an easy, free forum for sexual offenders to meet, trail, and target potential victims. Voluntarily, Myspace recently canceled the accounts of thousands of registered sex offenders, indicating that legislation is not necessary for action to be taken on this front. LiveJournal, a web-blog site with social networking capabilities, recently deleted numerous blogs which advocated pedophilia. If if unburdened by any sincere concern for the safety of their members, social networking sites have reason to fear a flurry of bad publicity and public outcry against them if they do not take action against known sexual offenders, both by individuals and by citizen's advocacy groups such as Perverted Justice. However, there is considerable push to forcibly legislate the prohibition of sexual offenders from social networks entirely. Opponents claim that this would not render social networks a "safe place," for first-time offenders would be left unchecked by this policy, but because of the grievous nature of sex crimes, the nature of social network abuse, and the fact that there already exists a system to track and monitor these individuals, it is unlikely to face strong resistance. Recently, Kentucky required sex offenders in its borders to register their electronic communication addresses with the state, specifically for use by social networking sites for cross-checks and account cancellations. Of course, only the most extreme forms of this solution or the coupling of this solution with a form of guaranteed identification would prevent these offenders from registering with aliases, but to most, prohibiting such heinous criminals from using social networks seems like a step in the right direction. Others, however, point to the large degree to which the liberty which former sexual offenders surrender, and wonder whether banning these people from Internet sites is in fact a step toward oppression.<br />
<br />
===Limitation of Posted and Available Information by Age===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Given a way to verify the ages of social network subscribers, organizations could limit the nature of the information which younger users could put online, or the nature of the information that they could obtain from other users, thus making their presence on social networking sites less conspicuous to abusers.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<br />
This approach addresses two facets of online networks which make victims and abusers prone to interaction. Acknowledging that sexual predators will find ways to use social networks - even in defiance of law and security measures - limiting the amount and type of information placed in social network profiles by age attempts to make younger victims less accessible, perhaps less attractive, and hopefully less vulnerable to sexual predators. For instance, given that people are more likely to be attracted - perversely or not - to people whom they can see, younger users of social networking sites could be prohibited from posting photographs. Given, also, that younger children may not understand what is or is not appropriate online or is or is not likely to attract sexual predators, they could be prohibited from posting blogs in which they may chronicle their days, or their profiles could be scanned algorithmically for personally identifying information, which could be automatically removed. Also, many online services, though no major social networking sites, have parental control settings by which younger users may be forbidden from direct contact with all but a specifically approved whitelist of friends. Thus, younger children would retain the ability to use social networking sites, but several of the factors which may make them likely to be targeted by abusers - visual attractiveness, availability for activities such as stalking, personal identification of or with the victim, and personal contact for developing a relationship with, or "grooming" of, the victim, would be eliminated. As level of site availability would be controlled by age, young users would have the same sort of access as their friends, allowing social networks to continue to be used for many of the same benign purposes as they are today, while hopefully reducing the tendency of their exploitation for illegal activity.<BR><BR><br />
Opponents of this approach contend that limiting social networking sites' function for younger users may also limit their appeal, and lead to the downfall of this form of communication. Further, they point out that to stratify social network access by age, one must first successfully and accurately identify the ages of the users, which is not currently possible and would ostensibly require a system such as the national identification card suggestion, above, which would have its own set of inherent fixes to the problem of social network abuse. Thus, this approach is often lambasted as being either ineffectual, or, if accommodations are made for its implementation, superfluous.<BR><BR><br />
===Parental Oversight and Education===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Those intent on the abuse or exploitation of children will always - despite legal requirements or other forms of deterrence - find a way to work towards their perverse goals. Social networking sites are one forum for these attempts at the exploitation of the young. No matter what the government may enact or legislate, responsibility rests with the parents to raise and educate their children in such a way that they are informed, able, and have an active desire to avoid potentially compromising situations online.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
The responsibility to raise, instill values upon, and protect a child ultimately rests with the parents. Social networking sites, and the Internet in general, are a forum about which parents are often ignorant, but in today's world wherein these activities form such significant portions of children's social lives, and wherein such damage can be done to children, many boldly claim that this ignorance is a failure of parenting. Parents need to remain informed about their children's online habits and behavior, and need to instruct their children in what is and is not appropriate online to do online. Parents should instill in their children a desire to behave appropriately, whether on social networking sites or otherwise. Much as children are taught not to accept candy or rides from strangers, parents should issue grave warnings about the dangers of the social networking world. This is not to say that meeting an individual online is inherently bad, but children need to know, and desire to avoid, behaviors which will attract those with impure motives. If parents can raise their children in such a value system that they understand that private information is to be kept private, that the Internet isn't necessarily, but can be dangerous place for too much to be said about oneself, that provocative or sexually suggestive photographs are not something to be appreciated and that their sentiments to something to be emulated, that the provision of hundreds of photos of oneself to the public world is perhaps vanity, and that social networking users carefully judge the character of those with whom they come into contact, there would be little need for government legislation. After all, sexual predators are much less likely to find users who do not offer visual stimulation, often freely given today in the form of entirely inappropriate photographs on public social networking sites of ever-younger children. If a child, further, refuses to communicate with a predator, then no danger exists, even with unrestricted and unlegislated use of social networking sites. If children do not understand or value behavior by which they can protect themselves online, then parents have a duty to protect them, and to raise them in such a way that they will eventually be able to make positive ethical choices for the safe, productive, and fun use of social networks.<BR><BR><br />
Few reasonable citizens oppose the idea that parents should raise their children with the knowledge and desire to protect themselves online. However, opponents of featuring this approach simply point out that it is not enough, alone, to protect minors on social networking sites. Parents, too often, are uninformed about or uninterested in protecting their children. Others lack the background, knowledge, or desire to raise and care for their children appropriately. Were this not the case, the vast majority of child protection legislation would be unnecessary, and the Departments of Social Services of every state would have no reason to exist. However, merely because one has a child does not mean that one is a good parent, and many point out how relying solely on parents to protect children from the dangers of social networking sites may be entirely unreliable and naive. In short, though it is unfortunate, the truth is that many parents are inept, especially in the realm of technology into which social networking sites fall. While the government cannot legislate the rearing of a child, child protection legislation is routinely needed as a safeguard against the parenting shortcomings of adults.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<br />
The raising of children in a way to make them aware and conscientious of the dangers which social networking sites can potentially pose hardly intersects with the concerns of legality. Legal questions do arise, however, when a parent fails, through a lack of instruction, care, ability, or for some other reason, to protect their child from harm. The degree to which the state should be involved is a hotly debated and deeply personal question, but few disagree that when parents fail, legal measures, whether legislation or litigation, are necessary for the protection of minors. <br />
==Legislation==<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Children's Online Privacy Protection Act(1998)] - Requires "verifiable parental consent" for the collection of personal data from children under 13 years of age.<BR><BR><br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Deleting Online Predators Act(2006)] - Would require schools and libraries receiving federal funding to prohibit the use of chat rooms or very broadly-defined social networking sites for anything but strictly educational use.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/sum/sb59.htm Untitled Georgia bill concerning online predators(2007)] - Would require that social networking sites get consent of a minor child's parent before that child could create or maintain a social networking profile, and would require that the parent be given full access to said profile.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=S+132 North Carolina Protect Children from Sexual Predators Act(2007)]([http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/video/1644777/ Video]) - Would require parental consent and access for social networking sites of users under 16, and would prohibit convicted sexual offenders from using social networking sites.<BR><BR><br />
[http://cya.oklibshare.org/blog/house-bill-1715/ Oklahoma HB1715(2007)] - Would require adult supervision for access of the Internet by minor children in libraries, and the blocking of social networking sites on library computers.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1682&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=29749&SessionID=51 Illinois Social Networking Prohibition Act(2007)] - Would require schools and libraries to block all access to social networking sites.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/07rs/SB65.htm Kentucky SB65(2007)] - Requires all registered sex offenders to submit their email and instant messaging addresses for cross-referencing with the user rolls of social networking sites.<br />
<br />
==Table of Contents==<br />
[http://www.saura.completelyfreehosting.com/Safety%20and%20Internet%20Social%20Networks.htm Safety and Internet Social Networks Table of Contents]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_5,_Group_6&diff=2170CSC 379:Week 5, Group 62007-08-06T20:35:07Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Safety and Internet Social Networks=<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Internet social network sites are services designed to link together communities of people, often those with similar interests, backgrounds, or goals. They usually require a user to sign up and create a profile to represent him or herself, and on the profile the user may usually include pictures, personal background, lists of interests and friends, and even music. The sites also offer multiple ways in which users may interact with each other, including chatting, messaging, blogging, video and voice chat, and sharing music or other files. Popular examples of internet social network sites include [http://www.myspace.com MySpace], [http://www.facebook.com Facebook], [http://www.livejournal.com LiveJournal], [http://www.flickr.com Flickr], [http://www.orkut.com orkut], and [http://www.last.fm Last.fm].<br />
<br />
The rapid growth of these sites has led to a growing concern over the safety issues inherent in disseminating information about oneself online. Of particular concern is the use of social networking sites by children and young teenagers who may be vulnerable to sexual predators who use the sites to find victims. The site MySpace in particular has come under increased scrutiny after several high-profile cases in which men molested underage girls they met using the site. To limit use by children, many sites institute an age limit for members; MySpace's age limit, for example, is 14. However, these limits are largely not enforced, and it is therefore easy for an underage child or teenager to sign up by falsifying his or her age. Because of concern over this issue, advocates have proposed a number of possible solutions to increase the safety of internet social networks.<br />
<br />
Some, however, think the danger associated with social networking sites is not as large as recent media attention portrays it to be. A recent study published in the [http://www.elsevier.com/locate/adolescence Journal of Adolescence] found that most MySpace users under the age of 18 guarded their personal information to varying degrees. According to the researchers, "when considered in its proper context, these results indicate that the problem of personal information disclosure on MySpace may not be as widespread as many assume, and that the overwhelming majority of adolescents are responsibly using the website."<br />
<br />
==Solutions==<br />
===Limit Access in Public Places===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Limit or eliminate the ability of individuals to access social networking sites in public places, such as schools or libraries, as in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Deleting Online Predator's Act of 2006]<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
Proponents of this approach often cite that while the primary duty to protect and educate children falls with parents, locations such as schools and libraries are places where minors often lack parental supervision, and access to social networking sites should be limited to locations where parents can monitor the activity of their children. Schools and libraries, they further contend, are places of education, and while this approach often allows exemptions for the educational study of social networking, government-maintained computers and public institutions of education are not the appropriate place for online socialization. Also, they note that while the current availability of the Internet in libraries makes the resources of cyberspace available to all, it also provides the the questionable resource of a free, quick, simple, and wide-reaching way for adults to contact minors through social networks. Limitation of social networking sites in the public, it is argued, would at least make such access and contact somewhat more difficult, while leaving the majority of the benefits of the Internet intact.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
Opponents of this approach question how much it would truly accomplish in keeping so-called "predators" at bay, as well as the true cost for such limited gains. They point out that preventing those who target children from accessing social networking sites in libraries does not prevent them from finding other ways to gain access - at home, work, or with friends. Also, while carefully limiting the behavior of children when outside of parental supervision seems a good idea in principle, a significant problem arises in attempting to legislate precisely what constitutes a "social networking site." While such sites are easily recognizable by those familiar with the technology, the current legislative definition, per the DOPA, would potentially limit access to a number of websites generally agreed to not be of a social networking nature, including Yahoo!, Slashdot, and perhaps, in the future, even Google. The implication of this fact would be to severely mitigate, if not essentially nullify entirely, the value of offering public access to the Internet in libraries at all.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<br />
<BR><br />
This approach to promoting safety on social networking sites appears to be entirely legal, a point underwritten by the fact that there is presently an act in Congress with the aim of making this particular approach into a federal law. The only presently reasonably foreseeable challenge to the law on Constitutional grounds would be the broad but historically ineffectual assertion that the tenth amendment to the Constitution prohibits federal involvement in schools and libraries. <br />
<br />
===Require Age, Consent or Identity Verification via Credit Card===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
This approach to ensuring safety on social networking sites would require users to submit credit card information upon signing up for the service. This information would guarantee any of a number of data about a user, such as age, the possession of informed parental consent, or the validity of identity information displayed on the site. Variations on this approach include the use of debit cards or bank accounts in addition to credit cards.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
The idea of requiring users of social networking sites to submit valid information is nothing new. At present, no system exists which compels users to definitively verify much if anything about themselves. Some social networking sites, such as Facebook, have preliminary checks to help ensure that a member really is from a particular area or academic institution, but for the most part these measures are easily circumvented. Proponents of requiring the entry of credit card information to sign up for social networking sites claim that this approach would provide a more effective manner of verifying identity than any measures currently in place, and would not require the establishment of any new identification system. Presentation of credit card information, they argue, would require that adults use their true names and ages when signing up for the site, and that minors have true parental consent, in order to create a social networking profile. Thus, parents would be kept more informed about their children's online behavior, and online predators would be easier to identify and monitor, screen, or eliminate from the service, as they would not be able to hide behind aliases. Additionally, potential first-time offenders would not be able to mislead minors about their identities, as names and ages of cardholders would be verifiable.<BR><BR><br />
<br />
Opponents of this approach, however, adamantly insist that it would do more harm than good. As with all legislative approaches, the problem exists of legally defining precisely what constitutes a social networking site. Perhaps more importantly, current wide definitions of social networks would require a user to submit credit card information to a wealth of websites, putting him or her at risk for unauthorized transactions by unscrupulous employees or hackers, and perhaps even identity theft. Companies would also have to shoulder the burden of storing and securing databases of very sensitive information, and would most likely be liable for breaches. Further, this approach would unfairly exclude from social networks all adults who had no credit card or bank account, and all children of such adults, as well. While adults who signed up for social networking services would in theory have their identities verified, many point out that children, especially teens, are fully (if not legitimately) capable of obtaining a parent's credit card information either without informing the parent of the purpose, or entirely without consent. While this fault does ultimately reside with the parent, it nonetheless poses a significant challenge to those who claim that parental oversight of social networking activity would be achieved by means of credit card entry.<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<BR><br />
Though perhaps unwise, this policy does seem to be legal. Any institution can require the submission of credit information, if by no other means than simply charging a trivial fee for its services. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Require Age, Consent, or Identity Verification via National Identification===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
This approach would require the establishment of a national identification card program to cover United States citizens. Potential members of social networking sites would submit their identification number and confirming password or PIN, and identity information on the site would correspond to the information in a national database associated with that individual. In the event that a minor signed up for such a site, consent would ideally be obtained directly from the parent or guardian directly from the social networking organization.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<br />
<BR><br />
Arguments both for and against establishing identity through a [http://news.com.com/National+ID+cards+on+the+way/2100-1028_3-5573414.html national identification system] largely parallel their counterparts for and against establishing identity by means of credit card information. Proponents of this approach specifically indicate that four distinct advantages present themselves in the national identification scheme over the credit card scheme. Firstly, if all individuals were to have an identification card, then it would not be difficult for those without credit cards or bank accounts, or their children, to use social networking sites. Further, the information presented by minors to such sites would be accurate - something that cannot be guaranteed by the credit card system, as minors are not cardholders. Parental consent would also be less subject to circumvention, as children would be ostensibly less likely to give fraudulent consent when the parent was contacted directly - perhaps by phone, postal mail, or email - rather than when mere possession of a credit card. Finally, the risk of the theft of credit information would not be present in a system which did not retain that information at all.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
Opponents, however, see more danger in the proposal of a national identity program alone, notwithstanding its use for social networking sites, than in the idea of using credit information to verify social networking information. National identification at all, they argue, would be a dangerous step in the direction of tighter government monitoring of American citizens, and would eventually mean the renunciation of further precepts of privacy, whether they be rights or privileges. Additionally, a centralized federal database of identity information, as well as the association of this information with numerous social networking accounts, would place users at perhaps an even greater risk for identity theft than any other safety scheme herein discussed. The registration of minors in particular poses an entirely different set of concerns, largely unrelated to this topic. It would be likely, as well, that any national identification program would be used, as social security numbers are now, for a number of different purposes relating to private information, meaning that a failure in the security of a social networking site could lead to a host of other problems for the site's users. Possession of parental consent by minors, while more likely than in the credit card scheme, would neither be guaranteed by these means. Undoubtedly, however, the most daunting problem with this idea is the establishment of a national identity program itself, which would most likely have to be government-mandated in order to ensure accuracy. Finally, it is doubtful that this would provide a complete fix to the problem, as most social networking sites are open to locations outside of the United States, which would be unaffected by any identity confirmation requirements in this nation, as when a teen from Michigan traveled to the nation of Jordan to meet someone with whom she was acquainted on a social network.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<BR><br />
While no specific legislation exists to prohibit this particular approach, previous attempts to begin a national identification card program has met with significant opposition, both from private organizations and [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9026324 from the states,] and would probably be challenged in the courts if enacted.<br />
===Restricting or Prohibiting Access...===<br />
'''Overview of Idea'''<BR><br />
The central idea for forcibly protecting the safety of minors on social networking sites is to limit access to such sites by those considered most likely to become potential victims, or those most likely to become potential abusers, or both. While this eliminates the risk of potentially unsafe incidents between these two groups, it raises serious questions, as well. Of course, moreover, the ability to block a specific portion of the population from social networking sites also requires that their computer usage be tracked and monitored, an idea alone with which many people take issue. Either a suspiciously Orwellian technological solution or vast armies of parole officers would be necessary for a number of the suggestions below.<br />
<br />
<I>...by Age</I><BR><br />
Due to the Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act, children under the age of 13 cannot sign up for memberships to any website without "verifiable" parental consent. Myspace, one of the major online social networking sites, requires its users to be at least 14 years of age, or rather, to report that they are at least 14 years of age, to register for an account. However, many wonder if this age limit is too low - whether 14-year-olds can fully grasp the possible repercussions of exposing personal data - everything from one's likes and dislikes, to a list of friends, to potentially exploitable photographs - online. There have been suggestions to raise this limit to anywhere between sixteen and eighteen. While this change would manifest a significant negative impact on the business and user base of several social networking sites, it would certainly put younger children out of harm's way. More importantly, however, is the statement that imposing this limit by means of legislation would make about children's rights, and the right of parents to govern their child's behavior as they see fit. Children's rights, relative to adults, are curtailed, to be sure. How many activities, however, purely innocent and recreational if not for the few who exploit the system, must the government legislate away in the name of safety? Do they truly have the right to do so? On the other hand, if it prevents abductions or abuse, does the question of authority really matter? More immediately, however, is the question of how, without a national ID card program, children who desire to use social networks can be expected to report their actual ages.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by Felons</I><BR><br />
By law, individuals who commit a felony already forfeit a number of their rights as United States citizens, such as the right to vote or to hold certain political offices. It has been suggested that future social networking legislation also force felons to forfeit the right to create or use a social networking account. Essentially, the thinking behind this approach reasons that commission of a felony may be a "risk factor" for exploitation of children online - that felons are more likely than law-abiding citizens to be or to become online predators. Unfortunately, this is largely unsubstantiated, especially for those whose infractions have no relation to child exploitation or cyber-crime. Opponents argue that the punishment of prohibition of online social networking does not universally fit felony crimes. Thus, this policy might be challenged as "unusual" punishment on a Constitutional basis.<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by the Mentally Ill</I><BR><br />
Much as with the commission of a felony, some believe there to be a correlation between severe mental illness and the tendency to exploit or abuse minors. In fact, it has been argued that the desire to sexually abuse children in and of itself constitutes a mental illness. In many states, those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and thus judged to be a danger to themselves or others, are prohibited from owning a firearm. The idea has been brought forth that these people, having already been judged by professionals to be a danger in some capacity, be barred from social networking sites, as they there could pose a new sort of danger to the site's members. This is somewhat more accepted than the idea of banning all felons, as mental illness more closely relates to sociopathic or unpredictable behavior than does the commission of most crimes, but some still see it as the repression of a group whose members need more help than regulation.<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by the Domestically Violent</I><BR><br />
Prohibition of the domestically violent from using social networking sites has been suggested, not so much as a means of protecting the young, but of protecting anyone, minor or adult, with whom an unstable person might enter into a potentially dangerous relationship. As with most restrictions on the domestically violent, this would most likely be a temporary ban for a court-determined duration. Opponents contend that there is little to no precedent for such a ban, and that domestic violence does not necessarily correlate with negative behavior in online social networks, but there have been cases where the domestically violent were forbidden from relationships, and so this option is not unthinkable. However, this would most likely be applied on a case-by-case basis than as a general rule.<BR><BR><br />
<I>..by Sexual Offenders</I><BR><br />
Of all the proposals to ensure the safety of social network users by government means, this plan, many would agree, receives the least opposition. It is well-known that those with a history of sexual violence are prone to repeat episodes, and social networking sites provide an easy, free forum for sexual offenders to meet, trail, and target potential victims. Voluntarily, Myspace recently canceled the accounts of thousands of registered sex offenders, indicating that legislation is not necessary for action to be taken on this front. LiveJournal, a web-blog site with social networking capabilities, recently deleted numerous blogs which advocated pedophilia. If if unburdened by any sincere concern for the safety of their members, social networking sites have reason to fear a flurry of bad publicity and public outcry against them if they do not take action against known sexual offenders, both by individuals and by citizen's advocacy groups such as Perverted Justice. However, there is considerable push to forcibly legislate the prohibition of sexual offenders from social networks entirely. Opponents claim that this would not render social networks a "safe place," for first-time offenders would be left unchecked by this policy, but because of the grievous nature of sex crimes, the nature of social network abuse, and the fact that there already exists a system to track and monitor these individuals, it is unlikely to face strong resistance. Recently, Kentucky required sex offenders in its borders to register their electronic communication addresses with the state, specifically for use by social networking sites for cross-checks and account cancellations. Of course, only the most extreme forms of this solution or the coupling of this solution with a form of guaranteed identification would prevent these offenders from registering with aliases, but to most, prohibiting such heinous criminals from using social networks seems like a step in the right direction. Others, however, point to the large degree to which the liberty which former sexual offenders surrender, and wonder whether banning these people from Internet sites is in fact a step toward oppression.<br />
<br />
===Limitation of Posted and Available Information by Age===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Given a way to verify the ages of social network subscribers, organizations could limit the nature of the information which younger users could put online, or the nature of the information that they could obtain from other users, thus making their presence on social networking sites less conspicuous to abusers.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<br />
This approach addresses two facets of online networks which make victims and abusers prone to interaction. Acknowledging that sexual predators will find ways to use social networks - even in defiance of law and security measures - limiting the amount and type of information placed in social network profiles by age attempts to make younger victims less accessible, perhaps less attractive, and hopefully less vulnerable to sexual predators. For instance, given that people are more likely to be attracted - perversely or not - to people whom they can see, younger users of social networking sites could be prohibited from posting photographs. Given, also, that younger children may not understand what is or is not appropriate online or is or is not likely to attract sexual predators, they could be prohibited from posting blogs in which they may chronicle their days, or their profiles could be scanned algorithmically for personally identifying information, which could be automatically removed. Also, many online services, though no major social networking sites, have parental control settings by which younger users may be forbidden from direct contact with all but a specifically approved whitelist of friends. Thus, younger children would retain the ability to use social networking sites, but several of the factors which may make them likely to be targeted by abusers - visual attractiveness, availability for activities such as stalking, personal identification of or with the victim, and personal contact for developing a relationship with, or "grooming" of, the victim, would be eliminated. As level of site availability would be controlled by age, young users would have the same sort of access as their friends, allowing social networks to continue to be used for many of the same benign purposes as they are today, while hopefully reducing the tendency of their exploitation for illegal activity.<BR><BR><br />
Opponents of this approach contend that limiting social networking sites' function for younger users may also limit their appeal, and lead to the downfall of this form of communication. Further, they point out that to stratify social network access by age, one must first successfully and accurately identify the ages of the users, which is not currently possible and would ostensibly require a system such as the national identification card suggestion, above, which would have its own set of inherent fixes to the problem of social network abuse. Thus, this approach is often lambasted as being either ineffectual, or, if accommodations are made for its implementation, superfluous.<BR><BR><br />
===Parental Oversight and Education===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Those intent on the abuse or exploitation of children will always - despite legal requirements or other forms of deterrence - find a way to work towards their perverse goals. Social networking sites are one forum for these attempts at the exploitation of the young. No matter what the government may enact or legislate, responsibility rests with the parents to raise and educate their children in such a way that they are informed, able, and have an active desire to avoid potentially compromising situations online.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
The responsibility to raise, instill values upon, and protect a child ultimately rests with the parents. Social networking sites, and the Internet in general, are a forum about which parents are often ignorant, but in today's world wherein these activities form such significant portions of children's social lives, and wherein such damage can be done to children, many boldly claim that this ignorance is a failure of parenting. Parents need to remain informed about their children's online habits and behavior, and need to instruct their children in what is and is not appropriate online to do online. Parents should instill in their children a desire to behave appropriately, whether on social networking sites or otherwise. Much as children are taught not to accept candy or rides from strangers, parents should issue grave warnings about the dangers of the social networking world. This is not to say that meeting an individual online is inherently bad, but children need to know, and desire to avoid, behaviors which will attract those with impure motives. If parents can raise their children in such a value system that they understand that private information is to be kept private, that the Internet isn't necessarily, but can be dangerous place for too much to be said about oneself, that provocative or sexually suggestive photographs are not something to be appreciated and that their sentiments to something to be emulated, that the provision of hundreds of photos of oneself to the public world is perhaps vanity, and that social networking users carefully judge the character of those with whom they come into contact, there would be little need for government legislation. After all, sexual predators are much less likely to find users who do not offer visual stimulation, often freely given today in the form of entirely inappropriate photographs on public social networking sites of ever-younger children. If a child, further, refuses to communicate with a predator, then no danger exists, even with unrestricted and unlegislated use of social networking sites. If children do not understand or value behavior by which they can protect themselves online, then parents have a duty to protect them, and to raise them in such a way that they will eventually be able to make positive ethical choices for the safe, productive, and fun use of social networks.<BR><BR><br />
Few reasonable citizens oppose the idea that parents should raise their children with the knowledge and desire to protect themselves online. However, opponents of featuring this approach simply point out that it is not enough, alone, to protect minors on social networking sites. Parents, too often, are uninformed about or uninterested in protecting their children. Others lack the background, knowledge, or desire to raise and care for their children appropriately. Were this not the case, the vast majority of child protection legislation would be unnecessary, and the Departments of Social Services of every state would have no reason to exist. However, merely because one has a child does not mean that one is a good parent, and many point out how relying solely on parents to protect children from the dangers of social networking sites may be entirely unreliable and naive. In short, though it is unfortunate, the truth is that many parents are inept, especially in the realm of technology into which social networking sites fall. While the government cannot legislate the rearing of a child, child protection legislation is routinely needed as a safeguard against the parenting shortcomings of adults.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<br />
The raising of children in a way to make them aware and conscientious of the dangers which social networking sites can potentially pose hardly intersects with the concerns of legality. Legal questions do arise, however, when a parent fails, through a lack of instruction, care, ability, or for some other reason, to protect their child from harm. The degree to which the state should be involved is a hotly debated and deeply personal question, but few disagree that when parents fail, legal measures, whether legislation or litigation, are necessary for the protection of minors. <br />
==Legislation==<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Children's Online Privacy Protection Act(1998)] - Requires "verifiable parental consent" for the collection of personal data from children under 13 years of age.<BR><BR><br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Deleting Online Predators Act(2006)] - Would require schools and libraries receiving federal funding to prohibit the use of chat rooms or very broadly-defined social networking sites for anything but strictly educational use.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/sum/sb59.htm Untitled Georgia bill concerning online predators(2007)] - Would require that social networking sites get consent of a minor child's parent before that child could create or maintain a social networking profile, and would require that the parent be given full access to said profile.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=S+132 North Carolina Protect Children from Sexual Predators Act(2007)]([http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/video/1644777/ Video]) - Would require parental consent and access for social networking sites of users under 16, and would prohibit convicted sexual offenders from using social networking sites.<BR><BR><br />
[http://cya.oklibshare.org/blog/house-bill-1715/ Oklahoma HB1715(2007)] - Would require adult supervision for access of the Internet by minor children in libraries, and the blocking of social networking sites on library computers.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1682&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=29749&SessionID=51 Illinois Social Networking Prohibition Act(2007)] - Would require schools and libraries to block all access to social networking sites.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/07rs/SB65.htm Kentucky SB65(2007)] - Requires all registered sex offenders to submit their email and instant messaging addresses for cross-referencing with the user rolls of social networking sites.<br />
<br />
[http://www.saura.completelyfreehosting.com/Safety%20and%20Internet%20Social%20Networks.htm Table of Contents]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_5,_Group_6&diff=2151CSC 379:Week 5, Group 62007-08-05T03:46:45Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Safety and Internet Social Networks=<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Internet social network sites are services designed to link together communities of people, often those with similar interests, backgrounds, or goals. They usually require a user to sign up and create a profile to represent him or herself, and on the profile the user may usually include pictures, personal background, lists of interests and friends, and even music. The sites also offer multiple ways in which users may interact with each other, including chatting, messaging, blogging, video and voice chat, and sharing music or other files. Popular examples of internet social network sites include [http://www.myspace.com MySpace], [http://www.facebook.com Facebook], [http://www.livejournal.com LiveJournal], [http://www.flickr.com Flickr], [http://www.orkut.com orkut], and [http://www.last.fm Last.fm].<br />
<br />
The rapid growth of these sites has led to a growing concern over the safety issues inherent in disseminating information about oneself online. Of particular concern is the use of social networking sites by children and young teenagers who may be vulnerable to sexual predators who use the sites to find victims. The site MySpace in particular has come under increased scrutiny after several high-profile cases in which men molested underage girls they met using the site. To limit use by children, many sites institute an age limit for members; MySpace's age limit, for example, is 14. However, these limits are largely not enforced, and it is therefore easy for an underage child or teenager to sign up by falsifying his or her age. Because of concern over this issue, advocates have proposed a number of possible solutions to increase the safety of internet social networks.<br />
<br />
Some, however, think the danger associated with social networking sites is not as large as recent media attention portrays it to be. A recent study published in the [http://www.elsevier.com/locate/adolescence Journal of Adolescence] found that most MySpace users under the age of 18 guarded their personal information to varying degrees. According to the researchers, "when considered in its proper context, these results indicate that the problem of personal information disclosure on MySpace may not be as widespread as many assume, and that the overwhelming majority of adolescents are responsibly using the website."<br />
<br />
==Solutions==<br />
===Limit Access in Public Places===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Limit or eliminate the ability of individuals to access social networking sites in public places, such as schools or libraries, as in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Deleting Online Predator's Act of 2006]<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
Proponents of this approach often cite that while the primary duty to protect and educate children falls with parents, locations such as schools and libraries are places where minors often lack parental supervision, and access to social networking sites should be limited to locations where parents can monitor the activity of their children. Schools and libraries, they further contend, are places of education, and while this approach often allows exemptions for the educational study of social networking, government-maintained computers and public institutions of education are not the appropriate place for online socialization. Also, they note that while the current availability of the Internet in libraries makes the resources of cyberspace available to all, it also provides the the questionable resource of a free, quick, simple, and wide-reaching way for adults to contact minors through social networks. Limitation of social networking sites in the public, it is argued, would at least make such access and contact somewhat more difficult, while leaving the majority of the benefits of the Internet intact.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
Opponents of this approach question how much it would truly accomplish in keeping so-called "predators" at bay, as well as the true cost for such limited gains. They point out that preventing those who target children from accessing social networking sites in libraries does not prevent them from finding other ways to gain access - at home, work, or with friends. Also, while carefully limiting the behavior of children when outside of parental supervision seems a good idea in principle, a significant problem arises in attempting to legislate precisely what constitutes a "social networking site." While such sites are easily recognizable by those familiar with the technology, the current legislative definition, per the DOPA, would potentially limit access to a number of websites generally agreed to not be of a social networking nature, including Yahoo!, Slashdot, and perhaps, in the future, even Google. The implication of this fact would be to severely mitigate, if not essentially nullify entirely, the value of offering public access to the Internet in libraries at all.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<br />
<BR><br />
This approach to promoting safety on social networking sites appears to be entirely legal, a point underwritten by the fact that there is presently an act in Congress with the aim of making this particular approach into a federal law. The only presently reasonably foreseeable challenge to the law on Constitutional grounds would be the broad but historically ineffectual assertion that the tenth amendment to the Constitution prohibits federal involvement in schools and libraries. <br />
<br />
===Require Age, Consent or Identity Verification via Credit Card===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
This approach to ensuring safety on social networking sites would require users to submit credit card information upon signing up for the service. This information would guarantee any of a number of data about a user, such as age, the possession of informed parental consent, or the validity of identity information displayed on the site. Variations on this approach include the use of debit cards or bank accounts in addition to credit cards.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
The idea of requiring users of social networking sites to submit valid information is nothing new. At present, no system exists which compels users to definitively verify much if anything about themselves. Some social networking sites, such as Facebook, have preliminary checks to help ensure that a member really is from a particular area or academic institution, but for the most part these measures are easily circumvented. Proponents of requiring the entry of credit card information to sign up for social networking sites claim that this approach would provide a more effective manner of verifying identity than any measures currently in place, and would not require the establishment of any new identification system. Presentation of credit card information, they argue, would require that adults use their true names and ages when signing up for the site, and that minors have true parental consent, in order to create a social networking profile. Thus, parents would be kept more informed about their children's online behavior, and online predators would be easier to identify and monitor, screen, or eliminate from the service, as they would not be able to hide behind aliases. Additionally, potential first-time offenders would not be able to mislead minors about their identities, as names and ages of cardholders would be verifiable.<BR><BR><br />
<br />
Opponents of this approach, however, adamantly insist that it would do more harm than good. As with all legislative approaches, the problem exists of legally defining precisely what constitutes a social networking site. Perhaps more importantly, current wide definitions of social networks would require a user to submit credit card information to a wealth of websites, putting him or her at risk for unauthorized transactions by unscrupulous employees or hackers, and perhaps even identity theft. Companies would also have to shoulder the burden of storing and securing databases of very sensitive information, and would most likely be liable for breaches. Further, this approach would unfairly exclude from social networks all adults who had no credit card or bank account, and all children of such adults, as well. While adults who signed up for social networking services would in theory have their identities verified, many point out that children, especially teens, are fully (if not legitimately) capable of obtaining a parent's credit card information either without informing the parent of the purpose, or entirely without consent. While this fault does ultimately reside with the parent, it nonetheless poses a significant challenge to those who claim that parental oversight of social networking activity would be achieved by means of credit card entry.<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<BR><br />
Though perhaps unwise, this policy does seem to be legal. Any institution can require the submission of credit information, if by no other means than simply charging a trivial fee for its services. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Require Age, Consent, or Identity Verification via National Identification===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
This approach would require the establishment of a national identification card program to cover United States citizens. Potential members of social networking sites would submit their identification number and confirming password or PIN, and identity information on the site would correspond to the information in a national database associated with that individual. In the event that a minor signed up for such a site, consent would ideally be obtained directly from the parent or guardian directly from the social networking organization.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<br />
<BR><br />
Arguments both for and against establishing identity through a [http://news.com.com/National+ID+cards+on+the+way/2100-1028_3-5573414.html national identification system] largely parallel their counterparts for and against establishing identity by means of credit card information. Proponents of this approach specifically indicate that four distinct advantages present themselves in the national identification scheme over the credit card scheme. Firstly, if all individuals were to have an identification card, then it would not be difficult for those without credit cards or bank accounts, or their children, to use social networking sites. Further, the information presented by minors to such sites would be accurate - something that cannot be guaranteed by the credit card system, as minors are not cardholders. Parental consent would also be less subject to circumvention, as children would be ostensibly less likely to give fraudulent consent when the parent was contacted directly - perhaps by phone, postal mail, or email - rather than when mere possession of a credit card. Finally, the risk of the theft of credit information would not be present in a system which did not retain that information at all.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
Opponents, however, see more danger in the proposal of a national identity program alone, notwithstanding its use for social networking sites, than in the idea of using credit information to verify social networking information. National identification at all, they argue, would be a dangerous step in the direction of tighter government monitoring of American citizens, and would eventually mean the renunciation of further precepts of privacy, whether they be rights or privileges. Additionally, a centralized federal database of identity information, as well as the association of this information with numerous social networking accounts, would place users at perhaps an even greater risk for identity theft than any other safety scheme herein discussed. The registration of minors in particular poses an entirely different set of concerns, largely unrelated to this topic. It would be likely, as well, that any national identification program would be used, as social security numbers are now, for a number of different purposes relating to private information, meaning that a failure in the security of a social networking site could lead to a host of other problems for the site's users. Possession of parental consent by minors, while more likely than in the credit card scheme, would neither be guaranteed by these means. Undoubtedly, however, the most daunting problem with this idea is the establishment of a national identity program itself, which would most likely have to be government-mandated in order to ensure accuracy. Finally, it is doubtful that this would provide a complete fix to the problem, as most social networking sites are open to locations outside of the United States, which would be unaffected by any identity confirmation requirements in this nation, as when a teen from Michigan traveled to the nation of Jordan to meet someone with whom she was acquainted on a social network.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<BR><br />
While no specific legislation exists to prohibit this particular approach, previous attempts to begin a national identification card program has met with significant opposition, both from private organizations and [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9026324 from the states,] and would probably be challenged in the courts if enacted.<br />
===Restricting or Prohibiting Access...===<br />
'''Overview of Idea'''<BR><br />
The central idea for forcibly protecting the safety of minors on social networking sites is to limit access to such sites by those considered most likely to become potential victims, or those most likely to become potential abusers, or both. While this eliminates the risk of potentially unsafe incidents between these two groups, it raises serious questions, as well. Of course, moreover, the ability to block a specific portion of the population from social networking sites also requires that their computer usage be tracked and monitored, an idea alone with which many people take issue. Either a suspiciously Orwellian technological solution or vast armies of parole officers would be necessary for a number of the suggestions below.<br />
<br />
<I>...by Age</I><BR><br />
Due to the Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act, children under the age of 13 cannot sign up for memberships to any website without "verifiable" parental consent. Myspace, one of the major online social networking sites, requires its users to be at least 14 years of age, or rather, to report that they are at least 14 years of age, to register for an account. However, many wonder if this age limit is too low - whether 14-year-olds can fully grasp the possible repercussions of exposing personal data - everything from one's likes and dislikes, to a list of friends, to potentially exploitable photographs - online. There have been suggestions to raise this limit to anywhere between sixteen and eighteen. While this change would manifest a significant negative impact on the business and user base of several social networking sites, it would certainly put younger children out of harm's way. More importantly, however, is the statement that imposing this limit by means of legislation would make about children's rights, and the right of parents to govern their child's behavior as they see fit. Children's rights, relative to adults, are curtailed, to be sure. How many activities, however, purely innocent and recreational if not for the few who exploit the system, must the government legislate away in the name of safety? Do they truly have the right to do so? On the other hand, if it prevents abductions or abuse, does the question of authority really matter? More immediately, however, is the question of how, without a national ID card program, children who desire to use social networks can be expected to report their actual ages.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by Felons</I><BR><br />
By law, individuals who commit a felony already forfeit a number of their rights as United States citizens, such as the right to vote or to hold certain political offices. It has been suggested that future social networking legislation also force felons to forfeit the right to create or use a social networking account. Essentially, the thinking behind this approach reasons that commission of a felony may be a "risk factor" for exploitation of children online - that felons are more likely than law-abiding citizens to be or to become online predators. Unfortunately, this is largely unsubstantiated, especially for those whose infractions have no relation to child exploitation or cyber-crime. Opponents argue that the punishment of prohibition of online social networking does not universally fit felony crimes. Thus, this policy might be challenged as "unusual" punishment on a Constitutional basis.<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by the Mentally Ill</I><BR><br />
Much as with the commission of a felony, some believe there to be a correlation between severe mental illness and the tendency to exploit or abuse minors. In fact, it has been argued that the desire to sexually abuse children in and of itself constitutes a mental illness. In many states, those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and thus judged to be a danger to themselves or others, are prohibited from owning a firearm. The idea has been brought forth that these people, having already been judged by professionals to be a danger in some capacity, be barred from social networking sites, as they there could pose a new sort of danger to the site's members. This is somewhat more accepted than the idea of banning all felons, as mental illness more closely relates to sociopathic or unpredictable behavior than does the commission of most crimes, but some still see it as the repression of a group whose members need more help than regulation.<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by the Domestically Violent</I><BR><br />
Prohibition of the domestically violent from using social networking sites has been suggested, not so much as a means of protecting the young, but of protecting anyone, minor or adult, with whom an unstable person might enter into a potentially dangerous relationship. As with most restrictions on the domestically violent, this would most likely be a temporary ban for a court-determined duration. Opponents contend that there is little to no precedent for such a ban, and that domestic violence does not necessarily correlate with negative behavior in online social networks, but there have been cases where the domestically violent were forbidden from relationships, and so this option is not unthinkable. However, this would most likely be applied on a case-by-case basis than as a general rule.<BR><BR><br />
<I>..by Sexual Offenders</I><BR><br />
Of all the proposals to ensure the safety of social network users by government means, this plan, many would agree, receives the least opposition. It is well-known that those with a history of sexual violence are prone to repeat episodes, and social networking sites provide an easy, free forum for sexual offenders to meet, trail, and target potential victims. Voluntarily, Myspace recently canceled the accounts of thousands of registered sex offenders, indicating that legislation is not necessary for action to be taken on this front. LiveJournal, a web-blog site with social networking capabilities, recently deleted numerous blogs which advocated pedophilia. If if unburdened by any sincere concern for the safety of their members, social networking sites have reason to fear a flurry of bad publicity and public outcry against them if they do not take action against known sexual offenders, both by individuals and by citizen's advocacy groups such as Perverted Justice. However, there is considerable push to forcibly legislate the prohibition of sexual offenders from social networks entirely. Opponents claim that this would not render social networks a "safe place," for first-time offenders would be left unchecked by this policy, but because of the grievous nature of sex crimes, the nature of social network abuse, and the fact that there already exists a system to track and monitor these individuals, it is unlikely to face strong resistance. Recently, Kentucky required sex offenders in its borders to register their electronic communication addresses with the state, specifically for use by social networking sites for cross-checks and account cancellations. Of course, only the most extreme forms of this solution or the coupling of this solution with a form of guaranteed identification would prevent these offenders from registering with aliases, but to most, prohibiting such heinous criminals from using social networks seems like a step in the right direction. Others, however, point to the large degree to which the liberty which former sexual offenders surrender, and wonder whether banning these people from Internet sites is in fact a step toward oppression.<br />
<br />
===Limitation of Posted and Available Information by Age===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Given a way to verify the ages of social network subscribers, organizations could limit the nature of the information which younger users could put online, or the nature of the information that they could obtain from other users, thus making their presence on social networking sites less conspicuous to abusers.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<br />
This approach addresses two facets of online networks which make victims and abusers prone to interaction. Acknowledging that sexual predators will find ways to use social networks - even in defiance of law and security measures - limiting the amount and type of information placed in social network profiles by age attempts to make younger victims less accessible, perhaps less attractive, and hopefully less vulnerable to sexual predators. For instance, given that people are more likely to be attracted - perversely or not - to people whom they can see, younger users of social networking sites could be prohibited from posting photographs. Given, also, that younger children may not understand what is or is not appropriate online or is or is not likely to attract sexual predators, they could be prohibited from posting blogs in which they may chronicle their days, or their profiles could be scanned algorithmically for personally identifying information, which could be automatically removed. Also, many online services, though no major social networking sites, have parental control settings by which younger users may be forbidden from direct contact with all but a specifically approved whitelist of friends. Thus, younger children would retain the ability to use social networking sites, but several of the factors which may make them likely to be targeted by abusers - visual attractiveness, availability for activities such as stalking, personal identification of or with the victim, and personal contact for developing a relationship with, or "grooming" of, the victim, would be eliminated. As level of site availability would be controlled by age, young users would have the same sort of access as their friends, allowing social networks to continue to be used for many of the same benign purposes as they are today, while hopefully reducing the tendency of their exploitation for illegal activity.<BR><BR><br />
Opponents of this approach contend that limiting social networking sites' function for younger users may also limit their appeal, and lead to the downfall of this form of communication. Further, they point out that to stratify social network access by age, one must first successfully and accurately identify the ages of the users, which is not currently possible and would ostensibly require a system such as the national identification card suggestion, above, which would have its own set of inherent fixes to the problem of social network abuse. Thus, this approach is often lambasted as being either ineffectual, or, if accommodations are made for its implementation, superfluous.<BR><BR><br />
===Parental Oversight and Education===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Those intent on the abuse or exploitation of children will always - despite legal requirements or other forms of deterrence - find a way to work towards their perverse goals. Social networking sites are one forum for these attempts at the exploitation of the young. No matter what the government may enact or legislate, responsibility rests with the parents to raise and educate their children in such a way that they are informed, able, and have an active desire to avoid potentially compromising situations online.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
The responsibility to raise, instill values upon, and protect a child ultimately rests with the parents. Social networking sites, and the Internet in general, are a forum about which parents are often ignorant, but in today's world wherein these activities form such significant portions of children's social lives, and wherein such damage can be done to children, many boldly claim that this ignorance is a failure of parenting. Parents need to remain informed about their children's online habits and behavior, and need to instruct their children in what is and is not appropriate online to do online. Parents should instill in their children a desire to behave appropriately, whether on social networking sites or otherwise. Much as children are taught not to accept candy or rides from strangers, parents should issue grave warnings about the dangers of the social networking world. This is not to say that meeting an individual online is inherently bad, but children need to know, and desire to avoid, behaviors which will attract those with impure motives. If parents can raise their children in such a value system that they understand that private information is to be kept private, that the Internet isn't necessarily, but can be dangerous place for too much to be said about oneself, that provocative or sexually suggestive photographs are not something to be appreciated and that their sentiments to something to be emulated, that the provision of hundreds of photos of oneself to the public world is perhaps vanity, and that social networking users carefully judge the character of those with whom they come into contact, there would be little need for government legislation. After all, sexual predators are much less likely to find users who do not offer visual stimulation, often freely given today in the form of entirely inappropriate photographs on public social networking sites of ever-younger children. If a child, further, refuses to communicate with a predator, then no danger exists, even with unrestricted and unlegislated use of social networking sites. If children do not understand or value behavior by which they can protect themselves online, then parents have a duty to protect them, and to raise them in such a way that they will eventually be able to make positive ethical choices for the safe, productive, and fun use of social networks.<BR><BR><br />
Few reasonable citizens oppose the idea that parents should raise their children with the knowledge and desire to protect themselves online. However, opponents of featuring this approach simply point out that it is not enough, alone, to protect minors on social networking sites. Parents, too often, are uninformed about or uninterested in protecting their children. Others lack the background, knowledge, or desire to raise and care for their children appropriately. Were this not the case, the vast majority of child protection legislation would be unnecessary, and the Departments of Social Services of every state would have no reason to exist. However, merely because one has a child does not mean that one is a good parent, and many point out how relying solely on parents to protect children from the dangers of social networking sites may be entirely unreliable and naive. In short, though it is unfortunate, the truth is that many parents are inept, especially in the realm of technology into which social networking sites fall. While the government cannot legislate the rearing of a child, child protection legislation is routinely needed as a safeguard against the parenting shortcomings of adults.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<br />
The raising of children in a way to make them aware and conscientious of the dangers which social networking sites can potentially pose hardly intersects with the concerns of legality. Legal questions do arise, however, when a parent fails, through a lack of instruction, care, ability, or for some other reason, to protect their child from harm. The degree to which the state should be involved is a hotly debated and deeply personal question, but few disagree that when parents fail, legal measures, whether legislation or litigation, are necessary for the protection of minors. <br />
==Legislation==<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Children's Online Privacy Protection Act(1998)] - Requires "verifiable parental consent" for the collection of personal data from children under 13 years of age.<BR><BR><br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Deleting Online Predators Act(2006)] - Would require schools and libraries receiving federal funding to prohibit the use of chat rooms or very broadly-defined social networking sites for anything but strictly educational use.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/sum/sb59.htm Untitled Georgia bill concerning online predators(2007)] - Would require that social networking sites get consent of a minor child's parent before that child could create or maintain a social networking profile, and would require that the parent be given full access to said profile.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=S+132 North Carolina Protect Children from Sexual Predators Act(2007)]([http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/video/1644777/ Video]) - Would require parental consent and access for social networking sites of users under 16, and would prohibit convicted sexual offenders from using social networking sites.<BR><BR><br />
[http://cya.oklibshare.org/blog/house-bill-1715/ Oklahoma HB1715(2007)] - Would require adult supervision for access of the Internet by minor children in libraries, and the blocking of social networking sites on library computers.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1682&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=29749&SessionID=51 Illinois Social Networking Prohibition Act(2007)] - Would require schools and libraries to block all access to social networking sites.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/07rs/SB65.htm Kentucky SB65(2007)] - Requires all registered sex offenders to submit their email and instant messaging addresses for cross-referencing with the user rolls of social networking sites.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_5,_Group_6&diff=2150CSC 379:Week 5, Group 62007-08-05T03:33:59Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Safety and Internet Social Networks=<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Internet social network sites are services designed to link together communities of people, often those with similar interests, backgrounds, or goals. They usually require a user to sign up and create a profile to represent him or herself, and on the profile the user may usually include pictures, personal background, lists of interests and friends, and even music. The sites also offer multiple ways in which users may interact with each other, including chatting, messaging, blogging, video and voice chat, and sharing music or other files. Popular examples of internet social network sites include [http://www.myspace.com MySpace], [http://www.facebook.com Facebook], [http://www.livejournal.com LiveJournal], [http://www.flickr.com Flickr], [http://www.orkut.com orkut], and [http://www.last.fm Last.fm].<br />
<br />
The rapid growth of these sites has led to a growing concern over the safety issues inherent in disseminating information about oneself online. Of particular concern is the use of social networking sites by children and young teenagers who may be vulnerable to sexual predators who use the sites to find victims. The site MySpace in particular has come under increased scrutiny after several high-profile cases in which men molested underage girls they met using the site. To limit use by children, many sites institute an age limit for members; MySpace's age limit, for example, is 14. However, these limits are largely not enforced, and it is therefore easy for an underage child or teenager to sign up by falsifying his or her age. Because of concern over this issue, advocates have proposed a number of possible solutions to increase the safety of internet social networks.<br />
<br />
Some, however, think the danger associated with social networking sites is not as large as recent media attention portrays it to be. A recent study published in the [http://www.elsevier.com/locate/adolescence Journal of Adolescence] found that most MySpace users under the age of 18 guarded their personal information to varying degrees. According to the researchers, "when considered in its proper context, these results indicate that the problem of personal information disclosure on MySpace may not be as widespread as many assume, and that the overwhelming majority of adolescents are responsibly using the website."<br />
<br />
==Solutions==<br />
===Limit Access in Public Places===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Limit or eliminate the ability of individuals to access social networking sites in public places, such as schools or libraries, as in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Deleting Online Predator's Act of 2006]<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
Proponents of this approach often cite that while the primary duty to protect and educate children falls with parents, locations such as schools and libraries are places where minors often lack parental supervision, and access to social networking sites should be limited to locations where parents can monitor the activity of their children. Schools and libraries, they further contend, are places of education, and while this approach often allows exemptions for the educational study of social networking, government-maintained computers and public institutions of education are not the appropriate place for online socialization. Also, they note that while the current availability of the Internet in libraries makes the resources of cyberspace available to all, it also provides the the questionable resource of a free, quick, simple, and wide-reaching way for adults to contact minors through social networks. Limitation of social networking sites in the public, it is argued, would at least make such access and contact somewhat more difficult, while leaving the majority of the benefits of the Internet intact.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
Opponents of this approach question how much it would truly accomplish in keeping so-called "predators" at bay, as well as the true cost for such limited gains. They point out that preventing those who target children from accessing social networking sites in libraries does not prevent them from finding other ways to gain access - at home, work, or with friends. Also, while carefully limiting the behavior of children when outside of parental supervision seems a good idea in principle, a significant problem arises in attempting to legislate precisely what constitutes a "social networking site." While such sites are easily recognizable by those familiar with the technology, the current legislative definition, per the DOPA, would potentially limit access to a number of websites generally agreed to not be of a social networking nature, including Yahoo!, Slashdot, and perhaps, in the future, even Google. The implication of this fact would be to severely mitigate, if not essentially nullify entirely, the value of offering public access to the Internet in libraries at all.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<br />
<BR><br />
This approach to promoting safety on social networking sites appears to be entirely legal, a point underwritten by the fact that there is presently an act in Congress with the aim of making this particular approach into a federal law. The only presently reasonably foreseeable challenge to the law on Constitutional grounds would be the broad but historically ineffectual assertion that the tenth amendment to the Constitution prohibits federal involvement in schools and libraries. <br />
<br />
===Require Age, Consent or Identity Verification via Credit Card===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
This approach to ensuring safety on social networking sites would require users to submit credit card information upon signing up for the service. This information would guarantee any of a number of data about a user, such as age, the possession of informed parental consent, or the validity of identity information displayed on the site. Variations on this approach include the use of debit cards or bank accounts in addition to credit cards.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
The idea of requiring users of social networking sites to submit valid information is nothing new. At present, no system exists which compels users to definitively verify much if anything about themselves. Some social networking sites, such as Facebook, have preliminary checks to help ensure that a member really is from a particular area or academic institution, but for the most part these measures are easily circumvented. Proponents of requiring the entry of credit card information to sign up for social networking sites claim that this approach would provide a more effective manner of verifying identity than any measures currently in place, and would not require the establishment of any new identification system. Presentation of credit card information, they argue, would require that adults use their true names and ages when signing up for the site, and that minors have true parental consent, in order to create a social networking profile. Thus, parents would be kept more informed about their children's online behavior, and online predators would be easier to identify and monitor, screen, or eliminate from the service, as they would not be able to hide behind aliases. Additionally, potential first-time offenders would not be able to mislead minors about their identities, as names and ages of cardholders would be verifiable.<BR><BR><br />
<br />
Opponents of this approach, however, adamantly insist that it would do more harm than good. As with all legislative approaches, the problem exists of legally defining precisely what constitutes a social networking site. Perhaps more importantly, current wide definitions of social networks would require a user to submit credit card information to a wealth of websites, putting him or her at risk for unauthorized transactions by unscrupulous employees or hackers, and perhaps even identity theft. Companies would also have to shoulder the burden of storing and securing databases of very sensitive information, and would most likely be liable for breaches. Further, this approach would unfairly exclude from social networks all adults who had no credit card or bank account, and all children of such adults, as well. While adults who signed up for social networking services would in theory have their identities verified, many point out that children, especially teens, are fully (if not legitimately) capable of obtaining a parent's credit card information either without informing the parent of the purpose, or entirely without consent. While this fault does ultimately reside with the parent, it nonetheless poses a significant challenge to those who claim that parental oversight of social networking activity would be achieved by means of credit card entry.<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<BR><br />
Though perhaps unwise, this policy does seem to be legal. Any institution can require the submission of credit information, if by no other means than simply charging a trivial fee for its services. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Require Age, Consent, or Identity Verification via National Identification===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
This approach would require the establishment of a national identification card program to cover United States citizens. Potential members of social networking sites would submit their identification number and confirming password or PIN, and identity information on the site would correspond to the information in a national database associated with that individual. In the event that a minor signed up for such a site, consent would ideally be obtained directly from the parent or guardian directly from the social networking organization.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<br />
<BR><br />
Arguments both for and against establishing identity through a [http://news.com.com/National+ID+cards+on+the+way/2100-1028_3-5573414.html national identification system] largely parallel their counterparts for and against establishing identity by means of credit card information. Proponents of this approach specifically indicate that four distinct advantages present themselves in the national identification scheme over the credit card scheme. Firstly, if all individuals were to have an identification card, then it would not be difficult for those without credit cards or bank accounts, or their children, to use social networking sites. Further, the information presented by minors to such sites would be accurate - something that cannot be guaranteed by the credit card system, as minors are not cardholders. Parental consent would also be less subject to circumvention, as children would be ostensibly less likely to give fraudulent consent when the parent was contacted directly - perhaps by phone, postal mail, or email - rather than when mere possession of a credit card. Finally, the risk of the theft of credit information would not be present in a system which did not retain that information at all.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
Opponents, however, see more danger in the proposal of a national identity program alone, notwithstanding its use for social networking sites, than in the idea of using credit information to verify social networking information. National identification at all, they argue, would be a dangerous step in the direction of tighter government monitoring of American citizens, and would eventually mean the renunciation of further precepts of privacy, whether they be rights or privileges. Additionally, a centralized federal database of identity information, as well as the association of this information with numerous social networking accounts, would place users at perhaps an even greater risk for identity theft than any other safety scheme herein discussed. The registration of minors in particular poses an entirely different set of concerns, largely unrelated to this topic. It would be likely, as well, that any national identification program would be used, as social security numbers are now, for a number of different purposes relating to private information, meaning that a failure in the security of a social networking site could lead to a host of other problems for the site's users. Possession of parental consent by minors, while more likely than in the credit card scheme, would neither be guaranteed by these means. Undoubtedly, however, the most daunting problem with this idea is the establishment of a national identity program itself, which would most likely have to be government-mandated in order to ensure accuracy. Finally, it is doubtful that this would provide a complete fix to the problem, as most social networking sites are open to locations outside of the United States, which would be unaffected by any identity confirmation requirements in this nation, as when a teen from Michigan traveled to the nation of Jordan to meet someone with whom she was acquainted on a social network.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<BR><br />
While no specific legislation exists to prohibit this particular approach, previous attempts to begin a national identification card program has met with significant opposition, both from private organizations and [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9026324 from the states,] and would probably be challenged in the courts if enacted.<br />
===Restricting or Prohibiting Access...===<br />
'''Overview of Idea'''<BR><br />
The central idea for forcibly protecting the safety of minors on social networking sites is to limit access to such sites by those considered most likely to become potential victims, or those most likely to become potential abusers, or both. While this eliminates the risk of potentially unsafe incidents between these two groups, it raises serious questions, as well. Of course, moreover, the ability to block a specific portion of the population from social networking sites also requires that their computer usage be tracked and monitored, an idea alone with which many people take issue. Either a suspiciously Orwellian technological solution or vast armies of parole officers would be necessary for a number of the suggestions below.<br />
<br />
<I>...by Age</I><BR><br />
Due to the Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act, children under the age of 13 cannot sign up for memberships to any website without "verifiable" parental consent. Myspace, one of the major online social networking sites, requires its users to be at least 14 years of age, or rather, to report that they are at least 14 years of age, to register for an account. However, many wonder if this age limit is too low - whether 14-year-olds can fully grasp the possible repercussions of exposing personal data - everything from one's likes and dislikes, to a list of friends, to potentially exploitable photographs - online. There have been suggestions to raise this limit to anywhere between sixteen and eighteen. While this change would manifest a significant negative impact on the business and user base of several social networking sites, it would certainly put younger children out of harm's way. More importantly, however, is the statement that imposing this limit by means of legislation would make about children's rights, and the right of parents to govern their child's behavior as they see fit. Children's rights, relative to adults, are curtailed, to be sure. How many activities, however, purely innocent and recreational if not for the few who exploit the system, must the government legislate away in the name of safety? Do they truly have the right to do so? On the other hand, if it prevents abductions or abuse, does the question of authority really matter? More immediately, however, is the question of how, without a national ID card program, children who desire to use social networks can be expected to report their actual ages.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by Felons</I><BR><br />
By law, individuals who commit a felony already forfeit a number of their rights as United States citizens, such as the right to vote or to hold certain political offices. It has been suggested that future social networking legislation also force felons to forfeit the right to create or use a social networking account. Essentially, the thinking behind this approach reasons that commission of a felony may be a "risk factor" for exploitation of children online - that felons are more likely than law-abiding citizens to be or to become online predators. Unfortunately, this is largely unsubstantiated, especially for those whose infractions have no relation to child exploitation or cyber-crime. Opponents argue that the punishment of prohibition of online social networking does not universally fit felony crimes. Thus, this policy might be challenged as "unusual" punishment on a Constitutional basis.<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by the Mentally Ill</I><BR><br />
Much as with the commission of a felony, some believe there to be a correlation between severe mental illness and the tendency to exploit or abuse minors. In fact, it has been argued that the desire to sexually abuse children in and of itself constitutes a mental illness. In many states, those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and thus judged to be a danger to themselves or others, are prohibited from owning a firearm. The idea has been brought forth that these people, having already been judged by professionals to be a danger in some capacity, be barred from social networking sites, as they there could pose a new sort of danger to the site's members. This is somewhat more accepted than the idea of banning all felons, as mental illness more closely relates to sociopathic or unpredictable behavior than does the commission of most crimes, but some still see it as the repression of a group whose members need more help than regulation.<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by the Domestically Violent</I><BR><br />
Prohibition of the domestically violent from using social networking sites has been suggested, not so much as a means of protecting the young, but of protecting anyone, minor or adult, with whom an unstable person might enter into a potentially dangerous relationship. As with most restrictions on the domestically violent, this would most likely be a temporary ban for a court-determined duration. Opponents contend that there is little to no precedent for such a ban, and that domestic violence does not necessarily correlate with negative behavior in online social networks, but there have been cases where the domestically violent were forbidden from relationships, and so this option is not unthinkable. However, this would most likely be applied on a case-by-case basis than as a general rule.<BR><BR><br />
<I>..by Sexual Offenders</I><BR><br />
Of all the proposals to ensure the safety of social network users by government means, this plan, many would agree, receives the least opposition. It is well-known that those with a history of sexual violence are prone to repeat episodes, and social networking sites provide an easy, free forum for sexual offenders to meet, trail, and target potential victims. Voluntarily, Myspace recently canceled the accounts of thousands of registered sex offenders, indicating that legislation is not necessary for action to be taken on this front. LiveJournal, a web-blog site with social networking capabilities, recently deleted numerous blogs which advocated pedophilia. If if unburdened by any sincere concern for the safety of their members, social networking sites have reason to fear a flurry of bad publicity and public outcry against them if they do not take action against known sexual offenders, both by individuals and by citizen's advocacy groups such as Perverted Justice. However, there is considerable push to forcibly legislate the prohibition of sexual offenders from social networks entirely. Opponents claim that this would not render social networks a "safe place," for first-time offenders would be left unchecked by this policy, but because of the grievous nature of sex crimes, the nature of social network abuse, and the fact that there already exists a system to track and monitor these individuals, it is unlikely to face strong resistance. Recently, Kentucky required sex offenders in its borders to register their electronic communication addresses with the state, specifically for use by social networking sites for cross-checks and account cancellations. Of course, only the most extreme forms of this solution or the coupling of this solution with a form of guaranteed identification would prevent these offenders from registering with aliases, but to most, prohibiting such heinous criminals from using social networks seems like a step in the right direction. Others, however, point to the large degree to which the liberty which former sexual offenders surrender, and wonder whether banning these people from Internet sites is in fact a step toward oppression.<br />
<br />
===Limitation of Posted and Available Information by Age===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Given a way to verify the ages of social network subscribers, organizations could limit the nature of the information which younger users could put online, or the nature of the information that they could obtain from other users, thus making their presence on social networking sites less conspicuous to abusers.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<br />
This approach addresses two facets of online networks which make victims and abusers prone to interaction. Acknowledging that sexual predators will find ways to use social networks - even in defiance of law and security measures - limiting the amount and type of information placed in social network profiles by age attempts to make younger victims less accessible, perhaps less attractive, and hopefully less vulnerable to sexual predators. For instance, given that people are more likely to be attracted - perversely or not - to people whom they can see, younger users of social networking sites could be prohibited from posting photographs. Given, also, that younger children may not understand what is or is not appropriate online or is or is not likely to attract sexual predators, they could be prohibited from posting blogs in which they may chronicle their days, or their profiles could be scanned algorithmically for personally identifying information, which could be automatically removed. Also, many online services, though no major social networking sites, have parental control settings by which younger users may be forbidden from direct contact with all but a specifically approved whitelist of friends. Thus, younger children would retain the ability to use social networking sites, but several of the factors which may make them likely to be targeted by abusers - visual attractiveness, availability for activities such as stalking, personal identification of or with the victim, and personal contact for developing a relationship with, or "grooming" of, the victim, would be eliminated. As level of site availability would be controlled by age, young users would have the same sort of access as their friends, allowing social networks to continue to be used for many of the same benign purposes as they are today, while hopefully reducing the tendency of their exploitation for illegal activity.<BR><BR><br />
Opponents of this approach contend that limiting social networking sites' function for younger users may also limit their appeal, and lead to the downfall of this form of communication. Further, they point out that to stratify social network access by age, one must first successfully and accurately identify the ages of the users, which is not currently possible and would ostensibly require a system such as the national identification card suggestion, above, which would have its own set of inherent fixes to the problem of social network abuse. Thus, this approach is often lambasted as being either ineffectual, or, if accommodations are made for its implementation, superfluous.<BR><BR><br />
===Parental Oversight and Education===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Those intent on the abuse or exploitation of children will always - despite legal requirements or other forms of deterrence - find a way to work towards their perverse goals. Social networking sites are one forum for these attempts at the exploitation of the young. No matter what the government may enact or legislate, responsibility rests with the parents to raise and educate their children in such a way that they are informed, able, and have an active desire to avoid potentially compromising situations online.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
The responsibility to raise, instill values upon, and protect a child ultimately rests with the parents. Social networking sites, and the Internet in general, are a forum about which parents are often ignorant, but in today's world wherein these activities form such significant portions of children's social lives, and wherein such damage can be done to children, many boldly claim that this ignorance is a failure of parenting. Parents need to remain informed about their children's online habits and behavior, and need to instruct their children in what is and is not appropriate online to do online. Parents should instill in their children a desire to behave appropriately, whether on social networking sites or otherwise. Much as children are taught not to accept candy or rides from strangers, parents should issue grave warnings about the dangers of the social networking world. This is not to say that meeting an individual online is inherently bad, but children need to know, and desire to avoid, behaviors which will attract those with impure motives. If parents can raise their children in such a value system that they understand that private information is to be kept private, that the Internet isn't necessarily, but can be dangerous place for too much to be said about oneself, that provocative or sexually suggestive photographs are not something to be appreciated and that their sentiments to something to be emulated, that the provision of hundreds of photos of oneself to the public world is perhaps vanity, and that social networking users carefully judge the character of those with whom they come into contact, there would be little need for government legislation. After all, sexual predators are much less likely to find users who do not offer visual stimulation, often freely given today in the form of entirely inappropriate photographs on public social networking sites of ever-younger children. If a child, further, refuses to communicate with a predator, then no danger exists, even with unrestricted and unlegislated use of social networking sites. If children do not understand or value behavior by which they can protect themselves online, then parents have a duty to protect them, and to raise them in such a way that they will eventually be able to make positive ethical choices for the safe, productive, and fun use of social networks.<BR><BR><br />
Few reasonable citizens oppose the idea that parents should raise their children with the knowledge and desire to protect themselves online. However, opponents of featuring this approach simply point out that it is not enough, alone, to protect minors on social networking sites. Parents, too often, are uninformed about or uninterested in protecting their children. Others lack the background, knowledge, or desire to raise and care for their children appropriately. Were this not the case, the vast majority of child protection legislation would be unnecessary, and the Departments of Social Services of every state would have no reason to exist. However, merely because one has a child does not mean that one is a good parent, and many point out how relying solely on parents to protect children from the dangers of social networking sites may be entirely unreliable and naive. In short, though it is unfortunate, the truth is that many parents are inept, especially in the realm of technology into which social networking sites fall. While the government cannot legislate the rearing of a child, child protection legislation is routinely needed as a safeguard against the parenting shortcomings of adults.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<br />
The raising of children in a way to make them aware and conscientious of the dangers which social networking sites can potentially pose hardly intersects with the concerns of legality. Legal questions do arise, however, when a parent fails, through a lack of instruction, care, ability, or for some other reason, to protect their child from harm. The degree to which the state should be involved is a hotly debated and deeply personal question, but few disagree that when parents fail, legal measures, whether legislation or litigation, are necessary for the protection of minors. <br />
==Legislation==<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Children's Online Privacy Protection Act(1998)] - Requires "verifiable parental consent" for the collection of personal data from children under 13 years of age.<BR><BR><br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Deleting Online Predators Act(2006)] - Would require schools and libraries receiving federal funding to prohibit the use of chat rooms or very broadly-defined social networking sites for anything but strictly educational use.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/sum/sb59.htm Untitled Georgia bill concerning online predators(2007)] - Would require that social networking sites get consent of a minor child's parent before that child could create or maintain a social networking profile, and would require that the parent be given full access to said profile.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=S+132 North Carolina Protect Children from Sexual Predators Act(2007)]([http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/video/1644777/ Video]) - Would require parental consent and access for social networking sites of users under 16, and would prohibit convicted sexual offenders from using social networking sites.<BR><BR><br />
[http://cya.oklibshare.org/blog/house-bill-1715/ Oklahoma HB1715(2007)] - Would require adult supervision for access of the Internet by minor children in libraries, and the blocking of social networking sites on library computers.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1682&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=29749&SessionID=51 Illinois Social Networking Prohibition Act(2007)] - Would require schools and libraries to block all access to social networking sites.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/07rs/SB65.htm Kentucky SB65(2007)] - Requires all registered sex offenders to submit their email and instant messaging addresses for cross-referencing with the user rolls of social networking sites.<br />
<br />
==Ethical Considerations==<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Examine the ethical implications of laws that restrict use of social networking services and other internet-based software on the basis of age or criminal record (such as for sex offenders). What are the advantages of these laws and what are the trade-offs for the prospect of increased safety that these laws promise? What are some difficulties in judging the effectiveness of these laws? How does dangerous use of internet social networks by society relate to other dangerous uses of software? When may legislation be appropriate to control use of software by members of society?'''<br />
<br />
===Relevant External Links===<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Wikipedia - Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006]<br />
* [http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6198595.html ZDNet - MySpace deletes 29,000 sex offenders]<br />
* [http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/podcastnetworking.htm American Library Association - Online Social Networking and Intellectual Freedom]<br />
* [http://www.safelibraries.org/statecipalaws.htm#cipa_expansion SafeLibraries.org - CIPA 2006 Expansion Effort to Block MySpace, Etc.]<br />
* [http://www.journal-times.com/statenews/local_story_095233745.html Journal-Times - MySpace speaks about KY's new law]<br />
* [http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05494.cfm Competitive Enterprise Institute - Turning MySpace into TheirSpace]<br />
* [http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/video/1644777/ WRAL - Headline Saturday: NC Attorney General Targets MySpace.com]<br />
*[http://www.forbes.com/security/2007/01/25/myspace-security-identity-tech-security-cx_ll_0124myspaceage.html Why MySpace doesn't card.]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_5,_Group_6&diff=2149CSC 379:Week 5, Group 62007-08-05T03:04:31Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Safety and Internet Social Networks=<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Internet social network sites are services designed to link together communities of people, often those with similar interests, backgrounds, or goals. They usually require a user to sign up and create a profile to represent him or herself, and on the profile the user may usually include pictures, personal background, lists of interests and friends, and even music. The sites also offer multiple ways in which users may interact with each other, including chatting, messaging, blogging, video and voice chat, and sharing music or other files. Popular examples of internet social network sites include [http://www.myspace.com MySpace], [http://www.facebook.com Facebook], [http://www.livejournal.com LiveJournal], [http://www.flickr.com Flickr], [http://www.orkut.com orkut], and [http://www.last.fm Last.fm].<br />
<br />
The rapid growth of these sites has led to a growing concern over the safety issues inherent in disseminating information about oneself online. Of particular concern is the use of social networking sites by children and young teenagers who may be vulnerable to sexual predators who use the sites to find victims. Many sites institute an age limit to limit the use of the site by children; MySpace's age limit, for example, is 14. However, these limits are largely not enforced, and it is therefore easy for an underage child or teenager to sign up by falsifying his or her age. Because of concern over this issue, advocates have proposed a number of possible solutions to increase the safety of internet social networks.<br />
<br />
==Solutions==<br />
===Limit Access in Public Places===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Limit or eliminate the ability of individuals to access social networking sites in public places, such as schools or libraries, as in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Deleting Online Predator's Act of 2006]<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
Proponents of this approach often cite that while the primary duty to protect and educate children falls with parents, locations such as schools and libraries are places where minors often lack parental supervision, and access to social networking sites should be limited to locations where parents can monitor the activity of their children. Schools and libraries, they further contend, are places of education, and while this approach often allows exemptions for the educational study of social networking, government-maintained computers and public institutions of education are not the appropriate place for online socialization. Also, they note that while the current availability of the Internet in libraries makes the resources of cyberspace available to all, it also provides the the questionable resource of a free, quick, simple, and wide-reaching way for adults to contact minors through social networks. Limitation of social networking sites in the public, it is argued, would at least make such access and contact somewhat more difficult, while leaving the majority of the benefits of the Internet intact.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
Opponents of this approach question how much it would truly accomplish in keeping so-called "predators" at bay, as well as the true cost for such limited gains. They point out that preventing those who target children from accessing social networking sites in libraries does not prevent them from finding other ways to gain access - at home, work, or with friends. Also, while carefully limiting the behavior of children when outside of parental supervision seems a good idea in principle, a significant problem arises in attempting to legislate precisely what constitutes a "social networking site." While such sites are easily recognizable by those familiar with the technology, the current legislative definition, per the DOPA, would potentially limit access to a number of websites generally agreed to not be of a social networking nature, including Yahoo!, Slashdot, and perhaps, in the future, even Google. The implication of this fact would be to severely mitigate, if not essentially nullify entirely, the value of offering public access to the Internet in libraries at all.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<br />
<BR><br />
This approach to promoting safety on social networking sites appears to be entirely legal, a point underwritten by the fact that there is presently an act in Congress with the aim of making this particular approach into a federal law. The only presently reasonably foreseeable challenge to the law on Constitutional grounds would be the broad but historically ineffectual assertion that the tenth amendment to the Constitution prohibits federal involvement in schools and libraries. <br />
<br />
===Require Age, Consent or Identity Verification via Credit Card===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
This approach to ensuring safety on social networking sites would require users to submit credit card information upon signing up for the service. This information would guarantee any of a number of data about a user, such as age, the possession of informed parental consent, or the validity of identity information displayed on the site. Variations on this approach include the use of debit cards or bank accounts in addition to credit cards.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
The idea of requiring users of social networking sites to submit valid information is nothing new. At present, no system exists which compels users to definitively verify much if anything about themselves. Some social networking sites, such as Facebook, have preliminary checks to help ensure that a member really is from a particular area or academic institution, but for the most part these measures are easily circumvented. Proponents of requiring the entry of credit card information to sign up for social networking sites claim that this approach would provide a more effective manner of verifying identity than any measures currently in place, and would not require the establishment of any new identification system. Presentation of credit card information, they argue, would require that adults use their true names and ages when signing up for the site, and that minors have true parental consent, in order to create a social networking profile. Thus, parents would be kept more informed about their children's online behavior, and online predators would be easier to identify and monitor, screen, or eliminate from the service, as they would not be able to hide behind aliases. Additionally, potential first-time offenders would not be able to mislead minors about their identities, as names and ages of cardholders would be verifiable.<BR><BR><br />
<br />
Opponents of this approach, however, adamantly insist that it would do more harm than good. As with all legislative approaches, the problem exists of legally defining precisely what constitutes a social networking site. Perhaps more importantly, current wide definitions of social networks would require a user to submit credit card information to a wealth of websites, putting him or her at risk for unauthorized transactions by unscrupulous employees or hackers, and perhaps even identity theft. Companies would also have to shoulder the burden of storing and securing databases of very sensitive information, and would most likely be liable for breaches. Further, this approach would unfairly exclude from social networks all adults who had no credit card or bank account, and all children of such adults, as well. While adults who signed up for social networking services would in theory have their identities verified, many point out that children, especially teens, are fully (if not legitimately) capable of obtaining a parent's credit card information either without informing the parent of the purpose, or entirely without consent. While this fault does ultimately reside with the parent, it nonetheless poses a significant challenge to those who claim that parental oversight of social networking activity would be achieved by means of credit card entry.<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<BR><br />
Though perhaps unwise, this policy does seem to be legal. Any institution can require the submission of credit information, if by no other means than simply charging a trivial fee for its services. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Require Age, Consent, or Identity Verification via National Identification===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
This approach would require the establishment of a national identification card program to cover United States citizens. Potential members of social networking sites would submit their identification number and confirming password or PIN, and identity information on the site would correspond to the information in a national database associated with that individual. In the event that a minor signed up for such a site, consent would ideally be obtained directly from the parent or guardian directly from the social networking organization.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<br />
<BR><br />
Arguments both for and against establishing identity through a [http://news.com.com/National+ID+cards+on+the+way/2100-1028_3-5573414.html national identification system] largely parallel their counterparts for and against establishing identity by means of credit card information. Proponents of this approach specifically indicate that four distinct advantages present themselves in the national identification scheme over the credit card scheme. Firstly, if all individuals were to have an identification card, then it would not be difficult for those without credit cards or bank accounts, or their children, to use social networking sites. Further, the information presented by minors to such sites would be accurate - something that cannot be guaranteed by the credit card system, as minors are not cardholders. Parental consent would also be less subject to circumvention, as children would be ostensibly less likely to give fraudulent consent when the parent was contacted directly - perhaps by phone, postal mail, or email - rather than when mere possession of a credit card. Finally, the risk of the theft of credit information would not be present in a system which did not retain that information at all.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
Opponents, however, see more danger in the proposal of a national identity program alone, notwithstanding its use for social networking sites, than in the idea of using credit information to verify social networking information. National identification at all, they argue, would be a dangerous step in the direction of tighter government monitoring of American citizens, and would eventually mean the renunciation of further precepts of privacy, whether they be rights or privileges. Additionally, a centralized federal database of identity information, as well as the association of this information with numerous social networking accounts, would place users at perhaps an even greater risk for identity theft than any other safety scheme herein discussed. The registration of minors in particular poses an entirely different set of concerns, largely unrelated to this topic. It would be likely, as well, that any national identification program would be used, as social security numbers are now, for a number of different purposes relating to private information, meaning that a failure in the security of a social networking site could lead to a host of other problems for the site's users. Possession of parental consent by minors, while more likely than in the credit card scheme, would neither be guaranteed by these means. Undoubtedly, however, the most daunting problem with this idea is the establishment of a national identity program itself, which would most likely have to be government-mandated in order to ensure accuracy. Finally, it is doubtful that this would provide a complete fix to the problem, as most social networking sites are open to locations outside of the United States, which would be unaffected by any identity confirmation requirements in this nation, as when a teen from Michigan traveled to the nation of Jordan to meet someone with whom she was acquainted on a social network.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<BR><br />
While no specific legislation exists to prohibit this particular approach, previous attempts to begin a national identification card program has met with significant opposition, both from private organizations and [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9026324 from the states,] and would probably be challenged in the courts if enacted.<br />
===Restricting or Prohibiting Access...===<br />
'''Overview of Idea'''<BR><br />
The central idea for forcibly protecting the safety of minors on social networking sites is to limit access to such sites by those considered most likely to become potential victims, or those most likely to become potential abusers, or both. While this eliminates the risk of potentially unsafe incidents between these two groups, it raises serious questions, as well. Of course, moreover, the ability to block a specific portion of the population from social networking sites also requires that their computer usage be tracked and monitored, an idea alone with which many people take issue. Either a suspiciously Orwellian technological solution or vast armies of parole officers would be necessary for a number of the suggestions below.<br />
<br />
<I>...by Age</I><BR><br />
Due to the Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act, children under the age of 13 cannot sign up for memberships to any website without "verifiable" parental consent. Myspace, one of the major online social networking sites, requires its users to be at least 14 years of age, or rather, to report that they are at least 14 years of age, to register for an account. However, many wonder if this age limit is too low - whether 14-year-olds can fully grasp the possible repercussions of exposing personal data - everything from one's likes and dislikes, to a list of friends, to potentially exploitable photographs - online. There have been suggestions to raise this limit to anywhere between sixteen and eighteen. While this change would manifest a significant negative impact on the business and user base of several social networking sites, it would certainly put younger children out of harm's way. More importantly, however, is the statement that imposing this limit by means of legislation would make about children's rights, and the right of parents to govern their child's behavior as they see fit. Children's rights, relative to adults, are curtailed, to be sure. How many activities, however, purely innocent and recreational if not for the few who exploit the system, must the government legislate away in the name of safety? Do they truly have the right to do so? On the other hand, if it prevents abductions or abuse, does the question of authority really matter? More immediately, however, is the question of how, without a national ID card program, children who desire to use social networks can be expected to report their actual ages.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by Felons</I><BR><br />
By law, individuals who commit a felony already forfeit a number of their rights as United States citizens, such as the right to vote or to hold certain political offices. It has been suggested that future social networking legislation also force felons to forfeit the right to create or use a social networking account. Essentially, the thinking behind this approach reasons that commission of a felony may be a "risk factor" for exploitation of children online - that felons are more likely than law-abiding citizens to be or to become online predators. Unfortunately, this is largely unsubstantiated, especially for those whose infractions have no relation to child exploitation or cyber-crime. Opponents argue that the punishment of prohibition of online social networking does not universally fit felony crimes. Thus, this policy might be challenged as "unusual" punishment on a Constitutional basis.<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by the Mentally Ill</I><BR><br />
Much as with the commission of a felony, some believe there to be a correlation between severe mental illness and the tendency to exploit or abuse minors. In fact, it has been argued that the desire to sexually abuse children in and of itself constitutes a mental illness. In many states, those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and thus judged to be a danger to themselves or others, are prohibited from owning a firearm. The idea has been brought forth that these people, having already been judged by professionals to be a danger in some capacity, be barred from social networking sites, as they there could pose a new sort of danger to the site's members. This is somewhat more accepted than the idea of banning all felons, as mental illness more closely relates to sociopathic or unpredictable behavior than does the commission of most crimes, but some still see it as the repression of a group whose members need more help than regulation.<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by the Domestically Violent</I><BR><br />
Prohibition of the domestically violent from using social networking sites has been suggested, not so much as a means of protecting the young, but of protecting anyone, minor or adult, with whom an unstable person might enter into a potentially dangerous relationship. As with most restrictions on the domestically violent, this would most likely be a temporary ban for a court-determined duration. Opponents contend that there is little to no precedent for such a ban, and that domestic violence does not necessarily correlate with negative behavior in online social networks, but there have been cases where the domestically violent were forbidden from relationships, and so this option is not unthinkable. However, this would most likely be applied on a case-by-case basis than as a general rule.<BR><BR><br />
<I>..by Sexual Offenders</I><BR><br />
Of all the proposals to ensure the safety of social network users by government means, this plan, many would agree, receives the least opposition. It is well-known that those with a history of sexual violence are prone to repeat episodes, and social networking sites provide an easy, free forum for sexual offenders to meet, trail, and target potential victims. Voluntarily, Myspace recently canceled the accounts of thousands of registered sex offenders, indicating that legislation is not necessary for action to be taken on this front. LiveJournal, a web-blog site with social networking capabilities, recently deleted numerous blogs which advocated pedophilia. If if unburdened by any sincere concern for the safety of their members, social networking sites have reason to fear a flurry of bad publicity and public outcry against them if they do not take action against known sexual offenders, both by individuals and by citizen's advocacy groups such as Perverted Justice. However, there is considerable push to forcibly legislate the prohibition of sexual offenders from social networks entirely. Opponents claim that this would not render social networks a "safe place," for first-time offenders would be left unchecked by this policy, but because of the grievous nature of sex crimes, the nature of social network abuse, and the fact that there already exists a system to track and monitor these individuals, it is unlikely to face strong resistance. Recently, Kentucky required sex offenders in its borders to register their electronic communication addresses with the state, specifically for use by social networking sites for cross-checks and account cancellations. Of course, only the most extreme forms of this solution or the coupling of this solution with a form of guaranteed identification would prevent these offenders from registering with aliases, but to most, prohibiting such heinous criminals from using social networks seems like a step in the right direction. Others, however, point to the large degree to which the liberty which former sexual offenders surrender, and wonder whether banning these people from Internet sites is in fact a step toward oppression.<br />
<br />
===Limitation of Posted and Available Information by Age===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Given a way to verify the ages of social network subscribers, organizations could limit the nature of the information which younger users could put online, or the nature of the information that they could obtain from other users, thus making their presence on social networking sites less conspicuous to abusers.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<br />
This approach addresses two facets of online networks which make victims and abusers prone to interaction. Acknowledging that sexual predators will find ways to use social networks - even in defiance of law and security measures - limiting the amount and type of information placed in social network profiles by age attempts to make younger victims less accessible, perhaps less attractive, and hopefully less vulnerable to sexual predators. For instance, given that people are more likely to be attracted - perversely or not - to people whom they can see, younger users of social networking sites could be prohibited from posting photographs. Given, also, that younger children may not understand what is or is not appropriate online or is or is not likely to attract sexual predators, they could be prohibited from posting blogs in which they may chronicle their days, or their profiles could be scanned algorithmically for personally identifying information, which could be automatically removed. Also, many online services, though no major social networking sites, have parental control settings by which younger users may be forbidden from direct contact with all but a specifically approved whitelist of friends. Thus, younger children would retain the ability to use social networking sites, but several of the factors which may make them likely to be targeted by abusers - visual attractiveness, availability for activities such as stalking, personal identification of or with the victim, and personal contact for developing a relationship with, or "grooming" of, the victim, would be eliminated. As level of site availability would be controlled by age, young users would have the same sort of access as their friends, allowing social networks to continue to be used for many of the same benign purposes as they are today, while hopefully reducing the tendency of their exploitation for illegal activity.<BR><BR><br />
Opponents of this approach contend that limiting social networking sites' function for younger users may also limit their appeal, and lead to the downfall of this form of communication. Further, they point out that to stratify social network access by age, one must first successfully and accurately identify the ages of the users, which is not currently possible and would ostensibly require a system such as the national identification card suggestion, above, which would have its own set of inherent fixes to the problem of social network abuse. Thus, this approach is often lambasted as being either ineffectual, or, if accommodations are made for its implementation, superfluous.<BR><BR><br />
===Parental Oversight and Education===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Those intent on the abuse or exploitation of children will always - despite legal requirements or other forms of deterrence - find a way to work towards their perverse goals. Social networking sites are one forum for these attempts at the exploitation of the young. No matter what the government may enact or legislate, responsibility rests with the parents to raise and educate their children in such a way that they are informed, able, and have an active desire to avoid potentially compromising situations online.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
The responsibility to raise, instill values upon, and protect a child ultimately rests with the parents. Social networking sites, and the Internet in general, are a forum about which parents are often ignorant, but in today's world wherein these activities form such significant portions of children's social lives, and wherein such damage can be done to children, many boldly claim that this ignorance is a failure of parenting. Parents need to remain informed about their children's online habits and behavior, and need to instruct their children in what is and is not appropriate online to do online. Parents should instill in their children a desire to behave appropriately, whether on social networking sites or otherwise. Much as children are taught not to accept candy or rides from strangers, parents should issue grave warnings about the dangers of the social networking world. This is not to say that meeting an individual online is inherently bad, but children need to know, and desire to avoid, behaviors which will attract those with impure motives. If parents can raise their children in such a value system that they understand that private information is to be kept private, that the Internet isn't necessarily, but can be dangerous place for too much to be said about oneself, that provocative or sexually suggestive photographs are not something to be appreciated and that their sentiments to something to be emulated, that the provision of hundreds of photos of oneself to the public world is perhaps vanity, and that social networking users carefully judge the character of those with whom they come into contact, there would be little need for government legislation. After all, sexual predators are much less likely to find users who do not offer visual stimulation, often freely given today in the form of entirely inappropriate photographs on public social networking sites of ever-younger children. If a child, further, refuses to communicate with a predator, then no danger exists, even with unrestricted and unlegislated use of social networking sites. If children do not understand or value behavior by which they can protect themselves online, then parents have a duty to protect them, and to raise them in such a way that they will eventually be able to make positive ethical choices for the safe, productive, and fun use of social networks.<BR><BR><br />
Few reasonable citizens oppose the idea that parents should raise their children with the knowledge and desire to protect themselves online. However, opponents of featuring this approach simply point out that it is not enough, alone, to protect minors on social networking sites. Parents, too often, are uninformed about or uninterested in protecting their children. Others lack the background, knowledge, or desire to raise and care for their children appropriately. Were this not the case, the vast majority of child protection legislation would be unnecessary, and the Departments of Social Services of every state would have no reason to exist. However, merely because one has a child does not mean that one is a good parent, and many point out how relying solely on parents to protect children from the dangers of social networking sites may be entirely unreliable and naive. In short, though it is unfortunate, the truth is that many parents are inept, especially in the realm of technology into which social networking sites fall. While the government cannot legislate the rearing of a child, child protection legislation is routinely needed as a safeguard against the parenting shortcomings of adults.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<br />
The raising of children in a way to make them aware and conscientious of the dangers which social networking sites can potentially pose hardly intersects with the concerns of legality. Legal questions do arise, however, when a parent fails, through a lack of instruction, care, ability, or for some other reason, to protect their child from harm. The degree to which the state should be involved is a hotly debated and deeply personal question, but few disagree that when parents fail, legal measures, whether legislation or litigation, are necessary for the protection of minors. <br />
==Legislation==<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Children's Online Privacy Protection Act(1998)] - Requires "verifiable parental consent" for the collection of personal data from children under 13 years of age.<BR><BR><br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Deleting Online Predators Act(2006)] - Would require schools and libraries receiving federal funding to prohibit the use of chat rooms or very broadly-defined social networking sites for anything but strictly educational use.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/sum/sb59.htm Untitled Georgia bill concerning online predators(2007)] - Would require that social networking sites get consent of a minor child's parent before that child could create or maintain a social networking profile, and would require that the parent be given full access to said profile.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=S+132 North Carolina Protect Children from Sexual Predators Act(2007)]([http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/video/1644777/ Video]) - Would require parental consent and access for social networking sites of users under 16, and would prohibit convicted sexual offenders from using social networking sites.<BR><BR><br />
[http://cya.oklibshare.org/blog/house-bill-1715/ Oklahoma HB1715(2007)] - Would require adult supervision for access of the Internet by minor children in libraries, and the blocking of social networking sites on library computers.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1682&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=29749&SessionID=51 Illinois Social Networking Prohibition Act(2007)] - Would require schools and libraries to block all access to social networking sites.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/07rs/SB65.htm Kentucky SB65(2007)] - Requires all registered sex offenders to submit their email and instant messaging addresses for cross-referencing with the user rolls of social networking sites.<br />
<br />
==Ethical Considerations==<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Examine the ethical implications of laws that restrict use of social networking services and other internet-based software on the basis of age or criminal record (such as for sex offenders). What are the advantages of these laws and what are the trade-offs for the prospect of increased safety that these laws promise? What are some difficulties in judging the effectiveness of these laws? How does dangerous use of internet social networks by society relate to other dangerous uses of software? When may legislation be appropriate to control use of software by members of society?'''<br />
<br />
===Relevant External Links===<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Wikipedia - Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006]<br />
* [http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6198595.html ZDNet - MySpace deletes 29,000 sex offenders]<br />
* [http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/podcastnetworking.htm American Library Association - Online Social Networking and Intellectual Freedom]<br />
* [http://www.safelibraries.org/statecipalaws.htm#cipa_expansion SafeLibraries.org - CIPA 2006 Expansion Effort to Block MySpace, Etc.]<br />
* [http://www.journal-times.com/statenews/local_story_095233745.html Journal-Times - MySpace speaks about KY's new law]<br />
* [http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05494.cfm Competitive Enterprise Institute - Turning MySpace into TheirSpace]<br />
* [http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/video/1644777/ WRAL - Headline Saturday: NC Attorney General Targets MySpace.com]<br />
*[http://www.forbes.com/security/2007/01/25/myspace-security-identity-tech-security-cx_ll_0124myspaceage.html Why MySpace doesn't card.]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_5,_Group_6&diff=2148CSC 379:Week 5, Group 62007-08-05T03:02:05Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Safety and Internet Social Networks=<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Internet social network sites are services designed to link together communities of people, often those with similar interests, backgrounds, or goals. They usually require a user to sign up and create a profile to represent him or herself, and on the profile the user may usually include pictures, personal background, lists of interests and friends, and even music. The sites also offer multiple ways in which users may interact with each other, including chatting, messaging, blogging, video and voice chat, and sharing music or other files. Popular examples of internet social network sites include [http://www.myspace.com MySpace], [http://www.facebook.com Facebook], [http://www.livejournal.com LiveJournal], [http://www.flickr.com Flickr], [http://www.orkut.com orkut], and [http://www.last.fm Last.fm].<br />
<br />
The rapid growth of these sites has led to a growing concern over the safety issues inherent in disseminating information about oneself online. Of particular concern is the use of social networking sites by children and young teenagers who may be vulnerable to sexual predators who use the sites to find victims. Many sites institute an age limit to limit the use of the site by children; MySpace's age limit, for example, is 14. However, these limits are largely not enforced, and it is therefore easy for an underage child or teenager to sign up by falsifying his or her age.<br />
<br />
==Solutions==<br />
===Limit Access in Public Places===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Limit or eliminate the ability of individuals to access social networking sites in public places, such as schools or libraries, as in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Deleting Online Predator's Act of 2006]<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
Proponents of this approach often cite that while the primary duty to protect and educate children falls with parents, locations such as schools and libraries are places where minors often lack parental supervision, and access to social networking sites should be limited to locations where parents can monitor the activity of their children. Schools and libraries, they further contend, are places of education, and while this approach often allows exemptions for the educational study of social networking, government-maintained computers and public institutions of education are not the appropriate place for online socialization. Also, they note that while the current availability of the Internet in libraries makes the resources of cyberspace available to all, it also provides the the questionable resource of a free, quick, simple, and wide-reaching way for adults to contact minors through social networks. Limitation of social networking sites in the public, it is argued, would at least make such access and contact somewhat more difficult, while leaving the majority of the benefits of the Internet intact.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
Opponents of this approach question how much it would truly accomplish in keeping so-called "predators" at bay, as well as the true cost for such limited gains. They point out that preventing those who target children from accessing social networking sites in libraries does not prevent them from finding other ways to gain access - at home, work, or with friends. Also, while carefully limiting the behavior of children when outside of parental supervision seems a good idea in principle, a significant problem arises in attempting to legislate precisely what constitutes a "social networking site." While such sites are easily recognizable by those familiar with the technology, the current legislative definition, per the DOPA, would potentially limit access to a number of websites generally agreed to not be of a social networking nature, including Yahoo!, Slashdot, and perhaps, in the future, even Google. The implication of this fact would be to severely mitigate, if not essentially nullify entirely, the value of offering public access to the Internet in libraries at all.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<br />
<BR><br />
This approach to promoting safety on social networking sites appears to be entirely legal, a point underwritten by the fact that there is presently an act in Congress with the aim of making this particular approach into a federal law. The only presently reasonably foreseeable challenge to the law on Constitutional grounds would be the broad but historically ineffectual assertion that the tenth amendment to the Constitution prohibits federal involvement in schools and libraries. <br />
<br />
===Require Age, Consent or Identity Verification via Credit Card===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
This approach to ensuring safety on social networking sites would require users to submit credit card information upon signing up for the service. This information would guarantee any of a number of data about a user, such as age, the possession of informed parental consent, or the validity of identity information displayed on the site. Variations on this approach include the use of debit cards or bank accounts in addition to credit cards.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
The idea of requiring users of social networking sites to submit valid information is nothing new. At present, no system exists which compels users to definitively verify much if anything about themselves. Some social networking sites, such as Facebook, have preliminary checks to help ensure that a member really is from a particular area or academic institution, but for the most part these measures are easily circumvented. Proponents of requiring the entry of credit card information to sign up for social networking sites claim that this approach would provide a more effective manner of verifying identity than any measures currently in place, and would not require the establishment of any new identification system. Presentation of credit card information, they argue, would require that adults use their true names and ages when signing up for the site, and that minors have true parental consent, in order to create a social networking profile. Thus, parents would be kept more informed about their children's online behavior, and online predators would be easier to identify and monitor, screen, or eliminate from the service, as they would not be able to hide behind aliases. Additionally, potential first-time offenders would not be able to mislead minors about their identities, as names and ages of cardholders would be verifiable.<BR><BR><br />
<br />
Opponents of this approach, however, adamantly insist that it would do more harm than good. As with all legislative approaches, the problem exists of legally defining precisely what constitutes a social networking site. Perhaps more importantly, current wide definitions of social networks would require a user to submit credit card information to a wealth of websites, putting him or her at risk for unauthorized transactions by unscrupulous employees or hackers, and perhaps even identity theft. Companies would also have to shoulder the burden of storing and securing databases of very sensitive information, and would most likely be liable for breaches. Further, this approach would unfairly exclude from social networks all adults who had no credit card or bank account, and all children of such adults, as well. While adults who signed up for social networking services would in theory have their identities verified, many point out that children, especially teens, are fully (if not legitimately) capable of obtaining a parent's credit card information either without informing the parent of the purpose, or entirely without consent. While this fault does ultimately reside with the parent, it nonetheless poses a significant challenge to those who claim that parental oversight of social networking activity would be achieved by means of credit card entry.<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<BR><br />
Though perhaps unwise, this policy does seem to be legal. Any institution can require the submission of credit information, if by no other means than simply charging a trivial fee for its services. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Require Age, Consent, or Identity Verification via National Identification===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
This approach would require the establishment of a national identification card program to cover United States citizens. Potential members of social networking sites would submit their identification number and confirming password or PIN, and identity information on the site would correspond to the information in a national database associated with that individual. In the event that a minor signed up for such a site, consent would ideally be obtained directly from the parent or guardian directly from the social networking organization.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<br />
<BR><br />
Arguments both for and against establishing identity through a [http://news.com.com/National+ID+cards+on+the+way/2100-1028_3-5573414.html national identification system] largely parallel their counterparts for and against establishing identity by means of credit card information. Proponents of this approach specifically indicate that four distinct advantages present themselves in the national identification scheme over the credit card scheme. Firstly, if all individuals were to have an identification card, then it would not be difficult for those without credit cards or bank accounts, or their children, to use social networking sites. Further, the information presented by minors to such sites would be accurate - something that cannot be guaranteed by the credit card system, as minors are not cardholders. Parental consent would also be less subject to circumvention, as children would be ostensibly less likely to give fraudulent consent when the parent was contacted directly - perhaps by phone, postal mail, or email - rather than when mere possession of a credit card. Finally, the risk of the theft of credit information would not be present in a system which did not retain that information at all.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
Opponents, however, see more danger in the proposal of a national identity program alone, notwithstanding its use for social networking sites, than in the idea of using credit information to verify social networking information. National identification at all, they argue, would be a dangerous step in the direction of tighter government monitoring of American citizens, and would eventually mean the renunciation of further precepts of privacy, whether they be rights or privileges. Additionally, a centralized federal database of identity information, as well as the association of this information with numerous social networking accounts, would place users at perhaps an even greater risk for identity theft than any other safety scheme herein discussed. The registration of minors in particular poses an entirely different set of concerns, largely unrelated to this topic. It would be likely, as well, that any national identification program would be used, as social security numbers are now, for a number of different purposes relating to private information, meaning that a failure in the security of a social networking site could lead to a host of other problems for the site's users. Possession of parental consent by minors, while more likely than in the credit card scheme, would neither be guaranteed by these means. Undoubtedly, however, the most daunting problem with this idea is the establishment of a national identity program itself, which would most likely have to be government-mandated in order to ensure accuracy. Finally, it is doubtful that this would provide a complete fix to the problem, as most social networking sites are open to locations outside of the United States, which would be unaffected by any identity confirmation requirements in this nation, as when a teen from Michigan traveled to the nation of Jordan to meet someone with whom she was acquainted on a social network.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<BR><br />
While no specific legislation exists to prohibit this particular approach, previous attempts to begin a national identification card program has met with significant opposition, both from private organizations and [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9026324 from the states,] and would probably be challenged in the courts if enacted.<br />
===Restricting or Prohibiting Access...===<br />
'''Overview of Idea'''<BR><br />
The central idea for forcibly protecting the safety of minors on social networking sites is to limit access to such sites by those considered most likely to become potential victims, or those most likely to become potential abusers, or both. While this eliminates the risk of potentially unsafe incidents between these two groups, it raises serious questions, as well. Of course, moreover, the ability to block a specific portion of the population from social networking sites also requires that their computer usage be tracked and monitored, an idea alone with which many people take issue. Either a suspiciously Orwellian technological solution or vast armies of parole officers would be necessary for a number of the suggestions below.<br />
<br />
<I>...by Age</I><BR><br />
Due to the Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act, children under the age of 13 cannot sign up for memberships to any website without "verifiable" parental consent. Myspace, one of the major online social networking sites, requires its users to be at least 14 years of age, or rather, to report that they are at least 14 years of age, to register for an account. However, many wonder if this age limit is too low - whether 14-year-olds can fully grasp the possible repercussions of exposing personal data - everything from one's likes and dislikes, to a list of friends, to potentially exploitable photographs - online. There have been suggestions to raise this limit to anywhere between sixteen and eighteen. While this change would manifest a significant negative impact on the business and user base of several social networking sites, it would certainly put younger children out of harm's way. More importantly, however, is the statement that imposing this limit by means of legislation would make about children's rights, and the right of parents to govern their child's behavior as they see fit. Children's rights, relative to adults, are curtailed, to be sure. How many activities, however, purely innocent and recreational if not for the few who exploit the system, must the government legislate away in the name of safety? Do they truly have the right to do so? On the other hand, if it prevents abductions or abuse, does the question of authority really matter? More immediately, however, is the question of how, without a national ID card program, children who desire to use social networks can be expected to report their actual ages.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by Felons</I><BR><br />
By law, individuals who commit a felony already forfeit a number of their rights as United States citizens, such as the right to vote or to hold certain political offices. It has been suggested that future social networking legislation also force felons to forfeit the right to create or use a social networking account. Essentially, the thinking behind this approach reasons that commission of a felony may be a "risk factor" for exploitation of children online - that felons are more likely than law-abiding citizens to be or to become online predators. Unfortunately, this is largely unsubstantiated, especially for those whose infractions have no relation to child exploitation or cyber-crime. Opponents argue that the punishment of prohibition of online social networking does not universally fit felony crimes. Thus, this policy might be challenged as "unusual" punishment on a Constitutional basis.<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by the Mentally Ill</I><BR><br />
Much as with the commission of a felony, some believe there to be a correlation between severe mental illness and the tendency to exploit or abuse minors. In fact, it has been argued that the desire to sexually abuse children in and of itself constitutes a mental illness. In many states, those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and thus judged to be a danger to themselves or others, are prohibited from owning a firearm. The idea has been brought forth that these people, having already been judged by professionals to be a danger in some capacity, be barred from social networking sites, as they there could pose a new sort of danger to the site's members. This is somewhat more accepted than the idea of banning all felons, as mental illness more closely relates to sociopathic or unpredictable behavior than does the commission of most crimes, but some still see it as the repression of a group whose members need more help than regulation.<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by the Domestically Violent</I><BR><br />
Prohibition of the domestically violent from using social networking sites has been suggested, not so much as a means of protecting the young, but of protecting anyone, minor or adult, with whom an unstable person might enter into a potentially dangerous relationship. As with most restrictions on the domestically violent, this would most likely be a temporary ban for a court-determined duration. Opponents contend that there is little to no precedent for such a ban, and that domestic violence does not necessarily correlate with negative behavior in online social networks, but there have been cases where the domestically violent were forbidden from relationships, and so this option is not unthinkable. However, this would most likely be applied on a case-by-case basis than as a general rule.<BR><BR><br />
<I>..by Sexual Offenders</I><BR><br />
Of all the proposals to ensure the safety of social network users by government means, this plan, many would agree, receives the least opposition. It is well-known that those with a history of sexual violence are prone to repeat episodes, and social networking sites provide an easy, free forum for sexual offenders to meet, trail, and target potential victims. Voluntarily, Myspace recently canceled the accounts of thousands of registered sex offenders, indicating that legislation is not necessary for action to be taken on this front. LiveJournal, a web-blog site with social networking capabilities, recently deleted numerous blogs which advocated pedophilia. If if unburdened by any sincere concern for the safety of their members, social networking sites have reason to fear a flurry of bad publicity and public outcry against them if they do not take action against known sexual offenders, both by individuals and by citizen's advocacy groups such as Perverted Justice. However, there is considerable push to forcibly legislate the prohibition of sexual offenders from social networks entirely. Opponents claim that this would not render social networks a "safe place," for first-time offenders would be left unchecked by this policy, but because of the grievous nature of sex crimes, the nature of social network abuse, and the fact that there already exists a system to track and monitor these individuals, it is unlikely to face strong resistance. Recently, Kentucky required sex offenders in its borders to register their electronic communication addresses with the state, specifically for use by social networking sites for cross-checks and account cancellations. Of course, only the most extreme forms of this solution or the coupling of this solution with a form of guaranteed identification would prevent these offenders from registering with aliases, but to most, prohibiting such heinous criminals from using social networks seems like a step in the right direction. Others, however, point to the large degree to which the liberty which former sexual offenders surrender, and wonder whether banning these people from Internet sites is in fact a step toward oppression.<br />
<br />
===Limitation of Posted and Available Information by Age===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Given a way to verify the ages of social network subscribers, organizations could limit the nature of the information which younger users could put online, or the nature of the information that they could obtain from other users, thus making their presence on social networking sites less conspicuous to abusers.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<br />
This approach addresses two facets of online networks which make victims and abusers prone to interaction. Acknowledging that sexual predators will find ways to use social networks - even in defiance of law and security measures - limiting the amount and type of information placed in social network profiles by age attempts to make younger victims less accessible, perhaps less attractive, and hopefully less vulnerable to sexual predators. For instance, given that people are more likely to be attracted - perversely or not - to people whom they can see, younger users of social networking sites could be prohibited from posting photographs. Given, also, that younger children may not understand what is or is not appropriate online or is or is not likely to attract sexual predators, they could be prohibited from posting blogs in which they may chronicle their days, or their profiles could be scanned algorithmically for personally identifying information, which could be automatically removed. Also, many online services, though no major social networking sites, have parental control settings by which younger users may be forbidden from direct contact with all but a specifically approved whitelist of friends. Thus, younger children would retain the ability to use social networking sites, but several of the factors which may make them likely to be targeted by abusers - visual attractiveness, availability for activities such as stalking, personal identification of or with the victim, and personal contact for developing a relationship with, or "grooming" of, the victim, would be eliminated. As level of site availability would be controlled by age, young users would have the same sort of access as their friends, allowing social networks to continue to be used for many of the same benign purposes as they are today, while hopefully reducing the tendency of their exploitation for illegal activity.<BR><BR><br />
Opponents of this approach contend that limiting social networking sites' function for younger users may also limit their appeal, and lead to the downfall of this form of communication. Further, they point out that to stratify social network access by age, one must first successfully and accurately identify the ages of the users, which is not currently possible and would ostensibly require a system such as the national identification card suggestion, above, which would have its own set of inherent fixes to the problem of social network abuse. Thus, this approach is often lambasted as being either ineffectual, or, if accommodations are made for its implementation, superfluous.<BR><BR><br />
===Parental Oversight and Education===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Those intent on the abuse or exploitation of children will always - despite legal requirements or other forms of deterrence - find a way to work towards their perverse goals. Social networking sites are one forum for these attempts at the exploitation of the young. No matter what the government may enact or legislate, responsibility rests with the parents to raise and educate their children in such a way that they are informed, able, and have an active desire to avoid potentially compromising situations online.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
The responsibility to raise, instill values upon, and protect a child ultimately rests with the parents. Social networking sites, and the Internet in general, are a forum about which parents are often ignorant, but in today's world wherein these activities form such significant portions of children's social lives, and wherein such damage can be done to children, many boldly claim that this ignorance is a failure of parenting. Parents need to remain informed about their children's online habits and behavior, and need to instruct their children in what is and is not appropriate online to do online. Parents should instill in their children a desire to behave appropriately, whether on social networking sites or otherwise. Much as children are taught not to accept candy or rides from strangers, parents should issue grave warnings about the dangers of the social networking world. This is not to say that meeting an individual online is inherently bad, but children need to know, and desire to avoid, behaviors which will attract those with impure motives. If parents can raise their children in such a value system that they understand that private information is to be kept private, that the Internet isn't necessarily, but can be dangerous place for too much to be said about oneself, that provocative or sexually suggestive photographs are not something to be appreciated and that their sentiments to something to be emulated, that the provision of hundreds of photos of oneself to the public world is perhaps vanity, and that social networking users carefully judge the character of those with whom they come into contact, there would be little need for government legislation. After all, sexual predators are much less likely to find users who do not offer visual stimulation, often freely given today in the form of entirely inappropriate photographs on public social networking sites of ever-younger children. If a child, further, refuses to communicate with a predator, then no danger exists, even with unrestricted and unlegislated use of social networking sites. If children do not understand or value behavior by which they can protect themselves online, then parents have a duty to protect them, and to raise them in such a way that they will eventually be able to make positive ethical choices for the safe, productive, and fun use of social networks.<BR><BR><br />
Few reasonable citizens oppose the idea that parents should raise their children with the knowledge and desire to protect themselves online. However, opponents of featuring this approach simply point out that it is not enough, alone, to protect minors on social networking sites. Parents, too often, are uninformed about or uninterested in protecting their children. Others lack the background, knowledge, or desire to raise and care for their children appropriately. Were this not the case, the vast majority of child protection legislation would be unnecessary, and the Departments of Social Services of every state would have no reason to exist. However, merely because one has a child does not mean that one is a good parent, and many point out how relying solely on parents to protect children from the dangers of social networking sites may be entirely unreliable and naive. In short, though it is unfortunate, the truth is that many parents are inept, especially in the realm of technology into which social networking sites fall. While the government cannot legislate the rearing of a child, child protection legislation is routinely needed as a safeguard against the parenting shortcomings of adults.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<br />
The raising of children in a way to make them aware and conscientious of the dangers which social networking sites can potentially pose hardly intersects with the concerns of legality. Legal questions do arise, however, when a parent fails, through a lack of instruction, care, ability, or for some other reason, to protect their child from harm. The degree to which the state should be involved is a hotly debated and deeply personal question, but few disagree that when parents fail, legal measures, whether legislation or litigation, are necessary for the protection of minors. <br />
==Legislation==<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Children's Online Privacy Protection Act(1998)] - Requires "verifiable parental consent" for the collection of personal data from children under 13 years of age.<BR><BR><br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Deleting Online Predators Act(2006)] - Would require schools and libraries receiving federal funding to prohibit the use of chat rooms or very broadly-defined social networking sites for anything but strictly educational use.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/sum/sb59.htm Untitled Georgia bill concerning online predators(2007)] - Would require that social networking sites get consent of a minor child's parent before that child could create or maintain a social networking profile, and would require that the parent be given full access to said profile.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=S+132 North Carolina Protect Children from Sexual Predators Act(2007)]([http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/video/1644777/ Video]) - Would require parental consent and access for social networking sites of users under 16, and would prohibit convicted sexual offenders from using social networking sites.<BR><BR><br />
[http://cya.oklibshare.org/blog/house-bill-1715/ Oklahoma HB1715(2007)] - Would require adult supervision for access of the Internet by minor children in libraries, and the blocking of social networking sites on library computers.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1682&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=29749&SessionID=51 Illinois Social Networking Prohibition Act(2007)] - Would require schools and libraries to block all access to social networking sites.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/07rs/SB65.htm Kentucky SB65(2007)] - Requires all registered sex offenders to submit their email and instant messaging addresses for cross-referencing with the user rolls of social networking sites.<br />
<br />
==Ethical Considerations==<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Examine the ethical implications of laws that restrict use of social networking services and other internet-based software on the basis of age or criminal record (such as for sex offenders). What are the advantages of these laws and what are the trade-offs for the prospect of increased safety that these laws promise? What are some difficulties in judging the effectiveness of these laws? How does dangerous use of internet social networks by society relate to other dangerous uses of software? When may legislation be appropriate to control use of software by members of society?'''<br />
<br />
===Relevant External Links===<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Wikipedia - Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006]<br />
* [http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6198595.html ZDNet - MySpace deletes 29,000 sex offenders]<br />
* [http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/podcastnetworking.htm American Library Association - Online Social Networking and Intellectual Freedom]<br />
* [http://www.safelibraries.org/statecipalaws.htm#cipa_expansion SafeLibraries.org - CIPA 2006 Expansion Effort to Block MySpace, Etc.]<br />
* [http://www.journal-times.com/statenews/local_story_095233745.html Journal-Times - MySpace speaks about KY's new law]<br />
* [http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05494.cfm Competitive Enterprise Institute - Turning MySpace into TheirSpace]<br />
* [http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/video/1644777/ WRAL - Headline Saturday: NC Attorney General Targets MySpace.com]<br />
*[http://www.forbes.com/security/2007/01/25/myspace-security-identity-tech-security-cx_ll_0124myspaceage.html Why MySpace doesn't card.]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_5,_Group_6&diff=2147CSC 379:Week 5, Group 62007-08-05T02:54:31Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Safety and Internet Social Networks=<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Internet social network sites are services designed to link together communities of people, often those with similar interests, backgrounds, or goals. They usually require a user to sign up and create a profile to represent him or herself, and on the profile the user may usually include pictures, personal background, lists of interests and friends, and even music. The sites also offer multiple ways in which users may interact with each other, including chatting, messaging, blogging, video and voice chat, and sharing music or other files. <br />
<br />
Popular examples of internet social network sites include [http://www.myspace.com MySpace], [http://www.facebook.com Facebook], [http://www.livejournal.com LiveJournal], [http://www.flickr.com Flickr], [http://www.orkut.com orkut], and [http://www.last.fm Last.fm].<br />
<br />
==Solutions==<br />
===Limit Access in Public Places===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Limit or eliminate the ability of individuals to access social networking sites in public places, such as schools or libraries, as in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Deleting Online Predator's Act of 2006]<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
Proponents of this approach often cite that while the primary duty to protect and educate children falls with parents, locations such as schools and libraries are places where minors often lack parental supervision, and access to social networking sites should be limited to locations where parents can monitor the activity of their children. Schools and libraries, they further contend, are places of education, and while this approach often allows exemptions for the educational study of social networking, government-maintained computers and public institutions of education are not the appropriate place for online socialization. Also, they note that while the current availability of the Internet in libraries makes the resources of cyberspace available to all, it also provides the the questionable resource of a free, quick, simple, and wide-reaching way for adults to contact minors through social networks. Limitation of social networking sites in the public, it is argued, would at least make such access and contact somewhat more difficult, while leaving the majority of the benefits of the Internet intact.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
Opponents of this approach question how much it would truly accomplish in keeping so-called "predators" at bay, as well as the true cost for such limited gains. They point out that preventing those who target children from accessing social networking sites in libraries does not prevent them from finding other ways to gain access - at home, work, or with friends. Also, while carefully limiting the behavior of children when outside of parental supervision seems a good idea in principle, a significant problem arises in attempting to legislate precisely what constitutes a "social networking site." While such sites are easily recognizable by those familiar with the technology, the current legislative definition, per the DOPA, would potentially limit access to a number of websites generally agreed to not be of a social networking nature, including Yahoo!, Slashdot, and perhaps, in the future, even Google. The implication of this fact would be to severely mitigate, if not essentially nullify entirely, the value of offering public access to the Internet in libraries at all.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<br />
<BR><br />
This approach to promoting safety on social networking sites appears to be entirely legal, a point underwritten by the fact that there is presently an act in Congress with the aim of making this particular approach into a federal law. The only presently reasonably foreseeable challenge to the law on Constitutional grounds would be the broad but historically ineffectual assertion that the tenth amendment to the Constitution prohibits federal involvement in schools and libraries. <br />
<br />
===Require Age, Consent or Identity Verification via Credit Card===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
This approach to ensuring safety on social networking sites would require users to submit credit card information upon signing up for the service. This information would guarantee any of a number of data about a user, such as age, the possession of informed parental consent, or the validity of identity information displayed on the site. Variations on this approach include the use of debit cards or bank accounts in addition to credit cards.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
The idea of requiring users of social networking sites to submit valid information is nothing new. At present, no system exists which compels users to definitively verify much if anything about themselves. Some social networking sites, such as Facebook, have preliminary checks to help ensure that a member really is from a particular area or academic institution, but for the most part these measures are easily circumvented. Proponents of requiring the entry of credit card information to sign up for social networking sites claim that this approach would provide a more effective manner of verifying identity than any measures currently in place, and would not require the establishment of any new identification system. Presentation of credit card information, they argue, would require that adults use their true names and ages when signing up for the site, and that minors have true parental consent, in order to create a social networking profile. Thus, parents would be kept more informed about their children's online behavior, and online predators would be easier to identify and monitor, screen, or eliminate from the service, as they would not be able to hide behind aliases. Additionally, potential first-time offenders would not be able to mislead minors about their identities, as names and ages of cardholders would be verifiable.<BR><BR><br />
<br />
Opponents of this approach, however, adamantly insist that it would do more harm than good. As with all legislative approaches, the problem exists of legally defining precisely what constitutes a social networking site. Perhaps more importantly, current wide definitions of social networks would require a user to submit credit card information to a wealth of websites, putting him or her at risk for unauthorized transactions by unscrupulous employees or hackers, and perhaps even identity theft. Companies would also have to shoulder the burden of storing and securing databases of very sensitive information, and would most likely be liable for breaches. Further, this approach would unfairly exclude from social networks all adults who had no credit card or bank account, and all children of such adults, as well. While adults who signed up for social networking services would in theory have their identities verified, many point out that children, especially teens, are fully (if not legitimately) capable of obtaining a parent's credit card information either without informing the parent of the purpose, or entirely without consent. While this fault does ultimately reside with the parent, it nonetheless poses a significant challenge to those who claim that parental oversight of social networking activity would be achieved by means of credit card entry.<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<BR><br />
Though perhaps unwise, this policy does seem to be legal. Any institution can require the submission of credit information, if by no other means than simply charging a trivial fee for its services. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Require Age, Consent, or Identity Verification via National Identification===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
This approach would require the establishment of a national identification card program to cover United States citizens. Potential members of social networking sites would submit their identification number and confirming password or PIN, and identity information on the site would correspond to the information in a national database associated with that individual. In the event that a minor signed up for such a site, consent would ideally be obtained directly from the parent or guardian directly from the social networking organization.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<br />
<BR><br />
Arguments both for and against establishing identity through a [http://news.com.com/National+ID+cards+on+the+way/2100-1028_3-5573414.html national identification system] largely parallel their counterparts for and against establishing identity by means of credit card information. Proponents of this approach specifically indicate that four distinct advantages present themselves in the national identification scheme over the credit card scheme. Firstly, if all individuals were to have an identification card, then it would not be difficult for those without credit cards or bank accounts, or their children, to use social networking sites. Further, the information presented by minors to such sites would be accurate - something that cannot be guaranteed by the credit card system, as minors are not cardholders. Parental consent would also be less subject to circumvention, as children would be ostensibly less likely to give fraudulent consent when the parent was contacted directly - perhaps by phone, postal mail, or email - rather than when mere possession of a credit card. Finally, the risk of the theft of credit information would not be present in a system which did not retain that information at all.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
Opponents, however, see more danger in the proposal of a national identity program alone, notwithstanding its use for social networking sites, than in the idea of using credit information to verify social networking information. National identification at all, they argue, would be a dangerous step in the direction of tighter government monitoring of American citizens, and would eventually mean the renunciation of further precepts of privacy, whether they be rights or privileges. Additionally, a centralized federal database of identity information, as well as the association of this information with numerous social networking accounts, would place users at perhaps an even greater risk for identity theft than any other safety scheme herein discussed. The registration of minors in particular poses an entirely different set of concerns, largely unrelated to this topic. It would be likely, as well, that any national identification program would be used, as social security numbers are now, for a number of different purposes relating to private information, meaning that a failure in the security of a social networking site could lead to a host of other problems for the site's users. Possession of parental consent by minors, while more likely than in the credit card scheme, would neither be guaranteed by these means. Undoubtedly, however, the most daunting problem with this idea is the establishment of a national identity program itself, which would most likely have to be government-mandated in order to ensure accuracy. Finally, it is doubtful that this would provide a complete fix to the problem, as most social networking sites are open to locations outside of the United States, which would be unaffected by any identity confirmation requirements in this nation, as when a teen from Michigan traveled to the nation of Jordan to meet someone with whom she was acquainted on a social network.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<BR><br />
While no specific legislation exists to prohibit this particular approach, previous attempts to begin a national identification card program has met with significant opposition, both from private organizations and [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9026324 from the states,] and would probably be challenged in the courts if enacted.<br />
===Restricting or Prohibiting Access...===<br />
'''Overview of Idea'''<BR><br />
The central idea for forcibly protecting the safety of minors on social networking sites is to limit access to such sites by those considered most likely to become potential victims, or those most likely to become potential abusers, or both. While this eliminates the risk of potentially unsafe incidents between these two groups, it raises serious questions, as well. Of course, moreover, the ability to block a specific portion of the population from social networking sites also requires that their computer usage be tracked and monitored, an idea alone with which many people take issue. Either a suspiciously Orwellian technological solution or vast armies of parole officers would be necessary for a number of the suggestions below.<br />
<br />
<I>...by Age</I><BR><br />
Due to the Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act, children under the age of 13 cannot sign up for memberships to any website without "verifiable" parental consent. Myspace, one of the major online social networking sites, requires its users to be at least 14 years of age, or rather, to report that they are at least 14 years of age, to register for an account. However, many wonder if this age limit is too low - whether 14-year-olds can fully grasp the possible repercussions of exposing personal data - everything from one's likes and dislikes, to a list of friends, to potentially exploitable photographs - online. There have been suggestions to raise this limit to anywhere between sixteen and eighteen. While this change would manifest a significant negative impact on the business and user base of several social networking sites, it would certainly put younger children out of harm's way. More importantly, however, is the statement that imposing this limit by means of legislation would make about children's rights, and the right of parents to govern their child's behavior as they see fit. Children's rights, relative to adults, are curtailed, to be sure. How many activities, however, purely innocent and recreational if not for the few who exploit the system, must the government legislate away in the name of safety? Do they truly have the right to do so? On the other hand, if it prevents abductions or abuse, does the question of authority really matter? More immediately, however, is the question of how, without a national ID card program, children who desire to use social networks can be expected to report their actual ages.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by Felons</I><BR><br />
By law, individuals who commit a felony already forfeit a number of their rights as United States citizens, such as the right to vote or to hold certain political offices. It has been suggested that future social networking legislation also force felons to forfeit the right to create or use a social networking account. Essentially, the thinking behind this approach reasons that commission of a felony may be a "risk factor" for exploitation of children online - that felons are more likely than law-abiding citizens to be or to become online predators. Unfortunately, this is largely unsubstantiated, especially for those whose infractions have no relation to child exploitation or cyber-crime. Opponents argue that the punishment of prohibition of online social networking does not universally fit felony crimes. Thus, this policy might be challenged as "unusual" punishment on a Constitutional basis.<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by the Mentally Ill</I><BR><br />
Much as with the commission of a felony, some believe there to be a correlation between severe mental illness and the tendency to exploit or abuse minors. In fact, it has been argued that the desire to sexually abuse children in and of itself constitutes a mental illness. In many states, those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and thus judged to be a danger to themselves or others, are prohibited from owning a firearm. The idea has been brought forth that these people, having already been judged by professionals to be a danger in some capacity, be barred from social networking sites, as they there could pose a new sort of danger to the site's members. This is somewhat more accepted than the idea of banning all felons, as mental illness more closely relates to sociopathic or unpredictable behavior than does the commission of most crimes, but some still see it as the repression of a group whose members need more help than regulation.<BR><BR><br />
<I>...by the Domestically Violent</I><BR><br />
Prohibition of the domestically violent from using social networking sites has been suggested, not so much as a means of protecting the young, but of protecting anyone, minor or adult, with whom an unstable person might enter into a potentially dangerous relationship. As with most restrictions on the domestically violent, this would most likely be a temporary ban for a court-determined duration. Opponents contend that there is little to no precedent for such a ban, and that domestic violence does not necessarily correlate with negative behavior in online social networks, but there have been cases where the domestically violent were forbidden from relationships, and so this option is not unthinkable. However, this would most likely be applied on a case-by-case basis than as a general rule.<BR><BR><br />
<I>..by Sexual Offenders</I><BR><br />
Of all the proposals to ensure the safety of social network users by government means, this plan, many would agree, receives the least opposition. It is well-known that those with a history of sexual violence are prone to repeat episodes, and social networking sites provide an easy, free forum for sexual offenders to meet, trail, and target potential victims. Voluntarily, Myspace recently canceled the accounts of thousands of registered sex offenders, indicating that legislation is not necessary for action to be taken on this front. LiveJournal, a web-blog site with social networking capabilities, recently deleted numerous blogs which advocated pedophilia. If if unburdened by any sincere concern for the safety of their members, social networking sites have reason to fear a flurry of bad publicity and public outcry against them if they do not take action against known sexual offenders, both by individuals and by citizen's advocacy groups such as Perverted Justice. However, there is considerable push to forcibly legislate the prohibition of sexual offenders from social networks entirely. Opponents claim that this would not render social networks a "safe place," for first-time offenders would be left unchecked by this policy, but because of the grievous nature of sex crimes, the nature of social network abuse, and the fact that there already exists a system to track and monitor these individuals, it is unlikely to face strong resistance. Recently, Kentucky required sex offenders in its borders to register their electronic communication addresses with the state, specifically for use by social networking sites for cross-checks and account cancellations. Of course, only the most extreme forms of this solution or the coupling of this solution with a form of guaranteed identification would prevent these offenders from registering with aliases, but to most, prohibiting such heinous criminals from using social networks seems like a step in the right direction. Others, however, point to the large degree to which the liberty which former sexual offenders surrender, and wonder whether banning these people from Internet sites is in fact a step toward oppression.<br />
<br />
===Limitation of Posted and Available Information by Age===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Given a way to verify the ages of social network subscribers, organizations could limit the nature of the information which younger users could put online, or the nature of the information that they could obtain from other users, thus making their presence on social networking sites less conspicuous to abusers.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<br />
This approach addresses two facets of online networks which make victims and abusers prone to interaction. Acknowledging that sexual predators will find ways to use social networks - even in defiance of law and security measures - limiting the amount and type of information placed in social network profiles by age attempts to make younger victims less accessible, perhaps less attractive, and hopefully less vulnerable to sexual predators. For instance, given that people are more likely to be attracted - perversely or not - to people whom they can see, younger users of social networking sites could be prohibited from posting photographs. Given, also, that younger children may not understand what is or is not appropriate online or is or is not likely to attract sexual predators, they could be prohibited from posting blogs in which they may chronicle their days, or their profiles could be scanned algorithmically for personally identifying information, which could be automatically removed. Also, many online services, though no major social networking sites, have parental control settings by which younger users may be forbidden from direct contact with all but a specifically approved whitelist of friends. Thus, younger children would retain the ability to use social networking sites, but several of the factors which may make them likely to be targeted by abusers - visual attractiveness, availability for activities such as stalking, personal identification of or with the victim, and personal contact for developing a relationship with, or "grooming" of, the victim, would be eliminated. As level of site availability would be controlled by age, young users would have the same sort of access as their friends, allowing social networks to continue to be used for many of the same benign purposes as they are today, while hopefully reducing the tendency of their exploitation for illegal activity.<BR><BR><br />
Opponents of this approach contend that limiting social networking sites' function for younger users may also limit their appeal, and lead to the downfall of this form of communication. Further, they point out that to stratify social network access by age, one must first successfully and accurately identify the ages of the users, which is not currently possible and would ostensibly require a system such as the national identification card suggestion, above, which would have its own set of inherent fixes to the problem of social network abuse. Thus, this approach is often lambasted as being either ineffectual, or, if accommodations are made for its implementation, superfluous.<BR><BR><br />
===Parental Oversight and Education===<br />
'''Idea'''<BR><br />
Those intent on the abuse or exploitation of children will always - despite legal requirements or other forms of deterrence - find a way to work towards their perverse goals. Social networking sites are one forum for these attempts at the exploitation of the young. No matter what the government may enact or legislate, responsibility rests with the parents to raise and educate their children in such a way that they are informed, able, and have an active desire to avoid potentially compromising situations online.<BR><BR><br />
'''Rationale and Arguments'''<BR><br />
The responsibility to raise, instill values upon, and protect a child ultimately rests with the parents. Social networking sites, and the Internet in general, are a forum about which parents are often ignorant, but in today's world wherein these activities form such significant portions of children's social lives, and wherein such damage can be done to children, many boldly claim that this ignorance is a failure of parenting. Parents need to remain informed about their children's online habits and behavior, and need to instruct their children in what is and is not appropriate online to do online. Parents should instill in their children a desire to behave appropriately, whether on social networking sites or otherwise. Much as children are taught not to accept candy or rides from strangers, parents should issue grave warnings about the dangers of the social networking world. This is not to say that meeting an individual online is inherently bad, but children need to know, and desire to avoid, behaviors which will attract those with impure motives. If parents can raise their children in such a value system that they understand that private information is to be kept private, that the Internet isn't necessarily, but can be dangerous place for too much to be said about oneself, that provocative or sexually suggestive photographs are not something to be appreciated and that their sentiments to something to be emulated, that the provision of hundreds of photos of oneself to the public world is perhaps vanity, and that social networking users carefully judge the character of those with whom they come into contact, there would be little need for government legislation. After all, sexual predators are much less likely to find users who do not offer visual stimulation, often freely given today in the form of entirely inappropriate photographs on public social networking sites of ever-younger children. If a child, further, refuses to communicate with a predator, then no danger exists, even with unrestricted and unlegislated use of social networking sites. If children do not understand or value behavior by which they can protect themselves online, then parents have a duty to protect them, and to raise them in such a way that they will eventually be able to make positive ethical choices for the safe, productive, and fun use of social networks.<BR><BR><br />
Few reasonable citizens oppose the idea that parents should raise their children with the knowledge and desire to protect themselves online. However, opponents of featuring this approach simply point out that it is not enough, alone, to protect minors on social networking sites. Parents, too often, are uninformed about or uninterested in protecting their children. Others lack the background, knowledge, or desire to raise and care for their children appropriately. Were this not the case, the vast majority of child protection legislation would be unnecessary, and the Departments of Social Services of every state would have no reason to exist. However, merely because one has a child does not mean that one is a good parent, and many point out how relying solely on parents to protect children from the dangers of social networking sites may be entirely unreliable and naive. In short, though it is unfortunate, the truth is that many parents are inept, especially in the realm of technology into which social networking sites fall. While the government cannot legislate the rearing of a child, child protection legislation is routinely needed as a safeguard against the parenting shortcomings of adults.<br />
<BR><BR><br />
'''Legality'''<br />
The raising of children in a way to make them aware and conscientious of the dangers which social networking sites can potentially pose hardly intersects with the concerns of legality. Legal questions do arise, however, when a parent fails, through a lack of instruction, care, ability, or for some other reason, to protect their child from harm. The degree to which the state should be involved is a hotly debated and deeply personal question, but few disagree that when parents fail, legal measures, whether legislation or litigation, are necessary for the protection of minors. <br />
==Legislation==<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Children's Online Privacy Protection Act(1998)] - Requires "verifiable parental consent" for the collection of personal data from children under 13 years of age.<BR><BR><br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Deleting Online Predators Act(2006)] - Would require schools and libraries receiving federal funding to prohibit the use of chat rooms or very broadly-defined social networking sites for anything but strictly educational use.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/sum/sb59.htm Untitled Georgia bill concerning online predators(2007)] - Would require that social networking sites get consent of a minor child's parent before that child could create or maintain a social networking profile, and would require that the parent be given full access to said profile.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=S+132 North Carolina Protect Children from Sexual Predators Act(2007)]([http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/video/1644777/ Video]) - Would require parental consent and access for social networking sites of users under 16, and would prohibit convicted sexual offenders from using social networking sites.<BR><BR><br />
[http://cya.oklibshare.org/blog/house-bill-1715/ Oklahoma HB1715(2007)] - Would require adult supervision for access of the Internet by minor children in libraries, and the blocking of social networking sites on library computers.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1682&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=29749&SessionID=51 Illinois Social Networking Prohibition Act(2007)] - Would require schools and libraries to block all access to social networking sites.<BR><BR><br />
[http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/07rs/SB65.htm Kentucky SB65(2007)] - Requires all registered sex offenders to submit their email and instant messaging addresses for cross-referencing with the user rolls of social networking sites.<br />
<br />
==Ethical Considerations==<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Examine the ethical implications of laws that restrict use of social networking services and other internet-based software on the basis of age or criminal record (such as for sex offenders). What are the advantages of these laws and what are the trade-offs for the prospect of increased safety that these laws promise? What are some difficulties in judging the effectiveness of these laws? How does dangerous use of internet social networks by society relate to other dangerous uses of software? When may legislation be appropriate to control use of software by members of society?'''<br />
<br />
===Relevant External Links===<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006 Wikipedia - Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006]<br />
* [http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6198595.html ZDNet - MySpace deletes 29,000 sex offenders]<br />
* [http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/podcastnetworking.htm American Library Association - Online Social Networking and Intellectual Freedom]<br />
* [http://www.safelibraries.org/statecipalaws.htm#cipa_expansion SafeLibraries.org - CIPA 2006 Expansion Effort to Block MySpace, Etc.]<br />
* [http://www.journal-times.com/statenews/local_story_095233745.html Journal-Times - MySpace speaks about KY's new law]<br />
* [http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05494.cfm Competitive Enterprise Institute - Turning MySpace into TheirSpace]<br />
* [http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/video/1644777/ WRAL - Headline Saturday: NC Attorney General Targets MySpace.com]<br />
*[http://www.forbes.com/security/2007/01/25/myspace-security-identity-tech-security-cx_ll_0124myspaceage.html Why MySpace doesn't card.]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_4,_Group_4&diff=1995CSC 379:Week 4, Group 42007-07-30T22:58:19Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Biometrics and Privacy of Genetic Data=<br />
A concern with ID cards that contain biometric information is that once one is stolen, it would be more difficult for someone to reclaim their identity as the nature of the representation of biometric data that would be used would be something that would not change over a person’s lifetime (e.g. fingerprints or eye-scan)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics#Common_biometric_characteristics]. Thus for technologies that rely solely on the biometric data contained within the IDs to establish identity, once a card is stolen, ones “identity” may never be able to be reclaimed.<br />
<br />
Ethical issues related to privacy of genetic data follow closely with this topic since it suffers from similar issues as biometrics, although genetic data is much more invasive to ones privacy as society becomes more able to interpret it. There have been discussions of a constitutional amendment to prohibit genetic discrimination. If ones genetic information is made available, or information derived from, it opens the person to an increased threat of discrimination (jobs, insurance, social), as well as other threats to privacy not yet realized, but that will likely be realized within ones lifetime as there becomes a greater capability to interpret genetic data.<br />
<br />
'''What types of protections should be afforded to biometric data compared to other types of data? For genetic data? Should biometric/genetic data be incorporated into various technology from ID cards to diagnostic equipment? Examine ethical issues related storage and use.'''<br />
<br />
==Resources==<br />
===Relevant External Links:===<br />
The National Science and Technology Council some good resources related to biometrics and privacy issues.<br />
* [http://www.biometrics.gov/ReferenceRoom/Introduction.aspx Introduction to Biometrics]<br />
* [http://www.biometrics.gov/nstc/publications.aspx Biometrics and Privacy]<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's article on biometrics:<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics]<br />
<br />
EFF has an introduction to some concerns voiced about biometrics:<br />
[http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/ http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/]<br />
<br />
===Relevant Class Website Links:===<br />
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/web/identity/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/web/identity/]<br />
<br />
<br />
==What are Biometrics?==<br />
A biometric is a measure of some physical or behavioural characteristic of an individual. These measurements can then be used to identify and individual or at least aid in confirming a claimed identity. Some examples of human characteristics that can be conveniently captured in a biometric include: Fingerprints, Retinal scan, Voice, Signature, DNA, Gait. After your individual information is recorded it can be used in a biometric system.<br />
<br />
===The Purpose of Biometrics===<br />
Biometric systems have several purposes. They can verify that a person is who they claim to be by checking your information against the data the system has on you. A biometric system can identify you without you telling the system who you are by your physiological or behavioral characteristics. And biometric systems can also be used to screen individuals. The system may raise a flag or alert the police if it identifies you as being on its watch list.<br />
<br />
===Flaws in Biometric Systems===<br />
These systems are not flawless though. Depending on what characteristic is being measured, there is often a significant chance of error. Each biometric has its own false accept rate and false reject rate. A false accept rate is the chance that the biometric verifies that you are who you claim to be, when you actually aren't. The higher the percent chance for a false acceptance, the easier the system is to fool. A false reject rate is the chance that a system says you are lying about who you claim to be when you are telling the truth. The false accept rate and false reject rate of a particular biometric should be taken into account when designing an identification or verification system.<br />
<br />
==Physiological Biometric Systems==<br />
===Facial Identification===<br />
Facial identification can either identify people based on the image of their face or a thermal scan of their face. At first glance this seems to be a sound method, after all it's how people identify each other without technology. Unfortunately, there are several issues with implementing it as a technology. For cosmetic scans, the image can look very different based on lighting or could be fooled with makeup. In addition, both facial and thermal scans will change as people age. While one of the easiest and least obtrusive means of identification, it is also one of the least accurate and most easily fooled.<br />
<br />
===Fingerprint===<br />
Fingerprint identification is one of the most widely used biometric means of identification in the world today. The ridges of the skin on the finger are taken and compared to known records taken in the past. It is well suited to its task for several reasons. A person's fingerprints do not change as they age nor are they easily copied. In addition they are completely unique. Due to its widespread use there are fewer personal issues with the scanning of fingerprints than some other biometric identifiers.<br />
<br />
===Hand veins===<br />
Similar to fingerprints, the lines of the hand may also be used for identification. It is harder to fool than a fingerprint scan, but also slightly less accurate. It is also more vulnerable to changes over time than fingerprints and sometimes harder to tell the difference between the scans of two individuals. <br />
<br />
===Eye scans===<br />
There are two kinds of eye scans, one that scans the retina(blood vessels) and the other that scans the iris(colored part). Both of these share the advantage of scanning an internal organ which is less vulnerable to damage over time. Both suffer from a difficulty in building a database to compare to due to how they have to scan in addition to a lack of public approval for getting their eyes scanned. People associate the technology with something they would see in a movie and pair it will a loss of privacy as is the case in such movies.<br />
<br />
===DNA scans===<br />
DNA is the most accurate way of identifying a person. Nobody, with the exception of identical twins, will have the same DNA. Unfortunately, a sample from someone else will allow a fraudulent person to trick the system. In addition, collecting information for a database to compare scans to would be a major issue, as most people do not want to go in to a government office to have their DNA sampled. This brings up the next issue, because it is so accurate there is would be a massive loss of anonymity which would receive large public backlash. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Behavioral Biometric Systems==<br />
<br />
===Keystroke Dynamics===<br />
<br />
This method relies on the unique manner in which a user types on a keyboard to identify them. After an initial session of typing where the system learns to identify the user's typing style, the system can compare a typing pattern to the reference template it has created for the user. This form of user authentication can be inexpensive since it only requires software and an existing keyboard; however, it is not entirely reliable. Using different keyboards alters a user's typing pattern, and something as simple as being tired could affect a person's typing enough for the system to fail to recognize it. Keystroke dynamics has a false acceptance rate of 7% and a false reject rate of 0.1%.<br />
<br />
[http://play.tm/wire/click/1240438 The public versus keystroke recognition security]<br />
<br />
===Signature Verification===<br />
<br />
Signature identification analyzes an individual's signature to determine his or her identity. This can involve analyzing the signature as it is being made, or a static image of the signature after completion. These two methods can be used to examine features of either the signature itself or the process by which it was signed, including qualities such as speed, pen pressure, directions, and stroke length. Because individuals' signatures change over time, signature identification systems take into any account slight variances over time. This method has a low total error rate of about 1.5% per session. Notably, the Internal Revenue Service has used signature identification analysis for electronically filed tax returns.<br />
<br />
[http://www.vision.caltech.edu/mariomu/research/sigverif/ Visual Signature Verification]<br />
<br />
[http://www.haifa.il.ibm.com/projects/image/sv/ Online Signature Verification]<br />
<br />
===Voice Verification===<br />
<br />
Voice authentication relies on unique features in an individual's voice to confirm his or her identity. A voice authentication system extracts these features from a sample of the individual's voice, and compares them to a sample presented for verification. Ambient noise can affect the accuracy of this method, as can illness or even the emotional state of the individual. Because of this, voice verification technology may have up to a 2 – 5% false accept rate and an up to 10 – 20% false reject rate. Voice verification is used for a variety of applications, including using automated phone calls to monitor compliance of persons under house arrest.<br />
<br />
[http://www.biometricgroup.com/reports/public/reports_voice-scan.html International Biometrics Group - Voice Verification Technology]<br />
<br />
[http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2005/tc20050420_1036_tc024.htm?campaign_id=rss_techn May I See Your Voice, Please? BusinessWeek]<br />
<br />
==Ethical Issues Surrounding Biometrics==<br />
===The Permanence of Biometric Identification===<br />
Many forms of biometric data do not expire. While a person's face or voice may change some as they age, for the most part your physical and behavioral characteristics are going to stay the same throughout your life. <br />
<br />
With current forms of identification your can, for example, change your password or get a new credit card or driver's licence or passport. For the most part with biometric identification, you can't simply change your information (short of surgery). This posses a large privacy issue. Not only will anonymity be almost impossible in a world were biometric identification is the norm, but identity theft will be every more devastating because one can't simply adopt new identifying data to defeat the thief.<br />
<br />
===Biometrics as a Means of Discrimination===<br />
If a particular biometric can not be measured on a person-- they are missing a finger, for example-- then inherently that person is going to seem more suspicious. Administrators of the system might think: "Sure maybe they have a legitimate reason for not doing the fingerprint ID, but maybe they are trying to bypass the system." <br />
<br />
Biometrics systems could be used in small scale discriminatory screening processes such as stores using a biometric ID system to deny business to those found guilty of shoplifting in the past.<br />
<br />
===Steps to Take to Mitigate Invasion of Privacy===<br />
Paraphrased from the [http://www.bioprivacy.org/ IBG BioPrivacy Initiative]<br />
<br />
* Biometric systems should only be expanded when absolutely necessary.<br />
* Systems should not be expanded without public knowledge. <br />
* Biometric information should not be used as a universal unique identifier. <br>"Universal unique identifiers facilitate the gathering and collection of personal information from various databases, and can represent a significant threat to privacy if misused."<br />
* These systems should not store more information about an individual than is absolutely necessary to verify the individual's identity.<br />
<br />
==Links and Resources==<br />
* [http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/Biometrics.html Biometrics and Privacy] by Roger Clarke<br />
* [http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/ Who's watching you?] by William Abernathy and Lee Tien<br />
* [http://www.bioprivacy.org/ IBG BioPrivacy Initiative]<br />
* [http://www.biometricwatch.com/privacy.htm Biometric News Portal]<br />
* [http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,81444-page,1/article.html Biometrics: Security Boon or Busting Privacy?] by Saumya Roy<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics Good ol' Wikipedia]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_4,_Group_4&diff=1994CSC 379:Week 4, Group 42007-07-30T22:55:57Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Biometrics and Privacy of Genetic Data=<br />
A concern with ID cards that contain biometric information is that once one is stolen, it would be more difficult for someone to reclaim their identity as the nature of the representation of biometric data that would be used would be something that would not change over a person’s lifetime (e.g. fingerprints or eye-scan)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics#Common_biometric_characteristics]. Thus for technologies that rely solely on the biometric data contained within the IDs to establish identity, once a card is stolen, ones “identity” may never be able to be reclaimed.<br />
<br />
Ethical issues related to privacy of genetic data follow closely with this topic since it suffers from similar issues as biometrics, although genetic data is much more invasive to ones privacy as society becomes more able to interpret it. There have been discussions of a constitutional amendment to prohibit genetic discrimination. If ones genetic information is made available, or information derived from, it opens the person to an increased threat of discrimination (jobs, insurance, social), as well as other threats to privacy not yet realized, but that will likely be realized within ones lifetime as there becomes a greater capability to interpret genetic data.<br />
<br />
'''What types of protections should be afforded to biometric data compared to other types of data? For genetic data? Should biometric/genetic data be incorporated into various technology from ID cards to diagnostic equipment? Examine ethical issues related storage and use.'''<br />
<br />
==Resources==<br />
===Relevant External Links:===<br />
The National Science and Technology Council some good resources related to biometrics and privacy issues.<br />
* [http://www.biometrics.gov/ReferenceRoom/Introduction.aspx Introduction to Biometrics]<br />
* [http://www.biometrics.gov/nstc/publications.aspx Biometrics and Privacy]<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's article on biometrics:<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics]<br />
<br />
EFF has an introduction to some concerns voiced about biometrics:<br />
[http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/ http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/]<br />
<br />
===Relevant Class Website Links:===<br />
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/web/identity/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/web/identity/]<br />
<br />
<br />
==What are Biometrics?==<br />
A biometric is a measure of some physical or behavioural characteristic of an individual. These measurements can then be used to identify and individual or at least aid in confirming a claimed identity. Some examples of human characteristics that can be conveniently captured in a biometric include: Fingerprints, Retinal scan, Voice, Signature, DNA, Gait. After your individual information is recorded it can be used in a biometric system.<br />
<br />
===The Purpose of Biometrics===<br />
Biometric systems have several purposes. They can verify that a person is who they claim to be by checking your information against the data the system has on you. A biometric system can identify you without you telling the system who you are by your physiological or behavioral characteristics. And biometric systems can also be used to screen individuals. The system may raise a flag or alert the police if it identifies you as being on its watch list.<br />
<br />
===Flaws in Biometric Systems===<br />
These systems are not flawless though. Depending on what characteristic is being measured, there is often a significant chance of error. Each biometric has its own false accept rate and false reject rate. A false accept rate is the chance that the biometric verifies that you are who you claim to be, when you actually aren't. The higher the percent chance for a false acceptance, the easier the system is to fool. A false reject rate is the chance that a system says you are lying about who you claim to be when you are telling the truth. The false accept rate and false reject rate of a particular biometric should be taken into account when designing an identification or verification system.<br />
<br />
==Physiological Biometric Systems==<br />
===Facial Identification===<br />
Facial identification can either identify people based on the image of their face or a thermal scan of their face. At first glance this seems to be a sound method, after all it's how people identify each other without technology. Unfortunately, there are several issues with implementing it as a technology. For cosmetic scans, the image can look very different based on lighting or could be fooled with makeup. In addition, both facial and thermal scans will change as people age. While one of the easiest and least obtrusive means of identification, it is also one of the least accurate and most easily fooled.<br />
<br />
===Fingerprint===<br />
Fingerprint identification is one of the most widely used biometric means of identification in the world today. The ridges of the skin on the finger are taken and compared to known records taken in the past. It is well suited to its task for several reasons. A person's fingerprints do not change as they age nor are they easily copied. In addition they are completely unique. Due to its widespread use there are fewer personal issues with the scanning of fingerprints than some other biometric identifiers.<br />
<br />
===Hand veins===<br />
Similar to fingerprints, the lines of the hand may also be used for identification. It is harder to fool than a fingerprint scan, but also slightly less accurate. It is also more vulnerable to changes over time than fingerprints and sometimes harder to tell the difference between the scans of two individuals. <br />
<br />
===Eye scans===<br />
There are two kinds of eye scans, one that scans the retina(blood vessels) and the other that scans the iris(colored part). Both of these share the advantage of scanning an internal organ which is less vulnerable to damage over time. Both suffer from a difficulty in building a database to compare to due to how they have to scan in addition to a lack of public approval for getting their eyes scanned. People associate the technology with something they would see in a movie and pair it will a loss of privacy as is the case in such movies.<br />
<br />
===DNA scans===<br />
DNA is the most accurate way of identifying a person. Nobody, with the exception of identical twins, will have the same DNA. Unfortunately, a sample from someone else will allow a fraudulent person to trick the system. In addition, collecting information for a database to compare scans to would be a major issue, as most people do not want to go in to a government office to have their DNA sampled. This brings up the next issue, because it is so accurate there is would be a massive loss of anonymity which would receive large public backlash. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Behavioral Biometric Systems==<br />
<br />
===Keystroke Dynamics===<br />
<br />
This method relies on the unique manner in which a user types on a keyboard to identify them. After an initial session of typing where the system learns to identify the user's typing style, the system can compare a typing pattern to the reference template it has created for the user. This form of user authentication can be inexpensive since it only requires software and an existing keyboard; however, it is not entirely reliable. Using different keyboards alters a user's typing pattern, and something as simple as being tired could affect a person's typing enough for the system to fail to recognize it. Keystroke dynamics has a false acceptance rate of 7% and a false reject rate of 0.1%.<br />
<br />
===Signature Verification===<br />
<br />
Signature identification analyzes an individual's signature to determine his or her identity. This can involve analyzing the signature as it is being made, or a static image of the signature after completion. These two methods can be used to examine features of either the signature itself or the process by which it was signed, including qualities such as speed, pen pressure, directions, and stroke length. Because individuals' signatures change over time, signature identification systems take into any account slight variances over time. This method has a low total error rate of about 1.5% per session. Notably, the Internal Revenue Service has used signature identification analysis for electronically filed tax returns.<br />
<br />
[http://www.vision.caltech.edu/mariomu/research/sigverif/ Visual Signature Verification]<br />
<br />
[http://www.haifa.il.ibm.com/projects/image/sv/ Online Signature Verification]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Voice Verification===<br />
<br />
Voice authentication relies on unique features in an individual's voice to confirm his or her identity. A voice authentication system extracts these features from a sample of the individual's voice, and compares them to a sample presented for verification. Ambient noise can affect the accuracy of this method, as can illness or even the emotional state of the individual. Because of this, voice verification technology may have up to a 2 – 5% false accept rate and an up to 10 – 20% false reject rate. Voice verification is used for a variety of applications, including using automated phone calls to monitor compliance of persons under house arrest.<br />
<br />
[http://www.biometricgroup.com/reports/public/reports_voice-scan.html International Biometrics Group - Voice Verification Technology]<br />
<br />
[http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2005/tc20050420_1036_tc024.htm?campaign_id=rss_techn May I See Your Voice, Please? BusinessWeek]<br />
<br />
==Ethical Issues Surrounding Biometrics==<br />
===The Permanence of Biometric Identification===<br />
Many forms of biometric data do not expire. While a person's face or voice may change some as they age, for the most part your physical and behavioral characteristics are going to stay the same throughout your life. <br />
<br />
With current forms of identification your can, for example, change your password or get a new credit card or driver's licence or passport. For the most part with biometric identification, you can't simply change your information (short of surgery). This posses a large privacy issue. Not only will anonymity be almost impossible in a world were biometric identification is the norm, but identity theft will be every more devastating because one can't simply adopt new identifying data to defeat the thief.<br />
<br />
===Biometrics as a Means of Discrimination===<br />
If a particular biometric can not be measured on a person-- they are missing a finger, for example-- then inherently that person is going to seem more suspicious. Administrators of the system might think: "Sure maybe they have a legitimate reason for not doing the fingerprint ID, but maybe they are trying to bypass the system." <br />
<br />
Biometrics systems could be used in small scale discriminatory screening processes such as stores using a biometric ID system to deny business to those found guilty of shoplifting in the past.<br />
<br />
===Steps to Take to Mitigate Invasion of Privacy===<br />
Paraphrased from the [http://www.bioprivacy.org/ IBG BioPrivacy Initiative]<br />
<br />
* Biometric systems should only be expanded when absolutely necessary.<br />
* Systems should not be expanded without public knowledge. <br />
* Biometric information should not be used as a universal unique identifier. <br>"Universal unique identifiers facilitate the gathering and collection of personal information from various databases, and can represent a significant threat to privacy if misused."<br />
* These systems should not store more information about an individual than is absolutely necessary to verify the individual's identity.<br />
<br />
==Links and Resources==<br />
* [http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/Biometrics.html Biometrics and Privacy] by Roger Clarke<br />
* [http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/ Who's watching you?] by William Abernathy and Lee Tien<br />
* [http://www.bioprivacy.org/ IBG BioPrivacy Initiative]<br />
* [http://www.biometricwatch.com/privacy.htm Biometric News Portal]<br />
* [http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,81444-page,1/article.html Biometrics: Security Boon or Busting Privacy?] by Saumya Roy<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics Good ol' Wikipedia]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_4,_Group_4&diff=1993CSC 379:Week 4, Group 42007-07-30T22:54:57Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Biometrics and Privacy of Genetic Data=<br />
A concern with ID cards that contain biometric information is that once one is stolen, it would be more difficult for someone to reclaim their identity as the nature of the representation of biometric data that would be used would be something that would not change over a person’s lifetime (e.g. fingerprints or eye-scan)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics#Common_biometric_characteristics]. Thus for technologies that rely solely on the biometric data contained within the IDs to establish identity, once a card is stolen, ones “identity” may never be able to be reclaimed.<br />
<br />
Ethical issues related to privacy of genetic data follow closely with this topic since it suffers from similar issues as biometrics, although genetic data is much more invasive to ones privacy as society becomes more able to interpret it. There have been discussions of a constitutional amendment to prohibit genetic discrimination. If ones genetic information is made available, or information derived from, it opens the person to an increased threat of discrimination (jobs, insurance, social), as well as other threats to privacy not yet realized, but that will likely be realized within ones lifetime as there becomes a greater capability to interpret genetic data.<br />
<br />
'''What types of protections should be afforded to biometric data compared to other types of data? For genetic data? Should biometric/genetic data be incorporated into various technology from ID cards to diagnostic equipment? Examine ethical issues related storage and use.'''<br />
<br />
==Resources==<br />
===Relevant External Links:===<br />
The National Science and Technology Council some good resources related to biometrics and privacy issues.<br />
* [http://www.biometrics.gov/ReferenceRoom/Introduction.aspx Introduction to Biometrics]<br />
* [http://www.biometrics.gov/nstc/publications.aspx Biometrics and Privacy]<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's article on biometrics:<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics]<br />
<br />
EFF has an introduction to some concerns voiced about biometrics:<br />
[http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/ http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/]<br />
<br />
===Relevant Class Website Links:===<br />
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/web/identity/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/web/identity/]<br />
<br />
<br />
==What are Biometrics?==<br />
A biometric is a measure of some physical or behavioural characteristic of an individual. These measurements can then be used to identify and individual or at least aid in confirming a claimed identity. Some examples of human characteristics that can be conveniently captured in a biometric include: Fingerprints, Retinal scan, Voice, Signature, DNA, Gait. After your individual information is recorded it can be used in a biometric system.<br />
<br />
===The Purpose of Biometrics===<br />
Biometric systems have several purposes. They can verify that a person is who they claim to be by checking your information against the data the system has on you. A biometric system can identify you without you telling the system who you are by your physiological or behavioral characteristics. And biometric systems can also be used to screen individuals. The system may raise a flag or alert the police if it identifies you as being on its watch list.<br />
<br />
===Flaws in Biometric Systems===<br />
These systems are not flawless though. Depending on what characteristic is being measured, there is often a significant chance of error. Each biometric has its own false accept rate and false reject rate. A false accept rate is the chance that the biometric verifies that you are who you claim to be, when you actually aren't. The higher the percent chance for a false acceptance, the easier the system is to fool. A false reject rate is the chance that a system says you are lying about who you claim to be when you are telling the truth. The false accept rate and false reject rate of a particular biometric should be taken into account when designing an identification or verification system.<br />
<br />
==Physiological Biometric Systems==<br />
===Facial Identification===<br />
Facial identification can either identify people based on the image of their face or a thermal scan of their face. At first glance this seems to be a sound method, after all it's how people identify each other without technology. Unfortunately, there are several issues with implementing it as a technology. For cosmetic scans, the image can look very different based on lighting or could be fooled with makeup. In addition, both facial and thermal scans will change as people age. While one of the easiest and least obtrusive means of identification, it is also one of the least accurate and most easily fooled.<br />
<br />
===Fingerprint===<br />
Fingerprint identification is one of the most widely used biometric means of identification in the world today. The ridges of the skin on the finger are taken and compared to known records taken in the past. It is well suited to its task for several reasons. A person's fingerprints do not change as they age nor are they easily copied. In addition they are completely unique. Due to its widespread use there are fewer personal issues with the scanning of fingerprints than some other biometric identifiers.<br />
<br />
===Hand veins===<br />
Similar to fingerprints, the lines of the hand may also be used for identification. It is harder to fool than a fingerprint scan, but also slightly less accurate. It is also more vulnerable to changes over time than fingerprints and sometimes harder to tell the difference between the scans of two individuals. <br />
<br />
===Eye scans===<br />
There are two kinds of eye scans, one that scans the retina(blood vessels) and the other that scans the iris(colored part). Both of these share the advantage of scanning an internal organ which is less vulnerable to damage over time. Both suffer from a difficulty in building a database to compare to due to how they have to scan in addition to a lack of public approval for getting their eyes scanned. People associate the technology with something they would see in a movie and pair it will a loss of privacy as is the case in such movies.<br />
<br />
===DNA scans===<br />
DNA is the most accurate way of identifying a person. Nobody, with the exception of identical twins, will have the same DNA. Unfortunately, a sample from someone else will allow a fraudulent person to trick the system. In addition, collecting information for a database to compare scans to would be a major issue, as most people do not want to go in to a government office to have their DNA sampled. This brings up the next issue, because it is so accurate there is would be a massive loss of anonymity which would receive large public backlash. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Behavioral Biometric Systems==<br />
<br />
===Keystroke Dynamics===<br />
<br />
This method relies on the unique manner in which a user types on a keyboard to identify them. After an initial session of typing where the system learns to identify the user's typing style, the system can compare a typing pattern to the reference template it has created for the user. This form of user authentication can be inexpensive since it only requires software and an existing keyboard; however, it is not entirely reliable. Using different keyboards alters a user's typing pattern, and something as simple as being tired could affect a person's typing enough for the system to fail to recognize it. Keystroke dynamics has a false acceptance rate of 7% and a false reject rate of 0.1%.<br />
<br />
===Signature Verification===<br />
<br />
Signature identification analyzes an individual's signature to determine his or her identity. This can involve analyzing the signature as it is being made, or a static image of the signature after completion. These two methods can be used to examine features of either the signature itself or the process by which it was signed, including qualities such as speed, pen pressure, directions, and stroke length. Because individuals' signatures change over time, signature identification systems take into any account slight variances over time. This method has a low total error rate of about 1.5% per session. Notably, the Internal Revenue Service has used signature identification analysis for electronically filed tax returns.<br />
<br />
[http://www.vision.caltech.edu/mariomu/research/sigverif/ Visual Signature Verification]<br />
[http://www.haifa.il.ibm.com/projects/image/sv/ Online Signature Verification]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Voice Verification===<br />
<br />
Voice authentication relies on unique features in an individual's voice to confirm his or her identity. A voice authentication system extracts these features from a sample of the individual's voice, and compares them to a sample presented for verification. Ambient noise can affect the accuracy of this method, as can illness or even the emotional state of the individual. Because of this, voice verification technology may have up to a 2 – 5% false accept rate and an up to 10 – 20% false reject rate. Voice verification is used for a variety of applications, including using automated phone calls to monitor compliance of persons under house arrest.<br />
<br />
[http://www.biometricgroup.com/reports/public/reports_voice-scan.html International Biometrics Group - Voice Verification Technology]<br />
[http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2005/tc20050420_1036_tc024.htm?campaign_id=rss_techn May I See Your Voice, Please? BusinessWeek]<br />
<br />
==Ethical Issues Surrounding Biometrics==<br />
===The Permanence of Biometric Identification===<br />
Many forms of biometric data do not expire. While a person's face or voice may change some as they age, for the most part your physical and behavioral characteristics are going to stay the same throughout your life. <br />
<br />
With current forms of identification your can, for example, change your password or get a new credit card or driver's licence or passport. For the most part with biometric identification, you can't simply change your information (short of surgery). This posses a large privacy issue. Not only will anonymity be almost impossible in a world were biometric identification is the norm, but identity theft will be every more devastating because one can't simply adopt new identifying data to defeat the thief.<br />
<br />
===Biometrics as a Means of Discrimination===<br />
If a particular biometric can not be measured on a person-- they are missing a finger, for example-- then inherently that person is going to seem more suspicious. Administrators of the system might think: "Sure maybe they have a legitimate reason for not doing the fingerprint ID, but maybe they are trying to bypass the system." <br />
<br />
Biometrics systems could be used in small scale discriminatory screening processes such as stores using a biometric ID system to deny business to those found guilty of shoplifting in the past.<br />
<br />
===Steps to Take to Mitigate Invasion of Privacy===<br />
Paraphrased from the [http://www.bioprivacy.org/ IBG BioPrivacy Initiative]<br />
<br />
* Biometric systems should only be expanded when absolutely necessary.<br />
* Systems should not be expanded without public knowledge. <br />
* Biometric information should not be used as a universal unique identifier. <br>"Universal unique identifiers facilitate the gathering and collection of personal information from various databases, and can represent a significant threat to privacy if misused."<br />
* These systems should not store more information about an individual than is absolutely necessary to verify the individual's identity.<br />
<br />
==Links and Resources==<br />
* [http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/Biometrics.html Biometrics and Privacy] by Roger Clarke<br />
* [http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/ Who's watching you?] by William Abernathy and Lee Tien<br />
* [http://www.bioprivacy.org/ IBG BioPrivacy Initiative]<br />
* [http://www.biometricwatch.com/privacy.htm Biometric News Portal]<br />
* [http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,81444-page,1/article.html Biometrics: Security Boon or Busting Privacy?] by Saumya Roy<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics Good ol' Wikipedia]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_4,_Group_4&diff=1992CSC 379:Week 4, Group 42007-07-30T22:49:44Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Biometrics and Privacy of Genetic Data=<br />
A concern with ID cards that contain biometric information is that once one is stolen, it would be more difficult for someone to reclaim their identity as the nature of the representation of biometric data that would be used would be something that would not change over a person’s lifetime (e.g. fingerprints or eye-scan)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics#Common_biometric_characteristics]. Thus for technologies that rely solely on the biometric data contained within the IDs to establish identity, once a card is stolen, ones “identity” may never be able to be reclaimed.<br />
<br />
Ethical issues related to privacy of genetic data follow closely with this topic since it suffers from similar issues as biometrics, although genetic data is much more invasive to ones privacy as society becomes more able to interpret it. There have been discussions of a constitutional amendment to prohibit genetic discrimination. If ones genetic information is made available, or information derived from, it opens the person to an increased threat of discrimination (jobs, insurance, social), as well as other threats to privacy not yet realized, but that will likely be realized within ones lifetime as there becomes a greater capability to interpret genetic data.<br />
<br />
'''What types of protections should be afforded to biometric data compared to other types of data? For genetic data? Should biometric/genetic data be incorporated into various technology from ID cards to diagnostic equipment? Examine ethical issues related storage and use.'''<br />
<br />
==Resources==<br />
===Relevant External Links:===<br />
The National Science and Technology Council some good resources related to biometrics and privacy issues.<br />
* [http://www.biometrics.gov/ReferenceRoom/Introduction.aspx Introduction to Biometrics]<br />
* [http://www.biometrics.gov/nstc/publications.aspx Biometrics and Privacy]<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's article on biometrics:<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics]<br />
<br />
EFF has an introduction to some concerns voiced about biometrics:<br />
[http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/ http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/]<br />
<br />
===Relevant Class Website Links:===<br />
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/web/identity/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/web/identity/]<br />
<br />
<br />
==What are Biometrics?==<br />
A biometric is a measure of some physical or behavioural characteristic of an individual. These measurements can then be used to identify and individual or at least aid in confirming a claimed identity. Some examples of human characteristics that can be conveniently captured in a biometric include: Fingerprints, Retinal scan, Voice, Signature, DNA, Gait. After your individual information is recorded it can be used in a biometric system.<br />
<br />
===The Purpose of Biometrics===<br />
Biometric systems have several purposes. They can verify that a person is who they claim to be by checking your information against the data the system has on you. A biometric system can identify you without you telling the system who you are by your physiological or behavioral characteristics. And biometric systems can also be used to screen individuals. The system may raise a flag or alert the police if it identifies you as being on its watch list.<br />
<br />
===Flaws in Biometric Systems===<br />
These systems are not flawless though. Depending on what characteristic is being measured, there is often a significant chance of error. Each biometric has its own false accept rate and false reject rate. A false accept rate is the chance that the biometric verifies that you are who you claim to be, when you actually aren't. The higher the percent chance for a false acceptance, the easier the system is to fool. A false reject rate is the chance that a system says you are lying about who you claim to be when you are telling the truth. The false accept rate and false reject rate of a particular biometric should be taken into account when designing an identification or verification system.<br />
<br />
==Physiological Biometric Systems==<br />
===Facial Identification===<br />
Facial identification can either identify people based on the image of their face or a thermal scan of their face. At first glance this seems to be a sound method, after all it's how people identify each other without technology. Unfortunately, there are several issues with implementing it as a technology. For cosmetic scans, the image can look very different based on lighting or could be fooled with makeup. In addition, both facial and thermal scans will change as people age. While one of the easiest and least obtrusive means of identification, it is also one of the least accurate and most easily fooled.<br />
<br />
===Fingerprint===<br />
Fingerprint identification is one of the most widely used biometric means of identification in the world today. The ridges of the skin on the finger are taken and compared to known records taken in the past. It is well suited to its task for several reasons. A person's fingerprints do not change as they age nor are they easily copied. In addition they are completely unique. Due to its widespread use there are fewer personal issues with the scanning of fingerprints than some other biometric identifiers.<br />
<br />
===Hand veins===<br />
Similar to fingerprints, the lines of the hand may also be used for identification. It is harder to fool than a fingerprint scan, but also slightly less accurate. It is also more vulnerable to changes over time than fingerprints and sometimes harder to tell the difference between the scans of two individuals. <br />
<br />
===Eye scans===<br />
There are two kinds of eye scans, one that scans the retina(blood vessels) and the other that scans the iris(colored part). Both of these share the advantage of scanning an internal organ which is less vulnerable to damage over time. Both suffer from a difficulty in building a database to compare to due to how they have to scan in addition to a lack of public approval for getting their eyes scanned. People associate the technology with something they would see in a movie and pair it will a loss of privacy as is the case in such movies.<br />
<br />
===DNA scans===<br />
DNA is the most accurate way of identifying a person. Nobody, with the exception of identical twins, will have the same DNA. Unfortunately, a sample from someone else will allow a fraudulent person to trick the system. In addition, collecting information for a database to compare scans to would be a major issue, as most people do not want to go in to a government office to have their DNA sampled. This brings up the next issue, because it is so accurate there is would be a massive loss of anonymity which would receive large public backlash. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Behavioral Biometric Systems==<br />
<br />
===Keystroke Dynamics===<br />
<br />
This method relies on the unique manner in which a user types on a keyboard to identify them. After an initial session of typing where the system learns to identify the user's typing style, the system can compare a typing pattern to the reference template it has created for the user. This form of user authentication can be inexpensive since it only requires software and an existing keyboard; however, it is not entirely reliable. Using different keyboards alters a user's typing pattern, and something as simple as being tired could affect a person's typing enough for the system to fail to recognize it. Keystroke dynamics has a false acceptance rate of 7% and a false reject rate of 0.1%.<br />
<br />
===Signature Verification===<br />
<br />
Signature identification analyzes an individual's signature to determine his or her identity. This can involve analyzing the signature as it is being made, or a static image of the signature after completion. These two methods can be used to examine features of either the signature itself or the process by which it was signed, including qualities such as speed, pen pressure, directions, and stroke length. Because individuals' signatures change over time, signature identification systems take into any account slight variances over time. Notably, the Internal Revenue Service has used signature identification analysis for electronically filed tax returns.<br />
<br />
===Voice Verification===<br />
<br />
Voice authentication relies on unique features in an individual's voice to confirm his or her identity. A voice authentication system extracts these features from a sample of the individual's voice, and compares them to a sample presented for verification. Ambient noise can affect the accuracy of this method, as can illness or even the emotional state of the individual. Because of this, voice verification technology may have up to a 2 – 5% false accept rate and an up to 10 – 20% false reject rate. Voice verification is used for a variety of applications, including using automated phone calls to monitor compliance of persons under house arrest.<br />
<br />
==Ethical Issues Surrounding Biometrics==<br />
===The Permanence of Biometric Identification===<br />
Many forms of biometric data do not expire. While a person's face or voice may change some as they age, for the most part your physical and behavioral characteristics are going to stay the same throughout your life. <br />
<br />
With current forms of identification your can, for example, change your password or get a new credit card or driver's licence or passport. For the most part with biometric identification, you can't simply change your information (short of surgery). This posses a large privacy issue. Not only will anonymity be almost impossible in a world were biometric identification is the norm, but identity theft will be every more devastating because one can't simply adopt new identifying data to defeat the thief.<br />
<br />
===Biometrics as a Means of Discrimination===<br />
If a particular biometric can not be measured on a person-- they are missing a finger, for example-- then inherently that person is going to seem more suspicious. Administrators of the system might think: "Sure maybe they have a legitimate reason for not doing the fingerprint ID, but maybe they are trying to bypass the system." <br />
<br />
Biometrics systems could be used in small scale discriminatory screening processes such as stores using a biometric ID system to deny business to those found guilty of shoplifting in the past.<br />
<br />
===Steps to Take to Mitigate Invasion of Privacy===<br />
Paraphrased from the [http://www.bioprivacy.org/ IBG BioPrivacy Initiative]<br />
<br />
* Biometric systems should only be expanded when absolutely necessary.<br />
* Systems should not be expanded without public knowledge. <br />
* Biometric information should not be used as a universal unique identifier. <br>"Universal unique identifiers facilitate the gathering and collection of personal information from various databases, and can represent a significant threat to privacy if misused."<br />
* These systems should not store more information about an individual than is absolutely necessary to verify the individual's identity.<br />
<br />
==Links and Resources==<br />
* [http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/Biometrics.html Biometrics and Privacy] by Roger Clarke<br />
* [http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/ Who's watching you?] by William Abernathy and Lee Tien<br />
* [http://www.bioprivacy.org/ IBG BioPrivacy Initiative]<br />
* [http://www.biometricwatch.com/privacy.htm Biometric News Portal]<br />
* [http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,81444-page,1/article.html Biometrics: Security Boon or Busting Privacy?] by Saumya Roy<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics Good ol' Wikipedia]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_4,_Group_4&diff=1991CSC 379:Week 4, Group 42007-07-30T22:44:25Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Biometrics and Privacy of Genetic Data=<br />
A concern with ID cards that contain biometric information is that once one is stolen, it would be more difficult for someone to reclaim their identity as the nature of the representation of biometric data that would be used would be something that would not change over a person’s lifetime (e.g. fingerprints or eye-scan)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics#Common_biometric_characteristics]. Thus for technologies that rely solely on the biometric data contained within the IDs to establish identity, once a card is stolen, ones “identity” may never be able to be reclaimed.<br />
<br />
Ethical issues related to privacy of genetic data follow closely with this topic since it suffers from similar issues as biometrics, although genetic data is much more invasive to ones privacy as society becomes more able to interpret it. There have been discussions of a constitutional amendment to prohibit genetic discrimination. If ones genetic information is made available, or information derived from, it opens the person to an increased threat of discrimination (jobs, insurance, social), as well as other threats to privacy not yet realized, but that will likely be realized within ones lifetime as there becomes a greater capability to interpret genetic data.<br />
<br />
'''What types of protections should be afforded to biometric data compared to other types of data? For genetic data? Should biometric/genetic data be incorporated into various technology from ID cards to diagnostic equipment? Examine ethical issues related storage and use.'''<br />
<br />
==Resources==<br />
===Relevant External Links:===<br />
The National Science and Technology Council some good resources related to biometrics and privacy issues.<br />
* [http://www.biometrics.gov/ReferenceRoom/Introduction.aspx Introduction to Biometrics]<br />
* [http://www.biometrics.gov/nstc/publications.aspx Biometrics and Privacy]<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's article on biometrics:<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics]<br />
<br />
EFF has an introduction to some concerns voiced about biometrics:<br />
[http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/ http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/]<br />
<br />
===Relevant Class Website Links:===<br />
* [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/web/identity/ http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/privacy/web/identity/]<br />
<br />
<br />
==What are Biometrics?==<br />
A biometric is a measure of some physical or behavioural characteristic of an individual. These measurements can then be used to identify and individual or at least aid in confirming a claimed identity. Some examples of human characteristics that can be conveniently captured in a biometric include: Fingerprints, Retinal scan, Voice, Signature, DNA, Gait. After your individual information is recorded it can be used in a biometric system.<br />
<br />
===The Purpose of Biometrics===<br />
Biometric systems have several purposes. They can verify that a person is who they claim to be by checking your information against the data the system has on you. A biometric system can identify you without you telling the system who you are by your physiological or behavioral characteristics. And biometric systems can also be used to screen individuals. The system may raise a flag or alert the police if it identifies you as being on its watch list.<br />
<br />
===Flaws in Biometric Systems===<br />
These systems are not flawless though. Depending on what characteristic is being measured, there is often a significant chance of error. Each biometric has its own false accept rate and false reject rate. A false accept rate is the chance that the biometric verifies that you are who you claim to be, when you actually aren't. The higher the percent chance for a false acceptance, the easier the system is to fool. A false reject rate is the chance that a system says you are lying about who you claim to be when you are telling the truth. The false accept rate and false reject rate of a particular biometric should be taken into account when designing an identification or verification system.<br />
<br />
==Physiological Biometric Systems==<br />
===Facial Identification===<br />
Facial identification can either identify people based on the image of their face or a thermal scan of their face. At first glance this seems to be a sound method, after all it's how people identify each other without technology. Unfortunately, there are several issues with implementing it as a technology. For cosmetic scans, the image can look very different based on lighting or could be fooled with makeup. In addition, both facial and thermal scans will change as people age. While one of the easiest and least obtrusive means of identification, it is also one of the least accurate and most easily fooled.<br />
<br />
===Fingerprint===<br />
Fingerprint identification is one of the most widely used biometric means of identification in the world today. The ridges of the skin on the finger are taken and compared to known records taken in the past. It is well suited to its task for several reasons. A person's fingerprints do not change as they age nor are they easily copied. In addition they are completely unique. Due to its widespread use there are fewer personal issues with the scanning of fingerprints than some other biometric identifiers.<br />
<br />
===Hand veins===<br />
Similar to fingerprints, the lines of the hand may also be used for identification. It is harder to fool than a fingerprint scan, but also slightly less accurate. It is also more vulnerable to changes over time than fingerprints and sometimes harder to tell the difference between the scans of two individuals. <br />
<br />
===Eye scans===<br />
There are two kinds of eye scans, one that scans the retina(blood vessels) and the other that scans the iris(colored part). Both of these share the advantage of scanning an internal organ which is less vulnerable to damage over time. Both suffer from a difficulty in building a database to compare to due to how they have to scan in addition to a lack of public approval for getting their eyes scanned. People associate the technology with something they would see in a movie and pair it will a loss of privacy as is the case in such movies.<br />
<br />
===DNA scans===<br />
DNA is the most accurate way of identifying a person. Nobody, with the exception of identical twins, will have the same DNA. Unfortunately, a sample from someone else will allow a fraudulent person to trick the system. In addition, collecting information for a database to compare scans to would be a major issue, as most people do not want to go in to a government office to have their DNA sampled. This brings up the next issue, because it is so accurate there is would be a massive loss of anonymity which would receive large public backlash. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Behavioral Biometric Systems==<br />
<br />
===Keystroke Dynamics===<br />
<br />
This method relies on the unique manner in which a user types on a keyboard to identify them. After an initial session of typing where the system learns to identify the user's typing style, the system can compare a typing pattern to the reference template it has created for the user. This form of user authentication can be inexpensive since it only requires software and an existing keyboard; however, it is not entirely reliable. Using different keyboards alters a user's typing pattern, and something as simple as being tired could affect a person's typing enough for the system to fail to recognize it. Keystroke dynamics has a false acceptance rate of 7% and a false reject rate of 0.1%.<br />
<br />
===Signature Verification===<br />
<br />
Signature identification analyzes an individual's signature to determine his or her identity. This can involve analyzing the signature as it is being made, or a static image of the signature after completion. These two methods can be used to examine features of either the signature itself or the process by which it was signed, including qualities such as speed, pen pressure, directions, and stroke length. Because individuals' signatures change over time, signature identification systems take into any account slight variances over time. Notably, the Internal Revenue Service has used signature identification analysis for electronically filed tax returns.<br />
<br />
===Voice Verification===<br />
<br />
Voice authentication relies on unique features in an individual's voice to confirm his or her identity. A voice authentication system extracts these features from a sample of the individual's voice, and compares them to a sample presented for verification. Ambient noise can affect the accuracy of this method, which may have a 2 – 5% false accept rate and an up to 10 – 20% false reject rate.<br />
<br />
==Ethical Issues Surrounding Biometrics==<br />
===The Permanence of Biometric Identification===<br />
Many forms of biometric data do not expire. While a person's face or voice may change some as they age, for the most part your physical and behavioral characteristics are going to stay the same throughout your life. <br />
<br />
With current forms of identification your can, for example, change your password or get a new credit card or driver's licence or passport. For the most part with biometric identification, you can't simply change your information (short of surgery). This posses a large privacy issue. Not only will anonymity be almost impossible in a world were biometric identification is the norm, but identity theft will be every more devastating because one can't simply adopt new identifying data to defeat the thief.<br />
<br />
===Biometrics as a Means of Discrimination===<br />
If a particular biometric can not be measured on a person-- they are missing a finger, for example-- then inherently that person is going to seem more suspicious. Administrators of the system might think: "Sure maybe they have a legitimate reason for not doing the fingerprint ID, but maybe they are trying to bypass the system." <br />
<br />
Biometrics systems could be used in small scale discriminatory screening processes such as stores using a biometric ID system to deny business to those found guilty of shoplifting in the past.<br />
<br />
===Steps to Take to Mitigate Invasion of Privacy===<br />
Paraphrased from the [http://www.bioprivacy.org/ IBG BioPrivacy Initiative]<br />
<br />
* Biometric systems should only be expanded when absolutely necessary.<br />
* Systems should not be expanded without public knowledge. <br />
* Biometric information should not be used as a universal unique identifier. <br>"Universal unique identifiers facilitate the gathering and collection of personal information from various databases, and can represent a significant threat to privacy if misused."<br />
* These systems should not store more information about an individual than is absolutely necessary to verify the individual's identity.<br />
<br />
==Links and Resources==<br />
* [http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/Biometrics.html Biometrics and Privacy] by Roger Clarke<br />
* [http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/biometrics/ Who's watching you?] by William Abernathy and Lee Tien<br />
* [http://www.bioprivacy.org/ IBG BioPrivacy Initiative]<br />
* [http://www.biometricwatch.com/privacy.htm Biometric News Portal]<br />
* [http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,81444-page,1/article.html Biometrics: Security Boon or Busting Privacy?] by Saumya Roy<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics Good ol' Wikipedia]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1717CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T17:00:31Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
[http://creativecommons.org/ Creative Commons] is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Use of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Use of Creative Commons licenses is becoming increasingly widespread. It has been adopted by projects ranging from [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html Massachusetts Institute of Technology's OpenCourseWare], the [http://www.plos.org/ Public Library of Science], [http://www.flickr.com/ Flickr] online photo management and sharing, and many record labels.<br />
<br />
Creative Commons made the news recently when several influential figures, including presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, called for the release of all presidential debates under Creative Commons. News service CNN shortly announced plans to release all debate footage it broadcasts under a Creative Commons type license, explaining in a statement that “Due to the historical nature of presidential debates and the significance of these forums to the American public, CNN debate coverage will be made available without restrictions at the conclusion of each live debate.” This is a major step forward in the direction of the free distribution for historic news footage. Because of the enormous volume of news footage generated each day and the copyright restrictions placed upon it by news services, much of it is lost to full public use as soon as it is published. By adopting unrestrictive licenses for some of its footage, CNN helps ensure the access to and preservation of important historical media.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely. Because of problems like this, some sites disallow the use of non-commercial licenses entirely. Wikimedia Commons, the media repository branch of the Wikipedia Foundation, does not allow the upload of any work licensed with a non-commercial use only restriction.<br />
<br />
Other problems exist with the use of Creative Commons licenses and licenses similar to it. Since these licenses do not allow for the claiming of royalties or other forms of payment for creative works, they are unlikely to ever be widely adopted by professionals who rely on their creative work for their livelihood. Some people believe that because of this, Creative Commons undervalues creativity. A spokesman from the [http://www.copyright.org.au/ Australian Copyright Council] explains how widespread use of Creative Commons licenses could lead to altered expectations for creative works: <br />
<br />
''‘If CC licenses become widely adopted, it is likely that an expectation will arise that – unlike, say, lawyers, accountants and IT consultants – creative people should give away their work for free. The long-term effect could be that corporations and other big organisations like universities and governments will be less willing to pay for copyright material or to see that the people who create it have much value. Meanwhile, it’s likely that real creators will have to keep doing their music, photography, film-making, art or writing as a hobby only, subsidized by their day jobs.’'' <br />
<br />
<br />
==International Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1716CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T16:58:14Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Use of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Use of Creative Commons licenses is becoming increasingly widespread. It has been adopted by projects ranging from [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html Massachusetts Institute of Technology's OpenCourseWare], the [http://www.plos.org/ Public Library of Science], [http://www.flickr.com/ Flickr] online photo management and sharing, and many record labels.<br />
<br />
Creative Commons made the news recently when several influential figures, including presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, called for the release of all presidential debates under Creative Commons. News service CNN shortly announced plans to release all debate footage it broadcasts under a Creative Commons type license, explaining in a statement that “Due to the historical nature of presidential debates and the significance of these forums to the American public, CNN debate coverage will be made available without restrictions at the conclusion of each live debate.” This is a major step forward in the direction of the free distribution for historic news footage. Because of the enormous volume of news footage generated each day and the copyright restrictions placed upon it by news services, much of it is lost to full public use as soon as it is published. By adopting unrestrictive licenses for some of its footage, CNN helps ensure the access to and preservation of important historical media.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely. Because of problems like this, some sites disallow the use of non-commercial licenses entirely. Wikimedia Commons, the media repository branch of the Wikipedia Foundation, does not allow the upload of any work licensed with a non-commercial use only restriction.<br />
<br />
Other problems exist with the use of Creative Commons licenses and licenses similar to it. Since these licenses do not allow for the claiming of royalties or other forms of payment for creative works, they are unlikely to ever be widely adopted by professionals who rely on their creative work for their livelihood. Some people believe that because of this, Creative Commons undervalues creativity. A spokesman from the [http://www.copyright.org.au/ Australian Copyright Council] explains how widespread use of Creative Commons licenses could lead to altered expectations for creative works: <br />
<br />
''‘If CC licenses become widely adopted, it is likely that an expectation will arise that – unlike, say, lawyers, accountants and IT consultants – creative people should give away their work for free. The long-term effect could be that corporations and other big organisations like universities and governments will be less willing to pay for copyright material or to see that the people who create it have much value. Meanwhile, it’s likely that real creators will have to keep doing their music, photography, film-making, art or writing as a hobby only, subsidized by their day jobs.’'' <br />
<br />
<br />
==International Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1715CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T16:53:46Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Use of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Use of Creative Commons licenses is becoming increasingly widespread. It has been adopted by projects ranging from [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html Massachusetts Institute of Technology's OpenCourseWare], the [http://www.plos.org/ Public Library of Science], [http://www.flickr.com/ Flickr] online photo management and sharing, and many record labels.<br />
<br />
Creative Commons made the news recently when several influential figures, including presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, called for the release of all presidential debates under Creative Commons. News service CNN shortly announced plans to release all debate footage it broadcasts under a Creative Commons type license, explaining in a statement that “Due to the historical nature of presidential debates and the significance of these forums to the American public, CNN debate coverage will be made available without restrictions at the conclusion of each live debate.”<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely. Because of problems like this, some sites disallow the use of non-commercial licenses entirely. Wikimedia Commons, the media repository branch of the Wikipedia Foundation, does not allow the upload of any work licensed with a non-commercial use only restriction.<br />
<br />
Other problems exist with the use of Creative Commons licenses and licenses similar to it. Since these licenses do not allow for the claiming of royalties or other forms of payment for creative works, they are unlikely to ever be widely adopted by professionals who rely on their creative work for their livelihood. Some people believe that because of this, Creative Commons undervalues creativity. A spokesman from the [http://www.copyright.org.au/ Australian Copyright Council] explains how widespread use of Creative Commons licenses could lead to altered expectations for creative works: <br />
<br />
''‘If CC licenses become widely adopted, it is likely that an expectation will arise that – unlike, say, lawyers, accountants and IT consultants – creative people should give away their work for free. The long-term effect could be that corporations and other big organisations like universities and governments will be less willing to pay for copyright material or to see that the people who create it have much value. Meanwhile, it’s likely that real creators will have to keep doing their music, photography, film-making, art or writing as a hobby only, subsidized by their day jobs.’'' <br />
<br />
<br />
==International Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1714CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T16:53:25Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Use of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Use of Creative Commons licenses is becoming increasingly widespread. It has been adopted by projects ranging from [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html Massachusetts Institute of Technology's OpenCourseWare], the [http://www.plos.org/ Public Library of Science], [http://www.flickr.com/ Flickr] online photo management and sharing, and many record labels.<br />
<br />
Creative Commons made the news recently when several influential figures, including presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, called for the release of all presidential debates under Creative Commons. News service CNN shortly announced plans to release all debate footage it broadcasts under a Creative Commons type license, explaining in a statement that “Due to the historical nature of presidential debates and the significance of these forums to the American public, CNN debate coverage will be made available without restrictions at the conclusion of each live debate.”<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely. Because of problems like this, some sites disallow the use of non-commercial licenses entirely. Wikimedia Commons, the media repository branch of the Wikipedia Foundation, does not allow the upload of any work licensed with a non-commercial use only restriction.<br />
<br />
Other problems exist with the use of Creative Commons licenses and licenses similar to it. Since these licenses do not allow for the claiming of royalties or other forms of payment for creative works, they are unlikely to ever be widely adopted by professionals who rely on their creative work for their livelihood. Some people believe that because of this, Creative Commons undervalues creativity. A spokesman from the [http://www.copyright.org.au/ Australian Copyright Council] explains how widespread use of Creative Commons licenses could lead to altered expectations for creative works: <br />
<br />
''‘If CC licenses become widely adopted, it is likely that an expectation will arise that – unlike, say, lawyers, accountants and IT consultants – creative people should give away their work for free. The long-term effect could be that corporations and other big organisations like universities and governments will be less willing to pay for copyright material or to see that the people who create it have much value. Meanwhile, it’s likely that real creators will have to keep doing their music, photography, film-making, art or writing as a hobby only, subsidized by their day jobs.’'' <br />
<br />
<br />
===International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1713CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T16:51:09Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Use of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Use of Creative Commons licenses is becoming increasingly widespread. It has been adopted by projects ranging from [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html Massachusetts Institute of Technology's OpenCourseWare], the [http://www.plos.org/ Public Library of Science], [http://www.flickr.com/ Flickr] online photo management and sharing, and many record labels.<br />
<br />
Creative Commons made the news recently when several influential figures, including presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, called for the release of all presidential debates under Creative Commons. News service CNN shortly announced plans to release all debate footage it broadcasts under a Creative Commons type license, explaining in a statement that “Due to the historical nature of presidential debates and the significance of these forums to the American public, CNN debate coverage will be made available without restrictions at the conclusion of each live debate.”<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely. Because of problems like this, some sites disallow the use of non-commercial licenses entirely. Wikimedia Commons, the media repository branch of the Wikipedia Foundation, does not allow the upload of any work licensed with a non-commercial use only restriction.<br />
<br />
Other problems exist with the use of Creative Commons licenses and licenses similar to it. Since these licenses do not allow for the claiming of royalties or other forms of payment for creative works, they are unlikely to ever be widely adopted by professionals who rely on their creative work for their livelihood. Some people believe that because of this, Creative Commons undervalues creativity. A spokesman from the [http://www.copyright.org.au/ Australian Copyright Council] explains how widespread use of Creative Commons licenses could lead to altered expectations for creative works: <br />
<br />
''‘If CC licenses become widely adopted, it is likely that an expectation will arise that – unlike, say, lawyers, accountants and IT consultants – creative people should give away their work for free. The long-term effect could be that corporations and other big organisations like universities and governments will be less willing to pay for copyright material or to see that the people who create it have much value. Meanwhile, it’s likely that real creators will have to keep doing their music, photography, film-making, art or writing as a hobby only, subsidized by their day jobs.’'' <br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1712CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T16:45:20Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Use of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Use of Creative Commons licenses is becoming increasingly widespread. It has been adopted by projects ranging from [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html Massachusetts Institute of Technology's OpenCourseWare], the [http://www.plos.org/ Public Library of Science], [http://www.flickr.com/ Flickr] online photo management and sharing, and record labels.<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely. Because of problems like this, some sites disallow the use of non-commercial licenses entirely. Wikimedia Commons, the media repository branch of the Wikipedia Foundation, does not allow the upload of any work licensed with a non-commercial use only restriction.<br />
<br />
Other problems exist with the use of Creative Commons licenses and licenses similar to it. Since these licenses do not allow for the claiming of royalties or other forms of payment for creative works, they are unlikely to ever be widely adopted by professionals who rely on their creative work for their livelihood. Some people believe that because of this, Creative Commons undervalues creativity. A spokesman from the [http://www.copyright.org.au/ Australian Copyright Council] explains how widespread use of Creative Commons licenses could lead to altered expectations for creative works: <br />
<br />
''‘If CC licenses become widely adopted, it is likely that an expectation will arise that – unlike, say, lawyers, accountants and IT consultants – creative people should give away their work for free. The long-term effect could be that corporations and other big organisations like universities and governments will be less willing to pay for copyright material or to see that the people who create it have much value. Meanwhile, it’s likely that real creators will have to keep doing their music, photography, film-making, art or writing as a hobby only, subsidized by their day jobs.’'' <br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1711CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T16:44:52Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Use of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Use of Creative Commons licenses is becoming increasingly widespread. It has been adopted by projects ranging from [http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html Massachusetts Institute of Technology's OpenCourseWare], the [http://www.plos.org/ Public Library of Science], [http://www.flickr.com/ Flickr online photo management and sharing], and record labels.<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely. Because of problems like this, some sites disallow the use of non-commercial licenses entirely. Wikimedia Commons, the media repository branch of the Wikipedia Foundation, does not allow the upload of any work licensed with a non-commercial use only restriction.<br />
<br />
Other problems exist with the use of Creative Commons licenses and licenses similar to it. Since these licenses do not allow for the claiming of royalties or other forms of payment for creative works, they are unlikely to ever be widely adopted by professionals who rely on their creative work for their livelihood. Some people believe that because of this, Creative Commons undervalues creativity. A spokesman from the [http://www.copyright.org.au/ Australian Copyright Council] explains how widespread use of Creative Commons licenses could lead to altered expectations for creative works: <br />
<br />
''‘If CC licenses become widely adopted, it is likely that an expectation will arise that – unlike, say, lawyers, accountants and IT consultants – creative people should give away their work for free. The long-term effect could be that corporations and other big organisations like universities and governments will be less willing to pay for copyright material or to see that the people who create it have much value. Meanwhile, it’s likely that real creators will have to keep doing their music, photography, film-making, art or writing as a hobby only, subsidized by their day jobs.’'' <br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1710CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T16:30:29Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Use of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely. Because of problems like this, some sites disallow the use of non-commercial licenses entirely. Wikimedia Commons, the media repository branch of the Wikipedia Foundation, does not allow the upload of any work licensed with a non-commercial use only restriction.<br />
<br />
Other problems exist with the use of Creative Commons licenses and licenses similar to it. Since these licenses do not allow for the claiming of royalties or other forms of payment for creative works, they are unlikely to ever be widely adopted by professionals who rely on their creative work for their livelihood. Some people believe that because of this, Creative Commons undervalues creativity. A spokesman from the [http://www.copyright.org.au/ Australian Copyright Council] explains how widespread use of Creative Commons licenses could lead to altered expectations for creative works: <br />
<br />
''‘If CC licenses become widely adopted, it is likely that an expectation will arise that – unlike, say, lawyers, accountants and IT consultants – creative people should give away their work for free. The long-term effect could be that corporations and other big organisations like universities and governments will be less willing to pay for copyright material or to see that the people who create it have much value. Meanwhile, it’s likely that real creators will have to keep doing their music, photography, film-making, art or writing as a hobby only, subsidized by their day jobs.’'' <br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1709CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T16:29:21Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Use of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely. Because of problems like this, some sites disallow the use of non-commercial licenses entirely. Wikimedia Commons, the media repository branch of the Wikipedia Foundation, does not allow the upload of any work licensed with a non-commercial use only restriction.<br />
<br />
Other problems exist with the use of Creative Commons licenses and licenses similar to it. Since these licenses do not allow for the claiming of royalties or other forms of payment for creative works, they are unlikely to ever be widely adopted by professionals who rely on their creative work for their livelihood. Some people believe that because of this, Creative Commons undervalues creativity. A spokesman from the [http://www.copyright.org.au/ Australian Copyright Council] explains how widespread use of Creative Commons licenses could lead to altered expectations for creative works: <br />
<br />
''‘If CC licenses become widely adopted, it is likely that an expectation will arise that – unlike, say, lawyers, accountants and IT consultants – creative people should give away their work for free. The long-term effect could be that corporations and other big organisations like universities and governments will be less willing to pay for copyright material or to see that the people who create it have much value. Meanwhile, it’s likely that real creators will have to keep doing their music, photography, film-making, art or writing as a hobby only, subsidized by their day jobs.’'' <br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1708CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T16:28:24Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Use of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely. Because of problems like this, some sites disallow the use of non-commercial licenses entirely. Wikimedia Commons, the media repository branch of the Wikipedia Foundation, does not allow the upload of any work licensed with a non-commercial use only restriction.<br />
<br />
Other problems exist with the use of Creative Commons licenses and licenses similar to it. Since these licenses do not allow for the claiming of royalties or other forms of payment for creative works, they are unlikely to ever be widely adopted by professionals who rely on their creative work for their livelihood. Some people believe that because of this, Creative Commons undervalues creativity. A spokesman from the Australian Copyright Council explains how widespread use of Creative Commons licenses could lead to altered expectations for creative works: <br />
<br />
''‘If CC licenses become widely adopted, it is likely that an expectation will arise that – unlike, say, lawyers, accountants and IT consultants – creative people should give away their work for free. The long-term effect could be that corporations and other big organisations like universities and governments will be less willing to pay for copyright material or to see that the people who create it have much value. Meanwhile, it’s likely that real creators will have to keep doing their music, photography, film-making, art or writing as a hobby only, subsidized by their day jobs.’'' <br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1707CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T16:28:08Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Use of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely. Because of problems like this, some sites disallow the use of non-commercial licenses entirely. Wikimedia Commons, the media repository branch of the Wikipedia Foundation, does not allow the upload of any work licensed with a non-commercial use only restriction.<br />
<br />
Other problems exist with the use of Creative Commons licenses and licenses similar to it. Since these licenses do not allow for the claiming of royalties or other forms of payment for creative works, they are unlikely to ever be widely adopted by professionals who rely on their creative work for their livelihood. Some people believe that because of this, Creative Commons undervalues creativity. A spokesman from the Australian Copyright Council explains how widespread use of Creative Commons licenses could lead to altered expectations for creative works: <br />
''<br />
‘If CC licenses become widely adopted, it is likely that an expectation will arise that – unlike, say, lawyers, accountants and IT consultants – creative people should give away their work for free. The long-term effect could be that corporations and other big organisations like universities and governments will be less willing to pay for copyright material or to see that the people who create it have much value. Meanwhile, it’s likely that real creators will have to keep doing their music, photography, film-making, art or writing as a hobby only, subsidized by their day jobs.’'' <br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1706CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T16:27:07Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Use of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely. Because of problems like this, some sites disallow the use of non-commercial licenses entirely. Wikimedia Commons, the media repository branch of the Wikipedia Foundation, does not allow the upload of any work licensed with a non-commercial use only restriction.<br />
<br />
Other problems exist with the use of Creative Commons licenses and licenses similar to it. Since these licenses do not allow for the claiming of royalties or other forms of payment for creative works, they are unlikely to ever be widely adopted by professionals who rely on their creative work for their livelihood. Some people believe that because of this, Creative Commons undervalues creativity. A spokesman from the Australian Copyright Council explains how widespread use of Creative Commons licenses could lead to altered expectations for creative works: <br />
<br />
‘If CC licenses become widely adopted, it is likely that an expectation will arise that – unlike, say, lawyers, accountants and IT consultants – creative people should give away their work for free. The long-term effect could be that corporations and other big organisations like universities and governments will be less willing to pay for copyright material or to see that the people who create it have much value. Meanwhile, it’s likely that real creators will have to keep doing their music, photography, film-making, art or writing as a hobby only, subsidized by their day jobs.’ <br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1705CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T16:18:16Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Use of Creative Commons==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely. Because of problems like this, some sites disallow the use of non-commercial licenses entirely. Wikimedia Commons, the media repository branch of the Wikipedia Foundation, does not allow the upload of any work licensed with a non-commercial use only restriction.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1704CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T16:13:20Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely. Because of problems like this, some sites disallow the use of non-commercial licenses entirely. Wikimedia Commons, the media repository branch of the Wikipedia Foundation, does not allow the upload of any work licensed with a non-commercial use only restriction.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1703CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T16:12:21Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely. Furthermore, some sites disallow the use of non-commercial licenses entirely. Wikimedia Commons, the media repository branch of the Wikipedia Foundation, does not allow the upload of any work licensed with a non-commercial use only restriction.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1702CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T16:04:42Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
This option prevents others from using the licensed work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This is certainly a reasonable stipulation authors may place on the use of their work. However, it does rule out certain common means of distribution. Many websites use advertising to help pay for their web hosting costs, but under the terms of this license, hosting a work licensed for non-commercial use on a site with advertising may be illegal. A third party charging a small fee for a DVD of media would also violate the license if the DVD included one video clip or mp3 licensed for non-commercial use, even if the only intention of the fee was to recoup the costs of publishing. This limits the distribution of a work the author may wish to see spread widely.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1701CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T15:47:34Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks==<br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1700CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T15:46:57Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose which restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1699CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T15:43:43Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose what restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], may be part of the problem.<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1698CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T15:43:15Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose what restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The ''non-commercial use only option'', which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], is part of what these people see as the problem.<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1697CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T15:42:49Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose what restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
Some people feel that Creative Commons licenses are too restrictive and therefore not suitable for a variety of uses. The non-commercial use only option, which is used by 70% of works licensed under Creative Commons according to the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/130277/Creative-Commons-Statistics-from-the-CC-Monitor-Project Creative Commons Monitor Project], is part of what these people see as the problem.<br />
<br />
==Drawbacks==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1696CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T15:33:15Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose what restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
==Drawbacks==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1695CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T15:29:04Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose what restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. A simple tool on the website streamlines the process of picking the right license based on the restrictions (or lack thereof) users wish to place on their work. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages users to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1694CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T15:26:41Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose what restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
One of the main advantages of Creative Commons is how easy it is to generate and use a license for any work that falls under the domain of copyrights. This extends to works such as books, scripts, lesson plans, websites, blogs, photographs, films, video games, sound recordings, and many other forms of media. This allows many non-professional creators to license their work without a lawyer, and encourages creators to adopt a license allowing some public use of their work. <br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_4&diff=1693CSC 379:Week 2, Group 42007-07-15T15:11:27Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Creative Commons=<br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation designed to create a flexible, easy-to-use system of copyrights that may allow for some public use of the creative work. Users choose what restrictions they wish to place on their work, such as allowing or disallowing commercial use of their work or modifications of their work, and Creative Commons will generate a license to their specifications. In this way a Creative Commons license for a work can fall on a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and public domain.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Discussion Questions==<br />
<br />
* '''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and garantee the protections they want to extend to the public?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?'''<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?'''<br />
<br />
==Answers==<br />
<br />
===- International Creative Commons===<br />
<br />
International copyrights systems have several complicated ethical issues to challenge. This is true because of the cultural diversity that the world has; however, today world's drive for globalization are making it both easier and necessary to deal with copyright issues but establishing standards and agreements. It is a common belief that what a man creates on his own as a result of his own labor is his own and he is free to do whatever he wants with it limited only to the point to which his society or community lets him. So identifying the guidelines to which each society abides to give rights to the owner of a good, is a crucial step to find a consensus among communities. <br />
<br />
Creative commons is a tool designed to increase number of creative material online and to make cheaper and easier to access. Creative commons could be a good alternative to international agreements, since it aims for the practice of "some rights" reserved, instead of "all rights" reserved. This practice, and the fact that is voluntary, makes it easier to reach a consensus among countries, because of its flexibility. However, creative commons would be an alternative that will be mostly limited to creative material such as websites, scholarships, music, film, photography, etc. as this is what it was designed for. [http://www.icommons.org/ iCommons] is a Creative Commons supported organization whose aim is to develop a united global commons front through the collaboration with education, access to knowledge, free software, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world. This organization sets an example of some of the project that can be launched internationally through the use of creative commons.</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_1,_Group_5&diff=1672CSC 379:Week 1, Group 52007-07-14T23:12:06Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Techniques Against Spam==<br />
<br />
===Block Domains===<br />
<br />
Blocking domains is an anti-spam technique that creates a blacklist of known spammers that can be used by email providers or by the user. When it is used, this method can cause suspected spam originated from blocked domains to be sent to a spam folder, or it can result in an automatic rejection of the emails. This is a powerful technique for blocking spam because once listed, spammers have no recourse except to find a new domain, which requires money and effort. But there is the possibility of blocking legitimate domains, either through error, the hijacking of computers on that domain for a spammer's use, or even a personal vendetta on the part of the person running the list. When relying heavily on this method one must consider the source of the list of known spamming domains, and realize the potential problems in its creation.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.joewein.de/sw/blacklist.htm Spam domain blacklist (filtered by jwSpamSpy)] contains a list of known spamming domains that can be downloaded in a text file for anti spam software.<br />
<br />
[http://techdirt.com/articles/20060403/134222.shtml Techdirt: Verizon Discovers The Cost Of Being Too Aggressive In Blocking Spam]<br />
<br />
[http://www.fadden.com/techmisc/asian-spam.htm Blocking Asian Spam]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Require users to request permission to send your email===<br />
<br />
This is a technique to block spam that requires senders to request permission to send an email. Senders not on the approved list or on a white list will be rejected or redirected to a different folder. One example of this is the [http://www.earthlink.net/software/free/spamblocker/ Earthlink Spam Blocker]. This method ensures that the user never receives spam, but at a heavy cost to both the sender and the receiver of any legitimate messages. If a legitimate message from a sender not on the pre-approved list is blocked or redirected to a spam folder it could present a major problem. Furthermore, it requires more effort on the part of both the sender and receiver to ensure legitimate messages go through correctly.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Charge for e-mail sent===<br />
<br />
If there is a cost associated with email spammers sending out millions of spam then would not be able to spam at such a high rate. Therefore, some have proposed the idea of a charge per email sent, like a stamp. Spam would be cut down due to the cost, as the technique of spamming potential email address would no longer be profitable. However, home users and other legitimate senders would also have to pay a cost per email, and many would resist this because of the popular idea that email should be free. Furthermore, the creation of a corporation, agency or department to manage revenue from email messages would be contentious and difficult.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/ CNN.com Gates: Buy stamps to send e-mail]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Opt in / opt out===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opt-in''' is a type of permission-based mailing where recipients must first give consent before becoming part of a mass mailing list. This guarantees that the sender of the advertisement, newsletter, or other mass mailing is targeting only those who want the mail. Through this process the sender can be sure that those on the mass-mailing list actually want the messages they are receiving, and it is therefore the most ethical means of mass-mailing. However, any opt-in form should have the default setting of not opting in; forms with the opt-in choice as the default often do so in an attempt to catch people who fill out the form quickly or carelessly.<br />
<br />
'''Opt-out''' is a less stringent form of acquiring permission because recipients are not asked for consent before receiving the mailing, but are permitted to opt out of further mailings by indicating they wish to receive no further messages from the sender. The process of opting out usually takes the form of a web link embedded in an email or a specially formatted reply to the sender. While this method does not provide as much protection from unwanted messages as the opt-in approach, it eliminates future unwanted messages from the sender. However, many spammers include a fake opt-out link in their mailings. Instead of removing a person from the mailing list, the link instead puts them on a list of known good email addresses. This misuse of the opt-out method is highly unethical and may cause many people to become wary of the opt-out approach.<br />
<br />
The European Union Privacy and Electronics Communication Directive mandates that entities wishing to contact existing customers through email or text/SMS must provide an opt-out option in their message.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.out-law.com/page-2214 European Council votes for spam opt-in and new cookie plan | OUT-LAW.COM]<br />
<br />
[http://www.spambutcher.com/art1/486278/ Opt-in Spam and the "Gotcha" Box]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Domain authentication===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Domain Authentication''' is a means of ensuring a valid sender identity in email to help prevent spam, email forgery, and fraud. There are different methods of domain authentication, such as Sender Policy Framework, Certified Server Validation, SenderID and DomainKeys, and different methods have different advantages. DomainKeys, for example, can authenticate the entire content of a message as well as the domain from which it originated, while SPF and CSV can reject a forged email before any data transfer occurs. They are all effective for authenticating a sender's domain, but it is yet to be determined which method or methods will become most popular. One problem with the domain authentication approach is the possibility of a misidentification of a legitimate message as fraud or spam. All methods of domain authentication should be designed with this possibility in mind to prevent the accidental blocking of legitimate messages.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys Yahoo! Anti-Spam Resource Center - DomainKeys]<br />
<br />
[http://multichannelmerchant.com/webchannel/email/marketing_beyond_canspam_email/ Beyond Can-Spam: E-mail Authentication]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bounties===<br />
<br />
'''Bounties''' in a general sense are monetary rewards for either information leading to the arrest of criminals or for delivering the criminal in question to the authorities. In the case of bounties on spammers, some proposed plans would award money equal to a percentage of the penalty for the spammer. For example, information provided on a spammer who was not convicted or fined would yield no bounty, while a twenty percent (20%) bounty on a large spamming operation that was fined two million dollars would yield forty thousand(40,000) dollars. <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Fight Spam - Security - MSNBC.com]<br />
<br />
<br />
===The "Goodmail" approach===<br />
<br />
The '''Goodmail''' approach to spam was an idea to have spammers pay isps to ensure that their mail was delivered past spam filters. In theory this would reduce spam because only legitimate companies could pay the fee and not individual con artists. Many nonprofit groups were concerned that they would not be able to send Email because they did not have the finances to pay for goodmail services. There was also concern among customers that all mail which was not Goodmail certified would be blocked, including personal Email. There is also the risk that if isps rely on goodmail to stop spam, they will defer development on their spam blockers until they are completely ineffective.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.goodmailsystems.com Goodmail Systems]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bonds with escrow agencies===<br />
<br />
This system requires mail senders who are not whitelisted by recipients to pay a small fee to a bond agency. If the recipient feels the mail is spam and unwanted, they can then retrieve the bond money from the agency. In effect, this means that they charge the sender for wasting their time.<ref>[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf] For non-spam email, no money would change hands at all, the original bond amount would simply be returned to the sender.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf The Spam and Attention Bond Mechanism FAQ pdf]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_1,_Group_5&diff=1671CSC 379:Week 1, Group 52007-07-14T23:08:14Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Techniques Against Spam==<br />
<br />
===Block Domains===<br />
<br />
Blocking domains is an anti-spam technique that creates a blacklist of known spammers that can be used by email providers or by the user. When it is used, this method can cause suspected spam originated from blocked domains to be sent to a spam folder, or it can result in an automatic rejection of the emails. This is a powerful technique for blocking spam because once listed, spammers have no recourse except to find a new domain, which requires money and effort. But there is the possibility of blocking legitimate domains, either through error, the hijacking of computers on that domain for a spammer's use, or even a personal vendetta on the part of the person running the list. When relying heavily on this method one must consider the source of the list of known spamming domains, and realize the potential problems in its creation.<br />
<br />
[http://www.joewein.de/sw/blacklist.htm Spam domain blacklist (filtered by jwSpamSpy)] contains a list of known spamming domains that can be downloaded in a text file for anti spam software.<br />
<br />
[http://techdirt.com/articles/20060403/134222.shtml Techdirt: Verizon Discovers The Cost Of Being Too Aggressive In Blocking Spam]<br />
<br />
[http://www.fadden.com/techmisc/asian-spam.htm Blocking Asian Spam]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Require users to request permission to send your email===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A technique to black spam that requires senders to request permission to send an email. Senders not on the approved list or on a white list will be rejected or redirected to a different folder. One example of this is the [http://www.earthlink.net/software/free/spamblocker/ Earthlink Spam Blocker]<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
The user should never receive spam.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Could have emails that a user might want to see that is not spam, but also not on the approved list.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Charge for e-mail sent===<br />
<br />
If there is a cost associated with email spammers sending out millions of spam then would not be able to spam at such a high rate. Therefore, some have proposed the idea of a charge per email sent, like a stamp. Spam would be cut down due to the cost, as the technique of spamming potential email address would no longer be profitable. However, home users and other legitimate senders would also have to pay a cost per email, and many would resist this because of the popular idea that email should be free. Furthermore, the creation of a corporation, agency or department to manage revenue from email messages would be contentious and difficult.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/ CNN.com Gates: Buy stamps to send e-mail]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Opt in / opt out===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opt-in''' is a type of permission-based mailing where recipients must first give consent before becoming part of a mass mailing list. This guarantees that the sender of the advertisement, newsletter, or other mass mailing is targeting only those who want the mail. Through this process the sender can be sure that those on the mass-mailing list actually want the messages they are receiving, and it is therefore the most ethical means of mass-mailing. However, any opt-in form should have the default setting of not opting in; forms with the opt-in choice as the default often do so in an attempt to catch people who fill out the form quickly or carelessly.<br />
<br />
'''Opt-out''' is a less stringent form of acquiring permission because recipients are not asked for consent before receiving the mailing, but are permitted to opt out of further mailings by indicating they wish to receive no further messages from the sender. The process of opting out usually takes the form of a web link embedded in an email or a specially formatted reply to the sender. While this method does not provide as much protection from unwanted messages as the opt-in approach, it eliminates future unwanted messages from the sender. However, many spammers include a fake opt-out link in their mailings. Instead of removing a person from the mailing list, the link instead puts them on a list of known good email addresses. This misuse of the opt-out method is highly unethical and may cause many people to become wary of the opt-out approach.<br />
<br />
The European Union Privacy and Electronics Communication Directive mandates that entities wishing to contact existing customers through email or text/SMS must provide an opt-out option in their message.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.out-law.com/page-2214 European Council votes for spam opt-in and new cookie plan | OUT-LAW.COM]<br />
<br />
[http://www.spambutcher.com/art1/486278/ Opt-in Spam and the "Gotcha" Box]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Domain authentication===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Domain Authentication''' is a means of ensuring a valid sender identity in email to help prevent spam, email forgery, and fraud. There are different methods of domain authentication, such as Sender Policy Framework, Certified Server Validation, SenderID and DomainKeys, and different methods have different advantages. DomainKeys, for example, can authenticate the entire content of a message as well as the domain from which it originated, while SPF and CSV can reject a forged email before any data transfer occurs. They are all effective for authenticating a sender's domain, but it is yet to be determined which method or methods will become most popular. One problem with the domain authentication approach is the possibility of a misidentification of a legitimate message as fraud or spam. All methods of domain authentication should be designed with this possibility in mind to prevent the accidental blocking of legitimate messages.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys Yahoo! Anti-Spam Resource Center - DomainKeys]<br />
<br />
[http://multichannelmerchant.com/webchannel/email/marketing_beyond_canspam_email/ Beyond Can-Spam: E-mail Authentication]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bounties===<br />
<br />
'''Bounties''' in a general sense are monetary rewards for either information leading to the arrest of criminals or for delivering the criminal in question to the authorities. In the case of bounties on spammers, some proposed plans would award money equal to a percentage of the penalty for the spammer. For example, information provided on a spammer who was not convicted or fined would yield no bounty, while a twenty percent (20%) bounty on a large spamming operation that was fined two million dollars would yield forty thousand(40,000) dollars. <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Fight Spam - Security - MSNBC.com]<br />
<br />
<br />
===The "Goodmail" approach===<br />
<br />
The '''Goodmail''' approach to spam was an idea to have spammers pay isps to ensure that their mail was delivered past spam filters. In theory this would reduce spam because only legitimate companies could pay the fee and not individual con artists. Many nonprofit groups were concerned that they would not be able to send Email because they did not have the finances to pay for goodmail services. There was also concern among customers that all mail which was not Goodmail certified would be blocked, including personal Email. There is also the risk that if isps rely on goodmail to stop spam, they will defer development on their spam blockers until they are completely ineffective.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.goodmailsystems.com Goodmail Systems]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bonds with escrow agencies===<br />
<br />
This system requires mail senders who are not whitelisted by recipients to pay a small fee to a bond agency. If the recipient feels the mail is spam and unwanted, they can then retrieve the bond money from the agency. In effect, this means that they charge the sender for wasting their time.<ref>[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf] For non-spam email, no money would change hands at all, the original bond amount would simply be returned to the sender.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf The Spam and Attention Bond Mechanism FAQ pdf]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_1,_Group_5&diff=1670CSC 379:Week 1, Group 52007-07-14T23:05:21Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Techniques Against Spam==<br />
<br />
===Block Domains===<br />
<br />
Blocking domains is an anti-spam technique that creates a blacklist of known spammers that can be used by email providers or by the user. When it is used, this method can cause suspected spam originated from blocked domains to be sent to a spam folder, or it can result in an automatic rejection of the emails. This is a powerful technique for blocking spam because once listed, spammers have no recourse except to find a new domain, which requires money and effort. But there is the possibility of blocking legitimate domains, either through error, the hijacking of computers on that domain for a spammer's use, or even a personal vendetta on the part of the person running the list. When relying heavily on this method one must consider the source of the list of known spamming domains, and realize the potential problems in its creation.<br />
<br />
[http://www.joewein.de/sw/blacklist.htm Spam domain blacklist (filtered by jwSpamSpy)] contains a list of known spamming domains that can be downloaded in a text file for anti spam software.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Require users to request permission to send your email===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A technique to black spam that requires senders to request permission to send an email. Senders not on the approved list or on a white list will be rejected or redirected to a different folder. One example of this is the [http://www.earthlink.net/software/free/spamblocker/ Earthlink Spam Blocker]<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
The user should never receive spam.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Could have emails that a user might want to see that is not spam, but also not on the approved list.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Charge for e-mail sent===<br />
<br />
If there is a cost associated with email spammers sending out millions of spam then would not be able to spam at such a high rate. Therefore, some have proposed the idea of a charge per email sent, like a stamp. Spam would be cut down due to the cost, as the technique of spamming potential email address would no longer be profitable. However, home users and other legitimate senders would also have to pay a cost per email, and many would resist this because of the popular idea that email should be free. Furthermore, the creation of a corporation, agency or department to manage revenue from email messages would be contentious and difficult.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/ CNN.com Gates: Buy stamps to send e-mail]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Opt in / opt out===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opt-in''' is a type of permission-based mailing where recipients must first give consent before becoming part of a mass mailing list. This guarantees that the sender of the advertisement, newsletter, or other mass mailing is targeting only those who want the mail. Through this process the sender can be sure that those on the mass-mailing list actually want the messages they are receiving, and it is therefore the most ethical means of mass-mailing. However, any opt-in form should have the default setting of not opting in; forms with the opt-in choice as the default often do so in an attempt to catch people who fill out the form quickly or carelessly.<br />
<br />
'''Opt-out''' is a less stringent form of acquiring permission because recipients are not asked for consent before receiving the mailing, but are permitted to opt out of further mailings by indicating they wish to receive no further messages from the sender. The process of opting out usually takes the form of a web link embedded in an email or a specially formatted reply to the sender. While this method does not provide as much protection from unwanted messages as the opt-in approach, it eliminates future unwanted messages from the sender. However, many spammers include a fake opt-out link in their mailings. Instead of removing a person from the mailing list, the link instead puts them on a list of known good email addresses. This misuse of the opt-out method is highly unethical and may cause many people to become wary of the opt-out approach.<br />
<br />
The European Union Privacy and Electronics Communication Directive mandates that entities wishing to contact existing customers through email or text/SMS must provide an opt-out option in their message.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.out-law.com/page-2214 European Council votes for spam opt-in and new cookie plan | OUT-LAW.COM]<br />
<br />
[http://www.spambutcher.com/art1/486278/ Opt-in Spam and the "Gotcha" Box]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Domain authentication===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Domain Authentication''' is a means of ensuring a valid sender identity in email to help prevent spam, email forgery, and fraud. There are different methods of domain authentication, such as Sender Policy Framework, Certified Server Validation, SenderID and DomainKeys, and different methods have different advantages. DomainKeys, for example, can authenticate the entire content of a message as well as the domain from which it originated, while SPF and CSV can reject a forged email before any data transfer occurs. They are all effective for authenticating a sender's domain, but it is yet to be determined which method or methods will become most popular. One problem with the domain authentication approach is the possibility of a misidentification of a legitimate message as fraud or spam. All methods of domain authentication should be designed with this possibility in mind to prevent the accidental blocking of legitimate messages.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys Yahoo! Anti-Spam Resource Center - DomainKeys]<br />
<br />
[http://multichannelmerchant.com/webchannel/email/marketing_beyond_canspam_email/ Beyond Can-Spam: E-mail Authentication]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bounties===<br />
<br />
'''Bounties''' in a general sense are monetary rewards for either information leading to the arrest of criminals or for delivering the criminal in question to the authorities. In the case of bounties on spammers, some proposed plans would award money equal to a percentage of the penalty for the spammer. For example, information provided on a spammer who was not convicted or fined would yield no bounty, while a twenty percent (20%) bounty on a large spamming operation that was fined two million dollars would yield forty thousand(40,000) dollars. <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Fight Spam - Security - MSNBC.com]<br />
<br />
<br />
===The "Goodmail" approach===<br />
<br />
The '''Goodmail''' approach to spam was an idea to have spammers pay isps to ensure that their mail was delivered past spam filters. In theory this would reduce spam because only legitimate companies could pay the fee and not individual con artists. Many nonprofit groups were concerned that they would not be able to send Email because they did not have the finances to pay for goodmail services. There was also concern among customers that all mail which was not Goodmail certified would be blocked, including personal Email. There is also the risk that if isps rely on goodmail to stop spam, they will defer development on their spam blockers until they are completely ineffective.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.goodmailsystems.com Goodmail Systems]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bonds with escrow agencies===<br />
<br />
This system requires mail senders who are not whitelisted by recipients to pay a small fee to a bond agency. If the recipient feels the mail is spam and unwanted, they can then retrieve the bond money from the agency. In effect, this means that they charge the sender for wasting their time.<ref>[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf] For non-spam email, no money would change hands at all, the original bond amount would simply be returned to the sender.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf The Spam and Attention Bond Mechanism FAQ pdf]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_1,_Group_5&diff=1669CSC 379:Week 1, Group 52007-07-14T22:56:46Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Techniques Against Spam==<br />
<br />
===Block Domains===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A technique to black spam that creates a blacklist of known spammers that can be used by email providers by the user. This will cause suspect spam to be sent to a spam folder or the automatic rejection of emails from blocked domains.<br />
<br />
This [http://www.joewein.de/sw/blacklist.htm site] contains a list of known spamming domains that can be downloaded in a text file for anti spam software.<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
It will effectively block spam from known spamming addresses.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Legitimate domains could be blocked as a result of a computer being hijacked.<br />
<br />
===Require users to request permission to send your email===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A technique to black spam that requires senders to request permission to send an email. Senders not on the approved list or on a white list will be rejected or redirected to a different folder. One example of this is the [http://www.earthlink.net/software/free/spamblocker/ Earthlink Spam Blocker]<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
The user should never receive spam.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Could have emails that a user might want to see that is not spam, but also not on the approved list.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Charge for e-mail sent===<br />
<br />
If there is a cost associated with email spammers sending out millions of spam then would not be able to spam at such a high rate. Therefore, some have proposed the idea of a charge per email sent, like a stamp. Spam would be cut down due to the cost, as the technique of spamming potential email address would no longer be profitable. However, home users and other legitimate senders would also have to pay a cost per email, and many would resist this because of the popular idea that email should be free. Furthermore, the creation of a corporation, agency or department to manage revenue from email messages would be contentious and difficult.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/ CNN.com Gates: Buy stamps to send e-mail]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Opt in / opt out===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opt-in''' is a type of permission-based mailing where recipients must first give consent before becoming part of a mass mailing list. This guarantees that the sender of the advertisement, newsletter, or other mass mailing is targeting only those who want the mail. Through this process the sender can be sure that those on the mass-mailing list actually want the messages they are receiving, and it is therefore the most ethical means of mass-mailing. However, any opt-in form should have the default setting of not opting in; forms with the opt-in choice as the default often do so in an attempt to catch people who fill out the form quickly or carelessly.<br />
<br />
'''Opt-out''' is a less stringent form of acquiring permission because recipients are not asked for consent before receiving the mailing, but are permitted to opt out of further mailings by indicating they wish to receive no further messages from the sender. The process of opting out usually takes the form of a web link embedded in an email or a specially formatted reply to the sender. While this method does not provide as much protection from unwanted messages as the opt-in approach, it eliminates future unwanted messages from the sender. However, many spammers include a fake opt-out link in their mailings. Instead of removing a person from the mailing list, the link instead puts them on a list of known good email addresses. This misuse of the opt-out method is highly unethical and may cause many people to become wary of the opt-out approach.<br />
<br />
The European Union Privacy and Electronics Communication Directive mandates that entities wishing to contact existing customers through email or text/SMS must provide an opt-out option in their message.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.out-law.com/page-2214 European Council votes for spam opt-in and new cookie plan | OUT-LAW.COM]<br />
<br />
[http://www.spambutcher.com/art1/486278/ Opt-in Spam and the "Gotcha" Box]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Domain authentication===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Domain Authentication''' is a means of ensuring a valid sender identity in email to help prevent spam, email forgery, and fraud. There are different methods of domain authentication, such as Sender Policy Framework, Certified Server Validation, SenderID and DomainKeys, and different methods have different advantages. DomainKeys, for example, can authenticate the entire content of a message as well as the domain from which it originated, while SPF and CSV can reject a forged email before any data transfer occurs. They are all effective for authenticating a sender's domain, but it is yet to be determined which method or methods will become most popular. One problem with the domain authentication approach is the possibility of a misidentification of a legitimate message as fraud or spam. All methods of domain authentication should be designed with this possibility in mind to prevent the accidental blocking of legitimate messages.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys Yahoo! Anti-Spam Resource Center - DomainKeys]<br />
<br />
[http://multichannelmerchant.com/webchannel/email/marketing_beyond_canspam_email/ Beyond Can-Spam: E-mail Authentication]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bounties===<br />
<br />
'''Bounties''' in a general sense are monetary rewards for either information leading to the arrest of criminals or for delivering the criminal in question to the authorities. In the case of bounties on spammers, some proposed plans would award money equal to a percentage of the penalty for the spammer. For example, information provided on a spammer who was not convicted or fined would yield no bounty, while a twenty percent (20%) bounty on a large spamming operation that was fined two million dollars would yield forty thousand(40,000) dollars. <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Fight Spam - Security - MSNBC.com]<br />
<br />
<br />
===The "Goodmail" approach===<br />
<br />
The '''Goodmail''' approach to spam was an idea to have spammers pay isps to ensure that their mail was delivered past spam filters. In theory this would reduce spam because only legitimate companies could pay the fee and not individual con artists. Many nonprofit groups were concerned that they would not be able to send Email because they did not have the finances to pay for goodmail services. There was also concern among customers that all mail which was not Goodmail certified would be blocked, including personal Email. There is also the risk that if isps rely on goodmail to stop spam, they will defer development on their spam blockers until they are completely ineffective.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.goodmailsystems.com Goodmail Systems]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bonds with escrow agencies===<br />
<br />
This system requires mail senders who are not whitelisted by recipients to pay a small fee to a bond agency. If the recipient feels the mail is spam and unwanted, they can then retrieve the bond money from the agency. In effect, this means that they charge the sender for wasting their time.<ref>[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf] For non-spam email, no money would change hands at all, the original bond amount would simply be returned to the sender.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf The Spam and Attention Bond Mechanism FAQ pdf]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_1,_Group_5&diff=1668CSC 379:Week 1, Group 52007-07-14T22:53:44Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Techniques Against Spam==<br />
<br />
===Block Domains===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A technique to black spam that creates a blacklist of known spammers that can be used by email providers by the user. This will cause suspect spam to be sent to a spam folder or the automatic rejection of emails from blocked domains.<br />
<br />
This [http://www.joewein.de/sw/blacklist.htm site] contains a list of known spamming domains that can be downloaded in a text file for anti spam software.<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
It will effectively block spam from known spamming addresses.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Legitimate domains could be blocked as a result of a computer being hijacked.<br />
<br />
===Require users to request permission to send your email===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A technique to black spam that requires senders to request permission to send an email. Senders not on the approved list or on a white list will be rejected or redirected to a different folder. One example of this is the [http://www.earthlink.net/software/free/spamblocker/ Earthlink Spam Blocker]<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
The user should never receive spam.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Could have emails that a user might want to see that is not spam, but also not on the approved list.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Charge for e-mail sent===<br />
<br />
If there is a cost associated with email spammers sending out millions of spam then would not be able to spam at such a high rate. Therefore, some have proposed the idea of a charge per email sent, like a stamp. Spam would be cut down due to the cost, as the technique of spamming potential email address would no longer be profitable. However, home users and other legitimate senders would also have to pay a cost per email, and many would resist this because of the popular idea that email should be free. Furthermore, the creation of a corporation, agency or department to manage revenue from email messages would be contentious and difficult.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/ CNN.com Gates: Buy stamps to send e-mail]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Opt in / opt out===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opt-in''' is a type of permission-based mailing where recipients must first give consent before becoming part of a mass mailing list. This guarantees that the sender of the advertisement, newsletter, or other mass mailing is targeting only those who want the mail. Through this process the sender can be sure that those on the mass-mailing list actually want the messages they are receiving, and it is therefore the most ethical means of mass-mailing. However, any opt-in form should have the default setting of not opting in; forms with the opt-in choice as the default often do so in an attempt to catch people who fill out the form quickly or carelessly.<br />
<br />
'''Opt-out''' is a less stringent form of acquiring permission because recipients are not asked for consent before receiving the mailing, but are permitted to opt out of further mailings by indicating they wish to receive no further messages from the sender. The process of opting out usually takes the form of a web link embedded in an email or a specially formatted reply to the sender. While this method does not provide as much protection from unwanted messages as the opt-in approach, it eliminates future unwanted messages from the sender.<br />
<br />
The European Union Privacy and Electronics Communication Directive mandates that entities wishing to contact existing customers through email or text/SMS must provide an opt-out option in their message.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.out-law.com/page-2214 European Council votes for spam opt-in and new cookie plan | OUT-LAW.COM]<br />
<br />
[http://www.spambutcher.com/art1/486278/ Opt-in Spam and the "Gotcha" Box]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Domain authentication===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Domain Authentication''' is a means of ensuring a valid sender identity in email to help prevent spam, email forgery, and fraud. There are different methods of domain authentication, such as Sender Policy Framework, Certified Server Validation, SenderID and DomainKeys, and different methods have different advantages. DomainKeys, for example, can authenticate the entire content of a message as well as the domain from which it originated, while SPF and CSV can reject a forged email before any data transfer occurs. They are all effective for authenticating a sender's domain, but it is yet to be determined which method or methods will become most popular. One problem with the domain authentication approach is the possibility of a misidentification of a legitimate message as fraud or spam. All methods of domain authentication should be designed with this possibility in mind to prevent the accidental blocking of legitimate messages.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys Yahoo! Anti-Spam Resource Center - DomainKeys]<br />
<br />
[http://multichannelmerchant.com/webchannel/email/marketing_beyond_canspam_email/ Beyond Can-Spam: E-mail Authentication]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bounties===<br />
<br />
'''Bounties''' in a general sense are monetary rewards for either information leading to the arrest of criminals or for delivering the criminal in question to the authorities. In the case of bounties on spammers, some proposed plans would award money equal to a percentage of the penalty for the spammer. For example, information provided on a spammer who was not convicted or fined would yield no bounty, while a twenty percent (20%) bounty on a large spamming operation that was fined two million dollars would yield forty thousand(40,000) dollars. <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Fight Spam - Security - MSNBC.com]<br />
<br />
<br />
===The "Goodmail" approach===<br />
<br />
The '''Goodmail''' approach to spam was an idea to have spammers pay isps to ensure that their mail was delivered past spam filters. In theory this would reduce spam because only legitimate companies could pay the fee and not individual con artists. Many nonprofit groups were concerned that they would not be able to send Email because they did not have the finances to pay for goodmail services. There was also concern among customers that all mail which was not Goodmail certified would be blocked, including personal Email. There is also the risk that if isps rely on goodmail to stop spam, they will defer development on their spam blockers until they are completely ineffective.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.goodmailsystems.com Goodmail Systems]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bonds with escrow agencies===<br />
<br />
This system requires mail senders who are not whitelisted by recipients to pay a small fee to a bond agency. If the recipient feels the mail is spam and unwanted, they can then retrieve the bond money from the agency. In effect, this means that they charge the sender for wasting their time.<ref>[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf] For non-spam email, no money would change hands at all, the original bond amount would simply be returned to the sender.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf The Spam and Attention Bond Mechanism FAQ pdf]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_1,_Group_5&diff=1550CSC 379:Week 1, Group 52007-07-12T20:31:37Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Techniques Against Spam==<br />
<br />
===Block Domains===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A technique to black spam that creates a blacklist of known spammers that can be used by email providers by the user. This will cause suspect spam to be sent to a spam folder or the automatic rejection of emails from blocked domains.<br />
<br />
This [http://www.joewein.de/sw/blacklist.htm site] contains a list of known spamming domains that can be downloaded in a text file for anti spam software.<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
It will effectively block spam from known spamming addresses.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Legitimate domains could be blocked as a result of a computer being hijacked.<br />
<br />
===Require users to request permission to send your email===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A technique to black spam that requires senders to request permission to send an email. Senders not on the approved list or on a white list will be rejected or redirected to a different folder. One example of this is the [http://www.earthlink.net/software/free/spamblocker/ Earthlink Spam Blocker]<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
The user should never receive spam.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Could have emails that a user might want to see that is not spam, but also not on the approved list.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Charge for e-mail sent===<br />
<br />
If there is a cost associated with email spammers sending out millions of spam then would not be able to spam at such a high rate. Therefore, some have proposed the idea of a charge per email sent, like a stamp. Spam would be cut down due to the cost, as the technique of spamming potential email address would no longer be profitable. However, home users and other legitimate senders would also have to pay a cost per email, and many would resist this because of the popular idea that email should be free. Furthermore, the creation of a corporation, agency or department to manage revenue from email messages would be contentious and difficult.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/ CNN.com Gates: Buy stamps to send e-mail]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Opt in / opt out===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opt-in''' is a type of permission-based mailing where recipients must first give consent before becoming part of a mass mailing list. This guarantees that the sender of the advertisement, newsletter, or other mass mailing is targeting only those who want the mail. Through this process the sender can be sure that those on the mass-mailing list actually want the messages they are receiving.<br />
<br />
'''Opt-out''' is a less stringent form of acquiring permission because recipients are not asked for consent before receiving the mailing, but are permitted to opt out of further mailings by indicating they wish to receive no further messages from the sender. The process of opting out usually takes the form of a web link embedded in an email or a specially formatted reply to the sender. While this method does not provide as much protection from unwanted messages as the opt-in approach, it eliminates future unwanted messages from the sender.<br />
<br />
The European Union Privacy and Electronics Communication Directive mandates that entities wishing to contact existing customers through email or text/SMS must provide an opt-out option in their message.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.out-law.com/page-2214 European Council votes for spam opt-in and new cookie plan | OUT-LAW.COM]<br />
<br />
[http://www.spambutcher.com/art1/486278/ Opt-in Spam and the "Gotcha" Box]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Domain authentication===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Domain Authentication''' is a means of ensuring a valid sender identity in email to help prevent spam, email forgery, and fraud. There are different methods of domain authentication, such as Sender Policy Framework, Certified Server Validation, SenderID and DomainKeys, and different methods have different advantages. DomainKeys, for example, can authenticate the entire content of a message as well as the domain from which it originated, while SPF and CSV can reject a forged email before any data transfer occurs. They are all effective for authenticating a sender's domain, but it is yet to be determined which method or methods will become most popular. One problem with the domain authentication approach is the possibility of a misidentification of a legitimate message as fraud or spam. All methods of domain authentication should be designed with this possibility in mind to prevent the accidental blocking of legitimate messages.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys Yahoo! Anti-Spam Resource Center - DomainKeys]<br />
<br />
[http://multichannelmerchant.com/webchannel/email/marketing_beyond_canspam_email/ Beyond Can-Spam: E-mail Authentication]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bounties===<br />
<br />
'''Bounties''' in a general sense are monetary rewards for either information leading to the arrest of criminals or for delivering the criminal in question to the authorities. In the case of bounties on spammers, some proposed plans would award money equal to a percentage of the penalty for the spammer. For example, information provided on a spammer who was not convicted or fined would yield no bounty, while a twenty percent (20%) bounty on a large spamming operation that was fined two million dollars would yield forty thousand(40,000) dollars. <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Fight Spam - Security - MSNBC.com]<br />
<br />
<br />
===The "Goodmail" approach===<br />
<br />
The '''Goodmail''' approach to spam was an idea to have spammers pay isps to ensure that their mail was delivered past spam filters. In theory this would reduce spam because only legitimate companies could pay the fee and not individual con artists. Many nonprofit groups were concerned that they would not be able to send Email because they did not have the finances to pay for goodmail services. There was also concern among customers that all mail which was not Goodmail certified would be blocked, including personal Email. There is also the risk that if isps rely on goodmail to stop spam, they will defer development on their spam blockers until they are completely ineffective.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.goodmailsystems.com Goodmail Systems]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bonds with escrow agencies===<br />
<br />
This system requires mail senders who are not whitelisted by recipients to pay a small fee to a bond agency. If the recipient feels the mail is spam and unwanted, they can then retrieve the bond money from the agency. In effect, this means that they charge the sender for wasting their time.<ref>[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf] For non-spam email, no money would change hands at all, the original bond amount would simply be returned to the sender.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf The Spam and Attention Bond Mechanism FAQ pdf]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_1,_Group_5&diff=1549CSC 379:Week 1, Group 52007-07-12T20:29:35Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Techniques Against Spam==<br />
<br />
===Block Domains===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A technique to black spam that creates a blacklist of known spammers that can be used by email providers by the user. This will cause suspect spam to be sent to a spam folder or the automatic rejection of emails from blocked domains.<br />
<br />
This [http://www.joewein.de/sw/blacklist.htm site] contains a list of known spamming domains that can be downloaded in a text file for anti spam software.<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
It will effectively block spam from known spamming addresses.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Legitimate domains could be blocked as a result of a computer being hijacked.<br />
<br />
===Require users to request permission to send your email===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A technique to black spam that requires senders to request permission to send an email. Senders not on the approved list or on a white list will be rejected or redirected to a different folder. One example of this is the [http://www.earthlink.net/software/free/spamblocker/ Earthlink Spam Blocker]<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
The user should never receive spam.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Could have emails that a user might want to see that is not spam, but also not on the approved list.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Charge for e-mail sent===<br />
<br />
If there is a cost per email sent spammers sending out millions of spam then would not be able to spam at such a high rate<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
Spam would be cut down due to the cost, as the technique of spamming potential email address would no longer be profitable.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Legitimate senders and home users will also have to pay a cost per email, and many would resist this because of the popular idea that email should be free. Furthermore, the creation of a corporation, agency or department to manage revenue from email messages would be contentious and difficult.<br />
<br />
[http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/ CNN.com Gates: Buy stamps to send e-mail]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Opt in / opt out===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opt-in''' is a type of permission-based mailing where recipients must first give consent before becoming part of a mass mailing list. This guarantees that the sender of the advertisement, newsletter, or other mass mailing is targeting only those who want the mail. Through this process the sender can be sure that those on the mass-mailing list actually want the messages they are receiving.<br />
<br />
'''Opt-out''' is a less stringent form of acquiring permission because recipients are not asked for consent before receiving the mailing, but are permitted to opt out of further mailings by indicating they wish to receive no further messages from the sender. The process of opting out usually takes the form of a web link embedded in an email or a specially formatted reply to the sender. While this method does not provide as much protection from unwanted messages as the opt-in approach, it eliminates future unwanted messages from the sender.<br />
<br />
The European Union Privacy and Electronics Communication Directive mandates that entities wishing to contact existing customers through email or text/SMS must provide an opt-out option in their message.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.out-law.com/page-2214 European Council votes for spam opt-in and new cookie plan | OUT-LAW.COM]<br />
<br />
[http://www.spambutcher.com/art1/486278/ Opt-in Spam and the "Gotcha" Box]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Domain authentication===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Domain Authentication''' is a means of ensuring a valid sender identity in email to help prevent spam, email forgery, and fraud. There are different methods of domain authentication, such as Sender Policy Framework, Certified Server Validation, SenderID and DomainKeys, and different methods have different advantages. DomainKeys, for example, can authenticate the entire content of a message as well as the domain from which it originated, while SPF and CSV can reject a forged email before any data transfer occurs. They are all effective for authenticating a sender's domain, but it is yet to be determined which method or methods will become most popular. One problem with the domain authentication approach is the possibility of a misidentification of a legitimate message as fraud or spam. All methods of domain authentication should be designed with this possibility in mind to prevent the accidental blocking of legitimate messages.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys Yahoo! Anti-Spam Resource Center - DomainKeys]<br />
<br />
[http://multichannelmerchant.com/webchannel/email/marketing_beyond_canspam_email/ Beyond Can-Spam: E-mail Authentication]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bounties===<br />
<br />
'''Bounties''' in a general sense are monetary rewards for either information leading to the arrest of criminals or for delivering the criminal in question to the authorities. In the case of bounties on spammers, some proposed plans would award money equal to a percentage of the penalty for the spammer. For example, information provided on a spammer who was not convicted or fined would yield no bounty, while a twenty percent (20%) bounty on a large spamming operation that was fined two million dollars would yield forty thousand(40,000) dollars. <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Fight Spam - Security - MSNBC.com]<br />
<br />
<br />
===The "Goodmail" approach===<br />
<br />
The '''Goodmail''' approach to spam was an idea to have spammers pay isps to ensure that their mail was delivered past spam filters. In theory this would reduce spam because only legitimate companies could pay the fee and not individual con artists. Many nonprofit groups were concerned that they would not be able to send Email because they did not have the finances to pay for goodmail services. There was also concern among customers that all mail which was not Goodmail certified would be blocked, including personal Email. There is also the risk that if isps rely on goodmail to stop spam, they will defer development on their spam blockers until they are completely ineffective.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.goodmailsystems.com Goodmail Systems]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bonds with escrow agencies===<br />
<br />
This system requires mail senders who are not whitelisted by recipients to pay a small fee to a bond agency. If the recipient feels the mail is spam and unwanted, they can then retrieve the bond money from the agency. In effect, this means that they charge the sender for wasting their time.<ref>[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf] For non-spam email, no money would change hands at all, the original bond amount would simply be returned to the sender.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf The Spam and Attention Bond Mechanism FAQ pdf]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_1,_Group_5&diff=1548CSC 379:Week 1, Group 52007-07-12T20:24:43Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Techniques Against Spam==<br />
<br />
===Block Domains===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A Technique to black spam that creates a blacklist of known spammers that can be used by email providers by the user. This will cause suspect spam to be sent to a spam folder or the automatic rejection of emails from blocked domains<br />
<br />
This [http://www.joewein.de/sw/blacklist.htm site] contains a list of known spamming domains that can be downloaded in a text file for anti spam software<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
It will effectively block spam from known spamming addresses.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Legitimate domains could be blocked as a result of a computer being hijacked<br />
<br />
===Require users to request permission to send your email===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A Technique to black spam that requires senders to request permision to send you an email. Senders not on your approved list , or white list email will be rejected or sent to a differnt folder. One example of this is the [http://www.earthlink.net/software/free/spamblocker/ Earthlink Spam Blocker]<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
The user should never receive spam.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Could have emails that a user might want to see that is not spam, but also not on your approved list.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Charge for e-mail sent===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
If there is a cost per email sent spammers sending out millions of spam then would not be able spam at such a high rate<br />
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
Spam would be cut down due to the cost<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
users will have to pay a cost per email sent as well<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Opt in / opt out===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opt-in''' is a type of permission-based mailing where recipients must first give consent before becoming part of a mass mailing list. This guarantees that the sender of the advertisement, newsletter, or other mass mailing is targeting only those who want the mail. Through this process the sender can be sure that those on the mass-mailing list actually want the messages they are receiving.<br />
<br />
'''Opt-out''' is a less stringent form of acquiring permission because recipients are not asked for consent before receiving the mailing, but are permitted to opt out of further mailings by indicating they wish to receive no further messages from the sender. The process of opting out usually takes the form of a web link embedded in an email or a specially formatted reply to the sender. While this method does not provide as much protection from unwanted messages as the opt-in approach, it eliminates future unwanted messages from the sender.<br />
<br />
The European Union Privacy and Electronics Communication Directive mandates that entities wishing to contact existing customers through email or text/SMS must provide an opt-out option in their message.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.out-law.com/page-2214 European Council votes for spam opt-in and new cookie plan | OUT-LAW.COM]<br />
<br />
[http://www.spambutcher.com/art1/486278/ Opt-in Spam and the "Gotcha" Box]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Domain authentication===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Domain Authentication''' is a means of ensuring a valid sender identity in email to help prevent spam, email forgery, and fraud. There are different methods of domain authentication, such as Sender Policy Framework, Certified Server Validation, SenderID and DomainKeys, and different methods have different advantages. DomainKeys, for example, can authenticate the entire content of a message as well as the domain from which it originated, while SPF and CSV can reject a forged email before any data transfer occurs. They are all effective for authenticating a sender's domain, but it is yet to be determined which method or methods will become most popular. One problem with the domain authentication approach is the possibility of a misidentification of a legitimate message as fraud or spam. All methods of domain authentication should be designed with this possibility in mind to prevent the accidental blocking of legitimate messages.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys Yahoo! Anti-Spam Resource Center - DomainKeys]<br />
<br />
[http://multichannelmerchant.com/webchannel/email/marketing_beyond_canspam_email/ Beyond Can-Spam: E-mail Authentication]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bounties===<br />
<br />
'''Bounties''' in a general sense are monetary rewards for either information leading to the arrest of criminals or for delivering the criminal in question to the authorities. In the case of bounties on spammers, some proposed plans would award money equal to a percentage of the penalty for the spammer. For example, information provided on a spammer who was not convicted or fined would yield no bounty, while a twenty percent (20%) bounty on a large spamming operation that was fined two million dollars would yield forty thousand(40,000) dollars. <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Fight Spam - Security - MSNBC.com]<br />
<br />
<br />
===The "Goodmail" approach===<br />
<br />
The '''Goodmail''' approach to spam was an idea to have spammers pay isps to ensure that their mail was delivered past spam filters. In theory this would reduce spam because only legitimate companies could pay the fee and not individual con artists. Many nonprofit groups were concerned that they would not be able to send Email because they did not have the finances to pay for goodmail services. There was also concern among customers that all mail which was not Goodmail certified would be blocked, including personal Email. There is also the risk that if isps rely on goodmail to stop spam, they will defer development on their spam blockers until they are completely ineffective.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.goodmailsystems.com Goodmail Systems]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bonds with escrow agencies===<br />
<br />
This system requires mail senders who are not whitelisted by recipients to pay a small fee to a bond agency. If the recipient feels the mail is spam and unwanted, they can then retrieve the bond money from the agency. In effect, this means that they charge the sender for wasting their time.<ref>[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf] For non-spam email, no money would change hands at all, the original bond amount would simply be returned to the sender.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf The Spam and Attention Bond Mechanism FAQ pdf]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_1,_Group_5&diff=1547CSC 379:Week 1, Group 52007-07-12T20:24:26Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Techniques Against Spam==<br />
<br />
===Block Domains===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A Technique to black spam that creates a blacklist of known spammers that can be used by email providers by the user. This will cause suspect spam to be sent to a spam folder or the automatic rejection of emails from blocked domains<br />
<br />
This [http://www.joewein.de/sw/blacklist.htm site] contains a list of known spamming domains that can be downloaded in a text file for anti spam software<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
It will effectively block spam from known spamming addresses.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Legitimate domains could be blocked as a result of a computer being hijacked<br />
<br />
===Require users to request permission to send your email===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A Technique to black spam that requires senders to request permision to send you an email. Senders not on your approved list , or white list email will be rejected or sent to a differnt folder. One example of this is the [http://www.earthlink.net/software/free/spamblocker/ Earthlink Spam Blocker]<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
The user should never receive spam.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Could have emails that a user might want to see that is not spam, but also not on your approved list.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Charge for e-mail sent===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
If there is a cost per email sent spammers sending out millions of spam then would not be able spam at such a high rate<br />
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
Spam would be cut down due to the cost<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
users will have to pay a cost per email sent as well<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Opt in / opt out===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opt-in''' is a type of permission-based mailing where recipients must first give consent before becoming part of a mass mailing list. This guarantees that the sender of the advertisement, newsletter, or other mass mailing is targeting only those who want the mail. Through this process the sender can be sure that those on the mass-mailing list actually want the messages they are receiving.<br />
<br />
'''Opt-out''' is a less stringent form of acquiring permission because recipients are not asked for consent before receiving the mailing, but are permitted to opt out of further mailings by indicating they wish to receive no further messages from the sender. The process of opting out usually takes the form of a web link embedded in an email or a specially formatted reply to the sender. While this method does not provide as much protection from unwanted messages as the opt-in approach, it eliminates future unwanted messages from the sender.<br />
<br />
The European Union Privacy and Electronics Communication Directive mandates that entities wishing to contact existing customers through email or text/SMS must provide an opt-out option in their message.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.out-law.com/page-2214 European Council votes for spam opt-in and new cookie plan | OUT-LAW.COM]<br />
<br />
[http://www.spambutcher.com/art1/486278/ Opt-in Spam and the "Gotcha" Box]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Domain authentication===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Domain Authentication''' is a means of ensuring a valid sender identity in email to help prevent spam, email forgery, and fraud. There are different methods of domain authentication, such as Sender Policy Framework, Certified Server Validation, SenderID and DomainKeys, and different methods have different advantages. DomainKeys, for example, can authenticate the entire content of a message as well as the domain from which it originated, while SPF and CSV can reject a forged email before any data transfer occurs. They are all effective for authenticating a sender's domain, but it is yet to be determined which method or methods will become most popular. One problem with the domain authentication approach is the possibility of a misidentification of a legitimate message as fraud or spam. All methods of domain authentication should be designed with this possibility in mind to prevent the accidental blocking of legitimate messages.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys Yahoo! Anti-Spam Resource Center - DomainKeys]<br />
<br />
[http://multichannelmerchant.com/webchannel/email/marketing_beyond_canspam_email/ Beyond Can-Spam: E-mail Authentication]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bounties===<br />
<br />
'''Bounties''' in a general sense are monetary rewards for either information leading to the arrest of criminals or for delivering the criminal in question to the authorities. In the case of bounties on spammers, some proposed plans would award money equal to a percentage of the penalty for the spammer. For example, information provided on a spammer who was not convicted or fined would yield no bounty, while a twenty percent (20%) bounty on a large spamming operation that was fined two million dollars would yield forty thousand(40,000) dollars. <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Fight Spam - Security - MSNBC.com]<br />
<br />
<br />
===The "Goodmail" approach===<br />
<br />
The '''Goodmail''' approach to spam was an idea to have spammers pay isps to ensure that their mail was delivered past spam filters. In theory this would reduce spam because only legitimate companies could pay the fee and not individual con artists. Many nonprofit groups were concerned that they would not be able to send Email because they did not have the finances to pay for goodmail services. There was also concern among customers that all mail which was not Goodmail certified would be blocked, including personal Email. There is also the risk that if isps rely on goodmail to stop spam, they will defer development on their spam blockers until they are completely ineffective.<br />
<br />
[http://www.goodmailsystems.com Goodmail Systems]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bonds with escrow agencies===<br />
<br />
This system requires mail senders who are not whitelisted by recipients to pay a small fee to a bond agency. If the recipient feels the mail is spam and unwanted, they can then retrieve the bond money from the agency. In effect, this means that they charge the sender for wasting their time.<ref>[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf] For non-spam email, no money would change hands at all, the original bond amount would simply be returned to the sender.<br />
<br />
[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf The Spam and Attention Bond Mechanism FAQ pdf]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_1,_Group_5&diff=1546CSC 379:Week 1, Group 52007-07-12T20:24:04Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Techniques Against Spam==<br />
<br />
===Block Domains===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A Technique to black spam that creates a blacklist of known spammers that can be used by email providers by the user. This will cause suspect spam to be sent to a spam folder or the automatic rejection of emails from blocked domains<br />
<br />
This [http://www.joewein.de/sw/blacklist.htm site] contains a list of known spamming domains that can be downloaded in a text file for anti spam software<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
It will effectively block spam from known spamming addresses.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Legitimate domains could be blocked as a result of a computer being hijacked<br />
<br />
===Require users to request permission to send your email===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A Technique to black spam that requires senders to request permision to send you an email. Senders not on your approved list , or white list email will be rejected or sent to a differnt folder. One example of this is the [http://www.earthlink.net/software/free/spamblocker/ Earthlink Spam Blocker]<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
The user should never receive spam.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Could have emails that a user might want to see that is not spam, but also not on your approved list.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Charge for e-mail sent===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
If there is a cost per email sent spammers sending out millions of spam then would not be able spam at such a high rate<br />
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
Spam would be cut down due to the cost<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
users will have to pay a cost per email sent as well<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Opt in / opt out===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opt-in''' is a type of permission-based mailing where recipients must first give consent before becoming part of a mass mailing list. This guarantees that the sender of the advertisement, newsletter, or other mass mailing is targeting only those who want the mail. Through this process the sender can be sure that those on the mass-mailing list actually want the messages they are receiving.<br />
<br />
'''Opt-out''' is a less stringent form of acquiring permission because recipients are not asked for consent before receiving the mailing, but are permitted to opt out of further mailings by indicating they wish to receive no further messages from the sender. The process of opting out usually takes the form of a web link embedded in an email or a specially formatted reply to the sender. While this method does not provide as much protection from unwanted messages as the opt-in approach, it eliminates future unwanted messages from the sender.<br />
<br />
The European Union Privacy and Electronics Communication Directive mandates that entities wishing to contact existing customers through email or text/SMS must provide an opt-out option in their message.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.out-law.com/page-2214 European Council votes for spam opt-in and new cookie plan | OUT-LAW.COM]<br />
<br />
[http://www.spambutcher.com/art1/486278/ Opt-in Spam and the "Gotcha" Box]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Domain authentication===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Domain Authentication''' is a means of ensuring a valid sender identity in email to help prevent spam, email forgery, and fraud. There are different methods of domain authentication, such as Sender Policy Framework, Certified Server Validation, SenderID and DomainKeys, and different methods have different advantages. DomainKeys, for example, can authenticate the entire content of a message as well as the domain from which it originated, while SPF and CSV can reject a forged email before any data transfer occurs. They are all effective for authenticating a sender's domain, but it is yet to be determined which method or methods will become most popular. One problem with the domain authentication approach is the possibility of a misidentification of a legitimate message as fraud or spam. All methods of domain authentication should be designed with this possibility in mind to prevent the accidental blocking of legitimate messages.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys Yahoo! Anti-Spam Resource Center - DomainKeys]<br />
<br />
[http://multichannelmerchant.com/webchannel/email/marketing_beyond_canspam_email/ Beyond Can-Spam: E-mail Authentication]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bounties===<br />
<br />
'''Bounties''' in a general sense are monetary rewards for either information leading to the arrest of criminals or for delivering the criminal in question to the authorities. In the case of bounties on spammers, some proposed plans would award money equal to a percentage of the penalty for the spammer. For example, information provided on a spammer who was not convicted or fined would yield no bounty, while a twenty percent (20%) bounty on a large spamming operation that was fined two million dollars would yield forty thousand(40,000) dollars. <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Fight Spam - Security - MSNBC.com]<br />
<br />
===The "Goodmail" approach===<br />
<br />
The '''Goodmail''' approach to spam was an idea to have spammers pay isps to ensure that their mail was delivered past spam filters. In theory this would reduce spam because only legitimate companies could pay the fee and not individual con artists. Many nonprofit groups were concerned that they would not be able to send Email because they did not have the finances to pay for goodmail services. There was also concern among customers that all mail which was not Goodmail certified would be blocked, including personal Email. There is also the risk that if isps rely on goodmail to stop spam, they will defer development on their spam blockers until they are completely ineffective.<br />
<br />
[http://www.goodmailsystems.com Goodmail Systems]<br />
<br />
===Bonds with escrow agencies===<br />
<br />
This system requires mail senders who are not whitelisted by recipients to pay a small fee to a bond agency. If the recipient feels the mail is spam and unwanted, they can then retrieve the bond money from the agency. In effect, this means that they charge the sender for wasting their time.<ref>[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf] For non-spam email, no money would change hands at all, the original bond amount would simply be returned to the sender.<br />
<br />
[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf The Spam and Attention Bond Mechanism FAQ pdf]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_1,_Group_5&diff=1545CSC 379:Week 1, Group 52007-07-12T20:23:07Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Techniques Against Spam==<br />
<br />
===Block Domains===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A Technique to black spam that creates a blacklist of known spammers that can be used by email providers by the user. This will cause suspect spam to be sent to a spam folder or the automatic rejection of emails from blocked domains<br />
<br />
This [http://www.joewein.de/sw/blacklist.htm site] contains a list of known spamming domains that can be downloaded in a text file for anti spam software<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
It will effectively block spam from known spamming addresses.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Legitimate domains could be blocked as a result of a computer being hijacked<br />
<br />
===Require users to request permission to send your email===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A Technique to black spam that requires senders to request permision to send you an email. Senders not on your approved list , or white list email will be rejected or sent to a differnt folder. One example of this is the [http://www.earthlink.net/software/free/spamblocker/ Earthlink Spam Blocker]<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
The user should never receive spam.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Could have emails that a user might want to see that is not spam, but also not on your approved list.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Charge for e-mail sent===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
If there is a cost per email sent spammers sending out millions of spam then would not be able spam at such a high rate<br />
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
Spam would be cut down due to the cost<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
users will have to pay a cost per email sent as well<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Opt in / opt out===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opt-in''' is a type of permission-based mailing where recipients must first give consent before becoming part of a mass mailing list. This guarantees that the sender of the advertisement, newsletter, or other mass mailing is targeting only those who want the mail. Through this process the sender can be sure that those on the mass-mailing list actually want the messages they are receiving.<br />
<br />
'''Opt-out''' is a less stringent form of acquiring permission because recipients are not asked for consent before receiving the mailing, but are permitted to opt out of further mailings by indicating they wish to receive no further messages from the sender. The process of opting out usually takes the form of a web link embedded in an email or a specially formatted reply to the sender. While this method does not provide as much protection from unwanted messages as the opt-in approach, it eliminates future unwanted messages from the sender.<br />
<br />
The European Union Privacy and Electronics Communication Directive mandates that entities wishing to contact existing customers through email or text/SMS must provide an opt-out option in their message.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.out-law.com/page-2214 European Council votes for spam opt-in and new cookie plan | OUT-LAW.COM]<br />
<br />
[http://www.spambutcher.com/art1/486278/ Opt-in Spam and the "Gotcha" Box]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Domain authentication===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Domain Authentication''' is a means of ensuring a valid sender identity in email to help prevent spam, email forgery, and fraud. There are different methods of domain authentication, such as Sender Policy Framework, Certified Server Validation, SenderID and DomainKeys, and different methods have different advantages. DomainKeys, for example, can authenticate the entire content of a message as well as the domain from which it originated, while SPF and CSV can reject a forged email before any data transfer occurs. They are all effective for authenticating a sender's domain, but it is yet to be determined which method or methods will become most popular. One problem with the domain authentication approach is the possibility of a misidentification of a legitimate message as fraud or spam. All methods of domain authentication should be designed with this possibility in mind to prevent the accidental blocking of legitimate messages.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys Yahoo! Anti-Spam Resource Center - DomainKeys]<br />
<br />
[http://multichannelmerchant.com/webchannel/email/marketing_beyond_canspam_email/ Beyond Can-Spam: E-mail Authentication]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bounties===<br />
<br />
'''Bounties''' in a general sense are monetary rewards for either information leading to the arrest of criminals or for delivering the criminal in question to the authorities. In the case of bounties on spammers, some proposed plans would award money equal to a percentage of the penalty for the spammer. For example, information provided on a spammer who was not convicted or fined would yield no bounty, while a twenty percent (20%) bounty on a large spamming operation that was fined two million dollars would yield forty thousand(40,000) dollars. <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 news report of possible bonds law]<br />
<br />
===The "Goodmail" approach===<br />
<br />
The '''Goodmail''' approach to spam was an idea to have spammers pay isps to ensure that their mail was delivered past spam filters. In theory this would reduce spam because only legitimate companies could pay the fee and not individual con artists. Many nonprofit groups were concerned that they would not be able to send Email because they did not have the finances to pay for goodmail services. There was also concern among customers that all mail which was not Goodmail certified would be blocked, including personal Email. There is also the risk that if isps rely on goodmail to stop spam, they will defer development on their spam blockers until they are completely ineffective.<br />
<br />
[http://www.goodmailsystems.com Goodmail Systems]<br />
<br />
===Bonds with escrow agencies===<br />
<br />
This system requires mail senders who are not whitelisted by recipients to pay a small fee to a bond agency. If the recipient feels the mail is spam and unwanted, they can then retrieve the bond money from the agency. In effect, this means that they charge the sender for wasting their time.<ref>[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf] For non-spam email, no money would change hands at all, the original bond amount would simply be returned to the sender.<br />
<br />
[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf The Spam and Attention Bond Mechanism FAQ pdf]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_1,_Group_5&diff=1544CSC 379:Week 1, Group 52007-07-12T20:21:24Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Techniques Against Spam==<br />
<br />
===Block Domains===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A Technique to black spam that creates a blacklist of known spammers that can be used by email providers by the user. This will cause suspect spam to be sent to a spam folder or the automatic rejection of emails from blocked domains<br />
<br />
This [http://www.joewein.de/sw/blacklist.htm site] contains a list of known spamming domains that can be downloaded in a text file for anti spam software<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
It will effectively block spam from known spamming addresses.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Legitimate domains could be blocked as a result of a computer being hijacked<br />
<br />
===Require users to request permission to send your email===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A Technique to black spam that requires senders to request permision to send you an email. Senders not on your approved list , or white list email will be rejected or sent to a differnt folder. One example of this is the [http://www.earthlink.net/software/free/spamblocker/ Earthlink Spam Blocker]<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
The user should never receive spam.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Could have emails that a user might want to see that is not spam, but also not on your approved list.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Charge for e-mail sent===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
If there is a cost per email sent spammers sending out millions of spam then would not be able spam at such a high rate<br />
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
Spam would be cut down due to the cost<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
users will have to pay a cost per email sent as well<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Opt in / opt out===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opt-in''' is a type of permission-based mailing where recipients must first give consent before becoming part of a mass mailing list. This guarantees that the sender of the advertisement, newsletter, or other mass mailing is targeting only those who want the mail. Through this process the sender can be sure that those on the mass-mailing list actually want the messages they are receiving.<br />
<br />
'''Opt-out''' is a less stringent form of acquiring permission because recipients are not asked for consent before receiving the mailing, but are permitted to opt out of further mailings by indicating they wish to receive no further messages from the sender. The process of opting out usually takes the form of a web link embedded in an email or a specially formatted reply to the sender. While this method does not provide as much protection from unwanted messages as the opt-in approach, it eliminates future unwanted messages from the sender.<br />
<br />
The European Union Privacy and Electronics Communication Directive mandates that entities wishing to contact existing customers through email or text/SMS must provide an opt-out option in their message.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.out-law.com/page-2214 European Council votes for spam opt-in and new cookie plan | OUT-LAW.COM]<br />
<br />
[http://www.spambutcher.com/art1/486278/ Opt-in Spam and the "Gotcha" Box]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Domain authentication===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Domain Authentication''' is a means of ensuring a valid sender identity in email to help prevent spam, email forgery, and fraud. There are different methods of domain authentication, such as Sender Policy Framework, Certified Server Validation, SenderID and DomainKeys, and different methods have different advantages. DomainKeys, for example, can authenticate the entire content of a message as well as the domain from which it originated, while SPF and CSV can reject a forged email before any data transfer occurs. They are all effective for authenticating a sender's domain, but it is yet to be determined which method or methods will become most popular. One problem with the domain authentication approach is the possibility of a misidentification of a legitimate message as fraud or spam. All methods of domain authentication should be designed with this possibility in mind to prevent the accidental blocking of legitimate messages.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys Yahoo! Anti-Spam Resource Center - DomainKeys]<br />
<br />
[http://multichannelmerchant.com/webchannel/email/marketing_beyond_canspam_email/ Beyond Can-Spam: E-mail Authentication]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bounties===<br />
<br />
'''Bounties''' in a general sense are monetary rewards for either information leading to the arrest of criminals or for delivering the criminal in question to the authorities. In the case of bounties on spammers, some proposed plans would award money equal to a percentage of the penalty for the spammer. For example, information provided on a spammer who was not convicted or fined would yield no bounty, while a twenty percent (20%) bounty on a large spamming operation that was fined two million dollars would yield forty thousand(40,000) dollars. <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 news report of possible bonds law]<br />
<br />
===The "Goodmail" approach===<br />
<br />
The '''Goodmail''' approach to spam was an idea to have spammers pay isps to ensure that their mail was delivered past spam filters. In theory this would reduce spam because only legitimate companies could pay the fee and not individual con artists. Many nonprofit groups were concerned that they would not be able to send Email because they did not have the finances to pay for goodmail services. There was also concern among customers that all mail which was not Goodmail certified would be blocked, including personal Email. There is also the risk that if isps rely on goodmail to stop spam, they will defer development on their spam blockers until they are completely ineffective.<br />
<br />
[http://www.goodmailsystems.com Goodmail homepage]<br />
<br />
===Bonds with escrow agencies===<br />
<br />
This system requires mail senders who are not whitelisted by recipients to pay a small fee to a bond agency. If the recipient feels the mail is spam and unwanted, they can then retrieve the bond money from the agency. In effect, this means that they charge the sender for wasting their time.<ref>[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf] For non-spam email, no money would change hands at all, the original bond amount would simply be returned to the sender.<br />
<br />
[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf full description of bond system]</div>Lawhitlohttps://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_1,_Group_5&diff=1543CSC 379:Week 1, Group 52007-07-12T20:17:43Z<p>Lawhitlo: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Techniques Against Spam==<br />
<br />
===Block Domains===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A Technique to black spam that creates a blacklist of known spammers that can be used by email providers by the user. This will cause suspect spam to be sent to a spam folder or the automatic rejection of emails from blocked domains<br />
<br />
This [http://www.joewein.de/sw/blacklist.htm site] contains a list of known spamming domains that can be downloaded in a text file for anti spam software<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
It will effectively block spam from known spamming addresses.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Legitimate domains could be blocked as a result of a computer being hijacked<br />
<br />
===Require users to request permission to send your email===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
A Technique to black spam that requires senders to request permision to send you an email. Senders not on your approved list , or white list email will be rejected or sent to a differnt folder. One example of this is the [http://www.earthlink.net/software/free/spamblocker/ Earthlink Spam Blocker]<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
The user should never receive spam.<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
Could have emails that a user might want to see that is not spam, but also not on your approved list.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Charge for e-mail sent===<br />
'''Background'''<br />
If there is a cost per email sent spammers sending out millions of spam then would not be able spam at such a high rate<br />
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/<br />
<br />
'''Positive'''<br />
<br />
Spam would be cut down due to the cost<br />
<br />
'''Negative'''<br />
<br />
users will have to pay a cost per email sent as well<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Opt in / opt out===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Opt-in''' is a type of permission-based mailing where recipients must first give consent before becoming part of a mass mailing list. This guarantees that the sender of the advertisement, newsletter, or other mass mailing is targeting only those who want the mail. Through this process the sender can be sure that those on the mass-mailing list actually want the messages they are receiving.<br />
<br />
'''Opt-out''' is a less stringent form of acquiring permission because recipients are not asked for consent before receiving the mailing, but are permitted to opt out of further mailings by indicating they wish to receive no further messages from the sender. The process of opting out usually takes the form of a web link embedded in an email or a specially formatted reply to the sender. While this method does not provide as much protection from unwanted messages as the opt-in approach, it eliminates future unwanted messages from the sender.<br />
<br />
The European Union Privacy and Electronics Communication Directive mandates that entities wishing to contact existing customers through email or text/SMS must provide an opt-out option in their message.<br />
<br />
http://www.out-law.com/page-2214<br />
http://www.spambutcher.com/art1/486278/<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Domain authentication===<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Domain Authentication''' is a means of ensuring a valid sender identity in email to help prevent spam, email forgery, and fraud. There are different methods of domain authentication, such as Sender Policy Framework, Certified Server Validation, SenderID and DomainKeys, and different methods have different advantages. DomainKeys, for example, can authenticate the entire content of a message as well as the domain from which it originated, while SPF and CSV can reject a forged email before any data transfer occurs. They are all effective for authenticating a sender's domain, but it is yet to be determined which method or methods will become most popular. One problem with the domain authentication approach is the possibility of a misidentification of a legitimate message as fraud or spam. All methods of domain authentication should be designed with this possibility in mind to prevent the accidental blocking of legitimate messages.<br />
<br />
http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys<br />
http://multichannelmerchant.com/webchannel/email/marketing_beyond_canspam_email/<br />
<br />
<br />
===Bounties===<br />
<br />
'''Bounties''' in a general sense are monetary rewards for either information leading to the arrest of criminals or for delivering the criminal in question to the authorities. In the case of bounties on spammers, some proposed plans would award money equal to a percentage of the penalty for the spammer. For example, information provided on a spammer who was not convicted or fined would yield no bounty, while a twenty percent (20%) bounty on a large spamming operation that was fined two million dollars would yield forty thousand(40,000) dollars. <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 news report of possible bonds law]<br />
<br />
===The "Goodmail" approach===<br />
<br />
The '''Goodmail''' approach to spam was an idea to have spammers pay isps to ensure that their mail was delivered past spam filters. In theory this would reduce spam because only legitimate companies could pay the fee and not individual con artists. Many nonprofit groups were concerned that they would not be able to send Email because they did not have the finances to pay for goodmail services. There was also concern among customers that all mail which was not Goodmail certified would be blocked, including personal Email. There is also the risk that if isps rely on goodmail to stop spam, they will defer development on their spam blockers until they are completely ineffective.<br />
<br />
[http://www.goodmailsystems.com Goodmail homepage]<br />
<br />
===Bonds with escrow agencies===<br />
<br />
This system requires mail senders who are not whitelisted by recipients to pay a small fee to a bond agency. If the recipient feels the mail is spam and unwanted, they can then retrieve the bond money from the agency. In effect, this means that they charge the sender for wasting their time.<ref>[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf] For non-spam email, no money would change hands at all, the original bond amount would simply be returned to the sender.<br />
<br />
[http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Spam%20economics-faq.pdf full description of bond system]</div>Lawhitlo